Showing posts with label structuralism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label structuralism. Show all posts

00168—What is Structuralism? [Saussure]






Saussure sign



Structuralism is primarily concerned with the study of structures.  Here we study how things get their meaning.  It is also a philosophical approach.  The whole world has a set up.  Similarly the solar system has a structure with the sun at the centre.  Even an atom has its own structure which resembles our solar system.  Coming to the political set up, a democratic structure is the basis of our govt. [Indian govt.].  Communism has its own set up or structure.  Coming to an individual’s life a person has different names according to the nature of the structure.  A boy in a class room is a student.  At home he is a son.  In the cricket ground he is a player, and when he gets a job, he gets another name.


Another point Saussure discovered is that the meaning of a sign is arbitrary.  The same flower, say rose, has different names in different languages, but its qualities remain the same.  Saussure points out that a word assumes different meanings according to the particular structure in which it is a part.  When Yeats sings “Whenever green is found,” it means the Irish flag which is green in colour.  So the word ‘’green” represents patriotism.  In the phrase ‘green revolution’ the word green stands for agriculture.



Further Reading:

Structuralist Criticism= Almost all literary theorists since Aristotle have
emphasized the importance of structure, conceived in diverse ways, in analyzing
a work of literature. "Structuralist criticism," however, now designates the
practice of critics who analyze literature on the explicit model of structuralist
linguistics. The class includes a number of Russian formalists, especially
Roman Jakobson, but consists most prominently of a group of writers, with
their headquarters in Paris, who applied to literature the concepts and analytic
distinctions developed by Ferdinand de Saussure in his Course in General
Linguistics (1915). This mode of criticism is part of a larger movement, French
structuralism, inaugurated in the 1950s by the cultural anthropologist
Claude Lévi-Strauss, who analyzed, on Saussure's linguistic model, such cultural
phenomena as mythology, kinship relations, and modes of preparing
food.


In its early form, as manifested by Lévi-Strauss and other writers in the
1950s and 1960s, structuralism cuts across the traditional disciplinary areas of
the humanities and social sciences by undertaking to provide an objective account
of all social and cultural practices, in a range that includes mythical
narratives, literary texts, advertisements, fashions in clothes, and patterns of
social decorum. It views these practices as combinations of signs that have a
set significance for the members of a particular culture, and undertakes to
make explicit the rules and procedures by which the practices have achieved
their cultural significance, and to specify what that significance is, by reference
to an underlying system (analogous to Saussure's langue, the implicit system
of a particular language) of the relationships among signifying elements
and their rules of combination. The elementary cultural phenomena, like the
linguistic elements in Saussure's exposition, are not objective facts identifiable
by their inherent properties, but purely "relational" entities; that is, their
identity as signs are given to them by their relations of differences from, and
binary oppositions to, other elements within the cultural system. This system
of internal relationships, and of "codes" that determine significant combinations,
have been mastered by each person competent within a given culture,
although he or she remains largely unaware of its nature and operations. The
primary interest of the structuralist, like that of Saussure, is not in the cultural
parole but in the langue; that is, not in any particular cultural phenomenon or
event except as it provides access to the structure, features, and rules of the
general system that engenders its significance.

As applied in literary studies, structuralist criticism views literature as a
second-order signifying system that uses the first-order structural system of
language as its medium, and is itself to be analyzed primarily on the model of
linguistic theory. Structuralist critics often apply a variety of linguistic concepts
to the analysis of a literary text, such as the distinction between phonemic
and morphemic levels of organization, or between paradigmatic and
syntagmatic relationships; and some critics analyze the structure of a literary
text on the model of the syntax in a well-formed sentence. The undertaking of
a thoroughgoing literary structuralism, however, is to explain how it is that a
competent reader is able to make sense of a particular literary text by specifying
the underlying system of literary conventions and rules of combination
that has been unconsciously mastered by such a reader. The aim of classic literary
structuralism, accordingly, is not (as in New Criticism) to provide interpretations
of an individual text, but to make explicit, in a quasi-scientific way,
the tacit grammar (the system of rules and codes) that governs the forms and
meanings of all literary productions. As Jonathan Culler put it in his lucid exposition,
the aim of structuralist criticism is "to construct a poetics which
stands to literature as linguistics stands to language".






00159--Structuralism—the Saussurean Principles [Langue and Parole/Signifier and Signified/Synchronic and Diachronic/Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic]



                                                              
Structuralism—the Saussurean Principles
Audio Books

Structural linguistics is an approach to linguistics. Principles of structural-functional linguistics were based on the lecture notes of Swiss linguist FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE.  His major work is Course de Linguistique Generale [Course on General Linguistics].  The following are the linguistic binaries that constitute the basic principles of structural linguistics.  This structural linguistics is relevant in literary criticism because this can be used for interpreting a text in other words structuralist interpretation of a text. 

1. Langue and Parole [language structure vs. speaking in a language],
2. Signifier and Signified,
3. Synchronic and Diachronic, and,
4. Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic.

1. Langue and Parole [language structure vs. speaking in a language]

While making distinctions between the linguistic system and its actual manifestations we arrive at the crucial opposition between LANGUE and PAROLE.

Langage = as the general capacity that distinguishes man from the animal. 

Langue = as language structure which consists of vocabulary, principles of construction, idioms, rules of pronunciation, etc.

Parole= as language, both speech and writing used in a context.
Audio Books

Langue is the property of the society while Parole is an individual’s property.  Langue is fixed while Parole is free from restrictions like grammar or rules of pronunciation.  Langue –Parole distinction has formed a basis for all later structuralist model of linguistics.


2. The arbitrariness of the sign
SIGN







The linguistic sign is an arbitrary linkage between a signifier and a signified.       
Signifier=sound-image
Signified=concept
According to Saussure there is no natural connection between sound-image and concepts.  There is nothing cat-like in the word cat. 
Here is a linguistic example:
Sign: the written word tree
Signifier: the letters t-r-e-e
Signified: the category tree

3. The Diachronic and the Synchronic Study of Language  [history vs. structure]

Saussure argued that there is a need for a radical distinction between the two branches of linguistics; synchronic and diachronic linguistics.


Synchronic linguistics studies 'Langue'.  Synchronic linguistics is a system that is psychologically real.  It is the study of language in a particular state at a point of time.  It is the study of fixed language.

Diachronic linguistics is concerned with 'Parole" and the relations of succession between individual items. Diachronic linguistics is not systematic and it is the study of language of its evolution in time.


4. The Oppositional Structure of Language [Syntagmatic and Paradigmatic]
Audio Books

Language is a set of oppositions without positive terms.  The arbitrariness of the sign is limited by the systematic nature of sign systems.  The signs that make up a language stand in opposition to each other.  

There are two structural relations between signs:
1. the Syntagmatic, and,
2. the Paradigmatic.

SYNTAGMATIC  RELATIONSHIP IS LINEAR.
PARADIGMATIC RELATIONSHIP IS  ASSOCIATIVE. 

 Syntagmatic Relationship 
In the  syntagmatic relationship, units as sounds, phrases, clauses, sentences and discourses are chained together in a fixed sequence and combination, and they get their force by standing in opposition to what precedes or follows them.  This relationship holds at various levels of language.  The following example shows it at the sound level.  take a simple word like 'cat'.  The word consists of three units: the phonemes /k/, /ӕ/, /t/.  
The relationship that exists between these three units is Syntagmatic

 PARADIGMATIC RELATIONSHIP
Paradigmatic relationship on the otherhand, refers to the relationship that holds between units that are there and the units that are not there but potentially could have been there.  The first unit of the word cat is /k/.  There are many other sounds which could have come at this place, for instance /p/ or /b/ or /m/ giving words like pat, bat and mat.  These probable candidates are paradigmatic.
Audio Books Syntagmatc relationship is the relationship in PRESENTIA . 
The Paradigmatic relationship is the relationship in ABSENTIA.

The Two Relationships-- a diagramatical presentation.





                                                                                         


00155--Narratology

            Narratology is a branch of structuralism but it has achieved a certain independence from its parent.  Narratology is not the reading and interpretation of individual stories, but the attempt to study the nature of 'story' itself, as a concept and as a cultural practice.
What narratologists do
1)        They look at individual narratives seeking out the recurrent structures which are found within all narratives.
2)        They switch much of their critical attention away from the mere 'content' of the tale, often focusing instead on the teller and the telling.
3)        They take categories derived mainly from the analysis of short narratives and expand and refine them so that they are able to account for the complexities of novel-length narratives.
4)        They counteract the tendency of conventional criticism to foreground character and motive by foregrounding instead action and structure.
5)        They derive much of their reading pleasure and interest from the affinities between all narratives, rather than from the uniqueness and originality of a small number of highly-regarded examples.

00143--Structuralism and Post- structuralism-some practical differences








      The structuralist seeks                                  The post- structuralist seeks
            Parallels/Echoes                                           Contradictions/paradoxes
            Balances                                                        Shifts/Breaks in:  Tone
                                                                                                            Viewpoint
                                                                                                            Time
                                                                                                            Person
                                                                                                            attitude
            Reflections/Repetitions                              Conflicts                   
            Symmetry                                                      Absences/Omissions
            Contrasts                                                       Linguistic quirks
            Patterns                                                          Aporia
            Effect:  To show textual unity and               Effect:To show textual disunity
            Coherence

00141--Distinctions between structuralism and post-structuralism




a)        Origins
"        Structuralism derives ultimately from linguistics.  Linguistics is a discipline which has always been inherently confident about the possibility of establishing objective knowledge.  It believes that if we observe accurately, collect data systematically, and make logical deductions then we can reach reliable conclusions about language and the world.  Structuralism inherits this confidently scientific outlook:  it too believes in method, system and reason as being able to establish reliable truths.
 "       By contrast, post-structuralism derives ultimately from philosophy.  Philosophy is a discipline which has always tended to emphasise the difficulty of achieving secure knowledge about things.  This point of view is encapsulated in Nietzsche's famous remark 'there are no facts, only interpretations:  Philosophy is, so to speak, sceptical by nature and usually undercuts and questions commonsensical notions and assumptions.  Its procedures often begin by calling into question what is usually taken for granted.  Post structuralism inherits this habit of scepticism, and intensifies it.  It regards any confidence in scientific method as naive, and even derives a certain masochistic intellectual pleasure from knowing for certain that we can't know anything for certain (fully conscious of the irony and paradox which doing this entils.
2)        Ione and style
"        Structuralist writing tends towards abstraction and generalisation:  it aims for a detached, 'scientific coolness' of tone.  Given its derivation from linguistic science, this is what we would expect.  An essay like Roland Barthes's 1966 pice 'Introduction to the structural Analysis of Narrative' is typical of this tone and treatment, with its discrete steps in an orderly exposition, complete with diagrams.  The style is neutral and anonymous, as is typical of scientific writing.
"        Post-structrualist writing, by contrast, tends to be much more emotive.  Often the tone is urgent and euphoric, and the style flamboyant and self-consciously showy. Titles may well contain puns and allysions, and often the central line of the argument is based on a pun or a word - play of some kind.
3)        Attitude to Language
"        Structuralists accept that the world is constructed through language, in the sense that we so not have access to reality other than through the linguistic medium.  All the same, all the same, it decides to live with that fact and continue to use language to think and perceive with.  After all language is an orderly system, not a chaotic one, so realising our dependence upon it need not induce intellectual despair.
"        By contrast, post-structuralism is much more fundamentalist and believe reality itself is textual.  Post-structuralism develops the idea that any knowledge is attainable through language.   
4)        Project (the fundamental aims)
"        Structuralism, firstly, questions our way of structuring and categorising reality, and prompts us to break free of habitual modes of perception or categorisation, but it believes that we can thereby attain a more reliable view of things.
"        Post-structuralism is much more fundamental:  It distrusts the very notion of reason, and the idea of human being as an independent entity, preferring the notion of the 'dissolved' or 'constructed' subject, whereby what we may think of as the individual is really a product of social and linguistic forces - that is, not an essence at all, merely a 'tissue of textualities'.

00140--What does a structuralist do with the text?



            The most basic difference between liberal humanist and structuralist reading is that the structuralist's comments on structure, symbol, and design, become paramount, and are the main focus of the commentary while the emphasis on any wider moral significance, and indeed on interpretation itself in the broad sense, is very much reduced.  So instead of going straight into the content, in the liberal humanist manner, the structuralist presents a series of parallels, echoes, reflections, patters and contrasts so that the narrative becomes highly schematised, is translated in fact, into what we might call a verbal diagram.  What we are looking for, and where we expect to find it, can be indicated as in the diagram below.  We are looking for the factors listed on the left, and we expect to find them in the parts of the tale listed on the right.
            Parallels                                                         Plot
            Echoes                                                           Structure
            Reflections/Repetitions         in                  Character/Motive
            Contrasts                                                       Situation/circumstance
            Patterns                                                          Language/Imagery

00138--What structrualist critics do?




1)        They analyse (mainly) prose narratives, relating to text to some larger containing structure, such as:
        a)  the conventions of a particular literary genre, or
       b)  a network of inter textual connections, or
      c)  a projected model of an underlying universal narrative structure, or
      d)  a notion of narrative as a complex of recurrent patterns or motifs.
2)        They internet literature in terms of a range of underlying parallels with the structures of language, as described by modern linguistics,.
3)        They apply the concept of systematic patterning and structuring to the whole field of western culture, and across cultures, treating as 'systems of signs' anything from Ancient Greek Myths to brands of soap powder.

00137--Structuralism.




            Structuralism is an intellectual movement which began in France in the 1950s and is first seen in the work of the anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss and the literary critic Roland Barthes.  It is difficult to define structuralism in a 'bottom line' proposition.  The essence of Structuralism is the belief that things can not be understood in isolation-they have to be seen in the context of the larger structures they are part of.  Hence the term structuralism.  Structuralism was imported into Britain mainly in the 1970s.
            The structure in question here are those imposed by our way of perceiving the world and organising experience, rather than objective entities already existing in the external world.  It follows from this that meaning or significance isn't a kind of core or essence inside things: rather, meaning is always outside.  Meaning is always an attribute of things, in the literal sense that meanings are attributed to the things by the human mind, not contained within them.
            Take a poem titled 'Good Morrow' by Donne.  Our immediate reaction as structuralists would probably be to insist that it can only be understood if we first have a clear notion of the genre which it paradies and subverts.  Any single poem is an example of a particular genre.  A poem to its genre is like a phrase spoken in English to the English language as a structure with all its rules, its conventions, and so on.  Donne's poem belong to the genre called alba or 'dawn song', a poetic form dating from the twelfth century in which lovers lament the approach of daybreak because it means that they must part.
            In order to understand alba one should know the notion of the concept of courtly love, and then again the structure of 'poetry' as a whole in which 'Good Morrow' is a part of.  Thus the structrualist 'approach' to the poem is actually taking us away from the very poem, into large and comparatively abstract questions of genre, history, and philosophy rather than closer and closer to it.

            In the structuralist approach to literature there is a constant movement away from the interpretation of the individual literary work and a parallel drive towards understanding the larger, abstract structures that contain them.  These structures are usually abstract such as the notion of the literary or poetic, or the number of narrative itself.  

00127--In what ways, does post structuralism differ from structuralism?



            Structuralism is a way of thinking about the world which is predominantly concerned with the perceptions and description of structures.  At its simplest, structuralism claims that the nature of every element in any given situation has no significance by itself, and in fact is determined by all the other elements involved in that situation.  The full significance of any entity cannot be perceived unless and until it is integrated into the structure of which it forms a part.  Structuralists believe that all human activity is constructed.  It is not natural or "essential".  Consequently, it is the systems of organization that are important.
            Post-structuralism may be understood as a critical response to the basic assumptions of structuralism.  Structuralism studies the underlying structure inherent in cultural products (such as tests), and utilizes analytical concepts from linguistics, psychology, anthropology and other fields to understand and interpret those structures.  Although the structuralist movement fostered critical inquiry into these structures, it emphasized logical and scientific results.  Many structrualists sought to integrate their work pre-existing bodies of knowledge.  This was observed in the work of Ferdinand De Saussure in linguistics, Claude Levi-Strauss in anthropology, and many early 20th century psychologists.

            The general assumptions of post-structuralism derive from the critique of structuralist premises.  Specifically, post-structuralism holds that the study of underlying structures is itself culturally conditioned and therefore subject to myriad biases and misinterpretations.  To understand an object (e.g. open of the many meanings of a text), it is necessary to study both the object  itself, and the systems of knowledge which were coordinated to produce the object.  In this way, post structuralism positions itself as a study of how knowledge is produced.

  

00109--How do Saussure's views become radical?



            A movement or theory is radical when it is capable of favouring fundamental or extreme change in scientific, social or cultural spheres.  Structuralists argue that the entities that constitute the world we perceive (human beings, meanings, social positions, texts, rituals....) are not the works of God or the mysteries of nature.  It is an effect of the principles that structure us.  The world without structures is meaningless.  It will then be a random and Chaotic continuum.  Structures order that continuum and organise it according to certain set of principles.  And thus we make sense of it.  In this way structures make this world meaningful and real.  Many of the proportions put forward by Saussurian linguistics was radical in substance and result.  The foundational argument about the arbitrariness of the sign is a radical concept because it proposes the autonomy of language in relation to reality.  The Saussurian model, with its emphasis on internal structures within a sign system, can be seen as supporting the notion that language does not 'reflect' reality but rather constructs it.  We can use the language 'to say what isn't the world, as well as what is.  And since we come to know the world through whatever language we have been born into the midst of, it is legitimate to argue that our language determines reality, rather than reality our language' some  later critics have criticised Saussure for 'neglecting entirely the things for which signs stand'.  They have lamented his model's detachment from social context.  Robert Stam argues that by 'bracketing the referent', the Saussurean model 'severs text from history'.  More over, it was the Saussurian concepts that led to the most radical assumptions of Deconstruction.  

00108--Explain the terms 'langue' and 'parole'.



            Language is the whole system of language that precedes and makes speech possible.  A sign is a basic unit of langue.
            Learning a language, we master the system of grammar, spelling, syntax and punctuation.  These are all elements of langue.
            Langue is a system in that it has a large number of elements whereby meaning is created in the arrangements of its elements and the consequent relationships between there arranged elements.
            Parole is the concrete use of the language, the actual utterances.  It is an external manifestation of langue.  It is the usage of the system, but not the system.
            By defining Langue and Parole, Saussure differentiates between the language and how it is used, and therefore enabling these two very different things to be studied as separate entities.
            As a structuralist, Saussure was interested more in langue than in parole.  It was the system by which meaning could be created that was of interest rather than individual instances of its use.
            Subject + present from of the verb .......Langue.
            Prime Minister goes to UN tomorrow....Parole.

00107--Language Constitutes reality, Explain.



            This is a major conclusion from Saussure.   At the very beginning of the essay he writes:  "Some people regard language, when reduced to its elements, as a naming-process only-a list of words, each corresponding to the thing that it names....This conception is open to criticism at several points.  It assumes that ready-made ideas exist before wards".
            Structuralism notes that much of our imaginative world is structured of an structured by, binary oppositions and these oppositions structure meaning.
            Saussure noted that "if words had the job of representing concepts fixed in advance, one would be able to find exact equivalents for them as between one language and another.  But this is not the case".  Reality is divided up into arbitrary categories by every language and the conceptual world with which each of us is familiar could have been divided hp very differently.  Indeed, no two languages categorise reality in the same way.  As John Pass more puts it, 'Languages differ by differentiating differently'.  Linguistic categories are not simply a consequence of some predefined structure in the world.  There are no 'natural' concepts or categories which are simply 'reflected' in language.  Language plays a crucial role in 'constructing reality'.

00106--Language is a system of differences: Explain. OR 'In a language there are only differences'. Explain.



            Saussure's relational conception of meaning was specifically differential.  He emphasized the differences between signs.  Language for him was a system of functional differences and oppositions.  'In a language, as in every other semiological system, what distinguishes a sign is what constitutes it'.  What gives the letter 'C' its meaning is its difference from other letters.  The concept of difference turns very clear once we think it in terms of dress code.  What makes a costume meaningful, fashionable, or respectable is its difference from other clothes.  Advertising furnishes another good example of this notion, since what matters in 'positioning' a product is not the relationship of advertising signifiers to real-world referents, but the differentiation of each sign from the others to which it is related.  In other words relation/difference is a pair of binary opposites.  Saussure's concept of the relational identify of signs is at the heart of structuralist theory.  Structuralist analysis focuses on the structural relations which are functional in the signifying system at a particular moment in history.  'Relations are important for what they can explain:  meaningful contrasts and permitted or forbidden combinations'.  We can safely conclude that 'in a language there are only differences'.

00105--Explain 'binary opposites'? Or The concept of negative differentiation



            In simple terms, binary opposites are pairs of signs with opposite meanings.  Many examples are there in English.  Hot/cold, good/bad, black/white and son.  Saussure thinks beyond this.  He emphasized the negative, oppositional differences between signs, and the key relationships in structuralist analysis are binary oppositions (such as nature/culture, life/death).  Saussure argued that 'concepts ....are defined not positively, in terms of their content, but negatively by contrast with other items in the same system.  What characterizes each most exactly is being whatever the others are not'.  We understand day as what is not night.  A population which hasn't ever experienced the pains of war will not fully understand the sense of the term peace.  The notion may initially seem mystifying.  The concept of negative differentiation becomes clearer if we consider how we might teach someone who did not share our language what we mean by the term "thick".  It is impossible to show them a range of different objects which are think.  Because an object is neither think nor thin until it is differentiated from another one.  Se we could place two books.  One has 100 pages the other 50-0.  The second one is thick.  The listener understands very clearly.  The word 'thick' derives from its meanings from its opposition to the term 'thin'.  As far his 'emphasis on negative differences, Saussure remarks that although both the signified ad the signifier are purely differential and negative when considered separately, the sign in which they are combined is a positive term.

Labels

Addison (4) ADJECTIVES (1) ADVERBS (1) Agatha Christie (1) American Literature (6) APJ KALAM (1) Aristotle (9) Bacon (1) Bakhtin Mikhail (3) Barthes (8) Ben Jonson (7) Bernard Shaw (1) BERTRAND RUSSEL (1) Blake (1) Blogger's Corner (2) BOOK REVIEW (2) Books (2) Brahman (1) Charles Lamb (2) Chaucer (1) Coleridge (12) COMMUNICATION SKILLS (5) Confucius (1) Critical Thinking (3) Cultural Materialism (1) Daffodils (1) Deconstruction (3) Derrida (2) Doctor Faustus (5) Dr.Johnson (5) Drama (4) Dryden (14) Ecofeminism (1) Edmund Burke (1) EDWARD SAID (1) elegy (1) English Lit. Drama (7) English Lit. Essays (3) English Lit.Poetry (210) Ethics (5) F.R Lewis (4) Fanny Burney (1) Feminist criticism (9) Frantz Fanon (2) FREDRIC JAMESON (1) Freud (3) GADAMER (1) GAYATRI SPIVAK (1) General (4) GENETTE (1) GEORG LUKÁCS (1) GILLES DELEUZE (1) Gosson (1) GRAMMAR (8) gramsci (1) GREENBLATT (1) HAROLD BLOOM (1) Hemmingway (2) Henry James (1) Hillis Miller (2) HOMI K. BHABHA (1) Horace (3) I.A.Richards (6) Indian Philosophy (8) Indian Writing in English (2) John Rawls (1) Judaism (25) Kant (1) Keats (1) Knut Hamsun (1) Kristeva (2) Lacan (3) LINDA HUTCHEON (1) linguistics (4) LIONEL TRILLING (1) Literary criticism (191) literary terms (200) LOGIC (7) Longinus (4) LUCE IRIGARAY (1) lyric (1) Marlowe (4) Martin Luther King Jr. (1) Marxist criticism (3) Matthew Arnold (12) METAPHORS (1) MH Abram (2) Michael Drayton (1) MICHEL FOUCAULT (1) Milton (3) Modernism (1) Monroe C.Beardsley (2) Mulla Nasrudin Stories (190) MY POEMS (17) Narratology (1) New Criticism (2) NORTHROP FRYE (1) Norwegian Literature (1) Novel (1) Objective Types (8) OSHO TALES (3) PAUL DE MAN (1) PAUL RICOEUR (1) Petrarch (1) PHILOSOPHY (4) PHOTOS (9) PIERRE FÉLIX GUATTARI (1) Plato (5) Poetry (13) Pope (5) Post-Colonial Reading (2) Postcolonialism (3) Postmodernism (5) poststructuralism (8) Prepositions (4) Psychoanalytic criticism (4) PYTHAGORAS (1) QUEER THEORY (1) Quotes-Quotes (8) Robert Frost (7) ROMAN OSIPOVISCH JAKOBSON (1) Romantic criticism (20) Ruskin (1) SAKI (1) Samuel Daniel (1) Samuel Pepys (1) SANDRA GILBERT (1) Saussure (12) SCAM (1) Shakespeare (157) Shelley (2) SHORT STORY (1) Showalter (8) Sidney (5) SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR (1) SLAVOJ ZIZEK (1) SONNETS (159) spenser (3) STANLEY FISH (1) structuralism (14) Sunitha Krishnan (1) Surrealism (2) SUSAN GUBAR (1) Sydney (3) T.S.Eliot (10) TED TALK (1) Tennesse Williams (1) Tennyson (1) TERRY EAGLETON (1) The Big Bang Theory (3) Thomas Gray (1) tragedy (1) UGC-NET (10) Upanisads (1) Vedas (1) Vocabulary test (7) W.K.Wimsatt (2) WALTER BENJAMIN (1) Walter Pater (2) Willam Caxton (1) William Empson (2) WOLFGANG ISER (1) Wordsworth (14) എന്‍റെ കഥകള്‍ (2) തത്വചിന്ത (14) ബ്ലോഗ്ഗര്‍ എഴുതുന്നു (6) ഭഗവത്‌ഗീതാ ധ്യാനം (1)