NONE20260601044038523Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversitySlovo.ru: Baltic accent2225-53462686-89890601202611BoardsEditorial0601202611K.KullE.VelmezovaIn a series of interviews given in the early 1990s, Yuri Lotman contemplated the boundary between the human and the animal. Keenly interested in animals, the scholar stressed in his later work the need to include animal communication in the semiosphere. Lotman’s model holds that semiosis requires at least two languages between which instances of untranslatability occur. However, he did not extend this model to animal communication. This is the apparent paradox of Lotman’s later work. Lotman might not have had enough time to think these problems through, although these issues had been addressed earlier by other authors. The problem of the relationship between cyclicality and openness, the old and the new, repetitions and novelty, the algoritmicity and non-algoritmicity as aspects of semiosis and of each act of interpretations has not been sufficiently investigated. Therefore, Lotman’s later work deserves attention today.0601202611Avtonomova, N. S., 2014. Pozdnij Lotman [Late Lotman]. In: N. S. Avtonomova. Otkrytaya struktura: Yakobson — Bakhtin — Lotman — Gasparov [Open Structure: Jacobson — Bakhtin — Lotman — Gasparov]. Moscow, pp. 219—227 (in Russ.).Lotman, Yu. M., 1998. Lyudi i znaki [People and signs]. In: Vyshgorod, 3, pp. 133—138 (in Russ.).Lotman, Yu. M., 1992. Kul'tura i vzryv [Culture and explosion]. Moscow (in Russ.).Lotman, Yu. M., 2010. Nepredskazuemye mekhanizmy kul'tury [Unpredictable culture mechanisms]. Tallinn (in Russ.).Salupere, S., 2017. O metayazyke Yuriya Lotmana: problemy, kontekst, istochniki [On the metalanguage of Yuri Lotman: problems, context, sources]. Ph. D. University of Tartu (in Russ.).Chernov, I. A., 1997. Opyt vvedenija v sistemu Yu. M. Lotmana [Introduction experience to the system by Yu. M. Lotman]. In: Yu. M. Lotman. O russkoi literature:Stat'i i issledovaniya (1958—1993) [On Russian literature: Articles and studies (1958—1993)]. St. Petersburg, pp. 5—13 (in Russ.).Deacon, T. W., 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: W. W. Norton.Hoffmeyer, J., 2008. Biosemiotics: An Examination into the Signs of Life and the Life of Signs. Scranton: Scranton University Press.Hoffmeyer, J., Emmeche, C., 1991. Code duality and the semiotics of nature. In: M. Anderson, M. Floyd, eds. On Semiotic Modeling. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 117—166.Kull, K., 1999. Towards biosemiotics with Juri Lotman. Semiotica, 127(1/4), pp. 115—131.Kull, K., 2015. A semiotic theory of life: Lotman’s principles of the universe of the mind. Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, 19(3), pp. 255—266.Kull, K., Lotman, Yu., 2015. Au sujet de la sémiotique de la vie et de l’évolution. (Entretien de Kalevi Kull avec Youri Lotman. Tartu, Juin 1992.) Slavica Occitania, 40, pp. 165—182.Lotman, Yu., 1990a. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London: Tauris.Lotman, Ju., 1990б. “Vita aeterna” intervjuu. (Tammaru, Toomas, toim.). Vita aeterna, 5, pp. 12—20.Lotman, Ju., 1991. Eessõna eestikeelsele väljaandele. In: Ju. Lotman. Kultuurisemiootika: Tekst — kirjandus — kultuur. Tallinn: Olion, pp. 3—6.Sebeok, T. A., 1979. Prefigurements of art. Semiotica, 27(1/2), pp. 3—73.G. L.TulchinskiySemiotic systems are closely associated with social practices, within which the former record, store, and disseminate social experience. These systems affect the human consciousness to change the semantic picture of the world, behaviour, and the way one perceives reality. Almost all cultural artefacts perform the function of a sign. As a semiotic system develops special signs emerge to replace the artefacts by denoting them. Iconic signs are based upon resemblance, index signs upon a causal relationship, and symbols on social conventions. Language is the most important system of symbolisation. Indeed, language serves as a guide to the systems of rules, values, and socio-cultural practices. In this paper, I present a model of deep semiotics, which is interpreted as a semantic structure of social experience objectified into a sign. This structure includes the material form, the referential meaning, and the personal meaning (attitudes and experiences) of the sign. This model describes the levels and dynamics of the assimilation and subjectification (de-objectification, understanding) of social experience. At the same time, the model demonstrates the objectification of experience. The components of the semantic structure represent the levels of understanding – identification, referencing, interpretation, evaluation, and empathy.0601202611Ankersmit, F., 2003. Narrativnaya logika. Semanticheskii analiz yazyka istorikov [Narrative logic. Semantic analysis of the language of historians]. Moscow (in Russ.).Ankersmit, F., 2014. Esteticheskaya politika. Politicheskaya filosofiya po tu storonu fakta i tsennosti [Aesthetic policy. Political philosophy on the other side of fact and value]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bakhtin, M. M., 1975. Voprosy literatury i estetiki: Issledovaniya raznykh let [Questions of literature and aesthetics: Studies of different years]. Moscow (in Russ.).Bogatyrev, P. G., 1971. Voprosy teorii narodnogo iskusstva [Questions of the theory of folk art]. Moscow (in Russ.).Vygotskii, L. S., 1960. Razvitie vysshikh psikhicheskikh funktsii [The development of higher mental functions]. Moscow (in Russ.).Inglehart, R., 2018. Kul'turnaya evolyutsiya. Kak izmenyayutsya chelovecheskie motivatsii i kak eto menyaet mir [Cultural evolution. How human motivation changes and how it changes the world]. Moscow (in Russ.).Kakabadze, Z. M., 1985. Problema chelovecheskogo bytiya [The problem of human existence]. Tbilisi (in Russ.).Koshelev, A. D., ed., 1994. Yu. M. Lotman i tartusko-moskovskaya semioticheskaya shkola [Yu. M. Lotman and the Tartus-Moscow Semiotic School]. Moscow (in Russ.).Leontyev, D. A., 2003. Psikhologiya smysla [Psychology of meaning]. Moscow (in Russ.).Tul'chinskii, G. L., 1985. In what sense is the theory of meaning possible. In: V. V. Tselishchev, V. N. Karpovich, eds. Filosofskie osnovaniya nauchnoi teorii [Philosophical foundations of scientific theory]. Novosibirsk, pp. 108—127 (in Russ.).Tul'chinskii, G. L., 1987. Normativno-tsennostnaya priroda osmysleniya deistvitel'nosti [The normative value nature of the understanding of reality]. Leningrad (in Russ.).Tul'chinskii, G. L., 1986. Problema osmysleniya deistvitel'nosti [Problem understanding of reality]. Leningrad (in Russ.).Tul'chinskii, G. L., 2001. Freedom and meaning. A new shift in the humanitarian paradigm. In: Rossiiskie issledovaniya v gumanitarnykh naukakh [Russian studies in the humanities]. Vol. 16. Lewiston-Queenston-Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press (in Russ.).Tul'chinskii, G. L., 2006. Telo svobody [Body freedom]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Bentham, J., 1896. Theory of Legislation. London.Halliday, M. A. K., 1978. Language as social semiotics: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Maryland: University Park Press.Leeuwen, T., 2005. Introducingё Social Semiotics. New York: Routledge.Morris, Ch. W., 1938. Foundation of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Thibault, P. J., 1991. Social semiotics as praxis: Text, social meaning making, and Nabokov’s Ada. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Randviir, A., 2004. Mapping the World: Towards a Sociosemiotic Approach to Culture. Tartu: Tartu University.S. T.ZolyanA human activity is based on the constant creation, transmission and transformation of meanings and texts. All the forms of representation of this activity (culture, history, literature, art, politics, law, etc.) can be considered as semantic ensembles consisted from meaningful actions. The concept of “meaning” is fundamental not only in linguistics amd semiotics, but also in M. Weber's theory: thesubject of sociology is the understanding of “the meaning of behavior”. Based on the Weber’s definitions and their possible modification, we suggest the transdisciplinary synthesis around the study of the problem of meanings and their manifestation. Meaning production is understood as a result of the conjunction of linguistic and extralinguistic systems in the process of social interaction and communication. This allows to convert actional meanings into linguistic meanings, and vice versa.0601202611Weber, M., 1990. Basic sociological concepts. In: Yu. N. Davydova, ed. Weber Maks. Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Weber Max. Selected Works]. Moscow, pp. 602—643 (in Russ.).Vygotsky, L. S., 1983. Problemy razvitiya psikhiki [Problems of the development of the psyche]. Vol. 3. Moscow (in Russ.).Vygotsky, L. S., 1999. Myshlenie i rech' [Thinking and speaking]. Vol. 5. Moscow (in Russ.).Elmslev, L., 1960. Prolegomena to the theory of language. In: V. A. Zvegintsev, ed. Novoe v lingvistike [New in linguistics]. Vol. 1. Moscow, pp. 264—389 (in Russ.).Zolyan, S. T., Chernov, I. A., 1977. On the structure of the language of behavior description. Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Scientific notes of Tartu State University], 411, pp. 151—163 (in Russ.).Zolyan, S., 2017. Yuri Lotman and social semiotics: to the problem statement. Zbornik Matice Srpske za slavistiku = Matica Srpska Journal of Slavic Studies, 92, pp. 123—150 (in Russ.).Lotman, Yu. M., 1984. About semiosphere. Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Scientific notes of Tartu State University], 641, 5—23 (in Russ.).Lotman, Yu., 2008. A few introductory words. Sign Systems Studies, 36(2), pp. 509—511 (in Russ.).Luman, N., 2004. Obshchestvo kak sotsial'naya sistema [Society as a social system]. Moscow (in Russ.).Luman, N., 2007. Sotsial'nye sistemy. Ocherk obshchei teorii [Social systems. Essay on a general theory]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Zlatoust, I., 1902. Tvoreniya svyatogo ottsa nashego Ioanna Zlatousta, arkhiepiskopa Konstantinopol'skogo [The works of our holy father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople]. Vol. 8. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Halliday, M. A. K., 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.Leeuwen, T., 2005. Introducing Social Semiotics. London — New York: Routlegde.Searle, J., 1995. The construction of social reality. New York.A. V.ShchekoturovA problem of the growing popularity of cross-cultural social media studies is the lack of discrimination between the effects of user characteristics and those of the architecture of a virtual platform interface. This makes the detected cultural differences unreliable. A way to solve this problem is a comparative study of social media interfaces only, seeking to identify the culturally constituted meanings embedded in the design of virtual platforms. These meanings are employed in the users’ virtual self-presentation. I analysed Facebook and VKontakte – two large social media platforms originating from the countries with different cultural values and social expectations. My focus was on the principal categories of identification and virtual self-presentation. These are gender, sexuality, marital status, attitudes, and personal preferences. The comparative analysis of interfaces was carried out from the perspective of a change in the linguistic projection (which happens when the user switches from Russian to English and vice versa). I detected significant differences in all the categories analysed. I conclude that the Vkontakte platform reflects traditional patriarchal values and the Facebook platform those of pluralism and subject-centricity.0601202611Semeinyi kodeks Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 29.12.1995 N 223-FZ [“Family Code of the Russian Federation” of 12/29/1995 N 223-FZ]. Available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_8982/ [Accessed 23 June 2018].Shchekoturov, A. V., 2017. From flirting to sex change online: teenage practices of alternative self-presentations on the social network VKontakte. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i sotsial'nye peremeny [Monitoring Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes], 6(142), pp. 327—343 (in Russ.).Dou, X., 2011. The Influence of Cultures on SNS usage: Comparing Mixi in Japan and Facebook in the U. S. Public Relations Journal, 5 (4), pp. 1—16.Takahashi, T., 2010. MySpace or Mixi? Japanese Engagement with SNS (Social Networking Sites) in the Global Age. New Media and Society, 12 (3), pp. 453—475.Papacharissi, Z., 2009. The Virtual Geographies of Social Networks: a Comparative Analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media and Society, 11 (1—2), pp. 199—229.Zhao, S., Shchekoturov, AV., Shchekoturova, S. D., 2017. Personal Profile Settings as Cultural Frames: Facebook versus Vkontakte. Journal of Creative Communications, 12 (3), pp. 171—184.V. E.SoghomonyanIn this article, I address the influence of modern mass culture (MC), its symbolic system, narratives, and protagonists on the political discourse. I emphasise that an analysis of the images of mass culture protagonists can give a complete picture of the society that continuously reproduces these protagonists and seeks to resemble them. Therefore, the mode of the production of effective political discourse (PD) in modern society cannot ignore either the patterns of behaviour replicated in MC or the features of the unification of social institutions and roles. In terms of semiosis and its individual acts, the consumption of PD in society will necessarily correlate with the structural features of MC.0601202611Atasheva, K., 2015. Kosplei kak stil' zhizni [Cosplay as a lifestyle]. Available at: https://www.mirf.ru/geek/kospley-chto-takoe [Accessed 05 March 2018].Belousova, Yu. V., 2012. Media image as a means of communication. Gramota [Diploma], 23(26), pp. 27—31 (in Russ.).Delez, Zh., 2016. Kino (Movie). Moscow (in Russ.).Kartsev, D., 2017. Bol'she, chem partiya. Chto pokazali vybory v Gollandii [More than a party. What the elections in Holland showed]. Available at: http://carnegie.ru/commentary/?fa=68321 [Accessed 22 December 2017].Levi-Strauss, K., 2006. Mifologiki: syroe i prigotovlennoe [Mythology: raw and cooked]. Moscow (in Russ.).Parsons, Y. Sistemy deistviya i sotsial'nye sistemy [Action systems and social systems]. Available at: https://sociology.mephi.ru/docs/sociologia/html/parsons_modern_soc_systems.html [Accessed 05 March 2018].Samoilova, E. O., 2012. Semiotic and ontological aspects of the phenomenon of “cosplay”. In: Ponimanie i refleksiya v kommunikatsii, kul'ture i obrazovanii. Materialy nauchnoi konferentsii [Understanding and reflection in communication, culture and education. Proceedings of the scientific conference]. Tver, pp. 165—171 (in Russ.).Chernikova, P. G., 2013. The paradox of transcendental in popular culture. Obshchestvo, sreda, razvitie [Society, environment, development], 1(26), pp. 203—206 (in Russ.).Eco, U., 2016. Ot dreva k labirintu. Istoricheskie issledovaniya znaka i interpretatsii [From the tree to the maze. Historical studies of the sign and interpretation]. Moscow (in Russ.).Jung, C., 1991. Arkhetip i simvol [Archetype and symbol]. Moscow (in Russ.).A. A.TeslyaThe Balkan crisis of 1875—1876 and the ensuing Russo-Turkish war of 1877—1878 were the first major foreign policy challenges for the Russian Empire in the entirely new public sphere situation. The military reform of 1784, which replaced recruitment with conscription, translated in the involvement of the general public in the current events. The new public sphere, which had been developing from the 1850s, required new languages both to describe and to transform reality, as well as to produce a collective action. The tremendous public excitement, which spread across the most diverse strata of the Russian Empire in 1876—1877, was indicative of an effective mobilisation rhetoric. However, the disappointment, which quickly followed, and the devaluation of the events of those years by public opinion suggest that, although sanctioned by the authorities, the language of mobilisation was not effectively controlled by them. In this article, I analyse the structure of the public language of 1876— 1877, which was shaped by different actors who used it to express their attitudes to the current events. I identify a series of principal oppositions employed by most actors. I analyse these oppositions from the perspective of orientalism and demonstrate that an orientalist vision of the conflict was instrumental in ‘Westernising’ the image of the Russian Empire. The critics of this model placed both parties of the conflict in a common oriental framework but did not equate them. Self-orientalisation was viewed as a political challenge that required Westernisation, which did not apply to the other party to the conflict that represented the Orient proper. The political authorities of the Russian Empire could not retain control over the broad rhetorical framework that they created. The awareness of these problems was a factor of the qualitative changes in the official rhetoric of the regime that took place in the 1880s.0601202611Aksakova, V. S., 2013. Dnevnik. Pis'ma [Diary. Letters]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Vazov, V. S., 1985. Pod igom [Under the yoke]. Moscow (in Russ.).Velizhev, M. B., 2018. Chaadaev protiv natsionalizma [Chaadaev against nationalism]. Moscow (in Russ.).Vereshchagin, V. V., 1898. Na voine v Azii i Evrope. S risunkami Khudozhnika V. V. Vereshchagina [On the war in Asia and Europe. With drawings Artist V. V. Vereshchagin]. Moscow (in Russ.).Guzikova, M. V., 2004. «Total'naya mobilizatsiya» Ernsta Yungera kak proekt modernosti: istoricheskaya rekonstruktsiya i interpretatsiya [“Total Mobilization” by Ernst Jünger as a project of modernity: historical reconstruction and interpretation]. Ph. D. Ekaterinburg (in Russ.).Dmitriev, A. P., Fedorov, D. A., 2016. Krymskaya voina v istorii Rossii i v zhizni slavyanofil'skogo semeistva: Perepiska Very Aksakovoi i Marii Kartashevskoi (1853—1856) [The Crimean War in the history of Russia and in the life of the Slavophil family: Correspondence between Vera Aksakova and Maria Kartashevskaya (1853—1856)]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Dragomanov, M. P., 1876. Turki vnutrennie i vneshnie: Pis'mo k izdatelyu “Novogo vremeni” [Turks internal and external: Letter to the publisher of “New Time”]. Genève: Bale; Lyon: H. Georg (in Russ.).Kitaev, V. A., 2004. Liberal'naya mysl' v Rossii (1860—1880 gg.) [Liberal Thought in Russia (1860—1880)]. Saratov (in Russ.).Konstantinov, A., 1979. Izbrannoe [Favorites]. Moscow (in Russ.). Kozhina, E. F., 1969. Romanticheskaya bitva: Ocherki frantsuzskoi romanticheskoi zhivopisi 1820-kh godov [Romantic Battle: Essays on French Romantic Painting of the 1820s]. Leningrad (in Russ.).Nemirovich-Danchenko, V. I., 1902. Plevna i Shipka. Roman v dvukh chastyakh. Iz sobytii poslednei voiny [Pleven and Shipka. A novel in two parts. From the events of the last war]. Vol. 4. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Milevsky, O. A., Panchenko, A. B., 2017. «Bespokoinyi Klements»: Opyt intellektual'noi biografii [“Restless Clementz”: The Experience of Intellectual Biography]. Moscow (in Russ.).Polunov, A.Yu., 2010. K. P. Pobedonostsev v obshchestvenno-politicheskoi i dukhovnoi zhizni Rossii [K.P Pobedonostsev in the socio-political and spiritual life of Russia]. Moscow (in Russ.).Safronova, Yu., 2014. Russkoe obshchestvo v zerkale revolyutsionnogo terrora. 1879—1881 gody [Russian society in the mirror of revolutionary terror. 1879—1881 years]. Moscow (in Russ.).Teslya, A. A., 2018. “The only pictures in memory of the glorious war”: heroic, orientalism and the problems of the pictorial representation of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877—1878. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Sociological review], 17(3) [in Russ., in press].Teslya, A. A., 2017. Who says and who (should) be heard: “public opinion” in the Russian Empire of the 2nd half of the XIX century. In: M. G. Pugacheva, V. P. Zharkova, eds. Puti Rossii. Voina i mir: Sbornik statei [Ways of Russia. War and Peace: Collection of articles]. Vol. XXII. Moscow, pp. 93—109 (in Russ.).Teslya, A. A., 2017a. Russian Conservative: On the System of Political Views of K. P. Pobedonostsev of the 1870—1890s. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Sociological review], 16(1), pp. 151—172 (in Russ.).Teslya, A. A., 2015. Poslednii iz “ottsov”»: Biografiya Ivana Aksakova [The Last of the “Fathers”: Biography of Ivan Aksakov]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Wortman, P., 2004. Stsenarii vlasti. Mify i tseremonii russkoi monarkhii [Scenarios of power. Myths and ceremonies of the Russian monarchy]. Vol. 2. Moscow (in Russ.).Junger, E., 2002. Total mobilization. In: E. Junger, ed. Gospodstvo i geshtal't [Domination and gestalt]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Berlin, I., 1969. Two Concepts of Liberty. In: Berlin I. Four Essays on Liberty. London, Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 121—172.T. V.TsvigunA. N.ChernyakovIn this article, we analyse the semiotic concept of art created by the constructivist poet Aleksey Chicherin, as presented in his treatise Kan-Fun. We establish the connection between Chicherin’s concept of the ‘sign of Poetry’, on the one hand, and the theoretical research of the early Russian avant-garde and the basic tenets of the semiotic description of the language, on the other. An analysis of Chicherin's theory shows that it rests on an attempt to overcome the linearity of linguistic signs and to build an iconic ‘sign of Poetry’, capable of almost a complete reflection of a constructivist poet’s artistic intentions. Against the background of the total logocentrism of the early 20th-century historical and cultural paradigm, Chicherin’s semiotic position looks like the proclamation of radical ‘anti-logocentrism’ that polemicises against any literary traditions and experiments, either synchronic or diachronic in relation to the author. At the same time, a textual analysis of Kan-Fun and a comparison of the key theses of Chicherin’s semiotic theory with the examples of his poetry (‘construemas’) show that his aesthetic project was of a utopian nature. Despite the outright rejection of the natural language as ‘non-constructive’ and the espousal of non-verbal semiotic means, Chicherin’s theory has internal inconsistency. Its artistic representations are incapable of overcoming the basic conventions of text generation and reception. The use of non-verbal (visual and auditory) signs entails both the semantic enrichment of the sign and an uncontrolled increase in its entropy. This way, the sign is deprived of the predictable interpretive frameworks and conventions.0601202611Grübel, R., 1987. Kang-Fung: constructivism-functionalism. In: Russian Literature. Vol. XXII, pp. 51—62.Janecek, G., 1989. A. N. Čičerin, konstruktivist poet. In: Russian Literature. Vol. XXV, pp. 469—524.Biryukov, S. E., 2006. About projective theories of Russian avant-garde. “Phonic music” and acoustic tension in avant-garde poetic systems of the twentieth century. In: Yu. S. Stepanov, ed. Semiotika i Avangard: Antologiya [Semiotics and Avant-garde: An Anthology]. Moscow, pp. 565—573 (in Russ.).Burlyuk, N., 1999. Poetic beginnings (1914). In: V. N. Terekhina, A. P. Zimenkov, eds. Russkii futurizm: Teoriya. Praktika. Kritika. Vospominaniya [Russian futurism: Theory. Practice. Criticism. Memories]. Moscow, pp. 56—58 (in Russ.).Veselova, N. A., 2001. Verbal in visual poetry. In: Vnutrennie i vneshnie granitsy filologicheskogo znaniya: Mat-ly Letnei shkoly molodogo filologa [Internal and external boundaries of philological knowledge: Materials of the Summer School of Young Philologist]. Kaliningrad, 1-4 July 2000, pp. 101—105 (in Russ.).Zelinskii, K., 2015. Constructivism and poetry (1924). In. K. Zelinskii, ed. Poeziya kak smysl: Kniga o konstruktivizme [Poetry as a Meaning: A Book on Constructivism]. Moscow, pp. 27—46 (in Russ.).Chicherin, A., Sel'vinskii E., 2001. We Know. Oath construction (Declaration) of constructivists-poets (1923). In: N. L. Brodskii, N. P. Sidorov, eds. Literaturnye manifesty: Ot simvolizma do «Oktyabrya» [Literary manifestos: From symbolism to “October”]. Moscow, pp. 322—326 (in Russ.).Kruchenykh, A., 1923. Apokalipsis v russkoi literature [Apocalypse in Russian literature]. Moscow (in Russ.).Kruchenykh, A., 1999. Declaration of the word as such (1913). In: V. N. Terekhina, A. P. Zimenkov, eds. Russkii futurizm: Teoriya. Praktika. Kritika. Vospominaniya [Russian futurism: Theory. Practice. Criticism. Memories]. Moscow, pp. 44—45 (in Russ.).Padin, K., 1996. Semiotic versification. In: D. Bulatov, ed. Eksperimental'naya poeziya: izbrannye stat'i [Experimental Poetry: Featured Articles]. Königsberg — Malbork: Simplicius, pp. 101—110 (in Russ.).Panfilov, A.Yu., 2015. K probleme tvorcheskoi biografii A. N. Chicherina [To the problem of the creative biography of A. N. Chicherina]. Available at: http://samlib.ru/p/panfilow_a_j/chicherin2.shtml [Accessed 03 September 2018].Pirs, Ch. S., 2000. Logicheskie osnovaniya teorii znakov [The logical foundations of the theory of signs]. St. Petersburg (in Russ.).Sakhno, I. M., 2011. Visual artifacts of poetic constructivism. Dom Burganova. Prostranstvo kul'tury [House Burganova. Culture space], 2, pp. 73—83 (in Russ.).Sigei, S., 1996. A Brief History of Visual Poetry in Russia. In: D. Bulatov, ed. Eksperimental'naya poeziya: izbrannye stat'i [Experimental Poetry: Featured Articles]. Königsberg — Malbork: Simplicius, pp. 60—67 (in Russ.).Saussure, F., 1998. Kurs obshchei lingvistiki [General Linguistics Course]. Moscow (in Russ.).Tsvigun, T. V., Chernyakov, A. N., 2001. The formation of the logo-centric paradigm in Russian culture of the early twentieth century. In: Problemy russkoi filosofii i kul'tury: Sb. nauch. tr. [Problems of Russian philosophy and culture: Collection of scientific. works]. Kaliningrad, pp. 56—66 (in Russ.).Chicherin, A., 2006. Kang-Fung (1926). In: Yu. S. Stepanov, ed. Semiotika i Avangard: Antologiya [Semiotics and Avant-garde: An Anthology]. Moscow, pp. 549—564 (in Russ.).Chicherin, A. N., 2017. Zvonok k dvorniku: Poema [Call to the janitor: Poem]. Salamandra P. V. V. (in Russ.).A. I.VaskinevichIn this article, we consider the semiotic concept developed by Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, a founder of modern aesthetics. We describe the principles of the semiotic theory, as expressed in Baumgarten's Metaphysica, particularly in the parts ‘Ontology’ and ‘Psychology’, in which he introduced the basic semiotic terminology. We pay special attention to the general context of Baumgarten’s Aesthetica. This context had determined the characteristics of the semiotic ideas that he developed later. In this work, semiotics is considered as part of aesthetics, as ‘denotative aesthetics’. Within Baumgarten’s concept, aesthetics and semiotics are closely interrelated. He described aesthetics as a science of essentially inseparable sensible cognition and expression. We analyse Baumgarten’s attitudes from a historical perspective and compare them with those of the ancient authors, John Locke, F. de Saussure, and R. Barthes. We emphasise the connection between the aesthetic and semiotic ideas, on the one hand, and the concept of fundus animae, on the other. We address the transition of the latter term from the theological realm of German mysticism to the aesthetics and gnosiology of the 18th century and examine its correlation with the 20th-century aesthetic and semiotic concepts. We stress the significance of Baumgarten’s ideas for the development of new aesthetic systems rejecting the traditional poetic and rhetorical systems. Baumgarten made an important contribution to the development of the idea of sensible cognition as the goal of aesthetics, which was formulated by F. Schiller in his Letters upon the Aesthetic Education of Man.0601202611Asmus, W. F., 1963. Nemetskaja estetika ХVIII veka. [German Aesthetics of the 18th Century]. Moscow (in Russ.).Barthes, R., 1994. Izbrannyje raboty: Semiotika. Poetika. [Selected Works: Semiotics. Poetics]. Moscow (in Russ.).Baumgarten, A. G., 2012. Metaphysics. EINAI: Problemy filisofii I teologii [EINAI: The Problems of Philosophy and Theology]. 1(1/2), pp. 141—156 (in Russ.).Baumgarten, A. G., 1964. Aesthetic fragments. Istorija estetiki [A History of Aesthetics]. Vol. 2. Moscow, pp. 449—465 (in Russ.).Bely, A., 1994. Simvolism kak miroponimaniye [Symbolism as Worldview]. Moscow (in Russ.).Gilbert, K., Kuhn, H., 2000. Istoriya estetiki [A History of Esthetics]. Vol. 1. Moscow (in Russ.).Deely, J., 2014. Literary semiotics and the doctrine of signs. Kritika I semiotika [Criticism and Semiotics], 1, pp. 18—29 (in Russ.).Ivanov, V. L., 2012. Baumgarten “Metaphysics” in the Tradition of the German School Philosophy of the 18th Century. Preface to the Translation. EINAI: Problemy filisofii I teologii [EINAI: The Problems of Philosophy and Theology], 1(1/2), pp. 108—140 (in Russ.).Croce, B., 2000. Estetika kak nauka o vyrazhenii I obshchaya linguistika [Aesthetics as a Science of Expression and General Linguistics]. Moscow (in Russ.).Leontyev, A. A., 2001. Deyatelny um (Deyatelnost, Znak, Lichnost) [Active Mind (Activity. Sign. Personality]. Moscow (in Russ.).Locke, J., 1985. Sochineniya [Works]. Moscow (in Russ.).Losev, A., 1992. Istoriya antichnoy estetiki [The History of Classical Aesthetics]. Vol. 8/1. Moscow (in Russ.).Narsky, I. S., 1985. Philosophic-Aesthetic Ideas of A. Baumgarten as an Impetus for Kant’s Theoretical Development. Kantovsky sbornik [Kantian Journal], 1(10), pp. 40—51 (in Russ.).Prozersky, V. V. At the Beginning of Aesthetics. Kazansky pedagogichesky zhurnal [Kazan pedagogical Journal], 4, pp. 420—423 (in Russ.).Saussure, F. de, 1977. Trudy po yazykoznaniyu [Works on Linguistics]. Moscow (in Russ.).Fomin, I., 2017. Semiotic frontier: Through centuries and across disciplines. METOD: Moskowsky yezhegodnik trudov iz obshchestvovedcheskikh distsiplin [Method: Moscow annual of works to social sciences], 7, pp. 26—37 (in Russ.).Shatin, Yu. V., 2015. Semiotics vs semiology: about completeness of the theory of signs. Kritika I semiotika [Criticism and Semiotics], 2, pp. 10—17 (in Russ.).Schelling, F. W. J., 1989. Sochinenya [Works]. Vol. 2. Moscow (in Russ.).Schiller, F., 1957. Sobraniye sochineniy [Collected works]. Vol. 6. Moscow (in Russ.).Eckhart, M., 1991. Duhovnye propovedi I rassuzhdenya [Spiritual Sermons and Reflections]. Moscow (in Russ.).Jakobson, R., 1983. In search of the Essence of Language. Semiotika [Semiotics], pp. 102—117 (in Russ.).Adler, H., 1990. Die Prägnanz des Dunklen. Gnoseologie, Ästhetik, Geschichtsphilosophie bei J. G. Herder. Hamburg.Adler, H., 1988. Fundus Animae — der Grund der Seele. Zur Gnoseologie des Dunklen in der Aufklärung. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, 62/2, pp. 197—220.Baumgarten, A. G., 1750. Aesthetica. Traiecti cis Viadrum: Kleyb. Baumgarten, A. G., 1758. Aestheticorum pars altera. Francofurti cis Viadrum: Kleyb.Baumgarten, A. G., 1739. Metaphysica. Halae Magdeburgicae: Hemmerde.Baumgarten, A. G., 1779. Metaphysica. Ed. VII. Halae Magdeburgicae.Baumgarten, A. G., 1783. Metaphysik. 9. Aufl. Halle.Baumgarten, A. G., 1983. Texte zur Grundlegung der Ästhetik. Lat.-dt. Hg. H. R. Schweizer. Hamburg: Meiner.Baumgarten, A. G., 1983. Theoretische Ästhetik. Die grundlegenden Abschnitte aus der „Aesthetica“ (1750/58). Lat.-dt. Hg. H. R. Schweizer. Hamburg: Meiner. Franke, U., 1998. Zeichenkonzeptionen in der Kunstphilosophie und Ästhetik von der Renaissance bis zum frühen 19. Jahrhundert. In: Hg. R. Posner, K. Robering, eds. Semiotik. Ein Handbuch zu den zeichentheoretischen Grundlagen von Natur und Kultur.Vol. 2. Berlin, New York: Gruyter, pp. 1232—1262.Haas, A. M., 1995. Eckehart, Meister. In: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. Vol. 3. Freiburg u. a.: Herder, pp. 443—446.Herder, J. G., 1985. Werke. Vol. 1. Fr. a. M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag.Nöth W., 2000. Handbuch der Semiotik. Stuttgart, Weimar: Metzler.Pfeifer, F. (Hg.), 1857. Deutsche Mystiker des 14. Jhs. Vol. 2. Meister Eckhart. Leipzig: Göschen.D.Vesselinov0601202611I. V.FominT. V.Tsvigun0601202611N. S.Avtonomova0601202611