75th Anniversary Reprint: Figures and Grounds in Linguistic Criticism
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Interpretation of Narrative, edited by Mario J. Valdes and Owen J. Miller. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978. Interpretation of Narrative is a series of papers presented at the International Colloquium on the Interpretation of Narrative at the University of Toronto in 1976. More than a dozen papers were presented. These have been arranged under three headings--Part One: Verification of Formalist Analysis, Part Two: Verification of and Part Three: Metacriticism. Part One consists of papers by Christie V. McDonald, 0. J. Miller, Michael Riffaterre, Timothy J. Reiss, and Brian T. Fitch. Part Two comprises the essays of Cyrus Hamlin, Felix Martinez Bonati, Wolfgang Iser, and Eugene Vance. Part Three includes papers by Hans Robert Jauss, J. Hillis Miller, and Paul Hernadi. The Conclusion and Epilogue are provided by Uri Margolin and 0. J. Miller. Ralph Cohen's original summing up of the Colloquium is now the Introduction: Remarks on Formalist and Features of the Conference Papers. Mario Valdes says at the beginning of his Preface, Our task has been to explore the commentary of various text-oriented approaches as distinct from that of reader-based approaches. He adds, Both the and the reader are subsystems in their own right, and each is a subject of inquiry. One of the implications of this approach is that the text can be taken to include, as it were, the entire reading public and the technological history of a particular work. In terms of the hemispheres of the brain, the left concerns the formalist or structuralist patterns, while the right, on the other hand, would seem to relate to the practitioners of hermeneutics and multileveled exegesis. In his essay on Hermeneutic Criticism and the Description of Form, Mix Bonati makes a statement that includes several of the themes in this volume: One essential inadequacy of an exegesis of content in terms of a statement (in addition to the insufficiency of the conceptualization of artistic vision) derives from the difference in kind between the intellectual experiences that correspond to rational discourse on hand and novelistic vision on the other. They are radically diverse operations of knowledge and different games of the mind (one pointing to abstract order, the other to concrete immediate presence), and their results could be at most congruent or symmetric but by nature never identical or equivalent: the difference is between knowing all there is to know about an experience and living it. (p. 95) One of the implications of the passage might well concern the contrast between the structural and hermeneutic approaches as parallel to the left and right hemispheres of the brain. The two hemispheres are indeed totally different games of the mind, for they are complementary, one pointing to abstract order, the other to concrete immediate presence. J. E. Bogen, of the key figures in the world of neurosurgery, has an essay in which he makes a similar contrast: The type of cognition proper to the right hemisphere has been called 'appositional,' a usage parallel to Jackson's use of the word 'propositional,' to encompass the left hemisphere's dominance for speaking, writing, calculation and related tasks. (1) The propositional function of the brain is naturally whereas the appositional is perceptual. The conceptual relates to the world of connected, or visual space, and the appositional relates to the juxtaposed and discontinuous space which is resonant, acoustic, and total. The student of symbolist art and poetry will recall that the word symballein indicates a placing together without connections of two words or situations. To return to the passage from Bonati on Hermeneutic Criticism, he is contrasting here two modes of awareness, the conceptual, and the other perceptual or experiential. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle