Intertext: How Do Readers Perceive National and Universal Precedents?

2024

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.30564/fls.v6i4.6850
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

The article examines the national and universal level of precedent phenomena, which are one of the forms of creating intertexts. Our goal is to show which type of levels is most quickly determined by the reader. To achieve this goal, 36 respondents participated in the research work and six precedent phenomena were obtained: 3 national, 3 universal. The questions related to precedent names were composed according to words formed by metaphor, metonymy, comparison, paraphrase. The respondents' responses were analyzed using a "one-sample t-test" in the Jamovi system. The results of the study showed that universal levels are more recognizable by the reader (Univ1=4.75; Nat1=3.37; Univ2=5.99; Nat2=5.93; Univ3=4.06; Nat3=4.51). That is, statistically, the predominance was the preservation of universal concepts in the reader's mind. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of precedent, which is a type of intertext.