Studia Litterarum Studia Litterarum 2500-4247 IWL RAS https://doi.org/10.22455/2500-4247-2025-10-2-358-381 Research Article Articles The Communicative Paradox: Notebooks and Workbooks of the Russian Avant-garde “Big Three” Khachaturian Lyubov V. red@studlit.ru June 25, 2025 2025 September 10, 2024 The article provides a comparative analysis of the workbooks and notebooks of Vladimir Mayakovsky, Velimir Khlebnikov, and Alexey Kruchenykh. The analysis of draft recordings, most of which are hitherto unpublished, demonstrates a commonality of techniques for creating a literary text far beyond the boundaries of the documented co-authorship of 1912–1914. The study explains this phenomenon by returning to the classical model of the communicative structure of the text. The article demonstrates correlations between the theoretical positions of the Tartu-Moscow semiotic school and various sources. It clarifies the operating mechanism of the structural pair “I — He” vs “I — Me.” The research pays special attention to the autocommunication of the literary text and reconstructs its action through Alexey Kruchenykh’s work notes from 1927 to 1930. The article also focuses on the “technique of creative splitting” developed by Kruchenykh after the death of Khlebnikov and Mayakovsky (Mikhail Lotman). The established patterns allow us to trace gradually the process of creating an abstruse language, in which two root morphemes form a new lexeme (Maxim Shapir): the original version is restored, and then the synonymic series and the final integrated text are fixed. Russian Avant-garde unpublished archival materials notebooks workbooks literary pragmatics Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School Copyright © 2026, IWL RAS 2026 1. Arutcheva, V.A. “Zapisnye knizhki V.V. Maiakovskogo” [“V. Mayakovsky’s Notebooks”]. Literaturnoe nasledstvo [Literary Heritage], vol. 65: Novoe o Maiakovskom [New About Mayakovsky], book 1. Moscow, IWL RAS Publ., 1959, pp. 325–395. (In Russ.) 2. Venediktova, T. “Literatura kak kommunikatsiia. Mezhdunarodnaia konferentsiia ʽAnaliz dialoga: literatura kak dialog’.” [“Literature as Communication. International Conference ʽAnalysis of Dialogue: Literature as a Dialogue’.”] Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 3, 2013, pp. 406–409. (In Russ.) 3. Venediktova, T., and A. Logunov. “Pragmatika i mediologiia literaturnogo teksta” [“Pragmatics and Medialogy of a Literary Text”]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, no. 1, 2020, pp. 42–55. (In Russ.) 4. Venediktova, T. “Pragmaticheskii povorot — so skripom” [“A Pragmatic Turn with a Creak”]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 6 (178), 2022, pp. 189–200. (In Russ.) 5. Gasparov, B. “V poiskakh ʽdrugogo’ (Frantsuzskaia i vostochnoevropeiskaia semiotika na rubezhe 1970-kh godov)” [“In Search of the ʽOther’ (French and Eastern European Semiotics at the Turn of the 1970s)”]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 1, 1996, pp. 213–236. (In Russ.) 6. Zhivov, V. “Moskovsko-tartuskaia semiotika: ee dostizheniia i ee ogranicheniia” [“Moscow-Tartu Semiotics: Its Achievements and Its Limitations”]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 4, 2009, pp. 11–26. (In Russ.) 7. Zalizniak, A. “Dnevnik: k opredeleniiu zhanra” [“Diary: Towards the Definition of a Genre”]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 6, 2010, pp. 162–180. (In Russ.) 8. Zenkin, S. Teoriia literatury: problemy i rezul’taty [Literary Theory: Problems and Results]. Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie Publ., 2018. 368 p. (In Russ.) 9. Zolian, S. “Iurii Lotman o tekste: Idei, problemy, perspektivy” [“Yuri Lotman on the Text: Ideas, Problems, Prospects”]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 3, 2016, pp. 63–96. (In Russ.) 10. Lotman, M.Iu. “Semiotika kul’tury v Tartusko-moskovskoi semioticheskoi shkole” [“Semiotics of Culture in the Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School”]. Lotman, Iu.M. Istoriia i tipologiia russkoi kul’tury [The History and Typology of Russian Culture]. St. Petersburg, Iskusstvo–SPb Publ., 2002, pp. 5–20. (In Russ.) 11. Lotman, Iu.M. “Avtokommunikatsiia: ʽIa’ i ʽDrugoi’ kak adresaty (O dvukh modeliakh kommunikatsii v sisteme kul’tury)” [“Autocommunication: ʽMe’ and ʽThe Other’ as Addressees (About Two Models of Communication in the Cultural System)”]. Lotman, Iu.M. Semiosfera [The Semiosphere]. St. Petersburg, Iskusstvo–SPb Publ., 2000, pp. 159–165. (In Russ.) 12. Lotman, Iu.M. Lektsii po struktural’noi poetike [Lectures on Structural Poetics], vol. 2. Tartu, [S. n.], 1964. 195 p. (In Russ.) 13. Lotman, Iu.M. “Literaturovedenie dolzhno stat’ naukoi” [“Literary Criticism Should Become a Science”]. Voprosy literatury, no. 1, 1967, pp. 90–100. (In Russ.) 14. Pil’shchikov, I. “Lotman i Iakobson kak pushkinisty: puti i pereput’ia” [“Lotman and Jacobson as Pushkinists: Paths and Crossroads”]. Slavic Literatures, no. 143, 2024, pp. 79–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.slalit.2023.12.001 (In Russ.) 15. Severskaia, O.I. “Dnevnikovaia poeziia (Arkadii Dragomoshchenko, Lin Khedzhinian, Dominik Furkad)” [“Diary Poetry (Arkady Dragomoshchenko, Lin Hejinyan, Dominique Fourcade)”]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 3, 2023, pp. 147–162. (In Russ.) 16. Starkina, S. “Aleksei Kruchenykh i Velimir Khlebnikov kak soavtory: novye materialy” [“Alexey Kruchenykh and Velimir Khlebnikov as Co-Authors: New Materials”]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, no. 3, 2016, pp. 164–181. (In Russ.) 17. Sukhoparov, S. Aleksei Kruchenykh: Sud’ba budetlianina [Alexey Kruchenykh: The Fate of the Futurist]. Munchen, Verlag Otto Sagner in Kommission, 1992. 168 p. (In Russ.) 18. Shklovskii, V.B. Lev Tolstoi [Leo Tolstoy]. Moscow, Molodaia Gvardiia Publ., 1963. 864 p. (In Russ.) 19. Khachaturian, L.V. “Zhizn’ posle Lefa. Rabochie tetradi Alekseia Kruchenykh 1927–1930 gg.” [“Life After Lef. The Workbooks of Alexey Kruchenykh, 1927–1930”]. Russkaia literatura, no. 4, 2023, pp. 230–235. DOI: 10.31860/0131-6095-2023-4-230-235 (In Russ.) 20. Jakobson, Roman. “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” Style in Language. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1960, pp. 350–377. (In English)