http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Vincenza D'Urso (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
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.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
