Annales Neophilologiarum

ISSN: 1734-4557     eISSN: 2353-2823    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/an.2018.12-09
CC BY-SA   Open Access   CEEOL

Issue archive / 12 (2018)
The anthropocentrism of the process of literary communcation as discursive activity

Authors: Konrad Rachut ORCID
Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
Keywords: discourse verbal-mental activity literary text concept conceptosphere literary setting
Year of publication:2018
Page range:12 (113-124)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

This article examines the specificity of the link between the process of literary communication and discursive activity that manifests itself in the form of a literary text. Taking into consideration the postulates propagated by T. van Dijk and the cognitive-pragmatic postulates by N.F. Alefirienko on discourse, the author asserts that the discursive space of writers and readers is a verbal-mental source and environment for forming concepts that altogether constitute a conceptosphere – the mental foundation of the setting of a literary text. The act of creating and reading a literary text is therefore an anthropocentric process that is subjected to personal and social spheres that make discourse an individual property of each subject. Thus, interaction with a text becomes a unique act. A literary text consequently becomes only a material medium through which authors’ conceptospheres are verbalised and the readers’ conceptospheres are constructed.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Алефиренко, Н.Ф. (2010). Лингвокультурология. Ценностно-смысловое пространство языка: Учебное пособие. Moscow: Флинта.
2.Алефиренко, Н.Ф. (2011). Имплицитность художественного слова как когнитивно-дис- курсивная категория. Серия Гуманитарные науки, 12, 10, 5–11.
3.Алефиренко, Н.Ф. (2014). Когнитивно-прагматическая субпарадигма науки о языке. In: Е.Г. Озерова, И.Г. Паршина (eds.), Когнитивно-прагматические векторы совре- менного языкознания (p. 16–27). Moscow: Флинта.
4.Алефиренко, Н.Ф., Голованева М.А., Озерова Е.Г., Чумак-Жунь И.И. (2013). Текст и дис- курс. Moscow: Флинта.
5.Alefirenko, N.F., Rachut, K. (2017). The cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of modern linguistics. Austria-Science, 7, 38–46.
6.Barthes, R. (1977). The Death of the Author. In: S. Heath (ed.), Image – Music – Text (p. 142–148). London: Fontanta Press.
7.Bartmiński, J., Chlebda, W. (2013). Problem konceptu bazowego i jego profilowania – na przykładzie polskiego stereotypu Europy. Etnolingwistyka, 25, 69–95.
8.Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader: Explorations In the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
9.Eco, U. (1985). Lector in fabula. Paris: Grasset.
10.Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole, J.L. Morgan (edc.), Speech Acts (p. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
11.Ingarden, R. (1988). O dziele literackim. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
12.Szacki, J. (2005). Historia myśli socjologicznej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
13.van Dijk, T. (2006). Discourse, context, cognition. Discourse studies, 8, 1, 159–177.
14.van Dijk, T. (1998). Ideology. A multidisciplinary approach. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.