Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (51)
- Part of Periodical (24)
- Review (13)
- Part of a Book (8)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Working Paper (2)
- Preprint (1)
Language
- German (81)
- English (10)
- Portuguese (5)
- Multiple languages (2)
- Turkish (2)
- French (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (101)
Keywords
- Literaturtheorie (101) (remove)
Institute
- Extern (6)
Die hier vorgestellte Studie entwickelt eine Theorie 'lyrischer Selbstentwürfe' und leistet eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme und Evaluation diesbezüglicher Forschungspositionen. Entgegen verbreiteter literaturwissenschaftlicher Grundannahmen wird die These vertreten, dass lyrische Texte faktual sein und auf Autor:innen referieren können. Für solche Fälle liefert die Studie ein begriffliches Instrumentarium, das sie an Beispielanalysen erprobt.
Ich möchte in folgendem Beitrag der Frage nachgehen, ob, und wenn ja, worin die sachliche Berechtigung und Plausibilität der Annahme liegen könnte, dass die Literatur einen Gegenstand hat. Eine Erfahrungstatsache jedenfalls ist, dass bis jetzt noch kein physisches oder psychisches Autodafé es fertig gebracht hat, das Bedürfnis des Menschen zu erzählen, durch Abschreckung stillzustellen. Ja, angesichts der Gefahr des Verlustes scheint die Bedeutung der Literatur noch größer zu werden. Und doch ist, was eine anthropologische Konstante zu sein scheint, seit der Krise der Moderne, seit der Kritik an der Zivilisation grundlegend in Frage gestellt.
Traditional philology in Japan (kokubungaku) is often described, both at home and abroad, as having a phobia of theory. The literary scholar often speaks the same language as the poet, and in many cases, as in the second edition of Iwanami Literary Studies (Iwanami Kōza Bungaku, 1975–1976), they are one and the same person. However, a closer look at Japanese literary studies since the translation of Eagleton´s Literary Theory in 1985 reveals that this paradigm has already started to shift. The publication of the third edition of Iwanami Literary Studies, and in particular the supplement Literary Theory (Bungaku Riron, 2004) distinctly reflects this shift, at least among the younger generation of literary scholars. In my paper I will show not only the shift to theory in recent Japanese literary studies, but also that theory itself (as it is used in Japan) has experienced that worldwide movement described as the “cultural turn.” In order to prove this observation I will take a closer look at the contemporary English, German and Japanese discourse on literary theory and, in particular concepts such as contingency, (new) contextuality, and culturalism.
Genealogy and philology
(2018)
The present paper deals with the use of the term "genealogy" in theory. Markus Winkler first tries to highlight the hidden metaphorical status of this use and the ambiguity that it conveys. In doing so, Winkler tries to outline how this metaphoricity and its inherent ambiguity may be brought to fruition in the philological analysis of texts and in theory itself. The paper is subdivided as follows: 1. The use of the term "genealogy" in theory and the interest of this use to philology. 2. A philological comment on the metaphorical status of this use and its inherent ambiguity inherited from mythical genealogy as a form of founding narrative. 3. The imitation of mythical genealogy and its inherent ambiguity in theory (Nietzsche) and literature (Goethe). 4. Genealogy's ambiguity in theory: an example taken from current political discourse. 5. Conclusion.
Anlama ve Yorumlama Ekseninde Edebiyat. Metin Toprak’ın Hermeneutik ve Edebiyat isimli Çalışması
(2017)
Rezension zu: Metin Toprak: Hermeneutik ve Edebiyat (2016). Dergâh Yayınları: İstanbul. 312 S. ISBN: 9789759957070
Da Literatur, die in den digitalen Medien entsteht, häufig in Bewegung und ephemer ist, braucht es neue literaturwissenschaftliche Methoden, um dieser Literatur zu begegnen. Der Beitrag skizziert die Schwierigkeiten, mit denen die Literaturwissenschaft konfrontiert ist, und schlägt vor, sich an den Methoden der Tanz- und Theaterwissenschaften zu orientieren, um methodologische Zugänge zu finden, die die Spezifika digitaler Literatur einbeziehen.
One characteristic of the work of Roland Barthes - and of that of other structuralist theorists - is the attempt to replace traditional forms of academic criticism, its unreflected claim of objectivity, and its dominant methods of 'text explanation' by science-based approaches which draw extensively on the ideas and terminology of theoretical corpora. [...] The relation between Barthes' position and philology deserves a closer look, however. What exactly is Barthes opposing under the label 'philology'? And do Barthes' theoretical advancements actually present a radical rupture with philology or do they not, at least to some extent, also build on philological methodology? To put it differently: do Barthes' works not, rather than entirely refuting philological methods of reading, serve to re-orientate philology itself - in line with or going beyond other contemporary views? To answer these questions, it will be necessary to sketch out at least roughly which notions of philology are and which are not compatible with Barthes' theory of the text, and which notions of philology may even form an integral part of his approach. If we come to the conclusion that philological interpretation does indeed form a part of Barthes' theoretical as well as practical endeavour, it will be important to determine its exact place and function. What happens to philology in such a theoretical environment? Is it simply given a 'facelift' or is it adapted to theoretical insights that cannot be dismissed? Ultimately, these questions point toward the aesthetic aspects of Barthes' theoretical language. Therefore, Regine Strätling examines whether a particular relation between theory and philology has had a part in the overwhelming success and the obvious attractiveness of Barthes' language of theory. Her emphasis will be on Barthes' essay S/Z, one of his most technical literary analyses as well as his most extensive and meticulous analysis of a literary text. Barthes himself promoted his 1970 essay as the first exhaustive structural analysis of a narrative text. With regard to the state of the art of structuralist textual analysis, Barthes claimed that after a period dedicated to extracting the macro-structures of texts, structuralism now had to face a new challenge: it had to proceed to a more comprehensive approach, also taking into account the micro-structures of a given text. And indeed, although Barthes in S/Z does not proceed literally word by word, he very nearly does so.