捷克方法论平台与现代乌克兰文学研究理念的联系

A. Tychinina
{"title":"捷克方法论平台与现代乌克兰文学研究理念的联系","authors":"A. Tychinina","doi":"10.31861/pytlit2020.102.195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article under studies identifies the methodological ties between modern Czech and Ukrainian literary studies on the example of Ivo Pospišil’s monograph “Methodology and Theory of Literary Slavic Studies and Central Europe” (2015). The methodological platform of the scientist is shown in dynamics: comparative studies, phenomenology, historical poetics, genre studies and areal studies. Areal (spatial) philology becomes the methodological framework and “cognitive tool” in the above work. Within the specific features of the hermeneutic circle, I. Pospišil outlines the methodological principles of Brno areal studies, as well as substantiates the powers of areal methodology. Hence, by means of deduction, he narrows the areas of its application and eventually connects spatial poetics to the analysis of specific texts of modern Czech literature. In this respect, areal studies are consonant with the methodology of the N. Kopystyanska’s scientific school. From the standpoint of literary axiology, I. Pospišil characterizes the literary process of 1960–1970 in the way that coincides with the ideas of D. Zatonsky and T. Hundorova. The interpretation of the tropical nature of allegory and symbol, within the areal issues, resonates with a number of Ukrainian investigations. I. Pospišil’s speculations on the problem of auto-reflection and auto-axiology of creativity is based mainly on the concepts of O. Potebnja, on whose methodological reputation rely the works of most Ukrainian researchers. The phenomenon of Central Europe is regarded in the context of “Central European centrism” and multiculturalism, which conceptually brings the scientific research closer to the American studies by N. Vysotska and T. Denysova. I. Pospišil emphasizes the influence of Central European university traditions of the first half of the XX century on the formation of the Prague Linguistic Circle, as well as on the scientific growth of F. Wallman, S. Vilinsky, R Jacobson and R. Wellek. The concept of the history of Russian literature, proposed by I. Pospišil, leads to the profound analysis of the scientific figure of D. Chyzhevsky, which is being widely studied in Ukraine. It is concluded that the “methodological balance” of Czech and Ukrainian literary criticism is ensured by common “pendulum movements” in the history of the literary process, common theoretical and literary basis (works by O. Potebnja, M. Bakhtin, D. Chyzhevsky, D. Ďurišin), parallel influences of Western European literary criticism, as well as collective conference events and consensual research optics.","PeriodicalId":32028,"journal":{"name":"Pitanna Literaturoznavstva","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Interconnections between the Czech Methodological Platform and the Ideas of Modern Ukrainian Literature Studies\",\"authors\":\"A. Tychinina\",\"doi\":\"10.31861/pytlit2020.102.195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article under studies identifies the methodological ties between modern Czech and Ukrainian literary studies on the example of Ivo Pospišil’s monograph “Methodology and Theory of Literary Slavic Studies and Central Europe” (2015). The methodological platform of the scientist is shown in dynamics: comparative studies, phenomenology, historical poetics, genre studies and areal studies. Areal (spatial) philology becomes the methodological framework and “cognitive tool” in the above work. Within the specific features of the hermeneutic circle, I. Pospišil outlines the methodological principles of Brno areal studies, as well as substantiates the powers of areal methodology. Hence, by means of deduction, he narrows the areas of its application and eventually connects spatial poetics to the analysis of specific texts of modern Czech literature. In this respect, areal studies are consonant with the methodology of the N. Kopystyanska’s scientific school. From the standpoint of literary axiology, I. Pospišil characterizes the literary process of 1960–1970 in the way that coincides with the ideas of D. Zatonsky and T. Hundorova. The interpretation of the tropical nature of allegory and symbol, within the areal issues, resonates with a number of Ukrainian investigations. I. Pospišil’s speculations on the problem of auto-reflection and auto-axiology of creativity is based mainly on the concepts of O. Potebnja, on whose methodological reputation rely the works of most Ukrainian researchers. The phenomenon of Central Europe is regarded in the context of “Central European centrism” and multiculturalism, which conceptually brings the scientific research closer to the American studies by N. Vysotska and T. Denysova. I. Pospišil emphasizes the influence of Central European university traditions of the first half of the XX century on the formation of the Prague Linguistic Circle, as well as on the scientific growth of F. Wallman, S. Vilinsky, R Jacobson and R. Wellek. The concept of the history of Russian literature, proposed by I. Pospišil, leads to the profound analysis of the scientific figure of D. Chyzhevsky, which is being widely studied in Ukraine. It is concluded that the “methodological balance” of Czech and Ukrainian literary criticism is ensured by common “pendulum movements” in the history of the literary process, common theoretical and literary basis (works by O. Potebnja, M. Bakhtin, D. Chyzhevsky, D. Ďurišin), parallel influences of Western European literary criticism, as well as collective conference events and consensual research optics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pitanna Literaturoznavstva\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pitanna Literaturoznavstva\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31861/pytlit2020.102.195\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pitanna Literaturoznavstva","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31861/pytlit2020.102.195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以伊沃Pospišil的专著《斯拉夫文学研究与中欧的方法论与理论》(2015)为例,确定了现代捷克和乌克兰文学研究之间的方法论联系。科学家的方法论平台显示在动力学:比较研究,现象学,历史诗学,体裁研究和地域研究。区域(空间)文献学成为上述工作的方法论框架和“认知工具”。在解释学圈的具体特征中,I. Pospišil概述了布尔诺区域研究的方法论原则,并证实了区域方法论的力量。因此,通过演绎,他缩小了空间诗学的应用范围,最终将空间诗学与现代捷克文学的具体文本分析联系起来。在这方面,实地研究与N. Kopystyanska科学学派的方法是一致的。从文学价值论的角度来看,I. Pospišil对1960-1970年文学进程的描述与D. Zatonsky和T. Hundorova的观点一致。在实际问题中,对寓言和象征的热带性质的解释与乌克兰的一些调查产生了共鸣。I. Pospišil对创造力的自我反思和自我价值论问题的推测主要基于O. Potebnja的概念,他的方法论声誉依赖于大多数乌克兰研究人员的工作。中欧现象是在“中欧中心主义”和多元文化主义的背景下看待的,这在概念上使科学研究更接近于维索茨卡和邓尼索娃的美国研究。I. Pospišil强调二十世纪上半叶中欧大学传统对布拉格语言学圈形成的影响,以及对F. Wallman、S. Vilinsky、R. Jacobson和R. Wellek的科学成长的影响。由I. Pospišil提出的俄罗斯文学史概念,导致了对D. Chyzhevsky的科学人物的深刻分析,这在乌克兰得到了广泛的研究。结论是,捷克和乌克兰文学批评的“方法论平衡”是由文学进程历史上共同的“钟摆运动”、共同的理论和文学基础(O. Potebnja、M.巴赫金、D. Chyzhevsky、D. Ďurišin的作品)、西欧文学批评的平行影响以及集体会议事件和共识的研究光学保证的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Interconnections between the Czech Methodological Platform and the Ideas of Modern Ukrainian Literature Studies
The article under studies identifies the methodological ties between modern Czech and Ukrainian literary studies on the example of Ivo Pospišil’s monograph “Methodology and Theory of Literary Slavic Studies and Central Europe” (2015). The methodological platform of the scientist is shown in dynamics: comparative studies, phenomenology, historical poetics, genre studies and areal studies. Areal (spatial) philology becomes the methodological framework and “cognitive tool” in the above work. Within the specific features of the hermeneutic circle, I. Pospišil outlines the methodological principles of Brno areal studies, as well as substantiates the powers of areal methodology. Hence, by means of deduction, he narrows the areas of its application and eventually connects spatial poetics to the analysis of specific texts of modern Czech literature. In this respect, areal studies are consonant with the methodology of the N. Kopystyanska’s scientific school. From the standpoint of literary axiology, I. Pospišil characterizes the literary process of 1960–1970 in the way that coincides with the ideas of D. Zatonsky and T. Hundorova. The interpretation of the tropical nature of allegory and symbol, within the areal issues, resonates with a number of Ukrainian investigations. I. Pospišil’s speculations on the problem of auto-reflection and auto-axiology of creativity is based mainly on the concepts of O. Potebnja, on whose methodological reputation rely the works of most Ukrainian researchers. The phenomenon of Central Europe is regarded in the context of “Central European centrism” and multiculturalism, which conceptually brings the scientific research closer to the American studies by N. Vysotska and T. Denysova. I. Pospišil emphasizes the influence of Central European university traditions of the first half of the XX century on the formation of the Prague Linguistic Circle, as well as on the scientific growth of F. Wallman, S. Vilinsky, R Jacobson and R. Wellek. The concept of the history of Russian literature, proposed by I. Pospišil, leads to the profound analysis of the scientific figure of D. Chyzhevsky, which is being widely studied in Ukraine. It is concluded that the “methodological balance” of Czech and Ukrainian literary criticism is ensured by common “pendulum movements” in the history of the literary process, common theoretical and literary basis (works by O. Potebnja, M. Bakhtin, D. Chyzhevsky, D. Ďurišin), parallel influences of Western European literary criticism, as well as collective conference events and consensual research optics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prohibited Literature A Man-Paradox in the World of Paradoxes Paul Celan’s Collection of Poetry “Poppy and Destiny”: the Story of a Literary Breakthrough Characters of Fairy Tales, Fantasy and Magical Food in Cooking Reality Shows: The Intersection of Literary Culture and Media Communications Destinies of the State and its Writers in History. Dimensions of Their Tragedy and Success in Lithuanian Literature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1