The concept of precedent phenomena and their role in shaping social consciousness

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

THE CONCEPT OF PRECEDENT PHENOMENA AND THEIR ROLE IN SHAPING SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS

Grishechko Ovsanna Savvichna, Ph. D. in Psychology, Associate Professor

Akopova Asya Savvichna, Ph. D. in Pedagogy, Associate Professor

Southern Federal University

The present paper aims to analyse precedent phenomena in the framework of sociocultural and linguo-cultural studies. The authors analyse the current approaches to the concept under review to define precedent phenomena and establish their role in the build-up of social consciousness of a linguo-cultural community. The authors also consider the relevant notion of associativity and suggest that precedent phenomena can be classified in accordance with this parameter.

Key words and phrases: precedence; precedent phenomena; social consciousness; socio-linguistics; linguo-cultural community; cultural space.

social consciousness linguocultural community

Цель настоящей статьи - социокультурный и лингвокультурный анализ прецедентных феноменов. Авторы рассматривают существующие подходы к исследованию данного понятия с целью интерпретации и установления его роли в формировании социального сознания лингвокультурного сообщества. Авторы также рассматривают смежное понятие ассоциативности и делают предположение о том, что прецедентные феномены могут быть классифицированы в соответствии с данным параметром.

Ключевые слова и фразы: прецедентность; прецедентный феномен; социальное сознание; социолингвистика; лингвокультурное сообщество; культурное пространство.

Precedent (from Latin pracedens - prior) as a notion is traditionally analysed in the framework of legal sciences and is defined as `behaviour in certain situations, viewed as model behaviour under similar circumstances' [1, с. 583]. The issue of legal characteristics, emergence and evolution of the precedent as a legal category attracted the attention of legal scholars, who viewed precedents as efficient instruments that could be used to bridge legal gaps. The nature and content of the concept were analysed by political philosophers and lawyers from the countries whose legal systems relied on the application of the precedent approach (these are, for example, the United States and England). Among such researchers were R. David, R. Cross, L. Lloyd, R. Walker, and others. In Russia, some relevant issues were studied by B. A. Kistyakovskiy, E. N. Trubetskoy, A. K. Romanov, S. K. Zagainova, etc.

Over time, the legal perspective of precedent studies displayed prominent correlation with the sociocultural reality, as a range of sociocultural aspects and factors appeared to directly affect the ultimate `image' of legal precedents. Thus, the legal semantics behind the concept was being expended and supplemented to ultimately include a variety of philosophical, social and sociocultural `ingredients' which gave a new turn to precedent studies. This side of the concept was investigated by such scholars as V. B. Vlasova, A. A. Kara-Murza, S. S. Neretina, S. A. Korolev, L. I. Novikova, N. M. Smirnova, and others. The underlying foundation for the analysis of the precedent as a sociocultural category was established by the Soviet and Russian linguist and sociologist Yu. N. Karaulov.

According to Yu. N. Karaulov, a precedent phenomenon is a cultural occurrence, which key function lies in the storage and transfer of some primary knowledge that could serve as an example and a kind of excuse for subsequent events and contexts of similar nature [6, с. 77]. The author believes that the basic and most indicative feature of precedent phenomena is their repeatability, which in a way resembles the process of hereditary transfer of values in an effort to perpetuate them, preserve them and hand them over to the future generations.

Given such personalised view of the nature of precedence, the very concept appears to be naturally related to the underlying features of national culture, traditions and customs of a society. And this is why Yu. N. Karaulov draws the conclusion that awareness of precedent phenomena can be viewed as an indicator of cultural belonging, while ignorance of the cultural-linguistic precedents is to a greater or lesser extent indicative of detachment, digression from a particular culture and possibly its rejection [Там же, с. 206].

Yu. N. Karaulov's original theory caught the interest of many Russian scholars, who soon contributed to further development and promotion of the idea that suggested that precedence could be addressed as a cultural-linguistic category.

Thus, for example, D. B. Gudkov considers precedents as a primary model, which is assessed and adopted for further use as a reference template [3, с. 102]. In his later work, the author writes that precedent phenomena can be defined as “units which are well-known to the greater part of the linguo-cultural community, stored in the collective memory of this community, finding regular actualisation in speech, and reflecting something that exists and/or existed in reality and has a verbal expression” [4, с. 14-15]. The last parameter highlighted by the author appears to disagree with Yu. N. Karaulov's reasoning, which implies that precedence does not necessarily involve verbal or textual implementation, but can be associated with a work of art of any kind [6, с. 49].

L. I. Grishaeva suggests a somewhat more artistic interpretation of precedent phenomena, describing them as “clamps that integrate cultural layers and historical eras into a single system” [2, с. 38]. Viewed from this perspective, precedent phenomena are regarded as the “glue” that helps maintain and strengthen the temporal and cultural ties, historical heredity.

According to V. V. Krasnykh, any precedent constitutes a cultural element facilitating the development of invariant perception, which, in turn, always contains some sociocultural experience that is preserved and transferred through the reproduction of this perception [8, с. 62-75]. In other words, a precedent is always conditioned upon the historical background and acts as a comparative model, against which other similar, invariant knowledge, behaviour, phenomena, decisions, etc. are reviewed.

Analysing the above suggested definitions, we can trace a rather uniform, consistent line of reasoning in the description of the key features of precedent phenomena. Obviously, one of the most clearly distinctive factors is the parameter of notoriety, which implies canonical, all-embracing, prevalent nature of precedent phenomena. This parameter of notoriety, however, is criticised by E. A. Nakhimova, who suggests that this take on the essence of precedence might be rather illconsidered. The author argues that since people's cultural awareness and intellectual background, as well as the sphere of their interests may vary to a considerable degree, we cannot say that precedent phenomena are `well-known' one hundred percent of the time. Therefore, in order to maintain both terminological and descriptive accuracy, E. A. Nakhimova argues that we can only refer to `a considerable share of the linguo-cultural community' familiar with a certain precedent phenomenon [9, с. 169]. The author suggests the following three criteria that can be used to determine the level of popularity and recognisability of a precedent phenomenon: 1) recognition of the author; 2) recognition of the work; 3) recognition of contextual meaning. Therewith, the author points out that with most people the degree of recognisability is manifested in such feedbacks as `I heard that somewhere', `that sounds familiar' [Там же, с. 170-171].

Excessive maximalism in the analysis of precedent phenomena is also criticised by G. G. Slyshkin, who suggests that these units should be viewed as “holistic, figurative, associative and often expressive elements that are in the minds of the recipients linked to the well-known texts, which value can be justified for a specific cultural group” [11, p. 28]. This particular definition highlights another important parameter of precedent phenomena, and namely the parameter of associativity, which determines the very nature of the concept under review.

The importance of associativity as an element of cultural heritage is emphasised in the hypothesis put forward by K. K. Kasyanova. The author argues that ethnic character is made up of a set of objects and ideas, which every member of a community associates with a distinct and vibrant palette of emotions and feelings referred to collectively as `sentiments' [7]. Sentiments are actually precedents that generate specific associative reactions in the minds of the people belonging to the linguo-cultural community, and shape “the nationally determined system of symbols, associations and information” [5, с. 88], “the basic stereotypical knowledge, reproduced in the process of a person's socialization” [10, с. 14].

According to D. B. Gudkov, personal consciousness has several levels, and these determine the levels of precedence shaping this consciousness. Thereby, the author argues that precedent phenomena can be divided into personspecific, society-specific, nation-specific and universal precedents [3, с. 95]. In the framework of this paper, we suggest that this classification can be described in reference to associativity as a notion that underlies the role of precedent phenomena in shaping social consciousness.

Person-specific precedent phenomena produce associative series, emotions and views of a purely personal nature and are primarily driven by the experience, memories, chronology, people, events and knowledge which can be qualified as unique, individual practical and emotional `baggage'. The probability of variation of associative meaning generated by this type of precedent appears to be very high due to the different experience people possess. Societyspecific precedent phenomena are references that are to a greater or lesser extent known to the representatives of a society and are part of the so-called `collective cognitive space'. Such space can be confined, for example, to religious, professional, domestic and other social `boundaries'. Nation-specific precedent phenomena expand the scope of the resulting associative views even more, as they come to be included into the cognitive base of the entire linguo-cultural community. In this case, the probability of variation of associative meaning reduces significantly, since such precedents appear to be familiar to wider groups of people. Finally, universal precedent phenomena are known to “any modern homo sapiens and are included into the generic cognitive space of mankind” [Там же, с. 99-97].

In other words, these precedent phenomena can be described as the most recognisable.

That being said, we can state that the overall paradigm of precedence is founded on multifunctional precedent phenomena qualified as canonical, archetypical, conventional, historically-determined (universal precedents), while its `extreme end' comprises precedents evoking individual, personal, private, autonomous associations (personal precedents). Therefore, we believe that the degree of associativity of each of these precedents can be outlined as follows (Figure 1):

Figure 1. The degree of associativity of precedent phenomena of different types on a five-point scale

Therefore, we can conclude that the role of precedent phenomena in shaping social consciousness within a linguocultural community is to a certain extent defined by the degree of associativity inherent in the four distinct types of these phenomena. The present study thus establishes the strong links binding the processes of evolution of social consciousness and the processes of regular verbal actualization and mental `summoning' of relevant experiences, both past and present.

Thus, analysing the concept of a precedent and its role in shaping social consciousness, we can conclude that precedence plays an important role in the processes of evolution of linguo-cultural systems, which operation appears to be determined by past experience that is recorded, preserved and transferred in the form of precedents of different degrees of associativity.

References

1. Борисов А. Б. Большой юридический словарь. М.: Книжный мир, 2010. 848 с.

2. Гришаева Л. И. Прецедентные феномены как культурные скрепы (к типологии прецедентных феноменов) // Феномен прецедентности и преемственность культур. 2004. Вып. 1. № 12. С. 15-46.

3. Гудков Д. Б. Прецедентные феномены в языковом сознании и межкультурной коммуникации: автореферат дисс. … д. филол. н. М.: Диалог, 1999. 370 с.

4. Гудков Д. Б. Теория и практика межкультурной коммуникации. М.: ИТДГК «Гнозис», 2003. 288 с.

5. Караулов Ю. Н. Русский язык и языковая личность. М.: Издательство ЛКИ, 2010. 264 с.

6. Касьянова К. О русском национальном характере. М.: Институт национальной модели экономики, 1994. 267 с.

7. Красных В. В. Когнитивная база и прецедентные феномены в системе других единиц и в коммуникации // Вестник МГУ. Серия 9. 1997. № 3. С. 62-75.

8. Нахимова Е. А. Прецедентные имена в массовой коммуникации. Екатеринбург: УГПУ, 2007. 207 с.

9. Прохоров Ю. Е. Действительность. Текст. Дискурс. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2009. 224 с.

10. Слышкин Г. Г. От текста к символу: лингвокультурные концепты прецедентных феноменов в сознании и дискурсе. М.: Academia, 2000. 128 с.

11. Hirsch E. D. Jr. The Theory behind the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988. 242 p.

Размещено на Allbest.ru