What artistic systems existed in Russian literature at the beginning of the 20th century?
There were two artistic systems - realism and modernism, which had their own stylistic trends.
What currents of modernism existed in Russian poetry at the beginning of the 20th century?
In modernist poetry of the early 20th century, symbolism, acmeism and futurism were the most striking.
What words and images were key in the work of the Symbolists?
In symbolist poetry, the images of the Beautiful Lady, Eternal Femininity, the Soul of the World were key, and the key words were “mystery”, “soul”, “eternity”, “music”, “nebula”.
Who was a member of the literary group of acmeists "Workshop of poets"?
The acmeist group “The Workshop of Poets” included N. Gumilyov, A. Akhmatova, G. Ivanov, S. Gorodetsky, M. Zenkevich.
What are the main provisions of the aesthetic program of the futurists?
The Futurists abandoned the classical heritage, denied the accepted forms of verse, experimented with language, and destroyed the usual rhythms and rhymes. They sought to shock the public in behavior, clothing, the titles of manifestos, books and poems (“Dead Moon”, “Weary Toad Milkers”). They professed the idea of anti-aestheticism. The creativity of the futurists is aggressive, aimed at destruction. That is why the idea of revolution turned out to be close to them and many futurists became its singers.
Glossary:
- main points of the futurist program
- name the main provisions of the futurist program
- the main provisions of futurism
- futurist program
- main provisions of the program of Futurism
(No ratings yet)
Other works on this topic:
- Why did the author's song develop so rapidly in the 1970s? Name its representatives. The author's song originated as non-literary, unpublished poetry, transmitted in tape recordings or ...
- Through all the work of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin there are three main themes: social inequality in Russia, the moral and psychological degradation of the nobility, the people and the bourgeois intelligentsia. These topics are covered accordingly...
- Futurism (from Latin futurum - future) is an avant-garde phenomenon in Russian poetry. This included several groups: ego-futurists (I. Severyanin, K. Fofanov); cubo-futurists (Budetlyans, Gileyans) -...
Main features
Rebelliousness, anarchic worldview, expression of the mass mood of the crowd;
Denial of cultural traditions, an attempt to create art that looks to the future;
Rebellion against the usual norms of poetic speech, experimentation in the field of rhythm, rhyme, orientation to the spoken verse, slogan, poster;
The search for a liberated "self-made" word, experiments to create an "abstruse" language;
The cult of technology, industrial cities;
Outrageous pathos.
emergence
The founders of Russian futurism are considered to be “budetlyane”, members of the St. Petersburg group “Gilea” (Velimir Khlebnikov, Alexei Kruchenykh, Vladimir Mayakovsky and David Burliuk), who in December 1912 issued a manifesto “Slap in the face of public taste”. The manifesto called for "thrown Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, etc., etc., from the ship of modernity" and formulated 4 rights of poets:
1. To increase the poet's vocabulary in its volume with arbitrary and derivative words (Word - innovation).
2. An irresistible hatred for the language that existed before them.
3. With horror, remove from your proud brow a Wreath of penny glory made from bath brooms.
4. To stand on a block of the word "we" in the midst of a sea of whistling and indignation.
Russian futurism arose independently of Italian futurism at the turn of the 1900s–1910s and for the first time
publicly declared itself in 1910, when the first futuristic collection was published
It was these poets, together with V. Mayakovsky and A. Kruchenykh, who soon made up the most
a large and influential futuristic group - cubo-futurists, or poets
"Gilei" (Gilea is the ancient Greek name for the territory of the Tauride province, where the father
D. Burliuk was the manager of the estate and where in 1911 a group of cubofutu-
rists). In addition to "Gilea", futurism was represented by three other groupings -
egofuturism (I. Severyanin, I. Ignatiev, K. Olimpov, V. Gnedov and others), a group
“Mezzanine of Poetry” (V. Shershenevich, Khrisanf, R. Ivnev and others), by the association “Centri-
fugue” (B. Pasternak, N. Aseev, S. Bobrov, K. Bolshakov and others). Like other moderators
Futurism was heterogeneous among nist currents. The greatest consistency and
compromise in the futuristic movement was distinguished by cubo-futurists. Social
the psychological support of the new trend was the mood of the new for Russia social
strata - radical students, the lumpen proletariat, in general, people of the city
streets. Of all the currents of modernism, futurism stands out precisely by the certainty of its
his social face.
Literary futurism is closely connected with the avant-garde
artistic groups of the 1910s - primarily with the artists of the groups
"Jack of Diamonds", "Donkey's Tail", "Union of Youth". In one way or another, poets
futurists combined their literary practice with painting:
The brothers Burliuks, and E. Guro, and A. Kruchenykh, and V. Mayakovsky were also tsami. And vice versa,
achieved world fame as artists K. Malevich and V. Kandinsky at first
participated in futuristic almanacs and as "talkers". Closest connection
poetic style of the futurists with the technological skills of painting manifested itself
from the first steps of literary futurism: following the avant-garde painters, poets
"Gilei" turn to the forms of artistic primitive, strive for utilitarian
"usefulness" of his art.
Futurism claims nothing less than a universal mission; on globalism
claims, it is incomparable with any of the artistic movements of the past and future
go. A characteristic touch: after the February Revolution of 1917, futurists and those close to
to them the avant-garde artists form an imaginary "Government of the Globe";
on behalf of the "Chairmen of the Globe" V. Khlebnikov sends letters and telegrams
Provisional government with demands for resignation. And this is not at all a manifestation of a tendency
sense of humor, as well as not psychopathological megalomania: this is a consequence
belief that the whole world is permeated with art. From the same conviction - craving
futurists to mass theatrical actions, coloring of the forehead and palms, cultivated
esthetic "madness". Futurism as a phenomenon went beyond the actual
literature: it was embodied with maximum force in the very behavior of the participants in the current
Conscious outrageousness becomes the program of life behavior of the futurists
layman. Futurism, like any avant-garde artistic phenomenon, is most feared
there is indifference. Therefore, the atmosphere becomes a necessary condition for its existence.
sphere of literary scandal. Just like the role of a king is played out in life
and on the stage by its environment, futurism cannot take place outside a kind of social
rite of booing and ridicule. The most important reaction for futurists to their art is
not even comprehension of the literary text, but emphasized aggressive rejection, protest
in the most drastic way possible. This reaction from the public is provoked
deliberate foolishness in the behavior of the futurists. A kind of repertoire
shocking: biting names ("Chukuryuk" - for the picture; "Dead Moon" - for
collection of works; "Go to hell!" - for a literary manifesto); despise
positive reviews of the previous cultural tradition and contemporary art.
In literary texts, lexical, syntactic and semantic
shifts. Lexical renewal is associated with the depoeticization of poetic language,
the introduction of crude images, vulgarisms. Moreover, it is not just a matter of overcoming the vocabulary
logical prohibitions and the use of taboo vocabulary: a sense of conscious
bias arises because derogatory images or vulgarisms are used there,
where tradition dictates a lofty romantic style. Reader's expectation
sharply violated, the boundary between "low" and "high" disappears. flow reducing
images - a common sign of D. Burliuk's poem, for which "stars are worms,
drunk with mist”, “poetry is a tattered girl, and beauty is blasphemous rubbish”.
The word is deprived of the halo of sacramentality, objectified, it can be crushed, re-
change, create new combinations of lexical elements. Hence the widespread
experiments, strange in futurism, to create an "abstruse language" consisting of
sounds, each of which has its own semantics: for example, the most
kalny "zaumnik" Kruchenykh suggests instead of the supposedly worn-out word "lily" the word
"eyy", shining, as it seems to him, with the original purity. New attitude to the word
as a constructive material leads to the active creation of neologisms and non-
common phrases (this is characteristic of Khlebnikov, Mayakovsky).
Syntactic shifts are manifested in the rejection of punctuation marks, the introduction
"telegraphic" syntax (without prepositions), the use of mathematical and musical
signs. Much more importance than before is given to the visual impact
text. Hence a variety of experiments with one or another arrangement of words, verse
creative lines, the use of multi-colored fonts (private manifestations of "visual
zation" of the verse - Mayakovsky's "ladder", Burliuk's use of special fonts for
highlighting individual epithets, internal rhymes, the most important words).
FUTURISM - one of the main avant-garde trends (avant-garde is an extreme manifestation of modernism) in European art of the early 20th century, which was most developed in Italy and Russia.
In 1909, in Italy, the poet F. Marinetti published the Futurist Manifesto. The main provisions of this manifesto: the rejection of traditional aesthetic values and the experience of all previous literature, bold experiments in the field of literature and art. As the main elements of futuristic poetry, Marinetti calls "courage, audacity, rebellion." In 1912, the Russian futurists V. Mayakovsky, A. Kruchenykh, V. Khlebnikov created their manifesto "Slap in the face of public taste". They also sought to break with traditional culture, welcomed literary experiments, sought to find new means of speech expression (proclaiming a new free rhythm, loosening syntax, eliminating punctuation marks). At the same time, Russian futurists rejected fascism and anarchism, which Marinetti declared in his manifestos, and turned mainly to aesthetic problems. They proclaimed a revolution of form, its independence from content (“what is important is not what, but how”) and the absolute freedom of poetic speech.
Futurism was a heterogeneous direction. Within its framework, four main groups or currents can be distinguished:
1) "Hilea", which united cubo-futurists (V. Khlebnikov, V. Mayakovsky, A. Kruchenykh and others);
2) "Association of Egofuturists" (I. Severyanin, I. Ignatiev and others);
3) "Mezzanine of poetry" (V. Shershenevich, R. Ivnev);
4) "Centrifuge" (S. Bobrov, N. Aseev, B. Pasternak).
The most significant and influential group was the "Gilea": in fact, it was she who determined the face of Russian futurism. Its participants released many collections: "The Garden of Judges" (1910), "Slap in the Face of Public Taste" (1912), "Dead Moon" (1913), "Took" (1915).
The Futurists wrote in the name of the man of the crowd. At the heart of this movement was the feeling of "the inevitability of the collapse of the old" (Mayakovsky), the awareness of the birth of a "new humanity". Artistic creativity, according to the Futurists, should not be an imitation, but a continuation of nature, which through the creative will of man creates "a new world, today's, iron ..." (Malevich). This is the reason for the desire to destroy the "old" form, the desire for contrasts, the attraction to colloquial speech. Based on a living colloquial language, the futurists were engaged in "word-creation" (created neologisms). Their works were distinguished by complex semantic and compositional shifts - a contrast between the comic and the tragic, fantasy and lyrics.
Futurism began to disintegrate already in 1915-1916.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE CHELYABINSK REGION
STATE BUDGET EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF SECONDARY VOCATIONAL EDUCATION (SSUZ)
"KARTALA MULTI-INDUSTRIAL TECHNICIUM"
METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
literature lesson
Teacher
Astashenko S. N.
delusions
2015
Topic - Futurism as one of the brightest phenomena of the Silver Age.
Lesson contributesformation of competencies:
general cultural competence
possession of different types of speech activity (monologue, dialogue, reading, writing, oral communication, being able to ask a question)
reasoned to formulate their attitude to the read work;
correlate fiction with social life and culture;
correlate the work with the literary direction of the era;
Lesson type - a lesson in learning new material.
The purpose of the lesson -
– To form the basic concepts about the features of the direction "futurism".
- Make an overview of the work of futurist poets.
Tasks:
- educational
– introduce the concept of "futurism" and the characteristic features of this trend;
To consolidate knowledge about the directions of symbolism and acmeism;
To improve the ability of students to work with a poetic text.
- developing - develop the ability to analyze, summarize, express one's thoughts, expressively read poems.
- educators - to cultivate a love for art, to form an aesthetic taste, cognitive activity, the ability to work in a group, the desire to apply theoretical knowledge in practice.
Methodical methods:
lecture with elements of conversation, analysis of poems, expressive reading, listening to songs, verbal drawing, independent work.
Lesson equipment:
Folder with texts of poems, reproductions of paintings, recording of songs.
During the classes.
Introduction by the teacher.
Continuing the conversation about the Silver Age, we must remember that it is primarily associated with a number of modernist trends in literature and art.
List the most significant of them.
Highlight the symbolism.
Name the features of acmeism.
Despite controversy and disagreement, representatives of all movements relied on a common basis. They strove for a spiritual restructuring of the world and agreed that art had a special role to play in the moral transformation of man.
Setting goals and objectives of the lesson.
The task of today's lesson is to identify the distinctive features of futurism as a literary movement, dwell on the origins of Russian futurism and get an overview of the life and literary activities of the most famous representatives of this movement.
Class task : to outline the main provisions of the lecture related to the formation and theoretical self-determination of futurism.
Lecture plan:
Modernists defended the special gift of the artist, who was able to predict the path of a new culture, relied on anticipating the future and even on transforming the world through art. A special role in this belongs to the futurists. Already in the very name of the direction lies the desire for the future (from Latin - the future)
1. Origin of Futurism. (in the application)
2. Definition of futurism.
3. Work on an excerpt from the manifesto "Slap in the face of public taste" for questions:
Who and on what grounds did the futurists reject?
What was the hatred for the language that existed before the futurists?
To whom was this "slap in the face" given?
4. Futurist program:
1. Denial of grammar, syntax, spelling.
2. New rhythms, rhymes, verse sizes.
3. New words and new topics.
4. Contempt for glory, the absence of taboo topics.
5.Groups of futurists:
Cubofuturists (Khlebnikov, Burliuk, Kamensky, Mayakovsky)
Egofuturists (Severyanin)
- "Mezzanine of poetry" (Shershenevich)
- "Centrifuge" (Pasternak, Aseev)
6. Work on an excerpt from the manifesto "The Word as such" on the issues:
Teacher summary:
There is a rational grain in the manifesto - the authors urge to be attentive to the matter of the word, the sound, the flesh of the verse. This achieves expressiveness, the language acquires energy. But the Futurists paid more attention not to content, but to form. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. However, the biggest flaw of the manifesto is the break with classical poetry, the assertion of its originality at the level of scandal, shocking, literary hooliganism.
7. Reading and analysis of poems.
V. Khlebnikov "The Spell of Laughter"
An experiment with the word is carried out by V. Khlebnikov in the poem "The Spell of Laughter." It was on his poems that the Futurists based their theories. This poem is a vivid example of the breaking of poetic forms.
Reading a poem.
1. Determine the essence of the experiment. What wording technique is used by the poet? What are the roots of the verse? (he drew attention to the root of the word and, with the help of various suffixes and prefixes, began to form new words that resemble ancient Slavic ones. The verse goes back to the folklore tradition and resembles a pagan conspiracy.)
2. Name the new words and say what role they play in creating a particular image (and is an image possible with such a set of obscure words?)
V. Khlebnikov “lips were sung to Bobeobi…”
V. Khlebnikov "Freedom comes naked ..."
Teacher's word:
In the poetry of the beginning of the century, the ego-futurist Igor Severyanin is a peculiar and contradictory figure. It was called "pretty", noted predilection for "tasteless" content, passion for foreign words and names, false, farcical prettiness, decorativeness, pretentiousness.
8. Student's message about the biography of I. Severyanin.
9. Reading and analysis of poems.
I. Severyanin "In the brilliant darkness"
1. Highlight new words.
2. What meaning did the poet put into the epithet "brilliant"?
3. In what manner does the lyrical hero oppose himself to other people? Give examples.
I. Severyanin "I, the genius Igor Severyanin ..."
1. Give examples of new words.
2. How was the image of "poetic glory" created?
10. Independent work on the poem "Kenzel"
1. Did you like the poems? What are they about?
2. Write down new words in your notebook.
3. Write out the verse. artistic comparisons.
Teacher's word:
Severyanin's poetry is very musical. The repetition of sounds, melodiousness, the play of color were also characteristic of the songs of the early 20th century by A. Vertinsky.
11 . Student's report about the biography of A. Vertinsky.
Listening to the songs of A.. Vertinsky (“Tango “Magnolia”, “Little Ballerina”, “In the blue and distant ocean ...”)
Do Vertinsky's songs have something in common with Severyanin's poems?
Teacher's word:
Most often, Russian futurism is associated with the name of V. Mayakovsky. The novelty of the rhythms he created indicated that the artist came to poetry with a fundamentally new attitude to poetic creativity.
12. Reading and analysis of poems.
V. Mayakovsky verse. "Night"
1. What role does color play in it?
2. How is movement, dynamics, swiftness conveyed in it?
3.Prove that Mayakovsky was a futurist. Give examples of new words and images he created.
- consider reproductions of paintings by P. Picasso "Guernica" and T. Munch "Scream"
V. Mayakovsky verse. "Morning"
1. What lines from these verses. Mayakovsky can be "projected" onto these paintings?
2. What pictures would you draw for poems?
3. How do you think this poem revolted the public?
Teacher's word:
Russian futurism had many faces, we were convinced of this. It manifested itself in art in different ways. Such bright individuals as Khlebnikov, Mayakovsky, Kamensky, Severyanin found their own way of expressing themselves with the help of a system of techniques that they called "futurism". But their work is wider than manifestos and declarations, although the innovative techniques of the futurists have forever remained in their poetry. With their creative discoveries, they enriched Russian poetry of the 20th century.
The rebellious aesthetics of the futurists was a reaction to a rapidly changing world.
The reading public has moved away from the images of this direction, but it is impossible not to see and
positive moment. Futurism pushed the boundaries of poetry and the surrounding world, raised the question of new functions of art, made art a sphere of reader co-creation, and bold experiments with the word were further developed in Russian literature.
13. Summing up the lesson:
– What new did you learn in the lesson?
– What interesting things have you discovered?
– Which direction of modernism seems more understandable?
– Which direction did you like the most?
Grading.
14. Homework:
Prepare an expressive reading of poems by futurist poets. Written question - “Futurism is a slap in the face of public taste. Is it so?"
APPENDIX.
Origin of Futurism.
The current was most developed in Italy and Russia. The Italian futurists are characterized by aesthetic aggression and, in general, the cult of force and war. The war was perceived by them as the "hygiene" of the world, which subsequently led some to the camp of the Italian dictator Mussolini.
Russian futurism arose independently of Italian futurism and had little in common with it. Its aesthetic background was symbolism. The Futurists rejected the innuendo, vagueness, mysticism inherent in symbolism. In the center was a man, not a mystery. The artistic picture of the world created by the futurists was based on the system of values of urban civilization. For some, the image of the city acts as an expression of the essence of life and modern culture. Others treated the city sharply negatively. For Russian futurists, the modern world is a movement, an aspiration to the future. Art was for them the most important means in transforming man and the world. They declared the previous literature and art as something obsolete and not corresponding to the present, put forward the idea of art capable of transforming the world with a real word. The past for them was a collection of petrified values. Their rebellious aspirations were far from genuine revolutionary, although they considered themselves opponents of bourgeois society.
The time of birth of Russian futurism is considered to be 1910, when the 1st collection "The Garden of Judges" was published. The first declaration "A Slap in the Face of Public Taste" was issued in 1912. Young poets declared: “Only we are the face of our time”, “The past is crowded”, “The Academy and Pushkin are more incomprehensible than hieroglyphs”. It was these theses, expressing hatred for everything that existed before them, that brought them scandalous fame and fame. 1913 manifesto from the collection "Ten of Judges - 2". The program of the futurists was concretized: they denied grammar, syntax, spelling; talked about new rhymes, rhythms, meter, new words and themes. As an artistic program, a utopian dream of the birth of a super-art capable of transforming the world was put forward. Futurism was heterogeneous as a trend. Its history consisted of the struggle of 4 groups. Gorky pointed out that there is no single trend in Russian futurism, but there are individual talented writers.
"Gilea" - cubo-futurists: Khlebnikov, Mayakovsky - this is the most aggressive wing in Russian futurism. Many of their creative decisions were determined by the art of avant-garde painting.
"Association of egofuturists": this group was an offshoot of acmeism. The main principle was the principle of self-affirmation of the individual, the organic combination of innovation and tradition. The representatives of this trend were characterized by song and musicality of the verse.
"Mezzanine in poetry": Khrisanf, Shershnevich.
"Centrifuge": Bobrov, Pasternak.
The general basis of the Futurism movement was the spontaneous feeling of the inevitability of the collapse of the "junk". The Futurists set out to update the poetic language. They were actively engaged in word creation. The word was objectified, it could be crushed, altered. The attitude to the word as a constructive material has led to the emergence of many neologisms in poetry.
- Try to understand the meaning of these formations and explain their origin.
MOGATYR
LGAVDA.
BUDRETSY.
BUDETLYANES.
Tvoryanin.
"A slap in the face of public taste"
Reading our New First Unexpected.
Only we are the face of our Time. The horn of time blows us in verbal art.
The past is tight. The Academy and Pushkin are more incomprehensible than hieroglyphs. To throw Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and so on and so forth off the ship of our time.
Whoever does not forget his first love will not recognize his last. Who, gullible, will turn the last Love to the perfumery fornication of Balmont? Does it reflect the courageous soul of today? Who, cowardly, will be afraid to steal paper armor from the black tailcoat of Bryusov's warrior?
Or are they the dawn of unknown beauties?
Wash your hands that have touched the filthy slime of books written by those innumerable Leonid Andreevs.
To all these Maxims Gorkys, Kuprins, Bloks, Sologubs, Averchenkos, Chernys, Kuzmins, Bunins, and so on and so forth. - All you need is a cottage on the river. Such an award is given by fate to tailors.
From the height of skyscrapers we look at their insignificance! ..
We command to honor the rights of poets:
1. To increase the poet's vocabulary in its volume with arbitrary and derivative words (a word is an innovation).
2. An irresistible hatred for the language that existed before them.
3. With horror to remove from his proud brow, made of bath brooms, the Wreath of penny glory.
4. To stand on a block of the word "we" in the midst of a sea of whistling and indignation.
And if the dirty stigmas of your “common sense” and “good taste” still remain in our lines, then for the first time the Lightning Lightnings of the New Coming Beauty of the Self-valuable (self-sufficient) Word are already trembling on them.
Moscow. 1912 December.
D. Burliuk, Alexander Kruchenykh,
V. Mayakovsky, Viktor Khlebnikov.
A. E. Kruchenykh, V. V. Khlebnikov "The Word as such" (1913)
“So that writing is tight and reading is tight, more uncomfortable than oiled boots or a truck in the living room (a lot of knots, ligaments, loops and patches, a splintery surface, very rough) ... Writers before us had a completely different instrumentation, for example:
An angel flew across the midnight sky
And he sang a quiet song...
Like pictures painted with jelly and milk, these verses do not satisfy us ... A healthy person will only upset the stomach with such food. We give an example of another sound-phrase:
Hole, bull, schyl,
Ubeshur
skoom
s co boo
r l ez.
(By the way, there is more national Russian in this five-verse line than in all of Pushkin's poetry.) Painters - Budtlyans love to use body parts, cuts, and Budtlyans - speech creators - with chopped words, half-words and their bizarre combinations ... This achieves the greatest expressiveness, and this is what distinguishes the language of the fast-paced modernity, which destroyed the former frozen language ... The mediocrity and the students love to work (the industrious bear Bryusov, who five times rewrote and polished his novels Tolstoy, Gogol, Turgenev ...). Speech-makers should write on their books:
AFTER READING, RIP!
Do you understand everything in the manifest? Do you accept it or reject it?
This manifesto is not a hoax, not a "joke", but a serious fact of literature. What gives reason to call this document serious?
What are the ideas behind it? What is positive about it?
Find words in the manifesto that can infuriate a person who loves classical literature.
Igor Severyanin
EPILOGUE
I, the genius Igor Severyanin,
Intoxicated with his victory:
I'm completely screened!
I am wholeheartedly approved!
From Bayazet to Port Arthur
He drew a stubborn line.
I conquered literature!
Looked up, thundering, to the throne!
I - a year ago - said: "I will!"
The year has flashed, and here I am!
Among friends I saw Judas,
But he did not reject him, but revenge.
"I am alone in my task!"-
Clearly I proclaimed.
They came to me, who are sighted,
And, having given delight, they did not give strength.
There were four of us, but the strength
My, single, grew.
She didn't ask for support.
And she did not grow up in number.
She grew in her unity
Autocratic and proud, -
And, in enchanted suicide,
The horde staggered into my tent...
From snowy hypnosis
Two fled into the ashes of the swamps;
Everyone has a splinter in the shoulder, -
Zane is painfully fugitive takeoff.
I greeted them: I can
Greetings to all - God, Hello!
Fly, dove, boldly to the serpent!
Snake, wrap around the eagle in return!
I have completed my task
Conquered literature.
I throw the strong at random
Conqueror impulse.
But, having given the crowd of slaves
Meaning of own "I",
I dust off my shoes
And again in space - my path.
I descend mockingly from the throne
And, now a bright pilgrim,
I go to shy valleys,
Despising the stunned Rome.
I was exhausted from the flattering retinue,
And by nature I was hungry.
Dreams with flowers intertwined
Dew accumulated my glass.
My brain cleared dope
The soul is drawn into the primitive.
I see dewy fogs!
I hear a fake tune!
Not a student, not a teacher
Great friend, insignificant brother,
I go where the inspiration is
My quest is the dialect of huts.
See you for a long time! In lawlessness
Tolerance is good.
On a rainy day, it will rise like the sun,
My universal soul!
KENNZEL
In a noisy moire dress, in a noisy moire dress
Along the lunar alley you pass the sea ...
Your dress is exquisite, your talma is azure,
And the sandy path from the foliage is patterned -
Like spider legs, like jaguar fur.
For a sophisticated woman, the night is always a newlywed...
The intoxication of love is destined for you by fate ...
In a noisy moire dress, in a noisy moire dress -
You are so aesthetic, you are so graceful...
But who are the lovers? and will there be a match for you?
Wrap your legs with an expensive, jaguar blanket,
And, sitting comfortably in a gasoline landaulet,
Trust your life to a boy in a rubber mackintosh,
And close his eyes with your jasmine dress -
Noisy moire dress, noisy moire dress! ..
In shining darkness
In tuxedos, in chic ruffled, high-society boobies
In the prince's living room they twitched, their faces dumbfounded:
I smiled tautly, remembering gunpowder sarcastically.
Boredom exploded unexpectedly neo-poetic motif.
Rhymes are formed into cookies. The language seems to be assonance.
I despise you ardently, your dim Your Excellencies,
And, despising, I count on the world resonance!
Brilliant audience, you are misted with brilliance!
Hidden from you, unworthy, future horizon!
Dim Your Excellencies! At the time of the Northerner
You should know that both Blok and Balmont were behind Pushkin!
1913
I. Severyanin.
Surprisingly tasty, sparkling and spicy!
I'm all in something Norwegian! I'm all in something Spanish!
I get inspired impulsively! And take up the pen!
The sound of airplanes! Run cars!
Express whistle! The winglet of the buoys!
Someone's been kissed here! Someone was killed there!
Pineapple in champagne is the pulse of the evenings!
In a group of nervous girls, in an acute society of ladies
I will turn the tragedy of life into a dream farce...
Pineapples in champagne! Pineapples in champagne!
From Moscow to Nagasaki! From New York to Mars!
He is good in that he is not at all
What does the empty crowd think of him,
Poems fundamentally not reading,
Since there are no pineapples and cars in them.
Foxtrot, cinema and bingo -
Here, here is where the flock of people rushes!
Meanwhile, his soul is simple,
Like a day in spring. But who knows?
Bless the world, curse the wars
He sends in verse worthy of recognition,
Slightly grieving, sometimes slightly joking
Above it is the leading planet ...
He is in every song, sung to them from the heart,
Ironic child.
To generalize knowledge in the following areas:
Symbolism
Musicality
The search for new poetic meters
Elevation themed
Polysemy, vagueness of images
understatement
Acmeism
Liberation from the symbol
Returning the word to its original meaning
Equal attitude to form and meaning, objectivity, clarity, simplicity
Poetry = craft
Futurism
Rejection of traditional culture.
Anarchist rebellion.
Absolute freedom of creativity.
Rejection of literary and linguistic norms.
Aspiration to the future.
Epatage as a means of influencing the public.
FUTURISTS ARE LANGUAGE BUILDERS
Like any social fact, our language is an object of cultural overcoming. The fact that in our everyday life we use language impulsively, following a given, imposed social norm, does not in the least contradict what has been said above. The only thing is that language as a means of impulsive, unconscious use has its own strict boundaries: speech “by inertia” is replaced by conscious penetration into the language system as soon as the utterance falls into conditions that force the speaker to operate with his linguistic abilities rationally, expediently. Let me explain this with simple examples. A conversation at the dinner table and a student's answer in an exam, a theoretical conversation with a friend at home and an argument in a public debate, notes in a notebook and a business letter - differ significantly in terms of the method of using the language. While the first members of these parallels are characterized by a lack of distinctness and harmony in the reproduction of a given language system, the implementation of the second involves overcoming the inertia of linguistic thinking, a conscious attitude to the organizing elements of the language. This attitude is especially clear in writing: in speech it is often obscured due to external conditions that are not overcome by everyone and not always. But any literary document, in the broadest sense of this term - be it a letter, a poster, a newspaper, a diary - regardless of whether this document was compiled by a literate or semi-literate person, inevitably bears traces of awareness, a peculiar interpretation of the organizing moments of language in their system. It is clear, however, that the more complex the social conditions that determine a given statement, the more intense this awareness. From a sticker about renting a room and conferring at a rally to a poetic
Works and oratory - lies the way to overcome linguistic inertia.
This is how a language culture is created, the level of which, ultimately, corresponds to the general cultural level of a given social environment. The extreme points of this culture are determined: on the one hand, by the degree of literacy of the masses, on the other, by the poetic creativity of a given era.
No matter how one defines the essence and purpose of poetry, the right of a linguist to analyze poetic facts as linguistic facts seems indisputable to me. If it is objected that poetic skills are determined not only by the existing language system, but also by general cultural-historical conditions, then it will be possible to notice that language is also one of such cultural-historical conditions, determined by the previous tradition and modern correlations. Any change in poetic schools is, at the same time, a change in the methods of poetic organization of linguistic material, a change in the skills of cultural overcoming of the linguistic element. In recent years, many copies have been broken to prove that the system of poetic language is fundamentally different from the system of practical language. I consider this question to be largely idle: neither one nor the other solution of it brings us closer to the essence of the matter. In order to substantiate the linguistic study of the facts delivered by poetic creativity, there is no need to attribute to this latter the interpretation of the word as an intrinsically valuable material, devoid of connection with the environment. The presence in the poetry of language culture should be recognized as essential, which frankly, without omissions, leads us to teleological a point of view that linguistic purists shun ⁴ and that advocates of the "autonomy" of the poetic word try in vain to disguise. (Compare the definition of poetry proposed by R. Jacobson as “a statement with an attitude towards expression” ⁵.) And now, for the historian of the culture of language, the poetry of futurism, for reasons that will be indicated below, is of a completely special interest.
The language spoken by our educated society is called literary for a reason. It is really and literally created by our nineteenth-century literature⁶. Pushkin, over whom the archaic tendencies of the poetry of the previous century still weighed strongly, clearly realized that his poetic mission was at the same time a cultural-linguistic mission. Recall Pushkin's prose. “Scholarship, politics, philosophy have not yet been expressed in Russian” ⁷, - Pushkin mournfully remarked and sent writers to take Russian lessons from the Moscow mallow ⁸. Pushkin's genius did his job, although he did not complete it: mallow was legalized, became a canon; elements of the living Russian language, the language of broad social strata, received a literary organization, and this organization was borrowed from literature by the educated society of that time. So, in Russian they began to express themselves and "politics
With philosophy”, and “women's love” ⁹, and at the same time - literature ¹⁰.
But the forms of poetry, like any other art, develop dialectically. Arising on the basis of a contradiction that has been created for certain reasons between the existing artistic traditions and parallel facts of everyday life, they die as soon as this contradiction is eliminated, but only in order to restore it again. A specific artistic task is solved, however, each time in a different way. The appeal to the Moscow prosvirna is not always convincing. And if Pushkin, eliminating the contradiction between the splendor of Derzhavin's style and the language of Moscow mallow, followed the line of least resistance, taking in his cultural and linguistic work as a model the second member of the comparison, in its given concrete form ¹¹, then Russian futurism did not act that way, who had a similar mission: to eliminate the contradiction between the language of his contemporary life and the magical ventriloquism of the Symbolists. Futurism did not confine itself to the role of a registrar of the "common pronunciation": while forging a new language for poetry, it wished to influence the model it followed. In essence, he had no model, in the sense of Pushkin, ¹*. Pushkin could be guided by a living model of the language of the social classes only because his work in creating a culture of language served a narrow social class, which by that time had monopolized all cultural work in its hands. Speaking about philosophy and at the same time about women's love, Pushkin had in mind to give language to the class to which he himself belonged and which could not translate the word prèoccupè from the French. But the audience of futurism is wider. We are talking about mass language here. There is no place to "occupy". Poems by Mayakovsky:
The street writhes speechless
She has nothing to scream and talk with ¹³ -
hide in themselves a much broader meaning than it is customary to think and than, perhaps, the poet himself thinks ¹⁴. This is said with the same ingenious simplicity, like Pushkin's "Russian has not yet been expressed." And the fullness of the meaning of this aphorism will appear to us if we for a moment abandon the habit of transferring poetic statements to the field of social relations, taking everything for a metaphor or allegory. Let us understand the word "languageless" literally; let us agree that this word speaks not only of the social needs of the masses, but also of their linguistic needs. The street is tongue-tied, it does not speak, does not know the language in which it speaks, following only a blind instinct. Do
¹* With regard to the use by the Futurists of dialectisms and archaisms read in ancient monuments, it is essential to note that the Futurists did not create any canon here, unlike Pushkin's prosvir. This is only intelligence, the search for material ¹².
The language of the street - this is how you can at first formulate the linguistic task of Futurism, a task due to a natural reaction against the perfumes of Symbolism and the historically inevitable desire to overcome the tongue-tiedness of the masses.
From this it is clear that, despite a certain similarity of the conditions under which Pushkin and the Futurists had to act, the methods of one and another poetic school turned out to be fundamentally different. The Futurists were not guided by a ready-made model; they overcame the mass, colloquial language from which they drew material for their linguistic creativity. This is precisely the greatest interest of Russian futurism for the linguist. The culture of a language is not only an organization, as mentioned above, but also an invention. The first precedes the second, but the second inevitably asserts its rights at a certain moment. It is time to put an end to the notion of language as an inviolable shrine, knowing only its own internal laws and regulating its life by them alone. The question of the possibility of a conscious influence on the language by the speaking collective has not yet been put in the queue by science. Some individual symptoms, however, suggest that this issue will become relevant in the more or less near future. Since the doctrine of language as a social fact, and not an individual utterance, has recently become a solid property of linguistic thinking ¹⁷, it seems inevitable to fix scientific attention on the problem of social impact on language, the problem of language policy. We must finally admit that it is in our will not only to learn a language, but also to make a language, not only to organize the elements of a language, but also to invent new connections between these elements. But invention is the highest level of language culture, which, on a massive scale, we can only dream of for now. The invention involves high technology, the broadest assimilation of the elements and construction of the language, mass penetration into the language system, free maneuvering of the levers and springs that make up the language mechanism. We in Russia - for such a broad culture do not yet have even the basic technical - I do not say social - prerequisites.
²* This comparison of Pushkin with Mayakovsky should not, however, give rise to misunderstandings. From a purely literary point of view, the work of both poets is not only not similar, but directly opposite: if Pushkin is the finalizer, canonizer ¹⁵, then Mayakovsky and the Futurists are initiators, revolutionaries. In this regard, the comparison of Mayakovsky with Nekrasov, which suggests itself and is carried out, for example, by B. Eikhenbaum, seems to me quite irreproachable ¹⁶. But here I am interested in something else: for me, in connection with posing the question of the culture of the language, the work of the poet is of primary importance not against the background of familiar poetic forms, but against the background of language in general. It is this tendency to raise questions of a general linguistic nature, to take linguistic creativity beyond the bounds of literary writing itself - and gives me reason to compare Pushkin with the futurists, and, of course, I have in mind all the restrictions necessary for such a comparison.
Locke: The vast majority of the Russian people are simply illiterate. Yes, mass scale is clearly impossible here. But the Russian futurists showed us that the scale of a poem, a poem, is possible here. And this is already a lot. This is the beginning .
The Futurists were the first to consciously embark on a linguistic invention, showed the way of linguistic engineering, posed the problem of the "languageless street", and, moreover, as a poetic and social problem at the same time. It would be a mistake, however, to mean by this engineering in the first place "abstruse language". There is such a tendency both among the critics of futurism and among the representatives of this latter, but it is not true: why - will be shown below; for now, I will note a feature of futurist word creation that is really characteristic and important for a linguist: the latter is not so much lexicological as grammatical. And this is the only way a genuine linguistic invention can be, because the sum of language skills and impressions, usually defined as the "spirit of the language," is primarily created by the language system, i.e., the totality of relations that exist between the individual parts of a complex language mechanism. It should be strongly emphasized and clarified that the real creativity of the language is not neologisms, but a special use of suffixes; not an unusual title, but a peculiar word order, futurism understood this. While the same symbolists, resolving the task of updating the poetic word that lay ahead of them, rummaged through the historical annals and magical treatises of the Middle Ages (a truly amazing example of this method is Bryusov’s last book, Dali, where the use of archival dust is brought to absurdity) and built its poetry on "outlandish" catchphrases with ready-made grammar, the poetry of futurism directed its cultural and linguistic searches into the thickness of the linguistic material, groping for elements suitable for independent processing in the latter. It is hardly necessary to quote here again Khlebnikov's "Laughter" ¹⁸ - they are too familiar. Grammatical creativity is given here in a completely naked form: the formal possibilities of the word laugh- laugh almost exhaustively detailed. But here's what you should pay attention to. As an objection to the authenticity of Futurist word creation, I have heard remarks of this kind: what kind of word creation is there if ordinary and familiar suffixes are taken and attached to an inappropriate word? ¹⁹ But the fact of the matter is that grammatical creativity is not material creativity. It ends with the appearance not of new linguistic elements, but of new linguistic relations. And, of course, these relationships are created by the analogy method: oak forest gives Khlebnikov a model for metawa and letava, slum- for freedom and ringer, runner- for mogun and vladun etc. ²⁰ This analogy, however, is not always so naive and straightforward. Other futurists, whose poetic work does not have such a - albeit a brilliant, but still laboratory character, like Khlebni-
Kova, grammatical creativity is not so naked, and its elements have to be fished out from the thick of all the material. From this point of view one can point at least to Mayakovsky²¹. His grammar is not detailed, but it is essentially complex and inventive. It may seem even more complicated than Khlebnikov's precisely because it is not naked - it is not built on parallel, purely verbal comparisons. So, in the prologue to "A Cloud in Pants" we find on the second line: obese- but this word is not directly compared with anything, and only the eleventh line - with its own turn out- gives an indirect indication of the possibility of constructing an analogy here, while mocking in the 4th line, it seems to be hanging in the air, and an attempt to bring this formation into connection with the system as a whole forces us to turn to other pages of Mayakovsky's poetry. The same can be noted in the syntax of both poets. In order not to go far, I will refer to the relevant pages of the work of R. Yakobson "The Newest Russian Poetry", which gives a sufficient number of illustrative examples of syntactic invention by Khlebnikov and Mayakovsky ²². This also includes the unsolicited experiments of David Burliuk ²³. It would be possible, of course, to draw here a broader and more exhaustive picture of the grammatical creativity of the Futurists - but, I think, this is not my task. A detailed analysis of this kind of material would lead us too far. Here I wanted to outline only a few basic methods of futurist language engineering and put them in connection with the general problem of the culture of language.
As one of these basic methods, I will also point out a technique that has received a successful definition in the poetological works of recent years: poetic etymology²⁴. A very remarkable example of this kind of etymology is given by a Latvian fairy tale that came to my mind, which says: “peeci vilki vilku vilka” ²⁵, which can roughly be translated: “five wolves dragged a wolf.” Magnificent examples of this kind of poetic etymologies are given by N. Aseev in Vremennik No. 1, where a number of words are compared with the initial syllable su²⁶. These etymologies illustrate the gift of the poet no less, perhaps, than his poems. And here is an example of an underlined poetic etymology from the poems of the same Aseev:
From steel began to fly
Screams stained with blood
Flowed down in the glass, and those fell
A tear slipped by a terrible ²⁷ .
Examples of similar poetic etymologies abound in the work of Mayakovsky (cf. "Our March"), Khlebnikov. I will not repeat these examples. Instead, I will try to prevent a possible misunderstanding when evaluating the reception of poetic etymology from the point of view of the culture of the language. What is the relationship between poetic etymology and linguistic invention?
The thing is that sound creativity can also be truly linguistic creativity, but only insofar as it is the sounds of the language that are meant, and not the sounds as simple psychophysiological acts (cf. below about "abstruse" language). Since sound as a poetic material is taken in connection with its semantic coloring, with its significance, we have the opportunity to talk about creativity in the field of a certain “sound grammar” ²⁸. In this regard, Khlebnikov's reasoning about the "internal declension" of the word ²⁹ is extremely revealing. The term declension is especially successful here, fully corresponding to what was said above about "sound grammar". Also noteworthy are the arguments of the late poet that “the light nature of morals is told by language, and a person is understood as a light phenomenon” - in “Liren”. Here Khlebnikov compares such words as burn- live an abomination- freeze, shame- cold, evil- ash etc. ³⁰ Now the work in the field of the form of a word taken as a unit of the language system will be clear. The very fact of Aseev's and Khlebnikov's naked verbal exercises testifies quite clearly to the inventive nature of this kind of linguistic creativity.
All the above references to the poetry of the Futurists are by no means intended to establish any models for mass language construction. The latter will be determined not by the laboratory material of poets, but by social and linguistic needs, the theoretical consideration of which will be carried out by science, and their resolution - by masters of the word, poets. Our examples, however, are indicative in respect of principle: they reveal the direction in which language engineering is possible at all, they show how the principles of the language work of poets can be comprehended in everyday life.
Approaching, therefore, to the formulation of the question of the word as a kind of production, we have not yet clarified for ourselves, however, in this connection the role of "abstruse language". It is all the more necessary to talk about the “abstruse language” because our idea of this phenomenon has become extremely confusing and unreasonable. The place and nature of the "abstruse language" must be clarified once and for all - precisely and definitely. Of course, “abstruse language” cannot be called a language in any way, and in this respect, the defenders of “abstruse” as a kind of “international” language are just as ridiculous as its ardent opponents who cry out about “nonsense”. Ridiculous - because neither of them hit the mark. I will explain. "Transrational language" is a contradictio in adjecto. Someone aptly said that the language must necessarily be "smart". This is indisputable, for the very concept of language presupposes behind it the concept of meaning. Hence - the "abstruse" poem as such is asocial, because it is incomprehensible, meaningless. Not only that - "abstruse language" is even non spoken language as some try to claim. It's not even "only ringing" Trediakovsky ³¹. Above it was indicated how a sound language is possible, in what plane grammar lies.
Chesky his comprehension. After long ordeals, modern linguistics has finally come to the conclusion that the sound of a language is such only insofar as it is significant, correlative in the system ³² . Therefore, it is clear that the "poems" of Kruchenykh, taken by themselves, are pure psychology, naked individualization, nothing to do with the system of language as a social fact - having no ³³.
All this, however, would be true only if we did not have in mind the cultural-organizing function of language, if we did not raise the question of the word as production. And here it is easy to prove that if the books of Kruchenykh's "poems" are an asocial fact, then when applied to everyday life, "zaum" immediately loses its individualism, psychologism. In fact, how many have noticed that, for example, the names of our cinemas are entirely abstruse. "Uranus", "Fantômas", "Are", "Colosseum", "Union", etc., etc. - all these are words that are understandable only to a philologist, and even then only when he is not a layman. These words do not seem to have any social significance. The situation is no better with the names of other objects of wide social consumption. Take the cigarettes "Java", "Ira", "Zefir", "Kape", even "Ambassadorial" (here the real meaning of the word has completely disappeared) - all this, in turn, is absolutely meaningless, abstruse words. But they remain so only as long as they are cut off from their, so to speak, objective existence, from their production base. If the word "Uranus" is incomprehensible in general, then the movie "Uranus" does not inspire any decisive doubts. The combination “Java Cigarettes” also has full social significance. An elementary linguistic consideration will show what is at stake here. "Abstract language" as a language devoid of meaning does not have the communicative function inherent in language in general. Thus, a purely nominative role remains behind him, and he can successfully fulfill such a role in the field of social nomenclature ³⁴. Therefore, cigarettes "Eyy" are quite possible, which will be no worse, and maybe even better - cigarettes "Cape". If you can call a movie "Ars", then with the same result the same movie can be called "Zlyustra". And why - if there is an "Omega" watch - can't there be a watch factory "Voobi"? Finally, why can you order yourself a Triplesecquantro restaurant and not serve a portion of Rococo Rococuis on the table? ³⁵
This is how the role of zaumi in the general system of culture of the language is determined. In accordance with the foregoing, we can therefore consider abstruse "poems" as the results of preparatory, laboratory work towards the creation of a new system of elements of a social name. From this point of view, abstruse creativity acquires a very special and significant meaning. Sounds intended to perform social-nominative work - not only can, but must be meaningless ³⁶. At the same time, the available phonetic possibilities of the language must be strictly
Checked by the critical ear of the poet, their specific gravity requires accurate accounting - and this is exactly what the experiments of Kruchenykh give us. In other words - we have here again an invention whose value is all the more clear because it is based on a subtle distinction between the functions of language.
I believe that even the few examples given above are sufficient to clarify the significance of Futurist poetry for mass linguistic construction, the task of which, at a certain stage of general cultural and technical perfection, will inevitably face humanity. Therefore, the mutual interest that connects linguists with futurist poets is understandable. If not all linguists are interested in futurism, since not all of them raise the question of the possibility of a special language technology, then all decidedly futurist poets are drawn to the theory of the word, like a stalk to sunlight. Moreover, theories purely linguistic, and not any Gershenzon or Andrei Bely style. It is not the "magic of words", but the internal mechanism of the word that attracts the Futurists ³⁷. That is why the futurist word is cultural. There is no need that it breaks tradition. Culture is not a bare chain of traditions, we know this well from our social experience. Culture organizes, and therefore requires decomposition - it is built by contradictions. The ingenious French scientist said: it is unacceptable that only specialists are engaged in the language, meaning by the latter linguists ³⁸. And now - outside the framework of science, the futurist galaxy was the first to master the "secret" of the word. This is her historical merit. Her work, of course, is by no means finished. Rather, it is only intended. To continue it, a synthesis of theory and practice is needed - the science of the word and verbal skill. This synthesis is outlined by posing the question of the culture of the language. For - I will finish where I started - language is an object of cultural overcoming in our social life.
FUTURISTS ARE LANGUAGE BUILDERS
First - . In a modified edition under the title "Language Practice of the Futurists", it was included in both editions of "Culture of Language". It is printed according to the text of the first publication, taking into account minor author's corrections (AB). Written in January - early February 1923 (cf. Zemlyakov, Pogorelskaya 1983: 195-196).
The article on the language of the futurists is the first work by Vinokur published in Lef. In total, during the time of cooperation with the journal, the scientist published 12 articles and reviews on its pages. A significant part of them is devoted to the issues of "rational organization of speech social activity", or language culture(Stefan 1981: 77-80, 82; Scharnhorst 1985) - this is how a new problem was defined, which, to one degree or another, occupied the scientist throughout his life (see, for example,; Zeitlin 1965: 23-27). The appeal to it was caused not only by the “amazingly low level of mass linguistic culture in Russia” (according to Vinokur, even in fiction there were “undoubted signs of stylistic degeneration”). More importantly, within science itself, the preconditions applied linguistics- a new discipline that for the first time indicated the possibility language policy, i.e., "a conscious influence on the language by the speaking collective" (see also Grigoriev 1963: 6-8).
Vinokur saw the theoretical justification for applied linguistics in the teachings of F. de Saussure [see. commentary on the article “Poetics. Linguistics. Sociology: (Methodological reference) "and approx. 17, 38 to present. article]. Based on the original dichotomies (linguistique synchronique vers. linguistique diachronique & langue vers. parole), he considered the new branch of linguistics to be a section of linguistics not “evolutionary”, but “static”, and, moreover, that part of it that studies not language, a speeches(“speaking”, “style”) - it is no coincidence that since the end of the 20s, the scientist preferred to talk not so much about the culture of the language, but about culture of speech(cf.). Thus, an equal sign was put between applied linguistics and style(Vinogradov 1964: 7; Hansen-Löwe 1978a: 498): "The task of stylistics, that utilitarian, applied linguistics, which was characterized above, is to teach the members of a given social environment the active and expedient handling of the language canon" . Of course, an “active attitude” to language is primarily characteristic of the artist of the word: it is “in the poet’s work that the language system appears to be most conscious, which we do not have in everyday language, in the broad sense of the term.” However, "at first, the linguist-technologist does not gravitate towards the field of poetic language." The fact is that the transformation of the language by the writer is a consequence of a special functions literature - aesthetic, or poetic, for everyday language, at least optional (see notes 17, 20 to the article “What should scientific poetics be”). Therefore, "it would be much more tempting<. . .>to find such a language system that would not differ from the practical language in its function and, at the same time, would be realized precisely as a system. These properties have non-fiction <. . .>that is, newspaper, magazine, scientific literature, the language of the office, letters, and finally, the language of advertising. As you can see, with the exception the language of science, which, in our opinion, has a special status (see the commentary to the article “Language of literature and literary language” and notes 23, 24 to the article “On the study of the language of literary works”), we are talking about everyday language, and moreover official life: literary language for the first time is contrasted here both with other (unofficial) varieties of everyday speech, and with the language of fiction, and the main task of applied linguistics is proclaimed practical style literary language a.
a Concept everyday language, or everyday language, acting in Vinokur in a strictly terminological sense, arose as a poetic metaphor of Khlebnikov:
This does not mean, of course, that poetic language remains entirely outside the realm of stylistics. Taken "not in its specific<. . .>functions, but simply as a high, qualified stylistic organization", it also "is of great importance" "for the culture of the language". That is why neither the identification of poetic and practical speech, nor their opposition "brings us closer to the essence of the matter." The question is different - it is necessary to find out the nature and dynamics of the interaction between the language of everyday life and the language of art. Studying the verbal work of the Futurists, Vinokur emphasizes in the poetic word precisely those moments that bring it closer to everyday life; using somewhat later terminology of the researcher himself, we can say that he is interested not so much in poetic language, how much poetic style[cm. commentary on the article “Poetics. Linguistics. Sociology"; cf. different editions of the title: "Futurists - builders language" (1923) and " speech the practice of the Futurists" (1924)].
The mundane nature of the original problem does not allow one to bypass the question of sociology speech creation of the futurists, understood by Vinokur from a comparison with the stylistic work of Pushkin (Stefan 1981: 79-80). Like the latter, the futurists set themselves the task of influencing practical speech, taking "linguistic creativity beyond the framework of proper literary writing", "eliminating the contradiction between the language of modern<. . .>life and magical ventriloquism of the Symbolists. Like Pushkin, they drew material from informal language, in common parlance, but at the same time they did not so much borrow from the "languageless street" as they tried to "make" its language, "overcome the tongue-tied masses", create ideal patterns of speech behavior for it (see note 14). The innovation of the futurists was not stylistic(not only stylistic), but (and) linguistic: they were going to "not only learn the language, but also do language, not only organize the elements of language, but also invent new links between these elements” (cf. Ivlev 1983: 120).
"No life!" - proclaimed Mayakovsky in the poem "The Flying Proletarian" (1925) (Jakobson 1975: 12-13; cf. Pomorska 1983: 373, 375-376, 381-382, 385; McLane 1983: 12). But one of the most important differences between spiritual culture and everyday life lies precisely in invention in installation on linguistics - of course, it was precisely his apologists for futurism, and primarily the supporters of “production art” (O. M. Brik, B. I. Arvatov, B. O. Kushner), who wanted to overcome most of all (on “production workers”, see Mazaev 1975; Ferrario 1977: 94-103; Hansen-Löwe 1978a: 478-498; Grübel 1979: 133-142 and others; Menikke-Gyöngyoshi 1979: 95-100; Stefan 1981: 62-64, 83-85; Schaumann 1984). The pathos of their activity is in the destruction of language barriers between everyday life, spiritual and material culture: “Both the poetry and prose of the ancients were equally far from practical speech, from the jargon of the street, from the exact language of science<. . .>We don't want to know the difference between poetry, prose and practical language" (Mayakovsky, Brik 1923: 40). The “productive” wing of Lef had already imagined “two converging processes: practical language assimilates the questions of poetic language, while poetic language strives to become utilitarian” (Arvatov 1923a: 91; cf. 1923b: 89, etc.) b.
of the rotation of the sun around the earth” (1933: V, 229, 234; cf. ibid. “everyday word”, “everyday meaning of the word”, etc.). From the point of view of Khlebnikov, the word of Pushkin and the word of Balmont are also everyday, and not poetic: “<У>Pushkin<а>the words sounded on "eniya", at Balmont - on "awn". And suddenly the will to freedom was born<от>everyday life - to reach the depth of the pure word" (1933: V, 223).
b Hence, by the way, Vinokur’s “technological” metaphor, which was formed not without the influence of “manufacturers”: “language design”, “free maneuvering of the levers and springs that make up the language mechanism”, “linguistic engineering”, “cogs and nuts that make up the language machine” , etc. The very terms “language policy” and “linguistic culture”, introduced into scientific use by Vinokur, were heard earlier in the reports of Kushner (“On the Languages of Small Nations and Language Policy”; MLK, 19.XII.1919) and Brik (“The problem of proletarian poetry”; MLK, December 23, 1919) (see: IRYA, fund 20, sheets 52-53, 54v, cf. sheet 94). In 1921, Vinokur was convinced that the ideas of "art in production" could be extended to verbal
The linguistic creativity, samples of which the futurists offered to everyday life (cf.), was "not so much lexicologically, How many grammatically"; its products were “not neologisms, but a special use of suffixes”, “not an unusual title, but a peculiar word order”, not “unprecedented sounds”, but sound combinations unknown to the language (for example, gaping) (cf.). Of course, phraseology Mayakovsky had its influence on the language of the slogan or advertising, but it was precisely derivational the work of the futurists. Of course, we are not talking about the lexicalization of poetic occasionalisms, but about the actualization of specific ways of word production, first foreseen in the language of art, and then widely implemented in the common language of the time of war communism and NEP. So, for example, in Khlebnikov “every initial consonant turns into a morpheme (since it is part of a word with its own separate meaning)” (Panov 1971: 176; Prada Oropesa 1977: 37; Pertsova 1980: 158; Solivetti 1988: 170, etc.). Khlebnikov's idea<. . .>comes down to the semantization of consonants (“units of the alphabet”), i.e., to their transformation into morphemes, the meanings of which are determined by words from the semantic fields “space”, “movement” and “mathematical actions”” (Grigoriev 1982a: 154; cf. 1986b : 101-102). But the “morphologization” of phonemes in Khlebnikov’s poetic language corresponds to the spread of abbreviation as a productive way of word formation in the literary language of a somewhat later time (cf. Chizhevsky 1972a: 90; Grigoriev 1983: 107, 114-115, 199; 1986b: 152; and also) in .
According to Vinokur, the true creativity of language is immaterial:“It ends with the appearance not of new linguistic elements, but of new linguistic relations” (cf.). But the creation of relations at one level of language often turns into the creation of elements on another: for example, a new combination of sounds can lead to the invention of a morpheme, and a new combination of morphemes to the invention of a word. Therefore, the fundamental difference in the word-creative methods of different poets lies, in our opinion, not in the fact that word-formation analogy in Khlebnikov it is “naked”, while in Mayakovsky it is hidden and “may seem even more complicated than Khlebnikov’s” (cf. Gruzdev 1923: 35). The originality of each poet is how deeply he invades the linguistic nature, transforming it into a poetic culture. As the studies of M.V. Panov showed, most of Mayakovsky's neologisms are built from ready-made, easily distinguishable morphemes, while for Khlebnikov laughers and proud women- this is only an early stage of word innovation, from which he went to neologisms such as
creativity: if “poetry is defined as an art that creates values of a verbal, linguistic order, then one can easily imagine how this art can merge with life, creating a linguistic culture not in the sphere of“ pure ”writing of poems and stories, but in everyday life, in life".
In the debate on the report of S. B. Gurvits-Gursky “On abbreviations in factory terminology (based on one enterprise)” (MLK, 2.V.1919), Yakobson and Mayakovsky drew attention to parallels and analogies in the development of everyday and poetic language ( abbreviations and neologisms) (TsGALI, f. 1525, op. 1, item 418, fol. 1 rev.-2; cf. Toddes, Chudakova 1981: 246-247 note 21); see also the minutes of the discussion of Kushner's report "Modern words made up of abbreviations" (October 24, 1920; IRYA, f. 20, l. 106-108). Compare: “One of the most characteristic phenomena in the life of the Russian language of our era is that this language has broken up into<. . .>new constituent elements” - “themes, i.e. such sound combinations as “deputy”, “head”, “prof”, which are only part of a “normal” word, but nevertheless carry the full material meaning of those words from which they are highlighted. For abbreviations of the first post-revolutionary years, see also Barannikov 1919: 77-79; Mazon 1920: 1-12 (cf. Vinokur's letter to P.G. Bogatyrev dated 25.IV.; TsGALI, f. 47, op. 2, item 423, sheet 1); Jacobson 1921b: 204-212 and others; Hornfeld 1922a: 11-17; Kartsevsky 1923: 43-53 and others; Dlozhevsky 1927; Selishchev 1928: 44-47, 158-171 (cf.); Backlund 1940; for a review of the literature and a detailed bibliography, see Uspensky 1931. Cf. the phenomenon of "lexicalization" of morphemes in Mayakovsky ( who is in the head, // who is in whom, // who is watered, // who is in the gap and etc.; cm. ; Gumetskaya 1964: 28, 35, 152).
rezmo and mestr(1971: 172, 175). Unlike other ideolects, Khlebnikov's poetic language is replete with occasional suffixes(Vroon 1983: 103-135, 147-161; Grigoriev 1986b: 124-144) d, prefixes(Vroon 1983: 135; Grigoriev 1986b: 100; see note 26) and even roots(Kostetsky 1975; Prosnak 1982: 103-104, 106; Weststein 1983: 36-37, 62-64; Vroon 1983: 168-181; Oraich 1984b; Grigoriev 1986b: 100-103; etc.). The quasi-morphemes identified by Khlebnikov impart two most important properties to his words. On the one hand, a common feature of his neologisms is "fusion": the morphemes in them are "not screwed together, but fused" and are difficult to isolate (Panov 1971: 178). On the other hand, Khlebnikov opposes simplification with all his might, using for this purpose "another general linguistic regularity - re-expansion" (Grigoriev 1986b: 89).
The fundamental principle of Khlebnikov's word (and not only neologism) is the multiplicity of its possible articulations. Khlebnikov's words - polyhaplological(cf. Grigoriev 1986b: 239-240): almost always they can be divided into "significant" parts in several ways [for example: could-o-gur, mo-go-gur(cf. mo-grove ← crimson). m-o-g-o-gur(cf. m-round ← rich&mo-g-fuck← mo-l-eben), m-o-g-o-g-ur(cf. trouble-g-ur ← trouble-to-ur) etc.]. Another property of such words is continuity: they want to be texts and are afraid to turn into further indecomposable signs (cf. Stepanov 1975: 52-54). The plurality of articulations makes any of them potential, but not mandatory - the boundaries between "morphemes" are blurred. The content of a word is not equal to the sum of the meanings of its constituent "morphs": in Khlebnikov mogatyr there is no ‘mighty hero’, while the Kruchenykhs Zverava- it's just a 'animal horde'. In this respect, Khlebnikov's work on the word is really grammatical, for it leads to the discovery of new ways of word formation and inflection (see notes 24, 28 and 29; cf. Vroon 1983: 29-31). Of course, "Mayakovsky appreciated Khlebnikov's experimentation, and often imitated him." But, compared with Khlebnikovsky, his linguistic creativity is more lexicological (significant): he semioticized his teacher's word-formation techniques, creating words from ready-made morphemes according to ready-made models (cf. Scholz 1968: 492-493; and also; Gumetskaya 1964; Haniira 1966; cf., however, 1983) e. All this testifies to the greater significance of Mayakovsky's poetic thinking [the opposite opinion was expressed by E. Faryno (1981)]. Wed in this regard, the definition of the fundamental semiotic triad in the article “Two Chekhovs” (1914): “What are the changes taking place in the laws of words?
1. Changing the relationship of the word to the subject<т. е. semantics.- M. Sh.>, from a word as a number, as an exact designation of an object, to a word-symbol and a word-end in itself.
2. Changing the word-to-word relationship<т. е. syntactics.- M. Sh.>. The fast pace of life led the way from the main period to disheveled syntax.
3. Change in attitude to the word<т. е. pragmatics.- M. Sh.>. Enlargement of the dictionary with new words” (Mayakovsky 1955: I, 297). Strikingly almost complete coincidence with the formulations of C. W. Morris (1938: 6-7, etc.; for more details on the asemiotic tendency in Khlebnikov, see the commentary to the article “Khlebnikov:<Вне времени и пространства>»).
In the final part of the article, Vinokur raises the question of whether it is possible to assimilate "zaumi" in everyday life (Stefan 1981: 79-80): "<. . .>Kruchenykh's 'verses', taken by themselves, are pure psychology, bare individualization"; no other function than emotional they cannot perform (see Jacobson 1921: 9-10; cf.). But when applied to social life, ""zaum" immediately loses its individualism" . Of the two main
d Wed. minutes of the meeting of the MLK dated 11.V.1919: “ Distiller asks whether Khlebnikov has new suffixes, arbitrary or created from old, non-suffixal material.
Jacobson replies that there is "(IRYA, f. 20, l. 27; cf.).
d Wed. similar conclusions of N. L. Stepanov (1928: 52-53) and M. L. Gasparov (1981b: 160-162) from observations of Mayakovsky’s versification, who carried out in his work semiotization(metrization) of the rhythmic devices of Khlebnikov and A. Bely.
The functions of everyday language, distinguished by Vinokur, - communicative and nominative(see note 32) - "zaum" is completely unsuitable for the first, but can successfully cope with the second. Such a solution to the problem - it was suggested by A. Kruchenykh himself, who organized the futuristic publishing house "Ey" (1913) - had a certain tradition. In 1914, I. A. Baudouin de Courtenay wrote that there is only one way to translate the “abstruse” word “into the category of real ones” - to name some object with it: “Thus, a new proper name will appear, but certainly timed to some representation from the external, extralinguistic world. As an everyday analogue of "abstruse" words, Baudouin cited the names of medicines, like in satin, kefaldol, stimulol etc. (1914: 4) direct application finished products individualistic "abstruse" creativity in everyday life is impossible. Vinokur's proposal is just as utopian as the utopian fantasies of Kruchenykh and Khlebnikov about a "universal" language that should arise from "zaumi" (Arvatov 1923a: 90; cf. Stefan 1981: 81-82). Somewhat later, Vinokur himself was disappointed in his forecasts (Barushyan 1976: 93-94). By radically reworking an article for a book (cf. Ivlev 1983: 122-123), he consistently eliminated all the provisions that affirmed the social significance of the language creation of the futurists. Now he wrote that their "linguistic invention<. . .>does not have any practical meaning and meaning, and if it has a stylistic meaning, then only<. . .>within the framework of poetic technique itself. “All this cannot be necessary for broad social stylistic creativity.”
¹ See the commentary on the review of the book by R. O. Yakobson "The Newest Russian Poetry: The First Sketch".
² See note. 32, 33 to the article “Poetics. Linguistics. Sociology: (Methodological reference)".
³ The program of the “Self-valuable (self-created) Word” was first put forward in the anthology “Slap in the face of public taste” (M., . P. 4) (see Yakobson 1921: 9 ff.; Chizhevsky 1972b; Grigoriev 1983: 60-74; cf. note 37 to the article "The concept of poetic language").
⁴ Vinokur gave a teleological justification for stylistic purism in a special article.
⁵ See Jacobson 1921: 10; cf. comment and note 20 to the article "What scientific poetics should be."
⁶ Wed. development of these views: “In Russia, it happened that the main trustees of the fate of the language turned out to be representatives of fiction”, which created “the Russian generally accepted language. But<. . .>when this generally accepted linguistic norm was finally created as a result of the long efforts of writers
e It is significant that Kruchenykh (1921) referred to “abstruse” words “names and surnames of heroes, names of peoples, localities, cities, etc. and so on. for example: Oile, Bleyana, Mamudia, Woodras and Baryba, Svidrigailov, Karamazov, Chichikov and others (but not allegorical ones, such as Pravdin, Glupyshkin - their significance is clear and definite here) ”(cf. Veidle 1980: 54- 62).
Well Wed. Vinokur's letter dated 21.11., where he informs Brik about the impossibility for himself to continue cooperation with "Lef" (TsGALI, f. 2164, op. 1, item 244, l. 1) [a fragment of the letter is inaccurately quoted in the article D. D. Ivleva (1983: 121-122)]. 18.VIII. Vinokur wrote to Yakobson:<. . .>everything that remains of the unetched Lefovsky in the book is simply disgusting to me and I painfully regret all this<. . .>when I meet my name already (!!) in bibliographic indexes or in other books with references to the 1st edition of "K<ультуры>language" - it becomes disgusting and painful to the point of horror ”(AB). Wed preface to "Culture of language" (4.VIІІ.1924): "<. . .>With the publication of this book, I consider my revised articles in the form in which they were first printed to be simply non-existent.
<. . .>a conflict began between the tasks of correct speech and the tasks of artistic representation” [AB; from a lecture at the Postgraduate Courses for Writers (1939); see the article “Language of Literature and Literary Language” and commentary thereto for more details].
⁷ Pushkin 1949: XI, 21 (the quote is inaccurate).
⁸ See Pushkin 1949: XI, 149. Compare: “Truly, if Pushkin had known what this mallow would cost his descendants, he would not have sent us to study with her with such a light heart.”
⁹ “Until now, ladies' love // Has not been expressed in Russian” (“Eugene Onegin”, ch. 3, stanza XXVI).
¹⁰ Practical, everyday, communicative aspects of Pushkin's work on the language Vinokur considered in the article "Pushkin the prose writer". The words about the canonization of the “language of Moscow mallow” in Pushkin’s work should not, of course, be taken literally: “Not a fairy tale, not malignant in literature was needed<. . .>Pushkin, and not his nanny, he was going to yield the glory of the most remarkable Russian prose writer; here he was looking only for raw materials for his writing work ”; "It would be wrong to understand these statements as a call for the transformation of the literary language into a peasant or petty-bourgeois vernacular."
¹¹ See note. 10. In a later edition of the article, Vinokur removed this statement (cf.).
¹² Wed. Vinokur’s observations on archaic features in Mayakovsky’s morphology and syntax: “It can be said that this kind of linguistic creativity is traditionally<. . .>it serves as a constant reminder of the original principles of a given verbal culture and a constant return to them” (cf. Hoffman 1936: 191, 208-209, 216-217, 219; Panov 1971: 173; Winner 1977: 503, 507; Yakobson, Pomorska 1982: 129). On the images of ancient Russian literature in Khlebnikov and Mayakovsky, see Panchenko, Smirnov 1971; cf. also approx. 7 to the article “Khlebnikov:<Вне времени и пространства>". The general attitude of Russian futurism towards archaism was noted by Marinetti, who called this trend “aesthetic atavism” and saw in it a return to “the language of the prehistoric period” (Burliuk 1920: 22: see also Nilsson 1980; 1981; 1984).
¹³ From the poem "A Cloud in Trousers" (1914-1915) (preserving the punctuation of the 1st ed.).
¹⁴ Wed. opposite characteristics of the sociolinguistic sympathies of the poet: “Mayakovsky is not the product of a crowd, not a demos, not a street, but a very developed, very subtle literature; because, and only because, he is rude<. . .>the outside<. . .>a favorite subject of Futurist poetry and its word-creative ideal, alas, unattainable” (Gornfeld 1922a: 42, 47-48). And another opinion: the futurists "were the first to think about the street, the first to notice that:
“She has nothing to shout and talk with.”
The concern to give the street a special language, a special social dialect, peculiar to it alone, prompted the Futurists to work on the development of an abstruse language” (Kushner 1923: 4, cf. Burliuk 1920; Chukovsky 1921: 34-35; Gruzdev 1923: 35). Wed See also: "Futurism moved away from the street<. . .>and the street doesn't care about futurism or poetry" (Tynyanov 1924d: 220). Later, Vinokur wrote: "The language of Mayakovsky's poetry is the language of the urban masses, which turned the artistic potential of familiar everyday speech into a proper poetic value."
¹⁵ See, for example, Zhirmunsky 1921a: 80; 1922a: 92; Eichenbaum 1921: 78; 1922c: 60; .
¹⁶ See Eichenbaum 1923: 22-23; cf. approx. 15 to the article "Poetry and Science".
¹⁷ For the dissemination of the ideas of F. de Saussure in Russia, see Toddes and Chudakova 1981 and the commentary to the article “Poetics. Linguistics. Sociology". V. Doroshevsky (1933) wrote about the influence of the teachings of E. Durkheim on the sociolinguistic views of Saussure.
¹⁸ This refers to the poem "The Curse of Laughter" (1908-1909) (cf. Grigoriev 19866: 181-189).
¹⁹ Wed. Hornfeld 1922a: 44-47.
²⁰ See Khlebnikov 1930: II, 16 ( wave and Zvenoba), 187 (flying and metawa), 271 (vladun); III, 337 ( mogun); V, 253 ( flying); cf. also Jacobson 1921: 43-44; Wroon 1983: 60-61, 68-69, 103-105; Grigoriev 1986b: 124-125, 138, 142, etc.
²¹ The idea of the "laboratory", "theoretical" character of Khlebnikov's language creation was developed by Vinokur in detail in the articles "Khlebnikov" (1924) and "Khlebnikov:<Вне времени и пространства>"(1945) (see commentary on them). The laboratory nature of their work was also emphasized by the Futurists themselves (for example, Burliuk 1920). Compare: “Kruchenykh acted with the enthusiastic ecstasy of a laboratory chemist doing thousands of chemical compounds and analyses” (Tretyakov 1923a: 5, 6, 17). In Lef's key article, it was stated that for all the staff of the journal, literary work is "not an aesthetic end in itself, but a laboratory for the best expression of the facts of our time" (Mayakovsky, Brik 1923: 41; Tretyakov 1923b: 164; Stefan 1981: 82, cf. 90-114). Wed also the opinion of V. M. Zhirmunsky, who believed that “in the work of Mayakovsky, Khlebnikov’s laboratory experiments found their completion in a motivated, that is, artistically complete and integral work of art” (1921c: 215).
²² See Jacobson 1921: 33-37; cf. Scholz 1968: 489-491.
²³ See poems in the collections “Roaring Parnassus” (Pg., 1914. P. 19, 21-24, 28-29, 33, 36-37, 39), “Spring counterparty of muses” (M., 1915. P. 97-98, 100), in the journal Moscow Masters (1916. Vesna. S. 19-20) and others (Markov 1968: 169, 286; Scholz 1968: 489; Chizhevsky 1972a: 92-93). Wed minutes of the discussion of Jacobson's report in the MLK (11.V.1919): " Buslaev<. . .>very interesting is the use of a creative relationship without a link. I wonder if other cases are used in a similar way? It is interesting to compare with the omissions of prepositions in Burliuk. " Jacobson. Burliuk skipping prepositions has a purest experiment<. . .>Brik compares the omissions of prepositions in Burliuk with similar cases in Mayakovsky. It is only interesting that in Mayakovsky one notices a tendency to comprehend: “He stretched out the arms of the cafe” (here, the euph(onic) moment, and besides, Dan. p.); “raking out the galley with labor” (creative) ”(IRYA, f. 20, l. 27; cf. also).
²⁴ Term poetic etymology belongs to Yakobson, who understood it as “a parallel to the folk etymology of a practical language” (1921: 45; cf. Savinov 1889): “Most of the puns, puns, etc., are built on poetic etymology.” (Jakobson 1921: 45, 47, 48; also Khanpira 1966: 12-13; Khardzhiev 1970: 101-104; Pomorska 1977: 365-369; Hansen-Löwe 1978a: 128-137; Etkind 1978: 310-366; Stobbe 1982: 104-106; and others) [cf. similar observations by V. Kataev, who called this phenomenon “phonetic association” (Kruchenykh 1922: 26-27), and Yu. N. Tynyanov, who wrote about “sound metaphor” and “false etymology” (1924: 103-108); see also the report by B. V. Gornung “The Origins of Russian Futurism” (RAKhN; 3.X.1924), in which Vinokur took part (TsGALI, f. 941, op. 6, item 23, sheet 2) ob.-3, 3 ob.)]. In the mid-1970s, almost simultaneously, V. P. Grigoriev and Yu. I. Mineralov considered cases of convergence of paronyms, or paronymic attraction(Grigoriev 1975; 1979: 251-299), as "a fact of the grammar of the poetic language" (Mineralov 1977: 82) - one of those who oppose it to the grammar of the literary language (cf. Valesio 1974). It was noted that "in the system of poetic language repeated phonemic complex becomes a kind of occasional morpheme” (Mineralov 1977: 70 ff.), or “supermorpheme” (Grigoriev 1975: 153), or “quasimorpheme” (Grigoriev 1979: 286), in which “consonantal paronymic“ root ”and“ vocal occasional“ affixes ”are easily distinguished "(Grigoriev 1975: 153; cf. Valesio 1974: 1013-1014). Thus, paronymic “foundations” appear as “occasional analogues of the so-called first-degree stems in Semitic languages” (Grigoriev 1975: 152-153; Mineralov 1977: 82; cf. Valesio 1974: 1009, etc.). The peculiarity of poetic morphology, noted in 1913 by Khlebnikov [“Consonances have an Arabic root” (1933: V, 298)], received a linguistic interpretation already from Jacobson: “In modern poetry, where exceptional attention is concentrated on consonants, sound repetitions, especially of the AB type , ABC, etc. are often illuminated by poetic etymology in such a way that the idea of the main meaning is associated with repeated consonant complexes, and the distinguishing vowels become, as it were, an inflection of the stem, introducing the formal meaning of either word formation or inflection ”(1921: 48;
For a comparison with "Semitic languages", see: IRYA, f. 20, l. 26). Cf.: "Poetic<. . .>etymology is euphony, grammatically meaningful. One could say that poetic etymology is primarily morphological creativity, since<. . .>it is about morphological forms that we speak where the sound receives grammatical comprehension. Studies have shown that paronymic attraction is primarily characteristic of the poetry of the 20th century, but at the same time it is more common in the 18th century than in the 19th, which, in turn, is more typical of the technique syllabic consonance(see Ilyushin 1986: 52-54).
²⁵ For the same example, see Zubaty 1894: 1 note. one; Jacobson 1921: 45; cf. Ivanov, Toporov 1977: 176.
²⁶ See: Vremnik. M., 1917. S. . N. Aseev tried to find the general meaning of quasi-prefixes in the article "Language Grasp: Prefixes" su-, tu-, pa-, go-, i-; for example su-‘incomplete being’: su-gloom, su-measurement, su-sprug, su-blood, su-clay, su-many, su-tight, su-k, su-coffin.
²⁷ Inaccurate quotation from the poem "About him" (1922) (punctuation restored by reprint).
²⁸ Vinokur first comes to the problem here poetic grammar, understood as an object of "poetic linguistics", with its special - "poetic" - etymology, special - "internal" - declension, etc. this article and note 42 to the article “On the study of the language of literary works”).
²⁹ Under internal declension of words Khlebnikov meant the alternation of occasional vocal "inflections" within the paronymic "foundations", for example lѣs- bald, weight- height, shaft- vol etc. (1933: V, 171-173; also Jacobson 1921: 48-49; Hoffman 1936: 212-214; Khardzhiev 1970: 102-103; Grigoriev 1975: 152; 1983: 89-107; Mirsky 1975: 78; Weststein 1983: 29-30, 71; Wroon 1983: 18-19; 162-165; Solivetti 1988: 174; see notes 24, 28). Wed also Khlebnikovskoe squatting- analogy of "declension" and "conjugation" (Grigoriev 1982b; 1983: 85, 108, 113-114; 1986b: 91-92, 110-111, 113-114, 154-156; Vroon 1983: 165-168).
³⁰ See: Liren. [M.], 1920. S. 26-27; cf. also approx. 6 to the article "Khlebnikov".
³¹ Compare: “In the history of poetry of all times and peoples, we repeatedly observe that the poet, in the words of Tredyakovsky, is important “only ringing”” (Yakobson 1921: 68). A. Kruchenykh objected to Yakobson: “Is it really possible that everything sub- and over-intelligent in a language is limited to ringing? Where did the venerable scientist get this from?!” (Kruchenykh, Petnikov, Khlebnikov 1922: 17; for the relationship between Yakobson and Kruchenykh, see also Winner 1977: 505-507 and others; Yakobson 1985).
³² See comment and note. 6, 7 to the review of Yakobson's book "On Czech Verse, Mainly in Comparison with Russian".
³³ The "wise men" themselves believed that although their poems were devoid of the universally binding values, but performed at the same time individual meaning(hence, if they are not a fact language, then remain the fact speech) - It was precisely this aspect of the matter that V. B. Shklovsky (1916: 3 and others) tried to emphasize in every possible way, who developed the ideas of Kruchenykh (1913) about the emotional richness of Zaumi (cf. Shapir 1987b: 223-224): “The straightforward formalism of the literary creed of Russian futurists inevitably drew their poetry to the antithesis of formalism - to the "unchewed cry" of the soul" (Yakobson 1975: 28; see note 6 to the article "Khlebnikov" and the commentary to the article "Khlebnikov: (Out of Time and Space)"). Compare: “But to what extent this phenomenon<т. е. зауми. - M. Sh.> you can assign the name of the language. This of course depends on the definition we give to the concept of a word. If we write as a requirement for a word as such that it should serve to designate a concept, be meaningful in general, then of course "abstruse language" disappears as something external to language. But he's not alone<. . .>And it seems already clear that neither poetry can be called a phenomenon of language, nor language a phenomenon of poetry” (Shklovsky 1916: 13-14); “The current idea of zaumi as nonsense is inaccurate, if only because “meaningless (that is, devoid of meaning) language” is a contradiction in terms<. . .>The so-called "abstruse words" are composed of phonemes, and very often of morphemes and root elements of a particular language.<. . .>However, these are precisely words, since they have the formal features of a word and are enclosed between word divisions.
Lamy<. . .>they have a meaning (there are no words without meanings), only for some reason it is unknown to the reader, and sometimes even to the author” (Lotman 1972: 67).
³⁴ See note. 17, 18 to the article "What scientific poetics should be." About difference nominative language features from communicative see also in the article “Basic Issues of Stylistics” (late 1930s - early 1940s): “To name an object denoted by one or another dictionary word is not at all the same as revealing its meaning. It is necessary to carefully distinguish between a subject designation, which is essentially limited to the dictionary name of an object, and a designation that not only names an object, but also reports something about it ”(AB). Proper linguistic manifestations of the nominative function of language were considered by Vinokur in a special work.
³⁵ Euy- the "abstruse" name of the lily, proposed by Kruchenykh in the "Declaration of the word as such" (1913). Zlustra found in Kruchenykh's poems "Poison" (1922) and "Reflex of words" (1922). Voeobi- at Khlebnikov: “Bobeobi sang lips, // Veeomi sang eyes. . ." (1908-1909). Rococo rococoue- from Kruchenykh's poem "Spring with Treats" (1922), "where, by a separate sound analogy, we either guess the names of dishes, or, hearing them for the first time, we approach them in the same way as we approach the intricate names of foods or drinks in price lists - (surprisingly " delicious name" - what lies behind it?)" (Tretyakov 1923a: 12). See also Markov 1968 about the Krunykhovsky zaumi: 44-45, 121, 126-132, 201-205, 334-336, 338-348, 365-370 and others; Scholz 1968: 479-483 and others; Douglas 1975; Khardzhiev 1975; Barushyan 1976: 82-91; Nilsson 1978; Ziegler 1978; 1982; Janecek 1981; Lann 1983: 52-56; Mickiewicz 1984; and others (cf. note 17 to the article "Khlebnikov").
³⁶ Vinokur means arbitrariness of a linguistic sign(according to F. de Saussure). Apparently, already in these years, the scientist believed that the convention of the nomination is overcome in language system, under the influence of the communicative and especially poetic function of language (see note 27 to the article “On the study of the language of literary works” and the commentary to the article “Khlebnikov:<Вне времени и пространства>»).
³⁷ "Magic of words" - the title of a chapter from A. Bely's book (1910). Vinokur emphasizes the connection of futurism with linguistic formalism (see the commentary to the article “What scientific poetics should be”) - in contrast to symbolism, which found theoretical justification in the works of A. A. Potebnya (Hoffman 1937: 67-69; Ambrogio 1974: 89- 102; Belkind 1975; Presnyakov 1978: 156-165; Weststein 1979). There is no doubt, however, that in reality the influence of Potebnya on the aesthetics of Futurism was very great (Weststein 1983: 4-6, 13-20; cf. also Barushyan 1976: 23-29).
³⁸ See Saussure 1922: 21 ff.; cf. . If Vinokur came to the idea of applied linguistics, starting from the theory of F. de Saussure (cf. Toddes, Chudakova 1981: 241), then L.P. Yakubinsky developed this idea, on the contrary, contrary to Saussure. Wed his implicit polemic with Vinokur: “In our linguistic literature, the relevant passages from Saussure are sometimes interpreted in such a way that Saussure opposes language as a system of arbitrary signs created by the collective, to the individual in his individual speaking” (1931: 92 note 1). In confirmation, Yakubinsky pointed to the following words of Saussure: “Not only could an individual person, if he wanted to, change the choice already made by the language in anything, but the linguistic community itself has no power over a single word; society accepts the language as it is” (1922: 104). It should be noted, however, that Saussure speaks of the impossibility of influencing language, not on speech(style) . It is no coincidence that the examples of human intervention in the fate of the language, cited by Yakubinsky, are limited to the area of language literary, which - but in comparison with all other areas of linguistic activity - is most determined precisely by stylistic task.
