Works of literature are built from systems, codes and traditions which are established by previous works of literature. The systems, codes and traditions of other art forms and of culture are crucial to meaning of a work of literature. Texts are viewed by modern theorists as lacking in any kind of independent meaning. This is called intertextuality. A text is permutation of texts, an intertextuals in the space of a given text, in which several utterances, taken from other texts, intersect and neutralize one another.
Whether the author entered those texts consciously or spontaneously unconscious. Kristeva argues that the text is the intersection of other texts where we read at least a text in which is consistent with Bakhtin theory, that each text is a mosaic of quotations, and each text is absorbed and converted to other text. (María Jesús Martínez Alfaro 1996:268) Intertextuality in literature generally used within historiographic metafiction to impose question about the outcome of using history. It is possible to access the past by extracting it from the narration. The Postmodern history is melted historical and literary texts together.
The authors describe the straw man fallacy as an argument when a writer constructs a misinterpreted version of an argument that distorts its original meaning and intentions in order to criticizes it as if it were the real argument (401). The either/or fallacy is explained as two choices that are presented as if they are the only two choices and there are no other options or anything in-between (401). The authors describe the false analogy fallacy as an argument that takes advantage of similarities between entities to provide a basis for the inference that these entities might also share some other property (401). Latin is used to title another logical fallacy, Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, meaning "After this, therefore, because of this." This is a belief that because event B happened after event A it was a result by event A (401).
This is when one traces pieces and sews or borrows them together to create something out of it. Or as they note in the Writing about writing, “ Discourse is composed of traces, pieces and bits other texts that help construct the actual meaning.” However, texts won’t always refer to the texts even if they actually did refer to them. An example given is the Declaration of Indepence, the claim is that Thomas Jefferson traced and borrowed when writing it and it was not original. It mentions that it contains traces that could be found in different documents, an example being in the Bill of Rights of 1689. But what if jefferson wanted to emphasize something?
In one instance Nabokov is creating nonsense out of a verse by Kipling (Nabokov 448), which again suggests this international personality who can manoeuvre though different languages, playing with words, nevertheless, with the English tradition in mind. This makes Nabokov’s postscript a bit ironic since he throughout the novel is using the English canon as reference in which aspect it seems more than his heritage additional to his ability to play around with this content in different languages suggests that he does indeed transcend his heritage as an illusionist of languages. To the extend in which this is done may, however, be an indication of
In his introduction to his book Museum of Words, Heffernan suggests that probably the accurate method to learn about the sister arts is: “ by simply comparing them, by observing similarities that help us to read _ more accurately to construct_ the signature of a “period” or to formulate a master theory of signification”(Heffernan 2004). In his book Museum of Words he writes about W. J. T. Mitchell’s analysis in the ground of sister arts analysis Iconology that “ treats the relation between literature and the visual arts as essentially paragonal, a struggle for dominance between the image and the word”(Heffernan 2004). When addressing the constructiveness of ekphrastic texts in The Moor’s Last Sigh, I followed theorist Ruth Webb’s categorization of the identifiable elements of ekphrasis, which corresponds, to the Greek Progymnasmata’s presentation of ekphrasis. She mentions how Quintilian, a Roman rhetorician, differentiated between “ a plain
The researcher has tried to analyze the lexical borrowings in Urdu and its use in semantically different context. 4.5. SEMANTIC CHANGE IN ARABIC LOANWORDS IN HASUA: In this paper ‘Muhammad Arzika Danzaki’ has tried to show Arabic loanwords in Hausa language with particular reference to those words that have either changed meaning or shifted away from the denotations of their Arabic 'originals '. 4.6. LEXICAL BORROWING AND SEMANTIC CHANGE: A CASE OF ENGLISH AND GĨKŨYŨ CONTACT: In his thesis researcher ‘Njagi, James Kinyua’ has made an attempt to investigate lexical borrowing from English into Gĩkũyũ and the cases of semantic change.
Raising this question that “why do current approaches to narrative have this blind spot when it comes to the translator’s voice? Why do we, as readers, prefer to ignore this ‘other’ discursive presence? (p. 43, writer’s emphasis), Hermans argues that the reason lies in the cultural and ideological construct of translation in Western culture: “translation as transparency and duplicate, as not only consonant but coincident and hence to all intents and
Amos 9:11-15. Structuralism is a recent development of literary criticism. Structuralism stresses and approach to the text and its final finish form. It explores the Bible correspondence to the literature of other cultures telling similar stories: Example, the Gilgamesh Epic, and the Numa a leash. It attempts to arrive to a universal human psychology, suggesting that the text can have a meaning beyond the understanding of its author.
Some linguistic features of English varieties may come from stereotypes attached to the language itself, but to what extent it can be suggested that a dialect is being stereotyped? What signs can we identify as stereotypes when comes to a dialect? Leigh (2012), in his article Fingerprinting the Literary Dialects of Three Works of Plantation Fiction, believed that it would be necessary a high knowledge of ‘textual manipulation’ to demonstrate the authenticity and stereotypes of a text. Groebner (2004) (as cited in Edwards, 2009) pointed out, that the issue of identity is important when analyzing the language. The word ‘identity’ can indirectly lead us into misconceptions since it is certainly true that a language has an identity based on several factors, and those ‘elements’ bring along a set of cultural and social stereotypes that are manifested in language itself.