Study questions for Paul de Man’s “Semiology and Rhetoric”

This time the function of the questions is more to guide you through the text than to test
your understanding. For this reason, the list contains brief explanations or signposts (in
italics) as well. You might want to start reading the text by numbering the paragraphs to
follow my references. The quotations from Yeats’ poem and Proust’s novel are not to be
counted as paragraphs.

1. In the first paragraph, de Man makes a differentiation between “formalist”/“intrinsic”

criticism on the one hand and a different kind of criticism based on “reference” to the
“non/verbal ‘outside’” of a text. How would you paraphrase the difference between the
two?

2. In the second paragraph, de Man says: “The structural moment of concentration on the
code for its own sake cannot be avoided and literature necessarily breeds its own
formalism.” What does he mean by “code” and why is such concentration unavoidable?

3. How would you explain the claim that “internal meaning has become outside reference
and outer form has become intrinsic structure”? (p. 27-28, paragraph 3)

4. According to de Man, “semiology” in French criticism avoids the trap of positing

binary oppositions (formalism/referentiality, form/meaning, inside/outside, etc.). What is
semiology and how does it change the course of critical thinking about literary language
so that binaries can be abandoned? (p. 28, para. 5)

5. In what sense does de Man use the notion of rhetoric all through the paper? (28, para.
6, mind the parenthetical remark)

6. How do theorists such as Barthes, Genette, Todorov, Greimas view the relationship
between grammar and rhetoric? Mind that the term “figure”/ “literary figure” means
“figure of speech” here (metaphor, metonymy, allegory, etc.). “Rhetoric” denotes that
dimension of a (literary) text which is constituted by its figures. (p. 28, para. 6)

7. How does de Man paraphrase what he thinks is a “naïve” view of grammar? (p. 29,
para. 8)

8. In the face of “dyadic”/ “dualistic” models of linguistic meaning (sign/object,

sign/meaning, signifier/signified, etc.), Charles Sanders Peirce introduced the triad of
sign/object/interpretant. What is the “interpretant” in de Man’s understanding and how
does it work to perpetuate the generation of signs ad infinitum, resulting in “pure
rhetoric”? (p. 29, para. 9)

9. What does de Man demonstrate by the problematics of the rhetorical question (see
Archie Bunker example)? (p. 29, para. 10-11)
10. What is the traditional understanding of the rhetorical question in Yeats’ poem (“How
can we know the dancer from the dance”?) and what is the interpretation de Man opens it
up to? (p. 30, para. 12-13, the passage starting below the poem is counted as a new
paragraph)

11. Pay careful attention to the logic of de Man’s juxtaposition of the two kinds of
readings he posits for Yeats’ question: it is one of the best illustrations of deconstructive
thinking (p. 30 para. 13). How do the two readings relate to each other?

12. Pay attention to the way de Man applies the confusion of the inside/outside, etc.
pattern to the act of reading and interpretation (p. 30, para. 14). How does the confusion
reproduce itself in this context?

13. In order to understand the relevance of the Proust-passage and de Man’s reading
thereof (p. 30-31), it is important to be aware of the difference between metaphor and
metonymy: the former posits an “essential link” between two objects, while the latter
associates two things on account of their “contiguity”/ “proximity.” De Man’s reading of
Proust’s passage reveals the discrepancy between what the text says and what it does. Try
to follow his logic as much as you can, further explanation follows in class.

14. What does de Man mean when he asserts following the Proust-reading, that “the
rhetorical questions were rhetorizations of grammar,” while the “Proust example could be
better described as a grammatization of rhetoric”? (p. 32, para. 19)

15. What does de Man mean by saying that the “glorification of the critic-philosopher
[. . .] is in fact the glorification of the poet”? (p. 32, para 21)