Semiotics
of Literary Titling: Three Categories of Reference Ibrahim Taha University
of Haifa Abstract The basic assumption is that a literary
title, like the body of the text, includes various historical, cultural,
biographical, literary, and stylistic signs. It may be termed the collection
point or the melting pot of different types of raw materials. It processes,
improves, and reproduces these raw materials in a certain dosage, which the
author tries to adjust to the needs of both text and reader. Accordingly, I am
referring to the relationship between the title and these factors as “mutual
incorporation” or intertextuality, based on the three
categories of reference: the title as a system of external reference,
the title as a system of self-reference, and the title as a system of internal
reference. Introduction: Between naming and
titling Any
case of naming and titling involves a purpose of identification.[1] This
purpose is essentially technical, and is based on needs and considerations
outside the named and titled object. The function of identification in such a
case is to shorten and to summarize. Instead of embarking on a lengthy account
of the main features and landmarks of 1. Who/what is entitled to a name or a title? Since
the name is given to a certain object for purposes of identification, the
bearer of the name must have a certain
importance or significance, actual or potential, and there is interest in
identifying it. Any human being must have a name by his/her definition as a
human being: a social, communicative creature. In other words, naming is a
function of communication. However, is any object entitled to a name?
Theoretically yes, but in fact only an object of significance or which fills a
special function for humans is entitled to a private name of its own. ‘Not
everything is entitled to be titled, although everything is entitled to be
named. Names can be given to anything, but titling calls for some special
acknowledgment of value or relationship. A rock is not entitled to a title
unless it is a special rock [. . .] Titles are names which have a sense; they
call for responses’ (Fisher 1984: 298-299). Here we should distinguish the
private from the collective behavior of an object. Trees as single items, with no particular
significance for humans, will probably comply with what language gives them:
“forest”, “wood”, “grove”, and so on. But if this forest as a whole, or as a
collective, carries specific significance for a group of people, it becomes
entitled to its own name. Even when a particular tree from a forest has
particular significance for a certain person, or a group of people, it too is entitled to its own
name, whether the whole forest has its own name or not. Semantically, the name
refers to any material object of any kind, but not every object is entitled to
such a name. In art in general, and in
literature in particular, matters are somewhat different. In literature we can
speak of collective behavior of texts using terminology of genre such as novel,
poetry, drama, short story, and the like. But the collective behavior of
literary texts in terms of genre does not deny the right of every literary work
to a specific title of its own. Moreover, the title of a collection of short
stories does not replace the title which every short story in this collection
is entitled to carry. This stresses the specific importance of every story as
an independent verbal statement. 2. When is a name given and when a title? In certain
cases the process of naming should be performed in advance. A daughter or a son
is named immediately after birth or maybe even before. In other cases a name
may be given to a street long after it has been paved. Whether a name is given
before or after the object comes into existence we may speak of a separation or
a detachment between the content of the name and the content of the object. You
may give your daughter the name “X” while her qualities are “Y” (Fisher 1984:
288). The name does not require anything from the object and the object does
not commit itself to fulfill the expectations aroused by the name. The naming
process becomes a function of subjective considerations that are not
necessarily related to the object itself (Levinson 1985: 38). Such
considerations may be wishes (hoping that the object will fulfill the
expectations aroused by the name) or a miming and copying of a previous name
(of a famous person, a famous object, etc.) or the qualities of the name itself
(a beautiful name, sounds nice or attractive, etc.); or perhaps the name is
random, given automatically with the sole aim of identifying the object. When
the name precedes the object, it has probably been given primarily for
identification. When the object precedes the name, various considerations
probably become more important than the technical objective of identification.
When the name has been given for identification purposes it may replaced at will.
But when the name of a literary work fills another function beyond
identification we cannot speak of a detachment of the title from the work.
First, in the case of titling a literary work the name is given only in
retrospect. Unlike names, literary titles cannot precede the work of art, as
will be shown below. 3. What is the position of the authority that gives
the name and the title? In the case of a name the one who
determines it, whether one person or a group, or a governmental, public, or
independent body, is the only authority responsible for the content of such a
name. Often the object does not take part in determining the name. When
the object does not require any consideration of its specific qualities the
chooser of the name grants himself freedom of action. The naming process allows
freedom of expression to the authority that determines the name. The titling
process demands some kind of reference to specific data of the literary work in
the choice of title. These circumstances might mislead. In the case of naming
we spoke of freedom of action, and on the other hand of determination. In the
case of titling the
opposite is true: we have commitment, and on the other hand there
is choice. In the case of naming, freedom of action means independence of the
naming authority from the named object. In the case of titling, the commitment
to refer to the data of a literary work, which is in itself
an incomplete, undefined, and unfinished object, allows the titling authority
to choose from various legitimate titles. Namely, the more undefined and
inexplicit a literary work is the more options of choice there are among
potential titles, and the more complicated the titling process becomes. In the
case of naming, the naming authority is the only authority in this process, and
in the case of titling the literary work becomes an important partner in it. If
the titling is a process of choice, we should refer to the title as suggested,
and not final, maybe even undemanding, in principle. But if the literary title is
not proposed by the author himself but by another authority, this title is not
binding, not even on the practical level of discussion, as will be shown below. 4. How do we treat the name and the title? In some
cases the name is nothing but a means. If it is only for identification
purposes it is pushed aside in the process of reference to its object. When we
refer to a certain person or street, the name is the last element considered.
In sum, the name is not an ontological part of the object itself. Usually the
name is a verbal datum while the object is made of various materials. Moreover,
the name does not have to reflect the qualities of an object, and often there
can also be a relation of contradiction between them. In the case of titling we
are speaking about one ontological identity, so the literary title is made up
of the same language as the body of the text itself (Adams 1987: 7). In the
reader’s reference to a literary work the name is the first semantic system to
greet the reader. As stated by Anne Ferry, this reader cannot but be affected
by it in some way when referring to the literary work as a whole (1996: 2).
Like naming, literary titling is also a function of communication.[2] It includes, according to
Hollander, ‘a basic designative or even ontological power’ (1975: 213). 5. What is the size of the name and
the title? Since the name is not an integral part of the body of the object it
represents, and since the name was given primarily for identification purposes,
such a name will doubtless be as short as possible. If the name is a means, this means need be
only short and restricted for this function. A short name is more easily
remembered than a long one. If the name is a means of identification it is
important for it to be easily remembered. But a literary title which is an
integral part of the body of a verbal text need not necessarily be short. If a
name can be three words at most, a title may run over two lines. The author can
afford to offer such a long title for three reasons: (a) the title is an
integral part of the written text; (b) the reading of the entire text including
the title is an act of more focused reference, through which all the verbal
data of the text can be interpreted; (c) reading does not demand intensive
memorization. The reader can refer to the title as a significant textual
element any time he/she may want to read the text. The title as a system of external reference
The literary title is undoubtedly an
ontological part of the body of the text, as will be specified later on. However,
the possibility of connecting the text itself with the extra-textual reality,
and with the reader/addressee, should be stressed. The literary title, more
than any semantic system in the text, fulfills a clearly representative role.
According to Genette, the title directs itself to
more people than the text itself (1988: 707). Levenston
discusses extensively the ability of the title to serve as a source of
contextualization of the literary text (1978: 63-87). The intertextual
context of the literary title may be reflected in various ways, which may be
classified into four major categories.
Reference to history
In
this category the literary title refers to a historical datum in some way. It
may refer to a historical or mythological character or to a certain historical
event. This may happen in all literary genres, but especially in
literary-historical work, which has a certain historical aspect. Such a title
can be primary or secondary or auxiliary. In any case, such a title has some
kind of relationship to history whether directly and explicitly or implied and
indirect. This relationship, which in literary jargon may appear in terms of intertextuality, constitutes some sort of statement about
the content of the text itself, as will be shown later on. What interests us at
this stage is the level of historical intervention as determining the meaning
of the text by means of the title. The main premise is that there is no
literary title devoid of meaning. Accordingly, the meaning of the literary
text, in whose representation the title also participates, is not unique to the
author or the text itself. The title in such a case, namely the case of
reference to history, serves as a mediator between the text and history. This
mediation directs the reader to places where the literary meaning is found. The
historical reference of such a title may definitely bear some kind of generic
character, but not necessarily. The introduction of extra-textual elements into
the specific title can usually be interpreted as an intervention in the process
of interpreting the text. The author, by introducing historical elements into
the literary text, is seen to intervene in the process of interpreting his
text. The reference to history is one of the most significant symptoms of self-interpreting,
namely the meaning given by the author to the text. When historical data appear
in the literary title they transfer some kind of meaning from the public to the
specific text, whereby the reader’s interpretive activity becomes easier. Reference
to genre The
basic assumption is that ‘different genres usually call for different
conventions of titling’ (Levin 1977: xxxvi). Another variety of titling in the intertextual context is explicit indication of the genre of
the text in a sub-title, for example, on the cover of the book (novel, short
stories, poetry, drama, autobiography, historical novel, etc.). Such a title
uses generic terminology to affect the reading and interpreting process. The
concept of genre is a historical convention whose existence precedes the
specific text (Taha 2000). Namely, the indication of
the genre as a sub-title to the text is to a certain extent an external
reference to history, which has the potential of elucidating data within the
text. The reference to genre in the literary title (or alongside the title)
first apprises the reader as to the components of the genre’s identity, so that
he can equip himself with such tools and only then start reading. When the
title equips the reader with such tools, which may affect the direction of
reading and interpretation, it is an intervening title; but no judgmental
position on this concept is adopted for the time being. Reference
to style A
variety of intertextual titles is a title that
imitates the general literary norms of the time it appears or a certain style
acceptable in a certain period. If, for instance, in a certain period long
titles with inner rhyming were considered the norm, the author may be obliged
to conform to it. The norm is in fact a function of collective behavior which
becomes an extra-textual literary convention with binding rules that the author
finds hard to ignore when titling his/her text. Convention (in literary style)
becomes an active participant in determining the text’s title and its meaning.
This partnership bites into the author’s role of titling without sharing it
with others. As the literary norm (or literary style) gnaws at the author’s
role it intervenes in the writing process as the genre intervenes in the
process of writing the text. When this happens the author may be exempted from
total and absolute responsibility for this title, which is determined in
cooperation with other factors. Namely, the author relinquishes some of his
right/duty to determine alone the meaning behind the title. Then the reading
process demands some kind of proficiency in literary conventions and in the
style prevailing during the period in which the text was written. Furthermore, the literary title may
constitute some sort of reference to other literary titles even in a
connotative way (Genette 1988: 717). It may appear in
a parodic, ironic context, or be mere imitation.
Namely, when the title constitutes a means of external reference, the type and
meaning of such a reference should be observed. A literary title that refers to
another title wishes to refer to it in terms of intertextuality,
interpreted as an invitation to a simultaneous reading of two texts or more. In
such a case the literary title serves to connect two texts or more. As such,
the literary title is seen as a textual datum located close to the
extra-textual reality, or at least located on the fringe between the text and
the past heritage of texts. In both cases we are dealing with external
reference to style. Reference to promotion Sometimes the literary title peeks beyond the
extra-textual reality for reasons of marketing and distribution. The literary
title here includes elements directed outwards in terms of arousing interest
and curiosity. Considerations of marketing and promotion underlie the interest
and the curiosity aroused by the title (al-Jazzar
1998: 7). ‘Literary titles are, after all, a form of advertising, and, assuming
the product is both distinctive and appealing, a sample can be an extremely
effective publicity device’ (Kellman 1975: 160). One
way of arousing interest and curiosity is devising an odd title. Derrida, in
his particular way, speaks about oddity of a title being capable of arousing
expectations and promising the reader/listener different things (1981: 5-6). An
odd title is a promising one. Considerations of promotion and marketing may be
reflected in a sensational and dramatic title. Employment of
such tricks in the literary title, according to Grivel
and to Hoek, express the wish of the author to
attract the attention of the reader/addressee, to appeal to him and to seduce
him more than everything else.[3] In such a case, when the
title becomes a tool of advertising and sales it may be seen as a label of
identification oriented outwards rather than inwards. The exploitation of the
position and representational power of the title is more familiar in verbal and
visual communication in various art forms. This phenomenon also exists in
literature, especially in detective, romantic, and science fiction texts and in
many texts in the post-modern era. In “canonical” literature we find various
elements and symptoms of dramatization, sense orientation, and defamiliarization, albeit at a lower frequency. I would attribute this phenomenon to the
category of external reference for two inter-related reasons. (a) Extra-textual
and extra-literary tools are used in order to directly approach a defined
target public (a specific age group: youth, for instance; a certain sex:
adolescent girls; a certain public with a specific cultural mentality:
aficionados of detective stories and science fiction; etc.). Such a title is
one of enticement and courtship. Through it the author woos a specific cohort
of readers and tempts them to buy the product. (b) True, we cannot deny such a
relationship between the title and the body of the text, but usually it is not
deep and complex. Often it remains on the technical level only, that of simple
and direct content. Those two reasons are causally and
significantly connected, in that the weakness of relationship between the title
and the body of the text results from the wish to court a certain public of
readers with extra-textual tools. For these two reasons I would rather address
this phenomenon in terms of external reference to promotion. Discussion of this
variation recalls the distinction between naming and titling. If the title
serves for external reference to promotion, and does not maintain a firm
relation with the body of the text, we may consider it in terms of naming. Such
a title seems to operate mainly on the identification level. So far I have discussed four varieties of
literary titles with the potential of external reference. In all of them the
titling process is exclusive to the author himself. Various external factors
which take part in some way in this process share the reading process with the
author. When this happens the title becomes the product of familiar
extra-textual data which are familiar and well defined. Then the reader’s
interpretation process is not dominated by the personal intentions of the
author himself, and the informed reader has no problem dealing with such a
title. No uniform or equal effect of all these four variations of external
reference is evident. Some variations deeply affect the interpretation of the
title in particular and the text in general; some exert a limited effect. In
any event, these four variations indicate some kind of attempt to open the text
so that a certain reader can use the external factors listed above to give
meaning to the title and the text without having to invest any particular
effort. I am certainly aware of the roughness involved in my explicit
statements and generalizations. However, we should bear in mind that the
discussion is in general terms, out of considerations of comparison and
relativity as will be explained in the following sections. Instead of dealing
with the private intentions of a specific author we are dealing with
extra-textual factors. The title, in all its variety, with all the differences
involved, intervenes, interprets, directs, and binds. If the title uses certain
historical data, these direct the reader to resources to aid him in
interpreting the text. If it employs generic terminology it directs him in
advance to employ certain tools to handle the text better. In all these varieties we can treat the
title in terms of intertextuality, a simple kind of intertextuality, what Genette
calls “paratextuality” (1988: 692, 695). The title as
para-text indicates a tendency to independence from
the body of the text, or partial autonomy, or a wish to maintain a limited and
technical relationship with the body of the text. When the extra-textual
factors in these varieties detach the title from the body of the text such a
title adds to various conditions that catalyze the reading and interpretation
processes available to the reader. The title, as it were, is not exactly a
textual element which, like any other textual element, also demands the
reader’s attention. Any variety of literary title, especially with external
reference, involves a certain degree of self-interpretation. The author, in
such a case, becomes the first literary critic to interpret somehow his own
text.[4] When the
interpreted title becomes an interpreting statement the author becomes a
reliable source of binding interpretation. Hirsch spoke about the need to
identify the author’s intentions within his text, so we may ask, is there a
better source than the title, as a defined system of signs and a concentration
of the author’s intentions, to depend on in the process of text interpretation? The title as a system of
self-reference Just
as the literary title can maintain a complex system of connections with
historical factors, so can it refer to private factors somehow linked with the
author’s biography, work, and style. In this category
of self-reference the job of the critic and the researcher becomes more
difficult than in the foregoing category. It is easier to identify public
factors and data than private, specific, and local ones. The direction of this
article is from the outside inwards, and from the general to the particular.
This category of self-reference can be divided into three varieties. Autobiographic
self-reference A
literary title may refer to a certain item from the biography of the author
explicitly or implicitly. The item may be a certain space in which the author
develops, a certain period in his life, a central event in his life, a
character close to him, and so on. Note that the items that can be expressed in
the title of a literary text do not necessarily mean that the text is
autobiographic. Autobiographic elements integrated in the title of the text or
in the body of the text do not change the text from fiction to history
(autobiography). It is commonly thought that in any literary text he writes the
author mixes some elements from his own biography. A title with autobiographic signs seems
to promise the reader a realistic text, or at least it looks like that, and he
should prepare himself for such a kind of literature reading. Among the tools
the reader may like to acquire for such a reading are knowledge of and
familiarity with the author’s biography. This notion may create the misleading
impression that a successful/true reading of the text demands direct and
explicit reference to this. Still, such knowledge or familiarity may indirectly
contribute to such a reading. As in the foregoing varieties, in the case of
autobiographic self-reference too we may refer to the relationship between the
literary title and data from the author’s biography in terms of intertextuality. Any reference of any kind entails a
certain intertextuality, which requires simultaneous
reading of two sources or more. Whatever the type of autobiographic element in
the title, such a title demands reading on three levels: (a) the technical
level, to acquire knowledge and information from the author’s life; (b) the
analytical level, to know how to relate this knowledge to the body of the text;
(c) the level of evaluation and judgment, to know how to use all this in order
to search for and create the general meaning of the text. This title, as
mentioned in the previous section, seems to contain two opposite things. On the
one hand it gives the reader direction, and on the other it sends him in search
of complete details in the body of the text, but more especially outside the
text (in the author’s biography). The literary title, especially such a title,
is on the edge between what is explicit and what is hinted
(Ferry 1996: 2). The main difference between such a title and another
title with external reference, as mentioned in the previous section, seems to
be that the reader in his reading process cannot disregard the historical data
ensconced in the title. Those elements can dominate the process of text interpretation,
but the self-reference type of title discussed here lets the reader easily
ignore them in the process of giving meaning to the text. The author’s
biography seems less exigent and demanding than history. Here we come to the
assumption that a self-reference title is less demanding than titles with
external reference of any kind, so it is less explicit and defined. It becomes
more doubting, and requires the reader to invest greater effort in the
interpretation process. A title with self-reference, unlike the titles
discussed before, allows the reader more independence and less attachment to
extra-textual data included in it. The textual demands are strengthened when
the extra-textual demands of the title are weakened, so the reader has to
invest more effort in the process of text interpretation. In many cases the title of a historical
novel is seemingly closer to history than the fiction, so it becomes a
historical datum presumably more than a pure textual datum. In self-reference,
however, the relation of the title to history becomes weaker and its relation
with the body of the text is strengthened. Presumably, the more detached the
title is from the extra-textual reality and the closer and more engulfed it is
in the body of the text, the more obscured it becomes and the more
interpretation possibilities occur; thus the reader’s position is strengthened. Literary
self-reference In
addition to autobiographic self-reference a literary title can refer to
previous works by the same author or to his characteristic style. The literary
self-reference of the title may be to his other titles or to complete works. It
may be reflected in recurring use of a certain style of titling. In this case
the titling process is a function of knowledge, style, education, and so on.
When the author makes extensive use of a certain style it becomes easier to
identify him by the title. The literary self-reference in one title can be
manifested in two ways: (a) reference to other titles or works; (b) general
reference to the characteristic style of the author, such as his/her tendency
to choose long titles, double titles, dramatic titles, or odd titles. It is
difficult to talk of detachment between literary works by the same author. The
author repeats himself, wittingly or not. Therefore intertextual
relationships between the title and previous texts of the author in terms of
literary self-reference can be tested. A literary title can refer to previous
works of the author while repeating a certain motif or idea which appeared in
previous writings. Some may argue that all this may be manifested in the body
of the text and not in the title. This is a logical assumption, but as
mentioned, the title, in contrast to the body of the text, is a means of
concentration and focus; this subject will be clarified later on. The title’s
being separate from the body of the text shows that it has a special position
in the process of both reading and writing. The literary title is characterized
by its ability to include numerous data in a minimum of words in an extremely
dense semantic system. Therefore, the literary title is in fact the
representative address of the entire text. It is as if the titling process is
accomplished retrospectively, only after the entire reading process is over. The
intertextual connection between the literary title
and earlier literary texts of the author can be reflected in a certain style
characteristic of the author. Just as we can speak about the “uniform” or
general style of the author, which is evident in various forms throughout his
work, we can also talk about a recurring style in titles. A style is something
undefined, hence not final. Many factors can intervene in the definition of the
author’s style and the identification of its characteristics. Some of these
factors are known to the author and the reader and some are not known to
either, not even to the author himself. The author presumably invests efforts
in determining the title of his literary work. If so, the literary title is a
summary of a thinking process involving specific considerations (related to a
specific text) and more general considerations of knowledge, education,
character, culture, economics, religion, politics, ideology, and so on. All
those considerations are reflected in the literary text especially its title. When the factors participating in the
design of the title are somewhat ambiguous, as in the case of stylistic
self-reference, the intertextual relations between
the title and various data are examined by a slow and difficult process. We may
examine the style of the author by scrutinizing his literary lexicon in several
works or in his entire work, and we can subject his title/titles to the same
scrutiny. In any case the reader must perform a so-called “preparatory reading”
of the writer’s previous work, otherwise he won’t be able to deal with the
specific title successfully. A stylistic-semantic examination of a
literary title and its intertextual relation with all
the literary titles of a certain author may be performed in various ways.
Examples are perusal of the length of the title (short or long), its components
(main title, subtitle), its syntactic type (noun phrase, verb phrase, question,
exclamation), the semantic relations among its verbal
components, the associations aroused by these components, and more. This
research method may provide certain tools for scrutinizing the matter in some
way. The title as a system of internal
reference The
foregoing sections considered the relationships between the literary title and
extra-textual factors in various fields, whether historical or personal. In
this section we deal with the complex system of relationships between the title
and the body of the text. This is the most complicated relationship and may be
the most important one among the three categories of literary titles discussed
here. ‘The important thing is not the difference of a title
from all other titles but its specific relation to the rest of the work’ (Adams
1987: 11). The literary title provides the reader
with a means of internal reference to the body of the text. This referring can
be manifested in various forms: the title can reinforce and affirm the thesis
of the text. It can add information which does not exist in the text (Levenston 1978: 65). It can focus the reader’s attention on
textual elements. It can maintain an ironic relation with the text. It can
maintain a relation of opposition and conflict with the text. Levinson places
all the possible relationships between the literary title and the body of the
text in three categories: the referential category, the interpretative
category, and the additive category.[5] We could
argue with the details of this taxonomy or we could agree with it. On one thing
we cannot agree with Levinson, the use of the term “neutrality”. A neutral
title, according to him, is a simple title automatically chosen: he mentions Moby
Dick by Melville, David Copperfield by Dickens, and Madam Bovary
by Flaubert as specific examples (1985: 34). A literary title may be simple and
automatic but it can never be neutral. Without detailing the relationships
between these titles and their text we can definitely refer to them as types of
explicatory titles carrying meanings of reinforcement, stressing, and focusing
(Kellman 1975: 160). If this is a ‘true title’, in The relationship between the literary
title and the body of the text as “mutual incorporation” is another term for intertextuality, or more precisely, intra-intertextuality. The semiotic approach of the discussion
does not allow consideration of the title as neutral, objective, or
independent. The process of text interpretation requires this type of
relationship between the title and the body of the text. ‘A title is not only a
name, it is a name for a purpose’ (Fisher 1984: 289).
If we accept this basic premise we may treat the title in terms of
hermeneutics, a change which “aids” in the interpretation of the text.[8] To
examine the importance of the title chosen by the author himself, the true
title, researchers suggest a simple exercise: to replace the true, original
title of the text by other titles and to compare them, considering the effects
on the process of text interpretation (Levinson 1985: 34). To examine the
importance of the literary title I would suggest removing the title, presenting
the text without a title, and asking the readers to propose their own titles
without knowing of the existence of the true title so as not to be influenced
by it. Then those suggestions could be stated against the true title and their
effects on the process of text interpretation. This method would demonstrate
how the absence of the true title may damage the process of reading and
interpreting the text. The process of reading a literary text without an
original title is similar, to a certain extent, to the wandering of a tourist
abroad without a guide.[9] Even if this guide is very inept he can make
the tourist feel safer, he can make her feel there is someone to turn to in
case of need. The guide fosters feelings that there is some kind of authority
to take responsibility and that there is backing. Beyond such feelings,
experience shows that many literary texts published without an original title
“leave” the reader with the difficulty attempting to find their meaning. The exercise proposed here raises
thoughts concerning the raw materials composing the literary title. Can a title
such as 3X/Y4 be given to a text? Theoretically it can. So why do not
authors dare to give such a title to their works? Incidentally, I have nothing
against such a title, although a word-based work “prefers” a suitable
word-based title.[10] Or is
this assumption nothing but the product of habit and tradition? Still, if the
above title is integrated in the general meaning of the literary text it is
legitimate and acceptable, except that such a title was not meant to fulfill a
function of identification. Conclusion First,
the title of a literary text is a textual datum; and both text and title
undergo similar processes. But the literary title acquires its unique quality
by being separated from the body of the text. This separation is not merely a
formal one, namely just meant to serve the purposes of marketing and
identification. This is one of the main differences between the name of a
certain product/object and the literary title, as mentioned in the introduction
to this article. The locational separation between
the title and the literary text reinforces and stresses the status of the title
versus the body of the text. The emphasis on this special location encourages
the researcher to discuss all the aspects of a literary title, even if the
separation itself is not a necessary condition of this discussion. Various
textual data in the body of the text stimulate long, profound, and intriguing
discussions. The separation from the body of the text allows the title to serve
as the essence or the heading, while the body of the text serves for detailing.
In addition, this separation introduces logical order in the general structure
of the text: it directs the process of reading from concise forms to detailed
forms, then back to more concise ones. If the literary title sometimes functions
like this conclusion to the article, it is vital to consider the contribution
of the literary title to the process of text interpretation, the nature of this
contribution, and the need for such a contribution. Just as we may question the
need for this conclusion, and of other summaries too, the researcher is
entitled to doubt the need for a literary title, should it replicate the role
of the summary. Is there any need, in the post-modern era, for this kind of
service by the title, as set out in the body of this article? This is a
legitimate question in principle. But if the title exists, it must acquire some
semiotic character.
The basic assumption is that a literary title, like the body of the
text, includes various historical, cultural, biographical, literary, and stylistic
considerations. It may be termed the collection point or the melting pot of
different types of raw materials. It processes, improves, and reproduces these
raw materials in a certain dosage, which the author tries to adjust to the
needs of both text and reader. Accordingly, I have referred to the relationship
between the title and these factors as “mutual incorporation” or intertextuality, based on the three categories of reference
described. References Adams, H. 1987. Titles, titling, and entitlement to. Journal
of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 46: 7-21. Al-Jazzar, M.F. 1998. Title and Semiotics of Literary Communication.
Cohen, J. 1985. Structure
du Langage Poétique,
trans. by Ahmad Darwish. Derrida, J. 1981. Title
(to be specified). Sub-Stance 31: 5-22. Ferry, A. (1996). The Title to the Poem.
Fisher, J. 1984. Entitling.
Critical Inquiry 11: 286-298. Genette, G. 1988. Structure and functions
of the title in literature. Critical Inquiry 14: 692-720. Hamdawi, J. 1997. Semiotics and Titling.
‘Alam al-Fikr 3/25:
79-112. (Arabic) Hollander, J. 1975. Vision and Resonance: Two Senses Poetic Form. Kellman, S. 1975. Dropping names: The poetics of titling. Criticism
17: 152-167. Levenston, E.A. 1978. The significance of the
title in lyric poetry. Levin, H. 1977. The
title as a literary genre. Modern Language Review 72:
xxiii-xxxvi. Levinson, J. 1985. Titles.
The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 44: 29-39. Potter, T.M. 1999. “Si
Mohammes!”: Names as Address
Forms in Moroccan Arabic. Names: A Journal of Onomastics
47/2: 157-172. Taha, Endnotes [1].
A proper name, according to Terrence Potter, functions “as a form of address.
[. . .] An address form is a vocative used to call or to secure the attention
of an addressee. Putting a name to such use is highly
context-dependent communicative behavior” (Potter 1999: 157). [2].
Genette stresses this communicative nature as
follows; “As in the case of any instance of communication, the title at the
least is composed of a message (the title itself), a ‘destinateur,’
and an intended recipient” (1988: 705-706).
[3].
According to Charles Grivel, a literary title may
have three major functions, “first, identify the work; second, designate its
content; third, highlight it”. Hoek formulates these
functions integrating them into his inclusive definition of the title as
follows: “A series of linguistic signs which can appear at the head of a text
to designate it, to indicate its general content and to appeal to the public
aimed it” (Quoted by Genette 1988: 708). [4].
“When settling on such titles [La Chute, a novel by Camus], authors are functioning no differently than
literary critics. They are talking about the work,
signaling its major themes and emphases” (Kellman
1975: 155). [5].
“Referential titles are simply those which serve to label their bearers and
facilitate intercourse with them, and which do not introduce any perturbations
into the arena of meaning. Interpretive titles, as one might imagine, serve to
announce or support an interpretation of the work as a whole, in a fairly sharp
and central way. Additive titles are those which contribute
to meaning in virtue of being elements which a comprehensive assessment of the
work cannot ignore, but without declaring interpretations themselves or
providing the keynotes of such” (Levinson 1985: 37). In addition to Levinsons’
tripartite division of titles, there are various divisions and classifications
of titles. See, for instance, Genettes’ and Levenstons’ divisions into four types (1988: 712-713; 1978:
64). [6].
“Titles [according to Fisher] do identify in representational portraiture,
and, in so doing, they say something about the work as well as the alleged
sitter or the intention of the artist” (Fisher 1984: 292). [7].
Jerrold Levinson refers to this function of the literary title using the term
focusing: “What a
focusing title does is select from among the mainelements
of core content one theme to stand as the leading one of the work. […] What a
focusing title does then is suggest which of the contending themes should be
given center place in interpreting the work and organizing one’s appreciation
of it” (1985: 35). [8].
“The unique purpose of titling [According to Fisher] is hermeneutical: titles
are names which function as guides to interpretation” (1984: 288). “Titles in such circumstances serve as presumptive guides to
perception of a certain sort” (Levinson 1985: 30). [9].
Robert Ricatte stresses this function using an
interesting simile, “A title is needed, because the title is a sort of flag
toward which one directs oneself. The goal is then to explain
the title” (Quoted by Genette 1988: 701). [10].
“It is important to note before proceeding that titles, whatever role they
play, are always in words. They are never in patches of color or in nonverbal
noises; and even if the words are words for numbers, they are yet words. They
may be grammatically precise. They may be fragments. They may be comprehensible
or incomprehensible, but titles are given in a language spoken by persons in
discourse. They are names. A name is the verbal expression
which we assign to something to which we wish to refer repeatedly” (Fisher
1984: 287).  E-mail the editors Pour écrire à la rédaction © 2009, Applied Semiotics / Sémiotique appliquée |