Notes

ONE.
Transmission

1. See also Dressler (1975), Schmidt (1976b), Garroni (1973), and van Dijk(1976).

2. Modern theory on the subject is both copious and unanimous. See Booth (1961), Todorov (1967), Foucault (1969), Kristeva (1970), Rousset (1973), Chatman (1978), Eco (1975), Corti (1978a, 1978c), and Krisinski (1977).

3. See Faccani and Eco, eds. (1969), Lotman-Uspenskij (1975a, 1975b), with Ferrari-Bravo’s introductory essay, Uspenskij (1968), Lotman (1970), and finally žólkiewski (1973, 1974), Bauman (1973), Avalle (1975, 1977), Pagnini (1976), Segre (1977), Cardona and Ferrara, eds. (1977), and Collections and Anthologies (1978a), in particular Miceli, Buttitta, and Corti (1978a).

4. See Groupe µ (1970, 106, et seq.).

5. For an example, see Pagnini (1978b).

TWO.
Reception

1. Recently, various scholars have pointed out the need for this distinction: Barthes (1966), Riffaterre (1971), Iser (1972), Scbmidt (1976b), van Dijk (1976), Corti (1978a, 1978c), and Eco (1978).

2. See Fabbri (1973), and Eco (1976a, 135–142).

3. For the concept of “isotopy,” see Greimas (1970, 10): “By the term isotopy we generally mean a bundle of redundant semantic categories which underlies the discourse we are considering.” The “level” is a natural isotopy of the language; while the “isotopy” is a structure within the “semantic levels.” See also Corno (1977, 206).

4. In a recent essay (1978), Umberto Eco has reexamined the activity involved in reception of the narrative text.

5. All aspects of the problem have been examined by Genette (1976).

6. See Johnson (1976).

7. As we know, Barthes has put his convictions to the test in his reading of a Balzac text (1970).

8. For a theory of the “macrotext,” see Serpieri (1973, 7–43)

9. For the theory, see Contini (1971).

10. For the theory, see Puppo (1964).

11. For the theory, see Russo (1950), Binni (1963).

12. For the theory, see Terracini (1966).

13. For the theory, see Salinari (1962).

14. For the theory, see Mukařovský (1966; 1973, 5–80).

15. For the theory, with various references to Carlo Bo, Oreste Macri, and Piero Bigongiari, see Ramat (1969).

16. For the theory, see Segre (1970), Pagnini (1970), and Corti (1978c).

17. For the theory, see Corti (1972, 1978c) and Avalle (1975).

18. For the theory, see Frye (1957).

19. For the theory, see Spurgeon (1935) and Clemen (1969).

20. For the theory, see Serpieri (1973, 7–43; 1978c).

21. For the theory, see Orlando (1978, 1979).

22. For the theory, see Beccaria (1975) and Pagnini (1977).

23. See the now classic analysis by Jacques Derrida (1969) of Philippe Sollers’s Nombres as well as Julia Kristeva’s later analysis of the same text (1969, 290-350). See further Stefano Agosti’s readings (1972) and his clear methodological synthesis (1978).

THREE.
Dramatic Literature and the Theater

1. A first step toward theater can be seen in “recited literature” (“poetry” or “prose” read before one or more listeners), since the person who recites tends to assume some structures particular to “character.” But it’s a question of only a first step, given that the non-dramatic text, beyond the fact that it is not in dialogue, does not have precisely those distinctive “deictic-performative” features that countersign theatrical discourse.

2. See further: Bettetini-De Marinis (1977), Ruffini (1978), Collections and Anthologies (1978b), and Ubersfeld (1978).

FOUR.
Reference

1. The reference is to Korzybski (1933) and his followers (S.I. Hayakawa, A. Rapoport, etc.).

2. The locution “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis” is, in fact, a disputable coinage of Whorf’s editor, J. B. Carrol (see Whorf, 1956).

3. See also Carlo Tullio Altan’s excellent essay (1969).

4. In Conrad’s Heart of Darkness—to cite only the first example that comes to mind—there are two narrators.