The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Revolution in Poetic Language
Abstract
Julia Kristeva explicates her foundational distinction between the semiotic and the symbolic and explores their interrelationships. Linking the psychosomatic to the literary and the literary to a larger political horizon, she questions the premises of linguistic, psychoanalytic, philosophical, and literary theories.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Reflexive Inquiry in Organizational Research: Questions and Possibilities
Cunliffe, A. L. (2003) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/00187267030568004 · Cited by 677
(2013) · Cited by 619
Group decision‐making as a structurational process
Poole, M. S., Seibold, D. R., & McPhee, R. D. (1985) · Quarterly Journal of Speech · doi:10.1080/00335638509383719 · Cited by 349
Haraway, D. J. (2016) · Manifestly Haraway · doi:10.5749/minnesota/9780816650477.003.0001 · Cited by 339
Critical methods in International Relations: The politics of techniques, devices and acts
Aradau, C., & Huysmans, J. (2014) · European Journal of International Relations · doi:10.1177/1354066112474479 · Cited by 323
Metadata
- Authors
- Kristeva, J.
- Venue
- Columbia University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Columbia University Press
- Published
- 2024-04-19
- OpenAlex
- W1571191814
- Cited by
- 2,330
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 367.46
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Revolution in Poetic Language. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7312/kris21459
- The paper
- Kristeva, J. (2024). Revolution in Poetic Language. Columbia University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.7312/kris21459
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
