Національна Академія Мистецтв України Інститут культурології

УДК 81'373.7:82(100)-1

ББК 81.2(0)-3

Ю16
Yudkin-Ripun, I. Aphoristic Foundations of Dramatic and Lyrical Poetry. Kiev: Osvita Ukrainy, 2013 – (National Academy of Arts of Ukraine. Institute of Culturology) - 444 p. (2.803.198 symbols)

An attempt is undertaken to trace the procedures of compressing a poetical text into an aphoristic utterance and of expanding such utterance. Idioms are conceived as the indispensable result of the fundamental antinomy of language and of the homology of language’s map of world. Proverbial locutions as the meditative lyrical genus are considered within their transformational and interpretative capacities. Genera of poetry arise as the result of the stratification of textual registers. The production of comments to dramatic and lyrical texts as the disclosure of the implied contents is based upon referential nets of contextual and intertextual nature as the analytical epiphenomenon presupposed with the interpretative potential.
Reviewers: doctor of sciences in philology O.O. Mykytenko (Kiev, leading researcher of the M. Rylski Institute for Art Studies, Folkloristics and Ethnology of the National Academy of Arts of Ukraine)

doctor of sciences in philology H.G. Milyugina (Tver, professor of the Tver State University)

Здійснено спробу простежити процедури згортання поетичного тексту в афористичному вислові та розгортання такого вислову. Ідіоми осмислено як необхідний продукт фундаментальної антиномії мови та гомології мовної картини світу. Прислівні вислови як медитативний рід лірики розглянуто в їх трансформаційних та інтерпретаційних можливостях. Поділ поезії на роди уявляється як розвиток розшарування тексту на регістри. Створення коментарів до драматичних і ліричних текстів як розкриття змісту, що мається на увазі, спирається на референтні контекстні та інтертекстуальні мережі як епіграматичні епіфеномени, що містяться в інтерпретаційному потенціалі.

доктор філологічних наук О.Г. Мілюгіна (Твер (Росія), професор Тверського державного університету)

Предпринята попытка проследить процедуры свертки поэтического текста в афористическом высказывании и развертывания такого высказывания. Идиомы осмысляются как необходимый продукт фундаментальной антиномии языка и гомологии языковой картины мира. Пословичные изречения как медитативный род лирики рассматриваются в их трансформационных и интерпретационных возможностях. Деление поэзии на роды представляется как развитие стратификации текста на регистры. Создание комментариев к драматическим и лирическим текстам как раскрытие подразумеваемого содержания основывается на референтных контекстных и интертекстуальных сетях как аналитические эпифеномены, заключенные в интерпретационном потенциале.

доктор филологических наук Е.Г. Милюгина (Тверь (Россия), профессор Тверского государственного университета)

© I. Yudkin, 2013

© І.М Юдкін, 2013

© И.Н. Юдкин, 2013

©Osvita Ukrainy

In memoriam to my father Nicolas N. Yudkin (19.11.1905 – 27.01.1967) who has delivered to general Voronov in the night between the 18th and 19th of November, 1942, the order on the offensive at Stalingrad
Пам'яті мого батька Миколи Миколайовича Юдкіна (19.11.1905-27.01.1967), який передав генералу Воронову в ніч між 18 та 19 листопада 1942 року наказ про початок наступу під Сталінградом	Памяти моего отца Николая Николаевича Юдкина (19.11.1905-27.01.1967), который передал генералу Воронову в ночь между 18 и 19 ноября 1942 года приказ о наступлении под Сталинградом

Contents

Introduction. The Problem of Poetic Language and its Codification 5

0.1. Idioms as the Indispensable Part of Language’s Map of World 5

0.2. Controversies and Difficulties of the Codification of Idioms 14

Chapter 1. Idioms as the Revelation of the Fundamental Antinomy of Language 19

1.1. Language’s Fundamental Antinomy of Productivity vs. Reproducibility as the

Dialectics of Mimesis 19

1.1.1 Semantic Derivability as the Aspect of Language’s Productivity 19

1.1.2. Experimental Textual Transformation as the Self-Description 24

1.1.3. The Opposition of Lexical vs. Propositional Units 26

1.1.4. The Opposition of Manifestation vs. Latency as the Basis for Language’s Asymmetry 30

1.2. Textual Integration and Stratification as the Generative and Interpretative Problem 32

1.2.1. Deixis as the Basis of Textual Integration 32

1.2.2. The Inferential Basis of Textual Integration as the Consequence

of the Foundation’s Paradox 35

1.2.3. Transformative Invariants vs. Covariants in Respect to Propositions vs. Appositions 37

1.2.4. Modality & Actuality as the Integrative Premises of Text as Mediating Message 49

1.2.5. Functional Stratification of Text 53

1.2.6. Interpretative Basis of Textual Integration 57

1.3.Idioms as the Morphological Category 60

1.3.1. Semantic Derivation as the Morphological Process 60

1.3.2. Generalization and Specialization of Meaning as Morphological Problem 64

1.3.3. Idioms as the Interpretative Phenomenon of Semantic Derivation 71

1.3.4. Idioms as the Designations of Problems 75

1.4. The Problems of Idiomatic Codification 80

1.4.1. The Problem of Idiomatic Semantic Unit 80

1.4.2. Idiomatic Taxonomy as the Problem of Synonymy and Homonymy 90

1.5. Etymons as the Codified Counterpart to Idioms 99

1.5.1. The Problem of Code’s Integration 99

1.5.2. Isoglosses as the Revelation of Spontaneity Comparable to Idioms 108

1.6. Textual Description as Interpretative Problem 114

1.6.1. Description as Codification 114

1.6.2. Semantic Net as the Basis for Interpretative Comments 122

Chapter 2. Generic Peculiarities of Poetry as the Interpretative Problem 134

2.1. Epigrammatic Proverbial Lyrics as the Codification of Poetical Situations 134

2.1.1. Proverbs as the Allegorical Representation of Problems

in Meditative Lyrical Digressions 134

2.1.2. Proverbial Transformability as the Intertextual Property

of Emblems’ Circumscriptions 142

2.1.3. Proverbs as the Codified Contradictions 151

2.1.4. Experimentation & Conventionality as the Basis

for the Textual Integration and Separability of Motifs 156

2.1.5. Interpretative Basis for Generic Division of Proverbs as Problems & Emblems 162

2.1.6. Perspective and Aspect within Textual Compression 169

2.1.7. Somatic Motifs and Effects of Charades within Proverbial Outer Form 176

2.1.8. Etymological Problems of Proverbs 183

2.2. Dramatic and Lyrical Genera as the Deviations from Narrative Norm 195

2.2.1. Dramatic Play as the Metasystem of Epics 195

2.2.2. Dramatic Teleology of the Phantom of Action 205

2.2.3. Crisis as the Basis of Dramatic Textual Functions 216

2.2.4. Lyrical Abstractions’ as the Background of Dramatic Phantom 225

2.2.5. Aspectual Sources of Lyrical Generic Peculiarity 231

2.3. Generic Peculiarities of Descriptive Procedures in Poetry 238

2.3.1. The Problems of Compiling a Libretto as a Dramatic Summary 238

2.3.2. Description as the Textual Transformative Procedure 246

Chapter 3. Phraseology as the Substance of Poetical Genera 261

3.1. Alien Speech as the Model for Poetical Experiment 261

3.2. Scenic Situation as the Basic Dramatic Performable Unit 277

3.3. Lyrical Phraseology as the Performable Device 303

3.4. Imaginary Synthesis as the Source of Idioms 328

3.5. Versification & Phraseology as the Problem of Textual Integration 352

Conclusion. Aspects of Sympathy as the Primary Sources of Poetry 373

Bibliography 398

Summary (Russian) 425

Summary (Ukrainian) 434

Das Wort ist gegeben

Unter die Geister;

Ruf es ins Leben,

So bist du der Meister

(Th. Storm)
Люди великие пишут порой весьма плохо,

и это им на пользу.

Искусство формы надобно искать не у них,

но у писателей второго ранга

(Г. Флобер – Л. Коле 25.09.1852. Пер. А. Андрес)

Introduction. The Problem of Poetic Language and its Codification

The existential necessity of a poetic idiolect ensues from the assumption that there must be problems with the comprehensibility of poetic work as opposed to common prosaic speech. Poetic enunciations must be tasks for mental efforts or, as the old theologians used to say,  - difficulties for comprehension. Still more evident is the necessity of a separate language of science substantiated still in 1794 in “Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie” by Georg Gustav Fülleborn². The statement that the poetic language is a separate and quite a peculiar one, different from the colloquial and practicable language, was comparatively recently refreshed and renewed due to such movements of the 1920-s such as Russian OPOYAZ or Czech poetism, though it has the same age as the poetry itself and is usually referred to the assertion in Aristotle’s “Rhetoric” (III.2.1404b.10). Moreover, the image of poet as prophet (Lat. vates) that declares truths speaking the language incomprehensible for “laics” belongs to universal archaic myths. It ensues from here that the researches in the field of poetic idiolects that have been intensified recently³ belong to the circle of “eternal” questions. Idiolect does not differ in its appearance from the common language but the common means serve here to perfectly different purposes and render the contents distinct from that of common sense⁴. In particular the word combinations in a poetic line create a kind of composita that grow to create inseparable and unique word combination carrying the indivisible semantic load so that they can be regarded actually as newly created artificial lexical units. Such are, for example, constant epithets that exist in poetic idiolect only as a kind of compound lexical units. In other words, one deals in a poetic line as in the most expressive form of poetic speech with a very peculiar metamorphose of lexemes (that sometimes are called “poetonyms” in regard to proper names), their sense being determined with the entire context of the line, on one part, and with the historical fate of the language that is carved in etymological nests – on the other part. These word collocations that become artificially composed words of poetic idiolect behave as specific poetic idioms together with separate words used in poetic idiolect. Obviously the idioms obtain their relative independence as to their semantic load within the system of code of culture. The radical distinction of the meanings of plainest words being used poetically as an idiom is well acquainted to the researchers of folklore: for instance the diminutive forms bear the meaning perfectly distinct from that in colloquial practice where they are endowed with affectionate hues [Bartminski, 1973, 158].

The most persuasive substantiation in favor of the poetic language’s autonomy has been compiled by B.A. Larin. The origin of this autonomy is enrooted in the resistance to those rituals and taboo that are imposed in common language. It is due to this resistance that poetic language develops its own suggestive power capable to overcome barriers of conventionalism and esoteric mysteries⁵. Such game with resistance results in the development of derivative opportunities so that semantic transitions get priority over direct meaning⁶. This derivative power is irreproducible so that poetry looks like occasional unique speech not to be repeated as well as the singular unchangeable but not one of the possible versions⁷. Corrections to a somewhat exaggerated evaluation of derivative power of poetry and the rarity (hapaxes) of poetic images have been suggested by G.O. Vinokur who warned against the possibilities of taking permanent semantic drift for tropes so that it must go about reconsidering direct meanings of common tongue and expanding them without rejecting and replacing them with artificial metaphorical constructions⁸. Therefore the mentioned poetical resistance to common tongue is to be conceived not as a bare rejection and negation but as the way of reconsidering it or of endowing it with new destinations⁹. One could say of the effect of palimpsest that poetic speech exerts in regard to common tongue. The direct meaning are not rejected, they serve as parchment for newly created poetic manuscript and become vehicles of new meanings. It would be also appropriate to add that the generation of poetical idioms is enabled due to those opportunities that have been accumulated with the historical development of the language and are discovered in the poetic exploration¹⁰.

Idiolect is never created “ex nihilo” as something resembling new language or dialect. It comes into being as the result of the poetic exploratory attempts aiming at the discovery of the still unknown opportunities of a language, and it is due to the poetic exploration that the language discloses itself and reveals unexpected properties that were earlier found at the other languages. In this respect the very formation of idiolect has diachronic consequences and prerequisites. Such dependence of the formation of an idiolect upon the history of language as a whole entails the fact that etymology should be a pattern for the study of idiolects. The idiolects being generated individually, they are expected to reproduce the regularities and tendencies that language’s history demonstrates and at the same time to exert impact upon the future fate of the language.

It would be therefore a gross error to suppose a poet creating a separate autonomous language or dialect. All the inventions made by a poet are but the conjectures to be examined on the whetstone of common tongue. The constant latent presence of this common tongue becomes the invisible force determining the formation of each individual dialect. One should especially warn against the treatment of poetry as a kind of slang, the more that there are definitive differences between slang and dialect. It is human universe that makes an individual to become homo loquens with creating own personal idiolect that would conform to global human images and not to the confines of a particular language. It is through personal efforts at the coinage of individual idiolect that one’s striving for the liberation from limitations reveals itself. Thus global and local patterns are implicitly present here. At the same time dialects essentially differ as to their motivation. Slang represents not these human global revelations but the plain results of disintegration and destruction of language (as is the case of criminal secret codes). Dialects are the source for attaining perfection of language, the source for the exploration of its opportunities. The very existence of dialects (in contrast to slang) is the necessity of overcoming language’s incompleteness and inconsistency. In opposite to slang’s disintegration idiolect being made of the corpus of texts aims at reintegration of the language it is created with. Thus the coinage of poetic idioms is to be regarded as the act of language’s being made perfect with their contributions.

Such controversies of the “poetic tongue” come back to the discussions on the “natural” or “conventional” arrangement of language or (in psychological terms) on the “nature vs. nurture” problem. The historical background is here known also as the discussion on  vs.  that has given grounds to P.A. Florensky for the statement on the first antinomy of language. The meaning of “natural” is here to be comprehended as “developmental” i.e. capable of improving and becoming more perfect whereas “conventional” implies just the deprivation of developmental capacities¹¹. Conventionality becomes artificiality and arbitrariness. As the fixation of a separate moment of historical development it will be deprived of capacities for changeability and further advancements. Therefore it will be reasonable to agree with the statement on the status of special poetical language as that of derivative devices acquiring autonomy within the common language as its special subsystem¹². The creation of poetic idiolect has its reasons in particular cognitive tasks posed for poetry and out of the reach of common colloquial means.

The importance of the poetical exploration is to be seen in the distinction of idiolect from common language as a whole. There are no literal meanings and primary nomination in idiolects because they use the means already elaborated with the history of language. All the meanings used in idiolects are adopted from the language and have undergone further development with the mentioned exploratory activity. There are only derivative meanings in idiolects and no pure literal meaning without specific connotations there. Thus it lacks primary nominations within idiolects in opposite to common language where the absence of literal meaning is out of question. All the contents of an idiolect are of derivative origin but their source is to be found in common tongue. Idiolects refer to language as branches to root, and they die away when the nourishment for their ramification exists no more. In this respect idiolects resemble artificial codes and other media of instrumental nature rather than verbal tissue as it is given. The reverse side of this fundamental peculiarity of idiolects consists in total motivation of its elements. There is not a single occasional element void of motivational ties in poetic tongue. At the same time paradoxically total motivation turns into total spontaneity. The reason is that it lacks integrative foundations at conventional code. At the same time the circumstance discloses the essential opposition of motivation vs. spontaneity peculiar for the division of poetic dialects. This controversy has also an outlook of the problem of a sign’s arbitrariness. Of course one uses words literally and with direct meaning in idiolect but each word gets a slight or gross deviation from its direct content due to the dense referential net it is tied with. The meaning of the word comeliness used in O. Wilde’s tale “The Star-Child” retains the same content that it bears in common speech, and at the same time it is endowed with the increment or connotation of deep moral sense. That is why there lacks also the ultimate margins of semantic variability proper for common language. The microscopic space of idiolect doesn’t reach the borders of ultimate primary nomination preserved in the history of language. One can say that idiolect builds branches of language without its trunk and root that belong to diachronic etymological development.

The particularity of poetic idiolect acts as a counterpoise to the totality of language as a whole especially in its etymological structure. It ensues from here that the morphological approach where the relationship partiality vs. totality plays the leading role can occupy here preferable position. Another distinctive feature of idiolect is determined with the diminished and bordered scope of its space in comparison to common language. Restricted space of idiolect makes it unavoidable to compress the relations sound / sense to such degree that the interdependence arises between them giving ground for the motivation not only of textual segments but also of isolated signs. The semantic role of alliteration or rhyme would be here the simplest example. And at last the most essential distinctive feature of idiolect in comparison to the continuity of common language is its finiteness. Each idiolect is bordered in a narrow space with disjointed countable elements in opposite to the infinity of language. Idiolect is finite because it is the creation of a person which is mortal, perishable and transitory, and the quality of transitiveness demonstrates idioms. One always deals in idiolect with a bordered and finite set of countable phrases.

Every study of language indispensably must begin with the implicit definition of the mode of existence of ideal objects. In particular, each abstraction suffers incompleteness and as such represents partial knowledge and partitive designation of the object. Completeness arises as the task and goal for making knowledge more concrete and precise. The partiality of language represents the partiality of human experience. Language as a whole represents homological structure where the map of the world is built on the foundations of similitude instead of isomorphic precise copy. It corresponds to the ideas of similarity (Old Slav. подобіє or the modern notion of homomorphism in the mapping in language worldview). If isomorphic relation is relative and restricted with the properties it refers to¹³ it is another case with homomorphism: it represents the totality of the represented and transformed object¹⁴ so that the map represents the fold of an object. In particular such maps & folds can be conceived as quotient sets that represent world in a manner of visual image diminishing objects’ proportions¹⁵. The concept of homomorphism can be still developed in conceiving verbal reality as the so called anisomorphic map of the world: “Linguistic anisomorphism is based on the arbitrary nature of languages with the logical consequence of a different division of semantic fields” [Gonzalez – Jover, 2006, 226]. Homological nature of language’s map presupposes also that it always represents a fold or a convolution of a text a well as an expansion of locutions in a text. It entails the consequence as to the structure of textual entities: they always are conceived as the process of convolution & expansion as far as the homological nature of language’s representation determines the necessity of these procedures. Homology of language’s mapping the world results in its expansive and folding properties. In particular all generative processes are to be conceived as expansive processes together with the opposite processes of compression. It is references (as the result of reflection) that evoke such textual “respiration” of the alternative procedures of expansion vs. compression.

These aspects of incompleteness ensue from the general properties of the artificial world (the sphere of artifacts) divided into instruments and signs. Both texts (and, more precisely, messages) and tools belong to the broader class of mediums that mediate the relation of man and world (of subject and object). The difference between them consists in their mediating missions: messages always presume non-existent alien entity; they refer to something absent and show the things that aren’t at hand here and now. They presume otherness (alteritas) as such whereas instrumental world have little to do with this “presence of the absent”. It is negation that makes up background for each message. The absence of something becomes necessarily involved so that the denied (as non present) things come into play with missing a message. Thus the generalized image of the Alien arises that comes to personified representations. Such image enables transgressing the boundaries of the Present so that the possible worlds come into play that can be identified with the expected (and still not ready) reality being thus conceived within the terms of temporality¹⁶. It is the presumption of the negated and the absent that enables discerning information from transformation, the last dealing only with the things at hand without any concerned with those denied and having ceased to exist. As a result a message (a text) is always incomplete and partitive, opened for continuation and complementing in opposite to ready tools. Thus the very act of a message’s generation presumes the derivation of its further contents. In particular it means that a message (in opposite to a tool) has mnemonic, memorial functions; instrument has its memory in quite another sense as the vestige of transformational (and non informative) activity. Message always refers to a memory’s repository.

Each message acts as a negation because it denies the presumed object in the sense that as a name it can’t be equivalent to a thing designated. Such negation is the foundation for the development of reflection that becomes an inherent property of each act of signification. To use the famous Spinoza’s words, one can say not only that each definition is a negation (omnis definitio est negatio) but also that it concerns each nomination and description. Due to such negative foundation each sign as a name ascribed to a thing becomes this thing’s part and parcel in human world mapping and as a thing’s peculiarity it can be regarded as the thing’s metonymy designating such peculiarity on the principle pars pro parte. Such mutual negation can be demonstrated with the row of so called partitive synonyms referring to the same situation that unites them – for instance, room & window as situational synonyms in an interior description. Especially visible are the negative definitions in riddles given for the objects to be guessed. Together with negative foundations of language another fundamental property is revealed, namely, that of language’s being addicted to the weakness and illness of falsification & deception. Language can serve both to the exploration of truth and to the fascination of mob. It is language’s deadly sin to be able to serve to falsehood, not to say about preponderant delusions or involuntary mistakes. The researches of semantics can’t remain indifferent to the problems of truth and lie in language as well as to the general property of language to represent falsehood. Thus the criteria of veracity reveal their immediate attachment to semantic problems.

The incompleteness (and partitive nature of each designation as its side) is to be regarded as the universal property of language within the context of this specific human competence. This incompleteness is inherent to all verbal phenomena from separate texts that always demand interpreting, commenting, continuing and supplementing their particulars to the whole languages and language families that also never can exhaust the verbal mapping of the world so that the dialectal multitude becomes the law of verbal worldview. The incompleteness of each language results in the plurality of languages. Consequently, the very existence of poetic idiolects follows this general law of language’s incompleteness. Here one should follow the general methodological principle connected with the logical theorems of K. Goedel: the integrity and non-discrepancy (the absence of contradictions) of any system can be achieved only on the rate of its incompleteness, therefore any separate language presupposes the existence of the other, where those possibilities find their realization that were not developed within its limits. Each creation is imperfect and therefore integrity entails also disclosure and incompleteness¹⁷. One may compare such language’s maps of the world with various spaces in geometry (the Euclidian, Lobachevsly’s, Riemann’s, Hilbert’s ones etc.) that complete each other.

It entails a very important consequence as to the structure of language and the process of texts’ generation that consists in the universal division of the stuff in that belonging to the language and that alien to it. This opposition of proper vs. alien determines all verbal activity and acquires a particular outlook of phrase vs. charade opposition in regard to lexical stuff. It is the property of code behaving as a segregating filter for the selection & elimination. All hose elements that don’t belong to the language are to be estimated as the alien. Respectively all texts must indispensably reproduce and repeat all that is acknowledged as the proper treasury of the language. Be some incomprehensible element introduced in a text, it would be appreciated as assimilation from some foreign language or an element of pathological distortion. This regularity of language attests the attachment of speech production to the broad scope of mimesis that includes reproduction as the moment of the whole imitative activity. That any dialect presumes such opposition of proper vs. alien can be observed in the special effects of the so called “macaronis” that look like a text in the foreign language needing translation and explanation or at least assimilation (where the mimetic conditions are abused). Effects of the kind are proper to various slangs and other pathological distortions of language that were especially cultivated by the futurists. Therefore language possesses the properties of code that provides the segregation of material and its division into “proper” vs. “alien” (as imitable vs. inimitable).

There exists a certain prejudice to seek for the origins of reflection in another human ability for prohibition namely in that of taboo or veto as the decisive boundary that traces the demarcation between human and animal worlds. The system of negations introduces inhibitory mechanisms instead of mere fear dominating the world of brutes so that the interdiction appears instead of pure inhibition¹⁸. Meanwhile this prohibitive human ability betrays its vulnerability when the violence comes into play so that interdiction (as the result of taboo or veto) suffers such degradation that the ancient fears and terrors return to replace it. Taboo or veto does seemingly not only presuppose the prohibition of the name but also entail its substitution thus initiating interpretative processes of reflection. In particular the so called imitative interdicting mechanism suggested by B.F. Porshnev is worth mentioning. The imitative activity serving as the way of interdiction and ensuing inhibition of actions is supposed to explain among others the effect of the so called mantra repeated in incantations¹⁹. The examples of these inhibitory mechanisms of incantations are to be found in the effects of Polynesian “mana” when a state of trance is achieved as the result of repeated incantations of mantra. It goes about the effect of fascination or excessive attraction of attention that evokes also inhibition of the activities that are not connected with the provocative utterances of incantations. The development of such inhibitory means (used in particular in incantations) pretends to come in its turn to the self-negation (or double negation) of inhibition (as the consequence of “the inversion of inhibitory dominant” [Поршнев, 1974, 338])²⁰. And vice versa repeated mantras preclude and exclude all other possible utterances exerting inhibitory impact. Thus repetition of incantation generates mysterious silence instead of communicative message so that the so called (known in physiology) vicarious reactions come to being that replace the interdicted and inhibited forms of behavior.

Meanwhile such simplifying approach of reducing language’s origin to vicarious reactions can’t explain the wonderful verbal universalism that can’t be restricted with incantations or mantras’ repetitions as well as the rise of communicative procedures irreducible to the mentioned ritualistic mysterious silence. Reflection can’t be reduced to prohibitions as far as it opens an infinite series of reciprocal negations and self-negations never submitting to ritual tabooed frames. The mentioned paralyzing and inhibiting effects of repeated & imitated mantras and fascinating incantations is incoherent with the explorative capacities of language. It is too obvious that reflection must be free from fascination. In its origins taboo as the foundation of each rite is to be regarded as an attempt to substitute the absolute negation (represented in mortality and in human conscience of personal mortality) with partial, relative and plural prohibitions. Taboo as the imitation of mortality (in funeral rites as the primary source for the development of diverse form of ritualism) is the way of avoiding negation in making it relative. To accept the priority of taboo would thus imply the pluralistic and relativistic viewpoint that would conceal the fundamental conflicts and negations behind the partial negations and prohibitions. Rite arises and develops itself in permanent interaction and counteraction with game. As the imitatio mortis of taboo it forbids and precludes game and humor with imposing not only seriousness but also tedium. Rite being founded on taboo, it arises primarily as the negation and prohibition of preexistent of game (as well as death is possible only due to preexistent life) that ensues already from the natural curiosity as the primary explorative behavior of organism. In this respect game together with humor and curiousness as the “trials-and-errors” method of comprehending the reality obviously precedes each attempt of building a ritual. Besides, it remains unexplained how vicarious peripheral reactions can turn into such complicated human activity occupying central place as that of language. The same concerns the efforts to claim language the incarnation of pagan worldview as a mysterious ciphered code. Such approach would not only neglect the difference between pagan priests and laity but also the very independence of language from any worldview and its aptness for discussing absolutely contradictory viewpoints and indifference to their contents.

The most important moment is here the role of negation (as well as of falsehood) as the central operation within the realm of verbal activity. To esteem it as something secondary and derivative or as a collateral product of taboo would mean to commit the same mistake as that of proclaiming truth and assertion the initial point of cognitive process. The essence of this mistake has been demonstrated by L.P. Gokieli as follows. It will be equal with taking arbitrarily a set of statements for axioms. Meanwhile truth can’t become the initial point while it is still to be found and substantiated²¹ so that the so called paradox of foundation arises that is solved with the regress to infinity (regressus ad infinitum)²². Respectively any demonstration will be reduced to tautology again disclosing regress to infinity²³. Therefore taking taboo for the initial form of negation one would repeat the just discussed mistakes of the priority of truth (with respective replacement of assertion with negation). Then the mistakes of fatalistic approach will be committed so that real exploration will be replaced with automatic predestinated procedures reducing demonstration to tautology²⁴. In opposite to such approach the adequate place of negation is to be found within its unity with assertion²⁵. It is from such way of meditation that the primary existence of negation as the inseparable satellite of assertion is substantiated²⁶. Thus negation always accompanies assertion in the initial points of cognition. It’s out of question to put assertion without negation.

This ubiquitous presence of negation doesn’t presume the statement on the priority of chaos or generalized images of mortality. It is the properties of symmetry and asymmetry with anisotropy that build up prerequisites for the coexistence of assertion and negation. In practice it reveals itself as the universal properties of discernibleness & differentiation as those inherent for verbal activity. In this respect identification is out of reach without differentiation so that reciprocal partial negations play the decisive role in language’s world mapping. Distinction presuppose partiality as the main feature of such negation in opposite to taboo with its generalized prohibition. Therefore it is game & struggle and not rites where negations appear first of all. It is infantile negativism and not taboo with totem that stands by the sources of language. A word always denies the thing replaced with the signification. It is only secondary codification that rites bring about. Together with infantile laughter becoming the source of humor it is infantile obstinacy that gives rise to curiosity and explorative cognitive activity. At any rate the presence of doubt and negation and the ensuing critical attitude becomes the initial prerequisite of language development. Each enunciation produces objections with the necessity of continuing it with further statements and it becomes the developmental force of language as well as of textual generation. It is critical attitude and readiness for negation that provokes curiosity and builds up the background for generative activity. Objections are the necessary background for the existence of textual entity.

These consequences of incompleteness & inconsistency as the counterparts to entirety & integrity (caused with its homological nature) are to be contrasted with the property of heterogeneity (as the counterpart to homogeneity). “The postulate that linguistic elements are heterogeneous” has been proclaimed by V.M. Solntsev [1983, 46]. Heterogeneity prevails over homogeneity as the cause of the systemic nature of language (with the particular case of irretrievability or anisotropy)²⁷: in particular there are no homogeneous dialects that would be derived from a single source and there are no “immaculate” dialects that would exist without assimilations and contaminations. Seclusion being an exception, divergent development prevails over convergence that concerns chiefly migratory processes. In its turn a separate dialect can be defined through the homogeneity of the respective corpus of texts. Language itself becomes then the criterion of homogeneity, and it is due to homogeneity that the regularities of code (paradigm) as the counterpart to textual corpus are developed providing opportunities of comprehension within language’s community as well as of mapping the world within he order of taxonomic classes²⁸. The problem of heterogeneity and homogeneity is to be conceived in its dynamic reciprocal transitions. It is the transformation of homogeneity in heterogeneity as the diversification, differentiation & divergence that takes the prevalent place together with subordinate development in opposite direction. Heterogeneity is rendered as inconsistency that results from the attempts of overcoming language’s incompleteness. Of a special importance is the inner conceptual connection of the problem of heterogeneity vs. homogeneity with that of homology²⁹. Then heterogeneity is to be conceived as the necessary inconsistency implied with incompleteness as the universal property of language. It is also to observe that with the codifying (paradigmatic) aspect of language the problem of heterogeneity involves the aspect of numeration. Thus the outer factor of number vs. noun becomes introduced. Meanwhile the impact of this outer numeric factor is always conceived as the inner textual transformation (and in particular as the distortion of text) carried out within the given corpus. Thus the opposition of corpuses vs. codices comes into play.

In particular the very existence of idioms different from commonly used “free collocations” of colloquial speech presumes the penetration of heterogeneity and singularity in a language’s space. Each idiom differs from “grammatically correct” collocations already due to its being the exception and the deviation from the rule. Heterogeneity in language has been regarded in connection with the broadly conceived suppletivism³⁰. It is the suppletive relations as the general representation of heterogeneity that gives a plausible model for explaining the mixture of heterogeneous classes in language. In contrast to intersections i.e. product sets giving separated components such phenomena are to be regarded as unions i.e. sum sets of the classes. Thus it is the difference between product and sum that determines the peculiarities of heterogeneous classes. As a migratory phenomenon suppletivism concerns the formation of poetic idiolects where stylistic heterogeneities give rise to eclectic unifications. Such coexistence in its turn evokes circumlocutions of elevating and denigrating stylistic layers, e.gr. <moon / nocturnal luminary, star / celestial lamp>. The row <fate’s mercy, fate’s arbitrariness, fate’s casualty, fate’s verdict> can exemplify the suppletive row of phrasal occasional synonyms. Still more demonstrative revelations of suppletivism are connected with assimilation. All the cases of convergence and assimilation as its subspecies (especially of maccaronism, Creole languages, contaminations, stylistic eclecticism) attest attempts of reintegrating heterogeneous elements in a newly created entirety. The set of different surnames of the persons that bear the same proper name (ex. gr. John Brown & John Hughes) also can be regarded as a suppletive series. Such namesakes generate particular homonymous classes as the product of suppletive relations resulting from partitive common feature together with obvious differences.

These cases can be exemplified with the Japanese adoptions of the Chinese origin (the so called kango words) that have also synonyms of the native origin (wago words)³¹. Such are for example synonymous designations for ‘house’ – tatemono (wago) & kenchiku (kango), ‘end’ – sue & shu:matsu, ‘laughter’ – warai & sho:sei respectively. The importance of suppletive classes for the Japanese is explainable and understandable in view of the prevalence of convergent processes (especially assimilation) in contrast to Indo-European where divergence dominates. Thus a particular kind of words’ copies arises where the inequality and contrast between copies and originals (those of the adopted language, in this case the Chinese) is reinforced with distance of assimilation. The role of suppletive classes for the stratification of the bulk of words into different social dialects (resp. idiolects) here becomes evident. In its turn homonyms arise within the cited case of the Japanese as well: such are nai ‘no, not (wago) / within, in the middle (kango)’; fushi ‘joint / wonder, nonsense’, oku ‘inside, interior / one hundred million’. Here the presence of common feature gives pretext to confront the classes of words and to treat them belonging to the same suppletive class. Another case of the same origin can be found in rhyming rows of the Far Eastern characters as the class of suppletive phenomena. Here the unification of heterogeneities with detecting common traits enables including them into the same class. There appears a kind of “poetic etymology” proper to artificially built poetic idiolect with its rhyming foundations. As an example may be the so called “phonetics” in the far eastern hieroglyphics cited where no etymological meanings are preserved, these signs being the result of convergent development and coincidences. The advantages of the widened concept of suppletive relations promote the reduction of heterogeneous phenomena to those of the deviations within a homogeneous system.

The first and immediate consequence of the properties of incompleteness and heterogeneity is interpretability as the fundamental textual property that ensues from mediation as the essence of language. Accordingly interpretation becomes each text’s mode of existence. In its turn it is closely connected with reflexivity so that interpretation is to be regarded as the reflection revealing itself through self-organizing opportunities of text. Interpretation means that a text is taken as an alien object for reflection with the respective distance. It entails codification as the revelation of the reproducibility (or, broadly speaking, imitable properties of the mimetic kind) of textual units and results in the reducibility of these units to a code. Interpretation presupposes the appearance of disintegrated entity and looks like reintegration. Therefore interpretative space becomes that of codification. In this respect textual expansion & compression can be conceived as the reciprocal interpretative processes: in particular a narration arises as a broadened interpretative representation of plot as well as to summarize the full text one has to suggest its interpretation. Interpretation is both generative (and derivative) textual inherent device and explorative device for the study of text so that it becomes the device of its reflection as its self-description and self-cognition. Subsequently interpretation can be conceived as “the reverse generation” (as well as the derivation of new meanings). Moreover one can say of the self-interpretation of text as the revelation of its self-organization and its property of reflexivity. Numeration as the disclosure of paradigmatic textual organization in its turn is interpretative procedure of text so that code (paradigm) is to be regarded as the consequence of the general property of interpretability of language. This interpretability discloses here itself through the outlook of transformability so that a text is capable of being turned into a kind of enumeration.

Interpretation is determined with the balance of creation vs. destruction (also as synthesis vs. analysis, the last being conceived not only as exploration) and resp. conservation vs. innovation (traditionally conceived as invention vs. imitation, Lat. inventio – imitatio, ) as the most essential part of generative process. The said balance reveals itself through textual self-organization (and ensuing self-description as well as self-representation) as the form of the fundamental textual property of reflection. In its turn conservation as the selective process presupposes also the negation and destruction or the elimination of the elements that are not to be conserved as its obligatory part and parcel. The refusal from the excluded textual elements takes place as in editorial procedure. In particular imitation presupposes simulation (mimicry) as the ultimate degree of the necessary minimal reproduction (nec plus ultra) so that only the outer residue remains within conservation without essentials.

The most essential consequence of interpretative procedures determined with the said “balance” is experimentation. The reflection generated as the consequence of interpretative activity makes it possible to develop the experiment as the principal way of cognition and the examination of conjectures: in particular, the possibility of such conjectures implies their confirmation or negation. Subsequently such experiments can be conducted with the generation of text. It is experiment with the examination of its results that becomes the distinctive feature of innovations prevailing over conservation in textual generation, and it is the peculiarity of artistic culture. An alternative opportunity is to be found in improvisation that prevails in folklore. In its turn experimentation entails exercitation as the indispensable ingredient of interpretation. The concept of exercises in broadest sense includes manifold aspects from scenic rehearsals to editorial versions. One can say of exercises as the necessary ingredient of all artistic interpretative practice. It demonstrates contrast to folklore that never does know any kind of exercises.

It is not autonomous innovation and experimental truth that one encounters in improvised text. It is miracle & mystery instead that don’t depend upon personal inventiveness and responsibility. Ultimately novelty is seen as the outer intrusion in folklore map of such mysteries & miracles and not as the natural consequence of textual generation. Thus the two ways of innovation appear – those of experimentation vs. improvisation (known also as impromptu vs. improvisation). Naturally language gives the priority to improvisation that determines the limits of generative procedures and can be regarded as the form of interpretation more adequate to verbal peculiarities. If experimentation discloses the confrontation of creation vs. destruction improvisation conceals it and prefers the accumulation in opposite to the selection & elimination of interpretative versions.

Respectively the problem of interpretative procedures is connected with the problem of oral and written verbal text. Literature being secondary in respect to folklore, one has at the same time to observe that even the illiterates can find mnemonic prompts (in the manner of biblia pauperorum) where the invariant elements of message would be designated, not to say of the above-mentioned mantra. Meanwhile such mantras depend upon ritualized and persevered operations that serve to reproduction of some features of text that are selected to be evaluated as essential. Written word also is the alienated word, and in this respect literature seems to converge with incantation’s mantras as the oral forms of alienation. Meanwhile this outer similitude conceals their principal difference. Word’s fixation in literature opens free options and experimentation. Instead of reproducing ritual literature promotes its destruction in the way of liberating from the necessity to repeat mnemonic verbal formulae. Repetitions acquire here another meaning.

It is well known that artistic practice presupposes potentially infinite set of repetitions aiming at the approximation to perfection. Improvisation is void of such perfectionist ideal and merely reproduces in variegated forms the set of co-variants. Accordingly while being reproduction improvised text is void of exactness peculiar for artistic reproduction. The idea of perfection necessary as the criterion for eliminating the versions esteemed as errors lacks in improvised texts and so does exactitude of reproduction. Artistic reproduction aims at exactitude in performing acts while improvisation is satisfied with similitude. Thus although imitation can be said to have prevalence over invention in improvisation it is not the same reproductive imitation that artistic interpretative performance gives. It is within the performances as the specialized form of generative procedures that the peculiar artistic forms of editorial versions or staging rehearsals arise. Improvisation is not distanced from the reproduced material (one speaks “with common words”, “habitually”, “as the custom says” etc.) in opposite to artistic text that is based upon the reflection over the words used in a text. The author of improvisation is not separated from the oral or written tradition so that the words aren’t his or her own, they are loaned from this tradition. That is why there are no terminated works in folklore in opposite to the concept of finished opus in literature. Thus the role of reflection as the basic component of interpretation turns out to be quite different in artistic performance and in folklore improvisation.

Interpretation as the existential and explorative foundation of textual world as the world of messages is closely tied with mediation as messages’ mission. It is mediation that entails the interpretative nature of textual reality. Mediation acquires specific outlook of interpretation for information processes referring to the absent otherness in difference to transformation where instruments deal only with the present. Respectively interpretation involves virtual reality implicitly contained within message (and rendered with the references beyond its borders too). It is also to stress that mediation presupposes the preexistent differentiation of the participants of communication and subsequently the above mentioned otherness as the generalized discerned alien object. Therefore differentiation can be conceived as the initial prerequisite for integration in language (in particular as the generative process of messages). One has to deal with differentiated world before creating textual entities. Together with interpretation the category of function comes into play. Functional features are presupposed already with communicative destination of each text as a message. The state of communion in its turn is based first of all upon intention of message. It is to stress here that communion can by no means be reduced to that of commerce as the ultimately simplified form of communication. The opposition communion vs. commerce makes up the foundation for interpretative approach.

In its turn communicative consequences of interpretability entail the necessity of different intentions’ bearers as the participants of communicative act so that their experience and competence are to be taken into account. It concerns a very singular effect connected with the immanent properties of communication that are conceived as the communicative paradox. Each reflection of an object becomes also the transformation in the sense that the world as a whole becomes changed (due to the changes in the observing substance), though the very object immediately doesn’t suffer any change. It is these indirect changes that determine the effect of observer exerting a non-immediate impact upon the world and through it upon this observed object. Discovered in the realm of quantum mechanics this observer’s paradox is expanded towards the domain of verbal activity. Therefore in particular communion presupposes the activity of addressee that is implied with any author’s message.

This dimension of the correspondence of utterances to the purposes of those speaking or the intentional dimension of messages discloses its tight attachments to the above discussed problem of veracity in language. In this dimension it becomes the problem of sincerity & adequacy. As “the only thing of importance” in artistic culture this textual quality is closely tied with the verification of uttered judgments. A child that has said the lie gets its face reddened. Sincerity is in this respect the antidote to lie as it retains the childish qualities in the adult human being (together with the ability to laugh sincerely). Apparently the cases of the so called “sincere deception” or “sincere delusion” are only obstacles on the way to verity that attest the genuine intention of attaining truth. Then the above mentioned transformation of a word in a ritual incantation can be regarded as the first step to the removal of sincerity and its substitution with preponderant falsehood. Its game where risk always is present and one doesn’t fear to encounter risk that promotes the favorable conditions for sincerity. In its turn sincerity presupposes such spatial and temporal textual property as that of proximity. The presence of the near aims liberates from the far targets. Interpretations are by no means relative and subjective as far as the interpretative opportunities belong to textual structure as its inherent absolute properties. There must be the measure of adequacy for the interpretations that plays the same role as the veracity for each verbal utterance. The criterion of adequacy itself is not to be taken for known; it is itself disputable and becomes mostly the problem to be explored. Actually it can’t be relative and arbitrary as far as such problem is posed. Thus it doesn’t go about the plurality of interpretations and arbitrary option of them, the very preferentiality being disputable. Instead of seemingly subjective options of interpretations one deals with contradictoriness of differently motivated preferences that are predestinated with rather objective forces.

All artistic texts as the results of mental experimentation arise as the terminal point in the process of corrections of editorial versions. Accordingly errors & corrections are to be seen as the universal property of artistic texts in opposite to those of folklore that doesn’t know such movement towards perfection and tolerates the versions otherwise esteemed as erroneous. Thus interpretation becomes closely tied with textual mutability that reveals quite different outlooks in artistic culture and in folklore. In particular errors & corrections become part and parcel of experimental art in opposite to improvisation with its cumulative coexistence of variants. The importance of such “trials-and-errors” approach to the object of exploration as a “black box” can be witnessed with the history of the category of error as the tragic fault () that occupies the decisive place in drama. At the same time experimental approach can’t be taken for fully adequate to the nature of language. In particular the unlimited experimentation in language is impossible as it entails the destruction of language and subsequently the self-negation of experiment itself. Besides different realms of language have different experimental opportunities: if phraseology if the terrain of the most favorable conditions they are absolutely forbidden in syntax or phonology.

Incompleteness, heterogeneity and interpretability as the initial immanent quality of each text result in its permanent transformability. These properties are in its turn connected with textual irremovable ubiquitous ambiguity. There are obviously to discern variability of folklore and of artistic culture: whereas it is the accumulation of mutually tolerated versions that supplement each other in the cultures of “usual” type (folklore), it gets a quite different outlook with editorial versions of artistic texts where the ideal of perfection determines the elimination of weak versions (according to the rule “the better is the enemy of the good”) as errors. One can conclude from here that immanent textual transformability doesn’t imply textual pluralism and relativism. What looks out as plurality becomes a set of partial and general contradictions when scrutinized in details. It is inherent contradictoriness & ambivalence and not the indifferent equality of possible solutions that stand behind the seemingly pluralistic and relativistic phenomena. Instead of indifference of plural and relatively equal options one deals with numerous alternatives that reciprocally deny each other.

The inherent ambiguity and ambivalence of language result in the nature of abstraction that always belongs to the type of isolating abstraction (in opposite to generalizing abstraction). The generation of each text can be conceived in terms of the ascent from abstract to concrete. Here one has also to warn before the seduction of conceiving it in “realistic” way (to use the term of mediaeval scholasticism) as the diversification of ready abstract notions or concepts with concrete details. It is here to stress that it is not the preexistent and predestinated concepts of the kind to be detailed but real problems to be explored that are to be found at the initial point of textual generation. It is the explorative process involving both the abstract and the concrete that is to be dealt with in this generative procedure. The last point comes to the comprehension of interpretation as the unity of strategy vs. tactics that’s as generalization vs. specialization in mental activity. As the means to explore a problem interpretation deals with the division between generalities and particulars. Subsequently interpretative activity comes to the formation of the abstract attributive space of language. The fundamental division into objects & attributes (things and properties) as the foundation of abstraction with the formation of abstract attributive space over the sets of real objects entails consequences as to the nature of language’s map of world. The act of reflection presumes its division into the counterparts that would correspond to such fundamental division: from one side it generates the designation of objects, from another side it refers to their attributes. Thus references to abstractions are to be discerned from designations of objects. Respectively the division into literal (primary) and derivative meanings ensues from here. The first is determined with abstract references that are to be overcome in generating textual entities and developing derivative processes. The differentiation between designation and reference comes back to that of logical modalities de re (that correlates with designation) and de dicto (as presupposing referential deictic relations)³².