Introduction

Author(s):  
Galen A. Johnson

Merleau-Ponty’s profound engagement with literary writers is readily apparent: Proust and Valéry, also Stendhal, Paul Claudel, Claude Simon, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Breton, Balzac, Mallarmé, Francis Ponge, Sartre, and Beauvoir. Merleau-Ponty’s first two 1953 courses at the Collège de France as well as the course of 1953–54 all address questions of expression and literary language: The Sensible World and the World of Expression, Research on the Literary Usage of Language, and The Problem of Speech. Recent transcription and publication of these new resources lend urgency to this project. Our use of the term “poet” includes literary authors in general, be they novelists or “poets” in the narrower sense, and our focus is on the writers of “modernity” or “modernism.” The meaning of a Merleau-Pontyan poetics opens with reflections on philosophy of language in sharp contrast with Sartre’s What is Literature? It studies four paradoxes of literary expression: the paradox of the true and the imaginary, of speech and silence, of the subjective (the most secret) and the objective, and of the relation of the author and the person who lives. These are the “surprises,” the “traps,” that make literature appear as a problem to itself and cause the writer himself or herself to ask: “what is literature?”

Author(s):  
Galen A. Johnson ◽  
Mauro Carbone ◽  
Emmanuel de Saint Aubert

Merleau-Ponty’s Poetics of the World offers detailed studies of the philosopher’s engagements with Proust, Claudel, Claude Simon, André Breton, Mallarmé, Francis Ponge, and more. From Proust, Merleau-Ponty developed his conception of “sensible ideas,” from Claudel, his conjoining of birth and knowledge as “co-naissance,” from Valéry came “implex” or the “animal of words” and the “chiasma of two destinies.” Thus also arise the questions of expression, metaphor, and truth and the meaning of a Merleau-Pontyan poetics. The poetic of Merleau-Ponty is, inseparably, a poetic of the flesh, a poetic of mystery, and a poetic of the visible in its relation to the invisible. This poetics is worked out across each co-author’s chapters in dialogue with Husserl, Walter Benjamin, Heidegger, and Sartre. A new optic proposes the conception of literature as a visual “apparatus” in relation to cinema and screens. Recent transcriptions of Merleau-Ponty’s first two 1953 courses at the Collège de France The Sensible World and the World of Expression and Research on the Literary Usage of Language, as well as the course of 1953–54, The Problem of Speech, lend timeliness, urgency and energy to this project. Our goal is to specify more precisely the delicate nature and properly philosophical function of literary works in Merleau-Ponty’s thought as the literary writer becomes a partner of the phenomenologist. Ultimately, theoretical figures that appear at the threshold between philosophy and literature enable the possibility of a new ontology. What is at stake is the very meaning of philosophy itself and its mode of expression.


Phainomenon ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 18-19 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-174
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Alloa

Abstract Philosophical speech is required to reach the core of the things themselves, often at the risk of subsuming the individual thing under the law of a general concept and ruining its singularity. Is another approach available to philosophy at all ? The question of the violence of the discourse has been raised by many thinkers in the 20th century. Just as Wittgenstein, Husserl demanded for a replacement of deduction by description which would let the things appear in their own light. Merleau-Ponty has rephrased the task of a maieutic phenomenology in terms of”letting see through words” (faire voir par les mots), whereas the direct, exhaustive thematization is given up for an indirect speech, letting the world speak in its own “prose”. While the “indirect ontology” in Merleau-Ponty’s last works has received wide attention these last years, little case has been made of the linguistic implications of the figure of its philosophical operator, the “indirect speech”. What is the status of the “ logos” in Merleau-Ponty’s phenomeno-”logy”? By relating Merleau-Ponty’s reflections on the language of philosophy (rather than on philosophy of language) to the linguistic discussion on free indirect speech (Tobler, Kalepky, Bakhtin) as well as to its use in literature, from Dostoyevsky to Claude Simon, a new perspective opens up of an “indirect ethics”, which implies that whoever speaks in the name of the Other is already spoken by him or by her.


Author(s):  
Ruth Garrett Millikan

This book weaves together themes from natural ontology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language and information, areas of inquiry that have not recently been treated together. The sprawling topic is Kant’s how is knowledge possible? but viewed from a contemporary naturalist standpoint. The assumption is that we are evolved creatures that use cognition as a guide in dealing with the natural world, and that the natural world is roughly as natural science has tried to describe it. Very unlike Kant, then, we must begin with ontology, with a rough understanding of what the world is like prior to cognition, only later developing theories about the nature of cognition within that world and how it manages to reflect the rest of nature. And in trying to get from ontology to cognition we must traverse another non-Kantian domain: questions about the transmission of information both through natural signs and through purposeful signs including, especially, language. Novelties are the introduction of unitrackers and unicepts whose job is to recognize the same again as manifested through the jargon of experience, a direct reference theory for common nouns and other extensional terms, a naturalist sketch of uniceptual—roughly conceptual— development, a theory of natural information and of language function that shows how properly functioning language carries natural information, a novel description of the semantics/pragmatics distinction, a discussion of perception as translation from natural informational signs, new descriptions of indexicals and demonstratives and of intensional contexts and a new analysis of the reference of incomplete descriptions.


2010 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben W. Dhooge

AbstractAnglo-American and Russian stylistics influenced each other substantially in the 1960s and 1970s. From the 1980s on, however, this fruitful mutual influence came to an end. The two schools started to grow apart, but despite that, they would develop almost parallel to each other, displaying many theoretical and methodological similarities. The present paper illustrates this by highlighting one such specificity – the idea of the possible reflection of one's conceptualization of the world in the use of literary language, and the possibility of reconstructing that conceptualization by means of a stylistic analysis (‘mind style’–‘kartina mira’). By comparing the Anglo-American and Russian theories on the topic, it is shown that the separately evolved conceptions are similar and even complement each other: the differences between them clarify and help solve possible theoretical and methodological gaps. Moreover, the juxtaposition of both conceptions allows us to perfect the notion of ‘mind style’ and its practical applications. A similar approach to other conceptions and tendencies in current seemingly mutually independent Anglo-American and Russian stylistics have the same potential, and may lead to a new convergence between the two schools.


2019 ◽  
pp. 66-76
Author(s):  
Natalia Holikova

The article explores the intertextual interaction of stylists, who in the works of I. Kotlyarevsky and P. Zahrebelny represent the concept of «laugh culture». The linguistic and aesthetic signs in the epic burlesque-travesty poem «Aeneid» by I. Kotlyarevsky, which served as a model for the creation of expressive and pictorial means – carriers of humorous axiology in the language of a number of P. Zahrebelny's novels, are revealed. Attention is drawn to the fact that the foundations for the formation of a ridiculous culture as a genre segment of Ukrainian literature are laid in the poem «Aeneid» by I. Kotlyarevsky, which is written in a syllabic-tonic verse (iamb) – the size most appropriate for the Ukrainian language. The linguistic and literary traditions of ridicule are at the heart of the humorously narrative tonality of P. Zahrebelny's two novels – «The Lion's Heart» and «Exile from Paradise», which form the thematic-storyline. It is emphasized that the figure of I. Kotlyarevsky is a significant creative personality for P. Zagrebelny, who often appeals to the creator of the creator of Ukrainian literary language in his prose. The novelist dialogues with the artistic texts of the laughingstock, introducing meaningfully expressive fragments of them into the intersemiotic field of prose works. The intertextual interplay of linguistic components of the individual-linguistic paintings of the world of two writers can be traced in the functional and structural-semantic similarity of a number of style word, which are often the result of stylistic reception of the language game: intertext (linguocultural and ethno-language characters), literary and artistic anthroponyms, as well as words-symbols, which are functionally significant components of the peripheral-evaluative sphere. The individual and authorial rhetorical figures of P. Zahrebelny are comprehensively analyzed within the limits of linguistics, ethno-linguistics, theory of intertextuality, literary onomastics. It has been concluded that the linguistic creation of the prose contains an important humorous-axiological segment of artistic narrative, which is organically incorporated into the context of Ukrainian laugh culture.


2011 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 1051-1072 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikas Mehrotra ◽  
Dimitri van Schaik ◽  
Jaap Spronk ◽  
Onno Steenbeek

AbstractMergers in Japan have the dubious distinction of not creating wealth for shareholders of target firms, in sharp contrast to what occurs in much of the rest of the world. Using a sample of 91 mergers from 1982 through 2003 we document several distinctive features of the merger market in Japan: Mergers tend to be countercyclical and appear to be driven chiefly by creditor concerns. In particular, where the merging firms share a common main bank, we find that merger gains are lower. Overall, our results point to a market that is distinctly less shareholder focused than that in the U.S., and a market where creditors play an important, perhaps dominant, role in corporate governance.


Author(s):  
Joshua Rust

John Rogers Searle (born July 31, 1932) is the Slusser Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. This analytic philosopher has made major contributions to the fields of the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of language, and social ontology. He is best known for his Chinese room argument, which aims to demonstrate that the formally described systems of computer functionalism cannot give rise to intentional understanding. Searle’s early work focused on the philosophy of language, where, in Speech Acts (1969), he explores the hypothesis that speaking a language is a rule-governed form of behavior. Just as one must follow certain rules in order to be considered to be playing chess, rules determine whether a speaker is making a promise, giving a command, asking a question, making a statement, and so forth. The kind of speech act that an utterance is depends on, among other conditions, its propositional content and illocutionary force. The content depicts the world as being a certain way, and the force specifies what a speaker is trying to do with that content. For example, for an utterance to qualify as a promise a speaker must describe a future act (content) and intend that the utterance place him or herself under an obligation to do that act (force). In Intentionality (1983), Searle argues that the structure of language not only mirrors but is derivative of the structure of intentional thought, so that core elements of his analysis of speech acts can be used as the basis for a theory of intentionality. Just as we can only promise by bringing certain propositional contents under a certain illocutionary force, intentional states such as belief, desire, fear, and joy can only be about the world in virtue of a representative content and a psychological mode. A theory of intentionality does not explain how intentionality is possible, given the basic facts of the world as identified by the natural sciences. Much of Searle’s work in the philosophy of mind, as found in Minds, Brains, and Science (1984) and The Rediscovery of the Mind (1992), is dedicated to the question of how mental facts, including but not limited to intentional facts, can be reconciled with basic, natural facts. Searle’s Chinese room argument is formulated in the service of rejecting computer functionalism, a prominent attempt at such reconciliation. Searle’s positive view, which he describes as "biological naturalism," is that mental facts are both caused by and features of underlying neurophysiological processes. In Speech Acts (1969), Searle claims that using language is akin to playing chess, in that both activities are made possible by participants following what he describes as "constitutive rules," rules that must be followed in order for someone to be considered to be undertaking those activities. Other institutional facts, such as money or the U.S. presidency, are also created and maintained in virtue of our following certain constitutive rules. For example, someone can only count as a U.S. president if that person is, among other conditions, a U.S. citizen who receives a majority of electoral votes. This thought is extended and explored in Searle’s two book-length contributions to the field of social ontology, The Construction of Social Reality (1995) and Making the Social World (2010). In addition to the philosophy of language and social ontology, Searle has made book-length contributions to the philosophy of action (Rationality in Action (2001)) and the philosophy of perception (Seeing Things as They Are: A Theory of Perception (2015)). He also famously engaged Jacques Derrida’s critique of J. L. Austin’s discussion of illocutionary acts ("Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida" (1977)). Searle has summarized his various positions in Mind, Language, and Society: Philosophy in the Real World (1998) and Mind: A Brief Introduction (2004).


Author(s):  
A.W. Moore

It is argued that the use/mention distinction, if it is to be a clear-cut one, cannot have the significance that it is usually thought to have. For that significance attaches to the distinction between employing an expression in order to draw attention to, or to talk about, some aspect of the world, as determined by the expression’s meaning, and employing it in order to draw attention to, or to talk about, the expression itself—and this distinction is not a clear-cut one. In the final section of the essay this argument is extended to cast doubt on a rather glib appeal to the use/mention distinction that is frequently made in the philosophy of language.


Author(s):  
Shaul Stampfer

This chapter describes the literacy of the Jews of eastern Europe in the modern period. This is an interesting topic because, on the one hand, these Jews were heirs to a long tradition of literacy. At the same time, they lived in a multilingual world. In that society, Jews usually spoke Yiddish to each other; prayed in Hebrew; came into contact with bureaucrats who spoke the languages of rulers such as Russian or German; and dealt with customers and clients who spoke Polish, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, and Belorussian. Most of the latter were oppressed languages with limited possibilities for publication and literary expression. Thus, when considering the literacy of east European Jews, one has to consider literacy in their vernacular (Yiddish), in their literary language (Hebrew), and also in non-Jewish languages. Literacy in the first two categories is significant as a reflection of cultural patterns and exposure to the written word. Meanwhile, literacy in the last category is a reflection both of acculturation and exposure or openness to general culture and society.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document