Language poetry and theater in practice and in the theoretical limit synthetic. Take, for example, is technically similar to that modeled above. This time historical: the aforementioned “Forest” Meyerhold words differently varying the tune of “all high and beautiful”, clearly showed the lust. Theoretically, no matter whether out of tune. It is important that there was no syncretism, was, on the ontological level, it is synthesized language.

Installation there was obviously more radical than himself postulated at the beginning of the century: the language plans did not change and was literally simultaneous, natural symbiosis of sculpture and tone in the most intimate of the theatre field, the actor, artist torn, then a separate body movements and verbal speech arbitrarily to solder. The question, therefore, is not uniform in value and tone and plastic or not, and in the installation: two layers of language are not just concurrent, but parallel, connect them compelled the viewer, and is inevitably exactly what I have formulated as the law of associative montage: one plus one more than two; there is a kind of “linguistic composition” of course, more than a similar building form.

Another manifestation of a split (or recession?) theatrical language may be more noticeable. It again not at the level of individual preferences of the Directors and actors, the resentment prosaic and the poetic gravity of the performance to the trails. In prose the value of course “hold your sign”, in poetry it is with this sign, if not disrupted, shifted, and that gives the metaphor, metonymy, etc.

Work with different language layouts material here: sign forcibly connected with the stranger opposite Lee, if similar, related, but not always their value. Of course, talking about the subject, you have to be especially careful in the first place, to the kind of theatre: the value and sign that the theater’s look shifted to one another, in the pantomime theatre, for example, no path a cannot imagine: there is this connection to the natural, what with the audience agreed with the first movement of the play.

But also differentiated, and variously different in their properties oriented, the language of the theater still remains and it is only language. There are words, wrote M. M. Bakhtin, who specifically mean emotion, evaluation: “joy”, “sorrow”, “wonderful”, “funny”, “sad”, etc. But these values are also neutral, like all the others. Expressive color they only get in the utterance, and this coloring is independent of their values separately, abstractly taken; for example: “All joy to me now just bitter” here the word “joy” expressive voiced, so to speak, in spite of its significance”. Thinker I agree with the fact that sign (in the verbal material with which he worked; it is a word) is a kind of typical for the word expression, but he insists, in essence, is an aberration the only “contact linguistic values a concrete reality, only a contact language with reality” creates a spark of expression, that is, in our case, makes the sign of means of expression.

In the concept of Bakhtin’s key that this whole issue becomes a genre. But the genre, according to Bakhtin (agreed with us), there is a category of the form. Must be some kind of formula for the transition from one incarnation of the text to another.

Here, forward is the main essential characteristic of the language of art style. Apparently, style is not just a linguistic phenomenon. The style of the collects for the purposes of the artist one way or the other the totality of language means, it ultimately is specific for this case or some cases, taken a set, the combination of means.

There is another understanding of the specificity of theatrical language not connected with the theatre, but connected with it by some specific parties the content of the play. There may be more important is not so much “Tolstoy’s style”, as, say, the “psychological style”. The style of “Childhood”, “Adolescence” and “Youth” the style of the early, but if you take more it is a psychological style is. We are now interested in is not the measure of generalization, the concept of affordable style (this measure in both cases is different, although equally legitimate).

We preferred the second, broader interpretation only in the context of practical need. However, and Tolstoy is remembered not by accident. If you agree with literary critics, who argue that the large age of the trilogy psychological writer, the style of these three stories find confirmation easy. The challenge, however, is different. To prove that Tolstoy of the time, a psychologist par excellence, can be only or mainly by analyzing his then style.

The funds that he chose, and the way he these funds are connected among themselves, building form. But for our purposes it is enough to recall here something quite textbook phrase of Leo Tolstoy. The one that sometimes does not fit on one page, which is replete with all his favorite “what”, “who”, “if”, “for”, etc.

When we learn this phrase and understand that it “causality” sticks out, which is the subordinate clause clusters, without end and without measure, stuck to the main thing so that you don’t give it end, when we grasp the meaning of “separate” the meaning of these connections and differences, we realize that this phrase not flirting, and the only way to write all these, these infinite shades, clinging to each other, this vibration, this, as he said, the dialectics of the soul. In fact it is written it is the soul, recorded her movements, and they are not real, they are subtle, they stretch, and tear, and again there seems to be no connection, but in reality it is a reflection of something of the former, but the half and so on and so forth. Then right psychological writing shows a movement of inner peace. This movement, a movement, a movement of this world may be referred, it seems, only in this language.

When was represented by a psychological drama, that is theatre, studied not primarily relationships and connections within the human soul (as in theatre) he searched for the means, so to speak, parallel to Tolstoy’s. He also had the ability to construct long, even florid, with subordinate, involved and verbal participle phrases, long-lasting, just a neverending theatrical phrase. And Shostakovich, trying to tell what is done in the shower, too, were found among the means of music such.

It seems like we are from the first, the most obvious specificity of the languages of the theatre specific and may be generic. But do it consciously: of course, psychology in ballet, not that dramatic, but if in both theatres can (and as possible) to portray the movement of the soul the style really makes between spoken words and similar ordinary life, the movement of the body of the actor dance and ballet pantomime.