English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In his 1995 doctoral dissertation, defended in the Russian Department at the University of Helsinki, Тотальный перевод (“Total translation”), Peeter Torop develops a complex model of text, or textuality, based on a dizzying series of overlapping (metaphorical?) spatializations that bring much-needed definition to the traditionally vague notion of the translated text. The resulting table (Torop 1995: 19; see Fig. 1) appears quite early in the book, and clearly serves as little more than a jumping-off point for the proliferating complexity that follows. The translation typology that he explores throughout the book, for example, is not the tripartite intratextuality-textuality-extratextuality one, but an obliquely related one: textual translation, metatextual translation, in-/intertextual translation, and extratextual translation. Metatextuality there is obviously new, as are ‘intextual translation’ and ‘intertextual translation’. But metatextuality and intertextuality are both loosely related to extratextuality – intertextuality is a kind of extratextuality that stands between texts, and metatextuality is a kind of extratextuality that observes texts – and intextuality, while it consists of text-bits and text-pieces originally taken from outside, is found inside, and so stands in a loose and complicated relation to intratextuality. Torop has also developed his original model in the quarter century since he first created it; I recently saw an updated version of it (in English) at a conference in Datong, Shanxi Province, PRC (see Fig. 2). What I propose to do here, then, is to offer a series of speculative perspectives, or “takes”, on Torop’s model: (Take 1) a descriptive one, comparing the 1995 instantiation (Fig. 1) with the more recent one (Fig. 2); (Take 2) a second descriptive one, comparing the intratextual/textual/extratextual model from the first section of his first chapter with the textual/ metatextual/intextual/intertextual/extratextual model of the rest of the book, with a primary focus on the intextual/intertextual distinction;

Möbius semioticity: Six takes on Peeter Torop’s semiotics-of-culture model of textuality