Intertextuality of Chinese figures of speech is a cultural tradition in China, but it has not been paid attention to by us, and its application in modern life is even less, so it is necessary to make further research on it. However, the concept of intertextuality, which is emphasized by western postmodernism, is almost simply regarded as intertextuality in China. Although there may be some connection or overlap between them in language science, thinking cognition and expression, the two concepts of intertextuality and intertextuality should only be literally overlapped, and there is no essential internal connection. They belong to different theoretical categories, and their meanings and applications are quite different, not to mention a concept.
Paper Keywords: rhetoric; Intertextuality; Literary criticism; Intertextuality; postmodernism
As a Chinese figure of speech, "intertextuality" is a cultural tradition in China, but it has not been paid attention to by us, so it is necessary to further study it. However, the concept of intertextuality, which emphasizes the relationship between texts, has been translated into intertextuality almost routinely in China. The author thinks that although there may be some connection or overlap between them in language science, thinking cognition and expression, the two concepts of intertextuality and intertextuality should only be literally overlapped, and there is no essential internal connection: they belong to different theoretical categories, and their meanings and applications are quite different. We should inherit and carry forward the latter, dare to "bring it" and be good at "bringing it".
I. Intertextuality
Intertextuality, the so-called intertextuality, is a rhetorical device that lists two or more linguistic structural units with related or corresponding meanings based on the special needs of stylistic restriction or expression, and complements, permeates or restricts each other and explains each other in a certain order, so as to achieve specific artistic effects such as conciseness and euphemism. Intertextuality is a common form of expression in ancient poetry. In China culture, this expression had made great progress and matured before the Han and Tang Dynasties, and even in the Spring and Autumn Period when the language developed greatly. Therefore, the tradition of intertextuality or traditional intertextuality should have its roots. However, due to various reasons, especially after the rise of the New Culture Movement and the emergence and development of vernacular Chinese a hundred years ago, intertextuality has been less and less used, and seems to be shelved and alienated from us, so that all of us, including all kinds of Chinese teachers in primary and secondary schools, are indifferent to intertextuality now, so that it is often "a rhetorical device used by ancient poetry writers in poetry creation". This understanding not only splits the tradition, but also stifles intertextuality.
In fact, intertextuality is common in our daily life, film and television works and written expressions, but it is often easily let go. Or it is covered up by common rhetorical devices such as parallelism, which is not concerned by our readers and listeners, or even ignored by the author himself.
For example, we are familiar with "there is no shop in the back", "reward for meritorious service, penalty for negligence", "toss and turn", "a ditch on the left, a ridge on the right", "coming in the wind, going in the rain", "a hammer in the east, a stick in the west" and "having a baby" and so on. Which sentence is not an intertextual expression and which sentence is not modern Chinese?
Second, intertextuality and intertextuality
Intertextuality is the core concept of a literary theory that emphasizes the relationship between texts, which usually refers to the "interactive" relationship between two or more texts. As a "rebound against historicism and new criticism", the so-called "intertextuality", as a text strategy of post-modern literature, permeates all kinds of post-modern literature (including meta-novels, meta-poems, anti-narrative, pure novels, parody, collage and so on). It is a critical practice of value freedom, and it is also the so-called "intertextuality revolution"-a critical practice in which structuralist critics try to use intertextuality theory to look at and locate the relationship among humanities, society and even natural sciences after giving up the model of historicism and evolution. This critical practice does not belong to a specific critical group, but is related to several important intellectual movements in Europe in the 20th century, such as structuralist linguistics, psychoanalysis, Marxism, Russian formalism and deconstruction. Its representatives are Bakhtin, harold bloom, roland barthes and Julia Kristeva. It is two famous critics in Paris-Barthes and Kristeva who really promote the intertextuality revolution and systematically construct the concepts of text and intertextuality in theory.
(1) text, as well as Bakhtin's view of dialogue and carnival theory.
We know that in Bloom's theory of "influence anxiety", intertextuality is only the influence relationship between two individual poets. On the other hand, Bakhtin advocates interactive understanding of the text.
From the perspective of critical theory, the interactive understanding of literary texts is not uncommon in British and American literary criticism and even literary creation. /kloc-At the beginning of the 8th century, alexander pope discovered Homer in Virgil's works. Pope believes that the quality of a poem's imitation of nature depends on its intertextuality or its imitation of the previous text. Eliot also believes that any works of art will be integrated into the system of past and present, which will inevitably have an effect on the intertextuality of past and present. Especially in Joyce's Ulysses, Joyce uses the plot of Homer's epic to lay out his chapters, thus establishing positive intertextuality between the two texts. Through the self-reference of many authors, an internal text relationship is formed; It is also because the transformation of characters in Homer's works cannot show a negative intertextuality-whether it is absorption or destruction, whether it is affirmation or negation, whether it is self-citation or self-citation, the specific text is always intertwined with one or some previous texts; At the same time, readers or critics can always find the interweaving relationship between this particular text and its particular avant-garde text in their works.
Bakhtin studied the novels of rabelais and Dostoevsky, and investigated the phenomena existing in various foreign literary texts in the novels. He regarded every expression in the novels as the result of the intersection, infiltration and dialogue of various voices. Bakhtin called this interaction of * * * the reality of "multi-voice" or "polyphony" in the novel, and supported his dialogue theory with the concept of "literary carnival". He tends to regard the world and life as a * * * time structure, and prefers to put literature in the symbolic context outside literature, thus creating a chaotic and crowded interactive space and a noisy but internally harmonious elastic environment, thus giving language or meaning some uncertainty.
Bakhtin did not foresee the development trend of literary semiotics when he put forward the above theory. But his carnival concept at least implies or emphasizes the possibility of establishing an intertextuality theory among literary criticism, anthropology, sociology and other fields. Therefore, Kristeva said: Although the concept of intertextuality was not directly put forward by Bakhtin, it can be deduced from his works.
Barthes, Kristeva and the Intertextuality Revolution.
1973 Barthes published a famous paper "The Theory of Text" almost at the same time as "The Pleasure of Text", in which he tried to answer "What is a text". In his view, a text is not a work, an object or even a concept. Text is produced in the relationship space between readers and characters, and it is a production place. Text, as a production activity, produces not a product, but a place where writers and readers meet, stage plays and play language games. Barthes went on to say that text is a kind of meaning, a kind of meaning practice, and a process of meaning practice in which readers participate-the core of which is the diversity of contradictory forms.
As a famous symbolist, Kristeva creatively put forward the concept of intertextuality in her article Language Dialogue Novel 1966. When studying literary criticism, Kristeva pays attention to the subject entering the sequential text space. In her opinion, a text fragment, sentence or paragraph is not only the intersection of two voices in direct or indirect discourse, but also the result of countless voices intersection and numerous texts intervention. The participation of different texts at different levels reveals a special spiritual activity. She believes that the analyst should understand that what she is analyzing is the theme of a specific discussion; It is precisely because of intertextuality that this subject transcends her own identity and individual in etymology. The decomposition of a creative subject and the emergence of a new pluralistic subject-this is Christeva's intertextuality dynamics. It applies not only to intertextual authors but also to intertextual readers. According to this theory, the process of readers' reading is the process of putting their identity into meaning. He will not only identify with different intertextuality in a specific text, but also break it into parts and be placed in a crisis moment of dumb language aphasia. This is the preparation stage before the arrival of aesthetic pleasure. Then, readers can enter the process of free association, the process of multiple meaning reconstruction, and the process of defining almost undefined connotation. Therefore, the conclusion is that intertextuality itself has strong anti-contradiction and parody characteristics, and there is also a process of re-creation for any text.
(C) Structure and deconstruction: the two-way function of intertextuality
Intertextuality is a common field of writing and reading, which has important theoretical and practical significance. Jonathan kalle believes that intertextuality actually refers to a discourse space. First of all, intertextuality is related to the dialogue between a text and other texts, and it is also an activity of absorption, parody and criticism. Secondly, intertextuality shows that the special skills and interpretation operations that literature relies on are artificial and even deceptive. It reveals the special reference of literary works: when a work refers to a world on the surface, it is actually commenting on other texts, delaying the actual reference to another moment or another level, thus causing an endless reference process. From this point of view, this is much more complicated than the influence mode revealed by Bloom when analyzing the "powerful poet": for example, it will involve special techniques of a specific genre, special assumptions about known and unknown things, common expectations and interpretation operations, and even preconceptions and purposeful thinking about specific words. Culler proposed to define, describe and use presupposition (including logical presupposition, rhetorical presupposition, pragmatic presupposition, etc.) in linguistic research. )-As Kale said, no matter what kind of presupposition is used, the interpretation of literature will eventually be an intertextual interpretation.
The two-way function of intertextuality shown by structure and deconstruction vividly illustrates the importance of intertextuality theory to all discourse and thinking. On the one hand, structuralists can use the concept of intertextuality to support symbolic science, explain the structural functions of various texts, explain the intertextuality relationship within the whole, and then reveal the cultural connotation of interaction, replacing linear influence and origin research in methods; On the other hand, post-structuralism or deconstructionists attack symbolic science by using the concept of intertextuality, subvert the central relationship network of structuralism, crack its binary opposition system, reveal the phenomenon that signifiers can play freely in many texts, and then highlight the uncertainty of meaning.
Third, correctly understand intertextuality and intertextuality.
First of all, from the above simple analysis, it can be seen that the two are only an accidental literal similarity, and there is no internal connection between them. Intertextuality is a structural skill and a special way to express a specific meaning, and the process and even the result of its selection or sublation are accidental; On the other hand, intertextuality is the law that the text may be influenced when it is established, and it is inevitable that the text will be interfered by other texts in the process of interpretation, which is inevitable to some extent.
Secondly, intertextuality is just an expression, a pure skill and neutral; Intertextuality is a critical method, which is promoted to theory, then extended to historical cognition and abstracted to epistemology, so it is the object of controversy. As a reversal of historicism and new criticism, the intertextuality theory of new historicism, as one of the manifestations of postmodernism, has shifted from understanding intertextuality between literary texts to understanding intertextuality between literary texts and historical texts, emphasizing the historicity and historical literariness of literature. It violates the objective laws of historical materialism, such as emphasizing the effectiveness of historical laws, historical structure, historical conditions, historical scope and historical process in explaining historical facts, while ignoring the checks and balances and influences of specific time, space and internal and external relations on the existence and development of historical facts, thus violating historical science and separating and opposing objective history from historical cognition, individual cognition and social cognition.
Thirdly, it is certain that the relationship between literature and literature, literature and history can not be completely summarized as intertextuality-the relationship between different forms of texts is not only similar and general, but also different and contradictory. Recognizing literature and history as intertextuality conceals and obscures the objective existence of history itself, which is imaginative and fictional, so it is deceptive. On the premise of confusing the boundary between history and text, it imitates, replaces and steals history in the form of historical text, and turns history into a subjective narrative of historical stories, literary texts and historical existence. In other words, what is involved is not the relationship between literature and objective and true historical facts, but the relationship between literature and historical understanding presented in the form of text.
Fourthly, intertextuality innovation and intertextuality application.
From the perspective of deconstruction, the word "divination operator" expressed by Mao Zedong should be the renovation of Lu You's poems of the same name; Even from the perspective of structuralism, it is indeed possible for the author to use the hidden text of Not Counting Fu Yongmei by Lu You to strengthen the meaning of its explicit text and deepen its meaning. Therefore, it can be said that there is a certain intertextuality between these two texts, and it can also be said that Mao Zedong's Yongmei is a model of intertextuality in renovating Lu You's old works.
The title of an article in Wen Wei Po is "Factory Director, Go Forward Boldly", which is a typical parody. Seeing this news headline will remind us of the familiar movie Red Sorghum episode Sister, Go Forward Boldly. This news headline reflects the author's scientific presupposition and expectation for the birth of the reading subject, and at the same time, it really arouses readers' review of past texts, which can be called a successful attempt of intertextuality creation.
Therefore, the law of intertextuality structure and even the deconstruction means are reasonable, which has reference and guiding significance for our literary creation and criticism, for our prosperity of literature and art, and for building a new socialist culture. You can "bring it" completely, of course you should "bring it"! The application of intertextuality can not only save pen and ink, but also better express the author's specific implied meaning and show specific artistic effects. Of course, we should dare to try, be good at using intertextuality, and attach importance to inheriting and developing these excellent traditional cultures in China.