Search results

1

Kto jest autorem? Kim jest autor?

100%

Ulicka D.

Prace Filologiczne. Literaturoznawstwo

|

2009

|

vol. 57

|

issue (2)

15-30

EN

Formulated in the late 20s and the early 30s Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of “dialogic words”, renamed in the late 60s by Julia Kristeva as “intertextuality”, formed the basis of French post structural theories of the text − palimpsest (Barthes, Genette, Derrida), and also, which is less obvious, of postmodern notions of the author. Those concepts are, however, usually linked to Focault and Derrida, Ricoeur and Taylor and not to the Russian philosopher of verbal activities. Also, it is primarily used in the context of authors of literary and artistic texts. But Bakhtin’s notion of subjectivity does not apply to literature only. It includes also an intriguing concept of the subject of a scholarly expression (cognitive, precisely referential) multi voiced and voiced by a stranger, quoted or verbalized by the other, in true sense “heteroglossial”. And it is not only included, but also represented in its full form. My study is an attempt at reconstruction of the notion, which I call dramaturgical (or staged) theory of scholarly expression and its subject. On the basis of selected, so called “questionable” texts by Bakhtin and (not) his concepts (especially chronotope and heteroglassia, inner and outer speech), situated in the context of other texts of his times I attempt to answer the question who Bakhtin’s author is − the one suggested in his theory, and he himself as an author of (not) his works: texts that survived in residual pieces, destroyed by the author himself (as famous, burned with a cigarette Vospitatelnyi Roman), mutilated by the Great History (censored and autocensored), edited many times by great and small people, sometimes available only in the form of notes of his audience. He himself, imprecisely, but not without a cause, used to say that this author always remains anonymous, but at the same time − in a polemic with Kant − he tied him with “a person”, unifying the subject of the text with the empirical subject.

2

Narracyjna i nienarracyjna koncepcja dyskursu literaturoznawczego

100%

Ulicka D.

Przestrzenie Teorii

|

2004

|

issue 3-4

21-42

EN

The article addresses questions of the relation between literary and literary science discourse which have been intensively discussed in poststructuralist reflection. As the author argues, their separation, accepted until the half of the century, in fact took place on the basis of pragmatic criteria (strongly connected with institutional division of work in the field of literary sciences), and not of a statement's formal characteristics or reference. What created the effect of stylistic, generic and compositional distinctness of speech genres inherent to literary science was only the prototype of literary science discourse shaped in result of their application and frequently confirmed in normative approaches, where it was formulated in terms of the categories of "truth" obliging science, as opposed to "fiction" distinguishing literature. Yet ineffaceable differences between literature and literary science are related to non-fictional and principally monosubjective characteristics of the discourse of the latter. Hence, in opposition to currently dominating narrativist interpretations, they can be by no means identified with respect to the "narrativeness" recognizable in both cases. While discussing these approaches on the basis of three chosen Polish works belonging to historioliterary prose, the author proposes to treat literary science discourse in categories applied to the description of a dramatic statement. For, what seems to be of paramount importance both in modernist and postmodernist phase, is the question of the author's subject's position and attitude towards the object of the statement and the relevant modalization of speech. A detailed analysis of their historical changeability remains, however, beyond the scope of the presented considerations.

3

Utarczki i perswazje 1982–2013

100%

Ulicka D.

Wielogłos

|

2014

|

issue 1(19)

PL

Quarrels and persuasions 1982–2013 The author recalls her quarrels and disputes with Professor Markiewicz, led for over 30 years, both in the pages of scientific magazines, as well as in private correspondence. In the memories of the author Professor Markiewicz seems to be a role model of scientific conscientiousness, which is meticulous and critical in his assessments, but at the same an extremely kind, inspiring advisor and guide, always ready to serve with his knowledge and unmatched erudition.

4

Czy jest możliwa inna historia teorii (literatury)?

100%

Ulicka D.

Przestrzenie Teorii

|

2007

|

issue 7

9-29

EN

This article binds several problems in which literature specialists are interested: in reference to the famous disputes about the theory of literature it indicates the need to redefine it, proposes is conceptualisation as a cultural opinion (utterance), justifies this need by the analysis of historical factual realisations of "theory" and conditions which reduced (monologised) them, and finally - it refers to the question of actuality of the "post-modern breakthrough" and the "turns" which announce it. The documentation of the proposed theses which revise the existing interpretations of history of the theory is being searched in the Central and East European literary studies of the beginning and the first decades of the 20th century, which has always been considered as the founding one for the discipline, however, sińce recently also as the source one for the analysis of the status of the utterances (opinions) expressed in it. The question asked in the title of this article about the possibility of another history of the theory resolves just in reference to the previous, nowadays mechanically enlivened projects of theory.

5

Morskie i zamorskie podróże idei antropologii

100%

Ulicka D.

Slavia Meridionalis

|

2014

|

vol. 14

EN

The maritime and overseas journeys of the idea of anthropologyThis article discusses the very concept of anthropology, which was born at the end of 19th century, termed the “history of ideas”, and still exists in contemporary literary theory, especially as part of what is referred to as “spatial turn”. As with the similar concept proposed earlier by Ernst Curtius, it is focused on topics treated as the autonomous component of an anonymous, unpersonal, and in fact unhistorical discourse. On the contrary, the article tends to prove that travelling theories were always strongly connected with travelling theorists. In contrast, the author attempts to consider the interrelations between the two conceptions of anthropology: the philosophical and the linguistic, taking into account the material left in texts connected with the journey from Göteborg to New York by Roman Jakobson and Ernst Cassirer. The reconstruction of their possible discussions on board proves that the boundary between their projects, usually drawn in the history of culture, is weaker than could be supposed. Morskie i zamorskie podróże idei antropologiiArtykuł podejmuje dyskusję z koncepcją antropologii kulturowej wyłonioną po tzw. zwrocie spacjalnym i skupioną na wędrówkach pojęć. Ze względu na depersonalizację rozważanego materiału wciąż mieści się ona w modelu XIX-wiecznej jeszcze proweniencji, bliska historii idei i topice. Dyskusja została przeprowadzona na materiale nielicznych świadectw wiążących się z podróżą morską z Europy do USA, a w istocie ucieczką przed kolejną falą nazizmu, podczas której doszło do przypadkowego spotkania Romana Jakobsona i Ernsta Cassirera. Rekonstrukcja ich możliwych dialogów podczas piętnastu dni rejsu, wsparta na metodologicznej propozycji historii domyślnej wyprowadzonej z praktyki filologicznej Tadeusza Zielińskiego, pozwala odkryć silne związki między ich projektami, a tym samym między koncepcjami antropologii filozoficznej i antropologii lingwistycznej. Wyłaniające się ze świadectw tekstowych konwergencje podważają rozgraniczanie obu tych modernistycznych projektów, zwykle dokonywane w historii dyscypliny. Pozwalają także na reinterpretację rozpowszechnionych ujęć postawy profesjonalizmu uznawanej za typową dla uczonego nowoczesnego i utożsamianej z politycznym i społecznym niezaangażowaniem.

6

Kalendarium

100%

Ulicka D.

Przestrzenie Teorii

|

2008

|

issue 10

217-241

EN

The listing of the dates of life and work of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin and of the leading members of his philosophical-literary clubs has been compiled based on the available data, sometimes still uncertain ones. Admittedly, a list of dry facts will not replace a monograph which does not exist in Poland, however, it allows at least to order the most important facts, biographical and editorial facts around which a lot of misunderstanding, conjectures and false convictions have grown. Like each such chronology it is selective and in agreement with the author's cognition of the whole and its interpretation. However, it does not impose them, leaving to the readers the liberty of creating their own narrations. As opposed to similar English and Russian chronologies (calendars), it introduces figures who are considered to be of second-rate (Nikolai Bakhtin, Konstantin Vaginov, Boris Zubakin, Mikhail Tubiansky) - probably only due to the fact that their works are still less known than those of the main heroes. Meanwhile it is they who give the idea about the impetus and variety of this strange unofficial and antiofficial institution which were Bakhtin's circles.

7

Bachtin i wokół Bachtina. Wprowadzenie do kalendarium

100%

Ulicka D.

Przestrzenie Teorii

|

2008

|

issue 10

199-216

EN

"An introduction to a chronology" considers the probable reasons of the absence in Poland of a monograph of the "life and work of Mikhail Bakhtin" type and also undertakes the complex questions of constructing a chronology (calendar) of his "work and days". It indicates the area of facts and reports which are possible to account for, the inconvenience of introducing them, the necessity of making reductions and cuts. But through this it signals this wider context in which are contained Bakhtin's studies as well as those of the most important members of his circles. Thus in this work is undertaken the (so topical until recently) theoretical problem of the borders of the context which is so indispensable for understanding the text.

8

Między światami. Rzeczywistość w literaturze – literatura w rzeczywistości – rzeczywistość literatury

100%

Ulicka D.

Przestrzenie Teorii

|

2017

|

issue 28

21-75

EN

The author attempts to reconstruct a short history of modern Polish literary studies not from the perspective of schools or methodological orientations that are usually applied, but from the perspective of what is known in sociology as cultural themes. This point of view offers the opportunity to (re)construct the process of continuity /discontinuity in the whole field of research focused on the problem of reference, which has been recognized as the most important one in Polish studies (as well as in Polish literature, and art) since its beginning in the first decade of the 20th century. In the broader scope the article attempts to rearticulate the definition of the discipline conventionally called “the theory of literature”, and to propose a new way of writing its history.

9

„Zaprawić naukę humorem…”

50%

Ulicka D.

Przestrzenie Teorii

|

2014

|

issue 22

311-315

Refine search results

6 Przestrzenie Teorii

1 Prace Filologiczne. Literaturoznawstwo

1 Slavia Meridionalis

1 Wielogłos

9 Ulicka D.

1 2017

3 2014

1 2009

2 2008

1 2007

1 2004

Kto jest autorem? Kim jest autor?

Narracyjna i nienarracyjna koncepcja dyskursu literaturoznawczego

Utarczki i perswazje 1982–2013

Czy jest możliwa inna historia teorii (literatury)?

Morskie i zamorskie podróże idei antropologii

Kalendarium

Bachtin i wokół Bachtina. Wprowadzenie do kalendarium

Między światami. Rzeczywistość w literaturze – literatura w rzeczywistości – rzeczywistość literatury

„Zaprawić naukę humorem…”