Figure 1a Venn Analogy ('overlap' of ideas, theories ... - Mario Petrucci

Figure 1a 

Venn Analogy 

(‘overlap’ of ideas, theories, etc. in conceptual space) 

A 

B 

C 

…. in 2D 

…. etc. 

THEORY 

‘D’ 

THEORY ‘B’ 

VISUALIZATION 

‘A’ 

e.g. Inter / Intra Continuum 

( its set of concepts 

& associations ) 

e.g. Structuralism 

MODEL ‘C’ 

e.g. Jakobson 

…. = 3-dimensional 

Visualization 

© Mario Petrucci 2009

Figure 1b 

Extension of Venn diagram analogy to multi-dimensional space 

…. 

all contingent in 

n dimensions 

… + others 

 

= the ‘WHOLE EXPERIENCE’ 

of the TEXT 


Figure 2 

The Spectrum Analogy for Intertextuality 

Primary Metaphor : scanning the textual ‘continuum’ 

TEXTS are : • NOT ‘determined’ points on the line 

PHONIC 

NEUROLOGY ? 

(+ aural evolution) 

… COOING, 

‘SONIC CARESS’ 

WHITE NOISE ? 

… ONOMATOPOEIA 

Some sonic effects of 

CUT–UP POEMS here ? 

SOUND POETRY 

(e.g. Bob Cobbing) 

‘PHATIC’ effects 

TONE 

…. ALLUSIONS 

….. RHYTHMIC / 

METRIC 

similarity ….. 

… ALLITERATION etc. 

DICTION ….. 

• complex MAPPINGS / PROFILES along axis 

PASTICHE 

PARODY 

CUT–UPS ? 

(Deconstruction, Tzara…) 

funny word ? 

‘REPRODUCTION’ 

PLAGIARISM 

REPRINTS / 

VERBATIM QUOTES 

Red curve gauges 

each textual 

‘RESONANCE’ 

IN CONTEXT 

INTRA-TEXTUALITY 

IMPLICIT 

INTERTEXTUALITY 

EXPLICIT 


VERY SHORT WAVELENGTHS 

SMALL WAVELENGTHS 

LONG WAVELENGTHS 

(‘Microscopic’) 

(‘Intermediate’) 

(‘Macroscopic’) 

Unconscious … 

effects hidden or ‘absorbed’ 

into the process 

Covert … 

effects backgrounded 

Conscious … 

effects foregrounded 



Crosstalk Analogy for (Mis-) Translation 

1 

2 ? 

T 

RANSLATION ? 

= 

? 

• ‘Signal’ (i.e. text) passes from 1 st into 2 nd (similar) medium: i.e. from source to target language 

• Subsequent propagation then depends on 2 nd medium, with its different grammar, cultural references, etc. 

• Receiver 2 hears distorted version of 1 

… to what extent do linguistic media & their processes correspond (across cultures / languages) ? 


Figure 4 ADAPTATION / 

ANALOGY for the evolving perception of an author / text 

NEW ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 

[e.g. fresh literary theory, 

wider cultural shifts, etc.] 

slight shift 

? 

??? 

radical revision 

ADAPTATION / VARIATION 

COMPLEX ‘FAMILY LIKENESS’ : 

smooth / subtle changes in Reception 

MUTATION 

Deep reassessment : 

text / author perceived very differently 

Both types of change suggest / assume a complexlyresponsive, 

flexible, incremental Essentialism 



Chaos Theory Analogy for Textual Reception 

… like TEXT ? 

… like CONTEXT, 

INTERTEXT, etc. ? 

Is this process like weather? i.e. … 

• subject to (complex) laws 

• vast number of input variables 

• immensely sensitive to initial conditions 

• outcomes indeterminable 

• details impossible to nail down – but broad 

patterns may be predictable in short term 

TEXTS are ● resilient but susceptible systems 

● subject to multiple influences 

● unstable … in constant flux 

? 

… like RECEPTION ? 



The FAN of 

RECEPTION 

( ADVANCED ANALOGY / 

HYPOTHESIS ) 

TEXT 

RECEPTION of TEXT 

according to this FUNCTION 

GOLDEN 

AGE 

POUND’S 

‘ABC’ 

‘AESTHETIC 

FASCISM’ 


CANONICITY 

RHYTHM 

METRE 

DOGGEREL 

SONIC 

RECOGNITION 

INTRA- ? 

NESCIENCE 

PRE-LINGUAL 

ORIGINALITY ? 

= INTERACTIVE 

FUNCTIONS 

etc. 

SEMIOTICS 

NOT ‘PURE FILTERS’ but : 

Cross-linked, 

Receiver- & Time-dependent, 

Resonant functions 

RECEPTION 

‘FEEDBACK’ 



TRANSLATION …. 

( ANALOGY ) 

Input 

... as a FILTER 

F 

Output 

(a) INPUT 

[original text] 

Spectrum below represents one set of characteristics in the source text 

(here, certain aspects of its ‘Intertextuality’) … this is ‘INPUT’ 1 

INTRA IMPLICIT EXPLICIT 

… other ways of characterising/ describing the text exist 

(giving a ‘fan’ of possible input spectra: 2, 3, etc.…) 


(b) Example of FILTER characteristics in ‘free’ translation … 

… this ‘response spectrum’ to be applied to (laid over) the ‘source text spectrum’ in (a) 

2 

3 

1 

‘TRANSLATOR RESPONSE’ approach: 

i.e. a ‘take’ on the original, 

using original as ‘spur’ 

= ‘Free’ or Distorted ? 

= STRONG TRANSLATOR COMPONENTS 


Figure 8 The ‘13 WAYS’ : 

BUILDING AN ARGUMENT / LOGICAL STRUCTURE 

CORE STATEMENT C.S. 

1 2 

THEMES T1 T2 T3 

IDEA 

3a 

POINTS 

CORE STATEMENT 

X 

4 5 

Y 

Opposition 

3b 

DUMB-BELL [Thesis / Anti-thesis Synthesis] 

CARTWHEEL 

[ = themeless Core Statement?] 

X 

U U U U U 

U U U 

U 

U 

Y 

Connection 

‘Synapse 

Variation’ 

STAIRCASE / LANDINGS 

[Stage by Stage or General Drift] 

6 7 

SPECTRAL ANALYSIS 

[Degrees / Measures / Extents] 

THEORY / HYPOTHESIS / IDEA 

8 9 

OBSERVATIONS 

? 

FEEDBACK 

LUDO 

[Closely-argued (linear)] 

CEMENTING 

[Relationships] 

VENN APPROACH 

[Similarities / Differences] 

SIGNIFICANCES 

CONCLUSIONS 

SEDIMENTATION 

[Sifting / Trickle-Down / Percolation] 

10 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

11 12 

13 

X 

X 

CONSTELLATION-MAKING 

[Patterns / Loose Groups] 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

PYRAMID 

[Hierarchies] 

SWEEPING 

[Make clear by elimination] 

BRICK-WALL 

[All possibilities in a limited range] 

… etc. + ADAPTATIONS & +


VISUALIZATIONS and THE ANALOGY-MAKING PROCESS 

(a hypothesis) 

true / existing 

(in this case, scientific) 

Source Visualization 

Deployed in analogy 

Visual Analogy 

for target subject 

(= trial ‘analogic’ Visualization) 

SOURCE SUBJECT 

(e.g. bar magnets) 

Conceptual mis-/match ? 

true 

Target Visualization 

(if known or possible) 

© Mario Petrucci 2009 

TARGET SUBJECT

Figure 1a Venn Analogy ('overlap' of ideas, theories ... - Mario Petrucci

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?