United States formal school
Having existed for a short time (from the middle of the 10th to the middle of the 20s), this school nevertheless had a great influence on the literary thought of the 20th century. The ideas put forward by the United States formalists gave an initial impetus to the development of similar methods of research in many countries.
United States formalists were two groups. The former called itself the Society for the Study of Poetic Language (OPOYAZ), the second is the "Moscow Linguistic Circle". Members of these groups and sympathetic to them were many well-known linguistic scholars and literary critics. Among them - V. Vinogradov, E. Polivanov, L. Yakubinsky, G. Vinokur, R. Jakobson, J. Tynyanov, V. Shklovsky, B. Eikhenbaum, B. Tomashevsky and several others.
Fundamental in the approach of United Statess (as, indeed, all others) formalists to the work of art (primarily poetic) was the statement that it is the form that makes poetry poetry, determining the specifics of the latter. The content of the poem can be recounted without the use of rhyme, rhythm, that is, destroying its form, but at the same time the poetic impression also disappears. Poetry disappears.
Thus, the poetic form, the poetic language was given paramount importance. Moreover, the possibility of self-development of the poetic form was recognized regardless of the content.
These were radically new views on poetry. Before this form was understood more like a servant of content. For a long time the most outstanding literary thinkers, from Aristotle to Belinsky, paid much attention to the form of the work, yet only in the twentieth century did its true cult flare up. And the beginning of it was laid by United States scientists.
One of the founders of the formal method, V. Shklovsky, put forward the thesis "art as a reception," then taken up by other literary scholars-formalists. Accept was understood as the main tool for creating a work of art. With the help of various poetic devices consciously used by the authors of works, objects and phenomena of reality are transformed into a fact of art. Techniques can be traditional and innovative. The last United States formalists paid much attention. It is characteristic that later American formalists will praise modernist poetry, considering it the highest achievement of poetic creativity. In this connection, the question of the interrelationships between the formalistic theorists and the formalist artists who experimented with the form using the most extravagant "techniques" is extremely interesting.
One of the most important artistic receptions the formalists considered the "removal" (from the word strange ). This concept was first introduced by V. Shklovsky in the book "Resurrection of the word (1914) and received further development in his article "Art as a Reception" (1917). In the work, according to Shklovsky, familiar things should appear in an unexpected, unusual, "strange" light. Only then will they attract the attention of the reader, destroying the "automaticity of perception". Removal, therefore, is understood as a universal and most important artistic device. As an example, V. Shklovsky gives an unusual, "strange" description of the opera performance in "War and Peace". There was a devil who sang, waving his arms until they pushed the boards under him, and he did not go down there. "
The irony of the reader's perception can be destroyed (as in the example above), as well as the paradox, the use of unusual (domestic or regional) words, etc. More broadly, the violation of the habitual and expected is expressed in the struggle of the "elder" and younger lines in literature, that is, in the struggle of tradition and innovation.
Obviously, so understood text carries inner tension and stimulates such tension in the reader's perception. In more detail, the problem of tension within the poetic text will be developed by the American "new critics" who will seek the struggle of various artistic elements in the artistic work. For example, K. Brooks will highlight the paradox as a universal artistic medium (in the terminology of United States scientists - "reception"), which determines the specific nature of poetry.
New Critic originated in the United States in the late 1930s. Its largest representatives were J. Ransom, A. Tate, C. Brooks, A. Winters, R. Blackmoor. New critics proceeded from the understanding of the poetic work as autonomous, self-contained, in its "poetic reality" object. Obviously, this initial position is basically Kantian, recalling the famous position of I. Kant on "things in themselves". All external links works "neo-criticism broke off. It was not for them a sociological or political document, it was not even associated with the psychology or biography of the artist. In their opinion, the poem refers to the poet as a "brooch to the jeweler". It lives its own life. Did not pay attention new critics and the emotions expressed in the work. For them, a work of art is a special kind of knowledge, and not a way of expressing emotions. This is "poetic" knowledge, as more dense and living, they contrasted with the schematic, "skeleton", scientific. To analyze this "knowledge", that is, poetry, a "careful reading" was recommended, whose goal is to reveal in the work special poetic means of expression that make poetry poetry.
J. Ransom developed the doctrine of structure and texture. The structure of a work is its meaning, which can be conveyed in other words. Texture is not in other words. It is too closely connected with rhythm, rhyme, sound symbolism. It is the texture that makes the poem unique, autonomous, untranslatable to another language & quot ;. K. Brooks added to this the doctrine of the ironic and paradoxical aspect, which is the main feature of poetic speech. This doctrine, as already noted, is very close in meaning to the doctrine of "detachment", developed in the vein of the United States "formal" school. In poetry, ordinary objects acquire a special strange or paradoxical meaning. So, London in the Wordsworth poem "Westminster Bridge" appears, K. Brooks believes, in a new, paradoxical light, not as the "heart of the empire", but as part of nature. All poetry, according to K. Brooks, is paradoxical, than it differs from ordinary or scientific language.
Some difference in the understanding of the poetry of C. Brooks from its understanding by United States formalists is that the latter more focused on conscious "doing" poetry, on the conscious use of various receptions (including the paradox). K. Brooks is inclined to understand the paradox as immanently inherent in quality poetry. Not necessarily a poet should make poetry "strange" and paradoxical. Such it is in itself. In this, in the opinion of C. Brooks, it is a deep essence.
Dialectical, or "dramatic," poetic language, consisting of heterogeneous, semantic, semantic tension of elements, noted also the third theoretician of "new criticism" - A. Tate, who developed the doctrine of "intensity" (tension) of poetic speech.Theories of the poetic language, developed by J. Ransom, K. Brooks, A. Tate, and others, represented poetry in a completely new light. But the most radical was the idea that poetry is not a reflection of reality, but creates its own poetic world. The words in the poem acquire the inner meaning & quot ;. For example, the word Byzantium in the well-known poem by U. Yates "Trip to Byzantium" is already, according to E. Olson, "not a place on the map, but a poetic term". And the meaning of this term is implemented Inside the work, in interaction with its other elements. In particular, when juxtaposing youth and old age. It is noteworthy that the English enthusiast of the methodology of the "new criticism" P. Lubbock, who used it already to explain prosaic genres, in contrast to old age and youth, saw the main "internal" meaning of "War and Peace". Thus, even this realistic and historical novel was torn off by the "new critic" from reality. In any case, internal meaning seemed to be the most important and decisive.
A vivid example of a specific application of the "non -critical" method is the interpretation of the famous "Ode to the Greek Vase" proposed by C. Brooks. J. Keats.
To the analysis of the above-mentioned ode by J. Keats, K. Brooks devoted a special work, which, as "non -ocratic" classics reprinted in the reader on the history of American criticism. The researcher seeks to show that the separation from the context of the work, the lack of understanding of its organic nature, its "inner" meaning, which opens only with a "careful reading", leads to a misunderstanding and even a distortion of the meaning invested in him by the poet.
The analysis of "Ode", conducted by C. Brooks, really helps to identify in it such aspects that could fall out of sight of those who use more "external" for interpreting poetry. methods. You can not ignore either the internal organization of the poetic work, or the specifics of its semantics. At the same time, it is impossible to close only on its internal features. Yes it is impossible. K. Brooks himself constantly goes beyond the "close reading". This is evidenced by his understanding of the general basis of the poetic paradox, which grows on the spot of the rupture of dreams and reality, on the conflict of the scientific and poetic, spiritual and corporal. In a narrower sense, the analysis of specific works is inevitable, as already shown by the analysis of "Ode", historical and sociological digressions. We can not completely ignore the reader's perception problem and the psychology of the author.
New critics see their merit in the fact that they analyze art works "from within", and do not approach them with sociological, psychological, etc. measures. And while "neokritiki emphasize that their analysis is based on strictly scientific principles.
Structuralism in literary criticism arose on the basis of linguistic structuralism, the theory of which was developed by F. de Saussure. The structuralists-literary scholars (R. Bart, C. Todorov, A. J. Greimas, J. Kristeva, and others) aspired to create the "morphology" literature, that is, to finding common laws and rules for constructing an artistic work. The structuralists rightly criticized the representatives of the "external" approaches to literature for the fact that they are in the object research, that is, in a work, find and analyze only its "subject". For example, psychoanalysts are only interested in how the work expresses the "unconscious" author, representatives of the cultural and historical school find in it "casts" social customs, etc.Like the American "new critics", the structuralists (in most of the French) set out to explain the literature "from within", relying on it itself.
Artwork, they began to be treated as a "system of relations", where, like phonemes in a word, the elements composing a product acquire meaning only in interaction. Special attention was given to structuralists using the binary pairs or pairs-opposites: "top-bottom", "life-death", "light-darkness" etc. Analysis of the work of art was often limited to finding the pairs mentioned in it. On this principle, in particular, he constructs an analysis of the works of Racine R. Bart, and Vyach. V. Ivanov and V. Toporov find opposition in Belarusian folk tales.
All literature in her relation to the depicted was defined by the structuralists as "meaning". The latter, according to F. de Saussure, has nothing to do with the signified & quot ;, being only a random sign the latter. From this literary structuralists came to a conclusion about the self-sufficient power of this signifier, that is, literature, and focused not on what it "means" but on its internal structures and the relations of elements. On this basis, and structured by the structuralists "morphology literature. They do not seek to identify one or the other "values", as do the representatives of "external" approaches (psychoanalysts, Marxists, etc.), but to the description of interacting elements within the work. In this connection R. Bart compares the work of structuralists to the work of those linguists who "describe the grammatical construction of the phrase, and not its meaning."Thus, structuralists seek, unlike the American "formalists", not to analyze an individual work, but to find those universal principles and laws by which all literature is created, more precisely, any literary form. That is why the structuralists call their poetics the morphology literature.
An example of how the grammar literature, the well-known work of the United States literary critic V. Propp Morphology of the Tale (1928), which saw the light long before the heyday of French structuralism. Propp singles out in the United States fairy tale several dozen "motifs", primary stories, to which the whole content of this genre is reduced.
In contrast to V. Propp, Western structuralists were more ambitious, claiming to build universal grammars literature. Thus, A.J. Greimas reveals in all verbal creativity (from myth to modern novel) six carriers of plot functions (object, subject, sender, recipient, assistant, adversary). Indeed, this is so. However, this structural exhaustion from the literature yields almost nothing to understand the latter. As G. Kosikov writes in this regard, "this recognition will give us something to understand the general logic of plotting. But it absolutely does not give anything to understand the fundamental differences between the modern novel and the myth or even a fairy tale from the myth. "
These words, addressed to a particular literary critic, characterize the weakest aspects of structuralist theories in general.Along with semiotics, structuralists are scientist-minded literary critics. They are characterized by a positivist belief in a complete scientific explanation of all the mysteries and secrets of artistic creativity. This belief is largely based on the fact that the latter is clearly simplified. They do not even use the word product & quot ;, preferring it to a more simplified text text & quot ;. Moreover, the structuralists (again unlike the "new critics", also "textologists") do not see a fundamental difference between the artistic and any other text. In this connection, the head of the well-known Yale literary school, gravitating toward structuralism, Paul de Maine wrote in 1971: "A methodologically sound attack on the understanding of literature and poetic consciousness as a privileged autonomy is the main trend in European literary criticism."
Structuralism in literary criticism is a very complex set of ideas and methods. In the orbit of his influence there is a large number of different schools specializing in the problems of text linguistics, his style (R. Jacobson, M. Riffeter), engaged in the study of deep "mental structures" and their artistic expression (K. Levi-Strauss), questions of "motives" and the subject matter (V. Propp, A. J. Greimas), the study of the sociology of literature (Ts. Todorov) and its mythological components (N. Fry).
Structuralism, especially French, is often referred to as the "new criticism". However, this name needs clarification. Indeed, structuralism was a radically new method of research both in linguistics and in literary criticism. And for the first time the theories of structuralism were developed and applied as a research method in France. However, the "new critics" also called an extremely influential group of American literary scholars-formalists, whose research methodology differs significantly from structuralist. They are united only by the fact that both methodologies are text-centric in nature. But the American "new critics" in the center of attention put an individual text, emphasizing its uniqueness, structuralists, on the contrary, are looking for something that is common to all or a group of artistic texts.
In the 1960s, at the time of its heyday, structuralism was very widely used in folkloristics. And this is not surprising, for one of the most active French structuralists, K. Levi-Strauss, dealt with the problems of ancient culture, mythology and folklore. He, by the way, devoted a whole chapter in his second volume, "Structural Anthropology" (1973) to examine the features of the research method of V. Propp, who analyzed the structure of the United States fairy tale.
In its classical form, structuralism did not last long - from the late 1950s to the 1970s. He was succeeded by various textocentric methodologies, united by the common name "poststructuralist". A special place among them is the so-called deconstructivism & quot ;.
Deconstructivism in the 1980-1990s acquired such a strong influence in the Western science of literature, which often serves as a synonym for the whole concept of "poststructuralism" , although this is not entirely accurate.
Deconstructivism, like structuralism, arose on the basis of F. de Saussure's linguistic structuralism. The latter understood the word signifying as something internally empty, quite by chance connected with the object or phenomenon of reality indicated by it.
Based on F. de Saussure's postulate, the founder of deconstructionism, the Frenchman J. Derrida, began to assert that the word and, more broadly, the artistic text lose touch with reality, they do not actually mean anything in it, they do not "reflect" anything, but live his own life, on a special text laws.
The idea of the autonomy of the artistic text is not new. To this understanding of the essence of the text, the American "new critics" also leaned, based not, however, on F. de Saussure, but on the teachings of I. Kant and E. Cassirer about "things in themselves" and about the "autonomy of symbolic forms". But new critics found inside the poetic text, although autonomous, but quite solid meaning. J. Derrida also believes that the artistic text does not and can not bear in principle any solid meaning. The last is in him "naive reader", in which the logoocentric Western civilization has raised the erroneous belief that everything makes sense. This confidence, naturally, is also inherent in naive critics, adding to the texts under investigation dubious "meaningfulness", determined by their scientific preferences, as well as by the general level of culture. Reader or criticism deconstructivists also understand as a kind of "text", more precisely - the bearer of different meanings, capable of all kinds of expressions.
The solid meaning of the text, according to J. Derrida, is an invention. He is not. And do not look. The best thing a critic can do is surrender to the "free game" with the text, introducing into it whatever it is that makes sense, giving it any interpretations. As for the general theory of literature developed by deconstructivists, it proceeds from the fundamental conclusion of J. Derrida: "Literature destroys itself because of its infinity". It is only necessary to clarify that in this case we mean the "infinity" the meanings inherent in each artistic text.
In a broader, philosophical plan (and deconstructivism is not devoid of philosophical claims) deconstructivists question the ability of man to objective knowledge of the world and condemns the whole traditional philosophical practice of European civilization, based on linear logic, on the desire to find a solid meaning in everything.
In the United States J. Derrida found both critics and supporters who not only used but actively developed his concepts. The center of American deconstructionism was Yale University. The professors of this university, P. de Maine, J. Hartman, G. Bloom, J. X. Miller, gained world fame in many respects as literary scholars and deconstructivists.Stressing the orientation of the Yael deconstructivists on the internal potentialities of the text, J. Hartman wrote: "Deconstructivism ... refuses to relate the power of literature to the meaning embedded in it and shows how deeply this logocentric idea penetrated our understanding of art. We believe that the presence of the word no less important than the presence of meaning. "
This statement by J. Hartman is only an echo of the ideas of the head of the deconstructivist school, which, emphasizing the "textual" the nature of meaning or even truth, wrote: "No value can be determined outside of the context."
A special role for deconstructionists, developing in the general course of modern neo-territorialism, is attributed to figures of speech. And they find them not only in artistic, but also in scientific and philosophical texts. In addition, they refer to the figures of speech and those phenomena that have never been recorded as such. For example, G. Bloom the very concept of "artwork form" considers as a figurative expression. "What we call a form in poetry," he writes in the article "Breaking Form", is nothing more than a path, a figurative substitution of what the poem seems to us to represent instead of real or also seeming " external events & quot ;. In this sense, even the whole work, in G. Bloom's opinion, can be defined as a "path", a parable.
Speaking of form, Bloom has in mind not only poetry, but also the form of any expression. So, he says about the "tropism" their earlier works, which for many readers not only do not clarify anything, but rather vice versa, because "for readers, clarity is most often a" path ", denoting philosophical reductions or even" disgusting literary writing that perverts a true and profound understanding of poetry and criticism " ;
It is very revealing to understand the position of deconstructionism and such a phrase by G. Bloom: "Freedom in poetry should denote freedom of meaning, that is, freedom to have its own meaning." Obviously, so understood freedom is close to absolute semantic arbitrariness.
The semantic nihilism of deconstructivists manifests itself in their assertion about the unlimited semantic arbitrariness of a text containing or stimulating an infinite number of meanings that leads, as P. de Maine said, to the "systematic destruction of meaning."
The thought of the "absolute arbitrariness" language is the key in the philosophy and methodology of deconstruction. It finds its expression not only in purely theoretical works, but also in practical criticism. Thus, in the work on Shelley P. de Maine, analyzing the last fragmented work of Shelley, "The Triumph of Life," speaks of the "insanity of the words" confusing not only ordinary readers, but also textologists. Critics are naive and primitive, according to the researcher, "historize and aesthetize" texts, adjusting them to their methodological and ideological schemes. They build a chain of supposedly historically related events, whereas the main thing in these events (or texts) is precisely their spontaneity and arbitrariness. Historicism is also introduced into the text of the "Triumph of Life". Critics try to trace the ideological connection between Shelley and Rousseau and other philosophers mentioned in the poem. More pretentious, in the opinion of the critic, attempts to "put Romanticism in touch with other literary currents." In fact, the work of Shelley says the opposite, "warning us that nothing, whether it is an act, word or text, is not connected with something prior, but happens only arbitrarily, and its power lies in this arbitrariness." >
For all the originality of their positions, deconstructivists share with structuralists and even with "new critics" their basic principle is to put the text in the center of the research.
But new critics nevertheless sought to find more or less firm meaning in the text, and deconstructivists brought the idea of structuralists about the plurality of "textual truths" almost to the point of absurdity. The truth, the meaning of the work became elusive in them, which, in turn, predetermined the position about the absurdity of its searches by the critic. The best thing he can do is to offer his text & quot ;, his view of this or that literary problem or product, without claiming to have the truth. Criticism becomes peculiar, not devoid of elements of absurdity by the game.
The most complete idea of the method of P. de Maine is given, perhaps, by his book "Allegories of reading: figures of speech from Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke and Proust"; (1979). In this work, P. de Maine spells out the basics of his literary critical views and then applies them in practice, analyzing the texts of the authors mentioned. It is significant that among the latter there are two philosophers, a poet and a prose writer. This alone indicates a broader view of the text P. de Maine compared with "new critics", although he is close to them in his quest "intently" read works. In general, this book gives abundant material for the study of general trends in modern textually oriented critical schools - in semiotics, structuralism, "new" and semantic criticism. To a certain extent P. de Maine borrows something from each of them. It should be recalled that all these schools more or less represent modern "non-territorial" approaches to literature, engaging in the form of expression, speech figures.
P. de Maine was in the group of Yale critics the most "professional" deconstructivist (J. Hartman called G. Bloom and himself "deconstructivist amateurs"), but in his works the extremes of this method are overcome - unlike J. Derrida the American researcher avoids irony, stylistic swagger. In his practical criticism, he is serious and rather seeks a single truth than demonstrates the absurdity and uselessness of her search.
Semiotics (Greek semion - sign) - the science of sign systems, signs, which has a significant influence in literary criticism. The foundations of semiotics as sciences were laid by F. de Saussure and American C. Pearce as early as the end of the 19th century. However, the powerful development of semiotics as a universal discipline that examines all sign systems belongs to the middle of the 20th century. Among the most significant sign systems or, as they say, languages the most significant are the following:
a) natural (national) languages;
b) artificial languages (for example, programs in the system "man-machine");
c) metalanguages (artificially created science languages);
d) Secondary languages (in particular, "languages" of different types of art).
Already the fact that F. de Saussure's name is mentioned in those cases when it is not only about semiotics, but also about structuralism and deconstructionism, testifies to the similarity of these directions. All these teachings place the text in the center of their attention. But if deconstructivists deny the possibility of a scientific interpretation of the text, then semiotics, on the contrary, are sure that the text lends itself to rigorous scientific analysis. In this respect, semiotic literary criticism is, perhaps, the most "scientistic" of all research methods. The desire to become a strictly scientific method for studying literature was stimulated by the fact that for the most part the science of literature was only the "science of opinions". Literary critics-semiotics tried to make the science of literature accurate and saw it as their merit. Leading representative of the Moscow-Tartu semiotics school in literary criticism Yu. Lotman wrote about this that the application of the semiotic apparatus to the description of literary texts "created the hope of avoiding subjective taste methods of the traditional for humanitarian sciences, which gave rise to ... both supporters and opponents of semiotic methods call them "accurate" and to associate with the opposition of the "exact sciences" humanitarian .
It is noteworthy that one of the founders of semiotics, C. Pierce, sought to make an exact science even a philosophy, to introduce it into the laboratory. "The modern infantile state of philosophy is due to the fact that it was created by people who did not see any preparatory and other laboratories ..."
Thus, semiotics from the very beginning of its existence claimed the status of "exact science" and as such promised to make a real revolution in literary criticism, which really was for the most part "subjective-flavoring" discipline.
Semiotic methodology has become very widespread in France (R. Bart, A. Greimas), Italy (U. Eco), USA (C. Morrison, T. Sebek), Poland (G. Kotarbinsky) and in a number of other countries. One of the leading semiotics schools in literary criticism is the already mentioned Moscow-Tartu school, headed by Yu. Lotman. The efforts of the scientists of this school were first concentrated on identifying (by means of linguistic models) the specificity of "languages" various types of artistic creation (dance, drama, cinema, etc.). Later, there was an interest in the extra-textual aspects. So, Yu. Lotman, concentrating on the text itself, came to the conclusion that it is impossible to understand the latter, isolating it from "extrtextual ideas, everyday common sense and the whole complex of life associations."
Thus, the scientist came from the initial understanding of the text only as a bearer of "internal meaning" to the recognition of the importance of external relations and influences. In this respect, the difference that Lotman draws between the text and "artwork". The text is understood by him as "one of the components of a work of art", the artistic effect of which arises only from the correlation of the text with a whole series of vital and aesthetic phenomena, ideas, associations. These associations can be purely subjective and, therefore, be beyond the reach of objective scientific analysis, although in many respects they are predetermined by historical and social factors.
Obviously, the meaning of the text is made dependent on the perceiving subject, and it is not understood as a carrier of an autonomous, purely internal sense. Depending on the perceiving person and the given cultural system, the same text can be perceived as something artistic, then as non-artistic. Text can be perceived as literary Only in the case when the concept of "literature" exists in the mind of the perceiving subject.
The perception of the text consists, according to the teachings of the semiotic, from three stages:
a) the perception of the text;
b) selecting or creating code;
c) comparison of text and code.
Semiotic transfiguration text occurs on the border between the collective memory of culture and individual consciousness. The decoding process The text includes the identification of "meaningful" parts of the given element system and, conversely, the discarding of "non-systemic" elements. The reader himself chooses and uses semiotic systems when perceiving the text, but this choice is never completely arbitrary. To a large extent, it is determined by the social factors of this culture. And if so, many semiotics switched to studying these factors. With this text, only the place of the documents of one or another culture began to be assigned, which is very similar to the methodology of literature research I. Tan and the whole cultural and historical school. As the American scientist A. Bleim observes, in this turn, a wider field of activity opens up before semiotics. However, turning into "historical science", semiotics at the same time demonstrates its inability to reveal the true meaning of the text, which it claimed at the dawn of its development. In justifying semiotics, A. Bleim says that their impotence is due not to the weakness of the method, but to the nature of the object under study, that is, the nature of the work of art, whose meaning is "in the head of its consumer". The text is only intended to initiate complex processes of sense formation occurring in the brain of the "sociologized subject".
As in most modern literary methodologies, a system of concepts and terms has been developed in semiotics. Representation of the nature of the application of some of them gives the works of the famous American semiotics T. Sebek. Take for example the terms symbol and iconic sign. T. Sebek characterizes them as generally accepted in semiotics. Symbol is defined as a sign that does not imply, unlike the icon & quot ;, a similarity between signifying and his denotatum & quot ;. Simply put, the symbol can outwardly remind nothing that symbolizes. Icon The same is associated with the denoter & quot ;, i.e. with the object or subject designated by him directly, by similarity. The ideal "iconic icon" is a portrait. But to iconic signs T. Sebek also refers to geometric images. And this means that the specificity of the artistic image dissolves in a too general and broad notion "icon". An ingenious portrait and a triangle drawn by a schoolboy appear as icons at the same level.
The situation with the symbol is even more complicated. T. Sebek himself complains that the symbol - most capricious of all semiotic terms. He can then conceptually swell "to grotesqueness", then reduce to the level of "behavioral stimulus". In addition, T. Sebek, unlike E. Cassirer, does not believe that the symbol is a purely human form of expression and communication. Animals are also symbolic. As an example, an American scientist refers to arbitrary symbol creation dogs and cats who wag their tail express a certain (and diametrically opposite) mood.
Obviously, the symbol so understood can not serve as a means of determining the specifics of artistic creativity and, in particular, the specificity of the artistic text. In general, despite some successful observations of semiotics, first of all, what they have in common with literature with other sign systems, they did not create a new and strict science of literature. Like every modern methodology, semiotics can claim only an explanation of one of the many aspects of artistic creativity, and not at all to become a universal method of its analysis.
Also We Can Offer!
- Argumentative essay
- Best college essays
- Buy custom essays online
- Buy essay online
- Cheap essay
- Cheap essay writing service
- Cheap writing service
- College essay
- College essay introduction
- College essay writing service
- Compare and contrast essay
- Custom essay
- Custom essay writing service
- Custom essays writing services
- Death penalty essay
- Do my essay
- Essay about love
- Essay about yourself
- Essay help
- Essay writing help
- Essay writing service reviews
- Essays online
- Fast food essay
- George orwell essays
- Human rights essay
- Narrative essay
- Pay to write essay
- Personal essay for college
- Personal narrative essay
- Persuasive writing
- Write my essay
- Write my essay for me cheap
- Writing a scholarship essay