About the significance of the recipient’s background knowledge factor for the comment text

UDC 81`42:808.2

https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.3-22.137          

Akulova Arina A.,

Independent Researcher, Leading Editor

“Neva Publishing House” LLC

e-mail: arina_akulova@mail.ru 

The article is devoted to the problem of transferring background knowledge to the recipient of the text when composing the text of a commentary to a work of fiction; the need to translate not only referential, but also pragmatic and extralinguistic meanings of the text in the commentary is indicated. The transfer of extralinguistic — non-linguistic — components is an integral part of the modern practice of commenting when working with text. In linguistics, in relation to translated texts, this approach is called pragmatic, however, we emphasize that within the framework of this approach, we consider a commentary on a Russian-language foreign-cultural text, determine its function in the text. Special attention is paid to the typology of the commentary as a text from the standpoint of linguistic science. We believe that within the framework of the text-centric paradigm, we will analyze a kind of meta-texts “artistic text — commentary to it” (based on the well-known classification of intertextual and intratextual relations of J. Genette), we propose to consider them in chronological order.

Keywords: commentary, background knowledge, pragmatics, extralinguistic, intralinguistic, understanding, intercultural communication.

References

1.    Ponimanie — eto… Chto takoe ponimanie? // Slovari i entsiklopedii na Akademike. URL: https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/logic/278 (16.10.2021).

2.    Likhachev D.S. O filologii. Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1989. 208 s.

3.    Lesokhina A.M., Miroshnichenko S.A. Metodicheskie priemy pri obuchenii chteniiu inoiazychnykh khudozhestvennykh tekstov v kontekste dialoga kul’tur // Rusistika. 2015. No. 4. S. 176–182.

4.    Sorokin Yu.A., Markovina I.Yu. Natsional’no-kul’turnaia spetsifika khudozhestvennogo teksta. Moscow, 1989.

5.    Gubanova E.O. Neiavnoe znanie: sushchnost’ i vidy // Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie. 2010. No. 4. S. 253–256.

6.    Vinogradov V.S. Vvedenie v perevodovedenie (obshchie i leksicheskie voprosy). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo instituta obshchego srednego obrazovaniia RAO, 2001. 224 s.

7.    Fonovye znaniia — eto… Chto takoe fonovye znaniia? // Slovari i entsiklopedii na Akademike. URL: https://sociolinguistics.academic.ru/788/Фоновые_знания (07.10.2021).

8.    Komarova L.I. Obshchie fonovye znaniia avtora i chitatelia kak uslovie ponimaniia teksta // Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriia: Gumanitarnye nauki. 2010. No. 2. S. 181–187.

9.    Arutyunova N.D. Pragmatika // Lingvisticheskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar’. Moscow, 1990. URL: http://tapemark.narod.ru/les/389e.html (07.10.2021.

10.  Akulova A.A. Soderzhanie termina «kommentarii» v nauchnom tekste i v uzual’nom upotreblenii // Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. 2019. T. 12. No. 2. S. 171–175.

11.  Karasik V.I. Kommentarii kak zhanr germenevticheskogo diskursa // Iazyk, kommunikatsiia i sotsial’naia sreda. 2009. No. 7. S. 32–47.

12.  Khirachev G. Salam tebe, Dalgat! URL: https://bookscafe.net/book/hirachev_gulla-salam_tebe_dalgat-179618.html (09.09.2021).

13.  Ganieva A.A. Zhenikh i nevesta: roman. Moscow: AST: Redaktsiia Eleny Shubinoi, 2015. 288 s.

14.  Genette G. Figury: v 2 t. Moscow: Izd-vo im. Sabashnikovykh, 1998.

15.  Tomakhin G.D. Realii — amerikanizmy: posobie po stranovedeniiu. Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1988. 238 s.

16.  Iou // Vikislovar’. 2018. URL: https://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B9%D0%BE%D1%83 (10.10.2021).