Conclusion

 

In the present paper we have discussed some notions that are crucial for constructing the semiotic conceptualization of human body, i. e. biological and semiotic pairs of somatic objects, complex somatic units and a salient member of the semiotic pair given. All these notions have been introduced and analyzed here separately from other physical and structural properties that a somatic object may possess, such as “shape”, “temperature”, “color”, “wholes inside the object”, “the surface of the object”, etc. It would be interesting to consider the cases in which one member of a semiotic pair is characterized by some of these properties, while the other is not, and to find out what these cases tell us about a human being in general and about some of his special characteristics like age, gender, mental and physical health, social status, etc.

 

References

 

  1. McNeill D. Language and gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  2. Kendon A. Gesture: visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
  3. Enfield N. J. Anatomy of meaning: speech, gesture, and composite utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  4. Ameka, F. K., Breedveld, A. Ariel cultural scripts for social interaction in West African communities // Intercultural Pragmatics. 2005. 1/2.
  5. Аркадьев П.М., Крейдлин Г.Е., Летучий А.Б. Сравнительный анализ вербальных и невербальных знаковых кодов (постановка задачи и способов ее решения) // А.В. Бондарко, Г.И. Кустова, Р.И. Розина (ред.). Динамические модели. Слово. Предложение. Текст. М.: Языки славянских культур. 2008.
  6. Крейдлин Г.Е. Семиотическая концептуализация тела и сопоставительный анализ невербальных систем (лексикографический аспект) // Материалы VIII Международной школы-семинара «Новое в теории и практике лексикографии: синхронный и диахронный подходы». Иваново, 2009.
  7. Крейдлин Г.Е., Летучий А.Б. Части тела в русском языке и в невербальных семиотических кодах // Русский язык в научном освещении. 2006. №12 (2).
  8. Шмелёв А.Д. Homo spuens: Символические жесты и их отражение в языке // Н.Д. Арутюнова, И.Б. Левонтина (ред.) Логический анализ языка. Образ человека в культуре и языке: Сб. статей. М., 1999.

 

[1] The ideas, aims and methods of this project as well as the notion of semiotic conceptualization of body are discussed in Kreydlin & Letuchiy 2006, Arkadyev, Kreydlin & Letuchiy 2008, Kreydlin 2009.

[2] The rules and mechanisms of interaction between speech and gesture, the forms and meanings of co-speech gestures in different communicative situations and cultures are nowadays discussed in detail in great many studies published in Europe and USA; see, among others, McNeill 2000, Kendon 2004, Enfield 2009.

[3] The Russian name of this property is parnost’ (from para ‘a pair’), but there seems to be no one-word equivalent for this term in English.

[4] Among the main meanings of the Russian word mozgi (‘brains’) are (a) ‘somatic object placed inside the head and used for thinking’ (cf. Mozgi plav’atsa ot zhary lit. ‘brains are melting in such heat’), (b) ‘intelligence of a human being’ (cf. U nego khoroshije mozgi lit. ‘he has good brains’), (c) ‘intelligence of a group of people’ (cf. utechka mozgov ‘brain drain’), (d) ‘two or more somatic objects named mozg’ (cf. Medikov interesuyet stroyenije mozgov velikikh l’udej ‘the doctors are interested in the structure of brains of famous people’). Thus, the entry mozgi contains at least four lexemes. Some of them are used metonymically, e. g. in special contexts mozgi stand for a human being with outstanding intelligence (cf. Eti deti – luchshije mozgi nashego klassa lit. ‘This children are the best brains in our class’).

[5] The notion of a semiotic pair applied to shoulders was first introduced in Kreydlin, Letuchiy 2006.

[6] Cf. the English idiom to work with the left hand ‘to work negligently’.

[7] See Ameka & Breedveld 2005.

[8] See Grigoryeva, Grigoryev, & Kreydlin 2001: 23–24

[9] See Shmel’ov 1999.