Title: Композиционная роль видо-временных категорий в стихотворении Б. Пастернака "Чудо"
Transliterated title
Kompozicionnaja rol' vido-vremennych kategorij v stichotvorenii B. Pasternaka "Čudo"
Variant title:
- Discourse functions of tense/aspect morphology in lyric poetry – the case of Miracle by Boris Pasternak
Source document: Slavica litteraria. 2018, vol. 21, iss. 2, pp. 53-69
Extent
53-69
-
ISSN1212-1509 (print)2336-4491 (online)
Persistent identifier (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5817/SL2018-2-5
Stable URL (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/138600
Type: Article
Language
License: Not specified license
Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.
Abstract(s)
В нашей работе мы хотим показать, как для анализа лирического стихотворения можно применить мето- дологию исследования нарративных текстов с точки зрения зависимости салиентности от аранжировки видо-временных категорий. Предметом нашего рассмотрения станет стихотворение Б. Пастернака Чудо, помещенное автором в сборник Стихотворения Юрия Живаго. В структуре Чуда можно выделить две части: повествовательную, в которой описывается история испепеления Иисусом Христом смоковничного дерева, и философскую, содержащую рефлексию лирического «я» над этим сюжетом. Особое внимание мы уделим тому, каким образом видо-временные категории могут выполнять композиционную функцию, обеспечивая выдвижение на первый план лирического высказывания его важнейшей информации.
Over the last decades serious research has been done on the correlation between tense and aspect choice and the level of information saliency in narrative discourse (Chvany 1985, 1990, Ehrlich 1987, Fleischman 1990, Givon 1987, Hopper and Thomspon 1980). The aim of this article is to demonstrate how methods used to analyse foreground/ backround distinction in narrative texts could be applied in order to investigate lyric poetry. The poem I shall examine is Miracle by Boris Pasternak, which belongs to a cycle of twenty-five poems, entitled Poems by Iurij Zhivago. The poem falls into two parts: the first one is narrative and relates the episode of the barren fig-tree, the second part is strictly philosophical and reflects on the force which overcomes the ordinary causality of events. My main concern is to reveal what role tense-aspect morphology plays for the foregrounding of the main ideas of the lyrical "I".
References
[1] BULYGINA, T. V.: Semantičeskie tipy predikatov. Moskva: Nauka, 1982.
[2] CHVANY, Catherine: Backgrounded perfectives and plot-line imperfectives: towards a Theory of Grounding in text. In: FLIER, M. S. – TIMBERLAKE, A. (eds.): The Scope of Slavic Aspect. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1985, pp. 247–73.
[3] DRY, Helen: The movement of narrative time. Journal of Literary Semantics 12, 1983, pp. 19–53.
[4] EHRLICH, Susan: Point of View. A Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style. London: Routledge Revivals, 1990.
[5] FLEISCHMAN, Suzanne: Tense and Narrativity: From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990.
[6] GIVÓN, Talmy: Beyond Foreground and Background. In: TOMLIN, Russell S. (ed.): Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1987, pp. 175–88.
[7] HOPPER, Paul: Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In: GIVÓN, Talmy (ed.): Syntax and semantics. Discourse and syntax, vol. 12, New York: Academic Press, 1979, pp. 213–241.
[8] HOPPER, Paul – THOMPSON, Sandra: Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 1980, pp. 251–299. | DOI 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
[9] JONES, Lary – JONES, Linda: Multiple levels of information relevance in discourse, Discourse Studies in Mesoamerican Languages, 1: Discussion: JONES, Linda (ed.). Dallas TX: SIL and University of Texas at Arlington, 1979, pp. 3–23.
[10] LEECH, Geoffrey: Language in Literature. London – New York: Routledge, 2008.
[11] LICHAČEV, D. S.: Poètika hudožestvennogo vremeni. Poètika hudožestvennogo prostranstva. In: LICHAČEV, D. S.: Poètika drevnerusskoj literatury. Moskva: Nauka, 1979, s. 209–351.
[12] LONGACRE, Robert E.: The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum, 1983.
[13] PASTERNAK, B. L.: Doktor Zhivag. Moskva: Azbukovnik, 2013.
[14] SHEN, Yeshayahu: Two levels of foregrounding in literary narratives. In: ZYNGIER, S. – BORTOLUSSI, M. – CHESNOKOVA, A. – AURACHER, J. (eds.): Directions in Empirical Literary Studies: In honor of Willie van Peer, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 2008, pp. 103–111.
[15] SIL'MAN, T. Ja.: Zametki o lirike. Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel', 1977.
[16] TOMLIN, R. S. 1985. "Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination." Text 5. pp. 85–122. | DOI 10.1515/text.1.1985.5.1-2.85
[17] TJUPA, V. I.: Vvedenie v sravnitel'nuju narratologiju. Moskva: Intrada, 2013.
[18] WEINRICH, Harald: Tempus. Besprochene und erzählte Welt. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971.
[19] ZEL'DOVIČ, G. M.: Diskursivnye otnošenija v liričeskoj poèzii. Suggestivnaja funkcija. 2017 (рукопись).
[20] BIBLIJA. SINODAL'NYJ PEREVOD [электронный ресурс] http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Bible/Z_mf_21_1_11_______21_15_17.htm (дата доступа: 13. 9. 2018).
[21] ČECHOV, A. P.: Spat' hočetsja. [электронный ресурс] https://ilibrary.ru/text/683/p.1/index.html (дата доступа 13. 9. 2018.)
[2] CHVANY, Catherine: Backgrounded perfectives and plot-line imperfectives: towards a Theory of Grounding in text. In: FLIER, M. S. – TIMBERLAKE, A. (eds.): The Scope of Slavic Aspect. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1985, pp. 247–73.
[3] DRY, Helen: The movement of narrative time. Journal of Literary Semantics 12, 1983, pp. 19–53.
[4] EHRLICH, Susan: Point of View. A Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style. London: Routledge Revivals, 1990.
[5] FLEISCHMAN, Suzanne: Tense and Narrativity: From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990.
[6] GIVÓN, Talmy: Beyond Foreground and Background. In: TOMLIN, Russell S. (ed.): Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1987, pp. 175–88.
[7] HOPPER, Paul: Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In: GIVÓN, Talmy (ed.): Syntax and semantics. Discourse and syntax, vol. 12, New York: Academic Press, 1979, pp. 213–241.
[8] HOPPER, Paul – THOMPSON, Sandra: Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 1980, pp. 251–299. | DOI 10.1353/lan.1980.0017
[9] JONES, Lary – JONES, Linda: Multiple levels of information relevance in discourse, Discourse Studies in Mesoamerican Languages, 1: Discussion: JONES, Linda (ed.). Dallas TX: SIL and University of Texas at Arlington, 1979, pp. 3–23.
[10] LEECH, Geoffrey: Language in Literature. London – New York: Routledge, 2008.
[11] LICHAČEV, D. S.: Poètika hudožestvennogo vremeni. Poètika hudožestvennogo prostranstva. In: LICHAČEV, D. S.: Poètika drevnerusskoj literatury. Moskva: Nauka, 1979, s. 209–351.
[12] LONGACRE, Robert E.: The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum, 1983.
[13] PASTERNAK, B. L.: Doktor Zhivag. Moskva: Azbukovnik, 2013.
[14] SHEN, Yeshayahu: Two levels of foregrounding in literary narratives. In: ZYNGIER, S. – BORTOLUSSI, M. – CHESNOKOVA, A. – AURACHER, J. (eds.): Directions in Empirical Literary Studies: In honor of Willie van Peer, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing, 2008, pp. 103–111.
[15] SIL'MAN, T. Ja.: Zametki o lirike. Leningrad: Sovetskij pisatel', 1977.
[16] TOMLIN, R. S. 1985. "Foreground-Background Information and the Syntax of Subordination." Text 5. pp. 85–122. | DOI 10.1515/text.1.1985.5.1-2.85
[17] TJUPA, V. I.: Vvedenie v sravnitel'nuju narratologiju. Moskva: Intrada, 2013.
[18] WEINRICH, Harald: Tempus. Besprochene und erzählte Welt. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971.
[19] ZEL'DOVIČ, G. M.: Diskursivnye otnošenija v liričeskoj poèzii. Suggestivnaja funkcija. 2017 (рукопись).
[20] BIBLIJA. SINODAL'NYJ PEREVOD [электронный ресурс] http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Bible/Z_mf_21_1_11_______21_15_17.htm (дата доступа: 13. 9. 2018).
[21] ČECHOV, A. P.: Spat' hočetsja. [электронный ресурс] https://ilibrary.ru/text/683/p.1/index.html (дата доступа 13. 9. 2018.)