Филологические науки/ 7. Язык, речь, речевая коммуникация

N. Mongilyova - cand .philol. s., Senior Teacher of Foreign Philology Departement,

Kazakhstan, A.Baitursynov, Kostanay State University

Interpretation problem of the aesthetic information of the poetic discourse

The problem of poetic text interpretation character has been up-to-date because the answer to it is directly connected with the special features of this type of discourse which is a heterogenic unity: “author” – “reader” – “text”.

Research of aesthetic information of fiction and poesy definitely change the customary view on communication reflected in code model of Shannon and Weaver [1]. In this model the possibility of information reproduction on the distant end of the link exists due to the absence of noise disturbance on the link, effectiveness of (de)coding devices work and code identity. The existence of the whole complex of additional information, elicited from composition form, shows that poetic decoding cannot suggest the identity of author’s and reader’s codes.

Communication conditioned social practice explains the nature of transformation of the meanings in interaction model of communication worked out by D. Schiffrin. In accordance with its name this model puts forward interaction placed in social-cultural conditions of the situation as the main principle. According to the model communication may take place whether “the speaker” intends to do it or not and whether this utterance is intended on the perception of “the listener” [2, с. 398]. Communication is not like information translation and intention manifestation but like meaning demonstration which is not necessarily intended for identification and interpretation by a recipient.

In this situation of communication the information is distinguished between information given deliberately and information given unintentionally. If the first type information owes the participation in communication act to the speaker who selects these meanings, figures them and reports them in accordance with their intentions; the second type information owes the recipient – exactly their perceptivity, selectivity and ability to interpretation. This conditions asymmetry of the model: generation of meaning and its interpretation differ in both the methods of implementation of these operations and types of forms of cognition, perception, affect that take part in the operations.

Thus, the features of aesthetic information induces the recipient to illicit by themselves from the text the conclusions and estimations which are explicitly formulated in the text. In the model of poetic communication “author” – “reader” – “text” the element, which is the common link, the point of contact of aesthetic activity of the author and the reader is poetic text. Its structure, on the one hand, appears to be a motivated correlation between language expressions reflecting personal meanings of the author and, on the other hand, it exists for the recipient as the means of actualisation of their personal meanings.

The research of aesthetic and poetic functioning of the poetic composition discovers a new functional aspect of poetic discourse. Its existence is always intended when the question is about the aesthetic contents and aesthetic information included in the structure of a poetic text. It is shown as some new content-richness which occurs as the result of poetic function mechanisms and which we suggest to distinguish as the concept semantic space.

Traditionally, in the use of the term “space” [3; 4; 5] there are some rules: its function of new meaning creation, semantic penetration in the text, the existence of the text as semantic complex and number of contexts, and also the role of each element in creating a general idea of the text. Consequently, the term “space” may be used to characterise the process of semantic forming which is actualised by the structure of poetic discourse.

In the given research semantic space of poetic discourse is understood as determination of semantic relevancy of formal and semantic transitions which happen in recipient’s thinking where poetic structuring takes place.

The principle of parallelism, which is the first mechanism of poetic structuring, puts language expressions disparate in the language system in equivalent positions and brings them together according to form equivalency. Formal equivalency inevitably causes the search of contents equivalency in the recipient’s conscience. Additional meaning is not formed, but there its search takes place both in thesaurus of the reader and by means of attracting other text elements which are similar according to the same feature. The recipient seeks the basis for brining together language expressions, motivates the process. This happens as the consequence regularity of thinking to lead the form and contents to mutual correspondence because the tendency to motivation, according to A.P. Zhuravlyov, is demonstration of universal dialectic regularity in symbolic world – the aspiration of contents and form to mutual correspondence [6].

Semantic space of “equivalent” and parallel poetic structures exists as the process of motivation of equivalent forms and positions in human conscience.

Recipient’s aesthetic speech activity may be accompanied by both pleasure, realization of unicity of perceptible text and perception of “estrangement” (the term of V. Shklovsky). The second mechanism of poetic structuring, the principle of parallelism violation, violates reader’s expectation caused by customary correlation of language elements in language system or fixed by the proportion of parallelism in the given text, so the appears the unexpectedness effect.

By its unpredictable influence the unexpectedness effect makes you review equivalencies motivated before, which actualises a new, higher motivation level. Such review causes forming semantic space of parallelism violation. In this case, semantic space is formed as the result of a new motivation level actualised by the unexpectedness effect.

If we consider poetic text as symbolic system mechanisms of poetic structuring, parallelism and its violation characterise the semantic part. Semantic space of poetic discourse is referred to the interaction of meanings at semantic level. Semantic value of structural correlations and their violation represent at figurative level separate features of one meaning correlated with author’s aesthetic intention.

References

1 Kibrik A.E. Linguistic background of language activity modeling// Language activity modeling in intellectual systems. – M., 1987. – P. 33-52.

2 Schiffrin D. Approaches to Discourse. – Oxford; Cambridge, MA, 1994.

3 Toporov V.N. Space and Text // Text: semantics and structure. – M.: Nauka, 1983. – P. 227-284.

4 Petrenko V.F. Psychosemantics of conscience. M.: Moscow university Publishers, 1988. – P.208.

5 Nefedova L.A. Cognitive activity aspect of implicative communication. – Chelyabinsk: ChSU Publishers, 2001. – P. 151.

6 Zhuravlyov A.P. Phonetic notions. – L.: LSU Publishers, 1974. – P. 160.

Статья публикуется впервые. Даю согласие на обработку персональных данных

15.04.2014