Advertisement

Semiotics in the Low Countries

  • Pierre Swiggers
Part of the Topics in Contemporary Semiotics book series (TICSE)

Abstract

Before embarking on a survey of semiotic activity in the Low Countries, I must impose some restrictions on its scope. An extensional restriction will be made to work published by 20th-century Belgian and Dutch scholars. This allows me to exclude the writings of “Netherlandic” speculative grammarians, such as Siger de Cortraco, who were active in the circle of modistae (more specifically, the later generations of this intellectual trend) at Paris,1 at a time when the geographical frontiers were different (and differently conceived) from the present ones. Also excluded are the dispersed remarks of pre-20th century theologians (e.g. Arnold Geulincx), and of theoretical linguists2 (e.g. Jacob van Ginneken, Antoine Grégoire), concerning the (linguistic) sign.

Keywords

Sign Theory Semiotic Theory Semiotic Perspective Semiotic Activity Translation Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. We assume the reader to be familiar with Chapter C (“Vers des études sémiologiques: La situation en Belgique”) of the book edited by A. Helbo, Le champ sémiologigue. Perspectives internationales (Brussels: Ed. Complexe, 1979), in which can be found a rather narrow survey of semiotic practice in Belgium, focusing on semiotics of music, visual arts, and culture and offering almost exhaustive information on research done by Helbo’s team. Although filling the gaps in that survey chapter, the present study broadens the semiotic perspective and focuses on the theoretical foundations of semiotic practice in the Low Countries.Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    For surveys of speculative grammar, see Jan Pinborg, Die Entwicklung der Sprachtheorie im Mittelalter (Copenhagen and Münster: Frost, Hansen & Aschendorff, 1967);Google Scholar
  3. 1a.
    Geoffrey L. Bursill-Hall, Speculative Grammars of the Middle Ages: The doctrine of partes orationis of the modistae (The Hague: Mouton, 1971);Google Scholar
  4. 1b.
    Jan Pinborg, Logik und Semantik im Mittelalter: Ein Ueberblick (Stuttgart and Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1972);Google Scholar
  5. 1c.
    Jean Stéfanini, “Les modistes et leur apport à la théorie de la grammaire et du signe linguistique,” Semiotica, 8 (1973), 263–275.Google Scholar
  6. 1d.
    For a bibliography, see Earline J. Ashworth, The Tradition of Medieval Logic and Speculative Grammar from Anselm to the End of the Seventeenth Century: A Bibliography from 1836 onwards (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1978)Google Scholar
  7. 1e.
    For a bibliography, see Earline J. Ashworth, and the additions in my review of this bibliography, in Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 42 (1980), 142–143.Google Scholar
  8. 1f.
    Charles Thurot’s Notices et extraits de divers manuscrits latins pour servir à l’histoire des doctrines grammaticales au moyen âge (Paris: Imprimerie impériale, 1868) remains an indispensable sourcebook for the history of medieval grammar.Google Scholar
  9. 2.
    Information on these linguists can be found in the extant histories of linguistics. For a bibliography of these, see Edward Stankiewicz, “Bibliography of the History of Linguistics,” in Thomas A. Sebeok, ed. Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 13: Historiography of Linguistics (vol. eds. Hans Aarsleff, Robert Austerlitz, Dell Hymes, Edward Stankiewicz) (The Hague: Mouton,1975), pp. 1381–1446;Google Scholar
  10. 2a.
    E. F. K. Koerner, Western Histories of Linguistic Thought. An Annotated Chronological Bibliography 1822–1976 (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1978);Google Scholar
  11. 2b.
    E. F. K. Koerner, and my survey articles “Histoire et historiographie de la linguistique,” Semiotica, 31 (1979), 107–137 (= a review article on Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 13)Google Scholar
  12. 2c.
    E. F. K. Koerner, “The Historiography of Linguistics,” Linguistics, 18 (1980), 703–720 (= a review article of two books by E. F. K. Koerner).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 2d.
    For Belgian linguistics, see the excellent survey by Karel Roelandts, “Linguistics in Belgium since 1830,” in Belgium and Europe. Proceedings of the International Francqui-Colloquium, Brussels-Ghent, 12–14 November 1980 (Brussels: Academie, 1981), pp. 199–228 (Dutch version: “De taalkunde in België sinds 1830,” Verslagen en Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, jg. 1981, afl. 2, pp. 146–176). This survey contains a very rich bibliography; for biographical information one can use the sign. The second restriction, intensional in nature, concerns the notion “semiotic activity.” Biographie Nationale and the Nationaal Biografisch Woordenboek, which contain relevant information concerning scientific scholars.Google Scholar
  14. 3.
    My “extensional” definition of the field of semiotics follows that of Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976), pp. 9–14.Google Scholar
  15. 3a.
    For some thought-provoking views on the field of semiotics, see Thomas A. Sebeok, “Semiotics: A Survey of the State of the Art,” in Thomas A. Sebeok ed., Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 12: Linguistics and Adjacent Arts and Sciences (The Hague: Mouton, 1974), pp. 211–264;Google Scholar
  16. 3b.
    Thomas A. Sebeok, the same, “The Semiotic Web: A Chronicle of Prejudices,” Bulletin of Literary Semiotics, 2(1975), 1–63.Google Scholar
  17. 3c.
    Both studies are reprinted in Thomas A. Sebeok, Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976), pp. 1–45 and 149–188.Google Scholar
  18. 4.
    Because of lack of space, I will not attempt to systematize Eco’s division, which would gain in homogeneity if based on a solid classification of sign-types. Of course, such a classification still remains a strong desideratum.Google Scholar
  19. 5.
    This theory of semiotics belongs to what G. Klaus, calls sigmatics (Sigmatik). See Georg Klaus, Semiotik und Erkenntnistheorie (Munich: Fink, 1963). For some remarks on the theory of semiotics, see my “La Sémiotique à la recherche de l’essence des sens,” Linguisticae Investigationes, 4 (1980), 420–430.Google Scholar
  20. 6.
    Eric Buyssens, Les Langages et le discours. Essai de linguistiquefonctionnelle dans le cadre de la sémiologie (Brussels: Lebègue, 1943).Google Scholar
  21. 7.
    For a judgment on the value of Buyssens’ book, see Thomas A. Sebeok, Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs (Brussels: Lebègue, 1943), p. 164.Google Scholar
  22. 8.
    It seems to me that the work of Luis J. Prieto is a genuine continuation, both by its scope and its method, of Buyssens’s pioneering work. See Luis J. Prieto, Principes de noologie (The Hague: Mouton, 1964), Messages et signaux (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966) and Etudes de linguistique et de sémiologie générales (Geneva: Droz, 1975).Google Scholar
  23. 8a.
    On the fate of Buyssens’s monograph of 1943, see Thomas A. Sebeok, Contributions to the Doctrine of Signs, (Geneva: Droz, 1975), p. 164.Google Scholar
  24. 9.
    Buyssens’s book originally appeared in 1943; a slightly revised version of it can be found in Eric Buyssens, La Communicationet l’articulation linguistique (Brussels: Presses Universitaires, 1967), pp. 9–74. The monograph has the following chapters: “Sémiologie et linguistique fonctionnelles”; “L’Acte de communication”; “Analyse psychologique de l’acte de communication”; “La Sémie et le signe”; “Classification des sémies”; “Rapports entre sémies”; “Le Discours et la pensée”; “Les notions systématiques propres au discours”; “Conclusion.” References are to the original version of 1943.Google Scholar
  25. 10.
    Buyssens uses the Saussurean term sémiologie throughout his book. However, for reasons of uniformity, I will use here the term semiotics, which is more frequently used in the English-speaking scholarly world, and I will use this term as an equivalent of French sémiologie (I am aware that these terms, belonging to different traditions of research, are not entirely coextensive).Google Scholar
  26. 11.
    Buyssens, Les Langages et le discours, op. cit., p. 10.Google Scholar
  27. 12.
    Ibid., pp. 24–25.Google Scholar
  28. 13.
    This abstract component renders Buyssens’s semiotic theory akin to the Stoic theory of the sign.Google Scholar
  29. 14.
    See Buyssens, Les Langages et le discours, op. cit., p. 59.Google Scholar
  30. 15.
    The sign is defined as “l’élément indécomposable commun à plusieurs sèmes du double point de vue de la forme et de la signification” (ibid., p. 37; see also p. 41).Google Scholar
  31. 16.
    Ibid., pp. 38–39.Google Scholar
  32. 17.
    For a brief description of these semiotic levels, see Innocent Maria Bocheński, The Methods of Contemporary Thought (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1968), p. 51. This book was originally published as Die zeitgenössischen Denkmethoden (Bern: Francke, 1961).Google Scholar
  33. 18.
    Buyssens, Les Langages et le discours, op. cit., p. 50.Google Scholar
  34. 19.
    Ibid., p. 30, “J’entends en effet par parole l’acte sémique oral, par discours le sème oral. Le discours est la partie fonctionnelle de la parole.”Google Scholar
  35. 20.
    Ibid., p. 63–64. See also Buyssens’s articles “La Nature du signe linguistique,” Acta Linguistica, 2 (1940), 83–86, and “De l’abstrait et du concret dans les faits linguistiques: la parole, le discours, la langue,” Acta Linguistica, 3 (1942 – 1943), 17–23.Google Scholar
  36. 21.
    See his studies: “Le Langage par gestes chez les moines,” Revue de l’Institut de sociologie de Bruxelles, 29 (1956), 537–545; Vérité et langue. Langue et pensée (Brussels: Editions de l’Institut de Sociologie, 1960); La Communication et l’articulation linguistique (Brussels and Paris: Editions de l’Université & Presses Universitaires, 1967). In recent years, Buyssens has written two studies dealing with problems of theoretical linguistics: Les Catégories grammaticales du français (Brussels: Editions de l’Université, 1975) and Epistémologie de laphonématique (Brussels: Editions de l’Université, 1980). The latter work includes a select bibliography of Buyssens’ writings (pp. 73–74).Google Scholar
  37. 22.
    Hendrik J. Pos receives ample treatment in Herman Parret and Roger Van De Velde, “Structuralism in Belgium and in the Netherlands,” Semiotica, 29 (1980), 145–173. This article also contains a useful bibliography of Pos’s writings (pp. 171–172).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 22a.
    Hendrik J. Pos receives ample treatment in Herman Parret and Roger Van De Velde, Scholars who do not read Dutch can find the essence of Pos’s ideas in his paper “Perspectives du structuralisme,” Travaux du Cercle de Linguistique de Prague, 8 (1939), pp. 29–47.Google Scholar
  39. 23.
    Antoon Reichling, Het Woord. Een studie omirent de grondslag van taal en taalgebruik (Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink, 1935).Google Scholar
  40. 24.
    Cornelis F. P. Stutterheim, Het begrip metaphoor. Een taalkundig en wijsgeerig onderzoek (Amsterdam: H.J. Paris, 1941).Google Scholar
  41. 25.
    Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, Traité de l’argumentation. Nouvelle rhétorique (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958). A third edition of this book appeared in 1976.Google Scholar
  42. 26.
    This insistance was mainly due to Perelman’s strong juridical interests.Google Scholar
  43. 27.
    See Ghaïm Perelman, Le Champ de l’argumentation (Brussels: Presses Universitaires, 1970);Google Scholar
  44. 27a.
    See Ghaïm Perelman, the same, L’Empire rhétorique (Paris: Vrin, 1977)Google Scholar
  45. 27b.
    See Ghaïm Perelman, “Philosophie et rhétorique,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofa 41 (1979), 433–446.Google Scholar
  46. 28.
    Perelman, “Philosophie et rhétorique,” op. cit., p. 444. The mission of the philosopher is to present a reasonable view of man, of his place in the universe, of his interactions with others, and possibly, with God, of the way in which he organizes and hierarchizes his system of values and to propose this view for universal adhesion. This means that everyone is invited to take a stand, to submit criticisms and objections which the philosopher must address. It is in this way that a philosophical dialogue will be started. A rhetorical conception of philosophy, of a philosophy which wants to be accepted, inevitably leads to a philosophy in dialogue. It is the normal progression of philosophy to pass through controversy, through the opposition of ideas and through the attempt to surpass this opposition. It is perhaps in this way that Hegel’s dialectic should be conceived. But if this is so, one then understands that the dialogue can continually be taken up, that the questions cannot be definitely solved. Indeed, that which is admitted into one stage of society, of knowledge, and of culture, is not acceptable in another.—Ed.Google Scholar
  47. 29.
    See Jacques Dubois et al. (= Groupe |x of the University of Liège), Rhétorique générale (Paris: Larousse, 1970)Google Scholar
  48. A. Kibedi-Varga, Rhétorique et littérature. Études de structures classiques (Paris and Brussels: Didier, 1970).Google Scholar
  49. 30.
    Of special importance here are the publications of the Dutch philosopher of language Samuel Ijsseling: “Filosofie en retorica,” Dietsche Warande en Belfort, 118 (1973), 333–343Google Scholar
  50. 30a.
    Of special importance here are the publications of the Dutch philosopher of language Samuel Ijsseling: Retoriek en filosofie. Wat gebeurt er wanneer er gesproken wordt? (Bilthoven: Ambo, 1975);Google Scholar
  51. 30b.
    Of special importance here are the publications of the Dutch philosopher of language Samuel Ijsseling: Rhetoric and Philosophy in Conflict. An Historical Survey (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1976 = translation of Ijsseling [1975])Google Scholar
  52. 30.
    Of special importance here are the publications of the Dutch philosopher of language Samuel Ijsseling: “Rhétorique et philosophic Platon et les sophistes, ou la tradition métaphysique et la tradition rhétorique,” Revue philosophique de Louvain, 74 (1976), 193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 30.
    Of special importance here are the publications of the Dutch philosopher of language Samuel Ijsseling: “Retoriek, filosofie en macht,” Wijsgerig Perspectief, 17 (1976–1977), 237–252. Other, more international manifestations of this “rhetorical interest” are the foundation of the journal Philosophy and Rhetoric (1968-) and the publication of issue 5 of Poétique, entitled Rhétorique et Philosophie (1971).Google Scholar
  54. 31.
    For the references, see the preceding footnote. I have reviewed the English translation of Ijsseling’s book in Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 40 (1978), 527–528.Google Scholar
  55. 32.
    For a survey of Belgian and Dutch work (by E. M. Barth, J. van Benthem, W.J. Drop, R. Feys, C. Keers, C. W. Krabbe, K. Kuypers, J. L. Martens, H. Roelants) on the theory of argumentation, see F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst and T. Kruiger, Argumentatietheorie (Utrecht and Antwerp: Het Spectrum, 1978), which contains a rich bibliography.Google Scholar
  56. 33.
    See Leo Apostel, “Further Remarks on the Pragmatics of Natural Languages,” in Pragmatics of Natural Languages, ed. Y. Bar-Hillel (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1971), pp. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 34.
    Leo Apostel, Logique et action (Ghent: Communication & Cognition, 1979);Google Scholar
  58. 34a.
    Leo Apostel, “Pragmatique praxéologique: communication et action,” in Le Langage en contexte. Etudes philosophiques et linguistiques de pragmatique, ed. H. Parret (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1980), pp. 193–315.Google Scholar
  59. 35.
    Terry Winograd, Understanding Natural Language (Edinburgh: University Press, 1972);Google Scholar
  60. 35a.
    Terry Winograd, “Towards a Procedural Understanding of Semantics,” Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 30 (1976), 261–303.Google Scholar
  61. 36.
    Leo Apostel, “Persuasive Communication as Metaphorical Discourse under the Guidance of Conversational Maxims,” Logique et Analyse, 22 (1979), 265–320.Google Scholar
  62. 37.
    Jef Verschueren, Pragmatics: An annotated bibliography, with particular reference to speech act theory (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1978).Google Scholar
  63. 38.
    Jef Verschueren, On Speech Act Verbs (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1980). This book appeared as volume 4 in the series “Pragmatics and Beyond.”Google Scholar
  64. 39.
    Johan Van Der Auwera, Inleiding tot de linguïstische pragmatiek (Leuven: Acco, 1977). This book contains an almost exhaustive bibliography of the author’s previous writings.Google Scholar
  65. 40.
    Part of this thesis was published as volume 3 (1981) of “Pragmatics and Beyond”: Johan Van Der Auwera, What Do We Talk About When We Talk? Speculative Grammar and the Semantics and Pragmatics of Focus (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1981).Google Scholar
  66. 40a.
    The volume edited by Van Der Auwera, The Semantics of Determiners, appeared in 1980 (London: Croom Helm).Google Scholar
  67. 41.
    Paul Gochet, Outline of a Nominalist Theory of Propositions. An Essay in the Theory of Meaning and in the Philosophy of Logic (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980). This book is a translation, incorporating substantial revisions, of Gochet’s work Esquisse d’une théorie nominaliste de la proposition (Paris: Colin, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 42.
    Paul Gochet, Outline of a Nominalist Theory of Propositions, (Paris: Colin, 1972), p. 3.Google Scholar
  69. 43.
    As noted by Gochet (ibid., p. 30), there are also more practical reasons which invite us to avoid this way out: “As is well known, linguistic signs which are possible substituends for variables form a denumerably infinite set, whereas the value range for class variables is a non-denumerably infinite set—as Cantor has shown in his set theory.”Google Scholar
  70. 44.
    De Rijk’s major publication is his Logica Modernorum. See Lambertus Maria de Rijk, Logica Modernorum. A Contribution to the History of Early Terminist Logic (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1962–1967).Google Scholar
  71. 44a.
    For a synthesis of de Rijk’s work on medieval philosophy, see Lambertus Maria de Rijk, Middeleeuwse wijsbegeerte. Traditie en vernieuwing (Assen and Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1977) 2nd rev. ed., (1980).Google Scholar
  72. 45.
    See Gabriël Nuchelmans, Theories of the Proposition. Ancient and Medieval Conceptions of the Bearers of Truth and Falsity (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1973), as well as his Late-Scholastic and Humanist Theories of the Proposition (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1980). A review article of the latter volume appeared in Leuvense Bijdragen, 72 (1983), 153–175, under the title “Gleanings from the History of Linguistics” (see the second part of the article).Google Scholar
  73. 46.
    Gabriël Nuchelmans, Taalfilosofie. Een inleiding (Muiderberg: D. Coutinho, 1978). A review of this book appeared in the Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire/Belgisch tijdschrift voor filologie en geschiedenis, 60 (1982), 564–567.Google Scholar
  74. 47.
    See Nuchelmans, Taalfilosofie, op. cit., pp. 25–27 and (passim) pp. 27–55.Google Scholar
  75. 48.
    See Jan-Marie Peters, De taal van de film (The Hague: Govers, 1950);Google Scholar
  76. 48a.
    See Jan-Marie Peters, “Bild und Bedeutung. Zur Semiologie des Films,” in Semiotik des Films, ed. F. Knilli (Munich: Fink, 1971), pp. 56–69Google Scholar
  77. 48b.
    See Jan-Marie Peters, Leggere Vimmagine (Turin: E.D.C., 1972);Google Scholar
  78. 48c.
    See Jan-Marie Peters, Theorie van de audiovisuele communicatie (Groningen: Tjeenk Willink, 1972)Google Scholar
  79. 48d.
    See Jan-Marie Peters, Retoriek van de communicatie (Groningen: Tjeenk Willink, 1973); Principes van de beeldcommunicatie (Groningen: Tjeenk Willink, 1974)Google Scholar
  80. 48e.
    See Jan-Marie Peters, Pictorial communication (Claremont: David Philip, 1977)Google Scholar
  81. 48f.
    See Jan-Marie Peters, Semiotiek van het beeld. In het bijzonder van de film (Leuven: Centrum voor Communicatiewetenschappen, 1978).Google Scholar
  82. 49.
    See, among others, the publications by Gust De Meyer and Guido Fauconnier: Gust De Meyer, “De mededelingsanalyse in het massacommunicatieonderzoek,” Politica, 23 (1973), 411–430Google Scholar
  83. 49a.
    Guido Fauconnier, Massamedia en samenleving (Kapellen: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel, 1973)Google Scholar
  84. 49b.
    Guido Fauconnier, the same, Massacommunicatie. Een inleiding (Groningen: Tjeenk Willink, 1974)Google Scholar
  85. 49c.
    Guido Fauconnier, the same, Mass Media and Society (Leuven: University Press, 1975).Google Scholar
  86. 50.
    For surveys, see M. C. van den Toorn, “Der Stand der modernen niederländischen Sprachwissenschaft,” Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung, 35 (1968), 62–65Google Scholar
  87. 50a.
    For surveys, see M. C. van den Toorn, the same, Nederlandse taalkunde (Utrecht and Antwerp: Het Spectrum, 1973)Google Scholar
  88. 50b.
    For surveys, see M. C. van den Toorn, the same, “De nederlandse spraakkunst in de twintigste eeuw,” in Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse taalkunde, ed. D. M. Bakker and G. R. W. Dibbets (Den Bosch: Malmberg, 1977), pp. 161–194.Google Scholar
  89. 50c.
    See also H. J. Verkuyl et al., Transformatione le taalkunde (Utrecht and Antwerp: Het Spectrum, 1974).Google Scholar
  90. 51.
    For some remarks on the integration of the semiotic perspective within linguistic theory, see my article “The History Writing of Linguistics: A Methodological Note,” General Linguistics, 21 (1981), 11–16.Google Scholar
  91. 52.
    Joe Larochette, Le langage et la réalité. Problèmes de linguistique générale et de linguistique romane (München: W. Fink, 1974).Google Scholar
  92. 52a.
    See also the following article by Larochette: “La représentation de la réalité,” Folia Linguistica, 6 (1973), 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 53.
    See Frederik G. Droste, “The Grammar of Traffic Regulations,” Semiotica, 5 (1972), 257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 53a.
    See Frederik G. Droste, the same, Bij wijze van spreken. Over taal, gedrag en communicatie (Baarn: Ambo, 1977)Google Scholar
  95. 53b.
    See Frederik G. Droste, “On Reference and Referents,” in Linguistics in the Netherlands 1974–1976, ed. W. Zonneveld (Lisse: Peter de Ridder, 1978), p. 35–45.Google Scholar
  96. 54.
    For a statement of Droste’s views on grammatical theory, see his book Taaltheorie en taalbeschrijving. Enkele hoofdlijnen (Leuven: Acco, 1980).Google Scholar
  97. 54a.
    For his work on Montague-grammar, see Frederik G. Droste, Frans Heyvaert, and Roger Vergauwen, “Montague-grammatica. Eenvoudig verklaard voor linguïsten,” Leuvense Bijdragen, 69 (1980), 129–165.Google Scholar
  98. 55.
    A. G. Van Hamel, Geschiedenis der taalwetenschap (The Hague: Servire, 1945).Google Scholar
  99. 56.
    Maurice Leroy, Les Grands Courants de la linguistique moderne (Brussels: Presses Universitaires, 1963); rev. ed. (1971).Google Scholar
  100. 56a.
    Maurice Leroy, An English translation of this book appeared in 1967, under the title The Main Trends in Modern Linguistics (Oxford and Berkeley: B. Blackwell & University of California Press). The most recent edition of the French version appeared in 1980 (Brussels: Editions de l’Université)Google Scholar
  101. 56b.
    Maurice Leroy, see my review article “Comment écrire l’histoire de la linguistique?” Lingua, 55 (1981), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 57.
    See Wim Antonius de Pater, “Linguïstiek: de wetenschap van het taalteken. Een overzicht,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 29 (1967), 585–642 (separate edition: Leuven: Acco, n.d.). For a summary of this article, see my article “Western Histories of Linguistic Thought: Additional Bibliography,” Language Problems and Language Planning, 5 (1981), 279–290 (p. 283).Google Scholar
  103. 58.
    Pieter Adrianus Verburg, Taal en funcţionaliteit: Een historisch-critische studie over de opvattingen aangaande de functies der taal vanaf de prae-humanistische philologie van Orléans tot de rationalistische linguïstiek van Bopp (Wageningen: H. Veenman & Zonen, 1952).Google Scholar
  104. 59.
    Cornelius H. M. Versteegh, Greek Elements in Arabic Linguistic Thinking (Leiden: Brill, 1977).Google Scholar
  105. 60.
    Mieke Bal, Handleiding bij het bestuderen van de verteltheorie van Algirdas Julien Greimas (Utrecht: Instituut voor Theoretische Literatuurwetenschap, 1977);Google Scholar
  106. 60a.
    W.J. M. Bronzwaer, D. W. Fokkema, and E. Kunne-Ibsch, eds., Tekstboek algemene literatuurwetenschap (Baarn: Ambo, 1977);Google Scholar
  107. 60b.
    Charles Grivel, ed., Methoden in de literatuurwetenschap (Muiderberg: D. Coutinho, 1978). See also the current literature on literary analysis published in the journal Forum der Letteren. Google Scholar
  108. 61.
    See Hendrik Van Gorp, “Structured romanonderzoek,” Spiegel der Letteren, 15 (1973), 130–139Google Scholar
  109. 61.
    See Hendrik Van Gorp, “Semiotische literatuurstudie,” Dietsche Warande en Belfort, 117 (1972), pp. 465–472;Google Scholar
  110. 61.
    See Hendrik Van Gorp, “Tekstcommunicatie, vertelsituatie en verhaalfunctie,” Spiegel der Letteren, 17 (1975), 23–37;Google Scholar
  111. 61a.
    D. W. Fokkema, “Semiotiek en structuralisme in de Sovjetunie,” Forum der Letteren, 15 (1974), 138–156;Google Scholar
  112. 61b.
    D.W. Fokkema and E. Kunne-Ibsch, Theories of Literature in the Twentieth Century: Structuralism, Marxism, Aesthetics of Reception, Semiotics (London: Hurst, 1977).Google Scholar
  113. 61c.
    Concerning Propp’s model, see J. P. Guépin, “Propp kan niet en waarom,” Forum der Letteren, 13 (1972), 129–147 and 14 (1973), 30–51.Google Scholar
  114. 62.
    See Wim Antonius de Pater, “Strukturele tekstanalyse: enkele achtergronden,” Tijdschrifi voor Theologie, 18 (1978), 247–293;Google Scholar
  115. 62.
    See Wim Antonius de Pater, the bibliographical survey preceding this article is entitled “Theologie en linguïstiek: Situering en bibliografie,” Tijdschrifi voor Theologie, 18 (1978), pp. 234–246.Google Scholar
  116. 62a.
    De Pater’s articles are followed by a case-study in literary analysis of Biblical texts: Bas Van Iersel, “Terug van Emmaiis. Bijdragen tot een structurele tekstanalyse van Lc 24, 13–35,” Tijdschrifi voor Theologie, 18 (1978), 294–323.Google Scholar
  117. 63.
    See especially the publications by Mark Adriaens (strongly influenced by Greimas) and Paul Claes (influenced by Greimas, Barthes, Kristeva, Genette): Mark Adriaens, Literatuurwetenschap en linguïstiek (Leuven: Acco, 1973);Google Scholar
  118. 63a.
    See especially the publications by Mark Adriaens (strongly influenced by Greimas) and Paul Claes (influenced by Greimas, Barthes, Kristeva, Genette): Mark Adriaens, the same, Strukturalisme, poetiek en narrativiteit (Leuven: Acco, 1978);Google Scholar
  119. 63b.
    See especially the publications by Mark Adriaens (strongly influenced by Greimas) and Paul Claes (influenced by Greimas, Barthes, Kristeva, Genette): Mark Adriaens, the same, “Modellen voor linguistische tekstgrammatica’s,” in Methoden in de literatuurwetenschap, ed. Ch. Grivel (Muiderberg: D. Coutinho, 1978), pp. 237–260;Google Scholar
  120. 63c.
    Paul Claes, Het netwerk en de nevelvlek. Semiotische studies (Leuven: Acco, 1979).Google Scholar
  121. 63d.
    Paul Claes, As for Teun Van Dijk’s publications, I will restrict myself to the most important ones: Taal, tekst, teken: Bijdragen tot de literatuurtheorie (Amsterdam: Athenaeum, 1971);Google Scholar
  122. 63e.
    Paul Claes, Moderne liter atuurtheorie. Een eksperimentele inleiding (Amsterdam: Van Gennep, 1971);Google Scholar
  123. 63f.
    Paul Claes, Some Aspects of Text Grammars (The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1972);Google Scholar
  124. 63g.
    Paul Claes, ed., Pragmatics of Language and Literature (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1976);Google Scholar
  125. 63h.
    Paul Claes, Text and Context: Exploration in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse (London: Longman, 1977);Google Scholar
  126. 63i.
    Paul Claes, Taal en handelen: een interdisciplinaire inleiding in de pragmatiek (Muiderberg: D. Coutinho, 1978).Google Scholar
  127. 64.
    See James S. Holmes, José Lambert, and Raymond Van Den Broeck, eds., Literature and Translation. New Perspectives in Literary Studies (Leuven: Acco, 1978);Google Scholar
  128. 63j.
    André Lefevre, Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a Blueprint (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975);Google Scholar
  129. 63k.
    Raymond Van Den Broeck, Inleiding tot de vertaalwetenschap (Leuven: Acco, 1972);Google Scholar
  130. 63l.
    Raymond Van Den Broeck, and my articles “A New Paradigm for Comparative Literature,” Poetics Today, 3 (1982), 181–184;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 63m.
    Raymond Van Den Broeck, “Methodological Innovation in the Comparative Study of Literature,” Canadian Journal of Comparative Literature, 9(1982), 38–45.Google Scholar
  132. 65.
    See the following publications by Herman Parret: “In het teken van het teken,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 31 (1969), 232–260;Google Scholar
  133. 65a.
    See the following publications by Herman Parret: “In het teken van het teken,” Language and Discourse (The Hague: Mouton, 1971);Google Scholar
  134. 65b.
    See the following publications by Herman Parret: “Taal als uitdrukking, betekenis en communicatie,” Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte, 64 (1972), 253–263;Google Scholar
  135. 65c.
    See the following publications by Herman Parret: “Expression et articulation. Une confrontation du point de vue phénoménologique et structural concernant la forme linguistique et le discours,” Revue philosophique de Louvain, 71 (1973), 72–113;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 65d.
    See the following publications by Herman Parret: Het denken van de grens. Vier opstellen over Derrida’s grammatologie (Leuven: Acco, 1975);Google Scholar
  137. 65e.
    See the following publications by Herman Parret: “Idéologie et sémiologie chez Locke et Condillac: la question de l’autonomie du langage devant la pensée,” Ut Videam: Contributions to an Understanding of Linguistics, ed. W. Abraham (Lisse: Peter de Ridder, 1975), pp. 225–248;Google Scholar
  138. 65f.
    See the following publications by Herman Parret: Filosofie en taalwetenschap (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1979);Google Scholar
  139. 65g.
    See the following publications by Herman Parret: “Une théorie linguistique sans concept de signe est-elle possible?,” in A Semiotic Landscape. Panorama sémiotique, eds. S. Chatman, U. Eco, and J. M. Klinkenberg (The Hague and New York: Mouton, 1979), pp. 341–344;Google Scholar
  140. 65h.
    See the following publications by Herman Parret: ed. Le Langage en contexte. Etudes philosophiques et linguistiques de pragmatique (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1980);Google Scholar
  141. 65i.
    See the following publications by Herman Parret with Roger Van De Velde, “Structuralism in Belgium and in the Netherlands,” Semiotica, 29 (1980), 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 66.
    See the following publications by Wim Antonius de Pater: Reden von Gott. Reflexionen zur analytischen Philosophie der religiösen Sprache (Bonn: Linguistica Biblica, 1974);Google Scholar
  143. 66a.
    See the following publications by Wim Antonius de Pater: “Erschlies-sungssituation und religiöse Sprache,” Linguistica Biblica, 33 (1974), 64–88;Google Scholar
  144. 66b.
    See the following publications by Wim Antonius de Pater: “Semiotiek in Polen,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 36 (1974), 762–773;Google Scholar
  145. 66c.
    See the following publications by Wim Antonius de Pater: “Wissenschaftstheoretisches zu Theologie und Glauben. Neuere Entwicklungen,” Linguistica Biblica, 37 (1976), 69–102;Google Scholar
  146. 66d.
    See the following publications by Wim Antonius de Pater: “Problemen rond een def-initie van logika,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 41 (1979), 636–669;Google Scholar
  147. 66e.
    See the following publications by Wim Antonius de Pater: “Logika in breder verband: Semiotiek en soorten taalgebruik,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 42 (1980), 325–371;Google Scholar
  148. 66f.
    See the following publications by Wim Antonius de Pater: with W. R. de Jong, Van redenering tot firmele struktuur. Enige hoofd-stukken uit de logika (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981); see my review in Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 44 (1982), 369–370.Google Scholar
  149. 66g.
    See the following publications by Wim Antonius de Pater: Also interesting from the semiotic point of view are de Pater’s earlier studies Les Topiques d’Aristote et la dialectique platonicienne. La méthodologie de la définition (Fribourg: Ed. St. Paul, 1965)Google Scholar
  150. 66h.
    See the following publications by Wim Antonius de Pater: Taalanalytische perspektieven op godsdienst en kunst (Antwerpen: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel, 1970). For the survey of the history of linguistics which de Pater published in 1967, see note 57.Google Scholar
  151. 67.
    See Gerard Verbeke, “Der Nominalismus der stoischen Logik,” Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 3 (1977), 36–55;Google Scholar
  152. 67a.
    See Gerard Verbeke, “La philosophie du signe chez les Stoïciens,” in Les Stoïciens et leur logique. Actes du Colloque de Chantilly, 18–22 septembre 1976 (Paris: Vrin, 1978), pp. 401–424;Google Scholar
  153. 67b.
    See Gerard Verbeke, “Le stoïcisme, une philosophie sans frontières,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, I: Von den Anfängen Rome bis zum Ausgang der Republik (Berlin and New York: W. de Gruyter, 1973), pp. 3–43;Google Scholar
  154. 67c.
    See Gerard Verbeke, and several contributions to Ritter’s Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. A bibliography (up to 1976) of Verbeke’s writings has been compiled by Willy Vanhamel, “Gerard Verbeke—Notice bio-bibliographique,” in Images of Man in Ancient and Medieval Thought. Studia Gerardo Verbeke ab Amicis et Collegis Dicata (Leuven: University Press, 1976), pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
  155. 67d.
    See Gerard Verbeke, On Stoic philosophy of language, see also my survey article “Logica en grammatica bij de Stoa,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 45 (1983), 256–260.Google Scholar
  156. 68.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, LinguistikSemiotikHermeneutik, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 41 (1979), 530–531;Google Scholar
  157. 68a.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, review of R. Jakobson, Coup d’oeil sur le développement de la sémiotique, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 41 (1979), 531–532;Google Scholar
  158. 68b.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, review of E. Walther, Allgemeine Zeichenlehre, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 41 (1979), 532–533;Google Scholar
  159. 68c.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “The Linguistic Conceptions of the Encyclopédie,” Lingua, 49 (1979), 239–253;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 68d.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “La Base leibnizienne des déchiffrements de G. F. Grotefend,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, 10 (1979), 125–132;Google Scholar
  161. 68e.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “La sémiotique à la recherche de l’essence des sens,” Linguisticae Investigationes, 4 (1980), 420–430;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 68f.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “Taal en taalkunde in de Encyclopédie,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 42 (1980), 372–384;Google Scholar
  163. 68g.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “Linguistic Considerations on Reference,” in The Semantics of Determiners, ed. J. van der Auwera (London: Croom Helm, 1980), pp. 166–188;Google Scholar
  164. 68h.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, review of J. Culler, Saussure, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 42 (1980), 189;Google Scholar
  165. 68i.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, review of S. Auroux, La Sémiotique des encyclopédistes, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 42 (1980), 404–406;Google Scholar
  166. 68j.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, review of T. A. Sebeok ed. The Teil-Tale Sign, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 42 (1980), 834–836;Google Scholar
  167. 68k.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, review of J. Trentman ed. Vincent Ferrer: Tractatus de suppositionibus, Studies in Language, 4 (1980), 426–432;Google Scholar
  168. 68l.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “Sur l’histoire du terme “valeur” en linguistique,” Revue roumaine de linguistique, 26 (1981), 145–150;Google Scholar
  169. 68m.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “Taalpragmatiek en taalfilosofie,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 43 (1981), 730–733;Google Scholar
  170. 68n.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “La grammaire dans l’Encyclopédie: Signe et sens,” Romanische Forschungen, 93 (1981), 122–137;Google Scholar
  171. 68o.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “Two Dimensions in Karl Bühler’s Sign Theory,” Ars Semeiotica, 4 (1981), 53–56;Google Scholar
  172. 68p.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “La théorie du signe à Port-Royal,” Semiotica, 35 (1981), 267–285;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 68q.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “The Supermaxim of Conversation,” Dialectica, 35 (1981), 303–306;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. 68r.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, review of A. Keller, Sprachphilosophie, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 43 (1981), 196–197;Google Scholar
  175. 68s.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, review of Zeichen, Text, Sinn. Zur Semiotik des literarischen Verstehens, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 43 (1981), 765;Google Scholar
  176. 68t.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, review of B. Malmberg, Signes et symboles, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 43 (1981), 771;Google Scholar
  177. 68u.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, review of R. Jakobson, The Framework of Language, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 43 (1981), 773–775;Google Scholar
  178. 68v.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “La sémiotique de Condillac ou la pensée dans la pensée,” in Condillac et lesproblèmes du langage, ed. J. Sgard (Genève: Slatkine, 1982), pp. 221–242;Google Scholar
  179. 68w.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “Lost in the Semiotic Landscape,” Semiotica, 38 (1982), 369–380;Google Scholar
  180. 68x.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “On Pragmatics and Nominalism,” Semiotica, 48 (1984);Google Scholar
  181. 68y.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “Théorie de la grammaire et théorie des signes chez les encyclopédistes,” Semiotica, 40 (1982), 89–105;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 68z.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “Maupertuis sur l’origine du langage,” Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 215 (1982), 163–169;Google Scholar
  183. 68aa.
    See the following publications: review of E. Holenstein, “La Grammaire de Port-Royal et le parallélisme logico-grammatical,” to appear in Orbis (1984).Google Scholar
  184. 69.
    For a list of their major publications of interest to semioticians, see notes 44–46.Google Scholar
  185. 70.
    A. J. Van Zoest, Semiotiek. Over tekens, hoe ze werken en wat we ermee doen (Baarn: Ambo, 1978);Google Scholar
  186. 70a.
    A. J. Van Zoest, see also the same author’s studies “Een semiotische analyse van Morgensterns Fisches Nachtgesang,” Levende Talen, 278 (1971), 359–377;Google Scholar
  187. 70b.
    A. J. Van Zoest, “De bruikbaarheid van Peirce’s begrip ‘icon’ bij het benoemen van bepaalde verschijnselen in (bijv.) Franse poëzie,” Handelingen van het 32e Nederlandse Filologencongres, 5–7 april 1972 (Amsterdam: Universiteitspers, 1974), 187–193. In 1977, Theresa Calvet de Magalhaes submitted a doctoral dissertation, supervised by Jean Ladrière at the Université catholique de Louvain, on Peirce’s semiotic theory. The thesis was published under the title Signe ou symbole. Introduction à la théorie sémiotique de C. S. Peirce (Louvain-la-Neuve and Madrid: Cabay, 1981). A review of this study appeared in Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 46 (1984), 358–359.Google Scholar
  188. 71.
    See Thomas A. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962); rev. ed. (1970);Google Scholar
  189. 71a.
    See Thomas A. Kuhn, for the role of institutional and societal factors in science, see also Joseph Agassi, Science and Society (Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel, 1981).Google Scholar
  190. 72.
    See Dell Hymes and John Fought, “American Structuralism,” in Thomas A. Sebeok, ed., Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 13: Historiography of Linguistics, assoc. eds. Hans Aarsleff, Robert Austerlitz, Dell Hymes, and Edward Stan-kiewicz (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), pp. 903–1176;Google Scholar
  191. 72a.
    See Dell Hymes and John Fought, an updated version was published in book form under the same title (The Hague: Mouton, 1981). See my review in Language in Society, 12 (1983), 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 73.
    The journal Degrés: Revue de synthèse à orientation sémiologique (Brussels) is less semiotically oriented than its subtitle might suggest; the general background of this journal seems to be (a philosophically interpreted version of) European structuralism.Google Scholar
  193. 74.
    See the following publications: J. Lambert, “Plaidoyer pour un programme des études comparatistes. Littérature comparée et théorie du polysystème,” to appear in the Actes du Congrès de la Société Française de Littérature générale et comparée, Montpellier, 18–21 septembre 1980;Google Scholar
  194. 74a.
    J. Lambert, “Production, tradition et importation: une clef pour la description de la littérature et de la littérature en traduction,” Revue Canadienne de Littérature Comparée, 7 (1980), 246–252;Google Scholar
  195. 74b.
    J. Lambert, “Théorie de la littérature et théorie de la traduction en France (1800–1850) interprétées à partir de la théorie du polysystème,” I. Even-Zohar and G. Toury, eds., Translation Theory and Intercultural Relations (special issue of Poetics Today), 1981, pp. 161–171;Google Scholar
  196. 74c.
    J. Lambert, “L’éternelle question des frontières: littératures nationales et systèmes littéraires,” in Langue, Dialecte, Littérature. Etudes romanes à la mémoire de Hugo Plomteux, G. Angelet, L. Melis, F. J. Mertens, and F. Musarra, eds. (Leuven: University Press, 1983), pp. 355–370;Google Scholar
  197. 74d.
    J. Lambert and H. Van Gorp, “Geschiedenis, theorie en systeem: valse dilemma’s in de literatuurwetenschap,” Spektator, 10 (1980 – 1981), 514–519;Google Scholar
  198. 74e.
    J. Lambert and H. Van Gorp, “Describing Translations,” to appear in Th. Hermans, ed., The Manipulation of Literature. Essays on Translated Literature (London: Groom Helm);Google Scholar
  199. 74f.
    L. D’Hulst, L’Évolution de la poésie en France (1780–1830). Introduction à une analyse des interférences systémiques (Leuven, Ph.D. diss., 1982).Google Scholar
  200. 75.
    Contexts of understanding (P&B, 1:6, 1980); Structural Semiotics and Integrated Pragmatics. An Evaluative Comparison of Conceptual Frameworks (P&B, IV:7, 1983).Google Scholar
  201. 76.
    See my review article of this book, in Studies in Language, 8 (1984), 415–438.Google Scholar
  202. 77.
    See the following publications by F. G. Droste: “Betekenistheorie: wijsgerige en taalkundige aspecten,” Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, 43 (1981), 3–17;Google Scholar
  203. 77a.
    See the following publications by F. G. Droste: “Metaphory as a Paradigmatic Function,” Poetics, 11 (1982), 203–211;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. 77b.
    See the following publications by F. G. Droste: “Meaning What? On Possible Worlds and Possible Semantics,” Saint Louis University Research Journal, 14 (1983), 1–79.Google Scholar
  205. 78.
    “Saussure à l’usure,” Semiotica, 42 (1982), 297–309; “Grammaire et théorie du langage chez Buffier,” Dix-huitième siècle, 15 (1983), 285–293; “Les ‘parties du discours’ dans la grammaire française au XVIIIe siècle,” Revue roumaine de linguistique, 28 (1983), 153–163; “La catégorie du “compellatif” chez Silvestre de Sacy,” Studii şi cercetǎri lingvistice, 34 (1983), 19–21; “Remarques sur l’arbitraire,” Studii si cercetâri lingvistice, 34 (1983), 171–173; “Studies on the French Eighteenth Century Grammatical Tradition,” Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 219 (1983), 273–280; “Théorie grammaticale et définition du discours dans le Sophiste de Platon,” Les Études Classiques, 52 (1984), 15–17; “Position idéologique et scientifique de la grammaire française aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles,” Trames: Actualité de l’histoire de la langue française; méthodes et documents (Limoges: Presses Universitaires, 1984), 33–41; Les Conceptions linguistiques des encyclopédistes. Etude sur la constitution d’une théorie de la grammaire au siècle des Lumières (Heidelberg: J. Groos; Leuven: University Press, 1984); “Cognitive Aspects of Aristotle’s Theory of Metaphor,” Glotta, 62 (1984), 40–45; “Locke—Condillac—Bréal—Saussure: le sens d’une tradition sémiotique,” to appear in Semiotica.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pierre Swiggers
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Philosophy and LettersBelgian National Science FoundationLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations