{"title":"Interferenz statt Verspätung – Die Polysystemtheorie als Beschreibungsmodell für ‚kleine‘ Literaturen","authors":"Fabienne Gilbertz","doi":"10.12697/IL.2019.24.1.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Interference instead of Belatedness – Polysystem Theory as a Descriptive Model for ‘Small’ Literatures. Luxembourg literature can be considered a ‘small’ literature from various angles. Its small size, young age and the existence of a sparsely diffused language within a multilingual setting are features that also apply to other small European literary systems and that affect their self-perception fundamentally. In that context, Jeanne E. Glesener has identified a “discourse on smallness” which is developed by the literary centres and unconsciously internalized by the actors of small literary systems themselves: this discourse is essentially shaped by the ideas of creative sterility, poor visibility and, particularly, literary belatedness. However, as Glesener points out with respect to Pascale Casanova’s concept of literary time, the notion of belatedness wrongly implies that all literary systems sooner or later generate the same literary phenomena; it is therefore highly problematic. This paper introduces Itamar Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory – which has been designed in view of the Israeli literary system – as an alternative descriptive model for ‘small’ and multilingual literatures. Proceeding from the example of Luxembourg ‘Heimatliteratur’ in the second half of the 20th century, I would like to argue that by openly acknowledging every system’s historical and sociological characteristics and by excluding the notion of comparison from the analysis, the concept of ‘polysystemic interference’ allows for a more neutral study of literary contacts and literary change.","PeriodicalId":41069,"journal":{"name":"Interlitteraria","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.12697/IL.2019.24.1.16","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interlitteraria","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12697/IL.2019.24.1.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Interference instead of Belatedness – Polysystem Theory as a Descriptive Model for ‘Small’ Literatures. Luxembourg literature can be considered a ‘small’ literature from various angles. Its small size, young age and the existence of a sparsely diffused language within a multilingual setting are features that also apply to other small European literary systems and that affect their self-perception fundamentally. In that context, Jeanne E. Glesener has identified a “discourse on smallness” which is developed by the literary centres and unconsciously internalized by the actors of small literary systems themselves: this discourse is essentially shaped by the ideas of creative sterility, poor visibility and, particularly, literary belatedness. However, as Glesener points out with respect to Pascale Casanova’s concept of literary time, the notion of belatedness wrongly implies that all literary systems sooner or later generate the same literary phenomena; it is therefore highly problematic. This paper introduces Itamar Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory – which has been designed in view of the Israeli literary system – as an alternative descriptive model for ‘small’ and multilingual literatures. Proceeding from the example of Luxembourg ‘Heimatliteratur’ in the second half of the 20th century, I would like to argue that by openly acknowledging every system’s historical and sociological characteristics and by excluding the notion of comparison from the analysis, the concept of ‘polysystemic interference’ allows for a more neutral study of literary contacts and literary change.
干扰而非滞后——多系统理论作为“小”文献的描述模型。卢森堡文学可以从多个角度被视为“小”文学。它的体积小、年龄小以及在多语言环境中存在一种稀疏的语言,这些特点也适用于其他小型欧洲文学体系,并从根本上影响了他们的自我感知。在这种背景下,Jeanne E.Glesener确定了一种“关于小的话语”,这种话语是由文学中心发展起来的,并由小文学系统的行动者自己无意识地内化:这种话语本质上是由创作的贫瘠、可见性差,特别是文学的滞后性等思想塑造的。然而,正如Glesener关于Pascale Casanova的文学时间概念所指出的那样,迟来性的概念错误地暗示了所有文学系统迟早都会产生相同的文学现象;因此这是非常有问题的。本文介绍了Itamar Even Zohar的多系统理论——该理论是针对以色列文学系统而设计的——作为“小型”和多语言文学的替代描述模型。从20世纪下半叶卢森堡“Heimatliteratur”的例子出发,我想指出,通过公开承认每个系统的历史和社会学特征,并将比较的概念排除在分析之外,“多系统干扰”的概念允许对文学接触和文学变化进行更中立的研究。