Textual Studies and Criticism

Has the Field of Textual Criticism Changed in the Past Half-Century, 2024

“Has the Field of Textual Criticism Changed in the Past Half-Century?” in Emanuel Tov, Studies in Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, Volume 5 (Leiden: Brill, 2024), 403–24: At the end of this, my fifth, collected essays on textual studies, in a section named 'Reflections,' I devote attention to the question regarding whether the field of textual criticism has changed in the past half-century and, if so, in which ways. I do so upon special request of the editor of the series, and I do so with pleasure since the writing down of these ideas enables me to arrange my thoughts. 1 This is not a topic I have reflected on much before, but I had passing thoughts about several aspects. We must first ask ourselves whether textual criticism is a separate field.

2015

Meezan Printing Press, 2016

This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by may of trade or otherwise, be lent re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser

dialnet.unirioja.es

In the last forty years or so, the number of academic books and essays devoted to the analysis of the birth of English Studies has been not only too numerous to be mentioned but also widely divergent in their accounts of the phenomenon. Characteristically, early books written by ...

2020

Journal of Historical Sociology, 1993

It was a commonplace among traditional linguists and literary scholars that their disciplines were far apart from each other, and that there could be only very little interaction between them. In the late 20-th century, however, the fields of conventional linguistics and traditional literary studies were profoundly unsettled by major paradigm shifts like the decisive turn to text linguistics and discourse analysis, and new trends in literary theory (theoretical criticism). It is against the background of these shifts that the present paper investigates the relationship between modern linguistics (in the guise of text linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, transformational-generative linguistics, semantics, etc.) and literary criticism, both theoretical and practical. By grappling with these two questions – ‘Is there a common denominator between linguistics and literary criticism?’ and ‘Are literary texts fully amenable to a strictly linguistic analysis’ -, this article traces the historical development of modern linguistics from conventional linguistics and of literary theory from traditional literary studies, while contrasting conventional linguistics and traditional literary studies, and comparing text linguistics/discourse analysis and literary theory. Ultimately, the paper establishes ‘text’, ‘discourse’ and ‘language’ as commonalities between linguistics and literary criticism, and takes the stance in favour of the irreducibility of literary texts to exclusively linguistic methods and techniques of analysis.

2018

Her approach (to text analysis) marks her out as someone who believed firmly that there needed to be a recognition within intrinsic criticism that linguistic analysis of literary text was a necessity and not simply an aberration" (Nowottny,1962).In the light of this excerpt, we have chosen and analysed three literary texts. The study includes both linguistic and literary analysis, with greater emphasis on the linguistic aspect of the analysis so as to give credence to this view by Nowottny. Indeed, good stylistic analysis of literary texts should include linguistic analysis if the analysis is to be standard and is targeted to unveil the 'full style' of an author .Three literary texts are used in this study: The Hollow Men (T.S. Elliot).The Beatitudes (Jesus Christ) and (listen) (E.E. Cummings).

Comparative Literature, 2000

2005