Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 48:1 (2021) ► pp.83–117

Reception, translation and cultural context

Projects for Greimas’s Sémantique structurale (1966) in English, the place of linguistics in the human sciences, and Franco-American disconnections

| Purdue University USA
The initiatives to publish an English translation of the influential Sémantique structurale (1966) by linguist and semiotician A. J. Greimas (1917–1992) provide an instructive case study for the reception of a work in new contexts. The efforts underscore the importance of (dis)connections between cultures’ intellectual traditions and trends, putting in play the relations between continental and American linguistic structuralism, generative semantics, cognitive linguistics, and “French” (post)structuralism throughout the human sciences. The projects also point up the significance of timing and of standards for translation quality – and the possibilities for controversy. In addition to published research, this study draws from archival documents and personal communications with Greimas, his translators and editors, and other principals involved.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.A. J. Greimas and “Sémantique structurale”
  • 3.For an English translation of “Sémantique structurale”
  • 4.The international diffusion of continental structuralism and new efforts for an English “Structural Semantics”
  • 5.Convergences, potential opportunities, and challenges
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.00066.bro
References (160)
References
Arrivé, Michel. 1993. “Souvenirs scientifiques et autres sur A. J. Greimas”. Hommages à A. J. Greimas, special issue of Nouveaux actes sémiotiques (Limoges) 251:13–23.Google Scholar
Bal, Mieke. 1997 [1978]. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative trans. by Christine Van Boheemen. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. 2002. Œuvres complètes ed. by Éric Marty. 2nd ed. 51 vols. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Bloch, Marc. 1939–1940. La société féodale. 21 vols. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1922. Review of Sapir (1921). Classical Weekly 15:18 (13 March). 142–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1924. Review of Saussure (1916, 2nd ed., 1922). Modern Language Journal 8:5.317–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1926. “A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language”. Language 2:3.153–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1927. “On Recent Work in General Linguistics”. Modern Philology 25:2.211–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bochmann, Klaus. 1968. “Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft,” review of Greimas (1966b). Deutsche Literaturzeitung für Kritik der internationalen Wissenschaft 89:9.786–787.Google Scholar
Brandt, Per Aage. 1992 [1987]. La Charpente modale du sens: pour une sémio-linguistique morphogénétique et dynamique. Aarhus, DK: Aarhus University Press; Amsterdam: Benjamins. (1987 Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle doctoral dissertation.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Spaces, Domains, and Meanings: Essays in Cognitive Semiotics. (= series European Semiotics, 4.). Bern & New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bréal, Michel. 1897. Essai de sémantique: science des significations. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Broden, Thomas F. 1999. “Linguistic Semantics for Literature and the Human Sciences Today”. Semiotica 124:1–2.81–127.Google Scholar
2015. “Algirdas Julius Greimas: Education, Convictions, Career”. The American Journal of Semiotics 31:1–2.1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. “Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics and Anglophone North America: Reception, Convergences, Divergences, and Strategies for the Future”. Cem anos com Saussure ed. by Waldir Beividas, Ivã Carlos Lopes & Sémir Badir (= Coleção semiótica), 191–248. São Paulo: Annablume.Google Scholar
2017a. “Chronology of A. J. Greimas”. A. J. Greimas – Life and Semiotics/La vie et la sémiotique d’A. J. Greimas ed. by Thomas Broden & Stéphanie Walsh Matthews, special issue of Semiotica 2141.9–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b. “Selected Works by A. J. Greimas”. Semiotica 2141.409–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunot, Ferdinand. 1966 [1930]. Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900. Vol. 6: Le XVIIIe siècle. Partie I: Le Mouvement des idées et les vocabulaires techniques, fascicule 2: La Langue des sciences, la langue des arts. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. 1945. “Structuralism in Modern Linguistics”. Word 1:2.99–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castagnotto, Ugo. 1969. Review of Greimas (1966b). Strumenti critici 101.405–408.Google Scholar
Caws, Peter. 1974. “Parallels and Orthogonals”. The Two Saussures ed. by Sylvère Lotringer, special issue of Semiotext(e) 1:2.54–65.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1962. “Phonetics, semantics, and language”. Language 38:4.335–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1965. “Meaning in Language”. American Anthropologist New Series, 67:5. Part 21.23–36. [URL]. DOI logo
. 1970. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chatman, Seymour & Samuel Levin, eds. 1967. Essays on the Language of Literature. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Chevalier, Jean-Claude & Pierre Encrevé. 2006. Combats pour la linguistique, de Martinet à Kristeva: essai de dramaturgie épistémologique. Lyon: ENS.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. “The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory”. Proceedings of the Ninth Congress of Linguists ed. by Horace G. Lunt, 914–978. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Coquet, Jean-Claude. 1973 [1968]. “Questions de sémantique structurale”, review of Greimas (1966b). Sémiotique littéraire: contribution à l’analyse sémantique du discours by Coquet, 33–50. Paris: Mame.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1964. “Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale”. Travaux de linguistique et de littérature (Strasbourg) 2:1.139–186. [URL]
. 1968. “Les structures lexématiques”. Probleme der Semantik ed. by W. Thomas Elwert, special issue of ZFSL, new series, 11.3–16. [URL]
Culler, Jonathan. 1975. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1977. Saussure (= Modern Masters.). Glasgow: Fontana/Collins; New York: Penguin. (Copyright 1976).Google Scholar
Cusset, François. 2008 [2005]. French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States trans. by Jeff Fort with Josephine Berganza & Marlon Jones. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Darmesteter, Arsène. 1887. La vie des mots étudiée dans leurs significations. 2nd ed. Paris: Delagrave.Google Scholar
De George, Richard T. & Fernande M. De George, eds. 1972. The Structuralists: From Marx to Lévi-Strauss. Garden City, NY: Anchor.Google Scholar
Demers, Jason. 2019. The American Politics of French Theory: Derrida, Deleuze, Guattari, and Foucault in Translation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Dierkes, Hans & Helmuth Kiesel. 1973. “Interpretative Bemerkungen zu A. J. Greimas: ‘Strukturale Semantik’”, review of Strukturale Semantik: Metodologische Untersuchungen trans. by Jens Ihwe (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1971 [1966b]). Linguistik und Didaktik 141.146–161.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1966. “Recherches sémantiques”, review of Greimas (1966b). L’Homme. 6:4.120–123.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1986. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrmann, Jacques, ed. 1966. Structuralism, special issue of Yale French Studies 36–37.Google Scholar
Febvre, Lucien [et al.]. 1930. Civilisation, le mot et l’idée. Paris: Renaissance du Livre.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1975. “An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning”. Proceedings of the First Annual Berkeley Linguistics Society ed. by Cathy Cogen, Henry Thompson, Graham Thurgood & Kenneth Whistler, 123–131. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1982. “Towards a Descriptive Framework for Spatial Deixis”. Speech, Place, and Action ed. by Robert J. Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein, 31–59. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
. 1984. “Lexical Semantics and Text Semantics”. New Directions in Linguistics and Semantics ed. by J. E. Copeland, 123–147. Amsterdam: Benjamins and Houston, TX: Rice University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding”. Quaderni di Semantica 6:2.222–254.Google Scholar
. 1988. “The Mechanisms of Construction Grammar”. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortis, Jean-Michel. 2012. “De la grammaire générative à la linguistique cognitive: retour sur un basculement théorique”. Histoire Epistémologie Langage 341.115–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1994 [1977]. “Intervista a Michel Foucault (Entretien avec Michel Foucault)”. Dits et écrits, 1954–1988. Vol. 31, 1976–1979. Paris: Gallimard. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Roger. 1971. The Languages of Literature: Some Linguistic Contributions to Criticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
, ed. 1966. Essays on Style and Language: Linguistic and Critical Approaches to Literary Style. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Garvin, Paul L. 1970. Cognition, A Multiple View. New York: Spartan Books.Google Scholar
Gaudreault, Romain. 1996. “Renouvellement du modèle actantiel”. Poétique 1071.355–368.Google Scholar
Gill, Harjeet Singh. 1976. “Parole and Langue”. Pàkha Sanjam (Patiala, Punjab) 81.i–ii.Google Scholar
Giurescu, Anca. 1967. Review of Greimas (1966b). Revue roumaine de linguistique 12:1.68–70.Google Scholar
Gleason, Henry Allan. 1961 [1955]. Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Govaert, Marcel. 1967. Review of Greimas (1966b). Babel 13:4.237–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gras, Vernon W., ed. 1973. European Literary Theory and Practice: From Existential Phenomenology to Structuralism. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
Greimas, A. J. 1956. “L’actualité du saussurisme (à l’occasion du 40e anniversaire de la publication du Cours de linguistique générale)”. Le Français moderne 2431.191–203. (Repr. in La mode en 1830 by Greimas, 371–382, 2000.)Google Scholar
1958. “Histoire et Linguistique”, review of Introduction à l’étude du vocabulaire médical (1600–1710) by Bernard Quemada (Besançon: Faculté des Lettres, 1955). Annales. Histoire, Sciences sociales 13:1.110–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1959. “Les problèmes de la description mécanographique”. Cahiers de lexicologie 11.47–75.Google Scholar
1963. “Analyse du contenu: comment définir les indéfinis (Essai de description sémantique)”. Études de linguistique appliquée 21.110–125.Google Scholar
1964. “Les topologiques: identification et analyse d’une classe de lexèmes”. Cahiers de lexicologie 41.17–28. [URL]
1964–1965. Cours de sémantique. Saint-Cloud: École normale supérieure de Saint-Cloud. Stenciled typescript. Partial reproduction of 1963–1965 lectures at the Université de Paris, Faculté des Sciences, Centre de linguistique quantitative, Institut Henri Poincaré. Revised and enlarged as 1966b. References to this work specify the chapter, since each one is paginated independently, beginning with p. 1.Google Scholar
1966a. “Éléments pour une théorie de l’interprétation du récit mythique”. Communications 81.28–59. (Repr. in Greimas 1970:185–230.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1966b. Sémantique structurale: recherche de méthode (Langue et langage). Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
1970. Du sens: essais sémiotiques. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
1973a. “Un problème de sémiotique narrative: les objets de valeur”. Sémiotiques textuelles ed. by Michel Arrivé and Jean-Claude Coquet, special issue of Langages 311.13–35. (Repr. in Du sens II: essais sémiotiques by Greimas, 19–48. Paris: Le Seuil, 1983.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1973b [1966b–1970]. Structural Semantics, special issue of Pàkha Sanjam 61.231–315. (Repr. in Pàkha Sanjam 81 (1975–1976). 132–192 & as Structural Semantics. (= Semiotics & Literature, 4.). New Delhi: Bahri, 1989. Partial translation by Harjeet Singh Gill of Greimas 1966b, with chapters 1, 2, 7, 10 & 11, and with the 1966 paper published as “Considérations sur le langage” in Greimas 1970:19–38.)
1981. “De la colère: étude de sémantique lexicale”. Actes Sémiotiques. Documents (Paris) 3:27.9–27. (Repr. in Du sens II: essais sémiotiques by Greimas, 225–246. Paris: Le Seuil, 1983.)Google Scholar
1983a [1973]. “Les actants, les acteurs et les figures”. Du sens II: essais sémiotiques by Greimas, 49–66. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
1983b [1966b]. Structural Semantics: An attempt at a method trans. by Daniele McDowell, Ronald Schleifer & Alan Velie. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
2000 [1948]. La Mode en 1830. La mode en 1830: langage et société, écrits de jeunesse ed. by Thomas F. Broden & Françoise Ravaux-Kirkpatrick. (= Formes sémiotiques.), 1–370. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Greimas, A. J. & Joseph Courtés. 1979. Sémiotique: dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette. (New ed., 1993.)Google Scholar
Greimas, A. J. & Georges Matoré. 1950. “La méthode en lexicologie II”. Romanische Forschungen 62:2–3.208–221.Google Scholar
Greimas, A. J. & François Rastier. 1968. “The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints”. Yale French Studies 411.86–105. (Trans. from French manuscript.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosse, Ernst Ulrich. 1971. “Zur Neuorientierung der Semantik bei Greimas: Grundgedanken, Probleme und Vorschläge”, review of Greimas (1966b). Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 871.359–393.Google Scholar
Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. 1975. “Algirdas Julien Greimas. Für Ludwig Söll (7. 9. 1931–1. 3. 1974)”. Französische Literaturkritik der Gegenwart in Einzeldarstellungen ed. by Wolf-Dieter Lange, 326–350. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1962. “Linguistics and Machine Translation”. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 15:1–2.145–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Randy Allen. 1993. The Linguistics Wars. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkes, Terrence. 1977. Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley: University California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hey, Oskar. 1892. “Semasiologische Studien”. Jahrbücher für classische Philologie 181.83–212.Google Scholar
Holdcroft, David. 1991. Saussure: Signs, System, and Arbitrariness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Bernard S. 1985. Semiotics and Legal Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Jameson, Fredric. 1972. The Prison-house of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1982. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
. 1988. The Ideologies of Theory: Essays 1971–1986. Vol. 21: Syntax of History. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. 1989. “Bloomfield’s Saussureanism”. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 431.43–53. [URL]
1990. “Ideologizing Saussure: Bloomfield’s and Chomsky’s Readings of the Cours de linguistique générale ”. Ideologies of Language ed. by John E. Joseph & Talbot J. Taylor, 51–79. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2012. Saussure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, John E. & Ekaterina Velmezova, eds. 2018. Le Cours de linguistique générale: réception, diffusion, traduction , special issue of Cahier de l’ILSL (Lausanne) 571 (Dec.). [URL], retrieved 1 April 2020.
Katz, Jerold J. & Jerry A. Fodor. 1963. “The Structure of a Semantic Theory”. Language 391.170–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerold J. & Paul M. Postal. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. (= Research Monographs, 26.) Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Otto & Heinz Hafner. 1986. Arbeitsbuch zur Textanalyse: Semiotische Strukturen, Modelle, Interpretationen. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Koerner, Ernst Frideryk Konrad. 1972. Bibliographia Saussureana, 1870–1970: An Annotated, Classified Bibliography on the Background, Development, and Actual Relevance of Ferdinand de Saussure’s General Theory of Language. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. Toward a History of American Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1977 [1971]. “Comment parler à la littérature?”. Polylogue by Kristeva, 23–54. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1972 [1964]. “Structural Complexity in Fairy Tales”. The Study of Man 11.128–150. Irvine: School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine. Typescript available [URL], retrieved 12 April 2020.
. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & John Robert Ross. 1977 [1967]. “Is Deep Structure Necessary?” Notes From The Linguistic Underground ed. by James D. McCawley, 159–174. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M. 1964. “The Sememic Approach to Structural Semantics”. American Anthropologist 66:3.57–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1965. “Kinship Terminology and Linguistic Structure”. American Anthropologist New Series, 67:Part 21.37–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1966. Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lane, Mark, ed. 1970. Introduction to Structuralism. New York: Basic. (Also published as Structuralism: A reader. London: Jonathan Cape.)Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1978. “The Form and Meaning of the English Auxiliary”. Language 54:4.853–882. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 11: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Svend Erik. 1989. “Greimas or Grimace?”. Semiotica 75:1–2.123–130.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1963 [1958]. Structural Anthropology. New York: Basic Books. (Translated by Claire Jacobson & Brooke Grundfest Schoepf from Anthropologie structurale. Paris: Plon, 1958.)Google Scholar
Lotringer, Sylvère, ed. 1974. The Two Saussures. Special issue of Semiotext(e) 1:2.Google Scholar
, ed. 1975. Saussure’s Anagrams. Special issue of Semiotext(e) 2:1.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1956. “A Semantic Analysis of the Pawnee Kinship Usage”. Language 32:1.158–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1963. Structural Semantics: An Analysis of Part of the Vocabulary of Plato. (= London Philological Society Pubs., 20.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Macksey, Ricard & Eugenio Donato, eds. 1970. The Structuralist Controversy: The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (2nd ed., 1972).Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. “The Role of Semantics in a Grammar”. Universals in Linguistic Theory ed. by Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms, 124–169. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
1995. “Generative Semantics”. Concise History of the Language Sciences: From the Sumerians to the Cognitivists ed. by E. F. Konrad Koerner & R. E. Asher, 343–348. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1904. “Comment les mots changent de sens”. L’Année Sociologique 91.1–37. (Repr. in Linguistique historique et linguistique générale by Meillet, vol. 11. Paris: Honoré Champion, 230–271, 1921, new ed. 1926, rpt. 1958.)Google Scholar
Meletinsky, Eleazar. 1971 [1969]. “Structural-Typological Study of Folklore”. Genre 4:3.249–279. (Trans. by Robin Dietrich.)Google Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1973. “The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English”. Approaches to Natural Language ed. by Jaakko Hintikka, Julius Moravcsik & Patrick Suppes, 221–242. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mounin, Georges. 1968. “Travaux récents de sémantique,” including a review of Greimas (1966b). La Linguistique 4:1.131–140.Google Scholar
Okabe, Shoichi. 1979. “Saussure in the Soviet Union: Translators and Commentators”. Jinbun kagaku ronshū (Matsumoto) 131.103–125. [URL], retrieved 1 April 2020.
Partee, Barbara H. 1973. “Some Transformational Extensions of Montague Grammar”. Journal of Philosophical Logic 21.509–534. [URL]. DOI logo
1975. “Montague Grammar and Transformational Grammar”. Linguistic Inquiry 6:2.203–300. [URL]
Petitot, Jean. 1991. “Syntaxe topologique et grammaire cognitive”. Langages 1031.97–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Cognitive Morphodynamics: Dynamical Morphological Models of Constituency in Perception and Syntax. Berne: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul & Barbara H. Partee, eds. 2002. Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pottier, Bernard. 1963. “Recherches sur l’analyse sémantique en linguistique et en traduction mécanique”. Nancy: Publications Linguistiques de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l’Université de Nancy. 37p.Google Scholar
Prada Oropeza, Renato. 1983. “Análisis y/ó interpretación del texto narrativo-literario”. Discurso (São Paulo) 21.43–56.Google Scholar
Propp, Vladimir. 1958 [1928]. Morphology of the Folktale ed. by Svatava Pirkova-Jakobson, trans. by Laurence Scott. Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore & Linguistics; Philadelphia: American Folklore Society. (= Bibliographical & Special Series 9.) (Rev. ed., 1968.)Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Jens. 1968. Review of Greimas (1966b). Revue romane 3:2.163–167.Google Scholar
Rastier, François. 1971. “Les niveaux d’ambiguïté des structures narratives”. Semiotica 3:4.289–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. “‘Ah! Tonnerre! Quel trou dans la blanquette!’ Essai de sémantique interprétative”. Langue française 611.27–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987. Sémantique interprétative. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Rey, Alain. 1968. “Les bases théoriques de la description lexicographique du français: tendances actuelles”. Travaux de linguistique et de littérature (Strasbourg) 6:1.55–72.Google Scholar
. 1976. Théories du signe et du sens. Vol 21. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul. 1974 [1966]. “The Problem of Double Meaning as Hermeneutic Problem and as Semantic Problem”, including a review of Greimas (1966b). The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics ed. by Don Ihde, trans. by Willis Domingo [et al.], 62–78. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
. 1984. Temps et récit. Vol. 21: La configuration du temps dans le récit de fiction. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David E. 1975. “Notes on a Schema for Stories”. Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science ed. by Daniel G. Bobrow & Alan Collins, 211–236. New York: Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980. “Schemata: The building blocks of cognition”. Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence and Education ed. by Rand J. Spiro, Bertram Bruce & William F. Brewer, 33–58. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Santaella Braga, Lucia. 1990. “Brazil: A Culture in Tune with Semiotics”. The Semiotic Web 1989 ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok & Jean Umiker-Sebeok, 123–176. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1971. Les mots sous les mots. Les anagrammes de Ferdinand de Saussure ed. by Jean Starobinski. Paris: Gallimard. (Revised version of 5 articles first published in 1964–1970.)Google Scholar
. 1972 [1916]. Cours de linguistique générale ed. by Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schank, Roger. 1972. “Conceptual Dependency: A theory of natural language understanding”. Cognitive Psychology 3:4.532–631. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schank, Roger C. & Robert P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schleifer, Ronald & Alan Velie. 1987. “Genre and Structure: Toward an Actantial Typology of Narrative Genres and Modes”. MLN 1021.1122–1150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segre, Cesare. 1989. “The Style of Greimas and its Transformations”. New Literary History 20:3.679–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sekvent, Karel. 1969. Review of Greimas (1966b). Studia Neophilologica 40:2.427–432.Google Scholar
Silverstone, Roger. 1976. “An Approach to the Structural Analysis of the Television Message”. Screen 17:2.9–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sokal, Alan & Jean Bricmont. 1998 [1997]. Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
Souriau, Étienne. 1950. Les deux cent mille situations dramatiques. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Strozier, Robert M. 1988. Saussure, Derrida, and the Metaphysics of Subjectivity. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Vol. 21: Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Trier, Jost. 1931. Der Deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes: die Geschichte eines Sprachlichen Feldes. Vol. 11: Von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn des 13. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen. 1967. Review of Greimas (1966b). Lingua 181.296–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velmezova, Ekaterina. 2018. “On the Early Stages of the Reception of the Saussurean Concept of Semiology in Russia”. Cahiers de l’ILSL (Lausanne) 571.165–178. [URL], retrieved 1 April 2020.
Vendryes, Joseph. 1921. Le Langage, introduction linguistique à l’histoire. Paris: La Renaissance du livre.Google Scholar