ABSTRACT Building on Peters’ and Jandrić's previous work on curriculum as ‘text’ and ‘discourse’ (Peters, M. A., & Jandrić, P. (2018b). The curious relationships between discourse, genre and curriculum. Open Review of Educational Research, 5(1).), this article seeks to refresh and extend the central metaphor of ‘curriculum as text’ that is adopted as the organizing metaphor of William Pinar’s 2006 book Understanding Curriculum: An Introduction to the Study of Historical and Contemporary Curriculum Discourses. We undertake this analysis by referring to five theoretical notions: Jorge Luis Borges’ ‘The garden of forking paths’ (1941), Roland Barthes’ structuralism (1977), Julia Kristeva's intertextuality (1966/1986), Ted Nelson's hypertextuality (1965), and Gilles Deleuze's and Felix Guattari's extratextuality (2004/1980). In conclusion, we show that the text is neither simply an artefact nor is it simply a sequence of uttered sounds. The text does not solely reside within the domain of the reader and cannot be considered as the exclusive domain of the author. Looking at relationships between text, textuality, curriculum, and technology, we show that the metaphor of ‘curriculum as text’ is inherently postdigital and that it requires development of a new postdigital language of inquiry and new postdigital forms of textual and non-textual expressions of that language in the years to come.

中文翻译：

---

课程，文本和文本形式

摘要建立在彼得斯和扬德里奇先前关于课程的“文本”和“话语”研究基础上（彼得斯，马克斯和扬德里奇，P。（2018b）。话语，体裁和课程之间的好奇关系。教育研究评论集，5 （1）。），本文力求刷新和扩展“作为文本的课程”的中心隐喻，该隐喻被威廉·皮纳尔（William Pinar）在2006年出版的《理解课程：历史和当代课程话语研究导论》中的组织隐喻所采用。我们通过参考五个理论概念进行分析：豪尔赫·路易斯·博尔赫斯（Jorge Luis Borges）的《叉路花园》（1941），罗兰·巴特斯（Roland Barthes）的结构主义（1977），朱莉娅·克里斯蒂娃（Julia Kristeva）的互文性（1966/1986），泰德·尼尔森（Ted Nelson）的超文本性（1965），以及吉尔斯·德勒兹（Gilles Deleuze）和费利克斯·瓜塔里（Felix Guattari）的超文本性（2004/1980）。总而言之，我们表明文本不仅是人工制品，也不是一系列发声的序列。文本不仅仅位于读者的领域之内，也不能被视为作者的专有领域。查看文本，文本性，课程和技术之间的关系，我们发现“课程作为文本”的隐喻本质上是后数字的，它需要开发一种新的后数字查询语言以及新的后数字形式的文本和非文本表达形式在未来几年中会使用该语言。