诗学的回归。茱莉亚·克里斯蒂娃vs米哈伊尔·巴赫金

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
K. Barsht
{"title":"诗学的回归。茱莉亚·克里斯蒂娃vs米哈伊尔·巴赫金","authors":"K. Barsht","doi":"10.21638/spbu09.2021.201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article offers an analysis of the concept of “intertext” that has been put forward by Julia Kristeva in her work “The Destruction of Poetics” in comparison with Mikhail Bakhtin’s idea of a universal context and “infinite dialogue”. It is concluded that Kristeva incorrectly perceived Bakhtin’s thoughts about context and dialogue, which are personalistic in nature in contrast to Kristeva’s impersonal one based on the Freudian-driven “It” and social factors of the “intertext”. The article analyzes the theoretical basis of this concept, including the crisis in literary theory in the 1970s–1980s where there was frustration by the European and Russian scientific community in the universalism of binary oppositions. In this regard, the issue of overcoming the theoretical difficulties of literary aesthetics with the help of the ternary model of aesthetic communication (“metalinguistics”), which was developed by Bakhtin in his works since the 1930s and was not heeded by Kristeva, has not yet been mastered in modern philological science. This concept is based on the idea of aesthetics as metaethics, which is built up in the process of textual communication over simple binary ethical exchange. The article suggests that the use of this idea of a ternary (metalinguistic) construction of the communicative field of a literary work can significantly advance the solution of many problems in theoretical poetics, in particular, reveal new ways for linking the discursive-textual and axiological fields of a literary-fiction text into one whole.","PeriodicalId":41205,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Yazyk i Literatura","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The return of poetics. Julia Kristeva vs Mikhail Bakhtin\",\"authors\":\"K. Barsht\",\"doi\":\"10.21638/spbu09.2021.201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article offers an analysis of the concept of “intertext” that has been put forward by Julia Kristeva in her work “The Destruction of Poetics” in comparison with Mikhail Bakhtin’s idea of a universal context and “infinite dialogue”. It is concluded that Kristeva incorrectly perceived Bakhtin’s thoughts about context and dialogue, which are personalistic in nature in contrast to Kristeva’s impersonal one based on the Freudian-driven “It” and social factors of the “intertext”. The article analyzes the theoretical basis of this concept, including the crisis in literary theory in the 1970s–1980s where there was frustration by the European and Russian scientific community in the universalism of binary oppositions. In this regard, the issue of overcoming the theoretical difficulties of literary aesthetics with the help of the ternary model of aesthetic communication (“metalinguistics”), which was developed by Bakhtin in his works since the 1930s and was not heeded by Kristeva, has not yet been mastered in modern philological science. This concept is based on the idea of aesthetics as metaethics, which is built up in the process of textual communication over simple binary ethical exchange. The article suggests that the use of this idea of a ternary (metalinguistic) construction of the communicative field of a literary work can significantly advance the solution of many problems in theoretical poetics, in particular, reveal new ways for linking the discursive-textual and axiological fields of a literary-fiction text into one whole.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Yazyk i Literatura\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Yazyk i Literatura\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2021.201\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Yazyk i Literatura","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2021.201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对茱莉亚·克里斯蒂娃在《诗学的毁灭》中提出的“互文”概念进行了分析,并与巴赫金的“普遍语境”和“无限对话”概念进行了比较。结论是,Kristeva错误地理解了巴赫金关于语境和对话的思想,这些思想本质上是个人主义的,与Kristeva基于弗洛伊德驱动的“它”和“互文”的社会因素的非个人主义思想形成了鲜明对比。文章分析了这一概念产生的理论基础,包括20世纪70 - 80年代欧洲和俄罗斯科学界对二元对立的普遍主义的挫败所引发的文学理论危机。在这一点上,借助巴赫金自20世纪30年代以来在其作品中提出的、但没有被克里斯蒂娃注意到的三元美学传播模型(“元语言学”)来克服文学美学的理论困难,是现代语言学尚未掌握的问题。这一概念的基础是美学作为元伦理学的理念,这一理念是在简单的二元伦理交换的文本交流过程中建立起来的。本文认为,运用三元(元语言)构建文学作品交际场的思想,可以极大地促进理论诗学中许多问题的解决,特别是揭示了将文学小说文本的话语-文本和价值论领域联系为一个整体的新途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The return of poetics. Julia Kristeva vs Mikhail Bakhtin
The article offers an analysis of the concept of “intertext” that has been put forward by Julia Kristeva in her work “The Destruction of Poetics” in comparison with Mikhail Bakhtin’s idea of a universal context and “infinite dialogue”. It is concluded that Kristeva incorrectly perceived Bakhtin’s thoughts about context and dialogue, which are personalistic in nature in contrast to Kristeva’s impersonal one based on the Freudian-driven “It” and social factors of the “intertext”. The article analyzes the theoretical basis of this concept, including the crisis in literary theory in the 1970s–1980s where there was frustration by the European and Russian scientific community in the universalism of binary oppositions. In this regard, the issue of overcoming the theoretical difficulties of literary aesthetics with the help of the ternary model of aesthetic communication (“metalinguistics”), which was developed by Bakhtin in his works since the 1930s and was not heeded by Kristeva, has not yet been mastered in modern philological science. This concept is based on the idea of aesthetics as metaethics, which is built up in the process of textual communication over simple binary ethical exchange. The article suggests that the use of this idea of a ternary (metalinguistic) construction of the communicative field of a literary work can significantly advance the solution of many problems in theoretical poetics, in particular, reveal new ways for linking the discursive-textual and axiological fields of a literary-fiction text into one whole.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信