2021 Vol. 12 №2

The genesis of time is explained in the spirit of constructivism combined with the activity approach to cognition. The cardinal temporal categories of present, past, and future are dis­cussed in terms of action-thoughts understood as elementary units of activity whose structure is determined by linguistic semiosis. Husserl’s tripartite model of the phenomenology of time (prime perception, retention, protention) is applied to the analysis of the subject’s experience of his actions. It is demonstrated that, while our lived present is composed of the actually per­formed actions, our past and future are constructed by reflexive action-thoughts in the cogni­tive domain of language. It is emphasized that the construction of a temporal sequence that unites what is and what already or still is not, is possible only in linguistic semiosis. The analogy with Husserl’s tripartite structure of the time-consciousness flow helps elucidate the triad ‘present-past-future’ as an instance of the epistemological trap of language: ‘past’ and ‘future’ are mental constructs that belong to the present just as any other act of thinking.

The article deals with the dynamic interaction of events and narratives. As a result of this interaction, stable links ‘events-narratives’ appear; they influence the formation and transformation of social and cultural processes in society. Event-narrative links form the basis of the system of norms and values of society. The corpus of ‘event-narrative’ links creates be­havioural patterns, serves as a motivator for members of society, a cause and reason for ac­tions and an initiator of terraced events that inevitably occur as a response to events in reali­ty. The emerging connections ‘event — narrative — action (special event)’ represent a system with a controlled feedback. Depending on a change in the factors of the occurrence and course of events, such a system can both enhance and reduce the result and consequences of events. In these systems, an event triggers social and cultural processes and creates social reality.

The article analyses the impact of digital technologies on storytelling. By creating new information streams of personalised stories with open storylines in the virtual media envi­ronment, the author shares the process of writing a story with other participants in the digital world. The interaction between the author and the audience is transformed under the influ­ence of the hypertext system of cross-references. Each participant in this creative process acts not only as a co-creator, but also as a co-author of many narratives. The narratives, which translate personalized evaluative and often pseudo-expert opinions into the public space, are becoming increasingly emotional to the detriment of the content. Constantly increasing the information flow and immersing its participants in the interactive world of emotional collec­tive meta-narratives composed of fragments of individual stories, the users build a single digi­tal content. By labelling their stories, they relate them to large thematic clusters of homogene­ous information, including their individual experiences in a single space of collective story­telling. Participating in the process of constant co-creation, users construct their own virtual world, filling it with micro-narrative stories of collective creativity, subsequently living inde­pendently in the digital space. The artificially created virtual information environment is constantly multiplying due to the reproduction of hypertextual stories by all participants of storytelling and, as a result, it begins to reproduce itself.

In this article, we continue to address the mechanisms of presenting oneself as another and another as oneself. In this regard, non-trivial features of the semantics of a proper name are described. Based on the analysis of contexts of inappropriate use of a name in a situation of imposture, described in Pushkin's tragedy Boris Godunov, the author considers semiotic mechanisms of transformation and assignment of identity. The article shows that Pushkin's intuition allowed him to see the problems that arose in the analytical philosophy of the name of the second half of the 20th century. Pushkin consistently creates contexts in which the con­ditions of acceptability or unacceptability of deviating uses are tested. On the one hand, these features allow the author to offer an additional, logical and semantic dimension for the inter­pretation of the tragedy Boris Godunov. On the other hand, they significantly clarify the ex­isting theories of the proper name, showing their possible non-trivial, and in some cases, prob­lematic consequences. Simultaneously, the logical-semantic analysis makes it possible to iden­tify the mechanisms of imposture and the communicative conditions for its success.

Providing space for elucidating key translational issues is not a mundane practice but a privilege only hand-picked texts enjoy, philosophical writings among them. The challenge of translating philosophical discourse is widely recognized but scarcely explored. In this article, translation of philosophical texts is regarded as a procedure of knowledge transfer from one intellectual space into another and of knowledge-making through reconceptualization of key terms. This process is made partly observable in various types of notes — a special cluster of additional information known as translational peritext where translators are given an oppor­tunity to explicate their decisions made in the course of translation. Among translation hur­dles in philosophical discourse are technical terms which are often either in­vented or re-conceptualized by the scholar and then need to be re-contextualized by the trans­lator. Seeking to reflect on translation as a heuristic process, this paper will focus on the reso­lution of the potential cognitive dissonance and the translator’s justification of sense-oriented strategies in dealing with such key concepts as ‘connoisseur’, ‘grace’, ‘sublime’, and ‘je ne sçai quoi’ in the translation of the seminal work on the philosophy of aesthetics Analysis of Beauty by the celebrated 18th century English artist William Hogarth.

Rapid development of concepts in modern sociology leads to the emergence of a large number of neological terms. Currently, the academic language of Russian sociology sees an active expansion of foreign language terminology and translated terms reflecting changes in the English-language social picture of the world. However, the lack of consistency in intra-lingual and inter-lingual translation of new terms may complicate the understanding of this terminology by representatives of multilingual academic schools. This study aims to analyse modern English sociological terms and translated borrowings in Russian, to explore their form and conceptual content in two languages, the degree of their conventionality in the sci­entific thesaurus of multilingual sociological schools and the possibility of an adequate trans­fer of terminological meaning from English into Russian. The authors view the sociological term as a cognitive, linguistic and cultural phenomenon, and study its synchronic and dia­chronic variability. The article is an attempt to illuminate the problem from a purely linguis­tic and translation point of view and to point out the need for combining efforts to systematise and harmonise the English and Russian terminologies of sociology.