LINGUIST List 17.805
|
Thu Mar 16 2006
Diss: Text/Corpus Ling: Griffig: 'Intertextuality ...'
Editor for this issue: Takako Matsui
<tako linguistlist.org>
|
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
|
Directory
1. Thomas
Griffig,
Intertextuality in English and German Linguistic Research Articles
Message 1: Intertextuality in English and German Linguistic Research Articles
|
Date: 16-Mar-2006
From: Thomas Griffig <griffigas.rwth-aachen.de>
Subject: Intertextuality in English and German Linguistic Research Articles
Institution: Aachen University of Technology
Program: Diachronic Linguistics
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 2005
Author: Thomas Griffig
Dissertation Title: Intertextuality in English and German Linguistic Research Articles
Dissertation URL: http://darwin.bth.rwth-aachen.de/opus/volltexte/2005/1314/
Linguistic Field(s):
Pragmatics
Sociolinguistics
Text/Corpus Linguistics
Subject Language(s): English (eng)
German, Standard (deu)
Dissertation Director:
Rudolf Beier
Wolfgang Butzkamm
Dissertation Abstract:
The concept of 'intertextuality' has its origins in modern literary theory
and is closely linked with the concept of 'dialogicity' developed as early
as the nineteen-twenties by Russian literary theorist and philosopher
Michail Bakhtin. This concept, which also became known under the term
'dialogism', is part of an ideology-critical approach, with which the
author opposes the 'monological', i.e. affirmative and mutually accepted
use of language in certain literary genres that prevailed in socialistic
realism. By understanding each and every literary text as a dialogue
between author and reader, as a symbol relative to other texts and symbols
and hence as an open, dynamic system, the Bakhtinian concept provides the
ultimate motivation to liberate the text conceptualised within
significantly narrower limits in the conventional, structuralistic literary
studies approach, where the text and/or literary work are regarded as
static, encapsulated, organic units. Representative of the post-structural
and deconstructive liberation of the text is the Bulgarian semiotician
Julia Kristeva, who introduced the concept of intertextuality into
theoretical discussions on text in a direct further development of
Bakhtinian theories in the mid nineteen-sixties, in order to identify the
complex relationships that (can) exist between texts.
This dissertation deals with the concept of intertextuality from a
linguistic perspective and examines the complex meshwork of forms and
functions of intertextuality occurring in certain LSP (Language for
Special/Specific Purposes) texts and text types. What constitutes
intertextuality in LSP texts? What are the different varieties of
intertextuality that can be distinguished in LSP texts and through which
linguistic, graphic and/or typographic means are they realised? Which
communicative-functional objectives can text producers pursue through the
deliberate and intended creation of (marked) intertextuality in LSP texts?
In order to find answers to these and other questions, Intertextual
References are defined, from a pragmalinguistic perspective, as the
realisations of certain intertextual speech acts performed by the text
producers and appearing on the surface of the text. These references are
the central unit of analysis of a systematic examination model consisting
of various dimensions and options. This model is applied by means of a
contrastive-interlingual, empirical examination of an extensive corpus
consisting of sixty text samples from German and English research articles
from the field of modern synchronic linguistics. As well as interlingual
and intercultural aspects, the potential influence of certain
non-linguistic (social) factors relevant to the text producers represented
in the corpus are also considered, which were determined in the run-up to
the examination by means of questionnaires (e.g. sex, age, publication
experience). The empirical results are presented in tabulated format and
the contrasts compared. As well as various interlingual and/or
intercultural differences emerging with regard to the individual dimensions
and options between the German and English texts, several tendencies
concerning the examined non-linguistic characteristics of the text
producers are revealed, through which certain hints and assumptions
occurring in the linguistic literature and/or the received questionnaires
can be partially confirmed and partially refuted.
Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
|
|
Please report any bad links or misclassified data
LINGUIST Homepage | Read
LINGUIST | Contact us
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.
|
|
