| Article |
|---|
| Article name |
Text as an Open Structure |
| Authors |
Sergeev D.V.Candidate of Culturology, Associate professor dvsergeev@inbox.ru |
| Bibliographic description |
|
| Section |
|
| DOI |
|
| UDK |
008 |
| Article type |
|
| Annotation |
Acceleration of social changes and a rapid development of technological progress affected
the theoretical concepts of the text. The text appears as an open, self-developing semantically
non-identical structure, relatively autonomous from social and cultural reality. Scientists in the
second half of the XXth and the beginning of the XXIst centuries (U. Eco, P. Ricoeur, D. McKenzie,
V. P. Rudnev, F. Bon) explain the ability to generate new meaning of the text which is different
from the author’s one. Some researchers dispute the existence of this text feature (M. Vernet).
In text theories researchers turn their attention to the role of a publisher and an editor responsible
for the choice among alternative variants of a text, and a reader capable of creative force
to independently make their own text meaning and, thus, becoming a co-author. Openness is
a feature of all cultural texts (for instance, functional transformation of location) but it becomes
apparent in a modern socio-cultural reality where a pragmatic-semantical behavior, i. e. text
perceptions, text attitudes and text treatment, is formed. In particular previouslyunclaimedversions
of the text become actual andrelevant to a modern social and culturalsituation; the authors
useopennessas an artistic effect.
|
| Key words |
cultural text, open text, semantic non-identity, pragmatic-semantical behavior,
modern society, cultural sense, text theory. |
| Article information |
|
| References |
1. Vitel\' E. B. Khudozhestvennaya kul\'tura XX veka: ot antropotsentrizma k novoi khudozhestvennoi
real\'nosti: monografiya. Kostroma: KGU im. N. A. Nekrasova, 2009. 293 s.
2. Grening S. «Yuzhnyi Park»: tsinizm i drugie postideologicheskie polumery // Logos.
№ 2(86). 2012. S. 215–233.
3. Gelbreit D. Novoe industrial\'noe obshchestvo. M.: AST: Tranzitkniga; SPb.: TerraFantastica,
2004. 602 s.
4. Manokhin D. «Oldboi»: semiozis neoborochnogo rimeika // Sovremennyi diskurs-analiz.
Vypusk 10. 2013. Elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal. URL: http://discourseanalysis.org/ada10.pdf (data
obrashcheniya: 02.04.2014).
5. Riker P. Konflikt interpretatsii. Ocherki o germenevtiki. M.: Akademicheskii Proekt, 2008. 695 s.
6. Rudnev V. P. Proch\' ot real\'nosti: Issledovaniya po filosofii teksta. II. M.: Agraf, 2000. 432 s.
7. Rudnev V. P. Filosofiya yazyka i semiotika bezumiya: Izbrannye raboty. M.: Territoriya
budushchego, 2007. 528 s.
8. Eko U. Rol\' chitatelya. Issledovaniya po semiotike teksta. SPb.: Simpozium, 2005. 502 s.
9. Bon F. Après le livre. Paris : Seuil, 2011. 284 p.
10. Canfora L. Le copiste comme auteur. Toulouse: Anacharsis, 2012. 128 p.
11. Cerquiglini Bernard. L’éloge de variante. Paris: Seuil, 1989. 128 p.
12. Chartier Roger. Préface. Textes, Formes, Interprétations // D. F. McKenzie. La bibliographie
et la sociologie des exts. Paris: Cercle de la Librairie, 1991. P. 5–18.
13. Diu I., Parinet E. Histoire des auteurs. Paris : Perrin, 2013.536 p.
14. Jaccottet P. Leçons. Laussanne : Payot, 1969. 36 p.
15. Jaccottet P. Poésie 1946 – 1967. Paris : Gallimard, 1971. 190 p.
16. Jaccottet P. A la lumière d’hiver. Paris : Gallimard, 1994. 170 p.
17. McKenzie D.F. La bibliographie et la sociologie des exts. Paris: Cercle de la Librairie,
1991. 120 p.
18. Vernet M. Comment lire Proust en 2013 ? // Acta fabula. Vol. 14, № 2, «Let’s Proust again !».
Février, 2013. URL: http ://www.fabula.org/revue/document7578.php (дата обращения: 27.01.2014). |
| Full article | Text as an Open Structure |
