Kombinace, nebo doplnění? O dvou typech procesu v literární teorii Romana Ingardena a Wolfganga Isera

• Authors: Kaplický Martin

Title variants

EN

Combination or Completion? On two types of Process in Literary Theories of Roman Ingarden and Wolfgang Iser

• Languages of publication: CS

Abstracts

EN

There can be no doubt that Wolfgang Iser’s literary theory was strongly influenced by Roman Ingarden’s writings on literature. Iser often quotes from Ingarden and develops some of his key ideas. The main aim of this article is to show that even in the cases where Iser develops Ingarden’s ideas and concepts he significantly changes their meaning and function. This tendency is not arbitrary but rather mirrors the difference of aims between the two theories. In this article, the author tries to show how Ingarden’s theory revolves around his consideration of the differences between the real and purely intentional object. Here, the literary work serves as an example of the purely intentional object. By contrast, Iser’s work revolves around his opposition to any theory which emphasizes the essential meaning of a work of literature without considering the reading process itself. This attention to the reading process is the main aim of Iser’s theory. The article develops the thesis that the two opposing definitions of the literary work arise from this essential difference, which in turn explains the dissimilarity, in terms of both meaning and function, between such seemingly similar concepts as Ingarden’s ‘places of indeterminacy’ (die Unbestimmtheitstellen) and Iser’s ‘blanks’ (die Leerstellen).

Keywords

CS

Roman Ingarden; Wolfgang Iser; literární teorie; místa nedourčenosti; prázdná místa; proces čtení

EN

Roman Ingarden; Wolfgang Iser; literary theory; places of indeterminacy; blanks; reading process

Discipline

• PHILOLOGY_&_LINGUISTICS: PHILOLOGY & LINGUISTICS

• Publisher: Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Arts, Czech Republic
• Journal: Slovo a smysl - Word & Sense
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 32
• Pages: 203-214

Contributors

author

Kaplický Martin

• Filozofická fakulta Jihočeské univerzity v Českých Budějovicích, Ústav věd o umění a kultuře