Changing the Semantics of Author Terms Based on Scientific and Artistic Texts on the Example of the Term "Happening"

Kosarina Aleksandrina Anatol'evna Postgraduate Student, Department of English Linguistics, Moscow State University 141202, Russia, Moscow region, Pushkino, Dzerzhinets str., 31, sq. 17 kosarinaalex@yandex.ru

The subject of research in this article is the author's term. This concept has been studied by linguists (N.M. Azarova ^[1], A.P. Dyachenko ^[2], Yu.V. Slodenikina^[3], N.A. Slyusareva^[4], V.D. Tabanakova ^[5], I.Yu. Kukhno ^[6]) for more than 30 years, nevertheless, remains relevant. The author's term is undoubtedly a significant part of any terminology, despite the fact that, unlike universal and unique terms, it is located on its periphery ^[4]. When studying the term, first of all, it is necessary to define the concept, since researchers offer various definitions that differ significantly in subject matter. In the article, the author's term will be considered a term whose etymology is known, which, in addition to the terminological field of a certain field of knowledge, is also included in a narrower terminological field created and built around a certain figure, the "author", and is inextricably linked with this figure in the consciousness of a socialist of a particular field.The objective of the study was to consider the term Happening, to determine whether this term is the author's, and to identify the features and differences of the semantics of this term in the texts of professional and non-professional discourses.

According to the typology of N. A. Slyusareva ^[4], the terms are divided into three categories: universal, unique and authorial. Adapting N.A. Slyusareva's approach to the terms of fine art, it can be argued that a term can be considered authorial if it meets three criteria: etymological (whether the author of this term is known), semantic (whether the author's sema is significant for understanding this term) and pragmatic (whether the term is associated with the figure of the author in the mind of the bearer the language that uses this term).

Consider the term Happening and determine whether it can be considered copyright. To study the semantics of the term, let us first turn to the dictionary definition: "Happening is a form of entertainment, often carefully planned but usually including some degree of spontaneity, in which an artist performs or directs an event combining elements of theatre and the visual arts. The term was coined by Allan Kaprow in 1959 and has been used to cover a diversity of contrived artistic phenomena. The concept of the happening was closely bound up with Kaprow's deliberate rejection of the traditional principles of craftsmanship and permanence in the arts»^[7]. First of all, it can be noted that there is a mention of the author in the definition – therefore, the author's sema is quite important for the compiler of the definition. Despite some vagueness of this definition, the following semes can also be distinguished in it: "spontaneity", "planning", "elements of theater", "elements of fine art", "impermanence".

It should be noted that this term is consubstantial, i.e. its plan of expression completely coincides with the plan of expression of the word of the common vocabulary happening, happening: "something that has happened"^[8]. The definition of this concept in itself is much more vague than terminological, which is typical for definitions of terms and words of common vocabulary.

Let's consider the changes in the semantics of the term in the texts of professional discourse, in this case, texts created by artists ^[9-12]. The author of the terminological concept of happening is the American artist Alan Kaprow, who first used it in the title of the 1959 work "18 Happenings in 6 Parts", which was shown from October 4 to October 10, 1959 at the Ruben Gallery, New York.^[13] Kaprow did not give a terminological definition at that time, but back in 1958 in the article "The legacy of Jason Pollock" he spoke about the new art: "Not satisfied with the suggestion through paint of our senses, we shall utilize the specific substances of sight, sound, movements, people, odors, touch. <…> In contrast to the arts of the past, they have no structured beginning, middle or end. Their from is open-ended and fluid; nothing obvious is sought and therefore nothing is won, except the certainty of a number of occurrences in which one is more than normally attentive. They exit for a single performance, or only a few more, and are gone forever, while new ones take their place. These events are essentially theater pieces, however unconventional»^[14]. In his reasoning, "new art" has such semes as "sound", "movement", "impermanence", "elements of theater". The last two semes are also present in the modern definition of Happening. The word "Happening" itself is not used, but semantically it is very close to what is being described.

Allan Kaprow himself in the early years was against the widespread use of the term, as he doubted the common use of this word. Describing the works called happenings, he invariably mentioned their differences from his own understanding of happening. However, the term was able to fill the gap in the terminology system and was still actively used by artists, and then by art historians.

In 1965, Jim Dine wrote: "The first "Happening" I did was called The Smiling Workman, at the Judson Church.The name “Happening” was a great crowd-pleaser.

People knew what they were going to see. If it said “Happening,” they were going to see Whitman, Dine, Oldenburg, or Kaprow. People sometimes say about my painting, “That’s a real Happening.” It is ridiculous. It is Kaprow’s word, and it does not refer to me. I do not really know what it meant. But if it meant what he did, it was not what I was doing, so it was not true of me».^{[15, c.65]}Jim Dine does not define the term, but it can be argued that the main seme in his understanding is "authorship", namely the authorship of Kaprow.

Thus, Jim Dine still accepts Kaprow's limitations, arguing that his own works cannot be designated by this term.

Dain's use of quotation marks is based on certain linguistic postulates. Anna Zaliznyak refers to the following properties: "the quotation marks mean, approximately: 'it's not me saying that, it's others saying that', and <...> 'it's just me saying that, others don't say that'.."^[16]

In relation to copyright terms, quotation marks often play exactly these roles. In the second function, the term is used by the author, and quotation marks in this case indicate that the use of this unit refers primarily to his own speech. The first function is when someone mentions the author's term, thereby making a reference to the author, emphasizing that this unit belongs to the speech of another person. It is in this function that Jim Dine uses quotation marks, which suggests that in his speech the term Happening is inextricably linked with the "Kaprow" seme.

At the same time, quoting Kaprow himself, Jim Dine does not use quotation marks: "You're the one who does funny Happenings"^{[15, p. 68]}.In this case, the term is not framed by quotation marks, since Dyne implies that Kaprow, as the author of the term, reasonably decides in which case this term should be used.

Another artist, Klas Oldenburg, in 1965 uses "happening" only in quotation marks: "What I do as a "happening" is part of my general concern, at this time, to use more or less altered "real" material. The “happening” is one or another method of using objects in motion, and this I take to include people, both in themselves and as agents of object motion»^{[15, c. 69]}. Thus, it can be argued that for him the authorship of the term also plays an important role, despite the fact that he does not name Kaprow himself. Nevertheless, describing the term, Oldenburg emphasizes first of all the seme "movement", which is present in Kaprow's arguments about "new art", but is absent in the modern dictionary definition, from which it can be concluded that this seme was really present in the term, but disappeared when the term entered the core of terminology.

Already in 1966, the term entered the terminology of fine art so much that Kaprow himself had already written about the types of happening conducted by various artists: "This small following is aware of several different kinds of Happening. There are the sophisticated, witty works put on by the theater people; the very sparsley abstract, almost Zen-like rituals given by another group (mostly artists and musicians); and there are those in which I am most involved, crude, lyrical and very spontaneous. The last grew out of the advanced American painting of the last decade and I and the others were all painters (or still are) »^[17].So, the concept of happening, according to the artist, is divided into three subgroups with the semes "theater", "abstraction, ritual" and "lyricism, spontaneity", respectively.

The sema "Kaprow" is no longer decisive for the author himself.

Thus, the term "happenig" from the point of view of pragmatics and semantics has ceased to be fully considered authorial.

Based on the above examples , the following features of the use of the term in the texts of artists can be distinguished:

1) the term is used in the direct meaning, despite the fact that this meaning has not yet been fully established;

2) the unit is used precisely in the terminological meaning, as part of the more general terminology of art.

3) "Happening" meets the criteria of the author's term.

The term Happening is also used in non-professional discourse, but its use in fiction differs significantly from its use in professional discourse^[18].

In John Wachter's novel The happening; a carol for all seasons, the main character, the artist Digby, decides to arrange a Christmas Happening for orphans.

Describing his idea, the character defines the term in his own way:

«“Not a party,” Digby cried. “A happening, man! Lights! Music! Joyful noises!"" ^{[19, p. 43]}

"Digby was to play the lights like an instrument, flooding the church with colors and projections as the unfolding happening required." ^{[19, p. 84]}

In these passages, the following semes can be distinguished: "light", "music", "color", "performance", "art".  The first four semes correspond to the semes of Happening in professional discourse, but the latter plays a special role in the work. The use of this term by the artist character allows the author to emphasize Digby's profession: for him, the difference between the terminological concept of Happening and the word of the common vocabulary party is obvious, while the other characters do not always understand it the first time.

Another example of using the term is interesting by playing with the terminological and commonly used meaning of Happening:

«Summoning what courage remained after this brief exchange, Digby said, “I’m working up this kind of happening thing for Saturday night…”

“Now you’re hitting where I live, Dig. Happenings are Vesuvius Lighting, Inc.,” Bernard said with a businesslike tone. “Give me the details. Where is it going to be and much have they got to spend?"" ^{[19, p. 50]}

In this example, Digby talks about his idea to the owner of Vesuvius, a show business company. In this passage, the meanings of Happening as a term and words of common vocabulary are mixed. The sentence "Happenings are Vesuvius Lighting, Inc." can be understood in two ways: "All the interesting things that are happening are Vesuvius Lighting, Inc." and "Happening is Vesuvius Lighting, Inc."

Another example is the book Indonesia is a happening of 1970, where Happening is also used at the junction of terminological and non–terminological meanings.:

Indonesia isn’t a country, it’s a happening. If the hippies only knew, it’s the ultimate total experience, as unpredictable as a fistful of mercury. It’s a script written by Conrad, Kafka and Edgar Allan Poe, with a helping hand from Marx-Groucho, that is. It’s a scene with more hang-ups then reason will buy or logic condone. ^{[20, p. 16]}

In this passage, Happening has first of all the semes "representation", "unpredictability", "movement". It is also possible to single out this "art", since "[Indonesia] is a script", and the script is an attribute of the art of cinema.

The third example is an excerpt from the work Who Grows The Grass in 2016:

All there ever is, is this one infinite creative universal energy.As this one infinite seamless happening.

You are nothing but a happening within this happening.

Happening all by itself.

You are nothing but a thought.

Happening all by itself. ^{[21, p. 388]}

In this example, the terminological and commonly used meaning of Happening are also mixed, and only at their junction will the author's intention be conveyed. Life, according to the author, is both "eternal happening" and "eternal happening", which is emphasized by the use of the word Happening both as a noun and as a verb form.

So, we can conclude that in fiction, the term Happening can be used both in a direct sense, actualizing the involvement of characters in the world of art, and as a tool for playing with language. In the latter case, Happening is not used either as a term or as an ordinary word – it becomes an amalgam of the first and second, a reference to the "new art" of the XX century, strange and unconventional, and at the same time "happening in the moment". In this sense, the term is not used as an author's – in none of the examples there is no mention of the author, no quotation marks, or any indication that the author of the term is important for the user of the term.

Thus, we can conclude that the term Happening can be considered copyright, since its author is known, the author's sema is key to the semantics of the term, and professionals using it associate the concept with its creator. In professional discourse, the term is used in a direct terminological meaning. In non-professional discourse, the term loses part of this, acquiring others; in particular, the author's sema is lost, and the term no longer meets the criteria of the author's term.