Semiotics in Norway

  • Sven Storelv
Part of the Topics in Contemporary Semiotics book series (TICSE)


In attempting to give a survey of the development of semiotics in Norway I must begin by emphasizing three points: (1) As the development of Norwegian semiotics belongs to the recent past, the very nearness of the historical scene one wishes to observe and describe makes it rather difficult to discern the historical movement and the major strands. The observer and analyst may notice what makes up and characterizes the different fields and practices among which he finds himself situated, but he can form no clearly outstanding picture of how the landscape will appear from a greater distance; (2) The nearness not only prevents him from seeing the relatively permanent trends or “schools,” but also keeps him from doing justice to scholars and their works, and picking out those worthy of mention and comment; (3) As a matter of fact, it is impossible to reduce the development of semiotics to a simple line of evolution.


Social Anthropology Literary Text Semiotic Theory Russian Formalism Semiotic Activity 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    René Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1949).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Victor Erlich, Russian Formalism, 2nd ed. (The Hague: Mouton, 1965).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tzvétan Todorov, Poétique, 7 (1971), 275–333.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roman Jakobson, Questions de Poétique (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1973).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roman Jakobson, “Closing Statement; Linguistics and Poetics,” in Style in Language, ed. T. A. Sebeok (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960), pp. 350–377.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roman Jakobson and Claude Lévi-Strauss, “Les Chats de Baudelaire,” L’Homme, 2 (1962), 5–21.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See Sven Storelv, “Les Chats de Baudelaire (Fleurs du Mal LXVI) En diskusjon av diktet,” in Strukturalisme og semiologi, 2nd ed. (Oslo: Solum Forlag, 1985), pp. 43–55 (Nordisk sommeruniversitets skriftserie, No. 2, Denmark, Grenaa: GMT, 1973).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    For instance, Roman Jakobson, Poetik & lingvistik, ed. Kurt Aspelin and Bengt Lundberg (Stockholm: Norstedt & Søner, 1974).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poetik. Tidsskrift for aestetik og litteraturvidenskap (Copenhagen: Munksgaard).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Exil. Tidsskrift for tekstteori (Copenhagen: Vintens Forlag).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kjell S. Johannesen and Arild Utaker, eds. Strukturalisme og semiologi, 2nd ed. (Oslo: Solum Forlag, 1985); Nordisk sommeruniversitets skriftserie, no. 2 (Grenaa: GMT, 1973).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Atle Kittang, Discours et jeu, Essai d’analyse des textes d’Arthur Rimbaud (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, 1975).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alf Sommerfeit, Diachronie and Synchronic Aspects of Language Selected Articles (‘sGravenhage: Mouton, 1962). For a presentation of this linguist see Georg Morgenstierne, “Nekrolog,” Kratylos (1965), pp. 108–110.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ibid., pp. 87–136.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ibid., p. 134.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See Carl Hj. Borgstrom, Innføring i sprogvidenskap (Oslo and Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup Bokförlag 1958).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    See for a presentation of this linguist and a bibliographical list of his works Mélanges d’études romanes offerts à Leiv Flydal, Études Romanes de l’Université de Copenhague, Revue Romane, No. 18 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag 1979), pp. 1–8, 13–14.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    For his main contributions to stylistics see: (1) “Remarques sur certains rapports entre le style et l’état de langue.” Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, 16 (1952), 240–257; (2) En språklig analyse av norske boktitler 1952 (Morfemene i reklamens tjeneste), Skrifter fra Norges Handelshøyskole: Språklige avhandlinger No. 6 (Bergen, 1954); (3) “Les instruments de l’artiste en langage,” Le français moderne, 30, No. 3 (Paris, 1962), 161–170.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knut Liestøl, “Nynorsk målføring i tale og skrift samanlikna med gamalnorsk,” Maal og Minne (Oslo, 1910). 20 For studies of individual styles, see bibliographical references in the two following books: Pierre Guiraud, Stilistikk trans. Johs. A. Dale (Oslo: Det norske samlaget, 1960), pp. 86–87, and Willy Dahl, Stil og struktur (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1965), pp. 147–154.Google Scholar
  20. 21.
    Egil Eiken Johnsen, Stilpsykiske studier i 1890 årenes norske litteratur (Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, 1949).Google Scholar
  21. 22.
    Bjørn Magnússon Olsen, ed. Den tredje ogjjœrde grammatiske Afhandling (Copenhagen: Fr. G. Knudtzons Boktrykkeri, 1884).Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    For these studies see Pierre Guiraud, Stilistikk, trans. Johs. A. Dale (Oslo: Det norske samlaget, 1960), p. 21.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    Ibid., p. 21.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    Bjarne Fidjestøl, (1) “Kenningsystemet. Forsøk på en lingvistisk analyse,” Maal og Minne (1974), pp. 4–11;Google Scholar
  25. 25a.
    Bjarne Fidjestøl, (2) “Kenningsystemet. Gjenmaele til Peter Hallberg,” Maal og Minne (1974), pp. 9–27;Google Scholar
  26. 25b.
    Bjarne Fidjestøl, (3) “Algirdas Julien Greimas og Ramnkjell Frøysgode,” Edda (1977), pp. 193–203.Google Scholar
  27. 26.
    Jakob Rosted, Forsøg til en Rhetorik (Christiania, 1829).Google Scholar
  28. 27.
    Willy Dahl, Stil og Struktur (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1965).Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    Ellisiv Steen, Kristin Lavransdatter. En estetisk studie, 2nd ed. (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1969).Google Scholar
  30. 29.
    Asbjørn Aarseth, Episke strukturer (Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1976).Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    Atle Kittang and Asbjørn Aarseth, Lyriske strukturer (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1968).Google Scholar
  32. 31.
    Peter Wessel Zapffe, Indføring i litterar Dramaturgi (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1961).Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    See for the university teaching the two books of Olaf Øystebø: Stil og språkbruksanalyse (Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1978), and Språklig kommunikasjon (Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1979). 33 See for the contributions of the Danish scholars Nydanske studier, Nos. 1–5, (1970–1973).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bernt Fossestol, Tekst og tekststruktur. Veier og mål i tekstlingvistikken (Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1980).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    See the following papers by Geir Kjetsaa: (1) “Lomonosov’s Sound Characteristics,” Scando-Slavica, 20 (1974), 77–93;Google Scholar
  36. 35a.
    See the following papers by Geir Kjetsaa: (2) “Storms on the Quiet Don. A Pilot Study,” Scando-Slavica, 22 (1976), 5–74;Google Scholar
  37. 35b.
    See the following papers by Geir Kjetsaa: (3) “Problema avtorstva v romane Tichij Don,” Scando-Slavica, 24 (1978), 91–105;Google Scholar
  38. 35c.
    See the following papers by Geir Kjetsaa: (4) “Written by Dostoevski?” Scando-Slavica, 26 (1980), 19–31.Google Scholar
  39. 36.
    (1) Ragnar Rommetveit, Words, Meaning and Messages (New York and Oslo: Academic Press and Universitetsforlaget, 1968);Google Scholar
  40. 36a.
    Ragnar Rommetveit, (2) “Verbal Communication and Social Influence,” in Communication and Drug Abuse, eds. J. R. Wittenborn et al. (Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1970), pp. 69–78;Google Scholar
  41. 36b.
    Ragnar Rommetveit, (3) “Language Games, Deep Syntactic Structures, and Hermeneutic Circles,” in The Context of Social Psychology: A Critical Assessment, eds. J. Israel and H. Taifel (London: Academic Press, 1972), pp. 212–257;Google Scholar
  42. 36c.
    Ragnar Rommetveit, (4) “Deep Structure of Sentences versus Message Structure, Some Critical Remarks on current Paradigms, and Suggestions for an Alternative Approach,” Norwegian Journal of Linguistics, 26 (1972), 3–22;Google Scholar
  43. 36d.
    Ragnar Rommetveit, (5) Språk, tanke og kommunikasjon. Ei innføring i språkpsykologi og psykolingvistikk (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1972);Google Scholar
  44. 36e.
    Ragnar Rommetveit, (6) On Message Structure (London, New York, Sydney, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 1974);Google Scholar
  45. 36f.
    (7) Ragnar Rommetveit and Rolf Mikkel Blakar, eds., Studies of Language, Thought and Verbal Communication (London, New York, San Francisco: Academic Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  46. 37.
    (1) Rolf Mikkel Blakar, “Context Effects and Coding Stations in Sentence Processing,” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 14 (1973), 103–105;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 37a.
    Rolf Mikkel Blakar, (2) “An Experimental Method for Inquiring into Communication,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 3 (1973), 51–68;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 37b.
    Rolf Mikkel Blakar, (3) Språk er makt (Oslo: Pax, 1973);Google Scholar
  49. 37c.
    Rolf Mikkel Blakar, (4) “How the Sex Roles are Represented, Reflected and Conserved in the Norwegian Language,” Acta Sociologica, 18 (1975), 162–173;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 37d.
    (5) Rolf Mikkel Blakar and H. A. Sølvberg, “Communication Efficiency in Couples with and without a Schizophrenic Offspring,” Family Process, 14 (1975), 515–534;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 37e.
    (6) Rolf Mikkel Blakar, “Language as a Means of Social Power,” in Pragmalinguistics: Theory and Practice, ed. J. L. Mey (The Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton, 1979);Google Scholar
  52. 37f.
    (7) Rolf Mikkel Blakar and Ragnar Rommetveit, Studies of Language, Thought and Verbal Communication (London, New York, San Francisco: Academic Press, 1979). For detailed references to the works and papers of Blakar, see the bibliographical list published by the Department of Psychology of the University of Oslo (November 1977).Google Scholar
  53. 38.
    See Strukturalisme og semiologi, reference citation Nos. 7 and 11.Google Scholar
  54. 39.
  55. 40.
    Reidar Grønhaug, Micro-Macro Relations. Social Organization in Antalya, Southern Turkey (Bergen: Department of Social Anthropology, University of Bergen, 1974).Google Scholar
  56. 41.
    Reidar Grønhaug, “Konstruksjon og destruksjon av tegn,” in Struktur alisme og Semiologi, Nordisk Sommeruniversitets Skriftserie No. 2 (Grenaa: GMT, 1973), pp. 69–88.Google Scholar
  57. 42.
    See Ragnar Numelin, Fältforskareoch kammarlærde. Drag ur socialantropologiens idéhistoria (Helsingfors: Söderström & Co. Förlagsaktiebolag, 1947), pp. 243–249, and Arne Martin Klausen, Antropologiens historie (Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag, 1981) pp. 134–164.Google Scholar
  58. 43.
    (1) Fredrik Barth, ed., The Role of the Entrepreneur in Social Change in Northern Norway (Bergen: Scandinavian University Books, 1973);Google Scholar
  59. 43a.
    (2) Fredrik Barth, Models of Social Organization (Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Occasional Paper No. 23, 1966);Google Scholar
  60. 43b.
    (3) Fredrik Barth “On the Study of Social Change,” American Anthropologist, 69, No. 6 (1967), pp. 661–669;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 43c.
    Fredrik Barth (4) Socialantropologiska problem (Vännersborg: Prisma, 1971);Google Scholar
  62. 43d.
    Fredrik Barth (5) Ritual and Knowledge among the Baktaman of New Guinea (New Haven: Yale University Press; Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1975).Google Scholar
  63. 43e.
    Fredrik Barth (6) “Models Reconsidered,” in Process and Form in Social Life, Selected Essays of Fredrik Barth (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981), pp. 76–105. For an assessment of the achievement of Barth on an international level see: A. M. Klausen, Antropologiens historie, pp. 108–113; Robert L. Bee, Patterns and Processes (London: Macmillan, 1974), pp. 214–126.Google Scholar
  64. 44.
    Reidar Grønhaug, ed., Transaction and Signification in Human Relations (Oslo and Bergen: Scandinavian University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
  65. 45.
    (1) Jan-Petter Blom, “Afro-amerikanske rytmer: instinkt eller tradisjon,” in Mennesket som samfunnsborger, ed. F. Barth (Oslo-Bergen-Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1971), pp. 22–35;Google Scholar
  66. 45a.
    Jan-Petter Blom (2) “Notasjonsproblemer i folkedansforskningen,” Norveg, 16 (1972), 91–114;Google Scholar
  67. 45b.
    (3) Jan-Peter Blom and J. J. Gumperz, “Social Meaning in Linguistic Structure: Code-Switching in Norway,” in Directions in Sociolinguistics (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972), pp. 407–434;Google Scholar
  68. 45c.
    (4) Jan-Petter Blom, “Rytmestrukturer i folkemusikken pa Balkan, kilder og prinsipper,” in Strukturalisme og Semiologi, Norsk Sommeruniversitets Skriftserie No. 2, eds. K. S. Johannessen and A. Utaker (Grenaa: GMT, 1973), pp. 56–68.Google Scholar
  69. See also the following works for the Bergen school of social anthropology: (1) Henning Siverts, “Report on Ethnographic Procedures,” Folk, 8–9 (1967), 325–334; (2) Drinking Patterns in Highland Chiapas: A Teamwork Approach to the Study of Semantics through Ethnography (Oslo-Bergen-Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1973); (3) “Broken Hearts and Pots,” in Transaction and Signification in Human Relations (Oslo-Bergen: Scandinavian University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
  70. 46.
    For a survey of folkloristic research in postwar Norway, see Ronald Grambo, “Folkloristic Research in Norway 1945 – 1976. Ideas and Results in Profile. An Introductory Essay,” Norveg, 22 (1977), 221–286.Google Scholar
  71. 47.
    (1) Ronald Grambo, “Models of Magic. Some Preliminary Considerations,” Norveg, 18 (1975), 77–109.Google Scholar
  72. 47a.
    (2)Ronald Grambo, Norske trollformler og magiske ritualer (Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1979).Google Scholar
  73. 47b.
    (3) Ronald Grambo, “Models of Metaphorical Riddles. Preliminary Considerations on Cognitive Folkloristics,” in Acta Ethnographica Academiae Scien-tiarum Hungaricae, 28 (1–4) 1979, 351–373.Google Scholar
  74. 48.
    See Norveg, 22 (1979), 277–278.Google Scholar
  75. 49.
    Ronald Grambo, “Ikonografi og struktur,” in Tradisjon og samfunn, eds. Knut Kolsrud, Bjarne Hodne, Ronald Grambo and Anne Swang (Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1978), 251–272.Google Scholar
  76. 50.
    Adel Gjøstein Blom, “Visor i kulturell kommunikasjon,” in Föreläsninger og diskussionsinnlägg vid 21: a Nordiska etnologkongressen i Hemse Gotland 12.–15. juni 1978, ed. Arvid Bringeos and Göran Rosander (Lund, 1979), pp. 129–143.Google Scholar
  77. 50a.
    Bjarne Hodne, Åleva med døden. Folkelige forestillinger om døden og de døde (Oslo, 1980).Google Scholar
  78. 50b.
    See also Wigdis Espeland, “Socialt samspel i eit lokalmiljø med kjøkemeisteren som døme,” in Studiet of fester, eds. Flemming Hemmersam and Bjarne Hodne (Copenhagen: C. A. Reitzels Boghandel A/S, 1979), pp. 139–151.Google Scholar
  79. 51.
    (1) Kjell Døving, “Studies of the Relations Between the Frog’s Electro-olfactogram (EOG) and Simple Unit Activity in the Olfactory Bulb,” in Acta Physiologica Scandinavia, 60 (1964), 150–163;Google Scholar
  80. 51.
    (2) Kjell Døving, Electrophysiological Studies on Olfactory Discrimination in the Frog (Stockholm: A. B. Thule, 1966);Google Scholar
  81. 51a.
    Kjell Døving,(3) Comparative Electrophysiological Studies on the Olfactory Tract of some Teleosts, Journal of Comparative Neurology, 31 (1967), 365–370;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 51b.
    Kjell Døving, (4) “Introduction to the Physiology of the Olfactory Sense,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Nordic Aroma Conference, (1972), 97–181;Google Scholar
  83. 51c.
    (5) Kjell Døving et al., “Selective Degeneration in the Rat Olfactory Bulb Following Exposure to Different Odours,” Brain Research, 82 (1974), 195–204;PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 51d.
    (6) Kjell Doving and Kjell Holmberg, “A Note on the Function of the Olfactory Organ of the Hagfish Myxine glutinosa,”Acta Physiologica Scandinavica, 91 (1974), 430–432.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 52.
    (1) Christian Metz, Essais sur la signification du cinéma, I—II (Paris: Editions Klincksieck, 1968–1972);Google Scholar
  86. 52.
    (1) Christian Metz, (2) Langage et cinéma (Paris: Larousse, 1971).Google Scholar
  87. 53.
    Pierre Schaeffer, Traité des objets musicaux (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1966).Google Scholar
  88. 54.
    Ballade. Tidsskrift for ny musikk, 3 (1980), pp. 23–31.Google Scholar
  89. 55.
    Christian Norberg-Schulz, Intentions in Architecture (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1963).Google Scholar
  90. 56.
    (1) Stein Braten, Marknadskommunikation (Stockholm: Beckmans Bokförlag, 1968);Google Scholar
  91. 56a.
    (2) Stein Braten, Mass- och miss kommunikation (Stockholm: Beckmans Bokförlag, 1971);Google Scholar
  92. 56b.
    (3) Stein Braten, “Koding-skretsöp i symbolsk samhandling,” Tidsshift for samfunns-forskning, 14 (1973), 47–63;Google Scholar
  93. 56c.
    (4) Stein Braten, “Model, Monopoly and Communication,” in Acta Sociologica, 16, No. 2 (1973), 98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 56d.
    (5) Stein Braten, “Coding, Simulation Circuits During Symbolic Interaction,” in Actes du 7e Congrès International de Cybernétique (Namur: Association Internationale de Cybernétique, 1974).Google Scholar
  95. 56e.
    (6) Stein Braten, “Dialogical Systems Approach: Dissonance, Dualities and Time,” in Sosiologi og metodologi [Sociology and Methodology] (Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, Instituttet for Sosiologi, 1980), pp. 147–176.Google Scholar
  96. 57.
    Stein Bråten, Tegnbehandling og meningsutveksling (Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø; Universitetsforlaget, 1973).Google Scholar
  97. 58.
    (1) Daniel Apollon, The Structural Approach to the Problem of Biblical Interpretation (to appear); (2) Steps toward an Empirical Methodology of the Study of Biblical Texts as Literature (to appear).Google Scholar
  98. 59.
    Arne Næss, Interpretation and Preciseness, A Contribution to the Theory of Communication (Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1953).Google Scholar
  99. 60.
    (1) Ingemund Gullvág, “Definiteness of Intention,” Filosofiske Problemer, 17 (Oslo, 1955); (2) “Criteria of Meaning and Analysis of Usage,” Synthese, 9, No. 6 (1954), 341–361;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 60.
    (1) Ingemund Gullvág, (3) “Referanse, mening og eksistens,” Filosofiske Problemer, 34 (Oslo, 1967).Google Scholar
  101. 61.
    Ingemund Gullvåg, “Pragmatikk,” Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift, 1 (1980).Google Scholar
  102. 62.
    Ingemund Gullvåg, Charles Sanders Peirce (Oslo: Pax Forlag, 1972).Google Scholar
  103. 63.
    (1) Dagfinn Føllesdal, “Mates on Referential Opacity,” Inquiry, 1 (1958), 232–238;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 63a.
    Dagfinn Føllesdal, (2) Referential Opacity and Modal Logic (Oslo: Oslo University Press, 1966);Google Scholar
  105. 63b.
    Dagfinn Føllesdal(3) “J. H. Mohanty: Edmund Husserl’s Theory of Meaning” (The Hague: Nijhoff 1964), Foundations of Language, 2 (1966), 266–268;Google Scholar
  106. 63c.
    Dagfinn Føllesdal (4) “Comment on Stenius’ ‘Mood and Language-Game,’ “Synthese, 17 (1967), 275–280;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 63d.
    Dagfinn Føllesdal (5) “Indeterminacy of Translation and Under-Determination of the Theory of Nature,” Dialectica, 27 (1973), 255–272;Google Scholar
  108. 63e.
    Dagfinn Føllesdal (6) “Meaning and Experience,” in Mind and Language: Wolfson College Lectures, ed. Samuel Guttenplan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), pp. 25–44.Google Scholar
  109. 64.
    Dagfinn Føllesdal, “Semantik,” in Handbuch Wissenschaftstheoretischer Begriffe, Uni-Taschenbücher, No. 968, Band 3, ed. I.J. Speck (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), pp. 568–579.Google Scholar
  110. 65.
    (1) Knut Midgaard, Strategisk tenkning: Noen spillteoretiske emner (Oslo: Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institutt, 1965);Google Scholar
  111. 65a.
    Knut Midgaard, (2) “Coordination in ‘Tacit’ Games: Some New Concepts,” Cooperation and Conflict, 2 (1965), 39–52;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 65b.
    Knut Midgaard, (3) “On Auxiliary Games and the Modes of a Game,” Cooperation and Conflict, 1 (1966), 64–81;Google Scholar
  113. 65c.
    Knut Midgaard, (4) “Some Comments on the Meaning and Use of Game Theory,” Cooperation and Conflict, 2 (1968), 108–130;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 65d.
    Knut Midgaard, (5) “Some Notes on Two-Person Games Where the Players’ Preference Structures Are Not Known and Cannot Be Known,” in La Décision, Agrégation et dynamique des ordres de préférence (Paris: Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, No. 171, 1969), pp. 153–173;Google Scholar
  115. 65e.
    Knut Midgaard, (6) Communication and Strategy (Oslo: Universi-tetsforlaget, 1970);Google Scholar
  116. 65f.
    (7) Halvor Stenstadvold and Arild Underdal, “An Approach to Political Interlocutions,” in Scandinavian Political Studies (1973);Google Scholar
  117. 65g.
    Knut Midgaard, (8) “On the Problem of Objectivity in the Social Sciences with a Particular View to the Significance of Situational Logic,” Danish Yearbook of Philosophy (1977).Google Scholar
  118. 66.
    Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift, No. 1, pp. 31–41, No. 2, pp. 81–110, 111–124, Nos. 3/4, pp. 145–170, 171–189.Google Scholar
  119. 67.
    See reference, footnote 11.Google Scholar
  120. 68.
    (1) Arild Utaker, “Ferdinand de Saussure,” in Strukturalisme og semiologi (see reference, footnote 11); (2) “On the Binary Opposition,” Linguistics, 134 (1974), 73–94;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 68a.
    Arild Utaker, (3) “Structure et signification,” in Sémantique et logique, ed. Bernard Pottier (Paris: Editions Universitaires, 1976);Google Scholar
  122. 68b.
    Arild Utaker, (4) “Semantics and the Relation between Language and Non-Language,” in Pragmalinguistics, Theory and Practice, ed. J. Mey, Janua Linguarum, series major, 85 (The Hague: Mouton, 1979), pp. 103–128;Google Scholar
  123. 68b.
    (5) Arild Utaker and Kjell S. Johannessen, “E. Koerner, Ferdinand de Saussure: Linguistic Historiography and Ferdinand de Saussure (Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg and John Grubh, 1973),” Linguistics, 196 (1977), 65–82.Google Scholar
  124. 69.
    Arild Utaker, Pilen og bildet (Bergen: Stensilserien, Filosofisk Institutt, No. 29, 1974).Google Scholar
  125. 70.
    See reference footnote no. 68 (4).Google Scholar
  126. 71.
    For bibliographical references see Mélange d’études offerts à Leif Flydal (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
  127. 72.
    Norwegian Journal of Linguistics, 29 (1974), 1–33.Google Scholar
  128. 73.
    Norwegian Journal of Linguistics, 30 (1976), 101–126.Google Scholar
  129. 74.
    La Linguistique, 11, No. 1 (1975), pp. 17–29. See also Leif Flydal, “Språkteikn og symbol i manns tale tiløyk,” Norwegian Journal of Linguistics, 18 (1957), 370–378;Google Scholar
  130. 74.
    Leif Flydal, “‘Formes réduites’ et ‘formes brèves’,” Norwegian Journal of Linguistics, 27 (1973), 15–23.Google Scholar
  131. 75.
    Leif Flydal, En spràklig analyse av norske boktitler 1952 (Morfemene i reklamens tjeneste) (Bergen: Skrifter fra Norges Handelshøyskole: Språklige avhandlinger 6, 1954).Google Scholar
  132. 76.
    Leif Flydal, “Paul Diderichsen, Helhet og struktur. Selected-Linguistic Papers (Copenhagen, 1966),” Studia Neophilologica, 39, No. 1 (1967), 216–224.Google Scholar
  133. 77.
    Leif Flydal, “Latences et liaisons en français—Systèmes coexistants ou un seul?” in Estudios ofrecidos a Emilio Marcos Llorach, 3 (Oviedo, 1978), 43–68.Google Scholar
  134. 78.
    In Actes du X e Congrès International des Linguistes, vol. 1 (Bucharest, 1967), 403–408.Google Scholar
  135. 79.
    Le français moderne 30, No. 3 (1962), 161–170.Google Scholar
  136. 80.
    Lars Otto Grundt and Lise Lorentzen, “Essai d’une description graphématique d’un manuscrit français du XVe siècle,” in Actes du 6 e Congrès des Romanistes Scandinaves Upsal 11–15 août 1975, ed. Lennart Carlson (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1977), pp. 11–123.Google Scholar
  137. 81.
    Harald Gullichsen, “Problemet form/substans i språkfilosofi og poetisk praksis,” in Fransk på norsk. Festskrift til Anne-Lisa Amadou (Oslo: Narcisse, Franskseksjonen ved Universitetet i Oslo, 1980), pp. 15–36.Google Scholar
  138. 82.
    Atle Kittang, Litteraturkritiske problem. Teori og analyse (Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1975).Google Scholar
  139. 83.
    Atle Kittang, “Form, Kode, Ideologi,” in Literature and Reality. Creatio versus Mimesis, ed. Alex Bolckmans (Ghent: Scandinavian Institute, University of Ghent, 1977), pp. 22–43.Google Scholar
  140. 84.
    Asbjørn Aarseth, Episke strukturer (Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1976);Google Scholar
  141. 84.
    Asbjørn Aarseth “The Idea of Freedom in Ghosts, Rosmersholm and John Gabriel Borkman,” Contemporary Approaches to Ibsen, 4 (Oslo, Bergen, Troms0: Universitetsforlaget, 1978), pp. 22–33.Google Scholar
  142. 85.
    Asbjørn Aarseth, “Scenisk rom og dramatisk erkjennelse i Ibsens ‘Gjengangere’,” in Dramaanalyserfra Holberg til Hoem, ed. Leif Longum (Oslo, Bergen, Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), pp. 41–53.Google Scholar
  143. 86.
    Jean Ricardou, Problèmes du nouveau roman (Paris: Seuil, 1968).Google Scholar
  144. 87.
    Julia Kristeva, “Problèmes de la structuration du texte,” in Théorie d’ensemble (Paris: Seuil, 1968), pp. 298–317.Google Scholar
  145. 88.
    Karin Gundersen, Textualité nervalienne. Remarques sur la lettre de l’Illustre Brisacier, Diss. University of Oslo 1980.Google Scholar
  146. 89.
    Ibid., pp. 57–58.Google Scholar
  147. 90.
    Aslaug Groven Michaelsen, Den gylne lenke. Norsk litteraturutvikling og det harmoniske imperativ (Oslo: Dreyers Forlag, 1977).Google Scholar
  148. 91.
    Ragnar Rommetveit, Words, Meanings and Messages. Theory and Experiments in Psycho Unguis tics (New York and Oslo: Academic Press and Universitetsforlaget, 1968).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Storelv
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of FrenchUniversitetet i BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations