러시아어 원칭지시대명사 тот 의 대용과 직시

Anaphora and deixis of Russian distal demonstrative pronoun tot: In comparison with Polish, Czech, Bulgarian equivalents

This paper investigates the anaphoric use of Russian distal demonstrative pronoun tot and its relation with intrinsic deictic function, comparing Russian, Polish, Czech and Bulgarian texts of Crime and punishment . Slavic demonstratives, such as Russian distal demonstrative pronoun tot, Polish proximal demonstrative pronoun ten, Czech proximal demonstrative pronoun ten and Bulgarian distal demonstrative pronoun onzi, can refer to a non-preferred center of the antecedent utterance and indicate the digression or the change of narrative structure. Not only in the situation that the gender and the number of backward centers are identical and coreferential ambiguity must be removed in the forward utterance, but also in the situation that any specific disambiguation of co-reference is not needed because of different genders or numbers of backward centers, Russian distal demonstrative pronoun tot is predominantly used to indicate a nonpreferred center of the antecedent utterance. Meanwhile in Polish, Czech and Bulgarian, a nonpreferred center of the backward utterence is co-referred to by demonstrative pronouns mostly when a co-referential disambiguation is required. Especially Bulgarian seems to prefer a personal pronoun than a distal demonstrative pronoun to co-refer to an antecedent non-preferred center even when coreferential disambiguation is required. Unlike Russian that doesn t have other means to disambiguate co-reference, Polish, Czech and Bulgarian unmarked zero-subjects referring to a continuous topic are distinguished from marked explicit pronoun subjects that can indicate the antecedent non-preferred center. In addition Russian distal demonstrative itself is more widely used than Polish, Czech and Bulgarian equivalents. Polish, Czech and Bulgarian distal demonstrative pronouns usually have a deictic function, while Russian distal demonstrative pronoun tot plays a role of an anaphoric pronoun as well as a deictic pronoun. As a distal demonstrative, Russian tot necessarily implies the remoteness of an object, even when it plays a role of an anaphoric pronoun. This deictic meaning is not imcompatible with the coreferential function of non-preferred backward center, which was not a speaker s main concern in the antecedent utterance. Hence the function of co-referring to the non-preferred antecedent center extends its sphere and Russian distal tot of this function is more frequently used than Polish and Czech proximal ten of the same function. Some of Russian distal tots with an anaphoric function in the analyzed texts are translated into Polish and Czech distal tamtens, when their intrinsic deictic function seems to be more prominent than co-referential disambiguation. Thus Russian distal demonstrative tot s anaphoric function to refer to a non-preferred center of the antecedent utterance is not irrelevant to its intrinsic deictic meaning and it has been grammaticalized to a significant extent in Russian co-referential system.