• <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).

    久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 在线 av 中文字幕| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 中文字幕色久视频| 在线 av 中文字幕| 美女中出高潮动态图| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 一区福利在线观看| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 一级毛片 在线播放| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 赤兔流量卡办理| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 桃花免费在线播放| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| av在线app专区| 亚洲中文av在线| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 99热网站在线观看| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲 | 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 建设人人有责人人尽责人人享有的| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 欧美成人午夜精品| 老熟女久久久| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 中文天堂在线官网| av在线观看视频网站免费| 精品国产一区二区久久| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 午夜免费鲁丝| 日韩av免费高清视频| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区 | 婷婷色麻豆天堂久久| 只有这里有精品99| 日本午夜av视频| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| av在线观看视频网站免费| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 久久这里只有精品19| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 激情视频va一区二区三区| videos熟女内射| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 老司机影院毛片| 又大又爽又粗| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 嫩草影院入口| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 嫩草影视91久久| 天天添夜夜摸| 久久久国产一区二区| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| h视频一区二区三区| 一级片免费观看大全| 久久久精品94久久精品| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 五月天丁香电影| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| av在线观看视频网站免费| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 国产野战对白在线观看| a级毛片在线看网站| 欧美精品av麻豆av| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| www.精华液| 久久人人爽人人片av| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 午夜av观看不卡| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 精品福利永久在线观看| 一级毛片电影观看| 国产一级毛片在线| 免费观看人在逋| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 国产精品.久久久| 亚洲av男天堂| 午夜激情av网站| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 久久99精品国语久久久| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 蜜桃在线观看..| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 色播在线永久视频| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 91国产中文字幕| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 伊人久久国产一区二区| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 在线观看人妻少妇| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 在线观看www视频免费| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 人人澡人人妻人| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 久久免费观看电影| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 国产成人系列免费观看| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 一区二区三区精品91| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 搡老岳熟女国产| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 一级毛片我不卡| 免费少妇av软件| 超色免费av| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 一区二区三区精品91| 99久久综合免费| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 亚洲第一青青草原| 中文字幕色久视频| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 两性夫妻黄色片| 99久久综合免费| 久久婷婷青草| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 丝袜脚勾引网站| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 操美女的视频在线观看| 另类精品久久| 一级片免费观看大全| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 亚洲精品视频女| 午夜福利视频精品| 蜜桃在线观看..| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 久久性视频一级片| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 精品一区在线观看国产| 自线自在国产av| 精品福利永久在线观看| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲 | 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 赤兔流量卡办理| 久久这里只有精品19| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网 | 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 国产精品免费大片| 丁香六月天网| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| av不卡在线播放| 国产精品二区激情视频| 精品一区在线观看国产| 青春草视频在线免费观看| bbb黄色大片| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 国产精品一国产av| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久 | 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 老司机靠b影院| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 久久97久久精品| 午夜免费观看性视频| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 99国产综合亚洲精品| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 99九九在线精品视频| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 在线看a的网站| 久久久国产一区二区| 欧美日韩av久久| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 黄色 视频免费看| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆 | 国产精品av久久久久免费| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 我要看黄色一级片免费的| 国产色婷婷99| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 久久97久久精品| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看 | 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 麻豆av在线久日| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| av在线app专区| 久久99一区二区三区| 午夜久久久在线观看| a级毛片黄视频| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 嫩草影院入口| 亚洲第一av免费看| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 成年av动漫网址| 香蕉丝袜av| 夫妻午夜视频| 在线观看www视频免费| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 成人国语在线视频| a 毛片基地| 国产在线视频一区二区| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 欧美日韩成人在线一区二区| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 在线观看人妻少妇| 一级片免费观看大全| 久久久久久久精品精品| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 一区在线观看完整版| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 大香蕉久久成人网| 色播在线永久视频| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 中文欧美无线码| 9191精品国产免费久久| 欧美黑人精品巨大| av网站在线播放免费| av在线老鸭窝| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 超色免费av| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 亚洲精品在线美女| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 中国国产av一级| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 成人免费观看视频高清| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| 美女福利国产在线| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 国产成人精品福利久久| 99久久综合免费| 久久女婷五月综合色啪小说| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 色94色欧美一区二区| 嫩草影院入口| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看 | 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 日日啪夜夜爽| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 国产精品国产av在线观看| av一本久久久久| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 咕卡用的链子| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影 | 高清av免费在线| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | 18在线观看网站| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 日本色播在线视频| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 精品一区二区免费观看| tube8黄色片| 久久久国产一区二区| av视频免费观看在线观看| 两个人看的免费小视频| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 精品国产国语对白av| 香蕉丝袜av| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 在线看a的网站| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 性色av一级| 美女主播在线视频| 丁香六月天网| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区 | 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 国产免费现黄频在线看| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 午夜日本视频在线| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| av.在线天堂| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 中文欧美无线码| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 欧美97在线视频| 成人影院久久| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 一级片免费观看大全| 亚洲精品在线美女| 亚洲国产av新网站| 日韩视频在线欧美| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 成人免费观看视频高清| 亚洲精品日本国产第一区| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 久久久久久人妻| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 赤兔流量卡办理| 看免费av毛片| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 一区福利在线观看| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| a 毛片基地| 国产精品一国产av| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 超碰成人久久| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 乱人伦中国视频| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 国产探花极品一区二区| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频 | 国产在线视频一区二区| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 成年av动漫网址| 亚洲综合色网址| 国产毛片在线视频| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 777米奇影视久久| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 国产成人免费无遮挡视频| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 少妇 在线观看| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av | 免费高清在线观看日韩| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 美女主播在线视频| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 亚洲国产看品久久| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 国产在线视频一区二区| 久久97久久精品| 免费看不卡的av| 国产av精品麻豆| 久久青草综合色| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| 免费av中文字幕在线| 秋霞伦理黄片| 国产男女内射视频| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲 | 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 乱人伦中国视频| 日日撸夜夜添| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 国产精品三级大全| 国产免费现黄频在线看| av电影中文网址| 美女大奶头黄色视频| 在线观看www视频免费| av福利片在线| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 大码成人一级视频| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 成人三级做爰电影| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 成人影院久久| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 国产成人精品福利久久| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 亚洲成人av在线免费| av电影中文网址| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频 | 亚洲av综合色区一区| 美女主播在线视频| av线在线观看网站| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 美女午夜性视频免费| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 1024香蕉在线观看| 久久青草综合色| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 永久免费av网站大全| 少妇 在线观看| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 精品久久久久久电影网| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| kizo精华| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 性少妇av在线| 亚洲精品一二三| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 美女福利国产在线| 国产极品天堂在线| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 久久久久久久精品精品| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | e午夜精品久久久久久久| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 男人操女人黄网站| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 9191精品国产免费久久| 国产精品无大码| 日韩电影二区| netflix在线观看网站| 成人手机av| 精品视频人人做人人爽| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 中文欧美无线码| 一区福利在线观看| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 秋霞伦理黄片| 美国免费a级毛片| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频 | 国产xxxxx性猛交| av卡一久久| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 久久婷婷青草| 亚洲综合精品二区| 99香蕉大伊视频| 亚洲精品一二三| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 国产麻豆69| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区|