Cover not available
Part of
Literature as Dialogue: Invitations offered and negotiated
Edited by Roger D. Sell
[Dialogue Studies 22] 2014
► pp. 79–98

Misunderstanding and embodied communication

The Comedy of Errors

Published online: 7 August 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.22.04cas
References (27)
References
Austin, John L. 1975. How to Do Things With Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanchot, Maurice. 1989. The Space of Literature. Lincoln, NE: Uniersity of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Castore, Antonio. 2011. Il dialogo spezzato. Forme dell' incomprensione in letteratura. Pisa: Pacini Editore.Google Scholar
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. 1960. Shakespearean Criticism: in Two Volumes. Thomas Middleton Raysor (ed). London: Dent.Google Scholar
Crane, Mary Thomas. 2000. Shakespeare’s Brain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Donawerth, Jane. 1984. Shakespeare and the Sixteenth-century Study of Language. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Dorsch, T.S. and King, Ros (eds). 2004. The Comedy of Errors. 2 ed. Cambrige: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elam, Keir. 1984. Shakespeare’s Universe of Discourse: Language-Games in the Comedies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michail. 2001. Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Freedman, Barbara. 1997. “Reading Errantly: Misrecognition and the Uncanny in the Comedy of Errors .” In The Comedy of Errors: Critical Essays, Robert S. Miola (ed), 261-298. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. 1916. Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious. New York: Moffat, Yard & Co.Google Scholar
Frye, Northrop. 1965. A Natural Perspective: The Development of Shakespearean Comedy and Romance. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen. 2005. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rasch, William. 1992. “Injecting Noise into the System: Hermeneutics and the Necessity of Misunderstanding.” Substance 21 (1): 61-76 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pandit, Lalita. 2006. “Emotion, Perception and Anagnorisis in The Comedy of Errors: A Cognitive Perspective.” College Literature 33: 94-126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pandit, Lalita, and Patrick Colm Hogan. 2006. “Introduction: Morsels and Modules: On Embodying Cognition in Shakespeare’s Plays.” College Literature 33: 1-13.3 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sell, Roger D. 2000. Literature as Communication: The Foundations of Mediating Criticism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Communicational Criticism: Studies in Literature As Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shakespeare, William. 2005. The Comedy of Errors . In The Oxford Shakespeare: The Complete Works. Stanley Wells, Gary Taylor (eds). 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deidre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Language and Thought). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1987. That’s Not What I Meant: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others. London: Everyman.Google Scholar
. 1990. You just don’t understand : Women and men in conversation. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Taylor, Talbot J. 1992. Mutual Misunderstanding: Scepticism and the Theorizing of Language and Interpretation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wehrs, Donald R. 2006. “Moral Physiology, Ethical Prototypes, and the Denaturing of Sense in Shakespearean Tragedy.” College Literature 33: 67-92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 1999. “Misunderstanding: The standard case.” Journal of Pragmatics 31 (6):763-785. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar