지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2009.2
- 수록면
- 233 - 257 (25page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This paper aims to address the self-division of reference into outer reference and self-reference in order to eventually show how the self-referential arbitrariness of sign systems acts as a new device for social control in early nineteenth century Britain. The in-depth discussion of what Ferdinand de Saussure describes as the arbitrary relation between the signifer and the signified in reality goes back to the Enlightenment and the Romantic era. Enlightenment and Romantic linguists are alike in that both of them note the circumstantial relation of a sign to its referent. These two groups, however, differ from each other in that the former esteems the referentiality of language whereas the latter attempts to thematize the self-referencial recursion of it.
The Enlightenment theorist of rhetoric Hugh Blair, in spite of his argument for the arbitrariness of language, ultimately puts accent on the referential exactness of it. He prioritizes modern English over ancient languages since, as a simple example, the former eliminates, for the primacy of prepositions and auxiliary verbs, the qualitative marks of syntactic order (i.e., case declension and verb conjugation) that the latter, namely ancient Latin has. Blair's preference for English over Latin indicates that English develops the arbitrary ordering of words to set up purely intra-linguistic rules. Blair, however, finally contends that language should reinforce its referential clarity.
Romantic linguists, on the other hand, divide reference itself into outer reference and self-reference. They exert themselves to displace the former, that is, what is referred to with the latter, that is, how it is referred to. This dividing process can be called the “desynonymization” of reference. It causes the mismatch of sign and referent. Romantic poetics thus structuralizes the constant tension between reference and self-reference. Now, just as literature is desynomymized from other social institutions, self-reference is desynonymized from reference itself for the autotelic turn of signification.
Percy Bysshe Shelley observes that the structural inconsistency between sign and referent serves as a new device for social hegemony in politico-economic as well as literary systems. He questions the poetic, political, and economic web of a repressive rule by arbitrary signs. Although he cherishes the merit of language as “measured words,” he simultaneously worries about the instability of signification. He also notices that the ruling class, what he calls “a new aristocracy,” plays with the overrepresentation, underrepresentation, and misrepresentation of political representatives in the parliamentary assembly. They take advantage of the variations of representation. In the economy of currency, too, the contemporary Tory government encourages bad money, say, paper currency to misrepresent its real value, which results in the fluctuations of value. Shelley problematizes this ongoing inconsistency between the signifier and the signified that repeats itself in divergent social organizations.
Coming up against the political-economic-poetic network of repression by arbitrary signs, Shelley's subversive imagination ironizes a dominant logic itself. In “The Mask of Anarchy,” his poetic strategies for tackling the deceptive system of signs is to paradoxically appropriate it for resistance. The poem shows that the power of self-referential signs operates double-edgedly; although it can facilitate domination, it simultaneously helps defamiliarize contemporary authorities. When Shelley images Hope and Shape as surfing into contradictory entities, this on-going displacement is meant to parody the repressive power of sign systems.
The Enlightenment theorist of rhetoric Hugh Blair, in spite of his argument for the arbitrariness of language, ultimately puts accent on the referential exactness of it. He prioritizes modern English over ancient languages since, as a simple example, the former eliminates, for the primacy of prepositions and auxiliary verbs, the qualitative marks of syntactic order (i.e., case declension and verb conjugation) that the latter, namely ancient Latin has. Blair's preference for English over Latin indicates that English develops the arbitrary ordering of words to set up purely intra-linguistic rules. Blair, however, finally contends that language should reinforce its referential clarity.
Romantic linguists, on the other hand, divide reference itself into outer reference and self-reference. They exert themselves to displace the former, that is, what is referred to with the latter, that is, how it is referred to. This dividing process can be called the “desynonymization” of reference. It causes the mismatch of sign and referent. Romantic poetics thus structuralizes the constant tension between reference and self-reference. Now, just as literature is desynomymized from other social institutions, self-reference is desynonymized from reference itself for the autotelic turn of signification.
Percy Bysshe Shelley observes that the structural inconsistency between sign and referent serves as a new device for social hegemony in politico-economic as well as literary systems. He questions the poetic, political, and economic web of a repressive rule by arbitrary signs. Although he cherishes the merit of language as “measured words,” he simultaneously worries about the instability of signification. He also notices that the ruling class, what he calls “a new aristocracy,” plays with the overrepresentation, underrepresentation, and misrepresentation of political representatives in the parliamentary assembly. They take advantage of the variations of representation. In the economy of currency, too, the contemporary Tory government encourages bad money, say, paper currency to misrepresent its real value, which results in the fluctuations of value. Shelley problematizes this ongoing inconsistency between the signifier and the signified that repeats itself in divergent social organizations.
Coming up against the political-economic-poetic network of repression by arbitrary signs, Shelley's subversive imagination ironizes a dominant logic itself. In “The Mask of Anarchy,” his poetic strategies for tackling the deceptive system of signs is to paradoxically appropriate it for resistance. The poem shows that the power of self-referential signs operates double-edgedly; although it can facilitate domination, it simultaneously helps defamiliarize contemporary authorities. When Shelley images Hope and Shape as surfing into contradictory entities, this on-going displacement is meant to parody the repressive power of sign systems.
목차
Ⅰ. Introduction
Ⅱ. Blair, Enlightenment and the Genealogy of Linguistic Turn
Ⅲ. Romantic Language and the Self-Referential Turn of Signification
Ⅳ. Persy Bysshe Shelley and the Political Economy of Self-Reference
Ⅴ. Conclusion
Works Cited
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Percy Bysshe Shelley의 유토피아적 미학
코기토
2000 .12
-
“A Prototype of His Conception” : Shelley’s (Self-)Mothering in Alastor
신영어영문학
2010 .08
-
모호함의 메시지 : 셸리의 「종달새에게」 읽기
19세기 영어권 문학
2006 .02
-
공화주의 사상의 변용적 계승으로서의 낭만주의 시론: 셸리의 <시의 옹호>를 중심으로
18세기영문학
2016 .01
-
『이슬람의 반란』에 나타난 여성 해방적 관점
영어영문학연구
2017 .01
-
셸리의 무신론에 관한 이해
동서인문학
2013 .12
-
로버트 브라우닝의 기독교 신앙 탐색
영어영문학연구
2006 .01
-
｢알라스터 또는 고독의 정령｣에 나타난 두 개의 자아
영어영문학연구
2014 .01
-
퍼시 셸리의 '삶의 개선행렬'(The Triumph of Life)에 나타난 역사인식 - -폴 드 만과 해롤드 블룸이 제시하는 비평의 의의와 한계-
한신논문집
1998 .11
-
들뢰즈의 기호 연구
코기토
2007 .02
-
셸리의 메타포 이론 : 루쏘의 『언어 기원론』과 폴 드 만
19세기 영어권 문학
2014 .08
-
Prohibition and Enjoyment: The Double Facet of the Law in Shelley's The Cenci
영어영문학연구
2004 .01
-
영국시의 탈중심 문화 지형 (2) - 브라우닝의 셸리 저항과 『폴린』의 텍스트 전략
19세기 영어권 문학
2004 .08
-
언어 기호로서의 인간 동작
언어과학연구
1999 .12
-
The Topographies of Memory in Mary Shelley and John Ruskin
19세기 영어권 문학
2010 .08
-
셸리의 「자연식의 옹호」: 채식주의와 사회 개선과의 상관관계
영어영문학연구
2019 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
The Topographies of Memory in Mary Shelley and John Ruskin
Kyung-Sook Shin
19세기 영어권 문학
2010
.08
“주변적” 존재로의 회귀 - 에밀리 디킨슨의 생태학적 상상력
이두진
19세기 영어권 문학
2010
.02
에밀리 디킨슨의 시에 나타난 죽음의 책략
윤효녕
19세기 영어권 문학
2010
.02
The Inclusive and Elusive Movements of Walt Whitman : Poetic Malleability
Han-Mook Lee
19세기 영어권 문학
2009
.08
“Oh Mother, the Monster Is Inside!” : Victor Frankenstein’s Déjà Vu Experiences of His Repressed Self
Alexand
,
a Reube
19세기 영어권 문학
2008
.02
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0