Abstract Even though it is well known that only very few buildings have been planned and built by individuals alone, dominant conceptions of art and architectural history still are shaped by the idea of a few, self-sufficient artistic personalities. However, the fact that the production of architecture is always integrated into societal and social contexts, i. e., that it always takes place in interaction with a variety of actors, has garnered scholarly attention in recent years. At the same time, there has been increasing interest, from the point of view of architectural practice, in considering different forms of collaborative work. One specific form of this collaborative approach to work is that of the collective. During the interwar period, in particular, this concept was influenced by the various protagonists of classical modernism; in most of its iterations, it is based on a socio-critical foundation questioning established hierarchies (including the construct of a formative author figure) as well as the conditions of living and working under capitalism. Instead, they conceive of building as a task to be taken on by society as a whole. This idea already was politicised in the early Soviet Union, where it went hand in hand with a centralised notion of the state. In the German Democratic Republic, also, government building policy was tied in with this notion, as is evident from GDR agencies organising the entire building process in collectives. This led, at least in part, to resentment (discussed more or less openly) among contemporary architects, whose self-image as creative workers had thus been called into question (a fact which found expression in various debates about the organisation of working methods and the role of the author or collective leader within the collective). Certain persistent difficulties in the practice of architectural and art history – those in assessing and valorising buildings from that era – also reflect this problem: Even today, dispensing with a clear attribution of authorship apparently still is difficult (though this phenomenon may also be attributed to a lack of knowledge and understanding as regards the organisational and working methods of collectives at that time. Starting from this problem, the present article focuses on the various processes that take place during the creation of a work of architecture. One of the questions to explored is whether there are – or have been, historically – specifically ›collective‹ ways of ›doing architecture‹. In order to focus on this question from another angle, the article also points out significant parallels (and differences) between the working methods and self-image of architecture and planning collectives, then and now. Initially, work in collectives appeared to have taken a backseat after German reunification – a circumstance due in part, possibly, to the association of collective working modes with the failed socialist utopia of the GDR. In more recent years, howe
{"title":"Gemeinsam Räume schaffen. Facetten kollektiven Arbeitens in Architektur und Planung","authors":"S. Herold, Sophie Stackmann","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2022-2020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2022-2020","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Even though it is well known that only very few buildings have been planned and built by individuals alone, dominant conceptions of art and architectural history still are shaped by the idea of a few, self-sufficient artistic personalities. However, the fact that the production of architecture is always integrated into societal and social contexts, i. e., that it always takes place in interaction with a variety of actors, has garnered scholarly attention in recent years. At the same time, there has been increasing interest, from the point of view of architectural practice, in considering different forms of collaborative work. One specific form of this collaborative approach to work is that of the collective. During the interwar period, in particular, this concept was influenced by the various protagonists of classical modernism; in most of its iterations, it is based on a socio-critical foundation questioning established hierarchies (including the construct of a formative author figure) as well as the conditions of living and working under capitalism. Instead, they conceive of building as a task to be taken on by society as a whole. This idea already was politicised in the early Soviet Union, where it went hand in hand with a centralised notion of the state. In the German Democratic Republic, also, government building policy was tied in with this notion, as is evident from GDR agencies organising the entire building process in collectives. This led, at least in part, to resentment (discussed more or less openly) among contemporary architects, whose self-image as creative workers had thus been called into question (a fact which found expression in various debates about the organisation of working methods and the role of the author or collective leader within the collective). Certain persistent difficulties in the practice of architectural and art history – those in assessing and valorising buildings from that era – also reflect this problem: Even today, dispensing with a clear attribution of authorship apparently still is difficult (though this phenomenon may also be attributed to a lack of knowledge and understanding as regards the organisational and working methods of collectives at that time. Starting from this problem, the present article focuses on the various processes that take place during the creation of a work of architecture. One of the questions to explored is whether there are – or have been, historically – specifically ›collective‹ ways of ›doing architecture‹. In order to focus on this question from another angle, the article also points out significant parallels (and differences) between the working methods and self-image of architecture and planning collectives, then and now. Initially, work in collectives appeared to have taken a backseat after German reunification – a circumstance due in part, possibly, to the association of collective working modes with the failed socialist utopia of the GDR. In more recent years, howe","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"16 1","pages":"150 - 173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47191493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The present article proposes a methodology for writing genre history that does not proceed from »always already« existing generic norms, but rather describes the processes through which genres and their conventions emerge in the first place. Scholars in the field have long been calling for a mediation between (systematic) genre theory and the (historical) exploration of genres – i. e., generic historiography (see Lamping 2007; Neumann/Nünning 2007). So far, however, the solutions proposed have been classificatory in nature, and have mainly been concerned with taking into account the historical diversity of genres more fully than had previously been done (Hempfer 1973; Fricke 1981). The theoretical and methodological questions raised by genre historiography regarding the emergence and transformation of genres, by contrast, have hardly ever been the focus of sustained enquiry, despite the fact that a historically adequate approach to the history of genres – meaning an approach not based on classificatory models – remains a desideratum to this day. Most contributions to the historiography of genre thus far make use of prototype theory or draw on scholarship analyzing schemata and patterns in order to identify genre norms in their historical setting and describe the correspondences with (and/or deviations from) those norms which may be observed in a given text. Yet the methodological problem here is that, ordinarily, prototype-theoretical and schema-oriented approaches raise systematic rather than historical claims. Thus, a »prototype« is understood to be an abstract, ideal model which might never have been realized historically but is still considered the most »typical« exemplar of a given genre whose individual, concrete manifestations may be described as placed along a scale of relative similarity with that exemplar (Tophinke 1997). By adopting such a perspective, the texts belonging to a certain genre may be categorized without having to draw »hard« (i. e., feature-based) boundaries. However, comparing a single text with an ideal model affords hardly any surplus value regarding the question of the origin and change of genres. Being an ideal model, after all, the prototype is constructed a posteriori, on the basis of all available texts assigned to a given genre; it has never served as an actual point of reference for the production or reception of individual texts in their historical context. A similar methodological difficulty arises with a view to scholarship on schemata and patterns, in that these are usually abstracted from all texts belonging to a given genre (like prototypes) or else are fashioned on the model of supposed »masterpieces«, which all but invalidates their explanatory power in a historical context (Schulz 2012). For the historiography of genres, however, one question of particular interest is a question treated only marginally in scholarship on prototypes and schemata. This is the question of how precisely literary spe
{"title":"Theorie und Methode der Gattungsgeschichtsschreibung. Mediävistische Perspektiven","authors":"Florian Remele","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2021-2010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2021-2010","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The present article proposes a methodology for writing genre history that does not proceed from »always already« existing generic norms, but rather describes the processes through which genres and their conventions emerge in the first place. Scholars in the field have long been calling for a mediation between (systematic) genre theory and the (historical) exploration of genres – i. e., generic historiography (see Lamping 2007; Neumann/Nünning 2007). So far, however, the solutions proposed have been classificatory in nature, and have mainly been concerned with taking into account the historical diversity of genres more fully than had previously been done (Hempfer 1973; Fricke 1981). The theoretical and methodological questions raised by genre historiography regarding the emergence and transformation of genres, by contrast, have hardly ever been the focus of sustained enquiry, despite the fact that a historically adequate approach to the history of genres – meaning an approach not based on classificatory models – remains a desideratum to this day. Most contributions to the historiography of genre thus far make use of prototype theory or draw on scholarship analyzing schemata and patterns in order to identify genre norms in their historical setting and describe the correspondences with (and/or deviations from) those norms which may be observed in a given text. Yet the methodological problem here is that, ordinarily, prototype-theoretical and schema-oriented approaches raise systematic rather than historical claims. Thus, a »prototype« is understood to be an abstract, ideal model which might never have been realized historically but is still considered the most »typical« exemplar of a given genre whose individual, concrete manifestations may be described as placed along a scale of relative similarity with that exemplar (Tophinke 1997). By adopting such a perspective, the texts belonging to a certain genre may be categorized without having to draw »hard« (i. e., feature-based) boundaries. However, comparing a single text with an ideal model affords hardly any surplus value regarding the question of the origin and change of genres. Being an ideal model, after all, the prototype is constructed a posteriori, on the basis of all available texts assigned to a given genre; it has never served as an actual point of reference for the production or reception of individual texts in their historical context. A similar methodological difficulty arises with a view to scholarship on schemata and patterns, in that these are usually abstracted from all texts belonging to a given genre (like prototypes) or else are fashioned on the model of supposed »masterpieces«, which all but invalidates their explanatory power in a historical context (Schulz 2012). For the historiography of genres, however, one question of particular interest is a question treated only marginally in scholarship on prototypes and schemata. This is the question of how precisely literary spe","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"15 1","pages":"53 - 80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49033420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The present article discusses and reflects on possible ways of operationalizing the terminology of traditional literary studies for use in computational literary studies. By »operationalization«, we mean the development of a method for tracing a (theoretical) term back to text-surface phenomena; this is done explicitly and in a rule-based manner, involving a series of substeps. This procedure is presented in detail using as a concrete example Norbert Altenhofer’s »model interpretation« (Modellinterpretation) of Heinrich von Kleist’s The Earthquake in Chile. In the process, we develop a multi-stage operation – reflected upon throughout in terms of its epistemological implications – that is based on a rational-hermeneutic reconstruction of Altenhofer’s interpretation, which focuses on »mysteriousness« (Rätselhaftigkeit), a concept from everyday language. As we go on to demonstrate, when trying to operationalize this term, one encounters numerous difficulties, which is owing to the fact that Altenhofer’s use of it is underspecified in a number of ways. Thus, for instance, and contrary to Altenhofer’s suggestion, Kleist’s sentences containing »relativizing or perspectivizing phrases such as ›it seemed‹ or ›it was as if‹« (Altenhofer 2007, 45) do by no means, when analyzed linguistically, suggest a questioning or challenge of the events narrated, since the unreal quality of those German sentences only relates to the comparison in the subordinate clause, not to the respective main clause. Another indicator central to Altenhofer’s ascription of »mysteriousness« is his concept of a »complete facticity« (lückenlose Faktizität) which »does not seem to leave anything ›open‹« (Altenhofer 2007, 45). Again, the precise designation of what exactly qualifies facticity as »complete« is left open, since Kleist’s novella does indeed select for portrayal certain phenomena and actions within the narrated world (and not others). The degree of factuality in Kleist’s text may be higher than it is in other texts, but it is by no means »complete«. In the context of Altenhofer’s interpretation, »complete facticity« may be taken to mean a narrative mode in which terrible events are reported using conspicuously sober and at times drastic language. Following the critical reconstruction of Altenhofer’s use of terminology, the central terms and their relationship to one another are first explicated (in natural language), which already necessitates intensive conceptual work. We do so implementing a hierarchical understanding of the terms discussed: the definition of one term uses other terms which also need to be defined and operationalized. In accordance with the requirements of computational text analysis, this hierarchy of terms should end in »directly measurable« terms – i. e., in terms that can be clearly identified on the surface of the text. This, however, leads to the question of whether (and, if so, on the basis of which theoretical assumptions) the terminology
摘要本文讨论并反思了在计算文学研究中使用传统文学研究术语的可能方法。通过“操作化”，我们指的是开发一种方法，将(理论)术语追溯回文本表面现象;这是以基于规则的方式显式完成的，涉及一系列子步骤。以Norbert Altenhofer对Heinrich von Kleist的《智利地震》的“模型解释”(modelinterpretation)为例，详细介绍了这一过程。在这个过程中，我们发展了一个多阶段的操作——从其认识论的意义上反映出来——这是基于对Altenhofer的解释的理性解释学重建，其重点是“神秘”(Rätselhaftigkeit)，这是一个来自日常语言的概念。正如我们接下来所展示的，当试图操作这个术语时，人们会遇到许多困难，这是由于Altenhofer对它的使用在许多方面都没有明确规定。因此，例如，与Altenhofer的建议相反，克莱斯特的句子包含“相对化或透视化”的短语，如“it seems”或“it was as if”(Altenhofer 2007, 45)，当从语言学上分析时，绝不意味着对所叙述的事件提出质疑或挑战，因为这些德语句子的不真实性质只与从句中的比较有关，而不是与各自的主句有关。Altenhofer对“神秘性”的归属的另一个核心指标是他的“完全事实性”(l<s:1> ckenlose Faktizität)的概念，“似乎没有留下任何“开放”(Altenhofer 2007,45)。再一次，关于什么是“完整”的真实性的确切定义是开放的，因为克莱斯特的中篇小说确实选择了描述所叙述的世界中的某些现象和行为(而不是其他)。克莱斯特的文本中的真实性程度可能高于其他文本，但它绝不是“完整的”。在Altenhofer的解释中，“完全的真实性”可以被理解为一种叙事模式，在这种模式中，可怕的事件被用明显清醒的，有时甚至是激烈的语言报道。在Altenhofer对术语使用的批判性重建之后，首先(用自然语言)解释了中心术语及其彼此之间的关系，这已经需要密集的概念工作。我们这样做是为了实现对所讨论的术语的层次理解:一个术语的定义使用其他术语，这些术语也需要定义和操作化。根据计算文本分析的要求，这个术语层次应该以“直接可测量的”术语结束。，这些术语可以在文本的表面上清楚地识别出来。然而，这导致了一个问题，即文学研究的术语是否(如果是，基于哪些理论假设)可以以这种方式追溯到文本表面现象。在对这一复杂问题的语用和理论讨论之后，我们指出了将这些定义转换为手动或自动识别的方法。在人工识别的情况下，注释的范例——在(计算)语言学中建立和方法上的反映——将是有用的，一个控制良好的注释过程将有助于进一步澄清所讨论的术语。然而，主要目标是建立一个识别规则，通过该规则，个人可以主观地和可靠地识别给定文本中有关术语的实例。虽然在将这种方法应用于文学研究时确实会出现新的挑战-例如注释的有效性和可靠性问题-这些挑战目前正在计算文学研究领域进行深入研究，这导致了大量且不断增长的研究机构可供借鉴。在计算机辅助识别方面，我们通过示例来研究两种不同的方法:1)由先例定义和注释规则指导的操作化类型受益于其每个步骤都是透明的，可以验证和解释，并且计算语言学的现有工具可以集成到该过程中。在这里使用的场景中，这些工具将用于识别和分配角色语音、解决相互参照和评估事件;反过来，所有这些都可能基于机器学习、规定规则或字典。2)近年来，所谓的端到端系统变得流行起来，它在神经网络的帮助下，直接从数据的数字表示中“推断”目标术语。这些系统在许多领域取得了优异的效果。 但是，它们缺乏透明度也提出了新的问题，特别是在对结果的解释方面。最后，我们讨论了质量保证的选择，并得出了第一个结论。由于在操作化过程中必须做出许多决策，而这些决策在实践中通常是合理的，因此很快就会出现一个问题，即给定的操作化实际上有多“好”。而且，由于从计算语言学借来的工具(尤其是所谓的注释者间协议)只能部分地转移到计算文学研究中，而且，很难找到给定实现质量的客观标准，因此最终取决于研究人员和学者社区，根据他们的研究标准来决定他们接受哪些操作化。同时，操作化是计算机科学和文学研究之间的中心环节，也是计算文学研究中大部分研究的必要组成部分。有意识的、深思熟虑的和反思性的操作化做法的优点不仅在于它可以用来获得可靠的定量结果(或者至少某种程度上缺乏可靠性是一个已知的因素);它还在于促进跨学科合作:在操作过程中，讨论了具体的数据集，以及分析它们的方法，这些数据集结合在一起，最大限度地减少了误解、“假朋友”和更普遍的非生产性交流的风险。
{"title":"Zur Operationalisierung literaturwissenschaftlicher Begriffe in der algorithmischen Textanalyse. Eine Annäherung über Norbert Altenhofers hermeneutische Modellinterpretation von KleistsDas Erdbeben in Chili","authors":"A. Pichler, Nils Reiter","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2021-2008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2021-2008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The present article discusses and reflects on possible ways of operationalizing the terminology of traditional literary studies for use in computational literary studies. By »operationalization«, we mean the development of a method for tracing a (theoretical) term back to text-surface phenomena; this is done explicitly and in a rule-based manner, involving a series of substeps. This procedure is presented in detail using as a concrete example Norbert Altenhofer’s »model interpretation« (Modellinterpretation) of Heinrich von Kleist’s The Earthquake in Chile. In the process, we develop a multi-stage operation – reflected upon throughout in terms of its epistemological implications – that is based on a rational-hermeneutic reconstruction of Altenhofer’s interpretation, which focuses on »mysteriousness« (Rätselhaftigkeit), a concept from everyday language. As we go on to demonstrate, when trying to operationalize this term, one encounters numerous difficulties, which is owing to the fact that Altenhofer’s use of it is underspecified in a number of ways. Thus, for instance, and contrary to Altenhofer’s suggestion, Kleist’s sentences containing »relativizing or perspectivizing phrases such as ›it seemed‹ or ›it was as if‹« (Altenhofer 2007, 45) do by no means, when analyzed linguistically, suggest a questioning or challenge of the events narrated, since the unreal quality of those German sentences only relates to the comparison in the subordinate clause, not to the respective main clause. Another indicator central to Altenhofer’s ascription of »mysteriousness« is his concept of a »complete facticity« (lückenlose Faktizität) which »does not seem to leave anything ›open‹« (Altenhofer 2007, 45). Again, the precise designation of what exactly qualifies facticity as »complete« is left open, since Kleist’s novella does indeed select for portrayal certain phenomena and actions within the narrated world (and not others). The degree of factuality in Kleist’s text may be higher than it is in other texts, but it is by no means »complete«. In the context of Altenhofer’s interpretation, »complete facticity« may be taken to mean a narrative mode in which terrible events are reported using conspicuously sober and at times drastic language. Following the critical reconstruction of Altenhofer’s use of terminology, the central terms and their relationship to one another are first explicated (in natural language), which already necessitates intensive conceptual work. We do so implementing a hierarchical understanding of the terms discussed: the definition of one term uses other terms which also need to be defined and operationalized. In accordance with the requirements of computational text analysis, this hierarchy of terms should end in »directly measurable« terms – i. e., in terms that can be clearly identified on the surface of the text. This, however, leads to the question of whether (and, if so, on the basis of which theoretical assumptions) the terminology","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"15 1","pages":"1 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41940860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Juliane Schröter, Keli Du, Julia Dudar, Cora Rok, Christof Schöch
Abstract There is a set of statistical measures developed mostly in corpus and computational linguistics and information retrieval, known as keyness measures, which are generally expected to detect textual features that account for differences between two texts or groups of texts. These measures are based on the frequency, distribution, or dispersion of words (or other features). Searching for relevant differences or similarities between two text groups is also an activity that is characteristic of traditional literary studies, whenever two authors, two periods in the work of one author, two historical periods or two literary genres are to be compared. Therefore, applying quantitative procedures in order to search for differences seems to be promising in the field of computational literary studies as it allows to analyze large corpora and to base historical hypotheses on differences between authors, genres and periods on larger empirical evidence. However, applying quantitative procedures in order to answer questions relevant to literary studies in many cases raises methodological problems, which have been discussed on a more general level in the context of integrating or triangulating quantitative and qualitative methods in mixed methods research of the social sciences. This paper aims to solve these methodological issues concretely for the concept of distinctiveness and thus to lay the methodological foundation permitting to operationalize quantitative procedures in order to use them not only as rough exploratory tools, but in a hermeneutically meaningful way for research in literary studies. Based on a structural definition of potential candidate measures for analyzing distinctiveness in the first section, we offer a systematic description of the issue of integrating quantitative procedures into a hermeneutically meaningful understanding of distinctiveness by distinguishing its epistemological from the methodological perspective. The second section develops a systematic strategy to solve the methodological side of this issue based on a critical reconstruction of the widespread non-integrative strategy in research on keyness measures that can be traced back to Rudolf Carnap’s model of explication. We demonstrate that it is, in the first instance, mandatory to gain a comprehensive qualitative understanding of the actual task. We show that Carnap’s model of explication suffers from a shortcoming that consists in ignoring the need for a systematic comparison of what he calls the explicatum and the explicandum. Only if there is a method of systematic comparison, the next task, namely that of evaluation can be addressed, which verifies whether the output of a quantitative procedure corresponds to the qualitative expectation that must be clarified in advance. We claim that evaluation is necessary for integrating quantitative procedures to a qualitative understanding of distinctiveness. Our reconstruction shows that both steps are usually skipped in e
{"title":"From Keyness to Distinctiveness – Triangulation and Evaluation in Computational Literary Studies","authors":"Juliane Schröter, Keli Du, Julia Dudar, Cora Rok, Christof Schöch","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2021-2011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2021-2011","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There is a set of statistical measures developed mostly in corpus and computational linguistics and information retrieval, known as keyness measures, which are generally expected to detect textual features that account for differences between two texts or groups of texts. These measures are based on the frequency, distribution, or dispersion of words (or other features). Searching for relevant differences or similarities between two text groups is also an activity that is characteristic of traditional literary studies, whenever two authors, two periods in the work of one author, two historical periods or two literary genres are to be compared. Therefore, applying quantitative procedures in order to search for differences seems to be promising in the field of computational literary studies as it allows to analyze large corpora and to base historical hypotheses on differences between authors, genres and periods on larger empirical evidence. However, applying quantitative procedures in order to answer questions relevant to literary studies in many cases raises methodological problems, which have been discussed on a more general level in the context of integrating or triangulating quantitative and qualitative methods in mixed methods research of the social sciences. This paper aims to solve these methodological issues concretely for the concept of distinctiveness and thus to lay the methodological foundation permitting to operationalize quantitative procedures in order to use them not only as rough exploratory tools, but in a hermeneutically meaningful way for research in literary studies. Based on a structural definition of potential candidate measures for analyzing distinctiveness in the first section, we offer a systematic description of the issue of integrating quantitative procedures into a hermeneutically meaningful understanding of distinctiveness by distinguishing its epistemological from the methodological perspective. The second section develops a systematic strategy to solve the methodological side of this issue based on a critical reconstruction of the widespread non-integrative strategy in research on keyness measures that can be traced back to Rudolf Carnap’s model of explication. We demonstrate that it is, in the first instance, mandatory to gain a comprehensive qualitative understanding of the actual task. We show that Carnap’s model of explication suffers from a shortcoming that consists in ignoring the need for a systematic comparison of what he calls the explicatum and the explicandum. Only if there is a method of systematic comparison, the next task, namely that of evaluation can be addressed, which verifies whether the output of a quantitative procedure corresponds to the qualitative expectation that must be clarified in advance. We claim that evaluation is necessary for integrating quantitative procedures to a qualitative understanding of distinctiveness. Our reconstruction shows that both steps are usually skipped in e","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"15 1","pages":"81 - 108"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46433823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract My paper discusses the controversial relationship between literature and literary studies by using the example of the term ›migration literature‹. It demonstrates in the first part that ›migration literature‹ as a term in literary studies does not expose explications of rational reconstructions of a conceptual content in Harald Fricke’s and Klaus Weimar’s understanding. In its history (Adelson 1991; 2004), ›migration literature‹ goes back to a chain of different terms and definitions as Gastarbeiter- or Ausländerliteratur and reflects strategies of homogenization and exclusion. From the 1980s forward, those terms produce in cultural contexts a semantic field that propagates culture based on a definition of ex negativo (Tafazoli 2019). The first part of my paper describes an outline of influences of homogenization and reductionism on the discourses of migration in literary studies and explains in the second part an asymmetrical relationship between motive on the one hand and terminology on the other. The term ›migration literature‹ seems to dominate this relationship by determination of a source of ›accepted truths‹ related to the life and background – specifically to the place of birth and the origin – of the author (Bay 2017). By prioritization of criteria beyond narrative reality, literary studies led in the 1980s and 1990s discourses on migration on the sidelines of canon of German speaking literature (Weigel 1991; Wilpert 2001). With regard to terminological determination in order to produce interpretative sovereignty (Foucault 1994), my paper exemplifies in the second part that the term ›migration literature‹ collects selected and limited fields of social, historical and political knowledge in perspective adjustment and in order to classify literature beyond aesthetic criteria. By this means, inductive standards (Müller 2010a; 2010b) classify the literary object ›migration‹ ontologically and regardless of factuality of the author’s life on the one hand and fictionality of narrative text on the other. The ontological classification has been used, for example, in contexts that replace the figure of stranger (Fremder) by the figure of migrant and determines the latter as figuration of external space of culture. The replacement suggests a perspective rigidity in the cultural production of knowledge that flows into a terminological classification and claims with the term ›migration literature‹ sovereignty over culture. From this point of view, the author and his work should be located in the external space of canonized literature. The second part of my paper comes to the conclusion that the term ›migration literature‹ has been developed in politicized frames of external-textual ›accepted truths‹ and bases its stability on cultural essentialism and exclusion regardless of heterogenetic appearance (Bhatti 2015). With regard to theories of »literature on the move« (Ette 2001), my paper understands that migration has always formed a consider
{"title":"Entgrenzte Figuren – bewegte Erinnerungen. Migration im Spannungsfeld von Literatur und Begriff","authors":"Hamid Tafazoli","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2021-2012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2021-2012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract My paper discusses the controversial relationship between literature and literary studies by using the example of the term ›migration literature‹. It demonstrates in the first part that ›migration literature‹ as a term in literary studies does not expose explications of rational reconstructions of a conceptual content in Harald Fricke’s and Klaus Weimar’s understanding. In its history (Adelson 1991; 2004), ›migration literature‹ goes back to a chain of different terms and definitions as Gastarbeiter- or Ausländerliteratur and reflects strategies of homogenization and exclusion. From the 1980s forward, those terms produce in cultural contexts a semantic field that propagates culture based on a definition of ex negativo (Tafazoli 2019). The first part of my paper describes an outline of influences of homogenization and reductionism on the discourses of migration in literary studies and explains in the second part an asymmetrical relationship between motive on the one hand and terminology on the other. The term ›migration literature‹ seems to dominate this relationship by determination of a source of ›accepted truths‹ related to the life and background – specifically to the place of birth and the origin – of the author (Bay 2017). By prioritization of criteria beyond narrative reality, literary studies led in the 1980s and 1990s discourses on migration on the sidelines of canon of German speaking literature (Weigel 1991; Wilpert 2001). With regard to terminological determination in order to produce interpretative sovereignty (Foucault 1994), my paper exemplifies in the second part that the term ›migration literature‹ collects selected and limited fields of social, historical and political knowledge in perspective adjustment and in order to classify literature beyond aesthetic criteria. By this means, inductive standards (Müller 2010a; 2010b) classify the literary object ›migration‹ ontologically and regardless of factuality of the author’s life on the one hand and fictionality of narrative text on the other. The ontological classification has been used, for example, in contexts that replace the figure of stranger (Fremder) by the figure of migrant and determines the latter as figuration of external space of culture. The replacement suggests a perspective rigidity in the cultural production of knowledge that flows into a terminological classification and claims with the term ›migration literature‹ sovereignty over culture. From this point of view, the author and his work should be located in the external space of canonized literature. The second part of my paper comes to the conclusion that the term ›migration literature‹ has been developed in politicized frames of external-textual ›accepted truths‹ and bases its stability on cultural essentialism and exclusion regardless of heterogenetic appearance (Bhatti 2015). With regard to theories of »literature on the move« (Ette 2001), my paper understands that migration has always formed a consider","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"15 1","pages":"109 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45406141","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In the first part of the paper, the interconnection of evaluation and classification in the literary field is discussed. Genre constitutes one of the central notions in Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of literature. Werner Michler’s suggestion to regard genres not as theoretical models or collections of features, but as classifications by agents of the literary field, is expanded by the aspect of genre evaluation. Both processes of classification and evaluation seem intertwined and could be understood as evaluation strategies by agents and communities of the literary field. Introduction of new genre terms and their modification are popular strategies of revaluation of genres, works, authors, and audiences. In the paper, four groups of agents of the generic process identified by Michler (producers, distributors, non-professional recipients, and professional agencies of evaluation) are analysed in view of their power of revaluation. Furthermore, they are placed in the contemporary German literary field on the basis of Heribert Tommek’s model and depicted as hypothetical members of evaluative genre communities. These communities consist of agents and groups (e. g. fandoms) that defend and support genres, seeing in them a stake in the game which is the illusio, the faith in the principles of the field. In the second part, agents, communities, and their evaluative strategies are presented. First of all, it is the reception mechanisms which decide on the attribution of values to genres and affect the production of literature. Therefore, the authors write their texts with regard to conventional classifications and take part as well, more or less directly, in the processes of revaluation of genres they want to be associated with. The avant-garde is either interested in original genre terms or it avoids any ascriptions whatsoever. In comparison, the mainstream and the subfield of mass production concentrate on medially attractive or conventional and recognizable terms. Authors which have accumulated large symbolic capital can also revaluate genres with their prestige. The potential of terms and evaluations is also reflected in the structure of the field as seen by distributors of literature. Paratexts, advertisements, blurbs, and brands change according to their place on the aesthetic or economic pole of the field. This way, audiences that can choose genres, values and evaluations on the basis of the existing classifications are created and influenced. Even if their symbolic power is small, they manage to formulate evaluative classifications, first of all in the flexible area (forums, blogs) close to the professional agencies of evaluation. Genres are re- and devaluated also in the literary studies and by the critics. Here, the conscious usage of genre terms characterizes the profession. Literary critics and reviewers often choose new, original terms in order to prove their professional abilities of classification. In the structure of the field, betw
{"title":"Einführung und Modifikation von Genrebegriffen als Wertungsstrategien im literarischen Feld","authors":"Rafał Pokrywka","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2021-2009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2021-2009","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the first part of the paper, the interconnection of evaluation and classification in the literary field is discussed. Genre constitutes one of the central notions in Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of literature. Werner Michler’s suggestion to regard genres not as theoretical models or collections of features, but as classifications by agents of the literary field, is expanded by the aspect of genre evaluation. Both processes of classification and evaluation seem intertwined and could be understood as evaluation strategies by agents and communities of the literary field. Introduction of new genre terms and their modification are popular strategies of revaluation of genres, works, authors, and audiences. In the paper, four groups of agents of the generic process identified by Michler (producers, distributors, non-professional recipients, and professional agencies of evaluation) are analysed in view of their power of revaluation. Furthermore, they are placed in the contemporary German literary field on the basis of Heribert Tommek’s model and depicted as hypothetical members of evaluative genre communities. These communities consist of agents and groups (e. g. fandoms) that defend and support genres, seeing in them a stake in the game which is the illusio, the faith in the principles of the field. In the second part, agents, communities, and their evaluative strategies are presented. First of all, it is the reception mechanisms which decide on the attribution of values to genres and affect the production of literature. Therefore, the authors write their texts with regard to conventional classifications and take part as well, more or less directly, in the processes of revaluation of genres they want to be associated with. The avant-garde is either interested in original genre terms or it avoids any ascriptions whatsoever. In comparison, the mainstream and the subfield of mass production concentrate on medially attractive or conventional and recognizable terms. Authors which have accumulated large symbolic capital can also revaluate genres with their prestige. The potential of terms and evaluations is also reflected in the structure of the field as seen by distributors of literature. Paratexts, advertisements, blurbs, and brands change according to their place on the aesthetic or economic pole of the field. This way, audiences that can choose genres, values and evaluations on the basis of the existing classifications are created and influenced. Even if their symbolic power is small, they manage to formulate evaluative classifications, first of all in the flexible area (forums, blogs) close to the professional agencies of evaluation. Genres are re- and devaluated also in the literary studies and by the critics. Here, the conscious usage of genre terms characterizes the profession. Literary critics and reviewers often choose new, original terms in order to prove their professional abilities of classification. In the structure of the field, betw","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"15 1","pages":"30 - 52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2021-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47728901","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The two categories of »fiction« and »non-fiction« are most often conceived of – and treated as – disjointed and separate, not only in common sense but also in literary studies. This does not adequately reflect, however, the developmental trajectory of the non-fiction genre over the course of the twentieth century. After all, the popularization of expert knowledge has increasingly been effected with the help of narrative strategies which raise one crucial question: Just how much fiction can the factual nature – the dependence on facts – of non-fiction tolerate? However, as the more precise definition of the pertinent term, »fiction«, indicates, a distinction must be made between »fictionality«, on the one hand, and »fictivity«, on the other. »Fictionality«, that is to say, refers to narrative strategies analogous to those of fiction, but which relate to historical facts. »Fictivity«, by contrast, refers to the representation of fictitious content. More precisely, then, the question is this: Just what degree of fictivity can the factuality of non-fiction writing tolerate? Since this question cannot be answered constructively from a quantitative but only from a qualitative point of view, we are faced with the ultimately crucial question: Just what kind of fictivity can the factuality of non-fiction tolerate? In trying to answer that question, it seems advisable to start from the structure of deductive-nomological explanation, in which a given phenomenon – the explanandum – is explained by deducing its description from regularities plus the antecedent conditions contained in them (the explanans). In the case of historical explanation, in particular, historical facts most often form the explanandum, while the antecedent conditions of the potentially explanatory regularity (i. e., of the explanans) are not historically documented. Even more specifically, the genre of biography presents a paradigmatic case of such historical explanations falling within the purview of literary studies as well. Not uncommonly, attempts to arrive at a coherent, psychologically convincing biographical portrayal are met with the problem that historically documented life events can be explained – as to their genesis or »coming about« – only by reference to ultimately fictitious – or, to take up the distinction introduced above, to ultimately fictive – assumptions regarding antecedent conditions. Literary biography may, therefore, be said to realize the desired combination of fictivity and factuality in the best possible way: namely, as fictivity in the service of factuality. To find a paradigmatic example of such a combination, one need look no further than the biography of the German chemist Clara Immerwahr, wife of the professor of chemistry, Dr. Fritz Haber, who during the First World War was in charge of German efforts to develop and deploy chemical combat agents such as poison gases. Clara Immerwahr demonstrably saw her husband’s work as a perversion of science
{"title":"Biographische Real-Fiktion als Paradigma narrativer Erklärung","authors":"N. Groeben","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2020-2008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2020-2008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The two categories of »fiction« and »non-fiction« are most often conceived of – and treated as – disjointed and separate, not only in common sense but also in literary studies. This does not adequately reflect, however, the developmental trajectory of the non-fiction genre over the course of the twentieth century. After all, the popularization of expert knowledge has increasingly been effected with the help of narrative strategies which raise one crucial question: Just how much fiction can the factual nature – the dependence on facts – of non-fiction tolerate? However, as the more precise definition of the pertinent term, »fiction«, indicates, a distinction must be made between »fictionality«, on the one hand, and »fictivity«, on the other. »Fictionality«, that is to say, refers to narrative strategies analogous to those of fiction, but which relate to historical facts. »Fictivity«, by contrast, refers to the representation of fictitious content. More precisely, then, the question is this: Just what degree of fictivity can the factuality of non-fiction writing tolerate? Since this question cannot be answered constructively from a quantitative but only from a qualitative point of view, we are faced with the ultimately crucial question: Just what kind of fictivity can the factuality of non-fiction tolerate? In trying to answer that question, it seems advisable to start from the structure of deductive-nomological explanation, in which a given phenomenon – the explanandum – is explained by deducing its description from regularities plus the antecedent conditions contained in them (the explanans). In the case of historical explanation, in particular, historical facts most often form the explanandum, while the antecedent conditions of the potentially explanatory regularity (i. e., of the explanans) are not historically documented. Even more specifically, the genre of biography presents a paradigmatic case of such historical explanations falling within the purview of literary studies as well. Not uncommonly, attempts to arrive at a coherent, psychologically convincing biographical portrayal are met with the problem that historically documented life events can be explained – as to their genesis or »coming about« – only by reference to ultimately fictitious – or, to take up the distinction introduced above, to ultimately fictive – assumptions regarding antecedent conditions. Literary biography may, therefore, be said to realize the desired combination of fictivity and factuality in the best possible way: namely, as fictivity in the service of factuality. To find a paradigmatic example of such a combination, one need look no further than the biography of the German chemist Clara Immerwahr, wife of the professor of chemistry, Dr. Fritz Haber, who during the First World War was in charge of German efforts to develop and deploy chemical combat agents such as poison gases. Clara Immerwahr demonstrably saw her husband’s work as a perversion of science ","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"14 1","pages":"287 - 310"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jlt-2020-2008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46051731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In recent decades, research into the history of fictionality has seen a significant upturn in interest. One promising theoretical foundation for such investigations appears to be the approach commonly known as the »institutional theory of fictionality«. This is based on the premise that fictionality is a rule-based practice determined by conventions which are variable (both synchronically and diachronically), conventions to which authors and readers alike feel committed. The main advantage of this particular theory of fictionality, as far as an analytical approach to the history of fictionality is concerned, is the following: The institutional theory of fictionality is suitable for taking into adequate account the historical variability of terms, concepts and practices by providing a theoretical framework that may be filled with a wide variety of different (kinds of) content. In this way, one may sidestep the danger of examining the history of fictionality in an anachronistic manner, imposing on past times and practices the expectations of a modern perspective. Still, committing to an institutional theory of fictionality avoids only some of the problems all research on the history of fictionality faces. The aim of this article, therefore, is to point out those difficulties which cannot be avoided in such investigations even in the arguably best theoretical conditions of an institutional account of fictionality. To this end, instead of providing an overview of previous research or addressing specific methodological, conceptual or logical problems related, the present essay focuses on recurring and widespread difficulties inherent in both the object of investigation and the various methods of investigating it. The essay is divided into three sections. In the first, a number of problems are addressed that exist regardless of the specific method of investigation chosen. Most epistemological problems result from the fact that written documents must be consulted to make inferences regarding the conventions and practices of the past. In this context, it is not only the sparse tradition that becomes an issue (especially for more remote historical periods) but also the fact that no analysis of written materials can provide direct insight into past practices. Since any social practice, moreover, is in itself a highly complex matter that can hardly be broken down and understood in all of its many aspects – even from an interdisciplinary perspective, which anyway implies its own difficulties such as a frequent lack of uniform terms, et cetera –, such research will only be able, as a matter of principle, to approach past practices more or less closely. Following these general reflections, the article critically examines the two most prominent methods used by those investigating the history of fictionality as an »institution«. These are the analysis of literary texts, on the one hand, and that of poetological texts, on the other. When trying to draw c
{"title":"On the History of the Practice of Fictionality – and the Recurring Problems in its Investigation","authors":"Eva Konrad","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2020-2004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2020-2004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In recent decades, research into the history of fictionality has seen a significant upturn in interest. One promising theoretical foundation for such investigations appears to be the approach commonly known as the »institutional theory of fictionality«. This is based on the premise that fictionality is a rule-based practice determined by conventions which are variable (both synchronically and diachronically), conventions to which authors and readers alike feel committed. The main advantage of this particular theory of fictionality, as far as an analytical approach to the history of fictionality is concerned, is the following: The institutional theory of fictionality is suitable for taking into adequate account the historical variability of terms, concepts and practices by providing a theoretical framework that may be filled with a wide variety of different (kinds of) content. In this way, one may sidestep the danger of examining the history of fictionality in an anachronistic manner, imposing on past times and practices the expectations of a modern perspective. Still, committing to an institutional theory of fictionality avoids only some of the problems all research on the history of fictionality faces. The aim of this article, therefore, is to point out those difficulties which cannot be avoided in such investigations even in the arguably best theoretical conditions of an institutional account of fictionality. To this end, instead of providing an overview of previous research or addressing specific methodological, conceptual or logical problems related, the present essay focuses on recurring and widespread difficulties inherent in both the object of investigation and the various methods of investigating it. The essay is divided into three sections. In the first, a number of problems are addressed that exist regardless of the specific method of investigation chosen. Most epistemological problems result from the fact that written documents must be consulted to make inferences regarding the conventions and practices of the past. In this context, it is not only the sparse tradition that becomes an issue (especially for more remote historical periods) but also the fact that no analysis of written materials can provide direct insight into past practices. Since any social practice, moreover, is in itself a highly complex matter that can hardly be broken down and understood in all of its many aspects – even from an interdisciplinary perspective, which anyway implies its own difficulties such as a frequent lack of uniform terms, et cetera –, such research will only be able, as a matter of principle, to approach past practices more or less closely. Following these general reflections, the article critically examines the two most prominent methods used by those investigating the history of fictionality as an »institution«. These are the analysis of literary texts, on the one hand, and that of poetological texts, on the other. When trying to draw c","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"14 1","pages":"173 - 193"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jlt-2020-2004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46001159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This issue of the Journal of Literary Theory is devoted to the »History of the Modern Practice of Fiction«. As this title already signals, the idea for this Special Issue stems, on the one hand, from a certain way of thinking about the phenomenon of fiction developed in literary theory and philosophy and, on the other hand, from research carried out in the historical disciplines. The property that makes a literary work a piece of fiction – henceforth: the property of ›fictionality‹ – is increasingly understood as a social practice, which is essentially determined by sets of rules for authors and readers and their shared knowledge of these rules. At the same time, researchers in literary and cultural studies tenaciously pursue the idea that what we nowadays call fictionality, fictionality in the modern sense, has a colorful history worth studying. Although these strands of research have so far existed relatively independent one from another due to disciplinary boundaries, three research developments over the last decades favor an integrated approach for a history of the modern practice of fiction.1 These developments are: First, the growing importance of pragmatist approaches in the humanities in general (cf. Schatzki/Knorr-Cetina/von Savigny 2001) and in fiction theory in particular has established an interface between fiction theory and literary historiography. Fictionality is increasingly understood as a social practice, or, in other words, as a social institution that is essentially determined by sets of rules for authors and readers and their shared knowledge of these rules (cf. Lamarque/ Olsen 1994; Zipfel 2001, esp. 279–287; Köppe 2014a; Zipfel 2016; Konrad 2017; cf. also Eco 1994, 75, for the related idea of a contract or ›fictional agreement‹ between authors and readers). Since these rules concern the production and the reception of fictional texts, institutional theories of fiction typically integrate insights from production-oriented speech act theories (cf. Searle 1975; Currie 1990; Genette 1991), as well as from reception-oriented approaches (cf. Ryan
{"title":"Editorial: Towards a History of the Modern Practice of Fiction","authors":"Benjamin Gittel","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2020-2002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2020-2002","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of the Journal of Literary Theory is devoted to the »History of the Modern Practice of Fiction«. As this title already signals, the idea for this Special Issue stems, on the one hand, from a certain way of thinking about the phenomenon of fiction developed in literary theory and philosophy and, on the other hand, from research carried out in the historical disciplines. The property that makes a literary work a piece of fiction – henceforth: the property of ›fictionality‹ – is increasingly understood as a social practice, which is essentially determined by sets of rules for authors and readers and their shared knowledge of these rules. At the same time, researchers in literary and cultural studies tenaciously pursue the idea that what we nowadays call fictionality, fictionality in the modern sense, has a colorful history worth studying. Although these strands of research have so far existed relatively independent one from another due to disciplinary boundaries, three research developments over the last decades favor an integrated approach for a history of the modern practice of fiction.1 These developments are: First, the growing importance of pragmatist approaches in the humanities in general (cf. Schatzki/Knorr-Cetina/von Savigny 2001) and in fiction theory in particular has established an interface between fiction theory and literary historiography. Fictionality is increasingly understood as a social practice, or, in other words, as a social institution that is essentially determined by sets of rules for authors and readers and their shared knowledge of these rules (cf. Lamarque/ Olsen 1994; Zipfel 2001, esp. 279–287; Köppe 2014a; Zipfel 2016; Konrad 2017; cf. also Eco 1994, 75, for the related idea of a contract or ›fictional agreement‹ between authors and readers). Since these rules concern the production and the reception of fictional texts, institutional theories of fiction typically integrate insights from production-oriented speech act theories (cf. Searle 1975; Currie 1990; Genette 1991), as well as from reception-oriented approaches (cf. Ryan","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"14 1","pages":"139 - 146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jlt-2020-2002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44887411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Investigations into the history of the modern practice of fiction encounter a wide range of obstacles. One of the major impediments lies in the fact that former centuries have used different concepts and terms to designate or describe phenomena or ideas that we, during the last 50 years, have been dealing with under the label of fiction/ality. Therefore, it is not easy to establish whether scholars and poets of other centuries actually do talk about what we today call fiction or fictionality and, if they do, what they say about it. Moreover, even when we detect discourses or propositions that seem to deal with aspects of fictionality we have to be careful and ask whether these propositions are actually intended to talk about phenomena that belong to the realm of fiction/ality. However, if we want to gain some knowledge about the history of fiction/ality, we have no other choice than to tackle the arduous task of trying to detect similarities (and differences) between the present-day discourse on fictionality and (allegedly) related discourses of other epochs. The goal of this paper is to make a small contribution to this task. The starting point of the paper are two observations, which also determine the approach I have chosen for my investigations. 1) In the 18th century the terms »fiction« or »fictionality« do not seem to play a significant role in the discussion of art and literature. However, some propositions of the discourse on imagination, one of the most prominent discourses of the Age of Enlightenment, seem to suggest that this discourse deals more or less explicitly with questions regarding the fictionality of literary artefacts as we conceive it today. 2) The concepts of imagination and fictionality are also closely linked in present-day theories of fiction. Naturally, the question arises how the entanglement of the concepts of fictionality and imagination can be understood in a historical perspective. Can it function as a common ground between 18th-century and present-day conceptions of fiction/ality? Is imagination still used in the same ways to explain phenomena of fictionality or have the approaches evolved over the last 250 years and if yes, then how? These kinds of questions inevitably lead to one major question: What do 18th-century and present-day conceptions of fiction/ality have in common, how much and in what ways do they differ? For heuristic reasons, the article is subdivided according to what I consider the three salient features of today’s institutional theories of fiction (i. e. theories which try to explain fictionality as an institutional practice that is determined and ruled by specific conventions): fictive utterance (aspects concerning the production of fictional texts), fictional content (aspects concerning the narrated story in fictional texts) and fictive stance (aspects concerning the reader’s response to fictional texts). The article focusses on the English, French and German-speaking debates of the l
{"title":"The Pleasures of Imagination. Aspects of Fictionality in the Poetics of the Age of Enlightenment and in Present-Day Theories of Fiction","authors":"F. Zipfel","doi":"10.1515/jlt-2020-2007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2020-2007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Investigations into the history of the modern practice of fiction encounter a wide range of obstacles. One of the major impediments lies in the fact that former centuries have used different concepts and terms to designate or describe phenomena or ideas that we, during the last 50 years, have been dealing with under the label of fiction/ality. Therefore, it is not easy to establish whether scholars and poets of other centuries actually do talk about what we today call fiction or fictionality and, if they do, what they say about it. Moreover, even when we detect discourses or propositions that seem to deal with aspects of fictionality we have to be careful and ask whether these propositions are actually intended to talk about phenomena that belong to the realm of fiction/ality. However, if we want to gain some knowledge about the history of fiction/ality, we have no other choice than to tackle the arduous task of trying to detect similarities (and differences) between the present-day discourse on fictionality and (allegedly) related discourses of other epochs. The goal of this paper is to make a small contribution to this task. The starting point of the paper are two observations, which also determine the approach I have chosen for my investigations. 1) In the 18th century the terms »fiction« or »fictionality« do not seem to play a significant role in the discussion of art and literature. However, some propositions of the discourse on imagination, one of the most prominent discourses of the Age of Enlightenment, seem to suggest that this discourse deals more or less explicitly with questions regarding the fictionality of literary artefacts as we conceive it today. 2) The concepts of imagination and fictionality are also closely linked in present-day theories of fiction. Naturally, the question arises how the entanglement of the concepts of fictionality and imagination can be understood in a historical perspective. Can it function as a common ground between 18th-century and present-day conceptions of fiction/ality? Is imagination still used in the same ways to explain phenomena of fictionality or have the approaches evolved over the last 250 years and if yes, then how? These kinds of questions inevitably lead to one major question: What do 18th-century and present-day conceptions of fiction/ality have in common, how much and in what ways do they differ? For heuristic reasons, the article is subdivided according to what I consider the three salient features of today’s institutional theories of fiction (i. e. theories which try to explain fictionality as an institutional practice that is determined and ruled by specific conventions): fictive utterance (aspects concerning the production of fictional texts), fictional content (aspects concerning the narrated story in fictional texts) and fictive stance (aspects concerning the reader’s response to fictional texts). The article focusses on the English, French and German-speaking debates of the l","PeriodicalId":42872,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Literary Theory","volume":"337 ","pages":"260 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jlt-2020-2007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41280276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：