Subjectivité poétique, dialogisme et transitivité

Authors

  • Carmen Popescu Bulevardul 1 Mai, no. 75, Bl. 25, sc. 2, ap. 2, Craiova, Dolj 200334

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12697/IL.2015.20.2.12

Keywords:

subjectivity, dialogism, transitivity, Romanian postmodern poetry

Abstract

Poetic subjectivity, dialogism and transitivity. The paper studies the interplay between three key-concepts, subjectivity, dialogism and transitivity, with reference to the recent transformations of the poetic discourse, especially in the context of Romanian postmodernism. Poetry is traditionally considered the most subjective of genres, with subjectivity being perceived as a psychological element, with some philosophical overtones (particularly within Romanticism). Modern theories of enunciation and discourse can shed new light on this presupposition, by revealing the linguistic dimension of the subjective feature. By the same token, subjectivity is revealed as being intimately intertwined with dialogism. Although implicit in any type of discourse (as in Bakhtin’s account), dialogism can also be deliberately emphasized. The paper is concerned with the more explicit dialogization of contemporary poetic discourse. Transitivity pertains to the communicative dimension of poetry. Borrowed by Gheorghe Crăciun from Tudor Vianu, who distinguished between the reflexive and the transitive function of language, transitivity is applied by Crăciun to modern and postmodern poetry. In the corpus of Romanian poetry analysed in this article, the self is being deconstructed and reconstructed on new coordinates and interpersonal and intertextual dialogue is being employed as a means of resistance to ideology and social engineering. In the poem “Without them”, Mariana Marin writes a poetic homage to the German poets in Romania, who have influenced her towards a “committed subjectivity” and away from a neo-Romantic, narcissistic subjectivity. Letiția Ilea grafts reported discourse on her pseudo-confessional poem “A beautiful spring day. In the fields” in order to bring attention to the failure of genuine dialogue and the inner, polyphonic theatricality of the self. Dumitru Crudu in the poem “dimitrie” designs confessional personae for himself and solicits the readers’ empathy, while Ioan Flora, in “Poetry is a document, I said to myself ”, resorts to metapoetry, in search of a new poetics, of a more “truthful” and “just” type.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

<div class="WordSection1"><p>Bakhtine, M. 1984. <em>Esthétique de la création verbale</em>. Paris: Gallimard.</p><p>Barthes, R. 1984. <em>Le bruissement de la langue</em>. Paris : Seuil.</p><p>Benveniste, E. 1966. <em>Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris </em>: Gallimard.</p><p>Bernic, C. 2012. După 40 de ani. Aktionsgruppe Banat. – <em>Observator cultural</em>, 620, avril, <a href="http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Dupa-40-de-ani.-Aktionsgruppe-Banat*articleID_26824-articles_details.html">http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Dupa-40-de-ani.-Aktionsgruppe-Banat*articleID_26824-articles_details.html</a> (20.09.2015).</p><p>Bessière, J., 2008. La littérature est-elle critique ? – <em>Tracés. Revue de Sciences humaines, Hors-série, Présent et futurs de la critique</em>, 71–99.</p><p>Bodiu, A., Bucur, R., Moarcăş, G. 1999. <em>Romanian </em><em>Poets of the 80’s and‘90’s. A Concise Anthology</em>. Piteşti: Paralela 45.</p><p>Crăciun, Gh. 2002. <em>Aisbergul poeziei moderne</em>. Pitești: Paralela 45.</p><p>Crăciun, Gh. (ed.). 1999. <em>Competiţia continuă. Generaţia 80 în texte teoretice</em>. Piteşti: Paralela 45.</p><p>Crudu, D. 1994. <em>Falsul Dimitrie</em>. Târgu-Mureş: Arhipelag.</p></div><p>Flora, I. 2004. <em>Trădarea</em><em> </em><em>metaforei</em><em> </em>/ <em>La métaphore trahie</em>, traduit par Paul Miclău. Pitești : Paralela 45.</p><p>Fromm, W. 1979. Vom Gebrauchswert zur Besinnlichkeit. – <em>Die Woche</em>, 26 janvier.</p><p>Flottum,  K.  2002.  Fragments  guillemetés  dans  une  perspective  polyphonique. – <em>Tribune 13. Skriftserie for Romansk institutt</em>, Université de Bergen, Eds. K. Fløttum &amp; H. V. Holm, <a href="http://www.hum.au.dk/romansk/polyfoni/Diverse%20artikler/Flottum_guillemets.htm">http://www.hum.au.dk/romansk/polyfoni/Diverse%20artikler/Flottum_guillemets.htm</a> (20.09.2015).</p><p>Gogea, V. 1999. “Falsul Dimitrie” sau adevăratul Dumitru Crudu. – <em>Contrafort</em>, 11– 12, 61–62 ; <a href="https://vasilegogea.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/falsul-dimitrie-sau-adevaratul-dumitru-crudu/">https://vasilegogea.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/falsul-dimitrie-sau-adevaratul-dumitru-crudu/</a> (20.09.2015).</p><p>Ilea, L. 1999. une belle journée de printemps. en plein champ. – A. Bodiu, R. Bucur, G. Moarcăş, <em>Romanian</em><em> </em><em>Poets</em><em> </em><em>of the 80’s and‘90’s. A Concise Anthology</em>. Piteşti: Paralela 45, 307.</p><p>Jenny, L. 2003. <em>M</em><em>é</em><em>t</em><em>h</em><em>odesetproblèmes. La Poésie</em>. Dpt. de Français moderne – Université de Genève, <a href="http://www.unige.ch/lettres/framo/enseignements/methodes/elyrique/elintegr.html">http://www.unige.ch/lettres/framo/enseignements/methodes/elyrique/elintegr.html</a> (20.09.2015).</p><p>Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 2002 [1980]. <em>L</em><em>’</em><em>é</em><em>non</em><em>c</em><em>ia</em><em>t</em><em>io</em><em>n : de la subjectivité dans le langage</em>. Paris: Armand Colin.</p><p>Kristeva, J. 1969. <em>Séméiotiqué. Recherches pour une sémanalyse</em>. Paris : Seuil.</p><p>Lefter, I. B. 1995. La reconstruction du moi de l’auteur. – <em>Euresis. Cahiers roumains d’études littéraires. Le postmodernisme dans la littérature roumaine</em>, 1–2. Bucarest : Univers, 168–171.</p><p>Maio,  S.  2005.  <em>Creating  Another  Self:  Voice  in  Modern  American  Personal  Poetry</em>. Missouri: Truman State University Press.</p><p>Marin, M. 1991. Atelierele (1980-1984).  București: Cartea Românească.</p><p>Mușina, A. 1995. Le postmodernisme aux portes de l’Orient. – <em>Euresis. Cahier roumains d’études littéraires. Le postmodernisme dans la littérature roumaine</em>, 1-2. Bucarest : Univers, 155–167.</p><p>Parpală, E. 2011. Ioan Flora – un postmodern atipic. – E. Parpală, C. Popescu, eds., <em>Postmodernismul.</em><em> Creație și interpretare</em>. Craiova: Universitaria, 73–90.</p><p>Popescu, C. 2013. Metacommunication as Ritual: Romanian Contemporary Poetry. – R. D. Sell, A. Borch, I. Lindgren, eds., <em>The Ethics of Literary Communication: Genuineness, Directness, Indirectness</em>. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 147–166.</p><p>Popescu, C. 2014. Subjectivity and the Dialogic Self: The Christian Orthodox Poetry of Scott Cairns and Cristian Popescu. – R. D. Sell, ed., <em>Literature as Dialogue: Invitations Offered and Negotiated</em>. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 197–218.</p><p>Sarfati, G.-E. 2009. <em>Eléments</em><em> </em><em>d’analyse du discours</em>. Paris : Armand Colin.</p><p>Stăniloaie, D. 1987. <em>Chipul</em><em> </em><em>nemuritor</em><em> </em><em>al lui Dumnezeu</em>. Craiova : Editura Mitropoliei Olteniei.</p>Vianu, T. 1988. <em>Arta prozatorilor români</em>. București : Minerva.

Downloads

Published

2015-12-31