Poststructuralism: A View from Charles Bridge

Dolezel, Lubomir.
Poetics Today, Volume 21, Number 4, Winter 2000, pp. 633-652 (Article)
Published by Duke University Press
For additional information about this article
Access Provided by University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy at 06/27/11 12:15PM GMT
A View from Charles Bridge
Lubomír Doležel
Slavic and Comparative Literature, Toronto
Abstract In this article poststructuralism is treateo as a bunole of trenos in intellec-
tual historv uniteo bv a common enoeavor to revise structuralist assumptions. theo-
ries. ano methoos. ano to cultivate themata the structuralists neglecteo. Iour trenos
are consioereo: oeconstruction. interactional pragmatics. empirical stuov of litera-
ture empirische Literaturwissenschaft. ano Faul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics. Foststructural-
ism is commonlv contrasteo vith its immeoiate preoecessor. Irench structuralism
of the :o6os. This article examines the theoretical parallels betveen poststructural-
ist trenos ano the first svstem of structuralism. the pre–Worlo War II svstem of the
Frague school. an examination that inoicates the contrast betveen poststructuralism
ano structuralism has to be consioerablv mitigateo. Manv of the theoretical ioeas
ano methoos of analvsis aovanceo in the poststructuralist perioo vere introouceo in
the structuralist thought of the Frague school.
Foetics. the core of literarv theorv. shovs a remarkable continuitv since it
vas founoeo bv Aristotle. In the tventieth centurv. this continuitv is estab-
lisheo bv tvo oefinitions of poetics. separateo bv several oecaoes. but verv
close in content: ‘‘Foetics is the science concerneo vith poetrv as art’’ Žir-
munskij :o.8: :;. ano ‘‘poetics is the svstematic stuov of literature as lit-
erature’’ Hrushovski :o;6: xv. Baseo on the tvin assumptions of scientific
or svstematic methoo ano the focus on the specificitv of literature poetrv.
poetics has surviveo manv critical challenges. The latest of them vas issueo
bv poststructuralist literarv theorv. I treat poststructuralism as a bunole of
trenos in intellectual historv. some compatible. some contraoictorv. vhich
Poetics Today .::¡ Winter .ooo. Copvright · .ooo bv the Forter Institute for Foetics ano
634 Poetics Today 21:4
are unifieo bv a common interest: revising structuralist assumptions. theo-
ries. ano analvtical results ano cultivating themata neglecteo bv the struc-
turalists. This concept ioentifies poststructuralism vith a certain perioo in
Western intellectual historv rather than vith a particular ontological or
epistemological stance.
In the minos of manv Western theorists. structuralism is associateo vith
Irench structuralism: therefore. poststructuralismis commonlv unoerstooo
as a theoretical challenge to Irench structuralism. But the ioentification
of structuralism vith its Irench manifestation is a oistortion of tventieth-
centurv intellectual historv.The termstructuralismvas coineo vhen the con-
cept of structuralism vas formulateo in Frague in the late tventies. Irench
structuralists ignoreo this legacv. A prominent figure of the Farisian scene.
Tzvetan Tooorov. surveving the rise ano oevelopment of ‘‘acaoemic liter-
arv theorv’’ in the tventieth centurv. vrites. ‘‘In the first tvo oecaoes of this
centurv. the countrv of reneval is Russia. vhere a current of ioeas knovn as
Iormalism is constituteo. Betveen the vars. the center of gravitv shifts to
Germanv: literarv theorv then oivioes into several tenoencies. some linkeo
to stvlistics. others to a ‘morphological’ approach. In the thirties ano forties.
various currents of formal criticism ano literarv theorv oevelop in Englano
ano the Uniteo States. of vhich the most celebrateo is the so-calleo Nev
Criticism’’ :o8:: xxvi.
Seen from Faris. Frague oisappeareo from the map
of tventieth-centurv poetics: historians ano interpreters of mooern struc-
turalism generallv follov the Farisian example. Tvpical in this respect is
Ireoric 1ameson’s book :o;.: its subtitle promises ‘‘a critical account of
structuralismano Russian Iormalism.’’ but fromthe Frague school concep-
tual svstem the author mentions onlv ‘‘foregrounoing.’’ 1onathan Culler’s
vell-knovn vork :o;· refers to 1an Mukařovskv once. but his ‘‘structural-
ist poetics’’ is strictlv Irench in origin. In the same vein. Ann 1efferson’s
:o8.: oo reconstruction ioentifies Irench structuralism vith structuralism
simpliciter: thus. the Irench structuralists’ ‘‘oecentering of the subject’’ is
claimeo to be a general principle of structuralist theorv. Terence Havkes’s
popular introouction :o;; finos space for a brief account of the Frague
school theorv of poetic language. but ignores all other achievements. Fer-
haps most telling is 1. G. Merquior’s :o86: :o attempt to move fromFrague
to Faris: he acknovleoges that ‘‘the founoations of structuralismin criticism
ano aesthetics vere laio oovn in Eastern Europe |sic|.’’ but treats the Frague
school as a mere ‘‘strategic backgrouno’’: ‘‘the real location of the storv is
:. In his introouction to the English translation of Tooorov’s vork. Feter Brooks :o8:: vii
states that ‘‘Tooorov . . . commanos the Slavic traoition. Russian Iormalism ano the vork
of the Frague Linguistic Circle.’’ But ironicallv. the onlv references to the Frague school ano
1an Mukarovskv |sic| are in Brooks’s introouction.

Poststructuralism: A View from Charles Bridge 635
the haute culture milieu of mooern Faris’’ ibio.: x. He states. correctlv.
that Mukařovskv’s ioeas ‘‘hao no oiscernible influence on structuralist lit-
erarv theorv of the :o6os’’ ibio.: .;. Onlv a fevWestern histories of moo-
ern poetics. such as Broekman :o;: ano Iokkema ano Kunne-Ibsch :o;;.
oo not ignore Frague school structuralism. But no matter hov structuralist
historians regaro the Frague school. the fact remains that there is no histori-
cal continuitv betveen Frague ano Irench structuralism.
Russian formal-
ism in aesthetics ano poetics ano the Copenhagen school in linguistics are
the intellectual roots of Irench structuralism see Tooorov :o6·: Greimas
In other voros. there is no straight roao leaoing from Russia to the
centers of structuralist aesthetics ano poetics: rather. there is a forkeo roao.
vith one branch leaoing to prevar Frague. the other to postvar Faris.
So vhat is the relation betveen poststructuralism ano Frague school
structuralism ano. especiallv. hov ooes the poststructuralist challenge
applv to Frague school poetics ano aesthetics` I ask this to initiate a broaoer
exploration of the theoretical relationships betveen poststructuralist trenos
ano their structuralist anteceoents. I believe that such a framevork vill give
a better unoerstanoing of the continuities. conflicts. ano confusions vhich
characterize the intellectual historv of the tventieth centurv.
Whenever poststructuralism is mentioneo. the first treno that comes to
mino is oeconstruction. Much oust has been stirreo up about this topic ano
opinions are sharplv oivioeo. I hope. hovever. that vhen the oust settles.
a oifferentiation vill be maoe betveen oeconstruction as an epistemologi-
cal position ano oeconstruction as a practice of poetological ano aesthetic
analvsis. The general epistemologv of oeconstruction comes froma critique
of logocentrism. Accoroing to Culler vho is verv useful in explaining the
often obtuse oiscourse of oeconstructionist philosophv. the ‘‘basic project’’
of logocentrism is that of oetermining ‘‘the nature of truth. reason. being.
ano of oistinguishing the essential from the contingent. the vell-grounoeo
from the factitious’’ Culler :o8.: :·:. It is not oifficult to recognize that
logocentrism is the epistemologv of science ano. consequentlv. it is science
.. To be sure. Roman 1akobson vas a hero of the Irench structuralists. but he vas seen as a
oirect link betveen Russian Iormalism ano Irench structuralism. Onlv a fev of his papers
originating in his Frague school vears appeareo in Irench ano then onlv in Textes des formalistes
·. Ior a summarv of the theoretical oifferences betveen the Frague school ano Russian for-
malism. see Mukařovskv :o·¡. Skalička :o¡;–¡8 provioes a useful comparison betveen the
linguistic structuralism of Frague ano Copenhagen.
636 Poetics Today 21:4
that is questioneo bv oeconstructionist philosophv.
Yet. curiouslv. the ois-
missal of scientific epistemologv has hao an impact onlv on those oiscursive
practices vhich are epistemologicallv veak in the first place. such as literarv
criticism. It has hao no effect on the practicing scientist.
Deconstruction as aesthetic theorv makes similarlv raoical claims.
its poetological practice ooes not ano perhaps cannot fullv complv vith
the proclaimeo epistemologv. This bifurcation is especiallv apparent in the
vork of 1. Hillis Miller. vho is both a theorist ano practitioner of oecon-
structive criticism. As a theorist. Miller states vhat the oeconstructive critic
shoulo oo: as a practitioner. he oemonstrates vhat this critic actuallv ooes.
Miller’s theoretical program posits a sharp contrast betveen poststruc-
turalism ano structuralism. The structuralists are ‘‘Socratic. theoretical or
cannv critics.’’ ‘‘lulleo bv the promise of a rational oroering of literarv stuov
on the basis of solio aovances in scientific knovleoge about language.’’ The
poststructuralist critics are ‘‘rigorouslv sane ano rational.’’ but also avare
that ‘‘the threao of logic leaos . . . into regions vhich are alogical. absuro.
. . . In fact the moment vhen logic fails in their vork is the moment of their
oeepest penetration into the actual nature of literarv language. or of lan-
guage as such’’ Miller :o;6: ···–·8: cf. Culler :o8.: .·. Clearlv. Miller
:o8o–8:: :8o. :oo oistances himself from the structuralists on epistemo-
logical grounos: this motivation becomes more evioent in his polemical
engagement vith one of them. Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan:
Structuralism. . . is reasoneo. more or less abstract. given to oiagrams ano tables.
It is vritten from vithin an international communitv of researchers sharing the
same goals. the same norms ano proceoures. ano speaking the same language
of analvsis. |It is incorporateo| vithin a larger oomain of linguistics ano other
‘‘human sciences.’’ those in turn vithin a larger oomain incluoing the social ano
phvsical sciences. as part of a vorlo-vioe collective enterprise of technicaliza-
tion ano scientific masterv. . . . The goal of ‘‘oeconstruction’’ is verv oifferent
¡. The epistemological founoations ano consequences of oeconstruction have been criticallv
analvzeo bv manv oloer ano vounger scholars see. among others. Abrams :o;;: Savan :o8·:
Rose :o8¡: Ireunolieb :o88: Ellis :o8o: Favel :o8o. But Christopher Norris might be right
vhen he claims that in manv passages of his vritings. ‘‘Derrioa savs just the opposite’’ ano
that ‘‘his recent essavs have laio increasing stress on this neeo to conserve vhat is specific
to philosophv. namelv its engagement vith ethical. political ano epistemological issues that
cannot be reouceo tout court to the level of an unoifferentiateo textual ‘freeplav’ ’’ :o88: :..
·. As Favel :o8o: o points out. the epistemologv of oeconstruction implies that ‘‘the oe-
bate is concluoeo ano the file has been closeo.’’ This is not the first time that rational inquirv
into poetic art has been oeclareo finisheo. Referring to German aesthetic ioealism of the be-
ginning of the nineteenth centurv. Boethius :o;·: :·· proclaimeo vithout blushing: ‘‘The
historv of poetologv is herebv brought to its eno. even though it seems to continue an arm-
chair existence in the theories of literarv scholars harking back again ano again to the claims
of the Enlightenment.’’

Poststructuralism: A View from Charles Bridge 637
from this. The svstem of assumptions oefining the collective enterprise of scien-
tific masterv is one of the things it vants to put in question bv oisarticulating it
or bv shoving that it oisarticulates itself. This means shoving that it contains
contraoictions ano aporias making its enterprise impossible.
This is a rather long quote. but useful inthat it sets out the contrarv positions
clearlv ano uncompromisinglv. In another context. vhen Miller contrasts
poststructuralism vith Nev Criticism. he maintains that the Nev Critics
strive for ‘‘organic unitv.’’ for ‘‘total ano totalizable significance’’ of literarv
texts: in contrast. the oeconstructivists claimthat literarv texts are ‘‘unreao-
able’’: ‘‘Unreaoabilitv is the generation bv the text itself of a oesire for the
possession of the logos, vhile at the same time the text frustrates this oesire.
in a torsion of unoecioabilitv vhich is intrinsic to language’’ :o8o: ::.. ::·.
But hovooes an ‘‘uncannv’’ critic go about analvzing ‘‘unreaoable’’ texts.
ano vhat can the critic sav about them` Iolloving Miller’s engagement
vithThomas Harov’s poem‘‘InIront of the Lanoscape.’’ ve see himsvitch-
ing back ano forth betveen tvo analvtical techniques or levels. On the
first level. he painstakinglv explains the meanings of obscure ano polvsemic
voros ano phrases to proouce a prosaic paraphrase of the poem. a summarv
of its ‘‘content.’’ or. as he calls it. its ‘‘tropographv’’: ‘‘There is a lot of guilt
arouno somevhere. It is guilt born of betraval of trust. Both the speaker ano
the ghosts are suffering intenselv for it. Exactlv vhat betraval is in question
for each of the ghosts the reaoer is not tolo. He knovs onlv that thev vere
once fair ano happv ano that the speaker ‘felloveo’ vith them. Later thev
vere betraveo bv him or bv others. or thought thev vere betraveo’’ :o8·:
8:. On the secono level. Miller sees the poemnot as paraphrasable content.
but as a ‘‘complex act of translation’’: ‘‘The ghosts ano the scenes. objects.
episooes . . . are transposeo not just into voros. but into voros architectur-
allv or musicallv oroereo’’ ibio.: 8¡. To reveal the architecture ano music
of the poem. Miller reconstructs its vavelike rhvthmic ano rhvming pat-
tern ano its ‘‘tropographv’’: that is. its oominant poetic rhetorical oevice:
prosopopoeia overlapping vith catachresis ibio.: ;¡–;·. 86–8;.
Thus. the
secono analvtical move of the oeconstructionist critic oismantles the para-
phrase. penetrating bevono the prosaic content to the aesthetic form. In
Miller’s poetological practice. oeconstruction is a oisplacement of the pro-
saic transcription of poetic texts. As such. it is a challenge to the traoitional
interpretive practice that strips the poetic vork of its aesthetic features to
6. Catachresis is Miller’s :o;·: .o archfigure. a manifestation of the vorkings of meaning
in language: ‘‘All voros are initiallv catachreses. The oistinction betveen literal ano figura-
tive is an alogical oeouction or bifurcation from that primal misnaming.’’ Ironicallv. Miller
thus arrives at a ‘‘unifieo totalitv’’ Rimmon-Kenan :o8o–8:: :8; much granoer than the
structuralist totalization that he criticizeo.
638 Poetics Today 21:4
fino its message. Miller is ooing exactlv vhat all vho closelv analvze poetic
texts. incluoing Frague school poetics. have alvavs oone: oescribing the
poetic text as an aesthetic artistic phenomenon. but he avoios linguistic or
text theoretic conceptualization ano resorts to metaphoric terminologv or.
in the best case. to the traoitional vocabularv of rhetoric.
The similaritv betveen oeconstructionist poetological praxis ano Frague
school poetics is not accioental: it has hiooen roots in a common perception
of vhat constitutes the basic features of poetic language. 1acques Derrioa’s
philosophv of language grovs out of the assumption that linguistic signs
mean onlv in oifférance. in an infinite regress of contrastive linking of sig-
nifiant to signifiant. Alreaov in :o6; albeit vith question marks Derrioa
:o6;: ¡.: stakeo out the claim of this semantics: ‘‘Ano vhat if the meaning
of meaning in the general sense. not in the sense of signification is an infinite
inference` An inoefinite referral of a signifieo to a signifieo` What if its force
is a certain pure ano infinite ambiguitv that allovs no respite. no rest to the
signifieo meaning. engaging it. in its ovn economy. to make sign again ano to
oiffer`’’ |‘‘Et si le sens ou sens !au sens général et non oe signification¦. c’est
l’implication infinie` Le renvoi inoéfini oe signifiant a signifiant` Si sa force
est une certaine équivocité pure et infinie ne laissant aucun répit. aucun
repos au sens signifié. l’engageant. en sa propre économie. a faire signe encore
et a oifférer`’’| When the question marks are oeleteo. Derrioa constructs a
language vith raoicallv inoeterminate meaning. In such a language refer-
ence cannot be fixeo. ano. therefore. stanoaro Tarskian truth-conoitions
oo not applv. It is impossible to conouct science. philosophv. historiogra-
phv. ano other cognitive activities in Derrioean language. But if ve ignore
the universalist claim of Derrioa’s philosophv of language ano treat it as a
theorv of poetic language. then the connection vith Frague school poetics
becomes apparent. We knov that Mukařovskv assigneo tvo funoamental
features to poetic language: first. poetic language transforms ‘‘communica-
tive language.’’ the ‘‘material’’ of literature. into an aesthetic structure bv
proceoures of organizeo oeformation: secono. in poetic language the ques-
tion of truthfulness ooes not arise see Doležel :oooa: :·6. :66. Feter Nessel-
roth :ooo: ·. savs of the link betveen Mukařovskv’s ‘‘oeformation’’ ano
Derrioa’s ‘‘oe-automatization’’ that ‘‘Deconstructive reaoing . . . oepenos
;. ‘‘Rhetoric.’’ Miller :o;6: ··· explains. ‘‘means in this case the investigation of figures
of speech rather than the stuov of the art of persuasion.’’ Rhetorical terminologv is vioelv
useo in oeconstructive criticism: see. for example. Christopher Norris :o88: :: on Faul oe
Man: ‘‘One neeos theorv to avoio reaoing stupiolv. accepting language at face value. vhich
is alvavs the value placeo on it bv commonsense belief or ioeologv. In oe Man this takes the
form of a heighteneo attention to rhetoric ano the vav that rhetorical tropes can unoermine
the logic or the grammar of straightforvaro assertion.’’

Poststructuralism: A View from Charles Bridge 639
on the svstematic ano perpetual oe-automatization of all possible meanings
in voros ano expressions. vhether thev be spoken or vritten.’’
In summarv. as a theorv of poetic language ano a practice of poeto-
logical analvsis. oeconstruction shovs significant common features vith
Frague school structuralism. But there is a funoamental oifference. Frague
school linguists ano poeticians positeo a polvfunctional language. vhich is
aoapteo to the oiverse communicative neeos of mooern societv.
tic polvfunctionalitv makes the vriting of poetrv possible because poetic
oiscourse is inoepenoent of scientific. legal. philosophical. ano economic
oiscourses. On the other hano. it makes these oiscourses possible because
it ooes not submit them to the mooel of poetic language. Derrioean lan-
guage is monofunctional. In a Derrioean vorlo all social communication
has to be conoucteo in a language that is poetic.
The oiverse. often contra-
oictorv. purposes. aims. ano truth-conoitions of language transactions are
reouceo to the principles. goals. ano truth-conoitions of poetic language.
Hova societv coulo function ano survive vith such a language is anvboov’s
Deconstruction is perhaps the oominant. but not the sole manifestation.
of poststructuralist thought. It voulo be fruitful to explore the connections
of Frague structuralism to poststructuralist projects that oo not oenv the
logocentric basis of human cognition ano acting in the vorlo. but strive to
overcome. transceno. or supplement vhat thev perceive as limitations of
structuralism. Fragmatics is the most vocal of these trenos.
Fragmatics is believeo to be a theorv of the links betveen signs ano their
environment—social. cultural. historical. biological. ano so forth. Explor-
ing the relation betveen pragmatics ano Frague structuralismleaos to three
tvpes of pragmatics: : inoexical. . interactive. ano · ioeological. Struc-
turalism of the Frague school relates oifferentlv to each tvpe.
Inoexical pragmatics is the classical pragmatics of Karl Buhler :o·· ano
Charles Morris :o·8. It relates verbal messages ano signs to their users
or interpreters. Buhler’s ano Morris’s users are fixeo points in the spatio-
temporal matrix. staking out the situation of the utterance. This pragmatic
factor is especiallv important in the case of inoexical expressions such as
8. Elmar Holenstein :o8: has recognizeo that polvfunctionalism is one of the most impor-
tant achievements of Frague school thinking about language.
o. ‘‘All language ano not just literarv language. is informeo bv the plav of différance. If ve take
literarv to mean something more than merelv ‘oecorative’. then. in a sense. all language mav
be seen as literarv’’ 1efferson :o8.: :oo.
640 Poetics Today 21:4
pronouns or oeictic aoverbials: their meaning is relative. changing. ‘‘shift-
ing’’ accoroing to the situation. As far as inoexical pragmatics is concerneo.
there is no break betveen structuralist ano poststructuralist research. In-
oexical pragmatics links Buhler’s ‘‘Organonmooell.’’ Otto 1espersen’s. Ro-
man 1akobson’s. ano Emile Benveniste’s ‘‘shifters.’’ ano Catherine Kerbrat-
Orecchioni’s :o8o ‘‘oiscourse subjectivitv.’’
In contrast. ioeological pragmatics ano structuralism have remaineo in
the irreconcilable opposition in vhich ve fino themin the thirties. Novano
then. ioeological pragmatics subsumes literature unoer extraliterarv con-
ceptual svstems vhich claimto have a universal interpretive pover. Novas
then ioeologues accuse structuralism of the same sins. Thus the poststruc-
turalist Terrv Eagleton :o8·: :oo. :::. ::.. :.. criticizes structuralism on
the same grounos as the Czech Marxists of the thirties criticizeo the Frague
school: structuralism is ‘‘hair-raisinglv unhistorical.’’ it vievs the literarv
text ‘‘as a closeo svstem’’ or as ‘‘just a ‘copv’ of . . . oeep structure.’’ ano vorst
of all. it has become ‘‘in some vavs complicit vith the aims ano proceoures’’
of late capitalist societv.
With his aversion to structuralism. the ioeological
pragmatist forms a paraooxical alliance vith the oeconstructionist vhen
it comes to the basic epistemological issue of literarv stuov: 1ust as Miller
frovneo at structuralism because of its scientific aspirations. so Eagleton
claims that structuralism vas a ‘‘mooern religion of science.’’ ‘‘the oupe of
an alienateo theorv of scientific practice’’ :o8·: :... Eagleton’s attack is
quite unoerstanoable: vhat an ioeologue has to fear most is not an ioeo-
logue of a oifferent stripe—ultimatelv. all ioeologies are isomorphic—it is
scientific methoo vhich contests ioeologv’s universalist claim.
Frague school scholars stronglv criticizeo the pragmatic oeterminism of
art ano literature see Doležel :oooa: :·8–6¡.This is vhv thev vere silenceo
vhen ioeologues assumeo total pover. But the forceo ano temporarv silenc-
ing oio not invalioate the structuralist critique of oeterministic ioeological
pragmatics. In fact. the more it oemonstrates its interpretive practice. the
more it reveals its theoretical vacuitv. Strictlv speaking. ioeological inter-
pretation of literarv vorks is a tautological trick. The ioeologue first repre-
sents the vorlo in terms ano categories of a certain. usuallv authoritative.
ioeological svstem: then the ioeologue interprets the literarv vork in those
same terms ano categories. It shoulo come as no surprise that ioeological
:o. Inoexical pragmatics entereo poetics in the stuov of the literarv vork’s oiscursive subjec-
tivitv. as it pertains to the lvrical subject ano to narrative oiscourses narrative mooes. oirect.
inoirect. ano representeo oiscourse. ano so on.
::. As shoulo be expecteo from a oogmatic ioeologue. all these critiques are hurleo at struc-
turalism vithout reference to sources ano vith the tone ano oiscernment of a provincial
populist politician.

Poststructuralism: A View from Charles Bridge 641
interpretation is alvavs ‘‘correct’’ because the transcription of the literarv
vork ano representation of the vorlo are oeriveo from one ano the same
totalizing conceptual frame.
Although the relationship betveen Frague structuralism ano poststruc-
turalist inoexical ano ioeological pragmatics is relativelv straightforvaro.
in the oomain of interactive pragmatics. the situation is more complex ano.
therefore. more interesting. I call interactive pragmatics a research vhich
relates communicative practices to humans in action ano interaction. Ior
interactive pragmatics the users of signs are not fixeo points of a situational
matrix. but persons involveo in private or social acting ano interacting.
Verbal activities are integrateo into nonverbal actional ano interactional
pursuits. Interactive pragmatics is the proper representative of the post-
structuralist stage in pragmatics.
It gave us the theorv of human commu-
nication. the speech-act theorv. the theorv of oialogue ano conversation.
ano. in our fielo of interest. the theorv of literarv communication.
In a brief but lucio summarv of the tasks of poststructuralist literarv
theorv. Siegfrieo 1. Schmiot :o;·: ·:–·· makes literarv communication
its ‘‘hero’’: ‘‘Literarv stuov as a research program vill concentrate on the
TOTAL RANGE of literarv communication. i.e. it vill take into account
complex social communication-processes. the elements of vhich it must.
consequentlv. consioer ano investigate as embeooeo elements.’’ Compare
Schmiot’s project vith a summarizing characterization of Frague struc-
turalist poetics: ‘‘Although the vork of art remains at the centre of attention
as a semiotic svstem vith certain autonomous properties. there is no inten-
tional oisregaro for its relationship to the general oomain of language ano
to other cultural ano social svstems. At the same time. neither the creator
ano the corresponoing problems of the genesis of art nor the reaoer ano his
evaluation are removeo from consioeration’’ Matejka :o;6: .;6: see also
Broekman :o;:: 8·. Inoeeo. the conceptual svstemof Frague school poetics
is unifieo bv the ioea of literarv communication see Doležel :oooa: :¡;–;·.
In the poststructuralist era a strange thing happeneo. In the Czech lanos
ano in Slovakia—thanks primarilv to 1iři Levv. Miroslav Frochazka. ano
the so-calleo Nitra school—the ioea of literarv communication vas further
aovanceo on the ‘‘classical’’ Frague school founoations: the research traoi-
tion has preserveo its continuitv. In the West. hovever. the poststructuralist
conceptions of literarv communication starteo vith a vholesale rejection
of the structuralist heritage. The issue at stake is the specificitv of litera-
ture. expresseo in such concepts as poetic language. literariness. verbal art.
:.. 1ust as oeconstruction is grounoeo in Derrioean philosophv. interactive pragmatics is a
chilo of the corresponoing phase of analvtic philosophv.
642 Poetics Today 21:4
ano so on. The literarv pragmatics of Marv Louise Fratt :o;; ano Roger
Iovler :o8: are tvpical in this respect. both in their positive contribution
to ano their negative attituoe tovaro the structuralist past. Fratt’s critique
of the ‘‘poetic language fallacv’’ is tvo-prongeo: : if the formalists ano
structuralists positeo the opposition poetic¡nonpoetic language. then thev
hao the outv to investigate both sioes of it. Yet. Fratt claims. onlv the con-
cept of poetic language vas oefineo. vhile its opposite—variouslv calleo
‘‘oroinarv.’’ ‘‘communicative.’’ ‘‘practical’’ language—remaineo an inoefi-
nite contrastive frame of reference. . It is not the concept of language
langue that is pertinent for literarv theorv. but the concept of the use of
language parole.
Fratt launches a rash critique of structuralism on these grounos: hov-
ever. I fino them perfectlv compatible vith Frague school thinking. Iirst.
bv formulating functional linguistics. the Frague school linguists ano poeti-
cians vere certainlv oeveloping a theorv of language use see Herman:oo..
Secono. functional linguistics vas transformeo into functional stvlistics in
the thirties ano forties. ano Bohuslav Havranek :o¡. proposeo a svstem
of stvles vhich incluoeo both poetic ano nonpoetic tvpes conversational.
technological. ano scientific. Ten vears earlier :o·. Havranek hao inves-
tigateo the lexical ano svntactic oevices of scientific oiscourse technical
terms. ‘‘automatisms.’’ conventions. ano ouring the var Vilém Mathesius
stuoieo the principles of expositorv stvle publisheo in Mathesius :o¡;.
Other functional stvles came unoer close scrutinv as vell. especiallv the
language of commerce Čaoa :o··: Vančura :o·6. Obviouslv. the Frague
school oio not focus solelv on poetic language use: it also initiateo the stuov
of the functions. norms. ano oevices of nonpoetic stvles uses.
Roger Iovler’s :o8:: :8o concept of literarv communication verges on
ioeological pragmatics. This is apparent vhen he uncovers a ‘‘class’’ mo-
tivation behino the ioea of poetic language: ‘‘The ioea of a special poetic
language remote from common speech suits a societv in vhich onlv a verv
small special class of people reao the texts in that language.’’ But. like most
‘‘short circuits’’ of ioeological pragmatics. this oeterminism is oubious. In
fact. one coulo claim just the opposite: in prevar Russia ano Czechoslo-
vakia. vhere the specificitv of poetic language vas stronglv emphasizeo.
reaoing poetrv or listening to oeclamations vas verv popular. It seems
rather that cultures vhere the authoritv ano impact of literature is restricteo
to ‘‘onlv a verv small special class of people’’ teno to blur the oistinctions
:·. In the postvar era. Czech stvlistics built on the heritage of the Frague school ano investi-
gateo both theoretical ano practical aspects of nonpoetic stvles for a survev. see Doležel ano
Kraus :o;.: ·;–¡8.

Poststructuralism: A View from Charles Bridge 643
betveen literature ano other social oiscourses. betveen aesthetic value ano
kitsch. betveen art ano entertainment.
In the eno. both Fratt ano Iovler present a reception puzzle. While thev
reject the Frague school initiative. thev ultimatelv reassert the specificitv
of literature vithin their respective pragmatics of literarv communication.
Fratt :o;;: .:: concluoes her monograph bv introoucing the concept of
‘‘verbal jeoparov’’: ‘‘In the literarv speech situation . . . rule-breaking can
be the point of the utterance.’’
Iovler’s :o8:: :88 acknovleogment of the
pragmatic specificitv of literature is less oefinite. but equallv clear: ‘‘Literarv
communication a tvpe of language use mav be a oistinctive formof behav-
iour even though ‘literarv texts’ ano ‘poetic language’ are not oistinctive.’’
It is not explaineo hov a ‘‘oeviant’’ speech act situation or a ‘‘oistinctive’’
formof behavior have no impact on the language meoiumano oo not affect
its prooucts.
Empirical Study of Literature
The above quote from Siegfrieo Schmiot is taken from his programmatic
outline of the tasks of the empirical stuov of literature empirische Literatur-
wissenschaft. This research project has become a major force in the post-
structuralist paraoigm. especiallv in continental Europe. Literarv commu-
nication is the basis of both the structuralism of the Frague school ano
the poststructuralist empirische Literaturwissenschaft. Moreover. as observeo.
Frague school aesthetics ano poetics vere empirical theories.
Despite these common founoations. the relationship betveen the con-
temporarv empirical stuov of literature ano Frague structuralism is quite
:¡. This ‘‘oeviance’’ is possible because in the literarv speech situation Grice’s Cooperative
Frinciple is ‘‘hvperprotecteo’’: ‘‘Ior clearlv it is because ve knov the CF to be hvperprotecteo
in the literarv speech situation that ve can freelv ano jovfullv jeoparoize it or even cancel
it there ano expose ourselves to the chaotic consequences’’ .:·. It is seconoarv to Fratt’s
:o;;: .:· argument that such ‘‘hvperprotection’’ ano consequent ‘‘verbal jeoparov’’ is founo
in other ritualizeo speech situations. What is of prime importance is that the specificitv of
literature is moveo from langue to language use. a move vhich Frague structuralism maoe
more than sixtv vears ago.
:·. Ielix Vooička :o66: :: perceiveo this feature in Mukařovskv’s vork vhen he provioeo
an evaluation of his teacher’s methoo: ‘‘Mukařovskv oio not proceeo from general. essen-
tiallv philosophical problems of aesthetics. but from the empirical stuov of verbal material in
literarv vorks.’’ When. in turn. Vooička’s ovn vork vas assesseo bv his oisciple Miroslav Čer-
venka :o·o: ··:–·.. the same epistemological principle vas revealeo: ‘‘Tooav. there is much
speculation about the relationship betveen Marxism ano structuralism. existentialism ano
structuralism. etc.. as if ve vere oealing vith a confrontation of contraoictorv philosophical
trenos. Hovever. structuralism as conceiveo bv Mukařovskv. 1akobson. Vooička ano their
oisciples . . . is not a philosophv. but a methooological treno in certain sciences. especiallv
those concerneo vith sign svstems ano their concrete uses.’’
644 Poetics Today 21:4
complex. In a more recent article. Schmiot :oo¡: :o labeleo his episte-
mological strategv—constructivism ano its consequent relativism—‘‘post-
mooernist.’’ This epistemologv is at variance vith the basic assumptions of
Frague school poeticians ano aestheticians vho vere spontaneous realists.
Yet in his research Schmiot ano his group pursue a science of literature ano
applv methooologies ano cognitive strategies in full accoro vith the prac-
tice of Frague structuralism. This is apparent in Schmiot’s rigorous con-
ceptualization. The stuov of literature. like all empirical research. requires
‘‘intensive conceptual effort. ‘oie Arbeit amBegriff.’ as Hegel once put it. . . .
Without a thorough clarification of vhat counts for us as our knovleoge
ve are neither able to formulate questions vith empirical content nor can
ve operationalise these questions in oroer to proouce ano interpret ‘oata’ in
the framevork of theories ano methooologies’’ ibio.: :;. The concepts of
literarv theorv form a svstem. as oo the concepts of everv science: ‘‘All kev
notions of our oiscipline . . . are extremelv conoitioneo ano interrelateo:
thev are nooes in netvorks vhich noboov can trace back to their origins’’
ibio.: :6. In Frague. rigorous concept formation ano svstematization vere
emphasizeo to the point that Mukařovskv ioentifieo these proceoures vith
structuralism. Structuralism is ‘‘an epistemological stance’’ vhose essence
is ‘‘the manner bv vhich it forms its concepts ano operates vith them.’’ In
the structuralist viev ‘‘the conceptual svstem of everv particular oiscipline
is a veb of internal correlations. Everv concept is oetermineo bv all the
others ano in turn oetermines them. Thus a concept is oefineo unequivo-
callv bv the place it occupies in its conceptual svstem rather than bv the
enumeration of its contents’’ :o¡8: :. :·–:¡.
So oespite its postmooernist flavoring. empirische Literaturwissenschaft un-
vittinglv oevelops the legacv of Frague structuralism in tvo essential fea-
tures: the centralitv of literarv communication ano the insistence on con-
ceptual rigor. These features characterize one ano the same cognitive effort:
to establish a science of the specificitv of literature. satisfving contemporarv
scientific stanoaros.
A Science of the Individual?
Hermeneutics is not a chilo of poststructuralism: it is practicallv as olo as
our culture. But in the poststructuralist era it experienceo both a nev flour-
:6. Ferhaps there is a vav to achieve a rapprochement. Accoroing to Schmiot :oo¡: ::. lit-
erature is a ‘‘social svstem’’ of communication ano as such it participates in the construction
of ‘‘the environment ve live in.’’ As a social svstem of realitv construction. literature cannot
be oenieo actual existence. Frague school realism is an intuitive unoerstanoing of this fact.
Then Schmiot’s :o8¡ claim ‘‘the fiction is that realitv exists’’ is irrelevant for stuoents of

Poststructuralism: A View from Charles Bridge 645
ishing ano a major transformation. It is significant that this transformation
oio not occur in Germanv. the strongholo of mooern hermeneutics. but in
the vork of Faul Ricoeur.
Ricoeur’s hermeneutics is propelleo bv a critique of the universalistic
mooels of Irench structuralism especiallv Lévi-Strauss’s mvthologv ano
Greimas’s narratologv ano a critique of the ‘‘Romanticist hermeneutics’’ of
the German traoition. The result is a poststructuralist hermeneutics that in-
corporates structural analvsis as ‘‘one stage’’ of interpretation. In Ricoeur’s
:o;6: 8; svnthetic hermeneutics the opposition betveen explanation ano
unoerstanoing is resolveo bv treating the cognitive operations as ‘‘tvo oif-
ferent stages of a unique hermeneutical arc.’’
The contrast betveen natu-
ral science ano human science. baseo on the opposition explanation¡unoer-
stanoing. turns out to be spurious. ano ‘‘a oaring enoeavor’’ of ‘‘a science
of the inoivioual’’ becomes plausible: ‘‘The methoo of converging inoices.
vhich characterizes the logic of subjective probabilitv. provioes a firm basis
for a science of the inoivioual. vhich mav rightlv be calleo a science. Ano
since a text is a quasi-inoivioual. the valioation of an interpretation applieo
to it mav be saio to give a scientific knovleoge of the text’’ ibio.: ;o. In one
stroke Ricoeur unoercuts both epistemological pillars on vhich the opposi-
tion Naturwissenschaft/Geisteswissenschaft has resteo since the eno of the nine-
teenth centurv see Schmiot :o;·. Much effort has gone into justifving or
criticizing one of these pillars—the opposition explanation¡unoerstanoing
—perhaps because of the strong influence of Wilhelm Dilthev on German
hermeneutics. The secono pillar. Wilhelm Winoelbano’s opposition uni-
versal¡particular. has been oiscusseo much less ano is poorlv unoerstooo
among literarv theorists.
In his :8o¡ ‘‘Rektoratsreoe’’ Winoelbano :oo; introouceo the terms
‘‘nomothetic’’ ano ‘‘ioeographic’’ or ‘‘ioiographic’’ to capture the funoa-
mental epistemological contrast betveen Naturwissenschaften ano Geisteswis-
Because of the repeatabilitv ano regularitv of the phenomena
of nature. natural sciences are nomothetic: thev formulate universal lavs.
Inoivioual observations ano experiments are of interest onlv insofar as thev
confirm or refute hvpotheses about universal lavs. Geisteswissenschaften oeal
vith inoivioualizeo ano unrepeatable phenomena—historic events. human
:;. This formulation goes back to :o;: see Ricoeur :o8:: .:8.
:8. Winoelbano ooes not merit mention in Helmut Seiffert’s :oo. historv of hermeneutics.
Nor ooes Ricoeur. but that is because hermeneutics for Seiffert is an exclusivelv German
enterprise. Gronoin :oo: mentions Ricoeur a fev times although he ooes not aomit him
into the pleiao of contemporarv hermeneuticians. but Winoelbano is an unknovn entitv for
:o. The aooress is reprinteo in Winoelbano :oo; unoer the title ‘‘Geschichte uno Natur-
vissenschaft.’’ Ior a recent rereaoing of Winoelbano. see Doležel :ooob.
646 Poetics Today 21:4
actions ano personalities. vorks of art ano literature. ano so on—neces-
sarilv. thev are ioeographic: thev trv to unoerstano these phenomena in the
uniqueness of their constitution. sense. relevance. ano value.
Hermeneutics has claimeo literature as its oomain preciselv on the
grouno that literarv vorks are unique ano historicallv unrepeatable. Tacitlv
accepting this claim. some structuralist theorists restricteo poetics to the
nomothetic stuov of literarv categories ano universal regularities. In Frague
structuralism. hovever. poetics encompasseo both a theoretical universal-
ist poetics. one that oesigns universal tools concepts. mooels. methoos.
ano an analvtical particularist poetics. one that tests the universal tools in
the analvsis of particular literarv phenomena. It thus anticipates Ricoeur’s
project of the ‘‘science of the inoivioual.’’
Alreaov the first major vork of Frague school poetics. Mukařovskv’s
:o¡8 |:o.8|: · monograph on Macha’s May. pursueo the oouble-prongeo
strategv. A theoretical conceptual svstem presenteo in the introouction oe-
scribes a particular ano unique poem. 1akobson’s vell-knovn stuoies both
posit the theoretical problem of grammatical categories in poetrv ‘‘gram-
mar of poetrv’’ ano give concrete analvses of several poems vith a viev
to revealing their unique grammatical patterning ‘‘poetrv of grammar’’.
The combination of nomothetic ano ioeographic poetics vas perfecteo bv
Ielix Vooička :o¡8 in his major vork. Vooička aoopteo the zigzag methoo
ano implementeo it in a special compositional arrangement of his text.
alternating analvtical segments vith theoretical reflections. The oevelop-
ment of theoretical categories is inspireo or provokeo bv the analvsis: in
turn. aovances on the theoretical level stimulate nev oiscoveries in the
structural ano historical analvsis.
Overall. Vooička oevelopeo a svstematic
theorv of narrative on both the thematic ano oiscursive levels ano analvzeo
in its terms a unique historic event—the rise of mooern Czech prose fiction.
In oroer to fullv appreciate the significance of ‘‘a science of the inoi-
vioual’’—an epistemological enoeavor shareo bv Frague structuralism ano
.o. Investigating. for example. the use of personal pronouns in poetic texts. 1akobson oem-
onstrateo the inoivioualitv of such vorks as the Hussite battle song. Fuškin’s love poetrv. ano
a political poembv Brecht. His meticulous stuov revealeo that each of Fuškin’s poems is inoi-
vioualizeo: ‘‘Despite the common grammatical pattern of Fuškin’s poetrv. each of his poems
is unique ano unrepeatable in its artistic choice ano use of grammatical material’’ originallv
publisheo in :o6:: quoteo in 1akobson :o8;: :·6. In an apposite comment. Fomorska 1akob-
son ano Fomorska :o8·: ..o characterizeo 1akobson’s methoo as a tool that ‘‘allovs us both
to generalize ano inoivioualize the phenomena unoer investigation.’’
.:. The zigzag methoo originates in Wilhelm von Humbolot’s :;oo monograph on Goethe’s
poem ‘‘Hermann uno Dorothea’’ see Doležel :oooa. 66–68. Rolano Barthes’s S/Z :o;o is
a more recent ano more celebrateo example of this methoo ano its presentation. Doležel
:oo8 oevelops a cognitive strategv baseo on the zigzag methoo.

Poststructuralism: A View from Charles Bridge 647
Ricoeur’s poststructuralist hermeneutics—consioer the present state of the
nomothetic¡ioeographic opposition. Despite the antipositivist thrust of
hermeneutics. the nomothetic ano the ioeographic mooes of cognitionvere
tieo to the positivistic ‘‘territorial principle’’ of the oivision ano classifi-
cation of sciences. A fielo of inquirv is oefineo bv its object oomain—
Naturwissenschaften stuov nature ano its processes: Geisteswissenschaften stuov
humanitv ano its vorks. Yet contemporarv cognitive strategies pose mul-
tiple ano poverful challenges to the principle of territorialitv. Interoisci-
plinarv research. ‘‘hvphenateo’’ sciences such as psvcho-linguistics or bio-
chemistrv. higher-oroer macrosciences semiotics. cvbernetics. ecological
science all unoermine the strict oivisions betveen territoriallv confineo
fielos ano oisciplines. Contemporarv science is not a set of oroereo oo-
mains. but a set of oisoroerlv problems. It is for solving complex problems
rather than for exploring isolateo oomains that theories. explanatorv hv-
potheses. ano conceptual svstems are oevelopeo.
The problem of lavlike universals ano unique particulars becomes a
general issue that cuts across traoitional oisciplines. Everv contemporarv
cognitive fielo has both nomothetic ano ioeographic research projects. al-
though the veight of these projects varies consioerablv from one oiscipline
to another. In support of this claim. consioer psvchologv. vhich is germane
to our argument because it straooles the bounoarv betveen the natural ano
humansciences.Whenmooern‘‘personalistic’’ psvchologv began. it tackleo
the uniqueness of human personalitv bv using approaches. methoos. ano
results of nomothetic ‘‘general’’ psvchologv. But Goroon N. Allport :o·;:
·. one of the pioneers of the psvchologv of personalitv. recognizeo that
‘‘life processes actuallv occur onlv in unifieo. complex. inoivioual vholes’’:
therefore he promoteo ioeographic research in psvchologv. He expresslv
recalleo Winoelbano’s nomographic¡ioeographic opposition. but rejecteo
‘‘schism’’ in psvchologv: ‘‘A complete stuov of the inoivioual vill embrace
both approaches.’’
In the same vein. Sevmour Epstein :o8·: o.–o·. a
contemporarv psvchologist. vhen speaking about research into the moti-
vation of human action. pleaos for a svnthesis of both approaches: ‘‘There
is no neeo to choose betveen ioiographic ano nomothetic proceoures. for it
is often possible to combine the tvo in a oesign in vhich multiple measures
are obtaineo on multiple subjects over multiple occasions.’’
... In replv to a critic vho ooubteo that ioeographic research coulo achieve scientific status.
Goroon Allport :o¡6: :·¡. :·· stresseo the neeo to oevelop ‘‘nev concepts ano methoos’’
to oeal vith ‘‘the phenomenon of inoivioual pattern.’’ But he insisteo that unoer a ‘‘custom-
arv’’ oefinition of science—‘‘that form of knovleoge that enhances our unoerstanoing. pre-
oiction ano control of phenomena above the level achieveo bv unaioeo common sense’’—
‘‘ioiographic knovleoge fullv qualifies for a place of honor.’’
648 Poetics Today 21:4
Ioeographic research vas stimulateo anev bv the restoration of the ioea
of possible vorlos to epistemological prominence: the actuallv existing nov
appears as one of an unlimiteo number of possibilities. Even our universe is
a unique svstem oetermineo bv the values of basic phvsical constants: the
slightest change in these values voulo create a oifferent universe. Not sur-
prisinglv. contemporarv cosmologv—conceiveo as ‘‘the oescription of our
universe as a single ovnamic entitv’’—has accepteo the ioeographic task:
‘‘Scientific cosmologv is the stuov of a unique object ano a unique event’’
Rees :o8o: ·oo. In the possible-vorlos perspective. the oroer of our uni-
verse is as unique as the structure of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Berlioz’s Harold
in Italy. or Ficasso’s Guernica.
Structuralismis historv: ve live ano vork in the poststructuralist era. But
even poststructuralists have to face tvo age-olo questions. Iirst. is literature
a tvpe of art. ano thus in the companv of music. painting. sculpture. oance.
or is literature a meoium of cognition ano¡or persuasion. ano thus in the
companv of sociological or psvchological case stuoies. journalism. propa-
ganoa. moral ano metaphvsical philosophizing. ano political or religious
sermonizing` Ano secono. is the stuov of literature baseo on rational argu-
ment. svstematic methoo. conceptual precision. ano empirical evioence. or
is it a oomain of antirationalitv. ranoominsight. conceptual sloppiness. ano
ioeological oogma` Whoever has the courage to tackle these questions vill
fino strong inspiration ano lasting support in Frague structuralism.
Abrams. M. H.
:o;; ‘‘The Deconstructive Angel.’’ Critical Inquiry ·: ¡.·–·8.
Allport. Goroon W.
:o·; Personality: A Psychological Interpretation Nev York: Holt.
:o¡6 ‘‘Fersonalistic Fsvchologv as Science: A Replv.’’ Psychological Review ··: :·.–··.
Barthes. Rolano
:o;o S/Z: Essai Faris: Seuil.
Boethius. Henning
:o;· ‘‘Foetik.’’ in Grundzüge der Literatur- und Sprachwissenschaft. vol. :. eoiteo bv Heinz Luo-
vig Arnolo ano Volker Sinemus. ::·–·· Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
Broekman. 1an M.
:o;: Strukturalismus: Moscau—Prag—Paris Ireiburg: Alber.
Buhler. Karl
:o·· Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache 1ena. Germanv: Iischer.
Burbank. 1ohn. ano Feter Steiner. eos. ano trans.
:o;; Structure, Sign, and Function: Selected Essays by Jan Mukar ˇovskyˇ Nev Haven. CT: Yale
Universitv Fress.
Čaoa. 1.
:o·· ‘‘Les méthooes oe la linguistique commerciale et économique.’’ in Actes du troisième
Congres international des linguistes. .·.–·6 Ilorence.

Poststructuralism: A View from Charles Bridge 649
Červenka. Miroslav
:o6o ‘‘O Vooičkově metooologii literarnich oějin’’ |On Vooička’s methooologv of literarv
historv|. aftervoro to Vooička :o6o: ·.o–·o.
Culler. 1onathan
:o;· Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature Lonoon: Rout-
:o8. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after StructuralismIthaca. NY: Cornell Universitv
Derrioa. 1acques
:o6; L’écriture et la différance Faris: Seuil.
Doležel. Lubomir
:oooa Occidental Poetics: Tradition and Progress Lincoln: Universitv of Nebraska Fress.
:ooob ‘‘Nomothetic ano Ioeographic Knovleoge in Foetics.’’ in Os estudos literarios (entre)
ciencia e hermeneutica. eoiteo bv Maria-Alzira Seixo. ::·–.. Lisbon: Fortuguese Com-
parative Literature Association.
:oo8 Heterocosmica: Fiction and Possible Worlds Baltimore. MD: 1ohns Hopkins Universitv
Doležel. Lubomir. ano 1iři Kraus
:o;. ‘‘Frague School Stvlistics.’’ in Current Trends in Stylistics. eoiteo bv Braj B. Kachru ano
Herbert I. W. Stahlke. ·;–¡8 Eomonton: Linguistic Research.
Eagleton. Terrv
:o8· Literary Theory: An Introduction Minneapolis: Universitv of Minnesota Fress.
Ellis. 1ohn M.
:o8o Against Deconstruction Frinceton. N1: Frinceton Universitv Fress.
Epstein. Sevmour
:o8· ‘‘A Research Faraoigm for the Stuov of Fersonalitv ano Emotions.’’ in Personality—
Current Theory and Research. Nebraska Svmposium on Motivation. vol. ·o. eoiteo bv
Monte M. Fage. o:–:·¡ Lincoln: Universitv of Nebraska Fress.
Iokkema. D. W.. ano Elruo Kunne-Ibsch
:o;; Theories of Literature in the Twentieth Century Lonoon: Hurst.
Iovler. Roger
:o8: Literature as Social Discourse: The Practice of Linguistic Criticism Bloomington: Inoiana
Universitv Fress.
Ireunolieb. Dieter
:o88 ‘‘Semiotic Ioealism.’’ Poetics Today o: 8o;–¡:.
Greimas. A. 1.
:o66 Sémantique structurale: Recherche de méthode Faris: Larousse.
Gronoin. 1ean
:oo: Einführung in die philosophische Hermeneutik Darmstaot. Germanv: Wissenschaftliche
Havranek. Bohuslav
:o·. ‘‘Úkolv spisovného jazvka a jeho kultura.’’ in Čtení o jazyce a poesii. eoiteo bv B. Havra-
nek ano M. Weingart. ·.–8¡ Frague: Melantrich. Translateo as ‘‘The Tasks of Stan-
oaro Language ano Its Culture.’’ in A Prague School Reader in Esthetics, Literary Structure, and
Style. eoiteo ano translateo bv Faul L. Garvin |Washington. DC: Georgetovn Univer-
sitv Fress: :o6¡|. Rpt. in Praguiana: Some Basic and Less Known Aspects of the Prague Linguistic
School. eoiteo bv 1osef Vachek ano Libuše Duškova. :·¡–·¡ |Fhilaoelphia: 1. Benjamins:
:o¡. ‘‘K funkčnimu rozvrstveni spisovného jazvka.’’ |On functional oifferentiation of stan-
oaro language|. Časopis pro moderní filologii .8: ¡oo–¡:6.
Havkes. Terence
:o;; Structuralism and Semiotics Berkelev: Universitv of California Fress.
650 Poetics Today 21:4
Herman. Davio 1.
:oo. ‘‘Fragmatics. Frague-matics. Metapragmatics.’’ Neophilologus ;6: ·.:–¡6.
Holenstein. Elmar
:o8: ‘‘On the Foetrv ano the Flurifunctionalitv of Language.’’ in Structure and Gestalt: Phi-
losophy and Literature in Austria-Hungary and Her Succession States. eoiteo bv Barrv Smith.
:¡· Amsteroam: Benjamins.
Hrushovski. Benjamin
:o;6 ‘‘Foetics. Criticism. Science.’’ PTL—A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Litera-
ture :: iii–xxxv.
Humbolot. Wilhelm von
:;oo Asthetische Versuche: Erster Theil: Uber Goethe’s Herrmann und Dorothea Brunsvick. Ger-
manv: Vieveg.
1akobson. Roman
:o66–88 Selected Writings. 8 vols. The Hague: Mouton.
:o8; Language in Literature Cambrioge. MA: Harvaro Universitv Fress.
1akobson. Roman. ano Krvstvna Fomorska
:o8· Dialogues Cambrioge. MA: MIT Fress.
1ameson. Ireoric
:o;. The Prison-House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism
Frinceton. N1: Frinceton Universitv Fress.
1efferson. Ann. ano Davio Robev. eos.
:o8. Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction Lonoon: Batsforo.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni. Catherine
:o8o L’Enonciation: De la subjectivité dans le langage Faris: Colin.
Matejka. Laoislav
:o;6 ‘‘Fostscript: Frague School Semiotics.’’ in Semiotics in Art: Prague School Contributions.
eoiteo bv Laoislav Matejka ano Irvin Titunik. .6·–o8 Cambrioge: MIT Fress.
Mathesius. Vilém
:o¡; Čeština a obecný jazykozpyt |Czech language ano general linguistics| Frague: Melan-
Merquior. 1. G.
:o86 From Prague to Paris: A Critique of Structuralist and Poststructuralist Thought Lonoon:
Miller. 1. Hillis
:o;6 ‘‘Stevens’ Rock ano Criticism as Cure.’’ Georgia Review ·o: ·–··. ··o–¡8.
:o8o ‘‘The Iigure in the Carpet.’’ Poetics Today :·: :o;–:8.
:o8o–8: ‘‘A Guest in the House: A Replv to Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan’s Replv.’’ Poetics
Today .:b: :8o–o:.
:o8· ‘‘Topographv ano Tropographv in Thomas Harov’s In Front of the Landscape.’’ in Iden-
tity of the Literary Text. eoiteo bv Mario 1. Valoés ano Oven Miller. ;·–:o: Toronto:
Universitv of Toronto Fress.
Morris. Charles
:o·8 Foundations of the Theory of Signs Chicago: Universitv of Chicago Fress. Rpt. in :o;:
Writings on the General Theory of Signs |The Hague: Mouton|.
Mukařovskv. 1an
:o·¡ ‘‘K českému překlaou Šklovského Teorie prózv’’ |A note on the Czech translation of
Šklovskij’s theorv of prose|. Čin 6: :.·–·o rpt. in Mukařovskv :o¡8. ::·¡¡–·o.
:o¡8 |:o.8| Kapitoly z české poetiky |Chapters fromCzech poetics|. · vols. Frague: Svobooa.
:o66 Studie z estetiky |Stuoies from aesthetics| Frague: Ooeon.
Nesselroth. Feter
:ooo ‘‘Irom De-automatization to Unoecioabilitv: 1an Mukařovskv’s Legacv.’’ in Jan
Mukar ˇovský and the Prague School. eoiteo bv V. Macura ano H. Schmio. .6–·· Universitat
Fotsoam: Ústav pro Českou literaturu AV ČR.

Poststructuralism: A View from Charles Bridge 651
Norris. Christopher
:o88 Deconstruction and the Interests of Theory Lonoon: Finter.
Favel. Thomas G.
:o8o The Feud of Language: A History of Structuralist Thought Oxforo: Basil Blackvell.
Fomorska. Krvstvna
:o;; ‘‘Roman 1akobson ano the Nev Foetics.’’ in Roman Jakobson: Echoes of His Scholarship.
eoiteo bv Daniel Armstrong ano C. H. van Schoonevelo. ·6·–;8 Lisse. the Nether-
lanos: Feter oe Riooer.
Fratt. Marv Louise
:o;; Towards a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse Bloomington: Inoiana Universitv Fress.
Rees. Martin 1.
:o8o ‘‘Our Universe ano Others: The Limits of Space. Time ano Fhvsics.’’ in Possible Worlds
in Humanities, Arts and Sciences. eoiteo bv Sture Allén. ·o·–¡:6 Berlin: oe Gruvter.
Ricoeur. Faul
:o;6 Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning Iort Worth: Texas Christian
Universitv Fress.
:o8: Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences: Essays on Language, Action, and Interpretation Cam-
brioge: Cambrioge Universitv Fress.
Rimmon-Kenan. Shlomith
:o8o–8: ‘‘Deconstructive Reflections on Deconstruction: In Replv to 1. Hillis Miller.’’ Poet-
ics Today .:b: :8·–88.
Rose. Gillian
:o8¡ Dialectic of Nihilism: Poststructuralism and Law Oxforo: Basil Blackvell.
Savan. Davio
:o8· ‘‘Tovaro a Refutation of Semiotic Ioealism.’’ in Semiotic Inquiry/Recherches sémiotiques
·: :–8.
Schmiot. Siegfrieo 1.
:o;· ‘‘On the Iounoation ano the Research Strategies of a Science of Literarv Communi-
cation.’’ Poetics ;: ;–··.
:o;· Zum Dogma der prinzipiellen Differenz zwischen Natur- und Geisteswissenschaft Gottingen:
Vanoenhoeck ano Ruprecht.
:o8¡ ‘‘The Iiction Is That Realitv Exists: A Constructivist Mooel of Realitv. Iiction ano
Literature.’’ Poetics Today ·: .. .··–;¡.
:oo¡ ‘System’ and ‘Observer’: Two Key Concepts in (Future) Literary Studies. LUMIS Schriften ·o
Siegen. Germanv: Institute for Empirical Literature ano Meoia Research.
Seiffert. Helmut
:oo. Einführung in die Hermeneutik: Die Lehre von der Interpretation in den Fachwissenschaften
Tubingen. Germanv: Iranke.
Skalička. Vlaoimir
:o¡;–¡8 ‘‘Kooanˇskv strukturalismus a ‘Fražska škola’ ’’ |Copenhagen structuralismano the
‘Frague school’|. Slovo a slovesnost :o: :··–¡..
Tooorov. Tzvetan
:o8: Introduction to Poetics. translateo bv Richaro Hovaro Minneapolis: Universitv of Min-
nesota Fress.
Tooorov. Tzvetan. eo.
:o6· Théorie de la littérature: Textes des formalistes russes Faris: Seuil.
Vančura. Zoeněk
:o·6 ‘‘The Stuov of the Language of Commerce.’’ Travaux linguistique de Prague. 6::·o–6¡.
Vooička. Ielix
:o¡8 Počátky krásné prózy novoce ˇské |The beginnings of Czech artistic prose| Frague: Melan-
:o66 ‘‘Tvu˚rči proces v oile Mukařovského’’ |The creative process in Mukařovskv’s oeuvre|.
forevoro to Mukařovskv :o66: o–:·.
652 Poetics Today 21:4
:o6o Struktura vý voje Frague: Ooeon.
Winoelbano. Wilhelm
:oo; Präludien: Aufsätze und Reden zur Einleitung in die Philosophie. ·o eo. Tubingen. Germanv:
Žirmunskij. Viktor
:o.: ‘‘Zaoači poetiki’’ |The tasks of poetics|. Načala :: ·:–8:. Rpt. in :o.8 Voprosy teorii
literatury. Statji – |Leningrao: n.p.|.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful