METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING LINGUISTIC MARKERS IN THE ARTISTIC INTERTEXTS OF 20TH-CENTURY AMERICAN AND BRITISH WRITERS (BASED ON J. BARNES’ “A HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN 10½ CHAPTERS”)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/philspu/2024.7.16Keywords:
method, methodology, linguistic marker, intertextuality, intertext, artistic intertext, artistic microintertextAbstract
The article presents a methodology for identifying linguistic markers in the artistic intertexts of American and British writers of the 20th century, which includes three sequential stages. Particular attention is paid to using linguistic markers in the artistic microintertext. The analysis examines the linguistic and stylistic devices employed to establish intertextual connections and convey ideas in literary works. The proposed chain model, encompassing mega-, macro-, and microintertexts, allows for the identification of multilevel intertextual structures consisting of individual textual fragments (microintertexts) united by a common idea or theme within larger sections (macrointertexts) and the complete work (megaintertext). The primary object of the study is J. Barnes’s “A History of the World in 10½ Chapters”, in which various types of intertextuality– direct (explicit) and indirect (implicit)–have been identified. Using methods such as close reading, intertextual analysis, linguistic text analysis, and deconstruction, linguistic markers have been identified that demonstrate the complexity and multilayered nature of intertextual connections in literary work. It has been established that direct intertextuality is expressed through explicit references to other texts or ideas using stylistic devices such as anaphora, metaphor, allegory, and rhetorical questions. Indirect intertextuality manifests through the use of less obvious markers, including modal verbs, passive constructions, or conditional sentences, which create an ambiguous context and add depth to the literary work. The study gives special attention to the use of lexical markers of intertextuality, such as allegory, anaphora, metaphor, hyperbole, and symbolism. It has been determined that, due to the richness of linguistic and stylistic devices used to construct intertextual connections, writers create multidimensional and rich textual spaces, contributing to a deeper perception and interpretation of literary works.
References
Шабат-Савка, С. Т. Комунікативна інтенція як міжрівнева лінгвістична категорія. Мовознавчий вісник. 2015. Вип. 20. С. 114-120.
Barthes, R. Image, music, text. In S. Heath (Ed.), The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 37(2), (pp. 235-236). New York: Hill and Wang, 1977.
Culler, J. The pursuit of signs: Semiotics, literature, deconstruction. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1976.
Derrida, J. Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak Trans.), Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.
Fairclough, N. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman, 1995, 60-85.
Fish, S. E. Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.
Kristeva, J. Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art (T. Gora, A. Jardine, & L. S. Roudiez Trans.), New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.
Nünning, A., & Nünning, V. An introduction to the study of English and American literature. Stuttgart: Klett, 2004.
Riffaterre, M. Semiotics of poetry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978.
van Dijk, T. A. Discourse as structure and process. London: Sage, 1997, 85.
Zhang, J. Intertextuality: A new perspective in literary criticism. The Commercial Press, 1996, 1-5.
Barnes, J. A history of the world in 10½ chapters. New York: Knopf, 1989, 76. URL: https://archive.org/details/historyofworldin00barn_0