Author’s name:
Sergey M. Pashkov – Saint Petersburg State Pedagogical University (Volkhov Branch), Volkhov, Russia
Abstract:
The article deals with problems of category-based text modeling and linguistic ways of text formation in the context of sacredness, the latter being understood as the linguistic category representing special sacred knowledge. Given the theory of intertextuality, we substantiate the category of sacredness as text forming not only in sacred and religious communication but also in texts critical of religion. These language phenomena represent different dialogical relations with the sacred text — criticism, parody, and others. The integral conceptual ground of the three text groups mentioned is a binary structure rendered explicit through the dichotomy of “the transcendent — the immanent” and is supposed to represent a model of two-sided / one-sided reality. The substantive content of the term “atheism” is analyzed with reference to Christianity. We consider the term “atheistic text” within the field of English-American analytic philosophy and define it as an intertext, a form of negative philosophical conceptualization of sacredness. The basic linguistic means of atheistic text formation is logical-philosophical interpretation of sacred knowledge. We provide an algorithm for analyzing semantic and compositional aspects of atheistic texts, which takes into account the gnoseological heterogeneity of this text type (sacred knowledge / philosophical knowledge). The author analyzes one aspect of sacredness (sacred onomatology), viewing the sacred Name “I AM” as fundamental in atheistic communication, since the latter is functionally aimed at discrediting this Name and, consequently, modeling one-sided reality. We prove that the authorial intention in atheistic texts is carried out through the analysis of the semantics of other sacred Names which represent phenomena outside man’s existential experience. The author also describes how atheistic texts differ from scientific texts in terms of composition and structure, and posits that the main difference between them lies in the epistemological status of results obtained in atheistic and scientific communication: argumentation and proof respectively.
| Section | LANGUAGE AND CULTURE |
| DOI: | 10.47388/2072-3490/lunn2024-67-3-86-100 |
| Downloads | 150 |
| Key words | text category; sacredness; texts critical of religion; atheistic text; text formation; intertextuality |