Національна Академія Мистецтв України Інститут культурології

Then in the terms of set theory the generation of a text by no means can be identified with the sum or union of sets. It is the power set or the set of sets that emerges already from the encounter of a pair of words in a text. Then the generation of a text gets the properties of double (and, generally, multiple) numeration i.e. the properties of diagonal process. Thus it is the process of the generation of texts that shows the properties of continuum⁵³⁰. This process itself being a reintegration of texts from the disjointed texts transformed into listing structures, the construction of the power set becomes also the process of building nodal structures as the necessary premise of textual coherence. The extension of the notion of a nest as a taxonomic unit over the infinite and boundless realm of dialects, languages and language families as a whole is the lawful conclusion from the very essence of the nesting method⁵³¹. Meanwhile the statement on the possibility to regard a whole lexicological stuff of a language as a nest implies very important consequences. Be an entire dictionary regarded as a nest, then the combination of all nests would become “the class of classes” (or set of sets) in the set theory’s meaning. A single word becomes a set consisting of a single element. Being a single element set (and not an element itself!) it becomes subject to double (triple and, generally, multiple) numeration and thus to diagonal overlapping. Respectively each syntagmatic group (to begin with a paired collocation or a word singled out) is to be seen as a union of classes and not merely of elements. It can be regarded also as the intersection of taxonomic classes, the elements (lexical units) being representatives of classes. It is here the transition from a simple union of sets to their intersections that is of an importance. Lexical stratification resembles the formation of the “set of sets” that is the basis of diagonal process.

If one applies approach to text from the side of its reproducibility as a reproduced admissible transformation of code’s “substance”, it becomes provable that not a mere combination or intersection of abstract attributes and respective classes but the process of the formation of power set and the diagonal processes are to be taken into account. In particular lexical units united in a text are to be regarded not as a set of elements {a, b, c …} but as “a set of sets” {{a}, {b}, {c} …} so that these units are the representatives of classes standing behind (as the sets of all possible sentences capable of including the word)⁵³². This approach naturally presumes that the famous Zermelo’s axiom entailing the existence of “sets of sets” would be relevant for such textual representation.

It ensues from such examples that a textual description both of a theme (plot) as the integrative part of the whole and of textual parts in disposition presupposes the obligatory observer’s participation. In practice it looks like the swift reading with memorizing the first impressions as a retold plot. As far as a text presupposes the existence of an observer (reader) to be disclosed as an integrated entirety it must be depicted with the observer’s language and not with its proper quotations. Integration presupposes interpretation, therefore there must arise a preexistent metasystem of the language for description that represents the abstract attributive space. It must be the observer’s own retelling that would precede any further step in descriptive procedures, and it is this retelling that must be carried out in the language of the descriptive metasystem. Be an observer’s voice compared to an echo, so one could say that echo would precede the song itself. Subsequently any dream of a textual self-description built with quotations as an initial step to description is out of question. It can appear already as an aftermath that the cited textual locutions would be found to fulfill the preliminary compiled observer’s descriptions as the insertions into such metasystem. One must previously segregate the described situation and therefore identify in it the recognizable (resp. reproducible) features or abstract attributive type preexistent within the metasystem of the observer’s experience. Description thus presupposes the initial moment of reducing some textual properties to the already codified elements.

It doesn’t go about the replacement of original locutions with abstract generalities (in the manner of hyponyms) in such retold textual segment. Rather one seeks for direct designations that would represent explicitly those put by the author as periphrastic descriptions in the manner of prototypes for the described situation. The observer can be said to aim at deciphering textual circumscriptions and at disclosing the latent functional invariant (in particular as the recognition of a type of a dramatis persona) represented with such prototypes. Interpretative efforts in textual description are those of solving a riddle with the attempt of finding direct designations. As to the generalities in proper sense, the observer uses first of all pronouns, conjunctions and auxiliary verbs. They all are to serve to explanatory purposes in supplying interpretative supplements to the retold contents. In its turn they become only intermediary steps in disclosing what has been suggested to call “pronominal predicates” representing the position of the described textual situation within the intertextual and contextual referential nets.

Within such approach quotation can by no means be initial step in descriptive procedures: vice versa it becomes the final step as an insertion into the previously prepared descriptive material as the observer’s product. Of a much more importance are the excluded, eliminated, omitted places as well as the titles given by the observer for such places. It is the cutting and not the citing that plays here decisive role so that cuts (and not quotations) designated with the observer’s own titles replace textual omissions. When one passes from the description of the theme and disposition of the whole to that of separate segments it becomes obvious that the lesser textual scope the more possibilities for its self-description appear. Together with narrowing textual scope theme & disposition ultimately coincide so that the “plot” of a paragraph can’t be discriminated from its disposition. It is here that the transformation of a whole text into a single hypotaxis can take place. It can be exemplified with a possible version of a descriptive representation of a passage on “the echo of time” from Ch. Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities” (part2, chapter 21): lay on her bosom”); her son has died as a baby; the daughter studies (“studious at the task”) and plays (“dressing a doll”); Sydney Carton pays visits and is felt by the children with “an instinctive delicacy of pity for him”; Mr. Stryver (who “has married a florid widow”) made and attempt of arranging his stepson at Darnay and was refused – all these events are conceived as “echoing footsteps of years” / “winding the golden thread”>. One retains here theme and disposition as references. Besides, one recognizes here the typical situations and the distribution of functional roles. As the prototype of the whole situation the image [BABY ON THE BOSOM] that’s the birth of the daughter can serve as the designation of the decisive detail entailing the other circumstances. The description at this minimal level must again be initiated not with quotations but with own observer’s inferences as the preliminary comments – in particular with possible questions and alternatives to the author’s statements and with the identifying designations of the recognized roles and situations. Moreover the procedure of textual description must begin with the interpretative corollaries that the observer gives in representing plot and disposition. No need to add that the corollaries & comments of the kind can arise partly from textual transformations so that they won’t be added from an observer’s attributive metasystem only. Textual transformability converges here with the interpretability as the prerequisite for description.

At the same time the impossibility of bare self-descriptive procedures and the necessity of inserting outer stuff in comments for the representation of the described text is the consequence of the referential relations of a given text towards the language as a whole. Each text necessarily includes only selected part of a language’s dictionary which is insufficient to be interpreted so as to provide its reintegration from the database. To be restored the text must necessarily involve the eliminated (absent, latent) opportunities of language (implied with the text). It is these opportunities that are to be explicitly presented in the interpretative supplements. Text always must sink into the language’s depths, and it is this submersion that enables retelling it anew. The interpretative efforts have the mission of recalling the implications of the text and representing textual relations towards language. Such generation of comments implied with the text itself is none other than the process of anamnesis. This process in its turn concerns the fundamental antinomy of language i.e. the opposition text vs. code (). Any act of textual interpretation involves not only the text but also the language’s code that this text is performed with. Without the implied code the comprehensibility would become impossible. In its turn the description as interpretative procedure presumes the disclosure of those novelties that the text brings into the existent code. Therefore description must represent textual contribution to code and respectively the codification of text. Respectively one has to bear in mind the whole emerging code while describing a particular test.

Already any thesaurus (as the implied code) of a text attests those not mentioned (but certainly implied) lexical units that remain within the language though are absent within the textual boundaries. They build a kind of lexical “penumbra” encircling the obtained glossary. Synonyms and other virtually present (implied) elements of language are to be taken into account. For example, such absent “shaded” lexical units would seem to represent the generalized classes that include the mentioned words as hyponyms (the adjectives green or red being mentioned entail also noun color, as well as the verb to go entails more general verb to move). The same concerns the exemplification of general notions with the names of a class’s particular representative where in particular tree implies a certain species of the genus as pine. There follows the question of compatibility of the lexical units used in the text with those not present there. For example to see presumes also not to sleep and to enlighten the object that is seen; to go implies the moments when one going will be able to sit and to repose. Thus the necessary background experience as the latency of each database arises.

Together with plot and disposition’s corollaries the problem arises whether all the text can be attributed to the same author and subsequently the utterances can be identified as belonging to the same integral entity. We have seen that the appearance of predication presupposes the segregation of textual layers into the implicit catechetic form of [S? – P!] or inversely. In particular the text prepared for description and previously analyzed (as being divided into quotations to be inserted in its description) acquires the outlook of the poetical form of cento. The problem of integration turns to becomes that of identification so that the image of author is to be reproduced by the observer. The very existence of identification problem means that there arises always the task of testifying textual segments whether they can be attributed to the same narration of the same author or they are to be regarded as a kind of cento. It is due to the observer’s interpretative capabilities that such identification can be conducted as the prerequisite of detecting textual integration. To attribute a text to an identical author means to detect its integration. Thus the image of author as the integrative textual power is to be reconstructed by the observer together with plot and disposition. Obviously the author’s image is inherent in a narration but it is the observer who has to reproduce it and to take the decision as to the identity of the attribution of textual parts in regard to the authorship. The existence of such problem becomes especially evident in the cases of irony when the author puts on a mask of somebody so that narration gets the outlook off the mentioned cento. A text comes as a textual portrayal of an author to be detected by an observer. Thus there are the double powers of textual integration that are to be detected by an observer – those of plot (contents) and of author (intents), and they must be described with the observer’s own words.

These descriptive procedures aren’t something outer and arbitrary that depends upon observer’s willfulness. They are implied with the text itself because the existence of each text as the interpretative process can by no means be conceived as some static stay. Vice versa it is the contradictory union of the destructive processes of disintegration and reproductive processes of reintegration. In its turn the disintegration of a text with the aim of examining its properties looks out as the analytical procedure in opposite to the generation and integration of the text as textual synthetic process. At the same time such operations of analysis is not something outer and added to the text with its researcher; they ensue from the interpretability as textual fundamental property. Thus one has grounds to say of analytical epiphenomenon instead of auxiliary artificial explorative devices so that the respective procedures are to be conceived as textual interpretative representation and description. Such epiphenomena are already implied as the metasystem of themes (plots, fabulous schemes) that are reproduced on the gro0unds of the observer’s competence

At the same time this reciprocity of