Chapter Four
Heterosemia
This final chapter is organized into two parts: discussion of the elements of heterosemia, theory, and the reading. The first section begins with the introduction, Pretexts. The discussion of heterosemia follows in Text: Prediscourse, Paratext. The second section concludes with a brief adaptation of the model developed in the first chapter. It is entitled Fractal Heterosemia. The second section is entitled Signs and offers a reading of heterosemia. Signs begins with an interrelating of the semiotic centered rhetoric developed by Groupe µ with the discourse centered rhetoric of the fractal model. The reading of prediscursive and paratextual dialogism concludes the study.
Text: Paratext, Prediscourse
In this the chapter, the efforts which have been utilized to read heteroglossia and heterophony are expanded for the reading of the dialogue of signs. Because Bakhtin’s dialogic principle was developed with the multiplicities of language and voice in mind, it has been, by definition, well suited for the readings of heteroglossia and heterophony. The reading of the Shakespeare plays for heterophonic dialogism required a little initial maneuvering: 1) the refrain from anthropomorphism (from equating textual Richard with human Richard); 2) the perception of the plays as collections of texts in conflict; and 3) the treatment of these texts as discourses. Reading Sor Juana’s heteroglotic texts required a similar orientation: the focus on a speaker’s language rather than on the psychology or historical referent. But a discourse analysis at the level of heterosemia seems a bit gratuitous.
The notion of heterosemic dialogism may be contradictory, perhaps even oxymoronic. For one thing, the sentence has been identified as the borderline of discourse (by Bakhtin and Benveniste, for example); below it, the territory of phrases, words and smaller particles is prediscursive, below the realm of dialogue. So when, for example, discussion in this chapter turns to a dialogue among heteroepic signs, it must focus on an interaction which neither Bakhtin nor Benveniste would recognize as discursive because the interaction is among units too small to engage in discourse. Another difficulty centers on the status of some of the elements in question: they are strangely silent, without speakers. Stage directions, for example, are so silent; who speaks them? In 1 Henry IV, where does Lady Mortimer exist (in that she resides outside the speeches, in the paratext)?
Heterosemia
Heterosemia includes both prediscursive and paratextual elements and therefore comprises an indeterminate level. Its linguistic elements are sets often smaller than those of heteroglossia (national language) or heterophony (social language and voice). A word, its graphic representation, and its pronunciation, are all considerations of smaller units of signification than the sentence. In this sense, heterosemia is the level of smallest sets. Its genres (heteroepy, heterography) deal with smaller units of signification than do heterophony (e.g., the poem or novel) or heteroglossia (e.g., Latin or Nahuatl).
But in its emphasis on signs, heterosemia opens up the possibility for a semiotics of signs of all types and all sizes. Understood in this sense, heterosemia becomes a meta-level, synonymous with semiotics itself, and encompasses the interanimations of all units of signification, including heteroglossia and heterophony. But this general definition is not applicable here. Heterosemia is specifically limited to the interanimations of those elements which fit conveniently into neither heteroglossia nor heterophony.
Prediscourse
Let us first consider some examples of the prediscursive sign. In the second chapter, a discussion of language use in San Pedro Nolasco focused on the matter of variant pronuciation functioning as a marker. The point was made that phonetic selection (as L for D in Pilico’s palre instead of padre) marked something, connoted something. Pilico’s use of L was read as a marker of a particular social and ethnic identity. And the phenomenon of phonetic selection itself was read as denoting a paradigmatic linguistic operation. In order to specify the markers of a particular heterophony (social language), recourse to the concerns of heterosemia (prediscourse) was necessary.
Variance of words (conga for woman) or within a word (palre for padre) is heterosemic. It is a variance which can illuminate heterophonic and heteroglotic dialogue. The Aztec’s tocotín and Pilico’s coplas utilize selection at the level of hetersemia which marks distinctions of voice, social language and, in the case of the Aztec, national language. But there are other prediscursive signs. The italicization of certain words in a texts says something about those words and implicates those words in dialogic conflict with the non-italicized, Roman type, texts. Capitalization works in a similar way. It is heterosemia which identifies that conflict in diction which marks further conflicts of voices, social languages, and national languages.
Paratext
Paratext is included at the level of heterosemia partly because of the difficulty of its inclusion elsewhere. This difficulty arises from the question: where does paratext exist? Is the title “The First Part of King Henry the Fourth” a part of the text of the play; that is, is it present in the text? Do dramatis personæ, stage directions and Lady Mortimer exist in Richard II? An answer becomes apparent when considering the function of paratext. In “Présentation,” Gérard Genette both defines paratext as “cette frange auz limites indécises qui entoure d’un halo pragmatique l’œuvre littéraire…,” and characterizes its functions as that “qui assure, en des occasions et par des moyens divers, l’adaptation réciproque de cette œuvre et de son public” (“Présentation” 3). A title situates itself transtextually between the text and reader: “Or le paratexte n’est ni à l’intérieur ni à l’extérieur: il est l’un et l’autre, il est sur le seuil, et c’est sur ce site propre qu’il convient de l’étudier, car pour l’essentiel, peut-être, son être tient à son site” (3).
In “Los títulos en el texto poético,” Iván Carrasco Muñoz concurs with Genette, but in additon, Carrasco Muñoz identifies paratext as a king of open discourse which accompanies the text of permanent discourses:
Considerado como la totalidad de sus elementos constituyentes, el texto literario no es una entidad homogénea, monádica, sino un complejo discursivo heterogéneo, un conjunto variable, en cada manifestación concreta, de discursos de carácter distinto según su situación enunciativa y referencial.
Los discursos que conforman el texto literario son de dos tipos: el discurso permanente (cuerpo del texto, discurso base o central) y un conjunto abierto de discursos que lo acompañan, completmentándolo por afirmación, negación o problematización, en cantidad variable según la obra particular que se plasma (poema, cuento, novela, drama, etc.) y las funciones que cumplen en el complejo textual.
Este conjunto de discursos, tales como el prólogo, la dedicatoria, el título, el epígrafe, la cita, la nota, y otros discursos propios del autor o incorporados por él al espacio total del texto, demuestra la naturaleza heterogénea y heteróclita de la literatura y configura un ámbito significante complejo multidireccional e inestable. Algunos de estos discursos cumplen una función metalingüistica muy definida (el título, el prólogo, la notas muy especialmente, el epígrafe), mientras que otros se definen por la función conativa (la dedicatoria). En cuanto a la referencia, muchos de ellos apuntan al mismo texto, vinculándose preferentemente con el discurso base (el título, la nota, el prólogo), mientras que otros remiten hacia afuera del texto tornando inciertos sus límites mediante el establecimiento de relaciones intertextuales, como los epígrafes, y extratextuales, como las dedicatorias. (70-71)
Like Gennette, Carrasco Muñoz recognizes the transtextual, or extratextual, function of paratext. For Genette, all paratext, and for Carrasco Muñoz, some paratext such as dedication, reside and operate between the text and the reader. Carrasco Muñoz proceeds to characterize paratext discursively, to itemize metalinguistic and connotative functions, and to clarify the intertexual. In the heterogeneity of the text, the paratext is an open discourse which accompanies the base text in affirmation, negation, or problematization.
Discourse, Rhetoric, Semiotics
In order to read dialogisms among such prediscursive or paratextual elements, a method was necessary which would envision a dialogue of such signs. The fractal model was developed as a means of extending Bakhtin’s dialogic principle to the interactions among elements smaller than the minimal unit of discourse and among those elements which do not fully reside within the text. It presupposes that interanimation among signs is similar in form to the discursive interanimations among voices, social languages, and national languages. The presence of heterosemia within the syntax heteroglossia, heterophony, and heterosemia, manifest the fractalic relationship: as with diverse languages, diverse discourses, and diverse signs.
The similarity in form between heteroglossia and heterophony, on the one hand, and heterosemia, on the other, is rooted in a convergence of literary discourse analysis, rhetoric and semiotics. Rhetoric offers a means of extending Bakhtin’s methods to the prediscursive and paratextual interaction. Nils Enkvist notes,
difference between traditional sentence linguistics on one hand, and text and discourse linguistics and rhetoric on the other. This has to do with the fundamental qualitative difference between realtions within the sentence and relations between sentences. Those syntactic relationships that have traditionally formed the core of grammar—verb/subject/ object, modifier/head, and the like—hold only within the sentence. If we extend them to descriptions of intersential relations, we are lapsing into metaphor. On the the contrary, many of the rhetoricians’ concepts were created to apply expressly to textual spans beyond the sentence, and many rhetorical ‘figures’ have exponents at word level, sentence level and discourse level, which blurs or obliterates the borders set up by traditional grammar and syntax…. In fact the domain of text and discourse linguistics is more congruent with that of rhetoric than with that of syntax. (14)
Rhetoric, tropics in particular, constructs the bridge which links in form the operations at the discursive level and those at the prediscursive level. It is for this reason that tropics is an essential element of the fractal model.
The formal similarity between the dialogues of language and discourse and the dialogues of prediscourse and paratext finds justification in the convergence of literary discourse analysis and semiotics. Linguistic relations are “increasingly considered to be only one dimension in the wide spectrum of semiotic practices…. we witness an increasing tendency towards the integration of poetics, linguistics, discourse analysis and other disciplines within an overall study of semiotic practices…” (Van Djik 4). The treatment of heteroglotic and heterophonic interanimations as formally discursive, follows their original treatment as linguistic interactions. And as discourse analysis is subsumed by linguistics, linguistics is subsumed by semiotics. From the inception of semiotics, in the introduction to Course in General Linguistics, Saussure declared this relationship, “Language is a system of signs that express ideas,” comparable to other systems of signification, and “if I have succeeded in assigning linguistics a place among the sciences, it is because I have related it to semiology” (16). The fractal model plays off this convergence: the dialogues of languages and of discourses is replicated among heterosemic interaminations. Linguistically, heterosemia in linked to heteroglossia and heterophony in a hierarchical relationship: it is a sub-level. Semiotically, it is linked to heteroglossia and heterophony in a rhizomic relationship: it is a para-level.
Fractal Heterosemia
The plan for reading heterosemic dialogism in the dialogues of prediscursive and paratextual elements is embodied in the fractal model outlined in the first chapter. The reading is given form by the seven facet analysis of the fractal: level, set, genre, locus, tropics, force, and logism. Level, set, and genre classify prediscursive and paratextual interanimations as discursive activity and define their attributes accordingly. Locus, tropics, and force define the dynamics of that discursive activity. Attribute and dynamics determine logism, the final facet. The resulting dialogic reading identifies the relative centripetal and centrifugal forces at play in the heterosemic dialogues.
Attribute
The level of heterosemia is that of the interanimation of prediscourse and paratext. The interactions identified in this study at the level of heteroglossia have been primarily intratextual, those of heterophony evenly intratextual and intertextual, but the interactions identified as heterosemic manifest intratextual, intertextual and transtextual relations. In addition to the linguistic and rhetorical operations of heteroglossia and heterophony, heterosemia asserts the semiotic: heterosemia, the dialogism of signs. These dialogisms operate within the set of signs and within text, between texts and between text and reader. These discursive intra-, inter-, and trans-textual interanimations among prediscursive and paratextual signs occur at the level of heterosemia yet continually converge with the heteroglotic and the heterophonic.
Set signifies sign at the level of heterosemia. The designation sign allows discussion of intrasentential dialogism. It simultaneously allows inclusion of the paratext, which can be composed of prediscursive elements or of whole texts (a title, a stage direction, a dedication). The semiotic relations of sign are metaphorically read as discursive interanimations; the convergence of semiotics and linguistics is a rhetorical one. The set sign permits the reading of prediscursive dialogue and paratextual dialogue, both of which require some method of equating discursive activity with semiotic signification. The fractal model and the theories of Groupe µ do this for this study.
Genre is the typology of set: prediscourse and paratext. Elements of either are treated as types of heterosemic signs. Genre is the system of classification which identifies the specific characteristics of the heterosemic elements. In the previous discussion of texts, there has already been mention of some heterosemic genres: the paratextual alteration of the titles of the plays and the prediscursive heteroepy in San Pedro Nolasco are two examples.
The subdivision of genre into prediscourse and paratext can be illustrated in the following itemization. Prediscourse includes those elements whose units of signification are smaller than the smallest unit of discourse. Diction, in its meaning as word choice, is heterosemic. Variety in the graphic and phonetic representations of words is also heterosemic. These include variant spelling, pronunciation, and type face. Paratext includes those elements composed of variously sized units of signification and whose presence in the text is problematic. This can overlap with prediscourse, in that, for example, italics is both prediscursive and paratextual. Paratext includes those elements identified by Carrasco Muñoz: prologue, dedication, title, epigram, citation, and note. It also includes stage direction, dramatis personæ, handwritten notes, ascription of author, page layout, names, and much more.
Prediscourse and paratext function as markers which obtain meaning when combined into the larger significant units of heterophony and heteroglossia. Pilico’s heteroepy identifies his voice and social language as internally persuasive, eccentric. Variant diction aligns the Aztec’s tocotín with a language far removed from the authoritative languages, Latin, and to a lesser degree, Spanish. Lady Mortimer’s paratextual speech identifies her’s as a marginal and eccentric discourse. Heterosemic genre is utilized to demarcate the relative authority of signs whose significance is measured on the heterophonic and heteroglotic planes. Genre denotes the participant elements in the dialogue of signs.
Level, set, and genre classify the attribute of each sign, whether prediscursive or paratextual. This attribute can then be read as motivated by the dynamics of locus, tropics and force. The interaction of attribute and dynamics determine the specific logism, dialogic or monologic, of a particular sign in a particular interaction.
Dynamics
Locus is the dynamic conception of place from which each sign interrelates with other signs in other places. When viewed as a chronotope, spatial and temporal location, locus is not only relative to other places, but mobile in time. Each sign is located in relation to other loci and to the authoritative centrism. It is also in flux, changing place as the temporal context changes. This location and movement is within the power laden field of discursive positionings. Locus is neither absolute nor disinterested. Each sign is internally dialogized and relates dialogically to other signs of different levels of authority. Pilico’s palre is less authoritative than the poet-narrator’s padre. Lady Mortimer’s paratextual speech is less authoritative than Richard’s textual speech.
As Group µ notes, “Nous verrons que toutes les opérations rhétoriques reposent sur un propriété fondamentale du discours linéaire: celle d’être décomposable en unités de plus en plus petites…. La décomposition se poursuit, sur chacun des deux plans, jusqu’à un niveau atomique ou insécable” (Rhétorique générale 30). That is, rhetorical operations rest on the linearity of discourse, a linearity which extends to the smallest levels of prediscourse. Signs interact in rhetorical relations. Tropics denotes those rhetorical operations.
Heterosemic tropics follows Jakobson’s dual axis model, as did the tropics of heteroglossia and of heterophony. A sign’s rhetorical operation is locatable on either the syntagmatic or paradigmatic axis. The particular tropics of a sign determines its relationship to the alien sign. Tropics manifests semantic authority and characterizes the nature of the dialogic interanimation with other signs and prefigures its reading.
A syntagmatic and metonymic sign operates semantically in a manner similar to that ascribed by syntagmatic discourse or language: it privileges the syntagmatic linearity. Heteroglotic metonymy valorizes linguistic etymology, the antecedent language’s bestowing authority to the descendants according to degree of contiguity. Heterophonic metonymy in the Shakespeare plays valorizes the genealogical linearity. Among signs, heterosemic metonymy expresses this etymology-genealogy as simple syntagmatic linearity. An order of combinations is expressed within the text and contextually, against which a particular syntagm (heteroepy, for example) is placed in dialogue. The more similar to the contiguous combination, the more authority bestowed upon on the syntagm by the contextual linearity.
Conversely, a paradigmatic and metaphoric sign operates semantically in a manner emphasizing selection. Rather than combining according to the prescribed syntagmatic linearity, metaphor selects within a mutable paradigm. This selection relativizes the authority of a particular metonymic combination and of metonymic combination in general. Relative selection reduces the authoritative discourse from the status of the discourse to that of one style among many styles. Pilico’s heteroepy is a metaphoric selection which causes his discourse to dialogize the authoritative discourse.
Force, following Bakhtin’s definition, can be either centripetal or centrifugal. That tropics which features syntagmatic metonymy reenforces the prescribed authoritative discourse; as such, it moves toward the locus of power and is centripetal. Locus, tropics and force motivate attribute and manifest the semantics and power of the specific sign. Pilico’s palre is centrifugal. The student’s latinajos are centripetal.
This study concludes with the following heterosemic reading of elements from San Pedro Nolasco,Richard II and 1 Henry IV. Prediscursive and paratextual elements are read as if in dialogue, in the radical heterogeneity of signs: “a negation without disjunction: ‘coexistence of monologic discourse (synthetic, historical, descriptive) and of a discourse destroying this monologism’—dialogism, in the ultimate meaning of this Bakhtinian word” (Ducrot 359-60).
Signs
Heterosemic Articulation and Metaboles
The two elements whose interactions are read at the level of heterosemia have been identified as prediscourse and paratext. The two terms are effective descriptions but function by two disparate means of classification: prediscourse discriminates by the size of the units of signification while paratext discriminates according to relation to the text. In order to fully recognize the operations among the various elements contained by either term, an additional descriptive system is necessary. A combined rhetorical and semiotic system, as that delineated by Groupe µ, offers a unified method of differentiation with much finer differentiae.
In both Rhétorique Générale (1970) and Rhétorique de la Poésie (1977), Groupe µ delineates a rhetoric of literary discourse which is semiotic in approach. Following their methodology, the heterosemic sign, be it prediscursive or paratextual, can be classified according to two schemes: articulation level and metabolic type. These two schemes provide a systematic means of examining the components of heterosemic interanimation; together they augment the rudimentary descriptive differentiation of prediscourse and paratext. Levels of articulation (niveau d’articulation) ranks the discursive sign according to size of the units of signification, from the levels of prediscourse to that of the text. Metaboles (ensemble des métaboles) disperse the sign according one of four types: metaplasm (métaplasmes), metataxes (métataxes), metasememes (métasémèmes), and metalogisms (métalogismes). Both the level of articulation and the type of metabole are further divisible into form and content, or more specifically, into signifier and signified.
Levels of articulation stratify discourse into four levels, zero to three. The zero level, degré zéro, is that of the infralinguistic, the smallest units of signification. For the signifier, these are distinctive traits, traits distinctifs, and for the signified, these are semes, sèmes. Level one is that of prediscourse, below the level of the sentence. For the signifier, these include graphemes, phonemes and words. For the signified, these are morphemes, lexemes, and clauses. Level two is the base level of discourse. For the signifier, there are syntagms and sentences; for the signified, there are developments, “«développement» toute séquence de propositions à but descriptif, narratif, déductif, etc.” (Rétorique Générale 31). The final level, three, is that of texts, for both the signifier and the signified. The connections between elements, phoneme to word or word to sentence, for example, are associated with a rhetorical figures, “liasions entre niveaux d’articulation: à chacune d’elles correspond un type de figure rhétorique” (32).
Prediscourse is confined to level one. Prediscursive heterosemia consists of the interanimations among the elements of that level: graphemes, phonemes, syllables, and words. Prediscourse corresponds with articulation level one precisely because it is similarly defined by the size of units of signification, those smaller than the sentence. Paratext, on the other hand, locates itself at each level because its definition is not linked to size. Italics and titles are both prediscursive and paratextual in that they, like prediscourse, introduce variety in smaller units of signification than the sentence, and like paratext, reside somewhat beside the text. Italics, as graphemic variation, and titles, as lexemic variation, both belong to articulation level one. Paratext of levels two and three, include stage directions and short epigrams (level two) and prologues, long epigrams, and dedications (level three). And, finally, this system allows for the heterosemic element’s identification with the signifier or the signified: italics/signifier, title/signified, for example.
The types of metaboles designate the type of operations and the level upon which those operations are enacted. The four types are divided into two groups of two: those which work upon the signifier, metaplasm and metataxes, and those which work upon the signified, metasememe and metalogism. Metaplasm “est celui des figures que agissent sur l’aspect sonore ou graphique des mots et des unités d’ordre inférieur au mot” (Rhétorique Générale 33). The domain of metaplasm consists of operations on word, syllable, phoneme, and grapheme signifiers. Metataxes “C’est le domaine des figures agissant sur la structure de la phrase. En français, la phrase se définit par la présence minimale de certains constituants, les syntagmes” (33). The domain of metataxes consists of operations on the sentence by variant, intrasentential syntagms. Metasememe “est un figure qui remplace un sémème par un autre, c’est-à-dire que modifie les groupements de sèmes du degré zéro” (34). The domain of the metasememe consists of operations on the lexemic and morphemic levels. Metalogisms “modifient la valeur logique de la phrase et ne sont par conséquent plus soumises à des restrictions linguistiques” (34). Metalogism is similar to the rhetorical figures of thought; irony is an example.
Prediscourse is confined to metaplasm and metasememe because both reflect action at the intrasentential level. Prediscursive variations which affect the signifer (form, code) are metaplasms; those affecting the signified (meaning, content) are metasememes. Prediscursive metaplasms include italics (graphemic variation, specifically, metagraph) and heteroepy (phonemic variation, specifically, metaplasm) which affect the form of words. Prediscursive metasememes include those which replace one sememe with another and so affect the meaning of words: the movement from Bolingbroke to King Henry and that from King Richard to Richard Plantagenet would be examples.
The range of the metasememe is huge. As Groupe µ observes, “le néologisme métasémème, que nous adoptons autant par symétrie que parce qu’il désigne mieux la nature des opérations en cause, recouvre en gros ce qu’on appelle traditionnellement les «tropes», c’est-à-dire notamment la métaphore, figure centrale de toute rhétorique” (Rhétorique Générale 91). The operations of the metasememe which prediscursive variation can introduce to a single word are the same tropical operations which introduce variation to sentences and to texts. It is because of this and because “toutes les opérations rhétoriques reposent sur un propriété fondamentale du discours linéaire: celle d’être décomposable en unités de plus en plus petites,” that the dialogisms of heteroglossia and heterophony can similarly occur at the level of heterosemia: tropics and discourse also characterize the interanimation among prediscursive signs (30).
Paratextual variation occurs in the domains of all four metaboles. Examples in the prediscursive domains of metaplasm and metasememe include heterography as in the variant spellings of the name of the publisher, Androw Wise, Andrew Wyse, Andrew Wise (metaplasm), and the change of title from The History of Henrie the Fourth to The First Part of Henry the Fourth (metasememe). Paratextual operations also occur at the levels of the sentence and the text. Metataxes are those operations which affect the form of the sentence:
Agissant sur la forme des phrases, les métataxes renvoient à une syntaxe…. La syntaxe recouvre donc des relations essentiellement structurelles entres morphèmes. C’est dire que la description grammaticale se dépouille de bon nombre de critères logiques ou de traits sémantiques hérités d’une longue tradition. (Rhétorique Générale 67)
An example of paratextual metataxes is Lady Mortimer’s completely suppressed speech in1 Henry IV. Stage directions, such as “The Ladie speakes in Welsh,” completely contain her discourse and determine its form as paratext rather than as text.
Metalogism, which “exige la connaissance du référent pour contredire la description fidèle qu’on pourrait en donner,” operates in relation to the referent which it dissambles (Rhétorique Générale 125). “La métalogisme joue dès lors un rôle essentiel dans une rhétorique qui se veut générale et débarrassée des obstacles épistémologiques qui ont entravé le développent de la rhétorique traditionelle” (126). Sor Juana’s handwritten note in her copy of San Pedro Nolasco, “Éstos de la Misa no son míos,” is a paratextual metalogism which ambiguates the authorial referent and modifies the meaning of the text. The dedication and biblical epigram are also metalogisms. And in another language, the Q1 1 Henry IV title page note, “With the humorous conceits of Sir Ion Falstaffe” is a paratextual metalogism which prefigures the reading of the text.
The value of the two systems, articulation level and metabolic type, rests in its usefulness for the discursive and rhetorical treatment of signs. By particularizing “le découpage du discours” and delineating a rhetoric of signs, Groupe µ provides the means for a discourse analysis of both prediscursive and paratextual material. This approach enhances the possibility for the reading of dialogical relationships among those signs, the same reading that heterosemia imports. Furthermore, through the subdivision of the sign, differentiating operations on the level of the signifer from those on that of the signified, Groupe µ also clarifies a means of relating form to content and form to meaning. This rhetorical-semiotic method permits discussion of the consequence of form: for heterosemia (as for heteroglossia and heterophony but by a different methodology) it can be demonstrated that forms in dialogue yield semantic consequences.
Redundancy and Deviation
The systematic approach outlined by Groupe µ melds with the proposed dialogical reading of heterosemia at two junctures: the initial premise and the method of denoting significance. The premise maintains that each unit of signification moves within a spatial system of units and does so in a manner defined by the rules of rhetoric. “Chaque élément peut être défini par ses coordonnées ou un déplacement sur ces arbres. La rhétorique sera ainsi l’ensemble des règles de circulation sur les arbres” (Rhétorique Générale 31). This is similar to the notion of dynamics in the dialogic-fractal model: each element (language, discourse or sign) is identified by its chronotopic locus in relation to other loci; its movement is defined by its tropics. The fractal adds the dimension of force, contextualizing locus and tropics, and in so doing, relates space and motion to the authoritative discourse (or language or sign).
The method of denoting significance is one which is based on three notions, degree zero, and two borrowed from information theory, redundancy and deviation (écart). Groupe µ defines redundancy and deviation as possible operations upon degree zero language: redundancy works to insure communication, deviation works as rhetorical alteration. Degree zero, in its “définition intuitive,” is literal language devoid of figure. But in practice there can be no such language: “En effet toute occurrence, toute parole, est le fait d’un destinateur: elle ne saurait être, sans précaution, supposée innocente” (Rhétorique Générale 35). In addition, degree zero can be conceived as ideal language reduced to its essential semes. “On peut également concevoir le degré zéro comme cette limite vers laquelle tend, volontairement, le langage scientifique. Dans cette optique, on voit bien que le critère d’un tel langage serait l’univocité” (35). Degree zero is an impractical ideal of language.
In as much as scientific language strives for a univocal and unequivocal language, it obviates the inclusion of equivocal figures and aspires to monologic authority. Employing a leap of figure, Bakhtin’s unitary languages can be seen as those which aspire to the ideal of degree zero: the status of the essential language, one without artifice, one which is not just a style. Groupe µ identifies a very unscientific language, citing Zola and Joyce, which strives for a thorough relativization of degree zero:
Certains messages, en effet, visent à la multiplicité des plans de lecture, sans qu’aucun d’eux puisse prétendre à l’appellation privilégiée de degré zéro…. On devine que dans un tel cas la vassalité du degré figuré par rapport au degré zéro, abolie, fait place à l’organisation d’isotopies multiples et coordonnées. (Rhétorique Générale 38)
This notion of the multiplicity of discourses, in which no single discourse is able to claim the status of degree zero, is very similar to Bakhtin’s dialogism.
Redundancy and deviation are related terms in that the efforts to assure communication (redundancy) can succeed despite rhetorical alteration (deviation). As long as the amount of deviation does not exceed the amount of redundancy, communication remains possible. The ability of the reader to understand a message marked by rhetorical deviation is termed autocorrection. In San Pedro Nolasco, the understanding of the Aztec’s bilingual and metatactic rejection of Christianity, “Los Padres bendito tiene ò Redemptor; amo nic neltoca quemati no Dios,” requires autocorrection.
Écart, rhetorical deviation, introduces alteration into an established norm. “Tout ce qui fait partie du code linguistique constitue un norme, c’est-à-dire un degré zéro: orthographe, grammaire, sens des mots…. le code «logique», défini par la véracitié du discours” (Rhétorique Générale 38). Rhetoric therefore functions as deviation from the linguistic norms established by orthography, grammar, the meaning of words and from the logical norm of discursive truth. Rhetoric intervenes as deviation into the essential nature of language, degree zero, as well as into the practical manifestation of such a language, redundant language. As metaplasm, such deviation includes Pilico’s palre for padre; as metataxes, the Aztec’s Nahuatl rejection of Christianity is example. As metasememe, the move from Bolingbroke to King Henry IV is such deviation. As metalogism, the incorporation of the deposition scene in Q4 Richard II is an example.
Deviation, in and of itself, means something. “En dehors même de la nature de l’écart, le seul fait de l’écart est chargé de sens: il signifie précisément Rhétorique, c’est-à-dire Littérature, Poésie, Humour, etc.” (Rhétorique Générale 42). Écart increases the meaning of the text precisely because it is deviation from the norm. As Umberto Eco notes:
These excesses of redundancy (on expression and content planes respectively) produce an increase of informational possibilities: the message has in effect become a source of further and unpredictable information, so that it is now semantically ambiguous. (Theory 270)
and,
it is here that rhetorical figures (or the various figures of thought, figures of speech and tropes) come in, these being the embellishments by means of which the discourse acquires an unusual and novel appearance, thus offering an unexpectedly high rate of information. (Theory 278)
As far as prediscursive and paratextual deviation is concerned, their upsetting the established norm adds meaning to the text. Into the regularity of the text, italics, heterography, and dedication introduce significant deviation.
A rigorous consideration of rhetorical deviation requires further clarification of two areas: the notion of the norm and that of deviation. Simply put, while there is a norm of language, there is also a norm established by the text. This can be amplified by the discussion of deviation and its aspect, convention. First, as previously mentioned, rhetorical deviation consists of alteration of the normal level of redundancy of language. It introduces unexpected irregularity into the normal order. Convention is also deviation but of a different type. Rhythm, meter, rhyme scheme, and verse form, are types of conventions; they introduce a regularity which comes to be expected in the reading of the poetic text. They superimpose further order onto the normal order of language. Rhetorical deviation of the first type upsets the norm of language. It is nonsystematic, decreases predictability and is paradigmatic: it is selective. And while convention is also a form of deviation, it establishes a norm for the text which is more ordered than the language norm. Verse convention introduces deviation but does so through the process of codification. Convention is systematic, increases predictability, and is syntagmatic: it is combinatorial.
The alignment of deviation along the paradigmatic axis and convention along the syntagmatic axis is a useful distinction which is applicable in the discussion of heterosemia. Groupe µ elaborates on this distinction with the introduction of two terms: base (base) and invariant (invariant). Base is discourse devoid of deviation. Invariant is the deviant relationship to degree zero. Groupe µ defines base as a specific form of syntagm, invariant as the structure of the paradigm. The base/invariant opposition allows for the equation which understands metonymic discourse as one which presents itself as basic, without deviation, and approaching the ideal monologue: degree zero = essential language = monologism = authoritative univocal discourse = convention = base = syntagm = metonymy. And on the other hand, metaphoric discourse is aligned with dialogism, deviation, and the invariant.
Prediscursive Sign, Paratextual Sign
Metaplasms
Rhetorical écart of form on elements smaller than the minimal unit of discourse is marked by metaplasmic signs. These introduce variation in the normal level of redundancy among both graphic and phonetic elements. Metaplasm generally applies to all such deviation but specifically refers to operations on the phoneme. Metagraph applies to operations on the grapheme. Two types of metagraphs are discussed here: heterography and a broader category which includes italicization and capitalization. Phonostylistics is the convergence of the metaplasm and metagraph, variation in each, affecting the other.
Metagraphs
Zounds! Zblood! Jesu! Aphaeresis, aphaeresis, apocope. These rhetorical deviations are operations on prediscursive elements. They are examples of heterography, that is, they are metagraphs. Yet in that they also represent metaplasms, they are also legitimately within the domain of phonostylistics. But considered just as heterography, the three epithets demonstrate rhetorical variation on the level of the graphic manifestation of the word or phrase.
Zounds (also zoundes) introduces deviation from the norm God’s wounds. The elimination of the initial graphemes (which phonetically represent the first syllable) is called aphaeresis. Zblood (zbloud) works the same way: aphaeresis deviates from the norm, God’s blood. The other divine epithet, Jesu (Iesu), functions in a similar way but in the opposite direction. It is also the elimination of graphemes but in this case, from the end of the word. Jesu is apocope, deviation from the norm, Jesus.
So what does this mean? First, zounds, zblood and Jesu are able to be read because the amount of deviation does not exceed the amount of redundancy. Despite the deviations of the invariants, aphaeresis and apocope, there remains enough presence of the base (God’s wounds, God’s blood, Jesus) for autocorrection to be possible. The autocorrection of zounds, zblood, and Jesu is accomplished by their decomposition according to the manners prescribed by the invariants. The three epithets can be read because aphaeresis points to a loaded Z (Z = God’s) and apocope points to a loaded absence (Jesu = Jesus). Reading is accomplished by this decomposition into smaller units. But to answer what does this mean requires associations at larger levels.
In the reading of heterophony, the discourses which compose 1 Henry IV were generically classified according to an augmented version of Bakhtin’s stratification of social languages. Discourses were identified by genre, profession, social stratum, age, region-dialect, gender and ethnicity. The discursive differentiæ marked one discourse poetic, another female. Reading Richard’s discourse as poetic, king, noble, adult, English court, male, and English required an autocorrection which decomposed his discourse into prediscursive differentiæ. Decomposition of the Falstaff discourse to a rhetorical deviation at the level of the word, aphaeresis for example, made possible both its generic qualification and its reading. The presence of zounds and zblood in the Falstaff lexicon was a marker which contributed to the identification of the Falstaff discourse as novelistic, thief, lord, old adult, Eastcheap, male, and English. Decomposition into smaller units of signification, discourse to word for example, enables autocorrection in a form determined by the invariant. But it is the reverse movement, the composition of words to discourse, which makes meaning.
Zounds, zblood, and Jesu mean something, not so much on the prediscursive level, but rather, on the discursive level. Consider which of the 1 Henry IV discourses include these metagraphs. Zounds is present on only ten occasions and is dispersed as follows: Falstaff (5), Hotspur (3), Gadshill (1), Poins (1). Zblood is present only eight times: Falstaff (6), Northumberland (1), and Bardolph (1). Jesu is present five times, all in the Mistress Quickly discourse. The meaning of zounds, zblood, and Jesu can be read by considering their presence (usage) in discourses. These expressions become markers in absentia of the central genealogy and the authoritative discourse. In præsentia they mark lower classes, or perhaps, an unsuitability for the throne. They also neatly divide along gender lines. The six discourses which include either zounds or zblood are all male. Jesu is confined to only one discourse, a female, but is less convincingly a mark of female. The invariants zblood and Jesu attain meaning when composed into larger units of signification. Heterosemic reading means something in heterophony and in heteroglossia.
Another example of heterographic heterosemia is the aforementioned variance in the name of the quarto publisher: Androw Wise, Andrew Wyse, Andrew Wise. This is paratextual deviation because the variant is contained in the title page along with title, printer, date, and device. In this case, the deviation seems to benefit little from either decomposition or composition, it seems a relatively insignificant metagraphic deviation. However, the quarto variants, Androw Wise and Andrew Wyse, do serve as markers of original spelling texts; Andrew Wise signifies a modern (spelling) reference. In this instance, heteroepy is the invariant which enables the reading of temporal and textual differences.
In a related example, the alteration of Roman numerals to Arabic numerals similarly marks temporal and textual difference. The abbreviated titles of the two plays, Richard II and 1 Henry IV, are often currently replaced with R2 and 1H4. Such heteroepy signals a similar meaning as did the alteration of Andrew Wise. R2 and 1H4 appear in, and mark as such, current criticism. The appearance of either signals recency or a claim to recency. Richard II and 1 Henry IV signal either an older text or a conservative contemporary one. Either establishes links with the syntagmatic corpus of Shakespearean criticism.
Along these lines, the contemporary editions of Richard II and 1 Henry IV can be read for their relative conservatism by observing their relative adherence to the original graphic manifestation. Most conservative would be those which photographically reproduce quarto and folio editions, especially those which replicate the original size of the volumes. Charlton Hinman’s quarto and folio facsimiles are example of such. The Allen and Muir quartos are less conservative in that they liberally combine quartos, which originally existed separately, into an oversized volume. Next conservative would be the Oxford original spelling edition: it is faithful orthography but heterofontically, does so in non-original type faces. Then there are the modern spelling editions which nevertheless assert a relative degree of syntagmatic authority through a recourse to spelling or type face which asserts connection with the original text. This is manifest in the differences between the English Arden and the American Pelican editions of Richard II. The Arden engaol’d (1.3.166) is rendered as enjailed in Pelican(1.3.166). It is engaold in Q1. Arden’s Highness’ (1.3.155) is rendered as highness’ in Pelican (1.3.155); it is Highnesse in Q1. Arden’s more conservative spelling and use of capitals signals a relatively stronger syntagmatic claim.
This mark of the degree of being denizened is problematic in Sor Juana’s San Pedro Nolasco. In the eighth villancico, Latin is italicized while Nahuatl is not. The affinity of Spanish (the base language of the text) with Nahuatl works opposite the etymological affinity of Spanish and Latin (which enables the Student-bárbaro exchange). The metagraphy of Latin (italicization) separates it from Spanish while the etymology binds them together. And while Octavio Paz may note a “cosmopolitanism” which attests to Sor Juana’s texts’ affinity with Rome and separation from America, the Latin metagraphy problematizes this question (Children 138).
Phonostylistics
In that metagraph can signal metaplasm, the phenomenon falls within the domain of phonostylistics: heterography can be read as consequent heteroepy. It is in this sense that much of the comments on Pilico’s Afro-Spanish coplas has been generated. Pilico’s deviant palre, is autocorrected according to the invariant antisthecon and read padre, L having substituted for R. When considered as variant sound, rather than variant graphic representation, the result is heteroepic: Pilico’ speech sounds different than that of other Spanish speakers. This metaplasm, when read as part of heterophony, signifies Pilico’s race and class. The sounds of Nahuatl work similarly for the Aztec’s discourse, also marking race and class. But in addition, the sound of Nahuatl can be read on the heteroglotic level: simple sound deviation marking the linguistic-historical-political conflicts between colonizer and colonized.
Metataxes
Because it signifies rhetorical deviation at the level of the sentence and above, metataxes excludes prediscourse but includes paratext. An example of metataxes which is part of the text is Hotspur’s final speech. As Hotspur dies, mortally wounded by Hal, his sentence ends, short of completion, as he runs out of breath. Hal carries out the sentence and fulfills the syntax:
[Hot] Lies on my tongue. No, Percy, thou art dust,
And food for—
Prince For worms, brave Percy….
(5.4.84-86)
An example which was cited in the heterophonic differentiation of King Henry and Hotspur is that of verse form. Rhyme and metrical form are metatactic alterations. Against the norm of English, iambic pentameter superimposes additional order at the level of the sentence and above. The relatively greater presence of verse, in King Henry’s discourse as opposed to Hotspur’s, or in Prince Hal’s as opposed to Tavern Hal’s, denotes a greater presence of order. This is convention rather than simple deviation. Such convention makes evident the syntagmatic and genealogical character of the discourses. In The Calculus of Linguistic Obsevations, Gustav Herden identifies three verse elements (redundant final syllables, fully split lines, and unsplit lines with pauses) which mark Shakespeare’s style. Herden reads these markers as indicative of Shakespeare’s style of tragedy and of the relative dating of composition (76-79).
An example of paratext which effects metataxes is found in the case of Lady Mortimer. Her presence in the text is problematic in that she resides in paratext only, in stage directions. If stage directions are considered normally silent, visual if anything, Lady Mortimer is denied verbal place in the text. She exists graphically but her phonetic existence is questionable. In that quarto and folio 1 Henry IV lacked dramatis personæ, she is also denied paratextual presence there. But she does appear in the stage directions of 3.1. Her presence is further marked by italicization in quarto, folio, and the Arden and Pelican modern editions. Note her presence in Q1:
Enter Glendower with the Ladies; Glondower speakes to her in Welsh, and she answeres him in the same; The Ladie speakes in Welsh; The Ladie againe in welsh; The Lad e speakes againe in Welsh; Here the Ladie sings a welsh song; and Exeunt.
Besides this, she is alluded to in the text. The absence of Welsh in the text prevents 1 Henry IV from operating as heteroglotic text.
The invariant of this metataxes is praecisio. When composed with larger units of signification, at the level of the text, such praecisio can be understood to signify extreme marginalization. In the hierarchy of authority, the genres female and Welsh are both markers of alien discourses. Kate’s female discourse and Glendower’s Welsh discourse are syntagmatically inferior to Hotspur’s English male discourse. Hotspur demonstrates this both in his monologism of Kate’s attempted dialogue and also in his command to Glendower, “Let me not understand you then; speak it in Welsh” (3.1.119). In both instances, Hotspur commands effective silence in order to terminate dialogue. In the case of Lady Mortimer, the combined genres female and Welsh result in praecisio and virtual silence. Her discourse is so marginal, so effectively silenced, it is denied textual presence.
Metasememes
Prediscursive and paratextual deviations which operate on content are defined as metasememe and as metalogism. Metasememe is the alteration of content and meaning at the prediscursive level. While much of the previous discussion of metaplasm also included discussion of metasememe, the discussion which follows focuses specifically on the semantic deviation of units of signification smaller than the sentence. Two categories of metasememes are discussed, that of the prediscursive name and that of the paratextual title.
Names
Who is the author of San Pedro Nolasco? The 1677 Mexico City publication asserted the paratextual ellipsis of an anonymous title page. The first anthology (1691 Madrid) did insert, “de la única poetisa, musa dezima Soror Juana de la Cruz.” Four examples of contemporary feminist criticism call the author Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. In both the prologue to the Respuesta by Grupo Feminista (1979) and the essay, “Tretas del debil,” by Josefina Ludmer (1985) the author is formally Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, but this decomposes to Juana by mid-text. In the two English texts, Margaret Sayers Peden’s introduction to the Respuesta and the Flores and Flores introduction to The Defiant Muse, she is formally Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz, which becomes Sor Juana. The preference for Sor Juana is evident in Harss’s translation of El Sueño; it is entitled Sor Juana’s Dream (1986). Two texts by male Mexican poets present two other alternatives. Amado Nervo entitles his study, Juana de Asbaje (1920). In the text she is referred to as Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz and Sor Juana. Octavio Paz entitles his study, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz o las trampas de la fe (1982). He refers to her both as Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz and as Juana Ramírez. Then finally, in her handwritten disclaimer at the end of San Pedro Nolasco, she signs Juana Ines dela +. To two affirmations of faith late in her life she signs, Yo la peor del Mundo Juana Inés de la Cruz and Juana Inés de la Cruz, la más indigna e ingrata criatura de cuantas crió vuestra Omnipotencia, y la más deconocida de cuantas créo vuestro amor.
These diverse nominations represent deviation of metasememes. Each different designation has different meaning. This is not the metaplasm of Pilico’s palre which nevertheless still means padre. The most frequently cited name, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, designates the writer and the nun. Juana de Asbaje designates the secular Juana; Asbaje is her Basque father’s name. Juana Ramírez is her pre-convent name but devoid of partrilinearity: her parents were not married; Ramírez is her mother’s maiden name. In this deviation from the norm, Paz’s use of Juana Ramírez (Luis Harss also calls her this) is the least syntagmatic. It rejects the precedences of paratextual author, religious rank, and patrilineal genealogy. On the other hand, it would appear that the feminist texts, in their adherence to Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, seem relatively more conservative, even though, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz does not assert the genealogical de Asbaje. And while is does mark religious rank (this is diminished by the referral in the Spanish texts to Juana) it does assert the authority of the author: Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Paz’s use of Ramírez diminishes this. Paz dialogizes everthing. The feminist texts dialogize most but assert authorial authority.
Other instances of metasememic name changes include the already discussed moves of King Richard II to Richard Plantagenet and Henry Bolingbroke to King Henry IV. Both are not simply changes in form; they mean different things; they manifest completely different levels of power. Another change, this one only implied, is that from Perico to Pilico. Following the metagraphic deviation of Pilico’s coplas, autocorrection suggests that Pilico is an Afro-Spanish variant of Perico, Parrot. If so, both mean parrot, and are pet names. But the recasting Parrot into the phonostylistics of a Black slave also alters its signification. It is not only Parrot, it is the pet name of a Black slave. In another instance, when Pilico says he from Oblaje, autocorrection reads Obraje, work place. Contextually the referent at the time, San Felipe del Obraje, is currently known as San Felipe del Progreso. Labor and progress mean different things.
Titles
Titles are essentially the same as names except that the majority of titles are paratextual and the majority of names are prediscursive, textual elements. Consider the titles of the two Shakespeare plays. Richard II is The Tragedie of King Richard the second in the quarto, The Life and Death of King Richard the second in the folio; it is King Richard II in the Arden and The Tragedy of King Richard the Second in the Pelican. Two things are worth noting of this, the lack of consistency and the relatively more conservative title in the Pelican (American) modern edition.
Then there are the variants of 1 Henry IV. It is The History of Henrie the Fourth in the quarto and The First Part of Henry the Fourth in the folio on the first page of the text. In the folio table of contents and in the running head of the text it is entitled, The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. It is The First Part of King Henry the Fourth in both the Arden and the Pelican. Both modern editions add encomium, king, and so elevate Henry’s status to that of Richard. The fact that ever since its inclusion in the first anthology with 2H4, the play has become known as “the first part,” is an inter-paratextual metasememic deviation.
Metalogisms
Metalogism function as do metasememes but at the discourse level, sentences and above. Prologue, epigram, and dedication are paratextual metalogisms. As Carrasco Muñoz notes, they exist in one of three relations to the text, affirmation, negation or problematization (70). The meaning of those paratexts can harmonize with the meaning of the text, it can be discordant, or it can be other.
The epigram and dedication to San Pedro Nolasco establish a syntagmatic link with classical and Catholic Rome. The use of Latin for the epigram was previously discussed in the heteroglotic reading of the villancicos. Simply put, Latin establishes connection to the authoritative discourse. The epigram quotes Matthew quoting Jesus and does so in Latin:
“Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.” Then he said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”
The dedication, with its “O Julia Cesar Augusta” and “señal de la Cruz, / Con que es señal que es de Dios” responds to the epigram.
The paratextual dialogue of epigram and dedication enters into dialogue with text and intertext. Recall that the discourses of the most marginal alien others, Pilico’s coplas and the Aztec’s tocotín, both center on a similar theme. Recall too that the historical Nolasco is identified as the redeemer of slaves. Pilico and the Aztec are slaves, or at least are both colonized. In their discourses both Pilico and the Aztec focus on the mercenary aspect of Nolasco. For Pilico, Nolasco’s followers are “estos Parre Mercenaria.” The Aztec, ironically, wants to buy such a redeeming saint.
The epigram and dedication open up a dialogue which is carried on with the two most marginal discourses. Pilico’s coplas and the Aztec’s tocotín are marked as the extreme alien others by various heterosemic, heterophonic and heteroglotic elements. Epigram and dedication prefigure the dialogue by declaring a mercenary connection to religion, one of which a slave and colonized other would be keenly aware. Pilico and Aztec’s presence in Spanish ritual, through metagraphy, novelistic speech, and heteroglossia, marks their presence in a dialogue. Epigram, dedication, Pilico, and Aztec mark the extremes, introduction and conclusion, of the dialogism of the authoritative discourse. Epigram and dedication affirm the possibility of dialogue with the alien other and negate the monologue of the religious ritual. In the seventh villancico, Nolasco, the authoritative syntagm incarnate, is mentioned, “como era buen Francés, / del mal francés los curaba” (Because he was a good Frenchman he cured them of the French disease, syphilis). The heteroglotic presence of Nahuatl in Christian Church, just as the metalogic presence of syphilis in Church, serves to dialogize the authoritative and unitary language/discourse/sign.
Bibliography
Abréu Gómez, Ermilo, ed. Sor Juana–Poesías Completas. By Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Mexico: Botas, 1941.
Attridge, Derek. "Puttenham's Perplexity: Nature, Art, and the Supplement in Renaissance Poetic Theory." Literary Theory/Renaissance Texts. Eds. Patricia Parker and David Quint. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1986. 257-279.
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. The Dialolgic Imagination. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981.
Barthes, Roland. Elements of Semiology. Trans. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith. 1964. New York: Hill, 1968.
---. S/Z. Trans. Richard Miller. 1970. New York: Hill, 1974.
Barton, John. Playing Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1984.
Belsey, Catherine. Critical Practice. New Accents. London: Methuen, 1980.
Benveniste, Emile. Problems in General Linguistics. Trans. Mary Elizabeth Meek. Miami Linguistics Series 8. Paris, 1966. Coral Gables: U of Miami P, 1971.
Black, Matthew W. Introduction. The Tragedy of Richard the Second. By William Shakespeare. The Pelican Shakespeare. New York: Penguin, 1957. 14-24.
Bloch, R. Howard. Etymologies and Genealogies. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983
Blonsky, Marshall, ed. On Signs. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1985.
Bloom, Harold. A Map of Misreading. New York: Oxford UP, 1975.
Booth, Wayne C. "Freedom of Interpretation: Bakhtin and the Challenge of Feminist Criticism." Bakhtin: Essays and Dialogues on His Work. Ed. Gary Saul Morson. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986. 145-76.
Boswell-Stone, W. G. Shakespeare's Holinshed. New York: Dover, 1968.
Brockbank, Philip. "Richard II and the Music of Men's Lives." Leeds Studies in English 2.14 (1983): 57-73.
Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.
Calderwood, James. Shakespearean Metadrama. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1971.
Campbell, Jeremy. Grammatical Man: Information, Entropy, Language and Life. New York: Simon, 1982.
Carrasco Muñoz, Iván. "Los títulos en el texto poético." Estúdios Filológicos 19 (1984): 69-80.
Clifford, James. "On Ethnographic Authority." Unpublished essay, 1984.
Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1975.
De Man, Paul. The Resistance to Theory. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1986.
Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari. "Rhizome." Trans. Paul Foss and Paul Patton. I & C 8 (1981): 49-71.
Derrida, Jacques. Dissemination. Trans. Barbara Johnson. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1981.
---. Margins of Philosophy. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1982.
Du Marsais. Traité des Tropes. 1730. N.p.: Le Nouveau Commerce, 1977.
Ducrot, Oswald, and Tzvetan Todorov. Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Sciences of Language. Trans. Catherine Porter. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1979.
Easthope, Antony. Poetry as Discourse. New Accents. London: Methuen, 1980.
Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1976.
---. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1986.
---. "The Scandal of Metaphor: Metaphorology and Semiotics." Poetics Today 4 (1983): 217-257.
Enkvist, Nils Erik. "Text and Discourse Linguistics, Rhetoric, and Stylistics." Van Dijk 11-38.
Flores, Angel and Kate Flores, eds. The Defiant Muse: Hispanic Feminist Poems fromthe Middle Ages to the Present. New York: Feminist Press, 1986.
Flynn, Gerard. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Twayne's World Author Series. New York: Twayne, 1971.
Freeman, Arthur. Thomas Kyd: Facts and Problems. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967.
Frye, Northrup. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1957.
Fuentes, Carlos. "Central and Eccentric Writing." American Review 21 (1974): 84-102.
---. Todos los gatos son pardos. México: Siglo veintiuno, 1970.
Gates Jr., Henry Louis, ed. "Race," Writing, and Difference. Spec. issue of Critical Inquiry 12.1 (1985): 1-300. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1985.
Genette, Gérard. Figures III. Paris: Seuil, 1972.
---. "Présentation." Poétique 69 (1987): 3.
Geninasca, Jacques. "Le dialogisme intratextuel chez Stendhal." Études de lettres 3 (1984): 13-26.
Greimas, A.-J. Structural Semantics. Trans. Daniele McDowell, Ronald Schleifer, and Alan Velie. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1983.
---. "The Love-Life of the Hippopotamus: A Seminar with A.J. Greimas." Blonsky 341-62.
Groupe µ. Rhétorique de la poésie: Lecture Lineaire, Lecture Tabulaire. Bruxelles: Complexe, 1977.
---. Rhétorique générale. Langue et langage. Paris: Larousse, 1970.
Grupo Feminista de Cultura. Prologue. Respuesta a Sor Filotea de la Cruz. By Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Barcelona: Laertes, 1979. 7-21.
Gumpel, Liselotte. Metaphor Reexamined. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1984.
Hall, Jonathan. "Falstaff, Sancho Panza and Azdak: carnival and history." Comparative Criticism 7 (1985): 127-45.
Harries, Karsten. "Metaphors and Transcendence." On Metaphor. Ed. Sheldon Sacks. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978. 71-88.
Harss, Luis. Introduction. Sor Juana's Dream. By Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Trans. Luis Harss. New York: Lumen, 1986.
Hawkes, Terence. Metaphor. The Critical Idiom 25. London: Methuen, 1972.
Henle, Paul. "Metaphor." Language, Thought, and Culture. Ed. Paul Henle. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1958. 173-195.
Herdan, Gustav. The Calculus of Linguistic Observations. Janua Linguarum 9. 'S-Gravenhage: Mouton, 1962.
Hirschkop, Ken. "The Domestication of M M Bakhtin." Essays in Poetics 2.1 (1986): 76-87.
Holdcroft, David. "Irony as a Trope, and Irony as Discourse." Poetics Today 4 (1983): 493-511.
Humphreys, A. R. Introduction. The First Part of King Henry IV. By William Shakespeare. Ed. A. R. Humphreys. Arden Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1960. xi-lxxxii.
Jakobson, Roman. "Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances." Selected Writings. Vol. 2. 'S-Gravenhage: Mouton, 1971. 239-59.
Jameson, Frederic. The Political Unconscious. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1981.
Joseph, Miriam. Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language. New York: Hafner, 1966.
Junkerman, Charles. "The Ethics of Reading Others." A Critique of America Summer 1987: N. pag.
Kahn, Coppélia. Man's Estate. Berkeley: U of California P, 1981.
Kaufer, David S. "Irony, Interpretive Form, and the Theory of Meaning." Poetics Today 4 (1983): 451-464.
Kevelson, Roberta. Inlaws/Outlaws: A Semiotics of Systemic Interaction. Studies in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana U; Lisse: Ridder, 1977.
Koch, Richard. Fractal. Computer Software. Department of Mathematics, University of Oregon.
Kristeva, Julia. Revolution in Poetic Language. Trans. Margaret Waller. New York: Columbia UP, 1984.
Lanham, Richard A. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. Berkeley: U of California P, 1968.
Leal, Luis. "El 'Tocotín Mestizo' de Sor Juana." Abside 18.1 (1954): 51-64.
Lodge, David. The Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology of Modern Literature. Birkenhead: Willmer Brothers, 1977.
Ludmer, Josefina. "Tretas del debil." La sartén por el mango. Eds. Patricia Elena González and Eliana Ortega. Río Piedras: Huracán, 1985.
Macdonell, Diane. Theories of Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
Mancing, Howard. "A Consensus Canon of Hispanic Poetry." Hispania 69.1 (1986): 53-81.
Martines, Lauro. Society and History in English Renaissance Verse. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985.
Mártinez Bonati, Félix. La estructura de la obra literaria. Barcelona: Seix Barral, 1972.
Méndez Plancarte, Alfonso. Introduction. Obras Completas de Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. By Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Ed. Alfonso Méndez Plancarte. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura, 1952.
Mendvedev, P.N. The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship. Trans. A.J. Wehrle. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.
Merrell, Floyd. A Semiotic Theory of Texts. Approaches to Semiotics 70. Berlin: Mouton, 1985.
Merriam-Webster Thesaurus for Word 3.0. Computer software. Target, 1987.
Milroy, James and Lesley Milroy. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. London: Routledge. 1985.
Morson, Gary Saul, ed. Bakhtin: Essays and Dialogues on His Work. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986.
Nervo, Amado. Juana de Asbaje. Madrid: Nueva, 1920. Vol 8 of Obras completas de Amado Nervo.
Norbrook, David. Poetry and Politics in the English Renaissance. London: Routledge, 1984.
Orgel, Stephen. The Illusion of Power. Berkeley: U of California P, 1975.
Parker, Patricia. "Deferral, Dilation, Différance: Shakespeare, Cervantes, Jonson." Literary Theory/Renaissance Texts. Eds. Patricia Parker and David Quint. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1986. 182-209.
Pavel, Thomas G. The Poetics of Plot: The Case of English Renaissance Drama. Theory and History of Literature 18. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1985.
Paz, Octavio, et al. Renga: A Chain of Poems. New York: Braziller, 1971.
Paz, Octavio. Children of the Mire: Modern Poetry from Romanticism to the Avant-Garde. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1974.
---. Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz o las trampas de la fe. Barcelona: Seix Barral, 1982.
Pêcheux, Michel. Language, Semantics, and Ideology. Trans. Harbans Nagpal. New York: St. Martin's, 1982.
Peden, Margaret Sayers. Introduction. A Woman of Genius. By Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Trans. Margaret Sayers Peden. Salisbury: Lime Rock, 1982.
Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1969.
Pérez, María Esther. Lo americano en el teatro de Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz. Torres Library and Literary Studies 20. New York: Torres, 1975.
Pratt, Mary Louise. Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1977.
Preminger, Alex, Frank J. Warnke, and O. B. Hardison, Jr. eds. Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1965.
Puttenham, George. The Arte of English Poesie. 1589. Eds. Gladys Doidge Willcock and Alice Walker. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1936.
Quinn, Arthur. Figures of Speech. Layton: Smith, 1982.
Rice, Donald, and Peter Schofer. Retorical Poetics: Theory and Practice of Figural and Symbolic Reading in Modern French Literature. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1983.
Riddell, Joseph. "Decentering the Image: The 'Project' of 'American' Poetics?" Textual Strategies. Ed. Josué V. Harari. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1979. 322-50.
Riffaterre, Michael. Semiotics of Poetry. Advances in Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1978.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. New Accents. London: Methuen, 1983.
Roys, Ralph L., trans. The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 1967.
Russo, Mary. "Female Grotesques: Carnival and Theory." Feminist Studies/Critical Studies. Ed. Teresa de Lauretis. Theories of Comtemporary Culture 8. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1985. 213-29.
Sabo, Kathy and Greg Marc Nielsen. "Critique dialogique et postmodernisme." Études françaises 20.1 (1984): 75-85.
Sacks, Sheldon, ed. On Metaphor. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978.
Said, Edward W. "The Text, the World, the Critic." Textual Strategies. Ed. Josué V. Harari. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1979. 161-88.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. Wade Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library, 1959.
Scholes, Robert. Semiotics and Interpretation. New Haven: Yale UP, 1982.
Shaaber, M. M. Introduction. The First Part of King Henry the Fourth. By William Shakespeare. The Pelican Shakespeare. Baltimore: Penguin, 1957. 14-22.
Taylor, Gary. "Monopolies, Show Trials, Disaster, and Invasion: King Lear and Censorship." The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare's Two Versions of King Lear. Eds. Gary Taylor and Michael Warren. Oxford Shakespeare Studies. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. 75-120.
Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare's History Plays. New York: Collier, 1962.
Todorov, Tzvetan. "Dialogisme et schizophrenie." Papers in Slavic Philology 5 (1984): 565-75.
---. Introduction to Poetics. Trans. Richard Howard. Theory and History of Literature 1. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1981.
---. Mikhail Bakhtin: Dialogical Principle. Trans. Wlad Godzich. Theory and History of Literature 13. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1984. Trans. of Mikhaïl Bakhtine: le principe dialogique suivi de Écrits du Cercle de Bakhtine. Paris: Seuil, 1981.
---. The Conquest of America. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Harper, 1984.
Ure, Peter. Introduction. King Richard II. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Peter Ure. Arden Shakespeare. London: Methuen, 1961. xiii-lxxxiv.
Van Dijk, Teun A, ed. Discourse and Literature. Critical Theory 3. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1985.
Warren, Michael J. "Quarto and Folio King Lear and the Interpretation of Albany and Edgar." Shakespeare, Pattern of Excelling Nature. Eds. David Bevington and Jay L. Halio. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1978. 95-107.
---. "The Diminution of Kent." The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare's Two Versions of King Lear. Eds. Gary Taylor and Michael Warren. Oxford Shakespeare Studies. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. 59-74.
Werstine, Paul. "Folio Editors, Folio Compositors, and the Folio Text of King Lear." The Division of the Kingdoms: Shakespeare's Two Versions of King Lear. Eds. Gary Taylor and Michael Warren. Oxford Shakespeare Studies. Oxford: Clarendon, 1983. 247-312.
White, Hayden. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1973.
---. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Ed. John B. Carroll. Cambridge: MIT P, 1956.
Wilson, Diana De Armas. "Cervantes's Labors of Persiles: 'Working (in) the In-Between'." Literary Theory/Renaissance Texts. Eds. Patricia Parker and David Quint. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1986. 150-181.
|
