LINGUIST List 17.805
Thu Mar 16 2006
Diss: Text/Corpus Ling: Griffig: 'Intertextuality ...'
Editor for this issue: Takako Matsui
<takolinguistlist.org>
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 theoryand is closely linked with the concept of 'dialogicity' developed as earlyas the nineteen-twenties by Russian literary theorist and philosopherMichail Bakhtin. This concept, which also became known under the term'dialogism', is part of an ideology-critical approach, with which theauthor opposes the 'monological', i.e. affirmative and mutually accepteduse of language in certain literary genres that prevailed in socialisticrealism. By understanding each and every literary text as a dialoguebetween author and reader, as a symbol relative to other texts and symbolsand hence as an open, dynamic system, the Bakhtinian concept provides theultimate motivation to liberate the text conceptualised withinsignificantly narrower limits in the conventional, structuralistic literarystudies approach, where the text and/or literary work are regarded asstatic, encapsulated, organic units. Representative of the post-structuraland deconstructive liberation of the text is the Bulgarian semioticianJulia Kristeva, who introduced the concept of intertextuality intotheoretical discussions on text in a direct further development ofBakhtinian theories in the mid nineteen-sixties, in order to identify thecomplex relationships that (can) exist between texts.
This dissertation deals with the concept of intertextuality from alinguistic perspective and examines the complex meshwork of forms andfunctions of intertextuality occurring in certain LSP (Language forSpecial/Specific Purposes) texts and text types. What constitutesintertextuality in LSP texts? What are the different varieties ofintertextuality that can be distinguished in LSP texts and through whichlinguistic, graphic and/or typographic means are they realised? Whichcommunicative-functional objectives can text producers pursue through thedeliberate and intended creation of (marked) intertextuality in LSP texts?In order to find answers to these and other questions, IntertextualReferences are defined, from a pragmalinguistic perspective, as therealisations of certain intertextual speech acts performed by the textproducers and appearing on the surface of the text. These references arethe central unit of analysis of a systematic examination model consistingof various dimensions and options. This model is applied by means of acontrastive-interlingual, empirical examination of an extensive corpusconsisting of sixty text samples from German and English research articlesfrom the field of modern synchronic linguistics. As well as interlingualand intercultural aspects, the potential influence of certainnon-linguistic (social) factors relevant to the text producers representedin the corpus are also considered, which were determined in the run-up tothe examination by means of questionnaires (e.g. sex, age, publicationexperience). The empirical results are presented in tabulated format andthe contrasts compared. As well as various interlingual and/orintercultural differences emerging with regard to the individual dimensionsand options between the German and English texts, several tendenciesconcerning the examined non-linguistic characteristics of the textproducers are revealed, through which certain hints and assumptionsoccurring in the linguistic literature and/or the received questionnairescan be partially confirmed and partially refuted.
|