En su amplia obra lingüística, Eugenio Coseriu (Mihaileni, 1921 - Tübingen, 2002), acude varias veces a la literatura para ejemplificar  conceptos lingüísticos teóricos e incluso para modelarlos. Como ocurre con varios estudiosos del siglo XX (José Ortega y Gasset o Mijaíl Bajtín, por ejemplo), el Quijote es, para Coseriu, incitación para formular reflexiones que no se aplican exclusivamente a él, como sí lo hacen otras obras relevantes del cervantismo del siglo XX, señaladamente los trabajos de Stephen Gilman y Edward C. Riley. El presente artículo busca rastrear las referencias al Quijote y a Cervantes en la obra de Coseriu y, sobre todo, presentar y discutir la corrección hecha por Coseriu al importante trabajo de Leo Spitzer “Perspectivismo lingüístico en el Quijote”. / In his extensive linguistic work, Eugenio Coseriu (Mihaileni, 1921 - Tübingen, 2002), uses literature several times to exemplify theoretical linguistic concepts and even to model them. As is the case with several 20th century scholars (José Ortega y Gasset or Mijaíl Bajtín), Don Quixote is, for Coseriu, a touchstone to formulate reflections that do not apply exclusively to it, as other relevant works of 20th century’s Cervantism, such as Stephen Gilman’s or and Edward C. Riley’s, do. This article seeks to trace the references of Don Quixote and Cervantes in Coseriu’s work and, above all, to present and discuss the correction made by Coseriu to Leo Spitzer’s “Perspectivismo lingüístico en el Quijote”.

Al criticar la noción jakobsoniana de “función poética” en tanto elemento determinante de la poeticidad de un texto, Eugenio Coseriu se refiere a la métrica con un símil. Dice que esta y todos los fenómenos que la antigua retórica agrupaba bajo el término “númerus” cumplen, en la obra poética, la misma función que el marco en un cuadro. El presente artículo, aun aceptando las críticas de Coseriu a las ideas de Roman Jakobson, argumenta que la comparación de Coseriu resulta inapropiada para explicar el estatus del plano sonoro en la poesía. La aclaración sirve para especificar la función de este plano en la construcción del sentido a partir de la poesía y para precisar la idea del signo estético, planteada por la glosemática de Louis Hjelmslev y Sven Johansen, y adoptada —con modificaciones— porEugenio Coseriu y Jürgen Trabant.

Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2018-04-02T12:13:56Z No. of bitstreams: 1 JuzellyFernandesBarretoMoreira_DISSERT.pdf: 1347395 bytes, checksum: 62dc0e05b0a72d0e79fe5a9f39e67d1c (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2018-04-04T11:24:22Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 JuzellyFernandesBarretoMoreira_DISSERT.pdf: 1347395 bytes, checksum: 62dc0e05b0a72d0e79fe5a9f39e67d1c (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-04T11:24:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 JuzellyFernandesBarretoMoreira_DISSERT.pdf: 1347395 bytes, checksum: 62dc0e05b0a72d0e79fe5a9f39e67d1c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-02-02 / Enquanto fen?meno investigado pelos estudos lingu?stico-discursivos, o estilo tem sido visto sob diferentes perspectivas, dentre as quais destacamos: a perspectiva da l?ngua, que parte da ideia de um sistema expressivo da l?ngua para caracteriz?-lo (BALLY, 1951, 1957; RIFFATERRE, 1973; MATTOSO C?MARA JR., 1972); a perspectiva dos g?neros, que o designa como um dos componentes conceituais de g?nero discursivo (BAKHTIN, 2011); a perspectiva semi?tica, que o associa ? constru??o do ethos do sujeito da enuncia??o (DISCINI, 2007, 2015, 2015a) e a perspectiva textual (ADAM, 2002; COUTINHO, 2002; POSSENTI, 2007), a qual ? representada por alguns estudos que apontam para a exist?ncia de uma rela??o entre texto e estilo, mas que apresentam investiga??es ainda pouco desenvolvidas sobre o tema, restringido? se a tratar da no??o de estilo, sem conceptualiz?-lo. Este trabalho, de natureza essencialmente te?rica, tem como objetivo ampliar essa discuss?o te?rica, trazendo ? luz uma outra concep??o de estilo que se encontra situada em uma abordagem espec?fica dos estudos lingu?sticos do texto: a lingu?stica textual coseriana. Nossas reflex?es s?o amparadas na separa??o que Coseriu (2007) estabelece entre os n?veis de linguagem, a saber: 1) o n?vel universal, 2) o n?vel hist?rico e 3) o n?vel individual. Segundo o autor, a lingu?stica do texto est? inserida no n?vel individual da linguagem, toma cada texto como evento ?nico e se ocupa da investiga??o da hermen?utica do sentido, o qual ? objetivado atrav?s de procedimentos textuais. Com base nesses postulados coserianos, fundamentamos nossa proposi??o de estilo: trata-se de um fen?meno situado no n?vel individual da linguagem que pode ser conceptualizado como o conjunto de procedimentos que objetivam o sentido do texto. Consideramos, portanto, que este quadro epistemol?gico constitui uma aplica??o conceitual poss?vel, atrav?s da qual pretendemos contribuir tanto para o avan?o dos debates sobre estilo, como para o desenvolvimento da lingu?stica do texto postulada por Eugenio Coseriu. / As a phenomenon investigated by linguistic-discursive studies, style has been seen under different perspectives, among which, we highlight: the perspective of language, departing from the idea of an expressive system of language to characterize it (BALLY, 1951, 1957, RIFFATERRE, 1973; MATTOSO CAMARA JR., 1972); the perspective of genres, which designates it as one of the conceptual components of discursive genre (BAKHTIN, 2011); semiotic perspective, which associates it with the construction of the ethos of the enunciator (DISCINI, 2007, 2015, 2015a) and textual perspective (ADAM, 2002, COUTINHO, 2002; POSSENTI, 2007), which is represented by studies which point to the existence of a relationship between text and style, but present investigations on the subject which are still little developed, limited to dealing with the notion of style without conceptualizing it. This work, essentially of theoretical kind, aims to broaden this theoretical discussion, bringing another conception of style into light which is situated in a specific approach of the linguistic studies of text: Coserian text linguistics. Our reflections are supported by the separation Coseriu (2007) establishes among the levels of language, namely, 1) Universal level, 2) Historical level and 3) Individual level. According to the author, text linguistics is inserted in the individual level of language, considering each text as a unique event and deals with the investigation of hermeneutics of meaning, being objectified through textual procedures. Based on these Coserian postulates, we introduce our proposition on style: it is a phenomenon situated at the individual level of language that can be conceptualized as the set of procedures that objectify the meaning of a text. We consider, therefore, that this epistemological framework constitutes a possible conceptual application, through which, we intend to contribute both to the advancement of debates on style as well as to the development of text linguistics as postulated by Eugenio Coseriu.

L’article suivant se veut un médiateur entre la linguistique systémique fonction-nelle (LSF, SFL en anglais), très répandue dans la linguistique anglophone et la théorie linguistique d’Eugenio Coseriu, mieux connue dans les études des langues romanes. Les deux théories se basent, au moins en partie, sur les concepts saussu-riens de langue et parole. Coseriu y a découvert des lacunes laissant inexpliqués certains phénomènes langagiers. A partir de ces lacunes l’article explique pour-quoi Coseriu et Elisabeth Burr propagent la nécessité d’un troisième plan linguis-tique, celui de la norme. Continuant par la reformulation des points critiques de Burr, selon lesquelles le modèle linguistique de la LSF ne dispose d’une norme ni pourrait en disposer, on étudie comment la LSF gère les lacunes saussuriennes identifiées par Coseriu. A la base de certains concepts centraux de la LSF, dont les méta-fonctions, l’instanciation et le modèle du système linguistique, on vise à montrer que le modèle linguistique de la LSF a déjà partiellement intégré des con-cepts comparables à celui de la norme, mais que la LSF pourrait aussi profiter de certaines idées développées par Coseriu. / The following article aims at mediating between Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and the linguistic theory of Eugenio Coseriu, the former well established in English linguistics, the latter better known by linguists of Romance languages. Both theories are based at least partially on the Saussurean concepts of langue and parole. Within these concepts, Coseriu has discovered certain gaps leaving unex-plained several linguistic phenomena. Taking these gaps as a starting point, the article explains why Coseriu and Elisabeth Burr advocate the necessity of a third linguistic layer, the one of the norm. Continuing by some of Burr’s claims towards SFL, according to which its linguistic model does not and will not be able to con-tain the idea of a normative layer, the article asks how SFL treats the gaps identi-fied by Coseriu. On the basis of certain key concepts of SFL, like meta-functions, instantiation and the linguistic system, the article wants to show that SFL has par-tially integrated concepts comparable to the one of norm, but that it could benefit from some aspects of Coseriu’s linguistic theory anyway.

L’article suivant se veut un médiateur entre la linguistique systémique fonctionnelle (LSF, SFL en anglais), très répandue dans la linguistique anglophone et la théorie linguistique d’Eugenio Coseriu, mieux connue dans les études des langues romanes. Les deux théories se basent, au moins en partie, sur les concepts saussuriens de langue et parole. Coseriu y a découvert des lacunes laissant inexpliqués certains phénomènes langagiers. A partir de ces lacunes l’article explique pourquoi Coseriu et Elisabeth Burr propagent la nécessité d’un troisième plan linguistique, celui de la norme. Continuant par la reformulation des points critiques de Burr, selon lesquelles le modèle linguistique de la LSF ne dispose d’une norme ni pourrait en disposer, on étudie comment la LSF gère les lacunes saussuriennes identifiées par Coseriu. A la base de certains concepts centraux de la LSF, dont les méta-fonctions, l’instanciation et le modèle du système linguistique, on vise à montrer que le modèle linguistique de la LSF a déjà partiellement intégré des concepts comparables à celui de la norme, mais que la LSF pourrait aussi profiter de certaines idées développées par Coseriu.