Литературная компаративистика

Roman Jakobson invented the notion of literariness to name the subject of the future literary science Russian formalists hoped to develop. Then in the late 1920-ties the formalists scattered, Jakobson moved to Prague, to United States and to structuralism, and the notion of literariness migrated with him. In the 1950-ties Jakobson proposed a very powerful project of linguistic poetics, and since that project referred to the notion of literariness, the notion became massively popular and in effect synonymous to his version of structuralism. Linguistic poetics was both controversial and inspiring project, and the notion was taken over both by critics who tried to disparage it and by structuralists or semioticians who found it congenial. So the notion played a crucial part in shaping the agendas of French, German or North American structuralism and semiotics as well as the agendas of its major rivals (poststructuralism, reader-response criticism, new pragmatism, analytic aesthetics, critical theory, cultural studies). The attempts at defining literariness however turned out to be futile, and in the early 1970-ties the notion was abandoned as the structuralist controversy itself. It was not erased however since being abandoned in the case of literariness meant being relegated to the realm of the notions of the past and the others (i.e. the notions of the other theories from the past that no one would currently advocate). So the notion of literariness retained its meaning and even its functions despite being ‘sous rature’, dashed out by the development of literary theory; e.g. it could still support arguments which denial justified the arguments of the current theory, arguments that were not yet past (as any promise not to break a promise once again implies the denial of the past failures to keep it). The current book tells the story of the notion of literariness. The first 9 chapters trace the transpositions and transformations of the notion in the contexts of Russian Formalism, the Prague School, New Criticism, glossematics, French, German and American structuralism, semiotics, phenomenology and analytic philosophy of literature. The text offers a detailed discussion of the significant theories of literariness as well as a critical assessment of their misunderstandings and misconceptions. Chapters 10-15 describe the various strategies for abandoning the notion of literariness invented by poststructuralism, analytic philosophy, new pragmatism, reader response criticism, cultural studies and critical theory. The relevant theories claiming to offer a better insight in the nature of literature are carefully explained and analyzed so as to explain the constitutive function the notion of literariness still retains despite its being abandoned. Drawing on Wittgenstein, Foucault and Lacan, the last chapter attempts a non-metaphysical reading of the problem of literariness aimed at showing that the stake of Jakobson’s invention was the problem of referentiality of literature, i.e. the problem of how the name literature was used to refer to objects, or how one was able to refer to literature as an object. The main thesis is that literariness designates the conditions of possibility of successful reference to literature, and that the theories of literariness fulfill those conditions inadequately, so the reference of the name literature in their context is always unstable or questionable. Yet the further development of literary theory demonstrated that theorists were generally unable to meet the conditions of possibility of referring to literature in a more adequate manner. And if we take seriously that predicament, then theories of literariness will provide a rather unexpected insight – that the reference of literature is always unstable and questionable, produced by practical methods in particular practical, cultural and disciplinary circumstances. Having demonstrated that, the study sets off to describe the practical methods used by the theorists of literariness, and tries to explain those methods by means of a particular discursive technique called formalization. Since any formalization hinges on promises, deferrals, bricolage, it can be only provisionally successful, since the future development of theory tends to overturn the promises, to render the deferrals unjustifiable, and to expose the inadequacy of academic bricolage. One major contribution of the study, in addition to being the first detailed history of the theories of literariness, is that it resists the temptation to deconstruct their provisional nature or their vulnerability to future developments, and instead makes an attempt at explaining the practical methods they managed to get by, i.e. the practical methods that enabled the theorists to repair and maintain the reference of literature despite the vulnerability of their theories and notwithstanding the tragic end of their attempts to answer the question what is literature.

Литературната семиотика: флирт или закономерност, 2002

Тя съществува – за това говорят недвусмислено редица факти. Десетки статии и доклади, разбира се и няколко книги, я носят в заглавието си. Научни форуми я поставят в дневния си ред (подходяща е за рубрики). Преподава се, макар все още да няма своя написана история. Можем да я срещнем – факт, който не бива да се пренебрегва – и сред твърдите устои на класификатора на научните области. Успоредно с тази номинативна устойчивост можем да срещнем и изрази като: “инвазия на литературната семиотика”, “империализъм на литературната семиотика”, “разходка на семиотиката из неохранявания терен на литературата”. Дори нещо повече – че разколът в дискурса на съвременната (най-често френска) семиотика се проявява най-ясно по отношение на литературата – за едни най-престижният културологичен обект, за други – обикновена семотична практика. Отговорът на въпроса защо за литературната семиотика се говори така не е лек, поне докато не се изясни дали говорим за семиотично ориентирано литературознание или за литературно изкушена семиотика. Затова изпреварващият въпрос е: за какво всъщност говорим, когато говорим за литературна семиотика.

1977

2013

Литературное краеведение, 2020

The textbook on the course "Literary Local history" is based on regional materials and is devoted to the study of the image of the Tver Region in the texts of "strangers" and "self" - from unknown to classical (the main attention is paid to the Russian literature of the XIX century). The transformations that a provincial city undergoes in literature allow us to illuminate the key problems of literary local lore in a new way. Separate chapters are devoted to the problems of intercultural communication and the history of the region

Теорија на книжевноста, 2018

Во универзитетскиот учебник со наслов „Теорија на книжевноста“ системски е елаборирана содржината којашто е предвидена со Предметната програма за курсот Теорија на книжевноста што е задолжителен предмет за студентите од втора година од Катедрата за македонски јазик и книжевност, но како изборен предмет го посетуваат овој курс и студентите од втора година од другите катедри на Филолошкиот факултет во Штип – Катедра за англиски јазик и книжевност, Катедра за германски јазик и книжевност, Катедра за турски јазик и книжевност и Катедра за италијански јазик и книжевност. Учебникот во голема мера ќе им го олесни на студентите совладувањето на сложената и апстрактна материја од областа на теоријата на книжевноста, но и ќе ги упати кон голем број дополнителни библиографски единици од истата област со чија помош ќе можат да ги прошират, да ги продлабочат и да ги унапредат своите знаења и вештини што се неопходни за анализирање и интерпретирање на книжевни дела од каков било вид. Содржината во учебникот Теорија на книжевноста е изложена во три дела, односно во три поглавја: а) Прв дел ‒ Дијахронија; б) Втор дел – Синхронија; в) Трет дел – Апликации. Освен тоа, на крајот од овој учебник се нуди и Речник на термини што во голема мера ќе им го олесни на студентите следењето и разбирањето на планираните методски единици што, секако, ќе резултира со поуспешно совладување на предвидената материја за студискиот предмет Теорија на книжевноста, а идентична улога има и приложената Библиографија.

2018

Эта книга – результат философского исследования текстовой культуры. В понятие текстовой культуры авторы вкладывают широкий смысл, понимая под ней все способы создания, хранения и трансляции текстов. Анализ текстовой культуры осуществляется с помощью понятия формата текста, оно позволяет обнаружить основные параметры, которые влияют на его смысл, а также определяют внутритекстовую коммуникативную ситуацию и ее прагматические импликации.

2008

Ахапкин Д. Когнитивное литературоведение: От порядка к хаосу и обратно // Новое литературное обозрение. 2017. № 143. С. 332–345., 2017

Эйхенбаумовский сборник, 2020

Статья посвящена проблеме влияния кино на развитие литературы в эволюционной теории русского формализма. На основе ключевых работ формалистов прослежены изменения литературной поэтики, обусловленные выразительными возможностями кино. The article is devoted to the problem of influence of cinema to the development of literature in the evolutional theory of Russian formalism. The changes of literary poetics, caused by expressive possibilities of cinema, are traced on the base of key works by formalists.