Text-Work and Its Units: Key Textforms and Textform Keys

Abstract

The article examines the semantic organization of text-work by means of textual units, which convey meaning, unlike linguistic units, which convey significance. Textual units differ: a) in structure — simple (indivisible in meaning) and complex; b) by origin — unoriginal (quotations) and original; c) by function — neutral and marked: key units that accumulate meaning, and unit-keys that reveal meaning; d) by semantic volume — intratextual and intertextual; e) by position in the text — structurally marked and structurally unmarked. Certain formal and functional ways of their use in a text allow to identify textual units: repetition, their use for explanation or replication. In the Russian philological tradition, these units were called “symbols” [Vinogradov, 1980], “abbreviations of meaning” [Bakhtin, 1986], “narrative keys” [Toporov, 1983; Nikolaeva, 2012]. The author of the present article introduces the term “textforms” (“key textforms” and “textform keys”) which makes it possible to view textual forms as units of text grammar and grammatical forms as units of language grammar. The article presents an analysis of textforms that organize the semantic dimension of texts of confessional culture (“The Tale of Boris and Gleb”) and texts of secular culture that differ in artistic principles and forms of presentation of these principles (Pushkin’s novel “The Captain’s Daughter” and Brodsky’s poem “December in Florence”).

References

1. Ahapkin D. 2020. Perechityvaya «Dekabr’ vo Florencii» [Rereading “December in Florence”]. Zvezda, no. 5, pp. 135–156. (In Russ.)

2. Bahtin M.M. 1986. Problema teksta v lingvistike, filologii I drugih gumanitarnyh naukah [ The Problem of text in linguistics, Philology and other humanitarian sciences] In M.M. Bahtin (ed.) Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [The esthetics of literary work]. Moscow, pp. 297–325. (In Russ.)

3. Vinogradov V.V. 1980. O teorii literaturnyh stilej [On the theory of literary styles] In V.V. Vinogradov (ed.) O yazyke hudozhestvennoj prozy [On the language of fiction novels]. Moscow, pp. 240–249. (In Russ.)

4. Zapol’skaya N.N. 2012. Lingvistika “sozdannogo”: yazykovye klyuchi v knizhnyh tekstah [Linguistics of “created”: linguistic keys in book culture texts and literature] In Nikolaeva T.M. (ed.) Klyuchi narrativa [Narrative keys]. Moscow, pp. 57–78. (In Russ.)

5. Kreps M. 1984. O poezii Iosifa Brodskogo [On J. Brodsky’s poetry]. Ann Arbor, MI. (In Russ.)

6. Lihachev D.S. 1979. Poetika drevnerusskoj literatury [The poetics of old Russian literature]. Moscow. (In Russ.)

7. Mejlah M., Toporov V. 2018. Ahmatova i Dante [Akhmatova and Dante] In M. Mejlah (ed.) Poeziya I mif. Izbrannye stat’I [Poetry and Myth. Selected works]. Moscow, pp. 263–306. (In Russ.)

8. Nikolaeva T.M. 2012. Klyuchi narrativa. Vvedenie [Narrative keys. Introduction] In Nikolaeva T.M. (ed.) Klyuchi narrativa [Narrative keys]. Moscow, pp. 7–56. (In Russ.)

9. Onipenko N.K. 2013. Mezhdu opredelenno-lichnost’yu I oboshchenno-lichnost’yu (semantika sintaksicheskih nulej v stihotvorenii I. Brodskogo “Dekabr’ voFlorencii”) [Between definitive personal and indefenetive personal. The semantics of syntactic zeros in Brodsky’s poem “December in Florence”] In Sbornik pamyati A.B. Pen’kovskogo [Collective monograph in memory of Penkovsky]. Moscow. (In Russ.)

10. Pikkio R. 2003. Slavia Orthodoxa: literature I yazyk [Slavia Orthodoxa: literature and language]. Moscow. (In Russ.)

11. Toporov V.N. 1995. Svyatost’ i svyatye v russkoj duhovnoj kul’ture. Pervyj vek hristianstva na Rusi [Sanctity and saints in Russian culture. First centuries of Christianity in Rus]. Moscow. (In Russ.)