/
Search results


Вдовиченко А. В. Концепция Ф. де Соссюра в интерпретации специфики новозаветного текста // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2012. Вып. 4 (30). С. 7-25.
PDF
In the article is regarded the use of Saussure’s opposition «language - speech» in explaining features of the NT linguistic data. The concept of the dichotomy leads to an incorrect interpretation of the NT writers’ communicative activity.
New Testament, koine, interpreting linguistic features, greek, semitisms
Вдовиченко А. В. Принцип кооперации Грайса в интерпретации статуса библейского текста // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2013. Вып. 4 (34). С. 7-20.
PDF
The dominating concept of the NT language inevitably comes to a conclusion about irregularity (lack of normalization) of the NT texts because of the Semitisms considered as violations of the Greek authenticity. The given theoretical model arising from the structural installations of linguistic research, evidently breaks communicative reality in which Grice’s «cooperative principle» and Leech’s «politeness principle» have to be executed. Instead the dominating view assumes an unrealistic picture of author’s and reader’s activity in which the addressee of NT texts feels strange about the language used by the authors; the authors do not know the language they write; secondary interpreters (researchers) know the language in which the NT texts had to be created, much better than the authors themselves
linguistic interpretation of the NT texts, communicative and structural paradigms of linguistic description, the communicative principles (Grice’s cooperative and Leech’s politeness principles), unrealistic model of communicat
1. Chang-Wook J. The Original Language of the Lukan Infancy Narrative, London, New York, 2004.
2. Deissmann A. Bible Studies, Edinburg, 1901.
3. Deissmann A. Light from the Ancient East, London, 1910.
4. Finegan J. The Archeology of the New Testament, Princeton, 1969.
5. Freyne S. Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian, Edinburgh, 1980.
6. Gehman H. 1951 “Hebraic Character of Septuagint Greek”, in Vetus Testamentum, 1951, vol. 1. pp. 81-90.
7. Grice P. 1975 “Logic and Conversation”, in Syntax and Semantics, New York, 1975, vol. 3: Speech Acts.
8. Horsley G. H. R. 1989 “The Fiction of «Jewish Greek»”, in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 1989, vol. 5, pp. 5-40.
9. Leech G. N. Principles of pragmatics, London, New York, 1983.
10. Meyers E., Strange J. Archeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity, Abingdon, Nashville, 1981.
11. Moulton J. H. (ed.) Grammar of New Testament Greek, Edinburg, 1963.
12. Porter S. E. 1997 “The Greek Language of the New Testament”, in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament. Ser. «New Testament Tools and Studies», Leiden, New York, Kohln, 1997, pp. 99-130.
13. Schwabe M., Lifshitz B. Beth She'arim, New Brunswick, 1974, vol. 2: The Greek Inscriptions.
14. Sevenster J. Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Christians Have Known? Leiden, 1968.
15. Turner N. 1962 “The Language of the New Testament”, in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Edinburg, 1962, pp. 659-662.
16. Turner N. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, Edinburg, 1965, pp. 41-58.
Вдовиченко А. В. Литературный характер Новозаветного корпуса. Дискурсивные критерии // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2014. Вып. 4 (39). С. 34-45. DOI: 10.15382/sturIII201439.34-45
In the article the author disagrees with the point of view according to which the language of the New Testament is considered less- or nonliterary. The main factor which maintains the literariness of the texts is that the NT corpus belongs to the tradition of Jewish prophetic literature. As well as in many other aspects of early Christianity, the Greek-speaking Jewish Diaspora becomes a key condition for a reconstruction communicative (cultural and religious, literary and linguistic) context in which the language and substantial features of the NT are adequately interpreted. To overcome A. Deissmann’s erroneous viewpoint (which ever caused the colloquial and nonliterary trend in NT researches) and to reconstruct the authentic communicative reality some historical, cultural and literary circumstances seem to be important. 1) the role of Writtings in the social, religious and literary activities in the Jewish Diaspora; 2) the linguistic situation in Diaspora and Palestinian communities; 3) Septuagint status as a sacred text and a sample for the prophetic texts in Diaspora; 4) relevance the discursive criteria for describing linguistic and cultural (including literary) realities: criterion of the relation to the literary facts of an author taking part in the tradition and implying the authentic concepts and oppositions; criterion of the audience to which the text is addressed; criterion of the language models used in the text at the level of macro- and micro rhetorical strategies, themes and frame structures of the communicative action organized in the text. If based on the criteria above, one may divide the literary production of the Greek-speaking Jewish Diaspora on prophetic and apologetic (secular) traditions which were inherited then by the Christian (including Judeo-Christian) authors.
linguistic interpretation of the NT corpus, literary and nonliterary character of the NT texts, discursive criteria of description, literary tradition of the Greek-speaking Jewish Diaspora of the Hellenistic period, Septuagint as a model text, prophetic

1. Matusova E. D. 2000 “Filon Aleksandrijskij — kommentator Vethogo Zaveta. Vstupitel'naja stat'ja” (Philon of Alexandria — Commentator of the Old Testament. Introduction), Filon Aleksandrijskij. Tolkovanija Vethogo Zaveta, Moscow, 2000, pp. 7–50.
2. Chang-Wook J. The Original Language of the Lukan Infancy Narrative, London, New York, 2004.
3. Deissmann A. The Philology of Greek Bible: Its Present and Future, London, 1908.
4. Deissmann A. Das Licht vom Osten, Tübingen, 1908.
5. Horsley G. H. R. 1989 “The Fiction of «Jewish Greek»”, in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 1989, vol. 5, pp. 5–48.
6. Hengel M. The «Hellenization» of Judaea in the First Century After Christ, London, Philadelphia, 1989.
7. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah, London, 1981.
8. Nickelsburg G. W. E. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, London, 1985.
9. Porter S. E. 1997 “The Greek Language of the New Testament”, in Metzger B. M., Ehrma B. D. (eds.) Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament, Leiden, New York, Kohln, 1997, pp. 99–130.
Вдовиченко А. В. Платон о пагубности поэзии для души. К вопросу о дискурсивной интерпретации поэтической формы // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2015. Вып. 3 (43). С. 48-58. DOI: 10.15382/sturIII201543.48-58
The paper examines Plato's idea about the harm of poetry to the soul arising from the fact that poets address not to the reasonable, but to the sensual («furious») part of a soul. Discursive interpretation of verbal communication as an action in the imaginable communicative space allows to understand the philosophical attitude to the poetry, but also to remove the sharpness of Plato’s charge. Whereas, according to Plato, a poet represents an illusory reality and by that harms to a soul, awakening its unreasonable forces, according to the communicative views, a poet just acts in the communicative space as a normal communicant, striving for singularity («strangeness») of the organized communicative act. As the most common, but not exclusive, formal means of communicative «stranging» one should point out rhyme, rhythm and meter. Communication remains appreciably uniform both in poetic, and in any other text: during the communicative act objects and communications are appointed, verbal cliches are chosen and organized, operations with consciousness of the addressee are made, etc.. Subject criteria participate generations and interpretations (understanding and an assessment) of any verbal action.
Plato, unreasonable part of soul, ethical and esthetic aspects of poetry, poetic text as communicative act, discourse.

1. Tul'chinskij G. L. 1980 “K uporjadocheniju mezhdisciplinarnoj terminologii” (To Regulating of Interdiscipline Terminology), in Psihologija processov hudozhestvennogo tvorchestva, Leningrad, 1980.
5. Shklovskij V. B. Tetiva: O neshodstve shodnogo (Bow-String: about Dissimilarity of Similar), Moscow, 1970.
Вдовиченко А. В. Проблема субъективности знания и естественный вербальный процесс // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2016. Вып. 3 (48). С. 22-44. DOI: 10.15382/sturIII201648.22-44
The paper deals with the problem of subjectivity of knowledge in relation to natural communicative, primarily verbal, process. In new theoretical conditions, such preceding formulae as «knowledge of language», «knowledge of signs», «knowledge of linguistic world picture» lose explanatory potential due to the following factors: obvious absence of self-identity of autonomous signs (including verbal signs); the absorption of language by communication; the incapability of language as to sense-generating; the ultimate non-verbal character of conceivable meanings. Personal act of communication comes to be a firmer theoretical basis for explaining the sense-generating process in the verbal fact because it is the individual consciousness of the communicant that serves as a source of thoughts, feelings, values, etc. The communicative nature of sense-generating allows us to separate the natural verbal fact from the idea (thought), as actional from nonactional. It also allows us to state that in the course of verbal communication, multiplefactor communicative actions are generated and understood, not just verbal clichés. With this background, the discourse is determined dynamically as a communicative situation comprehended in each of its moments by a communicant/addressee. Despite the subjectivity of individual knowledge, communication represents the intention (desire) of individual consciousnesses to acquire identity with the aim of achieving successful interaction. The problem of subjectivity of individual knowledge (in its relation to the verbal fact) has a chance for solution only in the field of communication, not in the fi eld of verbal (language) data itself.
knowledge, natural verbal process, language, sign, knowledge of language, act of communication, discourse, identity, communication.

1. Arutjunova N. D. 1973 “Ponjatie presuppozicii v lingvistike” (Idea of Presupposition in Linguistics), in Izvestija AN SSSR. Ser. literatury i jazyka, 1973, vol. 32/1, pp. 84–89.
2. Bart R. 1994 “Smert' avtora” (Death of Author), in Izbrannye raboty: Semiotika. Pojetika, Moscow, 1994, pp. 384–391.
3. Vdovichenko A. V. 2016 “Kommunikativnoe opravdanie grammatiki. K voprosu o predelah uslovnosti grammaticheskogo opisanija” (Communicative Justification of Grammar. To Question about Borders of Conditional Character of Grammar Description), in Russkij jazyk za rubezhom, 2016, vol. 4, pp. 78–84.
4. Vdovichenko A. V. Rasstavanie s «jazykom». Kriticheskaja retrospektiva lingvisticheskogo znanija (Parting from “Language”. Critical Retrospective of Linguistic Knowledge), Moscow, 2008.
5. Dem'jankov V. Z. 1981 “Logicheskie aspekty semanticheskogo issledovanija predlozhenija” (Logical Aspects of Semantic Study of Sentence), in Problemy lingvisticheskoj semantiki, Moscow, 1981, pp. 115–132.
6. Dem'jankov V. Z. 1979 “«Sub’ekt», «tema», «topik» v amerikanskoj lingvistike poslednih let (Obzor II)” (“Subject”, “Theme”, “Topic” in American Linguistic of Last Years), in Izv. AN SSSR. Ser. literatury i jazyka, 1979, vol. 38/4, pp. 368–380.
7. Kubrjakova E. S. 1995 “Jevoljucija lingvisticheskih idej vo vtoroj polovine XX veka: Opyt paradigmal'nogo analiza” (Evolution of Linguistic Ideas in Second Half of XX Century: Experience of Paradigm Analysis), Stepanova Ju. S. (ed.) Jazyk i nauka konca XX veka, Moscow, 1995, pp. 144–238.
8. Matezius V. 1967 “O tak nazyvaemom aktual'nom chlenenii predlozhenija” (About So Called Actual Articulation of Sentence), in Prazhskij lingvisticheskij kruzhok, Moscow, 1967.
9. Ostin Dzh. Izbrannoe (Selected Works), Moscow, 1999, pp. 15–138.
10. Paducheva E. V.1977 “Ponjatie prezumpcii v lingvisticheskoj semantike” (Idea of Presumption in Linguistic Semantics), in Semiotika i informatika, 1977, vol. 8.
11. Serl' Dzh. 1986 “Chto takoe rechevoj akt?” (What Is Speech Act?), in Novoe v zarubezhnoj lingvistike, Moscow, 1986, vol. 17, pp. 151–169.
12. Homskij N. Aspekty teorii sintaksisa (Aspects of Syntax Theory), Moscow, 1972.
13. Homskij N. Sintaksicheskie struktury // Novoe v lingvistike. M., 1962. Vyp. 1.
14. Baker A. 1956 “Presupposition and Types of Clause”, in Mind, 1956, vol. 65.
15. Bateson G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York, 1972.
16. Derrida J. Positions, Paris, 1972.
17. Fillmore Ch. The Need for a Frame Semantics within Linguistics. Statistical Methods in Linguistics, Stockholm, 1976.
18. Firbas J. 1966 “On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis”, in Travaux linguistiques de Prague, Prague, 1966. V. 1.
19. Lakoff G. 1971 “Presuppositions and Relative Grammaticality”, in Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, 1971, vol. 1/1.
20. Lakoff G. 1977 “Linguistic Gestalts”, in Beach W. A., Fox S. E., Philosoph S. (eds.) Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting. Chicago Linguistic Society, April 14–16, 1977, Chicago; Illinois, 1977, pp. 236–287.
21. Minskу M. A Framework for Representing Knowledge. (M. I. T., Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, AI Memo 306), Cambridge, 1974.
22. Vdovichenko A. V. 2006 “From Relative Words to Universal Acts. The Limit in Studying «Language»”, in Proceedings of the 39th SLE (Societas Linguistica Europaea) Congress, Bremen, 2006, pp. 32–33.
Вдовиченко А. В. Вербальный процесс в зеркале чтения и письма // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия III: Филология. 2017. Вып. 52. С. 62-75. DOI: 10.15382/sturIII201752.62-75
This article deals with practices of writing and reading, which demonstrate notable features of the natural verbal process. In comparison with “language”, communicative action — the main feature of natural speaking — appears to be a more effective theoretical frame for explaining the production of meaning, the source of which in verbal and nonverbal semiotic acts is individual consciousness. The widespread explanation of writing and reading allows too little space to the communicative production of meaning and too large to the correlation between the sound and a grapheme. Chinese hieroglyphs cannot be explained by such a simplistic model, as well as European phonological orthography. This article shows that between the Chinese and the Europeans there exists a fundamental similarity of writing and reading processes, which allows us to give a non-contradictory explanation of what happens in any case of the graphic recording of verbal (and non-verbal) data. Both the Chinese and the Europeans are able to write and read due to the aprioristic possession of communicative typology (including forms of oral communication), rather than due to the “exact and strict correlation between the sound and the written character”. “Signs” represent hints on already known forms of acts of communication, making these acts recognisable. Members of linguocultural communities do not speak with hieroglyphs or letters. By means of hieroglyphs or letters they only depict (force to retrieve from memory) the “corporal” part of communicative syntagmas. Due to this part, their initial cognitive integrity (the desired integrated act of communication) can be potentially recreated and then interpreted as a semiotic act. The alphabetic or hieroglyphic way of recording becomes a formality and comes down to a question of which of them is more effective and more convenient in certain conditions of communication. The separation of signs from a personal semiotic act (making them a special system, or “language”) disorients the theory of communication (including the verbal communication) because it depicts the communication process as a simplified scheme “sign-meaning”
reading and writing, communicative action, language, semiotic act, letter, hieroglyph, Chinese and European reading or writing process, communicative typology
  1. Aristov V. V., Arshinov V. I., Borodai S. Iu., Ivanov V. P., Ivanov Viach. Vs., Kriukov A. N., Kuskova S. M., Lysenko V. G., Mamchur E. A., Vdovichenko A. V. “Ato mizm i kontinualizm v gumanitarnom znanii i sovremennaia nauka. Materialy kruglogo stola (Institut fi losofi i RAN, 17.06.2015)”, in: Voprosy filosofii, 10, 2016, 125–141.
  2. Iguan C. “Moderznizatsiia kitaiskogo iazyka i pis’mennosti”, in: Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike, 22, 1989, 376–398.
  3. Kobzev A. I. Uchenie o simvolakh i chislakh. Moscow, 1994.
  4. Vdovichenko A. V. Rasstavanie s “iazykom”. Kriticheskaia retrospektiva lingvisticheskogo znaniia. Moscow, 2008.
  5. Vitgenshtein L. Filosofskie raboty, 1. Moscow, 1994.
Vdovichenko Andrey
Academic Degree: Doctor of sciences* in Philology;
Place of work: ведущий научный сотрудник, профессор;
Email: an1vdo@mail.ru. *According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.
The article is written within the framework of the project "The development of a communication model of a verbal process in the conditions of crisis of the language model" supported by RSF Foundation and The Institute of linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences