NONE20260529204748790Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversitySlovo.ru: Baltic accent2225-53462686-8989052920261540529202667Кто и как производит будущее (новая философия общего дела А.А. Фёдорова)G.L.TulchinskiiHigher School of Economics’ Natio­nal Research UniversityImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal Uni­versitySaint Petersburg State UniversityThe article presents a reflection on Alexander Fedorov's project aimed at analysing the future and the model of production. This model facilitates the correlation of factors related to subjectivity and sociality within the process of future production. Notably, the work emphasizes Alexander Fedorov's assertion regarding the pivotal role of children and childhood and the typology of actors involved in this process. The proposed concept and model establish a fertile ground for further interdisciplinary research. From the perspective of social semiotics and pragmasemantics, shaping the future emerges as a form of meaning-making and institutionalization, unfolding through a series of interfaces that enable interaction across socio-cultural practice contexts. In this framework, subjectivity is identified as a crucial interface for such interactions. Moreover, a comparative analysis of natural and artificial intelligence underscores the complex potential inherent in this research problem. While human beings possess advantages stemming from bodily experience, sexual dimorphism, and other forms of vitality over artificial intelligence, the future is largely grounded in this vitality, exemplified by the essence of childhood. Consequently, the question of management possibilities and the ethical dimensions of future production, as well as the balance between permissible and impermissible means employed, becomes particularly salient.0529202682410.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-1https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15765/81116/A-n, A., Zalkind, A. B., Lobach-Zhuchenko, M. B., Blokhin, P., Melik-Pashaev, N. Sh., Orlov, S. V. and Chayanov, A., 1928. Zhizn' i tekhnika budushchego. (Sotsial'nye i nauchno-tekhnicheskie utopii) [Life and technology of the future. (Social and scientific-technical utopias)]. Moscow; Leningrad, 504 p. (in Russ.).Ananchenko, A. B., ed., 2016. Obrazy budushchego Rossii: zhelaemoe — vozmozhnoe — neobkhodimoe [Images of the future of Russia: desired — possible — necessary]. Moscow, 275 p. (in Russ.).Asmolov, A. G., Shekhter, E. D. and Chernorizov, A. M., 2018. Preadaptatsiya k neopredelennosti: nepredskazuemye marshruty evolyutsii [Pre-Adaptation to Uncertainty: Unpredictable Evolutionary Routes]. Moscow, 212 p. (in Russ.).Assman, A., 2012. Transformation of the new time regime. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie [New Literary Review], 4, pp. 16—31 (in Russ.).Badiou, A., 2007. Being and Event. New York, 526 p.Bainhauer, H. and Schmakhe, E., 1973. Mir v 2000 godu. Svod mezhdunarodnykh prognozov [The world in 2000. Compendium of international forecasts]. Moscow, 240 p. (in Russ.).Bakhtin, M. M., 1986. To the philosophy of action. In: Filosofiya i sotsiologiya nauki i tekhniki: ezhegodnik. 1984—1985 [Philosophy and Sociology of Science and Technology: Yearbook. 1984—1985]. Moscow, pp. 80—160 (in Russ.).Bernal, J. D., 1956. Nauka v istorii chelovechestva [Science in the history of society]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bestuzhev-Lada, I. V., 1970. Okno v budushchee. Sovremennye problemy sotsial'nogo prognozirovaniya [Window to the future. Modern problems of social forecasting]. Moscow, 269 p. (in Russ.).Bevolo, M., 2021. Design Futures and Education for Life Essentials. Academia Letters, article 3935, https://doi.org/10.20935/AL3935.Damasio, A., 2010. Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. New York, 384 p.Fedorov, A. A., 2023 Proizvodstvo budushchego. Mir «dvoinogo dvoetochiya» [Manufacturing of the future. The world of the “double colon”]. St. Petersburg, 496 p. (in Russ.).Ferrando, F., 2022. Filosofskii postgumanizm [Philosophical Posthumanism]. Moscow, 360 p. (in Russ.).Fokin, A. A., 2007. Obrazy kommunisticheskogo budushchego u vlasti i naseleniya SSSR na rubezhe 50—60-kh gg. XX veka [Images of the communist future among the authorities and the population of the USSR at the turn of the 50—60s XX century]. PhD Dissertation. Chelyabinsk, 218 p. (in Russ.).Gromyko, Yu. V., 2013. Klass RAZVITIE [RAZVITIE class]. Moscow, 240 p. (in Russ.).Henrich, D., 2018. Myshlenie i samobytie. Chteniya o sub"ektivnosti [Thinking and being. Readings about subjectivity]. Moscow (in Russ.).Hofstadter, D., 2022. Ya — strannaya petlya [I am strangle loop]. Moscow, 512 p. (in Russ.).In 2017... In: Ezhegodnik APN 1968 goda [APN Yearbook 1968]. Moscow, 1968. 340 p. (in Russ.).Kan, G., Braun, W. and Martel, L., 1978. Sleduyushchie 200 let. Stsenarii dlya Ameriki i vsego mira [The next 200 years. Scenario for America and the whole world]. Moscow, 228 p. (in Russ.).Karpunin, V. A., 2004. Volya k bytiyu: Ontologicheskii impul's [The Will to Being: The Ontological Impulse]. St. Petersburg, 288 p. (in Russ.).Kassof, A., ed., 1970. Budushchee sovetskogo obshchestva [Prospects for Soviet Society]. Iss. 1. Moscow (in Russ.).Khodorkovsky, M. B., ed., 2006. Vvedenie v budushchee. Mir v 2020 godu [Introduction to the future. The world in 2020]. Moscow, 384 p. (in Russ.).Koselleck, R., 1985. Futures past: on the semantics of historical time. Cambridge, 317 p.Kovalev, V. A., 2019. From ideology to utopia. The communist project of Ivan Efremov. Nasledie [Heritage], 1 (14), pp. 104—118, https://doi.org/10.31119/hrtg. 2019.1.8 (in Russ.).Kreveld, M. van., 2022. Prozrevaya budushchee. Kratkaya istoriya predskazanii [Seeing into Future. A Short History of Prediction]. Moscow (in Russ.).Larina, E. and Ovchinsky, V., 2022. Memories of the future — 2050. Technological revolution: results and forecasts. Available at: https://zavtra.ru/blogs/vospo minanie_o_budushem_2050 [Accessed 24 June 2024] (in Russ.).Latour, В., 2014. Peresborka sotsial'nogo: Vvedenie v aktorno-setevuyu teoriyu [Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory]. Moscow (in Russ.).Lem, S., 1968. Summa tekhnologii [Summa technologicae]. Moscow, 608 p. (in Russ.).Lubke, A., 1929. Tekhnika i chelovek v 2000 godu [Technology and man in 2000]. Moscow, 179 p. (in Russ.).Medvedev, Yu. E., 1975. V pervom priblizhenii [In the first approximation]. Moscow, 272 p. (in Russ.).Mir cherez 100 let: sbornik statei [The world through 100 years: collection of articles], 2016. Moscow, 408 p. (in Russ.).Monfort, N., 2021. Budushchee: printsipy i praktiki sozidaniya [The future: the principles and practices of creation]. Moscow, 160 p. (in Russ.).Mukhametshina, E. and Ivanov, M., 2023. The president's administration has defined five images of the future desired by Russians. Available at: https://www. vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2023/07/17/985583-administratsiya-prezidenta-opre delila-pyat-obrazov-zhelaemogo-rossiyanami-buduschego [Accessed 21 June 2024] (in Russ.).Paniotova, T. S. and Romanenko, M. A., 2019. Distorting mirrors of the avant-garde: utopian projections of Soviet civilization. Dialog so vremenem [Dialogue with Time], 69, pp. 237—250 (in Russ.).Pestel, E., 1988. Za predelami rosta [Beyond Growth]. Moscow, 272 p. (in Russ.).Potemkin, A., 2018. Pervyi global'nyi vsemirnyi infrastrukturnyi proekt [The first global worldwide infrastructure project]. Moscow, 136 p. (in Russ.).Pyzhov, N., 1929. Sovetskii gorod zavtra (kartiny blizhaishego razvitiya) [Soviet city tomorrow. (Pictures of proximal development)]. Moscow; Leningrad, 96 p. (in Russ.).Rumyantsev, A. M. and Mamardashvili, M. K., eds., 1964. Kakoe budushchee ozhidaet chelovechestvo? [What future awaits humanity?]. Moscow, 504 p. (in Russ.).Ryurikov, J., 1961. Cherez 100 i 1000 let [In 100 and 1000 years]. Moscow, 112 p. (in Russ.).Sedashov, N., 2023. Longing for a past that never existed: what causes the epidemic of nostalgia. Available at: https://www.forbes.ru/tekhnologii/511059- toska-po-proslomu-kotorogo-ne-bylo-cem-obuslovlena-epidemia-nostalgii [Accessed 23 June 2024] (in Russ.).Shikarev, S., Verkin, E. and Breininger, O., 2023. Novoe budushchee [New future]. Мoscow, 352 p. (in Russ.).Sorensen, E., 2012. Mechta o sovershennom obshchestve. Fenomen totalitarnoi ideologii [The dream of a perfect society. The phenomenon of totalitarian ideology]. Мoscow, 232 p. (in Russ.).Strumilin, S. G., 1964. Nash mir cherez 20 let [Our world in 20 years]. Мoscow, 192 p. (in Russ.).Thomson, G., 1958. Predvidimoe budushchee [The foreseeable future]. Мoscow, 176 p. (in Russ.).Toffler, A., 1997. Futurshok [Futureshock]. St. Petersburg, 464 p. (in Russ.).Tulchinskii, G. L., 2019. Extensions of the semiotic analysis capabilities: the sources and content of the “deep semiotics” concept. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy], 11, pp. 115—125, https://doi.org/10.31857/S004287440007358-8 (in Russ.).Tulchinskii, G. L., 2020. Filosofiya postupka: samoopredelenie lichnosti v sovremennom obshchestve [Philosophy of action: self-determination of personality in modern society]. St. Petersburg, 826 p. (in Russ.).Tulchinskii, G. L., 2021. Value-normative synthesis of knowledge. In: Mir cheloveka: normativnoe izmerenie — 7.0 [The human world: normative dimension — 7.0]. Saratov, pp. 226—243 (in Russ.).Tulmin, S., 1984. Chelovecheskoe ponimanie [Human understanding]. Moscow, 328 p. (in Russ.).Tyugashev, E. A., 2023 Utopia as a Form of Social Consciousness: The Problem of Demarcation. Vestnik Samarskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universiteta. Ser. Filosofiya [Vestnik of Samara State Technical University. Series Philosophy], 5 (1), pp. 11—20, https://doi.org/10.17673/vsgtu-phil.2023.5.2 (in Russ.).Utopicheskii sotsializm: khrestomatiya [Utopian socialism. Anthology], 1982. Мoscow, 512 p. (in Russ.).Vasil’ev, M. V. and Gushchev, S. Z., 1958. Reportazh iz XXI veka. My zapisali rasskazy dvadtsati devyati sovetskikh uchenykh o nauke i tekhnike budushchego [Report from the 21st century. We recorded the stories of twenty-nine Soviet scientists about the science and technology of the future]. Moscow, 248 p. (in Russ.).Volokhova, U., 2019. «Ya zhe preduprezhdal vas, chertovy duraki » [“I warned you, you damn fools”]. Available at: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5785150 [Accessed 22 June 2024] (in Russ.).Wells, G., 1902. Predvideniya o vozdeistvii progressa mekhaniki i nauki na chelovecheskuyu zhizn' i mysl' [Predictions about the impact of the progress of mechanics and science on human life and thought]. Moscow, 291 p. (in Russ.).Zolyan, S. T., 2016. The semiotics and pragmasemantics of the political discourse. Politicheskaya nauka [Political Science (RU)], 3, pp. 47—76 (in Russ.).Zolyan, S., 2021. On pragma-semantics of expressives. Between words and actions. In: A. Haselow and S. Hancil, eds. Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface. Amsterdam, pp. 245—271, https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.219.09zol.Zolyan, S. T. and Tulchinskii, G. L., 2024. Dinamika smysla: Glubokaya semiotika i stereometricheskaya semantika [Dynamics of meaning: Deep semiotics and stereometric semantics]. Moscow (in Russ.).Языки развертывания наследственной информации в эмбриогенезе: лингвосемиотические аналоги и аналогииA.V.SpirovInstitute of Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of SciencesSechenov Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistryof the Russian Academy of SciencesIt is known that almost all hereditary information about the innumerable characteristics of a multicellular organism, including the human body, is encoded in a certain way in the nucleus of a fertilized egg. The principles of the unfolding of genetic information in the development of a multicellular embryo have long attracted the attention of both biologists and representatives of various sciences. While molecular biologists concentrate on the infor­ma­tional and cybernetic aspects of the storage and transmission of genetic information, the au­thors of biosemiotic studies insist on the specificity of biological signs in these processes and on the special nature of biological texts. We focused on the information aspects of these pro­cesses and, in order to demonstrate the analogies between them and with linguistic-semiotic concepts, we describe the problems of complexity and hierarchy of genetic mechanisms for the implementation of genetic information in embryogenesis, as it is seen in systems biology.05292026254010.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-2https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15765/81118/Antebi, Y. E., Linton, J. M., Klumpe, H. et al., 2017. Combinatorial Signal Perception in the BMP Pathway. Cell, 170 (6), pp. 1184—1196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cell.2017.08.015.Armingol, E., Officer, A., Harismendy, O. et al., 2021. Deciphering cell—cell interactions and communication from gene expression. Nature Reviews Genetics, 22, pp. 71—88, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-00292-x.Avsec, Ž., Weilert, M., Shrikumar, A. et al., 2021. Base-resolution models of transcription-factor binding reveal soft motif syntax. Nature Genetics, 53 (3), pp. 354—366, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-021-00782-6.Bentsen, M., Heger, V., Schultheis, H. et al., 2022. TF-COMB — Discovering grammar of transcription factor binding sites. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 20, pp. 4040—4051, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2022.07.025.Daniels, K. G., Wang, S., Simic, M. S. et al., 2022. Decoding CAR T cell phenotype using combinatorial signaling motif libraries and machine learning. Science, 378, pp. 1194—1200, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq0225.Dawkins, R., 1976. The selfish gene. New York, 224 p.Deacon, T. W., 2021. How Molecules Became Signs. Biosemiotics, 14, pp. 537—559, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9.Hoffmeyer, J., 2014. The semiome: From genetic to semiotic scaffolding. Semiotica, 198, pp. 11—31, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2013-0099.Jaкobson, R., 1970. Linguistics. Relationship between the science of language and other sciences. In: Main Trends of Research in the Social and Human Sciences. Mouton, pp. 419—453.Lal, A., 2022. Deciphering the regulatory syntax of genomic DNA with deep learning. Journal of Biosciences, 47, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-022-00291-6.Matsuda, S., Harmansa, S. and Affolter, M., 2016. BMP morphogen gradients in flies. Cytokine & Growth Factor Reviews, 27, pp. 119—127, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cytogfr.2015.11.003.Pattee, H. H., 1968. The Physical Basis of Coding and Reliability in Biological Evolution. In: C. H. Waddington, ed. Towards a Theoretical Biology. Vol. 1, Prolegomena. Edinburgh, pp. 67—93.Pattee, H. H., 1969. How Does a Molecule Become a Message? In: A. Lang, ed. Communication in Development, Developmental Biology Supplement. Cambridge, pp. 1—16.Pattee, H. H., 2001. The physics of symbols: Bridging the epistemic cut. Biosystems, 60, pp. 5—21, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0303-2647(01)00104-6.Prinz, R., 2023. Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of code biology. Biosystems, 229:104907, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2023.104907.Raible, W., 2001. Linguistics and genetics: systematic parallels. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible, eds. Language typology and language universals/ Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien/ La typologie des langues et les universaux linguistiques. Vol. 1. Berlin, pp. 103—123.Solov'ev, V. V., Kel', A. E., Rogozin, I. B. and Kolchanov, N. A., 1988. Ispol'zovanie EVM v molekulyarnoi biologii. Vvedenie v teoriyu geneticheskikh tekstov [Use of computers in molecular biology. Introduction to the theory of genetic texts]. Novosibirsk, 92 p. (in Russ.).Spirov, A. V. and Myasnikova, E. M., 2019. Evolutionary Stability of Gene Regulatory Networks That Define the Temporal Identity of Neuroblasts. Molekulyarnaya biologiya [Molecular Biology], 53 (2), pp. 225—239, https://doi.org/10.1134/S002689 8419020150 (in Russ.).Spirov, A. V., 2023. “Languages” of gene regulation using the example of signal elements of promoters. In: Metod: moskovskii ezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh distsiplin [METHOD: Moscow Yearbook of Works from Social Science Disciplines], 4 (in print) (in Russ.).Weingarten-Gabbay, S. and Segal, E., 2014. The grammar of transcriptional regulation. Human Genetics, 133 (6), pp. 701—711, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-013-1413-1.Zolyan, S., 2022. From matter to form: the evolution of the genetic code as semio-poiesis. Semiotica, 245, pp. 17—61, https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2020-0088.Zolyan, S., 2023. On the minimal elements of the genetic code and their semiotic functions (degeneracy, complementarity, wobbling). Biosystems, 231:104962, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2023.104962.Быть ли биомолекулярной прагматике?S.T.ZolyanInstitute of Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of SciencesImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4422-5792This article demonstrates that the concept proposed by Alexander Spirov reflects the ongoing paradigm shift and inspires new approaches in biosemiotics and semiotic pragmatics. The shift involves a move from describing coding languages to describing languages that regulate them. This requires considering the agentivity (or quasi-subjectivity) of sign systems, which leads to a scenario where the sign system functions as both its subject and object, thus reviving Peirce's idea of the sign as a quasi-mind. An analysis of the primary regulatory mechanisms shows that regulatory codes: (a) create specific conditions for coding, (b) govern and control coding processes, and (c) consist of the same elements as coding elements, although are interpreted differently. Their interpretant is not amino acids or proteins but the processes of activation or suppression. Communication and information processes at the biomolecular level allow pragmatics to be understood as semiotic operations associated with intra-system self-regulation and the system's external interaction with its context (environment). The processes within a system, as described by Alexander Spirov, create contexts and interfaces for interaction between different systems. This implies that a system of signs can act as an agent that communicates or interprets, akin to Peirce's notion of the quasi-mind. This understanding has the potential to significantly reshape the current approaches to pragmatics and semiosis.05292026415410.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-3https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15765/81120/Barbieri, M., 2003. The Organic Codes. An Introduction to Semantic Biology. Cambridge.Barbieri, M., 2015. Code Biology. A New Science of Life. Dordrecht, https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-14535-8.Barbieri, M., 2018. What is code biology? BioSystems, 164, pp. 1—10, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.10.005.Brier, S. and Joslyn, C., 2013. What does it take to produce interpretation? Informational, Peircean and code-semiotic views on biosemiotics. Biosemiotics, 6 (1), pp. 143—159, https://doi. org/10.1007/s12304—012—9153—5.Carter Jr., C. W. and Wolfenden, R., 2015. tRNA acceptor-stem and anticodon bases form independent codes related to protein folding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, pp. 7489—7494, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1507569112.Collier, J., 2014. Signs Without Minds. In: V. Romanini and E. Fernández, eds. Peirce and Biosemiotics. Biosemiotics. Vol. 11, pp. 189—197, https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-007-7732-3_10.Deacon, T. W., 2011. Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York.Deacon, T. W., 2021. How Molecules Became Signs. Biosemiotics, 14, pp. 537—559, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-021-09453-9.Habermas, J., 1995. Peirce and communication. In: K. L. Ketner, ed. Peirce and contemporary thought: Philosophical inquiries. New York, pp. 243—266.Jacob, F., 1973. The Logic of Life: A History of Heredity. New York.Jacob, F., 1977. The Linguistic Model in Biology. In: D. Armstrong, C. H. van Schooneveld, eds. Roman Jakobson. Echoes of His Scholarship. Lisse, pp. 185—192.Jakobson, R., 1970. Linguistics. Relationship between the science of language and other sciences. In: Main trends of research in the social and human sciences. Mouton, pp. 419—453.Kull, K., 1998. Organism as a self-reading text: anticipation and semiosis. International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, 1, pp. 93—104.Ovchinnikov, L. P., 1998. What and how to encode in mRNA. Sorosovskii obrazovatel'nyi zhurnal. Biologiya [Soros Educational Magazine. Biology], 4, pp. 10—18 (in Russ.).Pattee, H. H., 2005. The necessity of biosemiotics: Matter-symbol complementarity. Journal of Biosemiotics, 1 (1), pp. 223—238.Pattee, H. H., 2012a. How Does a Molecule Become a Message? In: Laws, Language and Life. Biosemiotics. Vol. 7, pp. 55—67, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5161-3_3.Pattee, H. H., 2012b. Cell Psychology: An Evolutionary Approach to the Symbol-Matter Problem. In: Laws, Language and Life. Biosemiotics. Vol. 7, pp. 165—179, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5161-3_11.Peirce, C. S. and Welby-Gregory, V. (Lady Welby), 1977. Semiotic and Significs: The Correspondence between C. S. Peirce and Victoria Lady Welby. Bloomington, 201 p.Peirce, C. S., 1906. Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism. The Monist, 16 (4), pp. 492—546, https://doi.org/10.5840/monist190616436.Prodi, G., 2021. The Material Bases of Meaning. Tartu, 219 p.Ratner, V. A., 2000. Chronicle of the Great Discovery: Ideas and Faces. Priroda [The Nature], 6, pp. 22—30 (in Russ.).Sharov, A. and Tønnessen, M., 2021. Semiotic Agency. Science beyond Mechanism. Dordrecht, 372 p.Spirov, A. V., 2024. Languages of Deployment of Hereditary Information in Embryogenesis: Linguo-Semiotic Analogues and Analogies. Slovo. ru: Baltic accent, 15 (4), pp. 25—40, https://doi.org/10.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-2 (in Russ.).Stepanov, Y. S., 1964. On the Prerequisites of the Linguistic Theory of Meaning. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 5, pp. 66—74 (in Russ.).Weatheritt, R. J., 2013. Madan Babu M. Madan. The Hidden Codes That Shape Protein Evolution. Science, 342 (6164), pp. 1325—1326, https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1248425.Zolyan, S., 2021. On the context-sensitive grammar of the genetic code. Biosystems, 208, article 104497, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2021.104497.Zolyan, S., 2023a. On the minimal elements of the genetic code and their semiotic functions (degeneracy, complementarity, wobbling). Biosystems, 231, article 104962, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2023.104962.Zolyan, S., 2023b. Semiosis and Quasi-Minds: Charles Peirce’s Unfinished Semantic Theory. In: Proceedings Conference Computer Science and Information (CSIT 2023). Yerevan, pp. 69—72.Zolyan, S. T., 2023. Pragmatics as a Self-Generation of a Subject-on-Its Own. Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy], 7, pp. 93—103, https://doi.org/10.21146/ 0042-8744-2023-7-93-103 (in Russ.).Речевая агрессия как инструмент защиты и продвижения неоязыческого мировоззрения (на примере родноверия)N.A.ProbstImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityThe role of verbal aggression in the promotion of specific value-regulatory systems, par­ticularly those of a religious nature, has not been extensively explored in contemporary schol­arship. This study aims to investigate the mechanisms by which verbal aggression is produced and employed as a means of preserving and advancing the Rodnoverie ideology within the Russian-speaking segment of the Internet. To achieve this, a comprehensive methodology is employed, incorporating both functional-semantic and pragma-semantic approaches. The study identifies the motives and conditions under which verbal aggression tends to arise in online discourse. Key speech acts that manifest this aggression—such as insults, rude de­mands, reproach, accusations, mockery, negative evaluations, and ill-wi­shing—are analysed, with hypotheses offered regarding their function and frequency. Furthermore, the study elucidates the composition and nature of the primary goals behind the aggressive speech behaviour of Rodnoverie adherents.05292026557110.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-4https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15766/81122/Abdullina, L. R., 2016. Internet comments as a reflection of national worldview (based on the material of French and Russian languages). Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filologiya. Zhurnalistika [Vestnik VSU. Series: Philology. Journalism], 1, pp. 5—6 (in Russ.).Apresyan, V. Yu., 2003. The Implicit aggression in language. In: Komp'yuternaya lingvistika i intellektual'nye tekhnologii: trudy Mezhdunarodnoy konferencii “Dialog-2003” [Computational Linguistics and Intellectual technologies: proceedings of the International Conference “Dialog-2003”]. Moscow, pp. 32—35 (in Russ.).Ashurkova, T. G., 2009. The notion of aggression in the XX — early XXI century. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 9: Filologiya [Moscow University Bulletin. Series 9. Philology], 3, pp. 86—94 (in Russ.).Beskov, A. A., 2017. Causes of Russian Neo-Paganism. Izvestiya Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya Politologiya. Religiovedenie [The Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Series Political Science and Religion Studies], 21, pp. 169—179 (in Russ.).Beskov, A. A., 2022. Contradictory images of the past in the Russian information space as a factor of fragmentation of mass historical consciousness. In: R. A. Badikov, ed. Sud'by natsional'nykh kul'tur v usloviyakh globalizatsii: mezhdu traditsiei i novoi real'nost'yu [Fortunes of national cultures in globalization context: between tradition and the new reality]. Chelyabinsk, pp. 179—183 (in Russ.).Brinev, K. I., 2011. Insult and accusation. Yurislingvistika [Legal Linguistics], 1 (11), pp. 502—504 (in Russ.).Ivanenko, G. S., 2020. Communication in social networks: factors of potential conflicts. Yurislingvistika [Legal Linguistics], 18 (29), pp. 21—25, https://doi.org/ 10.14258/leglin(2020)1805 (in Russ.).Karaban', N. A. and Dikareva, A. V., 2018. Verbal Aggression in Internet Communication. Filologiya: nauchnye issledovaniya [Philology: scientific researches], 2, pp. 1—8, https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0749.2018.2.25581 (in Russ.).Karaziya, N. A., 2004. Pragmalingvisticheskoe issledovanie akta upreka v kontekste sovremennoi amerikanskoi rechevoi kul'tury [A Pragmalinguistic study of the Act of Rebuke in the context of modern American Speech culture]. PhD Dissertation. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, 214 p. (in Russ.).Kavykin, O. I., 2007. «Rodnovery». Samoidentifikatsiya neoyazychnikov v sovremennoi Rossii [“Rodnovers”. Self-identification of neo-pagans in modern Russia.]. Moscow, 232 p. (in Russ.).Kozhina, M. N., 1999. Speech genre and speech act (some aspects of the problem). Zhanry rechi [Speech Genres], 2, pp. 52—61 (in Russ.).Krasnobrizhaya, A., 2015. Speech aggression as a characteristic of the religious content of modern Russian-language Internet communication. Tavricheskii nauchnyi obozrevatel' [The Tauride Scientific Observer], 5—2, pp. 66—68 (in Russ.).Nikishin, V. D., 2019. Slovesnyi religioznyi ekstremizm. Pravovaya kvalifikatsiya. Ekspertiza. Sudebnaya praktika [Verbal religious extremism. Legal qualification. Expertise. Judicial practice.]. Moscow, 240 p. (in Russ.).Podkina, Yu. V., 2020. Speech aggression in religious texts in modern social networks. In: T. P. Kuranova, ed. Chelovek v informatsionnom prostranstve: sbornik nauchnykh statei [Man in the information space: a collection of scientific articles]. Yaroslavl, pp. 158—161 (in Russ.).Popova A. A., 2018. Influence of speech aggression in mass media on the attitude to religion. Vestnik Adygeiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, seriya «Regionovedenie: filosofiya, istoriya, sotsiologiya, yurisprudentsiya, politologiya, kul'turologiya [The Bulletin of the Adyghe State University, the series “Region Studies: Philosophy, History, Sociology, Jurisprudence, Political Sciences and Culturology”], 4 (229), pp. 190—195 (in Russ.).Probst, N. A., 2023a. Pragmasemantic deformation of the identity by rodnovers: fake in the alternative historical picture. Politicheskaya nauka [Political science (RU)], 3, pp. 170—189, https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2023.03.08 (in Russ.).Probst, N. A., 2023b. The Colovrat vs the Cross: conflict communication between neopagans and orthodoxies in internet-discourse. Vestnik kul'turologii [Herald of culturology], 2 (105), pp. 215—228, https://doi.org/10.31249/hoc/2023.02.12 (in Russ.).Pugacheva, O. V., 2008. Сommunicative polarity of reproach and praising yourself speech acts and means of their explication. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Lingvistika i mezhkul'turnaya kommunikatsiya [Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Linguistics and intercultural communication], 3, pp. 134—139 (in Russ.).Sedov, K. F., 2005. Aggression and manipulation in everyday communication. Yurislingvistika [Legal Linguistics], 6, pp. 87—103 (in Russ.).Shcherbinina, Yu. V., 2008. Verbal'naya agressiya [Verbal Agression]. Moscow (in Russ.).Shizhensky, R. V., 2009. Neo-pagan myth of Vladimir. Vestnik Buryatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Vestnik of the Buryat State University], 6, pp. 250—256 (in Russ.).Shnirel'man, V. A., 2003. Ethnogenesis and identity: nationalist mythologies in contemporary Russia. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie [Ethnographic review], 4, pp. 3—14 (in Russ.).Smirnov, P. Yu., 2017. Language means of hostile rhetoric expressions in the comminications networking. Nauchnye vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki [Belgorod State University scientific bulletin. Humanities], 14 (263), pp. 34—42 (in Russ.).Steksova, T. I., 2013. Verbal aggression in internet comments as manifestation of social tension. Politicheskaya lingvistika [Political Linguistics], 3 (45), pp. 77—81 (in Russ.).Temirgazina, Z. K. and Bachurka, M. S., 2017. Speech Acts of Aggressive Character in the Pedagogical Discourse. Zhanry rechi [Speech Genres], 1 (15), pp. 51—57, https://doi.org/10.18500/2311-0740-2017-1-15-51-57 (in Russ.).Trofimova, G. N. and Barabash, V. V., 2020. Yazykovoe poslevkusie internet-epokhi v Rossii: effekt bumeranga (aktual'nye protsessy v russkoyazychnoi tsifrovoi mediakommunikatsii) [The Linguistic aftertaste of the Internet Age in Russia: the Boomerang effect (current processes in Russian-language digital media communication)]. Moscow, 273 p. (in Russ.).Tulchinskii, G. L., 2022. Pragmasemantics of Digital Communications: Semantic Worldviews, Value-Regulatory Systems and Responsibility. Gosudarstvo i grazhdane v elektronnoi srede [State and Citizens in the Electronic Environment], 6, pp. 9—23, https://doi.org/10.17586/2541-979X-2022-6-09-23 (in Russ.).Zolyan, S. T., 2023. Semiosis as a dialogue between quasi-minds: on Charles Peirce's unfinished project. In: I. V. Zykova, ed. Diskurs i yazyk v epokhu «bol'shikh dannykh»: Variativnost', kreativnost', eksperiment [Discourse and language in the era of “big Data”: Variability, creativity, experiment]. Moscow, 368 p. (in Russ.).Стратегии солидарности в подростковом общенииE.A.RudnevaInstitute of Linguistic Studies of the Russian Academy of Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3502-4390The study aims to reveal politeness strategies used in natural interaction within a particular community group. The article analyses excerpts from audio recordings of conversations of teenage male friends. The chosen interactional approach relies on Goffman’s notion of face and Brown and Levinson’s model of linguistic politeness, ethnographic methods of collecting data, and conversation analysis. The case study continues the discussion of gender and age aspects of politeness realization and communication styles. The article reveals the following interactional solidarity strategies: teasing and group jokes, where participants add details to exaggerate the comic effect; ritual insults, in particular making up nicknames; synchronized speech pacing, even leading to creating spontaneous poetry. In the case of a request, the following politeness strategies and means are noted: repetition of words, both literal and with variations; increasing the volume and varying the speech rate, which express the common emotional state; decreasing the imposition with lexical means, markers of in-group identity; friend’s supporting through an offer and a jokily threat, language game (rhyming and deliberate mispronouncing), politeness marker "please" and its slang equivalent “pazhe”, minimizing the degree of a favour; using markers of group identity (“brother”), offering help and threating jokingly, using puns (rhyme and deliberate change of the phonetic form of a word), and increasing volume and prosodic emphasis that express an emotional state. Participants experiment with communicative strategies, sometimes pushing the degree of their expression to the edge and turning it into a performance. Applying the solidarity strategies in a more expressive and playful way seems to be a feature of the adolescent communication style. The data analysed reveals the local, cultural (and supposedly age) specifics of employing the universal face-saving mechanism of the communication.05292026728810.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-5https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15766/81124/Arundale, R., 2010. Constituting face in conversation: face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42 (8), pp. 2078—2105, http://doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021.Arundale, R., 2013. Conceptualizing ‘interaction’ in interpersonal pragmatics: Implications for understanding and research. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, pp 12—26, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.009.Batler, J., 2000. Gender trouble. In: E. I. Gapova and A. R. Usmanova, eds. Antologiya gendernoi teorii [Anthology of Gender Theory]. Minsk, pp. 297—346 (in Russ.).Brown, P. and Levinson, S., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge.Gapova, E. I. and Usmanova, A. R., eds., 2000. Antologiya gendernoi teorii [Anthology of Gender Theory]. Minsk (in Russ.).Geyer, N., 2008. Discourse and Politeness Ambivalent Face in Japanese. London; New York.Goffman, E., 1967. On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. In: Goffman E. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York, pp. 5—46.Goodwin, M. H., 1990. He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington.Grainger, K., 2011. ‘First order’ and ‘second order’ politeness: Institutional and intercultural contexts. In: Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin; Boston, pp. 167—188.Haugh, M., 2007. The discursive challenge to politeness research: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3 (2), pp. 295—317, https://doi.org/10. 1515/PR.2007.013.Haugh, M., 2014. Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo-Australian conversation. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34 (1), pp. 76—99, https:// doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.875456.Haugh, M., 2015. Im/Politeness Implicatures. Berlin.Holmes, J., 2006. Gendered Talk at Work. Oxford.Jefferson, G., 2004. Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. In: G. H. Lerner, ed. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam, pp. 13—31.Kádár, D. and Haugh, M., 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge.Kirilina, A. V. and Tomskaya, M. V., 2005. Gender studies in linguistics. Otechestvennye zapiski [Domestic notes], 2 (23), pp. 22—43 (in Russ.).Korbut, A. M., 2015. Turn-Talking: Non-technical Introduction to Conversation Analysis. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Russian Sociological Review], 14 (1), pp. 120—141 (in Russ.).Labov, W., 1972. Rules for ritual insults. In: Language in the inner city: Studies in the black English vernacular. Philadelphia, pp. 297—353.Lakoff, R., 1973. Language and Woman’s Place. Language in Society, 2 (1), pp. 25—80.Larina, T. V., 2009. Kategoriya vezhlivosti i stil' kommunikatsii: sopostavlenie angliiskikh i russkikh lingvokul'turnykh traditsii [The category of politeness and communication style: a comparison of English and Russian linguocultural traditions]. Moscow (in Russ.).Martin, P. Y., 2003. “Said and Done” versus “Saying and Doing”: Gendering Practices, Practicing Gender at Work. Gender and Society, 17 (3), pp. 342—366, http://doi.org/10.1177/0891243203017003002.Mills, S., 2003. Gender and Politeness. Cambridge.Mullany, L., 2006. “Girls on tour”: Politeness, small talk, and gender in managerial business meetings. Journal of Politeness Research, 2 (1), pp. 55—77, https://doi. org/10.1515/PR.2006.004.O’Driscoll, J., 2007. What’s in an FTA? Reflections on a chance meeting with Claudine. Journal of Politeness Research, 3 (2), pp. 243—268, https://doi.org/10.1515/ PR.2007.011.Radcliffe-Brown, A. R., 1940. On joking relationships. Africa, 13, pp. 195—210.Ridgeway, C., 2001. Gender, Status, and Leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4), pp. 637—655, https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00233.Rudneva, E., 2019. How Russians pre-request and seek assistance: a study of interaction in two communities of practice. Russian Linguistics, 43 (2), pp. 127—142, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11185-019-09211-z.Rudneva, E., 2019. Teasing as politeness strategy. Antropologicheskij forum [Forum for Anthropology and Culture], 41, pp. 97—120, https://doi.org/10.31250/1815- 8870-2019-15-41-97-120 (in Russ.).Rudneva, E. A., 2016. Anthropology of politeness: cultural and local interaction norms. Antropologicheskij forum [Forum for Anthropology and Culture], 30, pp. 215—242 (in Russ.).Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G., 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50 (4—1), pp. 696—735.Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W., 1981. Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood.Scollon, R. and Scollon, S. W., 2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. 2nd ed. Malden.Sinkeviciute, V., 2017. What Makes Teasing Impolite in Australian and British English? Journal of Politeness Research, 13 (2), pp. 175—207, https://doi.org/10.1515/ pr-2015-0034.Tannen, D., 1981. The machine-gun question as an example of conversational style. Journal of Pragmatics, 5 (5), pp. 383—397.Tannen, D., 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation. New York.Terkourafi, M., 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1 (2), pp. 237—262, https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237.West, C., Lazar, M. M. and Kramarae, Ch., 1997. Gender in Discourse. In: T. A. van Dijk, ed. Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2. London, pp.119—143.Zemskaya, E. A., Kitaigorodskaya, M. A. and Rozanova, N. N., 1993. Featurs of male and female speech. In: E. A. Zemskaya and D. N. Shmelev, eds. Russkii yazyk v ego funktsionirovanii [The Russian language in its functioning]. Moscow, pp. 90—136 (in Russ.).Вежливость в коммуникации между человеком и искусственным интеллектомA. Ch.PiperskiStockholm UniversityThe paper explores the evolution of communication etiquette between humans and artificial intelligence (AI), focusing particularly on the adaptation of traditional politeness strategies. While the politeness of AI can enhance the human level of trust, human politeness towards AI is equally important as it can impact the efficiency of communication. To demonstrate this, I conducted a pilot experiment with ChatGPT 4.0, using polite and non-polite prompts in Russian. The results suggest that politeness is likely to positively impact the accuracy of responses. Furthermore, the paper examines changes in speech etiquette, highlighting how interactions with AI often omit traditional greetings and farewells, reflecting a more functional approach to communication. Although the paper does not provide definitive answers on how politeness strategies between humans and AI should function, it underscores sociolinguistic points that are likely to become increasingly pressing over time. Overall, the paper illustrates a significant shift in communication practices, driven by the integration of AI into daily interactions, necessitating a reevaluation of the established social norms and speech etiquette.05292026899810.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-6https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15766/81126/Brown, P. and Levinson, S., 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, 345 p.Goffman, E., 1956. The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh, 251 p.Kœnig, G., 2019. La fin de l’individu. Voyage d’un philosophe au pays de l’intelligence artificielle. Paris, 398 p.Lumer, E. and Buschmeier, H., 2023. Should robots be polite? Expectations about politeness in human — robot interaction. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 10, https://doi. org/10.3389/frobt.2023.1242127.Pan, X., Doering, M. and Kanda, T., 2024. What is your other hand doing, robot? A model of behavior for shopkeeper robot’s idle hand. In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. New York, pp. 552—560, https://doi.org/10.1145/3610977.3634986.Ribino, P., 2023. The role of politeness in human — machine interactions: A systematic literature review and future perspectives. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56 (1), pp. 445—482, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10540-1.Shavrina, T., Fenogenova, A., Emelyanov, A. et al., 2020. RussianSuperGLUE: A Russian language understanding evaluation benchmark. In: B. Webber, T. Cohn, Y. He and Y. Liu, eds. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 4717—4726, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/ 2020.emnlp-main.381.Yin, Z., Wang, H., Horio, K. et al., 2024. Should we respect LLMs? A cross-lingual study on the influence of prompt politeness on LLM performance. arXiv:2402.14531 [cs. CL].Лингвосоциологический взгляд на восприятие ненормативной лексики в Москве 2024 годаE.R.DobrushinaSt. Tikhon’s Orthodox UniversityThe article presents the findings of a study on the attitudes toward profanity among Muscovites born between 1962 and 2011, all from families with higher education backgrounds. The research explores how respondents understand the term ‘mat,’ their views on societal restrictions regarding profanity, self-assessed frequency of using profanities and purposes for it, as well as the evolution of the attitudes toward profanity over different life stages. The study is based on the analysis of 20 interviews and 182 questionnaire responses. It also offers a concise overview of scholarly and lexicographical interpretations of the term ‘mat’. The author proposes her own definition of profanity, distinguishing it from other forms of obscene language. Preliminary statistical insights are presented. For example, 26 % of the respondents report rarely or never using ‘mat’ (excluding quotations), with 23 respondents claiming they have never used it. 14 % of the respondents identify themselves as frequent users, while 60 % admit to using it occasionally or only in specific social settings. Many respondents believe that profanity is used to some extent by everyone. However, a significant portion express discomfort when it is used simply to fill pauses in conversation. 35 % of the respondents admit to using obscene language in the presence of children, while 10 % more people are likely to limit its use with strangers compared to close friends or acquaintances. Opinions on profanity regulation vary, with 14 % supporting a strict ban, 44 % supporting a ban in specific situations, and 17 % advocating complete freedom to use profanities. In conclusion, the author offers a model for the perception of profanity: its infrequent, primarily oral speech use, restricted to private settings or among close acquaintances of either gender, but generally avoided in the presence of children. Profanity is used indirectly, not in an invective manner, and serves two main functions: psychological release and as a form of expressive or entertaining speech.052920269911710.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-7https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15766/81128/Antonov, S. V., 2024. Nedurnye slova [Not bad words]. Moscow (in Russ.).Belikov, V. I., 2006. The boundaries of the obscene in the perception of modern urban youth: typologization of idiolects In: Izmeneniya v yazyke i kommunikatsii: XXI vek. Sbornik statei [Changes in language and communication: the XXI century: a collection of articles]. Moscow, pp. 33—72 (in Russ.).Borzenko, E. O. and Dobrushina, E. R., 2025. Vzaimodeistvie pokolenii pri funktsionirovanii zhargonizmov, ili Biografiya leksemy ChSV [The interaction of generations in the functioning of jargonisms, or the Biography of the lexeme of ChSV]. In print (in Russ.).Budennaya, E., Litvintseva, K. and Yakovleva, A., 2023. God knows how it turns out: on three constructions including Bog ‘God’, čert ‘devil’ and some taboo words in the Russian language over the last three centuries. Jazykovedny Casopis, 74 (1), pp. 19—31, https://doi.org/10.2478/jazcas-2023-0020.Bui, V. [Baranov, A. N. and Dobrovol'skii, D. O.], 2005. Russkaya zavetnaya idiomatika. (Veselyi slovar' krylatykh vyrazhenii.) [The Russian cherished idiom. (A hilarious dictionary of catch phrases.)]. Moscow (in Russ.).Levin, Yu. I., 1998. About the full expressions of the Russian language. In: Izbrannye trudy. Poetika. Semiotika [Selected works. Poetics. Semiotics]. Moscow, pp. 809—819 (in Russ.).Lisenkova, N. N., 2010. Expletive elements in the language system (based on the material of modern English). Vestnik Yuzhno-ural'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Lingvistika [Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series “Linguistics”], 1 (177), pp. 40—42 (in Russ.).Mokienko, V. M., 1994. Russian swear words: censored and obscene. Rusistika [Russian studies], 1/2, pp. 50—73 (in Russ.).Ozhegov, S. I. and Shvedova, N. Yu., 1992. Tolkovyi slovar' russkogo yazyka [Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Available at: http://lib.ru/DIC/OZHEGOW/ ozhegow_e_l.txt [Accessed 25 February 2024] (in Russ.).Panova, N. Yu., 2008. The culture of speech behavior as a peculiar manifestation of people's social life. Vestnik Taganrogskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Bulletin of Taganrog State Pedagogical University], 1, pp. 146—150 (in Russ.).Plutser-Sarno, A., 2005. Bol'shoi slovar' mata [The Big mat dictionary]. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Radaev, V. V., 2023. Millenialy: kak menyaetsya rossiiskoe obshchestvo [Millennials: how Russian society is changing]. Moscow (in Russ.).Rudnev, V. P., 2005. And that's all about him. In: Bol'shoi slovar' mata [The Big mat dictionary]. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, pp. 16—34 (in Russ.).Uspenskii, B. A., 2018. The Mythological aspect of Russian expressive phraseology. In: Issledovaniya po russkoi literature, fol'kloru i mifologii [Research on Russian literature, folklore and mythology]. Moscow, pp. 195—268 (in Russ.).Uspensky, B. A., 1981. The Religious and mythological aspect of Russian expressive phraseology. In: Struktura teksta-81: tezisy simpoziuma [Text structure-81: abstracts of the symposium]. Moscow, pp. 49—53 (in Russ.).Zhel'vis, V. I., 2022. Materyatsya vse?! Rol' brani v istorii mirovoi tsivilizatsii [Is everyone swearing?! The role of armor in the history of world civilization]. Moscow (in Russ.).Речевой конфликт в художественном дискурсе (на примере романа Цзя Пинва «Циньские напевы»)A.V.IgnatenkoPeoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9261-4306The present study addresses the interdisciplinary issue of conflict and its linguistic specificity as a component of the emotive dimension in artistic discourse, with a focus on the novel “Qin Qiang” by Jia Pingwa (2005). The aim is to analyse the aspects of speech and language conflict, as well as its destructive forms, within the lexico-semantic, syntactic, and functional-stylistic units of the language. A conflictual communicative act is viewed as the result of specific failures in speech interaction and the violation of conventions and rules governing discursive behaviour. Linguistic contradictions and conflicts are analysed within the framework of emotiology, at the level of emotivity and the emotive field in the pragmatic space of artistic discourse, as a multimodal phenomenon shaped by systemic relations of emotionalism. Discursive contradictions function as key elements of the structural tension in the text, serving as linguistic and semantic dominants or attractors. These contradictions materialize as stylistic units at various levels and can be employed as a tool to create the desired effect in artistic narrative. Linguistically, conflict arises from violations of pragmatic-semantic and stylistic-syntactic conventional norms. Drawing on empirical material, the study demonstrates that the use of conflictogenic discourse in prose is a distinctive feature of Jia Pingwa’s idiosyncrasy, integrating various communicative strategies. The findings provide a foundation for further research into speech collisions in Chinese fiction.0529202611813110.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-8https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15766/81130/Belyaevskaya, E. G., 2021. The “conflict” frame in language and text. In: Yazyk v global'nom kontekste: yazykovye kontakty i yazykovye konflikty v sovremennom mire [Language in a global context: language contacts and language conflicts in the modern world]. Moscow, pp. 145—157 (in Russ.).Bilá, M. and Ivanova, S. V., 2020. Language, culture and ideology in discursive practices. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24 (2), pp. 219—252, https://doi.org/10. 22363/2687-0088-2020-24-2-219-252.Eslami, Z. R., Larina, T. V. and Pashmforoosh, R., 2023. Identity, politeness and discursive practices in a changing world. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 27 (1), pp. 7—38, https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-34051.Feshchenko, V. V., 2021. Literary communication: from semiotic models to a theory of linguistic aesthetics. Slovo.ru: baltic accent, 12 (1), pp. 7—31, https://doi. org/10.5922/2225-5346-2021-1-1 (in Russ.).Firth-Godbehere, R., 2022. Emotsii: velikolepnaya istoriya chelovechestva [A human History of Emotion: How the Way We Feel Built the World We know]. Moscow, 320 p. (in Russ.).Ignatenko, A. V., 2019. Representation of Painting by Ekphrasis in Chekhov’s Prose. Novyi filologicheskii vestnik [New Philological Bulletin], 50 (3), pp. 160—170, https://doi.org/10.24411/2072-9316-2019-00069 (in Russ.).Ignatenko, A. V., 2022. Features of the language game in Liu Zhenyun’s prose on the example of the novel “I am not Pan Jinlian”. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Asian and African Studies, 3, pp. 507—523, https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu13.2022.308 (in Russ.).Ignatenko, A. V., 2023a. Emotive Suggestiveness in Contemporary Chinese Fictional Discourse: A Case Study of Yu Hua’s To Live (1992). Oriental studies, 16 (4), pp. 1004—1014, https://doi.org/10.22162/2619-0990-2023-68-4-1004-1014 (in Russ.).Ignatenko, A. V., 2023b. Features of Parenthetical Constructions in Mo Yan’s Novel “Tired of Being Born and Dying” (2005). Vestnik NSU. Series: History and Philology, 22 (4), pp. 115—126, https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7919-2023-22-4-115-126 (in Russ.).Jia Pingwa, 2017. Tsin'skie napevy [Qing Melodies]. Translated by A. N. Korobova. Moscow, 406 p. (in Russ.).Jia Pingwa. Qin qiao [贾平凹. 《秦腔》]. Qing Melodies. Available at: https:// www.tysk.top/xdwx/6091/ [Accessed 23 October 2023].Kinderknekht, A. S., 2023. Conflict in Linguistic Researches. Nauchnyi dialog [Scientific dialogue], 12 (1), pp. 45—68, https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12- 1-45-68 (in Russ.).Komalova, L. R., 2016. Mezhlichnostnaya kommunikatsiya [Interpersonal communication]. Moscow, 180 p. (in Russ.).Kozlova, L. A. and Kremneva, A. V., 2022. Lingua-artistic technique of writing and its role in portraying an artist. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 26 (3), pp. 721—743, https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30060 (in Russ.).Kozlova, L. A., 2020. Metaphor as the refection of culture determined cognition. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24 (4), pp. 899—925, https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-4-899-925 (in Russ.).Leontovich, O. A., 2021. The dynamics of political correctness, inclusive language and freedom of speech. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25 (1), pp. 194—220 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-194-220.Murav'eva, N. V., 2002. Yаzyk konflikta [The language of conflict]. Moscow, 264 p. (in Russ.).Shakhovsky, V. I., 1987. Kategorizatsiya emotsii v leksiko-semanticheskoi sisteme yazyka [Categorization of emotions in the lexico-semantic system of the language]. Voronezh, 190 p. (in Russ.).Shakhovsky, V. I., 2008. Lingvisticheskaya teoriya emotsii [Linguistic theory of emotions] Moscow, 416 p. (in Russ.).Solopova, O. A., Nilsen, D. and Nilsen, A., 2023. The image of Russia through animal metaphors: A diachronic case study of American media discourse. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 27 (3), pp. 521—542, https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-35048.Speshnev, N. A., 2017. Kitaitsy: osobennosti natsional'noi psikhologii [The Chinese: features of national psychology] St. Petersburg, 336 p. (in Russ.).Sun, Y., Kalinin, O. I. and Ignatenko, A. V., 2021. The use of metaphor power indices for the analysis of speech impact in political public speeches. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25 (1), pp. 250—277, https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1- 250-277 (in Russ.).Wierzbicka, A., 2022. I and Thou: Universal human concepts present as words in all human languages. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 26 (4), pp. 908—936, https://doi. org/10.22363/2687-0088-31361.Zykova, I. V., 2023. Nociception and its linguocreative potential in artistic-aesthetic representation. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics], 22 (1), pp. 65—80, https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2023.1.6 (in Russ.).KorchaginK.M.PlungianV.A.05292026132134Авторская терминология в русском стиховедении: наследие языка формальной школыI.A.PilshchikovUniversity of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0153-6598Any system of terminology serves as a map of the field within which it is employed. The history of terminology, as an integral component of intellectual history, offers valuable in­sights for methodological reflection. It often prompts a reevaluation of specific issues by re­turning to their origins and rekindling potential implications and developments that were set aside in the course of the subsequent evolution of the discipline. This paper focuses on several terms that emerged during the formative decades of Russian verse theory (1910s and 1920s). These include: ritmicheskii kursiv [rhythmic italics], a term coined by Mikhail Shtokmar, which became common after the works of Kiril Taranovsky and Mikhail Gasparov; slo­vorazdel [word boundary], a term coined by Osip Brik, which has lost its association with Formalist terminology in modern-day use; and, eventually, dol’nik [strict accentual verse], one of the most debated concepts in Russian verse studies (the difference between this concept and the related but defunct concept of pauznik [pause-based verse] is also discussed). The concluding section of the article is devoted to the history of the overarching term for verse studies, stikhovedenie (a calque of the German Verslehre). The study of versification ter­minology allows us to more effectively develop modern verse theory, which dates back in many respects to the polemics between the Russian Formalists and the Symbolists.0529202613514610.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-9https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15767/81134/Bailey, J., Taranovsky-Johnson, V. and Prokhorov, A. V., 2010. From the editors. In: K. Taranovsky, ed. Russkie dvuslozhnye razmery. Stat’i o stikhe [Russian binary meters. Essays on verse]. Translated by V. V. Son’kin. Moscow, pp. 7—10 (in Russ.).Bely, A., 1910. Simvolizm: Kniga statei [Symbolism: Essays]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bely, A., 1929. Ritm kak dialektika i “Mednyi Vsadnik” [Rhythm as dialectics and “The Bronze Horseman”]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bobrov, S. P., 1913. Vertogradari nad lozami [Gardeners over the vines]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bobrov, S. P., 1915. Novoe o stikhoslozhenii A. S. Pushkina [New perspectives on the versification of A. S. Pushkin]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bobrov, S. P., 1916. Zapiski stikhotvortsa [A poet’s notes]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bobrov, S. P., 1925. The word section. In: Literaturnaya entsiklopediya: Slovar' literaturnykh terminov [Literary Encyclopedia: Dictionary of Literary Terms]. Vol. 2. Moscow; Leningrad, pp. 831—835 (in Russ.).Bobrov, S. P., 1965. Syntagmas, word boundaries, and litaurids: (The concept of content-effective rhythm and the natural rhythmization of speech). Russkaya literatura [Russian literature], 4, pp. 80—101 (in Russ.).Bobrov, S. P., 1966. Syntagmas, word boundaries, and litaurids: (The concept of content-effective rhythm and the natural rhythmization of speech). Russkaya literatura [Russian literature], 1, pp. 79—97 (in Russ.).Bozhidar (Gordeev, B. P.), 1916. Raspevochnoe edinstvo [Chanting unity]. Moscow, (in Russ).Bryusov, V. Ya., 1919. Kratkii kurs nauki o stikhe (Lektsii, chitannye v Studii Stikhovedeniia v Moskve 1918 g.) [A brief course on the science of verse (Lectures read at the Studio of Verse Studies in Moscow, 1918)]. Part I. Moscow (in Russ.).Bryusov, V. Ya., 1924. Osnovy stikhovedeniia: Kurs V.U.Z. [Foundations of verse studies: A university course]. Parts 1—2. 2nd ed. Moscow (in Russ.).Fleishman, L. S., [Unknown]. Tomashevsky and the Moscow Linguistic Circle. In: Trudy po znakovym sistemam. 9. Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Sign Systems Studies. 9. Scientific letters of The University of Tartu], 422. Tartu, pp. 113—132 (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 1974. Sovremennyi russkii stikh: Metrika i ritmika [Contemporary Russian verse: Meter and rhythm]. Moscow (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 1984. Ocherk istorii russkogo stikha: Metrika. Ritmika. Rifma. Strofika [A history of Russian verse: Meter. Rhythm. Rhyme. Strophic forms]. Moscow (in Russ.).Golenishchev-Kutuzov, I. N., 1959. Word boundaries in Russian versification. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 4, pp. 20—34 (in Russ.).Jakobson, R., 1922. Bryusov’s versology and the science of verse. In: Akademicheskii tsentr Narkomprosa. Nauchnye izvestiya [The Narkompros Academic Center. Scientific news]. Vol. 2. Moscow, pp. 222—240 (in Russ.).Jakobson, R., 1923. O cheshskom stikhe preimushchestvenno v sopostavlenii s russkim [On Czech verse, primarily in comparison with Russian verse]. Berlin (in Russ.).Kholshevnikov, V. E., 1972. Osnovy stikhovedeniya. Russkoe stikhoslozhenie [Foundations of verse studies. Russian versification]. 2nd ed. Leningrad (in Russ.).Kviatkovski, A. P., 1960. Russian versification. Russkaia literatura [Russian literature], 1, pp. 78—104 (in Russ.).Kviatkovski, A. P., 1966. Poeticheskii slovar’ [Poetic dictionary]. Moscow (in Russ.).Pilshchikov, I. and Ustinov, A., 2020. The Moscow Linguistic Circle and the formation of Russian verse studies (1919—1920). In: L. Fleishman, D. M. Bethea and I. Vinitsky, eds. Stanford Slavic Studies 50. Unacknowledged Legislators: Studies in Russian Literary History and Poetics in Honor of Michael Wachtel. Berlin, pp. 389—413 (in Russ.).Pilshchikov, I., 2017. The meeting of the Moscow Linguistic Circle on 1 June 1919 and the genesis of the prosodic theories of O. Brik, B. Tomashevsky and R. Jakobson. Revue des études slaves, 88 (1/2), pp. 151—175.Pilshchikov, I., 2022. “The Dolnik and Beyond”: Unstressed Ictuses and Extra-Schematic Stresses in Russian Accentual Verse. Kritika i semiotika [Critique and Semiotics], 1, pp. 273—318, https://doi.org/10.25205/2307-1737-2022-1-273-318 (in Russ.).Shengeli, G. A., 1923a. Prakticheskoe stikhovedenie [Practical verse studies]. Moscow (in Russ.).Shengeli, G. A., 1923b. Traktat o russkom stikhe [Treatise on Russian verse]. Part 1. 2nd ed. Moscow; Petrograd (in Russ.).Shengeli, G. A., 1926. Prakticheskoe stikhovedenie [Practical verse studies]. 2nd ed. Leningrad (in Russ.).Shengeli, G. A., 1940. Tekhnika stikha: Prakticheskoe stikhovedenie [Versification technique: Practical verse studies]. 3d ed. Moscow (in Russ.).Shengeli, G. A., 1960. Tekhnika stikha [Versification technique]. 4th ed. Moscow (in Russ.).Shtokmar, M. P., 1928. Free verse of the 19th century. In: Ars poetica. Vol. II. Moscow, pp. 117—167 (in Russ.).Slovar' Tserkovno-Slavyanskogo i Russkogo yazyka, sostavlennyi Vtorym otdeleniem Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk: v 4 t [Dictionary of Church Slavonic and Russian Language, compiled by the Second Division of the Imperial Academy of Sciences: in 4 vols]. 1847, vol. 4. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Taranovsky, K., 1953. Ruski dvodelni ritmovi, I—II [Russian binary rhythms, I—II]. Belgrade.Taranovsky, K. F., 1966a. Sound painting in M. Voloshin’s “The Northeast”. In: Orbis scriptus: Dmitrij Tschiževskij zum 70. Geburtstag. Munich, pp. 835—840 (in Russ.).Taranovsky, K. F., 1966b. Andrey Bely's four-stop Iambic. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 10, pp. 127—147.Taranovsky, K. F., 1973. On the closed and open interpretation of a poetic text. In: American Contributions to the Seventh International Congress of Slavists. Warsaw. August 21—27. Vol. 1. The Hague; Paris, pp. 333—360.Timofeev, L. I., 1939. Verse studies. In: Literaturnaya entsiklopediya [Literary encyclopedia]. Vol. 11. Moscow, pp. 61—63 (in Russ.).Timofeev, L. I., 1951. Pushkin as a reformer of Russian verse. In: A. S. Pushkin: Materialy iubileinykh torzhestv [A. S. Pushkin: Materials of the jubilee festivities]. Moscow; Leningrad, pp. 205—221 (in Russ.).Timofeev, L. I., 1958. Ocherki teorii i istorii russkogo stikha [Essays on the theory and history of Russian verse]. Moscow (in Russ.).Tomashevsky, B. V., 1923. Russkoe stikhoslozhenie. Metrika [Russian versification. Metrics]. Petrograd (in Russ.).Tomashevsky, B. V., 1925. Teoriya literatury (Poetika) [Theory of literature (Poetics)]. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russ.).Zhirmunsky, V. M., 1923. Rifma, ee istoriya i teoriya [Rhyme, its history and theory]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Zhirmunsky, V. M., 1925. Vvedenie v metriku. Teoriya stikha [Introduction to metrics. Theory of verse]. Leningrad (in Russ.).История стиховедения и формализмB.V.OrekhovHigher School of Economics’ National Research UniversityInstitute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the Russian Academy of Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9099-0436The core idea of formalism is that literature is not merely a function of psychology or so­cial theory and cannot be explained using the tools of these sciences. One could say that poet­ics is almost the only philological subdiscipline that has managed to preserve the fundamental idea of formalism, explaining poetic facts in terms of poetics itself, rather than through eco­nomic, sociological, or psychological means. This is precisely the approach taken by Mikhail Gasparov in his article on the history of Russian rhyme, where, without resorting to reduc­tionism, he constructs his concept of cultural history as a sequence of crises and their resolu­tions. Maxim Shapir, in his well-known work on the evolution of the Russian iambic tetrame­ter, specifically highlights the unusual method he employs—the explanation of a poetic fact through historically documented and socially significant events. Poetics, more than any other branch of literary studies, maintains its hermetic nature, which presupposes the explanation of literary data through literary circumstances. The situation in which literature finds itself having to defend its autonomy from other sciences is reminiscent of the position once faced by sociology and linguistics, where Emile Durkheim and Ferdinand Saussure fought for their separation from psychology. In recent times, Franco Moretti has attempted to mimic the methodology of formalists, though he still advocates the stance of a methodologically opposed party, which assumes that literary facts can be explained using the logic of social sciences.0529202614715710.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-10https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15767/81136/Bakhtin, M. M., 2000. Freidizm. Formal'nyi metod v literaturovedenii. Marksizm i filosofiya yazyka [Freudianism. Formal method in literature studies. Marxism and philosophy of language]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bourdieu, P., 2000. Literary field. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie [New Literary Review], 5 (45), pp. 22—87 (in Russ.).Durkheim, É., 1995. Sotsiologiya. Ee predmet, metod, prednaznachenie [Sociology. Its object, method, purposes]. Translated by A. B. Gofman. Moscow (in Russ.).Durkheim, É., 2013. The dualism of human nature and its social conditions. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Russian Sociological Review], 12 (2), pp. 133—145 (in Russ.).Eikhenbaum, B., 1922. Molodoi Tolstoi [Young Tolstoy]. Peterburg; Berlin (in Russ.).Eikhenbaum, B., 1927. Literatura: Teoriya. Kritika. Polemika [Literature: Theory. Critics. Polemics]. Leningrad (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 1984. Russian rime evolution. In: Problemy teorii stikha [Problems of theory of verse]. Leningrad, pp. 3—36 (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 1999. Metr i smysl [Meter and meaning]. Moscow (in Russ.).Moretti, F., 2013. Distant Reading. London.Moretti, F., 2016. Dal'nee chtenie [Distant reading]. Translated by A. Vdovin, O. Sobchuk and A. Shely. Moscow (in Russ.).Pilshchikov, I., 2018. Franco Moretti and New Quantitative Formalism. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie [New Literary Review], 2, pp. 39—45 (in Russ.).Saussure, F. de, 1977. Trudy po yazykoznaniyu [Works in linguistics]. Translated by A. A. Kholodovich. Moscow (in Russ.).Shapir, M. I., 1996. At the origins of iambic quatrameter: genesis and evolution of its rhythm. Philologica, 3 (5/7), pp. 69—101 (in Russ.).Ustinov, A., 2016. The Legacy of Russian Formalism and the Rise of the Digital Humanities. Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch. Bd. 4, s. 287—289.Г.А. Шенгели как теоретик и как практик стихаV.A.PlungianV. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of SciencesHigher School of Economics’ National Research Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2393-1399The present stage of verse studies is marked by a rekindling of interest in the theoretical approaches of the 1920s and 1930s that emerged in the milieu close to the Russian ‘formal school’. In this respect, one of the most significant figures is Georgii Shengeli (1894—1956), who is known primarily as one of the most insightful researchers of verse theory and Russian non-classical metrics. Less attention has been paid to Shengeli’s own poetic experiments, which have remained in the shadow of his work in verse theory, translation and publishing. This study analyses, against the backdrop of Shengeli’s concept of ‘leimic verse’, his experi­ments in the domain of tonic metrics, including numerous examples of classical dolnik, deriv­atives of antique logaoedic verse, and rarer types of dolnik on disyllabic base. Shengeli’s cor­pus of tonic verse demonstrates an affinity for the classical and slightly loosened dolnik: most of his ‘leimic’ texts have lines of regular three-syllable meters, variable anacrusa is not un­common, and there are isolated extensions. This repertoire is close both to the metrics of the younger Acmeists (especially Georgy Ivanov and Georgy Adamovich) and to the metrics of the poets of the Maximilian Voloshin circle (primarily Sofia Parnok).0529202615816810.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-11https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15767/81138/Gasparov, M. L., 1968. Russian dolnik with three ictuses in the 20th century. In: V. E. Kholshevnikov, ed. Teoriya stikha [Theory of verse]. Leningrad, pp. 59—106 (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 2001. Russkii stikh nachala XX veka v kommentariyakh [Russian verse of the early 20th century with commentaries]. Moscow (in Russ.).Itkin, I. B., 2018. “The old doctor in a decrepit toga...”: оn an “unfinished” poem of Georgy Shengeli. Rhema — Rema, 3, pp. 9—14, https://doi.org/10.31862/2500-2953-2018-3-9-14 (in Russ.).Ivanov, V. V., 2004. Intervals with no accents in Brodsky’s verse. In: Izbrannye trudy po semiotike i istorii kul'tury [Collected works on semiotics and culture history]. Vol. 3. Moscow, pp. 732—746 (in Russ.).Korchagin, K. M., 2017. Metric systems typology and metric status of dolnik based on binary meter. Zbornik Matitse Srpske za slavistiku [Matica Srpska Journal of Slavic Studies], 92, pp. 707—729 (in Russ.).Molodyakov, V., 2017. Georgy Shengeli: sketch of a biography. In: G. A. Shengeli. Stikhotvoreniya i poemy [Collected poems]. Vol. 2. Moscow, pp. 607—621 (in Russ.).Pilshchikov, I. A., 2022. “The Dolnik and Beyond”: Unstressed Ictuses and Extra-Schematic Stresses in Russian Accentual Verse. Kritika i semiotika [Critique and Semiotics], 1, pp. 273—318, https://doi.org/10.25205/2307-1737-2022-1-273-318 (in Russ.).Plungian, V. A., 2011. «Mne s kazhdym utrom protivney zauchennyy, mertvyy stikh»: to a number of peculiarities of Mikhail Kuzmin’s tonic verse. In: L. Panova and S. Pratt, eds. The Many Facets of Mikhail Kuzmin: A Miscellany. Bloomington, pp. 43—57 (in Russ.).Plungian, V. A., 2008. Did Esenin write by means of “Esenin’s dolnik”? In: A. V. Arkhipov and O. V. Fedorova, eds. Fonetika i nefonetika [Phonetics and beyond]. Moscow, pp. 766—776 (in Russ.).Semenov, V. V., 2011. To the problem of ambiguity in Russian non-classic verse. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 2, pp. 97—110 (in Russ.).Shengeli, G. A., 1960. Tekhnika stikha [Technics of the verse]. Moscow (in Russ.).Tarkovsky, A., 1991. My Shengeli [1958]. In: Sobranie sochineniy [Collected works]. Vol. 2. Moscow, pp. 183—189 (in Russ.).У истоков метрической типологии: от метротоники к тактометрикеK.M.KorchaginV. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute of the Russian Academy of Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3778-7252One of the first Russian-language works aimed at creating a general theory of verse was Mikhail Malishevskii’s short book “Metrotonics” (1925), which offered a common theoretical frame for the whole structure of metrics. Later, some of Malishevskii’s ideas were developed by Aleksei Kviatkovskii, who proposed a unified treatment of classical and non-classical verse. Theoretics of the ‘Russian method’ in the theory of verse considered these theories unverifia­ble, although a closer analysis of them allows us to show that they were precursors of modern metric typology. The present article explores Malishevskii’s theoretical views both in the con­text of theory of verse of the Russian 1920s and in the broader context of ‘tactometric’ theory, which before Malishevskii was represented primarily by the works of Aleksei Kubarev. It shows the development of ‘tactometric’ theory from Kubarev to Malishevskii and how it fits into metric typology, a subdiscipline that developed later and whose program was first pro­posed in the works of Roman Jakobson and John Lotz. The article concludes with a formal analysis of the poetic legacy of Malishevskii, who was active not only as a theorist but also as a poet. His oeuvres in poetry are examined against the background of his views on metrics, which, in fact, are hardly applicable to the structures of his own poems, which are much more traditional than his theoretical frame.0529202616918310.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-12https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15767/81140/Abondolo, D., 2001. Hungarian: The Poetics of Grammar. In: D. Abondolo, ed. A Poetics Handbook: Verbal Art in the European Tradition. Richmond, pp. 166—180.Veselovskii. Aktual'nye aspekty naslediya. Issledovaniya i materialy [Aleksandr Adaskina, N. L., 2006. From Ivan Aksenov’s legacy. In: Tynyanovskii sbornik. Vypusk 12 [Papers and materials in honor of Tynianov. Issue 12]. Moscow, pp. 275—317 (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 1974. Sovremennyi russkii stikh [Modern Russian verse]. Moscow (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 2003. Ocherk istorii evropeiskogo stikha [A history of European versification]. 2nd ed. Moscow, pp. 203—204 (in Russ.).Halle, M. and Fabb, N., 2008. Meter in poetry. A new theory. New York.Jakobson, R. and Lotz, J., 1951. Axioms of a Versification System Exemplified by the Mordvinian Song. Acta instituti hungarici univesitatis Holmiensis, 1, pp. 5—13.Jakobson, R., 1952. Studies in Comparative Slavic Metrics. Oxford Slavonic Papers, 3, pp. 21—66.Korchagin, K. M., 2011. Contemporary studies in metrics abroad. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 4, pp. 90—115 (in Russ.).Korchagin, K. M., 2021. Russkii stikh: tsezura [Russian verse: caesura]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Kubarev, A. M., 1837. Teoriya russkogo stikhoslozheniya [Theory of Russian versification]. Moscow (in Russ.).Kviatkovski, A. P., 1966. Poeticheskii slovar' [Dictionary of poetry]. Moscow (in Russ.).Kviatkovski, A. P., 2008. Ritmologiya [Rhythmology]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Kviatkovski, A. P., 2013. Poeticheskii slovar' [Dictionary of poetry]. 3d ed. Moscow (in Russ.).Lappo-Danilevskii, K. Yu., 2011. Aleksandr Veselovskii’s works and Viacheslav Ivanov’s Baku lections on poetics. In: Aleksandr Veselovskii. Actual aspects of his legacy]. St. Petersburg, pp. 96—110 (in Russ.).Lotz, J., 1960. Metric Typology. In: T. A. Sebeok, ed. Style and Language. Cambridge (Mass.), pp. 135—148.Lotz, J., 1972a. Elements of Versification. In: W. K. Wimsatt, ed. Versification. Major Language Types. New York, pp. 1—21.Lotz, J., 1972b. Uralic [versification]. In: W. K. Wimsatt, ed. Versification. Major Language Types. New York, pp. 100—121.Malishevskii, M., 1925. Metrotonika. Kratkoe izlozhenie osnov metrotonicheskoi mezhduyazykovoi stikhologii [Metrotonics. Summary of the basics of metrotonic interlanguage poetry]. Part 1. Moscow (in Russ.).Malishevskii, M., 2020. Polnolunie oseni [Full moon of autumn]. Moscow (in Russ.).Piast, V., 1931. Sovremennoe stikhovedenie. Ritmika [Contemporary theory of verse. Rhythmics]. Leningrad (in Russ.).Pilshchikov, I. A., 2014. “The Inner Form of the Word” in the Theories of Poetic Language. Kritika i semiotika [Critique and Semiotics], 2, pp. 54—76 (in Russ.).Selvinsky, I., 1962. Studiya stikha [Studio of the verse]. Moscow (in Russ.).Shpet, G., 1927. Vnutrennyaya forma slova. Etyudy i variatsii na temy Gumbol'dta [The inner form of the word. Sketches and variations on Humboldt's themes]. Moscow (in Russ.).Sobolev, A. L., 2020. Sketch of biography. In: M. Malishevskii, ed. Polnolunie oseni [Fool moon of autumn]. Moscow, pp. 464—515 (in Russ.).Steinthal, H., 1855. Grammatik, Logik, und Psychologie, ihre Principien und ihr Verhältniss zu einander. Berlin.Zaliznyak, A. A., 2006. Mnogoznachnost' v yazyke i sposoby ee predstavleniya [Multiple of meanings in language and methods of its representation]. Moscow (in Russ.).Русский народный стих и основные подходы к его изучениюA.M.PetrovKarelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-5095-4254This paper addresses general issues in the study of Russian folk verse. A critical exami­nation of the major theories related to this topic highlights their significance in the history of Russian versification. The unique characteristics of folk verse, which exist in an oral-musical form, necessitate the development of specialized methods for its analysis. While traditional studies of versification offer a variety of methods and resources for analysing different forms of literary verse, they often fall short when applied to folklore verse. A flexible approach to the study of folk poetry is essential, given the diversity of folklore forms. In addition to classical folk accentual verse, many genres adhere to the principles of syllabic-accentual versification. Methods for analysing syllabic texts from other Slavic cultures may also be relevant. Each genre must be contextualized within its historical framework; thus, folklore requires a differ­entiated analytical approach. Furthermore, the degree of convergence with musicology can vary: in verse linguistics, traditional versification methods may often suffice. The approach based on counting beats holds particular promise, as it relates to the concepts of isochronic metrics, which remain underexplored in the field of Russian folk versification.0529202618420310.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-13https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15767/81142/Afanas’eva, E. M., 2021. Molitvennaya lirika russkikh poetov [The Genre of a Prayer in the Oeuvre of Russian Poets]. Moscow (in Russ.).Aroui, J.-L., 2009. Proposals for Metrical Typology. In: J.-L. Aroui and A. Arleo, eds. Towards a Typology of Poetic Forms: From Language to Metrics and Beyond. Amsterdam, pp. 1—42.Bailey, J., 2001. Izbrannye stat'i po russkomu narodnomu stikhu [Selected Works on Russian Folk Versification]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bailey, J., 2009. Was Trochaic Pentameter an Archaic Form of Russian Epic Meter? In: Slavyanskii stikh. VIII: Stikh, yazyk, smysl [Slavic Verse. Vol. 8. Verse, Language, Semantics]. Moscow, pp. 20—30 (in Russ.).Bailey, J., 2010. Tri russkikh narodnykh liricheskikh razmera [Three Russian Lyric Folk Song Meters]. Moscow (in Russ.).Banin, A. A., 1982. Towards the Study of Russian Folk Song Verse: Methodological Notes. In: Fol'klor: Poetika i traditsiya [Folklore: Poetics and Tradition]. Moscow, pp. 94—139 (in Russ.).Buchilina, E. A., ed., 1999. Dukhovnye stikhi. Kanty: sbornik dukhovnykh stikhov Nizhegorodskoi oblasti [Spiritual Verses. Kants: Collection of Spiritual Verses of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region]. Moscow (in Russ.).Efimenkova, B. B., 2001. Ritm v proizvedeniyakh russkogo vokal'nogo fol'klora [Rhythm in Russian Vocal Folklore]. Moscow (in Russ.).Fedotov, O. I., 1995. A. F. Gilferding’s Views on Folk Verse. In: Russkii fol’klor. T. 28. Epicheskie traditsii: materialy i issledovaniya [Russian Folklore. Vol. 28. Epic Traditions: Materials and Studies]. St. Petersburg, pp. 206—216 (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L. and Skulacheva T. V., 2004. Stat’i o lingvistike stikha [Articles on Verse Linguistics]. Moscow (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 1984. Ocherk istorii russkogo stikha: metrika, ritmika, rifma, strofika [Outline of the History of Russian Verse: Metrics, Rhythm, Rhyme, Stanza]. Moscow (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 1989. Ocherk istorii evropeiskogo stikha [Outline of the History of European Verse]. Moscow (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 1997. Russian Folk Verse and its Literary Imitations. In: M. L. Gasparov, ed. Izbrannye Trudy. T. 3. O stikhe [Selected Works. Vol. 3. Versification]. Moscow, pp. 54—131 (in Russ.)Gasparov, M. L., 2001. Preface I. In: J. Bailey, ed. Izbrannye stat'i po russkomu narodnomu stikhu [Selected Works on Russian Folk Versification]. Moscow, pp. 9—13 (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 2004. For the 75th Anniversary of James Bailey. Zhivaya starina [Living antiquity], 4, pp. 50 (in Russ.).Hilferding, A. F., 1873. Onezhskie byliny, zapisannye Aleksandrom Fedorovichem Gil'ferdingom letom 1871 goda. S dvumya portretami onezhskikh rapsodov i napevami bylin [Onega epics recorded by Alexander Fedorovich Hilferding in the summer of 1871. With two portraits of Onega rhapsodies and melodies of epics]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Jakobson, R., 1966. Slavic Epic Verse: Studies in Comparative Metrics. In: R. Jakobson, ed. Selected Writings. Vol. 4: Slavic Epic Studies. The Hague; Paris, pp. 414—463.Kazartsev, E. V., 2017. Sravnitel'noe stikhovedenie: metrika i ritmika [Comparative Verse Studies: Meter and Rhythm]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Khvorost’ianova, E. V., 2004. Rhythmical Order of Northern Russian Incantations. In: Russkii fol’klor. T. 32. Materialy i issledovaniya [Russian Folklore. Vol. 32. Materials and Studies]. St. Petersburg, pp. 88—107 (in Russ.).Korchagin, K. M., 2011. Contemporary studies in metrics abroad. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 4, pp. 90—115 (in Russ.).Korchagin, K. M., 2012. Review on: V. P. Moskvin. Theoretical Foundations of Verse Studies. Philologica, 9 (21/23), pp. 448—463 (In Russ.).Krasnoperova, M. A., 2004. To the Question of the Origin of Anapaestic Rhythm in Russian Folk Octosyllabic Verse. In: Russkii fol’klor. T. 32. Materialy i issledovaniya [Russian Folklore. Vol. 32. Materials and Studies]. St. Petersburg, pp. 108—129 (in Russ.).Kviatkovski, A. P., 2008. Ritmologiya [Rhythmology]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Lobanov, M. A., 2007. Stikh byliny. Metrika — Semantika — Genezis [Verse of Bylina-Epics: Metrics — Semantics — Genesis]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Lobkova, G. F., Mekhnetsova, K. A. and Teplova, I. B., eds., 2014. Etnomuzykologiya: istoriya formirovaniya nauchno-obrazovatel’nykh tsentrov, metody i rezul’taty areal’nykh issledovanii: Materialy mezhdunarodnykh nauchnykh konferentsii 2011—2012 godov [Ethnomusicology: History of the Formation of Scientific and Educational Centers, Methods and Results of Areal Research. Proceedings of International Scientific Conferences of 2011—2012]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Matochkin, A. A., 2012. Individual Features of the Pechora Epic Singers’ Quantitative Technique for Verse Singing. Antropologicheskij forum [Forum for Anthropology and Culture], 16, pp. 61—71 (in Russ.).Moskvin, V. P., 2009. Teoreticheskie osnovy stikhovedeniya [Theoretical Foundations of Verse Studies]. Moscow (in Russ.).Nikolaev, S. L., 2020. “Slovo o polku Igoreve”: rekonstruktsiya stikhotvornogo teksta [The Tale of Igor’s Campaign: Reconstruction of a Poetic Text]. Moscow; St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Orlitskii, Yu. B., 2017. Rhyming Verse (Raeshnik) in the Newest Russian Poetry. In: Trudy Instituta russkogo yazyka im. V. V. Vinogradova. 11. Slavyanskii stikh [Proceedings of the V. V. Vinogradov Russian Language Institute. 11. Slavic Verse]. Moscow, pp. 158—170 (in Russ.).Petrov, A. M., 2019. Metrical Types of Bylinas (Russian Epic Folk Songs) in the Collection of the Institute of Linguistics, Literature and History at the Karelian Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In: P. Plecháč, B. P. Scherr, T. Skulacheva, H. Bermúdez-Sabel and R. Kolár, eds. Quantitative Approaches to Versification. Prague, pp. 183—191.Petrov, A. M., 2021. Spiritual Verses about Tsarevich Joasaph: Plots and Metrical Models. Antropologicheskij forum [Forum for Anthropology and Culture], 49, pp. 88—131, https://doi.org/10.31250/1815-8870-2021-17-49-88-131 (in Russ.).Petrov, A. M., 2022. Trochaic tetrameter in Russian folk spiritual verses of late tradition: Some issues of metrics and rhythmics. Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 3, pp. 54—74, https://doi.org/10.31857/0373-658X.2022.3.54-74 (in Russ.).Petrov, A. M., 2023. Is there a three-ictic taktovik in the verse of Russian bylinas? Voprosy Jazykoznanija [Topics in the study of language], 4, pp. 65—95, https://doi. org/10.31857/0373-658X.2023.4.65-95 (in Russ.).Petrova, A. A., 2010. Rhythmical Structure of Northern Chastushkas: A Field Study. In: S. I. Bogdanov and E. V. Khvorost’yanova, eds. Otechestvennoe stikhovedenie: 100-letnie itogi i perspektivy razvitiya: Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Russian Study of Verse: 100-yers Results and Development Prospects: Proceedings of the International Conference]. St. Petersburg, pp. 198—204 (in Russ.).Propp, V. Ya., 1976. Principles of Classification of Folklore Genres. In: V. Ya. Propp, ed. Fol'klor i deistvitel'nost'. Izbrannye stat'i [Folkore and Reality. Selected Articles]. Moscow, pp. 34—45 (in Russ.).Ranchin, A. M., 2021. Review of: Nikolaev S. L. “The Word about Igor's regiment”: reconstruction of a poetic text. Moscow; St. Petersburg, 2020. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie [New Literary Review], 4 (170), pp. 344—352 (in Russ.).Shtokmar, M. P., 1952. Issledovaniya v oblasti russkogo narodnogo stikhoslozheniya [Research in the field of Russian folk poetry]. Moscow (in Russ.).Taranovsky, K., 1955—1956. Review on “Studies in Russian Folk Versification” by M. P. Shtokmar. Јuzhnoslovenski filolog, 21(1—4). Belgrade, pp. 335—363.Taranovsky, K. F., 2010. On “Studies in Russian Folk Versification” by M. P. Shtokmar. In: K. F. Taranovsky, ed. Russkie dvuslozhnye razmery. Stat'i o stikhe [Russian Binary Meters. Articles about Verse]. Moscow, pp. 519—544 (in Russ.).Trubetskoy, N. S., 1987a. On the Verse of Russian Bylina-Epics. In: N. S. Trubetskoy, ed. Izbrannye trudy po filologii [Selected Works in Philology]. Moscow, pp. 352—358 (in Russ.).Trubetskoy, N. S., 1987b. On the Meter of Chastushka. In: N. S. Trubetskoy, ed. Izbrannye trudy po filologii [Selected Works in Philology]. Moscow, pp. 371—390 (in Russ.).Vostokov, A. Kh., 1812. An Essay on Russian Versification. Sankt-Peterburgskii vestnik [Saint Petersburg’s Currier], 2 (6), pp. 39—68, 168—206, 271—288 (in Russ.).Vostokov, A. Kh., 1817. Opyt o russkom stikhoslozhenii [An Essay on Russian Versification]. St. Peterburg (in Russ.).Zaitsev, A. I., 1995. The Verse of Russian Bylina-Epics and Proto-Indo-European Poetry. In: Russkii fol’klor. T. 28. Epicheskie traditsii: materialy i issledovaniya [Russian Folklore. Vol. 28. Epic Traditions: Materials and Studies]. St. Petersburg, pp. 198—205 (in Russ.).Zhirmunsky, V. M., 1975. Teoriya stikha [Theory of Verse]. Leningrad (in Russ.).Государственная академия художественных наук vs. петроградский формализм: теория стиха. 2. О «Рифме» В.М. ЖирмунскогоM.V.AkimovaHigher Normal SchoolThe article presents a historical and scientific analysis of the oral presentations and other works that criticized Boris Eikhenbaum’s “Melodics of Verse” and Viktor Zhirmunsky’s “Rhyme, Its History and Theory” from the perspective of Moscow formalism. The overview relies on unknown materials, which can thus be introduced into scholarly discourse. It refers to the presentations made by the philologist and philosopher Maksim Kœnigsberg and the literary scholar Mikhail Shtokmar, a student of Boris Yarkho at the State Academy of Artistic Sciences. In addition, the data from the newly discovered article by Maxim Kœnigsberg, “Compound Rhymes in the Lyrics of Innokentii Annenskii” (1924), is explored. The theses of Kœnigsberg’s exposé are published for the first time, with notes. The aim of the article is to reveal the polemical layer in the works of Moscow formalists. This is achieved by identifying key positions in the analysed texts, by their historical commentary, mutual comparison, and the discovery of authors’ logic. The results of the research include the publication of archival materials and their interpretation in the context of internal formalistic polemics. New materi­als reveal that Zhirmunsky allowed Kœnigsberg to develop his own theory of verse with an orientation towards semantics; whereas Shtokmar, on the contrary, rejected an important part in Zhirmunsky’s rhyme theory. The interrelation between different branches of the Russian formalism become clearer.0529202620422110.5922/2225-5346-2024-4-14https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15767/81144/Akimova, M. V., 2024. State Academy of Artistic Sciences vs. Formalism in Petrograd: Theory of verse. 1. On Boris Eikhenbaum’s “Melodics of verse”. Vremennik russkogo formalizma, 1 (1), р. 77—106, https://doi.org/10.14672/rf.v1i1.2443 (in Russ.).Chubarov, I. M., 2013. Critics of Formalism in GAKhN. In: Russkii formalizm (1913—2013): Mezhdunarodnyi kongress k 100-letiyu russkoi formal'noi shkoly: tezisy dokladov [Russian Russian Formalism (1913—2013): International Congress on the 100th Anniversary of the Russian Formal School: abstracts]. August, 25—29. Moscow, pp. 160—161 (in Russ.).Depretto, C., 2008. La question du formalisme moscovite. Revue des études slaves, 79 (1/2), pp. 87—101.Dmitriev, A., 2009. How formal-philosophical school made? In: M. A. Kolerov and N. S. Plotnikov, eds. Issledovaniya po istorii russkoi mysli: Ezhegodnik za 2006—2007 gody [Studies on history of Russian thought: The yearbook for 2006—2007]. Vol. 8. Moscow, pp. 71—96 (in Russ.).Eikhenbaum, B., 1922. Melodika russkogo liricheskogo stikha [Melodics of Russian lyric verse]. Petersburg (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 1997. Izbrannye trudy. T. III: O stikhe [Collected works. Vol. 3: On verse]. Moscow (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 2000. Ocherk istorii russkogo stikha [An essay on the history of Russian verse]. Moscow (in Russ.).Gornung, B., 2001. Pokhod vremeni. Stat'i i esse [Campaign of time. Articles and essays]. Moscow (in Russ.).Gornung, B. V., 2017. To the question of subject of poetics. In: N. S. Plotnikov, N. P. Podzemskaya and Yu. N. Yakimenko, eds. Iskusstvo kak yazyk — Yazyki iskusstva. Gosudarstvennaya akademiya khudozhestvennykh nauk i esteticheskaya teoriya 1920-kh godov [Art as a language — The languages of art. The State Academy of Art Sciences and Aesthetic Theory of the 1920s]. Vol. II. Moscow, pp. 487—512 (in Russ.).Grübel, R., 2010. “Krasnorechivey slov inykh / Nemye razgovory”: Concept of inner form in “Khudozhestvennaya forma” by GAKhN (1927) through the prism of conceptions by Gustav Shpet, Russian formalists and Mikhail Bakhtin. Logos, 2 (75), pp. 11—34 (in Russ.).Hansen-Löve, A., 2012. Die ‘Formal-Philosophische Schule’ in der russischen Kunsttheorie des zwanziger Jahre. Ein Überblick [1978/1987]. In: Zwischen den Lebenswelten. Interkulturelle Profile der Phänomenologie. Berlin, s. 205—257.Kœnigsberg M. M., 2017. Concept of inner form in Anton Marty’s work and the possibility of further interpretation. In: N. S. Plotnikov, N. P. Podzemskaya and Yu. N. Yakimenko, eds. Iskusstvo kak yazyk — Yazyki iskusstva. Gosudarstvennaya akademiya khudozhestvennykh nauk i esteticheskaya teoriya 1920-kh godov [Art as a language — The languages of art. The State Academy of Art Sciences and Aesthetic Theory of the 1920s]. Vol. II. Moscow, pp. 228—261 (in Russ.).Kœnigsberg, M. M., 1994. From versological fragments. Analysis of the concept of “verse”. Philologica, 1 (1/2), pp. 149—185 (in Russ.).Kœnigsberg, M., 2012. Notes on rime (From poetic studies, 1923). Philologica, 9 (21/23), pp. 334—356 (in Russ.).Levinton, G. A. and Ustinov, A. B., 1990. To the history of type-written periodicals of the 1920s. In: Tynyanovskii sbornik. V Tynyanovskie chteniya [Tynianov’s collection. V Tynianov’s readings]. Riga, pp. 197—210 (in Russ.).Mazur, S., 1995. State Academy of Artistic Sciences (GAKhN). In: Russkaya filosofiya. Malyi entsiklopedicheskii slovar' [Russian philosophy. Small Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow, pp. 140—142 (in Russ.).Pilshchikov, I. and Ustinov, A., 2020. The Moscow Linguistic Circle and the formation of Russian verse studies (1919—1920). In: L. Fleishman, D. M. Bethea and I. Vinitsky, eds. Stanford Slavic Studies 50. Unacknowledged Legislators: Studies in Russian Literary History and Poetics in Honor of Michael Wachtel. Berlin, pp. 389—413 (in Russ.).Pilshchikov, I., 2022. The four faces of Russian formalism. In: M. Mrugalski, Sch. Schahadat and I. Wutsdorff in coll. with D. Ulicka, eds. Central and Eastern European literary theory and the West. Berlin, pp. 212—257.Pilshchikov, I. A., 2014. “The Inner Form of the Word” in the Theories of Poetic Language. Kritika i semiotika [Critique and Semiotics], 2, pp. 54—76 (in Russ.).Plotnikov, N. S., 2017. Structure and history. The program of philosophical studies of art at the GAKhN. In: N. S. Plotnikov, N. P. Podzemskaya and Yu. N. Yakimenko, eds. Iskusstvo kak yazyk — Yazyki iskusstva. Gosudarstvennaya akademiya khudozhestvennykh nauk i esteticheskaya teoriya 1920-kh godov [Art as a language — The languages of art. The State Academy of Art Sciences and Aesthetic Theory of the 1920s]. Vol. I. Moscow, pp. 29—43 (in Russ.).Plotnikov, N. S., 2021. Beyond encyclopedia: A short story of concept of “form”. In: N. Sazonov and A. Hennig, eds. Sintez sovremennosti. Ruiny GAKhN i postdistsiplinarnost' [Synthesis of modernity. The ruins of GAKhN and postdisciplinarity]. Moscow, pp. 239—250 (in Russ.).Polilova, V., 2011. Debates around “Khudozhestvennaya forma” and “Ars Poetica” volumes: Boris Yarkho and OPOYaZ. Studia Slavica: sbornik rabot molodykh filologov [Studia Slavica: collection of works by young philologists]. Vol. X. Tallinn, pp. 153—170 (in Russ.).Shapir, M. I., 1990. [Additions: Commentaries; References; Indexes]. In: G. O. Vinokur, ed. Filologicheskie issledovaniya: Lingvistika i poetika [Studies in philology: Linguistics and Poetics]. Moscow, pp. 256—448 (in Russ.).Shapir, M. I., 1994a. Kœnigsberg and his phenomenology of verse. Russian Linguistics, 18 (1), pp. 73—113 (in Russ.).Shapir, M. I., 1994b. Protocols of Moscow linguistic circle, 26 Feb. 1923. Philologica, 1 (1/2), pp. 191—201 (in Russ.).Shpet, G., 1989. Sochineniya [Works]. Moscow (in Russ.).Toddes, E. A. and Chudakova, M. O., 1981. First Russian translation of Ferdinand de Saussure’s “Course of General Linguistics” and activiry of Moscow linguistic circle (Materials for the study of the existence of a scientific book in the 1920s). In: Fedorovskie chteniya 1978 [Fedorov’s readings, 1978]. Moscow, pp. 229—249 (in Russ.).Tynyanov, Yu. N., 1924. Problema stikhotvornogo yazyka [The problem of poetic language]. Leningrad (in Russ.).Venditti, M., 2010. Maksim Kœnigsberg’s study on inner form in Anton Marty’s work (1924). Logos, 2 (75), pp. 150—161 (in Russ.).Venditti, M., 2017. The philosophical foundations of literary studies in the GAKhN. In: N. S. Plotnikov, N. P. Podzemskaya and Yu. N. Yakimenko, eds. Iskusstvo kak yazyk — Yazyki iskusstva. Gosudarstvennaya akademiya khudozhestvennykh nauk i esteticheskaya teoriya 1920-kh godov [Art as a language — The languages of art. The State Academy of Art Sciences and Aesthetic Theory of the 1920s]. Vol. I. Moscow, pp. 227—263 (in Russ.)Zhirmunsky, V. M., 1922. Poeziya Aleksandra Bloka [Aleksandr Blok’s poetry]. Petersburg (in Russ.).Zhirmunsky, V. M., 1923. Rifma, ee istoriya i teoriya [Rime, its history and theory]. Petersburg (in Russ.).Zhirmunsky, V. M., 1925. Vvedenie v metriku: teoriya stikha [Introduction to the Metric: the Theory of verse]. Leningrad (in Russ.).Стих Гейне в научных дискуссиях и русской переводческой практике (1910—1930-е годы)V.S.PolilovaLomonosov Moscow State Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7095-9909The spread of new poetic meters in the works of both older and younger generation of symbolists inevitably led to attempts at their scientific comprehension and description. This paper demonstrates that in writings on Russian verse, starting with Andrei Bely's “Symbol­ism”, the concepts of ‘dolnik/pauznik’ have been consistently analysed in comparison with German tonic verse in general and Heine's poetry in particular. The theoretical interest in ‘dolnik’ was fueled not only by the prevailing poetic processes but also by new translation experiments, primarily the equirhythmic translations of Heine by Alexander Blok, published in his collection “Night Hours” (1911). The formal similarities between Russian and German ‘dolnik’ prompted scholars to develop comparative metrics and theories of tonic verse, while the rhythmic differences led to the refinement of concepts related to rhythm and meter in non-syllabic verse, as well as the establishment of ideas concerning formal and functional equiva­lence of metric forms in poetic translation. In addition to scientific discussions from the 1910s—1930s, the paper addresses the rhythmic strategies employed in Russian translations of Heine’s three-ictic dolnik of the early decades of the 20th century by Alexander Blok, Yuri Tynianov, Viktor Zorgenfrei, Evgenya Knipovich, and Vera Arens. The equirhythmic tradi­tion established by Blok in translating Heine’s verse is contrasted with Tynianov's functional approach. This study deepens the understanding of the connections between symbolist and formalist poetics, as well as between symbolist translation and the so-called philological trans­lation of the 1920s and 1930s.0529202622223510.5922/2225- 5346-2024-4-15https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15767/81146/Bailey, J., 1969. Blok and Heine: An Episode from the History of Russian dol’niki. The Slavic and East European Journal, 13 (1), pp. 1—22.Bely, A., 1910. Simvolizm: kniga statei [Symbolism: a book of articles]. Moscow (in Russ.).Blok, A. A., 1911. Nochnye chasy: chetvertyi sbornik stikhov [Night hours: The fourth collection of poems]. Moscow (in Russ.).Blok, A. A., 1934. Heine in Russia: On Russian translations of Heine’s poems. In: A. A. Blok, ed. Sobranie sochinenii. T. XI: Istoriya literatury 1903—1921 [Collected Works. Vol. XI: History of Literature 1903—1921]. Leningrad (in Russ.).Bobrov, S. P., 1915. The “trekhdolny pauznik” in Pushkin’s works. In: S. P. Bobrov, ed. Novoe o stikhoslozhenii A. S. Pushkina [New on the versification of A. S. Pushkin]. Moscow, pp. 7—14 (in Russ.).Bobrov, S. P., 1916. Zapiski stikhotvortsa [Notes of a poet]. Moscow (in Russ.).Brik, O. M. et al., 2012. O. M. Brik’s talk on new translations of Heine’s “Deutschland” and its discussion at the translators section of the Writers’ Union (1934). Philologica, 9 (21/23), pp. 280—333.Bryusov, V., 1922. Among the verses. Pechat' i revoliutsiya [The Press and the Revolution], 2 (5), April—June, pp. 143—149 (in Russ.).Bryusov, V. Ya., 1919. Kratkii kurs nauki o stikhe: (Lektsii, chitannye v Studii Stikhovedeniya v Moskve 1918 g.). Chast' 1: Chastnaya metrika i ritmika russkogo yazyka [A short course in the science of verse: (Lectures given at the Poetry Studio in Moscow in 1918). Part 1: Private metrics and rhythmics of the Russian language]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bryusov, V. Ya., 1924. Bryusov, V. Ya., 1924. Osnovy stikhovedeniia: Kurs V.U.Z. [Foundations of verse studies: A university course]. Parts 1—2. 2nd ed. Moscow (in Russ.).Chudakov, A. P., Chudakova, M. O. and Toddes, E. A., 1977. Notes. In: Yu. N. Tynyanov, ed. Poetika. Istoriya literatury. Kino [Poetics. Literary history. Cinema]. Moscow, pp. 397—572 (in Russ.).Etkind, E., 1983. “Funny example of Heine” (Heine — Tynyanov — Mayakovsky). Revue des études slaves, 55 (3), pp. 457—481.Fedorov, A., 1929. Russian Heine (1940s—1960s). In: Russkaya poeziya XIX veka [Russian poetry of the 19th century]. Leningrad, pp. 248—298 (in Russ.).Fedorov, A., 1983. Fragments of memories. In: Vospominaniya o Yurii Tynyanove: Portrety i vstrechi [Memories of Yuri Tynyanov: Portraits and meetings]. Moscow, pp. 85—108 (in Russ.).Fedorov, A. V., 1927. The problem of poetic translation. In: Poetika [Poetics]. Issue 2. Leningrad, pp. 104—118 (in Russ.).Fedorov, A. V., 1928. The sound form of poetic translation (Issues of metrics and phonetics). In: Poetika [Poetics]. Issue 4. Leningrad, pp. 45—69 (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 1974. Sovremennyi russkii stikh: Metrika i ritmika [Contemporary Russian verse: Meter and rhythm]. Moscow (in Russ.).Gasparov, M. L., 1997. Blok in the history of Russian verse. In: M. L. Gasparov, ed. Izbrannye trudy [Selected works]. Vol. 3. Moscow, pp. 449—468 (in Russ.).Heine, G., 1920—1922. Izbrannye sochineniya [Selected works]. Vol. 5—6. Petersburg (in Russ.).Heine, G., 1931. Stikhotvoreniya [Poems]. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russ.).Knipovich, E.F, 1987. Ob Aleksandre Bloke: Vospominaniya. Dnevniki. Kommentarii [About Alexander Blok: Memories. Diaries. Comments]. Moscow (in Russ.).Korchagin, K. M., 2017. Metric systems typology and metric status of dolnik based on binary meter. Zbornik Matitse Srpske za slavistiku [Matica Srpska Journal of Slavic Studies], 92, pp. 707—729 (in Russ.).Landa, E. V., 1964. A. Blok and translations from Heine. In: Masterstvo perevoda. Sbotnik 3: 1963 [The art of translation. Volume 3: 1963]. Moscow, pp. 292—328 (in Russ.).Landa, E. V., 1982. Melodiya knigi: Aleksandr Blok — redaktor [The melody of the book: Alexander Blok as an editor]. Moscow (in Russ.).Liapin, S. and Pilshchikov, I., 2015. “Ein Fichtenbaum steht einsam” and the typology of the Russian dolnik (following Osip Brik’s, Boris Jarcho’s and Andrei Fedorov’s remarks on the Russian translations from Heine). Studia Metrica et Poetica, 2 (1), pp. 58—80, https://doi. org/10.12697/smp.2015.2.1.03.Peshkovsky, A. M., 1925. Sbornik statei: Metodika rodnogo yazyka, lingvistika, stilistika, poetika [Collection of articles: Methods of the native language, linguistics, stylistics, poetics]. Moscow; Leningrad (in Russ.).Plungian, V., 2011. Two Requiems, or the English Dolnik on Russian Soil. In: B. P. Scherr, J. Bailey and E. V. Kazartsev, eds. Formal Methods in Poetics: A Collection of Scholarly Works Dedicated to the Memory of Professor M. A. Krasnoperova. Lüdenscheid, pp. 173—181.Polilova, V., 2023. ¿Cómo evaluar la fidelidad de una traducción? Métodos cuantitativos en el estudio de las traducciones poéticas. Literatura: teoria, historia, critica, 25 (2), pp. 21—59, http://doi.org/10.15446/lthc.v25n2.108772.Polilova, V. S., 2014. Osip Brik and poetic translation (on the issue of equirhythmic translation). In: Metodologiya i praktika russkogo formalizma: Brikovskii sbornik [Methodology and practice of Russian formalism: Brik’s collection]. Vol. 2. Moscow, pp. 158—169 (in Russ.).Report on scholarly activity of the Sector of wordly arts. In: Poetika [Poetics], 1928. Issue 4. Leningrad, pp. 149—156 (in Russ.).Tarlinskaja, M., 1993. Strict stress-meter in English poetry compared with German and Russian. Calgary.Tomashevsky, B. V., 1928. Verse and rhythm (Methodological notes). In: Poetika [Poetics]. Issue 4. Leningrad, pp. 5—25 (in Russ.).Tynyanov, Yu. N., 1921. Blok and Heine. In: Ob Aleksandre Bloke: sbornik statei [About Alexander Blok: a collection of articles]. Petersburg, pp. 235—264 (in Russ.).Tynyanov, Yu. N., 1922. Tyutchev and Heine. Kniga i revolyutsiya [The Book and the Revolution], 4 (16), pp. 13—16 (in Russ.).Tynyanov, Yu. N., 1924. Problema stikhotvornogo yazyka [The problem of poetic language]. Leningrad (in Russ.).Tynyanov, Yu. N., 1977. Poetika. Istoriya literatury. Kino [Poetics. Literary history. Cinema]. Moscow (in Russ.).Zhirmunsky, V. M., 1925. Vvedenie v metriku: teoriya stikha [Introduction to the Metric: the Theory of verse]. Leningrad (in Russ.).Zhirmunsky, V. M., 1928. Voprosy teorii literatury [Questions of literary theory]. Leningrad, pp. 278—321 (in Russ.).«Какое-нибудь невозможное qui pro quo»: Ф.М. Достоевский и З.Н. Гиппиус (рассказ «Иван Иванович и чёрт»)Ya.Ya.DzhamalovaHerzen State Pedagogical University of RussiaThis paper analyses the operation of the ‘qui pro quo’ principle in Zinaida Gippius's sto­ry “Ivan Ivanovich and the Devil.” Rooted in a comedic literary device based on misunder­standing and confusion, the ‘qui pro quo principle’ was identified by Rita Kleyman as a key element in the poetics of Fedor Dostoevsky's works, particularly in his novel “The Brothers Karamazov”. Scholars have frequently noted the connection between Gippius's story and Dostoevsky’s novel. However, the presence of another link — the ‘qui pro quo principle’ — has yet to be explored in Gippius's text. The analysis demonstrates that the principle mani­fests through the symbolic pairing of the main characters and is closely tied to the theme of temptation. The use of the ‘qui pro quo’ principle in the story results in an inverted portrayal of the motif of temptation. It is argued that one of the defining characteristics of Gippius's imagery — the contradictory nature of the protagonists — is shaped by this principle. The ‘qui pro quo’ is a constant feature of Dostoevsky's works and is reinterpreted by Gippius. The principle is an additional thread linking 19th-century Russian classical literature with Rus­sian modernist literature.0529202623624510.5922/2225- 5346-2024-4-16https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/15768/81148/Al'mi, I. L., 2002. O poehzii i proze [About poetry and prose]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Azadovsky, K. M. and Lavrov, A. V., 1991. Z. N. Gippius: metaphysics, personality, works. In: Gippius Z. N. Sochineniya. Stikhotvoreniya. Proza. [Gippius Z. N. Works. Poems. Prose]. Leningrad, pp. 3—44 (in Russ.).Babichev, N. T. and Borovsky, Ya. M., 1988. Slovar' latinskikh krylatykh slov: 2500 edinits [Dictionary of Latin winged words: 2500 units]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bocharov, S. G., 2007. The Desert Sower and the Grand Inquisitor. In: Bocharov S. G. Filologicheskie syuzhety [Bocharov S. G. Philological subjects]. Moscow, pp. 233—262 (in Russ.).Bulgakov, S. N., 1993. Ivan Karamazov (in Dostoevsky's novel “The Brothers Karamazov”) as a philosophical type. In: Sochineniya: v 2 tomakh. [Works: In 2 vol.]. Vol. 2. Moscow, pp. 15—45 (in Russ.).Dostoevsky, F. M., 1976. The Brothers Karamazov: books. 1—10. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii: v 30 tomakh [Complete Set of Works: In 30 vol.]. Vol. 14. Leningrad (in Russ.).Dzhamalova, Ia. Ia., 2021. Roman F. M. Dostoevskogo «Brat'ya Karamazovy» (1880) v retseptsii Z. N. Gippius (rasskaz «Ivan Ivanovich i chert» (1906) [The novel by F. M. Dostoevsky “The Brothers Karamazov” (1880) in the reception of Z. N. Gippius (short story “Ivan Ivanovich and the Devil” (1906)]. Master’s thesis. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Farafonova, O. A., 2013. Qui pro quo as the organizing principle of the artistic wholeness in F. M. Dostoevsky's novel “The Brothers Karamazov”. In: Morfologiya diskursa lzhi v literature i kul'ture: kollektivnaya monografiya: v 2 ch. [Morphology of the lying discourse in literature and culture: collective monograph: in 2 parts]. Part 2. Novosibirsk, pp. 86—96 (in Russ.).Gippius, Z. N., 2001. Ivan Ivanovich and the devil. In: Sobranie sochinenii: v 15 tomakh [Set of Works: In 15 vol.]. Vol. 3. Moscow, pp. 488—506 (in Russ.).Gippius, Z. N., 2003. Falling in love. In: Sobranie sochinenii: v 15 tomakh [Set of Works: In 15 vol.]. Vol. 7. Moscow, pp. 78—89 (in Russ.).Kalenichenko, O. N., 2015. Intertext as a literary device in the short stories-myths of Z. Gippius about the devil. In: Slovesnoe iskusstvo Serebryanogo veka i Russkogo zarubezh'ya v kontekste ehpokhi («Smirnovskie chteniya»): sb. st. [Literary art of the Silver Age and the Russian Diaspora in the context of the era (“Smirnov Readings”): article collection]. Moscow, pp. 89—97 (in Russ.).Kleiman, R. Ya., 1996. Metonymic qui pro quo in Dostoevsky's poetics (Devil. The nightmare of the Russian intelligentsia and the modern tragedy of the Fatherland). In: Dostoevsky i sovremennost' [Dostoevsky and modernity]. Staraya Russa, pp. 65—69 (in Russ.).Kleiman, R. Ya., 2000. Khudozhestvennye konstanty Dostoevskogo v kontekste istoricheskoi poehtiki [Dostoevsky's artistic сonstants in the context of historical poetics]. PhD Dissertation. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Kurilo, Yu. I., 2012. Problematika i poetika maloi prozy Z. N. Gippius 1890— 1900-kh godov (gendernyi aspect) [Problematics and poetics of small prose by Z. N. Gippius in the 1890s— 1900s (gender aspect)]. Saratov (in Russ.).Magomedova, D. M., 2018. Rewriting the “New People” Plot in the Russian Fiction at the End of the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Centuries (V. V. Veresayev and Z. N. Gippius). Novyi filologicheskii vestnik [The New Philological Bulletin], 2 (45), pp. 118—125, https://doi.org/10.24411/2072-9316-2018-00020 (in Russ.).Propp, V. Ya., 1976. Problemy komizma i smekha [Problems of comedy and laughter]. Moscow (in Russ.).Slovar' literaturovedcheskikh terminov [Dictionary of Literary Terms], 1974. Moscow (in Russ.).Stepanyan, K. A., 2010. Yavlenie i dialog v romanakh F. M. Dostoevskogo [Phenomenon and dialogue in the novels of F. M. Dostoevsky]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Tomson, D., 1996. The male Self in the work of Zinaida Gippius: a literary device or a psychological need? Preobrazhenie [Transformation], 4, pp. 138—149. Available at: https://a-z.ru/women_cd1/html/preobrazh_4_1996_g.htm [Accessed 15 September 2023] (in Russ.).