Dostoevsky: lexicographic representation Ruzhitsky Igor Vasilievich. Linguistic personality F.M. Dostoevsky: lexicographic representation Ruzhitsky Igor Vasilievich Assessment of the state of solid insulation of a transformer
Igor Vasil evich Ruzhitsky
Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov
Institute of Russian Language named after V.V. Vinogradova
Moscow, Russia
FROM THE SYMBOLIC PICTURE OF THE WORLD TO THESAURUS
(about the possibility of reconstructing linguistic personalityDostoevsky)
I.V. Ruzicki
In this article we proceed from the fact that symbols can occupy a special – central – place in the worldview of the author of a literary text. Let us suggest that words used in a symbolic meaning should be considered as a kind of nuclear elements that organize the author's thesaurus, a set of hierarchically organized semantic fields. As for the creativity of F.M. Dostoevsky, the writer’s interest in various kinds of symbols has been repeatedly emphasized by researchers of his work. This interest is explained by a variety of reasons, the most obvious of which seems to us to be the desire to reflect the world in all its opposites, to contrast the image given by the symbol with logical “consciousness” (see [Zykhovskaya 1997: 215]).
Let us make a few comments on the very concept of a symbol. As the most typical feature of the symbolic use of a word, we consider the possibility of thing names to acquire abstract connotations (ideal content) of a historical or sociological nature (see [Dostoevsky's Dictionary of Language 2001]). In its main features, this definition of the symbolic use of a word coincides with many others proposed by scientists of various schools and directions. As for modern literary criticism, there has been a tendency for a broad understanding of the symbol. The principles of highlighting a symbol in a literary text are the following: 1) condensation of the artistic generalization itself; 2) the author’s conscious intention to identify the symbolic meaning of what is depicted; 3) dependence on the context of the work; 4) dependence on the literary context of the era and culture (see [Zykhovskaya 1997: 214]). The most important property of a symbol is the ability of words with specific semantics in a certain context to express an abstract meaning. In general, we can make the assumption that the more specific the semantics of a word, the greater the semantic potential it – this word – has. It follows from this that any word with a specific meaning in a certain context (of a separate work or the entire work as a whole) can become a symbol. For Dostoevsky, words with specific semantics can take on symbolic meaning, such as caftan, scarf, dress, threshold, axe, percentage, linen, hook (hook), banya (bathhouse), high road, America and so on. The most specific semantics is found in names, titles, and numbers. Naturally, they are often used symbolically; with their help, the author sets a certain cipher, code, conventional identification mark, which the reader has to solve and understand. Note that the word can be used symbolically both within one literary text and in different works, including in texts of other genres. For example, symbolism stone, a general cultural symbol, is widely known. However, most often researchers only talk about stone in “Crime and Punishment” or about Ilyushechkin stone, in which Alyosha makes a speech to twelve boys at the end of the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” and which Dostoevsky sees as the forerunner of future world harmony, without paying due attention to the symbolic use of the word stone in other genres: [in journalism] Yes, the Frenchman precisely sees Russian nationality in what many of the present time want to see it in, that is, in a dead letter, in an outdated idea, in a heap stones, as if reminiscent of ancient Rus', and, finally, in a blind, selfless appeal to the dense, native antiquity. (Pb 18:25) [in letters] Christ was hungry, and the devil advised him to take stone and command it to become bread. (Ps 29.2:85)
When studying the symbolism of F.M. Dostoevsky, it seems appropriate to consider words used symbolically, not separately from each other, but as part of certain groups. The most general classification of symbols can be represented as follows: (1) material (real) symbols ( kaftan, dress etc.), (2) situational ( drop the handkerchief, kiss the ground, kiss the cup), (3) event ( 1861) and (4) sensory-figurative ( fly hitting the window glass). It can be assumed that the author’s preference in using symbols of one type or another characterizes his idiostyle. Thus, Dostoevsky is characterized by the desire to elevate the material into the symbolic. “Interest in matter makes it possible to hear the voice of the soul living in it. Things become mysterious, transparent, mobile, and the human body appears as a mystery, as a cover thrown over a suffering soul dreaming of complete salvation” (see [Karasev 1994]).
A more detailed classification involves the identification of symbolic-associative chains, or symbolic paradigms. For example, word-symbols united by the common meaning of ‘murder weapon’: axe, knife, pistol, loop, razor, pestle. There is a definite and significant connection between the author’s choice of the murder weapon and the character who committed it, which becomes a kind of differential feature of the corresponding word-symbols. Other examples of symbolic paradigms are ‘colors’ ( yellow, red, white, green), ‘numbers’ (7, 4, 3), ‘names’ ( Barashkova, Raskolnikov, Smerdyakov, Sonechka, Stepan Trofimovich), ‘names of insects’ ( spider, fly, louse), ‘names of animals’ ( lion, mouse, donkey), ‘toponyms’ ( America, St. Petersburg), ‘items of clothing’ ( kaftan, scarf, linen, dress) etc.
The above classification of symbols, although it has a certain meaning, consisting in the systematization of the material being studied, does not provide anything at all for presenting a holistic picture of the author’s world. A classification based on the onomasiological principle, from meaning to word, seems more productive. It allows you to combine words-symbols based on a common symbolic meaning (in this case, of course, you should take into account both the possible polysemy of the symbol and different interpretations of its meaning).
Let's take the following example:
CRIME → Murder → Words -symbols → character, owl the perpetrator of the murder and the character being killed.
CRIME
Murder
Word-symbols characterAnd
Axe Raskolnikov–Alena Ivanovna, Lizaveta
Knife Rogozhin–Nastasya Filippovna Barashkova
Razor Moscow killer in "The Idiot", Kairova in
"A Writer's Diary"
A loop Stavrogin, Smerdyakov
Pestle D. Karamazov–F.P. Karamazov (attempted murder)
Paperweight Smerdyakov–F.P. Karamazov
Gun Kirillov, Svidrigailov, Kraft (suicide)
Each murder weapon has its own symbolic meaning. In "Crime and Punishment" there should be exactly axe(see [Karasev 1994]), symbolizing execution-retribution, and Dostoevsky creates an ax-symbol, although this may seem absurd, through this absurdity the author, in fact, asks the reader the question “Why exactly axe?”, makes you think, guess (for this Dostoevsky needed a detailed description of how Raskolnikov would carry this ax, a description of a loop specially made for this). Rogozhin could only kill Nastasya Filippovna knife(as Prince Myshkin says at the end of the novel, - with the same knife: he has already appeared several times before in the novel), which is why Nastasya Filippovna’s surname is Barashkova- becomes symbolic, and knife perceived as a ritual instrument. In the same way, Kirillov and Svidrigailov could only shoot themselves, and what is undoubtedly important is that Kirillov has a Colt - American, Rogozhin covered the dead Nastasya Filippovna American oilcloth, for Svidrigailov suicide - foreign lands, America. America/American, in addition to the well-known examples from “Crime and Punishment,” are also used as symbols, most clearly in “The Possessed,” forming another symbolic paradigm. For Stavrogin and Smerdyakov, who committed mortal sins, there could only be a loop(the parallel between the images of Smerdyakov and Stavrogin was noted by many researchers).
It can be assumed that this kind of symbolic paradigms form the peculiar cores of the author’s thesaurus, which, in turn, “attract” certain idioglosses - the most important, key words for the writer, forming his picture of the world. The list of idioglosses, selected using a certain kind of special experimental methods, is presented in the Dictionary of the Dostoevsky Language [Dictionary of the Dostoevsky Language 2008] and contains about 2.5 thousand units (out of approximately 35,000 lexemes characterizing the complete dictionary of the writer). The organization of idioglosses in their correlation with symbolic paradigms makes it possible to construct a model (by no means the only one!) of the author's thesaurus. So, for example, such idioglosses as America, hell, lawyer,American,madness, mad, demon, demons, riot, rebel, rebel, war(here are idioglosses described in the first volume of Dostoevsky’s Dictionary of the Language - letters A-B).
The Dostoevsky Language Dictionary includes not only a description of the meanings of idioglosses, illustrated with examples from different periods of the writer’s work and from different genres, but also a linguistic commentary on the word being described, giving the reader the opportunity to more fully imagine the features of word usage. In itself, the dictionary of the writer’s language is in some way a type of linguistic commentary, reflecting the author’s linguistic picture of the world. The commentary in such a dictionary is thus a kind of reflection of the reflection, allowing the reader to connect disparate meanings, shades of meaning into a coherent system and, as a result, to immerse deeper into the writer’s language. The commentary in the Dostoevsky Dictionary of Language is divided into comment zones: the zone of compatibility, the associative environment of the word, the use of the word as part of statements that have the properties of aphorisms, the use of the word as part of tropes, morphological features of the use of the word, the use of the word in an ironic context, the playful use of the word, etc. It can be assumed that certain associations, recorded primarily in the zones of the associative environment of the word-idiogloss (a special procedure for identifying such associations from the linguistic context is described in detail in [Karaulov, Ginzburg 1996: 176–182]), its coordinating and subordinating connections, as well as in word-formation nest will also be included in the reconstructed fragment of the thesaurus, which ultimately looks like this (recall that the presented fragment of the thesaurus is limited mainly by the lexicographic representation of the idioglosses of the first volume of the Dostoevsky Dictionary of the Language [Dostoevsky Dictionary of the Language 2008]):
| CRIME → Ubproperty | Word-symbols | characters | idioglosses | associations |
| Axe, Knife, Razor, Loop, Pestle, Paperweight, Pistol | Raskolnikov–Alena Ivanovna, Lizaveta; Rogozhin–Nastasya Filippovna Barashkova; Moscow killer in “The Idiot”, Kairova; Stavrogin, Smerdyakov; D. Karamazov–F.P. Karamazov; Smerdyakov–F.P. Karamazov; Kirillov, Svidrigailov, Kraft | America, hell, lawyer, madness, mad, demon, demons, riot, rebel, rebel, war, suicide, suicide, court, judicial | American oilcloth, razor wrapped in silk, self-shot, Zhdanov liquid, blood, gloomy house, torment, torment, delivery of cartridges, basement, gunpowder, torment, torment, accusation, accuse, acquit, acquittal, despair, criminal, jury, prosecutor , the other side, Satan, death, degree of guilt, suffering, suffer, passion, trial, judge, crazy, tormented, corpse, kill, murderer, leave, evidence, mind to decide, monstrous crime, lawyer |
Let's give another example:
FEAR → Hook (hook)[both literally and figuratively]
As soon as the tinny sound of the bell rang, it suddenly seemed to him [Raskolnikov] that there was movement in the room. He even listened seriously for a few seconds. The stranger rang the bell again, waited some more, and suddenly, impatiently, began to pull the doorknob with all his might. Raskolnikov looked in horror at the man jumping in a noose. hook constipation and waited with dull fear that the constipation was about to pop up. Indeed, it seemed possible: they pulled so hard. He was about to hold the lock with his hand, but he could have guessed. His head seemed to be starting to spin again. (PN 67) A hook who locked himself in? - Nastasya objected, - look, he started locking it! Will they take him away? (PN 73) When Raskolnikov arrived at his house, his temples were wet with sweat and he was breathing heavily. He hastily climbed the stairs, entered his unlocked apartment and immediately locked himself in. hook. Then, frightened and mad, he rushed to the corner, to the very hole in the wallpaper in which the things were then lying, stuck his hand into it and carefully searched the hole for several minutes. (PN 208) He [Raskolnikov] opened the door and began to listen: everything in the house was completely asleep. He looked at himself and everything around in the room with amazement and did not understand how he could have entered yesterday without locking the doors. hook and throw myself onto the sofa, not only without undressing, but even with my hat on: it rolled off and immediately lay on the floor, near the pillow. “If someone came in, what would they think? That I’m drunk, but...” (PN 71) He [Raskolnikov] wanted to lock himself in hook, but the hand didn’t rise... and it’s useless! Fear, like ice, surrounded his soul, tormented him, numbed him... (PN 91) Nastasya left. But as soon as she left, he stood up and laid crochet the door, untied the knot with the dress that Razumikhin had brought earlier and which he had tied again, and began to get dressed. It’s a strange thing: he seemed to suddenly become completely calm; there was neither crazy delirium, as before, nor panic fear, as in all the last time. (PN 120) Looking by chance, with one eye, into the shop, he [Raskolnikov] saw that there, on the wall clock, it was already ten minutes past eight. It was necessary to hurry and at the same time do hook: to approach the house in a detour, on the other hand... Before, when he happened to imagine all this in his imagination, he sometimes thought that he would be very afraid. But he wasn’t very afraid now, he wasn’t even afraid at all. (PN 60) He [Raskolnikov] now remembered himself poorly; further we go, worse it becomes. He remembered, however, how suddenly, having come out onto the ditch, he was afraid that there were few people and that it was more noticeable here, and he wanted to turn back into the alley. Despite the fact that he almost fell, he still did it hook and came home from a completely different direction. (MON 70)
| FEAR | Word-symbols | Pcharacters | idioglosses | associations |
| Hook (hook) | Raskolnikov | hell, ugly, anxiety, fearlessly, fearless, turn pale, pallor, pale, fear, be afraid, rush, tremble, tremble, ominous, fright, be afraid, be embarrassed, darkness, gloomy, gloomy, imagine, fear, danger, apprehension, dangerous, dumbfounded, frighten, resolutely, resolute, decide, timid, timid, timidity, bold, death, embarrassed, fear, scary, terrible, anxiety, coward, cowardly, horror, horrified, terrifying, terrible, terrible, die, whisper, whisper, whisper | affectation, security, madly, white as paper, behave with dignity, door, tremble like a cornered horse, scream, heart sinking, lock up, torture, lock up, chin shaking, scared, frightened, dead, courage, frighten, not know over no compulsion, nerves, numb, numb, numb, frightened, frighten, go around the house, crazy delirium, go cold, feel like, get scared, determination, embarrassment, monster, chicken out, shy away, tremble, coward, coward like a hare, coward , stupid (panic) fear, respect, brave coward |
Other associative-semantic connections that are supposed to be analyzed using the procedure outlined above: THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN WORLDS → Fly; ETERNITY → Bathhouse, spiders; ALIEN TO RUSSIAN PERSON → America, American; SUBMISSION, REVERENCE → Kiss hands; SACRIFICE, SUFFERING → Eternal Sonechka; SALVATION, COVER → Green; POWER, POWER, RESPONSIBILITY FOR PEACE → Watch; “THE TIME WILL BE NO MORE”, THE BEGINNING OF THE TIME OF SATAN → Kirillov's stopped clock; HUMANITY → Anthill; CHRIST → Myshkin; PERFORMANCE OR CONSIDERATION OF DECISIVE ACTIONS → Oblique rays of the setting sun, etc.
In conclusion, we note that the proposed method of constructing a thesaurus (from symbolic meaning to word-symbols and - further - to their connection with idioglosses and their associative environment) seems completely justified, since it is the symbolic picture of the world that can be considered as the core of the author's thesaurus, the center of which is hierarchically organized words that are key to the writer’s idiostyle. This procedure can, accordingly, be accepted as one of the possibilities for reconstructing the linguistic personality of the author of a literary text, especially such as F.M. Dostoevsky.
Literature
Zykhovskaya N. L. Symbol // Dostoevsky: Aesthetics and poetics: Dictionary-reference book / Comp. G. K. Shchennikov, A. A. Alekseev; scientific ed. G. K. Shchennikov. Chelyabinsk: Metal, 1997. – P. 214–215.
Karaulov Yu. N., Ginzburg E.L. Homo Ridens // The Word of Dostoevsky: Collection of articles / Edited by Yu.N. Karaulova. M.: Russian Language Institute, 1996.
Karasev L.V. About Dostoevsky’s symbols // Questions of Philosophy. – 1994. – No. 10. – P. 90–111.
Dictionary of Dostoevsky's language: Lexical structure of idiolect / Ed. Yu. N. Karaulova. Vol. 1–3. M.: Azbukovnik, 2001, 2003.
Dictionary of Dostoevsky's language: Idioglossary. T. I. A–B / Ed. Yu. N. Karaulova. M: Azbukovnik, 2008.
PN – novel “Crime and Punishment”
Pb – journalism by F.M. Dostoevsky
Ps – letters from F.M. Dostoevsky
Seminar at the Institute of Philological Sciences, candidate of philological sciences, associate professor of the philological faculty of Lomonosov Moscow State University, senior researcher at the Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences Igor Vasilyevich Ruzhitsky (discussion of the report is given in abbreviation)
I would like to start with a few general comments about the concept of the dictionary of the language of F.M. Dostoevsky, which we are working on. In lexicography, that is, in the science of constructing and writing dictionaries, there is a separate area called “author’s lexicography,” or, in other words, a direction that studies how to compile dictionaries of the writer’s language. There are quite a lot of such dictionaries, and there are quite a lot of concepts of such dictionaries. For example, V.S. Elistratov has a “Dictionary of the Language of Vasily Shukshin” - it has its own concept. The most famous dictionary is the “Dictionary of the Pushkin Language,” which appeared in the middle of the 20th century. Our “Dostoevsky Dictionary of the Language” also has its own concept, and there are no other dictionaries that would be compiled in accordance with this concept. That is, the concept itself was created specifically for Dostoevsky, to describe his language.
The question arises: why was Dostoevsky chosen? Dostoevsky is contradictory in many ways, paradoxical in many ways, ambivalent in many ways, which is naturally reflected in his language and in the perception of his language, in the perception of him as an author, and not only a Russian, Russian, author, but also a Western author. If you ask a question to Dostoevsky’s readers, and, by the way, there are not many of them, they may say: “We don’t like him.” And if you ask: “Why?”, then most often the answer will be: “A very complex language.” More often than not, this is the answer I heard. I think the real reason is somewhat different. Readers are afraid to read Dostoevsky. Afraid of what? They are afraid that by reading Dostoevsky they will bring up something in themselves that they have hidden, hidden very, very far away. Maybe some vices, some passions, some bad things that are taboo in the depths of consciousness. Dostoevsky brings all this up. As for the Western reader, here, in general, in the perception of Dostoevsky, a lot of nonsense often occurs. The reason for this, on the one hand, is that even very good translations of Dostoevsky are essentially very bad. On the other hand, the focus of the Western reader or viewer of films based on Dostoevsky’s books is a very narrow focus. They see there only what they want to see. Let's take one of Woody Allen's latest films. « MatchPoint". It begins with the hero reading “Crime and Punishment.” The entire plot of the film is practically copied from Dreiser, from “Sister Carrie”. At the end of the film, where, like Dreiser and like Dostoevsky, the hero kills both his mistress and his neighbor, he goes up the entrance, and everything there - both the entrance and the neighbor herself - exactly corresponds to Dostoevsky. The question is, why? Why did Woody Allen need Dostoevsky? I asked this question to Americans, and the most correct answer was: “Allen wanted to show that he is a highly educated person.” Well, okay, so be it. It is precisely in order to show Dostoevsky’s worldview, his picture of the world, that the concept of the dictionary was created, which I will now talk about.
The authors of this concept were Yuri Nikolaevich Karaulov and Efim Lazarevich Ginzburg. The idea itself arose at the very beginning of the 1990s. That is, work on the dictionary has been going on for more than 20 years, and we can already say that a lot has been done, although, of course, I would like more to be done. The main idea of this concept is to create a lexicographic series, which would include a dictionary, which I will talk about today, and a frequency dictionary (it has already been written by Anatoly Yanovich Shaikevich and published), and a dictionary of phraseological units, and a dictionary of so-called “agnonyms” "(those words that Dostoevsky uses and which are difficult to understand or even incomprehensible to the modern reader). Materials for the last of the dictionaries I listed have also already been collected. The basic dictionary of this series should be an idioglossary. The main principle and main idea of our Dostoevsky dictionary is that we describe not all the words of the author, but in total Dostoevsky has about 35 thousand words, but the most significant, key words for his worldview, or picture of the world, and for his style. We call such words idioglosses from the word idiolect (features of the author's style). Idiogloss is a lexical unit that characterizes an idiolect.
I would like to emphasize, and we write about this in the preface, that it is necessary to separate the terms. On the one hand, there is the term “id And oglossa”, with the letter “i”, coming from the term “idiolect” - this is the key word for style, that is, a linguistic unit that characterizes the author’s style. But among this list of idioglosses one can also single out e oglosses. In essence, these are concepts, the most important, key words that reveal Dostoevsky’s view of the world. Let's open the list of the second volume and take, for example, the word “live”. Of course, this is not just an idiogloss for Dostoevsky - it is an ideogloss for literary language in general, a key word for many semantic fields. But, for example, it’s difficult to call the word “deeds” an ideogloss or a concept. The word “business” - yes, it’s a concept, while the word “deeds” is a word that characterizes the author’s style, that is, idiogloss. That's the difference. About 2.5 thousand such idioglosses were collected. Naturally, any ideogloss, that is, a word that is key to the author’s worldview, is at the same time an ideogloss. But not the other way around. Not every idioglossa can be an ideogloss. I think this is understandable.
So, a list of such idioglosses was compiled, and immediately at the first conferences where we gave presentations on the topic of the dictionary, questions arose as to why one word was on the list and another was not. “What principles were you guided by when you decided that this word was important for Dostoevsky, but this one was not?” - they asked us. In fact, in the first stages of working on the dictionary, all this was done intuitively. And the first stages consisted of writing three volumes entitled “Dictionary of Dostoevsky’s Language. Lexical structure of the idiolect." These three volumes presented an experimental model of a dictionary entry. Then it was refined and changed a little, but what we have now started from this. The first volume was published in 2001, then two more volumes in 2003.
So, in order to decide whether a word is an idiogloss or not, a special procedure was developed that included several steps. The first step is the experimental method. We have 6 people in our team, and we read the same work. We read and simply highlight what, in our opinion, is important for this work. Then we read another work. This is how the material is generalized and brought to some common denominator. This is one way, far from the most correct, because six people who study Dostoevsky probably cannot notice everything, or, on the contrary, they can notice something that should not be noticed. Another source of material for this list of idioglosses is research into Dostoevsky’s work. There are a lot of such studies. These are mainly studies by literary scholars, but there are also linguistic studies. In these studies, certain words are specified in one way or another. I mean words that are important for Dostoevsky or for his style. These are, for example, the words “common man”, “all man”, “all mankind”, “double”, “vice”. All this, naturally, is described in the dictionary. And, of course, when compiling the general list, we used these sources. The next criterion, and a mandatory one, in order to determine whether a word is idioglossic or not: if the word is included in the title of a work or the name of some part of the work, then for us this is already an unambiguous criterion that this is a significant, key, important word for Dostoevsky. The next criterion - it is optional, but nevertheless significant - is the frequency of Dostoevsky’s use of the word throughout the entire corpus of his texts (we focused on the 30-volume, that is, complete, collection of Dostoevsky’s works). Why is this criterion optional? The fact is that there are words of high frequency, but which at the same time are not idioglosses, and, conversely, there are words with a very low frequency of use (for example, the word “all-human”), which, nevertheless, are key to the author’s worldview. Typically, however, high-frequency words (for example, the word “friend,” which has a frequency of more than 3 thousand uses, which is a very high frequency, although the verb “know” has about 9 thousand uses) are idioglosses, and we describe them. As for the standard frequency, as practice has shown, if the frequency exceeds 100 uses, then, as a rule, this characterizes the idioglossic status of this lexeme. And the last criterion for determining whether a word is an idiogloss or not is the following: if a word is included in Dostoevsky’s aphorism, that is, in a statement that was later quoted, then it is an idiogloss. For example, “Beauty will save the world.” Naturally, all three words included in this aphorism are idioglosses. If we have time, we will also talk about how we understand Dostoevsky’s aphorisms, what kind of beauty this is and what kind of teardrop this is, etc. An aphorism is a bundle of meanings, and, naturally, if a word is part of it, then it is significant. And we also have such a comment zone as the autonomous use of a word. What it is? This is when the author himself, in a particular text, reflects on the meaning of a word, talks about how this word should be understood. It is quite natural that if the author himself discusses the meaning of a word, then this word is significant for him. I want to repeat this term once again: not autonomous, but autonomous And a lot of use of the word.
There are other features that distinguish our dictionary from other author’s dictionaries, and here I will use the term “lexicographic parameter”. A lexicographic parameter is a set of certain criteria by which the type of dictionary is determined. The first parameter is the one I said about: the fact that not all words are described, but idiogloss words, that is, the word included in the dictionary is idiogloss. The second parameter, as in all explanatory dictionaries, is the definition, but there are already some features here.
As an example, I’ll give you one dictionary entry that I finished quite recently. Our dictionary describes not only the verb “hate,” but also the noun “hatred” and the adjective “hateful.” Naturally, we use the definitions that are given both in modern explanatory dictionaries and in explanatory dictionaries of the 19th century, but first we derive the meaning that is found specifically in Dostoevsky. And it is not at all necessary that we will later find this meaning in explanatory dictionaries. This is the first feature of the definition. The second feature of the definition is caused by the fact that, most often, words in the Russian language are polysemantic, and the problem arises, as for all authors of dictionaries, which meaning to put in first place. Here a certain criterion is introduced for what meaning is considered the most important for Dostoevsky. The most important factor in this case is the frequency of use in this particular meaning, but another factor is the occurrence of this meaning in all or in the maximum number of genres in which Dostoevsky worked. We focus on 4 genres - fiction, journalism, Dostoevsky's letters and business letters, which we distinguish as a separate genre, because the stylistic features in them are completely different - and this is very important, this is another feature of our dictionary. Accordingly, if a word in some meaning is found in all genres or in the maximum number of them, and this meaning has a high frequency, it is placed in first place.
The next parameter is the frequency of use of this word. In the first place is the total number in all of Dostoevsky’s texts, followed by a number characterizing the use in literary texts, then in journalism, the third number is letters, and there is no fourth number relating to business letters, that is, the verb “to hate” in business does not appear in Dostoevsky’s letters, and this is quite natural. But the word “money” is there, which is also quite natural. By the way, the article “Money” is an incredibly interesting article, it sounds very modern. These are mainly the contexts that are present in The Teenager.
Further, as in any other author’s dictionary and in most explanatory dictionaries, illustrations are given, that is, examples of the use of a specific word in Dostoevsky’s texts. Here, too, there are some principles in our vocabulary. Firstly, we always give the first use of the word, even if it is not at all interesting from the point of view of describing its meaning. Sometimes it is very, very significant. For example, Dostoevsky has some words that he first used after hard labor, that is, starting from the second period of his creativity. There are some words that are used only from the third period. If possible, we give illustrations that relate to each period of Dostoevsky’s work, and let me remind you that there are three such periods, if we talk about artistic prose: before hard labor, after hard labor and before “Crime and Punishment” and starting with “Crime and Punishment” and to end. When we talk about Dostoevsky, it is very important to separate these periods, because his worldview changed radically and this was reflected in the author's style. This is especially true of what happened before hard labor and after reading the Gospel and hard labor itself. And then there was Dostoevsky’s “Pentateuch” and what was around the “Pentateuch”. Therefore, it is natural to give examples from all periods of creativity.
I would like to note that we strive to show the meaning and use of this or that word, this or that idiogloss as objectively as possible, and linguistically objectively, but, of course, the selection of illustrations itself is in one way or another connected with the worldview of the author of the dictionary entry. For example, I will consider one thing important in one context, someone else will consider something else important - here, of course, there is the author’s position, the author’s point of view. For example, if we talk about the dictionary entry “Hate,” then my author’s position is present when I quote Raskolnikov’s words: “Oh, how I hated this kennel! But still I didn’t want to leave it.” In presenting the material in this particular article, it was very important for me to show Dostoevsky’s ambivalence: love and hatred. He has a lot of examples when love and hatred coexist, exist simultaneously, and in different hatreds and different loves. If we talk about journalism, I highlighted the following example: “It is difficult to imagine to what extent it (Europe) is afraid of us. And if she is afraid, then she must hate. Europe remarkably does not love us and never has loved us; She never considered us to be her own, Europeans, but always only annoying strangers.” This is from A Writer's Diary. And here is another remarkable example: “For some time now I have begun to receive letters from them (meaning Jews - I.R.’s note) where they seriously and bitterly reproach me for “attacking” them, that I “hate the Jew,” I hate him not for his vices, “not as an exploiter,” but as a tribe, that is, something like: “Judas, they say, sold Christ.”
The next icon means that the illustration is from Dostoevsky’s personal letters, not business ones. Here is this illustration: “This is disgusting! But how are they supposed to know that nihilists, liberal “contemporaries” have been throwing dirt at me since the third year because I broke up with them, I hate Poles and love the Fatherland. Oh, scoundrels! On the next page there is another wonderful example that reflects Dostoevsky’s worldview and his attitude towards other nations, as a rule, a sharply negative attitude (everyone writes about this). But even in this respect, Dostoevsky is sharply ambivalent. Here’s an example: “I’m not afraid to become German, because I hate all Germans, but I need Russia; Without Russia I will lose my last strength and talent. I feel it, I feel it alive.” Another example on this topic, no longer from this article, I don’t remember about which German city in his letters Dostoevsky says: “Yes, the city is big and good, only there are a lot of Germans.” In other places, of course, we find Dostoevsky’s love for European culture, and for German philosophy, for the same European painting, which Dostoevsky loved very much, and also for Victor Hugo, one of his favorite writers. And a lot, a lot has been said about this. That is, here, of course, we see a contradiction, which, in fact, is apparent.
So, the above part of the dictionary entry is called the corpus of the dictionary entry. The body is followed by...
V.V. Averyanov. Igor Vasilievich, forgive me for interrupting. This, of course, is a curiosity, but tell me, where does this quote about the fact that there are many Germans come from?
I.V. Ruzicki. This can definitely be found in the dictionary entry “Big”. This is from letters, and Dostoevsky came to this city, maybe not even German, but Swiss, for treatment. Most likely it's Ems. Naturally, he wanted to take a break from everyone, from everything, and he hated the German psychology, the German way of life, as a general bourgeois way of life. Hence his hatred of the Jews. And for Dostoevsky, the Jews, as you know, are not a nation, they are not Jews, they are a way of life, they are behavior, they are certain everyday traditions. After all, it is usury in the first place.
I.L. Brazhnikov. Like Pushkin. So close.
I.V. Ruzicki. Yes everything is correct. Only in the time of Pushkin, Judaism as a phenomenon (I use the word “Judaism” not in the modern sense) was not as strong as in the time of Dostoevsky. Still, the law on usury, if we remember, gave great benefits to moneylenders, and it was adopted in the middle of the 19th century. That’s why all this started flowing and became a phenomenon. Until the mid-19th century, the laws were very, very strict, and taxes on moneylenders were very high.
Regarding foreigners, we find elsewhere in Dostoevsky that even more than the Germans, he dislikes those Russians abroad who came there on vacation. And then Dostoevsky describes in great detail why he does not like Russians abroad. It also sounds very modern.
But I will continue to talk about the structure of a dictionary entry and its features. The next part is the word index. For writing this is a very tedious part, but, nevertheless, for lexicography it is a very important part. All works are given here with reference to specific pages in which forms of a given word are found. If the reader is interested in a certain word and wants to know in which book of Dostoevsky he can find it, he uses this word index, turns to the collected works and finds it.
Next comes the dictionary entry section, the concept of which we have been working on for a very long time. It's called "Commentary". This is also one of the features of our dictionary. The commentary most often takes up more space than the body of the article itself, although it is written in a smaller font.
The first zone and the first part of the commentary is the possibility of using one or another idiogloss as part of an aphorism. We bring into this comment area not only the well-known aphorisms of Dostoevsky such as “Beauty will save the world”, “The whole harmony of the world is not worth one child’s tear” or “A fool who admits that he is a fool is no longer a fool” (this is from “The Humiliated and Insulted” "), but also those statements that have the properties of aphorisms. These are necessarily judgments, laconic judgments, these are necessarily non-trivial judgments, these are judgments that express some important thought or idea for the author. Very often an aphorism is a paradoxical statement. As for brevity, we usually rely on the so-called memory number: this is seven plus or minus two significant words in the aphorism. But this is not necessary, since there are aphorisms of greater length. If you look at the article “Hate”, you will see, for example, the following statement: “...an angel cannot hate, and cannot not love.” The first part of the sentence, which comes before the word “angel,” is taken in angle brackets, which means that we do not consider the first part an aphorism, but it is important for understanding the aphorism, it is important to give this context. So, the statement “An angel cannot hate, and cannot help but love” has the properties of an aphorism. This is from Nastasya Filippovna's letter to Aglaya in The Idiot. Here, in the zone of aphorism, is the last example from the “Diary of a Writer”: “Russian people do not know how to hate for a long time and seriously, and not only people, but even vices, the darkness of ignorance, despotism, obscurantism, and all these other retrograde things.” In my opinion, this statement has the basic properties of an aphorism. Here’s another good aphorism, you can find it in the first volume of the main idioglossary: “Falling in love does not mean loving; You can fall in love even if you hate.” The same ambivalence, paradox, and, in this case, it manifests itself in this aphorism. Or take the dictionary entry “Believe”: “Strong loves strength; He who believes is strong.” This is from journalism, and the author of this dictionary entry brought this statement into the zone of aphorism. That's what the first comment area is about. Why does she go first? In this case, we believe that aphorism, the possibility of a word entering an aphoristic statement, is not just one of the criteria for whether this word is considered an idiogloss or not, but this material, of course, reveals the position of the author, his characteristics and his views on the world, on the use of one word or another. In total, we have 16 comment zones.
The next comment area is the autonomous use of a word, which I have already mentioned, that is, the case when the author reflects on the meaning of the word, he himself writes about how this or that word should be understood. There is a classic example of autonymous use - this is the verb “to fade away,” which, as Dostoevsky writes, he himself introduced into the Russian language, which he was very proud of, he was happy, as he writes, that some words began to be used in the Russian language thanks to him. In the “Diary of a Writer” we find a phrase in the sense that the verb “to fade away” means to disappear, to be destroyed, to come to nothing, so to speak. It is such cases that we include in the zone of autonomous use of the word. The question may be why this particular zone follows the aphorism. Because, as I already said, this is another criterion for whether a word is considered idiogloss or not. Moreover, the criterion is unambiguous. If a word is used by Dostoevsky autonymously, it means that it is already an idiogloss, it already needs to be described.
The next zone of commentary is the zone of inability to distinguish the meaning of a word. It is not in the article “Hate”, which is quite natural: if a word has one meaning, then there can be no talk of any non-distinction of meanings. But in the article “Madness”, which you can look at in the first volume, this is a very important topic. The word “madness” is both an ideogloss and an ideogloss; it is a key word for Dostoevsky’s worldview, associated with many other ideoglosses in his picture of the world. We already see three meanings of this word. On the one hand, it is “the readiness, the desire to do something unexpected, reckless.” On the other hand, the second meaning is “a painful condition accompanied by mental disorder or suffering,” and only the third meaning is “madness, illness.” So, we already encounter the word “madness” when it is impossible to determine from the context in what meaning Dostoevsky defines it. As we see it in “The Teenager”: “We are all three of the same crazy people.” These are the words of Arkady, or rather, he quotes the words of Versilov. Here, madness is both a readiness to do something unexpected, a painful state, and an illness. When a word is used simultaneously in several meanings and it is impossible to definitely say which of these meanings predominates, then it is natural to assume that here we see a kind of clot, a concentration of meanings and the possibility of different understandings of this word in a given context, its different interpretations and interpretations.
The next zone is one of my favorites; I specifically studied this topic - the playful use of this or that word. In the article about the verb “to hate”, however, it is not there either. Here I should talk a little about what definition of the concept of “pun” we are focusing on. And Dostoevsky, I’ll say right away, loved to play with language, and many researchers of his language write about this. We see a lot of examples from Dostoevsky on this matter in Vinogradov, and Sannikov, and many others. So, the playful use of a word is when the author deliberately, I emphasize this word, deviates from the existing literary norm in the use of a word for a specific purpose. What are the goals of such deliberate deviation from the norm? Such a goal can be either creating a comic effect, or searching and finding some semantic nuances that cannot be expressed through the norm. Thus, the first function of deviation from the norm is the comic function, and the second function I call the cognitive function of playful use. But an indispensable condition is the author consciously changes some existing norm. If this is not a conscious change, then this is already a mistake by the author, and we also find such examples in Dostoevsky. But more often than not, what the reader may perceive as an error is a play on words. Let's take the example of the word "fool". Razumikhin says to Raskolnikov: “So, if you weren’t a fool, not a vulgar fool, not a complete fool, not a translation from a foreign language... you see, Rodya, I confess, you’re a smart little guy, but you’re a fool! “So, if you weren’t a fool, you’d better come to me today.” Here is a repetition of the word “fool”, and the repetition is paradoxical: “you are smart, but you are a fool” - this is one of the varieties of the playful use of the word. What is the violation of the norm here? Firstly, in the paradox itself “smart, but a fool”, in such oxymoronicity. An oxymoron, in fact, is also a play on words. The repetition of a word itself is a violation of the stylistic norm. In this case, he is motivated precisely by the creation of the comic. Another example: “If the old man hasn’t lost his mind yet, then he’s certainly lost his memory.” It is clear that in the literary language there is no such idiom or phraseological unit as “get out of memory”. There is an idiom “to go crazy.” And Dostoevsky very often, as a playful device, a playful use of a word, changes the standard form of a phraseological unit, thereby achieving a comic effect. Or this example from “The Diary of a Writer,” which we also attributed to a play on words: “The venerable professor must be a great scoffer, but if he does this naively, not in mockery, then it means the opposite: he is not a great scoffer.” Here again we see a game based on paradox. “It would be better for you to avoid pocket money, and indeed, money in your pocket” - this technique is called in the style of catachresis, and here it performs a playful, comic function.
Dostoevsky plays not only with the meanings of words, he can play with the standard form, contaminate various affixes: “She was angry and drilling, like a gimlet." That is, not grumpy, but drilling. Or a very interesting example, just for our situation from “Crime and Punishment”: “In the room there was a large round oval-shaped table.” What is this, a mistake by Dostoevsky, who edited and rewrote Crime and Punishment several times? It’s unlikely, although he complained many times that he does not have the opportunity to rewrite, like Turgenev and Tolstoy, so he has many errors. So what is it? “Round table” as an idiom, as a phraseological unit, a stable combination is a table for conversation, and then “oval-shaped” is the shape of a table. Of course, a smile appears, the reader stops at this point and begins to think that for Dostoevsky it is very important. Or let's look at another place from “Crime and Punishment”: after the murder, Raskolnikov walks down the street, and from the crowd there is a cry: “Look, how he got cut!”, and Raskolnikov trembles with fear. From the crowd, naturally, they meant “how he got drunk,” but Raskolnikov, after the murder, first of all understands this in a completely different meaning. Or later in the dialogue: “You’re covered in blood!” Here Raskolnikov himself begins to play: “Yes, I’m covered in blood.” A game of idioms with direct and idiomatic meaning.
As I have already said, an accidental error should be distinguished from conscious changes in the norm. For random errors in the comment there is a special zone, we call it “non-standard word compatibility”. These are those cases when this or that word usage deviates from the norms of modern literary language. This could be the use of the vocative case, for example, in The Brothers Karamazov. In addition, Dostoevsky very often shows the speech of foreigners speaking Russian through distorted Russian speech, through graphic changes to words. We also bring these cases into the zone of non-standard compatibility. I repeat that in Dostoevsky there are very few cases where a stylistic or grammatical error actually occurs, although many researchers have written that his style is very rude and errors occur very often. These are not mistakes. Most often, this is a play on words. But in the article “Hate” we also give an example of a pure error in lexical compatibility: “I also know that I can hate you very much, more than I love you.” The combination “to hate very much” contradicts modern norms of lexical compatibility.
I.L. Brazhnikov. It seems to me that this is a feature of Dostoevsky’s style; he very often uses the word “very” with verbs. And with any verbs. In this case, this is a very loaded word for him. I remember an example of a different kind: “I know, I very very I know".
I.V. Ruzicki. In general, Dostoevsky is characterized by the intensification of this or that meaning, and he has many methods for this. The same repetition of words: in one context, in one sentence, the word “suddenly” can appear four times. Or a very large chain of synonyms: for example, “maybe”, “maybe”, etc.
But we don’t call this comment zone a purely error zone. This may be a stylistic feature, or a stylistic inaccuracy. We include in this zone what is contrary to modern norms. I’ll give another example of non-standard compatibility - the word “big”: “big reasoning”. From the point of view of the modern norm, these words probably do not go together. Or “great intimacy” - this, I think, even for Dostoevsky, for his style, is not indicative, but not a fact. Finding answers to these questions requires a complex procedure; here you don’t just need to know Dostoevsky, but you need to conduct a comparative analysis with other authors of the 19th century. Only then will we be able to determine that this is either Dostoevsky, his style, or a mistake, or, in general, a feature of the language of the 19th century.
I'll be a little briefer about the next two comment areas. The first deals with cases when in one sentence a word is used in different meanings. In such a combination of one word in different meanings, something new often appears, some new nuance of meaning. In addition, here we can very often observe a play on words. As for the other zone, in it we record the use of cognate words in one context, not only within one sentence, but also within several related sentences. Let’s take the dictionary entry “Play”: “Suddenly he loses or wins a lot, but the rest all play for small guilders.” In the article “Hate” this zone is presented very widely. Here, by the way, we see Dostoevsky’s favorite “hate with hatred” - this is another method of strengthening, which in linguistics is called pleonasm: “I know that I know”, “know knowledge”, etc. Dostoevsky often uses the use of cognate words in same context.
If we talk about the article “Hate”, then in this zone you can find the following example: “England needs Eastern Christians to hate us with all the strength of the hatred that it itself has for us.” The following excerpt is also included at the end of this page and
480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays
Ruzhitsky Igor Vasilievich. Linguistic personality F.M. Dostoevsky: lexicographic representation: dissertation... candidate of philological sciences: 02.10.19 / Ruzhitsky Igor Vasilievich;[Place of defense: Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov].- Moscow, 2015.- 647 p.
Introduction
1 Modern methods and systems for assessing the technical condition of electrical network equipment 10
1.1 Modern methods for assessing technical condition 10
1.2 Prerequisites for the use of methods for assessing technical condition 15
1.3 Modern systems for assessing technical condition 21
1.4 Assessing the efficiency of modern systems 22
1.5 Conclusions 32
2 Architecture of the equipment technical condition assessment system and data model 33
2.1. Decision support system 33
2.2. Architecture of the technical condition assessment system 37
2.3. Data model 47
2.4. Conclusions: 51
3 Development of a model of a system for assessing the technical condition of electrical equipment 53
3.1. Determination of a structural model for assessing the technical condition of electrical equipment 53
3.2. Structure of neuro-fuzzy logical inference and algorithm for its operation 57
3.3. Formation of membership functions 59
3.2.1 Definition of fuzzy product rules 59
3.2.2 Determination of the number of membership functions 61
3.2.3 Determining the type of membership functions 61
3.4. Setting up a technical condition assessment model using the example of assessing the condition of transformer equipment 69
3.4.1. Determination of the structure of neuro-fuzzy-logical inference 69
3.4.2. Definition of membership functions 69
3.4.3. Formation of a training sample
3.5. Comparative analysis with neural network 93
3.6. Determination of the resulting assessment of the technical condition of a simple electrical network object 95
3.7. Conclusions 98
4 Approbation of the developed system using the example of assessing the technical condition of a power transformer 100
4.1 Assessing the operating status of the system 101
4.2 Assessing the condition of transformer oil 101
4.3 Assessing the condition of the transformer magnetic circuit 107
4.4 Assessing the condition of solid insulation of a transformer 109
4.5 Assessing the condition of transformer windings 111
4.6 Assessing the condition of the power oil transformer 116
4.7 Conclusions 120
Conclusion 122
List of abbreviations and symbols 124
Glossary of terms 126
Bibliography
Introduction to the work
Relevance work is thus determined by the following:
the importance of studying the language of a particular person, both from the point of view of interaction with the national language in the aspect of the relationship between the individual and the collective, and as an opportunity to understand a person through the analysis of the characteristics of his speech activity;
the significance of such a personality as F.M. Dostoevsky, which is a kind of symbol of Russian national culture;
the need for further development of the theory and methodology for describing and lexicographically representing a linguistic personality.
Theoretical basis Research included work in the following areas:
linguopersonology, in particular, the theory of linguistic personality (G.I. Bogin, V.V. Vinogradov, N.D. Golev, V.I. Karasik, Yu.N. Karaulov, K.F. Sedov, O.B. Sirotinina );
language learning F.M. Dostoevsky (M.S. Altman, N.D. Arutyunova, M.M. Bakhtin, A.A. Belkin, V.E. Vetlovskaya, V.V. Vinogradov, V.P. Vladimirtsev, L.P. Grossman, V.N. Zakharov, E.A. Ivanchikova, A.M. Iordansky, L.V. Karasev, T.A. Kasatkina, I.I. Lapshin, D.S. Likhachev, V.N. Toporov, A.V. Chicherin and etc.);
general lexicography and the theory of constructing ideographic dictionaries (L.G. Babenko, Yu.N. Karaulov, E.V. Kuznetsova, V.V. Morkovkin, A.Yu. Plutser-Sarno, Yu.D. Skidarenko, G.N. Sklyarevskaya, I.A. Tarasova, N.V. Ufimtseva, N.Yu. Shvedova, J. Casares, R. Hallig und W. Wartburg, W. Htillen, M. Rogers, B. Svensen, etc.);
theory of studying literary text, primarily its symbolic paradigm (N.D. Arutyunova, G.V. Bambulyak, L. Beltran-Almeria, A. Bely, V.V. Vetlovskaya, V.V. Vinogradov, L.V. Karasev, T.A. Kasatkina, E. Kassirer, A.F. Losev, L.O. Cherneiko, etc.).
Object research is the linguistic personality of F.M. Dostoevsky, presented in its three forms: 1) idioglossary (words characterizing the features of the author’s style, idioglosses), 2) thesaurus (ideographic
Subject of this work were idioglosses that are significant for the representation of the linguistic personality of F.M. Dostoevsky, and individual parameters of their lexicographic representation.
Target The research consists in developing the concept of a multi-parameter lexicographic representation of the writer’s language and, on this basis, in reconstructing the linguistic personality of F.M. Dostoevsky, reflected in the author’s idioglossary, thesaurus and eidos. This goal simultaneously has a hermeneutical orientation - to provide the modern reader with a resource that will facilitate a more adequate understanding of F.M.’s texts. Dostoevsky.
The set goal is achieved in the process of solving the following tasks:
Determine the content and correlation of the categories “image of the author” and “linguistic personality” introduced by V.V. Vinogradov with the aim of studying the writer’s language, which are the main tools for studying artistic, journalistic and epistolary texts by F.M. Dostoevsky; analyze the concept of linguistic personality Yu.N. Karaulov, expand its individual provisions and show the possibilities of applying this concept in lexicographic practice.
Systematize lexicographic parameters and produce a multi-parameter description of the main types of writers' dictionaries.
To present a holistic concept of the Dostoevsky Language Dictionary, which serves as a method for reconstructing the writer’s linguistic personality.
To determine the content of the concept of “idiogloss”, which is key to the concept of the Dictionary of Dostoevsky’s language, to develop a methodology for identifying idioglosses in the writer’s texts; to identify ways of explicating the autonymous use of words in the texts of F.M. Dostoevsky as one of the criteria for confirming his idioglossic status.
Show the possibilities of using the resources of the Dostoevsky Language Dictionary for a multidimensional analysis and reconstruction of the writer’s linguistic personality.
As part of an in-depth study of the author's idiostyle, conduct an experimental study to identify lexical and thematic areas in the texts of F.M. Dostoevsky, incomprehensible to the modern reader; propose a model of their lexicographic representation.
Identify and classify the main cases of deviation from the modern language norm in the works of F.M. Dostoevsky, which are a certain obstacle in their perception by the modern reader.
To propose a new interpretation of such concepts as “symbolic use of a word”, “symbolic meaning” and “symbolic paradigm”, to identify the main types of symbols found in the texts of F.M. Dostoevsky, give their classification.
To form a system of basic principles for constructing an author's thesaurus and on this basis to develop an ideographic classification of the key principles for the idiostyle of F.M. Dostoevsky's words.
Study the functions of aphorisms in the texts of F.M. Dostoevsky; construct their ideographic classification, directly reflecting the author's eidos; conduct a statistical analysis of the degree of aphorism of idioglosses.
Consider the functions and properties of the language game in the texts of F.M. Dostoevsky, identify the main author's intentions of its use, classify the types of playful use of the word.
As material The research used the texts of works of fiction, journalism, personal and business letters of F.M. Dostoevsky, presented in the complete works of the writer; dictionary entries from the Dostoevsky Dictionary of the Language, including unpublished ones; linguistic facts recorded in writers' and other dictionaries; linguistic comments to the works of F.M. Dostoevsky. In addition, various search engines and databases were involved, in particular, the National Corpus of the Russian Language (see).
Thus, only written sources were studied, moreover, sources processed in accordance with modern standards of spelling and punctuation. Notebooks, drafts, sketches were practically not considered in the work, as well as numerous memoirs of F.M.’s contemporaries. Dostoevsky, in which the assessment of the writer’s creativity and language is often questionable and arbitrary. This limitation of research material
4 Dostoevsky’s Dictionary of Language: Lexical structure of idiolect / Ed. Yu.N. Karaulova. Vol. I-III. M.: Azbukovnik, 2001, 2003, 2003; Dictionary of Dostoevsky's language: Idioglossary (A-B; G-3; I-M) / Ed. Yu.N. Karaulova. M: Azbukovnik, 2008, 2010, 2012.
This is primarily due to the fact that we were mainly interested in the presentation of texts by F.M. Dostoevsky as perceived by modern readers.
The work uses basic general scientific methods observations, comparisons and descriptions aimed at summarizing the results obtained, analyzing and interpreting data, their systematization and classification. In addition, to solve the assigned tasks the following were involved:
lexicographic method of presenting language material based on the implementation of the theoretical provisions of the study;
contextual, distributional and component analysis when determining the meanings of key words for the author’s style;
method of experiment, expert assessments and pilot survey in identifying lexemes that are significant for the author’s linguistic picture of the world;
corpus methods of language learning based on the use of new information technologies;
statistical method, including the method of computer data processing;
a comparative method used in analyzing the meaning and use of various types of lexical units in the language of writers of the 19th century.
Scientific novelty work is that for the first time the reconstruction of the linguistic personality of F.M. Dostoevsky was carried out using the method of its multiparameter dictionary representation. During the study
a methodology has been developed to identify F.M.’s significant idiostyle. Dostoevsky units, their style-forming and thesaurus-forming status is qualified;
an original holistic concept for constructing an author's thesaurus is proposed, which is based on taking into account the symbolic potential of individual linguistic units used by the author;
the special role of the associative series as a unit of the author's linguistic picture of the world is substantiated;
an interpretation of the autonomous use of a word is proposed, which is an indicator of its special significance for the author, possible ways of assigning autonomy in the text are identified;
the concept of atopon is defined, types of atopon are identified that correlate with units of levels of linguistic personality; a model of the atopon dictionary is proposed;
An interpretation of the non-standard use of the word is given, its types and functions are defined;
a new approach to defining the concept of playful use of a word has been developed, the functions of wordplay in the texts of F.M. Dostoevsky in their connection with the author's intentions, shows the main ways of creating a language game;
a comprehensive description of such a cognitive unit as an aphorism is given, the functions of aphoristic type judgments in texts of different genres are identified, and the theoretical foundations for the classification of aphorisms are developed.
Theoretical significance The research consists in deepening and concretizing the concept of the dictionary of the writer’s language, aimed at a multidimensional representation of idiostyle, in connection with which certain provisions of the theory of linguistic personality have been developed, underlying the construction of such a dictionary, as well as in creating fundamental principles for the study of the author’s worldview through the analysis of various features of his speech activity - texts of different genres.
Practical value of this work is that
the results of the study are introduced into the practice of compiling a dictionary of the writer’s language, specifically the Dictionary of Dostoevsky’s language, and the concept presented in the dissertation can be used in modeling other dictionaries of a similar type;
the material collected and systematized during the research can be used to create a dictionary of aphorisms by F.M. Dostoevsky, a dictionary of incomprehensible or obscure units found in his texts (glossary), as well as the author’s new formations used in the texts;
the results of the study, as well as the material involved in it, may be in demand in lecture courses on linguapoetics, stylistics, lexicology, lexicography, and the history of the Russian literary language; The possibility of their introduction into the practice of teaching classical literature and the Russian language in secondary schools is also undoubted.
specific results and conclusions of the study are used in the development of lecture courses on functional lexicology and linguoculturology for students, undergraduates and graduate students of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov.
Provisions for defense:
The three-level structure of a linguistic personality is comparable to three aspects of the study of a linguistic sign, primarily a lexical unit: semantic (level of meaning), cognitive (level of knowledge and images, ideas) and pragmatic (level of emotions, assessments and stylistic coloring). The structure of a linguistic personality, therefore, includes three levels - verbal-semantic (lexicon), cognitive (thesaurus, level of the world picture) and pragmatic (motivational). Each level is characterized by a set of specific elements that correlate with the parameters of the lexicographic representation of a specific linguistic personality, such as author’s intentions, explicit, for example, in the autonymous or playful use of a word, as well as in the ways of operating various types of references to precedent texts, chains of semantic associates, mnemes ( sets of associations stored in collective memory), metaphors, frames, a certain type of idiom, idiogloss words, etc.
Construction of a multi-parameter dictionary of the language F.M. Dostoevsky is at the same time a method for reconstructing the linguistic personality of the writer, which makes it possible to implement a comprehensive approach to the study of the author’s idiostyle, which is absent in modern Dostoevsky. The set of lexicographic parameters depends on the characteristics of the writer’s language, which determines the concept of constructing a dictionary, which in turn determines the need to enter certain indicators, selection criteria, structuring and description of the material.
The procedure for identifying idioglosses includes the following steps: expert assessment; taking into account the data of existing studies on the functioning of words in the texts of F.M. Dostoevsky; recording the occurrence of a word in the title of a work or in the title of any part of it; analysis of the features of the use of a word as part of a statement that has the properties of an aphorism; taking into account the author's reflection on the meaning of the word; observation of the use of words in a gaming context; statistical analysis of the use of words in different genres and in different periods of the writer’s work.
The Dostoevsky language dictionary is characterized by the following indicators:
parameters of the lexicographic representation of a linguistic personality: input,
which is idioglossa; frequency of use of the described idiogloss, in
including its genre distribution; determining the meaning of idiogloss;
illustrations with mandatory indication of their source; word index; fixation of uses as part of phraseological units, proverbs, sayings, proper names; use as part of an aphorism; autonomous use; inability to distinguish the meanings of a word in one context; playful use of idioglossa; the use in one context of two or more idioglosses with different meanings; the use of cognate words in the same context; symbolic use of idioglossa; associative-semantic connections of the described word; hypotaxis; parataxis; non-standard use; morphological features of idioglossa; used in an ironic context; the use of idiogloss as part of tropes; the use of the described idiogloss as part of someone else's speech; word-formation nest. An optional area of the dictionary entry of the Dictionary is notes - to the word, to the meaning, to individual comment areas, which allow the introduction of additional parameters for describing a linguistic personality, for example, the use of the described idioglossa in a particular figure of speech or various kinds of observations on the author’s intentions.
Features of the author's linguistic personality are revealed not only through a multi-parameter analysis of the idioglosses used by the writer, but also through an analysis of the use of various types of units of misunderstanding - atopons, correlating with units of the levels of linguistic personality (atopons-agnonims, atopons-cognemes and atopons-pragmemes). The classification of atopons allows us to draw a conclusion regarding the author's intentions in the use of incomprehensible or obscure words.
A certain obstacle in the perception of F.M.’s texts. Dostoevsky are various deviations from the existing language norm, primarily violations of lexical and grammatical compatibility. The classification of such cases of non-standard use of words reflects the consistency and possible consciousness of their use by the author. A special function among non-standard combinations is performed by adverbial intensifiers, the use of which characterizes both some features of inner speech and one of the key author’s intentions, which is the desire to strengthen certain meanings.
The most revealing way to reflect the worldview of a specific linguistic personality is the ideographic representation of its vocabulary. The basic principles of compiling an author's thesaurus are the following:
1) first of all, idioglosses included in the original dictionary are grouped
Dictionary of Dostoevsky's language; 2) idioglosses are united around meanings that are basic for the words-symbols of F.M. Dostoevsky, which can be qualified as archetypes, nuclear elements of the writer’s eidos; 3) in the future, the thesaurus includes words related to idioglosses by associative-semantic relations. The core of Dostoevsky's thesaurus is the idiogloss “man,” associated primarily with such archetypal meanings as “life,” “time,” “death,” “love,” “illness,” “fear,” “laughter.” A thesaurus built on such a model makes it possible to show the features of an individual picture of the world, at least in relation to the work of F.M. Dostoevsky, one of whose characteristic features is symbolization in the representation of reality.
8. One of the most important distinctive features of the work of F.M. Dostoevsky lies in his penchant for creating and using judgments that have the properties of an aphorism. Classification and statistical analysis of the idioglosses included in their composition makes it possible to identify some characteristic features of the author's eidos - a system of basic ideas and intentions that reflect the writer's worldview. The author's intentions are also revealed in frequent conscious deviations from the linguistic norm, performed in a cognitive function (to find ways to express various shades of meaning) or to create a comic effect. In the utmost generalization, the eidos of F.M. Dostoevsky is centered around uncertainty and reflexive amplification (intensification of meaning), which are reflected in most of the linguistic means used by the author.
Testing and implementation of research results:
Certain provisions and results of the study were presented in 2 monographs, 86 scientific, scientific-methodological and lexicographic works (primarily in the Dictionary of the Dostoevsky Language), published in educational as well as periodicals, 16 of which were recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation; discussed at the following conferences: International Conference “Russian Literature and Culture in European Cultural Heritage”, Gottingen, 2015; I, III, IV and V International Congress of Russian Language Researchers “Russian Language: Historical Destinies and Modernity”, Moscow, 2001, 2007, 2010, 2014; Scientific conference “Lomonosov Readings”, Moscow, 2003, 2012; International scientific conference “The image of Russia and the Russian in dictionary and discourse: cognitive analysis”, Yekaterinburg, 2011; Scientific seminar “Russian cultural space”, Moscow, 2011; III, IV and V International Scientific and Practical Conference “Text: Problems and Prospects”, Moscow, 2004, 2007, 2011; Scientific and practical visiting session of MAPRYAL “Russians of Russia - Russianists of the CIS”, Astana, 2011; Interuniversity educational and methodological conference "Educational, methodological, psychological, pedagogical and cultural aspects of teaching foreign students at a university", Tver, 2010; P International Conference “Russian Language and
literature in the international general education space: current state and prospects", Granada, 2010; International seminar “Russian language and methods of teaching it”, Thessaloniki, 2010; International Old Russian Readings “Dostoevsky and Modernity”, Staraya Russa, 2002, 2008, 2009; III International Symposium “Russian Literature in the World and Cultural Context”, Moscow-Pokrovskoye, 2009; International Conference “Language and Culture”, Kyiv, 1993, 1994, 2009; International scientific and practical conference “This eternal city of Foolov...”, Tver, 2009; International scientific conference “Russia in a multipolar world: the image of Russia in Bulgaria, the image of Bulgaria in Russia”, St. Petersburg, 2009; All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference “Speaker. Teacher. Personality", Cheboksary, 2009; International Internet conference “Russian Language@Literature@Culture: current problems of studying and teaching in Russia and abroad”, Moscow, 2009; XXXIII International readings “Dostoevsky and world culture”, St. Petersburg, 2008; III International Scientific and Methodological Conference “Theory and Technology of Foreign Language Education”, Simferopol, 2008; Russia and Russians in the perception of a foreign cultural linguistic personality // International scientific and methodological conference “State and prospects of methods of teaching the Russian language and literature”, Moscow, 2008; XI Congress MAPRYAL “The World of the Russian Word and the Russian Word in the World”, Varna, 2007; International scientific conference “Russian language and literature in the international educational space: current state and prospects”, Granada, 2007; International scientific conference “Novikov Readings”, Moscow, 2006; International Congress on Creativity and Psychology of Art, Perm, 2005; International scientific conference “The Past and Present of Russia in the Light of Linguistic Facts”, Krakow, 2005; International workshop “Russian language through the centuries: a mosaic of language, literature and culture”, New Delhi, 2005; International scientific and practical conference “Motin Readings”, Moscow, 2005; X Congress MAPRYAL “Russian word in world culture”, St. Petersburg, 2003; International symposium “Problems of verbalization of concepts in the semantics of language and text”, Volgograd, 2003; International conference “Russian language in the dialogue of national cultures of the CIS member states in the 21st century”, Moscow, 2003; International Symposium “Dostoevsky in the Modern World”, Moscow, 2001; International scientific conference “The Changing Linguistic World”, Perm, 2001; Conference-seminar MAPRYAL “Aesthetic perception of a literary text”, St. Petersburg, 1993; International Symposium “Philosophy of Language within and without Borders”, Kharkov-Krasnodar, 1993; Republican scientific conference “Rozanov Readings”, Yelets, 1993; Conference of young philologists and school teachers “Current problems of philology at universities and schools”, Tver, 1993, 1991; III City scientific and methodological conference “Improving the content, forms and methods of teaching the Russian language to foreign students”, Kalinin, 1989; Conference of young scientists and school teachers “Problems of development of philological sciences at the present stage”, Kalinin, 1989; reported at various meetings: the Academic Council of the Institute of Russian Language. V.V. Vinogradova, Moscow, 2012; Groups of the Dictionary of the Dostoevsky Language of the Department of Experimental Lexicography of the Institute of the Russian Language. V.V. Vinogradova, Moscow, 2008, 2012; Institute of Dynamic Conservatism, Moscow, 2011; departments
Russian language for foreign students of the Faculty of Philology and the Department of Russian Language for foreign students of the natural faculties of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Moscow, 2001, 2007; introduced into the curricula and lecture courses of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov: “Russian linguistic personality: lexicographic representation”, “Introduction to hermeneutics”, “Cultural studies”, “Functional lexicology” (for specialists, undergraduates, graduate students), “The concept of linguistic personality and interpretative translation”; reflected in open lectures given at the University of Barcelona (Barcelona, 2013), at the Science Festival (Moscow, 2012), at the Southern Federal University (Rostov-on-Don, 2007), the University of Copenhagen (Copenhagen, 2006), the University of Delhi (New -Delhi, 2005); tested during the implementation of research projects: grant from the Russian Humanitarian Foundation “Information System of Cognitive Experiments (ISCE)” 2012-2014. No. 12-04-12039, grant from the Russian Humanitarian Foundation “System of lexicographic parameters as a way of representing a linguistic personality” 2011-2013. No. 11-04-0441, grant from the Russian Humanitarian Foundation “Perception and assessment of the image of Russia by a foreign cultural linguistic personality” 2006-2008. No. 06-04-00439a.
The full text of the dissertation was discussed at the Department of Russian Language, Faculty of Philology, Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov April 29, 2015.
Scope and structure of the study. The dissertation consists of an introduction, 3 chapters, a conclusion, a list of references (including Internet resources), including 1386 titles, and 7 appendices. The total volume of the dissertation is 647 pages, the volume of the main text is 394 pages.
Prerequisites for applying methods for assessing technical condition
The language of a work of art reveals elements of the system of literary language and its styles, as well as possible admixtures of dialectal, professional or generally social group speech (see [ibid.: 109-111]). Thus, when studying the language of fiction as a form of reflection of the national language system, questions about the significance of a literary work for the history of the literary language can be resolved. This applies to both the language of a particular author and the stylistic features of specific works of different genres. It is here that we are faced with the problem of individual style in its relationship with literary language.
The language of fiction “uses and includes all other styles or varieties of book-literary and folk-colloquial speech in original combinations and in a functionally transformed form” [ibid.: 71]. The author’s choice of linguistic means is determined both by the peculiarities of the content of the work and by the nature of the author’s attitude towards them.
The main properties of a literary language should be considered a tendency towards universality and normativity. As for one of the main features of fiction, in our opinion, on the contrary, it should be considered a deviation from normativity and standardness that is conscious and justified by the ideological and artistic design of the work, existing simultaneously with the desire to follow the established norm. It makes sense to talk about the development of a literary language only if there are various types of overcoming standardness, including in a literary text.
Much of what is used in the language of fiction is not a literary language (dialectisms, jargon, etc.); on the other hand, there is nothing in a literary language that hypothetically could not be used to perform certain functions determined by the subjective motivations of the author literary work.
Until the beginning of the 20th century, literary text was traditionally a subject of literary criticism, and without exaggeration it can be said that its consideration as an object of linguistic study is primarily associated with the name of V.V. Vinogradov: this is both the scientist’s dream, which consists in creating a common research field that connects the tasks of literary criticism and linguistics, and the realization of this dream, since it was precisely starting from the works of V.V. Vinogradov, we can talk about the existence of such a discipline as linguopoetics, the key concept of which was the category of “image of the author” as a style-former in a work of art. In this regard, let us note and comment on some important provisions for us.
In the system of a work of art, the “image of the author” occupies a central and unique position. However, this “... is not a simple subject of speech; most often it is not even named in the structure of a work of art. This is a concentrated embodiment of the essence of the work, uniting the entire system of speech structures of the characters in their relationship with the narrator, storyteller or storytellers and through them being the ideological and stylistic focus, the focus of the whole” [Vinogradov 1971: 116].
In a work of art, the “image of the author” can be expressed both explicitly and implicitly, from which, in particular, the idea of subjective and objective types of narration follows. If in the “Diary of a Writer” or in Dostoevsky’s letters, in the overwhelming majority of cases we can talk about the obvious author’s position, then, for example, in the image of Ivan Karamazov, the author’s view of the world is closely intertwined with the worldview of the character he created. We see such interaction even more complex in the images of the Chronicler or, as paradoxical as it may sound, F.P. Karamazova. “He “image of the author” is a form of complex and contradictory relationships between the author’s intention, between the fantasized personality of the writer and the faces of the character” [Vinogradov 1980 (a): 203]. This is how one of the most important and often fundamentally not subject to any solution of problems arises - determining the relationship between the “image of the author” (and in its different guises - the author of works of art, journalistic texts, business letters,
We find interesting observations that the narrator in “Demons” is very different from other narrators in Dostoevsky in the comments of V.A. Tunimanova (see): he is both an observer and a participant in events, and, in addition, in his narration we sometimes clearly hear the “voice” of the author himself. personal letters), the narrator (storyteller, observer, etc.), the character and, finally, the author as a real person, the characteristics of which we can only judge in a very distant approximation. - The image of the author is manifested at all levels of the structure of a literary text, including and above all at the linguistic level, which often ensures the integrity of the perception of the work. From this, in particular, it follows that the analysis of the language of a literary work, the system of means of verbal and artistic expression, and assessments of the heroes of the work by speech makes it possible, to one degree or another, to reconstruct the author’s position.
Almost in parallel with V.V. Vinogradov, the problem of reconstructing the author of a work of art was considered by M.M. Bakhtin, who, like some modern literary scholars, was very suspicious of the possibilities of linguistic research of a literary text, often resorting, however, in his constructions to the analysis of linguistic facts (for example, it was M.M. Bakhtin who was one of the first to draw attention to Dostoevsky's words suddenly have special significance.) According to M.M. Bakhtin, formal means of expressing the category “author-creator” are found 1) in the sound of a word, 2) in its material meaning, 3) in the connections of words (metaphor, metonymy, repetitions, questions, parallelisms, etc.), 4) on level of the speech fabric of the work (intonation) (see [Bakhtin 1979 (b)]). Some of these formal explicators of the author's image are used as lexicographic parameters in the Dostoevsky Dictionary of the Language (see Chapters 2, 3).
The discovered M.M. is also important for us. Bakhtin considers the relationship between the process of communication (and specifically understanding) not only with the verbal context, but also with the extra-verbal, “physical” one. The scientist gives the following example: “Two people are sitting in a room. They are silent. One says: "Yes." The other one doesn't answer. For us, who were not in the room at the time of the conversation, this whole “conversation” is completely incomprehensible... . But nevertheless, this peculiar conversation between two people, consisting of only one, albeit expressively intoned word, is full of meaning...
In modern literary criticism, scientists turn to the peculiarities of the author's punctuation, etymology, especially proper names, semantics of concept words, etc. No matter how much we tinker with the purely verbal part of the statement, no matter how finely we define the phonetic, morphological, semantic aspect of the word “So,” we will not be one step closer to understanding the holistic meaning of the conversation. What are we missing? - That “non-verbal” context in which the word “so” sounds meaningful to the listener. This extra-verbal context of the utterance consists of three moments: 1) from the spatial horizon common to the speakers (the unity of the visible - room, window, etc.); 2) from the common knowledge and understanding of the situation for both, and finally, 3) from their common assessment of this situation. Only knowing this extra-verbal context can we understand the meaning of the statement “so” and its intonation” [Voloshinov 1926: 250]. This “extra-verbal context” was subsequently qualified as a presupposition, which in many cases, for example, when determining the meaning of a word, especially conceptually significant lexical units, must certainly be taken into account.
Architecture of the technical condition assessment system
Many researchers suddenly paid attention to the specific use of the word, primarily to its high frequency in Dostoevsky: M.M. Bakhtin, A.A. Belkin, V.V. Vinogradov, E.L. Ginzburg, V.N. Toporov, A.L. Slonimsky and others.
MM. Bakhtin, discussing adventurous time, says that “it is made up of short segments corresponding to individual adventures... . Within a single adventure, days, nights, hours and even minutes and seconds count... . These segments are introduced and intersected by specific “suddenly” and “just in time”. “Suddenly” and “just in time” are the most adequate characteristics of all this time, for it generally begins and comes into its own where the normal pragmatic or causally meaningful course of events is interrupted and makes room for the intrusion of pure chance with its specific logic. This logic is a random coincidence, that is, a random simultaneity and a random gap, that is, a random difference in time. Moreover, “earlier” or “later” of this random simultaneity and multitemporality 117 also has significant and decisive significance. If something had happened a minute earlier or a minute later, that is, if there had not been some random simultaneity or multitemporality, then there would have been no plot at all and there would have been nothing to write a novel about” [Bakhtin 1975: 242]. That is, suddenly, according to Bakhtin, it performs at least three functions: 1) the boundary between events, 2) the formation of a plot, 3) the formation of a genre.
A.L. Slonimsky calls Dostoevsky’s main artistic technique the technique of surprise, which, in particular, is realized through the frequent use of suddenness: “Dostoevsky’s narrative does not proceed smoothly, consistently, like, for example, Turgenev’s, but consists of a whole series of shocks, a chain of unexpected events, actions, gestures, words, sensations. Convulsive presentation, convulsive course of events, convulsive people” [Slonimsky 1922: 11].
A.A. Belkin, drawing attention to the frequent repetition of Dostoevsky’s words suddenly and too much, puts forward the assumption that suddenly Dostoevsky has a special meaning, “meaning such a meeting, such an event that plays a decisive role in a person’s fate, and is sometimes catastrophic” [Belkin 1973: 129]. And further: “In Dostoevsky’s novels we see a reality full of exceptional events. This is not the slow, smooth life of Goncharov’s characters without any special turns, the unmotivated changing life of Tolstoy’s heroes, or the everyday life of small accidents in Chekhov’s works. This life is chaotic and catastrophic, it is characterized by unexpected ups and downs, unexpected turns in the psyche of the heroes - and hence the constant use of the favorite word “suddenly”” [ibid.: 129].
Let us pay attention to some features of the use of the word suddenly in Dostoevsky’s texts.
The frequency of use of the word is suddenly distributed as follows. The total number of uses is 5867, of which 5049 times are in literary texts, 588 in journalism and 230 in letters. However, it does not attract attention
That is, the relative frequency of use of suddenly in journalism and fiction is approximately the same, as is their semantic load, which is why B. Barros Garcia’s point of view that ““suddenly” situations, “like “would”-situations and “as if”-situations appear in accordance with the author’s not always conscious inclination to create fictionality. The higher the degree of their presence in the text, the more it gravitates towards artistic fictional prose” [Barros 2013: 12]. As for the absolute high frequency of use of the word suddenly (Dostoevsky has many other high-frequency adverbs, for example, extremely, just now, etc.), as well as its repetition within one sentence, paragraph, entire work, sometimes violating the stylistic norms of the Russian literary language. In Dostoevsky's fiction it is suddenly used more often, but the reason for this is unlikely to be the peculiarities of the genre. Wed. in the “Diary of a Writer” and in letters:
I have already been reproached for being dumb; but the fact of the matter is that I am really now convinced of this universality of our lies. You live with an idea for fifty years, you see and touch it, and suddenly it appears in such a form that it’s as if you didn’t know it at all until now. Recently, the thought suddenly dawned on me that in Russia, in the intelligent classes, there cannot even be a person who does not lie. (DP 21: 117) [S.A. Ivanova] I’m talking to my aunt and suddenly I see that the pendulum in the large wall clock has suddenly stopped. I say: it must have caught on something, it cannot be that he suddenly got up, went to the clock and pushed the pendulum again with his finger; he chirped once, twice, three times and suddenly stopped again. (Ps 29.1: 209)
It can be assumed that the reason for such a high frequency of use suddenly lies, firstly, in its semantics and, secondly, in its importance for Dostoevsky, for his idiostyle and worldview. This word, which does not contain knowledge about the world, nevertheless reflects Dostoevsky’s attitude to the world, the writer’s dislike for everything that is suddenly, accidental: [A.G. Dostoevskaya] But I still worry, and day and night I think about them [the children], and about all of us: everything is fine, and what if some accident happens. I'm most afraid of accidents. (Ps 29.2: 42) You can, of course, follow A.A. Belkin (see [Belkin 1973 (b)]) suggests that the frequent use of the word suddenly expresses Dostoevsky’s fear of chance, the surprise of a seizure, but, apparently, everything is somewhat more complicated.
An analysis of the use of suddenly in Dostoevsky’s texts allows us to identify four meanings for this word: suddenly he [Ivan Ilyich] seemed to begin to forget himself and, most importantly, for no apparent reason he would suddenly snort and laugh, when there was nothing to laugh at all. This mood soon passed after a glass of champagne, which Ivan Ilyich, although he poured himself, did not want to drink, and suddenly drank somehow completely by accident. After drinking this glass, he suddenly felt like almost crying. He felt himself falling into the most eccentric sensibility; he began to love again, to love everyone, even Pseldonimov, even the Goloveshka employee. He suddenly wanted to hug with and as if, then, apparently, there was no need to conduct a special study proving their greater significance in an artistic text, in contrast to journalism and letters, which is associated with one of the main author’s intentions - to show the uncertainty and ambiguity of the surrounding the world, and most importantly - the person in this world. them all, forget everything and make peace. (SA 31) - Why are you so pale, Rodion Romanovich, aren’t you feeling stuffy, should you open the window? I “Oh, don’t worry, please,” Raskolnikov cried and suddenly burst into laughter, “please don’t worry!” I Porfiry stopped opposite him, waited, and suddenly began to laugh, following him. Raskolnikov stood up from the sofa, suddenly abruptly stopping his completely fitful laughter. ... I - But I won’t allow myself to laugh in my own eyes and torment myself. Suddenly his lips trembled, his eyes lit up with fury, and his hitherto restrained voice began to sound. - I won’t allow it, sir! - he suddenly shouted, slamming his fist on the table with all his might, “can you hear this, Porfiry Petrovich?” - I won’t allow it, I won’t allow it! - Raskolnikov mechanically repeated, but also suddenly in a perfect whisper. (MON 64)
These and similar contexts show that Dostoevsky’s word suddenly captures a certain point, which is the moment of the release of feelings, emotions, impressions, states, actions, etc., and the high frequency of its use within one context is explained by the fact that suddenly it is a way to collect feelings and actions in one instant, a moment, destroying both time and the cause-and-effect conditionality of events in it, i.e., ultimately, for Dostoevsky this is a way of uniting a group of events at one point of chance, a way to organize the text in this way (cf. . with a quote from M. M. Bakhtin above). Such a point of randomness is outside of time and outside of human consciousness: all events concentrated in it occur outside of human will.
Definition of Fuzzy Product Rules
In conclusion, we emphasize once again that the proposed description of Dostoevsky’s language is possible only with the help of a Dictionary constructed taking into account the parameters outlined in Chapter 3 of Chapter II. This concerns, first of all, the reconstruction of the author's thesaurus, since it is the Dictionary with its original capabilities of finding the “intersection points” of idioglosses that allows one to objectively trace the connections between various meanings realized in the entire corpus of the writer’s texts.
In accordance with the above procedure, we present a fragment of the thesaurus of Dostoevsky’s idioglosses. However, we must make the following reservations:
1. It is precisely a fragment of the thesaurus that is offered: a complete lexicographic representation of Dostoevsky’s idioglosses is possible only after completion of work on the Dictionary.
2. The presented fragment of the thesaurus does not take into account the correlation of idioglosses with the speech of the characters in Dostoevsky’s works, or with the image of the author, or with belonging to a particular genre. The character's PL, as mentioned above, is in any case a reflection of the author's PL.
3. Individual idioglosses may be included in different sections of the thesaurus. It can be assumed that the polysemy of idioglosses creates potentially endless restrictions in their classification. We recorded some, but by no means all cases of idiogloss entering different groups by repeating it in these groups. This applies, for example, to cases of homonymy, secondary nomination, etc. Thus, the word conscience is included in both the group God (Conscience is the action of God in man) and the group of feelings. Idioglosses in similar, most often metaphorical, meanings are separated from the main group by a semicolon. In the same way, individual words that we included in the group action, feeling towards another, relationships with others (harm, abhor, indifference, etc.) can be associated with inanimate objects, but their idioglossic status is more clearly manifested precisely in the use in relation to a person.
These restrictions, however, do not prevent us from recognizing the following fact: the presented fragment of the thesaurus reflects Dostoevsky’s YL as it is perceived by a modern reader operating with the texts of the complete collected works of the writer. We see not so much Dostoevsky’s views on the world, but rather a certain secondary reality recorded in a text limited in volume. As for the possibilities of intersection of lexical groups included in the thesaurus, this is one of the key features of semantic fields. However, when we are dealing with a specific language, this property of the semantic field is partially offset by the degree of relevance of the lexical unit in terms of its idioglossic status.
The first line after the entrance of the main part of the thesaurus (MAN: LIFE - DEATH - LOVE - DISEASE - LAUGHTER) contains idioglossa-symbols united by the concept - the name of the class (symbols for other groups and individual idioglosses are given in angle brackets before the group or before the word), then followed by the idioglosses closest to the given meaning, primarily words with the same root. After this, lexical groups are identified, preceded by their names in square brackets in bold. When assigning an idiogloss to a particular group, we were guided primarily by its use in the meaning that characterizes the author’s idiostyle (for example, it is in this meaning that the word is registered in such comment zones as AVTN, IGRV or AFRZ), as well as the current frequency of use or most wide associative connections. Idioglosses within each group, as a rule, are distributed depending on their part-verbal affiliation (verb - adjective - adverb - noun), within each part of speech - alphabetically. paper (piece of paper), louse, reptile, reptile, umbrella72, crocodile, mask, anthill, insect, Skotoprigonyevsk, cockroach, creature, shadow, snail, clock, worm, turtle, monster
A.P. all-man, all-human, inhuman, personal, universal; personally; personality, people, little people, people, creature, humanity, human, little man
A.Sh.4. [unity] universal, worldwide, all-human, folk, national, general, Russian; in Russian; God-bearer, all-man, harmony, unity, people, nationality, The word umbrella plays a special role in the novel “Demons”, where it appears 21 times (out of 30 uses in literary texts), acting as an important and multi-valued element of the composition and participating in the creation of the leitmotif, being associated with many characters: Fedka Katorzhny finds himself under Stavrogin’s umbrella, under Stavrogin’s umbrella a denunciation is brewing in Lebyadkin’s head; Stavrogin’s aphoristic remark to Lebyadkin is ironic and at the same time symbolic. Everyone is worth an umbrella; ST. Verkhovensky goes out onto the main road, holding an umbrella, a stick and a bag in his hands (see [SDTS2010: 1049]).
Assessing the condition of transformer solid insulation
In one of his articles G.S. Pomerantz, giving a critical analysis of Romano Guardini’s book “Man and Faith,” wrote: “In Guardini’s book, the characters created by Dostoevsky cease to be his partial incarnations and his confessional faces; they are only ideas that flow from their mentality, separate from the author. Guardini does not notice that Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky is in some ways similar to Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov: for him there are no “moveshki”, no “vielfileks”, he is ready to be carried away by even the most stinking soul, to be embodied in the most greasy, repulsive figure, letting a scoundrel pass through his mind, through his foolish speech, your favorite thoughts. True, only for a moment. But at another moment it appears in Lebedev, in Keller; and, of course, it is impossible to separate the rebellion of Ivan Karamazov and the intellectual experiments of Stavrogin from Dostoevsky. Each character who captured Dostoevsky is ready to debut in the role of a “lyrical hero”; and none of them allows for a purely negative interpretation” [Pomerantz 2000: 10]. Of course, the images created by Dostoevsky cannot be equated with the personality of the author, which, and even then with a certain degree of convention, is revealed only in letters and journalism, but this is still part of the world created by the writer, a reflection of his linguistic personality, the reconstruction of which this work is devoted to.
The main results of the study are the following basic provisions.
1. The concept of linguistic personality proposed by Yu.N. Karaulov, serves as a methodological basis for creating a multi-parameter dictionary of the writer’s language. This open and flexible model allows, in relation to Dostoevsky’s work, to show the main features of the writer’s linguistic personality through vocabulary representation. It can also be used to describe the characteristics of the language of any linguistic personality, only the system and significance of individual parameters in this case will become different.
2. The fundamental feature of the Dostoevsky Dictionary of the Language, which was a new step in the development of the domestic theory and practice of compiling writers' dictionaries, is that it describes not all the words used by the author, but only those significant for his idiostyle, idioglosses. The proposed procedure for identifying idioglosses can be considered quite relevant to confirm their special role in the writer’s linguistic picture of the world.
3. A multidimensional study of idioglosses makes it possible to determine not only the characteristic features of the author’s style, but also to learn some of the features of the writer’s worldview, which are reflected in the Dostoevsky Dictionary of the Language - both in the very structure of the dictionary entry and in the accompanying linguistic commentary, presented in the form of zones of different the kind of parameters characterizing the use of words in Dostoevsky’s texts. The study reveals in detail the content of individual parameters, such as the symbolic use of a word, non-standard compatibility, associative connections of idioglosses, the use of a word in a gaming context, as part of an autonymous statement and an aphorism. 4. The use of the resources of the Dostoevsky Language Dictionary made it possible to 1) compile a classification of cases of non-standard use of words in the writer’s texts, to show their idiostyle significance; 2) identify lexical-thematic areas of misunderstanding by the modern reader in the works of Dostoevsky and propose a model of their lexicographic representation, compile a dictionary of atopons, the basis of which are agnonyms, units of misunderstanding of the semantic-grammatical level of a linguistic personality; 3) propose a new interpretation of such concepts as “symbolic use of words” and “symbolic paradigm”, identify the types of Dostoevsky’s symbols, give their classification and on this basis construct a thesaurus of Dostoevsky’s idioglosses; 4) to qualify the autonymous use of a word as one of the criteria for confirming its idioglossic status, to identify ways of explicating autonymity in Dostoevsky’s texts; 5) study the functions of Dostoevsky’s aphorisms, compose their classification, which directly reflects the author’s eidos, determine the degree of aphorism of idioglosses (the proposed classification of aphoristic statements should also be considered as a special type of dictionary of the writer’s original judgments); 6) propose a typology of the playful use of words in Dostoevsky, identify the functions of language play in the writer’s texts, show the main author’s intentions of its use; to qualify Dostoevsky's new formations, hapaxes, as one of the types of wordplay, and to compose their classification; determine the special reflexive and playful function of the verb to know.
Solving the problems posed in the dissertation does not at all mean a final comprehensive multi-parameter description of Dostoevsky’s language, carried out using the resources of the Dictionary. We see the prospects for such a study of Dostoevsky’s language in the study of figures of speech used by the writer, first of all, amplification and hyperbolization, which serve to enhance, intensify the meaning, compensating for the uncertainty so characteristic of Dostoevsky; various kinds of clarifications and explanations, functions of contrast and repetition, etc.; - functions of the objectless use of transitive verbs to step over, hug, forgive, whisper, want, desire, remind, wait, change, decide, etc.; - metaphors and metaphorical models on which they are built, metonymy, author’s comparisons; in the future it is planned to compile a Dictionary of Dostoevsky's tropes; - functions of references to precedent texts in the writer’s works, many of which have not been sufficiently studied; - ways of creating an ironic context, connecting irony with the playful use of words; - discursive words in the writer’s works, modal particles, interjections, conjunctions, and their combinations; - characteristic features of the speech of individual characters, a comparative analysis of which will reveal the types of linguistic personalities of Dostoevsky’s heroes; - types and functions of repetitions, semantic and lexical; - features of the author’s punctuation, which allows us to consider Dostoevsky’s works as a “sounding” text, etc.
At the same time, some theoretical problems remain debatable - the very possibility of considering the dictionary of a writer’s language as a method for reconstructing his linguistic personality; the relevance of the proposed dictionary model for the compilation of other writers' dictionaries; the degree of objectivity of the obtained results of the dictionary representation of the writer’s language, depending, among other things, on the initial system of lexicographic parameters, etc. These and some other problems will be solved as work on the Dictionary of Dostoevsky’s Language is completed.
I. V. Ruzhitsky, E. V. Potemkina
THE PROBLEM OF FORMING A BILINGUAL PERSONALITY
IN LINGUODIDACTICS
IGOR V. ROUZHITSKIY, EKATERINA V. POTYOMKINA THE PROBLEM OF THE FORMATION OF A BILINGUAL PERSONALITY IN LINGUODIDACTICS
The article is devoted to the study of the phenomenon of bilingualism in its close connection with linguodynamics and the theory of linguistic personality by Yu. N. Karaulov. A detailed analysis of the structural differences between the linguistic personality and the secondary linguistic personality was carried out, and a model for the formation of a bilingual personality was described. The question is raised about the development of a method for developing the bilingual personality of students, based on the use of literary text in classes on Russian as a foreign language.
Key words: linguodidactics, linguistic personality, bilingualism, secondary linguistic personality, literary text.
The article covers the analysis of the phenomenon of bilingualism as it relates to linguodidactics and the theory of language personality (by Yuriy N. Karaulov). The detailed analysis of the structural differences between language personality and the secondary language personality is given, the model of the formation of a bilingual personality is described. The question of developing a method of forming a student's bilingual personality based on the literary text using on the lessons of the Russian as a foreign language is set.
Keywords: linguodidactics, language personality, bilingualism, the secondary language personality, literary text.
Introduction
The anthropocentric paradigm of modern linguistic didactics defines the object of its study as the linguistic personality (hereinafter referred to as the LL) of the student (S. G. Blinova, I. G. Bogin, N. D. Galskova, N. I. Gez, Yu. N. Karaulov, I. I. Khaleeva, T.K. Tsvetkova), in connection with which a lot of research is being conducted on the personal aspect of learning a foreign language (U. Weinreich, E.M. Vereshchagin, M.V. Zavyalova, I.A. Zimnyaya, R. K. Minyar-Beloruchev). However, a general point of view has not yet been developed on how exactly a lexical unit belonging to another language system is included in the linguistic consciousness of an individual; what connections are formed between units of the native and foreign languages; how new concepts, images, associations and other types of knowledge (units of knowledge) of the language being studied enter the conceptual field existing in the student’s mind. In other words, the question remains open: does the language of students change in conditions of bilingualism? At the same time, from practice
Igor Vasilievich Ruzhitsky
Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Russian Language for Foreign Students, Faculty of Philology, Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov [email protected]
Ekaterina Vladimirovna Potemkina
Postgraduate student of the Department of Didactic Linguistics and Theory of Teaching Russian as a Foreign Language, Faculty of Philology, Lomonosov Moscow State University [email protected]
tics of teaching a foreign language, we can give a large number of examples of the appearance of an “accent” at an advanced stage of learning at all levels of the language, and not just phonetic: the speech of foreigners learning the Russian language can become more emotional, the tempo and intonation change; upon returning to their home country, students may even report some discomfort in communicating in their native language. Let us note that the program for studying and describing the interaction of languages in speech activity was laid down by L.V. Shcherba, whose works examine the process of interference, adaptation of language systems (and more broadly, of what lies behind the language) in conditions of bilingualism (see:) . The question of the structural features of a bilingual’s language is the main topic of discussion in this article.
The phenomenon of bilingualism
Most researchers have a broad understanding of bilingualism as a flexible characteristic, ranging from the smallest degree of proficiency in two languages to complete proficiency, that is, bilingualism occurs whenever a person switches from one linguistic and cultural code to another. The most common definition of bilingualism is given by Weinreich in his work “Language Contacts”: “... bilingualism is the knowledge of two languages and their alternating use depending on the conditions of speech communication<...>From a linguistic point of view, the problem of bilingualism is to describe those several language systems that come into contact with each other."
Science has already described in sufficient detail the types of bilingualism depending on the nature of the interaction of languages in the speech activity of the language: pure and mixed (L. V. Shcherba), composite, coordinated and subordinate (U. Weinreich), receptive, reproductive and productive (E M. Vereshchagin, V. G. Kostomarov). Depending on the age at which the acquisition of a second language occurs, early and late bilingualism are distinguished. In the article
we will talk about the process of learning Russian as a foreign language by philological trainee students - about cases when the system of the language being studied has already been mainly mastered through the prism of the native language (subordinative type of bilingualism1), therefore the main task at this stage is the formation of an additional, relatively independent semantic base by means of the language being studied (which would illustrate the distributional hypothesis of the organization of the conceptual system in subordinative bilingualism). This position is confirmed by the results of an associative experiment of a diagnostic nature. The subjects - foreign students - gave the same associative reactions to the stimulus words of their native language and their translated equivalents in Russian, which indirectly indicated a common conceptual basis of the native and studied languages.
Genesis of the linguistic personality of a bilingual
There is no doubt that YL is a projection of the person’s personality as a whole. The latter, in turn, is determined by the synthesis of the biological factor (personal characteristics) and the environmental factor (the totality of the conditions of human existence). These two facets of personality exist inextricably, and it is no coincidence that L. S. Vygotsky, answering the question of what the influence of the environment on the development of the individual will be, used the concept of experience - a unit in which, on the one hand, the environment is presented in an indecomposable form (then , what is experienced) and, on the other hand, how a person experiences it (that is, personality traits) (see:).
The environment is understood as the environment in which a person exists. The geographical, macro- and microenvironment and social environment are distinguished. Moreover, if in the pedagogical aspect of the study of bilingualism, language is only one of the factors of the social environment along with the state system, confessional characteristics, the school education system, the factor of science and culture (traditions and customs, historical, literary, architectural heritage, etc.),
then, in the linguodidactic aspect, the language environment is of main research interest. Personality is considered here as a linguocentric entity, i.e. a linguistic personality, which, nevertheless, reflects all of the listed environmental factors. Note that this view correlates with the idea of student-centered learning and the principle of nature-likeness developed by K. D. Ushinsky (see:), in which language learning is equated to the development of the existing language ability of students, which determines the goals of language teaching, including and the most universal - the development of students' thinking.
Thus, a specialist in the field of studying the phenomenon of bilingualism is faced with the question: what happens to the language in conditions of immersion in a new language environment? Before answering this question, let us turn to the theory of linguistic language, which will allow us to describe the personality of a bilingual, taking into account a set of structured parameters.
YAL model by Yu. N. Karaulova
By FL, Yu. N. Karaulov means a genetically determined predisposition to the creation and manipulation of sign systems, i.e. FL is a multicomponent set of linguistic abilities and readiness to carry out speech activity (see:). Accordingly, a language is “any speaker of a particular language, characterized on the basis of an analysis of the texts produced by him.”
In the concept of Yu. N. Karaulov, YL has a number of typological features.
1. First of all, YL includes three levels - lexicon, thesaurus and pragmaticon, each of which is characterized by a set of units, relations and stereotypical associations (by stereotypes, Yu. N. Karaulov understands text units that have the property of repetition and meet the communicative needs of the individual and the conditions of communication , - “standards”, “templates”).
The lexicon in the structure of a language, i.e., what forms its vocabulary, is the level of ordinary linguistic semantics (the level of “semantems”), the meaning
verbal connections of words, which cover the whole variety of their grammatical-paradigmatic, semantic-syntactic and associative connections. For a native speaker, it assumes a degree of proficiency in everyday language. The relationships between words form a fairly stable system - an associative-verbal network of linguistic languages. Standard phrases and sentence models are identified as stereotypes at this level (go to the cinema, love flowers, buy bread, etc.).
The cognitive level in the structure of linguistic language is a system of values and meanings. At this level of analysis of language, semantics is blurred and the first place comes to an image that arises not in semantics, but in the knowledge system. The unit of this level is the elementary unit of knowledge - kognema (see:). In the theory of linguistic language, the following types of symbols are distinguished: metaphor, concept, frame, mneme, precedent text, etc.
The interaction of various cognemas within a language is based on subordinating and coordinating relationships, as a result of which cognemas are united into a certain network - semantic fields. The stereotypes of the cognitive level of linguistic language are generalized statements - generally valid sayings containing everyday rules, formulas of behavior and assessments, reflecting the natural norms of common sense and the basic concepts of the national linguistic picture of the world: proverbs, maxims, speech cliches, cliches, etc. (Knowledge is power ; Everyone understands to the extent of their depravity, etc.).
The pragmatikon in the structure of linguistic language ensures the transition from speech activity to the comprehension of real activity, which is the ultimate goal of communication - that is, it expresses the speaker’s intentions, which are stereotypes of the pragmatic level, as a result of which the units of this level - pragmemes - form a network of communicative needs.
In discourse, the pragmatic level forms a subjective mode, which can “materialize” both in the stylistic coloring of the text and in value judgments, the emotional use of modal particles and interjections. We focus on the most shi-
^^^ [methodology of teaching the Russian language]
a fundamental understanding of pragmatics, according to which the pragmatic component of the meaning of a word should include (1) the connection of meaning with presupposition and reflection (reflexive microcomponent), (2) assessment on the peiorative ^ meliorative scale (evaluative microcomponent), (3) expression in words emotions (emotive microcomponent) and (4) the connection of the use of a word with a certain functional style (stylistic microcomponent) (see:).
2. An important component of the YaL model is the identification of invariant and variable parts in its structure at each level. The invariant part is the unchangeable meanings that are highly resistant to changes and are common to all, i.e. typological features of the language. The variable part, on the contrary, may belong to a certain period and be lost over time, become irrelevant for the national linguistic picture of the world or belong to a narrow linguistic community, determining only individual ways of creating the aesthetic and emotional coloring of speech.
In the process of learning a foreign language, the invariant part of the language is primarily formed. For the verbal-semantic level of the language, this will be the all-Russian language type (phonetic, spelling and other language norms) and a stable part of verbal-semantic associations. For a thesaurus, it is the basic part of the picture of the world, the key connections in a hierarchical system of values and meanings. For a pragmatist - stable communicative needs and readiness, indicating the typological features of the speech behavior of native speakers of the language being studied.
3. The concept of LL is based on a communicative-activity approach. Units of each level are significant only from the point of view of what speech readiness they provide. The lexicon of the language forms the vocabulary of the speaker, and the formation of this level presupposes the ability to make an adequate choice of linguistic means. In addition, on the basis of the lexicon, elementary rules of the Russian language are formed, which make it possible to construct word combinations.
readings and sentences that correspond to the language norm. Mastery of a thesaurus ensures the ability to determine the topic of a statement, express one’s opinion, readiness to use inner speech, readiness to produce and reproduce generalized statements, etc. Pragmatikon is responsible for communicative needs, for the compliance of the chosen language means with the conditions of communication, for the use of sublanguages and registers, for identification platitudes and language games, for reading the subtext. If we draw a parallel with the types of competencies defined in linguodidactics, then the lexicon provides linguistic and discursive, the thesaurus - sociocultural (recognition of sociocultural context), regional studies and subject, pragmaticon - illocutionary (i.e., expression of various intentions by the speaker) and strategic competencies.
Note that the readiness model of the YaL, proposed by Yu. N. Karaulov, is open: the set of readiness is determined by social conditions and the corresponding roles of the YaL. In other words, the list of readiness may vary depending on the language proficiency level and learning profile of the foreign student.
4. An important feature of the YaL model is the interconnection of its levels (Fig. 1). Yu. N. Karaulov notes that the circle components in the figure “are actually located one below the other,” so that the depicted diagram “has three dimensions.” This feature of the YaL model is reflected in the fact that the adequacy of understanding a certain unit of text can be considered both from the point of view of semantics and in connection with cognitive potential, as well as emotional and evaluative coloring - depending on the goals and position of the researcher (see:) .
5. And finally, a feature of the YaL model is that it is an open system. Yu. N. Karaulov repeatedly emphasizes in his works that the proposed model is “fundamentally incomplete, capable of multiplying its components.”
associative communication network
semantic web
non-verbalizable part verbalizable part non-verbalizable part
Rice. 1. Scheme by Yu. N. Karaulov, illustrating the interconnectedness of the levels of nuclear power. The initial letters L, S, G, P indicate small circles symbolizing the lexicon, semanticon, grammaron and pragmaticon of YAL, and the dotted line (area T) indicates the sphere of knowledge about the world.
So, the YaL model is characterized by (1) three-level, (2) the presence of invariant and variable parts, (3) a set of readiness, (4) interconnectedness of levels and (5) openness. Note also that any change in its structure will entail changes in each of the named parameters.
Model of the bilingual's language Having determined the typological features of the language, we will try to “impose” them on the linguistic personality of a person speaking a non-native language.
When immersed in a fundamentally new language environment, a student with an already formed language begins to experience the influence of another, collective language. As a result of interaction with it, a secondary linguistic personality (hereinafter referred to as SLP) is formed - that is, the structure of the student’s SL, implemented by means of the language being studied (see:). This term was first proposed by I. I. Khaleeva: “The idea of Yu. N. Karaulov about a linguistic personality that acquires contours only outside the language of the system is key not only for the linguist, but also for the linguist, called upon to educate the secondary
linguistic personality". The word secondary emphasizes the hierarchy of personalities within one individual - the process of forming a linguistic language by means of the language being studied is automatically mediated by the system of the native language, therefore a new picture of the world is superimposed on the existing one and does not exist independently of it, otherwise we would have to talk about a “split” personality2. However, in modern linguodidactics they increasingly talk about the formation of VTL as the ultimate goal of teaching a foreign language and a criterion for its effectiveness. “The result of any language education should be a formed linguistic personality, and the result of education in the field of foreign languages should be a secondary linguistic personality as an indicator of a person’s ability to take full part in intercultural communication.” We believe that this judgment requires some addition, since structures such as BL and VTL cannot exist separately from each other within an individual; they are synthesized, determining the subordinate nature of a bilingual personality (hereinafter referred to as BIL). So
Thus, the formation of VtL is only one of the aspects of the formation of BiL.
In the process of forming the BiL of a personality, a structural interaction occurs: the YaL influences the VtL no less than the VtL transforms the YaL. As already mentioned in the introduction, during the period of stay in a non-native language environment, alienation from one’s own language may even occur with the prevalence of VtL (the studied language becomes dominant). According to B. S. Kotik, “the systematic use of a second language in reality can contribute to the formation of the unity of language and the sensory tissue of consciousness, which leads to the formation of direct access of the second language to the prelinguistic pre-speech level” (quoted from:).
Among the mechanisms of interaction between NL and VtNL, we highlight their fusion and separation. This means that at the level of the lexicon, the cognitive level and the pragmaticon of the YL and VtYL, “processes of mixing and switching” will occur. Let us present the process of interaction between the YaL and the VtL within the BiL in the form of a diagram (Fig. 2).
Merger should be talked about in connection with the individual's use of a single “conceptual repository” with different language codes. So, for example, the same meaning can be conveyed in two languages, but in this case most often there is a semantic adjustment of a unit of a non-native language to a unit of the native language (cf. the use of the Russian “equivalent”
friend for English friend). If the individual’s linguistic consciousness “resists”, then at the verbal-semantic level the rejection of the new language system leads to a transfer from the native language (*the taxi driver pressed the button to open and close the window), and at the cognitive level - to the construction of a hierarchized value system. a system of meanings that is not correlated with the value-hierarchized system of meanings of native speakers. For example, in the course of an experiment conducted in groups of American and Russian schoolchildren, the following results were obtained regarding such a basic cogneme as a house: in the drawings of American students the house is depicted with a flat roof, near the house there is a lawn, and in the drawings of Russian schoolchildren next to a house with a triangular roof is often depicted with trees (usually apple trees or birch trees). Within the framework of an associative experiment, verbal reactions in a multi-national group of foreigners and a group of Russian-speaking subjects to such stimulus words as communal, Caucasian, orphanage, Moscow, etc., which represent the building blocks of modern Russian language, will also be unequal. L.V. Shcherba pointed out the reason for such manifestations of bilingualism: “The speaker borrows from another language, before words, those concepts or their shades, that coloring, finally, that seems necessary to him.” Other scientists also point out in similar cases the difference between denotative nomination and pragmatic-significative, as-
L = LO + YAL BiL = LO + (YAL + VtYAL)
Rice. 2. LO - personal characteristics; YL is a linguistic personality formed on the basis of the native language; VTL - linguistic personality formed on the basis of the language being studied; L - monolingual personality;
BiL is a bilingual personality.
socio-psychological structure of the word3. A. Yu. Mutylina gives the following examples of code switching in the speech of Russian-Chinese bilinguals, when the speaker has a need to use some pragmatically loaded unit or some kind of concept: He didn’t want // a second child / it’s too ta/an - “trouble, anxiety "; I would like to go inside // but somehow it feels awkward, uncomfortable, shy.” Cases of morphological and phonetic-morphological adaptation are also highlighted.
It is interesting that, having mastered any coinme of the culture being studied, the student begins to be bewildered and even dissatisfied with the fact that the bearers of this culture do not know this coinme: [from a letter from a graduate student from Taiwan] I was not only interested, but also It's nice to study with Katya<...>during these two weeks... She is pretty (after all, I enjoy making fun of a beauty, especially in class), and she led classes generally normally. But to be honest, I found two small problems with her: firstly, she did not understand Russian history very well. Today I talked about N.N. Muravyov-Amursky. I was surprised and a little disappointed that she knew nothing about him. He is also a representative of Russian imperialism in the mid-19th century, which Russians need to learn about (student's punctuation and style preserved).
Both in the case of a merger and in the case of a separation of YL and VtYL, the result will be numerous communication failures and even conflicts. Experts in the field of studying the phenomenon of bilingualism note that “there comes a moment when conclusions and generalizations regarding the patterns of a foreign language, made within the framework of the semantic system of the native language, come into conflict with the practice of the language being studied. These statements are assessed by the teacher as incorrect, and the student himself begins to perceive the language being studied as something illogical and inaccessible to understanding.”
Thus, with regard to the nature of the interaction between YaL and VtYL, we should say
about bidirectional interference4, understood broadly: at the level of images, motives, ethical guidelines, features of emotional and evaluative perception of reality5. In other words, one of the typological features of BiL, along with the typological features of YaL, should be called its unique dialogic nature.
Literary text as a dialogue of linguistic personalities
In connection with the problem of bilingualism, turning to a literary text (hereinafter referred to as HT) can serve as a solution to several problems at once: illustrating the dialogicity/polyphony of LL and a way to identify the area of demarcation between LL and VTL.
From the very beginning, the concept of linguistic language was associated in Russian linguistics with the specifics of the organization of the HT space. As N.I. Conrad notes, following K. Vossler, V.V. Vinogradov set himself the task of illuminating - “on the basis of specific linguistic activity - the constantly operating connection, the relationship between language, as a style, and its creator - a person, a writer.” The result of V.V. Vinogradov’s analysis of fictional literature was the development of ways to describe the author’s and character’s language. The term “linguistic personality” itself was first used by him in the publication “On artistic prose,” where the scientist wrote that “the elements of speech are combined into a special subjective, semantic structure through the personality of the speaker or writer.”
Taking as the basis of his concept some theoretical principles of V.V. Vinogradov, Yu. N. Karaulov developed the concept of linguistic language, proposing such a definition (see above), which makes it possible, on the one hand, to correlate the level of understanding of foreign language literal language with the degree of formation of linguistic language and, on the other hand, allows HT to be an instrument of its formation.
The effectiveness of studying CT in classes of Russian as a foreign language is beyond doubt. Among the many functions performed by HT, special mention should be made of the development
reader's inner speech. In the process of difficult reading, students must carry out logical ordering of perceived data, including them in a system of concepts - a value-hierarchized thesaurus tree. However, this process is not linear, since HT, as a rule, is characterized by “polyphony”. The style of HT is determined by the connections between independent semantic centers - the voice of the author and the voices of the characters. The same can be said about the reflection of BiL in the process of reading a foreign language text. On the one hand, it is determined by the characteristics of the reader’s language; on the other hand, the text itself turns out to be charged with some features of the author’s language, which are complicated by the independent voices of the characters (together they reflect the Russian language). As a result, if the polylogue between the reader, the author and the characters is carried out successfully (the intentions laid down by the author of the text are deciphered), we can talk about understanding the meaning of the text, which is possible only if there is a large area of intersection of the structures of their language. Meanwhile, the practice of teaching RFL shows that even at an advanced stage of training, students experience difficulties in the process of understanding CT (in particular, due to the saturation of linguistic and cultural material). This happens due to the insufficient formation of the reader’s VTL: there are too many gaps in its structure. This fact makes it possible to use the potential of CT in identifying the area of demarcation of NL and VTL. Based on the material of an individual HT, a list of units (verbal-semantic, cognitive and pragmatic levels) that are absent in the reader’s native language for various reasons can be compiled: simply a different letter and phonetic designation, the absence of an entire category, image, etc. in the native language. To denote a situation of misunderstanding of a particular unit of text, we propose to use the concept of “atopon” (lit. “devoid of space”), that is, “that which does not fit into the patterns of our expectations and is therefore puzzling.” Atopon is the designation of any unit in the text that is not understood by the reader in verbal language.
mantic, cognitive or pragmatic levels. If the concept of BiL connects the student’s abilities with the characteristics of the texts generated/perceived by him, it means that based on the methodology for studying CT (including the classification of the units of misunderstanding included in it in accordance with the three-level structure of the YaL), a methodology for the formation of BiL can potentially be developed.
The success of learning a foreign language is determined by the quality of the formation of BiL. At the same time, it is important to understand at what stage of this process a particular BiL is located. When it comes to late bilingualism, at the first stage, the VtL is built on the basis of the native YL. The student unconsciously perceives the language being studied through the prism of his native language - he “translates” information from an unknown code to a known one, using an already existing conceptual base. Subsequently, the native YaL and VtL begin, as a rule, unconsciously, to interact, i.e. the second stage is characterized by a mixture of the structures of the native YaL and VtL: their building units can be combined, copied, replaced. At the third stage, when the process of merging becomes harmful within the framework of the formation of the student’s BiL, the task of consciously separating the VtL and the native YL should be set in order to form two independent structures, each of which would be characterized by its own set of construction units and the relationships between them in the verbal- semantic, cognitive and pragmatic levels. The need for such a division is especially felt when analyzing the speech of immigrants, when students often do not distinguish between two different linguistic pictures of the world. In other words, at the third stage there should be a gradual transformation of subordinative bilingualism into coordinated one, in which the student recognizes the presence of a language different from his native one, realizes its typological features and consistently develops it.
Let us note that the basis of the described stages of the formation of BiL is, on the one hand, the idea
person-centered learning and, on the other hand, the general didactic principle of student consciousness and activity, which requires ensuring conscious learning in teaching by activating student reflection. At the same time, as we assume, in the process of formation of BiL according to the criterion of consciousness, there is a movement from a non-intentional (spontaneous) type of bilingualism to an intensional one (see:).
In linguodidactics, a specific solution to the problem of forming BiL involves the construction in the student’s mind of a certain construct, which is a representation of the VtL system not only at the verbal-semantic, but also at the cognitive and pragmatic levels. The ways to solve this problem probably lie in the practical application of the linguodidactic model of linguistic language with its further development. At present, for example, in textbooks on a foreign language, among the objects of teaching there are traditionally only such cognitions and stereotypes of the cognitive level of the language as metaphor (sunny man), stable comparative phrases (cunning as a fox), proverbs (you can’t catch them without difficulty and fish from the pond), phraseological units (hang your nose) and - not systematically - concepts (truth/truth, shame/conscience). “Not built-in” in the student’s VTL are such types of gnomes as frames (May holidays, going to the bathhouse, standing in line, drinking tea in the kitchen), various types of mnemes (sparkling water machine, communal apartment, lectures at the Polytechnic, pioneer camp, potatoes), precedent texts and references to them (they wanted the best, but it turned out as always; we need Fedya, we need it!; Hyperboloid of engineer Garin; Ivan Susanin). The pragmatic level in the practice of teaching a foreign language, especially such an emotionally charged language as Russian, also largely remains outside the scope of the teaching system. For example, many modal particles are still not included in the lexical minimums according to RCT. One of the possible tools for motivating students to study such units is reading CT.
Despite attempts to create innovative methods for the formation of BiL on the material of CT (for example, “two-level” commented reading (see: )), this area of linguodidactics remains a priority and open to scientific research.
NOTES
1 N. N. Rogoznaya uses the term “imperfect” bilingualism, which reflects the presence of varying degrees of interference in the speech of foreigners (see:).
2 In medicine, cases of “bilingual schizophrenia” are noted, in which a person feels a change in his personality when changing language (see:).
3 In the works of G. N. Chirsheva, the following pragmatic functions of code switching are highlighted: “addressing, quotation, humorous, phatic, esoteric, saving speech effort, emotional, self-identification, subject-thematic, metalinguistic and influencing.”
4 V.V. Vinogradov defined such interference as “incomplete code switching” (cited from:).
5 As R.K. Minyar-Beloruchev rightly notes, reflecting on the problem of bilingualism, only by mastering the skill of deverbalization, that is, the ability to involuntarily switch to figurative thinking in a foreign language, can one “free himself from the dominance of one language and enter the world of multilingualism, cognize not only your country, but also other national cultures."
LITERATURE
1. Blinova S. G., Tsvetkova T. K. The problem of the formation of bilingual consciousness in linguistics and linguodidactics // Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin. URL: http://vestnik. yspu.org/releases/novye_Issledovaniy/25_6/
2. Bogin G.I. Relative completeness of proficiency in a second language. Kalinin, 1978.
3. Weinreich U. Monolingualism and multilingualism // New in linguistics. M., 1972. Issue. 6. P. 25-60.
4. Vereshchagin E. M. Psychological and metric characteristics of bilingualism. M., 1969.
5. Vinogradov V.V. About artistic prose. M., 1930.
6. Vygotsky L. S. Lectures on pedology. Izhevsk, 2001.
7. Gadamer G.-G. The relevance of beauty. M., 1991.
8. Galskova N. D., Gez N. I. Theory of teaching foreign languages: Linguodidactics and methodology: Textbook. aid for students linguistic un-tov i fak. in. language higher ped. textbook establishments. M., 2004.
9. Zavyalova M. V. Study of speech mechanisms in bilingualism (based on the associative experiment with Lithuanian-Russian bilinguals) // Vopr. linguistics. 2001. No. 5. P. 60-85.
10. Zimnyaya I. A. Psychology of teaching a non-native language. M., 1989.
11. Karaulov Yu. N. Russian language and linguistic personality. M., 2010.
12. Karaulov Yu.N., Filippovich Yu.N. Linguistic and cultural consciousness of the Russian linguistic personality. Modeling of state and functioning. M., 2009.
13. Konrad N. I. About the works of V. V. Vinogradov on issues of stylistics, poetics and theory of poetic speech // Problems of modern philology: Collection. Art. to the 70th anniversary of acad.
B. V. Vinogradova. M., 1965. S. 400-412.
14. Minyar-Beloruchev R.K. Mechanisms of bilingualism and the problem of the native language in teaching a foreign language // Foreign languages at school. 1991. No. 5. P. 14-16.
15. Mutylina A. Yu. On the distinction between the concepts of “switching” and “code mixing” (using the example of oral speech of Russian-Chinese bilinguals) // Vestn. IGLU 2011. Issue. 1.
16. Pankin V.M., Filippov A.V. Language contacts: a short dictionary. M., 2011.
17. Potemkina E. V. Secondary linguistic personality as an object of linguodidactics // Vestn. Center for Education and Science of Moscow State University Philology. Culturology. Pedagogy. Methodology. 2012. No. 4. P. 59-64.
18. Rogoznaya N.N., Ma Pin. Research on subordinate bilingualism on both sides of language contact (Chinese-Russian and Russian-Chinese interlanguage)
// Linguistic and methodological strategies for teaching foreigners the Russian language as a means of intercultural communication. Irkutsk, 2006. pp. 56-63.
19. Ruzhitsky I.V. Concept of linguistic personality: linguodidactic aspect // Mater. All-Russian scientific-practical conf. “Wordmaster.” Teacher. Personality." Cheboksary, November 20, 2009 Cheboksary, 2009.
20. Ruzhitsky I.V. Modal particles as one of the ways to realize the pragmatic level of a linguistic personality // Language. Consciousness. Communication. 2001. Issue. 16. pp. 13-19.
21. Russian literature-XXI century: Reader for foreign students. Vol. 1 / Ed. E. A. Kuzminova, I. V. Ruzhitsky. M., 2009.
22. Russian language. Encyclopedia. M., 1997.
23. Ushinsky K. D. Pedagogical works: In 6 volumes. T. 5. M., 1990.
24. Khaleeva I. I. Secondary linguistic personality as a recipient of a foreign text // Language - system. Language - text. Language is an ability. M., 1995. S. 277-286.
25. Chirsheva G. N. Introduction to ontobilingualism. Cherepovets, 2000.
26. Shcherba L.V. Language system and speech activity. L., 1974.
[chronicle]
RUSSIAN MEDIA RESEARCH IN A WORLD CONTEXT. TO THE RESULTS OF THE CYCLE OF SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES
At one of the working meetings regarding the series of conferences upcoming in early 2013, I came up with a proposal to unite them under a common “cap” - “Scientific Spring on the First Line”. It is on the 1st line of Vasilyevsky Island that the Higher School of Journalism and Mass Communications of St. Petersburg State University (HSJiMK) is located, which includes two faculties: journalism and applied communications. I liked the name, and from that moment it appeared in our press releases, event announcements, interviews, etc. It soon became clear that the spring turned out to be hotter than ever.
To illustrate, I will list the events that took place one after another over the course of several months: international student conference “Media in the modern world. Young researchers" (March), international conference "Media in the modern world. St. Petersburg Readings" (April), which includes, "on the basis of autonomy," the international seminar "Speech Communication in the Media" and the English-language international pre-conference "Comparative Media Research in the Modern World: A Meeting of East and West - Comparing Media Systems in Today's World: East meets West", international conference "Illustration in print: from past to future" (May), all-Russian conference of the National Association of Mass Media Researchers "Russian studies of mass media and journalism in an international context" (May), English-language international seminar "Media in transition - Media in transition" (May). It should be noted that in each case
We are not talking about local departmental discussions, but about large scientific forums that gather many dozens and hundreds of participants. It is clear that the employees of the Higher School of Art and Culture fully felt the burden of organizational and intellectual concerns.
However, it is, of course, not the organizers’ works themselves that deserve attention, but the ideological dominants and scientific results of past discussions. Among the dominant features, we will highlight, first of all, the international level of events. It is no coincidence that this word is repeated in the list of conferences given above. The VSHJMK has chosen a strategic approach to understanding the state of domestic journalism and scientific knowledge about it in comparison with global trends. There are no isolated areas in the ocean of modern science, and the former attraction of the Russian theoretical school to autotrophic existence not only looks archaic, but has simply ceased to be possible. The question is on what basis we enter the global research community - as a student audience reproducing the concepts of foreign authorities, or as equal partners enriching the world with the intellectual and cultural capital that domestic science has.
For example, one of the most striking features of the seminar “Speech Communication in the Media” and the plenary session of the conference “Media in the Modern World” was the participation of Dutch-speaking
(Continued on page 100)
Loading...