75th Anniversary Reprint: Figures and Grounds in Linguistic Criticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".