Search

The article reconstructs the plot related to the unknown book by L. Gogotishvili “The Phenomenology of Speaking,” prepared for publication in 2009, but never published. A hypothesis is put forward according to which the book successively develops the main concept of Gogotishvili’s magnum opus, her only lifetime monograph “Indirect Speaking” (2006), while differing in its methodological guidelines and degree of completeness. On the basis of materials from the personal archive of Gogotishvili, the article provides with a comparison of the history of creation, variants of the title and structure of both books, and reveals conceptual similarities and differences between them. Particular attention is paid to the unfinished article “Analytical Ornaments of Symbolism and Symbolic Traceries of Analytism,” which was not included in the final composition of the second book. This example demonstrates the internal contradictions between the general idea and its implementation, which apparently influenced the author’s refusal to publish. The article presents one chapter of an unpublished book on the typology of symbolist discursive strategies (the paradigm of no-linear multi-layered “polyconcepts”), which contains the substantiation of the key idea of this concept, which was further developed in the late works of Gogotishvili.

The article deals with the linguo-philosophical interpretation of Russian symbolism, undertaken in the little-studied works of L. Gogotishvili of the late 1990s - early 2000s, united by a common approach to the philosophy of language by Vyach. Ivanov, A Losev and M. Bakhtin, namely, the predicative concept of symbol and myth. The reasons that prevent the inclusion of this theory in the spectrum of debatable problems of studying the phenomenon of Russian symbolism are clarified: 1) a pointed linguistic turn of the topic, the corresponding methodology and terminology, unfamiliar to specialists in the field of the history of philosophy and literature; 2) lack of understanding of the polemical intention of the author and the specific addressee of the polemic. A hypothesis is put forward, according to which a certain "hermeticity" of these works is due to their focus on constructive refutation of the characteristics of symbolism presented in the theory of Yu. Stepanov about three language paradigms (semantic - "philosophy of the name", syntactic - "philosophy of the predicate", pragmatic - "philosophy of egocentric words"). A series of articles of the specified period is analyzed, with special attention to the works about Vyach. Ivanov and Losev, as well as to the generalizing article 'The Reception of Symbolism in the Humanities"; including marginalia in Stepanov's book 'In the Three-Dimensional Space of Language" from Gogotishvili's personal library and materials from her archive. As a result, it is shown that the researcher disputes the classification of Stepanov, who classifies Losev's philosophy of language and lvanov's poetics as the first ("semantic") paradigm. This controversy can be traced in detail on the example of the article "Between the name and the predicate (the symbolism of Vyach. Ivanov against the background of onomatodoxy)". The main conclusion of this study is that lvanov's predicative interpretation of the symbol and myth, as well as the name in onomatodoxy, is built by Gogotishvili as a direct antithesis to Stepanov's concept: in contrast to him, Gogotishvili takes into account the attention of symbolists not to an isolated wordsymbol (semantics), but to the mythological judgement (syntactics), to the problem of the relationship between the subject and the predicate of the proposition, to the fundamental categories of logic and linguistics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the linguo-philosophical novations of Vyach. Ivanov and A.F. Losev in the interpretation of L.A. Gogotishvili, aimed to identify the underlying connections between the two theorists of symbol, myth, and language. It analyzes conceptual approach of the interpreter including the methods and techniques she used. The paper reveals likewise the logic and sequence of the ways these interpretations have been constructed, as well as their nature, originality, and scholarly importance. Gogotishvili’s research contribution to the study of Russian symbolism and onomatodoxy, with its doctrine of language, consists in her seminal understanding of their philosophy of language, as well as of the intellectual “techniques” used by Losev. This understanding helped Gogotishvili to develop her own theoretical approaches to the problem of reception of Ivanov’s symbolism and Losev’s work. In her study of symbolism, Gogotishvili moved from describing the religious status of language in onomatodoxy as well as , its communicative and predicative interpretations, to examining the predicative concept of symbol in Vyach. Ivanov, and then returning to Losev. As a result, here conclusions concerning general features of Ivanov’s and Losev’s novations have undergone some important changes.