Abstract:
Cross-Сultural communication cannot exist without interaction, both oral and written. One of the types of written communication is epistolary text. This paper considers one kind of epistolary texts, the so-called ‘dead letter’, i.e. a letter which cannot be delivered to the recipient because this person does not exist. The author introduces the term ‘phantom letter’ since a corresponding term has not been found in the Russian language, besides the existing English term ‘dead letter’ does not fully reveal the phenomenon under discussion. The materials of the article are 14 personal letters and 24 literary texts in the English language belonging to the cultures of Ancient Egypt, the USA, Great Britain and Israel. The methodology of the research is based on the discourse analysis of the personal and fiction discourses. The following types of ‘phantom letters’ have been studied: letters to the dead, letters to the future generations and literary texts which are letters to some famous historical or fictional characters. Special attention is paid to various reasons why people have been writing such epistolary texts: the writer may do it on practical grounds, as a form of trauma counselling and/or resurrecting the loved one or information. As for the literary texts, the author’s aim is to create a humorous effect since all these letters are parodies. Chronotope is also considered, which is especially important in letters to the dead and letters to the future. Discourse formulas typical for some types of phantom letters have been analyzed. The last part of the paper deals with precedent texts, because understanding of fictional dead letters is drawn entirely from the knowledge of precedent. The conclusion states that there are various types of phantom letters in various cultures, they are normally personal and they are written for various reasons, however, they possess common features. Some prospects for further study in this area are also outlined.
Keywords: Phantom letter, dead letter, cross-cultural communication, culture, epistolary text, discourse, discourse analysis, discourse formula, precedent text
For citation: Orlova N.Y. ‘Phantom Letters’ in Various Cultures. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2021, no 3, pp. 111–121 (In Russ./In Engl.)
Bionote:
Natalia Yu. Orlova
Samara State Technical University,
244 Molodogvardeyskaya Str., Samara,
Russian Federation, 443100;
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7341-1279
References:
1. Afonasina AS. The letters of the pythagorean women in their historical and philosophical contexts. Schole: Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition. 2017;11(2):524–535. DOI: 10.21267/AQUILO.2017.11.6479 (In Russ.).
2. Shatokhin IT., Shatokhina SB., Radchenko ML. The heuristic capabilities of the family epistolary texts in the Russian State. Laplage em Revista. 2021;7:182–188. DOI: 10.24115/S2446-6220202171686p.182-188 (In Eng.).
3. Blagonravova MA. Linguocultural Differences between Britons and Americans and their Role in Business Communication. Edition of Saint-Petersburg State Culture Institute. 2016;214:57–63. (In Russ.).
4. Nelubova NU., Gurova AV. The Role of the Linguocultural Factor in Translation of French and Russian Online Business Correspondence. Theoretical and Practical Issues of Journalism. 2018;7(1):100–113. DOI: 10.17150/2308-6203.2018.7(1).100-113 (In Russ.).
5. Han AY., French JC., Tu C., Obiri-Yeboah D., Lipman JM., Prabhu AS. Don’t Judge a Letter by its Title: Linguistic Analysis of Letters of Recommendation by Author’s Academic Rank. Journal of Surgical Education. 2021. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1931720421001082. Accessed July 26, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2021.04.012 (In Eng.).
6. Hoffman A., Kytö M. Varying social roles and networks on a family farm: Evidence from Swedish immigrant letters, 1880s to 1930s. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics. 2019;5(2):1-31. DOI: 10.1515/jhsl-2018-0031 (In Eng.).
7. Norledge J. Building The Ark: Text World Theory and the evolution of dystopian epistolary. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics. 2020;29(1):3–21. DOI: 10.1177/0963947019898379 (In Eng.).
8. Pas H. From the Newspaper Serial to the Novel (1853–1863): Mediation of the Periodical Press in the Foundation of Alberto Blest Gana’s Narrative Project. Open Cultural Studies. 2021;5(1):136–148. DOI: 10.1515/culture-2021-0005 (In Eng.).
9. Toktagazin MB., Turysbek RS., Ussen AA., Korganbekov BS., Nurtazina RA., Gradyushko AA. Modern Internet Epistolary in Information and Media Discourse. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education. 2016;11(5):1305–1319. (In Eng.).
10. Nikolenko OY., Fedyaeva ND., Varova NL. Historical memory and being of the text: discoursive practices of actualization of war letters. ROSPUHR. 2020;4(29):74–78. DOI: 10.36809/2309-9380-2020-29-74-78 (In Russ.).
11. Kurjanovich AV. Multiparadigmatic character of the petition genre in the mirror of modern linguistics (an analysis of online-petitions as a special kind of epistolary texts). NSPU Bulletin. 2016;6(2):150–159. DOI: 10.15293/2226-3365.1602.13 (In Russ.).
12. Del Lungo Camiciotti G. Letters and Letter Writing in Early Modern Culture: An Introduction. Journal of Early Modern Studies. 2014;3:17-35. (In Eng.).
13. Kermode A. The Oxford Book of Letters. Kermode F., editor. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. (In Eng.).
14. Letters of Note [Internet]. Letters of Note. [cited 2021 Jul 21]. Available from: https://lettersofnote.com/ (In Eng.).
15. Fedorov M. Theatrical Сontext: the Unsent Letter of Demyan Bedny to F. I. Shalyapin. Studia Rossica Gedanensia. 2018;5:147–154. DOI: 10.26881/srg.2018.5.12 (In Russ.).
16. Letters to the Dead in Ancient Egypt – World History Encyclopedia. Available at: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1051/letters-to-the-dead-in-ancient-egypt/. Accessed July 26, 2021. (In Eng.).
17. Lander DA., Graham-Pole JR. Love letters to the dead: resurrecting an epistolary art. Omega (Westport). 2008-2009;58(4):313–333. DOI: 10.2190/om.58.4.d (In Eng.).
18. Aronis C. Communicative Resurrection: Letters to the Dead in the Israeli Newspaper. Journal of Communication. 2017;67(2):1–24. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12334 (In Eng.).
19. Krishna Kumar S. Intimacy and the Aesthetic of “Litter” Writing: Epistolary Renarrativisation in Georgina Kleege’s Blind Rage: Letters to Helen Keller. 2020;6(2):50–61. DOI: 10.35684/JLCI.2020.6205 (In Eng.).
20. Walsh JA. Letters to Darwin from the Future. The American Biology Teacher. 2012;74(2):111–113. DOI: 10.1525/abt.2012.74.2.9 (In Eng.)
21. Karasik VI. The Language Circle: Personality, Concepts, Discourse. Moscow: Gnosis; 2004:389. (In Russ.).
22. Selegin RP. Spiritual Life of Ancient Egyptians as a Reflection of the Space Spiritual Life. Available at: http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/ 001f/00163708.htm. Accessed July 26, 2021. (In Russ.).
23. Rak IV. Egyptian Mythology. Available at: https://libcat.ru/knigi/starinnaya-literatura/drevnevostochnaya-literatura/25901-ivan-rak-egipetskay.... Accessed July 26, 2021. (In Russ.).
24. Kleege G. Blind Rage: Letters to Helen Keller. 1st edition. Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press; 2006.
25. Baring M. Dead letters. Trieste Publishing; 2017.