Yerol Turashbek,
Master Tutor,
HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF "INTERTEXTUAL"
Fundamentals of the
emergence and development of the theory of intertextuality were laid in the early works of M.Bakhtin. He first suggested that
the text associated special
relationship not only with the
elements of the language, but with different lyrics. Each text (as
saying) is something individual, unique, unrepeatable, and that the whole point of it (his plan, for which he created) ...
With respect to this point, everything
is repeatable and
reproducible material and means. This
is to some extent goes beyond
linguistics and philology.
This second point (pole) inherent in the
text itself, but it is disclosed
only in a situation in chain text (speech
communication in the art). This pole is not associated with elements (repeatable) language system (signs), but with different lyrics (unique) special dialogic
and (dialectical when abstracted from the
author) relations.
Another contribution
to the formation of Bakhtin's theory of intertextual relations
was his ideas about "a strange word." The term "foreign word" goes back to the theory that all the words for each person are divided into "little world of his
words (perceived as their own)
and a huge boundless world hearsay".
"I live in a world of hearsay, and
my whole life is oriented
to the world, endlessly varied in response to the
words of others, from their development (in the original language
acquisition) and ending with the development
of the wealth of human culture
(expressed in word or other sign materials)". MM Bakhtin
believed any text dialogical, that is, representing a dialogue with the author
of all previous and contemporary culture.
Ideas MM Bakhtin's
"offensive remarks" and dialogic were the
starting point for the construction of the modern theory of intertextual relations.
Under the influence of MM Bakhtin French semiotics
scholar Yu Kristeva
in 1969 formulated a concept that has become one of the main categories poststrukturnogo analysis, the concept of intertextuality.
In his work "Word,
Dialogue, and Novel" she rejected traditional literary arguments
about "copyright influence"
and "source text," saying that all sign systems from the table
to the poem are
the way by which they
transform all the previous sign
system.
Thus, the literary work
is not simply the product of a single author, but the product of his
relationship with other texts and with the formation
of the language itself. "Any
text," she argues, "is constructed of a mosaic of quotations; any
text is the absorption and transformation of another". ("She claims that any text is constructed from a mosaic of quotations; any text absorbs and converts the
other.").
In contrast, the concept of "intertextuality" from the very
beginning was aimed at the
destruction of the "myth" of the unity and integrity of the text; intertext blurs
the lines of text, making it
permeable texture, its meaning uncertain and
changing contours. In the space
of this text various statements taken from other
texts, not in addition to,
but according Yu.Kristevoy "cross and neutralize
each other"; ultimately, the text as a separate phenomenon lost in continuous stratifications
intertextual " In contrast, the concept of "intertextuality"
from the very beginning was aimed at
the destruction of the "myth"
of the unity and integrity of the text; intertext blurs
the lines of text, making it
permeable texture, its meaning uncertain and
changing contours. In the space
of this text various statements taken from other
texts, not in addition to,
but according Yu.Kristevoy "cross and neutralize
each other"; ultimately, the text as a separate phenomenon lost in continuous stratifications
intertextual".
These two opposing points of view on the intertextual connection,
reflecting the differences between the two literary trends - modernist and postmodernist
- and today is dominated by a foreign literary criticism. EAT. And Margaret
Forster Shlegal talk about building "a" rainbow bridge "of
meaning between scattered, contrary things" ("Rainbow Bridge values
scattered between opposites"). TS Eliot doubts about the
possibility of building "something connects," because, in his view,
the more links there is in any system, the greater the possibility of conflict.
Therefore, "all the connection and the connection did give the same result".
Some linguists are trying
to explore the phenomenon of intertextuality is much wider in terms of the philosophy of language,
the language the whole of human activity and culture in general.
This approach is the most complete,
because with the help of researchers
have attempted to explain the causes and
conditions for the existence of such a
complex phenomenon as intertextual
connections.
The largest theorist,
a supporter of this aspect of the study of intertextuality is Roland Barthes. In
his works of the late 60's, early 70's, he argues that literature and, more broadly, the whole language activity
is not to create subjects in its "messages", but in a continuous
"rewriting" Thus,
any interpretation of the text is
in However, it
palimpsest strikethrough. R. Barthes defines intertextuality
as a condition for the existence of the text. "Any new
text consists of old quotations.
Parts of the code,
formulas, rhythmic patterns, fragments of cultural languages,
etc. pass through the text and redistribute it, as there
is always a language to the text inside it.
Each text is a new
tissue created from old quotations. As a
prerequisite for any text intertextuality,
can not be reduced to the problem of
sources and influences; It is a field of
anonymous formulas, the origin of
which is rarely to be found,
unconscious or automatic
citations given by unquoted".
A similar orientation is the term "letters", occupies a central
place in the book of Jacques Derrida "Grammatology" (1967).
The new philosophy of language, represented in it, considering the
"letter" as a continuously unfolding process that knows no beginning,
no end, no discrete phases and states. Each new statement "written"
as a palimpsest, over the previous statements. This "re-writing" over
the previous state is the only form of existence of the language; No, and there
never was any prehistoric as a starting point, not as a theoretical ideal of a
certain initial state, which would not have been a palimpsest, layered on top
of something else.
In this meaning of the
statement Derrida, at first sight
paradoxical that the "letter" (in this sense it) existed
before language existed,
saying the specific language of this philosopher, "is always
already". Derrida here ridicules idea of the text
as a holistic phenomenon,
calling the integrity of the imaginary "secondary virginity".
In the context of the post-modern world (as it is
in line with this trend were conducted intensive studies of this phenomenon)
intertextuality is considered as a single mechanism for the generation of
texts. The phenomenon of intertextuality, so closely associated with the
position of "the world is the text" formulated by Derrida. Under this
provision, the whole of human culture is seen as a single text included into being,
that is, a single intertext. All texts are created, in this case, on the one
hand, basically have the same pretext (cultural context literary tradition),
and on the other hand, are in turn intertexts as phenomena become culture.
References:
1. Бахтин М.М. Проблема
текста в лингвистике, философии и других гуманитарных науках. // Эстетика
словесного творчества. М.: Искусство, 1979. – с.250-296.
2. Михайлова Е.В.
Интертекстуальность в научном дискурсе (на материале статей).// Диссертация на
соискание ученой степени кандидата филологических наук. Волгоград, 1999. – 192
с.
3. Карасик В.И. Типы
текстов. // Языковая личность: проблемы обозначения и понимания. Волгоград,
изд. Волг. пед. ун-та "Перемена, 1997, с. 69-70.
4.
Барт Р. От произведения к тексту // Избранные работы. Семиотика. Поэтика. М.,
1994. - c.562.
5. Karasik V.I. Text Linguistics and Discourse Analysis. Arkhangelsk
- Volgograd, 1994.
6. Keep C. Intertextuality, 1995 //
http://web.uvic.ca/~ckeep/hfl0278.html
7. Twylight T. Textuality, Intertextuality, Hypertextuality. 1992.//
http://www.english.ttu.edu/kairos/2.2/features/paralogic/textuality.html