Слово и понятие гражданин в русском языке XVIII в. (К вопросу о лингвистической основе истории понятий)

Abstract

Since the so-called «linguistic turn» in the humanities in the second half of the 20 th century, the socio-political vocabulary of various European languages has been the subject of Begriff sgeschichte, the history of concepts. History of words and concepts expressed belongs to traditional problems of diachronic semantics. However, due to its initial specificity (relationship with historical science rather than linguistics), the history of concepts appears in the first hand to apply to extralinguistic phenomena. One of the theses of R. Koselleck, the leading figure in the developing of Begriff sgeschichte, is that socio-political concepts are not only a factor but also an indicator of historical changes. In order to support this statement one should study the logic that operates in the language when forming the meaning of a word. In the formation of the concept of гражданин, the opposition of the Church Slavonic and the Russian forms ( гражданин ~ горожанин ) plays the key role. This opposition is related to the «juridical dualism» (V. M. Zhivov), which was expressed in the parallel existence of the two legal traditions, namely the Byzantine juridical norm and the Russian law. These traditions were maintained by the Church Slavonic and the Russian languages respectively. The juridical dualism is expressed in the functional value of these two traditions. The Church Slavonic forms were supported by the cultural tradition and ideological significance, whereas the Russian forms pertained to practical activities and day-to-day routines. The fact that it was the form гражданин that became the term of the socio-political vocabulary is crucial for the semantic characteristics many times observed by scholars: for the Russian concepts of гражданин the central characteristics are moral and ethical rather than legal. However, before this specific notion starts to develop, the mere concept of it should become in demand. In the Russian legal tradition, there is no position of the legal entity. Considerable changes take place in legislative texts of the 18 th century. In Регламент of Peter I we observe for the first time an attempt to create a terminological system where the words with the root гражд ( гражданин, гражданство ) are the basic element. The communicative structure of the text is organised in such a way that it is гражданин that acts as the addressee of the discourse of the authorities. The opposite is observed in Гра мота городам of Catherine II, which consistently eliminates the terminological meaning of the word гражданин. This is expressed in introducing a large number of lexemes with the root горand equalising these forms as lacking the ideological value. However, in the last third of the 18 th century a language that is an alternative to the offi cial discourse of the authorities appears: it is the language of opinion journalism. Here, the role of a individual, consciously looking for the meaning of language forms, is linguistically more significant. The French-Russian bilingualism is typical of essayists of this period, which allowed them to impose the meaning of the French socio-political term citoyen on the Russian word. In this period the internal dynamics of the semantic structure of the word гражданин becomes visible. The transparent internal form makes this word stylistically marked (cf.: граждане единого града, который есть Вселенная ‘citizens of the same city, which is the Universe’). In works of such authors as A. A. Radishchev, D. I. Fonvizin, N. I. Novikov, гражданин is an intertextual symbol, rendering the meaning of the French concept citoyen and the debate on the socio-political content of the concept (topical for the pre-revolutionary France). The specificity of the Russian concept гражданин is expressed in including semantically significant elements of the meaning in the phrase (such characteristics as ‘kind’, ‘reasoning’, etc.) Such specifi cally linguistic parameters constitute R. Koselleck’s «temporal structure of the concept», while the history of this concept appears to be a consistent realisation of the semantic potential of the linguistic form.