Theoretical Semics [Reprint 2018 ed.] 9783110877748, 9789027921161

Citation preview

DE PROPRIETATIBUS LITTERARUM edenda

curai

C. H . V A N S C H O O N E V E L D Indiana

University

Series Minor,

11

THEORETICAL SEMICS by

TREVOR EATON

1972

MOUTON THE HAGUE

•

PARIS

Copyright 1972 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N. V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

L I B R A R Y OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 70.189702

Printed in Hungary

To Beryl

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

9

PART ONE: ANALEPTIC THEORY

1.

2.

3.

Literary Semantics 1.1. The Linguistic Basis of Literary Semantics 1.2. The Organization of Literary Semantics . . Literary Semantics and Literary Criticism . . . . 2.1. The Bateson-Fowler Controversy . . . . 2.2. Literary Criticism 2.3. Academic Criticism 2.4. The Intersubjectivity of Literary Criticism Literary Semantics and Linguistic Analysis . . . 3.1. An Example of Linguistic Analysis . . . . 3.2. The Semantics of Literature and Linguistic Analysis 3.3. Empirical Semics and Linguistic Analysis . 3.4. Theoretical Semics and Linguistic Analysis

13 13 20 34 34 45 56 64 74 74 79 85 88

PART TWO: KINETIC THEORY

4.

Theoretical Semics 4.1. Literature and Science 4.2. Semantic Models 4.3. The Dynaxial Hypersphere 4.4. Dynamism and Facilitation

93 93 106 112 124

8

T A B L E OF

5.

CONTENTS

Applications of the Dynaxial Hypersphere . . . . 5.1. The Ontological Problem 5.2. The Concept of Grammaticality 5.3. The Imagination of the Child 5.4. Retardation of Language Learning Ability in the Teens 5.5. The Centrality of Consciousness 5.6. Indistinct Recollection 5.7. Dreaming and Poetic Creation 5.8. Deviation of Literary Language 5.9. Tension 5.10. Metaphor 5.11. Simile 5.12. Semic Accompaniment

135 135 136 137 137 138 138 140 144 145 146 149 149

A Glossary of Terms for Literary Semantics

152

Bibliography

165

1 ndex of Subjects

171

Index of Names

174

INTRODUCTION

This book consists of two parts: the analeptic theory and the kinetic theory. The analeptic theory is concerned with the structure of literary studies and their relation to the linguistic sciences. The kinetic theory illustrates the speculative possibilities of a psycholinguistic approach to literature. The first three chapters are devoted to the analeptic theory. Chapter 1, originally published in Linguistics under the title 'The Foundations of Literary Semantics'endeavours to classify literary studies in a scheme which is at once tidy and sane. The second Chapter brings the system outlined in Chapter 1 into confrontation with a literary critical exposition. Roger Fowler, in his discussion with F. W. Bateson, deliberately avoided such confrontation, and presented his case with considerable sympathy for, and even identification with, the literary critical point of view. The case offered in this chapter is specifically linguistic. Chapter 3 examines one specimen of linguistic analysis and enquires how this measures up to the analeptic framework proposed. Chapters 4 and 5, which constitute Part II, are a development of a paper 'Literary Semantics: A Speculative Model for Theoretical Semics', delivered at the Conference of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain in April 1969 at the University of York. The model is described in Chapter 4, and some possible applications are considered in Chapter 5. It is emphasized t h a t the model is not primarily constructed to deal with literature: the aim is to provide an extremely flexible psycholinguistic model capable of explaining, ultimately, all linguistic experience.

10

INTRODUCTION

A Glossary of Terms for Literary Semantics is appended. Turning to acknowledgements: I repeat what was implied in the Introduction to The Semantics of Literature, that the most powerful single influence upon my thinking has been the work of I. A. Richards. I would like to thank the following people for reading through, and commenting upon, various early drafts: Professor Stephen Ullmann and Mr. F. W. Bateson of the University of Oxford, Dr. W. J. M. Bronzwaer, of the University of Nijmegen, Mr. Roger Fowler of the University of East Anglia and Mr. Charles de Salis of Appledore. I am particularly indebted to Mr. H. M. Thickett, Head of the English Department at the Ashford Grammar School, for advice, criticism and encouragement. Mrs. J. Tindall and her Staff at the Ashford Public Library have cheerfully handled my requests for large numbers of books and journals. My thanks are also due to Mr. Graham Thomas of Ham Street for his careful reading of the final proofs. The Language Centre of the University of Kent at Canterbury has given me a great deal of help, both secretarial and academic. I would like to thank Miss Mabel Sculthorp, the Director, who permitted me to read an early draft at a Staff Seminar, and various other members of the Language Centre for comments. Most of all, I must register my gratitude to Mr. Günther Kress, Lecturer in Applied Linguistics at the University of Kent. He has discussed my notions in detail with me from the beginning; he has read drafts of every chapter and commented with unfailing courtesy and perception. Finally, I thank my wife for her criticism and tireless support. Ashford, Kent.

T. E.

'I-

X

È"E

II - ^

03 • ÍE

çS . ï Sc ?

— e