Анализ семантических и стилистических особенностей пародию по мотивам произведений

                        PARODY IN THE POETIC DISCOURSE

       

2.1. Major characteristics of the poetic discourse

Poetic discourse is literary communication in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings, thoughts, ideas or description of places or events by the use of distinctive diction (sometimes involving rhyme), rhythm (sometimes involving metrical composition), style and imagination. [37, 1430].

In the poetic text, where a dash semiotic experiment denudes semiotic phenomena and suggests infinite possibilities for creating more complex forms of order, the controlling semantic role of various types of language signs is especially prominent. In this case one should look for the laws of artistic manipulation of a particular sign. Metaphorically speaking, “it is certainly true of a work of art in a technological sense: viaduct or tunnel, the work of art makes real the simultaneous passing of two actants in conflict (i.e. of equal value): a railway line on the one hand, river or mountain, on the other”.

As a matter of fact, Thom’s formula is a more semiotically strict periphrasis of Jacobson’s ‘canonical parallelism’ idea, i.e. ‘the projection of the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection onto the axis of combination’. Semantic tautology that makes the poetic message, self-contained, self-focusing and autonomic, i.e. speaking mainly of itself or of the relation between signans and signatum, is emphasized again. But Thom’s definition goes further – it is permeated by a sense of stereological structure that gives us the idea how everything is inseparably liked in the poetic text – rhyme and meter, sound and meaning, form and content. The poetic text does not have a logic, it has a rhetoric, that is first of all semiotic machinery.

Let’s consider the most striking examples of medieval romances, manneristic and modernistic poetic text of trope-orientated cultures (T.S. Eliot, Th. Dylon, F. Kafka), where highly intellectual imagery persists. Sophisticated introverted iconic symbols are textually produced. They become textual modalities, textual implicatures. They require specific semiotic strategy – multiple qualitative kaleidoscopically changing formal duplication and replication of the poetic message, being open to infinite semiotic displacement by definition. This is the case of rhematic poetic text.

To understand the rhematic poetic text one should undertake a ‘hermeneutic circle’: one assumes a code, which is verified against similarity, affinity, analogy, rooted in the forms of objectivity, metaphorical conventional transformations being appraised in advance, as in A. Richard’s “Harvard Yard in April” interpretive reading, referring to a fairly unique experiential paradigm:

To and fro

Across the fretted snow

Figures, footprints, shadows go.

Their python boughs a-sway

The fountain elms cascade

In swinging lattices of shade.

Where this or that or the other thought

Might perch and rest.

And rest they ought

For poise and reach.

Not all is timely. See the beech,

In frostly elephantine skin.

Still winter sealed, will not begin,

Though silt the alleys hour on hour

Debris of the fallen flower,

And other flower allure

Lounge sunlit on the steps and there

Degrees of loneliness confer.

Lest, lest…away!

Thou may

Be lost in May!

A sustained metaphore of Harvard yard in April, being a symbol of exquisite pleasures and sorrows, a scholar may have a particular, advantage and mishap to enjoy, so that it were ‘a prophanation to tell the layetie our love’, is culturally coded and largely conventional in its mode of representation. The symbolic mode, undisputedly, proves to be recurrent cultural tendency. But being abductionally established code only at the top of its synthetic structure 9 connotation functive), at the bottom (iconic infrastructure) a complicated image in view is supported by concrete pictures that you have in your mind of ‘their python boughs a-sway’, ‘the other thought might perch and rest’, ‘the beech in frostly elephantine skin’ etc.- the building blocks of culturized go-in-between ‘degrees of loneliness confer’. Thus in the semiotic framework it can be treated as a generic hypoicon dominant relation. The idea of the semiotic plausibility, based on social habits, is highly questioned.

Actually any text of creative writing with a dominant rhematic figure of speech, that implies the substitution of an appropriate term with one that is iconically presentational, be it metaphore or metonymy (or any other trope of the metaphorical or metonymical groups), can be classified as rhematic.

L. Carroll’s eccentric fairy-tales of supreme originality with a logic push beyond the limit “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass”, characterized by the ‘counterpoint’ narrative pattern – the main character remains the unifying factor but the story keeps dramatically changing through the exquisite transition from one setting on to another in a serene discontinuity, reveal the archetypal morphological semantic structure and could be defined as propositional poetic.

 

2.2. Functions of parody in poetic discourse

I use all revised definition of parody to look at the different functions of parody in poetic discourse, an area of inquiry where there seems to be no consensus in the critical literature in any field.

I would like to begin with what seem to be the most benign functions of parody benign in the sense that the affective charge, the critical edge is minimal - and proceed to those functions where it seems to be maximal. This is a progression (on the positively coded side) from the emphatic to the inclusumary and (on the negatively coded one) from the decorative to the exclusionary and elitist. This classification offers a schematic image of these functions and their respective positions:

                     

inclusionary oppositional         a) corrective         b)transgressive subversive provisional self-deprecating distancing (perspective) playful complex emphatic

elitist, exclusionary attacking insulting      a) offensive      b) defensive evasive distancing (indifference) trivializing ambiguous decorative

                    

One of the benign functions of parody is what we could call, in positive terms, the ludic or playful. This is related to humour and wit, of course, and therefore can be seen as a positive characteristic of language usage, close to punning or perhaps even metaphor. But it can also be seen as trivial, empty, superficial, and even silly.

Even without moral dimension parody can be seen as a sign of the trivializing of the essential seriousness of art. The same occurs when the notion of parody functioning as a distancing mechanism is considered, despite the fact that it is by now a commonplace to say that parody is the trope of the detached and the witnessing.

The next, related function would likely be one that is negatively coded as defensive, as a defense mechanism and can be viewed as either warranted or as

aggressively cautious. The more positive coding of this function would be in terms of subversion; of undermining from within. This is the parody of the passive aggressive, to be sure, but also that of the politically repressed - as the early work of Milan Kundera showed so well. Not far from such a function on this scale would be what today we positively code as oppositional parody. This is where what could be called the "transideological" nature of parody is clearest, for, while these are the most easily politicizable functions of parody, they can cut in any direction: "Both conformers and rebels use irony at each other, and

both suffer from it". This may be seen as polemical, transgressive parody; it can also at times be insulting and contemptuous. But then we have moved from oppositional to offensive functions, perhaps. When invective and attack are the ends of parody, then the coding has definitely been negativized at the same time as the affective charge has been increased considerably. The positive version of this last function would likely be the corrective use of parody in satire, for at least it suggests a positive set of values that one is correcting towards. Arguably parody has some corrective function, and since satire is usually corrective or ameliorative in intent, it frequently turns to parody as one way of ridiculing and implicitly correcting the vices and follies of humankind. Clearly there is a wide tonal range possible within this corrective function, as in all the other-from the scorning and disdainful to the playfully teasing.

The sharpest critical edge seems to be reserved not so much for such invective but for that elitist functioning of parody that every discussion of the trope invokes. Parody clearly differentiates and thus potentially excludes: some people are going to "get" it and some are not.

 

 

2.3. Corrective and emphatic functions of parody in poetic discourse

The corrective use of parody in the poetic discourse, at least suggests a positive set of values that one is correcting towards. Arguably all parody has some corrective function, and it frequently uses as one of the ways of ridiculing and implicitly correcting the vices and follies of humankind. Clearly there is a wide tonal range possible within this corrective function, as in all the other - from the scorning and disdainful to the playfully teasing. ‘You Are Old Father William’ is a very clear example of this

Lewis Carroll wrote ‘You Are Old Father William’ as a parody of Robert Southey's ‘The Old Man's Comforts and How He Gained Them’  
‘The Old Man's Comforts’ is precisely the sort of improving verse which Alice (in Wonderland) would have been expected to learn and recite in her lessons.  
Much of the point of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is to poke fun at the very earnest attitude of both Victorian education and literature, and to subvert their intentions to turn children into better people. Instead, Carroll hoped to encourage children to have fun and enjoy words and literature for their own sake. Compare the first two verses of each poem:

Southey 
You are old, Father William, the young man cried,  
The few locks which are left you are grey;  
You are hale, Father William, a hearty old man,  
Now tell me the reason I pray.  

In the days of my youth, Father William replied,  
I remember'd that youth would fly fast,  
And abused not my health and my vigour at first  
That I never might need them at last.

[38, 168-69.]  
     

Carroll 
"You are old, Father William," the young man said,  
"And your hair has become very white;  
And yet you incessantly stand on your head---  
Do you think, at your age, it is right?"  
 
"In my youth," Father William replied to his son,  
"I feared it might injure the brain;  
But now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,  
Why, I do it again and again."

[39, 63-66].

 

In Southey's poem the young man admires his elder, and seeks an explanation as to how William has been so successful, presumably with a view to following the same path himself. Whereas the youth in Carroll's rhyme appears to be admonishing William for his foolishness. Southey's poem continues, in a very earnest tone with the ways in which William has had the good sense to preserve his health (with an implicit suggestion that we, as readers would do well to do the same) but Carroll's verse does no such thing. It is full of silliness and ‘joie de vivre’. “We don't want moral lessons”, Carroll's poem seems to say, “we want head stands!'”

In this way Carroll is rebelling against the stifling attitude that Victorians had towards children, and supplying them instead with fun and laughter.

 

2.4. Attacking and subversive functions of parody

Jonathan Swift's prose has been discussed extensively as satire, but its major structural element, parody, has not received the attention it deserves.

The historical interest lies in the occasions of the parodies: in their relations with the texts and discourses which they quote and distort, and in the way this process reflects on the generation of cultural authority in late Stuart England. The theoretical and interpretative interest lies in tracing the play of language and irony through parody.

In the next passages parody has attacking functions. Jonathan Swift cruelly satirizes the political events in England and Ireland in his day, as well as English values and institutions. He ridicules academics, scientists, and Enlightenment thinkers who value rationalism above all else, and finally, he targets the human condition itself. The more positive coding of this function would be in terms of subversion; of undermining from within. This is the parody of the passive aggressive, to be sure, but also that of the politically repressed.

"Once upon a time there was a man who had three sons by one wife, and all at birth, neither could the midwife tell certainly which was the eldest.”

[40, 56]

In Section 2 of "The Tale of a Tub," Swift is introducing the three brothers who will represent the three forms of Western Christianity: Catholicism, The Church of England, and Protestant Dissenters. "Once upon a time" immediately establishes this text as a kind of allegorical fairy tale. The "tale" presents a consistent satire of religious excess, while the digressions are a series of parodies of contemporary writing in literature, politics, theology, Biblical exegesis, and medicine. The overarching parody is of enthusiasm, pride, and credulity . “A Tale of a Tub” is an enormous parody with a number of smaller parodies within it.

In “A Modest Proposal,” Swift satirizes the English landlords with outrageous humor, proposing that Irish infants be sold as food at age one, when they are plump and healthy, to give the Irish a new source of income and the English a new food product to bolster their economy and eliminate a social problem. Swift also satirizes the Irish themselves in his essay, for too many of them had accepted abuse stoically rather than taking action on their own behalf. The dominant figure of speech in "A Modest Proposal" is parody, in which a writer or speaker says the opposite of what he means. Swift's masterly use of this device makes his main argument - that the Irish deserve better treatment from the English - powerful and dreadfully amusing. For example, to point out that the Irish should not be treated like animals, Swift compares them to animals, as in this example:

"I rather recommend buying the children alive, and dressing them hot from the knife, as we do roasting pigs."

[40, 167]

The idea to compare people with animals is rather offensive, is so extreme that it demonstrates the overall parody of the piece.

 “I can think of no one objection that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged that the number of people will be thereby much lessened in the kingdom.”

[41, 212] 

Up to this point, the parody has derived chiefly from the absurd proposals. When the reader encounters the "unless," the reader might think that the writer is about to acknowledge that, after all, the idea of eating babies is morally wrong. Swift subverts this expectation by continuing the parody, naming the unexpected objection of mere population depletion. Although the Irish are the enemy and it is better to have few of them, at least they help develop the economy and the countryside. With this added irony, Swift is further heightening the parody, suggesting that the writer does not even conceive that the idea of killing and eating Irish one-year-olds could be morally wrong.

 

2.5. Playful and trivializing functions of parody

The most popular critical interpretation of number 130 of Shakespeare’s sonnets is as a parody of the traditional Petrarchan sonnet. In writing this sonnet Shakespeare claims his independence from the standard vocabulary of praise. This interpretation leaves the implications of his mockery to be largely overlooked. The dark lady, as she is popularly referred to, is broken down into body parts as a misogynistic attempt to objectify and claim her as a possession.

In this verse positive playful and trivializing functions of parody are used. Playful function is related to humour and wit, of course, and therefore can be seen as a positive characteristic of language usage, close to punning or perhaps even metaphor. Also parody can be seen as a sign of the trivializing of the essential seriousness of art.

 “My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun; 
Coral is far more red than her lips' red; 
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun; 
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head. 
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white, 
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;  
And in some perfumes is there more delight 
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks. 
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know 
That music hath a far more pleasing sound; 
I grant I never saw a goddess go; 
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground: 
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare 
As any she belied with false compare.”

Lines 1 through 6 divides the dark lady into an object comprised of eyes, lips, breasts, a head, and cheeks. In separating his mistress into parts, he deconstructs her ability to be seen as a person and an individual at that. As the sonnet progresses the lady is deconstructed from her head downward. It is as if the speaker is taking a systematic inventory of the dark lady. In fact the speaker compares her, although in a parodical way, to objects such as the sun, coral, snow, wires, roses, perfumes, and music (Lines 1-10). His mistress is comprised of elements that have nothing to do with one another, making the subject appear disjointed and her parts unrelated to anything specific. With the exception of the wires that represent the lady’s hair, all of the objects are impermanent or intangible insomuch that they are not accessible to all of the five senses thus suggesting that it is without sense to let the heart rule. Love for a woman is an undesirable trait and shows the speaker’s lack of concern for the dark lady as a person.

Furthermore, the lady is only referred to or spoken to in a generic manner. “My mistress” and “my love” are generic terms that strip the subject of her individuality while at the same show her as being in possession of the speaker (Lines 1, 8, 13). “My” denotes the speaker’s possession of the dark lady. At the same time the words “mistress” and “love” betray no specificity as to whom he is speaking of.

The ridiculous comparisons that the speaker makes of his lady belie the comedic aspect. In poking fun of her appearance, the speaker not only ridicules her, but also portrays her in such a way that she cannot be taken seriously.

It is apparent through the use of such language that Shakespeare’s sonnet 130 is a misogynistic attempt to objectify and take in possession of a woman. Notwithstanding the fact that the sonnet is arguably a parody of the traditional Petrarchan sonnet, the subject matter outweighs the form.

CONCLUSION

In my term paper I was defining the main stylistic role and functions of the parody as an argumentative trope in poetic discourse, the purpose of using it, and its effects on readers and society through investigation of the theoretical material and practical analysis of semantic and stylistic peculiarities of the parody based on verses of Lewis Carroll  and Jonathan Swift’ prose. There are a lot of examples, showing us that parody is very important stylistic device which used as a means to encourage a change in a social, moral, or political process. In the text it may causes some semantic changes:

• apparently meaningless, absurd change.
• change meaningful  for the reader’s world (often satiric)
• change in literal and metaphoric function of words.
• syntactic change ( which may affect the semantic level)
• changes in tense, persons, or other sentence grammatical features.
• changes sociolect, idiolect, or in other elements of the lexicon.

With the help of interpretational-textual, structural-semantic, linguo-cognitive and linguo-semiotic analysis, researches discovered that parody has variety of functions in poetic discourse, for example: inclusionary, oppositional, corrective, self-deprecating, playful, attacking, insulting, trivializing, decorative etc. They all have different way of influence, role and importance.

In terms of conclusion let us remind that parody is an argumentative trope which implies traditional modality of tropic substitution – semantic transfer, and in this respect it could classified as a figure of substitution. But the possibility of ambiguity here, being a permanent factor of change, lies in the simultaneous passing through the connotate channel of two different pragmatic meanings of strong evaluative and emotive colouring. We’d rather define this stereosemantic phenomenon as the splitting of the argumentative meaning into opposite functives being simultaneously realized: a radical transfer of properties of an object is based on both identity and difference associations.