This article is a textual analysis of Vizijos (Visions), a cycle of poems by Vytautas Mačernis (1921–1944). The analysis focuses on enunciative meaning-making. The theory of enunciation (énonciation) originated in lingustics, as an inquiry into the speaking subject which, by an act of enunciation, appropriates the system of language. The introductory part of the article presents enunciative textual analysis as a modification of so-called standard greimasian textual semiotics. As a case in point, a textual analysis, by Algirdas Julien Greimas, of a poem by Marcelijus Martinaitis (“Ašara, dar tau anksti...”) is discussed, highlighting Greimas’ reluctance to discuss enunciative meaning-making. Next follows a brief discussion of an outline for inquiry into the formal apparatus of enunciation as proposed by Émile Benveniste. A model of dimensions of enunciative meaning-making that are relevant to a textual analysis of a lyric text is presented.The first part of the textual analysis is dedicated to the “Įžanga” (“Prelude”) of Visions. It is inferred that in terms of enunciative meaning-making the “Prelude” is distinct from the other parts of the work. It is argued that the “Prelude” does not live up to the standard set by those other parts. In order to demonstrate what that standard is, “Pirmoji” (“The First”) vision and excerpts of other parts are discussed. Throughout the demonstration, it is suggested that an inquiry into enunciative meaning-making leads to a different understanding of Visions than the one proposed in comprehensive studies by Virginija Balsevičiūtė-Šlekienė.
Nijolė Keršytė, Pasakojimo pramanai: Monografija, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2016, 496 p., ISBN 978-609-459-798-5
The article examines poetic discourse in the early works of Sigitas Geda— these include Pėdos [Footprints, 1966], Geda’s first published collection of poems, and Strazdas [A Thrush, 1967], a long narrative poem. Poetic discourse is loosely defined in the article as a kind of modelling of meaningful speech in textual practice. The particular literary works selected are read as manifestations of a type of poetic discourse. The article presents an interpretative explication of this particular type and contrasts this approach with established mythopoetic readings of Geda’s oeuvre. In an attempt to examine poetic discourse enunciation, the article describes qualities of the textual fabric, e.g. modes of cohesion, part-towhole relations, collocations, dynamic vectors (such as crescendos), figures of the speaker, object representation, etc.The article singles out and discusses three aspects of the works in question: the particularities of plural enunciation and the way the enunciator projects itself as the ground for the totality of the represented world; the particular cognitive semiotic construct wherein a traditional landscape is represented as a diagrammatic sign that generates signification related to the past, integrating selected modern objects; a micro-plot of ecstatic experience by way of an immediate subjective encounter with the immensity of the past; and epiphanic images of primitive cosmology that emerge in moments of extreme intensity, as attained in the process of enunciation by the selfprojecting imagination.
The author of this article has given himself the task of applying the linguistic concept of idiolect to the description of a poetic text’s ideolectic, or singular, nature. To do this he has chosen a text of the second half of the twentieth century, Sigitas Geda’s (1943—2008) first book of poetry, Pėdos (Footprints) (1966). Discussing the descriptive possibilities of semiotic singularity, the author problematizes the analytical concept of expression as spoken utterance. He argues that the paradigm of speech usage limits understanding of the specificity of the poetic text and can be overcome by recognizing not the unusual usage of language, but the textualized significatory intentions within poetry. Moreover, because the analysis draws largely upon the semiotic perspective developed by the school of Algirdas Julius Greimas, it critiques the idea of textual content that has become entrenched within that tradition. Instead of considering the text as a territory generating selfevident, anonymous meanings, the author focuses his analysis on the acts of internal generation and interpretation that are typical of poetic texts.Analyzing the texts that make up Geda’s book, Jevsejevas first of all draws on Roland Barthes’ concept of style, shifting his attention from the author’s person to the foundational culture of the text. In this way he is able to identify fantastical landscape as a category of phenomenal expression in Pėdos. The author demonstrates that, on this basis, the texts in the collection generate signs that have object-like qualities and belie fragments of cultural memory. The author of the article sees this kind of textual creation as pathos and as a playful valorization of tradition which makes it possible to lay out fragments of memory for the purposes of an understanding based on epic impression. He claims that it is fantasy that makes it possible to invest visible elements with meanings provided by cultural memory and, from that, to create a relatively closed circle of meaning.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.