Лексическая семантика. Культурно-исторический подход. Владимир Глебкин

Чтение книги онлайн.

      48

      Я привожу здесь полностью пример Пиаже ввиду его методологической важности: «I was able to observe a beginning of this symbolic function in two of my children. First, in one of my daughters: I showed her a half-opened box of matches, and while she watched I put an object in it (a thimble; I must specify that it was not something to eat, and we shall see why). The child tried to open the box to reach the object that was inside. She pulled on all sides, but nothing happened; finally she stopped, looked at the box, and opened and closed her mouth. This was the symbolization of what she had to do (since there was nothing good to eat inside). A new fact confirmed this interpretation: I repeated the experiment four years later with my son, at the same age, and he, instead of opening and closing his mouth when he did not succeed in opening the box, looked at the slit and at his hand, and then opened and closed his hand. It was, therefore, the same symbolization. This time, the hand was used instead of the mouth, but one immediately sees that it is again the representation of the goal to be reached (besides, once this evocation was over, he stuck his finger in the slit and started to pull). The two children, four years apart, resolved the problem only after this symbolic evocation» (Lust, Foley 2004, p. 97). Ср. описание В. Н. Романовым «конъюнктивных» и «дизьюнктивных» действий как ключевого элемента связи повседневных бытовых операций (выметание сора из избы, печение хлебов) и обрядовых действий в культуре русского крестьянства (Романов 1991, с. 23–63; Романов 2003, с. 68–181). Кажется, что такое наполнение «синтаксических» конструкций новым содержанием является одним из универсальных способов порождения новых культурных текстов (см. об этом: Глебкин 1998, с. 73–109, 121–140).