L’écriture au second degré et sa valeur communicationnelle dans le discours poétique

Carmen Popescu

Abstract


Writing in the second degree and its communicational value in poetic discourse. The article takes a look at some poetic strategies pertaining to writing “in the second degree”, and their more general implications, mostly from a communicational perspective. The cognitive metaphor of palimpsest covers various forms of rewriting and absorption of discursive otherness. Against this theoretical background, the dialogic-communicative framework is deemed highly adequate for the comparative analysis as a whole and acquires renewed importance in the context of contemporary productions, where ironic double-voicedness, reported discourse, polyphony and intertextuality have become the very texture of poetic discourse. A new reading contract is established by the specificity of postmodern intertextuality, due to its inherent ambivalence towards previous texts. By drawing on examples from the Romanian poets Radu Andriescu, Mircea Cărtărescu and Alexandru Mușina, I argue that the differential re-enunciation of already codified texts and discourses relies, for its illocutionary and communicational impact, on the deliberate vacillation between pastiche and parody.

Keywords


palimpsest; writing in the second degree; rewriting; dialogism; poetic communication

References


Andriescu, R. 2008. Pădurea metalurgică. București: Cartea Românească.

Aron, P. 2008. Histoire du pastiche: le pastiche littéraire français, de la Renaissance à nos jours. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Bakhtin, M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, Texas: Texas University Press.

Barthes, R. 1953. Le Degré zéro de l’écriture suivi de Éléments de sémiologie. Paris: Gonthier.

Barthes, R. 1973a. Le plaisir du texte. Paris: Seuil.

Barthes, R. 1973b. Texte (Théorie du). – Encyclopaedia Universalis, vol. 15, 1013–1017.

Berrendonner, A. 2002. Portrait de l’énonciateur en faux naïf. – Semen, 15, http://semen.revues.org/2400 (22.01.2013).

Bloom, H. 1973. The Anxiety of Influence. A Theory of Parody. New York: Routledge.

Butor, M. 1967. Portrait de l’artiste en jeune singe. Paris: Gallimard.

Bouillaguet, A. 1996. L’écriture imitative. Pastiche, parodie, collage. Paris: Nathan.

Broich, U. 1997. Intertextuality . – H. Bertens and D. Fokkema, eds., International Postmodernism: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 249–255.

Cărtărescu, M. 1983. Poeme de amor. București: Cartea Românească.

Cărtărescu, M. Dublu CD. Antologie. București: Humanitas.

Coste, D. 2004. Rewriting, Literariness, Literary History. – Revue LISA/Lisa e-journal, II, 5, 8–25.

Deleuze, G. 1968. Différence et répétition. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Genette, G. 1982. Palimpsestes ou la littérature au second degré. Paris: Seuil.

Gignoux, A.-C. 2006. De l’intertextualité à l’écriture. – Cahiers de Narratologie, 13, http://narratologie.revues.org/329 (10.01.2013).

Hannoosh, M. 2006. Baudelaire et la parodie. – C. Dousteyssier-Khoze, F. Place- Verghnes, eds., Modern French Identities, 55. Poétique de la parodie et du pastiche de 1850 à nos jours. Bern: International Academic Publishers, 121–134.

Hutcheon, L. 1977. Modes et formes du narcissisme littéraire. – Poétique, 29, 90–106. Hutcheon, L. 1981. Ironie, satire, parodie. Une approche pragmatique de l’ironie. – Poétique, 4, 140–155.

Ianuș, M. 2007. Ștrumfii afară din fabrică ! București: Cartea Românească.

Ionescu, C. M. 2000. La littérature comparée comme métalittérature (Preliminaires). –D. Păcurariu, coord., Comparatismul azi/ Le comparatisme aujourd’hui/ Comparatism Today. București: Victor, 208–214.

Jameson, F. 1991. Postmodernism or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London: Verso.

Jenny, L. 1976. La stratégie de la forme. – Poétique, 27, 257–281.

Louis Gates, Jr. H. 1988. The Signifying Monkey. A Theory of African-American Criticism. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kristeva, J. 1969. Sémeiotikè, recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil.

Monte, M. 2007. Poésie et effacement énonciatif. Semen, 24, http://semen.revues.org/6113 (26.01.2013).

Mușina, A. 2001. Personae. Brașov: Aula.

Parpală, E. 2011. Tematizarea ethos-ului poetic postmodern. – E. Parpală, coord., Postmodernismul poetic românesc. O perspectivă semio-pragmatică și cognitivă. Craiova: Universitaria, 233–239.

Popescu, C. 2009a. Intertextual Configurations. – AUC, Seria Ştiinţe Filologice, Engleza, 1–2, 216–229.

Popescu, C. 2009b. Abordarea intertextuală în contextul comparatismului literar. – AUC, Seria Ştiinţe Filologice, Limbi Străine Aplicate, 1–2, 342–358.

Proust, M. 1927. Chroniques. Paris: Gallimard.

Proust, M. 1970. Pastiches et mélanges. Paris: Gallimard.

Riffaterre, M. 1979a. Sémiotique intertextuelle: l’interprétant. – Revue d’esthétique, 1–2, 128–146.

Riffaterre, M. 1979b. La syllepse intertextuelle. – Poétique, 40, 496–501.

Riffaterre, M. 1980. La trace de l’intertexte. – La Pensée, 215, 4–18.

Saint-Amand, D. 2009. Écrire (d’)après. – COnTEXTES, http://contextes.revues.org/4171 (21.01.2013).

Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1978. Les ironies comme mentions. – Poétique, 36, 399–412.

Todorov, T., 1981. Mikhail Bakhtine, le principe dialogique. Paris: Seuil.

Vernet, M., éd. 1984. Le singe à la porte. Vers une théorie de la parodie. Textes rassemblés et édités par Groupar. New York: Peter Lang.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.12697/IL.2013.18.1.05

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.





ISSN 1406-0701 (print)
ISSN 2228-4729 (online)