A Semiotic Landscape. Panorama sémiotique. Proceedings of the First Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Milan June 1974

Citation preview

DE GRUYTER

Seymour Chatman (Ed.) et al.

~

SEMIOTIC LANDSCAP.E. PANORAM~ SEMIOTIQUE

AP~ROACHES TO SEMIOTICS [AS]

Approaches to Semiotics

29 Editorial Committee

Thomas A. Sebeok Roland Posner Alain Rey

MOUTON PUBLISHERS · THE HAGUE · PARIS · NEW YORK

A Semiotic Landscape Proceedings ofthe First Congress ofthe International A ssociationforSemiotic Studies Milan, June 1974

Panorama semiotique Acres du premier congres de /'Association lnternationale de Semiotique Milan,juin 1974

Edited by/Publies par

Seymour Chatman UmbertoEco Jean-Marie Klinkenberg

ISBN: 90-279-7928~ Jacket design by Jurriaan Schrorcr © 1979, Mouton Publishers. The Hague, The Netherlands Print~d in Gr~ar Britain

PREFACE

The general reports and communications included in this volume were written for the first congress organized by the International Association for Semiotic Studies and as such they offer a semiotic landscape, which provides a descrip• tion of the state of the art in 1974. As it happened, the 1974 cong,ess was the first to be officially devoted to semiotics. In light of this both the organiz. crs and the participants of the congress-also had a fundamental and 'archae• ological' task: they not only had to discuss the state of the discipline but also 1) the right of the discipline to exist, 2) its history, and 3) the possibility of providing the discipline with a unified methodology and a unified objective. It would have been possible to ask every participant to make a theoretical statement about his own conception of semiotics. The result would then l1ave been a somewhat discoMected series of philosophical opinions without any recognizable common terminology. First of all, what kind of people should have been invited to define semiotics? Semioticians is undoubtedly the correct answer. But how could a 'professional' semiotician be distinguished from his 'fellow companions' if the purpose of the meeting was precisely to discuss (to accept or to reject) such a distinction? Suppose one had to prepare a general bibliography of semiotic studies: which books or papers would have to be considered as dealing with semiotics? The ones which explicitly use the term semiotics in their titles? Those which the bibliographer considers useful to his own scientific perspective? Is Locke's Essay Concerning Human Under• standing a book on semiotics since in the last chapter it proposes that semiotics be one of the three main branches of science? Is Husserl's Logische Untersuchungen a semiotic work, even though the term semiotics is never used, since it deals extensively with the problem of signification and provides interesting tools for a unified approach to both perceptual and linguistic meaning? There are books explicitly designated as pertaining to the so-ulled 'semiotics of visual arts' which only reiterate the traditional clicMs of academic art criticism, while there are other books which are really masterpieces on visual semiotics in which such a term is never even mentioned. In order to academically recognize a discipline one ought to have I) an object whose V

existence or nature can hardly be questioned and 2) a set of unified methodological instruments,oneofwhichisan unambiguous tenninology. Many disciplines can claim such a fortunate status. But how could one, on thses grounds, organize a congress on philosophy, or even on the philosophy of art or the philosophy of religion? The case of art is rather illuminating. It seems that there existed through the ages some human activity which produced 'art objects'; it also seems that men , in different epochs and cultures, have elaborated different notions of 'art' and of'artistic value'. Notwithstanding this, can one outline an 'objective' set of criteria according to which it would be possible to admit and exclude people to and from a congress on aesthetics? There is not, among so-called aestheticians, a common tenninology, a common methodology, or a common definition of their own objective. Nevertheless it would really be nonscientific to assume, on these grounds, that it is impossible to study art from a theoretical point-of-view and that people should not meet to discuss 'aesthetics'. A short introduction to 'Art' by the Italian philosopher Dino Formaggio opens with this quasitautological statement: 'Art is what men call art.' This, however, is not a bourade; rather it is a serious example of nondogmatic procedure. Different cultures have used, in order to designate certain objects or processes, certain terms considered as appropriate translations of other terms, produced by other cultures, that were used to designate partly similar and partly dissimilar objects and processes. Is there, underlying these linguistic uses, something constant which a theory of art ought to define and describe? It is commonly recognized that aesthetics is, if not the 'discipline' itself, then at least the disciplinary field or the interdisciplinary project concerned with the above question. Let me say that, in order to invite people and to outline a possible program for the first semiotics congress, the organizers have taken the same nondogmatic attitude. The first report to the congress, delivered by Roman Jakobson, illustrates that a 'science' dealing with signs and with processes of communication has an impressive pedigree; and that, in spite of the different approaches, all thinkers who belonged to this lineage ( and maybe more who still have to be identified) were dealing, more or less consciously, with the same theoretical object, with a unique relationship manifesting itself through the most disparate phenomena, a relationship which Jakobson called 'renvoi'. Aliquid star pro aliquo. This relationship of referring back must be taken into account by the linguist who not only studies the relationship between signans and signatum in words and phrases but also (as happens now with text linguistics) the multiple relationships between the surface of a text and the indefinite series of its meanings, its presuppositions, its relations with the universe of 'intertextuality', by the meterologists who infers from certain clues the forthcoming atmospheric conditions, by the medical doctor who establishes vi

the relationship between a given spot on an X-ray and an anatomical peculiarity, by the political scientist, who is concerned with the links between a given public behavior and an ideological attitude, by the ethologist studying how animals signal to each other about things and situations which are outside their perceptual range, by anthropologists interested in gestural or culinuy conventions, by architects knowing that a given urban or architectural form will tell people how to live and what to do in order to live in a given space, and so on. Is that enough to assert that there is a discipline ( to call it semiotics or something else would be a mere nominalistic decision)? I think there is at least enough to assert that there is a phenomenon, which can be reduced to a theoretical object and which is of interest to many other disciplines without being reducible to any one of them. Wittgenstein, dealing with the concept of 'game', spoke once of 'family resemblances'. I think that even a family resemblance is a good starting point for a scientific endeavor. The fact that for a supposedly unique phenomenan there are many theories and terminologies, does not give anyone the right to say that the phenomenon is not worthy of being studied. In Manzoni'shomessi spoii there is a character, Don Ferrante, who denies the existence of the plague because it cannot be described according to Aristotelian categories, that is, it cannot be isolated as a substance or as an accident. Call it a substance or an accident, define it by Aristotelian or Platonic concepts, try only to ascertain its statistical occurrences, name it by poetic metaphors-the variety of approaches only attests to the complexity of the phenomenon but the phenomenon is there. Maybe the comparison with the plauge is not the most encouraging one, but why not decide to equate semiotics with medicine rather than with anatomy (a discipline which has acquired a precise status, establishing its recognizable object and its 'objective' methods): a network of different objects and purposes, of conflicting doctrines, oscillating between theory and practice-notwithstanding that this centered around the phenomenon of human health? As far as semiotics is concerned, there are recognizable bodies of theoretical instruments, clearly outlined general approaches as well as tentative inquiries, partial perspectives, still unshaped proposals emerging from other researches which may be labelled by other names, whose authors perhaps deny the possibility of in• serting their own research into a more global field. To organize a first international congress of semiotics necessarily required respect for all these types of approaches. It meant to try to design, through the general reports, a field of interest, to be isolated by the inspection of diverse and interrelated other fields of interest, and to gather a large corpus ofproposalscomingfromall those who in some way believed that their contri• bution was serving to outline a semiotic endeavor. Such is the spirit in which these proceedings should be read. Every reader vii

naturally has the right to refuse many approaches as unsatisfactory to his own requirements for a semiotic discipline. The task of the congress was, however, to provide every reader interested in semiotics with some evidence regarding the state of current opionions about what semiotics should be. Seymour Chatman, assisted by Kathleen Weaver and Alan Francovich, edited the English papers; Jean-Marie Klinkeberg, assisted by Jeannine Angelique, Claude Bouche, Christian Delcoun, Philippe Dubois, Joseph Keutgen and Fran\:oise Lerusse edited the French papers. As is usual in inter• national congresses, the majority of papers were not written by native spealcers. The editors were obliged to malce some linguistic interventions-obviously trying to be as faithful as possible to the author's intentions. Authors were consulted by the editors only in cases of deletions. None of the authors have had the opportunity to revise the final draft of their papers after editing. The individual bibliographies have been combined into one for the salce of economy, i.e. not to unduly increase the size of the volume. It was therefore necessary to establish a standard criterion for references. The task of collating these bibliographies was undertalcen by Patrizia Magli, Lucrecia Escudero and Marco De Marinis. Since not all books were cited in their original language or edition and since an author frequently referred to the pages of the edition from which he quoted, the bibliography contains many redundancies and it sometimes lists the same book in two different editions. It is not to be considered as a general bibliography on semiotics but rather as a unified (as far as it was possible) list of the works quoted in the different papers. There was, of course, a predictable unevenness in the way different authors furnished their references: some of them provided a sort of general list of their auc• toritates, others limited themselves to listing only the authors they cited verbatim. Therefore, it would be imprudent even to talce the reference list as a statistical survey on the bibliographical background of the first international semiotics congress. The final revision of the manuscript and of the proofs has been made by Mouton's editorial staff.

U.E.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface Ust of Contributors

V

XXV

PART I: GENERAL

Coup d'oeil sur le developpement de la semiotique by Roman Jakobson

3

Philosophy of Language and Semiotics by L. Jonathan Cohen

19

Semiotics of Scientific Languages by Solomon Marcus

29

Semiotics and Logic by Jer:y Pelc

41

The Abstract Conception of the 'Sign' by Max Bense

52

Pertinence et ideologie by Luis J. Prieto

SS

Perspectives semiotlques des nouvelles tendances en linguistique by Paolo Ramat

68

The Literary Sign by d'Arco Si/11io A11aUe

82

L'etude structurale du recit depuis V. Propp by Qaude Bremond

90

The Science of Literature and Literary Criticism: A Survey of International Contributions in the Field of Poetry by Marcello Pagnini

96

ix

Rhetoric and Semiotics by Seymour Oratrnan

I03

New Trends in Typology of Texts and Text Grammars by Janos S. Petofi

113

Sur la semiologie de la peinture by Hubert Damisch

128

Map and Mirror: Theories of Pictorial Representation by E.H. Gombrich

137

Semiotique de la photographic by Rene Lindekens

139

Rapport sur l'etat actuel de la semiologie du cinema dans le monde (debut 1974) by Orristian Men

147

Survey of Current Work on the Semiology of Objects by Martin Krampen

I 58

Survey on Current Work in Semiology of Architecture by Martin Krampen

169

Les recherches semiologiques sur la musique by Jean.Jacques Nattiez

195

Quelques problemes de semiotique de la culture chez les auteurs est-europeens by Stefan Zolkiewski

204

Zoosemiotic Components of Human Communication by Thomas A. Sebeok

221

Concluding Remarks by Umberto Eco

246

Discours de cloture by Cesare Segre

252

PART II: FOUNDATIONS

Towards a Semiotics of the Educational Process by Pavel Apostol, Rodica Stoian, and Sandina Jaeger

261

A Note on the Transparency of Signs

262

by Andrzej Boguslawski X

Signe et symbole: un essai de discrimination ideologique by Jean-0,arles Chebat

26S

Signe verbal, signe non-verbal by Lucrecia d'Alessio Ferrara, Decio Pignarari

269

Semiotique: ,me science sociale ou /a science sociale? by Paola Falreri

274

L'objet de la semiologie et l'objet de la linguistique by Daniele Gambarara

278

Factual Information Versus Value-Information by Elemer Ha11kiss

282

~miotique et conditions de production by Juan Carlos /ndart

286

Communication et signification: !'unite de la semiologie by Jean-Marie Klinkenberg

288

Ernst Cassirer's Contribution to a Philosophical Conception of the Symbolic Function by John Michael Krois

29S

Signe du zero, zero de Signe by Annemarie Lange-Seidl

300

The Phenomenological Foundations of Semiology by Richard Lanigan

304

On Relating Pragmatics, Linguistics, and Non-semiotic Disciplines: A Summary View by Hans-Heinrich Lieb

309

Notes for a Defin ition of Aesthetic Semiosis by Tomas Llorens

313

Signe et symbole: problcme terminologique et conceptuel by Berri/ Malmberg

318

L'importance des comportements intrapersonnels et interpersonnels pour l'etablissement d'une theorie de la semiotique by Geraldo Mattos

321

From l:11µ1;u.,ruaj to Semiotic by Theodore Messenger

326

Deux antinomies semiotique: immanent/uanscendant. Clos/ouvert by Paul Miclo.u

329

xi

Lethargie de Ja parole et semiose des relations textuelles by Michel Nasta

333

On the Scope of Semiotics: A Critique and Redefinition by Leo Pap

336

Une theorie linguistique sans concept de signe est-elle possible? by Herman Pa"et

341

Vers un modele des detenninations sociales des elements semiques by Narciso Pizarro

345

The Challenge of 'Total Body Communication' as an Interdisciplinary Field of lntegiative Research by Fernando Poyatos

349

Signs and Bodies by Ferruccio Rossi-1.Andi

356

La signe dans Ja theorie de Ja connaissance by Alejandro Russovich

360

Text and Discourse by Paolo Valesio

364

La metaphysique du signe, le jeu des signes by Orristiaan Alphonsus van den Berk

366

Dix remarques sur Ja semiotique de l'ideologie by Eliseo Veron

370

La parole et Ja structure logique de la pcnsee by Henri Wald

372

PART Ill: UNGUJSTlCS AND SEMIOTICS

Phonology as Semiotic by Henning Andersen

377

Quantification Logic and Chinese Grammar by Janusz O,mielewski

382

Parallelism in the Complexity of Expression and Content of the Linguistic Sign by Orristian Lehmann

384

On Adverbs and Intentionality by R.M. Martin

389

xii

Morphotactical Complexity by H. Joachim Neuhaus

395

Instruction in Semiotics: The Student's Conception of Language by DoMld W. Thomas

399

Linguistics as a Part of SemJotics by S.K. Saum/an

403

Linguistics as a Branch of Semiotics by L.Z. Sova

407

SemJotic Aspect of Linguistic Units by V.N. Yartseva

412

PART IV. SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGES AND EXACT METHODS IN AESTHETICS

Methodes exactes dans !'art et la litterature by Abraham A. Moles

417

Mathematical Structure of the Semiotic Dimension of Information by A.O. Arlgoni

420

La position singuliore du symbolismc mathematique dans le systeme general des signes la lumicre de la forulation de Whitehead by Massimo Bonfantini

425

On the Semiotic Square and Concept of Deep Narrative Structures in Greimas by Antonina Buttitta, Silvaflll Miceli, Antonio Pasqualino, and

429

a

Gianni Rigamonti Analyse semiotique d'une experience morphologique dans un langage de programmation by Otristian Ozlude

433

Semiotique du diagnostic by Eugen Celan et Solomon Marcus

436

Jeux enigmistiques et langages formels by Sorin aobotaru

440

An Example of Quantitative Elaboration of Lexical Data for Critical Purposes: Chromatism in Antonio Machado's Poetry by Alessarulro Flnzi and VittoriJZ la Rocca

443

The Grammar of Fairy-Tales by Stanca Folino and Solomon Marcus

448

xiii

Structures de repetition dans la langage poetique by Irina Gorun

a

Le code linguistique par rapport d'autres codes: le code genetique

452 456

by Letizia Grassi La petite liseuse de poemes by Pie"e Laurette

461

Sur Jes Transformations semiotiques by A. Ljudskanov

464

The Physical Nature of the Comprehension of Signs by Marian Mazur

468

Natural Languages as a Programming Language for Testing and Simulating Linguistic Theories on a Computer by Hans-Dieter Rausclmer

471

On W. Fischer's Algebraic Homological Model Concerning the Iterations 476 of Poetical Signs by Liana Schwartz Popa-Burca Projection de certaines structures des langues naturelles dans un langage· de programmalion by Mariana Steriadi

479

Groupes de caracteres significatifs dans les langucs ecrites by A. Tretiakoff

483

Signs, Symbols, and Systems by Thure von Uexkiill

487

Systemes ouverts et langage arithmetique by Daniel Vemey

493

PART V: SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS

The Structure of Meaning by Mario Alinei

499

On the Specificity of Terms by Uzbek Baitchura

504

Langages dialogiques et langages polylogiques. langages mixtes by Bruno d'Amore

507

xiv

The Semiotics of Role Interpretation by Robert J. di Pietro

511

A New Approach to the Ajdukiewicz's Index Method and the Corresponding Metalogical Calculus by Bogdan Dyankov

516

Culture et semantique sous !'angle de !'analyse philosophique du langage by Janos Kelemen

S21

On Vagueness and Meaning Families

525

by Leon Koj Subjectivity and Discrepant Use of the Category of Person by Daniel Lqferriere

528

Problemes du discours de la 'representation' socio-politique by Eric Landowski

533

On the Semantical Category of 'That' in Belief Sentences

S37

by Witold Marciszewski Discours, texte(s), textualite by H. Quere

S41

Natural Meaning, Conventional Meaning, and David Lewis' Convention by Bernard E. Rollin

S46

Sur la correlation 'mononymie-polynymie' by Come/ Sateanu

SSO

Meaning of Sign, Cognitive Content, and Pragmatics by Petr Sgall

554

Semiotique et psycholinguistique, recherc.hes sur la 'syntaxe mixte' by Tatiana Slama-Cazacu

560

Pertinence semiotique de la notion d'ensemble flou by Ugo Vo/Ii

S6S

Le rapport entre signum et denotatum dans la conception d'Augustin by Lucia Wald

569

Semiotic Foundations of Illocutive Acts by Victor Sanchez de Z(llla(a

S73

Sign Transparency and Performatives by R. Zuber

S76

xv

PART VI: UTER.ATURE

Statut ideologique de la motanarrative by Stefano Agosti

S83

A Tautological Poem by Guido Almansi

S84

The Poetics of Allusion - A Text Linking Device - In Different Media of Communication by Zi,a Ben-Porat

S88

La signification en poetique et/ou en hlstoire de la litterature by Nicolas BalochoP

S94

Structuralism, New Criticism, and the Chicago School: A Uminary Statement by Jean-MMc Blanchard

S98

Signe et chose clans la litterature d'avant-garde de !'Europe de !'est by Endrt Bojttir

602

Euphony and the Weltanschauung in Hifiz's Poetry by Henry Broms

60S

Conditions de l'ecriture d'une theorie de l'economie signifiante: la figuration semiotique by Ouuln Bouazis

609

Remarks on the Compositional and Thematic Structure of a Gryphius SoMet by Karoly Curi

614

Allegory and the Status of Literary Semiotics by Jonathan a,Jier

620

Textes et macrotexte by Marill Corti

62S

The Textemic Status of SigN in a Literary Text and its Translation by Itamar Ewn-Zohar ·

629

Some ObseMtions on Modernism as a Period Code with Reference

634

to Thomas Mann's Der Zauberbe'i by D. W. Fokkema Description et regles poetiques. Sur un mecanisme poetique chez Sade by Gunter Gebauer

xvi

639

La lecture comme Performance - psycholinguistique et communication 644 lltteraire by W. Geerts Avoir du sens vs. avoir un sens dans um: perspective discursive

by Jacques Geninmca Codage ideologiquo des texte lltterair~

652

by Ouules Grivel

Champs semantiques du niveau emotionnel de !'experience esthetique by Peter JoZSll

658

La narration et les types de disc~s by Zoltlin Kanyo

662

Texte et paratexte. Essai sur la preface du roman classique by Simone Leco1iltre et Jean le Galliot

666

Enchissement narratif de textes lyriques: le cas du roroan do Flamenco

671

by Alberto Limentani Referents de la narration

677

by Lidia Lonzi The Progrunming of Best-SOiler Elements illto Popular Narration: Richard Bach's Jonathan Livi1t,ston Seagull and Sept's Love Story by Bruce Mury

681

Postulats narratifs et rythme semantique by Thomas G. Pavel

686

Poetic Communication Versus Uteruy Language Or: The Linguistic Fallacy in Poetics by Roland Pomn

689

Essai de typologie semlotique des titres d'oeuvres by Josette Rey ~bove

698

CoMotative Systems and their Functions in Shakespeare's SoMet 87 by Romana Rutelli

702

Joyce: Epiphany and Code

709

by Constantin-George Sandufesco Communaute des theories linguistiquo et litteraire sous !'angle de la semiotique by Yuri S. Stepa,iov

713

xvii

Limits of Signs by OlegSus

7I7

Semiotique de la litterature by Tzvetan Todorov

721

Poetics as a Theory of Expressivity ('Theme - Expressivity Devices Literary Text Model) by A.K. Zolkovskij

725

PART VII: ICONICITY AND VISUAL ARTS

Creativite et semiotique d'un langage visuel by Gian Franco Arlandi

731

'Oleus ex Machina' Analyse semiotique d'un texte publicitaire by Paolo Baldi. Alessandro Falassi. et Mauro Wolf

737

TI1e Role of Semiology in the Visual Arts by Eugenio Battisti

744

The Nature of Depiction by Eric Cameron

749

Semiotic Disalienation and 'Visual Poetry' by Oma, Calabrese

754

a

La bande dessinee: de la narration figurative la figuration narrative by Pie"e Fresnaulr-Deruelle

758

Semiologie du message visuel: analyse de la creation plastique avec des psychotiques au moyen de techniques non verbales by Ester Gurevich

762

Icons, Systems, and Object Relationships by Otrislian Kocll

770

Does the Icon Have a Cognitive Value? by Tom.as Maldonado

774

The Frame of the Painting or the Semiotic Functions of Boundaries in the Representative Process by Louis Marin

777

lconicity and CoMotation in the Photographic Image by William McLean

783

xviii

Visual Poetry by Eugenio Miccini

788

L'isotopie de !'image by Philippe Minguet

791

Ali et semiologie. Code et transgression by Jacques Monnier

795

Semiotics and 'Visual Poetry' by Egidio Mucci

799

Some Theoretical Considerations Concerning an Experimental Approach to the Dynamics of Sign Perception by Maria Nowakowska

802

The Neo-ldeogram - From Advertising to Visual Poetry by lAmberto Pignotti

805

Semiotic Relevance of the Pictorial Sign by Rosa Marla Ravera

808

•Abstraction• et representation (iconologie et semlotique picturale) by AfainRey

812

Art pauvre/monde pauvre by Pie"e Restany

815

Notes pour une recherche sur !'image by Armando Sercovich

819

Lucky Luke: Rhetorique et sens dans la nouvelle bande dessinee by Oscar Steimberg

823

Le blanc et le noir dans !'art abstrait by Dora Vallier

825

PART VIII: CINEMA, TELEVISION AND 111£ATRE

Quand la semiologie est seduite par la mise en scene by Gianfranco Bettetini

833

Semiotics Ante Litteram: Notes on Pirandello's Reactions to

837

sound film by G.A. Bolognese The System of the Specular Text with Reference to Stagecoach by Nicholas K. Browne

841

xix

Pour une semiotique integree des signes cinematographiques by Gian Piero Brunetta

844

Le theatre comme modele general du langage by A. Cascetta, E. Marconi, A. Martinelli et A. Rovella

848

The Hero in Drama - An Investigation of a Semiotic Principle by Peter CaJsirer

853

Pour une approche semiotique du theatre comme message multilineaire by Marco de Marinis et Patrlzia Magli

858

Aspects semiotiques de la strategie des personnages dans le theatre by Mihai Dinu

862

The Narrative Text of Shock Corridor by Kari Haner

867

Reflexions sur la semiologie du theatre by Andre Htlbo

873

Cinematographic lconicity - Some Sigmatic Preliminaries by Hennann Kalkofen

878

Isotopie et dislocation des codes dans 'Six persoMages en quete d'auteur' by Wladimir Krysinski

882

Fondements d'une semiologie du theatre sur la distinction de Peirce entre !cones, index et symboles by Patrice Pavis

885

Pour un message TV specifique by Cezar Radu

891

The Language of the 'Telenovela • and its influence on Brazilian Society by Monica Rector

895

PARTIX:ARCHITECTURE Design Versus Non-Designed Public Places by Diana Agresr

903

Building Design as an Iconic Sign System by Geoffrey H. Broadbent

904

XX

Notes en marge des etudes italieMes sur la semiotique architectonique by Giuseppina Dai Canton

909

Analyse semiotique de la structure urbaine: le cas d'EI A.aiun au Sahara by Juan Luis Dalda, Carlos Marti Aris, et Luis Pau Corominas

913

Le dlscours de la ville

9 I8

by Richard Fauque The Architectural Signifier by Mario Gandelsonas

924

Serniotique de l'espace et semiotique de !'architecture by Manar Hammad

925

A Semantic Analysis of Stirling's Olivetti Cenue Wing by Or4rles Jencks

930

The Holy Trinity. the Structure of the Process of the Visual Perception of Architecture by Sven Hesselgren

936

Syntactic and Semantic Considerations in the Semiotic Analysis of Social Message Appearing as Physical Urban Structure and Use by Merrte Klapp

945

Systemes logiques et symboliques dans le mecanisme de definition de l'espace by Giorgio Muratore

952

Sociologie et semiotique by S. Ostrowetsky et S. Bordreuil

956

Analyse semiotique du plan d'uchitectecte by Eric hovoost

960

A Semiotic Approach to Architectural Criticism

965

by Maria Luisa Scalvini Architecture about Architecture: Self-Reference as a Type of Architectural Signification by Susan Willig

970

PART X: MUSIC

Une approche linguistique-mathematique de la semiologie musicale by Bogdan Cazimir

981

xxi

Different Organizations of Complexity in Music and Llterature by Harai Golomb

98S

Valeurs dtnotatives et connotatives dans le Capriccio B Dur (Abreise) de J.S. Bach by Gilio Dorfles

991

La stmiologie musicale: voie nouvelle pour l'interprttation by Marcelle Guertin

994

Quelques remarques sur la duplication chez Debussy by Louise Hirbour•Pat/uette

998

Syntactical Strata in Music by David Lidov

I 003

Probltmes de !'analyse stmiologique des oeuvres polyphoniques by Elisabeth Morin

1010

Pour une methode d'analyse des analyses by Gilles Naud

101S

Semiotic Devices in Musical Drama, Some Observations by Frits No1ke

1019

The Role of a Typology of Transformations within the Semiotics of Musical Form by David Osmond-Smith

102S

Pour une discipline du signe musical by Gino Stefani

1029

PART XI: SEMIOTICS OF CULTURES

Solutions to Riddles by Dan Ben-Amos

103S

Semiotical Approaches to the Problem of Territorial Differences in Attitude Structures by Belll Biiky

I 039

Essai d'analyse d'une pratique de magie imitative by Maria Kosovo

1043

Sur la hierarchie d'un systeme de signes dependant de plusieurs parametres: cas particulier des variantes d'une ballade populaire by /onRadoi

1052

xxli

Semiotic Aspects in Folk Communication by Paul Sch11eiger

I 056

Is Anthropology a Domain of Semiotics?

I 060

by Eric Schwimmer Polysemy of the Symbol naga and the Meaning of makara Studied in the Light of Comparative Mythology by E.S. Semeka

I064

The Breakdown of Medieval Hierarchy in King Lear by Alessandro Serpleri

I067

Systeme de la mode en darien: Towards a Semiotic Analysis of CunaMolas by Dina and Joel Shene,

1073

The Semiotics of May Day Study in Hungary: A Report on Social Semiotics by Vi/mos Voigt

1080

PART XII: NON-VERBAL BEKAVIOR

Pour une interpretation semiologique de !'escrime by Maurizio Martinelli

I085

Aspects patalinguistiques des comportements non-verbaux dans l'enseignement des langues etrangeres by Mircea Gheorghiu

I 089

Non-Verbal Communication Between Mother and Child During Feeding by Laura Benigni

1093

Non-Verbal Communication in Infancy by Margaret Bullowa

1096

Semiotics and Telepathy by David Efron

1102

Non-Verbal Communicative Behavior in North India: Some Examples and Explanations by Moti Lal Gupta

I 109

Implications of the Gestural Model of Language Origin for Human Semiotic Behavior by Gordon W. Hewes

1113

xxiii

The Kinesic Behavior of Bilingual Children in Face-to-Face Interaction: A Preliminary Report by Wa/burga von &/flu Engel

1116

The Frequency of IDusuators and Adaptors as a Function of Two Instructed Ways of Interviewing by Pio E. Ricci Bitti, Dino Giovannini. and Anna Silimbani

1121

A Sound-Motion Picture Test for Measuring Sensitivity to Non-Verbal Communication: The Pons Test by Robert Rosenthal. Dane Archer, Judith H. Koivumaki, M. Robin DiMatteo, and Peter L. Rogers

1127

PART Xlll: PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

Les signes de l'homme. Reflexions preliminaires sur la protosemique by Max Belulfi

I 13S

Semiotics and Psychotherapy byEugen Bir

I 139

Hysteria Reflected in the Voice by Thea von Beckerath

1143

The R~ferential Discourses by Marshall Blonsky

1146

The Primary Constitution of the Semiotic World in the Individual and its Destruction in Schizophrenics by R. Pinxten

11 S4

Clinical Semiotics: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Aspects of Human Development and Disease by Harley C. Shands and James D. Meltzer

I 160

References

1167

xxiv

UST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Agosti, Stefan Agrest,Diana Alinei, Mario Andersen, Henning Apostol, Pavel

Univenita di Vena/a Princeton University University of Utrtcht Boylston Hall, Harvard, Cambridge, Mass. Central Post Grrzduate lmtitute for Teachers in Service Training, Bucharest Arlandi, Cianfranco Brunate-0:>mo (Italia) Arigoni, Anio 0. Universiui di Ferrara Baltchura, Uzbek Leningrad, USSR Baiachov, Nicolas Academie des Scienca de Moscou - Moskou Baldi, Pier L. Universita di Firenze Bar, Eugen Hobart & William Smith 0:>lleges, New York Battisti, Eugenio The Pennsylvania State University Beckerath, Thea von West Germ.any Beluffi, Max Milano, Italia University of Pennsylvania Ben-Amos, Dan Benigni, Laura lstituto di hicologiJz del C N R. Roma Ben-Porat, Ziva Tel Aviv University Universittit Stuttgart Bense, Max Berk, Christiaan A. van den Ruhr-Universittit Bettetini, Cianfranco Milano, Italia Blanchard, Jean-Marc University of Ozlifomia, Dallis Blonsky, Marshall New York University of Warsaw Boguslawski, Andrzej Bojtar Endre Academie des Sciences de Hongrie, Budapest Bolognese, Giuseppe C.A. The f7inders University of South Australia Bonfantini, Massimo Milano, Italia Bordreuil, Jean S. Universite de Provence Bouazis, Charles CN.R.S., Bordeaux Broadbent, Geoffrey School ofArchitecture, Portsmouth Broms, Henri University ofHelsinki Browne, Nicholas Hanard University, Cambridge, Mass. Padova, Italia Brunetta, Gian P. BUiey, B~la Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest Bullowa, Margaret MIZS$(lchusetts Institute of Technology Buttitta, Antonino Universitd di Palermo, Italia Calabrese, Omar Firenze, Italia XXV

Calude, Christian Cameron, Eric Cascetta, Anna M. Cassirer, Peter Cazlmir,Bogdan Celan, Eugen Chatman, Seymour Chebat, Jean C. Chmielewski, Janusz Clobotaru, Sorin Cohen, Laurence J. Corti, Maria Csuri, Karoly Culler, Jonathan Dai Canton, Giuseppw Dalda Escudero, Juan Luis D'Alessandro, Verena D'Amore, Bruno Damisch, Hubert De Mannis, Marco Dinu, Mihai Di Pietro, Robert Dorfles, Gillo Dyankov, Bogdon Eco, Umberto Efron, David Even-Zohar, Itamar Falassi, Alessandro Falteri, Paola Fauque, Richard Ferrara, Lucrecia Finzi, Alessandro Fokkema, Douwe Fotino, Stanca Fresnault-DerveUe, Pierre Gambarara, Daniele Gandelsonas, Mario Gebauer, Gunter Geerts, Walter Geninasca,Jacques xxvi

lnstitutul de Mattmatica. Bucuresti University of Guelph, Ontario Milano, Italia University ofG"teborg, Sweden lnstitutul de Matematica, Bucuresti lnstitutul de Matematica, Bucuresti University of California, Berkeley Universitt du Quebec Polish Association for Semiotic Studies lnstitutul de Matematica, Bucuresti Queen's College, Oxford Untversitd di Pavia University of Szeged Selwyn College. Cambridge Untverstd di Padova Madrid l Q, Espana Roma, Italia Universitd di Bologna Ecole Normale Suptr., Paris 6 Universitti di Bologna lnstitutul de Matematica, Bucuresti Georgetown University Universitd di Ozgliari, Milano Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Universitd di Bologna Gentve, Suisse Tel Aviv University University ofCalifornia, Berkeley Firenze, Italia Centre de Recherches Sociologique de Toulouse Universidade Catolica de S4o Paulo Pisa, Italia Institute ofComparative Literature. Utrecht lnstitutul de Matematica, Bucaresti lnstitut Universitaire de Technologie de Tours Universitd di Salemo 11,e Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies UniversiUit Karlsruhe Universitt d'Anvers Saint-Blaise, Suisse

Gheorghiu, Mircea Giovanni, Dino Golomb,Harai Gombrich, E.H. Gorun, Irina Grassi, Letizia Grivel, Charles Guertin, Marcelle Gupta, Moti Lal Gurevich, Ester Hammad, Manar Hanet, Kari Hankiss, Elem~r Helbo, Andrt Hesselgren, Sven Hewes, Gordon W. Hirbour-Paquette, Louise lndart, Juan C. Jaeger. Sandina Jakobson, Roman Jencks, Charles A. J6sza, Peter Kalkofen, Hermann Kanyo, Zoltan Kelemen, Janos Klapp, Mary Klinlcenberg, Jean-Marie Koch, Christian Koj, Leon Kosova, Maria Krarnpen, Martin Krois, John M. Krysinsky, Wladimir

Laferritre, Danlel Landowski, Eric Lange-Seidl, Arulemarie Lanigan, Richard Laurette, Pierre

Universitt de Bucarest Institute of Psychology, Bologna University Tel Aviv University The Warburg Institute, University of London lnstitutul de Matematica, Bucuresti Bologna, Italia Universitt libre d'Amsterdam Universitt de Monrreal University ofJodhpur, India Capital Federal, Buenos Aires Groupe 107, Paris Slade School, London Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest Bruxelles Royal Institute of Technology, Sigtuna, Sweden University of Colorado Universirt de Montreal Association Argentine de Stmiotique Central Post Graduate Institute for Teachers in Service Training, Bucarest Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Architectural Association, London /nstitut de la Culture, 1251 Budapest lnstitut fiir den wissenschaftlichen Film, 34 GiJttingen Universitt de Szeged Universitt de Budapest U.S.A. Universitt de litge Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio Polish Associanon of Semiotics, lublin Academy of Sciences, Bratislava Universitt de Gentve et Berlin Pennsylvania State University Carleton University, Ottawa 1ufts University, Medford, Mass. Fondation National des Sciences Politiques, Paris Fachhochschule Munchen, Staatliche Akademie Dillingen Ozicago State University Carleton University, Ottawa xxvii

Lecointre, Simone Le Galliot, Jean Lehmann, Christian Lidov, David Lieb, Hans-Heinrich Lijudskanov, Alexandre Limentani, Alberto Lindekens, Rent Uorens, Tomas Lanzi, Lidia Magli, Pauizia Maldonado, Tomas Malmberg, Berti! Marciszewski, Witold Marconi, Emo Marcus, Solomon Marin, Louis Marti Aris, Carlos Martin, R.M. Martinelli, Antonio Martinelli, Maurizio Mattos, Geraldo Mazur, Marian McLean, William P. Merry, Bruce Messenger, Theodore, Metz, Christian Miccini, Eugenio Miceli, Silvana Micllu, Paul Minguet, Philippe Moles, Abraham MoMier, Jacques Morin, Elisabeth Mucci, Egidio Muratore, Giorgio Nasta, Michel Nattiei, Jean-Jacques Naud, Gilles Neuhaus, Heini J. Nowakowska, Maria xxviii

Universite de Paris X, Nante"e Universite de Paris X. Nante"e Universitat Koln York Universi()I, Canada West Berlin Academie Bulgare des Sciences, SoFlll Universitd di Venezia Universiti de Montreal Portsmouth School ofArchitecture, Portsmouth Milano, Italia Univenite di Bologna Milano, Italia lnstitut de Linguistique, Lund Univenity of Wanaw Milano, Italia Universite de Bucarest University of California, Muir College Barcelona 15, Espana Northwestern Univeni()I, Evanston Bergamo, Italia C.F.L., Napoli, Italia Universidade Catolica do Parana Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa University of Illinois University College, Dublin 4 University ofNorth Dakota Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales Firenze, Italia Universitd di Palermo, Italia Univenite de Bucarest Universite de Liige Universite de Lcuis Pasteur, Strasbourg Ecole des Beaux Arts et d'Arts app/ique de Lausa,me Univenite de Montreal Firenze, Italia Universitd di Roma Universite de Bucarest Universite de Montreal Univenite de Montreal West[. Wilhelms Universitlit Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa

Instituut voor Muzielcwetenschap, Amsterdam University of Sussex, Brighton Universite de Provence State University College, New Paltz, New York Fends National de Recherche Scientifique, Louvain Universitd di Palermo, Italia Pasqualino, Antonio Pavel, T.G. Universite d 'Ottawa Royal Military College ofCanada, Kingston Pavis, Patrice Pelc, Jerzy Warsaw University U11iversitti't Bielefeld Petofi, Janos S. Pignatari, Decio Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo Pignotti, Lamberto Roma, Italia Ghent University, Belgium Pinxten, Hendrik Pizarro, Narciso Universite de Quebec d Montreal Posner, Roland Technische Universit4t Berlin Poyatos, Fernando University of New Brunswick Prieto, Luis Universite de Geneve Groupe 107, 75015 Paris Provoost, Eric IUdoi, Jon Universite de Bucarest Radu, Cezar Universite de Bucarest Raffier Engel, Walburga von Vanderbilt University Rauschner, Hans-Dieter Scuola Normale Superiore, 56100 Pisa Ravera, Rosa M. Universita Naz ioMle di Rosario, Rosario, Argentina Rector, Monica Pontificia Uni1·. Catolica, Rio de Janeiro Restany, Pierre Milano, Italia Rey, Alain Universite de Paris Ill Rey-Debove, Josette Paris, France Ricci-Bitti, Pio Institute ofPsychology, BofQgna University Rigamonti, Gianlazzaro Universitd di Palermo, Italia Rollin, Bernard Colorado State University Rosenthal, Robert Harvard University, Mass. Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio Roma, Italia Rovella, Angelo Milano, Italia Sanchez de Zavala, Victor Universidad de Madrid Sandulescu, ConstantinGeorge University of Stockholm Sateanu, Corne! Universite de Quj, Mt1nchen Academy of Sciences USSR Slumjan, Sebastian Scalvini, Maria Luisa Napoli, Italia Quj-Napoca, Romania Schveiger, Paul Noske, Frits Osmond.Smith, David Ostrowetsky, Sylvia Pap,Leo Parret, Herman

xxix

Schwartz-Popa-Burca, Liana Schwimmer, Eric Sebeolc, Thomas A. Segre, Cesare Semelca,E.S. Sercovich, Armando Serpieri, Alessandro Sgall, Petr Shands, Harley C. Sherzer, Dina and Joel Silimbani, Anna Slama-Cazacu, Tatiana

Sova, L.Z. Stefani, Gino Steimberg, Oscar Stepanov, Yuri Steriadi, MariaMa Stoian, Rodica Sus, Oleg Thomas, Donald Todorov, Tzvetan Tretialcoff, Andr~ UexlcUII, Toure von Valesio, Paolo Vallier, Dora Vemey, Daniel Ver6n, Eliseo Voigt, Vilmos Volli, Ugo Wald, Henri Wald, Lucia Wittig, Susan Wolf, Mauro Yartseva, V.N. Zolkiewslci, Stefan

lnstitutul de Matematica, Bucuresti University of Toronto lndianll University Piazza Bertorelli. Milano Roma. Italia Buenos Aires Firenze, Italia Praha 7, Czechoslovakia Roosevelt Hospital, New York University of Texas Institute ofPsychology, Bologna University University of Bucharest lnstitur Jazykozfl(IJlija AN USSR Universitd di Macerata, Pesaro Association argentine de semiotique Institute of Linguistics, Moskva G-19 lnstitutul de Matemarica. Bucuresti Central Post Graduate Institute for Teachers in Service Training, Bucarest Purkynova 81, 612 00 Bmo 12, Czechoslovakia Brookline High School, Bedford, Mass. CN.R.S.• Paris Sceaux. France Universitlit Ulm New York University Paris, France Systema, groupe de rechercl1es sur les syst~mes ouverts, Sevres, France Jnstituro Torcuato Di Te/la, Buenos Aires Elte University, Budapest Universite de Milan lnstttur de Philosophie, Bucuresti 6 Universite de Bucarest University of Texas at Austin Universite d'Urbino U.S.S.R.

Academie des Sciences, Warszawa

Llllcovskij, A.K;

Zuber, Ryszard

XXX

Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

PART I. GENERAL

COUP D'OEIL SUR LE DEVELOPPEMENT DE LA SEMIOTIQUE

RO~IAN JAKOBSON

I. Emile Benveniste que je viens de voir a Paris m'a prie de transmettre au Premier Congres de !'Association lntemationale de Semiotique ses souhaits de reussite, et c'est a la beUe etude de notre illustre confrere "Coup d'oeil sur le developpement de la linguistiqueft (1963) que j'emprunte l'en-tete de men expose. Benveniste commence "par observer que la linguistique a un double objet, elle est science du langage et science de langues.( ...) C'est des langues que s'occupc le lingu iste, et la linguistique est d'abord la thforie des langues. Mais ( ...) les problemes infiniment divers des langues ont ceci de commun qu'a uncertain degre de generalite ils mettent toujours en question le langage: ii s'agit du langage en tant qu'invariant universe! par rapport aux langues locales, variees et variables dans le temps et dans l'espace. Dans le mime ordre d'idees la ~miotique est appelee a etudier Jes divers systemes de signes et a mettre en valeur le probleme qui se degage d'une comparaison methodiquc de ces systemes, c'est a dire le probleme general du signe: signe comme notion generique par rapport aux classes particulieres des signes. La question du signe et des signes fut abordee a plusieurs reprises par Jes pcnseurs de l'Antiquite, du Moyen Age et de la Renaissance. Vers la fin du dix-scplieme siecle le ~lebre £s54y de John Locke, dans le chapitre final consacre a la division tripartite des sciences, promu t ce probleme complexe au rang de la demiere des "three great provinces of the inteUectual world" et proposa de l'appeler "oqµi:1wrucf! or, the 'doctrine of signs; the most usual whereof being words", etant donne que "to communicate our thoughts to one another, as well as record them for our own use, signs of our ideas are also necessary. Those which men have found most convenient, and therefore generally make use of, arc articulate sounds" (Livre IV, Chap. XXI, Section IV). C'est aux mots, con~us comme "les grands instruments de la cognition", a leur emploi et a leur relation avec les idt!es que Locke consacre le troisieme livre de son £s54y Concerning H11mane Understanding. 2. Des le debut de ses activites scientifiques, Jean-Henri Lambert prit connaissance de l'Essay et au cours de son travail sur le Neues Organon, qui 3

occupe une place de choix dans le developpement de Ja pensee phfoomenologique, iJ se vit profondement influence par les idees de Locke, tout en gardant une position critique vis-A-vis de la doctrine sensualiste du philosophe anglais (cf. Eisenring 1942: 7, 12, 48 sq., 82). Chacun des deux volumes du Neues Organon se divise en deux parties et parmi ces quatre parties, la troi-

si!me-Semiotik oder Lehre von der Bezeiclrnung der Gedanken und Dinge, suivie par la Phii11omenologie (pp. 3-214)-doit A la these de Locke (voir ci-dessus) le terme 'semiotique' ainsi que le theme de la recherche: •die Untersuchung der Notwendigkeit der symbolischen Erkenntnis iiberhaupt, und der Sprache besonders" ( § 6), etant donne que cette reconnaissance symbolique •uns ein unentbehrliches Htilfsmittel zum Denken ist" ( § 12). Dans la preface A son oeuvre, Lambert nous avertit qu'il s'occupe de la langue dans neuf chapitres de la Semiotik (2-10) mais n'accorde qu'un seul chapitre aux autres especes de signes, •da die Sprache nicht nur an sich notwendig, und ungemein weitlaufig ist, sondern bei jedcn andem Arten von Zeichen enbenfalls vorkommt." L'auteur desire se consacrer A la langue, -Um ihre Struktur niiher kennen zu lernen" ( § 70) et pour aborder •die allgemeine Sprachlehre, Grammatica universalis, welche man ( ...) noch erst sucht. • II rappelle instarnment •dass in unscren Sprachen das Willktirliche, Natiirliche und Notwendige mit einander vermengt isl. Die allgemeine Sprachlehre mtisste nun vomelunlich das Nattirliche und Notwendige in der Sprache zwn Gegenstande nehrnen, und das Wilktirliche, so viel immer moglich ist, teils wegschaffen, theils mit dem Natilrlichen und Nothwendigen in engere Verbindung setzen• ( § 71). D'apres Lambert, la difference entre ces trois elements qu 'on trouve dans le signes n!vele un rapport etroit avec le fait dt. Connotation uniquely detennines denotation. The name of the denotation in the case examined above takes on the fonn of the symbolic record: round (I ,I)

and (1,0)

red (1,2)

Ajdukiewicz also gave a definition of the relation that holds between the main operator and its arguments. It follows therefrom that the syntactic structure of a well-formed expression is uniquely detennined even by the semantic categories of the first-order components of that expression. Another theory of natural language-as a deductive system with its axiomatic, deductive and empirical rules-was constructed by Ajduklewicz in the 1930's; it was also at that time that he drew attention to what is tenned the creativity of that language. When mentioning here the theory of language based on the concept of syntactic place I was motivated by five considerations: (i) the theory is interesting in itself; (ii) it satisfies the theoretical inclinations of both present day syntacticians and semanticists who are advocates of transfonnational generative grammar; (iii) it is an example of a theory of language which is extensionally equivalent to transfonnational generative grammar and is an alternative to the latter; (iv) it avoids undesirable semantic associations within

so

the sphere of its syntactic concepts, and syntactic associations within the sphere of its semantic concepts; and (v) it is an example of relationships between logic and semiotics. This is so because the principal idea of Ajdukiewicz's theory was born oflogical reOections on artificial language, language in the logical sense of the term, language treated as an idealii.ation of natural language; but the expansion of his original idea applies to language in the linguistic sense of the term. Relationships between semiotics and logic are both strong and undeniable, but the boundaries between the two are Ouid and hard to demarcate. I include in semiotics that part of logic which is called the logic of language, which I call logical semiotics ( and which also includes parts of logical methodology). We could argue which parts of formal logic, logical calculi, inductive logic, etc., are to be included in ~miotics. Perhaps the argument would cover only some metalogical considerations concerned with certain parts of what is called logistic; perhaps the controversy would cover non-standard logics, too. But in my opinion the controversy would be sterile, which is always the case when there is a conflict about prerogatives while the field lies waste and waits to be tilled. This is why I have confined myself, of necessity, to a superficial indication of relationships among, and certain tasks that are common to, logic, semiotics, and theoretical linguistics, and have done so merely by mentioning a few examples. Semiotics simply offers to representatives of various disciplines an opportunity for leaving the tight compartments of highly specialized disciplines.

SI

THE ABSTRACT CONCEPTION OF THE ¥SIGN"•

MI\X BENSE

In the following account we will interpret semiotics as a general and abstract -i.e., a manifold applicable or concretely realizable-theory of signs. In this theory we will introduce the sign, in conformity with Peirce's theory, as a triadic relation. As such it will function as: (I) a Medium (M) or channel providing communication; (2) a Medium of designation, i.e., the characterization of objects, which then tum into denoted objects (OM); (3) a Medium for the cognitive connections, the lnterpretant (hf) of the denoted object. Thus according to the basic theory of semiotics, as founded by Peirce, a sign S presents a triadic, classified relation S = R(M, OM, IM).

In this relation the sign has three correlates of which (M) is the presented medium; (OM) in the object sphere is the presemed object; OM) in the sphere of interpretation is the representing i111erpretant of the represented object. The presented medium is as such external to the sign but as a represented object and as a presented illlerpretant it functions within the sign. In the basic semiotic theory we also have trichotomic differentiations of refined correlates adjoining each of the three correlates of the triadic sign relation R(M, 0~1• IM). The presented medium (M) has the trichotomy consisting of Qualisign Sinsign and Legisign; the represented object (OM) has the trichotomy Icon, Index and Symbol and the representing interpretant (JM) the trichotomy of Rhema, Dicent and A,rument. The semiotic function of these refined correlates has been defined, starting from Peirce, in the Worterbuch der Semiotik (M. Bense and E. Walther I 973). The complete triadic-trichotomic • Ttanslatcd by G.F. Tobon.

52

sign relation can now be fonnulated as follows: S = R(M(Qu, Sin, Leg), OM(lc, In, Sy), IM(Rhe, Die, Arg)) In order to understand the universal role of this triadic-trichotomic sign relation as regards the semiotic constitution of arbitrary languages of materially differing means of expression, the relations must be traced back to the Peircian ordinal unive~ categories of firstness (I.), secondness (2.) and thirdness (3.). It is important to differentiate between the triadic universal category of the relation and the respective trichotomic universal category of the refined relation. The fonner is written as (I .,2.,3.) for (M, 0, I), while the latter reads as (.1,2.2,.3) for each of the three trichotomies. For example, (le, In, Sy) in the object nexus is written thus (2.1,2.2,2.3). In the universal categoric reduction the complete triadic-trichotomic sign relation can be noted thus :

S = R ( I. (1. l ,l.2,1.3), 2. (2.1,2.2,2.3), 3. (3.1,3.2,3.3) ] and it I. I .I 1.2 1.3

2. 2. I 2 .2 2.3 3. 3.I

3.2 3.3

reads as follows:

asjirsmess as firstness of firstness as second11ess of jirsmess as thirdness of firsmess

as secondness as firstness of second11ess as secondness of secondness as thirdness of second11ess as rllird11ess as firstness of tllirdness as secondness of third11ess as third11ess of third11ess

The extent 10 which the semiotic relation embraces the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic nexus of each arbitrary language is detennincd by the strength of association between each special categoric system of semiotics. (Chomsky's sunnise, "that each natural language is a specific realization of a highly restrictive scheme, which permits only a limited variability of its grammatical processes and structures", receives, without doubt, in the framework of the universal categoric reduction of the abstract, general and complete sign relation, a possible verification. Through this ordinal numerotic notation it becomes clear that in the triadic-trichotomic sign relation we have a representation scheme of growing semioticity, where jirsrness is represented in secondness and secondness in thirdness, i.e.• M in OM and OM in IM which coincides exactly with the original Peircian conception of the sign as a representamen. 53

If we now, in accord with Peirce, introduce a further sign A, i.e., the Y turned upside down, as a visual notation for the sign relation as such, we can then postulate semiotics as being a theory of the following systems of signs: I. of the selectionable repertoire of signs I A / 2. of the founding(triadic)classofsigns [A) 3. of the relating (trichotomic) sign inclusio11 ( A ) 4 . of the related compound ofsigns< A > If we recall the elementary semiotic matrix

M

0

M 0

M

M

M

0

0

M

0

0

M 0

I

I

M

I

0

I

I.

I. I.I

2. 3.

2.1 3.1

2. 1.2 2.2 3.2

I I I

3. 1.3 2.3 3.3

in which the rows realize the major trichotomic sign inclusions while the columns establish the major triadic classes of signs, we then have a system of signs in which three classes of signs, together with three sign inclusions are joined by their sign repertoire of nine trichotomic correlates; i.e., the sign system of the semiotic matrix can be noted thus:

The cognitive process must be understood as being both an empirical and an intentionally directed act of consciousness-in any case as a thetic-triadic relation of signs. We can, through the semiotic matrix, thus legitimate the model of cognition as a scheme of representation and through the semiotic compound system as a scheme of related system ofsigns.

S4

PERTINENCE ET IDEOLOGIE Contribution a Ja discussion sur l'objectivite dans Jes sciences de la nature et les sciences de J'homme LUIS J. PRIETO

L'evenement qui rend possible la naissance de la phonologie dite 'pragoisc' est le deveJoppement de la phonetique, qui a lieu au cours des demiercs decennies du siecle precedent, grace auquel on constatc qu'iJ y a, dans lessons que l'on produit en parlant, des caracteristiques ou 'traits' qui comptcnt pour l'identite sous laquelle le sujet parlant connait ces sons et qui sont done 'pertinents', et des caracteristiques ou traits qui ne comptent pas pour cette identite et qui sont par consequence 'non pertinents'. Caracteristiquc et difference n'etant que dcux aspects d'unc scule et m~me chose, on peut reformuler ce qui precMe en disant, en des termes qui sont eux aussi tr~ familicrs aux phonologucs, qu 'il a fallu, pour que la phonologie puissc sc constituer, qu 'apparaissent, grace au developpement de la phonetique, des differences ou 'oppositions' phoniques pertinentes, dont le sujet parlant tient compte, et des differences ou oppositions phoniques non pertinentes, dont ii ne tient pas compte. Le moment, pourtant, oil la phonologie sc constitue, n'est pas exactement celui ou !'on se rend compte qu'il y a des traits et des oppositions pertinentes et des traits et des oppositions non pertinentes, mais plutot ceJui oil l'on renonce a chercher dans Jes sons eux-memes la raison de la pertinence ou de la non-pertinence des traits et des oppositions et, par consequent, a expliquer a panir des sons eux-rn~mes l'identite sous laquelle le sujet parlant les connait. Ce ne sont pas, en effet, les sons, mais l'identite sous laquelle le sujet parlant Jes connait, qui constitue l'objet de la phonologie. Or, cette identite ne pouvait pas apparaitre comme constituant une realite distincte de celle que constituent les sons, et la phonologie par consequent ne pouvait apparaitre comme une discipline sc definissant par un objet qui lui est propre, qu'a condition quc l'identite en question fOt 'denaturalisee', c'est-a-dire qu'a condition qu'on rendit compte qu'elle n'est pas la consequence necessairc de ce que sont lessons eux-mtmes. Renoncer a l'expliquer a panir de la seule consideration des sons revenait ainsi a decouvrir l'objet de la phonologie et, bien entendu, avec la decouvene de son objet, a la constituer. Nous aurons a revenir longuement sur le type d'objets que represente

SS

l'objet de la phonologie et, sunout, sur le type d'evenements que represente la decouvcne d'un tcl objet. Ce qui nous interesse pour !'instant c'est de preciser quel est le probltme que la phonologie se pose a propos de son objet et comment eUe le n!sout. Ce probltme consiste a detenniner-puisque l'identite sous laquelle le sujet parlant connait les sons s'est avert!e Etrc non 'natureUe' et done non susceptible d'etre expliquee a partir de ce que sont les sons eux-mEmes-comment s'explique cette identite. Or, l'enseignement de F . de Saussure, connu a travers le Cours de linguistique generale, a ete certainement d'un grand secours aux phonologues; des affinnations comme, par exemple, ceUe selon laqueUe •1•entitt! linguistique n'existe que par !'association du signifiant et du signifieft et que, par const!quent, •une suite de sons n'est linguistique que si elle est le support d'une idee•• ayant sans doute servi pour la solution qu'ils ont donnee a lcur probltme. Cette solution consiste a expliquer l'identite sous laquelle le sujet parlant connait les sons par le point de vue a partir duquel ii Jes considere, qui est celui des rapports qu'ils entretiennent avec les signifies: Jes carateristiques des sons qu'on ne saurait changer sans modification des signifies sont ainsi ceUes qui comptent pour l'identite sous laquelle le sujet parlant connait les sons, ce sont Jes caracteristiques pertinentes; ceUes, par contre, qu'on peut changer sans qu'il s'ensuive une modification dans le signifie ne comptent pas pour l'idcntite mentionnee et sont done non pertinentes. A l'encontre done de ce qu'ont repete et de ce que continuent 1l re peter les phonologues (qui, craignant de retomber dans le 'mentalisme'. se refusent ll reconnaitre que leur objet est l'idcntite sous laqueUe le sujet parlant connait Jes sons et persistent 1l considerer que leur objet est constitue par les sons eux-m!mes, qu 'ils soumettraient a une etude 'linguistique' differente de ceUe qu'en font Jes phoneticiens). le recours au signifie n'est pas necessaire pour detenniner Jes traits pertinents des sons: ccla ne saurait evidemment l!tre le cas puisque, justement, ii a fallu qu'on se rendit compte que certains traits des sons sont pertinents et d'autres non pour qu'on se posat le probltme qu'un tel recours vient resoudre. Le recours au signifie n'est pas necessaire pour detenniner quels sont les traits pertinents des sons, mais pour rendre compte de la pertinence que posedent ces traits. Or, ii nous semble que la notion de 'pertinence', telle qu'elle a ete t!laboree par Jes phonologues, figure panni les notions relevant du domaine de la semiologie dont on peut tirer le plus grand profit pour !'elucidation des probltmes qui se posent 1l propos de l'idt!ologie, et parmi ceUes aussi qui ont ete jusqu' ici Jes moins exploitees a cette fin. D'une part, en effet, le probleme que les phonologues se posent a propos de l'identite sous laqueUc le sujet parlant connait les sons de Ja langue se pose en general 1l propos de l'identite sous laquelle un sujet connait un objet materiel quel qu'il soit, puisqu'en aucun cas la pertinence des caracteristiques qui detenninent une 56

telle identite n'a son fondement dans l'objet lui-meme; et, d'autre part, c'est, comme dans le cas de sons, par le point de vue a partir duquel le sujet considere l'objet que s'explique toujours cette pertinence. L'identit6 sous laquelle un sujet connait un objet materiel n'est, bien entendu, que la fa~on dont ii le con~oit, puisque connaitre un objet sous une certaine identite n 'est en definitive que le reconnaitre conune membre d'unc classe et, par consequent, comme faisant partie de !'extension d'un concept (lequel n'est pas necessairement explicite et ne !'est peut-etre jarnais dans la connaissance non scicntifique; cf. note 4). Cette remarque nous permet de faire quelques considerations, qui nous seront utiles plus loin, sur la 'verite' d'un concept et done sur l'identite de l'objet qui resulte de la vision qui se fait a travers ce concept. Un concept n 'est pas plus vrai a mesure qu 'ii approche de I' 'ideal' consistant a reproduire l'objet 'tel qu'il est', d'en donner une image 'globale' et 'totalisante'; la carte de !'empire aussi grande que !'empire lui-m~me dont parle Jorge L. Borges, si on reussit a la dresser, ne tarde pas a s'averer inutile et est d'avance condamnee a pourrir, abandonnee aux inclemences du sole ii et des hivers. 2 C'est a son adequation non pas a l'objet, mais au point de vue dont depend sa pertinence que se mesure la verite d'un concept; c'est-11-4ire qu'un concept est vrai lorsqu'il reticnt de l'objet tout ce qui y est pertinent pour le point de vue sur lequel ii se fonde et seulement ce qui est pertinent pour ce point de vue. Ce point de vue, en ce qui concerne I 'identite sous laquelle le sujet parlant connait les sons, est. nous l'avons deja signale, celui des rapports qu'ils entretieMent avec Jes signifies. Mais un signifie n'est en definitive qu'une identite sous laquelle le sujet parlant connait le sens, c'est-a-4ire 'ce quc l'on dit', et done une fa~on de le concevoir. La pertinence de la f~on dont le sujet parlant co~oit Jes sons de la langue suppose ainsi une fa~on particuliere de concevoir un autre objet- le sens- appartenant 11 un'plan' ou, en termes plus rigoureux, a un 'univers du discours' autre que celui dont rclevcnt les sons. Or, une situation parfaitement analogue se retrouve a propos de l 'identite sous laquelle un sujet connait un objet materiel quel qu'il soit, c'est-11-dire que la f~on dont un sujet coMait un objet materiel quel qu 'ii soit suppose toujours, parce que sa pertinence en depend, une f~on particuliere de concevoir un autre objet relevant d'un autre univers du discours. C'est dans ce sens qu'on a, 11 notre avis, le droit de dire que l'identite sous laquelle on connait un objet materiel et la fa~on done dont on le con~oit sont toujours 'significatives' : seule une f~on de concevoir un tel objet qui fut 'naturelle', parce que s'ensuivant necessairement de ce qu'est cet objet, pourrait etre non significative et ne pas transcender le 'plan' ou celui---0 -al .,ze

•lion

) 0

-ic

-al

Figure 3.

In Chapin 's cases it can be demonstrated that linear ordering is also irrelevant for the admissibility of cyclic subgraphs. The incidence matrix 4 indi• eates that there arc more connections between these suffixes than Chapin considered. This matrix cannot be represented as a linear subgraph and is t hus not epicyclic in Chapin's sense. -ic -ic •lion -al -ize -ist

•lion

-al idiotical additional

-ize Gothicize perfectionizc personalize

-ist Biblicist prohibitionist orientalist

vaporization tzaristic

Figure 4. Incidence Matrix

An analysis of graph S reveals an obvious candidate for a constraint that may replace lhelinearrequirement, namely the Kuratowskian properly (1930) of planar graphs, which concerns their reprcsentability in two-dimensional space without crossing of edges. It would indeed be a rather strong require• ment if such a constrain t should hold. As is well known from studies in

397

crossing numbers (e.g. Erdos and Guy 1973) a graph with k nodes has a good drawing with n = 3k-6 connections between nodes without crossing (k2). A graph with 5 nodes can have maximally 9 connections. Edges that connect two nodes in both directions such as between the suffixes -ic and -ist count as one connection.

-ize

-ist

Figure S.

This constraint (representability in two dimensional space without crossings) is still valid if graph 2 is connected with graph 5 by the edges (-ic, -ness) and (-al, -ness) as in prosaicness and exceptionalness. But on the whole the constraint is invalid for English. This can be shown by integrating further cycles using suffixes as -er, as in cpmpllte, computer, computerize, and -ment, or -ate (cf. Neuhaus I 974). Graph-theoretic descriptions such as these indicate that morphotactic complexity in English suffixation has to allow for cycles and crossing of edges. If this should turn out to be an adequate lower bound of complexity there is still no clear idea what an upper bound might look like. That such restrictions exist and that they could be formulated in a graph theoretic framework seems to be obvious.

NOTE 1. Work reported here is pan of a project in Generative Morphology supported by the Deutsch Fo,schungsgcmeinschaft.

398

INSTRUCTION IN SEMIOTICS: THE STUDENT'S CONCEPTION OF LANGUAGE

DONALD W. THOMAS

Whether incipient or established, the future of every discipline depends not only on the caliber of its research, but also upon the success with which such research is translated into actual inst ruction. This is especially true of semiotics where the scope of study is so broad yet the nature of research so often specialized. Without proper instruction for introducing students to the general field of inquiry, the chances of semiotics becoming a lively and lasting inter• national discipline are thus considerably curtailed. Instead of considering specific content or methodologies that may be appropriate for such instruction, I wish to address the problem of establishing viable aims and of choosing an instrument for assessing student progress in achieving these aims. For the past six years I and three colleagues have been teaching a course in semiotics each year to approximately one hundred stu• dents ranging in age from fifteen to eighteen at The High School in Brookline, Massachusetts (U.S.). At the request of some of these students a second year course has also been instigated which treats the ideas introduced earlier in more detail while at the same time broadening the scope of inquiry. This ad• vanced course might easily be construed as an introduction to semiotics at the university level. Briefly stated, our instruction in semiotics aims to broaden, objectify, and integrate the student's conception of language. In the process of achieving these goals we hope to expose our students to the different fonns of semiosis that exist not only within language itself but also among contrasting kinds of communication and expression. Our chosen instrument for assessing these aims is the student's written conception of language. Finally, our assessment of student progress is based on a five level scale of understanding as manifested in these initial and final conceptions of language. Thus, our aims, our instrument, and our assessment of instruction in semiotics hinges on the student's conception of language. 1.tt us begin by clarifying what we mean by conception and why we consi• der it so central to instruction. By definition a conception means "a begin• ning, a start; the ability to fonn mental concepts; that which is mentally

399

conceived". We maintain that because our students have been speaking and studying language for well over a decade, they know a great deal about it. Curiously, however, though they may have a thorough understanding of certain concepts in language, such as the grammar of a sentence, their conceptions of language arc strangely barren and fragmentary. In part this may be attributed to the content and methodology of past instruction; namely, instead of being encouraged to think about language - what it is, how it works, how it means, where it comes from, how it relates to other forms of communication - children are constantly enjoined to 'master' their language. While this may serve certain linguistic 'needs', it also tends to discourage the child from developing his own concepts. Leaving aside the crucial matter of timing involved, we would submit that, although every course in language or communication presumably aims to increase the student's understanding, such courses rarely, if ever. elicit what students actually have to say about their under• standing. either at the beginning or end of instruction. TI1e question with which we are inevitably confronted in designing instruc• lion in semiotics therefore appears to hinge upon our view of the relationship bet ween a concept and a conception, and the weight that each contributes to ultimate understanding. This view is further clarified by Susanne Langer when she says: "'fl1at which all adequate conceptions of an object must have in common, is the concept of the object. The same concept is embodied in a multitude of conceptions. It is a form that appears in all versions of thought or imagery that can connote the object in question, a form clothed in different integuments of sensation for every different mind" (1942: 71). Because semiotics deals with such a variety of forms already familiar to students and running from language to perception, we feel that Langer's explanation offers an avenue of approach especially apt for instruction. We assume, in other words, that although our students' individual conceptions will manifest rather broad surface differences they will also share a number of common themes which can be further developed. This in turn relieves us of the immediate necessity for imposing predetermined concepts from without which overshadow the current level of our students' thinking and which therefore discourage individual thought . Accordingly, our course in semiotics begins and ends by asking students to formulate their conceptions of language. Having read 600 initial and final conceptions, we have found that nearly every student, if only implicitly, addresses the relationship between language and communication. Moreover, certain common themes invariably arise in every conception. Either they will see this relationship as primarily formal or functional. If they view it formally, they will say something to the effect that "language is a form (means, way, kind) of communication". They will then proceed to enumerate other forms; e.g., animal cries, art, music, gestures, sign language, etc., all of which they

400

consider mere mutations of the spoken word. From here they will proceed to explore the variety of forms implied, whether written or spoken, verbal or non-verbal. foreign or domestic. Such conceptions frequently terminate by broaching the topic of a universal language which without exception gains strong support. Where function becomes the dominant concern, however, the importance of "getting one's point across" and the "ability to express oneselr' is naturally stressed. The functional point of view further includes some con• sideration of the crucial role played by language; e.g., what the world with• out language would be like. Similarly. the issue of how language originated frequent ly arises, replete with mythological "cavemen" emitting "grunts and groans" , the subsequent invention of language to meet their "needs", and thence to the swift emergence of language as a "tool". What interests us about these initial conceptions is that whether functional or formal in character the relationship between language and communication is seen as symmetrical; i.e., language is any form of communication, and every form that communicates is language. Despite their awareness of different forms and functions. in other words, they recognize no essential differences among the wildly disparate array of examples they give. Hence, their views of language and communication, and presumably of the relationship that obtains between them, arc essentially tautologous. At the same time, although these students are directed to explain their conceptions of la11g11age, they neverthe• less spontaneously include nearly every aspect of communication that not only falls within the domain of semiotics but also exceeds the content of their traditional linguistic training. This outcome encourages us to think that the concerns of semiotics more closely approximate the spontaneous con• ccrns of students than do those of linguistics and its derivatives which have for so long dominated instruction in language. We characterize the conceptions just described as the first level of under• standing, the level from which we hope to lift the spontaneous but untutored conceptions of our students. At issue is not just the way a student views Ian• guagc but the way he sees and interprets the whole world about him. For. as Locke suggested long ago, "since the things the mind contemplates are none of them, besides itself. present to the understanding, it is necessary that some• thing else, as a sign or representation of the thing it considers, should be present to it". Were it not for signs. then presumably there could be no dif• fcrence between concepts and conceptions, for the world would be disclosed to us directly. Our task, then, is to have our students recognize the existence and character of the signs that sever us from direct apprehension of the world and what we try to say about it. Concomitantly, we need to recognize the things we undeniably hold in common, the concepts which through ritualiza• lion, systemization, and convention help us to cope with the maddening flux of signs that impede our understanding. 401

At the core of our investigation lies what Flavell has called "the problem of existence", i.e.. "that what you perceive, think, feel in any given situation need not coincide with what I perceive, think, or feel". Our five levels of understanding are based first on the recognition of existence and, secondly. upon the ultimate integration of existence with the systemization implicit in every form of communication. At level one, then, language is broadly conceived as a conglomeration of attributes that exhibit no evident priorities. Although a student at level two recognizes the diversity of subject matter subsumed by language, he perceives his task as primarily one of mastering a given set of 'facts' about language which he correlates directly with his ability to communicate. At level three the student recognizes certain contradictions in language which, though difficult to explain, may nevertheless be skirted by sufficient exercise of caution and the deliberate assumption of an 'open mind'. Thus, while he experiences the dawning of existence and the consequent need for precision, he feels no special obligation to resolve or penetrate the contradictions confronting him. Level four witnesses the blossoming existence as real but still confined to certain areas, some of which are considered in depth. Language and communication are here seen as distinctive, and an effort is made to grasp the systematic nature of both. Finally, at level jive, the student recognizes that although no two people see anything just alike, the systematic application of form to all versions of thought and activities unites differing conceptions into common concepts. It is at this level that students manage to construct an integrated view oflanguage. Although we in no way attempt to teach this scale of understanding directly, we use it to help us assess our student's relative progress. In a ran• dom sample of 53 students, for example, we found that initial conceptions averaged 1.43 on the evaluative scale, whereas final conceptions reached an average of 2.83. Of these students 31% moved up one level on the scale, 45% moved up two levels of understanding, 6% moved up three levels. and 18% remained virtually unchanged in their initial and final conceptions. The final levels of all students in the sample approximated a nonnal curve with 13% at level# I, 25% at level #2,30%at level #3, 2S%at level #4,and 7%at level # S. Thus, while further testing is obviously required, we feel that the levels of understanding involved not only roughly apply to our students' thinking, but also appropriately follow our stated aims of first broadening, then objec• tifying, and finally intcgrating our students' conceptions of language. 0

402

LINGUISTICS AS A PART OF SEMIOTICS

s. K. SAUMJAN

Semiotics may be defmed as a theoretical science which studies symbolic sys• tems in general, whether artificial or natural. And linguistics may be defmed as a part of semiotics which deals with natural symbolic systems, that is with natural languages. What distinguishes natural languages from other symbolic systems? Natural languages are symbolic systems which have the property of infmite variability and productivity, that is, in natural language there are distinct signs corresponding to all discriminable elements of reality and, when necessary, all kinds of new signs may be created. Dual patterning, that is, the existence of the diacritic and sign subsystems of a natural language, is a necessary consequence of the property of infinite variability and productivity. The number of signs in a natural language is so large that there could not possibly be as many different sounds as signs. So you have a diacritic subsystem consisting of a small number of diacritic ele• ments (distinctive features), and the different arrangements of these diacritic elements are used as different signs. Natural languages are symbolic systems of vastly greater complexity than any other symbolic system. In comparison with natural languages any other symbolic system seems fairly simple. Natural languages belong to a class of systems which in the context of cybernetics are called very large systems. Cybernetics conceives of the very large system as a system which in some way almost overwhelms the observer by its richness and complexity. Such systems are common enough. One may mention computing machines, nervous systems, societies. To set up a description of the essential properties of a natural language , we must solve the minimization problem. By the minimization problem, I mean that of fmding a minimal set of primitive linguistic objects from which all other linguistic objects can be derived by applying rules of derivation. The unknown elements arc primitive linguistic objects and rules of derivation. Any proper answer to a 'Why' question may be said to be an explanation of a sort. An essential description of a natural language must make it possible

403

to give proper answers to the following rwo pivotal types of 'Why' questions: (I) Why are two given expressions synonymous? (2) Why is a given expression ambiguous? The answers to these qucslions are: (I) These two expressions are synonymous because they arc derived from a common primitive expression X; (2) This expression is ambiguous, because ii is derived from two different primitive expressions X and Y. These two types of 'Why' questions arc pivotal because they relate to linguislic identities and differences. As f. de Saussure has it: "The linguistic mechanism is geared lo differences and identities, the former being only a counterpart of the latter. Everywhere, then, the problem of identities appears." Taking into account the immense complexity of natural languages, it should be clear lhal attempts to set up descriptions of their essential properties in a direct way will meet with failure. To succeed in selling up essential descriptions of natural languages, we have to investigate natural languages by comparison with an artificial symbolic language which serves as a system of reference. Our research strategy must be as follows: we must first construct an artificial symbolic language called the genotype language which simulates the universal properties of natural languages; we must then examine the formal properties of the genotype language, the laws that determine its func•• tioning; and finally we must consider the transfomiations by which one proceeds from that language to the existing natural languages. Though lhc genotlypc language is an artificial symbolic language, it is not a fiction, but a theoretical construct that serves as a hypothesis about object ive universal properties of natural languages. The genotype language is constructed deductively on the basis of a very general notion about what the universal properties of natural languages might be. I..ct us now consider the genotype language more closely. The genotype language is a fom1al system which is defined by a set of conventions specify. ing the following: first, a set of expressions which I call semions; second, a set of expressions which I call propositions; and third, a set of expressions called sentences. By a sentence I mean an expression which performs a certain communicative function . By a proposition I mean the meaning of a sentence, that is, a primitive expression into which a sentence can be translated. A class of sentences which can be translated into a proposition is called a class of synonymous sentences. We distinguish two kinds of propositions: (I) elementary propositions. and (2) complex propositions which arc derived from elementary propositions. By complex propositions I mean propositions derived from elementary propositions with the help of connectors and all kinds of modal operators. (In my previous works I used the term "semantic axioms" instead of the tcmi "proposition".)

404

Both propositions and sentences are combinations of elementary semantic units which I call elementary scmions. I use the tenn "semion" to denote both elementary scmions and combinations of elementary semions. There are three types of semions: (I) terms, (2) propositions or sentences, (3) operators. The first two types together arc called closed semions in contradiction to operators. Every operator combines one or more semions, called its operanda, to form a new semion called the result of its action. If an operator has one operand, we call it a one-place operator; if an operator has II operands, we call it an n-place operator. Semions arc assembled into combinations by the binary operation of application. Application is defined as follows: if semion X is an n-placc operator, and semion Y is the first operand of X, then (XY) is an (n- 1}-place operator (or a closed semion if n = I). Let us examine the structure of the genotype language more in detail. The set of conventions defining the genotype language looks like this: I. Scmions I. Elementary semions. This is simply a list of elementary semions of each type. 2. Rules of construction, specifying how new semions are to be constructed by the operation of application. II. Propositions I. Elementary propositions given by special rules. Elementary propositions constitute a subset of the set of possible semions. 2. Rules of derivation,specifying how complex propositions are to be derived. Ill. Sentences I. Combinators, that is a very general kind of operator to be used for deriving sentences from propositions. There is a list of combinators with the number and kind of operands for each. 2. Rules of derivation,specifying how sentences are to be derived from propositions. Let us turn to models of natural languages. Models of natural languages are to be regarded as different embodiments of the genotype language. We have to distinguish the following components of the model of natural language: (I) the conceptual component, (2) the lincarization component, (3) the morphological component, (4) the phonological component. The conceptual component embodies all the rules of the genotype language plus special rules of derivation of propositions and special rules of derivation of sentences. Both kinds of rules of derivation are specific for each model of natural languages. The lincarization component is a set of rules specifying linear representations of the structures of units belonging to the conceptual plane of the model of a natural language. The morphological component is a set of rules mapping the units of the

405

conceptual plane into the units of the phonological plane. As is well known, the elementary units of the phonological plane are distinctive features. It is with the help of the universal set of distinctive features that the diverse conceptual-plane structures are coded. As to the phoneme, it is reasonable to consider it simply as an abbreviation for a bundle of distinctive features. The elementary unit of morphology is the morph. A morph is the minimal unit which is the result of mapping an elementary semion or combination of elementary semions onto a set of phonological objects. Thus, a morph consists of a sig,iifie and a signif111nt. A class of morphs with an identical signifie and regularly varying signif111nts is called a morpheme. Morphs representing one morpheme are called allomorphs of this morpheme. The phonological component is a set of rules specifying a hypothetical abstract phonological system and hypothetical sound processes which transform the abstract phonological system into the concrete phonological system. In conclusion I would like to emphasize the abstract character of conceptual structures. Conceptual structures are independent not only of their repre• sentations in terms of phonological units, but also of their representation in terms of the linear order of conceptual units.

406

LINGUISTICS AS A BRANCH OF SEMIOTICS

L. Z.SOVA

I. It has long been known that any particular word has both a form and a meaning. It was F. de Saussure who turned this commonly observed empirical fact into an illustration of a principle, universal in nature. He formulated this principle as a postulate on the nature of the word as sign and the possibility of looking at it in two ways: as signified and signifier. F. de Saussure laid down one more principle: each word is an clement of a system. It is language that makes up this system. Each element of a system (language element) possesses a certain value, a characteristic feature which defines the role (ie., place and function) the word plays with regard to other elements in the system. Treatment of th·e word as a linguistic element and its inclusion in the set of other linguistic elements permits us to generalize a method for the study and description of othf!T elements of the system. The next step was made by L. Hjelmslev. He pointed out that signs (formal• meaning entities) are composed of figures (unilateral units of the expression plane or the content plane) and every linguistic element can manifest itself either as a sign (formal-meaning entity) or as a figure (unilateral unit) belong• ing either to the plane of expression or to that of content. This gave rise to the question of the practical application of the theory. If an object is to be viewed as a linguistic clement, it must be either a sign or a figure, according to Saussure-Hjelmslev's postulates and their implications. So we are faced with the problem of what kind of objects may be treated as linguistic elements, i e., which of the actually existing linguistic phenomena can be interpreted as signs and figures. It is obvious that words, morphemes or sentences may be interpreted as signs. A lot has been said about the relationship between the signified and the signifier in these cases. But Saussure-Hjelmslev's postulates on the sign nature of linguistic objects for a long time have not been applied to the field of 'pure relationships' (connections, structures, functions). To apply these postulates of the sign nature of linguistic objects to syntactic connections and structures, we must uncover in syntax the formal meaning and formal-meaning connections and structures. The formal connection

407

serves as the signifier of a certain meaning connection and the meaning connection as the signified of a certain formal connection. These two components make up a formal-meaning clement (sign) which is the unity of both the signified and the signifier. For example, the predicative connection between the subject and the predicate fixed in traditional syntax might be regarded as the sign where the agentive semantic connection is what is signified and the formal connection of agreement is its signifier. Tesni!re's anaphoric connections can be interpreted as the signified (the signifier of these connections is the registration of transformations by means of which they are explicated). If we take agreement, government. adjoining, and the taxeme of the word order as connections on the expression level (regardless of word-meaning), they can manifest themselves as signifiers contrary to anaphoric semantic connections. 2. The extension of Saussure-Hjelmslev's postulates 10 the whole body of linguistic elements brings forth the problem of the universality of these postulates: relative either to the universal essence of the objects in question or to the universal regularities of the research methodology. The former presupposes that all the linguistic elements (independently of the method of investigation) arc of bilateral (sign) nature. Accordingly, any description where the nature of linguistic objects is represented in any other way must be viewed as inadequate. It would presuppose going from epistemol~gical problems to those of methodological charact~r and the description of /aterality as something that a linguist contributes to the object under investigation and not as something given by the object. The second approach permits a natural experiment in the process of which one and the same linguistic clement can manifest itself now as a monad, now as a diad, now as a triad, etc. - if that should be necessary in order to reveal its intrinsic characteristics. An experiment of this type may serve as a means of penetrating into the nature of the object, since epistemological problems cannot be solved ad hoe. but only on the basis of the linguistic material and technique applied in the process. Apparently this also holds true for the other branches of semiotics, indeed, for semiotics as a whole. Similarly. Saussurc's postulate of the signified and the signifier as compo• nents of linguistic units leads to the postulate of a method by means of which we form a representation of these units. The relativity of this idea, its dependence not on the properties of the object under study but on the characteristics of the subject, i.e., on the particularities of the researcher's technique, is evident. Thus, there is no question of whether linguistic elements arc signs but only of which characteristics of the language units will be revealed if these components are viewed as signs. The representation of linguistic units as signs becomes a useful tool for their cognition as well as for their description. Accordingly, we shall be able to speak of the sign (semiotic) method of

408

the representation of language instead of its sign nature. And only with the results provided by this approach will we be able to state that the objects obtained during our procedures have a sign nature. Comparing these objects with those given in particular languages, we can formulate questions about similarities and differences between the two kinds of objects and examine the nature of the phenomena under study through these tests. This investi• gation could result in a new conceptual apparatus based upon the description of the procedures and the operations which serve to represent linguistic elements in the different approaches. 3. Let us apply the theory described above to research in typology. In works devoted to the syntagmatic relations, the syntactic structure is usually treated as a set of connections between words, where every word is a single unit which cannot be represented as a sum of word-form and word-meaning. According to this tradition, the syntactic structures of the Russian sentence I. .R (I) TOilbKO (2) 11TO (3) nPHlllEn (4) and its English 2. / (I) have (2) just (2+3) come (4), French 3. le (I) viens (2+3) arriver (4) and Zulu 4. Ngisanda (I +2+3) uku/ika (4) equivalents may be represented as follows:

I.

2.

I

I

2

I

2+3

I

3.

4.

2+3 1+2+3

I

11

3

4

;:i., 4

4

,-1, 4+4 4

Diagram I.

But to formulate a thesis about linguistics as a br.inch of semiotics is to consider a set of language units as a sign system with each member of the set being a sign or a figure. So, assuming a set of words is such a set, we should postulate that any word in the set is a sign, i.e. , a two-sided element consisting of a formal component and a meaningful component. Accordingly, let us choose a sentence having the role of a larger unit. Let us postulate that it is a syn tagmatic chain of elementary units mentioned above, i.e.• a chain of two-sided elements connected syntactically: sentence = word 1• connection., word 2 , connection 2, • . . • wordi, connectioni. Let us suppose that a syntagmatic chain consists of elements with a structure of the same type , i.e. , that the component 'connection' has the same structure as the

409

component 'word'. Then the component 'connection• should be treated also as a sign (a two-&ided element), consisting of a formal component and a meaningful component. On the basis of these assumptions any sentence may also be represented as a sign: one of its aspects is a meaning~hain (a chain of word-meaning elements) and another is a formal chain (a chain of word-formal elements): ---- formal chain = word-formal element chain sentenoe..___meaning chain= word-meaning element chain, i.e., word-formal clcmenti, formal connectioni, word-formal element2 , formal connection 2 , etc. sentenoe d . · · d · wor -meaning e1cment " meaning connection" wor -mean mg element2 , meaning connection2 , etc.


(par rapport au langage L(M)); ii est aussi accepte par le contexte < u', v' > (par rapport a L(M)). En general, toute phrase acceptee par est aussi acceptee par (par rapport a L(M)); done domine par rapport a L(M). Un role essentiel est icijoue par la possibilite qu'a tout sympt6me d'apparaJtre plusieurs fois dans une phrase de L(M). Deux sequences f et g de sympt6mes seront dites semantiquement equivalentes si f et g sont equivalentes par rapport a L(M), quelle que soil la maladie M. L'equivalence semantique de deux suites de symptomes revient a la

438

possibilite de leur substitution rtciproque dans tout contexte clinique, sans modification du diagnostic, c'est-a-dire sans modification de la maladie. C'est un cas heureux du point de vue mathematique, ol) !'equivalence semantique se rtduit ii !'equivalence distributionnelle et se pr~te ainsi a une etude extrmiement formalisee. Foumissons maintenant un exemple de deux syrnpt6mes semantiquement equivalents. Soit M=insolation. On a V= {asthenie generale, torpeur, nausees, vertige, epistaxis, vomissements, cephalee, bruit dans les oreilles, lipothymie, hyperthennie, insuffisance cardio~irculatrice}. ™signons par u et v deux phrases sur V telles que la phrase u torpeur v appartieMe a L(M). Quel que soit le choix de u et v avec la propriete mentionnee, la phrase u cephalee v, obtenue en rempl~ant torpeur par cephalee, appartient a L(M). lnversement, pour tout choix de u et v telles que la phrase u cephalee v appartient a L(M), la phrase u torpeur v appartient aussi a L(M). On peut done dire que Jes sympt6mes torpeur et cephalee sont semantiquement equivalents (par rapport

a L(M)).

II arrive parfois que la substitution d'une suite de sympt6mes a une autre suite de sympt6mes, dans un contexte clinique determine, conduit a un changement de diagnostic, c'est-a-dire a un changement de maladie. Cette situation peut etre formalistic a !'aide de ce que nous avons appele la domination de Franclova (Franclova I 969, Marcus 1974a). II va sans dire que toutes Jes maladies envisagees ci-dessus ont ete abordees sous leurs formes typiques, ce qui nous a permis de simplifier le statut de leurs sympt6mes. Pour un expose plus developpe des resultats ci-dessus, voir Celan-Marcus 1973).

439

JEUX ENIGMISTIQUES ET LANGAGES FORMEl.S

SORIN CIOBOTARU

Dans ce travail, nous t!laborons un modele mathematique de quclques jeux 't!nigmistiques' dont certains (comme J'anagramme, le logogriphe, le scart, le :reppe, et.) sont intemationaux, et les autres (comme le rt!bo, le sinovcrbe, l'antoverbe, etc.) spt!cifiquement roumains (soit que ces jeux n'y soient pas connus, soil que leur applicabilitt! soit rt!duite, on ne les retrouve pas dans d'autres lan.gues; voir Sanda 1971). A !'aide de ce modele matht!matique, on peut systematiser Jes jeux enigrnistiques, dt!finir de nouveaux jeux et etablir quelques propriett!s facilitant Jeur conception et leur solution. L'ensemble des moyens d'investigation utilise dans l't!tudc unitaire de ces jeux appartient l la linguistique algt!brique. Les notions fondamentales de cette discipline mathematique partent d'un ensemble fini non-vide V (c'est-a-dire un vocabulaire). Avec les elements de V, on forme toutes les successions finies ol) certains elements peuvent t!tre rept!tes: c'est !'ensemble v•; les elements de v• sont des phrases. Pour une phrase x=x1x 2...xn, J'entier /(x)= nest appele longueur de la phrase x. Chaque sous-ensemble L de v• est un Jangage sur V. Si x est dans L, on dit que x est une phrase permise ou marquee. Pour chaque phrase y, on definit une application fy: v--N, ol) N est !'ensemble des entiers non-nt!gatifs; fy(a)=le nombre des apparitions de a dans la phrase y dt!finie sur V. A l'aide ce cette application on definit, pour deux phrases quelconques x=x1X2- ..xn et y=Y1Y2-. -Ym, la relation suivante: x➔y (x domine y) si et seulement si fy(Y;).,;fx(yi) pour l.) prenncnt dans le passage d'une logique chrysippique a une logique polyvalente. Pour le moment. nous distinguons la logique polyvalente de Lukasiewicz (a n valeurs, avec n fini) de celle de Post (an valcurs, avec n fini ou infini). En nous limitant au premier cas, on rcmarque qu'un langage a l'interieur duquel on formalise unc distinction de genre plus ctendu que la bivalente realise une sorte de comprehension universelle sans precedent dans les theories linguistiques. La logique nc nous foumit pas seulement une methode pour la polypartition (et done, si l'on pense a la relation, la possibilite d'operer une 509

partition en classes d'equivalcnce dans le domaine), mais realise aussi un 'remplissage' du codomaine. Cela n'est pas.possible si la logique n'est que bivalente ou si cllc est polyvalcntc avec un nombre limite de valeurs de veritc. La situation est toutc differente avec l'accroissemcnt de Post. Supposons par exemple que dans (U. L, >.) la logiquc soil infini-valentc et quc !'infinite a laquellc on se rapporte ait la cardinalite necessaire pour 'remplir' U (en autres tcrmes, si U est infini de cardinalite aleph zero, ii nous suffira de conccvoir >. comme une logique aleph-zero-valente). Dans ce cas, ii est permis de s'attcndre a cc que pour chaquc element de U s'accomplissc: (a) la diversification de la valcur de vcrite des chaincs de phrases. mctaphrascs• ..., propositions (qui sc rapportent toujours a des elements de U, comme deja dit en detail dans D'Amorc 1973): (b) le remplissage (c'est-a-dire qu'il n'exisle aucun element de U qui n'ail pas, par l'entremise de >., un rangemcnt dans la polypartition opcree en L). Un langage de ce genre est, naturellement, fictif: toutefois: (i) ii existc des ctudes formalisces sur les logiques infini-valentes; (ii) en general, U est a puissance transfinie; (iii) le langage commun, tout en nivclant chaque dcgre linguistique. rend intuitivement bien nos possibilites dans cc scctcur. On pcut done s'attendrc a obtenir un resultat de ce genre en peu de temps. Le probleme reel consiste a systematiser la polypartition; en effet, un ensemble de cardinalite aleph-zero est etroitement ordonnable, tandis qu'un syst~me de cardinalite aleph-un ne l'est pas necessairement. Ccla parce qu'il n'est pas possible d'etablir quel est le nombre reel qui suit 'immedaitement' un nombre reel donnc; d'autre part, un ensemble de cardinalite superieur a l'aleph un (meme si l'on en a construit) n'a pas encore ctc ctudic ordinalement. Les difficultcs, comme on voit, soot de caractere mathcmatique et nc soot linguistiques que de maniere marginale. II faut done s'attendre a cc quc ce soil un mathcmaticien qui resolve le problcme. Pour terminer . retournons aux questions connexes aux langages mixtes. Si un langage mixte de Melandri se base sur des univers sans elements communs, lcur union dcvra necessairement prendre en consideration 'chaque clement de chaque univcrs'; ccla sc realise a condition quc la partition en L complete le renvoi aux elements de !'union. II faudra alors connaitrc les lois additives dans le domaine de la cardinalite transfinie et. plus exactement: aleph m + aleph 11 = aleph m, si nz est plus grand que n. Et done, dans le cas du langage polyvalent la fa~on de Post. se reconfirmc egalcment cc que nous avons dit precedemment (1973) apropos des langagcs mixtcs. c'est-a-dirc que nz = 11, met II finis ou transfinis.

a

510

THE SEMIOTICS OF ROLE INTERPRETATION

ROBliRT J. DI PIETRO

The term interactional competence has been used to describe the knowledge possessed by a speaker of how and when to take turns in conversation and in other kinds of socializing (see Goffman 1971: 3-4, fn. I). A detailed study of competence in these interactions would appear to involve many aspects of linguistics, as well as other semiotic disciplines. Beyond taking turns, intcractional competence invites the interpretation of the ways in which communicating via language affects the code of grammar. The social use of language had been set aside by linguists such as Noam Chomsky (1965) who viewed language as a code devoid of dialectal or stylistic variation. More recently. William Labov (I 966) and his followers have opened the study of language competence to include socially variable rules. As linguistic theory continues to develop, it becomes increasingly apparent that human interaction in all the various settings which elicit language use affect the code and therefore must be considered if the portrayal oflanguage competence is to be realistic. Language also serves associational functions. As Shirley Leone (1973) points out, the words linked together in conversation are suggestive of other words and lead to unconscious puns. One of Leone's examples is that of the television commentator who referred to the reading of a book authored by a prisoner awaiting execution in the electric chair as an "electrifying experience". In an independent study, I suggested that language competence be viewed as having not only the rules to produce sentences but also the metaphorical devices to create new grammars (sec Di Pietro 197 I). No matter how elaborate we make our approach to language code, we arc merely postponing the time when we shall have to face, head on, the question of how individuals use language to achieve desired goals and to give expression to individual personality types. Interactional competence, if the term is to have a semiotically valid definition, must be explored beyond turn taking and code use to how people cast themselves in various conversational roles (see Goffman 1959 and Berne 1972 for definitions of roles). Language is not only for the dissemination of information; it is also available as a means by which to create situations in which the user can be socially dominant. For 511

example, if one wishes to play the part of a liar, one must learn how to mix untruths with truths in such a way as to appear convincing at all times. The definition of language as a system mediating between concepts and sounds cannot incorporate the kind of interactional ambiguity which the liar utilizes. Once this ambiguity is perceived by the liar's interlocutors, the liar must either abandon his role or find other verbal strategies to strengthen it. Individuals perform a number of different roles in everyday life. As a result of the performances of an individual in various roles in different situations, an overall social character is built and a life script develops (see Berne I 972 for an extensive treatment of life scripts). Whatever the role, interactional ambiguity figures prominently because there is no guarantee that the roles being played arc immediately recognized for what they are . A large part of this ambiguity derives from the fact that each participant in an interaction is both a role player and a script writer. Not only do we want to play specific roles, we also want the other individuals with whom we are interacting to play roles which reciprocate and complement ours. The rich man who wishes to play the recognized role of a philanthropist needs both a script in which he gives away large sums of money and also the reciprocation of other individuals who are willing to express their roles as beneficiaries. An ambiguity in the interpretation of roles is possible if the rich donor is seen as having motives which arc not altruistic. The recipients of the rich man's money might still act out their roles as grateful beneficiaries but with a different interpretation of the donor's role . In English, we have the term Big Time Operator with which to label non-altruistic donors. The ambiguity which grows between the role player's appraisal of his role and the role he is actually playing can be held in check by that player's own awareness. But when is a player aware of the role he or she is playing in an interaction? Dittmann (1973: 186) offers this rule of thumb: when the predominant effect of the player's interactions with others bears out his own appraisal of what he is doing. A player who is aware of the role he is playing can also gain the upper hand in writing the script for the interaction. A salesman who never forgets that he is a salesman in an interaction is likely to keep the other player(s) from straying away from the kind of commercial script in which salesmen predominate. We are not equally committed to aU the different roles we play in everyday life. The degree to which each of us is committed may affect the degree of disparity between the played role and the perceived role. The salesman whose heart is not in his work will often ignore the signs of reciprocation in potential buyers. In this way, the perceived salesma11 role is replaced in the actual interchange by another role - that of duty performer. In an effort to reciprocate the duty performer. potential buyers are then likely to adjust their roles and become commiserators. Only if the buyer is truly committed 512

to his perceived role, will he be likely to hold the half-hearted salesman to his own role. Beyond the roles already mentioned (philanthropist, salesman, buyer, etc.), there are many others which have been conventionalized and stereotyped. The question before us now is how to make the typing of roles more than anecdotal. Formal procedures to type roles would appear to require an analysis of every unit of intcractional behavior, linguistic and otherwise, over a period of time in a number of different settings. The interactions themselves would have to be typed according to their outcomes. The efficacy of such procedures would depend. to no small extent, on the degree to which the observer can achieve a scientific detachment. My own feeling is that we cannot really achieve a detachment from human interaction that would be procedurally significant in the way that it is in the physical sciences. We invite ourselves too easily into each social interaction that we are observing. We do this because we are human ourselves and we have a part of us that judges critically in our own favor. Sitting on a bus, for example, and listening to a conversation in which we are not invited leads us not only to form our own opinions about the subject matter under discussion but also about the partici• pants themselves. Perhaps this inability to detach ourselves need not be a hindrance in the long run. The very best place to look for the understanding of roles might be within ourselves. While each of us might come to a different interpretation of the roles being played in a specific interaction, we still might be able to agree that certain types of roles arc indeed playable. Some verbal interactions are so structured that they become ritualized or routine. We have all played roles in non-ritualized interactions with differing outcomes. What I shall say in the following about roles has been drawn largely from the world of drama. If the roles seem genuine, it is because they are recognizable in everyday life. There are various kinds of roles which are noticeable in male/female relationships. Drawing from popular usage, some of the male ones are as follows: the Don Jua11, the Mujeriego, the Gigolo, and the Lion. Among the female roles arc those of the Southern Belle, the Carmen, the Courtesan, and the Princess. There are also a number of roles playable by either sex, such as the seducer, the scducee, the flirt, and the flirtec. These roles are best understood by comparing and opposing them to each other. The Don Juan, for example, is the male who entrains women in conversations with the apparent intent of seduction but falls short, for some reason or another, of the final step to the bed chamber. The Mujeriego uses many of the same verbal ploys, at least at the outset, as the Don Juan, but his orientation toward the female is different . His goal is seduction and, at some point in the interaction, his use of language must point toward that goal and to no other. The Gigolo differs from the Mujeriego 513

largely in terms of his long-term goal which is financial and not really amorous. The Lion is the male whose long-term goal is permanent bonding. His courting language may lead him through a seduction rather than to it. The female role of Southern Belle is played by a woman who, like the Don Juan, has no serious wish to seduce. The Carmen, based on the leading role in Merimee's story and Bizet's opera, is the female counterpart to the Mujeriego. True for both the Carmen and the male Mujeriego is the absence of any desire for permanent bonding. The Courtesan, like the Gigolo, has financial interests as the ultimate outcome of the encounter. The Princess is oriented toward permanent bonding as is the Lion among the males. The roles of seducer/seducee and Oirt/flirtce, playable by either sex, are perhaps best thought of as situation-bound rather than functional in life-long scripts. Every Mujeriego or Carmen is a seducer who moves from seducer to seducce. Lions and Princesses are often subjected to being either seducers or seducees in the course of their life scripts. Every role player is, of course, likely to be a flirt or a flirtee from time to time. Social interactions arc perhaps most ambiguous at their outsets. The ambiguity as to who will get to play what role in what script remains until some decision, usually unspoken. is made to set a plot. If we look back at the roles just outlined, we will see that they can be lined up in reciprocating pairs: (I) Don Juan/Southern Belle, (2) Mujeriego/Seducee, (3) Gigolo/Princess, (4) Carmen/Seduccc, (5) Lion/Princess, and (6) Courtesan/Seducee. The theater and the opera offer many examples of the ambiguity felt by the protagonists as to what role is being played by whom. In Bizet's Cannen, for example, Don Jose, who is a Lion, misinterprets his female counterpart's role as that of a Princess. It is not until the final scene when Don Jose realizes that Carmen is indeed a Carmen and will never go off with him to form a permanent bond. Shakespeare provides the classical situation in which a Lion (Othello) is led into thinking that his Princess (Desdemona) is not really a Princess but a Courtesan. To take yet another example, Violetta in Verdi's La Traviata is forced to lead her lover to think that she has not really abandoned her Courtesan role. All of these idealiz:ed male/female interactions hinge upon an initial ambiguity followed by some misinterpretation by one of the role players with regard to life script. The principal question to be answered by the linguist is how the meaning of human interactions are coded into language and how language comes to serve the various roles played by interacting humans. It is premature to suggest that there is a grammar of interactions in any way comparable to a gram• mar of language code. But there is at least the possibility that a study of language in its associational function can be fruitful. An analysis of the imagery employed in conversation might well lead to an understanding of how people disambiguate (or misinterpret, as the case may be) the roles being

514

played by others through language use. When the seducer says to his intended seducee, _"Let's get married for the weekend", his use of the verb 'marry' has special circumstant ial restrictions. The dictionary entry for marry lists "uniting in wedlock., as the primary sense and both role players most certainly know it. One can believe that one is marrying for a weekend only if one is willing to suspend the primary referential meaning of the word. To cite another illustration, street-walking Courtesans have evolved specific phrases with which to initiate conversations with intended customers. Depending on the country, these expressions might be: "Have you a cigarette?", "Have you a match?", or "Can you tell me where the Rue de X is?". The expressions used by flirts can be so stylized as to have a label of their own, as in Spanish piropo . In closing, it is certain that if language can be thought of as a competence to achieve interaction with others. then a large part of that competence must center on the playing of roles and the writing of scripts. It may be that considering the use of language in these ways will help unite linguistic research with the other subbranches of semiotics.

SIS

A NEW APPROACH TO THE AJDUKIEWICZ'S INDEX METHOD AND THE CORRESPONDING METALOGICAL CALCULUS 1

BOGDON DY ANKOV

Ajdukiewicz's method for indexing the semantic categories (in the classical sense of the word) of semiotical expressions in both natural and formalized languages, i.e. , names, propositions, and functors (operators) is well known, as is the corresponding metalogical calculus, the purpose of which is to establish by formal means whether a given expression is well-formed. The essential ideas are the following: I . In accordance with Lesniewski, Ajdukiewicz assumes a hierarchy of seman• tic categories. Thus, to every individual semantic category a special index of type is assigned, for example: n - for names, s - for propositions (sentences), and .

. - for functors (name or proposition-forming functors), where

1, ... 1k

the numerator denotes the main semantic category of the given compound expression, and the denominator denotes the number and order of the arguments from which, with the aid of the given functor (or functors), this expression is formed. 2. Every well-formed expression has a main functor and corresponding arguments, elementa.ry or compound. 3. By means of the method of main functor and arguments every propositional expression may be transformed into such a sequence of elementary symbols, which is called a proper sequence of elementary symbols. For example, let us take the formula (p ➔ (p V q)). We may obtain the proper sequence of the elementary symbols of this formula in the following way: 0. (p ➔ (p V q)). I. ➔ p(p V q), 2. ➔ p V p q. The last sequence of elementary symbols is the proper sequence of the elementary symbols constituting the given formula. 4. A corresponding index is assigned to every elementary symbol of this sequence. In our case we shall have 1.1. ➔ pVpp

s

s

1.2.sssssss

S16

This sequence of indexes of semantic categories is called a proper sequence of indexes of the semantic categories of the given formula, namely (p ➔ (p V q)). S. In its essence, Ajdukiewicz's metalogical calculus consists in the following, going from right to left, we cancel the same indexes in the numerator and denominator. In the above case we shall have:

It is not very difficult to see, however, that Ajdukiewicz's proper sequence of elementary symbols coincides, in fact, with l.ukasiewicz's method of sym• bolic notation. For example, the expression "-+ p V p q" coincides with "C p A p q". At the same time we must stress that in the Frege-Russell type of symbolic notation it is impossible to construct good formulas without using left and right parentheses, respectively. Here a very important question arises: is it possible to construct a system which will allow us to assign a special index to every actually given elementary symbol (sign) in the given formula? My answer to t his question is yes. In fact, Ajdukiewicz's transformation of the formulae into the proper sequence of elementary symbols takes the following form: 0. (p-+ (p V q)), I. (p-+ (p V q), 2. (➔ p(p V q), 3. (-+ p(p V q, 4. (➔ p(V p q. Strictly speaking, only the last sequence of elementary symbols may be regarded as the actually real proper sequence of elementary symbols of the formula (p -+ (p V q)). Even more strictly speaking, however, the actually real proper sequence of the elementary symbols of the last formula must take the following form: (p ➔ (p V q. In short, there is reason to interpret the parentheses as a specuzl metalogical operator, which I will call the parenthesis operator, for which we will use the symbol I or only the left parenthesis(. I think that this inference is of fundamental importance. It makes it possible to undertake a largely new extension1 of Ajdukiewicz's index method; moreover, on this foundation we can con• struct a largely new extension of Ajdukicwicz's mctalogical calculus to the Frege-Russell type of propositional formalized languages. Thus, I propose here a generalized system suitable for Ajdukiewicz's meta• logical calculus and an extension of this calculus to the Frege-Russcll type of propositional formalized languages, i.e., languages containing parentheses (or dots) as specific elementary formal objects (symbols or signs). In this connection it is important to stress that according to our program we must assume that parentheses (or dots) fulfil! not only purely syntactic (formal), but also semantical functions. In short, they play the role of complementary operators relative to the syntactical and semantical functions of ordinary propositional operators such as negation, conjunction, disjunction, implication, etc. There is probably reason to generalize this index method and the corresponding metalogical calculus in a way suitable for all types of logical IanS17

guagcs, especially for the languages of predicate logic: but I will restrict myself here to the realm of propositional logical calculus. I wish to introduce two types of special metalogical variables and constants (ie., special metalogical alphabets), and their corresponding systems of rules.

I. A GENERALIZATION OF AJDUKIEWICZ'S META LOGICAL CALCULUS TO TIIE LUKASIEWICZ TYPE OF PROPOSITIONAL FOR~IALIZED LANGUAGES (GMLCAr)

A. Metalogical alphabet (a set of the fundamental argument categories, valid for every type of sign system of propositional variables): (a set of one-place functor categories such as negation:7): (a set of two-place functor categories of the type of conjunction, disjunction , etc. : A, V, etc.).

8. Indexes of senumtica/ categories I. s s 2. 5

- for propositions:

•- for one-place functors:

s 3. ss

- for two-place functors.

C. A system of rules for the GMLCAf Rl.l . If a given index l(Ev =I: s, then we must reduce it to the forms. Rl.2 . A rule for reduction of the indexes of one-place propositional functors: s

ss

➔

s.

Rl.3 . A rule for reduction of the indexes of two-place propositional functors: s

sss

518

s ➔ s.

Exemplification: let us take the formulas C A p q p and C p A p q. Correspondingly we shall

have: i. CApqp

ii. C p A p q

0. fff~aiaia1

0. f~a 1f~1a2

s s

I. sssssss

s

2. ss s s

Rl.3.

Rl .3

s

s

I. sssssss

s

2. ss s s

Rl.3.

3. s

Rl.3.

Rl.3 .

3. s

II. AN EXTENSION OF AJDUKIEWICZ'S Mi,."TALOGICAL CALCULUS TO THE FREGE•RUSSELL TYPE OF PROPOSITIONAL FORMALIZED LANGUAGES p (EMLCAFR)

A. Metalogical alphabets (a set of fundamental argument categories, valid for every type of sign system of propositional variables); (a set of the so-called quasi-argument categories); (a set of one-place functor categories such as negation 7); (a set of two-place functor categories of the type of conjunction, disjunction etc.: A. V,

etc.); (a set of one-argument operators on the quasiargument categories the category of the so-called parenthesis opera• tor).

B. Indexes of the semantic categories 1. s

- for propositional variables;

2. "'

- for quasi-argument categories;

3.

ss

- for one-place functors; 519

4. s"'s

- for two-place functors;

5. ~

- for parenthesis operator (or operator of normalization of quasi• propositions.

C. A system of rules for EMLCA~R RII.I . If the index of a given expression l(E;) #as, then it must be reduced to the forms. RJI .2. If the index of a given expression l(Ej) the form ...

* "', then it must be reduced to

Rll.3 . A rule for reduction of the indexes of one-place functor categories: ¼s-+ s.

ss.. s .. .,,_

Rll .4 . A rule for reduction of the indexes of two-place functor categories:

s

Ril.5. A rule for normalization of the quasi-propositions: ~ .... s. Exemplification: Let us take the formulas ((p V q) ➔ p) and (p-+ (p V q)). Respectively, we shall have: i. ((pVq)-+p)

ii. (p -+ (p V q))

0. (i2, H2 A52Bi, etc., story-telling by RiB 2)(M 2), questioning-information q., ie., by A52R1 Imm1, promising by A1Del1-R~s1lmm 2A 1Dcl., and so on.) In fact, this seems to be too loose a procedure, one that should be constrained with specific (testable) hypotheses that restrict the possibilities of combination of different intended - or expected - effects, their maximum number or 'depth', etc. Apostel's conditions (a) and (b) arc then satisfied. But the admission of the last two hypotheses of (2) is enough to comply also with (c), since in order to modify whether M. R. B or A of his addressee S must present him with a specific semiotic action (with a particular 'content') able to induce in him the expected change in his present conditions as estimated by him. And since these estimates and this anticipated knowledge (expectations) arc strongly dependent on social factors. condition (d) is also automatically fulfilled: our schematic theory can be completed with explicit, specific hypotheses on the constraints imposed in each culture by these factors (through which levels of social convention could be distinguished, giving due credit to the original distinction of Austin's and to current notions such as those of 'true' and 'archetypal' performatives).

575

SIGN TRANSPARENCY AND PERFORMATIVES

R.ZUBER

The 'sign transparency principle' or 'semantic transparency principle' is primarily connected with the so< --

------+ ~-----surrealisme Dadaisme

constructivisme

futurisme

La litterature d'avant-garde de !'Europe de !'Est a pris, sans equivoque, posi• tion pour les choscs naturelles; mais ces cinq courants ont tente de realiser de fa~on differentes !'art nature! - et cela en conformite, dans chaque cas, avec la conception du nature! et du signe adoptee. Chacun d'eux a mis !'accent sur un element different de la triple proposition nature/ ancestral; alienation presente; nature/ future. (!) Le dadaisme s'est complu dans la negation entiere de la phase centrale: ctait nature! tout ce qui n'etait pas le present aliene. Ce rcfus visait aussi

602

!'ensemble du systeme du langage. (2) u futurisme a pris pour cible le premier composant de la triade. Sous ce rapport non plus !'avant-garde ne disposait de programme pour l'avenir - et meme pas les futuristes. puisqu'ils ne voulaicnt realiser, avec le temps. que l'ancestrale unite du signe et de la chose, et, en ce sens, retoumer une fois encore a un etat passe. A l'encontre de cette rigidite, de cette objectivite 'sans ame', l'expressionnisme se revele bien plus 'meditatif; car ce n'etait pas l'etat de l'individu qui l'interessait de prime abord, mais le rapport ancestral, harmonieux entrc les individus. Sa moralisation n 'accede a l'objectivite qui caracterise en general !'avant-garde que lorsqu'elle nous offre en exemplc pour la communautc humaine un rapport simple, sans problemes des objets. (3) Du troisic!mc membre de la triade, ii n 'y cut que le constructi• visme et le surrealisme a posseder une idec bien etablic: ii fallait faire evader l'art rcvolutionnaire de l\!tat de 'consolidation' est-europeenne et lui trouver un refuge dans l'avenir. En consequence, ces deux courants ont developpe, dans le detail une vision du monde centree sur l'avenir. u surrcalisme a sur• tout offert !'image de l'homme avenir et le constructivisme celle de la societe future. II devait en decoulcr que, scion la theorie du premier, le naturel signi• fiait la simple plenitude de !'essence humaine, la creation de l'homme integral capable d'exploitcr les forces irrationnellcs de l'ame aussi, tandis que le second considerait comme nature! et beau ce qui etait fonctionnel et conforme ascs buts. Ces differences d'accent dans la conception du nature! sont en correlation etroitc avec la conception du signe dans les cinq courants. La transformation du signc litteraire en chose (oeuvre) est foncierement contrarice par le fait que, de ccs trois composants: le signific, le signifiant et la signification, le premier ne participe pas directement a l'oeuvre-signe, sauf par le truchement de la conscience collective. C'est ici que s'etablit cette frontiere infranchissable qui separe les lcttrcs et la rcalite. (I) C'ctait preciscment eette frontiere que les dada1stes se proposaient d'abolir: ce n 'etaient pas des signes linguistiques qu'ils creaient, mais ils voulaient que le signifie s'instituat directement comme oeuvre d'art; de la realitc inarticulee ils faisaient des objets d'art. (2) Pour le futurisme et l'expressionnismc. l'objectivation du signe represcn• tait egalement la creation de mots neufs; elle ctait done dirigee, avant tout, sur le signifiant, la forme phonique des mots: le poete doit ctre continuellement dans eel etat du nature) ancestral ou Jes phon~mes et les objets peuvent etre librcment ordonnes. Chez. Jes futuristes, c'est l'energie de cet acte crcateur qui a cte distinguee: ils desiraient. a l'aide de la poesie, maintenir en constante effervescence la capacite de creation verbale. Par contre, l'expressionnisme aspirait moins a l'energie creatricc de mots d'un passe ancestral: ii s'effor~it plutot de retablir !'unite ancienne du signifiant et du signifie. Scion sa theorie, !'essence des choses est a chaque fois exprimce par un mot unique. C'est cet unique rapport qui doit etre realise par le p~te-prophete moderne oeuvrant

603

par intuition. D'ou le nombre excessif des mots onomatopeiques, expressifs et imitatifs: la rencontre du signifiant et du signifie se fait evidente. (3) Le constructivisme et le sum!alisme prircnt position al'encontre de la theorie centree sur le mot: le nature! a venir exigeait un nouveau systeme de significations, compose non point de mots et d'objets nouveaux, mais de rapports a etablir entre eux. Thcorie encore plus introvertie et intensive que la precedente, si bien que Jes minutieuses manipulations des rapports de signification entre les mots ont immanquablement conduit aune variante de !'art pour !'art. Pour le surrealisme, ce fut /'image, pour le constructivisme, ce fut la phrase qui fournit !'unite dans laquelle, par la collision premeditee des mots, de nouvelles significations pouvaient jaillir - unite allant done au- B2), although the units are connected here by another compositional procedure (gradation/=>/). If we know - in the case of gradation - the sememe sets 618

determining the starting state and the situation to be reached on an abstract level, it can then (fairly) reliably be decided which sememcs must be eliminated or added, etc., in order to achieve the 'aim' we set. In all probability one part of the compositional procedures, that is, the 'syntactical regularities' of the thematic level, has an analogous character to the transformational rules of generative grammars (see van Dijk 1972c and J. lhwe I 972). Now it would be desirable to reformulate the results of our structural analysis from a generative, ie., more scientific point of view. I think, however, that such a task could hardly be carried out, not only because of limited space. The main reason is that existing text models are as yet unable to derive literary text structures in an explicit way.

619

ALLEGORY AND THE STATUS OF LITERARY SEMIOTICS

JONATIIAN CULLER

Many of our difficulties in talking about literature and society or about cultural history as the domain in which literature and society interact seem to me due to the woefully inadequate models we generally bring to the task. For example, in their chapter on "Literature and Society'" in The Theory of Literature, Wellek and Warren identify three possible approaches. Study of literature and society can focus (I) on a sociology of the writer (the socieconomic condition of authors and its literary effects), (2) on the social content of literature (either a mimetic or more sophisticated causal relation between the content of the work and the nature of society), or (3) the actual social influence of literature. The striking thing about these alternatives is that they seem to make impossible a properly historical approach to cultural history. That is to say, by working according to these models one would produce either (a) a history of the condition of writers, or (b) a history of society punctuated by references to literary works whose content reflects or derives from a state of society, or (c) a history of society which would stress the various effects and influences of literary works. In each of these cases the historical series is constituted by something other than the works themselves; artifacts are historicized only by being related to some other historical series. Now one of the main virtues of a scmiological approach to literature is that it provides a model which enables us to conceive of cultural history or literary history in a much more satisfactory way. Literature and the culture of which it fonns a part are institutions composed of various semiological systems. Culture itself is a set of symbolic systems which enable actions of objects to have meaning, and among these systems is that of literature, or of the various literary genres, whose conventions arc devices for the production and organization of meaning. By thinking of literature and culture in this way we produce a relation of commensurability: it becomes possible to use a common vocabulary in discussing them and thus to produce a historical series which would integrate the two. It would be a history of the conventions for the production of meaning which are deployed in the literature and culture of the period. One might put

620

this another way by saying that the relationship between literature and society is not one of identity of content but of homology of form: it is the formal organization of literary works, the operations for the production of meaning at work in literature, which relate directly to society. and what they relate to is not the content of social life but the operations which produce social and cultural objects - which create, that is to say, a world charged with meaning. It is traditional to say that literature teaches us to organize and interpret experience, and if this is so it is because literature provides us with a series of operations or tropes which relate actions or objects to meaning. By placing these operations in contexts where we must accept and comply with them if we are to reach what we would regard as a satisfactory understanding, it makes these operations seem natural (this is, incidently. the g,eat danger of literature, as works like Don Quixote and Madame Bovary tell us). The development of these literary conventions depends. of course, on models or operations already current in the social discourse of the period (the text of everyday life as well as the discourse of its "sciences"). And hence the study of literary history would be an attempt to trace the interaction and reciprocal transformation of the scmiological models constitutive of. respectively, the interpretive discourse of the period and its literary works. I want to take as my example the problem of poetic allegory in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, both in order to sketch what might be accomplished by a scmiological approach to literary history and to set out what I take to be the implications of semiology as a literary methodology. Among these implications is a rehabilitation of the notion of allegory, which, since Goethe and Coleridge, has had an extremely bad press. The re3Sons for the decline of its fortune and for the success of the symbol are clear from Coleridge's classic definition: We may safely define allegoric writing as the employment of one set of agents and images with actions and accompaniments correspondent, so as to convey, while in disguise, either moral qualities or conceptions of the mind that are not themselves objects of the senses, or other images, actions, fortunes, and circumstances, so that the difference is everywhere presented to the eye or imagination while the likeness is presented to the mind. And whereas the symbol is always inherently related to that which it signifies - "abides itself as a living part in that Unity of which it is the representative" - allegorical meanings "are but empty echoes which the fancy arbitrarily associates with apparitions of matter". The allegorical sign, we might say, is arbitrary: the connection between signifiant and sig11ifie is imposed by the mind or fancy. while the eye and imagination are primarily aware of the difference. The symbol, on the other hand, is a motivated sign, a synecdoche, in which the signif111111 is naturally 621

connected to or subsumed under the signifie. Allegory is a case of what Coleridge calls "mechanic form", while the symbol is "organic form". The symbol achieves a fusion of subject and object because in the symbol the truth of the subject is also the truth of the object; whereas in allegory one remains aware of the difference between the object itself as signif11111t and the meaning imposed by the fancy of the subject. Now it requires no great perspicacity to see that Coleridge's preference for the symbol is a version of what Jacques Dcrrida calls the "metaphysique de la presence", which longs for and grants primacy to a state in which there is no alienation within man, between man and the world, between forms and meanings. Through the symbol the poetic imagination is supposed to reestablish lost unity, to create natural signs. But the important point is that Coleridge's distinction proposes an attempt to escape from one fundamental trope to another. We have here two ways of thinking about meaning, two ways of organiiing the attribution of meaning. For the symbolic mode, meaning inheres in the object, as its natural concomitant, and must draw out of the object itself. For the allegorical mode, meaning results from a relationship between two orders. One order figures another and the meaning of an object or form is important precisely because it is other than the object. A semiological approach to the literature and culture of this period would involve an attempt to trace the fortunes of these two fundamental tropes in interpretive discourse of various kinds. One would find, I imagine, a shift in historical discourse from a figural reading of history to a kind of organicist reading ("tel arbre, tel fruit"), and in place of a cyclical universal history where the same story appeared in different guises, one would find a new historicism. In the discourse of natural history Michel Foucault has traced the movement which leads from classical taxonomy, in which observable differences and similarities between plants and animals are reflected in a corresponding order of names, to the new botany and biology which are resolutely organicist rather than analogical: hidden properties which must be drawn out become the true defining characteristics of each organism. In a third realm of discourse, if one were to look at the discussions of natural scenes in guide books, treatises on gardening, and accounts of travels, one could gather much information about the semiological conventions according to which the world was read and interpreted. These discoveries would have to be related to what one found in the literature of the period. Certainly there would be parallels, particularly in the movement whereby the assumption of an analogy between two orders gives way to a sense of synecdochic relation within a single order. So long as the natural world is treated as a figure for another order it is possible to play with metaphorical relations: to use the seasons, for example, as a figure for cycles of various kinds, be they of "the progress of poesy" as in Blake's Poetical 622

Sketches, or of moral experience as in Thomson's The Seasons. Secure in the fact of analogy. Akenside could entitle a poem exploring the meanings of natural scenes ..The Pleasures of Imagination" and assert with no uneasiness that man finds "in lifeless things the inexpressive semblance of himself. of thought and passion". One would find, I think, that this sportive confidence was soon lost, that one could not speak of nature as an "inexpressive semblance" without under• mining the new symbolic operations which require the poet to show that nature is truly expressive and contains within herself the meanings unveiled by the poetic voice. The attempt to produce natural or motivated signs in a symbolic mode could be traced in the influence of la Nou~elle Heloise, in Chateaubriand, and in that master of the pathetic fallacy, Victor Hugo. But one would also find that literature is more aware of its semiotic procedures than most modes of discourse, and that, despite Coleridge's cate• gorical attempt to reject the allegorical production of meaning in favor of the symbolic, in its better moments literature exposes the difficulties of the synecdochic mode of discourse. What is usually thought of as the subjectivism of Romantic poetry might be seen instead as a self-conscious response to a fundamental semiological problem: in the absence of a correspondence be• tween two orders, one must find a way to guarantee the naturalness or moti• vation of signs, and the easiest way to do this is to internalize the connection between signiFlllnt and signifie. "When standing before this particular scene I had this experience: I felt this, I thought that." And paradoxically, though this retreat into subjectivity is a strategy designed to protect the attribution of meaning, to assert that the object is the natural cause of its meaning, in fact this strategy leads one back into an allegorical mode, whereby a series of external objects or agents figure another, intemal drama. Even if the discourse of society shifts into a symbolic and organicist mode, poetry tends to withdraw into allegory, for the simple reason that allegory is the demystified version of the symbolic. This process reaches its culmination, I think, in Baudelaire, whose poetry shows an acute awareness of "lorbitraire du signe poetique": Dans le suaire des nuages Je decouvre un cadavre cher, Et sur les celcstes rivages Jc bitis de grands sarcophages. To step back from the symbolic attribution of meaning and reveal that the process is one of construction or creation rather than discovery, to stress, as this poem docs, the difference between objects and thematic response, is to demystify the symbolic process and expose it as a cultural activity. In short. one can find in the poetry of a culture a dialectical critique of the semiological operations which are constitutive of the discourse of that culture.

623

There are two conclusions which I would wish to draw from this excessively brief and schematic expose. The first is that semiology may provoke, by its very orientation, a salutary re~valuation. In this case, for example, by focussing on the semantic operations of literary and non-literary discourse, one would come to value those which displayed a maximum of self-consciousness and thus to rescue the notion of allegory from the limbo to which it has been relegated by the mystificatory discourse of the symbol. We would be able to recognize the importance of the allegorical strain in poetry since 1800. Secondly, I think a study of this kind would show that it is nonsense to suggest, as many have done, that because of the synchronic orientation of its linguistic model there is some kind of incompatibility between semiology and history. On the contrary, it is only within a semiological perspective that one can develop a proper historical method. Any other orientation would simply insert literature in other historical series external to it, but semiology would enable one to produce historical series based on the central activity of literature: a history of the production of meaning. The problem for literary history, one might say, is that it has never been sufficiently formalist. It is only through the radical formalism of a semiological perspective that operations constitutive of both literature and culture can be held together in what would be, properly speaking, a history of the process of signification.

624

TEXTES ET MACROTEXTF.

MARIA CORTI

Vis-a-vis d'un recueil de textes - qu'il s'agisse de rccits ou de poemes -. on peut se demander si l'on a affaire a un assemblage de textcs ou, au contrairc, a un ensemble qui se prcsentc comme un macrotexte ou un macrosignc. Dans le premier cas, la definition du recueil est purement tautologique. Dans le second cas. chaquc texte est une microstructure s'inserant dans unc macrostructure . d'ou le caracterc fonctionnel et 'informatif du recueil. Dans le domaine de la poesie, on pourra dire que tout recueil n'est pas nc!cessairement un can•

zoniere. La fonctionnalite et le pouvoir d'infonnation d'un recucil dependent de la realisation d'au moins l'une des deux conditions suivantes: (I) possibilitc combinatoirc des elements thematiques ct/ou formels de tous les textes. provoquant !'interrelation de ceux-ci. et, par suite, !'unite du recueil: (2) progressivite du discours. qui fait que chaquc textc ne pcut occupcr quc la place ou ii sc trouvc. Les resultats d'unc rcchcrchc que j'ai menee dans cctte optique sur deux recueils de rccits d'ltalo Calvino pcuvent la dcpasser et offrir un intcrct plus general. Le premier recueil, public en 1958. se compose de dix rccits que Calvino dcfinit lui-mcme comme des fables modernes; c'est pourquoi ils revelent une scrie d'invariants dans la structure de !'intrigue, et par consequent dans la morphologie du rc!cit, dont on peut tirer un modele commun, c·est•a-dire une structure sous-jacente a chaque recit en mcme temps qu'unc structure de sou• tien, un pre-texte commun. On pcut en outre expliquer la repetition de cette structure par quelquc chose qui sc situe encore plus en amont. c'est-a-dire une motivation idcologique 'profonde'. Cettc motivation joue pour ainsi dire le role de 'presupposition' (le tcrme linguistique est ici utilise metaphoriquc• ment). c'est-a-

~~

re. mi. mi, mi, rC

•.,i.f .£'.I.:

mi. re

-

~

note-pivot

mi, re

re/mi/re

Les variables retenues comme pertinentes pour la description et la segmentation des unites scront appclecs, scion unc autre expression de Molino, des 'variables strategiques'; parce qu'elles ont une presomption d'emicite. elles ont unc place determinante dans la description semiologique du niveau neutre. La rcchcrche des rapports entre Jes variables strategiques et leurs differents systemes de reference contribuerait a orienter !'analyse vers une caracterisation stylistiquc.3 On aura rcmarqu6 que la caracterisation en variables et en unites est plus ou moins longue scion le degre d'exhaustivite et de finesse dans l'inventaire des points de vue; de plus, elle ne peut faire autrement que s'allonger des que l'on prend en charge de nouveaux niveaux stylistiques. C'cst pourquoi le tableau-inventaire peut servir de banque d'information ou de base de reference pour la conduite de !'analyse, presentant de fa~on globale Jes relations entre Jes decoupages de la combinatoirc du niveau neutre. Nous illustrcrons ces propositions par le tableau-inventaire des premieres mesures de Syrinx, piece pour flute seule de Debussy. 1016

Le tableau inventaire comporte huit decoupages: (I) la paradigmatisation melodico-rythmique fait apparaitre une unite A (repetee ensuite ala mesure 3) qui est suivie d'une unite B. (2) et (3) les decoupages purement melodiques et rythmiques respectivement: ils convergent entre eux, mais divergent par rapport au decoupage (I). (4) nous avons dt!gage des classes d'oppositions de durees, definies comme l'appartenance de chaque articulation aune classe distributionnelle fondee sur !'equivalence contextuelle des donnees de duree . La classe 'a', par exemple, contient des valeurs de duree comprises entre I et 1.33 (ou I = la triple croche, 1.33 = la double croche de triolet, etc.); la classe 'c' contient des valeurs de duree comprises entre 4 et 7. On peut done arriver a expliciter la variable 'initiale allongee, suivie de rythme regulier' en definissant !'expansion transformationnelle de la duree de l'in itiale et celle des finales par rapport aux possibilites combinatoires de duree dcgagees pour cette pi~ce. (5) les intervalles (en nombre de demi-tons) entre chaque note, et Ja direction (symbolisee par les fleches) du mouvement de !'unite melodiquc (2), sont combines pour dt!finir ce decoupage. (6) nous avons degage les inttrvalles de joncture par rapport aux segments du decoupage precedent. Un •+• et un •- • indiquent respectivement un intervalle ascendant et un intervalle descendant. (7) ce dt!coupage correspond aux courbes de liaisons. On remarque !'accord de la quatri!me courbe avec le decoupage (I) et sa divergence avec les decoupages (2) et (3). (8) elements de chromatisme.

'"

..

,

..'-"·•

..'-"·•

.,,

..,

,··.,--,

r-7;-i

I

•

,;-·

"'

I

'•

I

••

'"

I

.,

I

••

I

.,

I

---.. '

..

I

........

11

I

•

r,-,

••

"

••

'

•

•

..

117




...a. c"

....e

1 "

_g 0

~ 14. Afrique Ghana

actuelloment

actuellement 17. lnde Hindous

'

s

4

Plan du sipirlant

Plan du slgnifie

figurine en cite d"une ruche aban• donnce transpcrcee de la tcte au pied, ceremonies de funeraWes, enterre• ment de la figurine au milieu du chemin qu'emprunte l'adversallc

ditto

on tite une nechc cmpoisonnee et "" mEme temps on prononce le nom de l'advcrsai,e; cclui• c:i meurt i distance avec la trace de la fleche

aneantisscment de l'adversaite par un geste rcprc:• scntatif

sur un figurine on inscrit le nom de l'advenalre qu'on transperce ensuite

pat l'aneantisscmcnt de l'objet reprisentatlf, ancantlr le sujet

6 Signlllcallon

20. Syric, Egypte Haanan

xv111•-x1x• slecle

un tcxte magiquc ditto est insait sur une statuette; bruement de la statuette

24 . Grece

annt notre ere

coup de coutcau dans une trace de pied

28. Rome

avant et dcbut de noire ere

par l'ancantisscment sur une plaque en de l'objet repriscnta• plomb on inscrit l'accusation; ensuite ur. aneantit le sujet on entene la plaque

31. Angle,

IXe siecle

terre

36.EcOS1e

x1x• sl~de

figwine en cite cuite au feu au son de chants maglques

1048

aneantisscment du sujet par un geste roprcsentatif

ditto

flaurine transpcrcce ditto par des cpingles clans unc cau courante

.~

..

.:i

!

!:--

~

..

'Cl

t: o--

e

:s

OQ

,)

7 Code du slgnl· flant vcrbal-gcstucl

♦

♦

♦

♦

8 Formcsdu slgnifiant aspect-materiel

f,gwinc

flechc

10

9

octonrs: dcstinatcu, dcstinatairc mcdiatcur 1djuntcur

Temps -d'cxeculion - d'cffct

circ pcrsonne intcrc$SCe •Pinal•

- jour •PU la suite

poison mcdiatcur

-? -co'incidencc:

♦

♦

?

♦

♦

♦

argile bois

pcrsonne intOrc$SCc

-?

statuette uglle

pcrsonne interesscc

-?

figurine

trace de pied

couteau pcrsonnc interessec

11 Categoric de $lgnc l-ic6nc Ix - index S - symbolc 1

lx

s

·co·incidcnce:

-par la suite

--pu la suite

5

lx

♦

♦

plaques

plomb pc1$0nnc intercssec dcstinatcur

par la suite

♦

♦

figurine

circ gzil rcu

mediatcur

-nult - coincidence

,.

♦

♦

figurine

argile

pcrsonnc interessce adjuratcur pcrturbatcur

-jow -co·incidence

,s

metal cau

s

1049

1 Esp•cc geo•

2

3

s

4

graphique

Epoque de Motivation p111ique

42. France

1969

6 Signification

Plan du slgnuiant

Plan du signirle

i

figurine avec des clous enfonces SUi tout le corps

ditto

-..

dans un ub1e, dans

tatif. ania.ntir renncmi

------------ .1 -------------------+--so. AUemagne X!Xe sieclc trois clous enfonccs pu un geste 1ep1escn• j C C

.... E

:::, C

------ -----~ SS . Pologne

X!Xe siecle

g

... ! E

S6. Moravie

jusqu'au debut du xxe siccle

mo1ceau de bois, dins unc pl.anche/ t~te, poitrinc, vcntle/ tir su1 un dcssin de l'advenaire sur des chemins de croix

aneantissement du sujet pu l'ancantissc• mcnt de l'objct 1epresentatlf

tianspercement d'une figurine en ugjle

ditto

61. Slovaquie debut du XXe slecle

on clouc sur un arb1e par un gcste et un 3 mo1ceaux de linge objct rcpriscntatif, et on lcs t1ansperoc aneantir le sujet

62. Slovaquie 1947-48

tnnspe1ocmenl d'une figurine en paillc en pronon• cant un dialogue su1 la mon p1ogrcs• sive de I.a vlctlme

1050

aneantissement du sujet par la dcstruc> lion de l'objet 1cpriscn111if

7 Code du signi• fiant verbal-gestuel

8

Fonncs d u signifiant aspect-materiel

9 actantt: destinatew dcstinatairc mcdlatew adjuratew

10 Temps - d 'exccutlon -d'effet

♦

♦

r,gurine

a,gile metal

mcdiateur

- jow -pu la suite

?

♦

clous

bob metal

personne interwee

-?

?

♦

?

♦

?

♦

♦

♦

scene

-nuit personne -co,ncidence intercssee OU mcdiateur

dessln

figurine

-par la suite

argile

peuonne inter~

-nuit - co'incidence

personne interence mcdiateur

-?

llnge clous

p

flgurlne

paille mcdlateur vEte• et personnc mont intcresscc ep1 1131e

11 Categoric de slgne l-lc:6ne Ix - Index S-symbole

,s s

1s

5

lx

- co"incidcncc

tx•

- nuit - co'incidence

,s

1051

SUR LA HIERARCHIE D'UN SYSTEME DE SIGNES DEPENDANT DE PLUSIEURS PARAMETRES: CAS PARTICULIER DES VARIANTES D'UNE BALLADE POPULAIRE ION RADO!

Comment hicrachiser un systeme de signes lorsqu'on doit prendre en consideration plusieurs parametres et que chaque parametre foumit une autre hierarchic? Voila le probleme que nous allons etudier dans le cas par1iculier ou les signes envisages sont les variantes d 'une meme production folklorique. II s'agit de la ballade populaire Mesterul Manole, l'une des productions folkloriques les plus repandues en Europe centrale, le motif de 'l'offrande de la batisse' etant attesle chez les Roumains, les Grecs, les Bulgares, les llongrois, les Serbes (voir Talos 1973). Le grand nombre des variantes est du a l'oralite de la genese et de la propagation. specifique ala creation populaire. Ccr1es, ii est nccessaire d'etablir une hierarchie de ces variantes, dans le sens d'une subordination structurale des unes par rapport aux autres. On a surtout en vuc les classifications en fonction de differcnts parametres se rapportant a la structure linguistique-litterairc du texte et pcrmettant !'extraction des significations les plus caracteristiques. On a choisi 19 variantes roumaines, le critt!re de ~lection etant celui de la repartition territoriale. Nous allons proceder a une classification globale des variantes en fonction de trois parametres et on suivra le rapport etabli entre la variante de V. Alecsandri (la premiere variantc roumaine de la ballade) dont l'authcnticite est mise en doutc, et les autrcs variantcs. Chaque variantc est designee par le symbole V suivi par le rang de la variantc respective dans le tableau synoptique (D) dresse dans Vrabie, 1966. Par exemple, par VI on a designe la variante de V. Alecsandri, par V2 la variantc de G. 0cm. Teodorescu, etc. S. Marcus (Marcus 1970b) introduit une relation binaire apte a decrire la dependance d'une ballade par rapport aux autrcs, du point de vue de la simi· larite des vers. Soil t un nombre reel , positif et subunitaire. On dit qu'une variantc a se trouve en relation de t-dependance par rapport a une variante b si le nombre des vers de a qui ne se retrouvent pas dans b est egal ou inferieur au nombre 1052

de vers de b qui ne se retrouvent pas dans a et si, en outre, le rapport entre le nombre de vers communs et le nombre de tous les vers de a est sup6rieur a f Pour cette etude nous avons choisi f = 0,1. La relation de f-dependance induit un graphc dont les sommets sont justement Jes variantes de la ballade etudiee. Le graphe induit par la relation de 0,1-dependance est celui de la Figure I. v142----~vs

V9

V39

,_---- ---l!l

V37

V4 I 'E--- ----lV42

V28

V25 _ _ _ __/ _ ___ V27

V8

VI V26

On observe que le graphe de la figure ci-dessus a quatre composantes connexes. Nous aliens determiner le noyau de chacune de ces composantes. Un noyau d'un graphe est un ensemble A de sommets du graphe qui a la propricte suivante: n 'importe lequel des deux sommets qui appartiennent aA sont relics par un arc et n'importe quel sommet du graphe n'appartenant pas a A, est relic a un sommet de A. On constate que le noyau du graphc est donne par !'ensemble suivant de sommcts: N ={VI, V2, V24. V26}. On obtient une hierarchie des variantes appartenant au noyau du point de vue du nombre de variantcs dependantcs par rapport au)( variantes du noyau (Marcus 1970b): (I) V2:(2) V24;(3) V26;(4) VI. Unc hierarchic de ces variantcs est obtcnue a!'aide de !'analyse paradigmatiquc quantitative (Marcus 1967c); dans cct ordrc d'idces, on cntreprcnd l'ctudc de la connellion de la categoric verbale pour chaque variantc du noyau. La connexion faible a ete ctudiee par rapport aux valcurs morphologiques suivantcs: 1053

(1) indicatif present; (2) indicatif passe simple; (3) indicatif imparfait; ( 4) in• dicatif passc compose; (5) futur; (6) subjonctif present; (7) participe; (8) gerondif; (9) conditionnel-optatif present. A chaque variante V on associe un vecteur V(Yi, v2 , ••• , v9) ou Yi ( I < i < 9} represente le nombrc de composantes faiblement connexes relatives a la valcur grammaticalc de rang i. S. Marcus (Marcus 1967c) propose une mesure du rapprochement entre deux objets a et b decrits par les proprietes pi, p2 , ••• , Pn• L'appreciation quantitative de la propricte Pi est faite par le rapport

v/! YJc

Vj,

I

ou v1 est une composantc du vecteur associc a la variante respective. La mesure de rapprochement est definie (Marcus 1967c) par la fonnule: o(a,b} = (l: v'aibi}1 i

avec la restriction l:ai= l,l:bi= I. i

i

Si l'on a un nombrc d'objets 0i, 02 , ••• ment global d'un objet 0i (I < i < n) est:

,

On, alors la mesure de rapproche-

I n (0i) = l: o(Oj ,OJ) n- 1 j•l )"I

L'ordre decroissant des valeurs de la mesure de rapprochement global donne la hierarchic suivante des variantes du noyau: (I) V2; (2) V26; (3) V24; (4) VI. Nous etablissons les frequences absolues des !cures de chaque variante et nous ordonnons ces frequenccs d'appres leur valeurs decroissantc. Soit f 1 , f2 , • . • , fn, lcs frequences absolues des lettres de rang 1, 2, .... n. La totalite de ccs frequences sera notee L; alors, la variable aleatoire associee a une variantc X a la distribution:

Nous calculons pour les quatre variantes du noyau les deviations moyennes quadratiqucs des variables aleatoircs miscs en evidence de la maniere indiquee plus haut. Les valeurs decroissantes des deviations moyennes quadratiques donnent pour ces quatre variantes la hierarchic suivantc: (I) V26: (2) V24; (3) VJ ;(4} V2. On a elabore (Oninescu, 1970) une methodc d'estimation comparative de 1054

n objets 0 1, 02 , •• • , On decrits par m caracteristiques d'importance egale. Pour chaque objet Oj ( I EX

Machado, Antonio, 253 , 443-447 Maday, S. von, 239 Madsen, P., 93 Magli, Patrizia, viii, 858-861 Mattritte, 792 Maldonado, Tomas, 159- 160, 186, 193,221n, 774-776 Malc!vitch, 82S, 827-828 Malinowski, B., 69, 236 Mall, Linnard, 303 Mallarmt, S., 587, 595-596, 696, 799, 1146-1147 Malmberg, Berti!, 3 18-320 Mandclstam, O., 727- 728 Mandy,658 Mann , A., 680n Mann, Th., 69, 634-638 Man1.oni, vii Maranda, E., 93-95 Maranda, P., 93-95, 1038 Marcel , Gabriel, 266 Marciszewski, Witold, 537- 540 Marconi, Emo, 848-852 Marcus, Solomon, 29-40, 180-181, 193, 224,254,433-435,436-439, 440, 448-451 , 479 , 861n, 862863, 874, 981-982, 1052, 10541055

Marcuse, H., 7 54 Marie, Michel, 148 Marin, Louis, 189, 777-782 Marinelli, 799 Markuzon , V ., 179 Marlowe , C. , 592-593 Martelli, Luigi, I 49 Marti Aris, Carlos, 9 I 3-91 7 Martin, R. M., 389-394 Martinelli, Antonio, 848-852 Martinelli, Maurizio, 1085-1088 Martinet, A., 280 Martinel, J., 288-290, 874,965 ~farty, Alain, 148, 156 Marx , Karl, 158-161, 286, 359n, 522,595, 754 Massaccio, 75 I Matisse, II., 699 Mattos, Geraldo , 321-325 Maturana, 346-347 Mauss. 205 1232

Mayne, Judith, 149 Mazur, Marian, 468-470 McCaffrey, A., I 097 Mccawley, J. D., 46, 78, 558n, 1041 McClelland, 1130 McKay, D. M., 1093-1094 McKeon, Richard, I 08, 600 McLean, William P., 783-787 McLeod, Norma, 201 McLuhan, Marshall, 212, 418-419, 799 Mead, Herbert, 183, 315-316, 317n Mead, Margaret , 336-337, 1060 Mehrabian, A.• 235-236 Mekas, 835 Mclandri, E., 509- 510 Mel'cuk, I. A., 385,557, 725, 1041 Mcie, Rino, 149 Meletinski(j), E., 93, 254 Meltzer, James D., 1160-1166 Mendclei'ev, 795 Mercer, J ., 149 Mtriot, J ., 188 Mcrlcau-Ponty, ~f.. 135, 304- 305, 307-308 Merry, Bruce, 681-685 Messenger, Theodore, 326-328 Messiaen, Olivier, 994- 997 Metz. Christian, 141, 146n, 147-157, 221n, 255,679, 819,840n, 859860,86ln,874,878-881 , 924 Meyer, Leonard, 17, 1008 Meyer-Eppler, 261 Miccini, Eugenio, 756, 788-790 Miceli, Silvana, 429-432 Michaelangelo Buonarroti, 814 Michelson, Annelle , 149 Miclau, Paul , 329-332 Mikszath, 658 Miles, 1103 Milovanoff, C., 193 Minguct, Philippe, 791-794 Minkowski , E., 1138 Mitry, Jean, I SO Moholy-Nagy, Sibyl, 747 Moles, Abraham A., 148, 158-160, 417-419, 796 Molino, Jean , 196, 200, 202, 1018

1:-IDF.X

Mondrian, P., I 31, 747 Monnier, Jacques, 795-798 Monod, Jean, 148, 155 Montague, 266, 556 Montague, R., 44-46, I 15, 126n Moore. G. E., 19 Morais, Vinicius de, 897 ~lore, Thomas, 177, 188-189. 193, 302 Moreau, It., 35 Morgan, 169 Morin, Edgard, I SO Morin, Elisabeth, 203n, 1010-1014 Morris, Charles, 41, 43, 45, 69, 73, 104, 172, 186, 222, 229, 250251, 309, 311, 313, 315, 317n, 336-338,S56,599, 717, 1040 Moses, J., 1144-11 45 Moss, II. A., I 095 Mounin, G., 36, 280, 288-290, 797, 858,874,965 Mourly, 1106 ~ozart, W. A., 1019-1023 Mrozek, Slawomir, 718 ~lruklik, Barbara, 149 Mucci, Egidio, 799-80 I MukafovskS,, Jan, 167, 184, 690, 693, 718-719,811,966 Millier, E., 1094-1095 MUiier, M., 179 Munson, Russell, 681 ~luratore, Giorgio, 952-955 Murray, Gilbert, 1106 Musset, 698 Myer ,J. R., 178 Myers, 1102-1104 Nasta, Michel, 333-335 Natanson, M., 304 Nattiez, Jean-Jacques, 195-203, 2S6, 981,998, 1026 Naud,Gillcs, 203n, 101S-1018 Navillc, Adrien, I 0, 82 Naville, P., 146n Neff, Cindy, 1117 Negro, Elena, 563 Netti, B., 198 Neuhaus. Heinz Joachim, 395-398 Neumann, J. von, 4S8

Newton, Isaac, 826 Niemeyer, 934 Nietzsche, F., 1141, 1146-1147, 11S0, 1152-1153 Nitschke, G., 178 Nixon, Richard Milhaus, 684, 78S Noble, C. E., 878 Nordon, Vincent, 148 Noreen, 337 Noske, Friis, 1019-1024 Nowakowska, Maria, 802-804 Odin, Roger, 147-148 Ogden, Ch. K., 329, 338, 941 Okndfava, Bulat, 728 Olson, Elder, I 08, 600 Oppenheim, S26 Orlando, Francesco, 20 I Ornitz, E., 1156-1 I S7 Orth, 305 Ortega y Gassel, J., 882 Osgood, Ch. E., 568, 1040 Osmond-Smith, David, 1025-1028 Ostrowetsky, Sylvia, 177, 179, 189, 193-194,918,956-959 Ozscb, Horanyi, 149 Pagenstecher, G., 1103 Pagnini, Marcello, 96-102, 252,859, 861n,874 l'alladio, 968 Panerai, P., 178,188,193,918 Panfilov, 6S8 Panofsky, E., 132-134, 250, 744, 747-748, 812 Pap ,leo,221n,336-340 Paredes, J. A., 241 Parrct, Herman, 341-344 l'arronchi, 747 Parsons, 276 Pascal, 1137 Pasolini, Pier Paolo, 149, I 54, 840n, 861n,878 Pasqualino, Antonio, 93, 429-432 Passeron, 797 Pasternak. Boris, 7 26-728 Pavel, Thomas G., 686-688 Pavese, 678 Pavis, Patrice, 88S-890 1233

ll'.OF.X

Pavlov, 3 I 7n, 9S4 Pawlak, Z., 180-18 I Peake , Mervyn, 682 Peano, G., 42 Pedroso, Braulio, 89S Pcircc,Ch.S.,4, 7-12, 14, 16-17,39, 42, S2-54,68, 79,130,136,154, 159,1 82 ,222,225,229-233,238, 250-251,253,269-270,272,279, 288, 299, 301, 3 I 5, 333, 336, 34 I, 360, 363, 503, 521, 528, 734 , 754,774,786,812-813,819, 822,874,885-890,904-908,938, 970,992, 1043, 1141 Pelc, Jerzy. 41-51 Pcllizzi, Carlo Matteo , 149 Ptninou, G., 145n l'ercheron, Daniel, 148 Peters, Jan Marie, 149 Pctilot-Cocorda, J., 189 Pctofi, Janos S., 113-127. 254, 545 Petofi, M., 70 l'etrarch, 585-587 Pfungst, 0., 239 Phillips, B., I 056 Piaget, J ., 430, 907, 1062, I I 561158, 1160, I 162 Piatigorski, A., 206,210,214 Pignatari, Decio. 269-273 Pignotti, Lamberto, 754, 756-757, 799,805-807 Pike, K. L., I 98, I 041 Pilard, Philippe, 148 Pinxten, Hendrik R., I I 54-1159 Pirandcllo, L., 69, 693, 837-839, 876,882-884 Pirro, 200 Piscator, Erwin, 834 Pizarro, Narcisco, 345-348 Placzewska, Mme, I 49 Plato, 898,904, 11 I 5, 1141 Plecy. A., I 46n Pliner, P., 235 Plutchik, 938 Podmore, 1103 Poe, Edgar Allan, 97 Poincar~. H., 467 Polhemus, T., 224 Pollock, Jackson, 814 1234

Pomorska, K., 85 Pop, Mihail, 94 Popa-Burca, Liana Schwartz, 476478 Popham, 746 Popper, Karl, 638 Poyatos, Fernando, 235, 237, 349355 l'osner, Roland , 689-697 Post, 509-5 I 0 Potebnja, A. , 531, 607 Powell, Baden, 897 Prcmack, A. J., 240, 1113 Premack, D., 240 Prete, Antonio, 149 Prieto, Luis J ., 55-6 7, 163-167, I 84185, 187, 192-193, 223, 251, 278, 280, 288-293, 337, 792793, 850, 860, 965-966, 10851086 Prior, A. N., 44 Propp, Vladimir Ja., 85-87, 89n, 9095, 96, I 88, 190, 254, 601, 725, 727. 742n. 795,874 Proust, 531,587, 635-636, 698 Provoost, Eric, 960-964 Pryluck, Calvin, 149 Przybot, J .• 604 Pugin, Auguste Welby, 906 Pumphrey, 242 Push kin, 0. S., 727-728 Quencau, 698 Querc, H., 541-545 Quine, W. V. 0., 19, 49,391, 751752 Quintilian, 110 Racine, 418 Radoi, Jon, 1052-1055 Radu, Cezar, 891-894 Raffa, P., 882 Rafncr Engel, Walburga von, 11161120 Ramat, Paolo, 68-81, 252 Rameau, 200 Ramirez, l'rancis, 148 Ramsden, I 103 Ransom, John Crowe, 598-600

INDl:X

Rastier, Fran~ois, 98, 594-595 Rauschner, Hans-Dieter, 471-475 Ravera, Rosa M., 808-811 Raymond, M., 194 Rector, ~lonka, 148, 895-900 Redlich, 1160 Reger, Max, 991 Reichenbach, H., 44 Reichlin, B., 186, 194n Reinhart, F., 186, I 94n Rembrandt van Rijn, 658 Rcn3rl, Jean, 671-676 R~nier, A., 188 Renucci, P., 882 Restany, Pierre, 815-818 ReV7.in, I. I., 558n, 863 Revzina, 0., 863 Rey, Alain, 812-814 Rey-Debove, Josette, 698-701 Ricardou, J ean, 148, 760 Ricci-Bitti, Pio E., 1121-1126 Richards, I. A., 329, 338, 94 I Richel, 1103 Ricoeur, P., 200, 1141 Riechenbach, 1141 Riedlinger, 84 Rieg), Alois, 753n Riemann, Hugo, 1003, 1008 Rieser, H., 81n Rigamonti, Gianlaziaro, 429-432 Righelli, G., 837 Rilkc, R. M., 631-632 Rimbaud, J.-A., 530 Ripa, Cesare, 132, 250, 812 Robbc-Grillet, Alain, 798 Rogers, Peter L., 1127-1132 Rogier, Pei re, 6 71 Rohrer, 554 Rollin, Bernard, 546-549 Rollot, Christian, 148 Ronchi, Y., I 93 Ropars-Wuillcumicr, Marie-Claire , 148, 155 Roporov, 208 Rose, 80n Rosenthal, Robert, 240, 1127-1132 Ross, A. S. C., 1041-1042 Rossi, Aldo, 98 Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio, 161-163,

275,356-359, 754-755 Rossini, I 023 Rostand, E., 593 Rousscau,J ..J.,668, 1146, 1150 Rovella, Angelo, 848-852 Rozcncvejg, V. J ., 5 58n Ruesch, J., 235 Ruffini, F., 858,860 Rumbaugh, D. M., 1113 Russell, Bertrand, 19, 42-43, 425426, 517, 519-520, 528, 1157 Russovich, Alejandro, 360-363 Rutelli, Romana, 702-708 Ruwet, Nicolas, 195, 198-199, 202, 256, 969, 981, 992, 998-999, 1003-1005, 1008, 1010, 1015, 1026 Ruzicka, R., 558n Ryle, Gilbert, 19 Ryzl, M., 1107 Sachs, J. S., 647 Sade, Marquis De, 639-643, 668669 Sagan, Fran~oisc, 698 Salomaas, A., 35 Sanchez de Zavala, Vicor, 573-57 5 Sander, L. W., 1097 Sandro, Paul, I 49 Sandulescu, Constantin-George, 709712 Sanguincti, 6 78, 754 Santayana, A. R. de, I 141 Sapir, E., 205, 223-224, 1041 Saraiva, A. J., 876 Sateanu, Corne), 550-553 Saumjan,Sebastian K.,403-406, 713, 1041 Saussure. See De Saussure, Ferdinand Sax!, 744 Scalia, 754 Scaliger, I 09 Scalvini, Maria Luisa, I 74, 179, I 92, 965-969 Slcg)ov, J. K ., 696 Slcrba, L., 7 I 5 Schacffner, Andr~, 998 Schaff, Adam, 67n, 387 Schank, 725 1235

INDEX

Schapiro, Meyer, 130-131, 136n, 250, 753n,812 Schefcr, J . L., 129 Scherer, K. R., 235 Scherzer·, Dina, I 073-1079 Scherzer, Joel, I 073-1079 Schiller, f. von, 714 Schlegel, Friedrich von, 243 Schlemmer, 747 Schmidt, S. J., 80n Schmoll, 1103 Schneider, David M., I 060 Schcfaberg, Arnold, 17 Schroder, E., 42 Schubert, F., 993 Schutz, Alfred, 304-308 Schutz, N. W. Jr., 234 Schveiger, Paul, I 056-1059 Schweitzer, A., 200 Schwimmer, Eric, 1060-1063 Scott, 45, 556 Searle, J. R., 73, 108,337, 778 Sebeok, Thomas A., 221-245, 309, 734 Scchchaye, Albert, 11, 13 Seeger, 196 Segal, 681-685 Segre, Cesare, 99-101, 149, 252-257 Semeka, E. S., I 064-1066 Semprun, 658 Serpan, 814 Sercovich, Armando, 819-822 Serpieri, Alessandro, 98, 1067-1072 Servien, P., 29, 984 Scurat,G., 131 ,135 Scuren, J ., 1041 Sgall, Petr, 554-559 Shakespeare, William, 590, 702-707, 876, 1031, 1067-1072 Shands, Harley C., 230, 1160-1166 Shannon,419 Shaw, G. 13., 853-854, 856-857 Shindo, 658 Sica, Vittoria da, 658 Sidgwick, !'.frs. Henry, 1108n Sidney, 109 Sieminska, Ewa, 149 Sieverts, T., 174 Silimbani, Anna, 1121-1126 1236

Silverstein, Norman, 149 Simonelli, G., 837 Simonin, 698 Sinclair, U.• 1103 Sivandon, P., 11SS Sklovskij, Victor, 85,690, 725 Slama-Cazacu, Tatiana, 291-292, 560-564 Smith, R. R., 235 Snow, C. P., 1139 Snow, R. C., 149 Socrates, 898 Sollers, 698 Souriau, E., 859, 874 Sova, L. Z., 407-411 Spearman, 660 Spcnder,Slcphcn,634 Spiegelberg, II., 305 Stafford, Philip 8., 244-245 Stalnaker, R. C., 73 Starobinski, Jean, 16 Stechler, G., I 097 Stefani, Gino, 993, 998, I 0291031 Steimbcrg, Oscar, 823-824 Stein, Gertrude, 1165 Steiner, 7 54 Steinthal, 244 Stempel, W. D .• 80n Stepanov, Yuri S., 713-716 Steriadi, Mariana, 479-482 Stern, D., I 098 Stevens, Kenneth N., 1096n Stevens, Wallace, 972 Stirling, James, 931-934 Stoian, Rodica, 261 Stojanovic, Dusan , 149 Strauss, E., I 136 Stravinsky, I., 17 Strawson, P. f., 48,556, SS8n Stumpf, 239 Sturges, J., 680n Styan, J. L., 856 Sullivan, 11 S7 Sus, Oleg, 717-720 Swift, J ., 109 Swincrs, J. L ., 146n Szalai, Alexander. 1040 Szasi, T. S., I 135

INDEX

Szekfu, 149 Szoke, P., 225 Szondi, P., 882 Tafuri, M. , 9 I 2 Tagg,S., 179,191 Tardicu, Jean, 873 Tardy,M., 146n Tarski, A., 42, 46 Tate, Allen, 598-599 Taylor, A., 1037 Tenny, 1008 Teodorescu, G. Dem., 1052 Tesni~re. 408 Thass-Thineman, 265 Thcodorcscu, D., I 87 Thibaut-Laulan, A.-M ., I 45n., 148 Thiel, Ph., 178 Thom, Rene, 13, 243 Thomas, Donald W., 399-402 Thompson, 450 Thompson, O'Arcy, 243 Thompson, Hunter S., 785 Thomson, James, 623 Thorpe, 227 Tischner, 1103 T6dorov, Tzvetan, 93, JOO, 103, 111, 294,594-595,721-724 Toft, Jens, 148 Tolkein, 682 Tolstoy, uo, 725 Tomassetti, Natale, I 49 Tomkins, G. M., 229 Toporov, V. N., 186,216,219 Toti, Gianni, 149 Trager, George, 337 Trnt Doc Thio, 1113-1114 Traversa. Oscar. 148 Trctiakoff, Andrt, 483-486 Trojan, Felix, I I 44 Trubetzkoy, N. S., 378-379, 381 Tstreteli, G., 596 Turing, 458 Turner, Victor, 1060, 1079n Tyndell, 1102 Tynjanov, Jurij, 98 Tyrrell, G. N. M., I I 07 Uexki.ill, J. von, 167-168, 223, 228, 492

Uexkiill, Thurc von, 168, 190, 487492 Ullman, M., 1103, I 108n Urban,Suzanne, 1158-1159 Urrutia, Jorge, 148 Usher Burt, I I 03 Uspenskij, V. A., 129,210,214,732 Uspieflski, B., 2 I 8 Uznadze , D. N., I 039 Valery, 696, 1147, 1149 Valesio, Paolo, 364-365 Vallier. Dora, 825-829 VanDijk,Teun, 106-107,545,696 Van Eyck, Jan, I 33 Van Gogh, Vincent, 658 Vanquois,181 Vasarely, 814 Vaschilde, I I 06 Vassiliev, L. L., 1103, 1106, 1108n Veblen, Thomstcin, 158,160 Vendome, Mathieu de, 250 Venturi, Robert, 970, 974-977 Vcrdi,G., 1019-1023 Vernet, Marc, 148 Vemey, Daniel, 493-495 Vcr6n, Eliseo, 148, 370-371, 536n, 809, 1060-1062 Veselovskij, A., 85 Vinsauf, Geoffroy de, 250 Vitruvius, 169-17 I Voegelin, Ch. F., 235 Voigt, Vilmos, 1080-1081 Vold, 1106 Volli, Ugo, 178, 190, 193, 565-568, 906-907 Voltaire, F. M. A. de, I 09, 682 Voss, Lola, 1158 Vrabic, Gh., 1052 Vygotskij, L. S., 725 Waddington, C. H., 243 Wadja, 658 Wagner, R., 200-201, 866, 993, 1019 Wahl, F., 596 Wald, Henri , 372- 374 Wald, Lucia, 569-572 Walther, Elisabeth, I 59, 333 1237

INDEX

Wittig, Susan, 970-978 Warburg, 744 Wittkower, R., 747 Warcollier, R .• 1103-1106, 1108n Warhol, Andy, 817 Wolf, G., 878-879 Wolf, Mauro, 737-743 Warren, A., 620 Washburn, Sherwood L., 229 Wolfe, J. B., 229 Watson, J. D., 4S6, 4S8-4S9 Wolff, P. H., I 094 Watt, Ian, 109 Wollen, Peter, 148, I SS, 679 Watzlawick, P., 303, 87S WollOin, 746 Woolf, Virginia, 63S-636 Weaver, Kathleen, viii Weinberg, Bernard, I 08, 600 Wordsworth, William, S29, I 146Weinreich, U., 223 1147, 1149-11 SO, 1152 Weinrich, llarald, 79, Sin Worth,Sol, 149, ISI, 154-IS S Wright, Frank Lloyd, 178, 18S, 188, Weiss, Peter, 876 Weitz, S., 23S 193,90S,969 Welby, Lady, 8, 338 Wright, G. H. von, 44 Wundt, W., 1040-1041 Wellek,Rcn~,60S,620,634 Wescott, R. W.• 234 West, Frank, 148 Xlebnikov, 827-828 Whitehead, A. N., 42, 42S-428 Whiten, Andrew, 226 Yartseva, V. N.,412-414 Whitman, Walt, S31 Yeats, W. B., S29 Whitney, William Dwight, 11-12 Young, John Z., 229 Whorf, B. L., 20S, 710-712, 1162 Wienold, Gotz, 78, I 90 Zacot, F., 188 Wigner, I 165 Zadeh, L. A., S6S-S66 Wilden, Anthony, 330 Zaliznjak, A., 186 Will, Otto, 1161 Zener, 317n Willemen, Paul, 148 Zeri, F., 746 Williams, Allan, 149 Zevi, B., I 74, 910 Wilner, 1163 Z'Graggen, Fran~is, 194n Winograd, SS8n Zipf, G. K., 385,419 Winogradov, 216 Zola, Emile, 698 Withe, John, 74 7 Zolkiewski, Stefan, 204-220 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, vii, 19, 22, 1olkovskij, A.K., 149, I 53, 696, 250, 303, 521, 525, 527, 747, 725-728, 1041 7S4, 1140 Zuber, Ryszard, 576-S79

1238