You are on page 1of 16
a European Journal for Semiouc Sudles ‘Rerue Buroptenned Etudes Sémiotiques Europatsche Zeltschriltfar Somotische Peeter Torop Intersemiosis and Intersemiotic Translation ‘Summary: The article proceeds from the conception of total translation describing dif- erent types of textual communication in culture (textual, metatextual,intextua,inter~ textual and extratextual translation). The change of text lows us to regard culture as the process of intersemiotic tan interdiscucsvity and intermediaity 2s ‘ion impel us to regard the signs of different texts asin ed simultaneously within the frameworks of differ et article part de la conceptior types de communication textuelle dans ‘cons signes prise dans les cadres de différents systémes de signes. 72 The processual dimension Seriation is one of the ontological characteristics of translation, It means that the same source text may underlie multiple various translations and that the ‘dentfication of an absolute or ideal translation is impossible. Therefore trans- jon typologies and translation process models cannot be evaluative: they are to reflect the principal possi model of the translation process (more details in: Torop 1 upon the general characteristics of text and communica conviction that a description of the translation process is applicable to other types of text communication. On the one side, interling and intersemiotic translation as pointed out by R. Jakobson (Jakobson 1971) are obviously describable on the basis of a single translation process model, On the other side, all types of communication in culture could be presented as 4 process of translation of texts (or fragments) into other texts Tis possible to describe culture as an infinite process of total eranslation, where 1) whole texts are translated into other whole texts (textual translation), 2) whole texts are translated into culture as various metatexts (annotations, re- views, studies, commentaries, parodies, ec.) supplementing text translation or relating a certain text to culture (metatextual translation), 3) texts or text groups are translated into text units (intextual and intertextual translation), 4) texts made of one substance (for example, verbal) are translated into texts made of other substance (for example, audiovisual) (extratextual translation). On the one side, the process of slation reflects the peculiarities of text communication in culture. On the other side, it can be seen as an aspect of auto-communication of culture (ef: “Both Peirce and Lotman find that the fundamental activity of semiosis underlying all texts is auto-communication ‘which involves the reformulating of the message through new codes and thus new meanings.” (Portis-Winner 1994: 164). Intersemiotic translation in R. Jakobson’s sense becomes associated with all manifestations of total translation. It can be a screen adaptation and complementary in the case companying a newspaper article, etc. This approach complicates a comparison between the source text and the target text, since a novel, for example, presup- poses inclusion novel - inclusion into the history of cinema. Thus, intersemiotic translation icy intralinguistic / 73 increases the number of parameters of the evaluat ity. n of the translating activ- J. Holmes distinguishes between different types of level of linguistic artefact, intertextual information at the level of literary arte- fact, situational information at the level of socio-cultural artefact (Holmes 1988: 84-85). A type of translation is formed on the basi of the correlation of these types of information. The translator should realize text integrality and draw the borders of the semiosis to comprehend separate text units (signs) within the framework of it. According to D.L. Gorlée, informational loss must be highest in intersemiotie trans shows maximum deenericy (nd hece minimum gene jon, in which the semiosis it most be lowest racy (and ence min~ imum degeneracy) (Gor ‘This assertion is most likely based upon the comparison of the source text and twanslation and not upon discourses. “Autonomization, and thereby semiotization of the source text, proves to be the first problem. It is most frequently solved at the level of text and dis course. For example, at the level of discourse one should take into considera- tion “the ways in which that discourse constructs its identity, its position rela- tive to other discourses, the various types of interference between them” (Robyns 1994: 425-426), and other similar aspects. It only remains to connect discourse integrality with text integrality. But now another parameter appears, i.e. the media. The cultural environment of texts is not only discursive, but . Text reception, or more exactly dynamics of text reception de- as “the external or intertex- ia and within media environ- relone can discern the “chan- nel flow” or the particularity of a certain telechannel, the “viewer flow” or spectator’s choice between various channels and programs and the “super- flow” o the totality of competing telechannels (Jensen 1995: 109-110). ‘Thus it might be said that any text of contemporary culture has both the discursive and medial parameter. It means that the same text may exist simul- flowing “internally in the electronic media” tual flow of audiences between different m taneously in different sign systems. So under the aspect of total translation, 7 traditional interest in contacts between texts and discourses is transferred to contacts berween me smpetence and the notions hen faced by the ‘communication (Bersardll 1997: 18) ‘Asa result the attitude toward the semiotic space, where transformations of texts in the translation process and their semiotic multilinguality and heteroge- neity could be comprehended, changes. Proceeding from the notion of wn intertestuality and interdiscursivity become rong intermediality within contemporary ced semiosis, U. Eco expresses the ly: “Semiosis explains itself by it 2 of seriosphere includes “the whole semiotic space of cul- ture” (Lotman 1990: 125) characterized by heterogeneity: duating of other semiospheres tthe border of the semiosphere of culture weaving borders (see Torop 1998). ‘Hence a more rational approach is required to comprehend translation as translational semiosis. U. Eco relates possible interpretations of complex sem- iosis to the notion of “hermetic semiosis” (Eco 1992: 45-47) which means com- prehension of the principles of convergence of different notio eration and understanding. I for means to describe possible intersemioses (Gorlée 1993: 220). Cultural proc- cesses impel us to analyze texts whose signs belong simultaneously to differe sign systems, texts, discourses and media. The understanding of intersemiot translation starts from the realization of text processuality, on the one hand, and coexistence of diverse sign systems, ie. semiotic heterogeneity, on the other hand. Thus the text-semiotic heterogencity is situated between the het- ‘erogentities of the history of text generation and ies reception. TIntersemiotic translation reflects the features of contemporary culture, 75 where the “own” as well 5 “alien” texts are translated into different types of texts and, as a matter of fact, become intertexts and the descr istence of a text in culture requires a topological approach. At the same time the intertextual process is included in the intermedia process, and every text idk only generates its meaning in different sign systems, but materializes in different media. It isthe process of intersemiosis in which texts in different sign systems coexist as different texts and at the same time represent a certain text, against the background of which shifts and digressions in the plane of content and the plane of expression are interpreted. ‘The intertextual dimension ‘Any text is processual already to the effect that itis psychologically siruated ties: the history of generation and the history of reception. ‘Thus, textis a process proceeding between the consciousness of the maker and the consciousnesses of the recipients the beginning and the end of the process are hidden in the human mind. Text generation may be seen as a gradual pas- sage from oral to written speech: the correlation of inner and expressive speech differs at different stages of the process (Zinkin 1964: 36-38). At the generative stage it reflects a certain connection between the beginning and the end and the difficulty of studying it.The situation is perfectly described by O. Mandel’stam’s words: in poetry, plastic art and art in che law of conser energetics rand take into account the wind blowing in somewhat a “The preservation of drafts” means not only a possibility to present the whole diachronic row from the first drafts to the final text, but also the draft struc- ture as compared with the clean copy structure. Usually the reconstruction of the whole diachronic row is not feasible and we have to study only separate draft sheets or text versions. If these fragments can be chronologized, some data on the history of text generation is still available, But in some cases the chronological approach is excluded or questionable. In these cases the draft structure (the draft not as a separate sheet, but as a whole constituent of the text process) acquires special significance. Inevitable incompleteness of draft 76 materials and the impossibility to chronologize them allow us to regard gen- cration as a passage fom oral (close to mythological and iconic) to written (logical) constructions. Thus itis possible to discern the stages of intention, draft and clean copy in the text process, a kind of triunity. Intention is a primary oral text (proto-text) from which the number of draft notes, plans and versions fol- lows. In the text process, draft materials are transitional: they may have fea~ tures of both the oral and written text, and the whole text process can be pre~ signs, drawings, et). Comprehension of the clean copy i standing then at least perception of these channels. In itself becomes the archi-t ase the clean copy a hypothetical text whichis ereated on the basis of the semantic invariant of metatexts going back to the absent (unknown or one, the prob- is the realiza- infinite number of channels ofa text passage into culture and becoming an in tertext. In the first case a text is specified by means of a different art. Even in the case of different translations of the same text existing simultaneous! culture turning into multiple metatexts (oral or writ sum of which does not substitute the unity of an autonomous text. There are alien texts in their own texrual form in every culture, and there are also alien texts deprived of the textual form and compensated or substituted by metatexts (newspaper information, advertising, critique, schoo! lessons, ec.) in every culture. Of course, the combination of the two possibilities is not ex- clude ‘The intertextual space is a double reality forall arts. A text is born in one intertextual space and may have two kinds of interconnections with this space: regular connections of tradition and casual (more subjective) connections of ‘genesis (in J. Tynjanov’s sense). A text is perceived in another intertextual space which turns out to be the field of more or less casual connections with other texts where the text acquires new meanings and often loses its inherent meaning. 7 ‘Trapslation may prove to be a combination of these intertextual spaces and a transferee into the third space. Therefore scholars note the particularity of translation as an expecially intensive form of intertextual connections und problematsche Form des intertentucllen Bezug he) und syachrone (el- turgeograpbische) Distanz inweg nationalsprachliche Grenzen Ubersehreiten und dabei ybridem Anspruch nicht nr das im Pritext Gesage, sondeen auch der Sagens nachbildend bewahren vad erneuern. (Roppenfels 1985: 13 “The existence of so many intertextual spaces must naturally ead toa differen tiated approach. In princi to proceed from intertextuality which follows from the text and reflects its qualities (ext-oriented intrtextual text (reader-oriente ms and presumed knowledge (author-oriented; Holthuis 19%: necessary to proceed also from the intertextuality of culture its! bers of the given cultural-linguistic community exist in the common intertex- tual space” (Toporov 1993: 17). V. Toporov regards intertextuality as a cat~ egory of communication which other Toporoy 1992: I is important to emphasize two problems at the level of coexistence of lan- guages of culture. First, the languages themselves are in permanent motion, they are specializing and integrating si Metadescription and creolization (or mixing, for example, word and picture in cinema; see Lotman, 1992: 39-41) are two aspects of integration processes. Migration, translation and transformation of meanings show that culture as a dynamic system is per- manently in the state of total translation. Second, the character of dyn: processes of culture is conditioned also by the coexistence of languages as sign, systems and texts assign systems. Text gent reception and description processes in culture depend on the intial semiotic dualism, coexistence of con- 78 tinual (spatial, non-discrete iconic, mythological) and discrete (verbal, logical) languages (Lotman 1992: 38). Hence the particularity of the process of under- standing as an interrelation of translation and recognition (identification). J. “Myth - Name ~ Culture” co-authored with B. transformation processes (Lotman 199 Of course, in creative works of culture, these two types of texts can be seen as the facets of the same text. Text duality is born already in the beginning of a creative process, being reflected in the coexistence of verbal and iconic ele- ments in the drafts of many writers. From a point of view of intertextual studies, it might be asserted, corre~ spondingly, that intertextual contacts in the intertextual space are established not only between whole texts but between thei the one side, and between the groups of interrelated (ideologically, themati- cally of as genres) texts, on the other side. Thus the ontology of a text studied separately differs from the ontology of the same text when intertextuaity as a whole is studied. If linguistic analysis shows the selective approach of text to language system, intertextual analysis reveals its selective approach to the rules ‘ourse, that is to various conventional principles of text constructing lough 1992: 194). Thus, genre canons or features of average texts are ac ‘to analysis (for example: in the newspapers of a given country the edi- torial is written in such and such way, et ‘The alteration of text ontology in inter cal space does not mean that a text cannot be studied separately as it loses its borders. Intertextuality of all a mechanism of i-level linkages. The exist- fertextual space as concentric els allows us to imagine the level of text generation intertextual the level of the intertextuality of of extratextual connections, of the historial period, ee. Every text is simultaneously situated in different circles of the concentrum. In this connection, seeking for the differentiation of the theory by distin- guishing sub-theories or closer definitions of intertextuality itself or its object may be observed in the theory of intertextuaity. If the notion of seriation as fe characteristics o 79 the basis of translation ontology takes an important place in translation stud~ , then, in the theory of intertextuality, we can detach polarities and speak g (absorbing the other texts) and the the- Aspekven ausgearbe Theorie des implizier- s Tatgheitefeldes (Theorie der Se- Besides the detachment ies, verification of intertextuality borders and 3 of its analysis may be observed. On the one side, M. Riffaterre ish between intertextuality and hypertextuality: hypertextual- ity includes arbitrary data intertextulity excludes arbitrariness intertexcual- rypertextualty is a metalin- ity de-contextualize restricted: “hypertextualty is open-ended and ever-developings (..] Intertex- tuality isa close-circuit exchange between text and intertext” (Riffaterre 1994: 786). ‘On the other side, the role of text is being verified. I. Smirnov in his book Intertext Generation proceeds from the authorial principle. For him, define the position of the He distinguishes beeween the intertextual and intrasystemic paradigm: the lat- ter belongs to the diachronic relatedness of texts (Smirnov 1985: 49). 1. Mmirnov proceeds from the general text characteristics when he points out two main principles of intertextuality, reconstructive and constructive: From a historical point of view he singles out the notion of pre-intertext as a ing in double intertextualization (cf. also the no- tion of Doppelintertextualitét in Greber 1989: 393). 80 R. Lachmann also proceeds from the notion of intertext: ‘The intertextualy organized tex produced through a process ing to othe ‘mation or reconstruction) (Lachmann 1989: 393). But she seeks a pos tual level which co level the “imp! to study the intereextual strategy on the special tex- ¢s the intertextual and the ideological. She cal may be also regarded as an auto-metatext: o isthe locus where present and absent text ferent arts in the intertextual space should be considered within the frame of intertextual problematics. Translation from one type of art into another is quite frequent in culture: texts of different arts are interweaving, the intertex- tual space includes also intermediality. Intermediality (Intermedialitét) means inking of che elements of different arts in text happens be- ing, silent cinema, ete.) and multime- proceeding the text process, but also a reflection ofthe strategy of the process. Hence intertextuality yields to analysis as the (author's) strategy of intertextu- Volosinov’s classical definition (“The ‘alien speech’ is speech wit statement within statement, but at the same time itis speech about speedh, state ment about statement” (Voloiinov 1995: 331]) contains a possibility of differ- + entiation of two aspects or parameters of the analysis of the poetics of “alien 81 speech”. It seems reasonable to analyze separa (semiotizing) space, ie. a possible world of meaning generation, and specific clements (fragments) of one text in another text as intexts. For example, HA. Gaifman’s definition of intertextuality as the presence of elements of one text in another text concerns, from our point of view, frst of all intextuality: “By intertextuality we mean all the elements in a text which relate either ‘hidden way to another text” (Gaifman 1989: 191-192). At the 1 her parameters of intertextualty uni ity: 1) teghnical aspect of intertextual conn covery of intertextual elements; 2) the nature of an intertextual connection (creating an atmosphere, background, hidden code which may be deciphered, tc.) 3) the degree of explicitess of one text in another text; 4 in what aspect, 4 text is active in another text; 5) the role of one text in another text (see Gaifman 1989: 191-195). ‘The problem of balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces as that of the definition of both text ontology and intertextualty isa serious methodological problem, beginning from the firs atempts of adoption of M. Bachtin’s works in modern humanities undertaken by French scholars. It might be denoted as the problem of the correlation between intratextuality (Bachtin) and intertex- tuality (see also Pfister 1985). ‘The extratextual dimension Literary and cinema scholars have been taught to analyze a text by decompos- ing it. Structurality is a common text characteristic. We can structure a text proceeding from a natural language (phonemes, morphemes, vocabulary, phras- cology, syntax, paragraph), architectonics (episode, chapter, part ete.) or poet- space, etc.) Film as a text may be divided to word, sound and picture vertically, and to frames, episodes and montage frag ‘ments horizontally. Angle, light, color, timbre and intonation for human voice, frame composition, montage etc. can be added at the level of poetics. ‘But literature is fixed in written form whereas the film pictures supported by sound (music or oral speech) ~ this is the main difference between them. ‘The opposition of picture and word is not especially productive since they are complementary phenomena for the psychology of thinking. So inscrip- 82 tions (titles) of pictures and statues can be seen as the most elementary exam- ples of the binarity of creative thinking (Zinkin 1964: 38). “Word creates. Photography fixes”, writes M. Saparov on photography (Saparov 1982: 92). And adds: a picture without inscription finds nevertheless ts life in a verbal expression of a spectator’s recognition or admiration which, ike an impression from the novel or film, can be either barely percept inner speech, this silent, unpronounceable speech, or become an intensive in- ner monologue, egocentric speech, “the speech, inner by its mental function and outward by its structure” (Vygotskij 1982: 320). So it might be said that man uses language in his communication with all arts. But, of course, this does not mean that all arts are translatable into a navu- ral language. Every art has its own means of expression, its own language. An. attempt to link these languages with a natural language would be an extreme simplification. Is it productive to search for the analogues of phonemes, mor- phemes, words and sentenc of every artis partitioned in its own way, it may consist of different constitu- ents, At the same time a natural language can be used as metalanguage. “Would it be a natural language, the language of literature or film ~in any cease we cannot follow the process of reception of a creative work in the read- er’s or spectator’s consciousness without operational interpretation. The proc ess reveals itself in static euts, the syncrete and irrational receive discrete and rational expression. Thus a simplification is inevitable. Since a natural language in film, painting, ballet or music?! The language as metalanguage is inexact and subje . the film- or novel-generated are interweaving with the perception-gen- crated, with data from all interpreter's senses (Carroll 1977: 349-350). To reach the maximum correspondence between a metalanguage and a work of art and the comparability of descriptions of different texts we should base an analysis upon those structural characteristics which are common for both film and prose the plane of sense generation, ‘Although a film may be comparable to poetry in its associativeness (e.g. L Bunuel’s Un Chien Andalou {1928} against the background of the surrealist poetry or Dylan Thomas’ lyrics) itis, nevertheless, closer by its nature to nar- rative prose: consequently, there should exist the opportunities of analysis common for both film and prose text. First of all, both the novel and film are stories with a beginning and an end, It follows, that the conceptual unity of the beginning and the end makes 83 an integral pare of the whole text entity. Of course, the comprehension of ‘events and heroes occurs retrospectively, the beginning and the end connect after film viewing or reading of the last pages. But frequently there is certain information about the end already in the first meeting with heroes and events. inary knowledge is not required to recognize the antagonist 1 and the same is true for the Soviet “production” film. The lit- rary scholar L. Ginzburg considers the first pages of novels, the first data on ‘events and heroes especially important (Ginzburg 1979: 16,18). A narrative and picture (cinematography) exposition has changed with time, but its essence has remained the same. The beginning determines the keynote which leads the reader-spectator towards the end, Thus F. Cachia speaking of TV screen ad- aptations, demands flatly: “A film director has to start a film from a ‘keynote shot’ which makes the spectator familiar with the events happening and the future discovery of the plot” (Cachia 1983: 66). The categorical demand is un- loro! tive is characterized by story line (a number of events connected with causal- chronological relations) and plot (a creatively motivated succession of events), and also by their mutual relations. J. Tyajanov called these relations eccentric (Tynjanov 1977: 325). Even in the case of the most dynamic plot itis possible to understand events thanks to the story, although the creative concealment of the story and its reconstructic reached by different means in literature sary to resolve the main problem: what will be the authorial agent (in both an authorial film and a screen adaptation), how will unity be provided. Some novels are close to ready scripts: descriptions are rendered by the background, color, sound and costume, heroes” remarks are turned into characters’ cues and author’s remarks into motion within a frame. Such straight text transfer into film is comparable with simultaneous translating of an Estonian text into many languages, Imagine that having a complete command in only one language, you are forced to read the novel where authorial monologues are in Russian, the heroes’ speech in German, descriptions of nature in English, the title and con- tent in French, ete. The straight transfer of a work of artis impossible. First, the camera prevents the straight transfer of the novel into film. A film picture is much more specific than the verbal, and this specification essen- 84 tially diminishes the spectator’sinterpretational freedom as compared with the reader's (see more details in McFarlane 1983: 6-7). At this point itis pertinent to recall the fact that the most difficult problem in screen adaptation of classics is to choose actors whose appearance corresponds to the notions of readers and future spectators. “These problems were anticipated already by the enthusiasts-theorists of find filmic analogues for literary ‘The wish to preserve the authorial cone time to call the Ii film story (kinopovest’] in Gogol’s manner” (Tynjanov 1973: 78), and N. is an author to be filmed, not a work (Michalkov 1985). As usual, translating screen adaptation means that some- thing ably preserved and something is inevitably changed, added or excluded from the source text. The ereative method of a translator (film maker) is determined by the correlation of these operations. It might be said proceeding from the interrelations of prose and film, that these problems are resolved first of all within the framework of chronotope (time-space). To speak of an authorial agent or work conception more seriously it is necessary to specify the interrelations of plot and story and the beginning and the end: any story concerns events and human movements (or states) in space and time, or more exactly in chronotope, because these notions are comple- mentary. First we can specify the topographical chronotope that fixes the suc~ cession of events and the real world, more or less recognizable for the specta~ tor. The reader comes into contact with real time and space. The man (the ac- tor) whose language, behavior and costume reflect his subjective attitude to time and space is moving in this chronotope. A man (an actor) is the center of the psychological chronotope which conveys the character aspect to the specta~ tor: self-evaluation and evaluation of other people and events. Authors have produced a film proceeding from certain aims or conceptions. Their main aim ‘was to create a whole, to communicate the conception to the spectator in a clear and general form. This is possible by means of the metaphysical chronotope, i. the conceptual chronotope, the authorial interpretation of chronotope. An aspect of eternity usually exists in film thanks to the metaphysical chronotope. ‘These three chronotopes may exist separately or make a whole. Thus, for ‘example all three are easily discerned in A. Resnais' film Mon oncle d’Ame- 85 80). The lives of three main heroes against the background of recog able everyday problems in the topographical chronotope, human stress states conditioned by social life in the psychological chronotope, and the scholar’s commentary with examples from the life of mice and other animals (for explanation of biological and social conflicts) in the metaphysical chro- notope. Thanks to the separation of chronotopes the film becomes intellectual and... explicable. A. Resnais’ later film La vie est un roman (1983) continues the same line. Contemporary events (the colloquium where arguments haven’t been reconciled) are depicted in the topographical chronotope; the past, where the desire to make people happy realizes as violence, in the psychological chronotope; the fairy tale, where good wins i being told in the metaphysi cchronotope. But the last remarks (“life isn’t a novel” and “life is a novel rinish the film’s declarativeness. ‘The predominance of a chronotope is also possible. For exampl psychological space of L. Bunuel’s las film Cet obscure objet da desi an elderly man’s inability to understand his young wife is portrayed by means of ewo actresses playing the same woman. Thus, in the topological chronotope two plot lines bring the protagonist into contact with two different women swho turn out to be the same certain and understandable woman of every given «episode in the psychological chronotope, but mysterious and incomprehensi- ble one in the metaphysical chronotope. Similar films are L. Visconti’s La caduta degli Dei (1969), F. Fellini's Prova dorchestra (1979) and apparently V. i's Il deserto dei Tartar (1976). ‘The interrelation of film chronotopes resembles the situation of M. Antonioni’s film Blowo up where the photographer discovers more and more new details ashe is enlarging a casual photo. Likewise itis possible to discern three chronotopes which are almost always interwov film as a whole. We may speak of a kind of concentricity when the psycho- logical chronotope is seen through the topographical one, and both of them through the metaphysical chronotope. ould be reasonable to start from the element common for both film and prose —from the narrative, which ties up the beginning and the end and is easly imaginable as proceeding in space and time. It would create the basis for a passage into the area of more specific means of expression com- prehensible against the background of a whole film conception. Although literature is mostly the field of literary studies and cinema 86 the field of cinema studies, the two branches have points of contact. Literary scholars use the notion of montage and simultaneity, and cinema scholars the notions of plot and story. But this doesn’t mean that film should be described in the metalanguage of literary studies, and literary work in the metalanguage of cinema studies, although it would be possible. The heterogeneity of the film structure does not ereate obstacles since film is a whole and the generation of its integrality isthe generation of style. More exactly it’s the heterogeneity of materials used in film and not the heterogeneity of film as a work of ar ‘A methodological problem arses. Having described an object in kilograms, we receive its weight only, having described it in meters, we receive its size only. Thus, a volume and a type of information are determined by the metalanguage ap- plied. Likewise, literature and cinema describing each other offer interesting, but one-sided and vague information. Object language and metalanguage mix and lose distinetness. The problem is acute also in semiotics. On the one side, there isa search for the pos: n of interference of metalanguage and object language. On the othe: -was proposed to study language not crossing the borders of language itself (Mamardas The problem is mostly methodological and not terminological, since the mon- ‘osemy of metalanguage also impoverishes description. It seems reasonable to describe the way of literature to cinema by means of translation studies, although this discipline does not yet possess a developed metalanguage. But translation studies enable us to apply complementarity — to abstract from literature and cinema and regard their connections as proceeding from the translation proc css. Thus, the new level of description or the new approach appears, and at the same time the equivalence of literature and cinema is maintained. To avoid ex- cessive globality we shall regard as sereen adaptations only the screen adapta- tions of literary works. In this ease a script proves to be the so-called verbal montage, the first transformation of the work of literature. The present work does not include an analysis of terary text and film are compared as source text and translation, which corresponds also to their function in culture. Of course, a screen adaptation is firs of alla film and requires, according to some scholars, only film analysis (Hopfinger 1974: 82). As an organic part of cinema culture, a screen adaptation has, nevertheless, to be understood from the point of view of literary culture, A screen adaptation may, for example, ‘urn out to be the first meeting with the source text in the culture where the book translation is absent. A film may become an (anti-)advertisement of the ( 87 book in this situation of preliminary “reading”. A film may become also an additional “reading” of a well-known text and reveals new facets of it or cari- catures the text. In the video epoque a book and a videocassette with the screen adaptation may be on sale together. Thus a screen adaptation partici- pates simultaneously in two traditions: 1) i is connected with trends and pos- ies of the development of national cinema; 2) it is inseparable from the interpretative tradition of a certain literary work. In the first case a screen ad- aptation is comparable to all films (native and foreign) included in cultural turnover, in the second ease it belongs to literary culture together with articles, reviews, schoolbooks and other metatexts. A screen adaptation can be seen as an autonomous film picture, but itis a double text (as translation or parody) for the man who knows the source text: the comparison between the film and the text would be psychologically inevitable. It follows that reading cannot be separated from film viewing. ‘A work of painting was considered to be a translation by means of which we could comprehend the painter's vision of the world and through it the world itself (Hannoosh 1986: 30). The contradiction between a reader’s sub- jective notion of the source text and the cinematographic presentation can pre- vent such “translation” in screen adaptations (see White 1987: 221-224, cf. also: Kibédi Varga 1989, Cliver 1989). There exists the recommendation for the translator of works of art to imagine visually the episodes being translated (Schulte 1980: 82, Caws 1986: 61). Therefore a visual specification of text chronotopes forms the beginning of translation. Ie follows that both sereenad- aptation and translating are quite close to each other. R.Jakobson in his classical work (Jakobton 1971: 261) distinguishes be- ‘ween intea-, interlinguistic translation, and transsemiotic translation or trans- mutation, Transmutation is defined as interpretation of verbal signs by means of nonverbal sign systems. Although it seems that translation of a sign system by means of another sign system requires a semiotic approach, actually al existing sign typologies are too poor to interpret complex works. For example, the conception of trarismutation pr from Ch. Peirce’s semiotics discerns the following types of transmutation: icons are transcribed, indexes are transposed and sym- bols are re-coded (Plaza 1987: 89-93). There exists an attempt to project the whole of translational problematics onto Ch. Peirce’s system (see Gorlée 1993). ‘A sign approach seems to us too analytical, leading away from the prob- lems of the whole. But the use of the notion of text makes comparison be- tween films and literary texts possible, makes them comparable and enables description (eypologization) of writers’ or film makers’ styles. It also makes easier the historical analysis or description of the tradition. of text as nor just a message fixed in a sign “y3 is inseparable from its functions and can be defined only in the of intersection of intra- and extratextual connections. The differentiation of the plane of expression and the plane of content depends on the perception of, intra- and extratextual connections. “The understanding of interconnections between the expression plane and content plane allows to regard text as a coherent but hierarchical structure whose elements are interconnected, but not equally significant. It is known, guage leads to the refusal a language must also alter ‘ways coexisting in the translation process: preservation, change, exclusion and addition of text elements. All these components are inevitable, but more or less optimal proportion can be established among them. A translator should determine less important text elements to create the game space. But the most important task is to determine the dominant, an element or a level providing ive value and req llectual ef- posed upon a text and translating is submitted to presupposed functions and translator’s aims. This fact should be taken into consideration in practical analyses. It is precisely the transposing of the dominant from one level to an- other, from structure to function ete. which characterizes the types of transla- tion within the framework of the single translational model "The description of the translation process is based upon the notions of i 1. The orientation to the ancy, consideration of the reader and recipient culrure, makes the dominant of synthesis. The other pair of parent notions is connected with operational dis- crimination between translation of the content plane (transposing) and transla- tion of the expression plane (re-coding). Linguistic and formal characteristics ¢ 89 of the text are the common dominant of re-coding whereas the creative | ‘model is the common dominant of transposing. In unifying the parameters of analy- sis-synthesis and re-coding-transposing we shall be able to construct the ‘taxonomical model for the translation process: ‘Adequate translation 1 Re-coding ‘Transposing Analysis Synthesis Analysis Syn ree autono- domi autono- domi- utono- domi autono- — domi- exact macro- quot: micro- descrip- thems- free —_expres~ stylistic tional stylistic tive ie sive Of course, the demarcation of translation types is not evaluative and the defi- nition of a type is not the determination of quality. It is possible to speak of quality within a separate type, comparing, for example, translations of the same type. Comparison of the translations of different types or the screen ad- aptations of the same text would be very instructive, although practice does not offer lot of materials of this kind. Screen adaptation as an extratextual translation is translation of the source text expressed by means of one sign system (a natural language) into the target text expressed by means of several sign systems. The number of sign systems ‘ed. In the case of screen adaptation it is also difficult to. speak of reverse translation. In comparing text interpretation with its decoding U. Eco has introduced the notion of extra-coding which unifies under-coding as making a potential code ofan unexistent code and over-coding as making more analytical (subcodes ofan existent code (Eco 1977: 133-136). Proceeding from the given approach, translation of literature into flm would be over-coding and re- verse translation would be under-coding. Over-coding specifies, under-coding deprives from concreteness (we could imagine, for example, a film fragment or 1 photo asa translation of the expression “a nice flower” and vice versa). Lf the theory of codes regards de-coding (comprehension) as conversion of an alien code into a natural (comprehensible) code (Dubrovskij 1979: 92), then 90 a literary or language code would be the primary code for screen adaptation. .¢ contradictoriness of an analysis may follow from the principles of struc- turing of the whole, Itis easy to see the principles of the code constructing in a comprehensible code. The other codes (montage, light, color, sound, ete.) are usually seen as additional information and not as independent codes. The s0- called natural signs, common understanding of gestures, mi prestige, wealth, poverty, ete, also complicates the comprehension of the film semiotics (see a generalized system of codes: Fawcett 1984: 149). ‘Describing the different rypes of screen adaptation we shall try to connect the aspects common for both literature and cinema: to connect text levels and narrativity with chronotopes. 1. The macrostylistic screen adaptation has the dominant in the text and its {formal characteristics. The major part of screen adaptations of classics, where an attempt has been made to preserve the framework of the text, protagonists and plot-story interrelation, belong to this type. For example, L. Visconti ‘wanted to film A. Camus’ The Stranger without a scrip, taking the book as a basis (Visconti 1986: 251). National classis are usually filmed like this . Amyes” ‘good example). It is essential to preserve a narrator's point of if alters in the text. For example, the beginning of V. eart (a screen adaptation of M. Bulgakov’s story) Bortko’s film The Dog's shows the world through the dog’s eyes like Bulgakov does in his work. The stylized chronotope predominates in macrostylistc sereen adaptations. Stylization may be based upon the style ofthe text (asin the above-mentioned works), but also upon a desire to address the film to the foreign spectator (N. Michalkov’s aesthetization of Oblomov), a seeking for (over)sociologization and spectacularity snov's Cruel Romance, a screen adaptation of A. ‘Ostrovskij's drama) and for just marking a chronotope to fix the mediation of, a different culture (War and Peace by King Vidor). “These films do not follow the texts literally. They support E.H. Gombrich’s assertion, that a selective representation not concealing the pri tion is much more informative than a copy (Gombrich 1972: 2. Exact sereen adaptations are based on information and content. Usually they are so called slow films where an attempt is made to set forth the maxi- ‘mum detailed content, even with commentary, if necessary. In more dynamic cases an epilogue or more often a prologue is used. For example, the first sen- tence of EM. Remarque’s The Arch of Trinmph tells us that a woman has « a moved straight towards the protagonist. This is also the beginning of V. Gussein’s screen adaptation which is very close to the text. First he uses key- note shots conveying the background information: Paris of 1939 (in titles), refugees’ hotels, the protagonist without passport, he is a doctor, he was ques- tioned by the Gestapo and thirsts for revenge. Ic is 2 brief mention for those who remember the novel and a necessary explanation for others. Father Sergij, directed by I. Talankin, is another case of an exact screen ion. It begins with the view of the cover of the posthumous collection -works in which Father Sergij has been published for th first time. “The film ends in Sergi’ leaving the monastery and the view ofthe last page of the story ~ the spectator can read the end himself. This is a very close render- ing. Although the chapters of Tolstoj’s story are not entitled, Talankin uses che intermediate titles (In the world, In the monastery) to designate every pe- riod of the hero’s “The third possibilty is the use of the narrator's offscreen voice. The narra- tor can comment on the passing of time, can fix a time gap between frames as in V. Zaljatkjavigus’ screen adaptation of The Notes of a Stranger by A. Cechov. The narrator may also acquire other functions. In War and Peace S. Bondaréuk’s offscreen voice reads Tolstoj’s philosophical meditations, intro- duces events and characters to the spectator, even comments on the feelings of heroes, as Tolstoy has done in his book. Such films seek for the preservation ‘of the concrete (eventive) chronotope. Balanced retro (The Arch of Triumph), explanatory titles in the beginning and in the end, intermediary titles, exact- ness of costume, furniture, dishes (Legend of Tiel, directed by A. Alov and V. Naumov) are possible in this case. 3. The microstylstic sereen adaptation proceeds from an hero, It means an immersion (psychological first of all in an hero's character and a textual shift depending on the chosen hero. It is possible to digress from the plot space (and therefore frequently from the conception), but also from the chronotope, transferring a plotline as independent into a new chronotope. As a result we ‘can speak of the concrete (transformed) historical chronotope. The distinctive cession from the plot space are I. Pyryev’s screen adaptations is film Idiot has the subheading Nastasja Filippona. the film was made in 1958, the refusal from the protagonist and Christian sprit is understandable. But his film Brothers Karamazov (1969) continues the same line: Ds Karamazov becomes the protagonist. Although it is a very 92 interesting character film, ie considerably digresses from Dostoevskij’s con- ception. “The transference of « hero into a new historical chronotope is another op- portunity. In this case the spectator would be less irritated by a digression from essential ideas, themes or heroes of the source text, because the prelimi- nary reading would not interfere. Thus the setting of A. Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood is 16th century Japan, although the source text is W. Shakespeare's ‘Macbeth. These films are often the so-called passion films. 4. Motiveis the dominant of quotational screen adaptations. These films are similar to the preceding type, but their connections with the source texts are weaker, the motive is the source text unit. A screen adaptation of not single work, but of the whole work of an author through the unifyi motives is possible. ‘A. Kurosawa’s Ran (1985) may be considered asthe first example. According to the film director, it is based on the story of a Japanese noble who lived in the end of his happy life, One had only to increase the sons the work which the film maker himself does not regard as a screen adapta- but which is nevertheless inseparable from Shake- speare's King Lear. The concrete (conceptualized) chronotope is presented in these films. The historical milieu is recognizable, but enriched (or shifted towards tendentiousness) by the symbolics of behavior, things, conception, or color, light and sound effects. For example, B. Parker writes on the different versions of Lear: “Where Brook and Kozintcev avoid spectacular it” (Parker 1986: 414) In unifying several works itis difficult to preserve the author's peculiarity and (causal) connections between events and characters. As a result a number of weakly connected episodes appears. S. Shuster’s Fires, a screen adaptation of Cechov, belongs to this kind of film. N. Michalkov’s An Unfinished Piece for the Mechanical Piano (on Cechov's motives) belongs to the same type, but the light direction and the attractive manner of the actors’ performance raise its coherence (Michalkovich 1986: 73-75). 5. The dominant of the thematic screen adaptation is naturally, a theme. As listinct from the preceding type, motives belong to the theme complex, and motives is preserved. The chronotope also follows from the thematic, but the theme can be archaized or modernized. Hence we Kurosawa enjoys € 93 can speak of the compensatorial chronotope. Frequent representatives of this types are screen adaptations of the works whose chronotope was not specified by the author (for example, V. Zurlini’s Il deserto dei Tartari on the basis of the novel by D. Buzzati) ‘The films transferring a theme of the work into another chronotope, usu- ally with modernization, also belong to this chronotope. For example, in 1983 R. Bresson made the film Money based on Tolstoj's story A False Coupon. ‘The setting is modern France, but at first the film exactly follows the text, the core ofthe conflict (the theme of false money) is being conveyed to the specta~ tor circumstantally. The analogy of heroes is apparent, although there is a chronological shift: the schoolboy remains schoolboy, shop and prison are 3¢ firewood seller becomes a petrolcar driver, etc. The theme is 0 the end, b poetics is not observed. Tolstoj’s story is to a ready script (43 chapters on 66 pages), where all chapters are caus- ally connected: fist the evil bears the evil, then the good bears the good. Psychologism also becomes thematic in this type of screen adaptation. A single theme realized differently by different characters, not the mutual rela- tions of characters, becomes the emotional dominant. 6. The descriptive sreen adaptation proceeds from conflict, and as a descriptive film is seeking by all means forthe strengthening or generalization of the confi “Thisis reached by means ofthe associative chronotope. For example, V. Rasput novel Farewell 0 Matyora turned into Farewell in L. Sepitko/E. Klimov's ver- sion. The film starts from the five workers’ arrival to the island which has to bbesunk and the first sentence of the novel in titles. Workers’ cloaks turn them into angels or a associated with apocalyptic eschatology. The film essentially increases the degree of generalization. ‘Another example of this type is M. Schweitzer’s The Kreutzer Sonata, “Tolstoy's vast reasonings on man and woman, family and society relations are ¢ the same time Tolstoy's social-critical pathos is being transferred by ‘newsreel shots and photography (pornographic pictures and perma- dreams). A moving locomotive is 2 symbol of the earth- ions between man and woman, The spectator does not lose rical chronotope, but the latter becomes associa~ Genre is the dominant of the expressive screen adaptation. Depending on genre a text is freely changed, modernized, or an attempt is made to create a 94 film appealing to eternity. Therefore the degree of closeness to the textis quite diverse. For example, G. Kozintcev's Hamlet and King Lear are made as trag- dies, the Soviet version of Three Mousquetaives as a musical, W. Scott's Ivanhoe as The Ballad on the Noble Knight Ivanhoe with V. Vysotskijs issoli’s Othello di Oliveira is a film about the Brazilian carnival where the Gipsy’s son is the musical director of a samba school, a mother's ring substitutes the Shakespearian handkerchief, ec. ~ a simple didactic story against the carnival background. Thus, in inner (Kozintcev) or outward (Grissol Genre causes the abstract (changed) chronotope to become the dominant. Expressiveness does not need historicism, it can proceed from philosophical comprehension of the world and events, form panhuman moral qualities, and also become an expression of national ethics. A rare example is T. Abuladze’s Entreaty where V. Piavel’s poetry forms the rhythm of the whole text, and the passages from the broadcaster's text to the authorial text create a dialogue ‘within the film and between different historical periods. The synthesis of the cethnographical and the human in Abuladze is comparable with the archetypal- national films directed by M. Jancsé (Elektra, My Love) or the eternalist films by PP. Pasolini (King Oedipus, Medeid). Expressive screen adaptations have a relatively weak connection with time and space which makes them panhuman. Atthe same time they are very active as regards to the source text and become multidimensional or playful (playing with the source text) 8. The free screen adaptation f transfers an emphasizedly individual viduality makes these films paradoxally close to the text against the back- ground of which an individual interpretation is understood. The concrete (film maker’) chronotope becomes the dominant of the free screen adaptation. The ion of the film-maker’s chronotope is necessary because question of modernization, but of the film maker's version which can be also accompanied by the transference into his time. As compared with thematic ad- aptations these films are more conceptual and are often closer to the source though the film maker's style predominates. A. Kurosawa’s Idiot and ‘isconti’s White Nights observe Dostoevskijs spirit. The seting of the first is afterwar Japan, the action of the second takes place in Italy. In M. Schweitzer’s Dead Souls, the conditional space appears: we can see the author among the heroes, he is doubled, he exists in reality asa light and dark expres- type expression may be either ys from an interpretation or a version, it 95 sion of Gogol’s personality. Schweitzer attempted to show not only the text, but the inner strugele of its ereator. Another example is A. Tarkovskij’s Ioan’s Childhood based on V. Bogomolov’s story /vaz. Despite the general affinity to the text, Tarkovski includes elements of his own style in the film regarding the destruction of the boy's childhood as general destruction of all humankind and culture. That is ‘why the film ttle is longer. In the text dreams are absent (mother’s death and the bucket falling into water in the beginning of the film, Ivan himself disap- pearing in water in the end) as wel asthe old man at ruins and the small bell In the film Ivan is watching a Diirer album instead of the war-diaries. The documentary shots of Goebbels’ dead family and the dried tree appear in the __ tences, formulations of ideas, schemes, drawings, calligraphy, unde end, Bell, church ruins, works of art, dried tree ~ they are the elements of style and even leitmotives of his subsequent films. Although the formentioned types of screen adaptation are not quite clearly distinguishable, and rather different films turn out to belong to the same type, it seems to us that itis nevertheless possible to describe the whole variety of screen adaptations maintaining the comparability of different types. Inner typologization seems more productive than outer, because it preserves the unity of descriptional principles. The next step would be a more systemati- cal determination of the method of screen adaptation as ext tion, Our aim was to show a possible foundation for the conceptual approach to extratextual translation as a process participating in total translation. Conclusion A separate page of a writer’s draft manuscript where words, fragments of sen s, dele- tions and various conditional signs are recognizable, the page which has been filled in diferent times, in differen inks, without any considered consistency — it is both an autonomous text reflecting the writer’s type of thinking and a processual text of the creative work reflecting a stage on the way from inten- tion to the printed text. The less often writers write on paper, depriving tex- tologists of their work, and the less strict the forms of literature are, the more the features of manuscript sheet are reflected in the whole culture, ie che text processualityis comparable to the processuality of culture. 96 Coexistence of the verbal and the visual and non-coincidence of their bor- der and the border between the verbal and iconic (against the background of ‘word iconicty, for example) points to the productivity of a semiotic approach es of texts generation and, correspondingly the description of us closer to the analysis of texts generation in contemporary culture at all. A permanent interweaving of tex and media, i. messages and meanings, takes place in culeu that culture is a permanent process of intersemioti translation, and even usual istic translation proves to belong to the possible world of semiosis. tersemiotic dimension of culture follows from the partial concur- rence of signs of languages (sign systems) of different arts: first, atthe level of separate existence of these languages and texts in these languages (for example, the case of theatre and cinema); second, at the level of mental interference, or the existence of a separate text simultaneous types (novel, film, performance, picture, et); third, atthe level of text projec- tion on the presuppositional textual or intertextual background. For example, speaking of drama, M. stinguishes between sign systems common to all dramatic media and sign systems confined to cinema and television (Esslin 1987), In the framework of visual poetry, intersign poetry with intersign se- manties and syntax appears, where a graphic picture is meaningless without a verbal game (Menezes 1997). In cin one may speak of the in- tertextual dialogue between French literature and French new w where the spectator is expected to be competent i ‘Thus describing the semiosis of culture it is important to keep in mind the ne- cessity of recognition of signs and that “semiosis in some sense is perception” (Allott 1994). And this perceptual unity of culeare makes a basis for the under- standing of interlinguistcality, intertextuality, interdiscursivity and intermedi- ‘two intertextual worlds. But these worlds are reflected in textual worlds which have their own borders and autonomy. To understand possibilities of translat- ability, the principal forms of the existence of texts and audiences encoded in them, it is useful to typologize intersemiotic translations proceeding not from their variegated abundance, but from a general model of the translation proc- 7 ess. The model ensures also the unity of description, since the most differing translations are comparable against the background of the general model, and ‘one can evaluate the particularities and dynamics of a certain culture oF cul- tural situation based on the interrelation of different types of translation. In culture, preliminary re and re-reading ae a the same time lis- tening and viewing, Therefore the notions of semiosis and intersemiosis being also complementary allow us to describe various phenomena. (Translated from Russian by Marina Grisakova) References ‘Alot, Robin (199), “Language and the Origin of Serioss™. In: Origins of Semionis: ‘Sign Evolution in Nature and Culture. Winfried Nath (ed). Berlin-New York Mouton de Gruyter, 255-268 Bemnardelli, Andre 2 77). A Theory of Semiotics. London-Basi Eco, Umberto (1990). The Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press Eichenbaum, Boris (197 grad: Isl Martin (1987). The Field of Drama. London: Methuen iteratura i kino”, In: [2 istori Lenfilma, Vyp. 3. Lenin- and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis”. Discourse & Society 3(2): 193-217 Faweett, Robin P. (1984). “System Networks, Codes, and Knowledge of the Uni- verse”, Fawcett, MAK. Halliday, SM. Lamb, A. Makai (eds). The Se- iotics of Culeure and Language. Vol. 2. Language and other Semiatic Systems of (Culture. London~Dover N.H: Frances Printer Publishers), 135-179 98 Gaiman, Hana Arie (1989). Sugjk Don Quixote Jesus Christ. In: Y. Tobin (ed). From ‘Sign to Text. A Semiotc View of Communication. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. Company, 191-213 Ginzburg, Lidia (1979). literaturnom geroje. Leningrad: Sovetskijpisate” Gombrich, Ernst H. (1972). "The Visual Image”. Scientific Americen 2273) * jinda L. (1993). Semiotics and the Problem of Translation with Special Refer- 0 the Semiotics of Charles S, Peirce. Alblasserdam: Offsetdrukkerij Kanters BY. Greber, Erika (1989). Intertextualitat und Interpretierbarkeit des Texts. Zur friben ‘Prosa Boris Pasteraks. Miinchen: Wilhelm Finke Geivel, Charles (198). *Serien textueller Perzeption. Eine Skizze”. Texte = Wiener Slawiischer Almanach Sonderb 11; 53-83 [Vienna Hannoosh, M. (1986). “Painting as : Dialog der for Modem Language Studies Hansen-Lave, Aage A. (1983). “Int ‘Korreation von Wort- und Bildkunst - Am Beispiel der russichen Moderne”. In Dialog der Texte = Wiener Slawistischer Almanach Sonderb. 11: 291-360 [Vienna] Holmes, James S. (1988). Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation ‘Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi Holthuis, Susanne (1994), “Intertextuality and Meaning Constitution. An Approach to ‘the Comprehension of Intertextual Poetry”. In: JS. Petdfi, T. Oliv (eds). Ap- ‘proaches to Poetry. Some Aspects of Textuality, Intertextuaity and Intermediaity. Berlin-New York: Walter de Groyter, 77-93 Hopfinger, Maryla (1974). Adaptagje flmove utworbuo literackich. Problensy teri i interpreta rakéw-Gdansk: PAN Jskobson, Roman (1971). "On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”. In: R. Jakobson. Se- lected Writings. 2. Word and Language. The Hague-Paris: Mouton Jensen, Klaus Bruhn (1995). The Social Semiotics of Mass Communication. London- ‘Thousand Osks-New Delhi: SAGE Publications Kibédi Varga, A. (1989). "Criteria for Describing Word-and-Image Relations”, Roeties ). Screening the Text. In ly in New Wave French Cinema. : The Johas Hopkins University Press ‘Intertextualitt und Sprachwechsel: Dielterarische Uberset- . Formen, Funktionen, anglistsche Fallaudien. U. Broich, Max Niemeyer, 137-158 Lachmann, Renate (1988). “Concepts of latertextuality”. In: Issues in Slavic Literary ‘and Cultural Theory. K. Eimermacher, P. Greybek, G. Witte (eds). Bochum: Brockmeyer, 391-400 Lotman, Jurij M. (1990). Universe of the Mind. A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Lon- don-New York: LB. Tauris & Co. ( 4 99 — (1992). zbrannyje stati v toch tomach, Vol 1. Stati po semiotike i tipolgt kal” tury. Tallin: Aleksandra MamardaWil, Merab; Patigor Menezes, Philadelpho ( ‘ments ~ the Case of Contemporary Brazilian Culture”. In: Semiotics Around the World: Syntbessin Diversity. Irmengard Rauch, Gerald F. Carr (ds). Berin-New ‘York: Mouton de Gruyter, 295-298 “Zdela’kartinu dja vseh!”.Sovetskajakulbwra 1603 186). Izobrazitelay jaryk sredstu massovnj Rommunikaci. Moskva ) erly 35(4) Pfister, Manfred (1985). *Konzepte der Intertextual Funktionen, anglistsche Falstudien. U. Broich, Niemeyer, 1-30 Plaza, Julio (1987). Tradugio intersemistice. Sto Paulo: Perspectiva Portis-Winner, Irene (1994). Semiotics of Culture: “The Strange Intrader®, Bochum: Brockmeyer Riffaterre, Michael (1994), “Intertexuality vs. Hypertextuaity”. New Literary History 788 : An Interpretative Act through Visualization”, Trans- of Communication. A Special Issue of Pacific Moana Quarterly 5(1) Smirnov, Igor P. (1985) Poroidenieintreckta. (Elementy intertekstualnogo analiza + ‘primera iz wordestua BLL. Pasternaka) = Wiener Slawistscher Almanach 17 [special issue] ‘Toporov, Vladimir N. (1992). “Translation: Sub Specie of Culture”. Meta XXXVII(1) 29-49 = (1993).*0 ‘rezonantnom' prostcanstve literatury(neskolko zameéani)”. In: Lit rary Tradition and Practice in Russian Culeure. V.Pohichina,J. Andrew, R. Reid 3). Amsterdam-Adanta: Rodopi, 16-60 ‘Torop, Pecter (1995). Tocalny perevod. Tare: Tartu University Press — (1998), “Granicy perevoda (sociosemioti¥eskijaspekt semiotiki perevoda)”. Sign Systems Studies 26: 136-150 ‘Tynjanoy, Jurj (1973). “Libreto kinofilma ‘Sinel”, In: [2 istorii Lenfilme. Vyp. 3. ‘Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 78-89 100 salizing and Imagining Sesing”. Analysis 47(4): 221-224 kodovych perchodach vo vnutrenne) rei". Voprosy jazy-

You might also like