THE SPECIFICS OF ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE REPRESENTATION IN THE PREFACE TO A SHORT NOVEL BY ANDRE GIDE “THE IMMORALIST”

The article represents the experience of interpreting the author’s preface (AP) of one of the most significant pieces of world literature as an actual integrative philological problem. It shows the logic of the transition from literary issues (“pure novel”) to the linguistic aspect of the study. The object of study is the author’s preface as a genre of artistic discourse (AD). The purpose of the study is to identify the elements that determine the specifics of the implementation of the functions of the mini-text. The novelty of the work is the study of the preface as a compositional element of the work within the argumentative aspect. The author’s comprises the application of the author’s own model to the object of analysis. This model includes the categories of argumentative space (epistemic context, causality, modality), as well as a dual understanding of argumentation -- in its narrow (as a process of outing forward arguments) and broad (as a constant, ontological validity) meanings. In a narrow sense, argumentation finds expression in various forms: reasoning as a type of text; cognitive elements of the argumentative process in discourse (hypothesis, concessive, clarification); various syntactic techniques – “argumentative balance”, double negation, parallel constructions. The conclusion is made about the correlation between narrow and broad types of understanding of argumentation based on the unity of three concepts – “explanation – evaluation – comprehension”. “Explanation” and “evaluation” in the narrow sense characterize the argumentative process (“for” and “against”), and in its broad sense they manifest objectivity based on distance aspect. “Comprehension” in the unity of two previous stages indicates the specifics of the implementation of the intention to “prove”, the absence of which – in the beginning and within the ending – creates the framework of the preface. In a broad sense, the analyzed part of a novel is characterized as a genre that performs not an influencing, but an orienting function to understand the creative credo of an objective / unbiased writer. This is facilitated by obvious flexibility of dialogical relations between the participants of the discourse – a great French author and his potential (hereinafter – real) readers, who are able to become equal partners in constructing a relevant picture of the world for themselves. The conclusion is drawn about the position of the author as an artist who is able to engage the maximum number of readers in the dialogue: it can be perceived in two ways – as a withdrawal of the author from his artistic space and as an invitation to a mutual journey.

1. Averintsev S.S. Grecheskaya “literatura” i bliznevostochnaya “slovestnost” (Protivostoyaniye i vstrescha dvukh tvorsheskikh printsipov) (Greek “literature” and Middle Eastern “literature” (Confrontation and meeting of two creative principles) // Voprosy literatury. 1971. No.8. P. 40–68. (In Russian).

2. Bart R. Nulevaya stepen’ pis’ma (Zero degree of writing) // Frantsuzskaya semiotika: Ot strukturalizma k poststrukturalizmu / translated by G.K. Kossikov. Moscow: Progress, 2000. P.50–96. (In Russian).

3. Bakhtin M.M. Estetika slovesnogo tvorschestva (Aesthetics of verbal creativity) / Sost. S.G. Bocharov, primech. S. S. Averintsev. Mosow: Iskusstvo, 1979. 423 p. (In Russian).

4. Brenner Zhak. Moya istoriya sovremennoj frantsuzskoj literatury’ (My history of modern French literature). Мoscow: Vyssh. shk., 1994. 352 p. (In Russian).

5. Belza Svyatoslav. Chelovek pishuschij i chelovek chitayuschij (A person writing and a person reading) // Chelovek chitayuschij. HOMO LEGENS. Pisateli XX v. o roli knigi v zhizni cheloveka i obsche i obschestva / compiler S.I. Belza. Moscow: Progress, 1983. P. 9–20. (In Russian).

6. Zhid Andre. Immoralist (The Immoralist) // Izbrannye proizvedeniya. / translator and compiler L. Tokarev. Moscow: Panorama, 1993. 512 p. (Seriya “Laureaty Nobelevskoy premii”). (In Russian).

7. Ingarden R. Literaturnoe proizvedenie i ego konkretizatsy’a (Literary work and its specification) // Issledovaniya po estetike. Moscow, 1962. P. 72–91. (In Russian).

8. Kudryashov I. A. Khudozhestvennyj stil’ i interpretatsy’a tetsta: obraznost’, ekspressivnost’, detalizatsiya (Artistic style and text interpretation: figurativeness, expressivity, specification) // Lingvistika buduschego: novye tendentsii i perspektivy: Mater’aly Mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferentsii. 1-2 noyabr’a 2019 goda. Majkop: ASU publ., 2019. P. 232–235. (In Russian).

9. Lazaresku O. G. Literaturnoye predisloviye: voprosy istorii i poetiki (na materyale russkoj literatury XVIII – XIX vv.) (Literary preface: questions of history and poetics (based on the material of Russian literature of the XVIII – XIX cc.)): monografiya. Moscow: MPSU pibl., 2007. 378 p. (In Russian).

10. Lamzina A. V. Rama proizvedeniya (The frame of the work) // Literaturnaya entsiklopediya terminov i pon’atij. Moscow, 2001. P. 848–853. (In Russian).

11. Larionova A. N. Avtorskoye predisloviye kak zhanr (The author’s preface as a genre) (“Moyi literaturnyje i nravstvennyje skital’chestva” A. A. Grigor’eva) // Vestnik Cherepovetskogo gos. un-ta. Filologicheskiye nauki. 2015. No. 1. P. 44–47. (In Russian).

12. Likhach’ov D. S. Ocherki po filosofii khudozhestvennogo tvorchestva (Essays on the philosophy of artistic creativity). St.Petersburg: BLITS, 1999. 191 p. (In Russian).

13. Manaenko G. N. Smysly diskursa vs znacheniya teksta (Discourse Meanings vs Text Values) // Diskurs kak universal’naya matritsa verbal’nogo vzaimodejstviya / ed by O.A. Sulejmanov. Moscow: LELAND, 2018. P. 83 – 108. (In Russian).

14. Obschaya ritorika (General rhetoric) / Zh. D’ubua [i dr.] / translated by Ye.E. Razlogovoj, B.P. Narumov, ed by A. K. Avelicheva. Moscow: Progress, 1986. 392 p. (In Russian).

15. Ozhegov S. I. Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo yazyka (Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language): 72500 slov и 7500 frazeologicheskikh vyrazhenij / Rossijskaya Akademiya Nauk. Institut russkogo yazyka; Rossijskij fond kul’tury. Moscow: AZ, 1993. 960 p. (In Russian).

16. Stepanov G. V. Yazyk. Literatura. Poetika. (Language. Literature. Poetics.) Moscow: Nauka, 1988. 382 p. (In Russian).

17. Fanyan N. Yu. Argumentativnaya model’ semanticheskogo analiza teksta / diskursa (Argumentative model of semantic analysis of the text / discourse) // Kognitivno-diskursivnyje issledovaniya v yazyke i rechi: monografiya / ed by V. V. Katermina. Krasnodar: KSU publ., 2017. P. 116–143. (In Russian).

18. Fanyan N. Yu. Mnogomernost’ argumentatsii: proyektsiya na lingvisticheskuyu oblast’ (Multi-dimensionality of argumentation: projection on the linguistic domain): monografiya. Krasnodar: KSU publ., 2000. 234 p. (In Russian).

19. Frantsuzskaya literatura 1945 – 1990 (French literature 1945 – 1990). Moscow: Naslediye, 1995. 928 p. (In Russian).

20. Sarraute Nathalie. L’ère du soupçon (The Era of Suspicion) // Tropismes. L’ère du soupçon // Sarrot Natali. Tropismy. Era podozreniya. / Per. s fr. / vstup. st. A. Taganova. Moscow: Polinform-Talburi, 2000. 448 p.

21. Viart Dominique. Le roman français au XX siècle (French novel in the XX c.). P.: Hachette livre, 1999. 158 p.