Abstract

The fundamental issues raised by Gertrude Stein in her "radical language experiment" bear a remarkable resemblance to the problems posed by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his later philosophy of language . Wittgenstein's philosophy is an important meta-view infusing our perception of modern and postmodern literature with his contention that philosophy is concerned most centrally with the description of the use of language, his notion of language as practice. Stein was the first writer who fully incorporated the idea of universal indeterminacy into her work. Carefully utilizing such stylistic devices as repetition, her exploitation of both the axis of selection and that of combination, and rejection of logical relations and formal systems, she questioned traditional notions of meaning-making. She accepted readily the vagueness of meaning inherent in language, and by molding language through associative meaning and context, she set stage for much of the writing that we now call post-modern. For Stein meaning arises not in terms of rules of interpretation, but in ways in which language is used: in the form of her composition. ;This dissertation examines ways in which exploring connections between the work of the two can refine our understanding of each in turn. In the context of a general introduction to the conceptual connections between Stein and Wittgenstein, Chapter I concludes with a presentation of the key biblio-bigraphical facts about the careers of both and rejection of any possible direct contact or influence. Chapter II focuses on the related biographical connections of Stein and conceptual connections of Wittgenstein to Pragmatism and the ways in which relations can be demonstrated between the ideas of all three. In Chapters III, IV and V, stressing intertextuality rather than indebtedness, I give close readings of the work of Stein and Wittgenstein, identifying the major contentions that they share, and showing how Stein's creative works put Wittgensteinian theories into practice. Throughout, my major concern will be to demonstrate how connections between the two writers can help to clarify our understanding of each and enable us to appreciate their mutual contributions to notions in the philosophy of language