Characterized by the fact that in it an element of any level of organization of the language system strives to become semantically motivated and can be assessed from the point of view of its performance of an aesthetic, or, in the terminology of R. Jacobson, poetic function. V.P. Grigoriev in the book Poetics of the word defines poetic language as “a language with a focus on creativity, and since all creativity is subject to aesthetic evaluation, it is a language with a focus on aesthetically significant creativity.”

Poetic language can also be understood as one or another natural language, as it appears in a certain poetic work or a set of such works. In a broad sense, the term refers to the language of both poetry and literary prose.

The distinction between ordinary and poetic languages, based on the dominance of communicative or poetic functions in them, respectively, was proposed at the beginning of the 20th century. Russian scientists who were members of the Society for the Study poetic language(OPOYAZ). It was later developed by representatives of the Prague Linguistic Circle. J. Mukarzhovsky wrote that the only constant sign poetic language is its “aesthetic” or “poetic” function, which he, following R. Jacobson, defined as “the direction of poetic expression towards itself,” although the ability of poetic language to perform a communicative function is not denied, i.e. convey some message about the world external to the text. The peculiarity of poetic language is that it can impart meaning to any language structures (phonetic, word-formation, grammatical, rhythmic), thereby becoming a kind of material for the construction of new aesthetically significant linguistic objects. Therefore, in contrast to natural language, poetic language is a “secondary modeling system” (in the understanding of Yu.M. Lotman), in which the sign itself models its content. Poetic language, as it were, flaunts its form, inviting the addressee of the poetic message to realize or intuitively sense the causes and consequences of choosing exactly this (sometimes unusual or at least unexpected), and not any other way of expression; Moreover, the external ordinariness of poetic language, which sometimes occurs, is itself perceived against the background of expectations of unusual form as a special aesthetic device.

Elements that are purely formal in everyday language can acquire a semantic character in poetic language, thereby receiving additional meanings. Thus, for a poetic word its sound side is very important, therefore phonemes, which in the linguistic structure are only structural means of distinguishing elements of a higher level, morphemes, in a poetic language can become independent aesthetic signs. For example, in the line of the modern poet Boniface Lukomnikov

light from the branches -« ts» – color of flower branches

What is significant is the change of the phoneme “s” to the phoneme “ts”, as a result of which both of these phonemes in the poetic space of the verse are morphologized and begin to be perceived as significant elements, peculiar “prefixes” to the root vet-(which they are not from the point of view of the structure of the Russian language). In poetic language, therefore, the concept of “internal form of the word” in the sense that was introduced by A.A. Potebnya and developed by G.O. Vinokur becomes important: it is assumed that some content may not have its own separate sound form, and therefore, in a literary text, its secondary motivation and etymologization occurs (which can be layered on top of the primary one, if present). So, in the given line the words light, color And flower acquire a peculiar “poetic etymology”: a quasi-root is isolated in them vet- with the meaning “source of the natural, divine” (cf. the meaning of “branch” in the Bible: I am the vine, and you are the branches; He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit(John 15:6)). The word has a “split reference” (R. Jacobson): the process of ordinary reference (i.e., the routine correlation of the word with the entities it denotes) is suspended, and, in the words of P. Ricoeur, an addressing occurs to “deeply rooted possibilities of reality to the extent , in which they are separated from the real circumstances with which we deal in everyday life."

In poetic language, the unambiguous connection between the sign and the object disappears, since here the image strives precisely for novelty, disposability, in which case formations may arise that have no correspondence in reality. So, A. Akhmatova was surprised where in the poem Tsarskoye Selo O. Mandelstam ( Let's go to Tsarskoye Selo!/ Free, windy and drunk, / There the lancers are smiling...) “Uhlans” appear, which “did not exist in Tsarskoye, but there were cuirassiers and a convoy.” And they appear solely thanks to sound repetition ( St. there are st ana), which takes us into a wide area of ​​the unconscious, which has no similarity in ordinary language.

Thus, in the poetic language, certain new linguistic structures are created, in which, following the metaphor of I. Brodsky, “the voice / tries to keep the words, squealing, within the limits / of meaning” (From Albert Einstein), and linguistic signs in poetic language reveal iconicity (cf. I. Brodsky and the street in the distance narrows to the letter« U"), which allows us to clarify the process of secondary motivation. In poetic structures, orderliness arise that are not implied by the structure of natural language, which allow, in the words of Yu.M. Lotman, “to identify in certain respects intratextual segments and consider a set of these segments as one or more paradigms.”

The reality of such newly generated paradigmatic relations is proven primarily by those extreme cases when, during the perception of a text, a certain potential linguistic form, specially removed by the author, is restored. We see something similar, for example, in the text by A. Voznesensky, in which, based on analogies, the sequence is reconstructed Sol-, removed from the text and by the very fact of such removal uniting the word into one poetic semantic paradigm sun, Solzhenitsyn, soldiers, nightingale, which in natural language are not paradigmatically connected (and the line with the word “sun” refers, in turn, to the whole paradigm of O. Mandelstam’s “black suns”). Wed:

The black tse was carried on a stretcher.

Did you read« In the first circle» Zhenitsyna?

<...>

The dates were marching.

Sang: « owey, owey, birdie!»

If in everyday language the polysemy of a word is resolved in speech in certain contexts (cf. the classic example of Yu.D. Apresyan: A good pastry chef does not fry brushwood gas stove , in which the ambiguity of almost all the words included in it is removed by coordinating their semantic features), then in a poetic language the polysemy of words and grammatical forms forms the basis for overcoming the “common sense” and generating a new one, revealing the “super-semantic essence” (D.S. Likhachev) linguistic units of different levels. So, for example, in the lines of B. Pasternak from the book My sister is life

The city tram tracks stopped here.<...>

Tearing off branches

The clearing will run away, sliding through the grass.

noun branch appears simultaneously in both of its main meanings: (1) “a small lateral shoot, shoot of a tree, bush or herbaceous plant"; (2) "a separate line in the railway system that deviates away from the main track," and in the text there is a kind of oscillation between these two meanings. Accordingly, the verb syntactically associated with this word tear off also begins to be understood in several semantic planes (“to separate with a jerk” and “to separate”), and a new meaning is born thanks to “predicative assimilation” (P. Ricoeur), which eliminates the conflict between semantic consistency and inconsistency. The split into “divine” and “ordinary” meaning of “branch-branch” is found in Pasternak even in one sentence, and therefore in the very vertical structure of the verse its own paradigm of this word-concept is built and the word is anagrammed light(for anagram see SOUND ORGANIZATION OF TEXT):

You're in the wind branch trying

Isn't it time for the birds to sing?

Wet sparrow

WITH Irenaya vet ve !

Similar transformations occur in the field of word formation and grammar. In poetic language, it becomes possible to shift or, more precisely, combine time plans, cf. at I. Brodsky's Yesterday came tomorrow at three o'clock in the afternoon(From Albert Einstein), which the poet himself explains in his early poems: And we play again from time to time / in large amphitheaters of solitude.<...>We live in the past as if it were the present, / unlike the future tense. In parallel, new words appear in the “paradigms” of the poetic text, the motivation of which is born in the syntagmatics of the text:

It’s getting dark outside, or rather, it’s turning blue, or rather, it’s turning black.

Trees in the window cancels, sofa gets stiff.

(I. Brodsky)

Obviously, such motivation can also be “split”: for example, the verb gets stiff can be considered derived from the word com(“becomes like a lump”), and from the word room(“takes on the outline of a room”).

The formation of new words in a poetic language can be associated not only with the processes of word-formation motivation, but also, in parallel, with the processes of combining grammatical categories. For example, in other lines of I. Brodsky

And the statues are freezing, although there is no cold in the yard,

the Decembrist was then executed, and January came.

V linguistic form Besstuzhev the categories of “signature” and “objectivity”, “animation” and “inanimateness” overlap each other; it can be perceived as a proper name (with a slightly distorted spelling), and as a common noun, and as a short adjective. At the same time, there is a superposition of the time plans of the present, the past and the “long past” (plusquaperfect).

A foreign word can also become a motivated sign in a poetic language, especially among bilingual poets, such as I. Brodsky:

Man survives like fish on the sand, she

crawls into the bushes and...

In this case English. fish "fish", transliterated in Cyrillic, receives a grammatical design similar to its Russian equivalent, which forms part of the Russian phraseological unit like a fish on the sand. However, non-verbal signs (mathematical and graphic) can also participate in the formation of poetic meaning, which are often pronounced as words in the structure of the text: cf. from the same Brodsky:

the call ultimately generates a creaky« please

please» :

in the hallway you are surrounded by two old numbers« 8 » .

Grammatical connections in poetic language can become undifferentiated, amorphous, which is facilitated by the graphics of the verse - its vertical row and division into lines (with a pause at the end), as well as freedom in the placement of punctuation marks. The organizing dominant in this case is the sound-letter organization of the beginnings and ends of lines and vertical rows, which we see in the symmetrically reflected acrostic dedication to the poet G. Aigi (“yot” is a common name for the sound denoted in Russian by the letter “and short”):

Ave sung A

Yotom palatal arch

Glossoy gold drag

True will of the path

(S. Biryukov)

Consequently, words and grammatical forms acquire dynamism in poetic language both from the point of view of the plane of expression and from the point of view of the plane of content, and at the same time reflect the entire sum of structural relations that have found linguistic and, more broadly, symbolic expression. Thanks to the compression of linguistic meaning, they acquire the ability to “express the inexpressible,” due to which the amount of information they transmit increases and this information acquires an aesthetic status.

Natalya Fateeva

POETIC LANGUAGE OF A. A. FETA'S LYRICS

How poor is our language! - I want and I can’t. - I can’t convey this to either friend or enemy, What is raging in my chest like a transparent wave. A. A. Fet The poetry of Afanasy Afanasyevich Fet is fresh and fragrant today, as at the time of its creation. The poet was able to notice such subtle transitions in the state of nature that one marvels at the vigilance and skill of the author. Moreover, nature in Fet’s lyrics does not exist on its own; it reflects the internal state of the author or his lyrical hero. Sometimes they are so close that it is difficult to understand whose voice is where. Very often poems sound dissonant, but this the world invades poetry. As soon as I meet your smile Or catch your joyful glance, “I sing a song of love in you, And in your beloved beauty. It seems that the poet is omnipotent, any “peaks- 1)1 and depths are available to him.” This is the ability of a genius to speak in the usual In the language. Nature itself, harmony and beauty sing with its soul. The night was shining. The garden was full of the moon. The rays lay at our feet in the living room without lights. The piano was all open, and the strings in it trembled, Just like our hearts for your song ". Starting from a concrete and real picture, the poet moves on to a lyrical symbol. Addressing the readers - “I>> brings his creation closer to millions of poetry lovers, forcing them to perceive the beauty and charm of natural poetry, which was so clearly revealed to the author. Poems Feta is natural, like all the surrounding nature. Sounded over a clear river, Rang in a darkened meadow, Rolled over a silent grove, Lighted up on the other bank. Poetry is eternal, because it makes our hearts and souls tremble, awakens the best feelings of a person, calls him to lofty goals. Only there does harmony and beauty exist, where falsehood and artificiality disappear. Poems by A. A. Fet show the beautiful and clean world nature, its artless beauty and freshness. And it is not so important how they are conveyed, as long as it is true, it comes from the depths of the soul. The author teaches us to open our hearts to nature, to let it into our souls, to enrich ourselves spiritually, returning this beauty to those around us. Being able to appreciate all the diversity of the world, you become richer and purer - isn’t this the main value of communicating with the poetry of a great master. How the chest breathes freshly and capaciously - Words cannot express anyone! Like streams spinning loudly through the ravines at midday on the foam! In the air, the song trembles and melts, The rye turns green on the boulder - And a gentle voice sings: “You will survive another spring!” The poet shows the close relationship between man and nature,” this is the spring from which you can draw strength endlessly if you treat it with care and soul. But nature is surprisingly vulnerable, it is easy to destroy and cause irreparable damage. You acutely understand this when reading the beautiful poems of FeT. His poetic world is surprisingly diverse and fragile, and the subtle lyricist makes you understand the depth of the changes taking place. - She covered the path for me with her sleeve. Wind. In the forest alone, it’s creepy, and sad, and fun, - I don’t understand anything. Peter, everything around is humming and swaying, Leaves are spinning at your feet. There, in the distance, a thinly calling horn is suddenly heard. Nature in the poems of Afanasy Afanasyevich is not deserted, it is filled with the presence of man, his familiar world of sounds, smells, forms. You can really feel it, it “responds” to any touch: with a word, with a hand, with a thought... It is a great joy to communicate with the work of A. A. Fet.

Creative operations with linguistic means aimed at creating an aesthetic impression should be distinguished from the automatic selection and implementation of language means that support stereotypical speech. The contrast between creativity (creativity) and automatism (stereotyping) is significant for both the generation and perception of speech. When the speech producer asks the question of how to say, the automaticity of perception is disrupted, which is accompanied by an emotional and aesthetic reaction of the addressee; when he wonders what to say, perception, as a rule, becomes automatic: in a linear sequence of verbal signs, not a single one stimulates the aesthetic response of the addressee.

The presence or absence of automatism in the processes of speech production and perception makes it possible to distinguish between poetic language and practical language. In the domestic scientific tradition, such a distinction is substantiated in the works of representatives of OPOYAZ (20s of the 20th century) and developed in the works of Yu. N. Tynyanov, R. Yakobson, L. P. Yakubinsky. A narrow, expanded and broad understanding of poetic language has been formed. In the narrow sense, poetic language is the language of poetry; in extended - language fiction; in a broad sense - language “with a focus on aesthetically significant creativity, at least the most minimal, limited by the framework of just one word.”

V.P. Grigoriev proposed to designate a unit of poetic language with the term createme. So, in the statement of M. Tsvetaeva Life later, I warmly welcome this mother’s silence createma is a transformed standard combination (cf.: after a week/year). In V. Khlebnikov’s poem “The Spell of Laughter” a word-forming bush is formed, the branches of which are chains of new formations, such as, for example, a branch with a root word laughter: laugher, laugher, laugher, laugher, laugher, laugh, laugh. Createmes of the same type form an occasional intratextual subsystem.

Poetic language is the language of the creator of creations. But is it only the artist of words who is the creator? The answer to this question can be found in research on children's speech. The period of the highest creative activity associated with the development of the native language, the age “from two to five” (K. Chukovsky), is characterized by numerous innovations, the creation of which reveals their common nature with creations in a literary text. Based on the material systematized by specialists in children's speech, we will characterize the specifics of the results of children's speech creativity.

Grammatical innovations in children's speech are based on the system of language, understood as a system of possibilities. In the normative speech of adults, the generation of a speech fact occurs along the chain: system - norm - speech; in the speech practice of children, the second link in the chain is missing. Analysis of grammatical creations allows us to talk about their predictability, because all grammatical new formations are potentially possible, corresponding to language models. Being incorrect from the point of view of the codified norm, these creations are distinguished by “systemic correctness”: they arise under the influence of analogy, i.e. likening some forms of linguistic expression to others on the basis of similarity. Wed: tables and chairs; eyes, pencils And foreheads, noses; kiss / kiss(mother), peck / peck (grains) and blow / blew, take off your shoes / take off your shoes. A grammatical createme often fills a gap (empty cell) in a section of the grammatical system: I don’t want to drink yet, but I already want to (if I want to, I want to drink). The mechanisms of the language system make it possible to construct this and similar species, but they are absent in the codified literary language. It is known, for example, that not everyone qualitative adjectives it is possible to form a synthetic form of the comparative degree, but the mechanism of the grammatical system provides such a potential opportunity (forms like better, more distant, prouder). The speech producer in the process of form creation does not carry out any planned super-task, therefore such formations are called unintentional. The perception of grammatical creations by adults is usually accompanied by stereotypical remarks: Not tables, but tables; It is necessary to say it is pouring, not pouring and so on. Typical orthological reactions are aimed at consolidating in the child’s linguistic consciousness the grammatical standards necessary in literary speech and forming the basis of practical language. The regulatory and didactic strategy of the adult mentor is obvious: to form the child’s understanding of grammatical norms. At the same time, one cannot help but notice the charm of grammatical irregularities, which evoke feelings of tenderness, surprise, and pleasure in parents. These emotional and aesthetic effects are explained by the difference in the set of language competencies of a child and an adult. An adult involuntarily perceives a grammatical anomaly as a createme.

Children's word creation, carried out on the basis of productive word-formation models, also demonstrates the influence of the language system. The novelty of the plan for expressing new formations is created due to the free combination of derivational morphemes at the base of the word. An objective contradiction arises between the system and the norm: the system mechanism allows the creation of a new figurative word, but the norm does not “accept” due to the presence of a codified model in the language. For example: travel companion (cf. companion); mocker(mocker); gymnast(gymnast); little queen(royal son); fat(thick); brainy(brainy); dandelion(dandelion) etc. Imagery is felt in creations, which have a lexical synonym in the language system: rezhik- knife; villagers- peasants; little cow- calf; plump feathers; torn, torn- will tear; (you me) burst out laughing- made me laugh. In all cases, the child understands both the linguistic meaning of the root and the meaning of the word-forming affix. New formations often fill the lexical gap: Dad, let me guitar (I'll play the guitar); I watched a movie. There robot (little robot) fought so hard! Non-standard imagery is typical for creations created by combining two roots: I quickie (I chew quickly); And I deaf (deaf when eating); Grains in coffee maker (coffee grinder) put; I need earcap (pipette). The figurative impression is conveyed by the createdeme, included within the boundaries of the logical-evaluative opposition: it is forbidden - lzya; scoundrel - little girl and so on. Lexical innovations show how a child “represents... his own thought” (A. A. Potebnya) and, therefore, have an individual psychological uniqueness.

We can judge the intentions of the speech producer by verbal identification marks. For example, a number of children's utterances contain the adjective Beautiful and at the same time - forms of inducing the addressee to an aesthetic reaction. The aesthetic intention of the author of the statement is organically combined with the communicative-pragmatic one. For example: - You know, I have a doll - so beautiful, round-browed (1); Listen, the music is so beautiful, but it’s sad (2); Let's take a look, let's approach quietly: a beautiful butterfly with her babies(3). Feeling the observed situation is accompanied by an aesthetic experience, which, as the child hopes, should be passed on to a friend (1), mother (2), and grandmother (3). New formations are created unintentionally, but under the influence of aesthetic impression. At the aesthetic center of statements is the word Beautiful, which is often involved in constructions built on the basis of non-standard figurative analogies: Mom, you are as beautiful as a cow; Isn’t it true that I wrote the letter “o” beautifully? To me she is not like a barrel, but like a cucumber. A means of intentionally creating a figurative-aesthetic impression in children’s speech is a comparison constructed on the basis of the figurative analogy “man” - “animal”: John's(about the puppy) the tongue is soft like a rag, and the tooth is small like rice; Him(poodle) nose like the fluff of a dandelion. Comparisons based on subject analogies reliably depict momentary personal feelings: I don't like to have a fist under my neck(about a knotted scarf). Individual comparisons are the result of the process of feeling into the cognizable. In all cases, individual comparison can be attributed to figurative creations.

Another type of figurative creation is an individual metaphor that arose in the process of direct observation: Aunt has a scarf with hair(about fringe); What ball(about the moon) in the sky! Individual personifications are frequent in children's speech: Oh, scary! The grass bites; A whole herd of trucks roars; Do you hear the river talking? In a child’s picture of the world, animals and humans naturally come together (The viper bit the dog in the face; Sharik is crying: he misses Masha), The role functions of humans and animals are becoming closer: Grandma, talk to Popochka(cat) purr at her like a cat's grandmother. Figurative analogies like me and the dog, me and the bird, me and the fish: If I were a fish, I would never swallow a hook. The creations in the above examples can be characterized as the result of verbal-figurative reflection. In a word, like with a brush, a child draws from life, reproduces the world on the basis of sensory sensations and ideas.

The production of impactful texts requires an independent solution of a holistic creative task. The planning of the aesthetic effect can be seen in polylogue texts, for example, in the conversation of six-year-old Katya with her parents:

Kate: Listen, what a riddle I composed, like a poem: Not buttons, but eyes, not a button, but a nose. This is our... Well, guess quickly! Mother: This is our watchdog!

Kate: But that's wrong! We don't have a watchdog! Dad: This is a steam locomotive!

Kate: No! The locomotive has fake eyes and no nose. Wrong!

(Mom and Dad shrug.) Katya: Well? Are you giving up? Mom and Dad: Let's give up!

Kate: Not buttons, but eyes, not a button, but a nose. This is our Dimos! Got it, right? Mother: Who-o-o?

Kate: Dimos, our Dimka(Katya's younger brother). I came up with this to make it funny: the nose is Dimos!

Mother: Oh yes Katya! Get young! Dad: Katyukha is our creative genius!

Kate: Don't be a tease, dad! Composing is an ugly word! Mother: Kat is our poet. So beautiful?(Everyone laughs.)

Kate: Yes, it's beautiful. I'll go write some more.

Katya’s speech part makes it possible to identify the components creative idea: the text should be organized according to the type of riddle - a genre task; The text is addressed to parents, i.e. the riddle is intended for the family circle and therefore must contain meanings understandable within this circle (pronoun our) - communicative-pragmatic task; The riddle should please the parents, give them pleasure, make them laugh - it is strictly an aesthetic task. To implement the plan, the technique of negative comparison is used in combination with syntactic parallelism (this technique is found in fairy tales and riddles that the girl knows from early childhood). The transformed name of the one-year-old brother becomes the stylistic center of the text. The family calls him Dima, Dimka, Dimochka, Dymko. Createma Dimos - individual result of speech creation. Unexpected rhyme nose - Dimos should be called out and cause laughter.

Thus, the plan includes planning the production of speech in a certain genre form, the intention to convey a specific meaning (what?) with the help of influencing linguistic means (how?). The communicative-pragmatic effect planned by the author of the riddle has been realized. I will achieve it! and aesthetic effect: the entire text is covered by a given playful and intimate tone. The conversational polylogue given as an example can also be considered as an example of collective playful creative activity, the result of which goes beyond the boundaries of a language game - into the realm of feelings.

Although speech innovations in children's speech in most cases are unintentional, these “precious dissimilarities” (I. A. Ilyin) prove the objectivity of the inextricable connection between the aesthetics of language and the aesthetics of speech, reveal the nature of aesthetic creative speech activity and the nature of poetic language. The holistic result of a child’s deliberate creative activity is a text that has a planned aesthetic function.

If we return to the definition of poetic language proposed by V.P. Grigoriev as a language with a focus on aesthetic creativity, it should be recognized that only those creations that are created by the author of the speech deliberately - in accordance with aesthetic intentions - belong to the poetic language.

Practical language is the language of the user who applies language standards in the communication process. Automatism practical language clearly manifests itself in text genres based on information standards. IN business texts For example, such standards lengthen speech, but contribute to the uniformity of genre samples. Here is the title of one of the documents: Government Decree Sverdlovsk region dated 08/24/2011 No. 731-PP “On the amount of a one-time allowance for setting up a farm for young specialists who have gone to work in regional state and municipal organizations of the Sverdlovsk region.” Based on information standards, practically important information for a certain group of young professionals and specific administrative structures is transmitted about the possibility of targeted financial support.

Practical language strives to free the information conveyed by text from stylistic “additives” that affect emotions and imagination. For example, in an instruction addressed to the user, each text element, highlighted graphically, is designed in accordance with the scheme: (what) keystroke /(which one) / what it is used for / what exactly it will lead to: 2 ...pressing the "key once" serves to switch the phone to the tone mode (the symbol "I" will appear on the indicator); 2 ...pressing the # key twice quickly will lead to deletion (deletion) last dialed digit; 2 ...quick sequential pressing of the # key will cause the symbol “P” to appear on the indicator.

The same type of syntactic, punctuation, graphic design of sections of the text, paragraph division - all this supports schematism, clichéd expression of thoughts, provides the instructional function of the text, and organizes the perception of information new to the addressee.

The concept of practical language is not strictly tied to the concept of “functional style”. Of course, the automaticity of language use is manifested to a greater extent in business and scientific styles and to a lesser extent - in texts of influencing styles. However, there is still no complete ban on the use of aesthetically significant units in “hard” styles of speech.

The task of creative stylistics is to identify aesthetically significant elements in speech works different styles and genres. At the same time, the presence of figurative word usage in the text does not yet indicate the use of the corresponding means for aesthetic purposes. Let's take a text fragment as an example: Clean cash flow is calculated as follows: the amount of net profit is adjusted by the amount of accrued depreciation plus growth accounts payable or minus its accounts receivable. Let's ask the question: is the adjective used? clean in a figurative expressive meaning “morally impeccable, obtained in an honest way”? Of course, the answer will be negative, both in relation to the combination Net cash flow, and in relation to the combination net profit. In both cases the adjective clean included in financial and economic terms (cf. also: net income, net taxes for products). Term cash flow used in the meaning of “a numerical series abstracted from economic content, consisting of a sequence of payments distributed over time”; net profit - this is “the part of the enterprise’s balance sheet profit that remains at its disposal after paying taxes, fees, deductions and other obligatory payments to the budget.” Special concepts that arise on the basis of transfer do not receive aesthetic increments.

Antonymous pair plus - minus used for operational and logical regulation of transmitted information, and not for emotional and aesthetic enhancement. The highlighted speeches refer to reproducible terminological standards. The text intended for specialists is perceived automatically and remains in the space of practical language.

Thus, practical language and poetic language are differentiated on the basis of the presence or absence of automatism in the generation of speech and its perception. In the broad sense of the term, poetic language is defined as a language aimed at aesthetically significant creativity. The units of poetic language are createdems - deliberately selected or transformed means, as well as new formations aimed at creating an aesthetic impression.

• Grigoriev V. P. Poetics of the word. M., 1979. S. 77-78.
• Tseytlin S. N. Occasional morphological forms in children's speech. L.. 1987; Kharchenki V.K. Dictionary of modern children's language. M„ 2005.

POETIC LANGUAGE, artistic speech, is the language of poetic (verse) and prosaic literary works, a system of means of artistic thinking and aesthetic development of reality.
Unlike ordinary (practical) language, whose main function is communicative, Vpoetic languagethe aesthetic (poetic) function dominates, the realization ofwhichfocuses more attention on the linguistic representations themselves(phonic, rhythmic, structural, figurative-semantic, etc.), so that they become valuable means of expression. General imagery and artistic uniqueness of literature. works are perceived through the prism of poetic language.

The peculiarity of poetic language is that it can impart meaning to any language structures (phonetic, word-formation, grammatical, rhythmic), thereby becoming a kind of material for the construction of new aesthetically significant linguistic objects. Therefore, in contrast to natural language, poetic language is a “secondary modeling system” (in the understanding of Yu.M. Lotman), in which the sign itself models its content. Poetic language, as it were, flaunts its form, inviting the addressee of the poetic message to realize or intuitively sense the causes and consequences of choosing exactly this (sometimes unusual or at least unexpected), and not any other way of expression; Moreover, the external ordinariness of poetic language, which sometimes occurs, is itself perceived against the background of expectations of unusual form as a special aesthetic device.

Poetic language, in contrast to practical language as a means of ordinary communication, has meaning “in itself”: it is characterized by sound organization, imagery (tropes, figures), and compositional constructiveness. Its important distinctive feature is a large number of expressive means. Another important feature of this style is that it can use any means of language, if necessary to create an artistic image, to achieve the artistic goal that the author sets for himself.

The main thing for artistic speech is the concept of “expressiveness,” that is, the ability of a work of art to have an emotional, aesthetic impact on the reader, to create vivid images of people, poetic pictures of nature, and the like.

Expressiveness of speech can be achieved different ways and means: phonetic, morphological, word-formation, lexical, syntactic. To make the image of a character, character, phenomenon, or object more expressive, to show the author’s attitude towards what is depicted, to evoke an emotional response in the reader, to form in him a certain assessment of what is depicted, the author uses special means, which can be generally called stylistic devices.

From Zhenya:

It's not difficult, you just need to reason and highlight the differences from simple, natural language
natural language performs other functions: first of all, communicative
and literary – aesthetic

well, to say that poetic language is like tools, bricks from which art is built. image: artistic means expressiveness, significant elements of composition, rhythmic and melodic organization of speech, poetic figures, poetic syntax, poetic vocabulary

just list them
probably this will be enough
and if he asks, then in more detail
type of thin product expressiveness are tropes, figures are inversions, antitheses, etc.
and so on

THE CONCEPT OF POETIC LANGUAGE

This article was written in the last year of G. O. Vinokur’s life - a time when he was possessed by the desire to generalize and bring into final consistency and clarity, so characteristic of him scientific thinking, - the most important points of the theory, which he pondered for many years. One of them, and perhaps the main one, is the specific essence of poetic language. The works immediately preceding this article in 1945 and 1946 are also dedicated to him: “On the study of the language of literary works” (see this edition) and “The language of literature and literary language” (see “Philological Studies”, 1991), which represent a detailed development of the problem from the methodological and historical-stylistic sides.

This work, thanks to its aphoristic brevity and simplicity of formulation, combined with the depth of penetration into the solution of the task at hand, can be considered a kind of introduction to the content of the book as a whole, since its central characteristics are illustrated here in one form or another. They are shown in the form of three points of view on poetic language, which can be understood: 1) as a style of speech, which, along with other styles, has its own tradition of using linguistic means in a special meaning, in this case - poetic; 2) as a language endowed with a special poetic expression; 3) as a language elevated to the rank of art. In the third - most important - definition, both previous ones intersect, because it shows us language in a special function - poetic (artistic).

The poetic function, in the concept of G. O. Vinokur, most decisively opposes the general communicative purpose of language, since it is complicated by aesthetic (in content - semantic-stylistic and, therefore, semiotic) connotations. G. O. Vinokur draws the attention of readers to the fact that the aesthetic function certainly provides for a double (direct and indirect) meaning of the word in a poetic work. If, for example, Tatyana " Adorable I wrote with my finger... Cherished monogram...”, then the aesthetic purpose of Pushkin’s use of the word with poetic expression is to figuratively and individually

24

understanding describe” inner world depicted person, type, era, feelings”, without What we will see before us is only a “chronicle of incidents” (p. 28). And thus, the aesthetic purpose of using a word creates a secondary motivation for its choice. The word in poetic language acts as a sign of art and is motivated by its laws, and not by the laws of “practical language”. Following this position, we can say that charming And cherished motivated by a poetic tradition that supports or updates the patterns of contextual compatibility of words in an image; that Mayakovsky’s “Our God is Running” is motivated by the so-called “paronymic attraction” (V.P. Grigoriev); that the motivation for the use by modern literature of elements that in the general language have different stylistic affiliations (from vulgar jargon to high elements of speech) is doubled by their mixing and, in particular, the proportions of this mixing in special textual techniques, etc.

This secondary motivation of the poetic word is the core of the functional isolation of the language of fiction. According to G. O. Vinokur, she says that “language itself can be poetry” (p. 27), having a specific internal form. G. O. Vinokur understood this latter as a constant essential property of poetic language, independent of the historical change of the repertoire of linguistic means that have acquired (or lost) poetic semantics and poetic expression.

There is no doubt that the three aspects in the definition of the concept identified by G. O. Vinokur served as the starting point for a new, expanded interpretation of poetic language; especially since they were formed by enlarging the five possible understandings that he initially indicated (in the abstracts of the report “Problems of the Study of Poetic Language”, held at Moscow State University in 1946): as a special style of speech; as a special expressive system; as the internal form of a word; How individual style writer; as a reincarnated “alien” speech. These categories reveal the internal composition of the phenomenon, which later allowed a number of researchers to qualify poetic language as “the maximum representation of the national, “historical” language” (V.P. Grigoriev).

Published from first publication: Reports and messages philol. Faculty of Moscow State University. M., 1947. Issue. 3. P. 3-7; reprinted: Vinokur G. O. Selected works on the Russian language. M., 1959. S. 388-393; translated into Italian. language: Il concetto di Lingua poetica (Trad. di D. Ferrari-Bravo) // Strumenti critici, 1981, Torino. No. 44. P.143-150. See also: Introduction in Literary Studies: Reader / Ed. P. A. Nikolaeva. M., 1979. P. 226-227 (excerpts from the article are given); reprinted in Philological Studies.

Poetic language can be understood first of all language used in poetic works.

In this case, what is meant is not some internal quality of language, not some special function of it, in comparison with its function as a means of ordinary social communication, but only

25

special tradition of linguistic use. Poetic language in this sense is special style speech among others: official, scientific, diplomatic, military, etc. Just as there are forms, words, figures of speech that are customary or not customary to use in the language of science or diplomacy, there are forms, words, figures of speech , which are accepted or not accepted to be used in poetic works. The history of how and why the composition of linguistic means accepted for use in this tradition changed is, from this point of view, the history of poetic language.

“God forbid that you should ever say in front of a sailor that you “arrived” on a ship: they will blush! “They came,” but didn’t arrive,” is how, by the way, it is characterized sea ​​style speeches from Goncharov (Frigate “Pallada”)¹. In L. Sobolev’s novel “Major Repairs,” a sailor laughs at a military man who pronounces “midshipmen” in naval language, which should be “midshipman”². In exactly the same way Trediakovsky in 1750 reproached Sumarokov for writing eyes instead of eyes, take a look instead of look³. Zhukovsky in early XIX V. had to find excuses for himself in the fact that he wrote in one poem bed instead of bed⁴. But Belinsky was already ironic about those who write in advance instead of for or because⁵. And in our time we would be perplexed if someone, on the contrary, not in poetry, but in ordinary conversation, said equine, like Mayakovsky⁶, instead equine or used the short form of an adjective or participle instead of the full form as a secondary predicate, cf. at least from Aseev: “And poplars, dark and silent, // They rise in the distance, resembling explosions”⁷.

We should also not lose sight of the fact that the very difference between the poetic style of speech and the general everyday language of the educated environment is not necessary at all and, under certain conditions, may be absent. Wed. at least some lyric poems Pushkin recent years his life⁸.

On the other hand, the language used in poetic works may seem connected with poetry not only by the external tradition of word usage, but also by its internal qualities, as a language that truly corresponds to the depicted poetic world, the expressed poetic mood. In this case, the language of poetry is understood by us as a poetic language in itself, and we are already talking about poetry as special expressive quality of language.

It is clear that such poetic language, in turn, is nothing more than a special kind of tradition. Under appropriate conditions

26

“poeticity” easily changes its actual linguistic content or generally becomes a ridiculous template, which is fought in poetry in the same way as, for example, “theatricality” is fought in the history of theatrical culture. Criticism reprimanded Pushkin for being anti-poetic about the famous place in the “Bakhchisarai Fountain”: “The symbol Certainly daring”, etc. In “Well-Intentioned” they wrote: “ Certainly belongs to those words that are dangerous to introduce into poetry.”⁹ But Pushkin, the further he went, the more willingly he used prosaism in his poetic language. We also know what a big place in journalism the 20s of the XIX century. was occupied by the struggle with stereotyped poetic expressions like “golden carelessness”, “sweet bliss”¹⁰, etc. We also remember the speeches of Mayakovsky, who welcomed Chekhov for introducing into literature “rude names of rude things” and instead of “chords” and "silver distances" spoke with the words "defined as Hello, simple as give me a glass of tea”¹¹.

Thus, from this side too, poetic language has its own history. It most closely reflects the history of public linguistic tastes, social psychology of language. As can be seen from several examples given, history itself is almost decisive in this regard. poetic theme: the poetry or anti-poetry of a language very much comes down to the question of what subjects are considered possible or impossible to write about in a poetic work. ” Nightingale maybe, nozzle - it is forbidden”, as Mayakovsky formulated already in our time.

But there is one more, and, moreover, much more important meaning belonging to the expression “poetic language”. We deal with it when the very relationship between language and poetry is conceived not as a connection of one kind or another - traditional or expressive - but as its own legitimate identity, so that language is poetry in itself. Here the question already arises about the special, poetic function of language, which does not coincide with the function of language as a means of ordinary communication, but seems to be its peculiar complication.

Poetic language in this sense is what is usually called figurative language. The artistic word is figurative not only in the sense that it is necessarily metaphorical. You can cite as many non-metaphorical poetic words, expressions and even entire works as you like. But the real meaning of an artistic word is never confined to its literal meaning. Any act of Tatiana or Onegin is immediately what it is with

27

the point of view of its literal designation, and what it represents in its wider content, hidden in its literal meaning: otherwise it would, indeed, be a chronicle of incidents, and not poetry. The main feature of poetic language as a special linguistic function lies precisely in the fact that this “wider” or “more distant” content does not have its own separate sound form, but instead uses the form of another, literally understood content. Thus, the form here serves as the content. One content, expressed in sound form, serves as the form of another content that does not have a special sound expression. That's why this form is often called internal shape.

Distrust of the teachings about language as an internal form is often due to the fact that such teachings are applied not to a specifically artistic language, but to language in general¹³. In these cases, art is explained by analogy with language, whereas, on the contrary, that special function of language, which we call poetic, should be explained by analogy with other types of art. Hence the usual idealism of the teachings about internal form, which should have no place with a correct view of the relationship between art and reality. But a correct understanding of this issue was alien both to the formalists¹⁵, who denied the internal form and at the same time completely separated “poetic language” and “practical language”¹⁶, and, for example, to Potebnya, who considered every word in general to be poetic and therefore turned art into something like would be even more real than reality itself¹⁷.

Meanwhile, the poetic word grows in the real word, as its special function, in exactly the same way as poetry grows from the world of reality around us. The literal meaning of a word in poetry reveals new, different meanings within itself in exactly the same way as in art the meaning of the described individual empirical fact expands to the degree of one or another generalization. A. N. Tolstoy’s novel “Bread” is not just a novel about bread in the literal and everyday meaning of the word, but about a major, heroic event from history civil war. But at the same time it's certainly also a novel about bread, therefore, it is in this image that the artist reveals to us what he saw in the chronicle of the civil war, and the same theme, revealed in a different image, would be the theme of another novel.

There is therefore no need to follow the naively etymological interpretation of the internal form, for which Potebnya so often gives rise. In order to understand the meaning of the phrase: “The weather is fine today,” we really do not need to know the “immediate etymological meaning” of not only the words good, in relation to which in science there are a number of equally unconvincing etymologies, but even the words Today, whose immediate past

28

understandable to almost anyone who speaks Russian. But without knowing what the word “before” meant before becoming a fact of poetic language, it is indeed impossible to understand what it means as a poetic word.

It follows that there is no such fact of poetic language that would not be known outside the poetic context, as the phenomenon of language in general. But in this new, poetic quality, each linguistic date acquires special properties, of which the following two are briefly indicated here.

Firstly, in poetic language, in principle, there are no words and forms that are unmotivated, with empty, dead, arbitrarily conventional meaning. In ordinary language there are words that can be explained through the meaning of other words with a common non-derivative stem: singer- this is the one who sings. But what does it mean sing- this can only be interpreted, but it is impossible to explain it in the actual language way: this is a word with a non-derivative, primary base. Meanwhile, in poetry and the word sing is not isolated, but is included in the corresponding semantic series depending on the image for which it serves as the basis. So, sing may be associated with words expressing a joyful state of mind (“the soul sings,” “the blood sings,” etc.), poetic inspiration (“the muse sings”), a play on musical instrument(cf. Blok: “frenziedly started singing stops”¹⁹), etc. Compare, for example, the usual connection of words denoting tears And rain: “Through silk eyelashes // Two appeared tears... Or maybe raindrops// The incipient thunderstorm?” (Tyutchev)²⁰; “Reaching for homeland cloud, // Just so cry above her” (Fet)²¹; “And nothing was resolved // Spring shower stormy tears” (Block)²²; "With their bitter tears// Cried over us spring” (aka)²³, etc.

This, of course, also applies to grammatical categories. A word that only has plural, is capable in poetry, regardless of its real meaning, of being the bearer of the image of plurality²⁴, an inanimate feminine word is the bearer female image²⁵, etc. Here the gap between the “technical” and “living” meaning of linguistic facts is, in principle, destroyed.

This would be impossible if, secondly, in poetic language the difference between those facts that are part of the very system of language and those facts that remain the property of extra-systemic speech, the so-called speaking (“la parole”), was not also overcome. Word order in Russian for the most part does not create differences that could have a purely grammatical meaning. But in poetic language A funny day And fun day, brave warrior And brave warrior, the battle is on And there is a battle going on- significantly different syntagms, because they can be used to express different poetic content. Meaning of the word

29

clean does not depend on what is the exhaustive list of nouns used with this adjective in the general language. Here you only need to avoid mixing such groups of phrases, such as pure water , on the one hand, and pure nonsense- with another. But in poetic language, in principle, each word is a member of one or another fusion, which has a unity of meaning: it is obvious that the cloud is crying And the soul is crying, the violin is crying And spring is crying these are completely different images that have a common single basis in the literal meaning of the word crying. That's why pure water And pure tear can also represent different types of phrases in the language of poetry²⁶.

Constructions, optional, “free” in a general language, but potentially obligatory, “unfree” in a poetic language, also represent a phenomenon of internal form, that is, the relationship of literal and “more distant” meanings. Postposition or preposition of the defined “literally” has the same meaning, indifferent, but in a given poetic context it is at the same time not indifferent. In the “literal” sense, a combination of forms without a predicate, “not brought to a point”, has the sense of an unfinished sentence, but at the same time, for example, occupying an entire verse or composing another corresponding rhythmic group, it sounds as if it were a complete syntactic whole²⁷ , etc. Thus, in that special section of linguistics, which is devoted to the study of language as a poetic fact, such phenomena as the connection of words along word-derived nests, as the relationship between the language system and the optional forms of its embodiment, receive a completely different meaning.

Closely connected with everything that has been said is that property of the poetic word, which can be called its reflectiveness, that is, his usual focus on himself. By bringing together in the text words that have long lost the mutual connection that they possessed due to their etymological relationship or even having never had this connection at all, the poet seems to discover new, unexpected meanings in them, externally motivated in the most different ways: either by a joke or by deep thought.

Wed. in Sumarokov’s parable²⁹: “ Treasure my! Where you hid? In “The Savage” by Ostrovsky: “ Hangs himself on the neck of a married man! U!! Rake, right, rake!” In Gorky’s “Dachniki”: “Oh Marfa, Marfa! You you're worried about a lot - that's why you have everything overbaked or half baked...” Arkady’s words in “Fathers and Sons” are remarkable: “Don’t you think that ash very well named in Russian? no tree is so easy and It's clear does not pierce the air like he does.” Particularly interesting is the following argument by Matvey Kozhemyakin in Gorky: “Remember-

30

It seemed like one day the word “anger” for some reason stood next to the word “fire” and filled the tired, lonely soul with depressing sadness. - Anger, he thought, - get angry, be on fire, - that’s where he’s from, anger- from fire! Who fire it's burning in the soul, that's it angry It happens. Have I ever been angry-That? Not in me fire”.

Needless to add that etymologically there is no connection between the words ash And It's clear, anger And fire.

Let us also remember the difference between ein Fichtenbaum in Heine and in words pine translated by Lermontov. Apollo Grigoriev (the first, it seems, to point out this freedom in Lermontov’s translation)³⁰ immediately pointed out a similar phenomenon in one poem by Sluchevsky³¹, who has earth, depicted by a feminine word, says goodbye to her beloved summer, depicted by a neuter word.

NOTES

¹ Chapter “After 20 years”, section. 1.

² Chapter I.

³ See: Trediakovsky V. Letter... written from friend to friend // Sat. materials for the History of the Imperial Academy of Sciences / Ed. A. Kunik. St. Petersburg, 1865. Part 2. P. 456, 481.

⁴ See about this: Vinogradov V.V. Pushkin's style. M., 1941. P. 15.

⁵ See: Belinsky V. G. Rec. on poems by Ap. Grigoriev and Ya. P. Polonsky // Otechestvennye zapiski. St. Petersburg, 1846. T. 15. Section: Bibliographical chronicle. P. 57.

⁶ In the poem “Two not quite ordinary cases.” G. O. Vinokur called this phenomenon “renewal of adjectives” (p. 345).

⁷ Poem “Flame of Victory”. Cm.: Aseev N. Poems and poems. M., 1946. S. 57-58.

⁸ “When I wander around the city thoughtfully”, “...I visited again”, “They will tell me this with an unfaithful smile”, etc.

⁹ See: Well-Intentioned: Literary Critical Magazine / Ed. Izmailov. St. Petersburg, 1824. Part 26. No. 8. P. 66.

¹⁰ See: Kuchelbecker V.K. About our poetry, especially lyrical poetry in the last decade // Mnemosyne. St. Petersburg, 1824. Part 2. pp. 29-44.

¹¹ See: Mayakovsky V.V. Two Chekhovs // Complete. collection cit.: In 12 volumes. M., 1939. T. 1. P. 341, 344.

¹² See: Mayakovsky V.V. Everyone should read this book / Foreword. to the revolutionary anthology of the futurists “The Rye Word” // Complete. collection cit.: In 12 volumes. M., 1939. T. 2. P. 467.

¹³ See: Potebnya A. A. Thought and language. St. Petersburg, 1862. pp. 86-94; Vinokur G. Poetry and practical stylistics // Language culture. M., 1929. S. 265-277.

¹⁴ See: Potebnya A. A. Definition of poetry // From notes on the theory of literature. Kharkov, 1905. P. 17 ff.

¹⁵ See: Shklovsky V. Art as a technique // Poetics: Sat. on the theory of poetic

31

language. Pg., 1919. Issue. 2. P. 101-114; Medvedev P. N. Formal method in literary criticism: A critical introduction to sociological poetics. L., 1928. Part 3: Formal method in poetics. pp. 105-142. For a list of the main works of the so-called formalists and the publication of some of these works, see the book: Reader in theoretical literary criticism. Tartu, 1976. Part 1.

¹⁶ See: Yakubinsky L. P. On the sounds of poetic language // Sat. on the theory of poetic language. Pg., 1916. Issue. 1. pp. 16-30. Or: Yakubinsky L. P. Language and its functioning // Izbr. work. M., 1986. S. 163-176; Shklovsky V. Potebnya // Poetics: Sat. on the theory of poetic language. Pg., 1919. Issue. 2. P. 3-6; Eikhenbaum B. Theory of the “formal method” // Literature: Theory. Criticism. Controversy. L., 1927. S. 121-127.

¹⁷ See: Potebnya A. A. Poetry and prose. Their differentiation // From notes on the theory of literature. pp. 97-110.

¹⁸ Wed. examples given by Potebnya regarding the definition of the concept “internal form of a word” (see note No. 13), as well as examples in his book “From Notes on Russian Grammar” (Voronezh, 1874. pp. 1-5, etc.).

¹⁹ In the poem “In a restaurant”.

²⁰ In the poem “There is silence in the stuffy air...”.

²¹ In the poem “From the wilds of the fog timidly...”.

²² In the poem “I remember the long torment.”

²³ In the poem “With my bitter tears...”.

²⁴ Wed: Mouth chew. From all sides // Plates and cutlery are rattling ("Eugene Onegin"; 5, XXIX).

²⁵ Wed: “Come, O Laziness!” Come to my desert...” (Pushkin, “Dream”).

²⁶ Compare: “genius” pure beauty" from Pushkin (“I remember a wonderful moment...”) and from Zhukovsky (“Lalla Ruk”).

²⁷ Wed. from “Eugene Onegin”:
She looks him in the face. ” What's wrong with you?”- So. -And to the porch(6, XIX).

²⁸ Avg. Examples of word-formation figurativeness in Mayakovsky given by G. O. Vinokur: Giraffe - giraffe mother - giraffe(“Whatever the page is, it’s an elephant or a lioness”).

²⁹ “Stingy.” Cm.: Sumarokov A. P. Full collection all op. M., 1871. Part 7. P. 14.

³⁰ See: Grigoriev A. Memories. M.; L., 1930. (“Conversations with Ivan Ivanovich about our modern literature and many other thought-provoking subjects”, p. 298.)

³¹ “Farewell to summer.” Cm.: Sluchevsky K.K. Works: In 6 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1898. T. 1. P. 252.

32