Innovative Artistic Strategies in Epistolary Fragments of Daniil Kharms (Linguistic Semiotic Aspect)
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2022-11-1-243-261
Abstract
The question of the evolution of epistolary prose is considered on the example of fragments of D.I. Kharms. Attention is paid to communication aspects using a linguo-semiotic approach. The results of the analysis of the epistolary passage of 1933 in comparison with other samples of imitative literary letters are presented. The question is raised about the similarity of the perception of the absurdity of D.I. Kharms and the absurdity in the Gogol tradition. The author, in particular, dwells on the theme of marriage and fairy tale elements in D.I. Kharms and N.V. Gogol. The emphasis is on the fact that D.I. Kharms demonstrated the failure of communication, including epistolary communication, while perceiving the surrounding world as absurd. To study an untitled epistolary fragment, among other things, a technique is used that fixes violations of the postulates of normal communication, which was proposed by O.G. Revzina and I. I. Revzin. As a result, it turns out that the artistic means of repetition used by D.I. Kharms violates both the postulate of the information content of normal communication and the postulate of the incompleteness of the description, which makes an effective epistolary dialogue impossible. The method of multiple repetition casts doubts on the effectiveness of the postulate of semantic coherence.
About the Author
G. A. Krichevsky
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Grigory A. Krichevsky – Professor Department of Integrated Communications.
Moscow.
WoS ResearcherID S-2931-2018
References
1. Altman, J. G. (1982). Epistolarity. Approaches to a Form. Columbus. Ohio: Ohio State University Press. 252 р.
2. Apakhonchich, D. (2015). Editorial board of V. B. Shklovsky’s novel “ZOO or Letters not about love” 1964. Summer school of Russian literature, 11 (4): 317—326. (In Russ.).
3. Camus, A. (1990). The Myth of Sisyphus. Essay on the absurd. In: The Rebellious man. Philosophy. Politics. Art: Trans. from Fr. Moscow: Politizdat. 23—100. ISBN 5-250-01279-5. (In Russ.).
4. Companion, A. (2001). Demon theory. Literature and common sense. Moscow: Publishing House. Sabashnikov. 336 p. ISBN 5-8242-0079-3. (In Russ.).
5. Eichenbaum, B. M. (1986). How Gogol’s “Overcoat” was made. In: About prose. About poetry. Collection of articles. Leningrad: Fiction. 45—63. (In Russ.).
6. Gor, G. S. (2010). Time dilation. In: Nikolay Klyuev. Memoirs of contemporaries. Moscow: Progress-Pleiade. 888 p. ISBN 978-5-93006-091-1. (In Russ.).
7. Greber, E. (2006). Love Letters Between Theory and Litterature. Viktor Shklovsky’s Epistolary Novel “ZOO or Letters Not About Love”. Primerjalna književnost. Special Issue. Ljubljana, 29: 309—322.
8. Ionesco, E. (1966). Notes et contre-notes. Paris: Gallimard. 378 p. (In Franc.).
9. Jaccard, J. -Ph. (1985). De la réalité au texte: L’absurde chez Daniil Harms. Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique. Juillet-décembre, 26 (3—4): 269—312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3406/cmr.1985.2048. (In Franc.).
10. Kobrinsky, A. A. (2013). Poetics of OBERIU in the context of the Russian literary avantgarde of the XX century. St. Petersburg: Its publishing house. 316 p. ISBN 978-5-4386-0106-7. (In Russ.).
11. Kuvshinov, F. V. (2004). “The body” in the artistic world of D. I. Kharms. In: Collection of scientific works of graduate students and applicants, I. Lipetsk: LGPU. 190—194. (In Russ.).
12. Lazarchuk, R. M. (1972). Friendly letter of the second half of the XVIII century as a phenomenon of literature. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss. Leningrad. 19 p. (In Russ.).
13. Levchenko, Ya. S. (2019). It’s not love: The grammar of sensations in one epistolary metanovel. New Literary Review, 159 (5): 125—138. (In Russ.).
14. Logunova, N. V. (2011). Russian epistolary prose of the XX — early XXI centuries: the evolution of genre and artistic discourse. Author’s abstract of Doct. Diss. Moscow. 47 p. (In Russ.).
15. Lyapin, R. S. (2020). Postmodern narrative techniques in small prose by A. Gavrilova. Cuadernos de Rusística Española, 16: 171—181. (In Russ.).
16. Nabokov, V. V. (1999). Nikolay Gogol. In: Lectures on Russian literature: Chekhov, Dostoevsky, Gogol, Gorky, Tolstoy, Turgenev. Moscow: Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 31—134. (In Russ.).
17. Paducheva, E. V. (1982). The theme of language communication in Lewis Carroll’s fairy tales. Semiotics and Computer Science, 18: 76—119. (In Russ.).
18. Raspapou, A. (2016). Alexander Vvedensky and the tradition of the absurd. Wydział Neofilologii UAM w Poznaniu Poznań. 266 p. DOI: 10.14746/9788394719852. (In Russ.).
19. Revzina, O. G., Revzin, I. I. (1971). Semiotic experiment on stage (Violation of the postulate of normal communication as a dramatic technique). In: Works on sign systems V. Scientific notes of the Tartu State University. Tartu. 232—254. (In Russ.).
20. Sablina, E. E. (2009). Poetics of Kharms. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss. Astrakhan. 24 p. (In Russ.).
21. Shklovsky, V. B. (1966). ZOO or Letters not about love. In: Once upon a time. Moscow: Soviet Writer. 165—256. (In Russ.).
22. Skibska, A. M. (2017). On Viktor Shklovsky’s Penchant for Forms. Poznańskie Studia Slawistyczne. Poznań. Publishing House of the Poznań Society for the Advancement of the Arts and Sciences, 13: 17—31. DOI: 10.14746/pss.2017.13.1. (In Russ.).
23. Toporov, V. N. (1995). “Minus” — the space of Sigismund Krzhizhanovsky. In: Myth. The ritual. Symbol. Image: Research in the field of mythopoetic. Favourites. Moscow: Progress — Culture. 476—574. ISBN 5-01-003942-7. (In Russ.).
24. Tynyanov, Yu. N. (1976). Literary today. In: Poetics. The history of literature. Movie. Moscow: Nauka. 150—166. (In Russ.).
25. Ushakin, S. A. (2016). “Dream planes that didn’t take off”. About the generation of the formal method. In: Formal method: An Anthology of Russian Modernism. The system, 1. Yekaterinburg — Moscow: Cabinet Scientist. 952 p. ISBN 978-5-7525-2995-5. (In Russ.).
26. Volkova, A. V. (2015). Principles of prose of the XX century in the works of D. Kharms. Verkhnevolzhsky Philological Bulletin, 3: 123—128. (In Russ.).
27. Wittgenstein, L. (1994). Philosophical works, I. Moscow: Gnosis. 612 p. ISBN 5-7333-0485-6. (In Russ.).
28. Yampolsky, M. B. (1998). Unconsciousness as a source (Reading Harms). Moscow: New Literary Review. 379 p. ISBN 5-86793-032-7. (In Russ.).
29. Yakobson, R. O. (1921). The newest Russian poetry. The first sketch. Viktor Khlebnikov. Prague: Politika. P. 11. (In Russ.).
30. Yakobson, R. O. (1975). Linguistics and poetics. Structuralism “for” and “against”. Collection of Articles. Moscow: Progress. 193—230. (In Russ.).
31. Zhakkar, Zh.-F. (1995). Daniil Kharms and the End of the Russian Avantgarde. Saint Petersburg: Academic Project. 471 p. ISBN 5-7331-0050-8. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Krichevsky G.A. Innovative Artistic Strategies in Epistolary Fragments of Daniil Kharms (Linguistic Semiotic Aspect). Nauchnyi dialog. 2022;11(1):243-261. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2022-11-1-243-261
Views:
532
Email this article 