Intertextuality as a discursive phenomenon (from Horace to V. Sorokin)
The article substantiates the status of intertextuality as a discursive phenomenon, which ensures the entry of the work into the diachronic context and generates a dialogical interaction of texts of different times: the source-text and the recipient-text. Intertextuality implements semantic increment of the recipient text by means of precedent inclusion. In this case, the precedent can be present in the text in the form of a cultural code, a cipher, being «packed» in traditional language forms. No doubt that writers often deliberately borrow ideas and sometimes stories from the works of predecessors, folk art, etc., Such borrowing does not mean «repetition», but is broadcast or that cultural phenomenon and deepen the meaning of the newly created text. Thus, semiotic discourse increment occurs. As a result, the reader, referring to the newly created text, associatively «connects» to it information from the «prototypical text» or « prototypical texts», deepening the content of the new text through its own inclusive reflections related to the prototypical text of ideas, meanings, which is crucial for the interpretation of the work. As a result, readers draw information from other texts, «sifting» the new text through their mental «archives», the new text becomes more complicated, acquiring the quality of discourse, but its understanding becomes deeper and clearer. Thus, for the authors intertextuality opens up new prospects and opportunities for building their own original «stories». However, here the subjective factor comes to the fore – the readiness of the reader for the process of decoding, the depth of his/ her literary and general cultural knowledge. So, the most interesting and fruitful dialogue between the author and the reader can occur in this semiotic space. Thus, the recipient text can be interpreted as a certain code in relation to the source text, which requires adequate interpretation of such a coding text to perform a “decryption” operation, which implies knowledge of the dialogue context, providing the possibility of establishing a connection with the precedent source. In this regard, it is quite natural to recognize all modern literary texts as intertextual and intentionally intertextual.
Kosharnaya, S. A. and Grigorjanová, T. (2019), “Intertextuality as a discursive phenomenon (from Horace to V. Sorokin)”, Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 5 (1), 13-26. DOI: 10.18413/2313-8912-2019-5-1-0-2
While nobody left any comments to this publication.
You can be first.
Gudkov, D. B., Krasnyh, V. V., Zaharenko, I. V. and Bagaeva, D.V. (1997), “Nekotorye osobennosti funktsionirovaniya pretsedentnyh vyskazyvaniy” [Some features of the functioning of precedent statements], Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser.9. Filologiya [Bulletin of Moscow University. Ser.9. Philology], 4, p. 106-118. [in Russian].
Karaulov, Yu. N. (1986), “Rol' pretsedentnogo teksta v strukture i funktsionirovanii yazykovoy lichnosti”[The role of the precedent text in the structure and functioning of the linguistic personality], Nauchnye traditsii i novye napravleniya v prepodavanii russkogo yazyka i literatury [Scientific traditions and new directions in teaching the Russian language and literature], Russkiy yazyk, Moscow, Russia, p. 105-123. [in Russian].
Kosharnaya, S. A. (2002), Mif i yazyk: Opyt lingvokul'turologicheskoy rekonstruktsii russkoy mifologicheskoy kartiny mira [Myth and language: experience of linguocultural reconstruction of the Russian mythological picture of the world], Publishing House of Belgorod State University, Belgorod, Russia, 287 p. [in Russian].
Ozhegov, S. I. (1991), Slovar' russkogo yazyka: 70000 slov [Russian dictionary: 70,000 words], in N. Yu. Shvedovа (ed.), 23-rd ed., Russkiy yazyk, Moscow, Russia, 917 p. [in Russian].
Panchenko, A. A. (2004), “Otnoshenie k detyam v russkoy traditsionnoy kul'ture” [Attitude to children in Russian traditional culture], Otechestvennye zapiski [Notes of the Fatherland], 3, p. 31-39. [in Russian].
Sorokin, V. G. (2001), Pir [The Feast], Ad Marginem, Moscow, Russia, 382 p. [in Russian].
Toporkov, A. L. (1992), “Perepekanie detej v ritualah i skazkah vostochnyh slavyan” [“Baking” children in the rituals and fairy tales of the Eastern Slavs], Fol'klor i etnograficheskaya deistvitel'nost' [The folklore and the ethnographic reality], St. Petersburg, Russia, p. 114-118. [in Russian].
Allen, G. (2000), Intertextuality,Routledge, London & New York, UK & USA, 238 p. [In English].
Allen, G. (2003), Roland Barthes, Routledge, London, UK, 163 p. [In English].
Barthes, R. (1974), The pleasure of the text, translated by Richard Miller, with a Note on the Text by Richard Howard, Hill and Wang, New York, USA, p. 5-67. [In English].
Barthes, R. (1977), Image. Music. Text. Fontana Press, London, UK, 217 p. [In English].
Beaugrande, R.-A. de and Dressier, W. (1981), Introduction to text linguistics,XVI, Longman, London & New York, UK & USA, 270 p. [In English].
Bloom, H. (1997), The Anxiety of Influence: A theory of poetry, 2-nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford, USA & UK, 157 p. [In English].
Bruner, J. (1994), “The Narrative Construction of Reality”, Critical Inquiry, 18 (1), p. 1-21. [In English].
Carruthers, Mary J. (2008), The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture, 2-nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, UK, 519 p. [In English].
Eco, U. (1990), The Limits of Interpretation, Indiana University Press, Bloomington & Indianapolis, USA, 295 p. [In English].
Halbwachs, M. (1980), The collective memory, Harper & Row Colophon Books, New York, USA, 182 p. [In English].
Iser , W. (1980) “Interaction between Text and Reader”, The Reader in the Text, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New York, USA, p. 106-119. [In English].
Iser, W. (1978), The Act of Reading: A theory of esthetic response, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, USA, 239 p. [In English].
Kalogirou, Tz. & Economopoulou, V. (2012), “Building bridges between texts: From Intertextuality to intertextual reading and learning”, Theoretical challenges and classroom resources, Investigação e Ensino: Número temático (Dezembro), Portugal, p. 180-187. [In English].
Kristeva, J. (1980), Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, Columbia University Press, New York, USA, 319 p. [In English].
Rossington, M. & Whitehead, A. (2007), Theories of Memories. A Reader. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK, 328 p. [In English].
Savitri, G. (2002), “Intertextuality as Discourse Strategy: The Case of No-Confidence Debates in Thailand”, Working Papers in Linguistics and Phonetics, in Nelson D. (ed.), 9, p. 35-55. [In English].
Ventola, E. (1999), “Semiotic spanning at conferences: Cohesion and coherence in and across conference papers and their discussions”, Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse, ed. by W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, E. Ventola, Benjamins, Amsterdam, Netherlands, p. 101-123. [In English].