Semiotics or Aesthetics: considerations on the epistemology of Language and Literature Studies
Keywords:
literary theory, linguistics, criticismAbstract
From its foundation, Literary Theory held epistemological affi nities with Structuralism that added to the convergence of criticism and analytical method. Those affi nities implied, along with the normalization and the demystifi cation of literary discourse, its radical de-aestheticization. The claim to universality, contained in the thoughtless equation of valid knowledge and system of propositions, fostered objectivity at the expense of the object, in Language and Literature Studies: linguistic defi nitions concurred to the erasure of the material dimension of the experience of language. If we’re dealing, however, with an epistemological error – namely, assuming as commensurable analysis and criticism, knowledge and truth, linguistic universal and aesthetic particular –, the critical self-refl ection should strive to overcome the defi ciencies that follow the historical intertwinement of aesthetics and linguistics.
Downloads
References
AGUIAR E SILVA, Vítor Manuel de. Teoria da literatura. 4. ed. Coimbra: Almedina, 1988 [1967].
AMORA, Antônio Soares. Introdução à teoria da literatura. São Paulo: Cultrix, 2004 [1967].
BAKHTIN, Mikhail. Marxismo e fi losofi a da linguagem. São Paulo: Hucitec, 2006.
BANN, Stephen. Semiotics. In: SELDEN, Raman (Org). The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Vol. 8: From Formalism to Poststructuralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 85–109.
BARROS, Diana Luz Pessoa De. Teoria do discurso: fundamentos semióticos. São Paulo: Humanitas; FFLCH/USP, 2002.
CANDIDO, Antonio. O estudo analítico do poema. São Paulo: Humanitas / FFLCH/USP, 1996 [1967].
DE MAN, Paul. The resistance to theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986.
DOLEZEL, Lubomir. A poética ocidental: tradição e inovação. Lisboa: Calouste Gulbenkian, 1990.
DOSSE, François. History of Structuralism: the Rising Sign, 1945-1966. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997.
EIKHENBAUM, Boris et al. Teoria da Literatura: formalistas russos. Porto Alegre: Globo, 1976.
GUMBRECHT, Hans Ulrich. Response: an end to literary theory. Journal of Literary Theory, v. 1, n. 1, p. 212–16, 2007. Disponível em: <http://www.jltonline.de/index.php/ articles/rt/prin-terFriendly/60/248>. Acesso em: 29 abr. 2014.
JAKOBSON, Roman. Linguística e Comunicação. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1995.
JIRMUNSKI, Viktor. Sobre a questão do “Método Formal.” In: EIKHENBAUM, Boris, et al. Teoria da Literatura: formalistas russos. Porto Alegre: Globo, 1976.
MEDVIÉDEV, Pável Nikoláievitch. O método formal nos estudos literários. São Paulo: Contexto, 2012.
MOISÉS, Massaud. A Análise Literária. São Paulo: Cultrix, 2005 [1969].
MOWITT, John. Text: the Genealogy of an Antidisciplinary Object. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books, 1992.
POMORSKA, Krystyna. Formalismo e Futurismo: a teoria formalista russa e seu ambiente poético. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1972.
SCHELLING, Friedrich Willhelm Joseph von. O “programa sistemático”. In: Friedrich von Schelling. Obras Escolhidas. 5. ed. São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1991.
STEINER, Peter. Russian Formalism. In: SELDEN, Raman (Org.). The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism – Vol. 8: From Formalism to Poststructuralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
TAGLIAFERRI, Aldo. Estetica do Objetivo. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1978.
WARREN, Austin; WELLEK, Renê. Teoria da Literatura e Metodologia dos Estudos Literários. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2003.
WEITZ, Morris. The content of form: a commentary. New Literary History, v. 2, n. 2, p. 351–56, 1971. Disponível em: <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/468608>. Acesso em: 29 abr. 2014.
