Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:31:43.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical Periods as Problematics: Socio-linguistic Situations, Sociolects and Discourses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2013

Peter V. Zima
Peter V. Zima*
Affiliation:
University of Klagenfurt, Universitätsstraße 65-67, A-9020 KLAGENFURT, Austria. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The author attempts a redefinition of literary epochs or periods as problematics, i.e. as constellations of problems to which individuals and groups react in many different ways. In this respect he differs from those who construct literary periods as world visions, ideologies, aesthetics or stylistics. He defines problematics from a sociosemiotic point of view: as socio-linguistic situations in which competing collective languages (sociolects) and discourses react critically and polemically to one another.

Type
Focus: Writing a History of European Literature as Part of a World History of Literature
Information
European Review , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 292 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Ph. Van Tieghem (1963) Le Romantisme français (Paris: PUF), p. 22.Google Scholar
2.Kohl, S. (1977) Realismus: Theorie und Geschichte (München: Fink), pp. 79–81.Google Scholar
3.Fokkema, D.W. (1984) Literary History, Modernism, and Postmodernism. The Harvard University Erasmus Lectures, Spring 1983 (Amsterdam, Philadelphia: J. Benjamins), p. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Surette, L. (1993) The Birth of Modernism, Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot, W. B. Yeats, and the Occult (Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press), p. 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Hutcheon, L. (1988) A Poetics of Postmodernism. History, Theory, Fiction (London, New York: Routledge), p. 88.Google Scholar
6.Vološinov, V.N. (1986) Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, trans. L. Matejka and I.R. Titunik (Cambridge, MA, London, UK: Harvard University Press), p. 70.Google Scholar
7. Thus, J. Piaget criticizes Foucault's construction of episteme from a genetic perspective: ‘[…] La succession des épistémè devient de ce fait entièrement incompréhensible […].’ Piaget, J. (1974) Le Structuralisme (Paris: PUF), p. 114.Google Scholar
8.Breton, A. (1969) Manifestes du surréalisme (Paris: Gallimard), p. 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Baudrillard, J. (1981) Simulacres et simulation (Paris: Galilée), p. 36–42.Google Scholar
10.Pêcheux, M. (1975) Les Vérités de La Palice (Paris: Maspero), p. 144.Google Scholar
11.Touraine, A. (1992) Critique de la modernité (Paris: Fayard), p. 170.Google Scholar
12.Heller, A. (1984) A Radical Philosophy, trans. J. Wickham (Oxford, New York: Blackwell), p. 126.Google Scholar
13.Jameson, F. (1991) Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press); M. Ryan (1989) Politics and Culture: Working Hypotheses for a Post-revolutionary Society (London: Macmillan).Google Scholar
14.Baudrillard, J. (1990) La Transparence du mal (Paris: Galilée) chapter Transesthétique, 22–27.Google Scholar
15.Lash, S. (1990) Sociology of Postmodernism (London, New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
16.Paterson, J.M. (1990) Moments postmodernes dans le roman québécois (Ottawa: Les Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa).Google Scholar