References
- Jean-Paul Sartre, What is Literature?, tr. Bernard Frechtman (N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1965).
- See Roland Barthes, Writing Degree Zero, tr. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith (Boston: Beacon, 1967).
- See Claude Lévi-Strauss, “The Structural Study of Myth”, Structural Anthropology, tr. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf (N.Y.: Basic Books, 1963), pp. 206–231.
- See Michel Beaujour, “For a Science of Literature”, Punto de Contacto/Point of Contact, Vol. I, No. 4 (1977), pp. 4–11.
- See, for example, Samuel R. Levin, Linguistic Structures in Poetry (The Hague: Mouton, 1962) and the papers collected in Linguistics and Literary Style, ed. Donald C. Freeman (N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970).
- Michael Riffaterre's Essais de stylistique structurale (Paris: Flammarion, 1971) is the classic document for the theory of the intertext. See also his Semiotics of Poetry (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978).
- Roman Jakobson's essay “Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasie Disturbances” in Fundamentals of Language (The Hague: Mouton, 1971), pp. 69–96 is a standard reference for contemporary studies of metaphor and metonymy. In the analytic philosophical tradition, the issue is treated by Max Black in Models and Metaphors (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1962) following I. A. Richard's The Philosophy of Rhetoric (N.Y.: Oxford, 1936). The rhetorical tradition, including Aristotle, Quintillian, and Fontanier, is the foundation for the Group μ (J. Dubois, F. Edeline, J. M. Klinkenberg, P. Minguet, F. Pire and H. Trinon) study entitled Rhétorique générale (Paris: Larousse, 1970). The most significant contemporary study of metaphor is Paul Ricoeur, The Rule of Metaphor, tr. Robert Czerny with K. McLaughlin and J. Costello (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977).
- The notion of “speech act” is John Searle's modification of John Austin's “illocutionary act”. Searle also attests to the compatibility of such linguistic performatives with Ferdinand de Saussure's conception of “langue” rather than “parole”. See John Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: University Press, 1969) and John Austin, How To Do Things With Words (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962). In addition to various articles by Richard Ohmann and Stanley Fish, see Mary Louise Pratt, Toward A Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1977).
- See, for example, the essays in The Computer and Literary Style, ed. Jacob Leed (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1966).
- Notably the work of Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, tr. Emerson Buchanan (Boston: Beacon, 1969); Freud and Philosophy, tr. Denis Savage (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970); The Conflict of Interpretations, ed. Don Ihde (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974) and Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, tr. Garrett Barden and John Cumming (N.Y.: Seabury, 1975). See also Richard E. Palmer, Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969).
- Ernest Jones, Hamlet and Oedipus (N.Y.: Anchor, 1949) is the classic study. William Phillips has collected together many other important essays in this domain in Art and Psychoanalysis (N.Y.: Meridian, 1957).
- See Sartre, Baudelaire, trans. Martin Turnell (N.Y.: New Directions, 1950) and Sartre, Saint Genet, tr. anon. (N.Y.: New American Library, 1963).
- See Georg Lucács, Goethe and his Age, tr. Robert Anchor (N.Y.: Grosset and Dunlap, 1968); Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, tr. John Cumming (N. Y.: Seabury, 1972); Lucien Goldmann, The Hidden God: A Study of Tragic Vision in the Pensées of Pascal and the Tragedies of Racine, tr. Philip Thody (N.Y.: Humanities Press, 1964); and Jan Kott, Shakespeare Our Contemporary, tr. Boleslaw Taborski (N.Y.: Anchor, 1966).
- See Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (N.Y.: Atheneum, 1957).
- See René Girard, Violence and the Sacred, tr. Patrick Gregory (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977).
- In referring here to Geoffrey H. Hartman's The Unmediated Vision (N. Y.: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1954), I am not overlooking his subsequent considerations of structuralist and post-structuralist criticism, as demonstrated in Beyond Formalism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970) The Fate of Reading (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975), and Criticism in the Wilderness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980).
- For a preliminary foray into what I here call “hermeneutic semiology”, see my “For a Hermeneutic Semiology of the Self”, Philosophy Today, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (Fall 1979), pp. 199–204.
- See Roman Ingarden, The Literary Work of Art, tr. Georges G. Grabowicz (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973) and Robert Magliola, Phenomenology and Literature: An Introduction (West Lafayette: Purdue University Press, 1977) esp. Part II, ch. 2.
- See my review of Dufrenne's The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience, trans. E. S. Casey et al. (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973) in The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. XXXIII, No. 4 (Summer 1975), pp. 462–464 and my “Dufrenne's Phenomenology of Poetry”, Philosophy Today, Vol. XX, No. 4 (Spring 1976) pp. 20–24.
- René Wellek and Austin Warren, in Theory of Literature (N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1956), distinguish between the extrinsic and the intrinsic approaches to literature. Intertextuality as employed by Michael Riffaterre and others is established according to what W. K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley (in the article on “Intention” for Shipley's Dictionary of World Literature) call “internal evidence”. For theorists such as Claude Lévi-Strauss different versions of the same mythical structure indicate relations between texts which are established according to both internal and external evidence—even to the extent that the distinction itself has no applicability.
- Jonathan Culler, Structuralist Poetics (Ithaca: N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1975),
- See E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967) and The Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976). Magliola discusses Hirsch along with Husserl and the Fregean Sinn/Bedeutung distinction in Part II, Chapter 1 of his book.
- Hirsch's notion of significance (which is only what the text means to me as reader) does not come into play here since it is distinct from both meaning and signification.
- Magliola, p. 9.
- Magliola, p. 30.
- See Roland Barthes, S/Z, tr. Richard Miller (N. Y.: Hill and Wang, 1974) and Culler, p. 203.
- Roland Barthes, S/Z, pp. 3–4.
- Culler, p. 160.
- Culler, p. 118. Here Culler draws upon Barthes' Critique et verité (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1966).
- Culler, p. 114.
- Culler, p. 118, citing Barthes' Critique et verité, p. 57.
- Magliola, p. 92.
- Balzac, “Sarrasine” in Barthes, S/Z, pp. 221–254.
- Barthes, S/Z, p. 151.
- Barthes, S/Z, p. 151; “To Write: Intransitive Verb?”, The Structuralist Controversy, eds. Eugenio Donato and Richard Macksey (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972), pp. 134–156. For another discussion of the middle voice but within a different framework, see the last chapter of Jacques Derrida's Speech and Phenomena, tr. David B. Allison (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973), especially pp. 94–98. In both cases, the aortic in Greek serves as a model.
- A hermeneutic semiology announces itself at the turning point, the hinge, or the interface between signification and meaning, reading and interpretation, text and expression. The “indecidable” is situated at the point where the reader signifies and the text interprets. Making sense of that indecidable can go under the name of “deconstruction”, which typically also incorporates Jacques Derrida. See, for example, my essay “Self-Decentering: Derrida Incorporated”, Research in Phenomenology, Vol. VIII (1978), pp. 45–65.