Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Article views: 35
ALDO S C A G L / O N E - - - - - - - - - - - - -
56
WORD,
SCAGLIONE: LINGUISTICS
57
58
WORD,
everyday language (defamiliarization and foregrounding, with particular "devices" as genre markers and dominants). Literature and its
language derive from literature, not from life. Jakobson put it most
bluntly: insofar as it rests on difference from ordinary language, ''poetry is organized violence on ordinary speech'' . On the semantic level,
the prevalence of connotation over denotation is another violation of
ordinary communicative language.
A discourse on the relationship between linguistics and literary
criticism demands more room for the stellar name of Roman Jakobson. 9 All his life he strove to go beyond Saussure in stressing the
connection between sound and meaning. 10 He related the two disciplines of linguistics and poetics so as to bridge their gap by bringing
out the complex and linguistically relevant connotative aspects of poetic discourse. 11 For Jakobson ([1960,] 1987: 63), "since linguistics is
the global science of verbal structure, poetics may be regarded as an
integral part of linguistics'', and he recalled Paul Valery 's 1945 dictum: "literature is and cannot be anything but a sort of extension and
application of certain properties of language", as well as John Hollander's (1959) "there seems to be no reason for trying to separate the
literary from the overall linguistic" (ibid. 94), concluding: "My attempt to vindicate the right and duty of linguistics to direct the investigation of verbal art in all its compass and extent can come to a
conclusion: linguista sum", etc. (ibid. 93).
He did not hesitate to use strong terms: "I believe that the poetic
incompetence of some bigoted linguists has been mistaken for an inadequacy of the linguistic science itself" (ibid. 94). He firmly held
that linguistic analysis could by itself alone explain the difference
between poetic and non-poetic texts. Inversely, I should like to add,
linguistics needs poetics and other semiotic arts because they show that
language is not just the verbal communication medium that takes place
on the street, but also what is learned in school, modified and conditioned by poetics, literature, politics, etc. An example of the way
language use on all levels can be substantially affected by non-linguistic factors is the case of literary Czech, which toward the beginning of
the nineteenth century leaned toward sixteenth-century models (ibid.
64). This kind of phenomenon can affect the spoken language, too
(suffice it to mention the case of modern Hebrew, decisively conditioned by the religious will to return to the Bible).
Saussure's distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic is
akin to the Prague Linguistic Circle's and especially to Jakobson's
binomium of metaphor and metonymy, or again Jakobson' s distinction
SCAGLIONE: LINGUISTICS
59
60
SCAGLIONE: LINGUISTICS
61
such as parallelisms, similes, metaphors and others. 13 My 1972 Classical Theory of Composition (German trans. 1981, 2 vols.) submitted
a broad view of the combination of grammar and rhetoric, to put into
perspective the historical development of the semantic and expressive
role of the ''figures of speech'', whose classical articulation leads
directly to Jakobson's schemas, to some extent only half-consciously
on his part. And I have given elsewhere a specific analysis of the way
his opposition between simultaneity and contiguity on the one hand
and metaphor and metonymy on the other was clearly anticipated in
eighteenth-century rhetorical speculation, with much more ancients
roots for its basic schema. 14
The term "poetics" does not limit the application of linguistic
categories to verse: literary prose is equally open to such considerations, and linguistic analysis should cover not only the linguistic
forms that correspond to the current or spoken language, but to the
most deviant variations, the most peculiar "stylistic" twists. Jakobson' s statement that ''une bonne theorie du langage do it pouvoir rendre
compte non seulement de la prose neutre mais des creations verbales
les plus sauvages" implies an important broadening of linguistic science.15
Even while he was arguing for the full integration of semantics
into linguistics, Jakobson also insisted that the social and human sciences can operate in analogy with the physical sciences, so that they
can be coordinated and even assimilated to one another, and that
linguistics will rightfully play a leading role within the semiotic sciences. In Main Trends of Research in the Social and Human Sciences:
Social Sciences (Unesco, 1970: 419-463) he offered his most effective
assessment of the place of linguistics among the human and vis-a-vis
the physical sciences, and he did so as one who believed in the possibility of coordinating and harmonizing the encyclopedia of the sciences-a task against whose possible pitfalls Stephen Toulmin, among
other thinkers, has not tired to warn us. 16
Adopting Jakobson's methodological approach to epistemology
postulates a value hierarchy for linguistic/aesthetic criteria. I can summarize the argument by referring to Malmberg ( 1983) on J akobson' s
law of hierarchy in the child's learning processes and in the use of
phonetic patterns. "[This law] issues automatically from the more
general principle of the hierarchic structure of human language, of
which for example one can recall that it is equally valid for the structures of syntagms. The open syllable is more general and appears
earlier in the infant than the closed one". In syntax, subordination is
62
SCAGLIONE: LINGUISTICS
63
64
WORD,
SCAGLIONE: LINGUISTICS
65
it is unique and yet fixed, showing the system behind the individual
cases. Grammatology goes beyond linguistics as a science of writing
and textuality, obviating the impasse and resolving the paradox of
langue and parole as well as the semiotic opposition of code and
message; the implementation of a science of "differences" would
include a linguistics of langue and a linguistics of parole. 25
Deconstruction is only the most radical form of a growing kind of
sophisticated skepticism about meaning in the traditional sense, which
has also been emerging in other hermeneutical schools, such as readerresponse theory, Rezeptionsiisthetik, and rhetorical criticism. To say it
with Jonathan Culler, "there is no meaning in the text except in a
context of interpretation" ,26 and for Stanley Fish we end up with "the
experience of a prose that undermines certainty and moves away from
clarity, complicating what has at first seemed perfectly simple, raising
more problems than it solves''. 27
We can recall that in Charles Sanders Peirce the sign extended
well beyond the word into a whole discourse or text. Carrying on in
this mood, Julia Kristeva has moved toward textlinguistics as a form of
new translinguistics (translinguistique) within which "text" would
replace "sign"). In this light Barthes, Greimas, and Kristeva have
been seen as stages in the evolution of French semiology toward a
general textual theory. 28
More can be said about the consequences of recent theoretical
work on the self-image of linguistics and its relationship with contiguous disciplines. Derrida's discussion of Austin's and Searle's theories
of speech acts shows that deconstruction has completed the process by
which criticism no longer does what it traditionally meant to do,
namely to explain and evaluate the literariness of specific texts. We
have reached the point where disciplines whose existence was once
justified on the basis of strict defi11itions have gone so far out of their
boundaries that their function becomes problematic. Linguistics is subject to the same questions. We can then wonder: Why criticism? Why
linguistics? What do they do? After linguistics has given up on the
presumption that it can make us speak better or more correctly, what,
specifically, does linguistics do, if anything, beyond analyzing and
defining? If it is a science, what specifically do we need it for? Speech
act theory points out that language utterances are not generally true or
false but go beyond the logic of statements to enter the pragmatic realm
of performance. ''Meaning is context-bound but context is boundless''
(Culler 1982: 128), and this raises the question of the infinite nature of
linguistic statements. Derrida subverts speech act theory, for which
66
WORD,
literature is non-serious, non-ordinary, non-normal language, by insisting that all language use is subject to these same conditions and is
"serious" only in part. Figurative, symbolic, and metaphorical language is the norm, not the marginal exception, even in philosophical
discourse.
For Saussure differences were still strictly binary and worked as
hierarchical antitheses: langue!parole, paradigmatic/associative or
syntagmatic, synchronic/diachronic, signifier/signified.Z9 For Derrida
they are more like eo-present, inherently ambiguous nuances, nonhierarchical and non-exclusive. His suggestion that any text be read as
literature opens up all possibilities of performative discourse, beyond
the cognitive, hence of seeing all possible levels of meaning in any
text. Yet, his focusing on literature does not privilege literature over
other discourses, as already stated, but is meant to regard the literary
as encompassing all genres, including philosophy and linguistics. Thus
Derrida provides a way to do a literary reading of philosophy and, vice
versa, a philosophical reading of literature, or a linguistic reading of
any discourse: in other words, he allows all discourses to communicate
with one another (Culler 1982: 185). Decisive is also Derrida's critique
of the Saussurian sign insofar as it refers and defers to a transcendental
(metaphysical) concept or object which is beyond the sign, since it is
behind the signified. Also, it repeats itself because the interpretant of
the sign is himself a sign and the signified is also, in turn, a new
signifier, and so on. 30
The linguistic study of poetics and literariness, which still lacks a
proper term, deserves more attention, whether or not we want to regard
it as part of semiotics (perhaps independent of linguistics proper even
while it clearly makes extensive and essential use of linguistic categories). In the meantime, I wish to suggest that it be conceived as
hinged on the question of the grammatical and semantic rules.
In 1965 Tzvetan Todorov repeated a well-established topos of
rhetorical speculation by proposing that we view rhetorical figures, an
essential aspect of literariness, as often being apparent deviations from
grammatical and semantic rules. Even while observing that this point
of view may derive from an incomplete description of grammaticality,
he concluded that ''rhetoric and good usage entertain a rather hostile
mutual relationship", that "the 'effects of style' ... could not exist
without opposition to a norm, an established usage", and that "poetic
language is not only estranged from good usage, it is its antithesis. Its
essence consists in the violation of linguistic norms". 31 True enough,
we might object that it is not the grammatical or semantic deviation
SCAGLIONE: LINGUISTICS
67
that by itself determines literary success, but the way it functions. The
rules that are violated are not the linguistic rules understood in the
deep, Chomskyan sense, but those of standard usage. Furthermore,
this rather traditional point of view is, in its context, a throwback to the
notion of defamiliarization that characterized Russian Formalism, and,
like other modern criticism (e.g., Theodor Adorno's, Waiter Benjamin's, and much Marxist criticism), it is a view that in a contemporary critical context derives essentially from the modern experiences
of transgression, revolution, and revolt. "Classical" art was not conspicuously based on violation but on the establishment of an excellent
example that would become, or aspire to become, "le bon usage" and
the norm-at least on the elevated level of literary, hence model usage.
Racine's famous line "La fille de Minas et de Pasiphiie" contains no
violation of any rule and no figure of speech at all, yet it has traditionally been quoted as an outstanding example of sublime literariness
or poeticity-simply by its rhythm. In other words, even in the framing
of basic definitions we are back to the need to historicize. Furthermore,
"deconstructing" such an interpretation might show that this privileging of transgression is a way of reading into literary custom the modern
politico/moral experience. Critical speculation could have a different
motivation in the past-for example, the need to emphasize the departure from the norms when the general critical stance stressed the
excellence of the "plain style", or prosaic virtues of expression. This
was the case when in the eighteenth century Jean-Antoine Du Cerceau
emphatically maintained that poetic style consisted simply of a systematic use of hyperbaton and inversion. 32 More generally, such observations imply violation of the basic rule of communication, namely
'clarity', one of the virtues of style in Aristotle's definition.
No one should object to the use of linguistic categories to define
the literary. The next step is suggested by Greimas 1972: the poetic
sign is a "complex" sign: it covers more, quantitatively and qualitatively, than ordinary and scientific discourse. We can add that poetics
needs linguistics but it also transcends it. This language- and linguisticbased type of literary criticism would be related to text-linguistics or
text-criticism of the kind that has emerged from the speculations of the
line Barthes-Greimas-Kristeva in France and the school of Tartu (especially Yury [louri] Lotman). It would have an intrinsic as well as an
extrinsic phase, this latter being turned toward the study of the work
within its social context, and the former being severally articulated into
prosody, rhetoric or stylistic, and narratology, depending on whether
it studies the phonetic level, the grammatical, syntactic, and semantic
68
END NOTES
1
11 was in the area of the ancient Greek and Latin classics that historical/comparative
linguistics, which became a model historical science in the early nineteenth century, was first
applied to literary study. The study of Plautus and Petronius is a good example of deriving
important information for linguistic history (the history of Vulgar Latin) from extant ancient
literary texts. This was part of "classical philology".
2
ln the variety of Marxist criticism that David Forgacs defines as "language-centered",
Macherey is said to come closest to this condition outside Russia. Cf. Forgacs' chapter on
Marxist criticism in A. Jefferson and D. Robey, eds., Modern Literary Theory (1982, 1991).
Unlike Macherey and Lukacs, Theodor Adorno accepts the epistemological value of art, but turns
it upside down as negative knowledge. In Russia Bakhtin's school went further, with Medvedev
and Voloshinov, and then, in France, though differently, with Julia Kristeva. Bakhtin conceived
the word as two-sided (intention and effect, speaker and listener), to wit, as dialogue, because,
unlike Saussure's parole, it is social. Bakhtin's 1929 Dostoevky deals with dialogue and free
indirect discourse, but not as equivalent: Dostoevsky's novel is polyphonic, the author does not
impose an authoritarian control over his characters, who speak and think for themselves even
SCAGLIONE: LINGUISTICS
69
without using different styles and the erlebte Rede that the authoritarian writer Tolstoy uses much
more methodically for different reasons. Literature is a practice of language within reality. Since
Bakhtin saw Rabelais's language as anti-authoritarian, we have here a poetics of individual rights
and of rebellion against authority. Language becomes more central than the ideological content,
the representation of reality, or factual knowledge.
3
In the history of language sciences linguistics and literary study developed hand in hand
from the earliest times. We all know that western grammar started with Dionysius Thrax, who
explicitly defined his discipline, namely grammar, as a tool for the reading of poetry.
4
Starting with a 1929 paper in the Travaux du Cerc/e linguistique de Prague I the Viennese
philosopher Kurt Biihler (he was a colleague of Nikolai Sergeyevich Trubetzkoy at Vienna, and
is best known for his later and influential 1934 Sprachtheorie) contributed valuable insights to the
understanding of basic linguistic structures, including his distinction among the representative,
the expressive, and the conative function, fastening on the facts (object of the message), the
speaker, and the hearer. This looked forward to Jakobson's semiotic functions. See Malmberg
(1983: 282-287). Geoffrey Sampson (1980: 130) finds Biihler's contributions useful though overrated.
5
Eugenio Coseriu 1971 traces Aristotle's concept of meaning and Saussure 's concept of sign
as well as the relationship between language and thinking, and Koerner 1972 supplies an exhaustive bibliography on Saussure's concept of binary and arbitrary sign.
6
Wittgenstein, Tractatus 5.6 and 5.62, cited by de Mauro 26.
7
Malmberg (1983: 275f.) shows the typical gallocentrism of French scholarship when he
discusses the debate on what the Germans have referred to as Wort und Sache (the debate between
res et verba of clear humanistic ancestry since the fifteenth century) without reference to other
scholars than such French luminaries as Ferdinand Brunot (La pensee et la langue. 1922) and
Henri Delacroix (Le langage et la pensee. 1924, 1930).
8
My own studies of the linguistic tradition have revolved around the relationship between
grammar, rhetoric, and logic as part of the Trivium Arts and as the traditional aspect of the
relationship between language, thinking, and expression. Dealing with philosophical and psychological contributions, Malmerg concludes (1983: 261): "la connaissance pratique d'une
langue ne suppose pas la connaissance d' une somme de paradigmes grammaticaux isoles (qu' ordinairement le sujet parlant n'est pas capable de reproduire separement) mais celle d'une collection de type de Gestalt de nature morphologique et syntaxique".
9
Among Jakobson's contributions of practical criticism it may suffice here to recall the long
essay on "Grammatical Parallelism and Its Russian Facet," now in Language in Literature
(1987: 145-179). For the more theoretical kindsee, especially, his seminal "Linguistics and
Poetics" (1960), now in Language in Literature (1987: 62-94).
10
"11 y a un rapport entre son et sens qui a attire des le debut !'attention de Jakobson et qui
est reste pendant toute sa vie au centre de ses recherches. Jakobson a pu s'appuyer sur des
pn!decesseurs celebres en soutenant cette these antisaussurienne. 'De !'avis d'Otto Jespersen
(1916), le role de l'arbitraire dans la langue a ete infiniment exagere, et ni Whitney ni Saussure
n'etaient parvenus aresoudre le probleme de la relation entre le son et la signification' (Jakobson,
"A la recherche de !'essence du langage", Problemes du langage, Coli. 'Diogene', 1966, 26).
Et il cite dans ce contexte J. Damourette et E. Pichon, D. L. Bolinger et E. Benveniste"
(Malmberg 1983: 107).
11
"Le titre du petit ouvrage precite de Jakobson, Six ler;ons sur le son et le sens, est
caracteristique de ce jeu avec les phonemes et les syllabes doni on se sert toutes les fois que le
but de l'enonce n'est pas limite a un simple transfert d'information denotative" (Malmberg 1983:
107). Jakobson's chief contributions on this question can now be found in the volume Questions
de poetique (1973).
70
Jakobson. "Linguistics and Poetics" (1960/1987: 79). See Chatman, "Comparing Metrical Styles", in Thomas A. Sebeok, ed., Style in Language (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. P, 1960):
178.
"Questions de p01itique 280-292 and other passages, and see Malmberg (1983: 108).
14
"The Trivium Arts and Contemporary Linguistics: The Contiguity/Similarity Distinction
and the Question of Word Order," HL (1983). The rich historical background to the connections
between rhetorical analysis and linguistic analysis remains largely unexplored. See, e.g., the
discussion of the ordering of the sequence loan and Margery (Jakobson 1987: 70), which I have
shown to correspond to "Beauzee's law" (see my 1979 paper), somewhat related to the ToblerMussafia law.
15
Malmberg (1983: 130), with reference to Todorov.
16
In placing linguistics in a central position among the social sciences and specifically the
semiotic disciplines, Jakobson continued the trend established by John Locke, C. S. Peirce,
Saussure, and Bloomfield. The UNESCO volume Main Trends of Research in the Social and
Human Sciences (The Hague: Mouton and Paris: UNESCO, 1970-1978, 2 parts in 3, pt. I, 1970)
places Jean Piaget and Jakobson side by side in an effort to define such relationships among the
sciences: see Piaget's Introduction, I: 1-57, also published separately as The Place of the
Sciences of Man in the System of Sciences (New York: Harper & Row, c1970, 1974). Jakobson
saw analogies and parallelisms among the sciences-e.g., between atoms and minimal linguistic
structures.
17
"Elle [i.e., la loi] s'ensuit automatiquement du principe plus general de la structure
hierarchique du langage humain dont on peut rappeler par exemple qu'il vaut egalement pour les
structures des syntagmes. La syllabe ouverte est plus generale et vient plus vite chez !'enfant que
la syllabe fermee. " 17 "En realite, une telle hierarchisation se retrouve aussi en dehors du langage
et domine sans doute toute activite organisee a fonction semiotique. Toute maitrise de jeux
compliques implique une maitrise de jeux moins compliques" (Malmberg 1983: 104). Malmberg
has further illustrated Jakobson's "law" in his own Signes et symboles (1977), eh. 14: 271-283.
18
Croce's schema was a special attempt to solve the problem of this basically "Hegelian"
predicament by postulating for art a "concrete universal" that would combine the universal with
the particular (in terms somewhat reminiscent of Aristotle's comparison between the particular of
historiography with the universal of poetry).
19
Sampson 132.
20
Andre Martinet (b. 1908), now emeritus from the Sorbonne as well as from the Ecole
Pratique des Hautes Etudes, back to Paris from Columbia and the Linguistic Circle of New York,
of which we are now celebrating the fiftieth anniversary, is known for his ''fonctionnel'' version
of Prague structuralism.
21
The phrasing is in Gerard Genette's Figures of Literary Discourse (Oxford-New York:
Basil Blackwell, 1982: 7).
22
Barthes (1970: 5). For a detailed account of structuralism's connection with Saussurian
linguistics and semiotics see Hawkes 1977.
23
De la grammato/ogie (1967: 74).
24
See Derrida, Grammatology, "Linguistics and Grammatology" (1977: 27-73) for his
critique of Saussure on the priority of the spoken language.
25
Malmberg (1983: 332).
26
J. Culler (1982: 76-77), with reference to critics who object to E. D. Hirsch 's distinction
between meaning and significance.
27
S. Fish, Self-Consuming Artifacts: The Experience of Seventeenth-Century Literature
(Berkeley: U of California P, 1972: 378). cited by Culler (1982: 79).
SCAGLIONE: LINGUISTICS
71
"Cf. Jeanne Martinet, Clefs pour la semiologie (Paris: Ed. Seghers, 1973), in Malmberg
(1983: 333).
20
My 1980b paper on Wolff and Condillac deals with Condillac's clear notions of the
linearity of language, arbitrary sign, and language as exclusive foundation for thinking and
communicating, hence, the necessity of the sign (this in contrast with Descartes and Locke but
in harmony with Christian Wolff).
3
Culler (1982: 187-188); see Derrida, Positions (1972, 1981: 29-30, 19-20).
""la rhetorique et le bon usage entretiennent des relations plutot hostiles" (Todorov 1965:
301); "les 'effets de style' ... ne pourraient pas exister s'ils ne s'opposaient a une norme, a un
usage etabli" (303); "la langue poetique est non seulement etrangere au bon usage, elle en est
l'antithese. Son essence consiste dans la violation des normes du langage" (305). Cf. Malmberg
(1983:331 ).
32
Cf. my Classical Theory of Composition ( 1972: 236-239).
33
I borrow from Malmberg (1983: 334-335) this summary assignment of the main tasks of
a general textologie.
34
For one rather trivial example, a critical awareness of the expressive, affective, and
emotive qualities of utterances, which is inherent in stylistic criticism, plays a role in pure
linguistics, too, as for the realization that if languages such as Spanish and Italian can express
emphasis or emotivity through the lengthening of vowels (and consonants), it is because these
languages do not know the distinction between long and short vowels on a linguistic (phonetic)
level. Cf. Malmberg (1983: 285). Of course the difference is one of degree, since languages that
do use the distinction phonetically can also allow expressive lengthening, as in E. ''I bought a big
fish at the market", with a long /i/ (a case of "continuous-scale" rather than "discrete" contrast).
35
Cf. Sampson (1980: 130-131). With reference to Paul Kiparsky ("Historical Linguistics", in Dingwall 1971: 33-61 at 52) Sampson 149 has argued that even in discussing synchronic issues the historical vantage point can correct wrong "universalist" inferences conducted
in a Chomskian disregard for diachrony. The issue was how to explain the loss of S, 0, or -y
phonemes in Modern Israeli Hebrew vis-a-vis Biblical Hebrew (where all stops [p t k b d g]
alternated with fricative counterparts [f 0 x vS -y)]), and Kiparsky's explanation was based on a
universal process of phonetic drift instead of invoking the impact of German (which only contains
[v x f] among fricatives) on Ashkenazic Jews.
REFERENCES
Austin. John L. 1970. Philosophical Papers. London: Oxford U.P.
- - - . 1973. How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U.P.
Barthes, Roland. 1953/1972. Le degre zero de /'ecriture. Paris: Seuil.
1964. "Elements de semiologie". Communications 4: 91-135.
1967. "Science vs. Literature". The Times Literary Supplement. 28 September: 89798.
1970. S/Z. Paris: Seuil.
Biihler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Jena: Gustav Fischer.
Chomsky, Noam. "On the Nature, Use and Acquisition of Language". In Piitz 1992:3-29.
Corti, Maria. 1798. ll viaggio testuale. Torino: Einaudi.
- - - & Cesare Segre. 1973. I metodi attuali del/a critica in /talia. Torino: ER!.
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1971. Teoria dellinguaggio e linguistica genera/e. Bari: Laterza.
72
Croce, Benedetto. [1901] 1922. Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistics.
Rev. Ed. Trans. Douglas Ainslie. New York: Noonday.
Cros, Edmond. 1988. Theory and Practice of Sociocriticism. Theory and History of Literature
53. Trans. Jerome Schwartz. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
Culler, Jonathan. 1975. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. lthaca: Cornell U.P.
- - - . 1982. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism Ajier Structuralism. lthaca: Cornell U. P.
Davis, Robert Con. 1818. Contemporary Literary Criticism. New York-London: Longman.
De Castris, Arcangelo Leone. 1991. La critica letteraria in ltalia dal dopoguerra a oggi.
Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Della Volpe, Galvano. 1964. Critica del gusto. 2nd ed. Milan: Feltrinelli,
- - - . 1978. Critique of Taste. Trans. Michael Caesar. London: NLB.
de Man, Paul. 1979. Allegories of Reading: Fif?ural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke,
and Proust. New Haven: Yale U.P.
- - - . 1983. Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism. lntrod.
by Wlad Godzich. 2nd ed. Theory and History of Literature 7. Minneapolis: Univ. of
Minnesota Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1972. Positions. Paris: Editions de Minuit. (En g. trans. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press 1981.)
- - - . 1963. De la grammatologie. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
- - - . 1977. OfGrammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
U.P.
- - - . 1978. Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Dingwall, William Orr, ed. 1971. A Survey of Linguistic Science. Stamford, CT: Greylock.
Eco, Umberto. 1979a. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Advances
in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana U.P.
- - - . 1979b. A Theory of Semiotics. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana U.P.
- - - . 1984. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington:
Indiana U.P.
- - - . 1986. Travels in Hyperreality: Essays. Trans. William Weaver. San Diego: Helen and
Kurt Wolff-Harcourt Brace and Jovanovich.
Erlich, Victor. cl955, 1980. Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine. The Hague: Mouton.
Firbas, Jan. 1992a. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication.
Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
- - - . 1992b. "The Why's and How's in My Research into Functional Sentence Perspective".
In Piitz 1992:335-57.
Fokkema, Douwe W., and Elrud Kunne-Ibsch. c 1978, 2d ed. 1979. Theories of Literature in the
Twemieth Century: Structuralism, Marxism, Aesthetics of Reception, Semiotics. London: C.
Hurst; New York: St. Martin's Press.
Greimas, A. J., et al. 1972. Essais de semiotique poerique. Paris: Larousse.
Hartman, Geoffrey H., ed. 1979. Psychoanalysis and the Question of the Text. Baltimore, MD:
J. Hopkins U.P.
- - - . 1980. Criticism in the Wilderness: The Study of Literature Today. New Haven: Yale U .P.
Hawkes, Terence. 1977. Structuralism and Semiotics. London: Methuen.
Jakobson, Roman. 1970. Main Trends in the Science of Language. New York: Harper & Row.
- - - . 1973. Questions de Poerique. Paris: Seuil.
- - - . 1985. Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time. Eds. Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen
Rudy. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
SCAGLIONE: LINGUISTICS
73
- - - . 1987. Language in Literature. Eds. Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy. CambridgeLondon: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.
---,and Morris Halle, eds. 1956. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague: Mouton.
Jauss, Hans Robert. 1982. Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics. Trans. Michael
Shaw. lntrod. by Wlad Godzich. Theory and History of Literature 3. Minneapolis: U of
Minnesota P.
- - - . 1982. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Trans. Timothy Bahti. Introd. by Paul de Man.
Theory and History of Literature 2. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
Jefferson, Ann, and David Robey, eds. 1991. Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction. 2d ed. London: J. T. Batsford, 1986, 1991. 1st ed. 1982. Totowa, NJ: Barnes &
Noble.
Koerner, E. F. K. 1972. Contribution au debat post-saussurien sur le signe linguistique. The
Hague-Paris: Mouton.
Lacan, Jacques. 1968. The Language of the Self: The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis.
Trans. Anthony Wilden. New York: Delta-Dell.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1945. "L'analyse structurale en linguistique et en anthropologie". Word
1: 33-53. Then in Anthropologie structurale. Paris: Pion, 1958.
Lodge, David. 1988. The Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology of
Modern Literature. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Lotman, louri. 1964. "Sur la delimitation linguistique et litteraire de la notion de structure."
Linguistics 6: 59-72.
Luperini, Romano. 1991. Teoria e critica letteraria oggi. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Malmberg, Bertil. 1977. Signes et symboles. Paris: A. & J. Picard.
- - - . 1983. Analyse du langage au XXe siecle. Theorie et mhhodes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Ch. 8, "Les idees de Roman Jakobson et leurs echos en linguistique et
en poetique", pp. 99-114.
Mauro, Tullio de. 1967. Ludwig Wittgenstein: His Place in the Development of Semantics.
Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Nordahl Lund, Steffen. 1981. L'aventure du signifiant. Paris: PUF.
Piitz, Martin, ed. 1992. Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Studies in honor of Rene Dirven.
Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rice, Philip, and Patricia Waugh, eds. 1989. Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. New York:
Edward Arnold.
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1980. Schools of Linguistics. Stanford: Stanford U.P.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1967. Cours de linguistique genera/e. 3d ed. Paris: Payot.
Scaglione, Aldo. 1970. Ars grammatica: A Bibliographic Survey, Two Essays on the Grammar
of the Latin and Italian Subjunctive, and A Note on the Ablative Absolute. The Hague-Paris:
Mouton, (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 77.)
- - - . 1972. The Classical Theory of Composition. Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press.
- - - . 1979. "Beauzee, Behaghel, and J. R. Ross on heavy-NP shift", Historiographia
Linguistica 6.2: 231-45.
- - - . 1980a. "The Eighteenth-Century debate concerning linearity or simultaneity in the deep
structure of language: From Buffier to Gottsched". Progress in Linguistic Historiography:
Papers from the International Conference on the History of the Language SciencesOttawa, 28-31 August 1978 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins): 141-54.
- - - . 1980b. "Direct vs. Inverted Order: Wolff and Condillac on the Necessity of the Sign and
the Interrelationship of Language and Thinking". Romance Philology 33.4: 496-501.
- - - . 198la. The Theory of German Word Order, from the Renaissance to the Present.
Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press.
74
- - - . 1981 b. Komponierte Prosa van der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta
Yerlag, 2 vols.
- - - . 1983. "The Trivium Arts and Contemporary Linguistics: The Contiguity/Similarity
Distinction and the Question of Word Order". Historiographia Linguistica 10.3: 195-207.
Todorov, Tzvetan. 1965. "Les poetes devant le ban usage". Esthetique de la langue fran~aise.
Revue d' Esthtitique, n.s. 3-4: 300-05.
- - - , ed. 1966. Theorie de la litterature: Textes des formalistes russes. Paris: Editions du
Seuil.
- - - . 1987. Literature and Its Theorists: A Personal View of Twentieth-Century Criticism.
Trans. Catherine Porter. Ithaca: Cornell U .P.
Wellek, Rene. 1981-87. A History of Modern Criticism: 1750-1950. 7 vols. New HavenLondon: Yale U.P.
---,and Austin Warren. 1957. Theory of Literature. 3rd ed. New York: Harvest-Harcourt,
Brace and World.