Philosophical understanding of terms and concepts by an author as an object of linguistic investigations



The given article aims to study and analyze lingua-philosophical essence of terms, particularly of religious and scientific fields throughout the last two centuries.

Keywords: philosophical terminology, philosophical term formation, author’s philosophical term, author’s term system.

European and Russian religious philosophies of the late XIX — early XX centuries occupies an important place in the history of the domestic humanitarian, political and philological culture. The terminology of texts of the given religious philosophy is an urgent scientific problem both in theoretical and in historical-linguistic aspects. Of particular interest is the study of the author’s terminology created by each thinker within the framework of his own philosophical system. The purpose of this article is to identify and characterize the content of the concept of “author's philosophical term”. It develops and concretizes the provisions put forward earlier in Russian linguistics on the author's term system and author's term in relation to the Russian philosophical text of the period under study. The main features of the philosophical term are briefly described: definability by the whole text, possible presence of several generic identifiers, high probability of distinguishing the subjective component of the meaning, uniqueness within a specific term system. The correlation of the concepts “subjective component of meaning” and “author's neologism” is analyzed. The classification of term-creating techniques and related structural-semantic types of author’s terms of Russian philosophy of the studied period allowed the author of this work to conclude that the concept of “author’s term” combines lexemes that are heterogeneous in the way of formation, the author’s beginning of which can appear at the level of content and at level of content and form. For the first time, a theoretically substantiated definition of the author’s philosophical term of the late XIX — early XX centuries is formulated: it is a verbalizing philosophical concept and formed in a morphological, syntactic or semantic way special lexeme, the meaning of which can be determined only as part of the philosophical term system of a particular author. The study contributes to the theory of lexicology, expanding the categorical apparatus of the lexicology of the Russian language in the section of theoretical and applied terminology. The results of the analysis can be used in studies on the history of the Russian literary language, on lexicology, lexical semantics, terminology, stylistics, as well as in cultural studies, philosophy and other areas of humanitarian knowledge.

The purpose of this article is to determine the content of the concept of “author's philosophical term” in Russian philosophy of the late XIX — early XX century. The author makes an attempt to develop the thesis of B. N. Golovin about personal term systems and concretized put forward N. M. Azarova and V. D. Tabanakova provisions on the author’s term as applied to the Russian philosophical terminology of the designated period. In addition, the author refines and develops his own conclusions about the object of study formulated in earlier publications [1–3].

The relevance and novelty of the study is determined by the need to identify the semantic features of the philosophical term of the period under study, which will create a scientific basis for the linguistic description of the philosophical terminological system of the Russian philosophical text. This article for the first time formulates a theoretically substantiated definition of the author’s philosophical term and proposes a classification of structural-semantic types of author’s terms of Russian philosophy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Despite the significant achievements of modern terminology, in a linguistic study of the philosophical term in general and the philosophical term of the period described, in particular, there are many unresolved and not even put forward for discussion issues: the specificity of the author’s philosophical term is not revealed, the philosophical term formation of the end is not characterized XIX — beginning of the XX century, the methods of lexicographic description of philosophical terminological systems of Russian thinkers were not developed.

Until recently, Russian terminology only sporadically addressed questions about the functions of a philosophical term and the features of its semantics. Philosophical terms in general of the period under study are characterized by the presence of a number of specific features. The complexity of the semantic structure of meaning in some cases determines the presence of several generic identifiers: this phenomenonespecially characteristic of terms included in the core of the terminology system of a particular author.

The specificity of the terminology of the Russian religious text also lies in its definability in the whole text: the term, as a rule, is not given a strict and concise author's definition; The “growth of terminology” of a philosophical term is similar to the process of incrementing meaning in a literary text.

A characteristic phenomenon of the Russian and European philosophical terminological systems as an integral phenomenon is the semantic ambiguity of drill elements, due to different interpretations of philosophical concepts by different thinkers and different philosophical schools. The semantic content of the philosophical term is determined and specified in the process of its actual functioning. The question of the semantic polysemy of a philosophical term is removed within the framework of a specific philosophical term system: a term can be ambiguous in composition. The “large” terminological system of philosophy, however, the term belongs to a certain philosophical course and philosophical terminological system of one particular thinker determines its relative uniqueness, which is uniqueness within the term system. The correlation of terms with the worldview of a particular thinker allows one to speak about author's philosophical terminological systems, the study and lexicographic description of which constitute an important task of modern terminology.

Author terminological systems formed on the basis of theories created by their authors include, for example, terminological systems: N. F. Fedorova, S. N. Bulgakova, N. A. Berdyaeva, P. A. Florensky. For the first time, B.N. wrote about the importance of studying such terminological systems back in 1981. Golovin, indicating the existence of “Personal term systems” M. V. Lomonosov and L. T. Elmslev (see: [4, p. 6]). The unit of the author terminology system is the author term.

Before proceeding to the characterization of the author's philosophical term, we turn to the history of the issue. V. D. Tabanakova preceded her attempt to characterize the author’s term with the following statement: “The expression“ author’s term ”has no entrenched special meaning <...> in any linguistic dictionary we will not find a definition of the special concept of“ author’s term ”” [5, p. 141].

Famous researcher of the Russian philosophical text N. M. Azarova called the author’s terms “originally appearing in the texts of one philosopher and currently updating the connection with the text of this philosopher” [6, p. 62]. However, the fact that the term appears in the texts of a certain author is not always well known and in some cases may require additional research of a textual and historical-linguistic nature.

V. D. Tabanakova introduced a new interpretation of the concept: the author’s term is a discursive function of the term. “The term «author’s term» extends to an author’s concept, author’s prediction, author’s interpretation of a special concept in the text and discourse <...>. The author will become a central special concept that carries the main idea, concept, semantic load in the text. This is always a new perspective, a new aspect... He builds his logical-conceptual system” [5, p. 6].

Obviously, the positions of these authors do not contradict each other, but are complementary: without even having the facts about the connection of the term with a certain set of texts of one author, we can intuitively assign the term copyright status in cases where it means one of central or simply significant concepts of philosophical worldview.

So, historians of philosophy recognize the term «Byzantism» by the author’s term K. N. Leont'ev (this fact was recorded, for example, in the encyclopedia “Russian Philosophy” 1), but it cannot be called “originally appeared in the texts of one philosopher”, because he was also well-known to K. N. Leontiev: the data of the National Corps of the Russian Language indicate that earlier the lexeme “Byzantism” is found in A. I. Herzen (1859).

However, it was K. N. Leont'ev filled the term with a new meaning, which led to the semantic variation of the word and the appearance of new paradigmatic, syntagmatic and associative connections. As a result of this, the term “Byzantism” as a conceptual sign, as a designation of a special type of relationship between church and state, was recognized by the author’s term K. N. Leontiev.

V. D. Tabanakova connects the author’s term with the author’s intention, bearing in mind the semantic plan of the latter, and limits the concept of “author’s term” to the result of contextual semantic analysis of language forms in a special text [5, p. 144].

We can assume that the author’s philosophical term is characterized by the presence of the subjective component of the lexical meaning, which in the work of Z. Ya. Iker is designated and defined as “a subjective moment in the use and interpretation of generally accepted terms in various philosophical directions and schools” [7, p. 14]. A typical example confirming the phenomenon of the subjective (author's) principle of a philosophical term is the topic of the article by N. O. Lossky [8]. In the annotated index L. M. Granovsky and M. A. Aliev, the content of the article is revealed as follows: “... the term specificity in its interpretation by A. S. Khomyakov, N. V. Kireevsky, Vl. Soloviev, S. N. Bulgakov, L. P. Karsavin, S. L. Frank, D. Chizhevsky and others. " [9, p. twenty]. This example contains confirmation of the thesis about the relative unambiguity of the philosophical term, which is reflected in the term-fixing (annotated index) and terminology (article by N. N. Lossky) texts. Similar tomany measures can be cited. Note that we are not necessarily talking about generally accepted terms: the author’s principle can also appear in rare, little-known terms. In addition, it remains unclear how the concepts of “subjective component of meaning” and “author's neologism” relate: can the whole meaning of the newly created philosophical term be considered subjective? To clarify the definition of the term «author's term» we list the methods of formation of these units.

Analysis of existing concepts (both articulated quite clearly in different versions of the ontological philosophy of history, and often implicit, implied in the sciences about culture and serving as the basis of scientific works on history) allows us to distinguish such general and gradually established in modern culture signs, criteria of historicity, such as humanity (correlation with a person, a person is a central element, an atom of history; the world of history is the world of man), sociality (history does not study a lonely person, but the diverse phenomena of people’s life together, their connections and relationships), spirituality (certainty, constitutionality by consciousness, reason, ideas; immateriality of a number of components of this real notion), variability (processuality, formation, development), temporality, concreteness, individuality and belonging to the past [12]. Analysis of the vocabulary extracted from the annotated index L. M. Granovsky and M. A. Alieva, from the encyclopedia “Russian Philosophy” and philosophical primary sources, allows one to classify the philosophical terms of the period under study according to the methods of term formation: terms formed by morphological, syntactic and semantic methods. Taking into account the specifics of philosophical terminological vocabulary, it is advisable to separate author terms formed by varieties of the semantic method into a separate object of research: terminization and trans-terminology. In addition, the mismatch of the conceptual content of philosophical terms in different terminological systems gives rise to the need for a special analysis of the rethinking of philosophical concepts by different thinkers. Consequently, the concept “Author's philosophical term” combines the terms of different nature and different ways of education.

1. Terms formed by morphological (being fearfulness, God-givenness, Super-Being, fallen, meaninglessness, pneumatic sphere, transrationality, omnipotence, primary symbol) and syntactic (blooming complexity, specific metaphysics, end of history, production freedom) methods. Hyphenic complexes of various degrees of terminologicality also belong to this type: being-in-itself, being-in-God, being-cosmos, without-view, anarchy, Life-through-Death, multiformity, self-being, all is unity.
2. Terms formed in a semantic way (terminization of a common linguistic token): incomprehensible, doubt, can, groundlessness, peace, creativity.
3. Rethinking terms of other sciences and theology terms (transterminologization, a kind of semantic terminology): nation, socialism, materialism, pauperism, cruising, liturgy, Easter and Easter, trinity, Trinity, sin, Baptism, fifty.
4. Philosophical lexemes and special philosophical terms of a multidimensional nature, originally interpreted by a particular philosopher (terms in a discursive function, a kind of semantic term-formation): freedom, being, truth, death, ontology, good, super-good, evil, person.

The classification of term-creating techniques allows us to conclude that the concept of “author's term” combines lexemes of a heterogeneous origin, the author’s beginning of which can be manifested at the level of content and at the level of content and form.

Firstly, the author’s terms of Russian philosophy of the late XIX — early XX centuries refer to the author’s neoplasms proper, where the author’s beginning is most clearly expressed: both the form and the content are copyright (content, self, etosity, organ creation), full-body, prey freedom, composition of mental life, religious «generally»). These are terms with a “personal beginning”; terms in the formation of which the philosophical worldview of their creators finds active expression. Unlike a literary text, where occasional words and occasional syntagmatics are a way of “updating stable semantic connections” [10, p. 175], in the philosophical text, the word creation serves primarily to objectivize new knowledge.

Secondly, terms formed on the basis of terminology are of an author’s character and trans-terminologization, i.e., using all varieties of the semantic method. In the terminization of a common word, a regrouping and clarification of its seminal composition takes place: the new, special, meaning of the lexeme is special in relation to the vocabulary. Wed at N. F. Fedorov: a museum as a memory of deceased fathers; assembly as a remembrance of the living; fathers like all the dead who must be resurrected; adulthood as gaining the highest meaning of existence, etc.

These dictionaries allow us to speak about the terminologization of words in a common language with a complex semantic structure, for example: colorlessness, simplicity, complexity (flowering complexity), extinction, simplification (mixing simplification) (KN Leontyev); infinite, infinity, discontinuity, word (P. A. Florensky); land, mother, landlord, household (S. N. Bulgakov); safety, groundlessness, truth, everyday life, soil (LI Shestov); unbelief, soul, concreteness, incomprehensible, reality (S. L. Frank).

In trans-terminologization, the term implements a new discursive function, which V. D. Tabanakova: “... the author’s term differs in terms of content by its conceptual load, ambiguity and predictivity” [5, p. 195].

As a result of the transfer of terms from other areas of knowledge into a philosophical terminological system, interbranch homonyms are formed on the basis of rethinking, compare: arrhythmology (mat.) — arrhythmology by P. A. Florensky (phil.), Regulation (biol.) — regulation by N. F. Fedorova (Philos.). Such a phenomenon in its pure form is relatively rare in philosophical terminology: as a rule, the process of transterminologization is complemented by syntactic terminology.

The most characteristic for the philosophy of the late XIX — early XX century is the rethinking of philosophical terms, which in the text of a particular philosopher appear in a special discursive function, denoting a new «quantum» of philosophical knowledge. In this case, philosophers give the term their subjective definition and use this linguistic sign in a purely individual meaning. In relation to such words, the distinguished V. D. The tanbanak sign of the ambiguity of the author's term seems indisputable, unconditional, since the ambiguity inherent in philosophical terms, due to the dialectical nature of philosophical knowledge and the historical development of the content of philosophical concepts, is removed within the framework of a specific philosophical terminological system. The fact that the author’s term belongs to the author’s term system of one philosopher determines its relative uniqueness, or uniqueness within the terminological system: the truth of L. I. Shestov, the truth of P. A. Florensky, truth N. A. Berdyaev, etc. The following example is indicative: in the meaning of the philosophical term “nothing”, one can distinguish the invariant part (“absence, nonexistence of a concrete existing or even being” 2). In the New Philosophical Dictionary, the polysemy (polyinterpretability) of the term is presented as the main characteristic of its semantic content: “In the history of philosophy, starting from antiquity, two alternative approaches to Nothing can be traced” [5, p. 195]. In the term system of Russian religious philosophy, Nothing is an ontological principle considered in its relation to God (such an interpretation of the term is characteristic of the philosophical concepts of V. S. Soloviev, N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, S. L. Frank, L. P. Karsavina): “Usually, the concept of“ Divine Nothing ”appears here, the initial incomprehensible identity of nothing and God, which then unfolds in ontological discourse” [5, p. 195].

A different interpretation of this term by different thinkers led to the appearance in its meaning of a subjective component, which is implemented in specific terminology systems. So, in the worldviews of V. S. Solovieva and S. L. Frank Nothing was supposed to be driven by various principles: En-Sof (Kabbalah) and incomprehensible.

The most vividly subjective component of meaning is represented in the terminology of S. N. Bulgakova, for whom nothing is a principle independent of God, which is the key to solving the aperies of evil and freedom of creation. Moreover, the problem of correlating the author’s philosophical meaning with the implied terms is additionally discussed in S. N. Ostonova’s recent scientific article: “Spirituality and humanism of humanity in the era of Revival” [11].

The data obtained allow us to highlight the main characteristics of the author's philosophical term of the studied period. This is a lexical unit of the language for special purposes:

– associated with the texts of a certain author (the idea of ​​updating the connection “term — text” belongs to NM Azarova, see: [6]);

– implements a philosophical concept (the author’s idea, the “quantum» of the philosophical worldview of a particular author) and therefore includes the subjective component of meaning;

– formed in a morphological, syntactic, or semantic way;

– included in the author's philosophical term system.

Thus, the author’s philosophical term of the period under study can be defined as a verbalizing philosophical concept and a special lexeme formed in a morphological, syntactic or semantic way, the meaning of which is determined only as part of the philosophical term system of a particular author, or an author term system. The concept “Author’s philosophical term” unites quite diverse phenomena: author’s new formations that have overcome “occasionality” and are included in the author’s philosophical terminology; terminological common tokens; rethought philosophical terms with a pronounced subjective component of meaning, realized only within the framework of a specific term system.

Concluding our reflections on copyright philosophical terms, we note that we have only outlined the problem of their description and require further scientific development and concretization. The obtained data form the scientific and methodological basis for further analysis of the specifics of the author’s philosophical terminological systems, as well as the development of the principles of the lexicographic description of the author’s philosophical terminology.

References:

1. Kozlovskaya N. V. Mikro- i makrostruktura slovarya avtorskoy filosofskoy terminologii (na materiale “filosofii obshchego dela” N. F. Fedorova) [Micro- and Macrostructure of the Dictionary of Philosophical Terms (Based on N. F. Fyodorov’s Philosophy of the Common Cause)]. Studia Slavica, 2014, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 169–179.
2. Kozlovskaya N. V. K opisaniyu yazyka russkoy religioznoy filosofii [Towards the Description of Language of Russian Religious Philosophy]. Trudy instituta russkogo yazyka im. V. V. Vinogradova, 2014, no. 2–1, pp. 431–444.
3. Kozlovskaya N. V. Tipy avtorskikh terminov v russkoy filosofii (na materiale proizvedeniy N. F. Fedorova i N. A. Berdyaeva) [Types of Authorial Terms in Russian Philosophy (Based on the Literary Works by N. F. Fedorov and N. A. Berdyaev)]. Sibirskiy filologicheskiy zhurnal, 2016, no. 1, pp. 185‒192.
4. Golovin B. N. Tipy terminosistem i osnovaniya ikh razlicheniya [Types of Term Systems and the Basis for Their Differentiation]. Termin i slovo [Term and Word]. Gorky, 1981, pp. 3–10.
5. Tabanakova V. D. Avtorskiy termin: znayu, interpretiruyu, perevozhu [The Author’s Term: I Know, I Interpret, I Translate]. Tyumen, 2013. p. 208.
6. Azarova N. M. Tipologicheskiy ocherk yazyka russkikh filosofskikh tekstov XX veka [Typological Essay on the Language of Russian Philosophical Texts of the 20th Century]. Moscow, 2010. p. 228.
7. Ikere Z.Ya. Printsipy perevoda filosofskoy terminologii na latyshskiy yazyk (na materiale terminologii angliyskogo empirizma 17 i 18 vv.) [The Principles of Translating Philosophical Terminology into Latvian (Based on the Terminology of British Empiricism of the 17th and 18th Centuries]. Vilnius, 1983. 21 p.
8. Losskiy N. Ideya konkretnosti russkoy filosofii [The Idea of Concreteness of Russian Philosophy]. Voprosy filoso- fii, 1991, no. 2, рр. 125–135.
9. Granovskaya L. M., Aliev M. A. Filosofskie terminy i ponyatiya v russkom literaturnom yazyke (vtoraya polovina XIX — pervaya tret’ XX veka) [Philosophical Terms and Concepts in Russian Literary Language (Second Half of the 19th — First Third of the 20th Centuries)]. Baku, 2013. p. 42.
10. Kozhevnikova N. A. Yazyk Andreya Belogo [The Language of Andrei Bely]. Moscow, 1992. p. 256.
11. Ostonova S. N. Spirituality and humanism of humanity in the era of Revival Vestnik Nauki I Obrazovaniya 2020. № 8 (86). Chast’ 1 (Science and Education Gazette 2020. № 8 (86). Part 1).
12. Sadullaev D. B. (2020). Historical reality concepts. ISJ Theoretical & Applied Science, 04 (84), pp. 414- 419.