Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: AREA STUDIES

Sort By:

Limit search:

SPATIALITY/AREA AND LITERATURE (Prostorovost/spacialnost/arealovost a literatura)

100%

Pospisil I.

World Literature Studies

2010

vol. 2 (19)

issue 1

61-73

The author opens his explanation with the analysis of various concepts of space and time in the literary artefact, of the space as a constitutive element of the formation of the artefact mentioning the works of G. Bachelard, M. Bakhtin, and D. Hodrova including his own analyses of literary genres going back to the 1970s, and demonstrates the problems of the complicated link between the literary space and time. In the passage on the space as an extrinsic condition of the existence of the literary artefact he shows the Brno concept of area studies and the relations of the area and some further similar spheres and concepts. They are, above all, the spatial relations of the language and literature stressing sociology and political science and the problem of disciplinarity, inter- and multidisciplinarity, i.e. the identification of the discipline in the sense of the 'craft'. It is inevitable to avoid the shallow modishness of area studies, rather to relativize them, to search for their relations to other disciplines, e. g. to visualisation, iconosphere, theory of literary history, dialogue of cultures, and culture studies as such. This is the basis of the relation of the spatial aspect of philological and social disciplines in area studies. Its kernel should be the language and literature study (Brno concept of the integrated genre typology) which represents not only the means, but the aim itself in the sense of the so-called inter-poeticity, i. e. the permeation of the extrinsic (area, spatial) and intrinsic (poetological) circle even R. Wellek as well as D. Durisin did not succeed in.

THE PERMANENT CRISIS, OR CAN, COULD OR SHOULD COMPARATIVE LITERARY STUDIES SURVIVE?: BETWEEN HISTORY, THEORY AND AREA STUDIES

75%

Pospisil I.

World Literature Studies

2009

vol. 1(18)

issue 1

50-61

At the same time comparative literature is approach, method and autonomic discipline of literary science with developed terminology and methodology. In the past besides positivism it passed through psychologism and immanent methods, esp. formalism and structuralism too. At present its characteristic feature is deep self-reflection. Comparative literature represents discipline, which contains history, theory, terminology and type of research method in the structure of literary science. Its long history already makes from comparative literature specific discipline that goes from study of Mediterranean area, antique and than from national literatures. Traditions, which are created in the Czech and Slovak cultural area and directed from Wollman's ideology to Durisin's special inter-literary community, disclosed not only the power but also lower aspects of literary comparatistics. One of the aspects of contemporary comparative literature is linked with cultural dialogue and area studies, which spread background of comparative researches. Contemporary status of comparative literature is rather complicated: on one hand there are traditional comparative methods and on the other, there is a keen quest for radical innovations. And, last but not least, comparative literature has appeared in the focus of application as a methodological tool when conceiving a new model of literary history or a history of any national literature that cannot be understood outside its comparative framework. The answer to the question in the title of this paper may be: comparative literature may function as loos net of historically tested approaches, single methods and visions, or as a chain of more complex approaches connected with new subjects and problems of world literature.

Refine search results

2 World Literature Studies

2 Pospisil I.

1 2010

1 2009

Search results

SPATIALITY/AREA AND LITERATURE (Prostorovost/spacialnost/arealovost a literatura)

THE PERMANENT CRISIS, OR CAN, COULD OR SHOULD COMPARATIVE LITERARY STUDIES SURVIVE?: BETWEEN HISTORY, THEORY AND AREA STUDIES