Desde la escuela de Tartu con semiótica de la cultura, Peter Torop expande su Teoría sobre la Traducción, hacia la Intersemiosis y la intersistémica dentro de ésta.
Desde la escuela de Tartu con semiótica de la cultura, Peter Torop expande su Teoría sobre la Traducción, hacia la Intersemiosis y la intersistémica dentro de ésta.
Desde la escuela de Tartu con semiótica de la cultura, Peter Torop expande su Teoría sobre la Traducción, hacia la Intersemiosis y la intersistémica dentro de ésta.
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 draft76
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 cinema86
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), then90
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 very92
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 a94
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), 135-17998
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, 78-89100
salizing and Imagining Sesing”. Analysis 47(4): 221-224
kodovych perchodach vo vnutrenne) rei". Voprosy jazy-