800 Literatur und Rhetorik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2017 (477)
- 2018 (315)
- 2022 (298)
- 2019 (270)
- 2021 (264)
- 2020 (251)
- 2013 (239)
- 2012 (230)
- 2016 (219)
- 2023 (214)
- 2011 (211)
- 2010 (205)
- 2015 (191)
- 2014 (178)
- 2008 (156)
- 2006 (125)
- 2004 (120)
- 2005 (114)
- 2024 (103)
- 2007 (81)
- 2001 (79)
- 2002 (76)
- 2009 (73)
- 2003 (62)
- 2000 (50)
- 1836 (25)
- 1999 (24)
- 1997 (17)
- 1996 (13)
- 1988 (11)
- 1998 (10)
- 1994 (6)
- 1991 (5)
- 1992 (4)
- 1976 (3)
- 1982 (3)
- 1986 (3)
- 1989 (3)
- 1995 (3)
- 1984 (2)
- 1985 (2)
- 1990 (2)
- 1993 (2)
- 1820 (1)
- 1834 (1)
- 1877 (1)
- 1878 (1)
- 1890 (1)
- 1892 (1)
- 1896 (1)
- 1899 (1)
- 1907 (1)
- 1909 (1)
- 1970 (1)
- 1972 (1)
- 1973 (1)
- 1978 (1)
- 1983 (1)
- 1987 (1)
Document Type
- Article (1811)
- Part of a Book (1522)
- Review (552)
- Part of Periodical (383)
- Book (223)
- Conference Proceeding (70)
- Report (67)
- Contribution to a Periodical (32)
- Other (25)
- Working Paper (24)
Language
- German (3945)
- English (545)
- French (108)
- Portuguese (70)
- Multiple languages (40)
- Turkish (29)
- Spanish (10)
- Italian (5)
- Polish (3)
- Hungarian (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4757) (remove)
Keywords
- Literatur (504)
- Rezension (283)
- Rezeption (190)
- Vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft (175)
- Übersetzung (170)
- Literaturwissenschaft (166)
- Geschichte (162)
- Benjamin, Walter (149)
- Deutsch (149)
- Ästhetik (145)
Institute
- Neuere Philologien (242)
- Extern (234)
- Präsidium (34)
- Sprachwissenschaften (5)
- Universitätsbibliothek (5)
- MPI für empirische Ästhetik (2)
- Medizin (2)
- Psychologie (2)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (2)
- Biowissenschaften (1)
Mit der Abwendung von Norm- und Regelpoetiken […] wird der Weg frei für individuell-besondere, dezidiert anti-systematische Reflexionen über Literatur. Im 20. Jahrhundert ist es für die Mehrzahl der Schriftsteller selbstverständlich, das eigene literarische Schaffen theoretisch-reflektierend zu begleiten. Oft knüpft sich die poetologische Reflexion an persönliche Geschichten über Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen des Schriftstellers, unbeschadet der sogenannten poststrukturalistischen Totsagung des Autors (vielfach allerdings in direkter oder indirekter Reaktion auf diese). Erinnert sei an Uwe Johnsons „Begleitumstände“, an Peter Härtlings „Finden und Erfinden“, an Peter Bichsels „Der Leser, Das Erzählen“, an Hermann Lenz' „Leben und Schreiben“ als einige Vorlesungsreihen aus der Folge der Frankfurter Poetikvorlesungen, die hier stellvertretend für viele andere stehen können. Erscheint vielen Autoren das eigene Œuvre als nachhaltig durch persönliche Erfahrungen geprägt, so ist es nur folgerichtig, wenn Auskünfte über dieses Œuvre sich mit Berichten über eigene Erlebnisse verbinden. […] Zwischen Autobiographie und Fiktion bestehe allenfalls eine fließende Grenze, so […] Hermann Lenz in seiner (programmatisch betitelten) Vortragsfolge „Leben und Schreiben“; entsprechend sei das Schreiben über die Genese der eigenen Fiktionen reflexive Selbstdarstellung. Die Vortragssituation wird zur Spiegelfläche, auf der das Gesicht des Schriftstellers erscheint. Aber was für ein Gesicht ist das?
Wie Enzensberger […] verdeutlicht, eröffnen literarische Texte […] einen Raum, in dem unterschiedliche und kontroverse wissenschaftliche Theorien […] miteinander kollidieren, wodurch ihre Bedingtheit und Relativität erkennbar wird. Die modernistische […] Vorstellung, Literatur sei subversiv, stelle in Frage, was immer sich als absolute Wahrheit ausgebe, relativiere die Ordnungen des Wissens und insbesondere alle sich verbindlich gebenden Theorien über den Menschen und die natürliche Welt, hat an Aktualität nicht verloren. […] Philosophen und Literaturtheoretiker verschiedenster Denkrichtungen kommen […] darin überein, daß Literatur subversiv ist: Gegen falsche Sicherheiten und gegen die Illusion absoluter Wahrheit gerichtet, deutet sie auf die Vieldeutigkeit aller Dinge und die Vielzahl inkompatibler Betrachtungsperspektiven hin, indem sie selbst vieldeutige und multiple Welten erzeugt. In dieser Eigenschaft ist das literarische Schreiben durch keinen anderen Diskurs ersetzbar. Die ihr hier zugeschriebene subversive Rolle als Instanz kritischer Reflexion über Begriffe, Theoriebildungen und Wissenschaft kann die Literatur allerdings nur dann spielen, wenn sie in engem und dauerhaften Kontakt zu den Wissenschaften bleibt. Die Kritik an Wissensdiskursen setzt einen ständig zu aktualisierenden .Informationsstand voraus: über die jeweils dominanten wissenschaftlichen Paradigmen, Kernbegriffe und Moden, die Strategien wissenschaftlicher Konstruktion und Darstellung dessen, was ist.
[D]ieser Veranstaltungstyp [wurde] 1996 etabliert […] und die komparatistisch angelegte Konferenz der Abteilung 2012 [wird] nunmehr zum 17. Mal in Folge ausgerichtet […]. Über den Kreis der 15 Referenten hinaus war sie mit etwa 120 aktiv mitdiskutierenden Teilnehmern gut besucht. Thematisch orientiert sich die Konferenz jeweils an einem Semesterkurs, den die Studierenden der am Department angebotenen Master‐Studiengänge (Deutsch, Französisch, Spanisch, Italienisch) durchlaufen.
Um den vielfältigen und komplexen Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Literatur und Architektur nachzugehen, versammelte die School of Language & Literature des Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS) unter Federführung von Dr. Robert Krause und Jun.‐Prof. Dr. Evi Zemanek Wissenschaftler aus philologischen und kunsthistorischen Disziplinen zu einer dreitägigen Tagung (1.‐3. Dezember 2011). Die Breite der Annäherungen an die „Baukunst (in) der Literatur“, wie sie sich in den Vorträgen abzeichnete, verdeutlichte nicht nur, wie stark das – selbst mit dem 'spatial turn' – nicht unbedingt systematisch perspektivierte Forschungsfeld sich unabhängig und dezentral ausdifferenziert hat sondern auch inwiefern ein endliches Zusammentreffen versierter Forscher längst überfällig gewesen ist.
Bakhtin and Dostoevsky shared the conviction that human life must be understood in terms of temporality. Both thinkers were obsessed with time’s relation to life as people experience it. For each, a rich sense of humanity demanded a chronotope of open time. In many respects, the views of Bakhtin and Dostoevsky coincide. Theologically speaking, one could fairly call them both heretics, as we shall see. Their differences reflect their different starting points. Bakhtin began with ethics, whereas Dostoevsky thought about life first and foremost in terms of psychology. For Bakhtin, any viable view of the world had first of all to give a rich meaning to moral responsibility. Dostoevsky could accept no view that was false to his sense of how the human mind thought and felt.
As Bakhtin noted, chronotopes arise from the density and fusion of temporal and spatial indicators. In prose narrative, the density of temporal and spatial indicators arises as a natural consequence of setting scenes and explaining action, and those indicators are fused by the centripetal forces of plot, character and so on that encourage us to read the various elements of the text as aspects of a coherent story and world. In non-narrative poetry, however, there is no story to drive the setting of scene or generation of character; there may not even be scene or character. As a result, temporal and spatial indicators can be quite sparse, and there may be little centripetal force to encourage their fusion. In a textual environment bereft of character, plot, scene, in which even the centripetal forces of syntax are frayed by linebreaks and other poetic devices, how can chronotopes form and function? [...] In the centripetal environment afforded by most prose narratives, the stable chronotopes and the relationships among them define consciousness, world and values. In the centrifugal environment of non-narrative poetry, chronotopes flicker and flow in a series of hints, glimpses, dissolves, defining consciousness, world and values via evanescence rather than stability. However, as I hope to show below, the evanescence of chronotopes in non-narrative poetry can be as central to the vitality and meaning of those texts as the stability of chronotopes is to the vitality and meaning of prose narratives.
In this contribution, I would like to examine the way in which Bakhtin, in the two essays dedicated to the chronotope, lays the foundations for a theory of literary imagination. […] His concept of the chronotope may be interpreted as a contribution to a tradition in which Henri Bergson, William James, Charles Sander Peirce and Gilles Deleuze have been key figures. Like these four authors, Bakhtin is a philosopher in the school of pragmatism. His predilection for what Gary Saul Morson and Caryl Emerson have called “prosaics” puts him right at the heart of a philosophical family that calls forth multiplicity against metaphysical essentialism, and prefers the mundane to the universal. It seems wise to proceed carefully in the attempt to reconstruct Bakhtin’s theory of imagination. In this contribution to the debate, I choose to develop a philosophical dialogue between Bakhtin and the above-mentioned philosophical family. More specifically, it seems to me that the ideal point of departure for examining the way in which Bakhtin attempts to get to the bottom of the mysteries of literary imagination is Gilles Deleuze’s synthesis of Bergson’s epistemological view on knowledge as “the perception of images”, as well as Peirce’s theory of experience based on a typology of images. In the following, I show that Bakhtin’s view of the temporal-spatial constellations in literature demonstrates a strong affinity to the Bergsonian view that perception of the spatial world is colored by the lived time experienced by the observer. Based on this observation, I then develop a typology of images which places the concept of the chronotope in a more systematic framework.
The Fugue of Chronotope
(2010)
As the survey by Nele Bemong and Pieter Borghart introducing this volume makes clear, the term chronotope has devolved into a veritable carnival of orismology. For all the good work that has been done by an ever-growing number of intelligent critics, chronotope remains a Gordian knot of ambiguities with no Alexander in sight. The term has metastasized across the whole spectrum of the human and social sciences since the publication of FTC in Russian in 1975, and (especially) after its translation into English in 1981. As others have pointed out, one of the more striking features of the chronotope is the plethora of meanings that have been read into the term: that its popularity is a function of its opacity has become a cliché. In the current state of chronotopic heteroglossia, then, how are we to proceed? The argument of this essay is that many of the difficulties faced by Bakhtin’s critics derive from ambiguities with which Bakhtin never ceased to struggle. That is, instead of advancing yet another definition of my own, I will investigate some of the attempts made by Bakhtin himself to give the term greater precision throughout his long life. In so doing, I will also hope to cast some light on the foundational role of time-space in Bakhtin’s philosophy of dialog as it, too, took on different meanings at various points in his thinking.
Bakhtin argues that each literary genre codifies a particular world-view which is defined, in part, by its chronotope. That is, the spatial and temporal configurations of each genre determine in large part the kinds of action a fictional character may undertake in that given world (without being iconoclastic, a realist hero cannot slay mythical beasts, and a questing knight cannot philosophize over drinks in a café). Recent extensions of Bakhtin’s theory have sought to define the chronotopes of new and emergent genres such as the road movie, the graphic novel, and hypertext fiction. Others have challenged Bakhtin’s characterization of certain chronotopes, such as those of epic and lyric poetry, arguing that these genres (and their chronotopes) are far more dynamic and dialogic than Bakhtin’s analysis seems at first glance to allow. Rather than taking issue with Bakhtin’s characterization of particular genres here, however, I wish to argue that we should pay closer attention to the heterochrony, or interplay of different chronotopes, in individual texts and their genres. As Bakhtin’s own essay demonstrates, what makes any literary chronotope dynamic is its conflict and interplay with alternative chronotopes and world-views. Heterochrony (raznovremennost) is the spatiotemporal equivalent of linguistic heteroglossia, and if we examine any of Bakhtin’s readings of particular chronotopes closely enough, we will find evidence of heterochronic conflict. This clash of spatiotemporal configurations within a text, or family of texts, provides the ground for the dialogic inter-illumination of opposing world-views.
This paper proposes a reflection on the potential of the chronotope as a heuristic tool in the field of adaptation studies. My goal is to situate the chronotope in the context of adaptation studies, specifically with regard to perhaps the most central treatise in the field of literary adaptation, Gérard Genette’s “Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree”, and to draw attention to perhaps one of the most overlooked works in the field of adaptation studies, Caryl Emerson’s chronotope-inspired “Boris Godunov: Transpositions of a Russian Theme”. I will demonstrate how the chronotope might be used in the study of literary adaptation by examining the relationships between Daniel Defoe’s “Robinson Crusoe”, its historical sources, and Michel Tournier’s twentieth-century adaptation of the Robinson story, “Friday”. My analysis draws upon three of the semantic levels of the chronotope presented in the introduction to this volume: (1) chronotopic motifs linked to two opposing themes: enthusiasm for European colonial expansionism and skepticism regarding the supremacy of European culture; (2) major chronotopes that determine the narrative structure of a text; and (3) the way in which such major chronotopes may be linked to broader questions of genre.