Should one understand the term 'culture' in a broad manner, as pursued by certain anthropologists or sociologists, literary scholarship/criticism would simply, like any other humanistic discipline, become part of cultural studies. This possible option should be taken into consideration, yet such a thesis, when assumed, appears not to open any novel opportunities. What it does is it condemns one to generalisation, however correct the latter might be. Should, however, the category in question be understood in a narrower way, then a whole series of issues occurs, along with various difficulties, of which one should merely become aware. For instance, why should so-called internal methods be usually approached as independent of the discipline called cultural studies, whilst others, being shaped otherwise in methodological terms, tend sometimes to be merged therewith? And, there is the very basic problem: Within what concepts is the issue of literary language designed for singling literature out of such context, and in what sorts of concepts does it provide a link to/with the related general-cultural phenomena? Plus, there is the issue of literary folklore study. The role of sociology of language as an entity linking literary study and cultural theory. What is the actual place of history in this context? Problem spheres connected with cultural studies: literature vs. traditional habits/morals; literature vs. other cultural institutions. There is a certain conventionality about singled-out cultural-science fields: cultural science appears to encompass certain not-as-yet-fully-crystallised items.