• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Literary Writing and Linguistic Disalienation

    2017-03-11 05:55:24AugustoPonzio
    Language and Semiotic Studies 2017年1期

    Augusto Ponzio

    The University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy

    Literary Writing and Linguistic Disalienation

    Augusto Ponzio

    The University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy

    In Geogre Orwell’s1984(1948), literary writing is the last stronghold against “Newspeak”where the latter represents the limit point of the hypothesis concerning the homologation of reality. In a homologated world everything is subject to control by those responsible for social planning, consequently for communication-production in a world where the nonfunctional and the superfluous have been eliminated. But Newspeak can translate anything except for Shakespeare, Swift, Sterne…in other words, literature. So it will only enter into force and become law in 2050.

    In hisLezioni Americane(Six Memos for the Next Millenium, 1988), the Italian writer Italo Calvino (1923-1985) considers the gaze of literature as the “possibility of health” against the “pestilence” that has struck the human race in its most distinctive faculty. A “plague in language” which manifests itself as homologation, automatism, levelling, not only of verbal expression, but also of life itself and even of the imagination and of desire: “At this point, I don’t wish to dwell upon the possible sources of this epidemic, whether they are to be sought in politics, ideology, beaurocratic uniformity, the monotony of mass-media, or the way the schools dispense the culture of the mediocre. What interests me are the possibilities of health. Literature, and perhaps literature alone, can create the antibodies to fight this plague in language”.

    Literary writing disalienates language which is generally compromised by the “Order of discourse”, made functional to dominant communication and reduced therefore to the mere status of “communicative language”.

    Literature enables us to see in verbal language what in the direct word of verbal language is not possible to capture: that is, theotherword, not only the word of the other, but also the other voices that resound in the word of the “same” subject.

    alienation/disalienation, direct/indirect word, functionality/nonfunctionality, order of discourse, voiceHow does literary writing look at things?—With an indirect gaze, from the corner of the eye. This means that literary language can use language to exit the boundaries of the world that language converges with, the sphere of being, the order of discourse, ontology:“Trasumanar” (to go beyond the human, to render the human superhuman, to push the human to the highest)per verba; even if “Trasumanar significarper verba/ Non si porìa”(Totrasumanar[to go beyond the human] with words / Isn’t really possible) (Alighieri, 1980, “Paradiso” 1.67-1.70).

    Using language to stay outside language thanks to the indirect gaze of literature, this“antigrammatical enterprise” (Artaud, 1989) in the face of language (historical natural language) and its ontology, confers a subversive character on literary writing: “non suspect subversion” (Jabès, 1982).

    The person who presents himself with his own word, a direct word, is a publicist, moralist, scholar, etc., but not awriter. “A writer can write nothing in his own name”(Bakhtin, 1970-71, p. 367). In literary writing theotheris at the beginning of the movement of its constitution. The position that gives rise to literary writing is not the I, the self, but the other. And the artwork characterizes itself asotherwith respect to its author even. What makes the literary artwork valid in literary terms is its alterity, its irreducibility to the subject that produced it, its autonomy, completeness and closure to projects related to the economy of the subject, to the unitary history of an I, from which that artwork is released. Literary writing renders the subject “transcendent”, “transgredient”, as Bakhtin (ibid.) says, with respect to the logic of identity, homologation, unitariness, monologism and coherence.

    The indirect vision of literary writing puts us in a position to see and to depict what escapes the direct gaze which is far too exposed and vulnerable. Edgar Allan Poe says as much through Auguste Dupin. To look directly compromises our visual capacity. To look at a star from the corner of the eye, which is more sensitive to the weaker impressions of light (because of a greater concentration of retinal rods), allows us to contemplate that star distinctly, to appreciate the luminosity, to gain a more refined impression of it.

    In hisLezioni Americane(Six Memos for the Next Millenium, 1988) the Italian writer Italo Calvino (1923-1985), in the section entitled “Exactitude,” describes the gaze of literature as the “possibility of health” against the “pestilence” that has struck the human race in its most distinctive faculty. A “plague in language” which manifests itself as homologation, automatism, levelling, not only of verbal expression, but also of life itself and even of the imagination and of desire: “At this point, I don’t wish to dwell upon the possible sources of this epidemic, whether they are to be sought in politics, ideology, beaurocratic uniformity, the monotony of mass-media, or the way the schools dispense the culture of the mediocre. What interests me are the possibilities of health. Literature, and perhaps literature alone, can create the antibodies to fight this plague in language”(Calvino, 1988, Eng. trans., p. 56).

    And how? Doing what Perseus did, the “l(fā)ight hero” who, in the myth, conquers Medusa, the monster whose stare has the power to petrify, turn into stone. Perseus neithergazes at the Gorgon directly, nor does he avoid her and turn his gaze away. Instead, he gazes at Medusaindirectly. He “does not turn his gaze upon the face of the Gorgon but only upon her image reflected in his bronze shield” (ibid., p. 4). Literary writing can defend itself from the petrification of reality, because the gaze of literature is an indirect gaze.

    In George Orwell’s novel,1984, literary writing is the last stronghold against“Newspeak”. Newspeak is the extreme expression of homologated reality as described in this novel, where everything is subject to control by those who plan the social reproduction system, so-called “communication-production” (Ponzio & Petrilli, 2005b, pp. 517-533). In this system the nonfunctional and the superfluous are eliminated. But Newspeak can translate anything except for Shakespeare, Swift, Sterne... in other words, literature. So its official inauguration has been deferred as far as to 2050.

    For writing to acquire literary value, for it to become a literary work, the word must give itself as anobjectified word, a word that is distanced, depicted as other with respect to the author, and not as anobjective word, a direct word.

    In the literary work the author is always outside his own word. The author can be traced but in the form of depiction. In the literary artwork the author is other, objectified. He becomes an extralocalized viewpoint, part of the construction of exotopic interpretants, of the “form” of the literary text. He cannot be traced in terms of the author external to the text, to the literary writing forming that text, as the pure author, the primary author, the man-author. A one-voiced, direct utterance, devoid of objectification, depiction, distancing, otherness, is useless on the literary level.

    Unlike direct and indirect discourse, in free indirect discourse (present above all in the novel, but traceable also, for example with reference to Italian literature, in Dante Alighieri’sLa Divina Commediaand inL’Orlando Furiosoby Ludovico Ariosto) the author’s discourse is contaminated. The character’s discourse and point of view enter free indirect discourse, and their “voices” can be heard in free indirect discourse: the word becomes double-voiced, internally dialogical or polylogical.

    And this is not insignificant. Free indirect discourse is not only a sign that indicates, but also a practice that calls to issue the Subject and Identity, Monologism, Objectivity, Meaning, Power, connected to it.

    According to Pier Paolo Pasolini (1972) the essential characteristic of the photographic image in contemporary cinema, “cinema of poetry”, precisely, is that it is neither objective (vision external to the character) corresponding to indirect discourse, nor subjective (the character’s vision) corresponding to direct discourse. Rather it is semi-objective. Similarly to free indirect discourse, the photographic image in “cinema of poetry” presents two points of view which are not melded into each other, but instead are dialogically interactive and dissymmetrical. Pasolini (ibid., p. 177) calls this “free indirect subjectivity”. Gilles Deleuze (1984) takes up the idea of the free indirect as an essential form in the new novel and new cinema and assesses the role of “free indirect subjectivity” in Pasolini’s own films. He evidences the effect of contamination in the permutation of the trivial and thenoble, in the excremental and in the beautiful, in the low and in the sacred, in everyday life and in myth.

    A “writer”, says Bakhtin (1979, It. trans., p. 229) is he who knows how to work on language while remaining outside it, he who possesses the gift of indirect speaking. As a primary author, as an author-man, the writer says nothing. In the literary work, the primary author dresses in silence (ibid., p. 367), and silence takes different forms, from parody to irony, to allegory, etc.

    Silence in writing eludes sense; it subverts not the content but the practice itself of sense. Silence shifts the practice of signification, and it withdraws signifiers from customary interpretive routes; it uses verbal language in such a way that it does not find compensation in an objective, a goal, does not find justification in a function.

    Silence is not at the service of the order of discourse, it is not functional to the production of meaning. Silence, instead, has a characteristic that Maurice Blanchot attributes to the “other night”, that ofnot serving the productivity of the day.

    Silence is not refusal of verbal language, but withdrawal from the use of language for the sake of identity. Silence alludes to indirect speaking, the distanced word, the ironical word, parody, laughter. As Kierkegaard, theoretician of the indirect word observes, the direct word, the objective word is not concerned with otherness, with the word that is other with respect to oneself. The direct word is not interested in the otherness of the subject who deludes himself that he is objectivated in it, nor is it interested in the otherness of the interlocutor if not to transcend the latter, inglobe the latter, assimilate him; this word pays attention to itself alone and consequently, as Soeren Kierkegaard says, it does not properly constitute a form of communication, or we could say that it is communication that imposes quietness.

    The silence of literary writing, insofar as it is indirect writing, is that action ofglissementon language that Roland Barthes (1978) considers proper to the writer. And suchglissementcan take different forms of expression, different forms of reduced laughter (irony), as Bakhtin (1970-71) says, allegory, etc.

    The possibilities of this practice of silence in the face of quietness as the dominant form of communication in today’s world are analyzed very clearly by Pasolini in a text titledIl romanzo delle stragi(The novel of massacres, in PasoliniScritti corsari, 1975). This text begins from silence with an “I know”. This knowledge comes from his being a writer, an inventor of stories, a novelist

    who tries to keep track of all that is happening, to know about everything that is written about it, to imagine all that we don’t know and that is silenced; who associates facts that may be even distant from each other, who puts together pieces that are disorganised and fragmentary into a complete and coherent political framework, who reestablishes logic where arbitrariness, madness and mystery seemed to reign. All this belongs to the craft and instinct of my profession. (Pasolini, 1975, p. 89)

    This is knowledge without proof or clues, which as such can denounce, accuse, but without any power; that can denounce and accusebecauseit is not compromised in the practice of power, because it is outside politics, but precisely because of this, it is not the Knowledge of proof and clues and it does not have any power, and is not on the side of power. And yet, even without power, indeed precisely because of this, the indirect word of literature, this form of silence, allusive, parodical, ironical silence, this form of laughter, is perhaps that which today asserts the rights of otherness more than anything else, against homologation and leveling with identity and communication reduced to quietude, to muteness.

    As Maurice Blanchot (1959) says evoking Stéphane Mallarmé, the work is created once the author of that work disappears, with the absence of the writer-man, with omission of the self, with a form of death connected with writing. Death of the subject that speaks in order to possess, achieve, be enabled, in order to judge and to teach. Literary language relates the subject to that which is other with respect to that subject’s own self, to the other which is not part of the objective word through which that subject is constructed and with which it identifies, to the other irreducible to the horizon of Being, to the horizon of the possibilities of the Same and of the Totality, as Emmanuel Levinas would say: otherness beyond ontology, knowing and truth, beyond the totality, the objective word, beyond the utility, the functionality of equal exchange economy, the power of language.

    To take the point of view of literary writing means to give up presupposing a subject who is always ready to answer for his or her own word, who is always ready to justify it and explain it. Literary writing puts into crisis the right of ownership over the word and the category itself of the subject.

    Literature, above all in certain genres and in certain works, deconstructs the self; it implies the capacity for self-distancing, self-irony, disengagement with respect to the edifying word, the authoritative, unilaterally ideological word. And even when literature tries to forget its nonfunctionality and engages in political and social action, this too is accomplished in the form of disengagement if the text is not reduced to the status of a pamphlet for political propaganda, of a sociological study, but instead perseveres as a literary work. In this case the action becomes literary (Blanchot, 1981, It. trans., p. 70). In texts that do not belong to literary writing, coherence, textual cohesion not only concern the written text, but also involve the nonwritten text, the text that is the “author”, the text that answers for the written text, that must “account for” the written text. In this case, a connection is assumed between these two texts, such that they form a sort of “macrotext”, accounted for by the same I.

    The literary text withdraws from participation in the macrotext of the writer as a subject. In literary writing discourse, in this case discourses, can no longer be attributed to a single I. There is no I as a fixed referent, as in implicit interpretant, as an owner of what is said and of the style it is said in. Not only does the writer of literature not answer for the contents, for the ideas expressed in the artwork, but these ideas andcontents belong to different subjects, different points of view, to the character, narrator, self of the lyrical composition. Nor does the style belong to the writer either. He speaks differently according to the literary genres he uses, according to the characters, their social position and vision of the world, according to how he imagines what the narrator would speak, etc. Literature frees the objective word from roles: the writer speaks now like a father, now like a husband, now like a middle-class person, like a political leader, a man of religion, a teacher, an intellectual, without being a father, a lover, a middleclass person, a politcal leader... or an intellectual; in literary writing, the author does not write according to his role, his social position, as a subject outside writing, literary writing. As Bakhtin says (1970-71): the writer does not have a style of his own. He stages styles and discourses, pictures them, objectifives them, without ever identifying with any of them. The subjects that are made to speak by the author all have a style of their own and are in situations of their own: they are appropriate to a given situation, they are coherent with it, they are situated; instead the writer does not have a style or a situation.

    To speak with reserve, to assume a position, to stylize or parody: all this stops us from getting trapped in the order of discourse, in the roles, styles, communicative situations foreseen and predetermined by it. Literature cheats verbal language, it defrauds the discourse of identity, difference, roles. To cheat with language (Barthes, 1978), this playing with signs, cheating signs, is the irony of literary writing. Bakhtin describes such play as a form of silence, a way of silencing dominant discourse, of defending oneself from the deafening noise that covers the multiple voices, voices that are incoherent, contradictory, and channels them into monological discourse that unifies them into an identity, whether individual or collective, and obliges them to recount themselves according to a single sense, a single story, to find a place in a unitary macrotext.

    Similar to art in general, literary writing is disengaged thanks to its otherness, to the autonomy of the artwork with respect to the author, thanks to the artwork’s capacity to supercede the historical-biographical and historical-social boundaries in which it was produced, to its capacity for excess with respect to any goal or function attributed to it. Much as the author may wish to engage, disengagement of the artwork is inevitable. The artwork is essentially disengaged (Levinas, 1948). This is what Blanchot (1955) calls“the essential solitude of the artwork”. At the origin of the artwork there is its absence, its separation from the author, its inevitable distancing, autonomy, alterity. This origin is that which is essential in the artwork, its central point.

    Disengagement of the artwork, in literature as in art in general, has nothing to do with the aesthetics of art for art’s sake. In his paper of 1919, “Art and Answerability”(in Bakhtin, 1990; Russian original and Italian translation in Bachtin e il suo Circolo, 2014), the first text ever published by Bakhtin that we know of—through all his works he insisted on the indissoluble connection between art and alterity, art and otherness—, he already presents the difficult identification between disengagement and unlimitedresponsibility. In other words, Bakhtin evidences a relation of mutual implication between the artwork’s disengagement andresponsibility that is not limited by given conventions.

    If when man is in art he is outside life, and vice versa, if therefore there is no connection between art and life in the unity of the subject, Bakhtin asks himself what connects them?

    He responds that the connection is given by the unity of responsibility. The movement towards the other, proper to the artwork, that art has enabled, must not remain as an experience internal to art as a separate sphere, but it must be extended to life. Living itself must keep account of opening towards otherness, as in the artwork, and tend to become anartworkitself. As Bakhtin says:

    I must answer with all my life for what I experience and understand in art so that all that has been experienced and understood does not remain inactive. But responsibility is also associated with guilt. Life and art must not only be mutually responsible for each other, but they must also carry each other’s guilt. The poet must remember that his poetry is responsible for the vulgar prose of life, while the common man must know that his lack of aspirations and his foolishness as to the problems of life are responsible for the sterility of art. […] Art and life are not the same thing, but they must become all one in my own self, in the unity of my responsibility. (Bakhtin, 1979, It. trans., pp. 3-4, see Note 1, below)

    Responsibility of the artwork, due to its original movement towards otherness, contrasts with the aesthetics of art for art’s sake, which Levinas (1948, It. trans., p. 176) considers a false formula to the extent that it puts art above reality and frees it from any form of dependency; immoral to the extent that it frees the artist from his duties as a human being and ensures him an easy and pretentious nobility.

    The artwork’s distancing from the subject, its exit from the sphere of thesame—both from the sphere of the single subject-author and from the whole social context where this unreversible movement towards theotheris produced—establishes a relation between art and responsibility.

    This is a different type of responsibility from the juridical or from the moral, relatively to a “good conscience” and compliance to an ethical norm or political program.

    The subject answers for himself according to these different types of responsibility, and this “answering for” is internal to the sphere in question, and it is relative to a given code, to given duties, to a given contract, role or law.

    Instead, concerning the type of responsibility which involves art, this is not a question of answering for self, but for theother. Responsibility for the other supercedes limits of individual responsibility, responsibility of the ethical-normative, juridical and political orders; it supercedes the laws of equal exchange, functions fixed by roles and social position, distinctions sanctioned by the law among individual identities, each with its own sphere of freedom and imputability. The artwork’s disengagement does not contradictunlimited responsibility, but on the contrary presents itself as the condition of unlimited responsibility, responsibility without alibis towards the other.

    Literature enables us to see in verbal language that which we cannot perceive in the direct word, the objective word: that is, the word that is other, not only the word of another person, but also the other voices that resound in the word of the “same” subject.

    Writing, as it results from1984, has a force of its own, a capacity for resistance as well as a capacity to demolish the discourse of power, that is, discourse that generates guilt, the guiltiness of the person who receives it. Writing as a contestational practice, a special standpoint in relation to the Order of Discourse, offers spaces for evasion and escape despite “closure of the universe of discourse” (Marcuse, 1964).

    In the socio-political system described by Orwell in1984, the death penalty is foreseen for anybody who practices literary writing, intransitive writing, nonfunctional, unproductive and therefore “perverse” writing.

    Alterity and the impossibility to assimilate literary writing make them intolerable to the discourse of power: perversion of literary writing and perversion of erotism, perversion of what is nonfunctional and unproductive and therefore cannot be integrated into the system: this is what makes the two protagonists from1984, Winston and Julia, guilty and condemns them.

    1984presents an unhumanreality, if we consider excess—the surplus, the useless—as that which characterises the properly human. Human need cannot be separated from desire, and if needs and desires are kept distinct, this occurs in a world of exploitation and dominion (dominion over others and over onself). Reality in1984is far too unhuman to be “verisimilar”. But this is the typical non-verisimilarity of narrative experimentation in the novel genre.

    From this there also ensues the hypothesis of the system of language, the New language, described in the appendix to1984: indeed Newspeak represents the limit point of the hypothesis of a reality in which the nonfunctional and the superfluous have been eliminated. It is not incidental that this new language will only be fully adopted as late as the year 2050. Otherwise, Julia and Winston could not have been what they are: the new language in fact foresees total subservience to official language, cancellation of all residues and excesses, of all alterities with respect to the Order of Discourse.

    On the basis of what we have said so far, the characteristics of Newspeak are easily imagined: univocality, monologism, subservience of the signifier to a preestablished meaning, elimination of meanings that are heterodox and in any case secondary, reduction to a minimum in the choice of words, reduction of vocabulary to the essential, homologation of morphological and syntactical rules, absence of irregularities and exceptions. “All ambiguities and shades of meaning had be purged out of them [...]. It would have been quite impossible to use the A Vocabulary for literary purposes or for political or for philosophical discussion [...]”. In this language there is no room for the expression of desire and jouissance, enjoyment; the body is interdicted: “His sexual life, for example, was entirely regulated by two Newspeak words: SEXCRIME (sexualimmorality) and GOODSEX (chastity). SEXCRIME covered all sexual misdeeds whatever. [...] and, in addition, normal intercourse practised for its own sake” (Orwell, 1948, pp. 384-385).

    What is the most difficult thing to translate into this language when a question of works from the past? Obviously, literary writing: Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, Byron, Dickens... literary authors all cited by Orwell as exemplification. It was primarily in order to allow time for this work of translation, and this is how the novel concludes, that the final adoption of Newspeak had been fixed at so late a date as 2050, distant from 1948, the year the book was written, distant from 1984, the year of Julia’s and Wilson’s story, and distant from us too in 2016.

    What does1984tell us with this extreme hypothesis of a language that has eliminated excess, otherness, imagination, desire, nonfunctionality, therefore literary language, with the elimination of plurivocality, plurilogism, pluridiscursivity?

    We could respond with Giacomo Leopardi who (like many others in the history of ideas) had already reflected on such a hypothesis in hisZibaldonewhen he stated that such a language is necessarily by its very nature the most enslaved, poor, timid, monotonous, uniform, arid and ugly, the most incapable of beauty, the most improper to the imagination, the least dependent upon the imagination, the most separate from it, the most inanimate and dead language ever that anybody could conceive; a skeleton, the shadow of a language more than well and truly a language, not really a live language as much as it may be written and universally understood by all. And despite the desperate condition of humanity, Leopardi concludes this passage by expressing his hope, but also his conviction that humanity will never be enslaved by the geometry of life, and with the prediction that humanity will never be completely geometrized, that is, it will never be entirely reduced to a geometrical schema (see Giacomo Leopardi,Zibaldone, 23 agosto 1823, see Note 2, below).

    Translation from Italian by Susan Petrilli

    Notes

    1 Di ciò che ho vissuto e compreso nell’arte devo rispondere con tutta la mia vita affinché tutto ciò che è stato vissuto e compreso non rimanga in essa inattivo. Ma alla responsabilità è legata anche la colpa. La vita e l’arte non devono avere soltanto responsabilità reciproca, ma anche colpa l’una per l’altra. Il poeta deve ricordare che della prosa volgare della vita è colpevole la sua poesia, mentre l’uomo comune bisogna che sappia che della sterilità dell’arte è colpevole la sua carenza di aspirazioni e la sua mancanza di serietà nei problemi della vita. [...] L’arte e la vita non sono una cosa sola, ma devono diventare in me un tutt’uno, nell’unità della mia responsabilità. (Bakhtin, 1919, Russian original and It. trans. in Bachtin e il suo Circolo, 2014, pp. 28-31)

    2 Una lingua del genere, qualunque ella mai si fosse, dovrebbe certamente essere di necessità e per sua natura, la più schiava, povera, timida, monotona, uniforme, arida e brutta lingua, lapiù incapace di ogni genere di bellezza, la più impropria all’immaginazione, e la meno da lei dipendente, anzi la più di lei per ogni verso disgiunta, la più esangue e inanimata e morta, che mai si possa concepire; uno scheletro, un’ombra di lingua piuttosto che lingua veramente una lingua non viva, quando pur fosse da tutti scritta e universalmente intesa; anzi più morta assai di qualsivoglia lingua, che più non si parli o scriva. Ma si può sperare che perché gli uomini siano già fatti, generalmente, sudditi infermi, impotenti, inerti, avviliti, languidi e miseri della ragione, ei non diverranno però mai schiavi moribondi e incatenati della geometria. E quanto a questa parte di una qualunque lingua strettamente universale, si può non tanto sperare, ma fermamente e sicuramente predire che il mondo non sarà mai geometrizzato. (Giacomo Leopardi,Zibaldone, 23 agosto 1823)

    Alighieri, D. (1980 [1304-1321]).La divina commedia(C. Salinari, S. Romagnoli, & A. Lanza, Ed.). Rome: Editori Riuniti.

    Ariosto, L. (1990 [1532]).L’Orlando furioso(N. Zingarelli, Ed.). Milan: Hoepli.

    Artaud, A. (1988).L’arve e l’aume, avec 24 lettres a M. Baberzat. Paris: L’Arbalète; It. trans. by L. Feroldi, in A. Artaud,Il sistema della crudeltà. Milan: Mimesis, 1989, pp. 11-19.

    Bachtin e il suo Circolo (2014).Opere 1919-1930, bilingual Russian-Italian ed. and intro. by Augusto Ponzio, trans. (in collab. with Luciano Ponzio). Milan: Bompiani.

    Bakhtin, M. (1970-1971). Iz zapisej 1970-71 godov. In M. M. Bakhtin, 1979; Eng. trans. “From Notes Made in 1970-71”, in M. M. Bakhtin, 1986, pp. 132-158; It. trans. “Dagli appunti del 1970-71,” in M. Bakhtin, 1979, It. trans., pp. 349-374.

    Bakhtin, M. (1979).Estetika slovesnogo tvorcestva[Aesthetics of verbal art]. Moscow: Iskusstvo; Eng. trans.Speech Genres & Other Late Essays, ed. by C. Emerson & M. Holquist, trans. by V. W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1986; It. trans.L’autore e l’eroe. Teoria letteraria e scienze umane. Turin: Einaudi, 1988.

    Bakhtin, M. (1990).Art and answerability. Early philosophical essays by M. M. Bakhtin(ed. by M. Holquist & V. Liapunov, Eng. trans. and notes by V. Liapunov, supplementary trans. by K. Brostrom). Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Barthes, R. (1978).Le?on. Inaugural lesson held at the Collège de France, 7th January 1977. Paris:Seuil; It. trans.Lezione inaugurale al Collége de France, by R. Guidieri, Torino, Einaudi, 1981.

    Blanchot, M. (1955).L’espace litéraire. Paris: Gallimard; It. trans. by G. Zanobetti,Lo spazio letterario. Turin: Einaudi, 1967.

    Blanchot, M. (1959).Le livre à venir. Paris: Gallimard; It. trans. G. Ceronetti, G. neri,Il libro a venire. Turin: Einaudi, 1969.

    Blanchot, M. (1981).De Kafka à Kafka. Paris: Gallimard; It. trans.Da Kafka a Kafka. Milan:Feltrinelli, 1983.

    Calvino, I. (1988).Lezioni americane. Milan: Garzanti; Eng. trans.Six memos for the next millenium. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988.

    Deleuze, G. (1984).L’immagine-movimento. Cinema 1. Milan: Ubulibri.

    Deleuze, G. (1989).L’immagine-tempo. Cinema 2. Milan: Ululibri.

    Foucault, M. (1970).L’ordre dudiscours, It. trans. by A. Fontana. Turin: Einaudi, 1972.

    Jabès, E. (1982).Le Petit livre de la subversion hors de soup?on. Paris: Gallimard;Il libro della sovversione non sospetta, It trans. by A. Prete. Milan: Feltrinelli, 1984;The Little book of unsuspected subversion. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996.

    Leopardi, G. (1991).Zibaldone dei miei pensieri(Vols 1-3) (G. Pacella, Ed.). Milan: Garzanti; Eng. trans.Zibaldone. The University of Birmingham, UK, 2013.

    Levinas, E. (1948). La réalité et son ombre.Les Temps Modernes,4(38), 771-789; It. trans. “La realtà e la sua ombra,” in E. Levinas,Nomi propri, 1976, pp. 175-190.

    Levinas, E. (1976).Nomi propri(F. P. Ciglia, Ed.). Casale Monferrato: Marietti.

    Marcuse, H. (1964).One-dimensional man. Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Boston: Beacon; It. trans. L’uomo a una dimensione. Turin: Einaudi, 1967.

    Orwell, G. (1948).Nineteen eighty-four. A novel. London: Penguin Books, 2008.

    Pasolini, P. P. (1972).Empirismo eretico. Milan: Garzanti.

    Pasolini, P. P. (1975).Scritti corsari. Milan: Garzanti.

    Pasolini, P. P. (1976).Lettere luterane. Turin: Einaudi.

    Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2003).Views in literary semiotics. Ottawa: Legas.

    Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2005a).La raffigurazione letteraria. Milan: Mimesis.

    Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2005b).Semiotics unbounded. Interpretive routes in the open network of signs. Toronto: Toronto University Press. (Available in Chinese translation)

    Ponzio, A. (1992).Tra semiotica e letteratura. Introduzione a Michail Bachtin. Milan: Bompiani. (new amplified ed., 2015)

    Sterne, L., & Foscolo, U. (1983 [1768]).Viaggio sentimentale di Yorick lungo la Francia e l’Italia(intro. & comment by M. Bulgheroni & P. Ruffini). Milan: Garzanti. (A Sentimental Journey through France and Italy, original Eng. ed., 1768; It. trans. by Ugo Foscolo, 1813).

    About the author

    Augusto Ponzio (augustoponzio@libero.it) is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Theory of Languages, University of Bari Aldo Moro. He founded the Department of Philosophy of Language in 1970 and the Doctoral Program in Language Theory and Sign Sciences in 1988 (which he led till 2012). He directs several book series and journals includingAthanor, a yearly monograph he founded in 1990 (now at its XXVIIth edition). He has acted as International Visiting Professor at various universities worldwide—Australia, China, Brazil, USA, Canada, South Africa, and across Europe. As translator and editor he has promoted the works of Peter of Spain, Mikhail Bakhtin, Emmanuel Lévinas, Karl Marx, Ferruccio Rossi-Landi, Adam Schaff, and Thomas A. Sebeok. He has published widely in Italy and abroad with well over a hundred monographs to his name, some of which have been translated into English, French, Serbian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Chinese. His recent book publications include:Linguistica generale, scrittura letteraria e traduzione(Edizioni Guerra, 2007);Tra semiotica e letteratura. Introduzione a Michail Bachtin(Bompiani, 2015);Lineamenti di semiotica e di filosofia del linguaggio

    (in collaboration with Susan Petrilli, Edizioni Guerra, 2016);La coda dell’occhio. Letture del linguaggio letterario senza confini nazionali(Rome Aracne, 2016). Among the books he has translated are: Karl Marx’sManoscritti matematici(Spirali, 2006); Pietro Ispano’sTrattato di logica(Bompiani, 2010); Michail Bachtin e il suo circolo’sOpere 1919-1930(Bompiani, 2014); Roland Barthes’sIl discorso amoroso. Seminario 1974-1976(Mimesis, 2015).

    国产综合懂色| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | 香蕉av资源在线| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 成人国产综合亚洲| 精品电影一区二区在线| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 91久久精品电影网| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 国产高清激情床上av| 久久久久久久久大av| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 日韩高清综合在线| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 国产精品久久久久久久久免 | 级片在线观看| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 怎么达到女性高潮| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区 | svipshipincom国产片| 久久人妻av系列| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 久久国产精品影院| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 久久国产精品影院| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 成人国产综合亚洲| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 午夜影院日韩av| 草草在线视频免费看| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 黄色女人牲交| 一夜夜www| 毛片女人毛片| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 久久久久久久久中文| 国产黄片美女视频| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 草草在线视频免费看| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 亚洲av一区综合| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费 | 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 免费看十八禁软件| 老司机福利观看| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 小说图片视频综合网站| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 免费av毛片视频| a级毛片a级免费在线| 免费看十八禁软件| 99热这里只有精品一区| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 嫩草影院入口| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 级片在线观看| ponron亚洲| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 天天添夜夜摸| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 国产老妇女一区| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av | 久久精品国产综合久久久| 国产精品影院久久| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 国产单亲对白刺激| 久久国产精品影院| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 国产精品永久免费网站| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 国产精品三级大全| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 天天添夜夜摸| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 黄色女人牲交| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 午夜福利欧美成人| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 9191精品国产免费久久| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 色老头精品视频在线观看| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 手机成人av网站| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 欧美+日韩+精品| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 色播亚洲综合网| 国产高清三级在线| 免费看a级黄色片| 欧美激情在线99| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 舔av片在线| 99热这里只有精品一区| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 露出奶头的视频| 久久草成人影院| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 长腿黑丝高跟| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 久久精品人妻少妇| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 色综合婷婷激情| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 国产综合懂色| 美女大奶头视频| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 一a级毛片在线观看| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 制服人妻中文乱码| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 性欧美人与动物交配| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 在线观看66精品国产| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 变态另类丝袜制服| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 99热这里只有精品一区| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 国产高清激情床上av| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久 | 此物有八面人人有两片| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 欧美在线黄色| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看 | 国产成人欧美在线观看| 亚洲精品在线美女| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 国产精华一区二区三区| 在线国产一区二区在线| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 在线看三级毛片| 在线观看66精品国产| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 中文资源天堂在线| 亚洲av成人av| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 国产av在哪里看| 成人无遮挡网站| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 丰满的人妻完整版| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 亚洲国产色片| 在线天堂最新版资源| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 丁香六月欧美| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 久久伊人香网站| av中文乱码字幕在线| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 亚洲最大成人中文| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 99热精品在线国产| 宅男免费午夜| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 91av网一区二区| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 一级作爱视频免费观看| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 夜夜爽天天搞| 内射极品少妇av片p| 十八禁网站免费在线| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| av国产免费在线观看| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 特级一级黄色大片| 天天添夜夜摸| 色综合婷婷激情| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 精品久久久久久,| 1024手机看黄色片| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 色综合婷婷激情| 亚洲18禁久久av| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃 | 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 欧美成人a在线观看| 中文资源天堂在线| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 成人18禁在线播放| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 国产精品久久视频播放| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 舔av片在线| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 搞女人的毛片| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 欧美日本视频| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 在线播放无遮挡| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 精品久久久久久成人av| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 此物有八面人人有两片| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 热99re8久久精品国产| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 1024手机看黄色片| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 国产高潮美女av| 毛片女人毛片| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 宅男免费午夜| 一进一出抽搐动态| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 香蕉久久夜色| av天堂在线播放| 丰满乱子伦码专区| tocl精华| 欧美大码av| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 亚洲av二区三区四区| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 99热精品在线国产| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 嫩草影视91久久| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 国产日本99.免费观看| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 一进一出抽搐动态| 免费看a级黄色片| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 午夜影院日韩av| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 欧美bdsm另类| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 综合色av麻豆| 国产午夜精品论理片| 观看美女的网站| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 久久6这里有精品| 搞女人的毛片| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| h日本视频在线播放| 久久亚洲真实| 精品国产亚洲在线| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 亚洲成人久久性| bbb黄色大片| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 极品教师在线免费播放| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 欧美日韩综合久久久久久 | 十八禁网站免费在线| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 天天添夜夜摸| 岛国在线观看网站| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 色av中文字幕| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av | 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 久久香蕉国产精品| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 久久国产精品影院| 国产淫片久久久久久久久 | 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 久久伊人香网站| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 免费高清视频大片| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 两个人视频免费观看高清| av福利片在线观看| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 午夜免费观看网址| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 欧美色视频一区免费| 男人舔奶头视频| 性欧美人与动物交配| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | www国产在线视频色| eeuss影院久久| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 深夜精品福利| 91在线观看av| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 在线视频色国产色| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 99热只有精品国产| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 日本一本二区三区精品| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 青草久久国产| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| www.色视频.com| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 十八禁网站免费在线| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 国产老妇女一区| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 国产成人av教育| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| av在线天堂中文字幕| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 日韩有码中文字幕| 欧美bdsm另类| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 香蕉丝袜av| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 精品久久久久久,| 一本精品99久久精品77| or卡值多少钱| 久久国产精品影院| 一级黄片播放器| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 免费观看精品视频网站| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 热99re8久久精品国产| av欧美777| 久久久精品大字幕| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 全区人妻精品视频| 日本黄色片子视频| 在线免费观看的www视频| 91在线观看av| 成人无遮挡网站| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 亚洲不卡免费看| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 久久精品91蜜桃| 在线看三级毛片| 亚洲激情在线av| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 国产乱人视频| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| a级毛片a级免费在线| av天堂中文字幕网| 久久久久性生活片| 美女黄网站色视频| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 色视频www国产| 在线免费观看的www视频| 一本综合久久免费| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 午夜福利18| 观看免费一级毛片| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 亚洲成人久久性| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 国产美女午夜福利| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 亚洲国产欧美网| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 日本与韩国留学比较| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 日韩欧美免费精品| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 热99re8久久精品国产| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 久久久久九九精品影院| 午夜福利18| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 在线播放国产精品三级| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 色综合婷婷激情| 一本久久中文字幕| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 99热精品在线国产| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 色在线成人网| 窝窝影院91人妻| 免费看十八禁软件| 国产成人系列免费观看| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 99热精品在线国产| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 久久久久国内视频| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| eeuss影院久久| 免费av观看视频| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| netflix在线观看网站| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 久久久久九九精品影院| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频|