{"title":"Paul de Man’s Flemish","authors":"Birger Vanwesenbeeck","doi":"10.1215/00104124-9989230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This essay seeks to fill a gap in the scholarship on Paul de Man by taking stock of the scattered references to Flemish in his later writings. Taking its cue from a passing remark in the most recent de Man biography—namely, that late in life the theorist attested repeatedly in private to the experience of “losing” his native tongue—this article has two aims. One is to show that de Man’s later works bear witness to this ongoing experience of native-linguistic loss; the other is to relate this experience to the theory of deconstruction that de Man had espoused by then. To this latter end, the essay establishes a comparison between de Man’s later works, from Allegories of Reading (1979) onward, and Jacques Derrida’s 1996 autobiographical essay Monolingualism of the Other in order to show how the deconstructive theory conception of language-as-other is rooted in these two thinkers’ respective experiences of native-linguistic loss. The essay closes by reflecting on the contrast between a major language's relative resilience to native-linguistic loss, as in the case of Derrida’s French, and the far more precarious condition of a minor language in exile such as de Man's Flemish.","PeriodicalId":45160,"journal":{"name":"COMPARATIVE LITERATURE","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COMPARATIVE LITERATURE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00104124-9989230","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文试图通过对保罗·德曼后期作品中零散的佛兰德语参考资料进行评估,来填补关于保罗·德曼学术研究的空白。这篇文章的灵感来自于最近的德曼传记中的一句偶然的评论——也就是说,这位理论家在晚年一再私下证明自己“失去”了母语——这篇文章有两个目的。一是表明德曼的后期作品见证了这种持续的母语丧失经历;另一种是将这种经历与德曼当时所支持的解构主义理论联系起来。为此,本文将德曼自1979年《阅读的寓言》(Allegories of Reading)之后的作品与德里达1996年的自传体文章《他者的单语主义》(Monolingualism of the Other)进行比较,以表明语言作为他者的解构主义理论概念是如何根植于这两位思想家各自的母语丧失经历的。这篇文章最后反思了两种语言之间的对比:一种主要语言相对于本土语言的丧失具有弹性,比如德里达的法语,而一种次要语言在流亡中的处境要危险得多,比如德曼的佛兰德语。
This essay seeks to fill a gap in the scholarship on Paul de Man by taking stock of the scattered references to Flemish in his later writings. Taking its cue from a passing remark in the most recent de Man biography—namely, that late in life the theorist attested repeatedly in private to the experience of “losing” his native tongue—this article has two aims. One is to show that de Man’s later works bear witness to this ongoing experience of native-linguistic loss; the other is to relate this experience to the theory of deconstruction that de Man had espoused by then. To this latter end, the essay establishes a comparison between de Man’s later works, from Allegories of Reading (1979) onward, and Jacques Derrida’s 1996 autobiographical essay Monolingualism of the Other in order to show how the deconstructive theory conception of language-as-other is rooted in these two thinkers’ respective experiences of native-linguistic loss. The essay closes by reflecting on the contrast between a major language's relative resilience to native-linguistic loss, as in the case of Derrida’s French, and the far more precarious condition of a minor language in exile such as de Man's Flemish.
期刊介绍:
The oldest journal in its field in the United States, Comparative Literature explores issues in literary history and theory. Drawing on a variety of theoretical and critical approaches, the journal represents a wide-ranging look at the intersections of national literatures, global literary trends, and theoretical discourse. Continually evolving since its inception in 1949, the journal remains a source for cutting-edge scholarship and prides itself on presenting the work of talented young scholars breaking new ground in the field.