Lecture Introduction. Fiction. System of literature. Plans

Lecture 10. Intertextuality
The theory of intertextuality, which was formed relatively recently, is now attracting the attention of many researchers. Yulia Kristeva, who is credited with introducing the term "intertextuality", defines it as the property of any text to enter into a dialogue with other texts.In the process of further development of the theory of intertextuality, new interpretations and definitions of the concept itself appeared in the works of various researchers. We follow the definition of intertextuality proposed by M.L. Malakhovskaya, and interpreted intertextuality as "the presence of elements in the text that, due to the author's purposeful strategy or regardless of his intentions, activate other texts in the reader's mind that he had read earlier."The phenomenon of intertextuality may occur in texts of any functional styles, however, intertextuality is of the greatest interest and the greatest complication for translation in a literary text, because in fiction the use of intertextualisms becomes an important style-forming and sense-generating factor.
1. The existing theories of intertextuality cover only various individual aspects of this complex phenomenon; in order to create an algorithm for the translator's actions to transfer intertextual elements, it is necessary to develop their general categorization.
2. The following categories of intertextual elements are relevant for translation:
* the category of prominence of the prototext;
* category of the dominant function of the intertextual element;
* category of the level of functioning of the intertextual element;
* category of the intertextual element format.
3. In translation, one should strive to preserve the categorical forms of the category of the dominant function and the category of the format of the intertextual element, and the former is of greater importance.
The categorical forms of the category of prominence of the prototext and the category of the level of functioning of the intertextual element determine the choice of translation techniques that ensure optimal transmission of intertextualism and the achievement of representativeness of translation.
4. Not all intertextual elements should necessarily be preserved in the translation text, some of them should be adapted in order to preserve the communicative equivalence of the original text and ensure the representativeness of the translation. (The need for adaptation, as a rule, arises when transmitting intertextual elements appealing to the reader's national background knowledge.)
The translator is obliged to preserve in the translation the meaning-generating intertextual elements functioning at the metametasemiotic level. If it is impossible to fully convey their meaning within the text, such elements must be provided with a translation commentary, since their omission or insufficiently complete transmission may entail significant semantic losses.
5. Two types of adaptation are acceptable in translation: explication and substitution, aimed at the mass reader. As a rule, intertextualisms functioning at the semantic and metasemiotic levels are adapted. The purpose of adaptation is to ensure the fulfillment of the dominant function of the intertextual element in the translation text.
6. Cultural adjustment is a special type of adaptation that allows to keep the metametasemiotic level of functioning of the intertextual element in the translation text. Nevertheless, cultural adaptation should be resorted to with great caution, since it can lead to the loss of authentic national color, its replacement and the emergence of new connotations, which does not meet the criteria of representativeness of translation.
7. Translation commentary is one of the primary ways to compensate for semantic losses in translation; it should be resorted to in situations where the transfer of meaning within the text is impossible. At the same time, first of all, it is necessary to comment on the meaning-generating intertextual elements. In order to fulfill its main task comment– to compensate for the meaning that cannot be expressed within the framework of the translation text - it must have a linguistic and cultural character and be contextually oriented.
In the procces of further research, new interpretations of the concept appeared in the works of various authors, as well as new approaches to the study of intertext. In the works of V.E. Chernyavskaya and M.L. Malakhovskaya, three main models of interpretation of the phenomenon of intertextuality are distinguished:
1. a broad model of intertextuality (intertextuality as a universal property of any text);
2. a narrow model of intertextuality (intertextuality as the fact of the co-presence of one or more other texts in one text, realized in conscious author's techniques);
3. the negative model of intertextuality (intertextuality is a buzzword behind which there is no linguistic reality).
On the basis of observations accumulated by translation specialists and existing classifications, as well as a comparative analysis of intertextual elements in the novel by J. We have identified the following four categories of intertextual elements relevant for Russian translation:
a) the category of fame of the proto-text;
b) the category of the dominant function of the intertextual element;
c) category of the level of functioning of the intertextual element;
d) category of the intertextual element format
Highlighting the category of prototext fame (in the source and host cultures), we consider its two main aspects: synchronic (differences in the corpus of precedent texts in different cultures in the same historical period) and diachronic (the change in the volume of this corpus within one or more cultures over time).
As a result, it becomes obvious that there is a corpus of texts that are widely known (these are universal texts, i.e. texts that are "nuclear" for all cultures), and there is a corpus of texts that are less well-known (these are texts that are "nuclear" for one culture), and the recognition of the proto-text may change over time. Therefore, when translating fiction, one should always keep in mind the differences in the corpus of "nuclear" texts in different cultures. Thus, most of Shakespeare's plays are well known to the educated Russian reader, whereas the works of J. F. Curran, Thomas Campbell, Gerald Griffin, and even Thomas Gray are most likely unknown to him (or known to a much lesser extent).The following categorical forms can be distinguished in the category of fame of the prototext:
* the proto-text is well-known and easily recognizable by the reader of the translation (the proto-text is a universal, "nuclear" text for both cultures; for example, Shakespeare's plays or the text of the Bible (to a lesser extent);
* theprototext may not be recognized by readers belonging to another linguistic and cultural collective (i.e. it is "nuclear", but only for one culture; for example, relevant allusions or quotations from authors who do not have international fame), or it is not part of modern culture and will be incomprehensible to the modern reader regardless of his cultural and linguistic affiliation;
* theprototext is very narrowly known (practically to a circle of specialists).
Here are some examples.