Marking Intertextuality in the Artistic Discourse of the Twentieth Century
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28925/2311-2425.2025.248Keywords:
artistic text, artistic discourse, intertextuality, intertextual marker, direct and indirect intertextual markersAbstract
The article is devoted to the study of marking intertextual inclusions in literary discourse in order to reveal the semantic and functional potential of implicit and explicit markers of intertextuality in the works of American and English writers of the twentieth century. The analysis of intertextuality in artistic discourse helped to identify intertextual markers and determine the means of their representation, systematize intertextual inclusions and establish their discursive and functional potential. The research material was based on the novels "The Crying of Lot 49" by Thomas Pynchon and "A History of the World in 10½ Chapters" by Julian Barnes. The research methodology involved the method of close reading to analyze the structure of the novels, the method of textual analysis of the selected works, the methods of linguistic and intertextual analysis to identify and describe different types of intertextuality and intertextual relations, the method of intermedial analysis to establish semantic connections between intertextual elements belonging to related arts, the semantic stylistics method to describe linguistic and stylistic resources and their semantics, the deconstruction method for identifying indirect intertextual connections between interacting texts. The criteria for identification and typologization of intertextual markers are developed: direct and indirect. The peculiarities of semantics and functioning of intertextual markers in the analyzed corpus of material are outlined. The results of the study are based on the development of the author's taxonomy of direct and indirect markers of intertextuality, which will allow to assess the impact of the level of reader's competence on the understanding of literary texts.
Downloads
References
Areshenkov, Yu. O. (2006). Osnovy linhvistychnykh doslidzhen’: materialy do spetskursu dlya studentiv filolohichnykh spetsial’nostey: navch. posib. Kryvyy Rih: KDPU. (in Ukrainian)
Babych, V. I. (2016). Leksyko-semantychnyy analiz movnostylistychnykh zasobiv vyrazhennya lirychnoho ya v idiodyskursakh R. Frosta ta K. Sendberha. Science and Education a New Dimension. Philology, IV(17), 16–20.
Baran, Ye., & Hazdag, V. (2024). Slovnyk filolohichnykh terminiv. Zakarpats’kyy uhors’kyy instytut imeni Ferentsa Rakotsi II, Berehove. (in Ukrainian)
Berbenets, L. (2008). Postmodernists’kyy pastysh yak sposib pobudovy ta forma isnuvannya tvoriv mystetstva ta krytychnoho tekstu. Visnyk L’vivs’koho universytetu. Seriya filolohichna, Vyp. 44, ch. 2, 327–338.
Bekhta, T. O. (2019). Tekst i dyskurs u novitnikh paradyhmah linhvistychnykh znan’. Vcheni zapysky TNU im. V. I. Vernads’koho. Seriya: Filolohiya. Sotsial’ni komunikatsiyi, Tom 30 (69), No4. Ch. 2, 18–22. Doi: https://doi.org/10.32838/2663-6069/2019.4-2/04
Boyko, O. O. (2021). Realizatsiya katehoriyi intertekstual’nosti v khudozhn’omu dyskursi fentezi: dysertatsiya kand. filol. nauk. Odesa, from https://dspace.onu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/31317 (in Ukrainian)
Voloshuk, L. (2017). Intermedial’nist’ yak proyav mizh-mystets’koyi polifoniyi u novelakh Ol’hy Kobylyans’koyi. Synopsys: tekst, kontekst, media, 1 (17), 52–58. Doi: https://doi.org/10.28925/2311-259X.2017(1)2137
Vorobyova, M. V. (2006). Alyuzyvni zasoby u tekstakh polemichnoho dyskursu yak sposib vplyvu na chytacha. Visnyk SumDU. Seriya: Filolohichni nauky, 1(95).
Gokhman, K. Ye. (2017). Do pytannya korelyatsiyi terminiv "tekst" i "dyskurs". Naukovyy visnyk Pivdennoukrayins’koho natsional’noho pedahohichnoho universytetu im. K. D. Ushyns’koho. Linhvistychni nauky, № 25, 12–19.
Hrynyshyna, I. I., & Marchenko, T. M. (2012). Intertekstual’nist’ ta yii rol’ v analizi literaturnoho tvoru. Filolohichni nauky. Literaturoznavstvo, 12, 32–36.
Dzyk, R. (2018). Retseptsiya teoriyi intertekstual’nosti suchasnoyu ukrayins’koyu poetykoyu. Aktual’ni problemy literaturoznavchoyi terminolohiyi, 38, 38–45.
Zhalko, D. D. (2022). Markuvannya interdyskursyvnosti / intertekstual’nosti v kohnityvniy linhvistytsi. Visnyk KNLU. Seriya Filolohiya, 25(1). Kyyivs’kyy natsional’nyy linhvistychnyy universytet.
Kalenych, V. M. (2020). Intertekstual’nist’ u suchasnomu media dyskursi. In Modern Researches in Philological Sciences: collective monograph. Riga: Izdevnieciba "Baltija Publishing", from http://www.baltijapublishing.lv/omp/index.php/bp/catalog/view/36/653/1369-1.
Kolisnyk, Yu. (2010). Tekst i dyskurs: problemy defіnіtsіy. Visnyk Natsional’noho universytetu "L’vivs’ka politekhnika", No 675: Problemy ukrayins’koyi terminolohiyi. Bibliohrafіya: 13 nazv, from http://ena.lp.edu.ua/handle/ntb/6988.
Kondratenko, N. (2014). Spetsyfika intertekstual’noyi nominatsiyi v modernists’komu i postmodernists’komu khudozhn’omu tekstі. Ridnyy kray, № 2, 120–123, from http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Almpolt_2014_2_25 .
Kupets, I. Yu., & Karamysheva, I. D. (2020). Realizatsiya funktsiy hry sliv u romanakh Terri Pratchetta ta yikh perekladakh ukrayins’koyu. Sciences of Europe, (58-3), 53–56.
Liashko, O. V. (2020) Intertekstual’nist pravoslavnoyi propovidi: taksonomiya i funktsiyi (na materiali anhliyskoyi, rosiyskoyi ta ukrayins’koyi mov). (Dysertatsiya). Kyyivs’kyy natsional’nyy linhvistychnyy universytet, Kyyiv. (in Ukrainian)
Mats’ko, L. I., Sydorenko, O. M., & Mats’ko, O. M. (2003). Stylistyka ukrayins’koyi movy: Pidruchnyk. Za red. L. I. Mats’ko. Kyyiv: Vyshcha shkola. (in Ukrainian)
Merkotan, L. (2013). Zasoby realizatsiyi katehoriyi intertekstual’nosti. Studia linguistica, Vyp. 7, 358–363, from http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Stling_2013_7_58
Mitosek, Z. (2003). Teoriyi literaturnykh doslidzhen’. Simferopol’: Tavriya. (in Ukrainian)
Nych, R. (2007). Svit tekstu: poststrukturalizm i literaturoznavstvo (O. Haleta, per.). L’viv: Lytopys. (in Ukrainian)
Pavliy, A. (2023). Intertekstual’nist’ yak vyd literaturnoyi hry v suchasniy literaturi (na materiali tvoriv A. Merdok). Aktual’ni problemy inozemnoyi filolohiyi i linhvodydaktyky: zb. nauk. st. zdobuvachiv vyshchoyi osvity f-ty inozemnoyi filolohiyi KHNPU im. H. S. Skovorody, Vyp. 5, 170–173.
Pempus’, T. S. (2006). Metafora: teoretyko-literaturnyy aspekt. Visnyk Zhytomyrs’koho derzhavnoho universytetu imeni Ivana Franka, No 1 (26), 117–121.
Perelomova, O. S. (2008). Intertekstual’nist’ — strukturna oznaka tekstiv ukrayins’koho postmodernoho khudozhn’oho dyskursu. Visnyk SumDU. Seriya: Filolohiya, №1, 174–180, from http://essuir.sumdu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/1727
Potapenko, S. (2019). Intertekstual’nist’ ta yii folklorystychi obriyi. Slovo i Chas, (11), 66–72.
Prybluda, L. M. (2013). Do problemy vyznachennya statusu khudozhn’oho dyskursu. Teoretychna i dydaktychna filolohiya, 16, 5, from https://dspace.nuft.edu.ua/jspui/bitstream/123456789/8737/1/hd.pdf
Prybluda, L. M. (2022). Khudozhn’iy dyskurs: problema interpretatsiyi. Vcheni zapysky TNU imeni V. I. Vernads’koho, 33(72)(1), 78–82.
Prokopenko, A. V., & Mozul’, R. V. (2020). Trudnoshchi perekladu intertekstual’nykh vklyuchen’ romanu antyutopiyi O. Haksli "Prekrasnyy novyy svit". Zapysky z romano-hermans’koyi filolohiyi, 2(45), 69–77.
Prosalova, V. A. (2019). Intertekstual’nyy analiz: teoriya i praktyka: navchal’nyy posibnyk. Vinnytsya. (in Ukrainian)
Raybedyuk, H. (2023). Intertekstual’ni markery biohrafichnoho dyskursu liryky Iryny Kalynets’. Filolohichni dialohy, (9), 115–122.
Selivanova, O. O. (2008). Suchasna linhvistyka: napryamy ta problemy: pidruchnyk. Poltava: Dovkillia-K. (in Ukrainian)
Semenyuk, O. A. (2019). Khudozhn’iy dyskurs yak vidobrazhennya avtors’koyi kartyny svitu (linhvokul’turolohichnyy pidkhid). Vcheni zapysky Tavriys’koho natsional’noho universytetu im. V. I. Vernads’koho. Seriya: Filolohiya. Sotsial’ni komunikatsiyi, 30(69)(1), 7–10.
Torchyns’ka, N. (2014). Chuzhe movlennya yak intertekstual’nyy element (na prykkladakh epihrafiv do tvoriv ukrayins’koyi literatury). Aktual’ni problemy filolohiyi ta perekladoznavstva, (7), 173.
Frolova, I. Ye., & Ometsyns’ka, O. V. (2018). Spetsyfika khudozhn’oho dyskursu ta yoho aspektiv. Visnyk Kharkivs’koho natsional’noho universytetu imeni V. N. Karazina. Seriya: Inozemna filolohiya. Metodyka vykladannya inozemnykh mov, from http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/VKhIPG_2018_87_8
Chayun, I. (2023). Intermedial’nist’ yak pryntsyp pobudovy khudozhn’oho tekstu (teoretychnyy aspekt). Aktual’ni pytannya humanitarnykh nauk, Vyp. 64. T. 2, 253–257.
Shapoval, M. (2009). Intertekst u svitli rampy: mizhtekstovi ta mizhsub’yektni relyatsiyi ukrayins’koyi dramy. Kyyiv: Avtohraf. (in Ukrainian)
Shapoval, M. (2013). Intertekstual’nist’: istoriya, teoriya, poetyka: navchal’nyy posibnyk. Kyyiv: Vydavnycho-polihrafichnyy tsentr "Kyyivs’kyy universytet". (in Ukrainian)
Sharova, I. O. (2023). Markery intertekstual’nosti (transtekstual’nosti) ta mizhtekstual’ni zv’yazky. Sotsial’ni komunikatsiyi: instrumenty, tekhnolohiya i praktyka: materialy mizhnarodnoyi naukovo-praktychnoyi konferentsiyi, m. Zaporizhzhya, 28–29 kvitnya 2023 r., L’viv – Torun’: Liha-Pres, s. 52. Doi: https://doi.org/10.36059/978-966-397-313-5-13
Shvets’, Ya. (2010). Zastosuvannya terminiv intertekstual’nist’ ta intertekst u suchasniy komunikatyvniy linhvistytsi. Visnyk Natsional’noho universytetu "L’vivs’ka politekhnika", (675), 195–197.
Barnes, J. (1989). A history of the world in 10½ chapters. Vintage.
Barthes, R. (2001). From work to text. In V. B. Leitch et al. (Eds.), The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (pp. 1470-1475). W. W. Norton and Company.
Broich, U. (1985). Formen der Markierung von Intertextualität. In U. Broich & M. Pfister (Eds.), Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Charlton T. Lewis (1891) An Elementary Latin Dictionary, New York: Harper & Brothers, from https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?type=exact&lookup=odos&lang=greek
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Genette, G. (1997a). Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. University of Nebraska Press.
Genette, G. (1997b). Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.
Holtus, S. (1994). Intertextuality and the reading of Roman poetry. In S. Hinds (Ed.), Intertextuality and Latin Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. Chapter 4: Word, Dialogue, and Novel, 66-146.
Lachmann, K. (1850). Über die Aufgabe der Textkritik. Berlin: G. Reimer.
Lachmann, R. (1989). Concepts of intertextuality. In Issues in Slavic Literary and Cultural Theory (pp. 391-400). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. – Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
Pynchon, T. (1966). The Crying of Lot 49. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company, from https://royallib.com/read/Pynchon_Thomas/The_Crying_of_Lot_49.html#20480.
Rajewsky I. О. (2005). Intermediality, Intertextuality, and Remediation : A Literary Perspective on Intermediality. Intermédialités / Intermediality. No 6, 43–64. Doi: https://doi.org/10.7202/1005505ar.
Riffaterre, M. (1978). Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Riffaterre, M. (1979). La Production du texte. Paris: Seuil.
Sager, S. (1997). Intertextualität und die Interaktivität von Hypertexten. In Textbeziehungen: Linguistische und literaturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Intertextualität. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Seed, D. (1988). The Fictional Labyrinths of Thomas Pynchon. London: The Macmillan Press LTD.
Tanner, T. (1982). Thomas Pynchon. London–New York: Methuen.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 CC BY 4.0 DEED Attribution 4.0 International
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
