0163 A quick review is in order.

0164 The literary scholars in the exploratory, transnational collaborations during the so-called “Cold War” attempt to construct paradigms for language and literature compatible with the regime-promoted association between the terms, “socialist” and “scientific”.  These experts do not want their subject of study to be usurped by reductionist paradigms in the “human sciences”.  They do not want literary texts to be regarded as phenomena of a sociological, a psychological or a communication-based noumenon.

0165 They do not have Peirce’s method of diagramming relations by way of category.

So, they adopt the intellectual tools-at-hand, including Saussure’s semiology and its cohort, structuralism.  Structuralism is a thing, where {semiology as matter [substantiates] aesthetics as form}.  The problem, of course, is that aesthetics as form entangles the Marxist thing as matter. The Marxist thing?  Material arrangements as matter [substantiate] human conditions as form.

0166 But, that does not stop them.

They figure that they will have to deal with the confounding as it manifests in real time.

They are fully aware of the danger that their research aiming to satisfy the regime’s intellectual mandates may end up triggering the regime’s not-so-intellectual reactionaries.

They are heroic, in this regard.

0167 Semiotics unfolds in history.

Sign systems develop.

The timeframe has reached the 1960s through the 1980s.

0168 The Tartu-Moscow School unwittingly constellates the fundament interscope, sensibly building from Saussure’s semiology_3a to structuralism_3b, then socially constructing a disciplinary language_3c that supports models_2c that apply to the potential of observations of textual phenomena_1c.

The article under examination is devoted to this period in history.

Yet, only the transnational perspective makes it to the subtitle.

0169 At this point, I would like to go through the fundament interscope.

First, structuralism_3b situates semiology_3a.

Here is a picture.

0170 On the content level, the normal context of Saussure’s sign paradigm_3a brings the actuality of the hylomorphic dyad, {langue as matter_2am [substantiates] parole as form_2af}, into relation with the potential of ‘a signified [and] a signifier’_1a.

On the situation level, the structure (or the system associated with genre, style and so forth)_3b brings the actuality of a hylomorphic dyad, {language as matter_2bm [substantiates] a literary text as form_2bf}, into relation with the potential ‘laws of the system’_1b.

0171 This is a sensible construction.

I now ask, “Does this two-level interscope comport with the slogan that structuralism as a thing is composed of semiology as matter and aesthetics as form?”

0172 The answer must be equivocal.

On one hand, the answer is “Yes, structuralism_3b situates semiology_3b and so I could say that semiology_3a is like matter that enters into an aesthetic system_3b as a form.”

On the other hand, the answer is “No. Where in modern literature does aesthetics as form manifest a structure or system_3b?”

0173 Okay, maybe, the answer might not be equivocal.