Silence as a Discourse of Meaning
In the article, the logic of the research is focused on Martin Heidegger's thesis that language has its basis in silence; silence for language is a hidden "measuring" of the measure, it protects the measure and sets it at the same time. Listening and silence are the two essential modes of speech. The etymological variations of the term "silence" are given. Through the system of epithets presented in the article, the conceptual depth of the term "silence" is indicated, the idea of the functional distinction used in the literary context of the concepts "silence" and "stillness" is expressed. The thesis about the eventful character of "silence" is revealed. The theme of the speaker- hearable silence-as an artistic device is touched upon: silence as the sphere of the unnamed always coexists in a literary text with the speech zone. Through silence, the leaving from speech is accomplished; a semantic distinction of speech and silence is a means of increasing the significance of speech and silence. In this case, in the text, silence, as shown, acquires the status and significance of the otherness of speech: this is the threshold and limit, which, being the "leaving from speech", necessarily requires overcoming in speech. The article claims that it is in the space of the pause that the boundary of the speech-silence relationship denotes itself. In literature, a special form of using the technique of silence ("significant emptiness") allows creating a specific artistic structure. By using the pause, the threshold of the unnamed, the "significant emptiness" is overcome; through the pause, the idea of the interaction of the verbal and the non-verbal in the text, the logic of detection, addition and growth of meaning are realized. Pause silence is a meaningful, intertextual speech filler that connects textual and non-textual discourses. The article outlines the idea of a potential paradox of silence. This paradox consists in the following phenomenon: silence has a language and those telling the story of silence speak about this language. This is a paradox of the relationship of the speaking silence and the story of this silence. Denoting the role of silence in the context of speech, the author reveals the thesis about the existential significance of silence: it is a way of relating to meaning, approaching the boundaries of possible experience, the non-verbal non-recourse form of experience in which silence, being a mode of non-verbal experience, is located next to language. As for approaching the boundaries of possible experience, this approach is due to the transcendental energy of silence. In the final part of the article, the author disputes the thesis about the "non-inclusion" of a person in stillness. Revealing the anthropological nature of stillness, the author writes about the cohesion of stillness and the linguistic content in which the phenomenon of stillness is placed. The article shows that the difference between stillness and silence is due to the degree of the subjectivity of the application, the characteristics of the grammar used and the context of use.