Article: PDF
DOI: 10.51762/1FK-2021-26-02-03
Abstract: In the mind of the native speaker, there is an idea of the syntactic “optimum”, which allows them to use linguistic units most effectively to achieve a desired communicative effect. It contains a set of pieces of intui- tive (“naïve”) knowledge about the parameters of the sentence, the organization of its structure, the rules of correspondence of lexical and grammatical meanings, etc. Deviations from this optimum can become independent objects of not only scholarly research, but also parody in a literary text. The article analyzes the problem lying on the borderline between linguistics, literary criticism and psychology: What syntactic features of the original text are enhanced or hyperbolized in parody? Analysis of numerous examples from Russian fiction allows the author to make a conclusion about the metalinguistic significance of certain features of the structure of the text. Collections of literary parodies (by A. Arkhangelsky, A. Ivanov, etc.) were subject to a special (continuous) analysis. The following syntactic phenomena were identified as the object and reason for their reflection in the parodies: a) excessive length of the sentence; b) artificial complication of its structure, specifically by means of chains of conse- cutive subordination, homogeneous members, abundance of epithets, etc.; c) absolutization of elements of oral, official and other speech styles, including the “telegraph style”; d) violation of the isosemy rule; e) non-realization of obligatory syntactic valency (unmotivated ellipsis); f) separation from the sentence of its part (parcellation), etc. These phenomena, used systematically, obtain a linguo-psychological characterization of salience (identifiability against the general background). As a result of the study, the author made up a list of syntactic facts that acquire the role of secondary signs in a work of fiction, along with other stylistic categories. Such a list, on the one hand, is intended to serve the convergence of scholarly (“academic”) and mass (“secondary school”) grammar, and, on the other hand, is of interest to experimental psychology, which studies the problems of perception and comprehension of the text.
Key words: Syntax; parodies; sentence structure; text cohesion; literary texts; isosemy; ellipsis; parcellation; salience.

Для цитирования:

Норман, Б. Ю. Синтаксис как объект пародии / Б. Ю. Норман // Philological Class. – 2021. – Vol. 26 ⋅ №2. – С. 40-51. DOI 10.51762/1FK-2021-26-02-03.

For citation

Norman, B. Ju. (2021). Syntax as an Object of Parody. In Philological Class. 2021. Vol. 26 ⋅ №2. P. 40-51. DOI 10.51762/1FK-2021-26-02-03.

About the author(s) :

Boris Ju. Norman
Belarusian State University (Minsk, Belarus)
Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin (Ekaterinburg, Russia)

Publication Timeline:

Date of receipt: 01.06.2021; date of publication: 30.06.2021.


Arkhangel’sky, A. (1988). Parodii. Epigrammy [Parodies. Epigrams]. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya literatura. 349 p.
Babenko, L. G. (Ed.). (2002). Russkie glagol’nye predlozheniya. Eksperimental’nyj sintaksicheskii slovar’ [Russian Verb Sentences. Experimental Syntactic Dictionary]. Moscow, Flinta, Nauka. 464 p.
Beregovskaya, E. V. (Ed.). (2007). Sintaksicheskie figury kak sistema [Syntactic Figures as a System]. Smolensk, SmolGU. 416 p.
Cherneiko, L. O. (2020). «Veroyatnostnyi mir» yazykovoi lichnosti (primenitel’no k analizu khudozhestvennogo teksta) [“Probabilistic World” of a Linguistic Personality (in Relation to the Analysis of a Literary Text)]. In Voprosy psiholingvistiki. No. 3 (45), pp. 137–152.
Chosich, B. (2000). Rol’ moei sem’i v mirovoi revolyutsii. Za chto borolis’ [The Role of My Family in the World Revolution. What We Fought for]. Saint Petersburg, Azbuka. 286 p.
Dymarsky, M. Ya. (2018). K printsipam opisaniya sintaksicheskogo stroya russkogo yazyka [On the Principles of Describing the Syntactic Structure of the Russian Language]. In Slavyanskoe yazykoznanie. XVI Mezhdunarodnyi s”ezd slavistov. Belgrad, 20–27 avgusta 2018 g. Doklady rossiiskoi delegatsii. Moscow, Institut slavyanovedeniya RAN, pp. 130–144.
Golev, N. D. (2009). Obydennoe metayazykovoe soznanie kak ontologicheskii i gnoseologicheskii fenomen (k poiskam «lingvognoseologem») [Ordinary Metalinguistic Consciousness as an Ontological and Epistemological Phenomenon (towards the Search for “Linguognoseologems”)]. In Golev, N. D. (Ed.). Obydennoe metayazykovoe soznanie: ontologicheskie i gnoseologicheskie aspekty. Chast’ I. Kemerovo, Barnaul, Izdatel’stvo Altaiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, pp. 7–40.
Haugen, E. (1975). Lingvistika i yazykovoe planirovanie [Linguistics and Language Planning]. In Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike. Vypusk VII. Sociolingvistika. Moscow, Progress, pp. 441-469.
Ivanov, A. (1983). Plody vdokhnoveniya. Literaturnye parodii [The Results of Inspiration. Literary Parodies]. Moscow, Sovetskii pisatel’. 224 p.
Ivanov, Vs. (1935). Pokhozhdeniya fakira. Roman. Chast’ tret’ya [The Adventures of the Fakir. Novel. 3rd Part]. Moscow, Goslitizdat. 406 p.
Lesskis, G. (1968). Nekotorye statisticheskie kharakteristiki prostogo i slozhnogo predlozheniya v russkoi nauchnoi i khudozhestvennoi proze XVIII–XX vekov [Some Statistical Characteristics of a Simple and Complex Sentence in Russian Scientific and Artistic Prose of the 18th–20th Centuries]. In Russkii yazyk v natsional’noi shkole. No. 2, pp. 67–80.
Norman, B. Yu. (2002). «Konspekty» v romane Evgeniya Zamyatina «My» [“Synopsises” in the Novel “We” by Evgeny Zamyatin]. In Stylistyka XI. Opole, Opole University, pp. 145-156.
Norman, B. Yu. (2012). Igra na granyakh yazyka [Playing on the Edges of the Language]. 2nd edition. Moscow, Flinta, Nauka. 344 p.
Novikov, Vl. I. (1989). Kniga o parodii [A Book about a Parody]. Moscow, Sovetskii pisatel’. 544 p.
Peshkovsky, A. M. (1959). Glagol’nost’ kak vyrazitel’noe sredstvo [Verb as a Means of Expression]. In Izbrannye trudy. Moscow, Uchpedgiz, pp. 101-111.
Ranevskaya, F. (2007). «Sud’ba-shlyukha» [“Fate-whore”] / ed. by D. Shcheglov. Moscow, Astrel’, AST. 203 p.
Sarnov, B. M. (Ed.). (1998). Sovetskaya literaturnaya parodiya. Proza [Soviet Literary Parody. Prose]. Moscow, Kniga. 367 p.
Shklovsky, V. (1973). ZOO, ili Pis’ma ne o lyubvi [ZOO, or Letters Is Not about Love]. In Sobranie sochinenii v trekh tomakh. T. 1. Moscow, Khudozhestvennaya literatura, pp. 163–230.
Vannikov, Yu. V. (1979). Sintaksis rechi i sintaksicheskie osobennosti russkoi rechi [Speech Syntax and Syntactic Features of Russian Speech]. Moscow, Russkii yazyk. 296 p.
Vsevolodova, M. V., Vladimirsky, E. Yu. (2008). Sposoby vyrazheniya prostranstvennykh otnoshenii v sovremennom russkom yazyke [Ways of Expressing Spatial Relationships in Modern Russian Language]. 2nd edition. Moscow, URSS. 288 p.
Vsevolodova, M. V., Yashchenko, T. A. (1988). Prichinno-sledstvennye otnosheniya v sovremennom russkom yazyke [Causal Relationships in Modern Russian Language]. Moscow, Russkii yazyk. 207 p.
Zamyatin, E. (1986). My [We]. In Sochineniya. Tom tretii. A. Neimanis Buchvertrieb und Verlag, pp. 113–263.
Zemskaya, E. A., Kapanadze, L. A. (Eds.). (1978). Russkaya razgovornaya rech’. Teksty [Russian Colloquial Speech.
Texts]. Moscow, Nauka. 307 p.
Zolotova, G. A. (1988). Sintaksicheskii slovar’. Repertuar elementarnykh edinits russkogo sintaksisa [Syntactic Dictionary.
Repertoire of Elementary Units of Russian Syntax]. Moscow, Nauka. 440 p.
Zolotova, G. A. (Ed.). (1974). Sintaksis i norma [Syntax and Norm]. Moscow, Nauka. 283 p.
Zolotova, G. A. (Ed.). (1976). Sintaksis i stilistika [Syntax and Style]. Moscow, Nauka. 318 p.
Zoshchenko, M. (1983). Izbrannoe v dvukh tomakh [Selected Works, in 2 vols.]. T. 1. Rasskazy i fel’etony. Povesti. Minsk, Narodnaya asveta. 511 p.