Modern problems of science and education. Causal (causal) relationship of phenomena Causal relationships

On the issue of causality and causation in the language system

The interest of scientists from various fields of knowledge (philosophers, physicists, linguists) to the problem of cause-and-effect relationships is due to the specificity of this category, which reflects the primary importance of causal relationships in human life.

Causal relations are universal relations, since there are no phenomena that would not have their causes, and there are no phenomena that would not give rise to certain consequences.

These relations fix the consolidation in the language of the most important stage of human thinking - logical inference, the transition from statement to logical thinking, inference. That is why the study of the problematic of expressing cause-and-effect relations by language means does not lose its relevance.

In the linguistic literature, you can find two terms that correlate with the category of cause and effect - causality and causation. Both terms go back to the Latin causa "reason, foundation", "motive beginning". However, there is no clear definition of the categorical essence of causation and causation.

This state of affairs, of course, creates additional difficulties in the work of linguists, whose works are aimed at establishing adequate means of expressing cause-and-effect relationships in a variety of languages. The following question requires clarification: the definition of the status of the categories of causality and causation.

Both concepts are inevitably associated with the philosophical concepts of causality and cause-and-effect relationships. A causal relationship is one of the leading forms of interconnection and conditionality of the processes of objective reality. The categories of cause and effect reflect the objective relationships that exist in nature and society.

Causality is interpreted as a philosophical category to denote an objective genetic relationship of phenomena, of which one (called a cause) determines the other (called a consequence or action). Cause and effect reflect one of the forms of universal connection and interaction of phenomena. A cause is understood as a phenomenon, the action of which causes, determines, changes, produces or entails another phenomenon, the latter is called an effect. Thus, the connection between cause and effect is necessary and inevitable: if there is a cause and appropriate conditions, then an effect inevitably arises.

All phenomena, events, processes in nature, society and thinking are caused or conditioned by other phenomena, events, processes, that is, more or less definite causes. No matter how deeply a person comprehends the world, no matter what new laws he discovers in the world, the law of the connection between cause and effect does not cease to be relevant.

For the first time, the ancient philosopher Aristotle turned to the typology of cause-and-effect relations, who classified the type of cause-and-effect relations according to a certain component in the binary combination of two phenomena, starting from the correspondence between the type of effect and the type of cause. Aristotle created two classifications: the typology of the causes of things and the typology of the causes of human actions.

The modern understanding of the cause is directly related to the activity principle of the causing event. Any consequence is explained by human activity, the awareness of logical causality (as a connection with a universal law, "logical inclusion") comes much later.

Causal or causal relationships are universal and exist in all forms of motion of matter. Causality, along with other categories of philosophy, finds its expression in every science, in every subject of knowledge. As a consequence, it is conceptualized and reflected in the language.

Causal connection - as one of the most important forms of interconnection of the phenomena of reality - exists where the necessary generation of one another is superimposed on the temporal sequence of events.

A.A. Potebnya gives such a definition of causality in Russian: “The concept of action, like the concept of a subject and an object, is inseparable from the concept of a cause ... there is causation, causation (action), inflicted (committed, done): the reflection of an action on an object is caused by the action of the subject. Causality is made up of the action of the subject and the simultaneity or sequence of this action with the state of the object. "

Adequate expression of the category of causality in the language is achieved with the help of lexical means and grammatical constructions. The study of linguistic units used to convey the relationships reflected in this category helps to identify characteristic features these units associated with the linguistic interpretation of causality.

Causal relationships are one of the most important semantic categories of natural languages. The conditions under which the relationship between events is qualified as causative or causal can be represented as follows:

• 1) the relationship between the two events is such that the speaker believes that the occurrence of the causative event occurs at time T 2, which occurs after T 1 - the time of the causative event;
• 2) the relationship between the causative and the causative event is such that the speaker believes that the occurrence of the causative event depends entirely on the causative event. The relationship between the two events in this case must be such that it allows the speaker to conclude that the causal event would not have occurred at that particular time if the causative event had not taken place.

Cause and effect represent a dialectical unity. A cause that does not work, that is, it does not have an effect, is not a cause, and, conversely, a cause that no longer works is also not a cause. Therefore, the cause takes place because its action takes place. The relationship between cause and effect is a universal law at all organizational levels.

Causality in a broad sense combines meanings such as a premise, foundation, justification, confirmation, proof, argument, argument, predetermination, premise, reason, pretext, stimulus, target motivation. This whole circle of relations presupposes such a connection of situations in which one serves as a sufficient basis for the implementation of the other.

Causality expresses to a greater extent causal dependence, expressed by syntactic means (unions, union combinations or their phraseological equivalents).

Causal sentences express broad-based direct conditioning. So, literally in Russian linguistics, under causal sentences are meant subordinate reasons, although they contain an indication not only of the reason, but also the justification of what is said in the main part of the sentence.

The differentiation of subordinate reasons and grounds is associated with the conditionality of the phenomena of reality in question: in sentences with subordinate reasons, cause-and-effect relationships are reflected, and in sentences with subordinate grounds - the relationship of reason-conclusion (made by the speaker). Causal relationships are expressed in the subordinate clauses of the cause through unions and union combinations because, because, because, because, because that, because, because, for, etc.

The "causal block" also includes conditional and target sentences. Conditional sentences denoting virtual, mentally tolerated events are derivatives of causal sentences. Target constructions can be interpreted as a pre-conceivable result of cause-and-effect relationships. Causal, conditional, concessive, target sentences are also referred to as causal generative constructions.

Causation, in contrast to causation, is a lexical-grammatical category that reflects the cause-and-effect relationship between subject and object.

The causative semantics of a verb is the meaning of an impulse directed by the subject of an action to an object in order to change the action of the subject to a state or a qualitative verbal attribute of an object. "To causate R. means to act in such a way that R.'s situation immediately begins to take place." ...

The semantic binarity of causation is due to the presence of a two-term opposition "cause - effect". Because of this, the semantics of causation presupposes two propositions: one with the subject-causator and the predicate “causates” the other with the causable subject and any predicate. Wed:

He broke the cup.

• 1) he causated
• 2) the cup is broken.

Causation is a kind of relational meaning type inherent in verbal predicates. The category of causation is a semantic distinguishing feature of the verb, which is important for the entire system of the verbal nest. It is this feature that distinguishes causative verbs from other classes of verbs - static, introductory and liquidator.

Depending on the means of expressing the semantics of causation, there are lexical and grammatical causatives. The lexical causative is the verbs, into the semantic structure of which the component "causate" is incorporated, cf .: break up, build, destroy, etc. The semantics of lexical causatives already includes the meaning of the corresponding static verbs, cf .: to drink - drink, plant - sit down, kill - to die, etc.

A grammatical causative is a morphological and syntactic causative. Morphological causative is morphologically derived causative verbs (this type is absent in Russian). With a syntactic causative, the meaning of causation is expressed by an auxiliary verb with the categorical meaning of "motivation to act or state." A syntactic causative is a causative construct formed with the help of analytical verbs such as force, command.

Despite the differences in the structural organization of causatives in different languages, the grammatical and lexical means of expressing causative semantics are characterized by a certain set of common content features: the meaning of a request, permission, compulsion, motivation, etc.

Regardless of the type of causative (grammatical or lexical), the verb is central to it. Therefore, causation is exclusively a verbal category.

Causality unites a whole range of particular meanings that make up conditionality (prerequisite, foundation, justification, confirmation, proof, argument, argument, premise, reason, pretext, incentive, and goal setting). Causality is expressed in language by syntactic means (as a rule, by means of a complex sentence).

Causation distinguishes only one subgroup of all particular values \u200b\u200bof conditioning - a target setting and a stimulus. Causation is a lexico-grammatical category of verbal predicates.

Thus, causal relationships are only a component of the concept of causality, along with a premise, concession, condition, goal, etc. That is why causation is a broader category, reflecting the entire spectrum of connections between events in reality, rather than causation.

Both causality and causation show how native speakers of a particular language distinguish between different types of causal relationships, how they interpret causal connections between events and human actions.

The means of language, expressing cause-and-effect relationships, reflect the philosophical, logical and linguistic content. Causal relationships project the development of human thinking from a simpler to a more complex understanding of reality.

causation causation language semantic

from lat. causa - reason) - causality, efficacy, natural connection between cause and action. As a principle (causal principle or law), causation is understood as follows: each phenomenon has a cause (caused, is an action) and at the same time is the cause of another phenomenon; or - nothing appears without a reason. Cause and action form a chain from the past through the present to the future (causal link). The principle of causality in philosophy was first clearly formulated by Democritus, and the causal relationship - by the Stoics and Epicurus. In the latest physics (XX century), the unlimited applicability of the principle of causation in the field of the microworld is denied; it is applied as a working hypothesis, as a heuristic principle, as a probabilistic rule. Causal - causal, corresponding to the causal law.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

CAUSALITY

from lat. causa reason) - causality, efficacy, natural connection of cause and action. As a principle (causal principle, or law), causation expresses the following: each phenomenon has a cause (caused, is an action) and at the same time there is a cause of another phenomenon; or, conversely, nothing appears without reason. Cause and effect form a chain that comes from the past (see Proton kinun), permeates the present and disappears in the future (causal link; see Finality). On closer examination, the cause breaks down into the (external) circumstances in which something happens, the (internal) conditions due to which it occurs, and the excitement, which is the immediate cause. If the powder is dry (circumstance) and correctly composed (condition), then due to the impact (excitation) it ignites (action). The concept of causality is a generalization of the experience that something, "action", takes place then and only if something else took place or is taking place at this time, "cause." At the same time, it is easy to fall into error by accepting "post hoc", i.e. temporary "after that", for "propter hoc", i.e. causal "therefore". The phenomena of nature are called causally explainable, and the connections between them correspond to the principle of causality, since in relation to this principle in general, we are talking primarily not about mental, but about objective, material connection, which cannot contradict the results of research in natural sciences. In the history of philosophy, the principle of causality was first clearly formulated by Democritus, and as a strictly causal relationship of phenomena - by the Stoics and Epicurus. In the Middle Ages, the question of causality in nature did not develop at all. It was only in the new science of nature (Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, etc.) that the principle of consistent causation of nature, which does not explain it by supernatural interference, began to be intensively investigated again. This naturally-scientifically explained objective concept of causation was opposed by the subjective understanding of causation, defended primarily by the English, empiricists. For example, according to Hume, belief in causation is based on association, expectation, and habit. Kant considered the general principle of causation a priori, but relevant only in the realm of experience. Schopenhauer distinguishes three forms of causality: cause in the proper sense (for the inorganic world), irritation (in organic plant life) and motive (in the actions of all animate beings). Mill, Spencer, and others tried to understand and explain causation on the basis of only one experience, through induction. Positivism (Comte, Avenarius, Mach, etc.) replaces the concept of causation with the concept of functional dependence, the concept of cause - with a "condition" (see Conditionism). In the spirit of the newest ontology, causality is categorized. It is one of the categories of possibilities for determining what exists (see Teaching about layers). The newest physicists deny the unlimited applicability of the principle of causation in the microcosm; it is used as a working hypothesis, as a heuristic principle, as a probabilistic rule. See Determination of Uncertainties, Basis. Causal (from Lat.) Causal, corresponding to the causal law.

1

This article is an attempt to conduct an overview analysis of various methods and approaches in the research of linguists of Kazakhstan and foreign science, devoted to causal relations. The analysis made it possible to single out three aspects of the problem: the study of causal relations from the standpoint of functional grammar, the study from the cognitive-pragmatic perspective, as well as from the communicative-pragmatic perspective. When studying the functional-semantic features of causal relations from the standpoint of functional grammar, a field approach is used: causal relations are considered as a field of conditioning, as a functional-semantic field and relational field of causality. In the cognitive-pragmatic aspect, causality is investigated as a logical category based on the epistemic form of thinking. In a communicative-pragmatic perspective, causal relations at the level of speech acts are analyzed. The similarity of the main approaches to the study of the category of causality in foreign and domestic literature is a clear indication that causality is considered in world linguistics as a key concept of categorization and conceptualization of the surrounding world.

speech act.

epistemic level

functional-semantic field

conditioning field

linguistic causation

causal relationship

1. Alina G.M. Causal relations in the system of Russian and Kazakh languages: Author's abstract. diss. ... Cand. philol. sciences. Almaty, 1999. 29 s.

2. Arutyunova N.D. Types of language values: Assessment. Event. Fact. Moscow: Nauka, 1988.341 p.

3. Babalova L.L. Semantic varieties of causal and conditional sentences in modern Russian: diss. ... Cand. philol. sciences. M., 1975.

4. Bakulev A.V. FSP causality in modern Russian language: diss. ... Cand. philol. Sciences: 10.02.01. Taganrog, 2009.189 p.

5. Bondarko A.V. Functional grammar theory. Locativity, Beingness, Possessiveness, Conditionality. SPb .: Publishing house of St. Petersburg. University, 1996.269 p.

6. Vlasova Yu.N. and others. Functional-semantic and word-formation fields in linguistics. Rostov on Don: Publishing house Rost. state ped. Institute, 1998.S. 283.

7. Vsevolodova M.V. Fields, Categories and concepts in the grammatical system of the language // Questions of linguistics. 2009. No. 3. P.76-99.

8. Vsevolodova M.V., Yashchenko T.A. Causal relationships in modern Russian. 2nd ed. Moscow: LKI Publishing House, 2008.208 p.

9. Grigorian E.L. Causal meanings and syntactic structures // Questions of linguistics. 2009. No. 1. S.23-34.

10. Zhdanova V.V. Simple sentences with a nominal causal group, expressing cause-and-effect relationships in the world of inanimate nature: diss ... cand. philol. sciences. M., 1998.186 p.

11. Evtyukhin VB Grouping of conditional fields: cause, condition, purpose, effect, assignment. // Theory of functional grammar. Locativity. Beingness. Possessiveness. Conditionality. SPb. : Publishing house of St. Petersburg. University, 1996. S. 143-145.

12. Kamynina L.I. Functional-semantic field of causation in modern English: Author's abstract. diss. ... Cand. philol. sciences. M., 1992.16 p.

13. Kirpichnikova N.V. The meaning of the base-inference and its syntactic expression by means of vocabulary // Bulletin of Moscow State University, series Philology. 1989. No. 3. S. 36-44.

14. Komarov A.P. On the linguistic status of the causal connection. A.-Ata: Kazakh State Pedagogical Institute, 1970.224 p.

15. Kotvitskaya E.S. A typical situation reflecting cause-and-effect relations as a meaningful unit of language (and its speech realizations): dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. M., 1990.

16. Kumisbaeva M.M. Causal hypotaxis of the English language and methods of its transmission in the Kazakh language: dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. Almaty, 1999.123 p.

17. Lakoff J., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by: trans. from English / ed. and with a foreword. A.N. Baranova. 2nd edition. Moscow: LKI Publishing House, 2008.256 p.

18. Romanova V.M. On the question of ways of expressing cause-and-effect relations in the Tatar language in the light of field theory // Questions of the structure of the Tatar language. 1986. S. 75-79.

19. Smolich NA Structure and semantics of causal complex sentences with unions of differentiated meanings in the aspect of textual dependence and conditioning: dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. Lipetsk, 2003.193 p.

20. Tazhibaeva S.Zh. Ways of expressing causal relations in the Kazakh language: dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. M., 2005.354 p.

21. Teremova R.M. Functional-grammatical typology of conditionality constructions in modern Russian: Author's abstract. dis. ... Dr. philol. sciences. L., 1988.

22. Toleup M.M. Kozirgi Kazakh tilindegi sebep-saldardlyktyk functional aspects: dis. ... philol. ғylym. Almaty. 2002 148 b.

23. Shiryaev E.I. The relation of logical conditionality: ways of expression and their distribution in the spheres of language // Grammatical studies. Functional and stylistic aspect: Morphology. Word formation. Syntax. Moscow: Nauka, 1991.S. 224-225.

24. Yarygina E.S. To the question of the peculiarities of inference-justification constructions // Russian language: historical destinies and modernity. M., 2001.S. 230.

25. Boetther W., Sitta H. Deutsche Grammatik III. Zusammengesetzter Satz und äquivalente Strukturen. Frankfurt a. M .: Athenäum, 1972. S. 97-123.

26. Breindl E., Walter M. Der Ausdruck von Kausalität im Deutschen. Eine korpusbasierte Studie zum Zusammenspiel von Konnektoren, Kontextmerkmalen und Diskursrelationen Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. amades.2009. 200 S.

27. Buscha J., Freudenberg-Findeisen R., Forstreuter E. Grammatik in Feldern. Ein Lehr-und Übungsbuch für Fortgeschrittene. Leipzig: Verlag für Deutsch 1998 S. 55-78.

28. Flämig W. Grammatik des Deutschen. Einführung in Struktur und Wirkungszusammmenhänge. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991. S. 46-50. S. 280-295.

29. Frohning D. Kausalmarker zwischen Pragmatik und Kognition. Korpusbasierte Analysen zur Variation im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2007.

30. Girke W. Kausalität und Verstehen. // Girke, Wolfgang (Hg.): Aspekte der Kausalität im Slavischen. Mainzer Studien zum Problem der Kausalität. München. (Speciminaphilologiaeslavicae 122). 1999. S. 161-179.

31. Heidolph K., Flämig W., Motsch W. Grundzüge einer deutscher Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1984.S. 322, S. 799.

33. Lang E. Studien zur Semantik der koordinativen Verknüpfung. Berlin (O): StudiaGrammatica, 14, 1977. S. 63-64.

34. Le groupeλ-l. Car, parceque, puisque. - Revue Romane 17 X, Universite´ de Kopenhague, 1975. P. 249-280.0: 267

35. Moeschler J. Causality, lexicon, and discourse meaning. - RivistadiLinguistica, 2003.15.2. P. 277-303.

36. Pander M., Sanders H. T. Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use // Cognitive Lingustics 12 (3). 2001. P. 247-273.

37. Pasch R, Brauße U. Breindl E, Waßner U. H. Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003.

38. Redder A. Grammatiktheorie und sprachliches Handeln: "denn" und "da". Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1990.

39. Rudolph E. Wirkung und Folge in Konsekutitivsätzen in "Sprache: Formen und Strukturen" // Kohrt, Lenerz, Jurgen. Akten des 13. Linqist. Kolloquiums, Band 1. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1980. S. 315-325. S . 183.

40 Schmidhauser B. Kausalität als linguistische Kategorie. Mittel und Möglichkeiten für Begründungen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1995, S. 33.

41. Skaidra Girdeniene Die Leistung der Kausalstrukturen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung dersyntaktisch-semantischen und pragmatischen Perspektive // \u200b\u200bStudies aboutlanguages. Kalbustudijos.2004.No. 6.

42. Sommerfeld K.E., Starke G. Einführung in die Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig 1988 S. 268-273.

43. Stojanova N. Zur Struktur und Funktionen der denn-Sätze // Beiträge zur Erforschung der deutschen Sprache. Hrsg. Von W. Fleisher, R. Grosse, G. Lerchner; 7. Band. Leipzig: VEB Bibliografisches Institut 1987 S. 32-68.

44. Stukker N., Sanders T., Verhagen A. Causality in verbs and in discourse connectives: Converging evidence of cross-level parallels in Dutch linguistic categorization // Journal of Pragmatics 40.2008.P. 1296-1322.

45. Sweetser E. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge u.a. 1990.

46. \u200b\u200bThim-Marbey Ch. Zur Syntax der kausalen Konjunktionen weil, da, und denn. // Sprachwissenschaft von R. Schützeichel. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag, 1982. Bd. 7. S. 197-219.

47. Van Belle, W. Want, omdat en aangezien: eenargumentatieveanalyse. Leuvense Bijdragen 78, 1989, P. 435-556.

48. Zifonun G., Hoffmann L., Strecker B. et al. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3 Bde, 1997.

49. Zufferey S. Car, parceque, puisque revisited: Three empirical studies on Frenchcausal connectives // Journal of Pragmatics 44.2012. P. 138-153.

Introduction

Natural causal relationships of the phenomena of objective reality are reflected in the language, therefore, linguistic causality as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon attracts the attention of scientists and is studied in various aspects of modern linguistics. The main goal of this work is to provide an analytical overview of the main directions in the study of causal relations in domestic and foreign linguistics and to show the relationship between different approaches to studying this phenomenon, which is the key concept of conceptualizing the objective and subjective world and the result of the cognitive activity of the human brain. The category of causality is a complex, multifaceted object that can be described in functional-communicative, cognitive-pragmatic and communicative-pragmatic aspects.

Causality in terms of functional grammar

From the standpoint of functional grammar, causation is viewed as a broad field of conditioning, which includes a number of semantic varieties. Causal relationships in the broadest sense of the word include causal, target, effectual, concessive. The unification of the field of conditionality within one grouping has both linguistic and non-linguistic grounds. From an extralinguistic point of view, the linguistic categories of cause, effect, conditions, goals and concessions are considered as a reflection of the deterministic phenomena of reality, their influence on each other, and an ordered relationship to each other. From a linguistic point of view, the field of cause is central to this grouping. The semantic unity of conditionality relations is manifested in correlation through mutual motivation, intersection of field structures, in the absence of clear boundaries: the same nominative basis of conditionality relations can be represented in the form of a causal, conditional and target structure ,,, ;; ; ;). The creation of fields is based on the provision on the systemic nature of the language: A.V. Bondarko believes that the consistency of a language can be detected on the basis of the principle of functional interaction of multilevel units. United by the commonality of the function they perform, they form a well-known aggregate with features of a systemic organization.

The theory of field structuring finds its application in the concept of the Kazakh scientist A.P. Komarov, who considers the general meaning of causality ("subject-logical relation") as the semantic core of a set of means of expression, the linguistic status of which is defined as the relational field of causation (RPK). PKK is understood as a semantic space formed by a set of classes of structures belonging to different levels of the language and united by the commonality of the relationship of causality expressed by them. A.P. Komarov isolates the center and two peripheral segments in the RPK. At the “center” of the PKK are structures that express the causal relation in the purest possible form, not aggravated by any other shades. At the periphery, with distance from the center, structures are located depending on the degree of decrease in the purity of the causal meaning, namely, the linguistic structures of condition, purpose, concession and effect. V.M. Romanov, developing the ideas of A.P. Komarova on the material of the Tatar language, represents the field of causality in the form of a central segment, a nucleus and two peripheral segments. In the center of the field is the nucleus, which is formed from means that are systematically used and unambiguously express the meaning of causality.

In the light of the field approach, it is necessary to note the research of functional-semantic fields of causality. So, for example, Kamynina L.E. presents the FSP of causality on the material of the English language, establishes linguistic units and structures related to the core, to the perinuclear and peripheral space of the field. The functional-semantic field of causality was also studied on the materials of the German and Russian languages,. In FSP causality Vsevolodova M.V. includes nominal, adverbial and prepositional functional-semantic categories of causation. A.V. Bakulev he distinguishes two microfields in the FSP of causality: the microfield of the cause and the microfields of the effect and considers the FSP of causality as an ontological-ontological field, on the one hand, and on the other hand, as a sontological-epistemological stratification, within which “constituents of microfields differ not in objective content, but in the form of reflection thoughts ".

There are also works devoted to a narrow consideration of the category of causality, as a whole, divided into two subcategories: the category of cause and the category of effect. It is proposed to consider these semantic-syntactic relations separately, since the language has special means of expressing them. Cause and effect are two sides of the causal process: any phenomenon can be described both in the aspect of the cause and in the aspect of the effect,.

An attempt to compare the FSP of the causality of the relationship in the system of the Russian and Kazakh languages \u200b\u200bis made by G.M. Alina, the author includes the concept of causation in the term causation and considers verbs as a lexical form of expressing causation. Of particular note is the study of the functional aspects of cause-and-effect relations on the material of the Kazakh language ;;.

The semantic meaning of causation is identified with the explanation of the causal connection between events and facts, as well as with ethical relations. Accordingly, the following areas of application of causal relations are distinguished: causal relation in nature, human behavior, ethical causal relations, causal relations in the administrative and social spheres, and logical causal relation; ... Revealing the structural-semantic paradigm, semantic types of causal relations is the subject of many research works. The basic principles of the derivation of semantic types are based on the doctrine of the duality of the definition of causality, namely, the delimitation of the causal-effective and fundamental-effect relationships. These types of relationships are called semantic models of causal relationships, direct and indirect causal relationships, proper-causal and improper-causal; ; ... Direct (or proper-causal) relations include the relationship of causal dependence between the phenomena of objective reality; indirect or improper causal relationship is the relationship between base and inferential knowledge.

Thus, the study of the functional and semantic features of causal relations from the standpoint of functional grammar involves: identifying the heterogeneity of causal meanings from the point of view of semantics, classifying the semantic models of causal relations and identifying their grammatical manifestations.

Cognitive-pragmatic causation

The cognitive-pragmatic aspect of the study of causal relations acquires its significance in the context of the anthropocentric paradigm. Causality is considered not only as a cause-and-effect relationship between objects and phenomena of reality, but also as a connection between thoughts in inference, thinking about a particular situation, its application to substantiate thought, subjective opinion, statement. In foreign linguistics, causality is studied as a mental, logical-semantic category, which is based on the epistemic form of thinking ;; ... The cognitive process of reflecting causal relationships, according to scientists, is manifested in the mental activity of a person in the form of inference, justification, reasoning, explanation of objectively existing cause-and-effect relationships. Justifying an event that is based on a causal relationship, the speaker analyzes the situation at the epistemic level: explains, evaluates or justifies it at the modus level (Modusdicenti), i.e. the speaker's reasoning is realized with the help of complex logical mental operations, through mental activity in the form of reductive reasoning. Ground and effect are the primary and subsequent sides of a logical relationship. Epistemic connections are called "logical patterns" („logischeGesetzmässigkeiten"), logical category (logischeKategorie), logical connection;.

Causal relations of the epistemic level are also called symptomatic relations, or a diagnosis to substantiate a logical conclusion, a statement about a particular phenomenon through assumptions. Life experience and background knowledge allow the subject to consider an extra-linguistic sign as a symptom or diagnosis for a logical conclusion. The first part of the sentence, in their opinion, expresses a hypothesis, and the second - a symptom or diagnosis that confirms this hypothesis. For example: Ich nehme an (vermute, sehe, weiss, denke, bin sicher) er arbeitet wohl noch, denn es ist Licht im Zimmer "(I guess (I see, I know, I think, I'm sure) he is still working, as the light in his room is on.).

In this regard, it is necessary to note the opinion of the English scientist J. Lakoff: “causality is the basic category of human thinking. This concept is one of the concepts most often used by a person for the mental organization of the material world and cultural realities. "

Practically the same attitude is represented by the definition of causality as a relation of a subject-logical nature in Kazakh and Russian literature. A causal relationship is called an objective relationship, a fundamental-effect relationship is a logical relationship between two thoughts: logical rationale and logical consequence, inference, conclusion ;; ; ; ... A causal proposition is a logical inference; when, in addition to the generating and generated events, one should talk about a logical proposition: the speaker's conclusion about their connection.

E.S. Yarygina clearly distinguishes between logical constructions of inference and justification: "Reason is an investigative component of a causative construction, but a reason for judgment. Conclusion is an objective reason, but an investigative component in the structure of inference." . the water component is the reason - there was a severe frost at night; component of the justification - the water in the puddles has frozen. The main focus is on the speaker, who is out of the situation and from whose position this or that observed phenomenon is presented. The subject restores reality in his consciousness in the form of judgments, inferences.

According to N. D. Arutyunova, it is "the judgment structures reality so that it is possible to establish whether it is true or false." That is, it is not the fact that sets the judgment, but the judgment - the fact. “Reality exists independently of a person, but fact does not. A person isolates a fragment of reality, and in it a certain aspect, conceptualizes it, structures it according to the model of judgment (ie introduces the value of truth), verifies and then only receives the fact. " Therefore, of particular interest are studies in which the connection between causal relations and linguistic consciousness is presented. Thus, the linguistic category of causality is interpreted by foreign linguists as objectively existing cause-and-effect relationships, reflected through cognitive activity in the minds of people, and also as a category that gives us an interesting opportunity to present the work of consciousness. In the works of Russian scientists, causality is reflected in the linguistic consciousness as a typical situation, formed by a certain minimum set of components - actors, their actions, objects, states, relationships and properties; ; ...

In this regard, it is necessary to note research devoted to the cognitive perception of causal and non-causal relationships in discourse. For example, in the work of Sanders, alliances are considered, which are an indicator of cognitive relations, verbalize the cognitive mechanisms of subjective reflection of objective connections in linguistic consciousness and reflect the mental activity of the subject and the logic of his reasoning.

In E. Lang's theory of operational meaning, conjunctions are considered as meta signs operating with other signs. A feature of alliances as elements of the causal field is their indication of a causal connection regardless of the specific content of the components being connected, which indicates their cognitive and communicative-pragmatic significance.

For example: Die Welt ist rund, weil ich einen roten Pullover trage.(The world is round, becausei wear a red half ver.) B weil A (B because AND).

Alliances create relationships of agreement in discourse and promote understanding of discourse. Unions are the object of research not only as a means of expressing an epistemic causal connection, but are also in the focus of research in the communicative-pragmatic aspect, when the sphere of action of an objective reason expands; the actually significant, pragmatic sense of the cause goes beyond the explicitly specified denotations.

The study of causal relations in the cognitive-pragmatic aspect is based on the anthropocentric principle of causal relations, when the focus is on the subject, his analytical thinking and vision of objective reality. The cognitive-pragmatic aspect of the study of causal relations is directly interconnected with the communicative-pragmatic approach , when the mental activity of the human brain finds its expression in human speech activity.

Causality in communicationpragmatic aspect

Communicativepragmatic approach is a particularly important area in the study of causal relations. Causal relations are differentiated on the basis of the concrete communicative-pragmatic meaning they reflect, the logical-semantic category of causality serves as a source of actualization and functioning of linguistic units in speech; ; ; ; ; ; ... In a number of studies, the fundamental-effect relationship is viewed in a pragmatic aspect as speech-justification. Justification as speech action takes place if the speaker creates a causal connection between his speech action and another state of affairs, and we are talking about an intentional state of affairs. Researchers note the explicative function of justification, the function of explanation is interpreted as the relationship between events and actions, between relations and actions, characteristic of both human behavior in general and for a specific subject in a certain situation; ; ; ; ...

Suggestions of a causal justification are analyzed in the Kazakh and Russian languages \u200b\u200bas a dictum-modus attitude, indicating the obligatory position of the speaker in these constructions ;; ; ... Proposals of causal justification are based on the subjective opinion of the speaker, the event itself is a mentally experienced event, the existence of which is impossible regardless of human actions. Researchers call the functioning of modes quite natural with the semantics of operation, assumption, knowledge, as well as with the semantics of sanction and emotional evaluation; ... Modal words are called illocutionary indicators because they clarify the nature of illocution and the communicative function of the utterance and link the utterance with the communicative context, modify the speech act from the speaker's point of view, contribute to the listening process (recipient), and contribute to the establishment of communicative-pragmatic agreement between communication partners.

Linguistic studies of causal relations at the speech-act level are based on the theory of speech act Legroupe λ-l, according to which, in addition to causal relations at the level of propositions, there is also a causal relationship between speech acts p and q, where p is the act of a statement or a question; and q serves as an act of justification, justification. Following this doctrine, the theory of E. Sweetser appears in linguistic literature - the theory of three semantic levels of causal relations, the pragmatic context of which is functionally and semantically different: the level of propositions (contentdomain), the level of the epistemic level (epistemicdomain), and the speech-act level (speechaktdomain). At the speech act level, an internal causal connection is carried out between directive illocutions in the form of requirements, requests, recommendations, advice or orders and the reason that prompted these speech acts: Study the material yourself! Because I don't have time to explain.Possible periphery: I recommend you: Read the material yourself! and the basis for my recommendation is the fact that I have no time to explain.

The theory of causal relations at the level of speech acts also finds its application in the study of the functional characteristics of causal unions. Causal conjunctions and their semantic and functional features at three levels were the focus of the work of Dutch scholars; ... They are also considered in the works of German scientists; ; ; ; causal conjunctions are decisive in the establishment of epistemic and speech act causal connection between written and oral discourse in french ; ... The functions of causal unions as a mod commentator indicate the subjectivity of causal relations at the epistemic and speech-act levels. In both types of relationships, the speaker is directly involved as the subject of logical reasoning or as the subject-author of speech action.

Thus, due to its versatility, causality determines the variety of approaches to its study, the analyzed approaches and methods of researching causal relations in domestic and foreign linguistics indicate the presence of similarities rather than differences in their interpretation. Causality is viewed as a functional-semantic category, a mental and logical category; category, actualized in speech, reflecting the subject's attitude to the surrounding reality. The similarity of the main approaches to the study of the category of causation in foreign and domestic literature is a clear evidence of the general patterns of reflection of objective reality in human consciousness, the unity of the patterns of human cognition. We dare to assert that, in general, in world linguistics, causality is a key concept of categorization and conceptualization of the surrounding world, the result of the cognitive activity of the human brain.

Reviewers:

Agmanova A.E., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Eurasian National University named after L.N. Gumilyov, Astana.

Nurtazina M.B., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, Eurasian National University named after I.I. L.N. Gumilyov, Astana.

Bibliographic reference

Dalbergenova L.E., Zharkynbekova Sh.K. RESEARCH OF CAUSAL RELATIONS IN MODERN LINGUISTICS // Contemporary problems science and education. - 2013. - No. 6 .;
URL: http://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id\u003d10878 (date of access: 02/01/2020). We bring to your attention the journals published by the "Academy of Natural Sciences"

UDC 821.512.111 (052)

N.I. REC, A.R. GUBANOV

CAUSAL AND CAUSATIVE RELATIONS *

Approaches to the study of the ontological essence of the category of causality are considered.

N.I. RETZ, A.R. GUBANOV CATEGORY OF CAUSALITY: THE CAUSAL AND THE CAUSATIVE CONNECTION

Key words: category, causality, causality, causative, universal meaning, semantic relationships.

The approaches to the study of the ontological nature of the category of causality.

Causal relationships are of universal importance, since every action is motivated, conditioned by some reason, and there are no phenomena that would not generate certain consequences. The terms causality and causation are often correlated with the causal category in the linguistic literature without a clear definition, and this is reflected in the establishment of equivalents in comparative studies.

The study of causal relations, in particular, is closely related to concepts such as "presupposition", "implication", which are understood ambiguously in linguistics. "Among the meanings conveyed by the sentence-utterance, presupposition and implication should be distinguished ...". In the dissertation of I.T. Tarasova, the meanings she singled out have a wide and free content: the presupposition is the original thought (the original meaning), and the implication is the meaning-consequence (the resulting thought). From a somewhat different perspective, he approaches the definition of the presupposition of V.A. Zvegintsev, who believes that “the philosophical definition of presupposition, which is also used in linguistics, boils down to the fact that a presupposition should be understood as conditions, the satisfaction of which is necessary for the sentence as a whole to be a statement, question, command, etc. If these conditions are not met, then the proposal is recognized as incorrect, false, non-grammatical, inconsistent with the goals of the statement, inappropriate. " Presupposition is associated with a "hidden category" that has not received its formal expression, but is considered as a certain obligatory fund of general knowledge. When analyzing presuppositions, attention is also drawn to the fact that logical presuppositions cannot describe the entire set of relations of "natural texts" or statements and, in particular, establish the truth or falsity of sentences that depend on general views speakers and listeners and from the situation, therefore, another category of presuppositions should be distinguished - pragmatic, which has very unclear boundaries. Indeed, the essence of the problem of presuppositions is to distinguish between different layers in the sense of a sentence. And therefore, the distinction between the content of the utterance and its presupposition is based on two premises: 1) in the “sense” of the sentence, two different layers must be distinguished; 2) one of the layers of meaning belongs to the sentence and makes up its semantic content, and the other is taken out of the sentence (or utterance) and forms the conditions for its correct-

* The research was carried out under the state contract No. 16.740.11.01.19 FTP "Scientific and scientific-pedagogical personnel of innovative Russia" for 2009-2013.

th understanding .... When faced with the problem of presupposition, the question arises whether the presuppositions of a sentence of one language are preserved when translated into another language, i.e. Are presuppositions universal? As the comparison of the Russian and Chuvash languages \u200b\u200b(in the field of relations of interest to us) shows, we can only talk about the relative universality of presuppositions (different structural qualities of the compared languages, the difference of cultures that determine non-linguistic knowledge). Causal relations can be represented in the form of an implication formula, in which two components are combined - a premise (antecedent) and an effect (con-sequence). It should be noted that often the concepts of "presupposition" and "implication" are confused, and therefore, as it seems to us, the differences between them should be sought in the fact that implication is a logical operation (refers to the structure of a sentence), and presupposition is an illogical scheme associated with subtext.

A semantic relation, as a content, is a complex denotation, a non-elementary situation, including relation (P), relation members (a) and (b). Various semantic relations are in their own way oriented towards the speaker through communication with logical operations along the line of the basic universal premise. The main difference between the classes of meanings, as already mentioned, is the quantitative indicator of denotative situations. The meanings reflecting one denotative situation are formed, as S.A. Shuvalov, in the following cases: a) when the author of the text lacks comprehensive information about the reflected situation or the author of the text finds it difficult to present a verbal image adequate to the reflected denotative situation (Either ..., or ...; It cannot be said that ..., but also...); b) when the author of the text, instead of an erroneous idea of \u200b\u200bthe reflected situation, offers the correct, in his opinion, image of the corresponding situation (Not we ..., but she ...); c) when the author takes care of the full and vivid reflection of the denotative situation and resorts ... to the use of an association or gives different images of it (He blushes ... as they blush ...; He was not needed ..., that is ...). All the types of this class of meanings presented are associated only with the author's striving for accuracy or for the figurativeness of the verbal image, and not with the peculiarity of the reflected situation.

A fundamentally different kind of relations is represented by the meanings of the second class, which, in turn, are divided into two groups: 1) relations of the form "dictum - dictum", which are established between dictum predication; 2) relations of the form "modus - dictum", established between modus and dictum predication. It should be noted that the terms "modus" and "dictum" were introduced into linguistics by Sh. Bally. In linguistic studies, the concept of dictum is presented unambiguously, and the concept of modus is ambiguous. In particular, T.V. Shmeleva distinguishes the following categories of modus: a) actualization categories (“the speaker correlates the fragments of reality described by him with the situation of communication - its participant, place, time”); b) qualifying categories ("the speaker qualifies the reported on the basis of his ideas"); c) social categories ("the attitude of the speaker to the interlocutor"). Based on the provisions of T.A. Kolosova and M.I. Cheremisina, the modus represents "a verbalized subjective interpretation of a dictum event, which is given in the aspect of modality (ie, the possibility, probability of an event and the degree of reliability of the message about it) or in the aspect of the nature of mental processing of the representation (information) of a dictum event". As we can see, when considering the modus, the complexity associated with the presence of many

planning of this concept. The common element of this concept, it seems to us, is the element of the semantic organization of meaning, which conveys the assessment of the content of the utterance from the side of the speaker. And the semantic relations we are considering can take the form of both "dictum - dictum" and "modus - dictum", i.e. they can be based on the reflection of two denotative situations of a dictum nature or modulo-dictum nature. The situations reflected here are in implication relations. A causal relationship is a relationship of dependence. Dependency is understood here in the sense that it is always possible to name the component that is conditioned and determines it, and, therefore, dependent on the conditioned one. Dependency relationships do not exclude the possibility of being included in causal relationships and causative ones. At first glance, the characteristics of the latter coincide with the causal ones. The immediate components of the causative situation (CS) are at least two microsituations connected with each other by the relation of causation or causation. The same point of view (the causation relation is a synonym for the cause-and-effect relation) is shared by O.A. Khlebtsova in her work on causative verbs: "In this dissertation, causation is considered as a semantic property of lexical and syntactic units to express causal relationships between the realities of objective reality." In this work, in connection with the use of causatives, the elements of the (causative) situation under consideration recognize the following parameters: “causation”, “method of causation”, “result of causation”, “subject of causation”, “object of causation”. Noting the originality of causative situations, G.A. Zolotova characterizes the components of the corresponding situations as follows: “The causator of an action is usually a person, an agent, whose causative action is arbitrary, purposeful. If the place of the causator is taken by the name of an abstract concept, the causative construction appears in its variety - involuntary causation ”. Regarding this variety, the author on the next page of this work considers it necessary to make an explanation: “It is obvious that the possibility of such a transformation (the hostess forced us to leave the house - the hostess's ill will forced us to leave the house) (what?) Serves as a criterion for distinguishing between arbitrary and involuntary causation, and it should be noted that the latter type is not at all typical for causation of action ", since the involuntary type of autocausation (autocausative constructions) is organized, according to G. A. Zolotova, based on causators of the type "from + Rod.p." "Because of + Rod.p." etc. As you can see, the phenomenon of causation is distinguished on a structural-semantic basis, and the varieties of causation and causation must be determined in accordance with the structural-semantic meaning of the causative and causal models. As an interlingual metalanguage of causation, as the comparison of the practical material of the Russian and Chuvash languages \u200b\u200bshows, such parameters of the causation structure as motivation, command, prohibition, etc. “The category of causation,” as D. Buranov notes, “expresses general causation, which is characterized by the fact that the subject compels, forces, asks, orders, begs the object to perform an action.” Causation and causation are carried out in different ways in the Russian and Chuvash languages. It is known that the category of causation is characterized by complexity and versatility. The category of causation in Russian cannot be recognized as grammatical, since the meaning of causation is

tivity does not have a permanent form of expression assigned to it, and categorical semantics is expressed by a set of means of different levels. The structure of the corresponding category in the Russian and Chuvash languages \u200b\u200bis characterized by certain lexical-grammatical, structural-semantic and lexical-semantic features. It seems to us that the main features for the "demarcation" of causation and causation are: 1) the type of situations reflected in them (situation constants); 2) the semantic-syntactic structure of sentences expressed in given situations (the way of expressing propositions is folded propositions in sentences with causal semantics in comparison with causative constructions and their deployment He pushed me. She did not come because of bad weather - She did not come because she was bad weather.

Thus, causative and causal connections are binary in nature, i.e. corresponding connections presuppose the presence of two facts or events that are in close unity with each other; the sequence of the described events / phenomena / facts is inherent in the very process of generating the effect, but the causative connection presupposes the transfer of knowledge, not the assertion / denial of something, but an incentive to any action / change in the state of the object. Hence, causation is “causation” through conditioning, and causation is “causation” through impulse. Causal connections determine the relationship between events (objective situations - proper-causal relationships) and the relationship between propositions, each of which consists of a subject and a predicate, and each of the propositions can have one or more degree of expression. In general, modeling the speech behavior of a speaker in causal situations, which consists primarily in the choice of means of expressing his intention, should also take into account the consequences that follow from the conditions of communication, from taking into account the communication situation. The speaker tries to imagine how the listener will understand him when using various means in expressing certain meanings of conditioning. The entire corresponding model of speech production can be represented at the semantic level and at the level preceding the semantic (deep-semantic) level, which is associated with the extralin-gvistic reality. It is known that the speaker, having in mind some representation of the extra-linguistic situation, selects linguistic means, forming several representations of the next level. Consequently, the current model of speech activity, claiming to be sufficiently complete, must also include components that describe the deep-semantic level.

On the basis of factual material of different-structured languages \u200b\u200b(Russian and Chuvash), it is possible to present a two-level semic model of causal relations (equipolent opposition: "direct conditioning" - event1 and "reverse conditioning" - event.2 In linguistic literature, when interpreting the ontological essence of conditioning, often an event as a term is identified with the concept of proposition. An event, in contrast to a proposition, does not always encompass the entire judgment and does not fall apart into its constituent elements. The main difference between eventual and prepositive semantic types, as ND Arutyunova points out, boils down to the following: event meaning unites everything that characterizes the environment of a person's immersion in the world, and the prepositive meaning unites everything that is the result of the immersion of reality in the human consciousness.As we can see, ND Arutyunova substantiates the thesis that the concept has

three localization signs: a) localization in a certain human sphere; b) the event occurs at some time; c) it (event) takes place in some real space. The above characteristic of the concept "event" is reflected in the structure of the integral conditional relations: events connected by a causal connection have all the coordinates that are inherent in events. The events that form the conditioning relationship can be spontaneous and intensional, they can include other events, and one event always causes another, i.e. in a conditioned situation, one of the events is conditioning, and the other is conditioned. However, these eventual meanings do not cover the full content of the implicative judgment. Very often, in an integral sense, the second event takes on the structure of a fact, because "the more obvious the causal relations, the easier they are introduced into the structure of a simple proposition, and thus a fact." However, a fact does not replace any proposition, but only verified, "truthful" ones, that is, cannot be expressed in sentences that express a hypothetical modality (If ... then ...). Semantic types of conditionality factors - repositive, event, factor-forming - can be expressed in the same way (full, incomplete nominalizations). The degree of closeness of the semantic factors of the integral meaning is often determined by the context (in cases of convergence of conditional relations): With the coming to power of the “democrats”, life in the country did not improve - the temporal sequence of events or the causal connection was updated (the case of neutralizing the opposition of event and factor-forming meanings). And depending on the appropriate interpretation, nominalization with the coming to power can be qualified as an event or as a fact.

Special attention should be paid to cases when a quasi-causal meaning may appear in the semantics of sentences. In linguistic literature, there is no single list of linguistic units that express the meaning of causation. The condition for the formation of causal semantic relations is discursive data: the ratio of semantic and pragmatic presumptions. Here are some examples: It is difficult to recognize Him because of the costume (a) and It is difficult to recognize Him in this costume (b). Let's introduce negation into sentences: It is not true that it is difficult to recognize him because of the costume (s) and it is not true that it is difficult to recognize him in this costume. It is very easy to recognize him (b). The presumption “it is difficult to recognize” is a semantic presumption of the utterance (a) the semantic presumption of the utterance is at the same time a pragmatic presumption of the speaker, and the converse statement is not true: “usually a person is like himself and it is not difficult to recognize him” - the semantic and pragmatic presumptions do not coincide. And utterance (b) has no semantic presumption and is simply assertion, which also does not coincide with the pragmatic presumption of the utterance. But, from the definition of presumptions, presumptions (both semantic and pragmatic) cannot be false, because in this case the sentence-statement is abnormal, illocutionary "suicidal." And the actual causal sentences cannot be false, while the quasi-causal ones allow this option: it depends on the pragmatic assumptions of the addressee and addressee.

In modern linguistics, as you know, one of the central problems is the classification of meanings according to the degree of their abstraction, implicitness and other features. The above semantic feature is associated with the syntax of meanings, which offers the study of compatibility

explicit and implicit meanings. Causality as a semantic category is characterized by a wide semantic variability associated with a complex system of means of formal expression: 1) hypotactic constructions (in Russian), polypredicative constructions in the Chuvash language (in the dependent predicative part, infinite verb forms can act as a predicate): a) polypredicative constructions of the synthetic type (the participle acts as a dependent predicate): Puddenche terle shukhash palhannaran Ivan samantlakha deotse kairyo (T. Peterkki); b) constructions of analytical-synthetic type (participle-postpositions): Shaft hole layah pölnö pirki, ussine anlann pirki haisen yalenche shkul udas shuhashpa dunchyo (T. Peterkki); c) hypotactic constructions of the analytical type (allied braces because the menshen is small: Science yenepe ilsen, kunashkal turana silos paha mar, vylakhshan sienle, menshen apat huranne pasma pultarat (Emelyanov); 2) non-taxis structures with dependent or deverbial adverbs): Acha-pacha kartishenche hench yapalashan havasla duyahat (Uyar).

Literature

1. Arutyunova N.D. Proposition, fact, event (experience of conceptual analysis) // Izv. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Ser. lit. and lang. 1981. T. 46, No. 6. S. 529-546.

2. Buranov D.B. Typological categories and comparative study of languages: author. dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. M., 1979.22 p.

3. Gordon E.Ya. Causative verbs in modern Russian: author. dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. M., 1981.

4. Zvegintsev V.A. The proposal and its relation to language and speech. M .: Publishing house Mosk. University, 1976.307 p.

5. Zolotova G.A. Essay on the functional syntax of the Russian language. Moscow: Nauka, 1973.351 p.

6. Kolosova T.A. Cheremisina N.I. On the principles of classification of complex sentences // Questions of linguistics. 1984. No. 6.

7. Kornilov G.E., Kholodovich A.A., Khrakovsky V.S. Causatives and anti-causatives in the Chuvash language // Typology of causative constructions. L .: Nauka, 1969.

8. Tarasova I.P. The meaning of the sentence-statement and communication: author. dis. ... doct. philol. sciences. M., 1992.

9. Shiryaev E.N. Relations of logical conditioning in a complex sentence // Grammatical studies. Moscow: Nauka, 1991.

10. Shmeleva T.V. Semantic syntax: lecture text. Krasnoyarsk, 1988.

11. Shuvalova S.A. Semantic relations in a complex sentence and ways of expressing them. M .: Publishing house Mosk. University, 1990.

12. Khlebtsova O.A. Lexico-semantic field of causative verbs: author. dis. ... Cand. philol. sciences. Kharkov, 1986.

RETS NATALIA IVANOVNA - Doctoral student of the Department of Comparative Philology and Intercultural Communication, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary ( [email protected]).

RETZ NATALIA IVANOVNA - doctoral candidate of Comparative Linguistics and Intercul-tural Communication Chair, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary.

GUBANOV ALEXEY RAFAILOVICH - Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head of the Department of Comparative Philology and Intercultural Communication, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary ( [email protected]).

GUBaNoV ALEKSEY RAFAILOVICH - doctor of phylological sciences, professor, head of Comparative Linguistics and Intercultural Communication Chair, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary.

(Latin causalis - causal, causa - reason), or causality, is a concept used in philosophy of the traditional type to designate the necessary genetic connection of phenomena, of which one (cause) determines the other (effect). In this context, K. was interpreted as one of the forms of a universal connection between phenomena, as an internal connection between what already exists and what is generated by it, what is still becoming. It was assumed that this is different from other forms of communication, which are characterized by the correlation of one phenomenon to another. Internal connection was viewed as the essence of K., it was understood as an internal relationship inherent in things themselves. K. was supposed to be universal, since according to the natural-scientific views of that time, there are no phenomena that would not have their causes, just as there are no phenomena that would not have (would not generate) certain consequences. The connection between cause and effect was considered necessary: \u200b\u200bif there is a cause and the corresponding conditions are present, then an effect inevitably arises. Subsequently (especially in the 20th century), the principle of capitalism underwent a radical rethinking. (See Anti-Oedipus, Determinism, Neo-determinism, Death of God.)

Definitions, meanings of a word in other dictionaries:

Philosophical Dictionary

(Latin causalis - causal, causa - cause) or causation is a philosophical category to designate the necessary genetic connection of phenomena, of which one (cause) determines the other (effect). K. can be interpreted as one of the forms of the universal connection of phenomena, given that K ...

The latest philosophical dictionary