Topical Issues of the Theory of Supertext: Literary Aspect.
Associative Semantic Supertext

The modern theory of the supertext, which grew out of Lotman's idea of the "text of culture", got its start in the studies of the St. Petersburg text undertaken by V. N. Toporov ^{[19, 20]}, and took shape thanks to the work of a number of researchers (among whom it is necessary to mention A. G. Loshakov, who for the first time explained in detail and systematized the key concepts associated with the supertext ^[8]), today requires not so much a holistic understanding of it, as a new systematization and clarification of concepts and the boundaries of their meanings, due to the modern level of literary studies.

The concepts of the theory of the supertext that require clarification, in our opinion, include the question of the definition of the supertext, the differentiation of the concepts of associative-semantic supertext and textual unity, the clarification of the concept of the core of the supertext and the structural components of the supertext, as well as the question of the differentiation of associative-semantic supertexts by the type of referent, on the solution of which clarity in identification, classification depends today and interpretation of supertexts.

Since the conversation about the definition of the supertext, as well as about one of the two types of supertexts — textual unity, is supposed to be held separately, let's focus on the necessary clarifications regarding some aspects of the associative-semantic supertext, noting briefly that the supertext as a phenomenon is structurally heterogeneous: we distinguish between associative-semantic supertext and textual unity, which are differentiated both by the formal and substantive features of the nuclear structure and by the type of components that make up the supertext.

Relying on the definitions of the supertext by N. A. Kupina and G. V. Bitenskaya ^{[4, p. 215]}, N. E. Mednis ^{[12, p. 9]}, A. G. Loshakova ^{[9, p. 102]}, in which the concept of associative-semantic supertext and textual unity are not separated, we assert that associative-semanticthe semantic supertext, which is discussed in this article, is a system of integrated texts, which is an associative—semantic textual community, which is conditioned by the orientation of the perceiving consciousness to culturally significant space, event or personality and which is identically perceived by the author's and reader's consciousness due to a single cultural code.The core of the associative-semantic supertext.

Any supertext is formed around its core. "Each supertext," wrote N. E. Mednis, —has its own figuratively and thematically designated center, focusing object, which in the system of extra—textual realities - the text appears as a single concept of the supertext. One or another specific locus, taken in the unity of its historical, cultural and geographical characteristics, acts as such a center for topological supertexts; cultural and biographical characteristics are decisive for nominal texts." And further: "the centralizing extra-textual foundation <...> acts as a given, <...> not subject to or weakly amenable to change: Dante, Pushkin, Tolstoy, Venice. The degree of stability of this foundation [i.e. center, core. — Authors] largely determines the possibility or impossibility of the emergence of a supertext ascending to it, of course, with its (foundation) general cultural significance" ^[12]. Once again, we emphasize the latter: the nationwide, general cultural, worldwide significance of the concept underlying the associative-semantic supertext must be undoubted, otherwise the supertext will not be able to take place — it simply will not be formed and exist in the perceiving consciousness. The peculiarity of the nuclear concept of the supertext, first of all, is that it is most often an extra-literary concept and only in rare cases (this will be discussed later) becomes a product of the literary text itself. This is explained by the extraliterary essence of space, personality, events, which become the basis of the supertext.

Structural elements of associative-semantic supertext. The specific feature of the associative-semantic supertext (in contrast to another type of supertext — textual unity) consists primarily in the heterogeneity of the texts that make up it. V. N. Toporov wrote about the St. Petersburg text: "Like any other city, St. Petersburg has its own "language". It tells us with its streets, squares, waters, islands, gardens, buildings, monuments, people, history, ideas and can be understood as a kind of heterogeneous text to which a certain general meaning is attributed and on the basis of which a certain system of signs implemented in the text can be reconstructed" (our italics. — Authors) ^{[19, p. 658]}. This is a culturological understanding of the supertext, but the main thing is emphasized in the same definition — the possibility of collecting heterogeneous cultural signs into a supertext, as, in fact, the collection of heterogeneous text signs into a philological supertext: texts of different genres, and texts of different literary trends and epochs.

What brings these disparate texts together? Thanks to what do they turn into a supertext in the perceiving consciousness?

"Petersburg ... and its ... text...," wrote V. N. Toporov, —belong to those supersaturated realities that are unthinkable without the whole behind them and, therefore, are already inseparable from the myth..." (our italics. — Authors) ^{[19, p. 644]}. And he continued: "Like some other significant cities, St. Petersburg has its own myths, in particular, the allegorizing myth about the foundation of the city and its demiurge" (italics are also ours. — Authors) ^{[19, p. 658]}. The scientist very accurately noticed that the basis of the supertext formed in the perceiving consciousness is mythology — whether spatial, nominal, event—based, but necessarily mythology. In fact, the core (a culturally significant concept) and the mythologized elements gathered around the core form a supertext.

The concept of myth as the basis of the supertext. Speaking about the modern myth, E. M. Meletinsky wrote: "The myth, having arisen in the primitive era and reflecting some features of primitive thinking, remains partly an element of collective consciousness forever (as proved by the XX century, which we can now look back at), since it, the myth, provides a "cozy" sense of harmony with society and Space" ^[13]. The metaphor of a "cozy feeling" points, of course, to the perception of reality accessible to an ordinary (however, not only for an ordinary) person through familiar, repetitive images and concepts that have become part of the collective unconscious rather than the collective consciousness. And the whole thought expressed convinces that, according to the same E. M. Meletinsky, "some features of mythological thinking <...> are preserved in the mass consciousness, in political ideological systems, in artistic poetic fantasy" ^[13].

Therefore, not only the archaic myth, not only the eschatological or any other can be the basis of the supertext. The literary supertext is based on those myths that arose in later epochs (new myths, neo-myths) that were born inside literary works or borrowed by them from everyday life, were fixed in the perceiving consciousness and passed almost invariably from one work to another. The neo-myth, like the archaic (cosmogonic, eschatological) myth, is plot-based. However, if the traditional myth is entirely a product of imagination and therefore to a certain extent fantastic, then the neo-myth in our understanding is directly related to reality, although it is not devoid of a fantastic element that appears as a result of a comparison in the reproducing and perceiving consciousness of the imagined and reality. The event myth is plot-based, because the event itself is plot-based. The plot is a nominal myth, which, although in a modified form, reproduces human life. And, what is essential, a topical (spatial) myth is a plot, since the life of space and its perception is possible only through the lives of the people inhabiting it, and the events accompanying them (people). The difference in the plot of event, nominal and topical myths lies in the fact that event and nominal myths are plot linearly, which corresponds to both the course of human life and the course of the event, and the topical myth is plot non—linearly rhizomatic: in it, independently of each other, different plots can exist simultaneously, as interacting with each other (continuing, penetrating, denying, etc.), and existing independently, united by the "memory of space". The components of the neo—myth, mythologems, are in fact not mythologems (since the mythologeme is part of an archaic myth), but constant representations that, due to their repeatability, were mythologized. We call them constant mythologized representations. A constant mythologized representation (KMP), to put it definitively, is a plot formation correlated with reality, but modified as a result of the interaction of reproducing and perceiving consciousness, which either by virtue of its relevance has become repeatable in the writer's work and has acquired some universal features, or by virtue of some of its universality has become in demand and repeatable in a number of literary works. It is these constant mythologized representations that emphasize the cultural specificity and significance of the nuclear concept, manifested in works of different genres, different ideological orientation and artistic significance, thanks to centripetal processes, become the basis for combining texts into a single supertext.

For example, the nuclear concept for the Crimean text is the nationally significant concept of Crimea. The Crimean myth forms the Crimean text around the center (core) — a multidimensional myth consisting of a number of variants (the myth of Crimea as the holy land — the cradle of Russian Orthodoxy, the myth of Crimea as an eastern Muslim country, the myth of Crimea as a garden of eden, etc.). These variants of the Crimean myth, respectively, consist of mythologems, but not traditional mythologem as parts of an archaic myth, namely the KMP, as components of a modern myth. For example, in the version of the Crimean myth about Crimea as the holy land — the cradle of Russian Orthodoxy, the main (tectonic), but not the only KMP (mythologems) are miracles (holy Bishops of Heroness Basil and Kapiton, St. Clement, Saints Kozma and Damian, as well as the miracle of healing of St. Vladimir as a result of baptism, the miracle of the appearance of St. Nicholas of Chersonesos Each of these miracles has a small plot behind them, which makes them mythologems (KMP) and, significantly, the Crimean myth is a topical (spatial) myth and, despite the fact that the named KMP do not seem to have a direct relationship to space, they nevertheless they give this space special features, and the topos begins to be "read" by the perceiving consciousness as a space endowed not only with the features of holiness, but with a plot that mythologizes the space.

Moreover, the event is mythologized, since it is a plot in itself. Let us recall, for example, the text of the Great French Revolution, clearly "readable" in world literature, formed by such ILC as "The Fall of the Bastille", "The Execution of Louis XVI", "The Death of Marat", "The Execution of Robespierre", "The Rise of Napoleon" and so on. The life of a nationally or culturally significant person can be mythologized — Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Pushkin, Nekrasov, L. Tolstoy, Stanislavsky, Tarkovsky…

Of course, if, as V. N. Toporov noted, we are dealing with a "super-saturated reality" that contributes to the formation of a supertext, then the question arises why such a basis is a myth and not a concept, for example (for example, A. G. Loshakov characterizes a supertext as a "verbal-conceptual phenomenon"), or theme, motive, symbol? An intertext that is undoubtedly capable of linking texts together? Finally, all of the above?

Myth and concept. If we turn to the whole variety of definitions of the myth, we can see that they are brought together by an indication of its narrative, and therefore the plot beginning. In the concept, conceptuality prevails, which means plotlessness. Perhaps this conceptuality arose as a result of the unfolding of certain events (plots), but this is already an etymological component, often erased from the perceiving consciousness, steadily preserving the very "clot of culture" — the concept, according to Yu. S. Stepanov. Axiological in nature, the conceptuality of the concept is a consequence of the layering of universal, national and individual value orientations, and the first two groups are also passed through the prism of individual perception of the world. That is, in the nuclear zone of the concept there are universal representations (meanings, values), in the near—nuclear zone — national, and in the peripheral zone — individual (in the literary sense - individual author's). It is precisely because of its universality that the concept can be the core of a supertext, but it collects different texts into a single supertext only a myth that continues and clarifies with its plot the national and individual (individual author's) meanings (values) of the concept.

Myth and motive. Motif as "the simplest narrative unit" ^{[2, p. 305]} "the smallest structurally-contain.the component of the text" ^[14], "the semantic unit of the artistic language" ^{[18, p. 23]} correlates with the myth exactly the same as with the plot. Since the myth is a plot, the motive can only be a part of it, it does not replace the myth itself (plot). In addition, being a semantic unit of a specific text, a motive (in literature, but not in folklore!), unlike a myth, does not have the properties of universality. And if we keep in mind the possibility of repetition of a motive ("a motive is any unit of a plot (or plot) taken in the aspect of its repeatability" ^{[18, p. 194]}), which undoubtedly emphasizes its significance, then even in this case the motive turns out to be limited to a specific text and cannot serve to unite texts into a supertext. However, if we are dealing with a motif of a mythological plot that forms a supertext, in this case the motif also becomes a component that forms a supertext.

It cannot become such from the standpoint of a broader terminological interpretation, the possibility of which was pointed out, in particular, by A. P. Chudakov and I. V. Silantyev. The latter in the work "Poetics of motive" (2004) gives a multidimensional definition of this concept: "a) an aesthetically significant narrative unit, b) intertextual in its functioning, c) invariant in its belonging to the language of the narrative tradition and variant in its event implementations, d) correlating in its semantic structure the predicative beginning of action with actants and spatiotemporal signs" ^{[17, p. 96]}. It can be stated that this definition generalizes the conclusions of the predecessors-researchers of the motive. For example, B. M. Gasparov in his work "Literary leitmotives" (1994) argued that "any phenomenon, any semantic "spot" can act as a motive — an event, a character trait, an element of the landscape, any object, a spoken word, paint, sound, and so on, the only thing that determines the motive is this is his reproduction in the text" ^{[3, p. 30]}. In this sense, the motive certainly goes beyond the scope of a specific text, but it is able to form the same associative-semantic textual community, which is a supertext, it can only if, due to literary or extraliterary circumstances, it acquires the features of a constant mythologized representation, that is, the features of the myth we have indicated above.

Myth and theme. Since the term theme (other-Greek. — what is the basis; and hence the theme is considered as the basis of a work of art) already in itself indicates that the theme of the work can exist only within the framework of this literary and artistic text. And yet we often use the phrases military theme, Homeland theme, Pushkin theme, St. Petersburg theme, etc., which, undoubtedly, are unifying for groups of works. However, we are sure that the words Motherland, war, Pushkin or Petersburg will only have unifying properties for a number of works and create a supertext when they are carriers of constant representations — constant mythologized representations, mythologems or myths.

Myth and archetype. According to K. Jung, "archetypes are stable structures independent of consciousness, containing the experience of all previous generations and the same in all epochs among all peoples" ^[1]. In this sense, the archetype is close to the myth, as, in fact, to the concept. The main feature of the archetype is its rootedness in the unconscious and, consequently, universality. In addition, the archetype is conceptually static (non-plot), like the concept, and that is why it cannot create a supertext independently, in isolation from the myth.

Myth and symbol. The traditional symbol is as universal as the archetype. An artistic symbol is either "a sign that has a certain degree of objective concreteness, but is used to express a meaning that goes beyond the semantics directly defined by the objectivity of this sign, or an image that functions as a sign (i.e. expresses a meaning extraneous to this image), without losing its own.<...> natures.semantics" ^[16]. "While preserving the original meaning of a linguistic sign, symbolization dramatically expands the scope of its meaning" ^[18]. At the same time, universal symbols are derivatives of myth and in this sense participate in the formation of a supertext. The individual author's symbolism is also a derivative of the individual author's myth and is also able to participate in the creation of a supertext. At the same time, of course, it should be understood that the conceptuality of the symbol (as well as the concept and archetype) does not allow it to independently form a supertext. As A. F. rightly pointed out . Losev, "... every myth is a symbol, but not every symbol is a myth" ^{[5, p. 145]}.

Myth and intertext. Intertextuality is more capable of linking texts than other artistic techniques, and it does not matter how widely this phenomenon is considered, or (in a narrow sense) as "conscious and/or unconscious references to other texts", or (in a broad sense) as "the totality of all possible forms of relationships between texts (allusion, parody, imitation, quotation, etc.)" ^[11]. But the main thing in this case is still that the author, referring the reader to other texts, expands the possibilities of his text. Moreover, he can link texts with different aspects and, quite often, with unexpected properties, motives, images, compositional techniques, and so on. And, probably, it would be possible to talk about intertextuality as the foundation of the supertext, if it were not for one essential detail: in intertextual connections, it is impossible to have a center (core) to which heterogeneous texts could strive, since intertextuality in each individual case pursues different goals (increment of meaning, drawing analogies, etc.). (and the neo-myth, including) is basically unchanged and always (if you do not take into account the nuances) pursues the same goals (informational, figurative, ideological, etc.).

Types of associative-semantic supertexts by type of referent. A. G. Loshakov in his doctoral dissertation and a number of works on the theory of supertext ^{[7] [9, 10]} introduced and described different principles of classification of supertexts (by type of the author's figure, by type of addressee, by the principle of perceived integrity, by type of structure, by degree of connectivity and according to the degree of rigidity), but the most significant element of this classification, of course, was the semantic classification of supertexts — the classification of supertexts by the type of referent, which provides for the division of supertexts into spatial or topical (A. G. Loshakov — local, in other variants the term topos is also found), nominal and event-based supertexts.

Nominal supertext. In the nominal supertext today, two subspecies of it can be distinguished — personic and character texts.

A personic text is a nominal supertext based on the "text of the life" of a writer (artist, scientist, politician, etc.), significant for public consciousness and perceived as either world-wide, or nationally, or culturally, etc. a significant personic concept that is the core of the supertext (in this case, the core of the supertext has an extraliterary character and is not initially associated with literature), which can be embodied by the author in the following forms: 1) in his own literary works (example: the image of the Author in Pushkin's Eugene Onegin), letters, diaries, notes; 2) in works of fiction, letters and memoir texts of his contemporaries; 3) in works, letters, memoiristics of writers of subsequent literary eras; 4) in later works of literary-critical, literary, cultural, philosophical, scientific content, as well as publications in the mass media, that is, in the corpus of meta-texts, which either unwittingly support already existing myths (constant mythologized ideas) about the individual, or, refuting them, create new ones.

A character text is a nominal supertext based on constant mythologized ideas about folklore, mythological or literary heroes who are also internationally, nationally and culturally significant, and therefore represent concepts that form the cores of the supertext. In this case, the core is in an ancient myth (steadily), and (formally) in a folklore or literary work, however, due to the fact that it is impossible to identify a text precedent for the appearance of a character in the latter cases, the core is allocated speculatively and is conditionally above all works forming a supertext (and therefore outside of them). This also includes anthropomorphic characters (such as Chekhov's Kashtanka, Lemovsky's "reasonable" ocean of Solaris, etc.), who can conditionally form their own supertexts (not currently identified).

At the same time, the elements of the character text should be distinguished from the elements of intertextuality and motivation present in a number of literary works of art (as well as in epistolary and memoir literature).

Event-based supertext. In the event — the least studied — supertext, we distinguish two possible variants of it: casual (from Latin casus — incident, incident, event) and epoch-making texts.

A casual text is an event supertext formed due to a nationally (world—wide, culturally, etc.) significant historical event, which is perceived as a nationally (world-wide, culturally, etc.) significant event concept, which is the core of the supertext (it is clear that such a concept cannot be a product of a literary work, this phenomenon is extraliterary and is always outside the supertext, generated by him). Constant mythologized representations that collect texts of different authors and epochs into a single supertext are formed due to the ideas about a historical event fixed in literary works and unchanged over time. The overthrow and reinterpretation of the myths associated with the event activate the mechanisms of de- and remythologization, giving rise to new myths that, becoming entrenched, expand the boundaries of the supertext.

An epoch—making text is an event-based supertext based on constant mythologized representations of not one big event, but a number of small ones, but united by a semantic community. The center (core) of such a supertext is always the concept of a historical epoch, which includes a chain of historical, cultural, everyday, scientific, etc. events that form it. Mythologems (constant mythologized representations) of the epoch form this text. And since views on the epoch can change, this (just as in the case of a casual text) can serve to overthrow and rethink the old myths and plant new ones, which also noticeably expand the boundaries of this supertext.

Topical (spatial) supertext. In the most studied topical supertext to date, which is still called both topos and local, two types of supertext are clearly distinguished — local text and regional text.

Local text is a topical supertext based on constant mythologized ideas about a specific place that has clear boundaries — settlements (city, village, village, farm), geographical objects, both terrestrial (mountain, field, clearing, garden, etc.) and underground (cave, etc.) and water (sea, bay, lake, river, etc.). The center (core) of the local supertext is always outside the literary text and is a nationally (worldwide, culturally and underground) significant concept (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Paris, London, Venice, Florence, Kazbek, Ladoga, Dnieper, etc.). This concept can be formed not only by a real locus, but also by a fictional one (for example, Shchedrin's Stupov, Green's Liss, Kaperna, etc., Fyodor-Kuzmichsk by Tatiana Tolstoy or Hogwarts by J. Rowling); in this case, the core of the supertext is undoubtedly inside a work or a cycle of works (true, the unstable situation, for example, is at the core of the city of Glupov, by which Russia as a whole is meant, or at the city of Fedor-Kuzmichsk, which, as the reader knows, was once Moscow). Creates a local text, a local myth consisting of constant mythologized representations (mythologems) about a given place that have developed throughout all periods of the development of national literature and are fixed in literary works and the reader's consciousness (in the case of fictional loci, this, of course, does not work).

A regional text is a topical supertext formed on the basis of constant mythologized ideas about a region that has conditional borders and is often built on the basis of a set of local texts. The regional text is based on a nationally (globally, culturally, etc.) significant topical concept, which is the core of the supertext; this is the concept of a large territory (it is clear that administrative boundaries do not matter when considered in this way). In some cases, due to geographical location, the territory is more closed (Crimea, Greenland, Iceland, Australia, Italy, Spain, France and others), in others — less (Caucasus, Polesie, Russian North, Siberia, Tibet and others). The regional text is less homogeneous than the local one, precisely because it includes a number of local texts that at different times played a different role in the formation of constant ideas about the region. Accordingly, constant mythologized representations in such cases can overcome the semantic scope of the mythologeme and grow into a myth. At the same time, the regional myth will be based on several myths born in different eras, and thus structure the regional text (for example, the allocation in a single Crimean myth of the myth of Crimea as a place of Christian miracles — the cradle of Russian Orthodoxy, the myth of Crimea as an eastern Muslim country, the myth of Crimea as an ancient world, the myth of Crimea as a garden of eden, the myth of the Crimea as a resort region, the myth of the Crimea as an all-Union health resort, etc.).

The subtext and its role in the associative-semantic supertext. Since both an event and a personality can manifest themselves only in time and space, and space was primarily singled out by researchers as a super-text-forming one, we can talk about mixed supertexts, namely personic, character, casual, epoch-making to one degree or another not free from local and regional parameters. In this case, we are talking about the subtexts of a particular supertext.

The subtext is "an independent part of the text completed in semantic terms" ^[15]. A subtext within a supertext is also a supertext, but of a different nature. Most often, if we mean an associative-semantic supertext, it is a structure accompanying the described supertext due to the fact that the subtext somehow enters into the revealed supertext. So, for example, the event text of the baptism of Prince Vladimir in Korsun ("The Tale of Bygone Years", etc.) by the very fact that this event takes place on the Crimean land is included in the topical Crimean text. Also, the event text of the Crimean War ("Sevastopol Stories" by L. N. Tolstoy and others) becomes a subtext of the topical Crimean text. Thus, according to A. G. Loshakov, the nominal Lomonosov text is a subtext of the topical Northern text [see: 6]. Etc. That is, almost any supertext has a semantic-polytextual structure, and it depends only on the interpreter-researcher which supertext is the main one at the moment of research, and which one is considered its subtext.

A subtext is impossible as part of a supertext – a textual unity due to its specificity.

Thus, being one of the two types of supertexts, the associative-semantic supertext – the most studied today – is a system of integrated texts, which is an associative-semantic textual community, which is conditioned by the orientation of the perceiving consciousness to culturally significant space, event or personality and which is identically perceived by the author's and reader's consciousness due to a single cultural code.

The core of the associative-semantic supertext is a culturally significant concept that has an extra-literary origin, and only in rare cases it is a product of the literary text itself. The main component of the supertext is a myth or a number of mythologies, as well as their modern version — constant mythologized representations.

According to the type of referent, the associative-semantic supertext is not only subdivided into nominal, spatial and event-based ones indicated by the researchers, but each of the allocated supertexts also has binary structures, being subdivided respectively into personic and character, local and regional, casual and epochal supertexts.

The development of the theory of associative-semantic supertext contributes not only to the further study of its various aspects, clarifying their functions, but also indicates new approaches to large textual formations, since, generated by creative writers, they not only recreate the world in constant representations, but also form, thanks to these mythologized representations, a picture of the world assimilated by the perceiving consciousness.