Wojciech Tomasik
"Teoria i interpretacja. Szkice
literackie", Kazimierz Bartoszyński,
Warszawa 1985 : [recenzja]
Literary Studies in Poland 20, 89-99
Book Reviews
Comptes rendus de livres
K a z i m i e r z B a r t o s z y ń s k i , Teoria i interpretacja. Szkice literackie
(Theory and Interpretation. Literary Essays), Państw ow e W ydaw
nictw o N aukow e, W arszaw a 1985, 344 pp.
K azim ierz B artoszyński has always been consistent in his research interests which he presents in clear contour. D ue to this, his literary research is easy to situate in m odern literary theory, and not only to situate but also to present. B artoszyński’s greatest fascination is “T he Q uestion o f L iterary C om m unication in N arrative W orks,” as the title o f one o f the essays in this collection says.
The b oo k on Theory and Interpretation includes co ntrib u tio n s w ritten d u rin g a period o f alm ost twenty y e a rs.1 All have appeared before in collections o f essays o f jo u rn als, som e o f them as printed versions o f re p o rts subm itted to scholarly conferences or sessions. This collection o f B artoszyński’s literary studies, however, does not include a very significant and perhaps the m ost im p o rtan t o f all o f his studies, th at a b o u t “Tim e as a F actor in Epic W orks,” 2 a circum stance which substantially im poverishes B artoszyński’s scholarly record as it am o u n ts only to the two books which have appeared up to now.
1 T he fo llo w in g essa y s are in clu d ed in the b o o k : “A sp e c ts and R ela tio n sh ip s o f T ex ts (S o u r c e — H is to r y — L itera tu re),” “T h e T h eo ry o f S p o ts o f In d eterm in acy again st the B ack d rop o f Ingarden's P h ilo so p h ic a l S y ste m ,” “ F rontier A reas o f Literary C ritic ism ,” “T h e Q u e stio n o f Literary C o m m u n ic a tio n in N arrative W o rk s,” “O n the S tu d y o f P lo t T y p e s ,” “ N a rra tiv e a D e ix is and P resu p p o sitio n . Part O n e ,” “ O n the A m o r p h o u s P attern o f M em o irs," “ N o te s o n S ou ven irs o f S o p lic a ,” “ A sh es and the C risis o f the H isto rica l N o v e l,” “ C o sm o s and A n tin o m ie s. Part T w o .”
2 T h is e ssa y ap p eared o rig in a lly in the c o lle c tio n o f essa y s W k ręg u zagadnień te o rii p o w ie ś c i (ed. by J. S ła w iń sk i. W rocław 1967). A n a m en d e d and exp an d ed version w as in clu d ed in P ro b le m y te o r ii lite r a tu r y 2, W ro cla w 1976.
90 B o o k R eview s
B artoszyński’s latest book is not merely a collection o f re-edited essays put together for the re a d e r’s convenience. As they app ear in one volum e, the essays co n stitu te a new com plete w ork in which they cease to be fully au to n o m o u s and instead it becom es p art of one coherent theoretical co n stru ctio n articulated in different ways at different levels o f generality but nonetheless preserving their full identities in all their articu lations, a circum stance which guarantees they will be recognized as B artoszynski's own also in the process o f interpretation. In keeping with what the a u th o r says in the forew ord, his book is above all a theoretical w ork, and it should be construed as such. The interpretative essays in the second p art o f the book are obviously su bordinate to theoretical studies, and so, on the one hand, they illustrate the conceptual tools B artoszyński proposes in the first part, and, on the other, they com plete as well as concretize the entire book.
The essays on Stefan Ż e ro m sk fs Popioły (Ashes), H enryk R zew uski’s P am iątki Soplicy (Souvenirs o f Soplica) and W itold G o m b ro w icz’s Cosmos expound theoretical form ulation s o f high degrees o f generality, which m akes it possible for the interpreted texts to be arrang ed in various series o f types and historical p atterns. In these essays B artoszyński deals with w hat is a fundam ental question in the theory o f narrative form s, nam ely the position o f the 20th-century novel (Ashes, Cosmos) and o f nonclassical 19th-century epic form s (Souvenirs o f Soplica) vis-a-vis the m odel o f “tra d itio n a l” novel. These are n a tu rally connected with studies in p art one, in particular with the essays on “The Q uestion o f L iterary C om m unication in N arrativ e W o rks,” “On the Study o f Plot T ypes,” “ N arrative a deixis and P resup po si tio n .”
The essay on “A T heory o f Spots o f Indeterm inancy against the B ackdrop o f In g a rd en ’s Philosophical System ” appears as the second in succession, but owing to its specific ch aracter it can furnish a good startin g p oint for a discussion o f the entire book. U nlike the other ones, this essay concerns not so m uch literary facts in them selves as a definite theory dealing with them . B artoszyński unfolds his own theoretical position in direct linkage with a different one which, rem arkably, is w ritten into an entirely different research tradition and em ploys entirely different notional tools. It is the theory o f “spots o f indeterm inacy” put forw ard bv R om an Ingarden, a theory
C o m p te s rendus de livres 91 which plays an im p ortant role in the context o f the philosop her's entire body o f literary-theoretical accom plishm ents.
B artoszynski thinks In g a rd en ’s theory has above all the draw back th at “ it derives its concept o f spots o f indeterm inacy from the difference in the m ann er o f ‘labelling’ which exists between a described object and som e conjectured real ob ject” (p. 57f.). So, to m odify the theory it is necessary to ad opt an “ im m anent p ro c ed u re ,” in order to “define the b ac k d ro p against which spots o f indeterm inacy can be recognized in such a m anner that we can rem ain within the circle o f literary facts in the broad sense” (p. 58). O ne way o f doing th at is to link up spots o f indeterm inacy to som e concrete literary convention. If literary convention is regarded as a system conditio n in g the identifiability o f spots o f indeterm inacy, then those spots can be viewed as special kinds o f gaps in the body o f inform a tion, specifically as gaps which are filled by the reader in keeping with the generic stan d ard s holding for the given work. Thus, for instance, if there is no inform ation on the h e ro e s’ origin, then such a fact signals a spot o f indeterm inacy in a trad itio n al 19th-century realistic novel, whereas elsewhere, say in poetic novels w ritten by R om antics, the sam e circum stance rem ains ju st a gap in the inform ation body which is not filled in the process o f co ncretization (p. 59). The theory o f spots o f indeterm inacy has its source, says B arto szynski, in In g a rd en ’s decision to im part absolute value to “a concretiz ing kind o f re ad in g ” with the eventual p ro d u ct o f “co n cretizatio n .” But con cretization is merely one special “sem antic tendency” which tells us to go, in the process o f reading, beyond w hat is supplied directly in the work. B artoszynski calls the opposite o f this tendency “a b stra c tio n ” (p. 65).
B artoszynski’s attem p t to m odify In g ard en ’s theory is designed to bring up the so cial—as distinct from purely individual —ch aracter o f concretization m oves, to em phasize the unavoidability o f a m ediat ing factor each act o f reception is likely to yield to. The filling o f spots o f indeterm inacy, B artoszynski suggests, is a result o f a series o f decisions a recipient m akes in the process o f reading in line with a convention. A literary convention, accordingly, can be viewed as a set o f stan d ard s im posing various con strain ts on reception processes, which define m ore or less distinct p attern s o f concretization.
92 B o o k R e view s
in subsequent co n trib u tio n s in the book. “C o n v en tio n ” is the catchw ord o f the questions discussed. If I was to reduce B artoszynski's consi derations to ju st one thesis, it w ould be this: “ It is only against the b ackdrop [...] o f stereotypes [of which literary co nv ention is a special ca se— W. T. ...] th at the sen d e r—recipient co m m un ication situation, which is potentially present in n arrative w orks, is actually possible” (p. 143). N ow this view situates B artoszynski’s work in a research tradition which is com pletely different from th at represented by In g a rd en ’s work.
In g ard en ’s theory rests on tw o prem isses: one th at the artist can have direct contact with the reality aro u n d him, and the other taking for granted the same kind o f relationship between recipient and work. The two prem isses found expression, am ong o th er things, in one o f the conditio ns Ingarden adopted to describe processes o f reception, nam ely th at th e reader in his con tact with the w ork should — in In g ard en ’s ultim ate view —have a perfect know ledge o f the language.3 The recipient app earin g in In g a rd en ’s studies is a “d irec t” reci pient, who ap proaches the w ork “ w ithout p reju dice” and “ w ithout any precon ceptions” ab o u t it, a reader who preserves a “natu ral a ttitu d e ” in the process o f re ad in g .4 But in keeping with B artoszyriski’s concept outlined in his b ook, such a recipient would be unab le to get into contact with the w ork at all; he could not becom e"“a p artner in an act o f literary co m m unicatio n. It is p ro b ab ly in this point th at the enorm ous g u lf sep aratin g the two research trad itio n s is visible better than anyw here else.
B artoszynski puts stro n g em phasis on cu ltural d eterm inants o f literary com m unication. H e chooses the term “stereo ty p e” to describe those conditions; the term , by the way, has been aro u n d in sociolo gical studies for h a lf a cen tury now. But B artoszynski does not stick to th at trad itio n , for he proposes an incom parably bro ad er m eaning for the term he em ploys than the one given to “stereotype” by W alter L ippm ann. U sing som e co ntentio ns from inform ation theory B artoszynski says:
All kinds o f m essage or in fo r m a tio n are taken in to a cco u n t not as selfco n ta in ed en tities but o n ly in o p p o sitio n to w a rd s a certain un iverse o f p o ssib ilities im plicit
3 See R. I n g a r d e n , O p o zn a w a n iu d zie ła lite ra c k ie g o (On C ogn ition o f L ite r a ry W ork), W arszaw a 1976, p. 22.
C o m p te s rendus de ¡ivres 93
in a certain “v a riety .” T h o se u n iverses o f in fo r m a tio n p o ssib ilities w ithin which certain kinds o f in fo rm a tio n are d istin g u ish ed will be ca lled here stereotyp es, and we will d istin guish betw een the stere o ty p e o f send in g, m ea n in g the set o f p o ssib ilities at the se n d er’s d isp o sa l, and the stere o ty p e o f reception , m ea n in g the set o f p o ssib ilities an ticip ated by the recipient (p. I I4f.).
Literary utterances imply not only a definite “universe o f inform a tion possibilities” but also repertories o f literary possibilities. It is only against the b ack d ro p o f those repertories th a t a literary utterance can be identified (p. 119). The relationship between stereotypes o f sending and reception can be considered not only in reference to a specific, historically identified, literary audience but also in reference to in tratex tu alco m m u n icatio n levels. This implies a further assum ption, nam ely the recognition th at sending—reception situation s built into a narrative are actually m odels o f real situ ations (pp. 118— 119). The changing relations between stereotypes o f sending and reception enable us to d istin g u ish —at any definite level o f the n a rra tiv e —a num ber o f com m unication strategies designed to “m eet halfw ay” the addressee’s m ost likely stereotype. When the stereotypes o f the sender and the recipient alike are the sam e, then it is possible to apply a “strategy o f ellipsis” or else a “strategy o f red u n d an cy .” W hen the stereotypes differ from each o th er, then there m ay be a “strategy o f inform ation level,” a “strategy o f the o u tsid er,” a “ strategy o f researcher.” A description o f the “spectacle o f co m m u ni c a tio n ” furnished in a n arrative work m ust take account o f the superim position o f strategies which occur at different levels o f com m unication.
A part from stereotypes, the role o f context which determ ines the identifiability o f the literary message is played by the convention governing the given work. The convention is som ething like a specific “receptive device” which can n o t be reduced to ord in ary know ledge o f the language. A reader arm ed with such a “device” has nothing in com m on with In g a rd en ’s “d irect” recipient who ad o p ts a “n atural a ttitu d e ” in reading.
O ne elem ent o f the convention is what B artoszynski described as “paradigm o f p lo t,” “plot m atrix ” or “plot d en d rite ,” which enables the read er to com prehend the plot o f the w ork (p. 132). B artoszynski’s p resen tation o f plot is a very unique case o f scholarly approach to the issue. As is know n, the p attern o f events in a work can be described with infinitely m any languages o perating infinitely
94 B ook R e view s
many term s which are n o n tran slata b le from one language to another. In such a situation, the choice o f any one language is bound to be an arb itra ry decision. T he charge o f arbitrariness is not invalidated by the argum ent ab o u t the greater operability o f a given set o f tools, because this operability m ay refer ju st to one definite category o f works. O ne solution has been suggested by Culler, am ong others, who says th at the language should be chosen which takes m ore closely account o f the read er's in tuition than the o ther languages.5 The essays on “The Q uestion o f L iterary C om m unication in N arrativ e W orks” and “ On the Study o f Plot T ypes” co ntain suggestions for such a language. Such a language enables us to explain one fact which is inextricably b o u n d up with the process o f reading but which is usually not taken into account in the description o f the p lo t: nam ely the an ticip atio n o f a definite type o f solution, the existence o f suspense, surprise an d am azem ent (p. 132f.).
A nticipation is an o th er im p o rtan t n otion in the language used to describe plots as p roposed by Bartoszynski. This n otion enables the student to consider literary com m unication in term s o f “gam e”. A recipient o f literary w orks not only reads but also anticipates, tries to guess w hat is going to happen in the fu tu re —and all th at m akes him an active p artic ip a n t in the gam e. The reading process, accordingly, is conn ected with the re a d e r’s anticip atio n o f the course events are going to ta k e furth er on in the plot, with guesses ab o u t the system atically grow ing likelihood (pp. 132— 134).
T he literary c h a ra c te r itself o f the text is the first and weakest signal which touches off certain expectations in recipients. This happens above all when a te x t’s p roper place within a given universe o f literary utterances is connected with a greater or lesser “them atic determ inacy” (p. 30). A w o rk ’s substance is clearly signalled—and anticipations are sp u rre d —by the w o rk ’s generic status, which touches off anticipatio ns o f different degrees o f likelihood (which is higher in petrified genres, which belong to “low ” literature, and lower in “ h igh ” literature). The various kinds o f tension which may occur between re ad ers’ expectations (following from a know ledge o f conventions)
5 See J. C u l l e r , “ D e fin in g N a rra tiv e U n its .” [in:] S ty le a n d S tru ctu re in L ite ratu re. F.ssavs in N ew S ty listic s , ed. bv R. F ow ler. O xford 1975.
C o m p te s rendus d e livres 95 and ensuing “m oves” or “ steps” m ade by the sender cause different reactions in the recip ient—stro ng or mild surprise, or, the oth er way round, satisfaction with the anticipated facts having com e true (p. 171).
Plot, says Bartoszyriski, is a com plex entity which involves, first, linguistic appearance, function and sequence, and, next, a definite plot pattern. O ne im p o rtan t feature o f plot p attern s is th at they are rooted in bro ad er system s—nam ely in plot m atrices. O n account o f this close dependence o f p attern s on m atrices, which for their p art are elem ents o f the literary trad itio n , plot m ust be regarded as essentially a relative notion. The specific arrangem ent o f processes and events in a given work will be viewed as the plot, provided it is reducible to a p attern th at tallies with w hat is com m only regarded as a legitim ate plot m atrix.
T he m ain question to answ er in this kind o f description o f plot concerns criteria o f division o f the n arrative, o f setting ap art certain p ortio n s in it which co rresp o n d to the send er’s successive “m oves.” B artoszyriski’s answ er to this question is his in tro d u c tio n - next to the notion o f p lot p a tte r n —the category o f plot figures. Figures, in B artoszyriski’s vocabulary, are kernels o f p attern s, or recurring elem ents discernible in m any plots. A p lo t p attern is a system em erging as a result o f co m b in atio n s o f figures with one another, put tog eth er by adding, g rad atio n , or fram ing (p. 168f.). Sometim es, as in short stories, plot p attern s are filled by only one figure.
T he language discussed here is applied tentatively by Bartoszyriski for a study o f Z ero m sk i’s novel Ashes. C onsidered in the aspect o f organizing a series o f events, Z e ro m sk i’s novel tu rn s o u t to be free o f any o f the plot p attern s th at are typical o f 19th-century historical novels (p. 258). For th at reason, m uch o f the plot o f a work m ust have been received as “a string o f things h ap p en in g which are ru nn in g into em pty and indefinite tim e” (p. 257). This specific p attern indicates the decline o f trad itio n al poetics which, as far as plot organization was concerned, was based on a co h eren t com position w ell-grounded in fam iliar p atterns, and thus pred ictab le (p. 276).
T he d istrib u tio n o f an o th er elem ent o f th at poetic, nam ely the rules o f ch a racter creation, furnishes an o p p o rtu n ity to describe literary com m unication in a sphere which is com plem entary tow ards the plot. W hat Bartoszyriski has to say on Ashes am oun ts to
96 B ook R eview s
a m ajor co n trib u tio n to stru ctu ral analysis o f character. T hose rem arks furnish an answ er to the question once asked by C uller:
D o w e, in reading, sim p ly add togeth er the a ctio n s and attributes o f an in d ivid u al ch aracter, d raw in g from them a c o n c e p tio n o f p erso n a lity and role, or are we gu id ed in this p ro cess by form al e x p ecta tio n s ab ou t the roles that need to be filled? D o w e sim p ly n o te w hat a ch aracter d o e s or d o we try to fit him into o n e o f a lim ited num ber o f slo ts? 6
B artoszyhski’s reply is this: a literary ch aracter as such is perceived by readers referring them selves to “p attern s o f hum an p erso nality ” (p. 264), a definite “personality stru ctu re”, which are “restrictive p a tte rn s” tow ards the poten tial inform ation supply (p. 265). C h aracter creation, like the unfolding o f a plot, presupposes the re a d e r’s p rio r fam iliarity with a definite set o f features, his ability to anticipate a furth er set o f features. D ue to that, in reading we experience sudden surprises or, vice versa, we arrive at a h arm on io us co m b in a tion o f expectation with fulfilment. Only by assum ing that the re a d e r’s “reception system ” em braces the set o f ch aracter patterns (as determ ined by the convention holding for the given genre) can we m eaningfully talk ab o u t a “d e-su b sta n tia tio n ” o f som e characters in Ashes which are perceived as open and vaguely defined constructions. The disintegration o f the trad itio n al m odel o f psychological coheren ce is one sign o f the crisis o f the historical novel o f which Ashes is first-rate evidence.
T he consistent treatm ent o f literary com m unication processes as co nditio ned by stereotypes draw s B artoszyhski’s atten tio n to the conventional character o f the same processes. The basic idea he p ro p ounds in this connection is th at “all cases o f literary com m uni cation (...] are functioning in contexts o f different nonliterary form s o f cognitive c o n ta c t” (p. 137). Bartoszyriski pays particularly close atten tio n to tw o such contexts. First, there are certain widely accepted m odels o f research p ro ced u re; second, there are different kinds o f “pragm atic speech” (p. 200).
T he function o f stereotype as the fo u nd ation o f literary co m m u ni cation can fu rth er be perform ed by the repertory o f form s o f
6 J. C u l l e r , S tru c tu ra list P o e tic s. S tru ctu ra lism . L in gu istics and the S tu d y o f L ite ra tu re . N e w Y ork , 1976, p. 235.
C o m p te s rendus de livres 97 literary criticism . W hen this stereotype is invoked in literary com m u nication, phenom ena follow which, according to B artoszyński, p ro perly belong in “the frontier region o f literary criticism .” W hat he m eans is litterature em ulating criticism . This holds m ostly for self- -descriptive works (p. 90f.) and works m ostly involving dialogues (pp. 94— 96). In either case, literary texts disclose one o f the fu n d a m ental features o f critical utterances, that is, they reveal som e c o n vention, raising the “space o f possibilities” which is partly being realized by the text from its latency. O ne phenom enon which is sym m etrical to em u lation o f literary critical o peration s is “pseudo-cri tical literary w o rk ;” this is an outcom e o f features o f “creative literary tex ts” infiltrating literary-critical discourse.
T he issue o f features o f “criticism ” which are present in literary texts is raised by B artoszyński also in his p enetrating study on W itold G om brow icz’s novel Cosmos. T h at novel is a “critical” work, for it keeps referrin g —in p a ro d y —readers to different literary c o n ventions which are p ro p er for detective stories or the roman nou veau, am ong other things (p. 306f). B artoszyński m oreover points at those features o f Cosmos th a t enable us to see in th at novel also a parody o f the 19th-century typical novel. In Cosmos, G om brow icz carries to the extrem e as pro m inent a feature o f realistic novels as its tendency to present the reality in its full richness and specificity. T h at tendency is visible, am ong o ther things, in those elem ents o f the presented w orld which cause an “effect o f reality” (R oland B arth es’s term ), th a t is, som e “o d d ” elem ents the presence o f which does not explain itself im m ediately as a necessary elem ent o f the w o rk ’s com position b ut which are introduced for the very purpo se o f being present in the work. G om brow icz’s novel casts a glaring light on this p artic u la r feature o f trad itio n al novels as he swam ps his readers with a host o f elem ents th at do not yield to integration and consolid atio n with the w o rk ’s general sem antic lay-out. P arody o f the realistic novel, a work p u rp o rtin g to articulate each and every little th in g —these form ulas are suggested by B artoszyński in his interpretation.
T he question o f relationship betw een the trad itio n al novel and nonclassical narrative form s raised in his studies o f Ashes and o f Cosmos is supplem ented with a study o f the am o rp h o u s p attern o f m em oirs. He relies in his considerations on H enryk R zew uski’s
98 B o o k R eview s
Souvenirs o f Soplica. U sing term s borrow ed from inform ation systems theory, B artoszynski describes the m ain feature o f m em oir-like texts as “ a great am plitude o f inform ativeness and, alon g with th at, a great am plitu de o f red u n d an cy ” (p. 227f.). C o n sid erin g the “equal d istrib u tion o f inform ativeness o f tex t” in the trad itio n al novel, m em oirs can be recognized as a phenom enon which is parallel to the novel
(p. 236).
In his essays on Souvenirs o f Soplica, Ashes and C osm os, Barto- szynski studies different variants dep artin g from the m odel o f trad itio nal novel (suspension o f tim e sequences, selection and econom y in the w o rk ’s organizing pattern). The three book s he subm its to analysis each co n tain elem ents o f nonpragm atic n arrativ e and “pragm atic speech.” In such a com b in atio n, B artoszynski perceives a distinctive featu re o f all m odern form s o f story-telling (p. 199f.).
T he book Theory and Interpretation opens with an essay called “ A spects and R elationships o f Texts (S ource—H isto ry —L iteratu re).” His ch ief idea in th a t essay is to question the p urp o se o f furnishing a substantive definition o f texts, which ignores “the fact th at the situ atio n s into which they are placed doo m them to becom e works o f m any aspects” (p. 13). W hat I think is im p o rtan t for the theory o f “aspects and relatio n sh ip s” is the thesis a b o u t the equal status o f various cognitive procedures vis-a-vis the sam e utterances. The fact th at a text is viewed in three aspects the a u th o r distinguishes (source, history, literature) is not at odds with the text being labelled. Labelling, in fact, follows only in a concrete cognitive act. Since all three aspects exist in each utterance, it is possible to transform them when m oving to a different con text (pp. 31 — 41).
Som e o f the essays now appearing in the boo k have already becom e som ething like classics. Y ou will hardly find a m odern Polish study on literary com m u nication th a t in no way takes advantage o f B artoszy nski’s findings; there is p ro b a b ly no study on p lot in the Polish literature o f the subject th at w ould n o t refer to B artoszynski’s ow n study o f th a t issue, n or does there seem to exist a study o f historical novels th at ignores his essay on Z ero m sk i’s Ashes. B arto szynsk i’s view o f literary com m unicatio n as a process conditioned by a set o f cultu ral codes (stereotypes) and literary codes (con ventions), along with the derivative theses a b o u t reading as a m ulti-de cision process resting on a specific kind o f co o p eratio n betw een sender
C o m p te s rendus de livre s 99
and receiver and that ab o u t read er as a com plex “reception system ” (the vehicle o f a m atrix into which the text is fitted)—together m ake up w hat is a coheren t and very interesting concept.
W ojciech T om asik T ransl. by Z y g m u n t N iera d a
A l e k s a n d r a O k o p i e ń - S ł a w i ń s k a , Semantyka wypowiedzi poetyc
kiej. Preliminaria (Sémantique de l’énoncé poétique), O ssolineum ,
W rocław 1985, 202 pp.
L ’ouvrage d ’A leksandra O kopień-S ław ińska ap p artien t sans d ou te aux réalisations les plus rem arquables dans les recherches littéraires polonaises de ces dernières années. Issu d ’un projet de recherche en poétique historique, d ’une p ortée assez restreinte à l’origine, le livre s’élaborait doucem ent d u ra n t plusieurs années, dépassant de loin et de diverses m anières le dessein initial. En effet, les doutes co ncer nan t les bases théoriques utilisables de l’entreprise analytique, q u ’elle envisageait, et no tam m ent la théorie générale du sens de l’énoncé, o n t obligé la chercheuse à « établir et systém atiser » au préalable « les prélim inaires théoriques d ’une sém antique de l’énoncé p o éti que » (p. 7). Il se trouve cep en d an t que ce qui peut être considéré com m e « prélim inaires » p ar ra p p o rt à to u te analyse textuelle concrète à venir — lu d ’une m anière auto n o m e — s ’est avéré un exposé, im pressionnant et très clair à la fois, des problèm es-clés d ’une t h é o r i e c o m m u n i c a t i o n n e l l e d e l ’o e u v r e l i t t é r a i r e .
Les parties de cet exposé, publiées antérieu rem en t sous form e d ’articles, suscitaient d ’h abitud e un vif intérêt et parfois m êm e de longues discussions dans les revues spécialisées. Q uelques-unes — s u rto u t les « R elations de person ne dans la com m unication litté raire » — sont m ême devenues des travaux classiques, exploités p ar d ’autres chercheurs com m e solutions toutes prêtes ou, au m oins, com m e poin ts de répère indispensables, d éterm in an t — à côté de certains au tres — les fondem ents théoriques et le style de pensée des études littéraires actuelles.
