Your shopping cart is empty.
Log in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Библиотека журнала 

"Филологические науки"

Все подробности в разделе
"Книжная полка"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transtextual study of cinematic discourse

T.V. Dukhovnaya

UDC 81`42

https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.4-21.093            

 

Dukhovnaya Tatiana Valeryevna,

Candidate of Philology, Senior Lecturer

of the Applied Linguistics and Information Technology Department

Kuban State University

e-mail: tdukhovnaya@mail.ru  

 

 The article examines textual connections that cinematic discourse establishes with other precedent discourses. The research is based on the theory of transtextuality developed by the French scientist, Gerard Genette. The paper proves the ability of cinematic discourse to form all types of transtextual connections: intertextual, paratextual, metatextual, hypertextual, and architectual. Based on the analysis of these relations, their specific characteristics and functions are determined. Namely, to convey meanings explicitly or implicitly, make references to literary texts, previous films, movie images, influence the process of perception and understanding of cinematic discourse, guide viewers’ expectations in a certain direction, modify discourse of the past using the present, and employing the past, predict the future. In addition, the research contributes to the study of cinematic discourse and reveals the important characteristic of its structure — openness.

Keywords: cinematic discourse, transtextuality, intertextuality, paratextuality, metatextuality, hypertextuality, architextuality.

 

References

  1. Allen G. Intertextuality (The new critical idiom). New York: Routledge, 2011. 256 p.
  2. Androutsopoulos J. Introduction: Language and society in cinematic discourse // Multilingua. 2012. Vol. 31. P. 139–154.
  3. Barthes R. The rustle of language / transl. by Richard Howard. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. 373 p.
  4. Beaugrande R., Dressler W.U. Introduction to text linguistics. New York: Routledge, 2013. 286 p.
  5. Bednarek M. The language of fictional television: drama and identity. London: Continuum, 2010. 304 p.
  6. Bednarek M. Constructing “Nerdiness”: characterization in “The Big Bang Theory” // Multilingua. 2012. Vol. 31 (2–3). P. 199–229.
  7. Chepinchikj N., Thompson C. Analysing cinematic discourse using conversation analysis // Discourse, Context and Media. 2016. Vol. 14. P. 40–53.
  8. Chen Y., Wang W. Relating visual images to subtitle translation in “Finding Nemo”: a multi-semiotic interplay // Translation and Interpreting. 2016. Vol. 8 (1). P. 69–85.
  9. Chovanec J. Humour in quasi-conversations: Constructing fun in online sports journalism // The pragmatics of humour across discourse domains / Dynel M. (ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 2011. P. 243–264.
  10. Dynel М. Stranger than fiction? A few methodological notes on linguistic research in film discourse // Brno Studies in English. 2011. Vol. 37 (1). P. 41–46.
  11. Genette G. Palimpsests: literature in the second degree / transl. by Ch. Newman, C. Doubinsky. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. 491 p.
  12. Janney R. Pragmatics and cinematic discourse // Lodz Papers in Pragmatics. 2012. Vol. 8 (1). P. 85–113.
  13. Kline T.J. Screening the text: Intertextuality in new wave French cinema. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. 324 p.
  14. Kristeva J. Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. 305 p.
  15. Metz C. Film language: A semiotics of the cinema. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974. 286 p.
  16. Telecinematic discourse: Approaches to the language of films and television series / Piazza R., Bednarek M., Rossi F. (eds.). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011. 327 p.
  17. Reid G. Transtextuality in film adaptation: Fidelity revisited // Congress of the Humanities, Joint session of Association for Canadian and Quebec Literatures and Film Studies Association of Canada. London: University of Western Ontario, 2005.
  18. Richardson K. Television dramatic dialogue: A sociolinguistic study. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. 272 p.
  19. Sakellariou P. Intertextualit // The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies / Baker M., Saldanha G. (eds.). 2019. P. 266–270.
  20. Vikulova L.G. Magic French literary fairy tale of the late XVI — early XVIII century. Irkutsk: Irkutsk State Linguistic University, 2001. 286 p.
  21. Yampolskiy M. Intertextuality and cinematography. Moscow: RIK “Kultura”, 1993. 464 p.
  22. Transtextual study of four paintings of the contemporary artist, Aydin Aghdashloo / Yazdanpanah M., Kateb F., Dadvar A., Kermani M.H. // Kimiya-Ye-Honar Journal. 2019. Vol. 29. P. 72–83.