Metaphor model and metaphorical use of tense forms in Russian Dmitry Egorov Kazan State University

It is known that Russian has three tenses: PAST TENSE (forms like prishel, prihodil) PRESENT TENSE (prihodit) FUTURE TENSE (pridet, budet prihodit)

But we can find cases when Form which is known as form of certain tense can express meaning which is usually expressed by other: On inogda pridet domoj pozdno vecherom… Where form pridet means Past tense while traditionally is form of Future

Such cases is considered as transposition which implies metaphorical use of category of tense

Metaphor: Source domain: by what we try to explain or understand something Target domain: what we try to explain or understand by source Abstract entities can be explained in terms of concrete entities Time can be explained in terms of space

The next question arises How elements of grammatical category which have ideally very rigid limits can serve as components of metaphor (what is source, what is domain)? i. e. how components of grammatical category can explain each other?

And the second question arises: How native speaker can use components of grammatical category when he doesnt know about its existence?

But it seems to be truth that phenomenon considered looks like metaphor And what are the components of this metaphor?

Units of language and sign of language Units: Are constructs, which are distinguished on the basis of explicit markers and common meanings which make up paradigms and systems of oppositions. Are useful in first place as language for describing speech and semantics, i. e. as metalanguage Cannot underlie of any speech processes as their real reason Signs: Function in speech and thinking activity on the basis of cognitive logic and are made up by knowledge which is called naive world image Can be real reason for any specificities of discourse

It means that in cases where form expresses meaning contradictory to its paradigmatic meaning it brings the latter one to the context as transposition conception says

Since we have found out that this point of view fails the cases of so called transposition should be explained in other way BUT! On the basis of cognitive logic which is studied in Cognitive approach

Conception By Laura Janda: Perfect aspect is conceptualized as a discrete solid object Imperfect aspect is conceptualized as fluid substance

What is the difference between next two contexts? Кругом не слышалось почти никакого шума. Лишь изредка в близкой реке с внезапной звучностью плеснет рыба и прибрежный тростник слабо зашумит, едва поколебленный набежавшей волной...Одни огоньки тихонько потрескивали.

Кругом не слышалось никакого шума. Лишь изредка в близкой реке с внезапной звучнстью плескалась рыба и прибрежный тростник слабо шумел, едва поколебленный набежавшей волной...Одни огоньки тихонько потрескивали.

Byvalo pridet, vypjet chaju i srazu lozhitsa spat In this case situation is conceptualized as discrete solid object (pridet, vupjet chaju) inside fluid substance (byvalo) Such combination of verbal Tense-Aspect forms in the context is the only opportunity to conceptualize situation in way presented above