Intertextuality and Mythotechnologies in Post-Modern Text

Abstract

The aim of the present paper is to focus on identifying the main cognitive mechanisms in the mental world by which the human consciousness and traditional classical myths are renovated as motivated by the contextual factors and underlying modern technologies. Through a frame/slot analysis of the modern text/discourse we draw attention to the way in which the most typical intertextual properties of the renovated myths are represented. They are as follows: 1) the division of input spaces and their quantity number; 2) the semantic intertextuality; 3) the formal (structural) interteхtuality; 4) the allusive intertextuality; 5) the memetic intertextuality. We conclude that the archetypal myth strategies in the modern text/discourse can be renovated by two means: 1) remythologisation (that is, exploration and usage of the traditional archaic plot, narration, a literary bookish stylistic register, names, structural arrangement, semantic meanings in the new context); 2) demythologisation (that is, negative or ironical attitude to the main gods, titans and heroes; non-formal stylistic register; a low-level pathos; the modern plot and social context). All these properties transfer the archaic myth into the new semiotic unit, able to be functioning in the new social and temporary situation and communicating with the new generation of the 21st century.

References

1. Kassirer E. 2000. Izbrannoe. Individ i kosmos [Selected Works. The Individual and the Cosmos]. Moscow, Universitetskaya kniga. (In Russ.)

2. Meletinskij E.M. 2003. Mifologiya: Enciklopediya [Mythology. An Encyclopedia]. Moscow, BRE. (In Russ.)

3. Eko U. 2005. Rol’ chitatelya. Issledovaniya po semiotike teksta [The role of a reader. The research on the semiotics of texts]. St-Petersburg, Symposium. (In Russ.)

4. Eliade M. 2014. Aspekty mifa [Aspects of a myth]. Moscow, Akademicheskij proekt. (In Russ.)

5. Yung K-G. 1997. Dusha i mif: shest’ arhetipov [A soul and a myth. Six archetypes]. Moscow, Port-Royal. (In Russ.)

6. Dancygier V., Sweetser E. 2014. Figurative Language. Cambridge, Cambridge Un- ty Press.

7. Evans V. 2006. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction. Cognitive Linguistics, V. 17(4), pp. 491–534.

8. Fauconnier G. 1994. Mental spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, Cambridge Un-ty Press.

9. Lakoff G., Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, London, The University of Chicago Press.

10. Panagiotidu M.-E. 2012. Intertextuality and literary reading: a cognitive poetic approach. Un-ty of Nottingham.

11. Turner M., Fauconnie G. 2003. Polysemy and Conceptual Blending. Polysemy: flexible patterns of meaning in mind and language. Berlin, New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 79–94.