The Concept of “Wise” in Artistic Discourse

Abstract

The article explores the concept of “Wise” in Russian artistic discourse of the 20th–21st centuries. The study is carried out within the framework of cognitive linguistics, where artistic discourse is viewed as a special type of communication reflecting both the individual author’s worldview and national cultural stereotypes. 

The aim of the research is to identify the cognitive features of the concept “Wise,” its semantic characteristics, and its functioning in literary texts. The material includes examples from the Russian National Corpus. The methodology combines cognitive, semantic, and contextual analysis.

The analysis shows that the adjective *wise* is most often used to describe people of high social status, knowledge, and experience (rulers, mentors, scholars). Wisdom is associated with intelligence, knowledge, experience, and moral qualities such as kindness and courage. However, paradoxical combinations (“wise and evil”) also occur, reflecting the ambivalence of the ethical component of the concept.

Special attention is paid to gender and age: although wisdom is traditionally attributed to elderly people, in artistic discourse both men and women, as well as children, may possess it. Wisdom also characterizes divine beings, prophets, and people with the gift of foresight. The study reveals metaphorical and metonymic transfers of the attribute “wise” to books, words, decisions, professions, animals (owl, raven, snake), natural phenomena, emotions (“wise love,” “wise anger”), and parts of the body (“wise head,” “wise eyes”). In such contexts, wisdom functions as a source of knowledge, harmony, and experience. At the same time, artistic discourse allows for deconstruction of the concept, when “wise” combines with negative or absurd notions (foolishness, nonsense, blasphemy), demonstrating individual authorial interpretation and expanding the semantic range.

In conclusion, the concept of “Wise” in artistic discourse primarily represents the intellectual component (mind, knowledge, experience), while the moral-ethical dimension is found at the periphery, marked by variability and ambiguity.