Literary Entropy based on Intertextuality

An enlargement of Kolmogorov-Lotman formulae

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_tropelias/tropelias.20244210390

Keywords:

entropy, intertextuality, semiotics, reception, hermeneutics

Abstract

This article seeks to extend the Kolmogorov-Lotman formulae for the entropy in literary texts, who value it based on semantic capacity and linguistic flexibility, adding a third member to the equation: intertextual referentiality, an essential literary mechanism capable of generating entropy, as long as it is predisposed by the author and detected by the reader. To develop this notion, understanding it as an informational condensation of the reference inscribed, certain intrinsic factors will be considered, as the degree of explicit-implicit transformation on the writing side, and in the receptive one, contextual interferences and reader’s hermeneutic variations, as well as their competence and supercompetence. Depending on these magnitudes, different entropic tendencies will be attained according to the approach of these values to unity or nullity, resulting in certain processes, both scriptural and hermeneutic ones.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

BAÑOS SALDAÑA, J. A. (2022). “La dinamicidad de los textos literarios. Hacia una tipología de la transreferencialidad”. Signa 31, 271-292.

BERMÚDEZ, V. (2017). “Literatura y ciencia del percepto”. En #Nodos, ed. por Gustavo Ariel Schwartz y Víctor Bermúdez. Pamplona: Next Door, 267-271.

CARVALHO, R. (1993). Obras de Raul de Carvalho, ed. por Luiz Fagundes Duarte. Lisboa: Caminho.

CATENA CÓZAR, C. (2019). Los días hábiles. Madrid: Hiperión.

CESARINY, M. (2015). O virgem negra. Lisboa: Assírio & Alvim.

CERNUDA, L. (1942). Ocnos. Zaragoza: Titivillus.

FROW, J. (1990). “Intertextuality and ontology”. En Intertextuality: Theories and Practices, ed. por Michael Worton y Judith Still. Manchester: MUP, 45-55.

GAMONEDA, A. (2020). “Lenguaje poético y extrañamiento cognitivo”. Archivum 70 (1), 81-94.

GINSBERG, A. (1993). Aullido. Madrid: Visor.

GONZÁLEZ DE ÁVILA, M. (2021). Semiótica. La experiencia del sentido a través del arte y la literatura. Madrid: Abada Editores.

GOYET, F. (1987). “Imitatio ou intertextualité?”. Poétique 71, 313-320.

GUILLÉN, C. (1985). Entre lo uno y lo diverso. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica.

KRISTEVA, J. (2001). Semiótica I. Madrid: Fundamentos.

LOTMAN, Y. (1982). La estructura del texto artístico. Madrid: Istmo.

MASON, J. (2019). Intertextuality in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

MENDOZA FILLOLA, A. (2001). El intertexto lector. Castilla La-Mancha: UCLM.

MORRIS, C. H. (1985). Fundamentos de la teoría de signos. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

OBRERO, M. (2021). Peachtree City. Madrid: Visor.

PLETT, H. (1991). Intertextuality. Berlín: De Gruyter.

PRIETO, L. J. (1977). “La Semiología”. En El lenguaje. La comunicación, ed. por André Martinet. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión, 93-144.

QUINTANA DOCIO, F. (1990). “Intertextualidad genética y lectura palimpséstica”. Castilla: Estudios de literatura 15, 169-182.

RIFFATERRE, M. (1980). “Syllepsis”. Critical Inquiry 6 (4), 625-638.

RIFFATERRE, M. (1984). Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington: IUP.

SIRVENT RAMOS, M. A. (2008). “Intertextualidad y lectura”. En Intertexto y Polifonía: Tomo I, ed. por Flor Bango de la Campa, Antonio Niembro Prieto y Emma Álvarez Prendes. Oviedo: EUO, 643-651.

WEAVER, W. (1969). “Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Communication”. En The Mathematical Theory of Communication, ed. por Claude Shannon. Illinois: UIP, 3-28.

Published

2024-07-09

How to Cite

Arroita, J. (2024). Literary Entropy based on Intertextuality: An enlargement of Kolmogorov-Lotman formulae. Tropelías: Review of Literary Theory and Comparative Literature, (42), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_tropelias/tropelias.20244210390

Issue

Section

Papers
Received 2024-03-30
Accepted 2024-05-09
Published 2024-07-09