1887
image of Reception, translation and cultural context
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Summary

The initiatives to publish an English translation of the influential (1966) by linguist and semiotician A. J. Greimas (1917–1992) provide an instructive case study for the reception of a work in new contexts. The efforts underscore the importance of (dis)connections between cultures’ intellectual traditions and trends, putting in play the relations between continental and American linguistic structuralism, generative semantics, cognitive linguistics, and “French” (post)structuralism throughout the human sciences. The projects also point up the significance of timing and of standards for translation quality – and the possibilities for controversy. In addition to published research, this study draws from archival documents and personal communications with Greimas, his translators and editors, and other principals involved.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/hl.00066.bro
2021-03-09
2021-05-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arrivé, Michel
    1993 “Souvenirs scientifiques et autres sur A. J. Greimas”. Hommages à A. J. Greimas, special issue ofNouveaux actes sémiotiques (Limoges) 25:13–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bal, Mieke
    1997 [1978]Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrativetrans. byChristine Van Boheemen. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barthes, Roland
    2002Œuvres complètesed. byÉric Marty. 2nd ed.5vols.Paris: Le Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bloch, Marc
    1939–1940La société féodale. 2vols.Paris: Albin Michel.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1922 Review of Sapir (1921). Classical Weekly15:18 (13March). 142–143. doi:  10.2307/4388302
    https://doi.org/10.2307/4388302 [Google Scholar]
  6. 1924 Review of Saussure (1916, 2nd ed., 1922). Modern Language Journal8:5.317–319. doi:  10.2307/313991
    https://doi.org/10.2307/313991 [Google Scholar]
  7. 1926 “A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language”. Language2:3.153–164. doi:  10.2307/408741
    https://doi.org/10.2307/408741 [Google Scholar]
  8. 1927 “On Recent Work in General Linguistics”. Modern Philology25:2.211–230. 10.1086/387704
    https://doi.org/10.1086/387704 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bochmann, Klaus
    1968 “Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft,” review of Greimas (1966b). Deutsche Literaturzeitung für Kritik der internationalen Wissenschaft89:9.786–787.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brandt, Per Aage
    1992 [1987]La Charpente modale du sens: pour une sémio-linguistique morphogénétique et dynamique. Aarhus, DK: Aarhus University Press; Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins (1987 Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle doctoral dissertation.) 10.1075/nas.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/nas.2 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2004Spaces, Domains, and Meanings: Essays in Cognitive Semiotics. (= series European Semiotics, 4.). Bern & New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bréal, Michel
    1897Essai de sémantique: science des significations. Paris: Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Broden, Thomas F.
    1999 “Linguistic Semantics for Literature and the Human Sciences Today”. Semiotica124:1–2.81–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2015 “Algirdas Julius Greimas: Education, Convictions, Career”. The American Journal of Semiotics31:1–2.1–27. doi:  10.5840/ajs2015311/21
    https://doi.org/10.5840/ajs2015311/21 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2016 “Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics and Anglophone North America: Reception, Convergences, Divergences, and Strategies for the Future”. Cem anos com Saussureed. byWaldir Beividas, Ivã Carlos Lopes & Sémir Badir (= Coleção semiótica), 191–248. São Paulo: Annablume.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2017a “Chronology of A. J. Greimas”. A. J. Greimas – Life and Semiotics/La vie et la sémiotique d’A. J. Greimased. byThomas Broden & Stéphanie Walsh Matthews, special issue ofSemiotica214.9–13. doi:  10.1515/sem‑2016‑0195
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0195 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2017b “Selected Works by A. J. Greimas”. Semiotica214.409–438. doi:  10.1515/sem‑2016‑0217
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0217 [Google Scholar]
  18. Brunot, Ferdinand
    1966 [1930]Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900. Vol.6: Le XVIIIe siècle. Partie I: Le Mouvement des idées et les vocabulaires techniques, fascicule 2: La Langue des sciences, la langue des arts. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cassirer, Ernst
    1945 “Structuralism in Modern Linguistics”. Word1:2.99–120. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1945.116592491
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1945.116592491 [Google Scholar]
  20. Castagnotto, Ugo
    1969 Review of Greimas (1966b). Strumenti critici10.405–408.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Caws, Peter
    1974 “Parallels and Orthogonals”. The Two Saussuresed. bySylvère Lotringer, special issue ofSemiotext(e)1:2.54–65.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chafe, Wallace
    1962 “Phonetics, semantics, and language”. Language38:4.335–344. doi:  10.2307/410669
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410669 [Google Scholar]
  23. 1965 “Meaning in Language”. American AnthropologistNew Series, 67:5. Part2.23–36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/668755
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1970Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Chatman, Seymour & Samuel Levin
    eds. 1967Essays on the Language of Literature. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Chevalier, Jean-Claude & Pierre Encrevé
    2006Combats pour la linguistique, de Martinet à Kristeva: essai de dramaturgie épistémologique. Lyon: ENS.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chomsky, Noam
    1964 “The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory”. Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of Linguistsed. byHorace G. Lunt, 914–978. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1965Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1968Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Coquet, Jean-Claude
    1973 [1968] “Questions de sémantique structurale”, review of Greimas (1966b). Sémiotique littéraire: contribution à l’analyse sémantique du discoursbyCoquet, 33–50. Paris: Mame.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Coseriu, Eugenio
    1964 “Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale”. Travaux de linguistique et de littérature (Strasbourg) 2:1.139–186. www.romling.uni-tuebingen.de/coseriu/indexen.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1968 “Les structures lexématiques”. Probleme der Semantiked. byW. Thomas Elwert, special issue ofZFSL, new series, 1.3–16. www.romling.uni-tuebingen.de/coseriu/indexen.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Culler, Jonathan
    1975Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 10.4324/9780203449769
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203449769 [Google Scholar]
  34. 1977Saussure (= Modern Masters.). Glasgow: Fontana/Collins; New York: Penguin. (Copyright 1976).
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Cusset, François
    2008 [2005]French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United Statestrans. byJeff Fort with Josephine Berganza & Marlon Jones. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Darmesteter, Arsène
    1887La vie des mots étudiée dans leurs significations. 2nd ed.Paris: Delagrave.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. De George, Richard T. & Fernande M. De George
    eds. 1972The Structuralists: From Marx to Lévi-Strauss. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Demers, Jason
    2019The American Politics of French Theory: Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari, and Foucault in Translation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Dierkes, Hans & Helmuth Kiesel
    1973 “Interpretative Bemerkungen zu A. J. Greimas: ‘Strukturale Semantik’”, review ofStrukturale Semantik: Metodologische Untersuchungentrans. byJens Ihwe (Braunschweig: Vieweg 1971 [1966b]) Linguistik und Didaktik14.146–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ducrot, Oswald
    1966 “Recherches sémantiques”, review of Greimas (1966b). L’Homme. 6:4.120–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Eco, Umberto
    1986Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ehrmann, Jacques
    ed. 1966Structuralism, special issue ofYale French Studies36–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Febvre, Lucien [et al.]
    1930Civilisation, le mot et l’idée. Paris: Renaissance du Livre.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fillmore, Charles
    1975 “An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning”. Proceedings of the First Annual Berkeley Linguistics Societyed. byCathy Cogen, Henry Thompson, Graham Thurgood & Kenneth Whistler, 123–131. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. doi:  10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v1i0.2315 [Google Scholar]
  45. 1982 “Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis”. Speech, Place, and Actioned. byRobert J. Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein, 31–59. London: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 1984 “Lexical Semantics and Text Semantics”. New Directions in Linguistics and Semanticsed. byJ. E. Copeland, 123–147. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins and Houston, TX: Rice University Press. doi:  10.1075/cilt.32.12fil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.32.12fil [Google Scholar]
  47. 1985 “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding”. Quaderni di Semantica6:2.222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 1988 “The Mechanisms of Construction Grammar”. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. doi:  10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  49. Fortis, Jean-Michel
    2012 “De la grammaire générative à la linguistique cognitive: retour sur un basculement théorique”. Histoire Epistémologie Langage34.115–154. doi:  10.3406/hel.2012.3239
    https://doi.org/10.3406/hel.2012.3239 [Google Scholar]
  50. Foucault, Michel
    1994 [1977] “Intervista a Michel Foucault (Entretien avec Michel Foucault)”. Dits et écrits, 1954–1988. Vol.3, 1976–1979. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Fowler, Roger
    1971The Languages of Literature: Some Linguistic Contributions to Criticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. ed. 1966Essays on Style and Language: Linguistic and Critical Approaches to Literary Style. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Garvin, Paul L.
    1970Cognition, A Multiple View. New York: Spartan Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Gaudreault, Romain
    1996 “Renouvellement du modèle actantiel”. Poétique107.355–368.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Gill, Harjeet Singh
    1976 “Parole and Langue”. Pàkha Sanjam (Patiala, Punjab) 8.i–ii.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Giurescu, Anca
    1967 Review of Greimas (1966b). Revue roumaine de linguistique12:1.68–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Gleason, Henry Allan
    1961 [1955]Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. 2nd ed.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Govaert, Marcel
    1967 Review of Greimas (1966b). Babel13:4.237–239. 10.1075/babel.13.4.29gov
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.13.4.29gov [Google Scholar]
  59. Gras, Vernon W.
    ed. 1973European Literary Theory and Practice: From Existential Phenomenology to Structuralism. New York: Dell.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Greimas, A. J.
    1956 “L’actualité du saussurisme (à l’occasion du 40e anniversaire de la publication du Cours de linguistique générale)”. Le Français moderne243.191–203. (Repr. inLa mode en 1830byGreimas, 371–382 2000.)
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 1958 “Histoire et Linguistique”, review ofIntroduction à l’étude du vocabulaire médical (1600–1710)byBernard Quemada (Besançon: Faculté des Lettres 1955) Annales. Histoire, Sciences sociales13:1.110–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 1959 “Les problèmes de la description mécanographique”. Cahiers de lexicologie1.47–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 1963 “Analyse du contenu: comment définir les indéfinis (Essai de description sémantique)”. Études de linguistique appliquée2.110–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 1964 “Les topologiques: identification et analyse d’une classe de lexèmes”. Cahiers de lexicologie4.17–28. https://classiques-garnier.com/cahiers-de-lexicologie-1964-1-n-4-varia-les-topologiques.html
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 1964–1965Cours de sémantique. Saint-Cloud: École normale supérieure de Saint-Cloud. Stenciled typescript. Partial reproduction of 1963–1965 lectures at the Université de Paris, Faculté des Sciences, Centre de linguistique quantitative, Institut Henri Poincaré. Revised and enlarged as 1966b. References to this work specify the chapter, since each one is paginated independently, beginning with p. 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 1966a “Éléments pour une théorie de l’interprétation du récit mythique”. Communications8.28–59. (Repr. inGreimas 1970:185–230.) 10.3406/comm.1966.1114
    https://doi.org/10.3406/comm.1966.1114 [Google Scholar]
  67. 1966bSémantique structurale: recherche de méthode (Langue et langage). Paris: Larousse.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 1970Du sens: essais sémiotiques. Paris: Le Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 1973a “Un problème de sémiotique narrative: les objets de valeur”. Sémiotiques textuellesed. byMichel Arrivé and Jean-Claude Coquet, special issue ofLangages31.13–35. (Repr. inDu sens II: essais sémiotiquesbyGreimas, 19–48. Paris: Le Seuil 1983.)
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 1973b [1966b–1970]Structural Semantics, special issue ofPàkha Sanjam6.231–315. (Repr. inPàkha Sanjam8 (1975–1976) 132–192 & as Structural Semantics. (= Semiotics & Literature, 4.). New Delhi: Bahri 1989 Partial translation by Harjeet Singh Gill of Greimas 1966b, with chapters 1, 2, 7, 10 & 11, and with the 1966 paper published as “Considérations sur le langage” in Greimas 1970:19–38.)
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 1981 “De la colère: étude de sémantique lexicale”. Actes Sémiotiques. Documents (Paris) 3:27.9–27. (Repr. inDu sens II: essais sémiotiquesbyGreimas, 225–246. Paris: Le Seuil 1983.)
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 1983a [1973] “Les actants, les acteurs et les figures”. Du sens II: essais sémiotiquesbyGreimas, 49–66. Paris: Le Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 1983b [1966b]Structural Semantics: An attempt at a methodtrans. byDaniele McDowell, Ronald Schleifer & Alan Velie. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 2000 [1948]La Mode en 1830. La mode en 1830: langage et société, écrits de jeunesseed. byThomas F. Broden & Françoise Ravaux-Kirkpatrick. (= Formes sémiotiques.), 1–370. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Greimas, A. J. & Joseph Courtés
    1979Sémiotique: dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette. (New ed. 1993.)
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Greimas, A. J. & Georges Matoré
    1950 “La méthode en lexicologie II”. Romanische Forschungen62:2–3.208–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Greimas, A. J. & François Rastier
    1968 “The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints”. Yale French Studies41.86–105. (Trans. from French manuscript.) doi:  10.2307/2929667
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2929667 [Google Scholar]
  78. Grosse, Ernst Ulrich
    1971 “Zur Neuorientierung der Semantik bei Greimas: Grundgedanken, Probleme und Vorschläge”, review of Greimas (1966b). Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie87.359–393.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich
    1975 “Algirdas Julien Greimas. Für Ludwig Söll (7. 9. 1931–1. 3. 1974)”. Französische Literaturkritik der Gegenwart in Einzeldarstellungened. byWolf-Dieter Lange, 326–350. Stuttgart: Kröner.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1962 “Linguistics and Machine Translation”. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung15:1–2.145–168. doi:  10.1524/stuf.1962.15.14.145
    https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.1962.15.14.145 [Google Scholar]
  81. Harris, Randy Allen
    1993The Linguistics Wars. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Hawkes, Terrence
    1977Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley: University California Press. 10.4324/9780203443934
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203443934 [Google Scholar]
  83. Hey, Oskar
    1892 “Semasiologische Studien”. Jahrbücher für classische Philologie18.83–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Holdcroft, David
    1991Saussure: Signs, System, and Arbitrariness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624599
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624599 [Google Scholar]
  85. Jackson, Bernard S.
    1985Semiotics and Legal Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Jameson, Fredric
    1972The Prison-house of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9780691214313
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691214313 [Google Scholar]
  87. 1982The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 1988The Ideologies of Theory: Essays 1971–1986. Vol.2: Syntax of History. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Joseph, John E.
    1989 “Bloomfield’s Saussureanism”. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure43.43–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27758411
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 1990 “Ideologizing Saussure: Bloomfield’s and Chomsky’s Readings of the Cours de linguistique générale”. Ideologies of Languageed. byJohn E. Joseph & Talbot J. Taylor, 51–79. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 2012Saussure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Joseph, John E. & Ekaterina Velmezova
    eds. 2018Le Cours de linguistique générale: réception, diffusion, traduction, special issue ofCahier de l’ILSL (Lausanne) 57 (Dec.). https://www.unil.ch/clsl/files/live/sites/clsl/files/shared/Cahier%2057/Cahier%2057.pdf, retrieved1 April 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Katz, Jerold J. & Jerry A. Fodor
    1963 “The Structure of a Semantic Theory”. Language39.170–210. doi:  10.2307/411200
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411200 [Google Scholar]
  94. Katz, Jerold J. & Paul M. Postal
    1964An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. (= Research Monographs, 26.) Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Keller, Otto & Heinz Hafner
    1986Arbeitsbuch zur Textanalyse: Semiotische Strukturen, Modelle, Interpretationen. Munich: Fink.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Koerner, Ernst Frideryk Konrad
    1972Bibliographia Saussureana, 1870–1970: An Annotated, Classified Bibliography on the Background, Development, and Actual Relevance of Ferdinand de Saussure’s General Theory of Language. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 2002Toward a History of American Linguistics. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Kristeva, Julia
    1977 [1971] “Comment parler à la littérature?”. PolyloguebyKristeva, 23–54. Paris: Le Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Lakoff, George
    1972 [1964] “Structural Complexity in Fairy Tales”. The Study of Man1.128–150. Irvine: School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine. Typescript availablehttps://georgelakoff.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/structural-complexity-in-fairy-tales-lakoff-1972.pdf, retrieved12 April 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  101. Lakoff, George & John Robert Ross
    1977 [1967] “Is Deep Structure Necessary?” Notes From The Linguistic Undergrounded. byJames D. McCawley, 159–174. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
    1999Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Lamb, Sydney M.
    1964 “The Sememic Approach to Structural Semantics”. American Anthropologist66:3.57–78. 10.1525/aa.1964.66.3.02a00830
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.3.02a00830 [Google Scholar]
  104. 1965 “Kinship Terminology and Linguistic Structure”. American AnthropologistNew Series, 67:Part2.37–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 1966Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Lane, Mark
    ed. 1970Introduction to Structuralism. New York: Basic. (Also published asStructuralism: A reader. London: Jonathan Cape.)
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1978 “The Form and Meaning of the English Auxiliary”. Language54:4.853–882. doi:  10.2307/413237
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413237 [Google Scholar]
  108. 1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 2008Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  110. Larsen, Svend Erik
    1989 “Greimas or Grimace?”. Semiotica75:1–2.123–130.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Lévi-Strauss, Claude
    1963 [1958]Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. (Translated byClaire Jacobson & Brooke Grundfest SchoepffromAnthropologie structurale. Paris: Plon 1958.)
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Lotringer, Sylvère
    ed. 1974The Two Saussures. Special issue ofSemiotext(e)1:2.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. ed. 1975Saussure’s Anagrams. Special issue ofSemiotext(e)2:1.
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Lounsbury, Floyd G.
    1956 “A Semantic Analysis of the Pawnee Kinship Usage”. Language32:1.158–194. doi:  10.2307/410664
    https://doi.org/10.2307/410664 [Google Scholar]
  115. Lyons, John
    1963Structural Semantics: An Analysis of Part of the Vocabulary of Plato. (= London Philological Society Pubs., 20.) Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Macksey, Ricard & Eugenio Donato
    eds. 1970The Structuralist Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (2nd ed. 1972).
    [Google Scholar]
  117. McCawley, James D.
    1968 “The Role of Semantics in a Grammar”. Universals in Linguistic Theoryed. byEmmon Bach & Robert T. Harms, 124–169. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 1995 “Generative Semantics”. Concise History of the Language Sciences: From the Sumerians to the Cognitivistsed. byE. F. Konrad Koerner & R. E. Asher, 343–348. Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑042580‑1.50057‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-042580-1.50057-X [Google Scholar]
  119. Meillet, Antoine
    1904 “Comment les mots changent de sens”. L’Année Sociologique9.1–37. (Repr. inLinguistique historique et linguistique généralebyMeillet, vol.1. Paris: Honoré Champion, 230–271 1921, new ed. 1926, rpt. 1958.)
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Meletinsky, Eleazar
    1971 [1969] “Structural-Typological Study of Folklore”. Genre4:3.249–279. (Trans. byRobin Dietrich.)
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Montague, Richard
    1973 “The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English”. Approaches to Natural Languageed. byJaakko Hintikka, Julius Moravcsik & Patrick Suppes, 221–242. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑2506‑5_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2506-5_10 [Google Scholar]
  122. Mounin, Georges
    1968 “Travaux récents de sémantique,” including a review of Greimas (1966b). La Linguistique4:1.131–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Okabe, Shoichi
    1979 “Saussure in the Soviet Union: Translators and Commentators”. Jinbun kagaku ronshū (Matsumoto) 13.103–125. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/148766415.pdf, retrieved1 April 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Partee, Barbara H.
    1973 “Some Transformational Extensions of Montague Grammar”. Journal of Philosophical Logic2.509–534. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30226077
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 1975 “Montague Grammar and Transformational Grammar”. Linguistic Inquiry6:2.203–300. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4177871
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Petitot, Jean
    1991 “Syntaxe topologique et grammaire cognitive”. Langages103.97–128. 10.3406/lgge.1991.1610
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1991.1610 [Google Scholar]
  127. 2011Cognitive Morphodynamics: Dynamical Morphological Models of Constituency in Perception and Syntax. Berne: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0192‑8
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0192-8 [Google Scholar]
  128. Portner, Paul & Barbara H. Partee
    eds. 2002Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470758335
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758335 [Google Scholar]
  129. Pottier, Bernard
    1963 “Recherches sur l’analyse sémantique en linguistique et en traduction mécanique”. Nancy: Publications Linguistiques de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l’Université de Nancy. 37p.
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Prada Oropeza, Renato
    1983 “Análisis y/ó interpretación del texto narrativo-literario”. Discurso (São Paulo) 2.43–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Propp, Vladimir
    1958 [1928]Morphology of the Folktaleed. bySvatava Pirkova-Jakobson, trans. byLaurence Scott. Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore & Linguistics; Philadelphia: American Folklore Society. (= Bibliographical & Special Series 9.) (Rev. ed. 1968.)
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Rasmussen, Jens
    1968 Review of Greimas (1966b). Revue romane3:2.163–167.
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Rastier, François
    1971 “Les niveaux d’ambiguïté des structures narratives”. Semiotica3:4.289–343. 10.1515/semi.1971.3.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1971.3.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  134. 1984 “‘Ah! Tonnerre! Quel trou dans la blanquette!’ Essai de sémantique interprétative”. Langue française61.27–54. 10.3406/lfr.1984.5181
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1984.5181 [Google Scholar]
  135. 1987Sémantique interprétative. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Rey, Alain
    1968 “Les bases théoriques de la description lexicographique du français: tendances actuelles”. Travaux de linguistique et de littérature (Strasbourg) 6:1.55–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 1976Théories du signe et du sens. Vol2. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Ricoeur, Paul
    1974 [1966] “The Problem of Double Meaning as Hermeneutic Problem and as Semantic Problem”, including a review of Greimas (1966b). The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneuticsed. byDon Ihde, trans. byWillis Domingo [et al.], 62–78. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  139. 1984Temps et récit. Vol.2: La configuration du temps dans le récit de fiction. Paris: Le Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Rumelhart, David E.
    1975 “Notes on a Schema for Stories”. Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Scienceed. byDaniel G. Bobrow & Alan Collins, 211–236. New York: Academic. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑108550‑6.50013‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-108550-6.50013-6 [Google Scholar]
  141. 1980 “Schemata: The building blocks of cognition”. Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence and Educationed. byRand J. Spiro, Bertram Bruce & William F. Brewer, 33–58. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Santaella Braga, Lucia
    1990 “Brazil: A Culture in Tune with Semiotics”. The Semiotic Web 1989ed. byThomas A. Sebeok & Jean Umiker-Sebeok, 123–176. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Sapir, Edward
    1921Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    1971Les mots sous les mots. Les anagrammes de Ferdinand de Saussureed. byJean Starobinski. Paris: Gallimard. (Revised version of 5 articles first published in 1964–1970.)
    [Google Scholar]
  145. 1972 [1916]Cours de linguistique généraleed. byTullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot.
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Schank, Roger
    1972 “Conceptual Dependency: A theory of natural language understanding”. Cognitive Psychology3:4.532–631. 10.1016/0010‑0285(72)90022‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90022-9 [Google Scholar]
  147. Schank, Roger C. & Robert P. Abelson
    1977Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Schleifer, Ronald & Alan Velie
    1987 “Genre and Structure: Toward an Actantial Typology of Narrative Genres and Modes”. MLN102.1122–1150. 10.2307/2905314
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2905314 [Google Scholar]
  149. Segre, Cesare
    1989 “The Style of Greimas and its Transformations”. New Literary History20:3.679–692. 10.2307/469361
    https://doi.org/10.2307/469361 [Google Scholar]
  150. Sekvent, Karel
    1969 Review of Greimas (1966b). Studia Neophilologica40:2.427–432.
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Silverstone, Roger
    1976 “An Approach to the Structural Analysis of the Television Message”. Screen17:2.9–40. doi:  10.1093/screen/17.2.9
    https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/17.2.9 [Google Scholar]
  152. Sokal, Alan & Jean Bricmont
    1998 [1997]Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. New York: Picador.
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Souriau, Étienne
    1950Les deux cent mille situations dramatiques. Paris: Flammarion.
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Strozier, Robert M.
    1988Saussure, Derrida, and the Metaphysics of Subjectivity. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110848175
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848175 [Google Scholar]
  155. Talmy, Leonard
    2000Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol.2: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Tesnière, Lucien
    1959Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Trier, Jost
    1931Der Deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes: die Geschichte eines Sprachlichen Feldes. Vol.1: Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Ullmann, Stephen
    1967 Review of Greimas (1966b). Lingua18.296–303. 10.1016/0024‑3841(67)90043‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(67)90043-5 [Google Scholar]
  159. Velmezova, Ekaterina
    2018 “On the Early Stages of the Reception of the Saussurean Concept of Semiology in Russia”. Cahiers de l’ILSL (Lausanne) 57.165–178. https://www.unil.ch/clsl/files/live/sites/clsl/files/shared/Cahier%2057/Cahier%2057.pdf, retrieved1 April 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Vendryes, Joseph
    1921Le Langage, introduction linguistique à l’histoire. Paris: La Renaissance du livre.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/hl.00066.bro
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error