Фрагментація постмодерного прозового тексту: засади і прийоми

• Authors: Iryna Kropyvko

Title variants

EN

The fragmentation of postmodern prose: principles and techniques

Abstracts

EN

The article focuses on factors and manifestations of postmodern text fragmentation. A fragment is one of the central concepts of modern and postmodern literature. The modernist fragment was a means of cognitive activity and a form of its adequate representation. It was determined by the basic concept of the integrity of a literary phenomenon and recognition of its encoded meaning, as well as encouraged the reader to invent missing parts. It has been proven that for postmodernist prose, the fragment is the only possible mode of its existence, an artistic strategy and an artistic device. The postmodernist text is positioned by the game field, where equal participants play with multiple-order fragments. Such fragments include preceding artistic traditions and techniques. Text fragmentation is enhanced by equalizing the rights of the author, character and the reader. Each participant of the literary communication has their own (partial) view of the art world. Narrative strategies of prose fragmentation are determined by the ways of building rhizomatic narratives and the peculiarities of their perception by the receptionist. Ukrainian and Polish writers use various means of constructing a fragmented text at the levels of its conceptualization, narrative structure, interpretative and receptive strategy, image-based specificity (intermediateness etc.).

Keywords

EN

fragment; fragmentarity; modern/postmodern prose; postmodernism; fiction text; Ukrainian literature; Polish literature

• Publisher: Wydział Lingwistyki Stosowanej Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego
• Journal: Studia Polsko-Ukraińskie
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 9
• Pages: 141-161

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Iryna Kropyvko

• Oles Honchar Dnipro National University

• https://orcid.org/0000000296488340

References

• Baran B., Postmodernizm i końce wieku, Inter esse, Kraków 2003.
• Bart R., S / Z, per. s fr. G. Kosikov, V. Murat, izd. 2, Edytorial URSS, Moskva 2001.
• Biletska O., Hrafichna forma postmodernistskoho multymodalnoho khudozhnoho tekstu kriz pryzmu hrafosemiotyky [w:] „Lvivskyi filolohichnyi chasopys”, № 1, 2017, s. 10–15.
• Bovsunivska T., Smyslotvorcha funktsiia kontekstu [w:] „Slovo i Chas”, № 6, 2011, s. 3–13.
• Bodryiiar Zh., Paroli. Ot fragmenta k fragmentu, per. N. Suslov, U-Faktoriia, Ekaterinburg 2006.
• Bondareva O., Transformatsiia modernistskoho mifu pro Tvortsia u postmodernistsku dobu i zhanrolohichnyi shliakh vid teurhichnoho diistva do antyvystavy [w:] „Visnyk Odeskoho natsionalnoho universytetu”, seriia: Filolohiia: literaturoznavstvo, t. 13, vyp. 7, 2008, s. 19–33.
• Brovko O., Novela v strukturi ukrainskoi prozy: modyfikatsii ta funktsii, Vydavnytstvo DZ „LNU imeni Tarasa Shevchenka”, Luhansk 2011.
• Czapliński P., Wyzwania prozy polskiej lat dziewięćdziesiątych, http://culture.pl/pl/artykul/wyzwania-prozy-polskiej-lat-dziewiecdziesiatych, [08.11.2016].
• Danylenko V., Lisorub u pusteli: Pysmennyk i literaturnyi protses, Akademvydav, Kyiv 2008.
• Delaperrière M., Fragment i całość czyli Dylematy nowoczesności [w:] „Teksty Drugie”, № 3 (45), 1997, s. 21–42.
• Fajfer Z., Nie(o)pisanie liberatury, http://witryna.czasopism.pl/gazeta/artykul.php?id_artykulu=271, [10.08.2015]. Gretkovska M., Polka, per. O. Krasiuk, Nora-Druk, Kyiv 2005.
• Grochowski G., „Ubi leones” [w:] „Teksty Drugie”, t. 1–2, 2013, s. 6–12, http://rcin.org.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=62037 [05.08.2018].
• Holoborodko Ya., „Katekhizys liubovi” Oksany Zabuzhko (kontroversiini refleksii) [w:] „Slovo i Chas”, № 7, 2017, s. 115–123.
• Holoborodko Ya., Dzvinka Matiiash & konstrukt tekstovoho loto [w:] „Slovo i Chas”, № 6, 2011, s. 82–86.
• Holoborodko Ya., Svitlana Povaliaieva. Vulkanichna katehoriia Logos [w:] „Slovo i Chas”, № 2, 2016, s. 88–94.
• Koval M., Hra v romani i hra v roman (pro tvorchist Dzhona Barta), Piramida, Lviv 2000.
• Kostiuk V., Denysenko V., Modern yak pole eksperymentu (Komichne, frahment, hipertekstualnist), Kyiv 2002.
• Nycz R., O kolażu tekstowym (na materiale prozy Leopolda Buczkowskiego) [w:] „Teksty Drugie”, № 4 (40), 1978, s. 9–29.
• Semyzhenko A., Khimchak T. Taras Prokhasko: ...doplysty, doikhaty, znaity, vidkryty, poprobuvaty, opanuvaty, http://www.azh.com.ua/lit/taras-prokhasko, [24.05.2016].
• Shyichuk A., Kot [w:] Hopak, uporiad. A. Shyichuk, Dyskursus, Brusturiv 2013, s. 69–81.
• Szahaj A., Co to jest postmodernizm? [w:] Postmodernizm: Teksty polskich autorów, Bunkier Sztuki, Inter esse, Kraków 2003, s. 41–52.
• Utracka D., Transgresje i liminalność tekstu. Między estetyką fragmentu a „karnawałem” transmedialności [w:] „Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis”, Studia Poetica, t. III, folia 186, 2015, s. 36–67.

Identifiers

DOI

10.31338/2451-2958spu.9.9

Biblioteka Nauki

2157678