Semiosis, art, and literature

Semiotica

Volumn 165, Issue , 2007, Pages 133-147

  Van Heusden, Barend ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Art; Culture; Entertainment; Literature; Mimesis; Semiosis

Indexed keywords

EID: 57749160324     PISSN: 00371998     EISSN: 16133692     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/SEM.2007.036     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Attridge, Derek (2004). The Singularity of Literature. London/New York: Routledge.
2. Auerbach, Erich (1938), Figura, In Archivum Romanicum: Nuova rivista di filologia romanza, vol. 22, 436-489. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.
3. - (1946). Mimesis. Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur. Bern: Francke.
4. Bakhtin, Mikhail (1982 [1975]). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, Michael Holquist (ed. and trans.), Caryl Emerson (trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
5. Batteux, Charles (1969 [1773]). Les beaux arts réduits a un même principe. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints.
6. Braudel, Fernand (1966 [1949]). La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l'époque de Philippe II Paris: Armand Collin.
7. Bruner, Jerome (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Carey, John (2005). What Good Are the Arts? London: Faber and Faber.
9. Cortázar, Julio (1994). Obra critica. Madrid: Alfaguara.
10. Donald, Merlin (1991). Origins of the Modern Mind. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
11. Frye, Northrop (1957). Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12. - (1963). Fables of Identity. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
13. Gombrich, Ernst (1962). Art and Illusion. London: Phaidon.
14. Heusden, Barend van (1996). Aesthetic and artistic semiosis: A Peircean perspective. In Peirce's Doctrine of Signs: Theory, Applications, and Connections, V. M. Colapietro and T. M. Olshewsky (eds.). 239-250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
15. - (1997). Why Literature? An Inquiry into the Nature of Literary Semiosis. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
16. - (1999). The emergence of difference: Some notes on the evolution of human semiosis. Semiotica 127 (1/4), 631-646.
17. - (2004a). A bandwidth model of semiotic evolution. In Semiotic Evolution and the Dynamics of Culture, M. Bax, B. van Heusden, and W. Wildgen (eds.), 1-28. Bern: Peter Lang.
18. - (2004b). Torn between two (autonomous) lovers: Mimesis and beauty in modern art. In Aesthetic Autonomy; Problems and Perspectives, B. van Heusden and L. Korthals Altes (eds.), 113-129. Leuven: Peeters.
19. - (in press). Künstlerische Prägnanz. Zeitschrift für Semiotik.
20. Iser, Wolfgang (1972). The reading process: A phenomenological approach. New Literary History 3, 279-299.
21. - (1983). Die Doppelungsstrukur des literarisch Fiktiven. In Funktionen des Fiktiven. Poetik und Hermeneutik, vol. 10, 497-510. Munich: Fink.
22. Johansen, Jørgen Dines (2002). Literary Discourse: A Semiotic-Pragmatic Approach to Literature. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
23. Kundera, Milan (1986). L'art du roman. Paris: Gallimard.
24. Panofsky, Erwin (1939). Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Ramachandran, V. S. and Hirstein, W. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6 (6-7), 15-51.
26. Sontag, Susan (1966). Against Interpretation. New York: Delta.
27. White, Hayden (1974). Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press.