.png)
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.6-19.012
Patroeva Natalya V.,
Doctor of Philology, Professor,
Head of the Russian Language Department
Petrozavodsk State University
e-mail: nvpatr@list.ru
Lebedev Alexander A.,
Candidate of Philology, Senior Lecturer
of the Russian Language Department
Petrozavodsk State University
e-mail: perevodchik88@yandex.ru
The syntax of the “poet of thought” E.A. Baratynsky, who had an undoubted influence on the Russian philosophical lyrics of the twentieth century, demonstrates the tendency towards complication and archaization that has deepened over time. It generally contradicts the aspirations for the democratization of the poetic syllable, which can be seen in the Karamzin era. The complexity of the syntactic structure on the path of the poet searching for a “metaphysical” language is not achieved by increasing the activity of complex constructions that make up half of Baratynsky’s sentences, but by saturating the statement with semantic-syntactic capacitors — various types of separate turns (participles, extraparticular, adjectival, substantive, adverbial, infinitive) complicating the model allied syntagmas (prepositional, comparative, connecting), paranthesies, references, the segments of type “nominative themes”. In an effort to preserve the continuity of poetic traditions for a thoughtful, attentive reader, Baratynsky resorts to the syllable archaization at the lexical and grammatical levels, in particular, absolute isolations. Thanks to the creation of the “Syntax Dictionary of Russian Poetry”, it became possible not only to describe in detail the syntactic structure of the poetic text and to trace the syntactic dominants of Russian lyricists and Russian poetry of the classical stage as a whole, but also to reveal the interaction of syntax and metrics, syntax, construction and syntax, syntax and genre. Complicated constructions often accompany a three-pillar iambic, trisyllabic dimensions, mixed-line verses consisting of longer and shorter lines with a change in the order of stress. Sentences with heavier turns of the movement of verse are very characteristic of six-foot iamba and dactyl-sizes with connotations of “high” genres. Simple, without complications, constructions are more common in the short double-prank iamba, as well as in the genre neutral for the Pushkin era of the iambic pentameter, song chorea. A more complex syntactic device is observed in polymetric and multi-stop poems and that the complication of syntax together in long-sized verses is achieved not by multiplying the number of parts of complex structures, but by isolating and writing homogeneous series. Relatively “simpler”, large stanzaic forms are made, often subdividing into several simple sentences of two or three lines long. The tradition of poetic rhythm requires the coincidence of quatrain boundaries and sentences — their symmetries; therefore, in quatrains, there are much more complicated and complex structures. Freestyle stanza or the absence of stanzaic division also contributes to the complexity of the syntax.
Keywords: poetic syntax, verse text syntax, syntax and meter, syntax and stanza, syntax and genre, language of Russian lyric poetry of the XIX century.
References
1. Maimin E.A. Russkaia filosofskaia poeziia: Poety-liubomudry. A.S. Pushkin. F.I. Tyutchev. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. 194 s.
2. Ginzburg L. O lirike. 2-e izd., dop. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel', 1974. 405 s.
3. Zhivov V.M. Istoriia iazyka russkoi pis'mennosti: v 2 t. T. 1. Moscow: Russkii fond sodeistviia obrazovaniiu i nauke, 2017. 816 s.
4. Darvin M.N. Russkii liricheskii tsikl: Problemy istorii i teorii (na materiale poezii pervoi poloviny XIX v.). Krasnoiarsk: Izd-vo Krasnoiarskogo un-ta, 1988. 137 s.
5. Kozhinov V.V. Kak pishut stikhi: o zakonakh poeticheskogo tvorchestva. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1970. 239 s.
6. Kozhinov V.V. Kniga o russkoi liricheskoi poezii XIX veka: Razvitie stilia i zhanra. Moscow: Sovremennik,1978. 304 s.
7. Sintaksicheskii slovar' russkoi poezii XVIII veka: v 4 t. / pod red. N.V. Patroevoi. T. 1: Kantemir, Trediakovskii. St. Petersburg: DMITRII BULANIN, 2017. 576 s.
8. Patroeva N.V. Sintaksicheskii poeticheskii slovar': teoretiko-metodologicheskie osnovaniia leksikograficheskogo proekta // Slavianskaia istoricheskaia leksikologiia i leksikografiia. St. Petersburg, 2018. Vyp. 1. S. 122–131.
9. Patroeva N.V. Sintaksicheskii slovar' russkoi poezii ot Kantemira do Lermontova: teoretiko-metodologicheskie problemy sozdaniia i nekotorye itogi // Sovremennye problemy avtorskoi leksikografii. Moscow, 2018. S. 57–64.
10. Fomenko I.V. O poetike liricheskogo tsikla. Kalinin: Kalinin. gos. un-t, 1984. 79 s.
11. Patroeva N.V. “Sumerechnyi” sintaksis E. Baratynskogo (na materiale sbornika “Sumerki” 1842 g.) // Vestnik Volgogradskogo gos. un-ta. Ser. 2. Iazykoznanie. 2016. T. 15. No. 2. S. 105–119.
12. Ivask Iu. Baratynskii // New Review. N.Y., 1957. P. 135–156.
13. Nilsson N. Baratynskij’s elegiac sode // Russian Romanticism: Stud-ies in the Poetic Codes. Stockholm, 1979. P. 144–166.
14. Bocharov S.G. “Obrechen bor'be verkhovnoi” (liricheskii mir Ba-ratynskogo) // Bocharov S.G. O khudozhestvennykh mirakh. Moscow: Sovetskaia Ros-siia, 1985. S. 69–123.
15. Baratynskii E.A. Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel, 1989. 464 s.