Stylistics was completely deaf to dialogue. Literary work was conceived by stylistics as a closed and self-sufficient whole, the elements of which constitute a closed system that does not presuppose anything outside itself, no other statements. The system of the work was conceived by analogy with the system of language, which cannot be in dialogic interaction with other languages. The work as a whole, whatever it may be, from a stylistic point of view, is a self-sufficient and closed author’s monologue, implying only a passive listener beyond its boundaries. If we imagined a work as a replica of some dialogue, the style of which is determined by its relationship with other replicas of this dialogue (the conversation as a whole), then from the point of view of traditional stylistics there is no adequate approach to such a dialogized style. The most sharply and outwardly expressed phenomena of this kind - polemical style, parody, ironic - are usually classified as rhetorical rather than poetic phenomena. Stylistics closes each stylistic phenomenon into the monological context of a given self-sufficient and closed statement, as if imprisoning it in a single context; it cannot resonate with other statements, cannot realize its stylistic meaning in interaction with them, it must exhaust itself in its own closed context.
Serving the great centralizing tendencies of European verbal and ideological life, the philosophy of language, linguistics and stylistics sought, first of all, unity in diversity. This exceptional “orientation towards unity” in the present and past life of languages focused the attention of philosophical and linguistic thought on the most stable, solid, unchanging and unambiguous moments of the word - phonetic, first of all, moments - the most distant from the changeable social and semantic spheres of the word. The real, ideologically filled “linguistic consciousness” involved in actual heteroglossia and multilingualism remained out of sight. This same focus on unity forced us to ignore everything verbal genres(everyday, rhetorical, artistic prose), which were carriers of decentralizing tendencies of linguistic life or, in any case, were too significantly involved in heteroglossia. The expression of this multilingual and multilingual consciousness in specific forms and phenomena of verbal life remained without any definite influence on linguistic and stylistic thought.
Therefore, a specific feeling of language and words, which found its expression in stylizations, in skaz, in parodies, in diverse forms of verbal disguise, “indirect speaking” and in more complex artistic forms of organizing heteroglossia, orchestrating one’s themes with languages, in all characteristic and deep examples of novel prose - in Grimmelshausen, Cervantes, Rabelais, Fielding, Smollett, Stern and others - could not find adequate theoretical awareness and illumination.
The problems of the novel's stylistics inevitably lead to the need to touch upon a number of fundamental issues in the philosophy of words related to those aspects of the life of the word that have almost never been illuminated by linguistic and stylistic thought - with the life and behavior of the word in a multilingual and multilingual world.
Chapter II. The word in poetry and the word in the novel
Outside the horizons of the philosophy of language, linguistics and the stylistics built on their basis, those specific phenomena in the word that are determined by the dialogical orientation of the word among other people’s utterances within the same language (the original dialogicity of the word), among others, have almost completely remained. social languages"within the same national language and, finally, among others national languages within the same culture, the same socio-ideological horizon.
True, in last decades These phenomena are already beginning to attract the attention of the science of language and stylistics, but their fundamental and broad significance in all spheres of the life of the word is still far from being realized.
The term “literary work” is one of the main ones in the terminological system of literary criticism, based on general definitions works of art (painting, piece of music, sculpture, architectural work, theatrical performance, film, decoration, fresco, objects of applied art, etc.), then two aspects can be distinguished in them: artifact (Latin - artificially made); An aesthetic object is something that has the potential for artistic reception and influence.
The artifact is associated with material design, material specifics; the aesthetic object is thought of as a product of the ideal, the spiritual. Both provide dialectical unity in which a work of art arises.
A literary work is an ambiguous concept; it all depends on from what point of view it is interpreted. From the point of view of phenomenology, it is an act of consciousness of the author. According to the German scientist Roman Ingarden (1893 - 1970), a work does not belong to real objects, since at some point they are born, live for some time, perhaps changing in the process of their existence, and finally cease to exist."
A work, in turn, having appeared at a certain time, does not cease to exist even after the destruction of its existential basis (for example, a book). After all, it continues to exist in consciousness. And vice versa: having grown from the acts of consciousness of the author, the work acquires a certain independence and autonomy. So, the recipient, not being able to gain access to the consciousness, experiences of the author, is free to access the work as an independent object. Thanks to this, the work turns into one of the forms of being - purely intentional. This means that a literary work is capable of causing or provoking an aesthetic reaction of the recipient, who can adequately respond not only to the author’s impulse (plan, intention, intention), but also expand the semantic and semantic field of the perceived artistic world.
Structuralism views a literary work as a structure, aesthetically organized into a complex hierarchy, which is based on the dominance of one component over the others. We are talking about the meaning of each element of the work, their aesthetic load and interaction. For structuralists, it is important to form an artistic structure, which arises as a result of the imposition of phonological, lexical, and syntactic levels. The external, material structure of a literary work as a verbal object, according to the representative of the Prague linguistic school Jan Mukarzhovsky (1891-1975), is a symbol (sign) of its aesthetic essence.
Despite all the diversity of views on a work of art as an aesthetic phenomenon that arises in verbal form, the understanding remains unchanged: a work is a significant unit of artistic communication in the “author-reader” system, which has a figurative nature that can be reproduced anew in the mind of the recipient.
A literary work is a complex semiotic structure, a combination of material signs (words, text) and figurative meaning, as a result of which a primary (in the author’s imagination) and secondary (in the recipient’s imagination) artistic world arises.
The ontological status of a literary work is determined by the individual needs of readers and the needs of society. The German philosopher and art critic Adorno (1903-1969) wrote about the adequacy of a work of art to society, and the Russian medievalist Dmitry Likhachev (1906-1999) saw the monuments of ancient literature as reflections of the ideological, historical structure of feudal society.
In each time, a work of art is read differently, based on new aesthetic and psychological criteria. As a result, it is possible to break stereotypes even regarding classical works.
A work of art is not just literary fact, and, given its functioning in time, a process that is measured by the past and present. French writer and the cultural scientist Andre Malraux (1901-1976) called this “double time,” meaning that any work of art refers to the time of its creation, and the time in which its perception takes place.
The functionality of a literary work does not depend on the writer, but is determined by the aesthetic needs of the reader, the current needs of society and the logic of the development of artistic consciousness. A work can overcome distances and time, influence aesthetic tastes and public opinion, but its organic purpose is to excite aesthetic experience.
§ 3. COMPOSITION OF A LITERARY WORK. ITS FORM AND CONTENT
Conceptual and terminological apparatus theoretical poetics, on the one hand, has some stability, on the other, there is a lot of controversial and mutually exclusive things in it. Scientists place the basis for systematizing aspects (facets, levels) of a literary work different concepts and terms. The conceptual pair “form and content” is most deeply rooted in theoretical poetics. Thus, Aristotle in “Poetics” distinguished in his works a certain “what” ( item imitation) and some “how” ( facilities imitation). From such judgments of the ancients threads stretch to the aesthetics of the Middle Ages and Modern times. In the 19th century the concepts of form and content (including their application to art) were carefully substantiated by Hegel. This conceptual pair is invariably present in the theoretical and literary works of our century.
At the same time, scientists have repeatedly disputed the applicability of the terms “form” and “content” to works of art. Thus, representatives of the formal school argued that the concept of “content” is unnecessary for literary criticism, and “form” should be compared with life material, which is artistically neutral. Ironically characterized familiar terms Yu.N. Tynyanov: “Form - content = glass - wine. But all spatial analogies applied to the concept of form are important in that they only pretend to be analogies: in fact, a static feature, closely related, is invariably slipped into the concept of form.
with spatiality." Responding approvingly to Tynyanov’s judgment half a century later, Yu.M. Lotman proposed replacing traditional and, as he believed, negatively significant, one-sided “dualistic” terms with “monistic” terms “structure and idea.” In the same “structuralist” era in literary criticism (also as a replacement for boring form and content) the words “sign and meaning” came, and later, in the “poststructuralist” time - “text and meaning”. The attack on the usual “form and content” has been going on for three quarters of a century. In his recent article on the poetry of O.E. Mandelstam E.G. Etkind once again proposes that these, as he considers, “meaningless” terms “replace with others that are more consistent with today’s view of verbal art.” But it does not indicate exactly what concepts and terms are needed today.Traditional forms and content, however, continue to live, although they are often put in ironic quotation marks and preceded by the words “so-called,” or, as in the book by V.N. Toporov, are replaced by the abbreviations F and S. A significant fact: in the well-known and authoritative work of R. Welleck and O. Warren, the usual division of a work “into content and form” is regarded as “confusing the analysis and in need of elimination”; but later, turning to stylistic specifics, the authors note (in a polemic with the intuitionist B. Croce) necessity for a literary critic to isolate the elements of a work and, in particular, using the power of analytical intelligence to separate from each other “form and content, expression of thought and style,” while “remembering their<...>ultimate unity." It is difficult to do without the traditional distinction in artistic creation between certain “how” and “what”.
In theoretical literary criticism, highlighting two fundamental aspects of the work ( dichotomous approach) other logical constructions are also widely used. So, A.A. Potebnya and his followers characterized three aspects of works of art, which are: external form, internal form, content (as applied to literature: word, image, idea). It also happens multi-level an approach proposed by phenomenological literary criticism. Thus, R. Ingarden identified four layers (Schicht) in the composition of a literary work: 1) the sound of speech; 2) the meaning of words; 3) the level of the objects depicted; 4) the level of types (Ansicht) of objects, their auditory and visual appearance, perceived from a certain point of view. The multilevel approach also has its supporters in Russian science.
The named theoretical approaches to works of art (dichotomous and multi-level) are not mutually exclusive. They are quite compatible and complementary. This was convincingly substantiated by N. Hartmann in his “Aesthetics” (1953). The German philosopher argued that the structure of a work inevitably multi-layered, but “in the way of being” “unshakably double-layer": their front plan constitutes material-sensory objectivity (imagery), rear same plan- this is “spiritual content”. Based on Hartmann's vocabulary, marked by spatial analogy (metaphor), it is right to liken a work of art to a three-dimensional translucent object (be it a ball, polygon or cube), which is always turned to the perceivers with the same side (like the moon). The “front”, visible plan of this object has certainty (although not absolute). This is the form. The “background” (content) is viewed incompletely and is much less defined; much is guessed here, or even remains a mystery. At the same time, works of art are characterized by different degrees of “transparency.” In some cases it is very relative, one might say, small (“Hamlet” by W. Shakespeare as great mystery), in others, on the contrary, it is maximum: the author pronounces the main thing directly and openly, persistently and purposefully, as, for example, Pushkin in the ode “Liberty” or L.N. Tolstoy in "Resurrection".
A modern literary critic, apparently, is “doomed” to navigate the patchwork of conceptual and terminological constructions. Below we undertake an experiment in considering the composition and structure of a literary work on the basis of a synthesizing approach: take as much as possible from what has been done by theoretical literary criticism different directions and schools, mutually agreeing on existing judgments. At the same time, we take as a basis the traditional concepts of form and content, striving to free them from all kinds of vulgarizing layers that have generated and continue to generate mistrust in these terms.
FormAnd content- philosophical categories that find application in various fields of knowledge. The word "form" (from lat. forma), related other-gr. morphe and eidos. The word “content” is rooted in modern European languages (content, Gehalt, contenu). In ancient philosophy, form was opposed to matter. The latter was thought of as qualityless and chaotic, subject to processing, as a result of which ordered objects appear, which are forms. The meaning of the word “form” in this case (among the ancients, as well as in the Middle Ages, in particular with Thomas Aquinas) turned out to be close to the meaning of the words “essence”, “idea”, “Logos”. “Form I call the essence of the being of every thing,” wrote Aristotle. This pair of concepts (matter - form) arose from the need of the thinking part of humanity to designate the creative, creative power of nature, gods, people.
In the philosophy of modern times (especially active in the 19th century), the concept of “matter” was pushed aside by the concept of “content”. The latter began to be logically correlated with form, which at the same time was thought of in a new way: how expressively significant, embodying (materializing) a certain intelligible essence: universal (natural-cosmic), mental, spiritual. The world of expressive forms is much wider than the area itself artistic creations. We live in this world and we ourselves are part of it, because the appearance and behavior of a person testifies to something and expresses something. This pair of concepts (an expressively significant form and the intelligible content it embodies) meets the need of people to understand the complexity of objects, phenomena, personalities, their diversity, and, above all, to comprehend their implicit, deep meaning associated with the spiritual existence of a person. The concepts of form and content serve the mental delimitation of the external - from the internal, essence and meaning - from their embodiment, from the ways of their existence, i.e. respond to the analytical impulse of human consciousness. Content refers to the basis of the subject, its defining side. Form is organization and appearance the subject, its determined side.
Thus understood, the form is secondary, derivative, dependent on the content, and at the same time is a condition for the existence of the object. Its secondary nature in relation to the content does not signify its secondary importance: form and content are equally necessary aspects of the phenomena of existence. In relation to objects becoming and evolving, form is thought of as a more stable beginning, embracing the system of its stable connections, and the content - as constituting the sphere of dynamics, as a stimulus for change.
Forms expressing content can be associated with it (connected) in different ways: one thing is science and philosophy with their abstract semantic principles, and something completely different - the fruits of artistic creativity, marked by imagery and the predominance of the individual and uniquely individual. According to Hegel, science and philosophy, which constitute the sphere of abstract thought, “have a form not posited by itself, external to it.” It is right to add that the content here does not change when it is re-arranged: the same thought can be captured in different ways. For example, a mathematical pattern expressed by the formula “(a + b) 2 =a 2 +2ab+b 2” can be fully embodied in the words of natural language (“the square of the sum of two numbers is equal to...” - and so on). Reformulation of the utterance here has absolutely no effect on its content: the latter remains unchanged.
Something completely different in works of art, where, as Hegel argued, the content (idea) and its embodiment correspond to each other as much as possible: artistic idea , being concrete, “carries within itself the principle and method of its manifestation, and it freely creates its own form.”
These generalizations were prefaced by romantic aesthetics. “Every true form,” wrote Aug. Schlegel, is organic, that is, determined by the content of the work of art. In a word, form is nothing more than full value appearance - the physiognomy of each thing, expressive and not distorted by any random signs, truthfully testifying to its hidden essence.” The English romantic poet S.T. spoke about the same thing in the language of a critic-essayist. Coleridge: “It is easier to remove a stone from its base with bare hands.” Egyptian pyramid than to change a word or even its place in a line in Milton and Shakespeare<...>without forcing the author to say something different or even worse<...>Those lines that can be expressed in other words of the same language without loss of meaning, associations or feelings expressed in them, do serious damage to poetry.
In other words, a truly artistic work excludes the possibility of re-design, which would be neutral to the content. Let’s imagine in the textbook memorable words from Gogol’s “Terrible Revenge” (“Wonderful is the Dnieper in calm weather”) the most innocent (within the framework of grammatical norms) syntactic edit: “The Dnieper is wonderful in calm weather” - and the charm of Gogol’s landscape disappears, being replaced by some kind of that's absurd. According to the apt words of A. Blok, the poet’s spiritual structure is expressed in everything, right down to punctuation marks. And according to the formulation of a number of scientists at the beginning of the 20th century. (starting with representatives of German aesthetics at the turn of the century), is present in works of art and plays a decisive role meaningful(content-filled) form (
Gehalterf ü lte Form - according to J. Volkelt). In the same era, the idea was expressed about the importance of forms speech activity as such. Here, wrote F. de Saussure, “a material unit (i.e., a word in its phonetic form. - V. X.) exists only due to the presence of meaning,” and “meaning, function exist only due to the fact that they rely on some material form."IN domestic literary criticism the concept of meaningful form, perhaps central to theoretical poetics, was substantiated by M.M. Bakhtin in the works of the 20s. He argued that the artistic form has no meaning without its correlation with the content, which is defined by the scientist as the cognitive-ethical moment of the aesthetic object, as an identified and evaluated reality: the “moment of content” allows “to comprehend the form in a more significant way” than crudely hedonistic. In another formulation about the same thing: the artistic form needs “extra-aesthetic weight of content.” Using the phrases “meaningful form”, “formulated content”, “shape-forming ideology”, Bakhtin emphasized the inseparability and non-fusion of form and content, and spoke of the importance of “emotional-volitional tension of form”. “In every smallest element of poetic structure,” he wrote, “in every metaphor, in every epithet we will find chemical compound cognitive definition, ethical assessment and artistic final design."
The above words convincingly and clearly characterize the most important principle of artistic activity: setting unity of content and form in the works created. The fully realized unity of form and content makes a work organically whole(for the meaning of the term “integrity” see p. 17), as if a living being, born, and not rationally (mechanically) constructed. Aristotle also noted that poetry is designed to “produce pleasure, like a single living being.” Similar thoughts about artistic creativity were expressed by F.V. Schelling, V.G. Belinsky (who likened the creation of a work to childbirth), especially insistently - Al. Grigoriev, a supporter of “organic criticism”.
A work, perceived as an organically arisen integrity, can appear as a kind of analogue of an ordered, integral being. In such cases (and there are countless of them), artistic creativity (to use the words of Vyach. Ivanov) is accomplished not on the basis of “spiritual hunger”, but “from the fullness of life.” This tradition goes back to dithyrambs, hymns, akathists and extends to much of the literature of the 19th–20th centuries. (prose by L.N. Tolstoy of the 50s and 60s, poetry by R.M. Rilke and B.L. Pasternak). The artistic structure turns out to be “world-like,” and the integrity of the work arises as “an aesthetic expression of the integrity of reality itself.”
But this doesn't always happen. In the literature of eras close to us, created on the basis of “spiritual hunger,” artistic integrity arises as a result of creative overcoming the imperfections of life. A.F. Losev, recalling that what exists does not have “universal design and unity,” argues that art, one way or another aimed at transforming human reality, erects its structures in counterweight distorted existence.
Note that the concept of artistic integrity in the 20th century. has been repeatedly disputed. These are the concepts of the constructivists and the theoretical constructions of the formal school in the 20s, when the rational-mechanical, handicraft aspects of art were emphasized. The title of the article by B.M. is significant. Eikhenbaum: “How Gogol’s “The Overcoat” was Made.” V. B. Shklovsky believed that the “unity of a literary work” is only a pseudo-scientific myth and that a “monolithic work” is possible only “as a special case”: “Individual sides of the literary form are more likely to quarrel with each other than to coexist.” The concept of integrity came under direct and decisive attack in postmodernism, which put forward the concept of deconstruction. Texts (including fiction) are examined here in the light of the premise of their deliberate incompleteness and inconsistency, the mutual inconsistency of their links. This kind of skepticism and suspicion has its reasons, albeit relative ones. The world of the fruits of artistic activity is not a reality of fully realized perfection, but a sphere of endless aspirations to create works of integrity.
So, in a work of art, formal-substantive and actually substantive principles are distinguishable. The first, in turn, are diverse. As part of the form that carries the content, traditionally there are three sides, must be present in any literary work. This is, firstly, subject(object-visual) Start, all those individual phenomena and facts that are designated using words and in their totality constitute world a work of art (there are also expressions “ poetic world», « inner world"works, "direct content"). This, secondly, is the actual verbal fabric of the work: artistic speech , often captured by the terms “ poetic language", "styles", "text". And thirdly, this is the correlation and arrangement in the work of units of the objective and verbal “series”, i.e. composition. This literary concept akin to such a category of semiotics as structure (the relationship between the elements of a complexly organized object).
The identification of its three main sides in the work goes back to ancient rhetoric. It has been repeatedly noted that the speaker needs to: 1) find material (i.e., select a subject that will be presented and characterized by speech); 2) somehow arrange (construct) this material; 3) translate it into words that will make the proper impression on the audience. Accordingly, the ancient Romans used the terms inventio(invention of objects), dispositio(their location, construction), elocutio(decoration, which meant a bright verbal expression).
Theoretical literary criticism, characterizing a work, in some cases focuses more on its subject-verbal composition (R. Ingarden with his concept of “multi-level”), in others - on compositional (structural) aspects, which was characteristic of the formal school and even more so of structuralism . At the end of the 20s G.N. Pospelov, far ahead of the science of his time, noted that the subject of theoretical poetics has twofold character: 1) “individual properties and aspects” of works (image, plot, epithet); 2) “connection and relationships” of these phenomena: the structure of the work, its structure. The content-significant form, as can be seen, is multifaceted. At the same time, the subject-verbal compound works and his construction(compositional organization) are inseparable, equivalent, equally necessary.
A special place in a literary work belongs to the content layer itself. It can be rightfully characterized not as another (fourth) side of the work, but as its substance. Artistic content represents the unity of objective and subjective principles. This is the totality of what came to the author from the outside and was known by him (about topics art see p. 40–53), and what is expressed by him and comes from his views, intuition, personality traits (about artistic subjectivity, see pp. 54–79).
The term “content” (artistic content) is more or less synonymous with the words “concept” (or “author’s concept”), “idea”, “meaning” (in M.M. Bakhtin: “the last semantic authority”). W. Kaiser, characterizing the subject layer of the work (Gnhalt), its speech (Sprachliche Formen) and composition (Afbau) as the main concepts of analysis, named the contents (Gehalt) the concept of synthesis. Artistic content is indeed the synthesizing beginning of a work. This is its deep basis, constituting the purpose (function) of the form as a whole.
Artistic content is embodied (materialized) not in some individual words, phrases, phrases, but in the totality of what is present in the work. We agree with Yu.M. Lotman: “The idea is not contained in any, even well-chosen quotes, but is expressed throughout artistic structure. A researcher who does not understand this and looks for ideas in individual quotations is like a person who, having learned that a house has a plan, would begin to break down the walls in search of the place where this plan is walled up. The plan is not walled up in the walls, but is implemented in the proportions of the building. The plan is the architect’s idea, the structure of the building is its implementation.” Cm.: Chudakov A.P.. Chekhov's poetics. M., 1971. S. 3–8.
Cm.: Hartmann N. Aesthetics. M., 1958. S. 134, 241.
Aristotle. Works: In 4 vols. M., 1975. T. 1. P. 198.
Along with the meaning of the words “form” and “content” outlined by us, which is vital for humanitarian knowledge, and in particular literary criticism, there is another use of them. In the areas of everyday life and material and technical form, form is understood not as expressively significant, but as spatial: solid, empty, which can be filled with softer and more pliable matter, acting as its content. These are, say, a sandbox (“mold”), filled with sand or snow in children’s games; or a vessel and the liquid contained in it. Such an application of the pair of concepts “form” and “content”, naturally, has nothing to do with the spiritual, aesthetic, or artistic sphere. Connection expressively
Leiderman N.L. Genre and the problem of artistic integrity // The problem of genre in Anglo-American literature: Sat. scientific works. Vol. 2. Sverdlovsk, 1976. P. 9.
Cm.: Losev A.F.. Form. Style. Expression. M., 1995. P. 301.
Shklovsky V.B. About the theory of prose. M., 1929. pp. 215–216.
Cm.: Pospelov G.N.. On the methodology of historical and literary research // Literary Studies: Collection of articles. articles / Ed. V.F. Pereverzeva. M., 1928. S. 42–43.
Lotman Yu.M.. Analysis poetic text. pp. 37–38.
Option 2
Part 1
Read the text and complete tasks 1-3.
(1)March 22, 1993 news agencies sensational news was broadcast around the world: the unknown robotics engineer Rudolf Gantenbrink did the most outstanding discovery decades. (2) Gantenbrink, who was hired by the German Archaeological Institute located in Cairo to study the possibility of installing a ventilation system in the Great Pyramid, sent a remote-controlled robot he created into the southern ventilation shaft of the burial chamber. (3) Having walked sixty-five meters, which was approximately half the distance, the robot sent a video image on which a door with a very mysterious void behind it was clearly visible.
1. Indicate two sentences that correctly convey MAIN information contained in the text. Write down the numbers of these sentences.
1) German engineer Rudolf Gantenbrink created a special robot to explore ventilation shafts in the Great Pyramid, and this invention made the scientist famous.
2) A robot created by engineer Gantenbrink, while exploring a ventilation shaft in the Great Pyramid, discovered a mysterious door in this shaft, and this news shocked the whole world.
3) Robotics engineer Rudolf Gantenbrink, exploring the ventilation shaft of the Great Pyramid with the help of a controlled robot, made an amazing discovery: there is a door in the shaft.
4) Rudolf Gantenbrink's robot, having completed half the journey in one of the mines in Cairo, sent the operator a clear video image.
5) In March 1993, sensational news spread throughout the world that an unknown robotics engineer, Rudolf Gantenbrink, had created a radio-controlled robot.
2. Which of the following words or combinations of words should be missing in the third (3) sentence of the text? Write down this word (combination of words).
On the contrary, Therefore, In all likelihood, And Probably
3. Read a fragment of a dictionary entry that gives the meaning of the word WORK. Determine in what sense this word is used in the second (2) sentence of the text. Write down the number corresponding to this value in the given fragment of the dictionary entry.
JOB, -s, zh.r.
1) Being in action, activity of something., the process of converting energy of one type into another. R. machines.
2) Occupation, work. Physical river
3) Service, occupation at some kind. enterprise, institution as a source of income. To get a job.
4) plural Production activity of creating, processing something. Irrigation works.
5) Product of labor, finished product. Printed works.
4. In one of the words below, an error was made in the placement of stress: the letter denoting the stressed vowel sound was highlighted incorrectly. Write this word down.
WILL EASIER AIRPORTS SEALING STARTED TO THE BOTTOM
5. One of the sentences below uses the highlighted word incorrectly. Correct the mistake and write this word correctly.
On a difficult track, the advantage was given not to the owners of the most powerful engines, but to the most TECHNICAL racers.
Kolosentsev immediately stood up with a BUSINESS look.
She considered herself a backward, UNLUCKY creature, doomed to live a dull, hard life.
Wait! - he interrupted me excitedly. “You are putting me in a HUMILIATING position.”
ROMANTIC irony, gothic parody, fighting street song, forms of small magazine-satirical (colloquial) genres, Shrovetide laughter are uniquely combined in Heine’s wonderful poetic satire.
6. In one of the words highlighted below, an error was made in the formation of the word form. Correct the mistake and write the word correctly.
aroma SHAMPOOS in SEVEN HUNDRED versts for more than a LONG time got wet in the rain
several young ladies
7. Establish a correspondence between grammatical errors and the sentences in which they were made: for each position in the first column, select the corresponding position from the second column.
| GRAMMATICAL ERRORS | OFFERS | ||
| A) misuse case form noun with preposition B) disruption of the connection between subject and predicate C) incorrect construction of sentences with participial phrase D) incorrect construction of sentences with indirect speech D) violation in the construction of sentences with homogeneous members | 1) It was completely dark in the houses, squares, parks, it was deep night, from which something mysterious and mysterious wafted. 2) Without thinking for a second, Fedya rushed across the cyclist, who was riding straight towards little Dasha. 3) A small forest near the village, a tiny pond behind the garden, a small grandmother’s house - all this seemed to Nikolenka to be a huge world full of adventures. 4) Father promised that upon arrival from a business trip he would certainly tell in all details what he saw abroad. 5) All those who have found the strength to resist evil towards man will not allow cruelty towards nature. 6) When everyone expressed their point of view, after weighing all the pros and cons, we made a compromise decision. 7) D.S. Likhachev writes that “an intellectual can be recognized by his lack of aggressiveness, suspicion, inferiority complex, and gentleness of behavior.” 8) Anyone who was at Anna Dmitrievna’s party on that memorable day was struck by the luxurious decoration of her house. 9) After thinking a little, the professor said that even I, being an experienced surgeon, am not ready to take on such a task complex operation, and it became clear that I, a doctor just starting my practice, could not cope. |
8. Identify the word in which the unstressed alternating vowel of the root is missing. Write out this word by inserting the missing letter.
arrived..speech see..forge (food) abandoned (fence) simplification subtraction..tanning
9. Identify the row in which the same letter is missing in both words. Write out these words by inserting the missing letter.
pr..following, (to) pr..dacha
up..small, about..sk
be..delicious, ..shaved (the beard)
pr..highed, pr..layed down
with..agreement, pr..image
10. Write down the word in which the letter E is written in the blank.
oil..pressure..seal..quiet..on moving..
11. Write down the word in which the letter I is written in place of the gap.
rebuilt..finished..unacceptable..hopeful..flourished..expanded
12. Determine the sentence in which NOT is spelled together with the word. Open the brackets and write down this word.
This (UN)FAMILIAR person behaved as if he knew everyone well.
Our hero constantly (NOT) had enough money, because it was spent quickly and stupidly.
Today's performance turned out to be no more (NOT) INTERESTING than yesterday's.
(UN)ABLE to speak in public, Demidov was very worried before the meeting.
I didn’t know how to start a conversation in such an (UN)USUAL environment.
13. Determine the sentence in which both highlighted words are written CONTINUOUSLY. Open the brackets and write down these two words.
Yegor sat alone for a long time in a (SEMI) DARK room, then he went out into the dining room, said something, but no one understood what he meant (IN) SEE.
Krygin was also a specialist in this field, and well-known.
My grandmother and I walked DEEPLY into the forest, but I wasn’t worried at all, because I knew: my grandmother knew this forest well enough to find the way back.
SO the director talked about the company’s plans for the coming year, and everyone listened attentively for several hours.
The children split into columns of (AT) TWO and (THAT) HOUR they hit the road.
14. Indicate all the numbers in whose place NN is written.
In mid-September it was windy (1)o; yellow and crimson(2) leaves, doomed(3) obeying the gusts of wind, circled in desperate(4) round dances through the streets and squares and, mingling with silver(5) cobwebs, flew off somewhere into the distance.
15. Place punctuation marks. Specify two sentences in which you need to put ONE comma. Write down the numbers of these sentences.
1) I wanted to give my mother a box or a hat or a silk muffler for her birthday.
2) At night it was freezing and stars dotted the sky.
3) At the Bird Market you could either buy the animals you liked or simply admire them.
4) Lightning flashed and the forest lit up inexpressibly for a few moments bright light filled with strange shadows.
5) Copernicus reflected on the Ptolemaic system of the world and was amazed at its complexity and artificiality, illogicality and confusion.
16. Place all punctuation marks:
Nikolai Ivanovich (1) being naturally strong and healthy person(2) that day, for no apparent reason, I felt ill and (3) immediately interrupting the meeting (4) and (5) calling a car (6) went to my home.
17. Place all the missing punctuation marks: indicate the number(s) in whose place(s) there should be a comma(s) in the sentence.
– You (1) guys (2) from the middle
Start off. And I will say:
I'm not the first shoes
I wear it here without repair.
Here (3) you (4) arrived at the place,
Take your guns and fight.
And who (5) of you (6) knows,
What is Sabantui?
18. Place all punctuation marks: indicate the number(s) in whose place(s) there should be a comma(s) in the sentence.
A literary work was conceived by stylistics as a closed and self-sufficient whole (1) all elements (2) of which (3) constitute a closed system (4) and do not presuppose any others outside of themselves
statements.
19. Place all punctuation marks: indicate the number(s) in whose place(s) there should be a comma(s) in the sentence.
When Zhenya decided to accept Alexander Semyonovich’s offer (1) and (2) a letter about this decision had already been sent to his Moscow address (3) she was going to go say goodbye to her aunt (4) so that (5) despite the fact that (6 ) the relationship between them was very difficult (7) to receive a blessing from her.
20. Edit sentence: correct lexical error, excluding unnecessary word. Write this word down.
Cold snow packed into the wrinkles of the bark, and the thick, three-girth trunk seemed stitched with silver threads.
Read the text and complete tasks 21-26
(1) It was Christmas Eve...
(2) The guard of the resettlement barracks, a retired soldier, with a gray beard like mouse fur, named Semyon Dmitrievich, or simply Mitrich, approached his wife and said cheerfully:
- (3) Well, woman, what a trick I came up with! (4) I say, the holiday is coming... (5) And for everyone it is a holiday, everyone rejoices at it... (6) Everyone has their own: who has new clothes for the holiday, who will have feasts... (7) For example, your room will be clean, I will also have my own pleasure: I’ll buy myself some sausages!..
- (8) So what? – the old woman said indifferently.
“(9) Otherwise,” Mitrich sighed again, “it will be like a holiday for everyone, but, I say, for the kids, it turns out there is no real holiday... (10) I look at them - and my heart bleeds.” : oh, I think it’s wrong!.. (11) It’s known, orphans... (12) Neither mother, nor father, nor relatives... (13) It’s awkward!.. (14) So I thought of this: it’s necessary amuse the children! (17) They’ll bring a Christmas tree, decorate it with candles and gifts, and their kids will just jump for joy!.. (18) The forest is close to us - I’ll cut down the Christmas tree and give the kids such fun!
(19) Mitrich winked cheerfully, smacked his lips and went out into the yard.
(20) Wooden houses covered with snow and covered with boards were scattered around the yard here and there. (21)С early spring and until late autumn settlers passed through the city. (22) There were so many of them, and they were so poor that good people They built these houses for them, which Mitrich guarded. (23) By autumn the houses were vacated, and by winter there was no one left except Mitrich and Agrafena and a few more children, no one knows whose. (24) These children’s parents either died or went to an unknown place. (25) Mitrich had eight such children this winter. (26) He settled them all together in one house, where he was going to have a holiday today.
(27) First of all, Mitrich went to the church warden to ask for some cinders of church candles to decorate the Christmas tree. (28) Then he went to the resettlement official. (29) But the official was busy; without seeing Mitrich, he ordered to say “thank you” to him and sent fifty dollars.
(30) Returning home, Mitrich did not say a word to his wife, but just chuckled silently and, looking at the coin, figured out when and how to arrange everything.
(31) “Eight children,” Mitrich reasoned, bending the clumsy fingers on his hands, “that means eight candies...”
(32)...It was a clear frosty afternoon. (33) With an ax in his belt, in a sheepskin coat and a hat, Mitrich returned from the forest, dragging a Christmas tree on his shoulder. (34) He was having fun, although he was tired. (35) In the morning he went to the city to buy candy for the children, and sausage for himself and his wife, which he was a passionate hunter for, but he rarely bought it and ate it only on holidays.
(36) Mitrich brought the tree and sharpened the end with an ax; then he adjusted it so that it would stand, and when everything was ready, he dragged it to the children in the barracks.
(37) When the tree warmed up, the room smelled of freshness and resin. (38) The children’s faces, sad and thoughtful, suddenly became cheerful... (39) No one yet understood what the old man was doing, but everyone was already anticipating pleasure, and Mitrich looked cheerfully at the eyes fixed on him from all sides.
(40) When the candles and sweets were already on the tree, Mitrich thought: the decoration was sparse. (41) No matter how keen he was on his idea, he could not hang anything on the tree except eight candies.
(42) Suddenly such a thought came to him that he even stopped. (43) Although he loved sausage very much and treasured every piece, the desire to treat him to glory overpowered all his considerations:
- (44) I’ll cut each one a circle and hang it on a string. (45) And a slice of bread, and also for the Christmas tree.
(46) As soon as it got dark, the tree was lit. (47) It smelled of melted wax, resin and herbs. (48) Always gloomy and thoughtful, the children screamed joyfully, looking at the lights. (49) Their eyes perked up, their faces blushed. (50) Laughter, screams and chatter enlivened for the first time this gloomy room, where from year to year only complaints and tears were heard. (51) Even Agrafena threw up her hands in surprise, and Mitrich, rejoicing from the bottom of his heart, clapped his hands. (52) Admiring the Christmas tree and the children having fun, he smiled. (53) And then he commanded:
- (54) Public! (55) Come! (56) Taking a piece of bread and sausage from the tree, Mitrich dressed all the children, then took Agrafena for himself.
- (57) Look, the orphans are chewing! (58) Look, they’re chewing! (59) Look! (60) Rejoice! - he shouted. (61) And then Mitrich took the harmonica and, forgetting his old age, started dancing with the children. (62) The children jumped, squealed and twirled merrily, and Mitrich did not lag behind them. (63) His soul was filled with such joy that he did not remember whether such a holiday had ever happened in his life.
- (64) Public! – he finally exclaimed. – (65) The candles are burning out. (66) Get yourself some candy, and it’s time to go to bed!
(67) The children screamed joyfully and rushed to the tree, and Mitrich, touched almost to the point of tears, whispered to Agrafena:
- (68) Good!.. (69) We can say directly: right!..
(according to N.D. Teleshov*)
*Nikolai Dmitrievich Teleshov (1867–1957)– Russian Soviet writer, poet, organizer famous circle Moscow writers "Wednesday" (1899–1916). The story “Yolka Mitrich” (1897) is part of the “Migrants” cycle, dedicated to the great resettlement beyond the Urals, to Siberia, where peasants were given plots of land.
21. Read sentences 19–29. Indicate the number of the sentence after which the next fragment should appear.
“The houses were always overcrowded, and meanwhile the settlers kept coming and coming. They had nowhere to go, so they set up huts in the field, where they hid with their family and children in the cold and bad weather. Some lived here for a week, two, and others for more than a month, waiting for their turn on the ship.”
22. Which of the following statements are faithful? Please provide answer numbers.
Enter the numbers in ascending order.
1) Sentences 10–13 present the narrative.
2) Sentence 19 presents a narrative.
3) Sentences 30–31 provide a description.
4) Proposition 47 indicates the consequence of what is said in sentence 46.
5) Sentences 61–62 present the narrative.
23. From sentences 42–51, write down a phraseological unit with the meaning “very good, excellent, great.”
24. Among sentences 20–26, find the one(s) that are related to the previous one using the attributive pronoun, demonstrative pronoun and lexical repetition. Write the number(s) of this sentence(s).
25. Read a fragment of a review based on the text that you analyzed while completing tasks 20–23.
“Telling the reader the story of the holiday organized by Mitrich, N.D. Teleshov generously uses a wide variety of means artistic expression. At the lexical level, it is worth noting the active use of (A)_____ (“theirs” in sentence 17, “adjust” in sentence 36, “Mitrich”), as well as such a trope as (B)_____ (in sentence 2). Among other means of expressiveness, one can distinguish such a device as (B)_____ (for example, in sentences 15–16, 57–58), and a syntactic device such as (D)_____ (in sentences 3, 68, 69).”
List of terms
1) synonyms 2) comparison 3) metonymy 4) litotes
5) colloquial vocabulary 6) rows homogeneous members
7) rhetorical exclamations 8) anaphora 9) rhetorical appeals
26. Write an essay based on the text you read.
Formulate one of the problems posed by the author of the text.
Comment on the formulated problem. Include in your comment two illustrative examples from the text you read that you think are important for understanding the problem in the source text (avoid excessive quoting).
Formulate the position of the author (storyteller). Write whether you agree or disagree with the point of view of the author of the text you read. Explain why. Argue your opinion, relying primarily on reading experience, as well as knowledge and life observations (the first two arguments are taken into account).
The volume of the essay is at least 150 words.
ANSWERS:
1. Answer: 23|32.
2. Answer: i.
3. Answer: 3.
4. Answer: started.
5. Answer: technical.
6. Answer: shampoo.
7. Answer: 45691
8. Answer: subtraction
9. Answer: agreement prototype
10. Answer: capture
11. Answer: graduated
12. Answer: unusual
13. Answer: it has to do with it too
14. Answer: 34.
15. Answer: 35
16. Answer: 1236
17. Answer: 12
18. Answer: 1.
19. Answer: 3457.
20. Answer: cold.
21. Answer: 22
22. Answer: 245.
23. Answer: to glory
24. Answer: 25
25. Answer: 5287
Explanation.
| Approximate range of problems | |
| 1. The problem of the role of holidays in human life. (What role does a holiday play in a person’s life?) | 1. The holiday is very important for people. And this applies to both children and adults. Children can sincerely rejoice and have fun, this helps them forget about all the troubles and feel happy. And adults, thanks to the holiday, forget about age, about problems, and plunge into childhood, happy and carefree. |
| 2. The problem of mercy. (What is mercy? How does it manifest itself? Do a person’s financial capabilities affect the ability to be merciful?) | 2. Charity is the ability to care for others. Organizing a holiday is also an act of mercy, since it is an attempt to give children a piece of happiness. A person, even alone, can do a truly good deed, show mercy, because this feeling comes from within, it does not require much financial costs, a person is driven only by the desire to help, please, make happy. |
| 3. The problem of a good deed, the role of a dear deed in a person’s life. (What is the role of a good deed in our lives?) | 3. When a person does good and brings happiness to others, this makes him happy. |
* To formulate a problem, the examinee may use vocabulary that differs from that presented in the table. The problem may also be cited from the original text or indicated using links
Artistic monologism— in the system of concepts proposed by M.M. Bakhtin, this is the opposite category. Artistic monologism is a type artistic thinking and the poetic-structural principle, receiving genre expression(cm. ). When they are implemented within the framework of the artistic world of the work, the sole and all-sufficient author’s position, which carries the utmost “semantic excess”, prevails over the positions of the heroes, embraces them with its indisputably authoritative gaze and determines their evaluative coverage. Since in M. Bakhtin’s book on Dostoevsky’s poetics most often there is no distinction between the author-creator (in other words, the artist) and the author-narrator, then, according to the scientist’s logic, artistic monologism also presupposes the predominance of the author’s voice (speech monologue - the narrator’s story), to which the voices heroes are hierarchically subordinate. Starting from the narrative structure of monologues and based on the position of the determining role of the voice and point of view of the author-narrator, M. Bakhtin, however, does not remain within the boundaries of poetics, but makes aesthetic and general philosophical conclusions. He connects artistic monologism with the whole “ ideological culture modern times": "...belief in the self-sufficiency of one consciousness in all spheres of ideological life<...>“is a deep structural feature of the ideological creativity of modern times, determining all its external and internal forms” ( Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. Ed. second. M., 1963. P. 108). The scientist names ideological systems that, in his opinion, are monological in their basis (“European rationalism”, “European utopianism” - socialist utopianism). Dostoevsky's work is internally polemical in relation to them. Bakhtin equates philosophical “monism” with artistic monologism. IN fiction The scientist considers the work of L. Tolstoy to be the most complete manifestation of artistic monologism (“Tolstoy’s world is monolithically monological...” - Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. Ed. second. M., 1963. P. 75). The monologue tradition of artistic thinking took shape and developed over the centuries, defining literary form. The concepts of “ideological monologism”, “philosophical monologism”, “monological realism” are constructed accordingly. Since “monologism of consciousness” is possible, then a monological truth is also assumed, which is polar to the polyphonic truth. It is clear on what the unity of the artistic world and the integrity of the structure in a monologue work are based: “... everything significant and valuable is concentrated around one center - the carrier. All ideological creativity is conceived and perceived as a possible expression of one consciousness, one spirit.” “The representative of any semantic unity everywhere becomes one consciousness and one point of view...” (Ibid., p. 108). (See also: ). But M. Bakhtin also finds, as it were, residual forms of monologism in Dostoevsky’s novels - in their external completeness, in their endings, considering them a deviation from the principle discovered by the writer. Already here the question arises: isn’t monologism—even in its original elementary form—the primary and irrevocable basis of any literary creativity? Nevertheless, the book about Dostoevsky's poetics is built on the constantly drawn parallel between polyphonism and monologism. And the comparison is not in favor of the latter, since the comparison is given a subjective-evaluative connotation. L. Tolstoy, whom the scientist clearly ranks lower than Dostoevsky, was especially unlucky. The share of convention and subjectivity in highlighting the monological principle, as opposed to its polyphonism, is indeed great; it actually resembles an “ideal typological construct.” If we remain within the framework of poetics and see in monologism “ special way artistic expression" (definition by M. Bakhtin), then the opposition "polyphonism - monologism" open and described by the scientist contains an important indication of the difference in the form and structure of the works of Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy, as well as other writers. However, Bakhtin's idea of monologism with its subjective-evaluative halo needs to be adjusted and limited while preserving the concept itself. Strictly speaking, monologism is, within the boundaries of poetics, just a system of narrative techniques with the help of which the goals of visual objectivity and realistic truthfulness are achieved. First of all, this concept defines the intrastructural relations between (heroes) with which poetics is concerned. Polyphonism presupposes greater equality between the author and the hero and a reduced, limited role of direct, “vocal” expression of the author’s thoughts and evaluation. Monologism is carried out with a “protruding”, dominant role of the author’s voice (narrator’s speech), position and assessment coming from the author-creator. One cannot but agree that it is more correct to interpret monologism as an author’s position and a literary form with a limited, low rank of sociable reflection, but not unanimity and mental egocentrism in the literal and abstract sense of the word...” ( Pankov A. Bakhtin's solution. M., 1995. P. 109). The concept of monologism, like the opposition “monologism-polyphonism,” acquires an additional and quite perceptible meaning if, during the analysis, we separate the aesthetic and poetic (intrastructural) levels in the work. Then monologism turns out to be a broader and more diverse phenomenon; after all, each work arises from the artist’s aesthetic reaction to the facts of life, from the primary monological relationship of the subject of creativity to reality. A literary work, and how a statement is born as a monologue, belongs to a single subject of speech. And this cannot be avoided or avoided. The signs and qualities of the artist’s initial monologue attitude towards the depicted cannot be omitted when literary analysis. Thus, on aesthetic level any work is monological. But when the conversation turns to the specifics of poetic-structural interactions in a work, about the structure of the narrative, about the relationship between the voices, points of view of the characters, the hero and the narrator, then - at the poetic level - the distinction between monologism and polyphonism introduced by M. Bakhtin begins to operate. With all these clarifications and reservations, one cannot help but notice that the concept of M.M. Bakhtin significantly influenced the perception of the work of Dostoevsky and modern ideas about the structure of prose. First of all, it undermined the autocentric interpretation of literature, when a work was conceived entirely as an expression of the author’s point of view. An explanation of Dostoevsky the artist without the keys given by the researcher is impossible. But thanks to them, “monologue” artists also appear in a new light.
Svitelsky V.A.
