İletişim Boyutunda Metin: Umberto Eco’nun Fikirleri Bağlamında Açık ve Kapalı Metin Arasındaki İlişki

Öz

Adı geçen makale, açık ve kapalı metinler arasındaki ilişkiye değinmektedir. Çalışmanın amacı, yazar ve okuyucu arasındaki genel iletişim bağlamında açık ve kapalı metin arasındaki ilişkinin özelliklerini incelemektir. Makalemizde esas olarak U. Eco'nun konseptini desteklerken, onu, seçtiğimiz dört açıklık/kapalılık yaklaşımının analiziyle sunuyoruz. Açıklık/kapalılık yaklaşımları şu biçimlerde kavramsal bir vücuda bürünür: bunlardan ilki iletişim parametreleri arasındaki karşıtlığın ontolojik bir perspektifi olarak: metin bir süreçtir ve metin bir sonuçtur; ikinci olarak, biçim ve içeriklerine bakılmaksızın tüm metinlerin eklemlenmesi için ortak olan yorumlama prosedürleri olarak; üçüncü olarak, alıcıyı ortak yazarlığa davet eden eserlerin fiziksel bitmemişliğinin ontolojik ve teknolojik potansiyeli olarak (örnek olarak ‘hareket hainde çalışma’ ve hipermetin); dördüncüsü, bir metnin birden çok veya kesin yorumlamaya neden olma yeteneği olarak. Bunun haricinde metnin işlevsellik durumu onun sadece okuyucusu üzerindeki etkileşimi ile değerlendirilmeyip, metnin de kendi özelliğini ortaya koyarak bu etkileşimi uyardığı ve yatkınlık sergilediği de göz önüne serilmektedir (tarz olarak bilgilendirici ya da sanat ağırlıklı, kitsch veya yaratıcı sanatsal, hipermetin veya doğrusal yazım biçiminde olabilir, dijital veya analog). Sonuç itibariyle toparlayacak olursak açıklık/kapalılık yaklaşımları bu ikilemlerin netliğine zarar verebilmektedir: metin kendi açıklığını manipüle edici nitelikte kullanabilmekte ve nihai olarak da kapalı biçime dönüşebilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yazar ve okuyucu
• kodlar
• iletişim
• hiper metin
• yorumlama

A Text in the Communicative Dimension: The Relationship between the Open and Closed Text in the Context of Umberto Eco’s Ideas

Öz

The article addresses the relationship between open and closed texts. The aim of the study is to analyze the specifics of relationship between the open and closed text in the general context of communication between the author and the reader. While supporting mainly U. Eco’s concept in our article, we furnish it with the analysis of four approaches of openness/closedness, which we have singled out. Openness/closedness is conceptualized, firstly: as an ontological perspective of the opposition between the communication parameters: The text-as-process and text-as-outcome; secondly, as interpretation procedures that are common for the articulation of all texts, regardless of their form and contents; thirdly, as the ontological and technological potential of works’ physical unfinishedness that invite the recipient to co-authorship (for example, ‘the work-in-movement’ and hypertext); fourthly, as the ability of a text to provoke multiple or unambiguous interpretations. We also demonstrate that the way of text’s functioning is determined not only by the addressee's attitude to it, but text itself, in return, stimulates this attitude, predisposing to it by its specificity (as informative or artistic, kitsch or art, hypertext or linear text, digital or analog). However, as we explain in the conclusion, the dialectic of openness/closedness can affect the distinctness of these dichotomies: The text can use its openness manipulatively, which turns it into a closed text.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Author and reader
• code
• communication
• hypertext
• interpretation

Kaynakça

1. Bakhtin, M. M. (1979). K metodologii gumanitarnykh nauk [Toward a Methodology for the Human Sciences]. In M. M. Bakhtin (Author), [The] Aesthetics of Verbal Art (ss. 361-373, 409-412). Moscow: Iskusstvo.
2. Barthes, R. (1977). The Death of the Author. In R. Barthes (Author), Image—Music—Text (pp. 142-148). New York: Noonday.
3. Boie, B. (1999). Pisatel' i yego rukopisi. In I. I. Dmitrieva (Ed.), Geneticheskaya kritika vo Frantsii: Antologiya (ss. 169-191). Moscow: OGI.
4. Campbell, C. (2018). Educating Openness: Umberto Eco’s Poetics of Openness as a Pedagogical Value. Signs and Society, 6(2), 305-331. DOI: 10.1086/695567. Retrieved from https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/695567 01 September 2020.
5. Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
6. Eco, U. (1989). The Open Work. Cambridge & Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
7. Eco, U. (1990). The Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
8. Eco, U. (1992). Interpretation and Overinterpretation: World, History, Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9. Eco, U. (1996). From Internet to Gutenberg. A lecture presented by Umberto Eco аt Columbia University, November 12. Retrieved from http://www.umbertoeco.com/en/from-internet-to-gutenberg-1996.html. 01 September 2020.
10. Eco, U. (2000). Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
11. Eco, U. (2013). Otkroveniya molodogo romanista [Confessions of a Young Novelist] (Aleksandr Klimin, Trans.). Moscow: Corpus.
12. Eisenstein, S. M. (2010). Laocoön. In Michael Glenny & Richard Taylor (Eds.), Selected Works, Vol. 2: Towards a Theory of Montage (pp.109-202). London & New York: Tauris & Co Ltd.
13. Esposito, E. (2013). Limits of Interpretation, Closure of Communication: Umberto Eco and Niklas Luhmann Observing Texts. In Anders la Cour & Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (Eds.), Luhmann Observed: Radical Theoretical Encounters (pp. 171-184). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
14. Etkind, A. (2001). Tolkovaniye puteshestviy. Rossiya i Amerika v travelogakh i intertekstakh. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2001.
15. Fedorov, A. A. (2016). The conception of Umberto Eco’s literary art and representation of writer’s model ‘Umberto Eco – M-author’. Liberal Arts in Russia, 5(6), 543-553. DOI: 10.15643/libartrus-2016.6.1
16. Foucault, P. M. (1996). What is an Author? The Will to Knowledge. Beyond Knowledge, Power and Sexuality. Moscow: Magisterium-Castle.
17. Garayalde, N. (2018). The resurrection of the author in current French literary criticism (2008-2011). The case of Pierre Bayard’s re-attribution criticism. Revista Co-herencia, 15(29), 251-281. DOI: 10.17230/co-herencia.15.29.10
18. Gilyazova, O. S. (2019). Theatre and literature: an ontological aspect of their relationship. Antares-Letras e humanidades, 11(24), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.18226/19844921.v11.n24.01
19. Gilyazova, O. S. (2020). On the Notion of Text and Its Boundaries in the Context of Semiotics and Communication. Tarih Kultur ve Sanat Arastirmalari Dergisi-Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 9(2), 279-287. https://doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v9i2.2627
20. Green, K. & LeBihan, J. (2003). Critical Theory and Practice: A Coursebook. (Repr. Ed). London & New York: Routledge.
21. Hendricks, W. O. (1981). Review article Open and closed texts. Semiotica, 35(314), 361-379.
22. Jauß, H. R. (1979). Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwissenschaft. In R. Warnin (Ed.), Rezeptionsästhetik (pp. 126-162). München: Fink München.
23. Jauss, H. R. (1982). Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
24. Kasavin, T. I. (2006). Special Theories and Philosophical Problems of Discource. Human Being, 6, 1-21.
25. Kosikov, G. K. (2000). ‘Struktura’ i/ ili ‘tekst’ (strategii sovremennoy semiotiki). In W. D. Mazo (Ed.), Frantsuzskaya semiotika: ot strukturalizma k poststrukturalizmu (ss. 3-48). Moscow: Progress, 2000.
26. Kostyukovich, Ye. A. (1982). Umberto Eko: Imya rozy. Inostrannaya literatura, 5.
27. Makarov, M. L. (2003). Osnovy teorii diskursa. Moscow: ITDGC ‘Gnosis’.
28. Mankovskaya, N. B. (2000). Estetika postmodernizma. St. Petersburg: Aleteya.
29. Paul, C. (2003). Digital Art. London: Thames and Hudson.
30. Pisanty, V. (2015). From the model reader to the limits of interpretation. Semiotica, 2015(206), 37-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0014
31. Ryzhenkova, G. (2003). Umberto Eko v perevodakh Yeleny Kostyukovich. Retrieved from https://www.proza.ru/2003/01/03-99 01 September 2020.
32. Schmid, W. (2013). Implied reader. The living handbook of narratology. Interdisciplinary Center for Narratology. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press.
33. Scolari, C. A. (2009). Mapping conversations about New Media: the theoretical field of digital communication. New Media & Society, 11(6), 943–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809336513
34. Slabukho, S. I. (2006). Author, Text and Reader in the Post-modern Paradigm of Intertextual Interpretation. Philosophical Sciences, 12, 78-87.
35. Staiger, J. (1992). Interpreting Films. Studies in the Historical Reception of American Cinema. Princeton & New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
36. Tapscott, D. (1995). The digital economy: Promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
37. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Bantam Books.
38. Tolstoy, S. L. (1939). Ob otrazhenii zhizni v ‘Anne Kareninoy.’ Iz vospominaniy S. L. Tolstogo. Literaturnoye naslediye. Retrieved from http://tolstoy-lit.ru/tolstoy/kritika-o-tolstom/tolstoj-ob-otrazhenii-zhizni-v-anne-kareninoj.htm 01 September 2020.
39. Tulchinsky, G. L. (2001). Svoboda i smysl. Novyy sdvig gumanitarnoy paradigmy. (Rossiyskiye issledovaniya v gumanitarnykh naukakh). Lewiston-Queenston-Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press.
40. Turysheva, O. N. (2010). ‘Real'nyy’ chitatel' kak ob'yekt literaturnoy nauki. Herald of Chelyabinsk State Pedagogical University, 10, 306-317.
41. Usmanova, A. R. (2000). Umberto Eko: paradoksy interpretatsii. Minsk: Propilei.