Multi-source symbiosis of textual meaning-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Multi-source symbiosis of textual meaning

Published:2024-05-01 Issue:2 Volume:20 Page:211-229
ISSN:2198-9605
Container-title:Chinese Semiotic Studies
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Zeng Jun¹

Affiliation:

1. Shanghai University , Shanghai , China

Abstract

Abstract In both Chinese and Western literary theory, there are several fundamental perspectives on the exploration of “the source of textual meaning,” which can be categorized into ontological, entitative, and generative types. Future research must integrate the “source” perspective with the “trigger” perspective, while overcoming the postmodern cultural pluralist limitations of “multiple symbiosis.” This article adopts the perspective of a “multi-source symbiosis” of textual meaning and maintains that textual meaning possesses characteristics of multiple sources, co-generation, and dynamic transformation. The “multi-source symbiosis” of textual meaning does not emphasize “differences,” but rather strives for “consensus.” The objectivity of the source of textual meaning and the regularity of textual understanding and interpretation are the prerequisites for agreement on textual meaning. The trigger mechanism for the symbiosis of textual meanings lies in three aspects: disclosing textual meanings in reading behavior, proliferating textual meanings in critical activities, and multi-source triggering of textual meanings in literary events. “Multi-source symbiosis” creates a heteroglossic state of textual meaning, with the ultimate goal of establishing a common understanding of textual meaning.

Funder

National Social Science Fund of China, titled “Research on the Discourse Construction of Dialogism Literary Theory in Contemporary China”

Scientific Research Innovation Plan of the Shanghai Municipal Education Commission’s

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Link

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/css-2024-2012/pdf

Reference29 articles.

1. Abrams, Meyer Howard. 1953. The mirror and the lamp: Romantic theory and the critical tradition. London, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

2. Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1986. Toward a methodology for the human sciences. In Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (eds.), translated by Vern W. McGee, Speech genres and other late essays, 159–172. Austin: University of Texas Press.

3. Barthes, Roland. 1977. The death of the author. In Image, music, text, 142–148. Essays selected and translated by Stephen Heath. London: Fontana.

4. Barthes, Roland. 1986. From work to text. In The rustle of language, 56–64. Translated by Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

5. Benjamin, Walter. 2008. The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility: Second version. In Michael W. Jennings, Brigid Doherty & Thomas Y. Levin (eds.), translated by Edmund Jephcott, Rodney Livingstone, Howard Eiland, et al., The work of art in the age of its technological reproducibility, and other writings on media, 19–55. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.