Authors
- Serebrennikova Evgeniya F. D. Sc. (Philology), Professor
Annotation
The article examines the problem of changes in the semantics and pragmatics of one of the central elements of the system of personal pronouns of the French language —
the pronoun Nous, which underlie the value of its constructive potential in discourse. The relevance of the research is determined by the openness of the issues of discoursе theory and the category of person to the development of the concept of the ego-system of language in line with the subject-centered categorization of the world. Relying on a cognitively oriented linguosemiotic approach makes it possible to clarify that the formula Nous, «Je + X», which stands for the sign, objectifies the operational concept of person/persons inclusion to the Ego position, which generates an oppositional concept of exclusion. The linguistic categorization of this concept leads to an idea of the result of inclusion as a group. The constructed target group is delimited according to the conditions of implementation in the discursive time of the We-utterance in communication. The criterion of the essence of the semiotic mechanism and the method of implementing the immanent indexical referential relationship allows us to identify two main types of inclusion: the type of iconic inclusion and the type of associative-symbolic inclusion, as well as their subspecies. The basic
interpretations of the established types and subspecies of inclusion are substantiated. It is concluded that the associative-symbolic form of inclusion is of particular importance in expanding the constructive potential of the Nous sign. Along with the already established types of inclusion according to the criterion of the type of generalization in the Nous formula, the proposed classification can contribute to the development of the problem of linguistic categorization of the world in discourse through egocentric pronominal signs.
How to link insert
Serebrennikova, E. F. (2025). THE DISCURSIVE POTENTIAL OF THE PRONOUN «NOUS»: TYPES OF INCLUSION FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE LINGUOSEMIOTIC APPROACH Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 2 (58), 49. https://doi.org/10.24412/2076-913X-2025-258-49-63
References
1.
1. Benveniste, E. (1974). General linguistics. Progress. (In Russ.).
2.
2. Gazarova, D. (2022). The pragmatic and manipulative potential of personal pronouns in political discourse. Vestnik Erevanskogo universiteta. Russkaya filologiya, 43–56. (In Russ.).
3.
3. Galyamina, Yu. E. (2016). We are them: how identity is constructed in Vladimir Putin’s discourse of different years. Polis. Politicheskaya nauka, 5, 152–167. (In Russ.).
4.
4. Espersen, O. (1958). The philosophy of grammar. Izdatel`stvo inostrannoj literatury`. (In Russ.).
5.
5. Krapivkina, O. A. (2018). The pragmatic potential of the pronoun we in legal discursive practices. Vestnik of Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Series «Humanitarian and Social Sciences», 3, 90–98. (In Russ.).
6.
6. Losev, A. F. (1995). The symbol problem and realistic art. 2nd ed. Iskusstvo. (In Russ.).
7.
7. Sinelnikova, L. N. (2020). Discursive semantics of personal pronouns. Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Linguistics and intercultural communication, 2, 21–28. (In Russ.).
8.
8. Serebrennikova, E. F. The pronoun nous: on the problem of the systemic foundations of constructive potential in discourse. Bulletin of the BSU. Philology, 3, 3–13. (In Russ.).
9.
9. Skrelina, L. M. (1980). About the conceptual scheme of the proposal. Izdatel`stvo LGPI im. A. I. Gercena. (In Russ.).
10.
10. Uspensky, B. A. (2007). Ego loquens: Language and communicative space. Rossijskij gosudarstvenny`j gumanitarny`j universitet. (In Russ.).
11.
11. Shvedova, N. Yu., Belousova A. S. (1995). The system of pronouns as an outcome of the semantic structure of the language and its semantic categories. V. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russ.).
12.
12. Tchernyavskaya, V. E. (2006). The discourse of power and the power of discourse: problems of speech influence. Flinta. (In Russ.).
13.
13. Blanche-Benveniste, C. (1984). The human person and pronouns. University Press of Lille.
14.
14. Bouzereau, C. (2022). Uses and functions of the we in political discourse. Praxematics Notebooks, 77, 4–78.
15.
15. Larousse Dictionary. https://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/nous/55115
16.
16. Ducrot, O. (1982). The notion of the speaking subject. Research on philosophy and Language, 2, 65–93.
17.
17. Hunyadi, M. (2014). Between me and god: we. https://www.academia.edu /78483269/Between I_and_gody_us
18.
18. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1980). The Enunciation of subjectivity in language. A. Colin.
19.
19. Legois, J.-Ph. (2018). The slogans of 68. First Editions.
20.
20. Littrée, E. (1966). Dictionary of the French language. Gallimard.
21.
21. Micro Robert. (1971). Dictionary of primordial French. Dictionary Le Robert.
22.
22. Palma, S. (2014). Personal pronouns in generic use. https://journals.openedition.org/praxematique/3958
23.
23. Pancol, K. (2006). The yellow eyes of crocodiles. Albin Michel.
24.
24. Papillon, J. (2014). Who will be able to say «we»? https://www.academia.edu/77361420/_who_will_we_be?email_work_card=view-paper
25.
25. Pottier, B. (2002). Around «us». The facets of saying. Tribute to Oswald Ducrot. Kimé.
26.
26. Roume, S. (2021). From the Athenian «we become» to the contemporary «we are». https://www.academia.edu/83477016/Du_nous_devenons_ath%C3%A9nien_au_on_est_contemporain?email_work_card=thumbnail
27.
27. Salins of, G-D. (2002). Grammar for teaching. Didier/Hatier.
28.
28. Vignaux, G. (1988). Discourse the actor speech of the world. Enunciation, argumentation and cognition. Ophris.
29.
29. Wodak, R. (2009). Discursive construction of national identity. Edinburgh University Press.