선총원의 문학비평

김은영 중국인문학회 2018 中國人文科學 Vol.0 No.68

In the contemporary Chinese literature history, Congwen Shen is a novelist and prosaist and at the same time, is a literary critic who clearly shows the standard according to his own unique values. In addition to all of these, he is a writer with a considerable influence. His literary creation and criticism is positioning as the unique literary ideas that only he can identify. Shen's literary criticism has been an inspiration to many artists who long for establishing the pure aesthetic theory and principle, under the proposition of soul exploration. We can see that he places great importance on the aesthetic quality in literary criticism. He who tries to pursue pure aesthetics, also shows the decided superiority in the theory of literary criticism. He suggests concepts such as 'harmoniously', 'balancedly', 'properly', etc. in the process of literary criticism. These things are used as a measure in his literary criticism. Shen's aesthetic impression is also his own way of critical notion and quality. His notion of literary criticism is clearly shown in the preface of <Congwen Shen's study collection of novel>. Through it, he shows that literature must be resolute, realistic and plainly simple. Above all, the non-political literature on the basis of personality becomes the reference point of Shen's literary criticism. In this study, this writer analyzed Shen's literary criticism using several measures, based on both the criticism of aesthetic common sense and the criticism in relationship between literature and politics. Also, I intended to study the importance of Shen's literary criticism. The purpose of this study is to make sure of the value of Shen's study & literary criticism and the literature position about him.

현대문학비평과 논증의 수사학

오형엽 ( Hyung Yup Oh ) 민족어문학회 2007 어문논집 Vol.- No.56

이 글은 문학연구 및 비평을 심층적으로 진행할 수 있는 기초를 마련하기 위해 ``현대문학비평``과 ``논증의 수사학``의 관련성을 고찰한다. 최근 새롭게 전개되고 있는 신수사학 중 ``논증의 수사학``이 보여주는 성과를 검토하고, 이를 참조할 때 얻을 수 있는 문학비평의 새로운 가능성을 모색하고자 한다. 이 글은 이러한 목적에 접근하기 위한 기초 작업으로서, 우선 수사학의 역사적 전개과정을 개괄하면서 문제를 제기한 후, ``논증의 수사학``에 해당하는 현대 수사학의 성과 중 그 출발점에 있는 카임 페렐만과 스티브 툴민의 논증 이론을 검토하고, 이들의 성과를 비판적으로 계승하고 종합적으로 재구성한 제임스 크로스화이트의 메타철학적 논증행위 이론을 고찰하고자 한다. 그리고 이러한 논증의 수사학과 관련성을 가지는 현대문학비평의 구체적 성과를 검토하기 위해 김인환의 문학비평을 살펴보려 한다. 카임 페렐만은 청중의 중요성, 논증적 상호 작용에서의 전제와 합의의 기본 특성, 논증에 표지를 세우는 공론과 같은 요소들을 강조한다는 점에서, 논증 이론 및 담화 분석에 핵심적인 틀을 제공한다. 청중을 고려하는 논증행위를 통해 차이를 존중하면서 합의에 이르는 의사소통의 가능성을 열어놓음으로써, 현대철학과 수사학이 도외시하는 사회적 비평을 가능케 하는 것이다. 수사학의 측면에서 페렐만의 논증 이론은 ``청자`` 중심의 ``의사소통 이론``이라고 볼 수 있다. 이 관점은 은유·환유·제유라는 ``표현``의 측면으로 축소되어온 수사학의 관심을 ``화자-표현-청자(청중)``이라는 의사소통의 관계망으로 확장하고, 그 맥락을 검토하면서 논증행위의 윤리적 측면까지 고려한다는 점에서 주목을 요한다. 스티브 툴민은 논증이 사용되는 구체적인 맥락에 주목함으로써 형식논리학의 불충분함을 비판하고자 한다. 그는 논증의 복합적인 성격을 고려하기 위해 ``영역(field)`` 개념을 도입하고, 양태적 용어들이 실천적 논증의 과정에서 수행하는 실질적 기능이 무엇인지 명백하게 제시하려 한다. 그리고 논증 과정에서 발생하는 명제들의 기능을 밝히고, 그 논증에 대항하는 비판들에게 어떻게 적절한 논증을 제시하고 분석하는지를 규명한다. 수사학의 측면에서 툴민의 논증 이론은 ``화자`` 중심의 ``화용론적 언어학``이라고 볼 수 있다. 이 관점은 언술의 구체적인 맥락과 실제로 작동하는 방식에 주목함으로써, 주장과 근거, 근거에 대한 이유와 이유에 대한 지지, 자격과 반박 등의 정당화 절차에 대해 구체적으로 검증한다는 점에서 주목할 필요가 있다. 제임스 크로스화이트는 페렐만의 ``청자`` 중심의 ``의사소통 이론``과 비트겐슈타인?오스틴?스티브 툴민 등의 ``화자`` 중심의 ``화용론적 언어학``을 종합적으로 수용하면서 논증행위 이론을 재구성한다. ``주장하기``와 ``질문하기``, ``갈등``과 ``청중``을 중심으로 재구성한 논증행위의 이론은 차이와 갈등을 이용하여 탐구를 수행하고 사회적 합의에 도달하려 한다. 그리하여 이성의 수사학은 차이로부터 발생하는 갈등을 비폭력적으로 해결하는 가능성을 강화하고, 공준이 무너지고 있는 사회적?문화적 현실 속에서 사회비평의 가능성을 옹호하며, 고등교육의 목적에 대한 신뢰할 만한 설명을 제시한다. 김인환은 수사학과 관련된 의사소통 이론 및 화용론적 언어학을 문학연구 및 비평에 접목시켜 독자적인 관점을 창안한다. 그의 문학 This paper investigates relativity of ``contemporary literary criticism`` and ``rhetoric of argument`` to ready footing that can progress literature study and criticism deeply. After coming into question summarizing historic unfolding process of rhetoric, this paper wish to investigate Cham Perelman and Stephen Toulmin`s theory that at the starting point among ``rhetoric of argument`` result of modern rhetoric. And this paper wish to investigate James Crosswhite`s meta-philosophical argumentation theory, and investigate Kim In-Hwan`s literary criticism to examine specific result of contemporary literary criticism that have relativity with rhetoric of argument. Cham Perelman offers central model on argument theory at point that emphasize audience, argumental interaction, public opinion. By have opened possibility of communication that arrive at mutual agreement respecting difference through argumentation that consider audience, his theory enable social criticism. Cham Perelman`s argument theory can be regarded as ``communication theory`` of the centering around ``audience`` in side of rhetoric. Stephen Toulmin criticizes insufficiency of formal logic giving attention to concrete context that argument is used. He introduces ``field`` concept, and tris to actual function of conditional terminologies. And he clears function of propositions that happen in argument process, examines how to presenting and analyzing suitable argument to critiques that opposes to the argument. Toulmin`s argument theory can be regarded as ``speech-act linguistics`` of the centering around ``speaker`` in side of rhetoric. James Crosswhite reconstructs argumentation theory that accommodating Perelman``s ``communication theory`` of the centering around ``audience`` and Wittgenstein?Austin?Stephen Toulmin``s ``speech-act linguistics`` of the centering around ``speaker`` synthetically. Argumentation theory that have reconstructed in the centering of ``claiming`` ``questioning`` ``conflict`` ``audience`` tries to achieve investigation using difference and conflict, tries to reach in social agreement. Kim In-Hwan invents an original viewpoint that communication theory and speech-act linguistics connected with rhetoric being grafted together in literary study and criticism. His literary criticism secures viewpoint of ``synthetic rhetoric`` that combine ``rhetoric of figure`` and ``rhetoric of argument`` mutually, and examine closely literary principle applied to both writing and criticism. Kim In-Hwan`s viewpoint that investigates method of novel correlating grammar category, the linguistic internal regulation with description viewpoint imply the part of ``speech-act linguistics`` and ``rhetoric of communication``. Kim In-Hwan``s method of reading that emphasize simultaneously ``reading of details`` and ``reading of context`` has inner relation with ``communication theory`` and ``speech-act linguistics`` and ``meta- philosophical rhetoric`` in the point of giving attention to context and intertextuality. If we continue to study refering to these investigation, we may suspect following scientifical and critical contribution. First, literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` can seek mutual complement with literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of figure``. Second, literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` can think the ethicality and sociality as well as esthetics of text. Third, literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` supplies important suggestive point to approach in new problem area that contemporary literary criticism is facing. Fourth, We can secure new angle of literature education utilizing literary criticism connected with ``rhetoric of argument`` to methodology of literature education.

드라이든의 문학비평과 비교방법론

정정호 한국비교문학회 2010 比較文學 Vol.0 No.51

The aim of this paper is to discuss the comparative method in the practical field of John Dryden’s literary criticism. John Dryden(1631-1700) is properly considered as "the father of English criticism" and "the writer who first taught us to determine upon principles the merit of composition" by another great literary critic, Samuel Johnson in the Eighteenth century. Dryden was truly a man of letters in the latter part of the Seventeenth century England:a poet, playwright, critic, and translator. He wrote various kinds of writings in the great tradition of English Empiricism. He was a so-called poet-critic who was not a purely literary critic but an utterly practical critic. He wrote his literary criticism only on the basis of his various experiences as a writer in general. He was never a theoretical or speculative critic, compared with the prescriptive French critics in the age of Neoclassicism in Europe. Dryden deals with his literary discourse by comparing Greek and Roman writers with Italian, French and English poets. Dryden’s comparative method enhances awareness of difference, from country to country and age to age. Dryden tries to establish the proper identity of English literature in the whole history of European literature from the Greek period to his contemporary period. His method of comparison in his literary criticism hada strong influence on the later English literary critics such Samuel Johnson and T. S. Eliot. Dryden set up the great tradition of comparative method in the history of English literary criticism. Now our era is the age of glocalism and cosmopolitanism, when the ethics of comparison is badly needed. The comparative method in literary criticism could be the comparative criticism in the widest sense of comparative literature. It is the very great legacy of John Dryden’s criticism for the 21st century. The aim of this paper is to discuss the comparative method in the practical field of John Dryden’s literary criticism. John Dryden(1631-1700) is properly considered as "the father of English criticism" and "the writer who first taught us to determine upon principles the merit of composition" by another great literary critic, Samuel Johnson in the Eighteenth century. Dryden was truly a man of letters in the latter part of the Seventeenth century England:a poet, playwright, critic, and translator. He wrote various kinds of writings in the great tradition of English Empiricism. He was a so-called poet-critic who was not a purely literary critic but an utterly practical critic. He wrote his literary criticism only on the basis of his various experiences as a writer in general. He was never a theoretical or speculative critic, compared with the prescriptive French critics in the age of Neoclassicism in Europe. Dryden deals with his literary discourse by comparing Greek and Roman writers with Italian, French and English poets. Dryden’s comparative method enhances awareness of difference, from country to country and age to age. Dryden tries to establish the proper identity of English literature in the whole history of European literature from the Greek period to his contemporary period. His method of comparison in his literary criticism hada strong influence on the later English literary critics such Samuel Johnson and T. S. Eliot. Dryden set up the great tradition of comparative method in the history of English literary criticism. Now our era is the age of glocalism and cosmopolitanism, when the ethics of comparison is badly needed. The comparative method in literary criticism could be the comparative criticism in the widest sense of comparative literature. It is the very great legacy of John Dryden’s criticism for the 21st century.

中国文学“诗性批评”传统对当代文学研究的启示

장문동 동아대학교 석당학술원 2009 石堂論叢 Vol.0 No.43

The essence of literature is poetic, we must return to the essence of literature about literary discovery and enquiry, “in order to the literature aim” we also must really face the literature. As far as the tradition of literary research, as a special traditional criticism of Chinese literary criticism, the poetic criticism always has the poetic essential of returning to the human itself because of its poetic characters such as entirety, imagery and gnosis. For a long time, in the Chinese Contemporary Literary Study(and almost eastern and western current literary study), the western rational criticism (scientific criticism), cultural criticism and thought history criticism, which using the literary external relashionship method which is determined and emphasized by the abstract thinking as well as more natural scientific method to study the literaure, has occupied a main position of literary criticism and research. In the Chinese Contemporary Literary Study, we neglect the human poetic existence and literary critical “poetic tradition” because of the science-oriented principle tendency and that leads to the current “non-literature”of literary study. Therefore, in the literary criticism and research of 21stcentury, especially in the “post-modern context”, which has the constant enlargement of the range of literature and sufficient impact of eletronic media, we must face and think profoundly the literary study of how to response to the human poetic existence, that is the essential topic of how to response to rhe literary poetic essence. Furthermore, we also must response to the literary criticism and literary research poetic essece through the heritage of Chinese literary “poetic criticism” tradition. 장기간동안 서양의 문학비평 이론만 빌려 사용했기 때문에 중국 전통의 문학 사고방식과 비평이론은 안타깝게도 점점 사라져 가고 있다. 과학적 사고로 문학적 사고를, 학술 연구로 문학 연구를 대체시키는 잘못된 경향이 초래되었는데, 주류 연구 중 진정으로 문학 본체에 속하는 문학 연구와 비평은 거의 보이지 않는다. 과학적 비평과 이성적 판단을 굳게 지키는 서양 문학 연구 중에서 시적 성격은 종종 이성의 빛 아래 은폐되었고, 문학비평(Literary Criticsm) 중에서도 재판(Criticsm)이라는 방식으로 대체되었다. 따라서 우리가 문학과 문학 비평의 “본체”로 돌아가고 싶을 때에는 어쩔 수 없이 중국 문학과 중국 정통의 문학 비평으로 시선을 돌려야 한다. 왜냐하면 진정한 시적 문학 비평은 여기에만 존재하기 때문이다. 다시 말해서 한 때 버림받았던 중국 문학의 “시적비평” 전통은 과학 지상주의를 타파할 수 있는 최적의 선택인 것이다.

1930년대 후기 신문 短評의 비평사적 가치

이해년 한국문학회 2019 韓國文學論叢 Vol.83 No.-

The purpose of this study is to consider ‘Danpyung’ (short reviews) put in the journal literary columns from 1935 to 1940, as a link of the study on the history of Korean modern literary criticism. The authors of ‘Danpyung’ are mostly journalists, who are also novelists and critics having an effect on the literary world at that time. Therefore, ‘Danpyung’ has a great possibility of possessing the literariness(or criticality) and literary historical value. In this paper, ‘Danpyung’ is studied on the valuation in the history of literary criticism. As a result, the Value of ‘Danpyung’ in the History of Literary Criticism is as follows: 1. Like ‘comments on current literature’, ‘Danpyung’ is a form of criticism similar to an essay, originated from the constitutional feature in the literary world of those days. 2. In consideration of the criticality as one of essential elements of criticism, ‘Danpyung’ is a valuable criticism with the correct estimate and theory in the aspects of essays on works, authors, the currents of literary thoughts, the theory of literature and etc. 3. The significance of ‘Danpyung’ in the history of criticism is as follows : First, ‘Danpyung’ is very worthy to be considered in the history of criticism, because it exists in the Journal literary columns for a long time and the number of it is considerable. Second, ‘Danpyung’ is helpful to the grasp of the currents in the history of modern literature. It is also valuable as an assistant material for the correct estimate and understanding of literary works. Third, ‘Danpyung’ has the significance in making familiar the relation between popular readers and literary specialists and making both harmonious. In also plays an important role in recovering the literary world in crisis at that time. 단평은 1935~1940년 무렵까지, 4개 신문의 학예면과 문예종합지(신동아, 문학, 人文評論, 西海公論, 批判, 청색지 등)에 실렸는데, <동아일보>의 「정찰기」,「사백자평론」, <조선일보>의 「탐보대」, 「소형논단」, <조선중앙일보>의 「필탄」, 「미네르바-의 소총」, <매일신보>의 「납량대」란 등 20개 이상의 단평란이 있었다. 편당 400~800자 정도의 一回 단편물이 대부분이고, 2~3회 연재물도 많은데, 500여 편이 넘는다. 단평란의 필진은 저널리스트들로, 당시 문단에 영향력 있던 작가, 시인, 평론가들이었으므로, 文藝時評이 대부분이고 작품론, 작가론, 비평가론, 문학이론, 詩作法 등 전문적 비평이 많다. 단평은 당시의 文藝時評의 성격을 내용상으로 계승한 것이며, 일본 신문단평을 형식상으로 수용하여 변모한 비평이라고 할 수 있다. 그러므로 단평에는 時事性을 뛰어넘는 문학성(비평성)과 문학사적 가치가 내재해 있을 가능성이 충분히 있다. 단평이 가지는 우리 비평사적 가치와 의의를 살펴보면, 다음 몇 가지 측면에서 의미를 추출할 수 있었다. 1. 본질적인 측면에서 볼 때, 단평은 작품론, 작가론, 문학이론, 등의 측면에서 정확한 평가와 이론 전개를 보였던 가치 있는 비평이다. 2. 문학 外的인 측면에서 볼 때, 단평은 우리 批評史上 존재가치가 큰 비평형식이다. 또 흐름을 개괄하면 우리 문예비평史로 정립될 수 있는 가능성을 가지며, 現代文學史의 흐름 파악에도 기여하리라 본다. 문학작품의 바른 이해와 평가를 위해서 문학裏面事나 文壇事에 관한 자료가 꼭 필요하다고 할 때, 단평은 문학연구를 위한 보조적 자료로서 가치가 큰 비평이다. 또, 날카로운 비평성을 구사한 몇몇 전문적인 단평 필자를 배출한 비평이다. 3. 비평의 기능면에서 볼 때, 단평도 독자와 전문지식인 간의 거리를 좁히고 융화시킨 의의와 당시 위기의 문단에서 훌륭한 지침 역할을 수행한 의의를 가진다. 본 연구에서 종합적으로 고찰한 결과, 단평은, 짧은 길이에서 오는 선입견으로 지금까지는 도외시되어 왔고 본격비평에 비해 낮은 가치평가를 받을 수 있지만, 긴 시간동안 많은 양의 단평작품을 산출한 비평이고, 문학사적 의의와 가치가 충분한 비평장르임을 증명할 수 있었다. 과연 단평은 비평으로서 어떤 역할과 기능을 담당하는 문학이었던가를 따져 한국근대문학비평사 연구에 기여하고자 한다. 본 연구를 바탕으로 추후 단평의 비평문학으로서의 본질적 가치를 밝히는 연구는 계속되어야 한다고 본다.

中國文學"詩性批評"傳統對黨代文學究的示

장문동 ( Wen Dong Zhang ) 동아대학교 석당학술원 2009 石堂論叢 Vol.0 No.43

장기간동안 서양의 문학비평 이론만 빌려 사용했기 때문에 중국 전통의 문학 사고방식과 비평이론은 안타깝게도 점점 사라져 가고 있다. 과학적 사고로 문학적 사고를, 학술 연구로 문학 연구를 대체시키는 잘못된 경향이 초래되었는데, 주류 연구 중 진정으로 문학 본체에 속하는 문학 연구와 비평은 거의 보이지 않는다. 과학적 비평과 이성적 판단을 굳게 지키는 서양 문학 연구 중에서 시적 성격은 종종 이성의 빛 아래 은폐되었고, 문학비평(Literary Criticsm) 중에서도 재판(Criticsm)이라는 방식으로 대체되었다. 따라서 우리가 문학과 문학 비평의 "본체"로 돌아가고 싶을 때에는 어쩔 수 없이 중국 문학과 중국 정통의 문학 비평으로 시선을 돌려야 한다. 왜냐하면 진정한 시적 문학 비평은 여기에만 존재하기 때문이다. 다시 말해서 한 때 버림받았던 중국 문학의 "시적비평" 전통은 과학 지상주의를 타파할 수 있는 최적의 선택인 것이다. The essence of literature is poetic, we must return to the essence of literature about literary discovery and enquiry, "in order to the literature aim" we also must really face the literature. As far as the tradition of literary research, as a special traditional criticism of Chinese literary criticism, the poetic criticism always has the poetic essential of returning to the human itself because of its poetic characters such as entirety, imagery and gnosis. For a long time, in the Chinese Contemporary Literary Study(and almost eastern and western current literary study), the western rational criticism (scientific criticism), cultural criticism and thought history criticism, which using the literary external relashionship method which is determined and emphasized by the abstract thinking as well as more natural scientific method to study the literaure, has occupied a main position of literary criticism and research. In the Chinese Contemporary Literary Study, we neglect the human poetic existence and literary critical "poetic tradition" because of the science-oriented principle tendency and that leads to the current "non-literature" of literary study. Therefore, in the literary criticism and research of 21stcentury, especially in the "post-modern context", which has the constant enlargement of the range of literature and sufficient impact of eletronic media, we must face and think profoundly the literary study of how to response to the human poetic existence, that is the essential topic of how to response to rhe literary poetic essence. Furthermore, we also must response to the literary criticism and literary research poetic essece through the heritage of Chinese literary "poetic criticism" tradition.

신세기 중국 조선족 문학비평의 현상과 전망 -2012년 비평실천을 중심으로-

쟝츈즈 ( Chun Zhi Zhang ) 성균관대학교 인문과학연구소 2014 人文科學 Vol.0 No.53

신세기에 접어든지 10여년이 지나고, 개혁개방 후 30여년이 흐른 지금, 조선족 문학비평 수준은 어느 정도에 이르렀는가? 2012년 조선족 문학비평 현장을 예로 들어 그 실상을 알아보고자 한다. 조선족 문예지 『도라지(道拉吉)』에서 "격월비평(雙月批評)"이란 코너를 통해 정기적으로 『도라지』에 게재된 문학작품에 대해 본격적인 현장비평을 시도한 것 외에, 다른 문예지들은 작품 혹은 작가특집에 해설을 곁들이는 방식으로 현장비평을 대신하고 있다. 이와는 대조적으로 조선족 문학비평은 작가론과 작품론에 특히 주목하고 있다. 그 예로 『도라지』에서 길림지역 대표적인 작가에 대해 집중적인 조명을 하고 있는 것과 더불어 다른 문예지들에 기성 비평가들과 석박사과정생들의 작가론, 작품론과 관련된 논문이 많이 게재되고 있는 것도 조선족 문학비평의 한 성향을 단적으로 보여주는 것이다. 난용치엔(南永前)의 이른바 "토템시(圖騰詩)"에 관련된 논쟁은 이미 여러 해 이어져 왔고, 2012년에 발표된 몇 편의 논문에서 보면 소재의 적정 여부, 생태문학 등 좀 더 확장된 연구의 가능성 여부가 여전히 쟁점이 되고 있다. 이 밖에 문학이론과 문학사 연구 또한 조선족 문학비평의 중요한 한 분야로서 지속적으로 진행 중이다. 우시앙슌(吳相順)의 1950년대 조선족 문학에 대한 연재논문은 그러한 연구 성과의 한 단면을 보여주고 있다. 신세기의 조선족 문학비평은 아직 세대교체가 제대로 이루어지지 않은 상황이다. 그러나 기존의 연구자들과 각 대학교의 석박사생을 중심으로 한 신세대들의 적극적인 노력으로 미흡하나마 응분의 사명을 다하고 있다 볼 수 있겠다. 물론 신세기 조선족 문학비평도 우려하는 바가 없지는 않다. 과거 경험으로 비추어 볼 때 기존 비평가들이 직업 환경이 바뀌면 하나 둘 비평 분야를 떠났기 때문이다. 신세대 비평가들이 사명감을 가지고 조선족문학 발전에 지식과 능력을 기여하기 바란다. It has been a decade since the new century and passed a three years after the second decade of the century. At this time, this study investigates the literary criticism of Korean-Chinese literature in 2012 in order to evaluate the achievement of Korean-Chinese literary criticism during the past three decades of China`s reform and opening up. Doraji, the Korean-Chinese literary magazine, has its own series of articles, named Bimonthly Criticism, on literary criticism by contrast with other journals that only give a brief commentary on literatures published in it. The articles in Doraji shed light on renowned writers in Jirin(吉林) area, and the other literary journals focus on the analysis of authors and works reviewed by old-timer critics and graduate students. These show the feature of Korean-Chinese literary criticism. In Addition, the debate over so-called Totem poetry written by Nan Yong Qian(南永前) has been contentious for a few years. What is at issue in some articles published in 2012 is still the matter with regard to the appropriacy of writing material and the possibility of ecological literature. Moreover, studies on literary theory and literary history form an important part of Korean-Chinese literary criticism. The serial articles of Korean-Chinese literature in 1950s, written by Wu Xiang Shun(吳相順), reveal such an achievement of literary criticism. Regardless of the circumstance that a shift in generations is not yet accomplished, it could be said that the literary criticism of Korean-Chinese in the new century have been carrying out its due mission. It is definitely possible for both of established and prospective critics to make their best endeavors to improve Korean-Chinese literature. The community, however, is not without its problems. It is not exceptional that prospective researchers often leave the field of literary criticism because of their precarious lives. I hope that promising critics would have a chance to contribute to the development of Korean-Chinese literature.

『레닌기치』에 수록된 중앙아시아 고려인 문학비평 고찰

강회진 ( Hoe Jin Kang ) 시학과 언어학회 2015 시학과 언어학 Vol.30 No.-

본 논문은 『레닌기치』에 수록된 문학비평을 형성기(1938-1969), 발전기(1970-1984), 성숙기 및 쇠퇴기(1985-1990)로 상정해 각 시기 별 문학비평의 전개 양상을 살펴보았다. 고려인 문학의 형성기는 1938년 5월 15일 『레닌기치』창간 이후 1960년대까지로 상정하였다. 이 시기 고려인 문단이 역점을 둔 것은 문학을 통해 사회주의 사상, 그리고 공산주의 세계관을 계몽시키는 것이다. 고려인 비평 문학비평 역시 “당성과 인민성을 강조한 작품이야 말로 좋은 작품”이라는 주장이 주류를 이룬다. 발전기는 카작스탄작가동맹 산하에 조선인 작가 분과가 생긴 1970년 2월부터 뻬레스또로이까(개혁)와 글라스노스트(개방)가 시작되기 전인 1984년까지를 의미한다. 이 시기 문학 비평은 “문학작품의 사상 예술적 수준을 높이자”라는 주장 아래 작품에서 언어의 미학과 문학적 파토스의 강조를 주문하는 비평이 주를 이룬다. 성숙기 및 쇠퇴기는 1985년 고르바쵸프가 소련의 총서기가 된 후 뻬레스또로이까 정책 이후 소련이 해체되고 『레닌기치』가 폐간 된 1990년 말까지를 의미한다. 이 시기는 민족성 또는 민족적 특성을 주제로 작품에 접근하거나 작품의 다양한 소재의 필요성에 대한 문학비평이 전개된다. 1985년 이후 고려인 문학비평은 급변하는 정치, 사회적 변동, 그리고 당의 문예정책과 문학 사조의 변화에 상응하여 새로운 사고방식을 갖고 민족 주체성이나 민족에 대한 이야기 등 주제에 대한 다양화를 추구하고자 했으나 결국 1990년 12월 31일 『레닌기치』 폐간과 함께 고려인 문학 작품은 줄어들고 아울러 문학 비평 역시 쇠퇴의 길로 들어서게 된다. 창작의 활발한 주체였던 앞 세대 작가들이 고령화되어 작품 생산이 어려워진 점과 이주의 오랜 세월 동안 고려인의 정체성이 약화되고 한국어로 작품을 창작하는 젊은 세대의 작가들이 거의 사라지고 있는 점이 고려인 비평문학의 쇠퇴로 접어들게 되는 결정적인 요인으로 작용하고 있다. 고려인 문학은 창작과 비평의 면에서 소련이라는 국가를 상정하지 않을 수 없다. 따라서 고려인 문학비평은 소비에트 정치, 사회적 변화 그리고 당의 문예정책에 상응하여 변화 양상을 보임을 알 수 있었다. 이런 점에서 각 시기 고려인 문학비평은 사회 변동 상황에 직면한 고려인 문학의 당면 과제와 지향점을 제시한다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 고려인 문학비평의 전개 양상과 특성을 살피는 작업은 당대 고려인 문학의 성격을 규명하는 데 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다. 이 연구의 의의는 여기에서 찾을 수 있다. This article aimed to look through how the literary criticism has been developed in “Lenin Gichi” according to the sub-divided phases; the formative stage(1938-1969), the developmental stage(1970-1984), and the maturity and the declining stage(1985-1990). The formative stage of Korean literature is defined from May 15, 1938 just after “Lenin Gichi” published to the 1969s. In this stage, Korean literature concentrated on enlightenment of socialist ideas and communistic weltanschauung through literature. Korean literary criticism relied mainly on the argument that “good works emphasize the dangseong and inminseong.” The developmental stage is from February, 1970 when Joseon Writer Department was organized as a quasi Writers’ Union of Kazakhstan, to 1984 just before Perestroika and glasnost begin. In this stage, literary criticism relied mainly on the argument that “Let’s increase the ideological and artistic level of literary works emphasize the language aesthetic and the literary Pathos. The maturity and the declining stage is from 1985 to 1990; Gorbachev became General Secretary Of the Soviet Union, perestroika policy has been carried, after the policy the Soviet Union was dead, and finally “Lenin Gichi” was ceased. In this stage, literary criticism focused on the racial characteristics or ethnic characteristics of literary works and it developed the necessity for various writing materials. Since 1985, Korean literary criticism tried to seek for topic diversity such as national identity and nation narrative with new attitude according to the rapid change of political and social situation, the change of the literary policy and the trend of literature. However, as “Lenin Gichi” was ceased, the works of Korean literature have been reduced, besides literary criticism began to decline. The main cause of the decline of Korean criticism literature were as followers. First, it became more difficult to produce the new works of literature as the former generation writers who were the main agents of creativities got older. Second, as the immigration time has passed, the national identity as Koreans became weaker. Moreover, young generation writers who create their literature in Korean almost disappeared. Korean literature can not help postulating the Soviet Union in an aspect of creative writing and criticism. Therefore, Korean literary criticism showed that its changes are rely on the political and social changes of the Soviet Union and the policy of communist party. In this aspect, Korean literary criticism of each stage shows the problems and intention that Koreans are in the middle of social change. Therefore, development and feature of Korean literary criticism will help to define the characteristics of Korean literature of the time. We can find the meaning of this study here.

언어학과 문학은 공조할 수 있는가(해야 하는가)? : Can (Should) They Work Together?

D'Urso, Vincenza 국어국문학회 2004 국어국문학 Vol.- No.137

This paper has been contributed to the 47th Conference of the Society of Korean Language and Literature, held in June 5-6 at Ehwa Womens University, in Seoul. I had been asked to give a contribution on the status of literary and linguistic education in Italy and on the significance of an interdisciplinary approach to literary criticism based on a cooperation between literature and linguistics or other disciplines. Aim of the contribution is not to shed new light on the interdisciplinary research trends, by presenting the new most popular theories of literary criticism, but rather to try and describe the Italian current research directions on the Italian peninsula regarding Italian Studies, or Studies on the National Language and Literature. Approaches are manyfold and varied, as research centers at universities are numerous, and this paper will therefore necessarily be a limited account of the current Italian situation. However, it can be surely stated that the majority of approaches seem to consider fundamental a cooperation between Linguistics and Literature. I will be mentioning only methodologies of literary criticism related to linguistics, leaving out others such as Marxist determinism and gender or class-oriented critical approaches, which seem more based on historical and sociological aspects, certainly important but not determinant for the conference topic. The paper is greatly based on the guidelines set by one of the major figures in the History of Italian Literature and in the History of Literary Criticism, Prof. Franco Suitner, who has taught at the University of Leiden, at the University of Venice (Ca Foscari) and currently teaches at the University of Rome (Roma Tre). The first part deals with the definition of the idea of literary masterpiece and of linguistic analysis. Being a literary masterpiece by definition a work of art made of words, a product of language, any analytical approach must necessarily pass through the filter of a linguistic analysis. The linguistic approach to the analysis of literary texts has been strongly applied in the West, especially starting from the XIX century. The discrepancy between the norm and original works by individual authors has been differently defined by theorists of literary analysis. It is, however, a concept which can be found in all formalist approaches of the XX century, in particular in the Russian Formalism, and in esthetic theories linked to Structuralism and to Semiology. All such theories consider artistic language as something special compared to the norm of everyday language. As Suitner affirms,(…) One positive effect of Formalism has been to bring to perfection the techniques for the description of textual forms (…). On the opposite, the most negative effect can be found in the birth of too technical terminologies, used for the sake of themselves, which have detached literature from its natural public, the readers. This happened based on the belief that the comprehension of literary masterpieces should be exclusively limited to scientists. The second part deals more directly with the relation between literary criticism and philology, a discipline which has a strong tradition in Italy. In its strict sense, philology aims at recuperating the original version of literary works, or the version closest to the original. Several methods of analysis have been elaborated over the centuries, starting with Humanists in the Ⅶ and Ⅷcenturies. But it is enough to remember that philology remains for Suitner essentially a preliminary technical operation, substantially separated from the proper literary critique, which intervenes when technicians [philologists] have already completed their precious work and have already prepared a text ready for critical readings. This interpretation recognizes the fundamental role philology plays in literary criticism, even though this statement does nor imply that a critic must also be a good philologist. Whereas it is important for a critic (or for the reader) to have a good text to analyse (or read), it is indeed irrelevant whether the good text has been prepared by the critic or by someone else. In this specific area of research Italy has contributed more than any other country and the critic and philologist Gianfranco Contini (1912-1990) can be considered one of the most prominent figures among the researchers of philology of textual variants or, as it is also called in France, genetic criticism. The third part briefly touches the problems related to literary criticism in the age of computers, by evaluating the advantages and dangers of IT intervention into the literary field. In spite of the undeniable advantages of having more data than ever at our disposal, the importance of individual analysis and elaboration is still indispensable for the production of a good critical work. This is obviously not true in a purely linguistic analysis, where the application of technical devices seems to be more productive and fruitful than in literary criticism. As a conclusion, some recommendations are made, quoting Suitner, for the formation of good literary critics: passion, discipline, amplitude of the personal knowledge are for Suitner fundamental qualities, whereas extreme specialization should be avoided, because the literary critic should not apply one single method of interpretation, but rather apply them all, so that his/her object of study can be seen under a more complete light.

드라이든의 문학비평과 비교방법론

정정호 ( Chung Ho Chung ) 한국비교문학회 2010 比較文學 Vol.51 No.-

The aim of this paper is to discuss the comparative method in the practical field of John Dryden`s literary criticism. John Dryden(1631-1700) is properly considered as "the father of English criticism" and "the writer who first taught us to determine upon principles the merit of composition" by another great literary critic, Samuel Johnson in the Eighteenth century. Dryden was truly a man of letters in the latter part of the Seventeenth century England: a poet, playwright, critic, and translator. He wrote various kinds of writings in the great tradition of English Empiricism. He was a so-called poet-critic who was not a purely literary critic but an utterly practical critic. He wrote his literary criticism only on the basis of his various experiences as a writer in general. He was never a theoretical or speculative critic, compared with the prescriptive French critics in the age of Neoclassicism in Europe. Dryden deals with his literary discourse by comparing Greek and Roman writers with Italian, French and English poets. Dryden`s comparative method enhances awareness of difference, from country to country and age to age. Dryden tries to establish the proper identity of English literature in the whole history of European literature from the Greek period to his contemporary period. His method of comparison in his literary criticism hada strong influence on the later English literary critics such Samuel Johnson and T. S. Eliot. Dryden set up the great tradition of comparative method in the history of English literary criticism. Now our era is the age of glocalism and cosmopolitanism, when the ethics of comparison is badly needed. The comparative method in literary criticism could be the comparative criticism in the widest sense of comparative literature. It is the very great legacy of John Dryden`s criticism for the 21st century.