.png)
UDC 81`7+81`42
https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.5-22.136
Nikitina Elena S.,
Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor,
Leading Researcher of the Psycholinguistics Department
Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences
e-mail: m1253076@yandex.ru
The communicative paradigm, which supplemented the activity paradigm in the 20th century, allowed the text to rise to the status of the subject, replacing in the written form the communicative partner, and thus elevating understanding to the rank of an independent process of mental activity with its product. In the communicative paradigm, the Subject (Speaker) is opposed to the other Subject (Destination), not the Object. The place of one of the Subjects can be taken by the text as a sociocultural formation, the keeper of cultural and historical memory and the accumulator of human senses. The subjectivity of the text is the result of the consolidation of writing in culture. The semantic space of a text as a sign is three-dimensional. Its coordinates are located on the axes of the speech event: beingness, thinkability and communicability of the text. In the terms of rhetoric — ethos, logos and pathos. These spaces gather the focus of the senses of the text. Any text includes the senses of being, typological and communicative. As a communicative subject, the text is always addressed to someone. It does not simply recreate being, but also addresses it to others. In other words, the text contains a model of a potential reader to whom the content of the text is addressed, as it requires a certain encyclopedic competence for understanding. The relationship with this reader creates a possible focus of text sense: a certain language code, a certain literary style, certain signs of specialization, and the role functions of the text itself in relation to readers. The addressed sense is a communicative sense, paralogical in its linguistic characteristics, which gathers like-minded people around itself, who understand each other in the culture of interlocutors.
Keywords: sense, text, addressee, comprehension, paralogics, speech impact tactics, dialog.
References
1. Lotman Yu.M. Semiotika kul’tury i poniatie teksta // Istoriia i tipologiia russkoi kul’tury / Yu.M. Lotman. St. Petersburg: Iskusstvo, 2002. 768 s.
2. Keno R. Uprazhneniia v stile // Opustoshitel’. 2014. No. 12. S. 100–159. URL: http://pustoshit.com.
3. Watzlawick P., Beavin J.H., Don Jackson D. Pragmatics of human communication: a study of interactional patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber, 1968. P. 296.
4. Shostrom E.L. Man, the manipulator: the inner journey from manipulation to actualization. Abingdon Press, 1967. P. 256.
5. Serl’ Dzh. Kosvennye rechevye akty // Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike. Vyp. XVII: Teoriia rechevykh aktov. Moscow: Progress, 1986. S. 195–196.
6. Klyuev E.V. Ritorika (Inventsiia. Dispozitsiia. Elokutsiia): ucheb. posobie dlia vuzov. Moscow: PRIOR, 2001. 272 s.
7. Novyi Zavet. Evangelie ot Matfeia / izdanie Rossiiskogo Bibleiskogo Obshchestva. Perepechatano s Sinodal’nogo izdaniia. 2017. 512 s.
8. Nagibin Yu. Liubimyi uchenik // Rasskazy sinego liagushenka / Yu. Nagibin. Moscow: Mosgorpechat’, 1991. S. 177–199.
9. Batkin L.M. Ital’ianskie gumanisty: stil’ zhizni i stil’ myshleniia. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. 198 s.
10. Nikitina E.S. Smyslovoi analiz teksta: psikhosemioticheskii podkhod. Moscow: LENAND, 2016. 200 s.
11. Bakhtin M.M. Problema teksta v lingvistike, filologii i drugikh gumanitarnykh naukakh: opyt filosofskogo analiza // Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1979. 424 s.
12. Eko U. Shest’ progulok v literaturnykh lesakh / per. s angl. Aleksandry Glebovskoi. St. Petresburg, 2002. 283 s.
13. Evteev S.V., Chigasheva M.A. Srednii chitatel’ perevodnogo teksta: kto on? // Vestnik TvGU. Seriia: Filologiia. 2018. No. 2. S. 213–219.