Email this article 
Post a Comment On the History of Hyperbaton in Russian Studies
Abstract
The term hyperbaton was preserved in various disciplinary fields (classical philology, history of literature) until the late 20th—late 21st century, but in Russian studies, it gave way to the term inversion, which was supported by the pedagogical tradition. The purpose of the study is to find out when and how (against the background of continuity in the use of other rhetorical and grammatical terms) Russian linguistics diverged from Western European linguistics in the use of the term hyperbaton. The data for the study was collected from Corpus Corporum, as well as texts of rhetoric and grammars from antiquity, the Renaissance and Early Modern times, and Russian rhetoric of the 17th—18th centuries. The analysis of hyperbaton descriptions in Russian rhetoric is preceded by an overview of the history of the creation of hyperbaton type classifications in the classical period and general information about modern approaches to the study of hyperbaton in European linguistics. This is necessary to understand the differences between the two scholarly traditions and their approach to problems of word order. The key moment that pushed the term hyperbaton into disuse can be considered the early stage of its descriptions in Russia, since it is during this period that the prerequisites for its disapperance from active use arise. First, there was no tradition of describing the word order in the grammatical aspect based on Russian texts. Second, there were no didactic materials that commented on the texts of acknowledged writers. Finally, M. V. Lomonosov’s Rhetoric significantly influenced the exclusion of the term from use.
DOI: 10.31168/2305-6754.2024.2.03
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Русский)References
Averintsev S. S., Sviaz′ vremen, Idem, Sobranie sochinenii, Kyiv, 2005.
Alpatov V. M., The European linguistic tradition as compared to other traditions, Orientalistica, 4, 2019, 1009–1020.
Alpatov V. M., Istoriia lingvisticheskikh uchenii, Moscow, 1999.
Akhmanova O. S., Slovar′ lingvisticheskikh terminov, Moscow, 1966.
Bakker E. J., Homeric Discourse and Enjambement: A Cognitive Approach, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 1990, 120, 1–21.
Borovsky Ya. M., Nezamechennyi giperbat u Pushkina (K tekstu stikhotvoreniia «Bezverie»), Vremennik Pushkinskoi komissii, 1977, Leningrad, 1980, 115–118.
Chepel E. Yu., (Pseudo-)Isocrates’ ‘Ad Demonicum’ in late Antique tradition: P. Ross. Georg. I. 16 and other fragments from Egypt, Egypt and Neighbouring Countries, 2019, 1, 49–58.
Devine A. M., Stephens L. D, Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek, New-York, Oxford, 2000.
Devine A. M., Stephens L. D., Latin Word Order: Structured Meaning and Information, Oxford, 2006.
Elice M., Hyperbaton, Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, 9, Ueding G., Hrsg., Jens W., Mitbegr., Tübingen, Berlin 2008, 592–596.
Gasparov M. L., Srednevekovye latinskie poetiki v sisteme srednevekovoi grammatiki i ritoriki, Problemy literaturnoi teorii v Vizantii i latinskom srednevekov′e, Moscow, 1986, 91–173.
Gibson, E., Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies, Cognition, 1998, 68, 1–76.
Heikkinen S., The Christianisation of Latin Metre: A Study of Bede’s De Arte Metrica, Helsinki, 2012.
Izotov V. P., Izotov V. V. Tmesis: Together, Semi-together, Separately, Scientific notes of Orel State University, 2017, 3 (75), 117–119.
Keith Percival W., Grammar and Rhetoric in the Renaissance, Renaissance Eloquenuence: Studies in the Theory and Practice of Renaisassance Rhetoric, Murphy J. J., ed., Berkeley, CA, 1983, 303–330.
Kennedy G., A New History of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton, 1994.
Kormilina A. A., The view of word order in the ancient grammatical tradition, Philologia Classica, 2014, 9, 262–274.
Kostin A. A., A Creative History of Mikhail Lomonosov’s “Kratkoe rukovodstvok krasnorechiiu” in Light of Some Compilations: New Perspectives, Slavica Revalensia, 2015, 2, 9–34.
Khazagerov G., Ritoricheskii slovar′, Moscow, 2011.
Khazagerov G., Chetyre vzgliada na trop, Moscow, 2022.
Khosroev A. L., Ob odnom rannem tolkovanii 2 Kor 4:4, Istochnikovedenie kul′turnykh traditsii Vostoka: gebraistika — ellinistika — sirologiia — slavistika (= Filologiia i kul′turologiia), St. Petersburg, 2016, 137–143.
Kvyatkovsky A. P., Poeticheskii slovar′, Rodnianskaia I., ed., Moscow, 1966.
Lausberg H., Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study, Orton D. F., Anderson R. D., eds., Leiden, Boston, Cologne, 1998.
Markasova E. V., Predstavleniia o figurakh rechi v russkikh ritorikakh 17 — nachala 18 veka, Petrozavodsk, 2002.
Makhov A. E., ed., Evropeiskaia poetika ot antichnosti do epokhi Prosveshcheniia: Entsiklopedicheskii putevoditel′, Moscow, 2010.
Mayer K., The Golden Line: Ancient and Medieval Lists of Special Hexameters and Modern Scholarship, Latin Grammar and Rhetoric. From Classical Theory to Medieval Practice, Lanham C. D., ed., London, New York, 2002, 139–179.
Mayer K., The schoolboys’ revenge: how the golden line entered classical scholarship, Classical Receptions Journal, 2020, 12 (2), 248–278.
Moskvin V. P., Vyrazitel′nye sredstva sovremennoi russkoi rechi, Tropy i figury: obshchaia i chastnye klassifikatsii. Terminologicheskii slovar′, Moscow, 2006.
Moskvin V. P., On Approaches to Defining the Notion of ‘Trope’, Izvestiya RAN. Seriya Literatury i Yazyka, 2013, 72 (2), 20–31.
Moskvin V. P., Teoreticheskie osnovy stilistiki, Moscow, 2015.
Nikolaev S. I., Trudnyi Kantemir (Stilisticheskaia struktura i kritika teksta), 18 vek, 1995, 19, 3–14.
Novozhilov A. V., O razlichiiakh mezhdu giperbatom i inversiei, Russkaia grammatika v dialoge nauchnykh shkol, napravlenii, metodov: sbornik nauchnykh statei, Sheremetyeva E. S., Starodumova E. A., A. A. Anisova A. A,, eds., Vladivostok, 2022, 312–320.
Paducheva E. V., O poriadke slov v predlozheniiakh s sochineniem: sochinitel′naia proektivnost′, Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia informatsiia, 1971, 2 (3), 14–18.
Ponyrko N. V., Uchebniki ritoriki na Vygu, Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury, Leningrad, 1981, 36, 154–162.
Popan M., L’hyperbate nominale en latin: construction, typologie, raison de texte. Linguistique, Toulouse, 2012.
Powell J., Hyperbaton and register in Cicero, Colloquial and Literary Latin, Dickey E., Chahoud A., eds., Cambridge, 2010, 163–185.
Ramazanova D. N., Ekzempliar grecheskogo izdaniia “Iskusstva ritoriki” Frankiskosa Skufosa (Venetsiia, 1681) — istochnik russkogo perevoda Stefana Pisareva, Rumiantsevskie chteniia-2023. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii (18–20 aprelia 2023 g.), 2, 2023, Moscow, 262–269.
Reisen E., Rhetorische Tropen in psychoanalytischer Sicht, Stuttgart, 1994.
Schindler C., Synchysis, Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, 9, Ueding G., Hrsg., Jens W., Mitbegr., Tübingen, Berlin, 2008.
Sevbo I. P., O gromozdkosti sintaksicheskikh struktur, Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia informatsiia, 1971, 2 (2), 41–45.
Skovorodnikov A. P., ed., Entsiklopedicheskii slovar′-spravochnik. Vyrazitel′nye sredstva russkogo iazyka i rechevye oshibki i nedochety, Moscow, 2005.
Spevak O., Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, 2010.
Steen J., Verse and Virtuosity: The Adaptation of Latin Rhetoric in Old English Poetry, Toronto, 2008.
Thornton E., Horace’s Hyperbaton: Wrapping One’s Head around ‘Word Warps’ and Patching Up a Gaping Language Gap, Continuum Studies in Translation, Fawcett A., Guadarrama García K. L., Hyde R., eds., London, 2010, 39–66.
Timofeev L. I., Turaev S. V., eds., Slovar′ literaturovedcheskikh terminov, Moscow, 1974.
Torzi I., Ratio et usus: Dibattiti antichi sulla dottrina delle figure, Milano, 2000.
Volkov S. S., Emfazis, Ritorika M. V. Lomonosova, St. Petersburg, 2017.
Yanko T. E., Intonatsionnye strategii russkoi rechi v sopostavitel′nom aspekte, Moscow, 2008.
Young A. M., Schematized Word Order in Vergil, The Classical Journal, 27, 1932, 515–522.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Elena V. Markasova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.