.png)
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.6-19.020
Sergeeva Elena V.,
Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Russian Language Department
Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia
e-mail: elena.v.sergeeva@gmail.com
The article deals with the problem of the artistic discourse’s specificity. Some text categories, typical for the artistic discourse, are considered: extra pragmatic, depth, surreal modality, subject-oriented narrativity, occasional figurativeness. The linguocentricity of a literary text as its most important quality is related to the fact that a verbal artistic work is a linguistic phenomenon, and for its perception and understanding, the selection and combination of the use of linguistic units by the author is extremely significant. Under the depth of the text refers to the presence of subtext. Non-pragmatism consists in setting the addressee on a change in the spiritual sphere due to a correct understanding of the author’s artistic picture of the world, with pragmatic information of secondary importance. The surreal modality is the representation of an action in a work as a purely author’s artistic world, opened to the reader and created for him. Subject-oriented narrative is the construction of a narrative, which may include a demonstrative author’s own narration. Individual imagery — an orientation to aesthetic reproduction, rethinking and re-creation of reality, embodied in the author's symbols, metaphors, epithets and comparisons, as well as their sets. It is shown that the category of the individual imagery and impotence of linguistic parameters are the most significant category among various types of the artistic text categories.
Keywords: discourse, artistic discourse, categories of the discourse, extrapragmatic, depth, surreal modality, subject-oriented narrativity, occasional figurativeness.
References
1. Gafarova A.S. Khudozhestvennyi tekst vs khudozhestvennyi diskurs. URL: http://rgf.tversu.ru/node/486 (data obrashcheniia: 25.11.2017).
2. Maslova V.A. Poeticheskii tekst. Novye podkhody i resheniia. Moscow: Flinta: Nauka, 2016. 320 s.
3. Miller L.V. Khudozhestvennaia kartina mira i mir khudozhestvennykh tekstov. St. Petersburg, 2003. 156 s.
4. Oliz'ko N.S. Khudozhestvennyi diskurs kak polilog avtora, chitatelia i teksta. URL: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/hudozhestvennyy-diskurs-kak-polilog-avt... (data obrashcheniia: 13.03.2019).
5. Kukharenko V.A. Interpretatsiia teksta. URL: https://studfiles.net/preview/5593647/page:8/ (data obrashcheniia: 25.04.2019).
6. Komarova L.I. Osnovnye kategorii khudozhestvennogo teksta kak fenomena kul’tury. URL: https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_15117773_49461190.pdf (data obrashcheniia: 25.01.2019).
7. Beliaeva N.I. Soderzhatel'nye kategorii khudozhestvennogo teksta i ikh iazykovaia eksplikatsiia: dis. ... kand. filol. nauk. URL: http://www.dslib.net/russkij-jazyk/soderzhatelnye-kategorii-hudozhestven... (data obrashcheniia: 25.04.2019).
8. Babenko L.G., Vasil’ev I.E., Kazarin Iu.V. Lingvisticheskii analiz khudozhestvennogo teksta. URL: http://lib4all.ru/base/B3571/B3571Part10-40.php# (data obrashcheniia: 25.04.2019).
9. Farino E. Vvedenie v literaturovedenie. URL: http://biblio.imli.ru/images/abook/teoriya/Farino_E._Vvedenie_v_literatu... (data obrashcheniia: 13.03.2019).