David Fishelov

Genre theory and family resemblance - revisited *

Abstract In the following discussion I will examine the application of Wittgensteins concept of family resemblance to genre theory. Despite its popularity among literary theorists, there is sometimes a discrepancy between the loose concept of family resemblance, at least in its negative-radical version, and the practical assumptions made about genres. In order to overcome the inadequacies of existing applications of the concept, I will propose two ways in which Wittgensteins concept can be fruitfully applied to genre theory. First, by using certain working hypotheses in cognitive psychology, based on the concept of family resemblance, I will argue that literary genres are perceived as structured categories, with a ‘hard core’ consisting of prototypical members. These prototypical members are characterized by the fact that they bear a relatively high degree of resemblance to each other. Second, by focusing on the analogy between the internal structure of literary genres and that of families one can establish a ‘genealogical’ line of literary genres, i.e., the series of writers who have participated in shaping, reshaping and transmitting the textual heritage established by the ‘founding father’ of the genre, including the dialectical relationship of ‘parents’ and ‘children’ in genre history.

Shall I compare thee? Simile understanding and semantic categories

Abstract The purpose of this article is to present a few research findings on the process of understanding simile, where special attention was given to the semantic relationship between its three major components: Tenor (hereafter T), Vehicle (hereafter V) and Predicate (hereafter P). By manipulating different degrees of conventionality among these three components and the explicit presence of a P, eight kinds of simile emerged (e.g. conventional T and V but with unconventional P). Questionnaires were formulated consisting of lists of sixteen similes, representing the eight kinds. Subjects were asked to provide a short interpretation of the given similes, to estimate whether the simile conveyed negative, positive or neutral connotations, and finally to grade the degree of difficulty they encountered in understanding it. Thus, for example, most subjects reported that (1) “John is like a snake” says that John is a cunning and dangerous person, that it conveys negative connotations and that they had no difficulty in understanding it. Other, more “difficult” similes got diversified answers. Thus, for example, some subjects claimed that they had difficulty in understanding a phrase like (2) “John is like the state of Israel,” and responses concerning its connotations and its specific meanings were more heterogeneous. One conclusion based on the results is that subjects tend to cling to existing semantic categories not only in understanding conventional similes (and, by implication, metaphors and symbols), but also when faced with highly novel ones.

Dialogues with/and Great Books: With Some Serious Reflections on Robinson Crusoe

The essay argues that a work’s reputation as a great book is a function of the number and diversity of dialogues it inspires in literature, art and criticism (in the form of allusions, translations, adaptations, parodies, performances and interpretations). After outlining some basic types of (genuine and pseudo) dialogue that can be found in day-to-day communication and in literature, the essay focuses on Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe as a test case for the dialogic approach to great books. A brief survey of the magnitude and variety of echoes and dialogues this work has inspired throughout the ages provides ample evidence for the new approach. Against prevalent theories of literary history and canon formation—explaining a book’s reputation in terms of either aesthetic values or of social hegemonies—the dialogic approach offers an elegant explanation for the gaining of literary reputation and for its fluctuations.

Types of dialogue: Echo, deaf, and dialectical

Abstract In order to offer a typology of dialogue that captures the complex and multifaceted nature of dialogues, we should take into account two factors: (1) the basic kind of interaction between the two interlocutors; the wide variety of specific interactions can be grouped under three general headings: echo-dialogue, whereby one participant repeats what the other has said; dialogue-of-the-deaf, whereby the two participants neither listen to nor understand one another; and dialectical-dialogue, in which the two participants are able to listen to and understand one another, albeit representing different points of view or sentiments. (2) The second factor is the distinction between the outer and the inner level of dialogue. This distinction characterizes any semiotic phenomenon, and derives from the distinction between linguistic form and content. The article argues that there is no automatic correspondence between the kind of interaction that occurs on one level and that taking place on the other. By using only these two factors we gain a systematic and elegant typology of dialogues that enables us to offer nuanced descriptions of a wide range of dialogical interactions in literary texts, notably in drama – as illustrated in the article.

The Institutional Definition of Poetry: Some Heretical Thoughts

A few contemporary theories of poetry (e.g., Culler, 1975; Fish, 1980) claim that texts do not have any poetic qualities prior to, and independently of, the institutional context in which they are presented. When a text, any text, is printed in verse form, in a book whose subtitle is “Poems,” then we start looking for poetic qualities. And what we look for, we are bound to find. In order to challenge this approach, and to argue for a more objective, text-oriented approach to the categorization of texts (Hanaor, 1996; Miall & Kuiken, 1996), I have conducted a test. My test was based on two types of questionnaires, the one in prose form, the other in verse, in which students were asked to identify those texts that were “originally” poems or prose. The results obtained corroborate the assumption that readers have quite definite intuitions about the poetic qualities of texts prior to and independently of the way they are institutionally presented.