Person in artistic discourse
Describing personal usages that can only be found in fiction or poetry, the author seeks to relate them to general semiotic properties of artistic discourse. He also introduces the notion of pragmatic presupposition reversal in order to explain changes person can undergo in literary texts, this noti...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Мовознавство |
|---|---|
| Datum: | 2015 |
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | English |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Інститут мовознавства ім. О.О. Потебні НАН України
2015
|
| Online Zugang: | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/184008 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Zitieren: | Person in artistic discourse / S.S. Yermolenko // Мовознавство. — 2015. — № 3. — С. 23-32. — Бібліогр.: 31 назв. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| id |
nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-184008 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
Yermolenko, S.S. 2022-05-01T16:08:08Z 2022-05-01T16:08:08Z 2015 Person in artistic discourse / S.S. Yermolenko // Мовознавство. — 2015. — № 3. — С. 23-32. — Бібліогр.: 31 назв. — англ. 0027-2833 https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/184008 Describing personal usages that can only be found in fiction or poetry, the author seeks to relate them to general semiotic properties of artistic discourse. He also introduces the notion of pragmatic presupposition reversal in order to explain changes person can undergo in literary texts, this notion throwing new light on the semantic structure of personal deixis. Автор статті, описуючи випадки вживання категорії особи, що спостерігаються лише у прозі й поезії, прагне витлумачити їх у світлі загальних семіотичних властивостей художнього дискурсу. Він також уводить поняття обернення прагматичних пресупозицій з метою дати пояснення семантичній еволюції, якої категорія особи може зазнавати в літературних текстах. Застосування нього поняття дозволяє також по-новому поглянути на семантичну структуру особового дейксису. en Інститут мовознавства ім. О.О. Потебні НАН України Мовознавство Person in artistic discourse Категорія особи в художньому дискурсі Article published earlier |
| institution |
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| collection |
DSpace DC |
| title |
Person in artistic discourse |
| spellingShingle |
Person in artistic discourse Yermolenko, S.S. |
| title_short |
Person in artistic discourse |
| title_full |
Person in artistic discourse |
| title_fullStr |
Person in artistic discourse |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Person in artistic discourse |
| title_sort |
person in artistic discourse |
| author |
Yermolenko, S.S. |
| author_facet |
Yermolenko, S.S. |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| language |
English |
| container_title |
Мовознавство |
| publisher |
Інститут мовознавства ім. О.О. Потебні НАН України |
| format |
Article |
| title_alt |
Категорія особи в художньому дискурсі |
| description |
Describing personal usages that can only be found in fiction or poetry, the author seeks to relate them to general semiotic properties of artistic discourse. He also introduces the notion of pragmatic presupposition reversal in order to explain changes person can undergo in literary texts, this notion throwing new light on the semantic structure of personal deixis.
Автор статті, описуючи випадки вживання категорії особи, що спостерігаються лише у прозі й поезії, прагне витлумачити їх у світлі загальних семіотичних властивостей художнього дискурсу. Він також уводить поняття обернення прагматичних пресупозицій з метою дати пояснення семантичній еволюції, якої категорія особи може зазнавати в літературних текстах. Застосування нього поняття дозволяє також по-новому поглянути на семантичну структуру особового дейксису.
|
| issn |
0027-2833 |
| url |
https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/184008 |
| citation_txt |
Person in artistic discourse / S.S. Yermolenko // Мовознавство. — 2015. — № 3. — С. 23-32. — Бібліогр.: 31 назв. — англ. |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT yermolenkoss personinartisticdiscourse AT yermolenkoss kategoríâosobivhudožnʹomudiskursí |
| first_indexed |
2025-11-24T16:10:13Z |
| last_indexed |
2025-11-24T16:10:13Z |
| _version_ |
1850851158718939136 |
| fulltext |
S. S. YERMOLENKO
PERSON IN ARTISTIC DISCOURSE
Describing personal usages that can only be found in fiction or poetry, the author seeks to relate
them to general semiotic properties o f artistic discourse. He also introduces the notion o f pragmatic
presupposition reversal in order to explain changes person can undergo in literary texts, this notion
throwing new light on the semantic structure o f personal deixis.
K e y w ord s: person, artistic discourse, presupposition reversal, pronoun, communication
situation, speaker, addressee.
The subject matter of this paper is some features peculiar to the category of person as
used in artistic discourse (such as fiction and poetry) and not found elsewhere.
Prototypically, the category of person is referentially based upon the situation
of communication (either oral or written), and within it, upon its nucleus, the act
of speaking (or writing). It is with reference to this act (similar in this respect to the
point of origin in the system of co-ordinates) that the basic personal subcategories are
defined, the 1st person referring to the speaker, the 2nd to the addressee / the person
spoken to (occasionally the speaker addressing himself), and the 3rd to something or
someone spoken about '. Since speaking gives meaning to the whole category
of person, the subcategories of the 1st and 2nd person can be regarded, in terms
of markedness, as marked ones, their referents explicitly involved in communication
activity, whereas the 3rd person is an unmarked one 1 2.
The situation of communication can, of course, be depicted in artistic discourse,
with its participants manifested there by means of grammatical and lexical person or
other items within the semantic-functional field of personality 3 just as elsewhere.
At the same time the conventional and intentional character of artistic semantics,
aimed at creating a fictional reality (rather than reflecting some real-world situation)
and therefore not analyzable in truth-value terms 4, brings about some important
consequences concerning the situation of communication within which literary texts
are produced, on one hand, and communication situation as represented within
the text-internal world of literary work, on the other. Regarding the literary work and
the person who produces it, a distinction is drawn between the real author, on the one
1 On personal categories other than these, see: Crystal D. A first dictionary of linguistics and
poetics.— London, 1980.— P. 358-359; JIuHrancTmeciaiH oHnHKJioneflmecKHH cnoBapt.— M.,
1990.— C. 271-272.
2 Cf.: EeHemucm 3. Ofinjaa jiHHTBHCTHKa.— M., 1974.— C. 259-266, 285-291.
3 On personality field structure, see: Teopna (JiymoiHOHajibHOH rpaMMaTHKH. nepcoHajibHocib.
3ajioroBOCTb.— JleHHHrpafl, 1991.— C. 5-124.
4 Ingarden R. O dziele literackim. Badania z pogranicza ontologii, teorii j?zyka i filozofii
literatury.— Warszawa, 1988.— S. 179-243,229; UlickaD. Granice literatury i pogranicza literatu-
roznawstwa : Fenomenologia Romana Ingardena w swietle filozofii lingwistycznej.— Warszawa,
1999.— Passim; cf.: Jlarnep C. tDanococjHifl b hobom Kjnone.— M., 2000.— C. 232-235.
© C. C. GPMOJIEHKO, 2015
ISSN 0027-2833. Moeo3Haecmeo, 2015, N° 3 23
hand, and the literary, or text-internal, subject, on the other5. The literary subject is the
author’s counterpart, or alter ego, inhering in the fictional world created by the author
and expressed by his work’s text, and so, like this text and text-internal world, it is
basically the product of the author’s artistic imagination, no matter how realistic his
portrayal can b e 6 7.
But the text-internal subject differs from the author in relation to locutionary
activity as well. On the one hand, as the Polish philologist J. Slawinski points out,
quoting J. Kleiner, every literary text is perceived as someone’s utterance so that
the perception is accompanied by the feeling that there is also a speaking subject
(podmiot mowiqcy). Because of that, <diterary utterance in its entirety is always found
between quotation marks and can be interpreted as a citation of what is said by
the subject inhering in it alone and nowhere else». But saying that this is true of lyrical
poetry irrespective of its particular character (such as egocentric confession, poetic
address, or landscape description), he, however, adds that these lyrical varieties differ
in the degree of speech process explicitness 1. It appears that their differing in this
respect is correlated with, and determined by, how explicitly they represent the literary
subject, the latter difference underlying the opposition between so called direct genres
of lyrical poetry (those with the literary subject expressed in the 1st person) and
(seemingly impersonal) mediate ones 8. Oscillation in the degree of the literary
subject’s locutionary manifestation can occur within the same text, cf. M. Yu. Lotman’s
observation on the author’s narration in «EBreHH0 OHerHH» by A. S. Pushkin: «There
is also a structural interplay... between different levels of narration: at one of them,
narration is so merged with what it tells about that it becomes entirely neutral,
inconspicuous, and as if transparent, whereas at the opposite level, narration tells
about itself, becoming entirely autonomous and conscious of itself» 9.
Arguably, the possibility of this oscillation originates in the nature of the subject of
enunciation as expressed, grammatically and / or otherwise, in the content of any
utterance. Contrary to what R. Barthes said, applying some thoughts of E. Benveniste
to the problem of author’s non-existence («... linguistics furnishes the destruction of
the Author with a precious analytic instrument, showing that the speech-act in its
entirety is an “empty” process, which functions perfectly without it being necessary to
“fill” it with the person of the interlocutors: linguistically, the author is nothing but the
one who writes, just as I is nothing but the one who says /: language knows a “subj ect”,
not a “person”, and this subject, empty outside of the very speech-act which defines it,
suffices to “hold” language, i. e. to exhaust it» 10), this nature of enunciation subject
seen as «the aggregate of the self» 11 appears to be far more complex as it includes,
5 Slawinski J. Podmi6t literacki // Glowinski M., Kostkiewiczowa T., OkopieA-Siawinska A.,
Slawinski J. Slownik terminow literackich.— Wroclaw etc., 1976.— S. 310; Okopien-Slawihska A.
Semantyka wypowiedzi poetyckiej. Preliminaria.— Krakow, 2001.— Passim.
6 The Polish author Jan Parandowski in the introduction to the post-war edition o f his novel «Niebo
w plomieniach» pointed out that prose, unlike poetry, tends to hide rather than display its author.
7 Slawinski J. Dzieto. J?zyk. Tradycja.— Warszawa, 1974.— S. 81-86.
8 On these genres, see: Slawinski J. Liryka // Glowinski M., Kostkiewiczowa T., Okopien-Sla
winska A., Slawinski J. Op. cit.— S. 215.
9 JIomManlO.M. B nncone nooTHuecKoro cnoBa: IlymKHH, JlepMOHTOB, Torojit.— M.,
1988.— C. 156.
10 Barthes R. P. The death o f the Author // Barthes R. The rustle o f language / Transl. by
R. Howard.— Berkeley etc., 1989.— P. 51; cf.: Eememicm 3. Op. cit.— C. 286-287. However,
given Benveniste’s view on subjectivity o f language, it is open to question whether he would have
subscribed to Barthes’ ideas.
11 See: Cuddon J. A. A dictionary o f literary terms and literary theory.— Chichester, 2013.—
P. 690.
C . C . C pM O Jim K O _________________________________________________________________________________________
24 ISSN 0027-2833. Moeo3Haecmeo, 2015, N° 3
besides its primary role of speaker, the role of the subject of mental activities (such as
perception) as well, these secondary roles also expressed, although not necessarily
directly, in discourse 12. In other words, the prototypical speaker is presupposed to be,
among other things, the observer as well.
And this is what permits literary subject to oscillate between two alternative
manifestations, locutionary and perceptual. In the first case, it reproduces some genre,
either oral or written, of non-artistic speech, whereas in the second, even the basic
oral / written distinction becomes irrelevant in that the literary subject’s manifestation
backgrounds speech as well as speech activity, putting sensory perception in the
foreground instead (which, incidentally, shows that M. M. Bakhtin’s claim about
every literary genre deriving from some non-artistic speech genre 13 cannot be
accepted, at least not without some very serious reservations).
Consequently, it is in texts with the perceptual literary subject that deviant usage
of person and personality can be expected to occur. For instance, in descriptive lyrical
poetry lacking the 1st and 2nd person, the literary subject can be represented
predominantly or even exclusively as observer rather than speaker, i. e. the one through
whose eyes the reader perceives the work’s inner world, as in the following poem by
Ivan Bunin (an author for whom this kind o f lyrical discourse was highly characteristic):
«3KejiTbie pacn, pajiexo 03apeHHue, / MopeM 6e36pexcHMM ctoht. .. / BeTep noBeeT —
ohh, nonycoHHue, / Kojiocom cneJiHM mypmar. / ..3ti6neTcx neneJitHbiH cyMpax Han
HHBaMH, / A Han panexoii Meacofi / Cbct H3-3a Tyuex 6eaarr nepejumaMH — / Rpxoio,
jxejrroH bojihoh». However, this subtle yet very essential difference in the nature
of literary subject is inconspicuous due to the absence o f grammatical and lexical person
markers referring to the latter. The feature «perceptual subject» is implicitly realized
through the whole text’s content, which neutralizes the feature «speaker» otherwise
assigned to the 1st person and its referent, indicating instead that the text-internal
situation in which the literary subject is found doesn’t imply any speech activity. Thus,
paradoxically, no matter what literary subject is, speaker or speechless observer,
the author has no means other than linguistic to depict this artistic alter ego o f his.
But the speaker perceives not only the situation he faces (or what J. Kurylowicz
termed consituation) but himself as well, in particular, engaging in some other outer
activity than observation. Some of these activities make the possibility of speaker
coincidentally telling about them highly unlikely, and some make it physically
impossible. For instance, one can’t normally speak while sleeping or keeping silence,
or singing, or snorkeling, and the number of situation when one is doing something
and at the same time is telling about it (as on TV cooking programs) is fairly limited.
Yet for artistic language with its intentionality and literary conventions, the 1st person
representation of text-internal subject in these circumstances is both possible and
perfectly normal. Consider the following examples where the literary subject is alone,
with no possible addressee present around: «Auf einmal sind die Seiten iiberschienen /
und statt der bangen Wortverworrenheit / steht: Abend, Abend... uberall auf ihnen.
Ich schau noch nicht hinaus, und doch zerreiBen / die langen Zeilen, und die Worte
rollen / von ihren Faden fort, wohin sie wollen... / Da weiB ich es: iiber den iiberwollen /
glanzenden Garten sind die Himmel weit...» (R. M. Rilke); «,Z(ecjm> hophhx xiMHaT,
HanHTHX nixbMoio no caMi Biraja. B ohh oGjiaraxm. mok> xiMHary. R 3aHHHaio pBepi,
Haue Goioca, mo CBirao jiaMnn BHTeue Bee xpi3t rnnapn. Ot a i caM. HaBxpyra Hi
12 Iladyneea E. B. ToBopamnn: cy&teKT pe^H a cyStexT co3Ham« // JIormecKHti aHanii3
jBbiica. KyjibTypHHe KOHuenTH.— M., 1991.— C. 164—168.
13 Eaxmun M. M. 3cTeTHKa xynoacecTBeiffloro TBopvecTBa.— M., 1979.— C. 279.
__________________________________________ Kameaopisi oco6u y xydoMCHbOMy ducnypci
ISSN 0027-2833. Moeo3Haecmeo, 2015, N° 3 25
flyrni. Thxo h 6e3jno,HHO, a o^aic a mocb TaM uyio, no3a cbocio cnnHOK). Boho Mem
3aBaacae» (M. Koioo6hhci.khh) ; or asleep: «Coh m’hko 3flymye rpyzui, KJia^e Ha more
jiany i Tarae Ha3afl y Jiiaoco. Cmno. Cojioako, mujho i HaBiib coh 6auy. PairroM 3CKaKyro
3 Jiiaoca i 3 nepejuncoM flHBmocb Ha roflHHHHK: npocnaB flBi xbhjihhh»
(M. Komo6HHCbKHH); or just manifestly silent: «3boh BenepHefi rynjrr, yHocacb / b
BbmniHy. SI MOJiuy, a flOBOJieH. / CBero3apHbie BOJiHbi, HCKpacb, / 3aacnraiOT KpecTbi
KOJiOKOJieH» (A. Bcjihh); «Mojriy, noTepaHHHH, Ha flaobHHH nyrb raa.ua, / U3-3a
TeMHetonjero caua» (A. Oer); or otherwise depicted within the situation making speech
hardly, if at all, possible: «Teir, iuy a noneM 3 nicHeio-acyp6oK)» (II. TnunHa); «Iuy
Bnepeu./flecb TaM — 3a mhoio 3axifl. / Cyxorao-acoBTy roaoBenncy Ha cejia KHHyB —
acue... (TI. TmniHa); «H rpoMOM, h neHofi nyuHHHaa cnjia, / xonoflHaa, 6ypHO MeHa
oxBaTHJia, / KpyacHT, h 6pocaer, h uyuiHT, h 6beT, / H enema. MHe jho6o. H3 rpoMa, H3
neHM / H xonoua — jieroK h cbok Bbixoacy» (M. ^3hkob); <<^0 , Bee jih ynerancb,
ycHyjiH? He nopa jib?.. / Ha cepuue acap jho6bh, h ipener, h neuajib!.. / Eery! flaneiaie,
Kax 6bi b B03HarpaacueHbe, / HIjiiot 3Be3flbi b miee CBoe H3o6paaceHbe. / . . .nou SbiCTpoio
cronoH npoMep3Jiaa 3eMJia / 3ByuHT. Eery! Hnrue oraa — coceun nojierjni» (A. Oer);
«Ciyqy, ciyqy a mojiotkom, / Bepuy, Bepuy ipySy Ha JioMe / H OTTOBapHBaeTca rpoM / H
b B03uyxe, h b xaacuoM uoMe. / Kycaio HoacmmaMH a / 3Ceae3a acecncyio Kpaionncy / H
jiobht nouo mhoh cipya / 3a eipyaocoio upyryio crpyacKy» (B. Ka3m).
In cases like these, the feature «speaker» associated with the 1st person as its
primary meaning loses its immediate relevance, being neutralized under the influence
of context. At the same time, it isn’t suppressed altogether since it is moved to another,
deeper level of the 1st person semantic structure, where it operates as the inner form
motivating the expression of the feature «observer», which it normally presumes. In
other words, the 1st person used in such a way denotes observer as if he were speaker.
Thus, what happens there can be termed presupposition reversal: a semantic feature
which generally presupposes another one here gets expressed by it instead. Since the
presupposition involved in this process of reversal refers to the subject of enunciation
and one of his roles in communication, it should be labeled pragmatic.
In such context, the 2nd person can co-occur with thest: «5I6jiyKa uocnijm, adnyKa
uepBOHi! / Mh fiueMO 3 to6oio ctokkoio b cauy» (M. PHJibCbKHH, c. 79); «Jak si? te
lata myl^! / Ej, biegnq jak konie kare. / I znow id? z tob^ nad Wiliq / zieleniej^cym
bulwarem./ Wiosna przegl^da si? w wodzie / niezym ty w lustrze weneckim»
(K. I. Galczynski). This kind of addressing interlocutor (telling him about something
he can’t help noticing himself) not only contradicts Grice’s Cooperative Principle
(specifically, Maxim of Quantity14), but also is unparalleled outside artistic language,
where Gricean principles and maxims are more often than not violated 15.
A similar presupposition reversal also takes place within the framework of the
figure o f personification (understood as poetic metaphor representing animals, plants,
artifacts, nature phenomena, and abstract notions as human beings capable o f speaking
and acting in human way 16) where such object is identified with lyrical subject and
correspondingly referred to in the 1st person, cf.: «SI — uhhkobu <j)opMa. A 3MicT b
14 rpauc r. II. JIorHKa h peieBoe o6meHHe // HoBoe b 3apy6e»cHOH jnmrBHCTHKe.— M.,
1985.— Bun. 16.— C. 222.
15 As A. Okopien-Slawinska observed, both everyday and artistic language are not regulated by
Gricean maxims, although for different reasons (see: Okopien-Slawinska A. Op. cit.— S. 240).
16 Personification in this sense is to he distinguished from anthropomorphism, a trope ascribing
some human features to non-human entities, see: Okopien-Slawinska A. Personifikacja //
Glowinski M., Kostkiewiczowa T., Okopien-Slawinska A., Slawinski J. Op. cit.— Wroclaw etc.,
1976.— S. 299-300, where these two notions are differentiated, stating in the same time that the
boundary between the two can he vague and elusive.
C . C . C pM O Jim K O _________________________________________________________________________________________
26 ISSN 0027-2833. Moeo3Haecmeo, 2015, N° 3
Mem — BHimri, / TepHOBO-orHemii 3anHjiem Kyni.. / JI — phhkobb (j)opMa. A 3MicT b
Mem — rpymi.. / 5L — unHKOBa (J)opMa. A 3MicT He Bifl MeHe, / ni^Bjia^He a nacy,
niflBJia^He noTpefiaM...» (I. ^pan); «Pile the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo. /
Shovel them under and let me work — / I am the grass. I cover all. /... Let me work»
(C. Sandburg). In the second example, where the personified entity (the grass) is
represented as a speaking and acting person, pragmatic presupposition reversal
involves another features of the prototypical speaker: such a speaker is presumed to be
human and able to speak. Correspondingly, the 1st person represents the grass as
capable of human behavior, including speech.
Moving on from the 1st to 2nd person as used in artistic discourse, it should be noted
at once that while the artistic kinds o f 1st person use discussed above mostly occur both
in prose and poetry, 2nd person uses associated with artistic discourse are for the most
part poetical. The distinction between real-world and text-internal, or fictional,
communication situation applies to them as well, taking the form o f the opposition
between the actual and literary (text-internal, fictional) addressee. That is not to say,
however, that such an addressee doesn’t occur outside poetry, cf., for instance,
Bunin’s story «Hen3BecTHHH apyr» consisting o f a series o f letters sent to the author
by his reader, or instances o f the text-internal narrator addressing his fictional
listeners. There are also some prose forms having the 2nd person as their constitutive
feature, such as epistolary novel or travel book consisting o f letters (cf. «Lettres
portugaises» by J.-G. Guilleragues, «Lettres a Tinconnue» by A. Maurois or «IlHCbMa
pyccKoro nyremecTBeHHHKa» by N. M. Karamzin). However, these are all cases o f
literary genres deriving from, and so reproducing, non-artistic speech genres, so that
the 2nd person is used here essentially as elsewhere. The same is true o f those poems
where both the lyrical subject and its addressee participate in text-internal
communication (which sometimes reflects an actual situation with the author
addressing somebody). Yet there are also cases o f specifically artistic use o f the 2nd
person in prose, which will be discussed later.
It should also be pointed out that the 2nd person is a constitutive feature of the
well-known rhetorical figure of apostrophe, characteristic, in particular, of elevated
style and lofty as well as markedly literary language, for instance, of the poetical genre
of ode 17, e. g: «Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness! / Thou foster child of Silence
and slow Time» (J. Keats). In apostrophe, a thing, a place, an abstract quality, an idea,
a dead or absent person, is addressed as if present and capable of understanding 18,
cf. the words of Apostle Paul echoing Prophet Osee addressing death (Osee 13, 14):
«jiou aou, Gavaxe, xo vuco<;!» (1 Ad Corinthios, 15, 55).
However, there is a far less known kind o f poetical use o f the 2nd person,
altogether unusual for everyday language and at the same time different from
apostrophe, cf. the following poem by M. Ryl’s ’kyj: «Cmr na^as 6e3inejiecHO ii
piBHO, / TyMaHHO TaHymi Borai, / 1 flantHm ̂ 3BiH ctohb Tax ahbho / B He3po3yMiniH
THniHHi. / Mh BflBox inrun h He roBopHJiH, / Th bcx 3acHiaceHa 6yjia, / Chdkhhkh
rpajiH i 30pinH / Hafl CMyTKOM raxoro Hona. / I jikwh mjihcto nponnHBajiH, /
me3anH ii racjm, ax y CHi, — / I mh inuiH ii mcth He 3Hajm / B BenipHm CHDXHm
THHiHHi». In this text an event is depicted as recollected, and previously witnessed,
by the lyrical subject, yet there are no indications other than the 2nd person that he is
actually speaking to «her» or anybody else. The addressee is only represented as
17 Okopien-Stawinska A. Apostrofa // GlowinskiM., Kostkiewiczowa T., Okopien-Stawin-
ska A., Slawinski J. Op. cit.— S. 30.
18 Cuddon J. A. A dictionary o f literary terms and literary theory.— Chichester, 2013.— P. 49.
__________________________________________ Kameaopisi oco6u y xydoMCHbOMy ducnypci
ISSN 0027-2833. Moeo3Haecmeo, 2015, N° 3 27
participating in this event; or better to say, the other protagonist o f the lyrical
situation is portrayed here as i f she is being addressed by the poetical subject.
Inanimate objects, too, can be pictured in the same vein: «Haa uepHOTOH tbohx
nyuHH / TopejiH flHBHbie CBerajia, / H tjdkko 3m6b tbo« xo,a;Hjia / B3pMBaa orm,
6e33BynHMX mhh. / [...] H CHOBa, myMeH h rnydoK, / Th BoccTaBan h 3aropajica»
(I. ByHiH). Past events depicted in this way can also be imagined rather than
witnessed by the lyrical subject, as in Bunin’s poem «IIIecTHKpMjiMH» (telling about
the picture o f a seraph in an old church): «AneJi th b 3apeBe BaTbia — / H noTeMHen
tboh xcyTKHH B3op. / Th KpHJiba pbi2ce-30JioTBie / B CBJimeHHOM TpeneTe npocTep. /
Y3peji tm rpo3Horo-iopoAa / MoHamecKHH HCTepTbift mjibiK — / H HaBcer^a b
H3rn6ax CBO/ja / 3acTMJi tboh 6onbmerna3HH jihk».
Thus, unlike these, apostrophe puts emphasis on the literary subject’s speaking, his
locutionary role also manifested, beside the 2nd person, by rhetorical questions and
vocatives or their equivalents (cf.: «Oh Nemo where’s your dream tonight? I used to
dream o f you when I was ten» — R. Bradbury), and also by such biblionyms (names o f
poems) that suggest the lyrical subject’s communicative activity (cf. Ryl’s’kyj’s
«JIhct 30 3ary6jieHoi' aflpecan<H» or «JIhct flo BOJioniKH») whereas its addressees are
more or less unusual. On the other hand, the 2nd person can, as was shown, also be used
in poetical texts o f descriptive character, vividly picturing scenes and events
witnessed or imagined by the lyrical subject, with the 2nd person’s referent taking part
in them (of course, one can find borderline cases as well). Arguably, it is the 2nd person
that is instrumental in achieving such a graphical effect, and a semantic process
producing it involves, similar to the «perceptual» use o f the 1st person, the reversal of
personal presuppositions 19. Pragmatic presupposition features associated with the 2nd
person seem to be more numerous than those o f the 1st person since they concern the
former’s referent as well as the latter’s, and also the relation between the two. It is quite
obvious that the prototypical 2nd person referent should be human and capable at least
of understanding speech. Being addressed in the 2nd person also indicates there is a
speaker with all o f his/her presumed qualities. Lastly, the situation the addressor and
the addressee are both found in must provide for their successful communication, and
that means that they should be perceptually accessible to each other in terms o f space
and time as well as social hierarchy: interlocutors are supposed to be able to hear and,
coincidentally, see each other, and therefore they should be within perceptual distance
of each other, and, o f course, possess necessary faculties; besides, the addressee
should be socially achievable to the addressor. Outside its usual context and
consituation, with its presuppositions not fulfilled, the 2nd person can instead turn into
a means o f expression o f otherwise presumed semantic features, ascribing them to the
fictional addressee, either unusual, or absent, or both, the latter’s character
determining which particular presuppositions are to be reversed into semantic features
implicitly expressed rather than presupposed. Such reversal takes place both in
apostrophe and in the «descriptive» use o f the 2nd person, with different features
involved: in the former the fictional addressee is represented as actually, if
unconventionally from everyday language’s viewpoint, spoken to, whereas in the
latter, the aim o f the use o f the 2nd person is to represent its referent as if hie et nunc, i. e.
present at the moment and place o f speaking, and, through the identification o f the
situation o f communication and the described situation in which the 2nd person referent
participates, to make them both, the situation as well as the referent, perceptually close
19 CpMonenKO C. 06epHemra ocoOobhx npecyno3Hnifi sk jrarnue xy,m»KHboro MOBJiemM //
Cran.— 2004.— Nb 3 .— C. 327-338.
C . C . C pM O Jim K O _________________________________________________________________________________________
28 ISSN 0027-2833. Moeo3Haecmeo, 2015, N° 3
and therefore— for the reader— easily imaginable20. Of course this descriptive use of
the 2nd person, like the «perceptual» 1st person, is a poetic convention, although not as
conspicuous or unusual as apostrophe, possibly due to a Natural Grammar rule of
markedness reversal, according to which a marked linguistic unit (here, descriptive 2nd
person) loses its markedness when occurring within marked context (here, poetic and,
more generally, artistic discourse) 21.
The descriptive use of the 2nd person in love poetry has a peculiar consequence for
the meaning of the 2nd person pronoun, such as Ukrainian mu or English you, referring
to the lyrical subject’s beloved. Love poetry, as defined by V. Nabokov, is poetry
«about, for, and to her» 22, so it is quite natural that in poems addressing «her» «she» is
replaced by «you». Yet the same can occur, as was shown, in poems telling about
«her» as well, with the corresponding pronoun «you» becoming a poetic name
of a beloved. Strictly speaking, even if «you» is used in love poetry as in everyday
language, in particular, referring to a real person whom the author actually addresses,
there is still a significant difference in what it means for the author and his addressee,
on one hand, and the general public, on the other: for the former, it is a substitute for
addressee’s real name, whereas for the latter, it is her/his only name known to it,
the only name it know her/him under 23. Thus it is but natural that under such
circumstances the pronoun becomes something not unlike an appellative substantive,
absorbing semantic features associated with its prototypical artistic referent as
represented in the love poetry of a given author, period, school, or style, so that its
meaning is determined intertextually as well as contextually. That poets themselves
are cognizant of this is demonstrated by the observation B. Pasternak made in his
review of A. Axmatova’s book of verse: «Axmatova contraposed the voice of feeling
in the meaning of real intrigue to erotic abstraction which in most poetic effusions the
conventional live “you” tends to degenerate into... It gave completely new dramatic
character and prose narrative’s freshness to “Benep” and “Bencn”, her first
collections))24.
This change from pronoun to noun is paralleled by the 3rd person pronouns «he»
and, especially, «she» used in artistic texts, poetic as well as prosaic, as the beloved’s
only designation, cf. Dante Gabriel Rosetti’s «Without her» (where the reference to
«her» in the 3rd person, contrasted with the 2nd person referring only to the lyrical
subject’s heart emphasizes his loss): «What of her glass without her? The blank grey /
There where the pool is blind of the moon's face. / Her dress without her? The tossed
empty space / Of cloud-rack whence the moon has passed away. / Her paths without
her?»; or Ye. Baratynskij’s lines: «Cicop6a qynioio, / B Tocice Moefi, / CioiOHiocb
rnaBoio / Ha cepqqe k Hen, H noq MareacHofi / MeTejibio 6 eq, JIioGobmo HexcHoii / Ee
corpeT, 3a6yqy Bcxope / Kpyroe rope». Whatever personal reasons these authors had
20 As far as I know, 1.1. Kovtunova was the first to identify this variant o f the 2nd person in Rus
sian poetry (see: KoemynoeaH. H. IIoaTKHecKHH cHHTaKCHC.— M., 1986.— C. 89-104), yet she
qualified it simply as «communicative metaphor» consisting in substuting the 2nd person for the 3rd
in order to make the latter’s referent closer to the speaker. Also, she seems not to distinguish it from
the 2nd person found in apostrophe.
21 EpMoneHKO C. C. npodneMH ceMHOTmecicoro no^xofla k H3yHemno rpaMMaTnuecKoro
CTpos fl3MKa // MeTO,ziojiormecKne ochobbi hobmx HanpaBneHHH b mhpobom a3bnco3HaHnn.— K.,
1992.— C. 317.
22 HadoKoe B. B. /(pyrue 6epera.— M., 1991.— C. 146.
23 LotmanJ. Tekst i struktura audytorium // Pami^tnik Literacki.— 1991.— T. 82.— Zesz. 1.—
S. 237.
24 IlacmepuaK E. JI. «H36paHHoe» Ahhh AxMaTOBoii // Bopnc IlacTepHaK 06 HCKyecTBe.—
M., 1990.— C. 157-158.
__________________________________________ Kameaopisi oco6u y xydoM C H bO M y ducnypci
ISSN 0027-2833. Moeo3Haecmeo, 2015, N° 3 29
for not calling «her» by her own name, for the general public this pronoun becomes
«her» only designation which has absorbed everything the text of the poem tells about
her, on one hand, as well as some other features present in what M. Bakhtin called the
genre’s memory, on the other.
Poets seem to be aware o f this special character o f «she» used in poetry too, as
witnessed by the Nabokov’s definition o f love poetry, and also by T. Boy-Zelenski’s
ironical poem about girl the heroine o f Polish poetry: «To krolewstwo samowladne /
Legendamej polskiej panny. / Dla Niej, dla tej jasnej wrozki, / Nasi geniusze si§ trudzq... /
Prez Niq, za Ni^, dla Niej, od Niej / Wszystko bierze swoj poczqtek». In
Ye. Yevtushenko’s poem «BpaTCKaa T3C» one o f its characters, a worker and also an
amator poet, speaks about his fictional beloved in his kitschy piece much in the same
way: «3a6yflbTe Memi, poflCTBemnnai, flem! / 3a6yzy> MeHa, Bopuamaa xceHa! / SI
mojioaoh! Yfruy a HapaccBere / ry^a, r^e ac^er nyuncTaa OHA. / H a e e jio63an> Ha
TpaBax 6yay / h eii cnneraTb H3 opxHflefi bchkh, / h CTaHyr o jho6bh TpybuTb noBCKwy /
repojibflH Hanm — MaficKHe acyKH» (in the last two examples, capital letters seem to
signal awe and respect rather than unique reference, as in proper names).
In prose, the use of the Russian pronouns oh and ona as appellative substantives
(based on their sex reference) was observed by E. Greber in A. Chexov’s story «Oh h
OHa» where they denote otherwise nameless characters25. One may also mention here
the metatextual use of these pronouns in another Baratynskij’s poem where they
introduce fragments of «his» and «her» speech (cf. also in Pushkin’s «I)BeTOK»: «H
5KHB JIH TOT? H Ta 5KHBB JIH? H HbIHHe Tfle HX yTOJIOK?»).
Also, the substantive meaning o f the pronoun «she», in particular «beloved one»,
is registered in some dictionaries, such as Oxford dictionary o f the English language
(she IV. As noun. 7a. «a female; a woman or girl; a lady-love» «.. .The domino began
to make very fervent love to the she». — Fielding) 26 or Cjiobhhk yKpaiHCBKoi mobh b
11 t. (eona «..y 3HaueHHi iMemniKa. 03Hauae ocofiy ariHOHOi cran me o6 ’ckt
HHHoro-Hefiyflb KOxaHHB» 27, cf. its occurence in the lyrical prose o f O. Dovzhenko:
«fziem orax y .ztofipoMy KocapcbKiM TOBapncTBi i fiaunm, iflyun, h BeuipHe Hefio, i
BCHy 3opio, i i'i 3 ipafienbKaMH Ha onpyrnoMy îBOHOMy njieui».
Returning to the grammatical 2nd person, it should be pointed out once more that it
is not uncommon in the narrator’s speech, whereas instances where the narrator
addresses his protagonist in the 2nd person are rare indeed. To be sure, the latter should
be distinguished from the 2nd person referring to reader(s) or fictional listener(s), or
being used in the generalized meaning (cf. «3anHCKH oxoTHHKa» by I. Turgenev,
«CeBacTonojibcicne paccxa3bi» by L. Tolstoy, or «MHCJiHBCbKi onoBifli» by
O. Vyshnia. As different from the narrative 2nd person, these uses are not o f strictly
artistic nature, having their common language counterparts which they reproduce. On
the other hand, the narrative in the 2nd person is difficult to motivate, one o f possible
motivations being the narrator addressing «a younger version o f their self».
Commenting one o f the few examples o f such prose, the novel «La modification!)
(1957) by M. Butor (where the main character is consistently, and also politely,
referred to in the 2nd person plural28 throughout the whole text), the scholars o f the so
25 Greber E. Mythos — Name — Pronomen. Der literarische Werktitel als metatextueller
Indikator // Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.— 1992.— Bd. 30.— S. 110.
26 Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition on CD-ROM (v. 4.0).— Oxford, 2009.
27 Cjiobhhk yKpai'HCbKoi mobh : B 11 t.— K., 1970.— T. 1.— C. 127.
28 In the Ukrainian translation (Eiomop M. IlepeMma / Ilep. 3 <j>P- T. Manent.— K., 2003) the
2nd person plural is rendered by the singular, the change in the number highlighting the difference in
this, seemingly similar, mode o f address in French and Ukrainian.
C . C . C pM O Jim K O _________________________________________________________________________________________
30 ISSN 0027-2833. Moeo3Haecmeo, 2015, N° 3
called p-group maintained that while describing «him» on his journey, the author
refers to him as «you» as i f to be left alone with the protagonist to speak to him in
private and have the annoying reader excluded from communication29.
On the other hand, Butor him self wrote in his essay «Repertoire II» that the
author’s narrative in the 2nd person is a means o f disclosing the recreated
consciousness which is being constantly in the state o f flux during the process o f
reading; hence, it is also a means o f creating a corresponding language: the 2nd person
refers here to someone who is being told his own history which he doesn’t yet know (at
least, at the level o f language), therefore the function o f the narrative in this person
may be called didactic 30. Be it as it may (the two interpretations don’t seem to be
mutually exclusive), I would like to drawn attention to yet another example o f the 2nd
person narrative, the one found in Ostap Byshnia’s short story «,3poxBa» (1946). Prior
in time and far shorter than Butor’s work, this humorous hunting story, one
o f Vyshnia’s famous «MHCJiHBCbxi ycMimxH», is a piece o f experimental prose no less
interesting that that by Butor, although far less known. In Vyshnia’s other hunting
stories, the narrator instructs would-be hunters and / or shares his experience with
them, using the 2nd person plural in the «impersonating» meaning typical o f everyday
language: «Cjiobom, bh noi'xajiH Ha JiyroBi 03epa, Ha ouepeTH h Ha raxi-raxi njieca.
CaMO co6ok> po3yMierbCH, mo bh 6epeTe 3 co6ok> pyimumio... In;eTe bh xoMnameioa.
However, in this story he employs the 2nd person plural imperative in a way that
combines both these communicative goals, that o f experience sharing and that o f
instruction, so that the reader is identified by the narrator with him and transported in
the situation from the latter’s childhood where he is told what to do in order to recreate
this situation once more: «Rx nmeTe bh 3 xyropa Ha ropy, OTyzjH, ae xonHCb ctoxb
MJiHH-BrrpriK, a noTiM 3BepHeTe Ha Meacy noMiac nniemmaMH Ta cnycTHTb toio
Meaceio Tpoxn mfin b fliji — Ha mjiax, mo npocTarca 3 xyropa B ’a30Boro ^o pepxBH,
mo b Hi0 Ha noKpoBy xpaM 6yBaB, Tax bh co6i i im m . thm ihjihxom najii. MHHeTe
HepKBy, noriM KyinixaMH, KyjmxaMH (pe xyrox Ha ceni, fle Bci KyjiHKH acHByrb) aac
3a MicTeuKO BHfmeTe. B hhihjih bh 3a MicTenxo i npaMyirre flajii... MHHeTe
Xajmei'BiimHy, a TaM yace rnBJmxo h flyfi’a m 6yflyn>». If the «impersonating» 2nd
person, widely used in everyday and artistic discourse, imparts the narrator’s
viewpoint to the addressee by replacing the 1st person31, Vyshnia seeks to freshen up
this traditional grammatical metaphor by making it literal and explicit through
manipulating his addressee: «Ofl Bauioro xyropa no ,3y6’ariB 6yne He 6im>me,
MafiyTt, ax xijiOMeTpiB i3 BiciM. II)o6 He cjtmho BaM 6yjio hth, bh 6 MorjiH
npoxa3yBaTH, mymi Meacero noMiac nmeHHiraMH: “n o mme npoxoacy a y3xoio
Meacoii, nopocmefi xanixoio h penxoH Jie6e^OH!” Ta bh ac He BMieTe me Taxoro
npoxa3yBaTH, 6o BaM ime TijibXH ciM poxiB... npoxa3yBaTH Taxe bh BMiTHMere
TinbXH nepe3 flBa poxn... A ax ime cyMHO BaM, TOfli JioBiTb Ha xonocxax
acynxa-xy3bxy. Bhobhuh — h 3a na3yxy... BaM He cyMHO Torn, i bh, nmcTpnGyiOHH,
aac Haflyfi’arax onHHHTecb!.. npHxomrre, y ca^xy 3a ctojiom xypxyni CHflaTb Ta
ropinxy 3 rneuHxa n ’x)Tb».
Summing up this survey o f person used in artistic discourse, I’d like to emphasize
several points. Firstly, person used artistically is both sui generis and derivative o f its
29 06m aa pHTopmca / JltoGya. 5K., Sflejnm <P., KaHHKeH6epr M3Hre ®., IInp ®., Tpa-
hoh A. / Ilep. c 4>P-— M., 1986.— C. 289.
30 Butor M. Uzycie zaimkow osobowych w powiesci // Pami^tnik Literacki.— 1970.—
T. 61.— Zesz. 3.— S. 241-250.
31 CpMOJieuKO C. C. MoBHe MoaemoBamw amcHocii i 3HaxoBa CTpyxrypa mobhhx othhhhj>.—
K., 2006.— C. 217-227.
__________________________________________ Kameaopisi oco6u y xydoM C H bO M y ducnypci
ISSN 0027-2833. Moeo3Haecmeo, 2015, N° 3 31
everyday use. Secondly, in order to adequately describe the semantics of person
(actually, any other semantic category as well), one should take into account the nature
and essential properties of every important kind of discourse it occurs in. Thirdly,
taking into consideration the way person is used artistically can throw new light on its
prototypical semantic structure and on the linguistic image of speaker, addressee and
communication situation.
C. C. CpMOJimKO________________________________________________________________
C. C. GPMOJIEHKO
KATETOPM OCOEH B XY^OaCHfcOMY flHCKYPCI
Abtop CTani, omrcyiOHH mnajsyn BacHBamu KaTeropii oco6h, mo cnocTepiraiOTtcfl name y
npo3i a noe3ii, nparae BHTJiyMaTnrrn lx y CBirai 3arantHHX ceMioTH'nmx BJiacTHBOCTefi xy-
aoacHboro ancKypcy. BiH Taicoac yBomm. noHarra o6epHemra nparMaTHHHHX npecyno3Huiii 3
MeToio aaTH noacHemw ceMaHTOTHift eBOjnouii, xkoi Kareropia oco6h Moace 3a3HaBaTH b jiiTe-
paTypHHX TOKCTax. 3acTocyBamM iiboro noraTTa fl03B0Jiae Taicoac no-HOBOMy norjiaHyra Ha
ceMaHTHHHy CTpyinypy oco6oBoro flefiKCHCy.
KnioHOBi cjioBa: oco6a, xyfloacHm flHcicypc, o6epHeHHa npecyno3Jmift, 3afiMeHHHK,
cmyaqia cninKyBamM, MOBeqb, aqpecaT.
32 ISSN 0027-2833. Moeo3Haecmeo, 2015, N° 3
|