Who knows the truth about Structuralism?
“Some Literary forms-realist prose, for example - tend to be metonymic, linking signs by their associations with each other; other forms, such as Romantic and Symbolist poetry, are hilly metaphorical” (Eagleton 87).
I have found that this chapter writes about signs a lot but what does Eagleton mean, does he mean literal signs or metaphorical signs. The way a product of writing looks physically on a page with indentions and mechanics or the sign as in symbols of with meaning.
“ The Czech structuralisms insisted on the structural unity of the work; its elements were to be grasped as functions of a dynamic whole, with one particular level of the text. Acting as the determining influence which defored, or pulled into its own field” (87)
What is structuralism as defined for all? Do the Czech become the definers to all, did they event this definition of Structuralism. Does everyone except this definition as the structuralism views or do they differ in different countries or between Structure centered critics. From what I Can tell from the text Structuralism is one of the most closely related to formalism in the fact that they only look at the text in question no outside sources.
“ In literature alone, one can shake off the sordid ‘externalities’ of referential language and discover a spiritual home.”
What is the differences or connections between Structuralism and semiotics? Is semiotics a factor or way of structuralism?
“Semiotics’, or ‘semiology’, means the systematic study of signs, and this is what literary structuralisms are really doing.” (Eagleton)