THE PROBLEM OF THE RELATIONSHIP AUTHOR – WORK – READER In the context of the theory of intertextuality – 2024-1


Hripsime A. Zakaryan
Candidate of Sciences in Philology

Intertextuality, which implies a text within a text, a means of expressing the author’s individual style, is also perceived as a form of author-reader communication, divided into authorial intertextuality and readerly intertextuality, of which the reading medium implies in its own textual space, openly or in an encrypted way, inspirations of other author’s texts, its separate sections, ideas with a conscious or unconscious impulse. The level of textual communication is considered as an “internal dialogue” between the author and the reader within the scope of the work. When addressing the issue of intertextuality, it is also necessary to emphasize the factor of the reader, which plays a key role in the process of highlighting the author’s individual style. The work of fiction, being a reflection of the cognitive and emotional world of the author, is appropriated in the consciousness of the reader by certain means: linguistic, extra- linguistic, cultural, etc. In the creative process, the writer in one way or another takes into account the peculiarities of the specific era, tries to look at the phenomena from the point of view of the typical generalizations of the time. The artistic text is a system woven with meaningful codes that materialize the author’s ideological and aesthetic, worldview foundations, which actively influence the formation of the ideological and aesthetic co-structure of the artistic text, becoming orienting ways of realizing the literary problem. In the process of perceiving a literary text, the reader’s perceptions, approaches and psychology are affected by many factors: historical, political, psychological, etc., which create different, often conflicting and contradictory points of view among different readers. A fictional text, having its own inner objective life, is nevertheless subject to the reader’s rational or irrational discretion. The effective reading of the text depends on the combination of the reader’s knowledge and the author’s intentions, the realities proposed by him.

In the context of the theory of intertextuality, R. The ideological uniqueness of Barthes’ concept of “death of the author”, the features of formation and manifestation, the problem of the relationship between the theory of “intertextuality” and the theory of “death of the author”. Various literary approaches to the phenomenon of authorial and reading intertextuality are considered. Various examples of intertextual connections, existing views on the mechanisms of text interaction are given.

In the article, an attempt was also made to analyze the modern artistic experience with the logic of the aesthetic transitions brought by postmodernism in artistic thinking.

The article aims to consider intertextuality as a means of forming the author- work-reader connection.

The methodological basis of this article is M. Bakhtini, Yu. Kristeva, U. Eko, I. V. Arnoldi, M. The studies dedicated to the problem of the intertextuality theory, the author-reader relationship by Riffater and others. In the article, the methods of classification and coordination, observation were used.


1. Assmann A. Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook (ed. by A. Erll, A. Nünning), Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008 (In English).
2. Avetisyan Z., Grakan steghtsagortsut‘yan hogebanut‘yun, Yer., YePH hrat., 2011 (In Armenian).
3. Arnol‘d I., Semantika. Stilistika. Intertekstual‘nost‘, (nauch. red. P.Ye. Bukharkin), M., izd. “FLINTA”, 2019, (In Russian).
4. Bart R., Izbrannyye raboty: Semiotika. Poetika. M., izd. “Progress”, 1989 (In Russian).
5. Bakhtin M. M., Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva. M., izd. “Iskusstvo”, 1979 (In Russian).
6. Ēdoyan H., Sharzhum depi havasarakshṛut‘yun, Yer., “S. Khach‘ents‘, P‘rint‘info”, 2009 (In Armenian).
7. Eko U., Rolʻ chitatelya. Issledovaniya po semiotike teksta [per. s angl. i ital.: S. Serebr’yanogo]. SPb., Simpozium, 2007 (In Russian).
8. Eco U. Interpretation and history, Interpretation and overinter-pretation; ed. S. Collini, Cambridge University Press, 1992b. (In English).
9. Eliot T. S. The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. London: Methuen & CO. LTD., 1934 (in English).
10. Eliot T. S. Selected prose of T. S. Eliot. A Harvest book. New York; London, 1975 (In English).
11. Emmot C. Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Oxford, “Clarendon Press”, 1997 (In English).
12. Fatejeva N. A.,Intertekstual’nost’ i yeye funktsii v khudozhestvennom diskurse. Izv. RAN. Ser.lit. i yaz., M., 1997, t. 56. № 5 (In Russian).
13. Fedorov A. A., Kontseptsiya literaturnogo tvorchestva Umberto Eko i voploshcheniye modeli pisatelya “Umberto Eko – M-avtor”, “Rossiyskiy gumanitarnyy zhurnal”, 2016, t. 5. №6 (In Russian).
14. Genette G., Palimpsestes, La Littérature au second degré, Paris, Seuil, 1982, 467 p. (In French)
15. Jauß H.-R. “Literaturgeschichte als Provokation”, Suhrkamp Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, 1970 (In German).
16. Khalizev V. Ye., Teoriya literatury, M., Izd. “Vyssh. shkola”, 2000 (In Russian).
17. Khal’bvaks M., Kollektivnaya i istoricheskaya pamyatʻ. Neprikosnovennyy zapas, 200, № 2–3 (In Russian).
18. Khalʻbvaks M., Sotsial’nyye ramki pamyati, M., izd. “Novoye izdatelʻstvo”, 2007 (In Russian).
19. Kristeva Ju., Izbrannyye trudy: razrusheniye poetiki (per. s frants.), M., izd. “Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya” (ROSSPEN), 2004 (In Russian).
20. Kukharenko V. A., Interpretatsiya teksta. (uchebnoye posobiye.-2-ye izd., pererab.), M., Prosveshcheniye,1988 (In Russian).
21. Kolesnikov S. A., Vzglyani na dom svoy, avtor!., Chelovek, 2017. № 4 (In Russian).
22. Lachmann R., Pamyatʻ i literatura. Intertekstualʻnostʻ v russkoy literature XIX-XX vekov/ Per. s nem. A.I. Zherebin. – SPb: ID “Petropolis”, 2011 (In Russian).
23. Lurija A. R., Osnovnyye problemy neyrolingvistiki. M.: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 1975 (In Russian).
24. Lukin V. A., Roli avtora i “effekt obraza avtora” na fone tipologii tekstov, Voprosy psikholingvistiki”, 2015, 3 (25) (In Russian).
25. Lotman YU. M., Izbrannyye statʻi, Tallinn, 1992, t.1. (In Russian).
26. Lotman YU. M., Uspenskiy B.A. O semioticheskom mekhanizme kul’tury. Trudy poznakovym sistemam. Tartu, 1971. Vyp. 5 (In Russian).
27. Madoyan G. G., Heghinaki mtadrutʻyuny vorpes tekʻstabanakan kʻnnutʻyan arrarka, b. g. tʻ. gitakan astichani hayts‘man atenakhosut’yan seghmagir, Yer., 2015 (In Armenian).
28. Piégay-Gros N. Introduction à l’intertextualité. Paris: Nathan, 2002 (In French).
29. Riffater M. La trace de l’intertexte, “La Pensee”, 1980. № 215, october (In French).
30. Simyan T., Gegharvestakan tek‘sti yntʻerts‘umě yev nra dzhvarut‘yuně (hogebanakan tesankyun), Grakanagitakan handes, 2007 A-B (In Armenian).
31. Smirnov I. P., Porozhdeniye Interteksta. Elementy intertekstualʻnogo analiza s primerami iz tvorchestva B. L. Pasternaka. SPb. Izd. SPbGU, 1995 (In Russian).
32. Suprun A. Ye., Tekstovyye reministsentsii kak yazykovoye yavleniye, Voprosy yazykoznaniya. M., 1995, №6 (In Russian).
33. Speshilova Ye. I. Bessmertiye avtora, Chelovek.RU № 11, 2016 (In Russian).
34. Sopina A. L., Kognitivnyye osnovaniya intertekstualʻnosti. Vestnik NGU. Seriya: Lingvistika i mezhkulʻturnaya kommunikatsiya. 2018, 16 (2) (In Russian).
35. Tomashevskiy B., Teoriya literatury. Poetika. 5-ye izd, M.-L.: GIZ, 1930 (In Russian).
36. Turisheva O. N., Artasahmanyan grakanagitut‘yan tesut‘yuně yev met‘odabanut‘yuně. Usumnakan dzerrnark/ Rrus. t‘argm. A. Jrbashyani, Yer., YePH hrat., 2017 (In Armenian).
37. Vinogradov V. V., O teorii khudozhestvennoy rechi: Ucheb. posobiye dlya filol. spets. un- tov i ped. in-tov, M., “Vysshaya shkola”, 1971 (In Russian).
38. Vulf V. Obyknovennyy chitatelʻ. V. Vulf, N. I. Reyngol’d, A. N. Gorbunov. M., “Nauka”, 2012, 720 s. (In Russian).
39. Jakobson R. O Strukturalizm “za” i “protiv”, M., “Progress”, 1975 (In Russian).