Linguistic bases of the intertextuality theory

The method of introducing various elements of other people's works into their own texts has been known to authors since ancient times. For example, the genre of "centon" was widespread in ancient poetry, and in the Middle Ages there was a tradition of composing new texts by compiling pre-existing texts [Carter]. However, in the scientific community, a wide interest in the phenomenon of the presence of units in the author's text that establish a connection with other texts was manifested only in the second half of the twentieth century thanks to the activities of the French researcher Julia Kristeva, who proposed the term "intertextuality" for its designation [Miguet-Ollagnier].

Yulia Kristeva based her theory of intertextuality on her own understanding of the ideas set out in three main sources: the philosophical concept of dialogism by Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, research by Ferdinand de Saussure in the field of the hypothetical presence of anagrams in poetic texts and the theory of parody by Yuri Nikolaevich Tynyanov [Hope].

Since the introduction of the term "intertextuality" into scientific use in 1967, many diverse studies of this phenomenon have been carried out. At the same time, the starting point of these studies was not only the theory of intertextuality. Kristeva, but also the sources offered in it [are great]. Due to the complexity of the ideas outlined, in particular, in the theory of dialogism by M. M. Bakhtin, today the theoretical framework offers many different, often mutually exclusive points of view regarding the essence of the phenomenon of intertextuality [Culler].

Thus, according to the vision of poststructuralists (R. Barth, Y. Kristeva, U. Eco), this phenomenon is expressed in the quotative nature inherent in any text [Guadu]. M. Riffater describes intertextuality as the process of establishing associative links between the text generation perceived by the recipient and other works [Politis]. According to Yu. M. Lotman and R. Lachmann, the analyzed phenomenon is a means of realizing the cultural memory of mankind in textual generation. I. P. Smirnov and E. E. Brazgovskaya consider intertextuality as an act of speech-making activity of the author based on the principle of semiotic interaction, which is realized in the cultural space created by the text [Kremneva 2017]. N. A. Fateeva describes the considered The concept is both a principle of text generation and a way of self-identification of the author in his own work through identification or opposition with the personalities of other authors [Fateeva].  According to I. P. Ilyin, intertextuality is the process of reflecting the text of history with its subsequent entry into it [Khuako]. V. E. Chernyavskaya considers intertextuality to be a property of the text, consisting in the potential multiplicity and variability of its interpretation [Chernyavskaya]. By intertextuality, M. H. Abrams means a set of techniques for reflecting other existing texts by one text through explicit or implicit citation, using allusions to other textual creations, as well as the process of including any features of previously created texts in new texts [Abrams]. N. V. Petrova considers intertextuality as a technique of textual, formal and meaning formation, implemented by establishing various types of connections between the author's own work and other verbal or non-verbal prototexts [Petrova].

The existing variety of approaches to understanding what should be considered intertextuality in modern linguistics is proposed to be conditionally divided into so-called "broad" and "narrow" approaches. The ideas of proponents of broad approaches are characterized by a vision of the world as a global, comprehensive text, each newly generated fragment of which is only a more or less reinterpreted and/or reformulated repetition of previously uttered statements [Kot]. In our opinion, such a point of view eliminates the need for applied research on the functioning of specific borrowings by authors when composing their own texts, since, according to the theorists of a broad approach, any product of conscious human activity should be considered as a text compilation of other already existing texts.

Radical proponents of narrow approaches to understanding intertextuality by this phenomenon mean only framed text quotations and allusions to other manifestations of human cultural activity [Kim]. This point of view, in our opinion, places significant limitations on the researcher and contradicts the views of Yu. Kristeva believed that any literary work is generated by the author based on the existing set of traditions and, therefore, represents an involuntary reproduction of various components of previously created works. In addition, according to Yu. Kristeva, each new textual creation enters into a dialogical relationship with the general cultural environment, becoming an integral part of it [Vojtkov?].

In our opinion, the fact of the lack of unity in the modern theory of intertextuality significantly complicates the implementation of applied research in this subject area. Thus, before embarking on practical research on intertextuality issues, the researcher should determine exactly what he understands by intertextuality in a particular study.

Thus, within the framework of our own practical research devoted to the problem of translating intertextual inclusions in fiction, we have attempted to differentiate the ideas about the content of the concept of "intertextuality" according to broad and narrow approaches through the use of methods of cognitive sciences and semiotics.

A.V. Kremneva bases her research on the phenomenon of intertextuality from the point of view of cognitive linguistics on N. N. Boldyrev's theory of conceptual derivation, which describes the mental processes of generating and processing new knowledge through the activation of the conceptual base existing in consciousness [Kremneva 2019].

Also at the present stage, cognitive sciences claim that the distinguishing feature of a human from an animal is the presence of the first thinking, which is carried out through speech, which, in turn, makes possible the verbal refraction of the surrounding reality by a person and, consequently, the accumulation and exchange of information in text format [Linnichenko; Sopina].

Thus, the analysis of cognitive science data has established that the human psyche, in general, tends to perceive new information by establishing associative links with textual reflections of the surrounding reality already present in consciousness.

The semiotic method was implemented by us in an experiment, the purpose of which was to analyze the mechanisms of recognition of borrowed elements of various types by addressees in non-verbal texts. To conduct this experiment, we selected compositions created by means of musical language as text material, due to the lower combinatorial potential of the units of this language system and, as a result, a higher degree of conventionality of their possible combinations, in comparison with similar parameters of natural language units [Kostka].

Our experiment demonstrated that in order to establish intertextual connections by the addressee of a musical text, it is necessary to have intentionally created by the author directly in the text prerequisites for this [Ryzhakov 2023].

Thus, we concluded that, analyzing the content of the concept of "intertextuality", it is appropriate to talk not about two opposite and mutually exclusive groups of approaches to understanding the same phenomenon, but about two different phenomena. On the one hand, intertextuality as a property of human consciousness is to perceive, accumulate, put into practice and transfer to other individuals knowledge about the surrounding reality through the continuous and often unconscious activation of frames created in the course of an individual's cultural activity. At the same time, the degree of awareness of the original source of obtaining a particular knowledge may vary in different situations [Ryzhakov 2022]. Such a description, in our opinion, generally corresponds to the point of view of representatives of the so-called broad approach. An example of this phenomenon at the macro level can be traditions, customs, worldview systems; at the micro level, the realization in specific situations of knowledge gained from the everyday experience of other people who previously found themselves in similar situations. In addition, the acquisition of knowledge about the language system and their application in speech activity is carried out according to the described principle.

Another phenomenon is the conscious, intentional inclusion in one's own discourse of elements of other people's discourses, manifested by the author as such, in order to exert a certain emotional and aesthetic effect on the addressee of one's own textual creation. A specific manifestation of this phenomenon, considered by us as a special expressive means, the figure of speech, is the use by the compilers of texts of various sign systems of units that establish a manifested connection with other textual creations through their representation in their own text in order to attract their content into their own textual creation and exert a certain influence on the addressee. Quotations and allusions of various types can serve as similar units [Dreev].

The analysis of the theoretical base devoted to the issues of intertextuality revealed insufficient knowledge of the linguistic aspects of this phenomenon underlying the solution of problems related to the translation of intertext [Long].

As a practical material for studying the peculiarities of the functioning of intertextual units, we have chosen literary prose works by postmodern writers due to the increased content of units of this type in them. This fact is due to one of the ideological principles of the postmodern aesthetic paradigm, which consists in the desire of postmodern authors to explore new ways of text generation and provide the recipients of their own writings with space to rethink the already existing cultural heritage [Eymar; Salazar Giraldo].

The component analysis applied to the units highlighted in the selected corpus of texts allowed us to conclude that, being the main form of implementation of the described technique at the linguistic level, the intertextual unit is characterized by discursive bilaterality, at the same time structural complexity and integrity, as well as pronounced targeting.

The bilaterality of the intertextual unit is expressed in the fact that, being part of the author's discourse, it has a specific material embodiment in it (let's call it "intertext"), on the one hand, which serves for the addressee as a reference to another textual generation (let's call it "source text"), on the other hand.

The complexity of the structure of the intertextual unit-quotation is manifested in the presence of such integral components as elements of other discourses directly borrowed by the author and attribution-an indication of the alienation of their authorship. At the same time, in the course of practical research, three main types of the plan of expression of borrowed discursive elements in the borrowing text were identified: a literal textual quotation; a transformed quotation, characterized by varying the plan of expression of the borrowed utterance with approximate preservation of its volume and content plan in the receiving text relative to the source of borrowing; a summarized quotation, characterized as a complete rejection of the reproduction of the original plan expressions in the receiving text, as well as a significant reduction in the volume of the borrowed utterance, which often leads to noticeable changes at the level of the intertext content plan compared with the source text.

Attribution is considered by us as an integral component of the intertextual unit, necessary to establish a connection with the source text of borrowing and to distinguish intertext from plagiarism. At the same time, in the course of the study, it was found that in a literary text attribution can be both in a contact position with respect to the intertext and in a non-contact position.  Attribution can be expressed by an accurate and complete indication of the source of borrowing, only by the name of the author of the borrowed statement, only by the name of the text from which the borrowing was carried out, an indefinite mention of the belonging of borrowed elements to another text, as well as a precedent phenomenon for the addressee of the text, representing the source of borrowing in the author's discourse. In the latter case, attribution may be part of a sequence of borrowed elements. Also, intertextual units consisting only of attribution should be highlighted in a special way, which we propose to consider allusions.

The targeting of an intertextual unit consists in the need for the author to create special conditions in the text for its identification and establishing a connection with the source text in order to semantically decode it by a specific addressee.

The analysis of theoretical literature in the field of intertextuality reveals a low degree of knowledge of the linguistic foundations of intertext functioning. The study of this range of issues can contribute to solving linguistic problems related to the generation of intertext, including in the secondary text during translation, as well as

It should be noted that the results obtained during the study of intertextual inclusions based on the material of artistic prose texts of postmodern writers, in our opinion, are relevant for this type of discourse and may differ in relation to other discursive systems.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.