What are the diaries

The last two decades have been characterized by an unusually increased interest in the study of “auto -documentary” texts in general and diaries in particular. There was even a word of diaries, meaning the field of philology, separate from the study of close genres: autobiographies, memoirs and letters. A significant role in this was played by the appearance of network magazines, thanks to which the modern world was divided into “diary workers” and “diary -eaters”. “Polit.ru” publishes an article by Linguist Anna Zaliznyak “Diary: to determine the genre” , in which the author discusses the ratio of literary, network and ordinary diaries, and also distinguishes genre features and other features of diary discourse. The article was published in the journal New Literary Review (2010. No. 106).

1. Diamonds, diary devices and postmodernism

Akhmatova’s statement is widely known: “The most boring in the world is other people's dreams and someone else's forgery” [1] . It is wonderful in different relationships (in particular, in relation to the choice in this context of the word fornication ), but its main force is obviously wested in the word. That to discuss “alien fornication” is not something, but boring is a kind of challenge by the philistine representation that it is somewhat a little ashamed to discuss other people's intimate circumstances, but, of course, interesting. The statement of Akhmatova, although it included in the Russian cultural text, did not change the attitude to the aforementioned discussion: people in general continue to consider this activity very interesting and not very decent [2] . However, as it turned out, in the framework of scientific discourse, discussing “someone else's fornication” is not only not boring (as Akhmatova believes), but not at all shameful (as others believe), and science in this case is not psychology and not sexology, but philology. Why - it’s quite clear: people are characterized by their “fornication” not only to tell, but also to write (for example, in a diary), and any word written can become an object of application of love for it, that is, philology. It is as if there is nothing to object, and yet the phrase “International Project on the Study of Intimacy” [3] is somewhat reminiscent of the name of the company from one of the Russian novels-Garry Potter's breakdowns: “Seekhend's socks”. There are no socks of the second-hand -if only because then it will no longer be socks, but gloves; Also, intimacy, put up for discussion, is no longer intimacy, but publicity, cf. Establishment Public House [4] . If you agree with M.A. Krongauz [2009], it is the expression of public intimacy that is the keyword of the “communicative revolution” that finds itself in the phenomenon of the network diary.

Nevertheless, in a sense, the study of diaries as a scientific discipline is "socks of the second-hand." Because the diary is a text that is written not for publication (I mean the “real” diary, and not a diary as a genre of fiction, see this below); A published diary - already violates the boundaries of the genre. Thus, the object of the study is a very specific phenomenon from a semiotic point of view. The publication of their intimate, including morally condemned, movements of the soul in literary form , of course, has a rather long -standing tradition - cf. The "confession" of the Blessed Augustine or Rousseau - but this is not a diary .

One way or another, the last two decades are characterized by an unusually increased interest in the study of “auto -documentary” texts in general and diaries in particular [5] . There was even a word of diaries , meaning the field of philology, to some extent separate from the study of close genres: autobiographies, memoirs and letters. With the practice of maintaining network magazines - arising relatively recently, unusually widely spread and, obviously, which also influenced the development of diaries as a field of research, will be a little exaggeration to say that in the modern world, people almost without a trace are divided into diaries and diaries [6] .

I must say that today's explosion of interest in diaries is stimulated not only by the elimination of various kinds of barriers that made them previously inaccessible to study. The point is that these texts themselves are perfectly embedded in the postmodern aesthetic paradigm. Researchers have already paid attention to the proximity to the principles of postmodernism of the “semantic dominant” of the text of the Internet Devils (see: [Sidorova 2006: 60–61]). Some of them-in particular, fragmentation, non-linearity, violation of causal relationships, intertextuality, abstract, mixing of documentary and artistic, fact and style, fundamental incompleteness and lack of a single idea (Wed: [Smetanina 2002: 87]) [7] are also characteristic of “ordinary”, not network diaries. In this regard, Irina Savkina’s statement about the book of Mikhail Mikheev “Diary as an ego-text”:

... diary workers have an obvious “pressure” on the diaries ; The diary discourse affects the research, and the words of the author of the monograph “... It seems to me that this should be recognized for the diary genre by almost the most significant, characteristic and determining - its simultaneous incoherence, fragmentation and redundancy, with repetitions of the same” (p. 15) - in a sense, we can call self -characterism ” [Savkin 2008: 2008 288-289].

I will add to this that all of the listed properties of the diary-Devil-cereal discourse have an unconditional aesthetic value in the eyes of the Datering Dostmodernist, and the very fact of the rapprochement of the diary discourse from the Diary is the installation of the semiotic equality of all the texts in the face of their readers (they are also authors with a small letter). The connection of diary for the aesthetic principles of postmodernism is also found in other respects, in particular in the apology of the marginal (cf., for example, the problems of conferences “Marginalia 2008” and “Marginalia-2010”) [8] . In addition, the diary text, mostly handwritten, often contains moaned, as well as for one reason or another, illegibly written fragments, which in itself corresponds to the principles of an “open work” (according to Umberto ECO), since it provides the possibility of different readings even literally [9] . In this regard, we mention the valorization of the instruments “NRZB.”, Twice used by different authors as the name for the book - A.K. Zholkovsky and S. Gandlevsky [10] .

By concluding a section on postmodernism, I note that within the framework of traditional epistemology, a diary can be studied for different purposes and, accordingly, by various sciences. Namely, these goals and areas of knowledge can be as follows:

1) extracting the facts of the biography of the writer : features of his personality, facts of his external and inner life, relations with other people, etc. Usually, from this point of view, the diaries of famous, something outstanding people-writers, artists, musicians, scientists, political figures, etc. are studied. Conditionally designate this area of ​​knowledge "Life of wonderful people." If the writer turned out to be a “wonderful person” (but only in this case), then this can also be attributed to literary criticism (cf. the concept of “biographical literary criticism”).

2) the extraction of information regarding the real people mentioned in the diary, events and circumstances . The diaries of any authors can be used for this; The field of knowledge is history.

3) the extraction of information regarding the structure of human consciousness: mechanisms for the work of memory, reflection, assessment, emotions, thinking, verbalization of experience, creative activity, etc. The field of knowledge is psychology.

4) the study of the diary as a type of communicative activity and the type of text . This is the task of linguistics and partly literary criticism (in particular, narratology at their junction), as well as semiotics and cultural studies.

Accordingly, the object of study can be: the person who wrote this diary himself; circumstances described by him; man in general; This text itself (from different points of view). We draw attention to that only for the last task a diary is not a source of information about the object of interest to the researcher, but by the direct object of research [11] . Within the framework of this task, a real study has been completed.

2. The figure of the addressee

Not referring to discuss the history of the issue, I will proceed from the fact that the category of the genre is formed by conventions of relations with the addressee that the writer takes on in this work [12] .

Who is the addressee of the diary?

A person writes a diary, having an addressee , obviously, himself, that is, turning to himself. As Yu.M. Lotman, “[...] and in a number of other cases we have a transfer from“ I ”to“ I ”. These are all cases when a person addresses himself, in particular, those diary notes that are not made to memorize certain information, but aimed, for example, to understand the internal state of the writer, to understand, which does not occur without recording ”[Lotman 2000: 164]. Precisely because the direct addressee of the diary is its author, the diary is an intimate text, and show someone your diary means to allow this person to his intimate sphere . The meaning of the act “give” his diary, the trust, manifested in this act, is from that it stems that a person reads not addressed lines [13] . The same circumstance determines the effect of reading published diaries, as if not authorized by the author. However, in the general case, the situation is still not so clear.

As you know, in the XIX - beginning of the XX century. In Russia, the practice of reading diaries in a friendly or family circle was widespread [14] (therefore, for example, L.N. Tolstoy, in the last year of his life, started a secret “diary for one of oneself”; however, it was not possible to keep it secret). However, the addressee of the auto -documentary text and its potential, desirable or undesirable, reader are different figures. This becomes obvious, for example, in a situation where this latter is an investigator of security bodies; So, V.V. Vinogradov in letters to his wife from Vyatka exile there are comments such as “Dante (for an outsider I will say that this is a world poet)” [15] .

So, in the communicative situation of the diary, the addressee as a factor forming the genre seems to be arranged as follows. The author himself is always the direct addressee ; However, there is also an indirect addressee - a potential reader, including “descendants”. Cf. The next fragment from Dina Rubina’s novel “Here is the Messiah! ..”, where both addressees are indicated:

And to you, she thought, standing under a sluggish shower and turning heavily, not a single intimate letter, nor a note from me, you will not inherit ... She did not write diaries even in gullible self -centered youth. What kind of conversations with yourself? What kind of contracts with oneself, what kind of conditions to yourself, what kind of nonsense? A normal person does not talk to himself ...

The concept of an indirect addressee in linguistics is applied almost exclusively in the field of oral communication: this is how the participant of the canonical communicative situation is referred to, which the speaker does not turn to, but whose presence affects the choice of the form and partly the content of the statement, which he does (cf.: [Kerbrat -oreCchioni 1986, Pocyptsovskaya 1986, Formanovskaya 2001] and others). However, the concept of an indirect addressee is also relevant for a number of written and mixed genres (see the next section), among which the diary occupies a special position due to the coincidence of a direct addressee with the author.

The figure of the indirect addressee of the diary is of exceptional interest in terms of the typology of the genre. There are two poles: on the one hand, it can be a narrow family or friendly circle-or even a particular person, one of the author’s family or friends [16] . The opposite pole forms a situation when an indirect addressee is intentionally excluded: to prevent the possibility of reading by third parties, the diary is hidden, sometimes encrypted; Many cases are known when a person at the end of his life destroyed his diary or asked him to do others after his death. Most of the diaries are in the interval between these poles (although closer to the second): the indirect addressee has no distinct shape, but is not excluded at all. Let us recall in this regard a very accurate formulation of Maria Bashkirtseva from the preface to her “Diary” (hereinafter, in the quotes, I cruised mine. - A.Z. )):

... This is always interesting - the life of a woman, recorded every day, without any drawing, as if no one in the world had to read what was written, and at the same time with a passionate desire to be read [ 17].

It contains an indication of both addressees - direct and indirect; It is their coexistence that determines the uniqueness of the diary genre: the diary is written as exclusively for itself and therefore without drawing, but at the same time it is precisely what is interesting to others - by whom it may be read.

For a diary, especially youth, is characterized by an explicit indication that it is not intended for prying eyes. Young A.F. Losev (18 years old) writes in his diary:

So, even such a reflex like me, this person could hurt the delicate strings. However, I’ll come off for a while from the course of my impressions yesterday - however, this can be true only for me, but for another it is wrong? Those. Maybe this woman would not make any impression on the other? What about the matter to me? - I will answer myself.

After all, here I write only about myself and only for myself - so why should I be shy? And now I liked this lady. (Losev A.F. “I was 19 years old ...”: Diaries. Letters. Prose. M., 1997. P. 31.))

However, contrary to what is clearly affirmed in the second metate replica, and she herself, and the first insert allocated by italics, are obviously facing a certain imaginary indirect addressee. As rightly noted in the article [Savkina 2009: 154], the addressing of the diary (add, especially youth) is expressed in the presence of "a certain invisible controller, censor, and the highest instance at which the author of the diary is constantly looking around in the process of writing." This is a “fading ideological spy”, to which you need to make excuses and motivate your right to write about “nonsense”, “vulgarities” and “gossip” ( I don’t know whether it is worth writing, it is so insignificant, but it worries me ... For how much time I don’t like a single boy , etc.) [Savkin 2009: 163].

In general, the figure of an indirect addressee is, in a sense, a key diary for the genre. K. Kobrin writes: “The most important question arises here: do all the authors of the diaries hope that they will be read after death? It is difficult to answer; In any case, we read many diaries, and not one of them seems to have been intended for our own use [...] The fact is that it is unconsciously if he later wants to read his own diary, he cannot but imagine in his place to be for a moment ”[Kobrin 2003: 291]. However, as B.A. rightly believes Uspensky, such a moment of autocomination is available when creating any written text: to articulate his thought, the author represents himself as an addressee who reads as if unfamiliar text [Uspensky 2007: 123-124].

In Kobrin’s statement, the main content, as often happens, is included in the presumption - in this case, the word to hope (“Are all the authors of the diaries hope that they will read them after death?”): They hope , i.e. They want, and the majority of such people - this combination of ideas is laid down in the presumption, and it is shared by the authors of network diaries, who believe that the network diary finally realized the dream of anyone who writes the diary. Nevertheless, this is still only one of the possible installations. On the other hand, it is difficult to say how sincere this or that author (or how much his subconscious is available to him), claiming that his diary is not intended for any extraneous eyes (cf. the above fragment from the diary of A.F. Losev), and, accordingly, how much the arbitrariness is right, which fulfills or does not fulfill the desire of the author to destroy his diary after his death. Since all these issues do not have a verified solution at all, and even more so the one for all writers, we will not discuss them here anymore: from the point of view of the typology of the genre, it is enough that the figure of an indirect addressee is a potential participant in the communicative act implemented in the diary. The most significant is that the presence of an indirect addressee can be established on the basis of the actual linguistic evidence. This is, first of all, of all kinds of explanations and comments in which the author himself obviously does not need. Here are some examples (auto -comments of interest to us are highlighted):

The role of the "older friend", the adviser is played by Mulya ( Samuel Gurevich ). This man, an intimate friend of Ali, my sister , an exceptional person. (Efron G. Diaries. M., 2004. T. 1. S. 16.)

I always like to argue with the cat (Konstantin Efron), my cousin . (Ibid.. S. 17.)

... mouth with festons ( a large distance between the mouth and nose ). (Tsvetaeva M. extracts from the diary. December 4, 1012. Unrelated notebooks. M., 1997. T. 1. P. 12.)

Yes, Dora Lurie. This is the name and surname of my new acquaintance , flashed as a dream in my mind (A. Losev “I was 19 years old ...”: Diaries. Letters. Prose. M., 1997. P. 31.)

So, the diary genre is formed by the fact that this is a text addressed to itself, which, at the same time, to one degree or another, allows the possibility of reading by some third party, which we called the “indirect addressee”.

3. Diary among other speech genres with an indirect addressee

The presence of two addressees playing a different role in the communicative situation is not a unique feature of the diary genre. The diary is in the next series of “secondary”, or “complex”, speech genres (according to Bakhtin [1996]), also suggesting an indirect addressee : a gift inscription, address on the envelope, epitaph, girl’s album, lyrics (lyrical narrative form), congratulatory address, psalm.

The peculiarity of the gift inscription on the book (which the linguists was practically not studied) is that the text contains an explicit indication of the addressee and addressee and at the same time both are named, as it were, in the 3rd person (that is, instead of “you from me,” is written “Masha from Petya”). Cf.:

My sweet nephew Misha for a good memory of my uncle, the author of Kashtanka.

Anton Chekhov. February 20, 1904 Yalta.

Cute people - Polixna Sergeevna Solovyova and Natalia Ivanovna Manaseina from D. Merezhkovsky as a keepsake. Kislovodsk. 14.1.1917

T. Ebergardt with the affection of S. Yesenin. Chicago. 1922

The dear Stas Andreevich, who once had a “student” of the head teacher of the correspondence department of MGBI, who has long become not only a teacher, but also the founder of the “Sbitnev” scientific school. For a good memory of many years of cooperation (direct and indirect) with unchanging love D. Kogotkov. October 1990

Znatoma informatics, dear friend of Stas Sbitnev for good memory. A.V. Sokolov. 12/14/1996

The teacher is from a grateful student. I. Pilko. 3.05.2001

To the beloved student Mikhail Antonovich Usov from the author.

Deeply, Vladimir Alexandrovich Gordlevsky from the chronicle [18] .

B.A. Uspensky builds this genre to the etiquette formula of the Russian petition, where the recipient had to be named from the point of view of the sender, and the sender - from the point of view of the recipient, compare: “The sovereign Boris Ivanovich beats the brow [...] your peasant Tereshko Osipov” [Uspensky 1995: 36–39]. However, here, as it seems, diminutive suffixes are rather a rhetorical figure: the addressee looks at himself with the eyes of a higher status of the addressee. The pronoun of your 2nd person does not correspond to the “point of view of the recipient” (from his point of view, the peasant Tereshko Osipov- mine ) is the only “direct” indicator of the communicative act. As for the gift inscription, the pronoun of the 2nd person is not used in it: they write to “Dear Ivan Petrovich from his (and not your ) student of Sidor”-that is, a method of nomination of the addressee is selected from the point of view of some 3rd person (indirect addressee of the inscription). However, it often falls (cf.: The teacher from the student ); Perhaps the writer avoids the use of the pronoun precisely because the presence of an indirect addressee gives rise to a conflict situation regarding the choice of a person of a possessive pronoun in a relational name, which he characterizes himself (“from his vs. your student”). But, one way or another, if there was no orientation to an indirect addressee, then the inscription would contain the 1st person of the verb or the imperative, the pronoun of the 1st person to designate the author of the inscription and the 2nd to refer to the addressee, that is, the inscription would look something like this: Masha, I give you (take from me as a gift) this book. I. So, however, gift inscriptions are usually not made.

Thus, the addressee of the gift and the accompanying feelings of the giving is a person named in the dative case. However, the method of nomination of participants in the communicative act implicates the presence of a certain third -party observer - the addressee of the message: “A person gave this book to a person Y; This happened on such and such a day; in such a place; Man X calls a person y so-and-so (and n calls x- a so , cf. inscriptions like Musa from Pusik ), experiences such and such feelings, etc. ”. This indirect addressee of a gift inscription is, among other things, “descendants”, who may “write history” [19] .

The same principle is applied to designate the sender and recipient of the letter in the address on the modern envelope , where the indirect addressee is a very real employee of the postal service, in the address formula of birch bark letters (cf. “From the Zhynome to Mikul”; on the communicative structure of birch bark letters, see: [Gippius 2004]) and, for example, in the application of the application , SR. “The director of the institute is to such and such from a researcher of such and such”: the addressee of this text is the secretary of the director, for whom both identified persons are “third”.

Another communicative genre with an indirect addressee is an epitaph. Like a diary, an epitaph also exists in the form of a literary genre. But it will be primarily about the “real” epitaph, that is, the inscriptions on the grave. The form of such an epitaph can be different. The “naive” (composed by loved ones of the deceased) epitaphs have a direct addressee of the deceased and are either made as an appeal to the deceased as a 2nd person, or both participants in the communicative act are named as if in the 3rd person, cf. [20] :

You were all like the Sun Light / and the embodiment of kindness, / beloved, glorious, the best grandfather, / where did you go from us?

Dear beloved husband and daddy. From his wife and children.

Dear beloved mommy from her daughter, granddaughter and son -in -law.

Sometimes both methods are connected in one text, that is, the epitaph includes, so to speak, the text of the message (with the appeal to the 2nd person) and the signature, cf.:

Sleep, my dear. From a loving husband.

Sleep calmly dear / Our beloved, dear / You are always in our hearts / in our memory live. From Seryozha and Sons.

No one will replace you . Mom from her son.

Daughter, son, granddaughter, son -in -law - the author of the inscription denotes himself with a relational name that allows the writing to be identified only by correlation with a direct addressee (dead). This operation of identification is proposed to be done, obviously, an indirect addressee - “passerby”. The retreat (rather rare) from this principle is its own name (cf. “From Seryozha” instead of the expected “from my husband”). Obviously, in this case, it is used in order to reproduce the method of turning the inscription to the author.

It is also possible to designate the addressee in the 3rd person, and the author is in the 1st, cf.:

My mother calmed down for a long vacation.

Under the SIM Cross / Katya sleeps with eternal sleep / oh you, winds, do not make noise / my spouse does not wake up E [21] .

Cf. Also the following interesting text, consisting of communicatively diverse fragments:

The tireless worker. A man of a beautiful soul, kind, honest, bold. Not (sic!) One warmth in the world cannot warm the way you warm your warmth of your and other people's children. Sleep, precious mommy, let this crying birch bring you beautiful strong dreams.

In all cases, the epitaph has an indirect addressee-“passerby”: he is the addressee of the message “such and such a person who was born and dead then, beloved and buried by such and his relatives, is buried here.”

The appeal to the "passerby" was included in the genre canon of ancient literary epitaphs (see: [Veselova 2006] with further bibli.). At the same time, the literary epitaph has a different communicative structure: the indirect addressee becomes the addressee itself: “traveler”, “passerby” or simply “you” is the reader. And the deceased turns out to be the author of the message:

Traveler, the news take on all citizens of Lacedemon:

Honestly fulfill the law, here we lie in the grave.

(Simonid Keossian. Epitaph on the death of 300 Spartans in the farmopilian gorge)

Passerby! General of all living part is my part:

What are you and I was; You will be what I am.

(Sumarokov, imitation of ancient epitaphs)

Cf. also Tsvetaevsky lines (in which the formula of epitaphs is quoted):

And the blood flushed to the skin

And my curls curled up ...

I was also a passerby!

Passerby, stop!

The next genre, suggesting an indirect addressee, is a girl’s album , where friends and coming guests write poems, compliments, or just some phrases addressed to the mistress of the album designed to read and then show these notes to other persons; This practice, widespread in the Russian noble environment in the first half of the XIX century. (cf. "County young lady album" described by Pushkin), to some extent has survived to the present day (see: [Golovin, Lurie 1998]).

The congratulatory address genre is interesting in that it is written in the 2nd person, the information known to this person is reported: “You are heading the sector of such and such, you defended your doctoral dissertation in such a year on such and such a topic, etc.”. Here, a real (however, indirect) addressee is the audience present when reading the address. Psalms have a similar communicative structure (a general with a congratulatory address is also an illocusal function of praise). Compare: ““ In the beginning, you, God, created the earth ... ”We can say that the psalms include the entire Old Testament, which a person retells to God” [22] .

The lyrical narrative form , including an appeal to the “you” to a person called the internal addressee (cf.: [Vinogradov 1976: 455, Paducheva 1996: 209]), suggests a participant in a communicative act, typologically the closest to the indirect addressee of the diary: they are the reader.

4. Other genre signs of a diary

So, the first and main sign of the diary:

1. The author is simultaneously the addressee, and at the same time there is a potential second, indirect, addressee. We list other signs of the genre under discussion.

2. The author is simultaneously a narrator, that is, in the diary there is no narrator as a virtual observer and a clever instance from the author. The absence of a fictitious narrator is the most significant structural feature that distinguishes a diary text from an artistic one. Therefore, in particular, in the diary it is impossible to change “point of view” is not an obligatory, but very typical feature of the literary text. (This sign combines the diary genre with a number of others, not “artistic” genres - journalism, scientific literature.)

3. Nonfictionality of the text of the diary (see below).

4. The absence of a single author's plan. The work of art necessarily implies one, and this circumstance is one of the conventions of relations with the addressee. Including this may be the plan to write a text that has no plot and the impression of the sequence of fragmentary “records”, cf. The story of Dina Rubina “We must live in Russia for a long time”, about which she reports that this is just excerpts from her notebook [23] .

5. Diary is a text about yourself. Whatever it is written in it is about the events of personal life or social coups, whether the author’s thoughts and experiences are presented or the quotes or the heard fragment of the conversation are presented, the chronicle of current events is written or the dissertation plan is drawn up, this is a document of the personality of the writer, and it is as such to the writing is perceived [24] . The sense of the value of this personality is the rod that fastens - substantially, stylistically, emotionally, etc. - heterogeneous notes [25] , being an analogue of the author’s design , but a different semiotic nature in the diary.

6. Diary is a text about the current moment (about today or several past days, but no more). Even if the content of the record is memories, plans for the future or general reasoning, the author is significant that the described thoughts and feelings took place on this day and precisely under the circumstances.

7. The presence of a metate stroke date of the record corresponding to the moment of the recording, and not the date of the events described; In this regard, the diary in the proper sense of the word differs, for example, from the description of the trip, where the date is part of the text: “June 10. Arrival in Tsaritsyn at 8 hours 11 m. Morning, etc. " (The record could be made on another day).

All these signs distinguish a diary from fiction (to a lesser extent, this is true for the sign 5). At the same time, some of them combine a diary with other genres. The above was already talking about other genres with an indirect addressee, but not one of them implies the identity of the immediate addressee and the author. Signs 2 and 3 combine the diary, on the one hand, with memoirs, and on the other with scientific literature.

The Automotive genre closest to the diary is letters. There is even an intermediate genre “Diary in the form of letters” (see: [Egorov 2003: 7–9], [Mikheev 2007: 68–71]). Another very close to the diary, but a genre that is different from it is a “diary of memories” [26] . These are meaningful memories, that is, the text that describes the past events (condition 6), but it is fragmented in accordance with the date when the record was made (condition 7 is completed).

To characterize the diary genre, it is also significantly also whether its author is a professional writer. Since everything that the writer writes is part of his professional activity, any record in the diary is a potential “pre-text” [27] , the material from which the “text” is then made. Therefore, the writer’s diary is virtually little different from “notebooks” (notebooks, in one of the meanings of this term - the genre of specially “writer”). And precisely because the writer’s diary is always to one degree or another, it is focused on the subsequent “artistic” text, this is not a “real” diary, but a text of a different type.

The diary is included in the opposition with two types of literary genres:

- Memories/memoirs, various kinds of autobiographical prose;

- Diary as a reception (cf. "Pechorin's Diary") [28] . Many novels were completely written in the form of a diary (cf.: “Nausea” by Sartre, “Coly Tsinitsyn's Diary” N. Nosov and others).

As a reception can also be used the letter genre - in the options: just a letter (cf. “Letter to a scientific neighbor” of Chekhov), a sequence of letters from one person, cf. "Letters of the Russian traveler" Karamzin; Correspondence between two or more people-“Roman in letters” (cf. “New Eloise” by J.-Zh. Rousseau, “Dangerous Relations” by P. Shorelo de Laclo or the incomplete Pushkin’s “Roman in Letters”) [29] .

Fictionality as a sign of fiction (as opposed to the non -physicality of the diary text) is a plot that is well developed, and there is no need to discuss it again (see, in particular, [Serl 1999, Schmid 2003]). I would only like to emphasize the conventional nature of this border and its (possibly conventionality generated) amazing resistance to attempts to be conscious destruction, at least from fiction. Indeed, in fiction everything is fictional, even if in fact - no less than the present than in a real diary. Even if the names, surnames and facts of the biography of the characters of a work of art exactly coincide with the names, surnames and facts of the biography of real people (cf. Vignetki A.K. Zholkovsky) is nothing more than a technique, and it is as such that the reader is read. Roman L. Ulitskaya “Daniel Stein, the translator” consists entirely of various kinds of quasi -documentary texts (letters, excerpts from diaries) of his characters, including letters of the real author to the real person - E. Kostyukovich. The inclusion of the latter in the text of the novel is obviously a tribute to the postmodern poetry of the destruction of the opposition of fictional and real, artistic and not artistic; How real they are, the reader cannot judge, but this does not matter, because, having turned out to be part of the literary text, they inevitably acquire the property of fictionality, even if the word in the word coincides with the newly written by this addressee with letters.

As for the non -physicality of the diary text, in this direction the border is less impermeable. Perhaps it is worth listening to the rhetorical question I. Savkina: “Is the diary in something more fictitious than the artistic text, the fiction literature, where the author and the protagonist are not supposed to be identical, under the terms of the genre“ agreement ”, which to some extent removes many taboos? [Savkin 2009: 167]. For elements of fixality in auto -documentary texts, see also: [COHN 1999, Toker 2007].

The opposition is also of fundamental importance from the point of view of the identification of the genre on the presence/absence of a single author's plan. K. Kobrin rightly notes: “The one who keeps the diary, of course, selects the events and thoughts of the past day <...>, but makes a choice from what accidentally came into sight; He does not know that in the end it will come out of every thing and situation, whether it will matter to the life of him and others. The author of the fragment (like the novel, the story, etc.) selects the material, following the logic of the fictitious plot (or unexpectedly, but one, whose finale is known to him). The diary of the Passenger of the Titanic and the novel in the form of a fragment of the passenger of the unfortunate liner will narrate different things ”[Kobrin 2003: 293].

In this regard, the observation of M.Yu. Сидоровой [2006] о том, что один и тот же текстовый фрагмент может быть подан автором как дневниковая запись и как художественная проза — и, соответственно, по-разному прочитывается и комментируется читателями [30] . Таков, например, следующий фрагмент:

Я сижу у окна и смотрю, как ты идешь по улице. Ты шагаешь широко и неспешно, с неотвратимостью металлической машины. Город залит солнечным светом, и ты щуришься, прикрывая ладонью глаза. Черные-черные глаза, как два уголька потухшего костра, в которых тлеет рыжая искра, готовая в любой момент вспыхнуть пожаром. Ты весь — черное пятно гари в солнечной яркости весеннего мира. Ветер рвет края старой кожаной куртки, играет бахромой вокруг дыр на порванных джинсах. Ботинки на толстой подошве разбивают хрусталь сверкающих луж. Ты весь в черном, точно в трауре; одежда просто обгорела от близости твоего сердца.

«При определении жанра этих фрагментов, как выясняется, решающую роль играет место их бытования. Если автор размещает текст в виде дневниковой записи на соответствующем сайте, то такой текст воспринимается как нефикциональный, автобиографический и соответственно комментируется читателями: они могут похвалить хозяина дневника за красоту и силу стиля, но, как правило, будут обсуждать описанное как события собственной жизни автора. Стоит перенести тот же самый текст, не изменив в нем ни слова, на интернет-ресурс, посвященный самодеятельной литературе, типа prosa.ru, текст начинает читаться как художественное произведение и получает комментарии совсем иного рода — литературно-критические» [Сидорова 2006].

Фрагменты дневника иногда публикуются автором, возможно, даже без изменений — как художественное произведение (под названием «Дневник» или каким-то еще названием — ср. сочинение «Год жизни» Е. Гришковца); при этом соответственно меняется его жанровая характеристика, то есть конвенции отношений с адресатом, и тот же самый текст прочитывается иначе.

В заключение вернусь к теме сетевого дневника. Когда-то — в те далекие времена, когда Интернета еще вообще не было, — признаком самого большого доверия, которое могла оказать девочка своей подруге, было показать ей свой дневник. Соответственно, самое большое предательство со стороны подруги — рассказать его интимное содержание третьим лицам (желательно именно тем, о которых было написано в дневнике). Именно так обычно и происходило, что служило источником юношеского травматизма. В настоящее время ситуация предстает несколько иной — и, по-видимому, дело не только в прогрессе информационных технологий.

О соотношении жанра обычного и сетевого дневника имеются строго противоположные мнения. Так, для авторов интернет-дневников типична позиция, согласно которой такой дневник реализует возможность, для обычного дневника недоступную, но безусловно желанную, ср., например, следующие высказывания (http://www.superstyle.ru/26feb2006/dnevniki):

Интересно, что искушение начать дневник рано или поздно переживают практически все умеющие писать люди, при этом в ведении личного дневника есть одна маленькая психологическая тонкость — автор всегда знает, что рано или поздно его сокровенные записи прочтет кто-то другой. Как рукописи не горят, так и дневники всегда бывают читаемы посторонними.

Обычные люди могут стыдливо прятать свои тетрадочки, скрывая их от друзей и членов семьи, но и они верят в неизбежное: дневник будет непременно прочтен чужими глазами. Слишком уж недальновидно было бы общаться исключительно с самим собой посредством бумаги и ручки и надеяться, что никто в этот интимный диалог не встрянет. Фокус как раз в том и заключается, что любой дневник пишется с учетом его непременного явления народу: мысли шлифуются, орфография и пунктуация по мере возможностей автора соблюдены, а негатив подлежит непременной цензуре, чтобы ненароком не обидеть кого-то из будущих благодарных читателей. Люди, честные с собой, обычно могут более-менее точно предположить, кто именно и при каких обстоятельствах прочтет их дневник.

Развитие интернет-технологий подарило нам блог — виртуальный дневник, изначально предназначенный для чтения и обсуждения его другими людьми. Понятие дневника в рамках блога перерождается и приближается к его изначальному школьному прототипу: другие люди фактически ставят вам оценки в вашем же дневнике. Возможность вести блог есть у всех, чьи компьютеры подключены к Интернету, и если в традиционном бумажном дневнике обнародование записей — дело случая, то в его виртуальном варианте гласность становится правилом игры.

С другой стороны, существует мнение, что сетевой дневник «пишется совсем не для себя, он вообще не дневник, а система сигналов, позволяющих знакомиться, заводить виртуальную (и не только) дружбу, находить единомышленников» [Кобрин 2003: 295]. M.A. Кронгауз считает, что для блога «в истории человечества жанрового аналога нет» [Кронгауз 2009: 164], и с этим, по-видимому, следует согласиться. Позволю себе также высказать гипотезу, что возникновение феномена «публичной интимности» связано не только с тем, что новые технологии дают возможность легко и быстро поделиться своими мыслями и чувствами с неограниченным числом людей, но также и с тем, что эти технологии позволяют предъявить этому множеству людей свой текст как свидетельство своего индивидуального бытия . Коммуникативная революция, которую произвел Интернет, состоит прежде всего в том, что он дал человечеству принципиально новые возможности удовлетворения этой потребности. But this is another plot.

Работа выполнена при финансовой поддержке Программы фундаментальных исследований ОИФН РАН «Текст во взаимодействии с социокультурной средой: уровни историко-литературной и лингвистической интерпретации», проект «Дневниковый текст и его место в типологии повествовательных форм».

LITERATURE

Алпатов 2003 — Алпатов В. Книга А.М. Селищева «Язык революционной эпохи» // Афанасий Матвеевич Селищев и современная филология: Материалы Всероссийской конференции. Елец, 2003.

Бахтин 1996 — Бахтин М. Проблема речевых жанров // Бахтин М. Собр. соч.: В 7 т. М.: Русские словари, 1996. Т. 5. С. 159—206.

Веселова 2006 — Веселова В. Эпитафия — формульный жанр // Вопросы литературы. 2006. № 2.

Виноградов 1976 — Виноградов В. Избранные труды. Поэтика русской литературы. М.: Наука, 1976.

Вьолле, Гречаная 2006 — Вьолле К., Гречаная Е. Дневник в России в конце XVIII — первой половине XIX в. как автобиографическая практика // Автобиографическая практика в России и во Франции / Под ред. К. Вьолле, Е. Гречаной. М.: ИМЛИ РАН, 2006. С. 57—111.

Гиппиус 2004 — Гиппиус А. К прагматике и коммуникативной организации берестяных грамот // Новгородские грамоты на бересте. Из раскопок 1997—2000 гг. М., 2004. С. 183—323.

Головин, Лурье 1998 — Головин В., Лурье В. Девичий альбом ХХ века // Русский школьный фольклор: От «вызываний» Пиковой дамы до семейных рассказов / Сост. A.F. Belousov. М.: АСТ, 1998. С. 269—326.

Друк 2009 — Друк В. Автор 2.0: Новые вызовы и возможности // НЛО. 2009. № 100. C. 800—819.

Егоров 2002 — Егоров О. Дневники русских писателей XIX века: Исследование. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2002.

Егоров 2003 — Егоров О. Русский литературный дневник XIX века: История и теория жанра. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2003.

Захарьин 2005 — Захарьин Д. Антропология и генеалогия интимности // Nahe Schaffen, Abstand halten. Zur Geschichte der Intimitat in der Russischen Kultur / Hrsg. N. Grigor'eva, Sch. Schahadat, I. Smirnov. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. SBd. 62. Wien; Munchen, 2005. S. 61—84.

Кельнер, Новикова 2005 — Кельнер В., Новикова О. Инскрипты литераторов и литературоведов в фондах Российской национальной библиотеки // НЛО. 2005. № 74.

Кобрин 2003 — Кобрин К. Похвала дневнику // НЛО. 2003. № 61. С. 288—295.

Кронгауз 2009 — Кронгауз М. Публичная интимность // Знамя. 2009. № 12. С. 162—167.

Ларина 2009 — Ларина Т. Категория вежливости и стиль коммуникации. Сопоставление английских и русских лингвокультурных традиций. М.: Языки славянских культур, 2009.

Лотман 2000 — Лотман Ю. Автокоммуникация: «Я» и «Другой» как адресаты (О двух моделях коммуникации в системе культуры) // Лотман Ю. Семиосфера. СПб.: Искусство-СПБ, 2000. С. 159—165.

Меерсон 2009 — Меерсон О. Персонализм как поэтика. СПб.: Пушкинский Дом, 2009.

Михеев 2007 — Михеев М. Дневник как эго-текст. М.: Водолей, 2007.

Падучева 1995 — Падучева Е. В.В. Виноградов и наука о языке художественной прозы // Изв. RAS. Ser. lit. And ulcers. 1995. Т. 54. № 3. С. 39—48.

Падучева 1996 — Падучева Е. Семантические исследования. М.: Языки русской культуры, 1996. Пигров 1998 — Пигров К. Дневник: общение с самим собой в пространстве тотальной коммуникации // Проблемы общения в пространстве тотальной коммуникации. СПб., 1998. С. 200—219.

Почепцов 1986 — Почепцов Г. О коммуникативной типологии адресата // Речевые акты в лингвистике и методике. Пятигорск: Изд-во ПГПИИЯ, 1986. С. 10—17.

Радзиевская 1988 — Радзиевская Т. Ведение дневника как вид коммуникативной деятельности // Логический анализ языка. Референция и проблемы текстообразования. М., 1988. С. 95—117.

Радзиевская 2005 — Радзиевская Т. Некоторые наблюдения над функционально-семантическими и стилистическими особенностями дневников // Стил. Belgrade. 2005. No. 3.

Рогинская 2005 — Рогинская О. Авторские предисловия в эпистолярном романе // Nahe Schaffen, Abstand halten. Zur Geschichte der Intimitat in der Russischen Kultur / Hrsg. N. Grigor'eva, Sch. Schahadat, I. Smirnov. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. SBd. 62. Wien; Munchen, 2005. S. 113—122.

Савкина 2001 — Савкина И. «Пишу себя»: Автодокументальные женские тексты в русской литературе первой половины XIX в. Tampere: University of Tampere, 2001.

Савкина 2008 — Савкина И. Теории и практики автобиографического письма // НЛО. 2008. № 92. С. 284—289.

Савкина 2009 — Савкина И. Дневник советской девушки (1968—1970): приватное и идеологическое // Cahiers du Monde russe. 2009. № 50 (1). P. 153—168.

Серль 1999 — Серль Дж. Логический статус художественного дискурса //Логос. 1999. № 13.

Сидорова 2006 — Сидорова М. Интернет-лингвистика: русский язык. Межличностное общение. M., 2006.

Сметанина 2002 — Сметанина С. Медиа-текст в системе культуры: динамические процессы в языке и стиле журналистики конца XX века. SPb., 2002.

Смирницкая 2000 — Смирницкая О. Александр Иванович Смирницкий. М.: МГУ, 2000.

Тихоненкова 2005 — Тихоненкова Т. Инскрипты литераторов в фонде Отдела редких книг Тульской областной библиотеки // НЛО. 2005. № 71. С. 498—509.

Тюпа 2001 — Тюпа В. Нарратология как аналитика повествовательного дискурса («Архиерей» А.П. Чехова). Приложение к серийному изданию «Литературный текст: проблемы и методы исследования». Серия «Лекции в Твери». Тверь, 2001 (http://www.poetics.nm.ru/#lvt).

Шмид 2003 — Шмид В. Нарратология. М.: Языки славянской культуры, 2003.

Успенский 1970/1995 — Успенский Б. Поэтика композиции. М.: Искусство, 1970 [Успенский Б. Семиотика искусства. М.: Школа «Языки русской культуры», 1995. С. 9—220].

Успенский 2007 — Успенский Б. Ego loquens. Язык и коммуникационное пространство. М.: РГГУ, 2007.

Формановская 2002 — Формановская Н. Речевое общение: коммуникативно-прагматический подход. М.: Русский язык, 2002.

Cohn 1999 — Dorrit С . The Destinction of Fiction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.

Culley 1998 — Culley M. Introduction to a Day at a Time: Diary Literature of American Women from 1764 to 1985 // Women, Autobiography, Theory: A reader / Sidonie Smith, Julia Watson (Еds.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni 1980 — Kerbrat-Orecchioni C. L'Enonciation. Paris: Armand Colin, 1980.

Lachman 2005 — Lachman R. Intimitat: Rhetorik und literarischer Diskurs // Nahe Schaffen, Abstand halten. Zur Geschichte der Intimitat in der Russischen Kultur / Hrsg. N. Grigor'eva, Sch. Schahadat, I. Smirnov. Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. SBd. 62. Wien; Munchen, 2005. S. 13—24.

Luckmann 1976 — Luckmann Th. Kulturkreis und Wandel der Intimsphare // Verlust der Intimitat / Hrsg. J. Schlemmer. Munchen, 1976. S. 42—54.

Lejeune 1989 — Lejeune Ph. Cher cahier: temoignages sur le journal personnel recueillis et presentes par Philippe Lejeune. Paris: Gaillimard, 1989.

Lejeune 2000 — Lejeune Ph. Cher ecran. Paris: Gaillimard, 2000.

Nussbaum 1988 — Nussbaum FA Towards Conceptualizing Diary // Studies in Autobiography / James Olney (Ed.). New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Paperno 2009 — Paperno I. Stories of the Soviet Experience. Memoirs, Diaries, Dreams. Itaka, London: Cornell University Press, 2009.

Toker 2007 — Toker L. Testimony and Doubt: Shalamov's «How It Began» and «Handwriting» // Real Stories: Imagined Realities: Fictionality and Non-fictionality in Literary Constructs and Historical Contexts / Markku Lehtimaki, Simo Leisti and Marja Rytkonen (Eds.). Tampere: Tampere University Press, 2007. P. 51—67.

[1] Оно цитируется, в частности, в книге: Найман А. Рассказы о Анне Ахматовой. М.: Вагриус, 1999. С. 11.

[2] Ср.: «Читать чужие дневники, как и чужие письма, немного стыдно, но потрясающе» (из аннотации к книге: Метелица К. Дневник Луизы Ложкиной. М.: Этерна, 2008).

[3] См.: http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/schamma.schahadat/Intimitaetsprojekt/projekt.html.

[4] О взаимозависимости понятий интимности и публичности и о культурной обусловленности границы между ними см.: [Захарьин 2005, Lachman 2005]. История термина интимность (в том числе происхождение самого слова), а также его соотношение с термином приватность (ср. англ. privacy ) представляет предмет отдельного исследования, которое выходит за рамки настоящей статьи (см. на эту тему: Luckmann 1976, Кронгауз 2009, Ларина 2009: 70—77).

[5] См., в частности: [Радзиевская 1988, 2005, Пигров 1998, Савкина 2001, 2008, 2009, Егоров 2002, 2003, Кобрин 2003, Вьолле, Гречаная 2006, Михеев 2007, Lejeune 1989, 2000; Nussbaum 1988; Culley 1998, Paperno 2009].

[6] Не могу не упомянуть в этой связи то плачевное обстоятельство, что, по данным Интернета, для обозначения человека, ведущего дневник , не меньше половины людей, этот сюжет обсуждающих, используют слово дневниковед (sic!). Ср.: Не получается из меня дневниковед . Не могу писать в день по строчке... [из Web-дневника]. Более того, такое словоупотребление встречается и среди исследователей. Возможно, причиной этой ошибки является двусмысленность существительного дневниковедение в его орфографической форме, не различающей ударения (впрочем, с каким ударением его реально произносят пишущие, трудно сказать): в Интернете оно встречается преимущественно в значении «ведение Web-дневника» (ср.: Всем привет! Продолжаем дневни­коведение . Вчера, 13 октября, команда КВН «Полиграф Полиграфыч»... ); см. также сайт: http://www.dnevnikovedenie.ru/opredelenie_dnevnika/html/.

[7] Замечу, что сходную характеристику у другого автора получает само дискурсивное пространство Интернета, ср.: «…грамматика гипертекстовых ссылок и связей точнее отражает натуральный процесс мысли и восприятия, для которого как раз характерны перебивы, отсылки, отступления, варианты, фрактальность…» [Друк 2009: 815]. То есть оказывается, что дневник в пространстве Интернета не потерял, а, наоборот, реализовал во всей полноте по крайней мере одну из своих функций — когнитивную (о коммуникативной функции сетевого дневника см. ниже).

[8] Тезисы этих конференций см. на сайте: http://unipersona.srcc.msu.su/site/ind_conf_m.htm.

[9] Несколько лет назад я получила по электронной почте циркулярное письмо от В.П. Руднева, в котором, в частности, говорилось, что «постмодернизм как научная парадигма себя исчерпал» и что пора вернуться «к отечественной структурно-семиотической модели научного знания, к возрождению русской гуманитарной междисциплинарной науки, к Тартуско-Московской школе» (т.е. в какомто смысле речь шла о возрождении серии «Трудов по знаковым системам»). Это письмо меня порадовало, хотя, повидимому, известный теоретик постмодернизма в данном случае ошибся: сегодня данное направление мысли, безусловно, сохраняет (и, возможно, даже еще более укрепляет) власть над умами, и эта власть распространяется далеко за пределы принципов поэтики (ср.: А.А. Зализняк. «Что такое любительская лингвистика?» Лекция, прочитанная в Политехническом музее 28 мая 2010 года: http://www.polit.ru/lectures/2010/07/01/zalizniak.html).

[10] В своем интервью для «Российской газеты» (24 августа 2005 года) А.К. Жолковский сказал, что это название было у него «похищено» С. Гандлевским; похищают, очевидно, лишь ценные вещи.

[11] Ср. замечание И. Савкиной о том, что женские автодокументальные тексты практически никогда не становились предметом научного интереса сами по себе, а не в качестве исторических или литературных источников для биографий «знаменитых мужчин» [Савкина 2001: 16]. Пионерской в области изучения дневниковых текстов самих по себе является работа [Радзиевская 1988].

[12] Приведу лишь следующую, резюмирующую идеи Бахтина, формулировку: «жанр — это некоторая взаимная условленность общения, объединяющая субъекта и адресата высказывания» [Тюпа 2001].

[13] Это не так для сетевого дневника (см. ниже).

[14] См.: [Егоров 2003: 5, Вьолле, Гречаная 2006: 61].

[15] Этот факт был упомянут В.М. Алпатовым в его докладе на конференции «Маргиналии 2008» (Юрьев-Польский, 3—5 октября 2008 года).

[16] Так, например, дневник матери А.И. Смирницкого был обращен к сыну — в том смысле, что мать допускала возможность, что сын когда-нибудь прочтет ее дневник (см.: [Смирницкая 2000: 13]); я пользуюсь случаем выразить благодарность О.А. Смирницкой за устные консультации по этому вопросу.

[17] Башкирцева М. Дневник. М.: Захаров, 2005. C. 10.

[18] Надпись сделана А.М. Селищевым на экземпляре его книги, подаренном крупному тюркологу В.А. Гордлевскому, см.: [Алпатов 2003: 5].

[19] Заметим, что вышеозначенные потомки выполняют эту задачу довольно плохо. Как отмечает А.И. Рейтблат, комментируя публикацию [Тихоненкова 2005]: «…инскрипты, представляющие собой весьма специфический жанр письменного общения, практически не изучены», и более того, они «рассредоточены по широкому кругу разнородных изданий и никак не отбиблиографированы» (с. 498). Ср., впрочем, публикацию: [Кельнер, Новикова 2005]. Добавим к этому, что отсутствие доступного корпуса (и вообще какого-либо собрания) дарственных надписей тем более досадно, что они представляют исключительный интерес не только как источник сведений об упомянутых в них лицах, но и как собственно лингвистический объект.

[20] Тексты эпитафий собраны мною на Преображенском кладбище в Москве (фамилия, имя, отчество и даты жизни опущены).

[21] Текст этой эпитафии (Ваганьковское кладбище, 50-е годы XX в.) был любезно предоставлен мне В.М. Алпатовым.

[22] Чистяков Г., свящ. Немая музыка псалмов. Cit. по: [Меерсон 2009: 45].

[23] В этом рассказе имеется следующий фрагмент: «На днях, неотвязно думая о Лидии Борисовне, перетрясла бумажные свои манатки, переворошила закрома… Там несколько записей о Либединской, сделанных бегло, почти конспективно, впрок — чтобы не забыть, не растерять. Все вперемешку, по-домашнему, без указания дат… Как правило, потом, в работе, такое сырье переплавляется, преображается литературно, выстраивается пословно-повзводно, чтобы занять необходимое, точное, свое место в каком-нибудь рассказе, романе, эссе… Но именно эти записи — летучие, вневременные — мне вдруг захотелось оставить в том виде, как они записывались: на ночь глядя, после застолья, не всегда на трезвую голову, под живым “гудящим” впечатлением от общего разговора…»

[24] Исключение в данном отношении составляет особый жанр — «дневник жены».

[25] Именно поэтому, по-видимому, такое тяжелое впечатление производят разного рода саморазоблачения и описания своих дурных поступков: разоблачая себя в дневнике, человек неизбежно до какой-то степени одновременно собой любуется. Описываемый дурной поступок или дурное свойство обладают в его глазах определенной ценностью как часть его личности; иначе они не оказались бы в дневнике. Это особенно явно чувствуется, например, в дневниках Л.Н. Tolstoy.

[26] Ср.: Прейгерзон Ц. Дневник воспоминаний бывшего лагерника (1949—1955). Moscow; Иерусалим, 2005.

[27] Я имею в виду то значение этого термина, в котором, вслед за М.Л. Гаспаровым, использует его М.Ю. Михеев [Михеев 2007: 6]. «Пред-текстом» в этом смысле является, очевидно, не всякий дневник, а лишь дневник писателя.

[28] В [Падучева 1996: 214] дневник отнесен к «лирической (речевой)» повествовательной форме; речь идет, по-видимому, именно о дневнике как «способе» художественной литературы.

[29] Е.В. Падучева считает, что такой жанр, как роман в письмах, сохраняет «1-е условие» канонического коммуникативного акта: наличие Говорящего и Адресата [Падучева 1995: 42]. С этим, однако, трудно согласиться: хотя фикция подлинности и является структурообразующей для этого жанра (ср.: [Рогинская 2005]), обе эти фигуры здесь фикциональны и принадлежат миру текста, а не реальному.

[30] Ср. следующий вывод Т.В. Раздиевской: «Отдельные записи могут выглядеть как фрагменты речи, взятые из других коммуникативных ситуаций, это обстоятельство, однако, не должно затемнять тот факт, что механизм дневниковой записи резко отличается от механизмов других видов коммуникативной деятельности [...]» [Радзиевская 1988: 115].