MILITARY DIARY OF OLES HONCHAR: SOCIOLINGUISTIC AND INTERTEXTUAL DIMENSIONS

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of O. Honchar’s military diary discourse, which documents the experience of military life in a specific time series «actually June 1943, and retrospectively June 1941 – November 1945» on the wide geographical space «Ukraine – Europe America». The relevance of the investigated problem is substantiated in view of the complex current situation in Ukraine. Particular attention is paid to clarifying the specifics of the war narrative of the writer's diary, including its inclusion in the category of literary ones, which are an indisputable fact of good writing in its form, through the prism of sociolinguistics (primarily Ukrainian-Russian bilingualism), linguopragmatic and linguoxiological potential. The process of linguistic self-identification of the warrior, master of the word, citizen O. Honchar is revealed, the result of which is the transition to principled Ukrainianism, an open struggle with the cynical officially and unofficially legitimized practice of Russification in the Soviet era. It is proved that the interpreted author's discourse is Russian only in form, and in content it is Ukrainian-, Euro-, and human-centric, since it promptly and consistently reflects the mental-cognitive response to the challenges of time, the tests of ethnicity, the world community, and the prospects of social progress. The phenomenon of linguistic, cultural, national identification and self-identification as a cognitive-discursive mechanism is systematically described. The intertextual content of the examined diary notes is characterized in detail, with the identification and sequential marking of differential features and verbalization specifics of intratextual (poetic and epistolary self-reflection) and extratextual [historical, family, humorous, slave songs, Ukrainian and borrowed paremias, proverbs, anecdotes, soldiers' folklore, aphoristic sayings, linguistic interspersions (elements of speech, sayings, borrowings from other languages), fragmentary letter communication] of dialogic connections with the semiotic universe of national and world culture, as well as the linguistic picture of the world as the most important objectifier of it.