14 меѓународен славистички конгрес охрид, 10-16 септември 2008 зборник од резимеа
| Вид материала | Литература |
- 14 меѓународен славистички конгрес охрид, 10-16 септември 2008 зборник од резимеа, 2789.93kb.
- Резолюція другого Всеукраїнського конгресу з медичного права, біоетики І соціальної, 92.29kb.
- М. Братислава, Словаччина) Вища школа готельного менеджменту (м. Белград, Сербія) Університет, 223.08kb.
- І конгрес соціологічної асоціації україни "соціологія в ситуації соціальних невизначеностей", 1353.75kb.
- Конгрес Сполучених Штатів Америки (сша) прийняти закон, 1273.44kb.
- Молодіжний Націоналістичний Конгрес Гендерна агенція консультації та інформації, 842.66kb.
- Міністерство освіти І науки україни, 62.5kb.
- 29 лютого 2012 року, 8.79kb.
- Правила приема в башкирский государственный, 469.07kb.
- 2 (26) 2008 Київ 2008, 813.52kb.
Czech Sorbian Studies – Basic Milestones of its Development and Perspectives
Many Czechs at Charles-Ferdinand University contributed to the development of Sorbian Studies in the 19th century. František Ladislav Čelakovský, and later, the philologist Jiří Polívka included Sorbian Studies in their university activities. The most important milestone, however, was in 1901, when a permanent teaching position in Sorbian language and literature was created in Prague. Adolf Černý, one of the most erudite specialists in Sorbian Studies, was the first to hold this position. Prague University was the first university where Sorbian was taught. An important change in the teaching of Sorbian at Charles University took place in 1922, when Mikławš Krječmar took over the teaching duties of Adolf Černý and Josef Páta (an associate professor in this field from 1933) continued in Černý’s research. After WWII, Antonín Frinta headed Prague Sorbian Studies and M. Krječmar remained as teacher. During the following period, Jan Petr headed it until 1989. Until 1998, it was directed by Zdeněk Urban, followed by Markus Giger. An M.A. program in Sorbian Studies was first offered in 1991 (and after 2002, the specialization of Sorbian Studies in the field of Slavic Studies was offered). Changes took place in Slavic Studies at Charles University in 2006, when the existing form of study based on regions as a homogenous whole was discontinued. It was divided into three geographic and cultural-civilization wholes – Eastern European, Central European and Southern European. Sorbian Studies as a specialization, like other Slavic Studies disciplines, is not taught. The number of teachers and subjects has been reduced, and Prague Sorbian Studies is newly seeking its place.
Michal Křístek
A method of complex stylistic analysis (based on distinctive features belonging to various means of expression)
The main aim of the paper is to present one possible method of complex stylistic analysis of texts. The method is based on distinctive features relevant from the viewpoint of stylistics, as they are recorded in grammar books and dictionaries. These distinctive features belong to means of expression on any language level (phonology, morphology, syntax, vocabulary) and style can consequently be defined as the result of effects performed by these features upon the addressee. Monographs and textbooks on stylistics provide another part of the general background, namely a summarization of stylistic norms relevant for individual spheres of communication, i.e. rules according to which texts of the particular kind should be created. When analyzing style using this method, first of all it is necessary to create general models of various kinds of text (using the above-mentioned background). The process of stylistic analysis continues with structured sets of questions, correct answers to which should lead to a complex characterization of style in practically any kind of text.
The proposed method is methodologically based on stylistics approached from the viewpoint of functional structuralism, as it has been developed and modified mainly by the Prague School since the 1920s to the present day.
Danuše Kšicová
From Symbolism to the Avant-Garde
Poetics of Russian and Czech Poetry
The typological comparison of Russian and Czech poetry yields some fundamental information, to a high degree connected with the different geopolitical characters of these literatures. The difference in the development of the two traditions can also be seen in the field of poetics (f. e. differences in the historical development of prosody, leading to dissimilar formations of experiment in poetry: Russian verse works predominantly with language, Czech verse with metre). Nevertheless, there also exist remarkable correspondences, arising from the common European cultural and philosophical context, as well as from mutual contacts and knowledge. This concerns not only analogies in international movements (decadence: K. D. Balmont – K. Hlaváček, symbolism: K. D. Balmont – O. Březina, art nouveau, cubism and constructivism: Russian, French and Czech Antologies in the Czech journal Host /Guest, 1925/, but also national innovations of wider concepts such as akmeism (O. Mandelshtam –V. Nezval), for example, which is the Russian variety of neo-classicism, or imaginism, related to Czech poetism because of its emphasis on the poetic image (S. Jesenin – J. Wolker). The effort to change the poetic word brought Russian futurism close to the Russian formal school, which was one of the sources of Czech structuralism. Changes in literature and the arts did not take place in a vacuum. The left orientation of the Czech avant-garde in the 1920s resulted in their interest in Soviet writers and other artists, while the émigré poets, including Tsvetayeva, were totally ignored. The Soviet Union liquidated avant-garde works and even their authors. (The antidemocratic atmosphere at the International Congress of Contemporary Culture held in Paris in 1935.)
The comparison of Russian and Czech poetry which had their independent histories shows a deep connection of culture in the whole European context.
Giuseppe Maiello
Dalla teoria alla prassi: tentativi riusciti, meno riusciti e nuovi di realizzare centri di studi areali in Repubblica ceca.
La discussione sul futuro della slavistica si è particolarmente intensificata negli ultimi anni del XX secolo, trovando sostegno su presupposti già tracciati agli inizi degli anni novanta di quel secolo.
Oggi, soprattutto grazie al lavoro di ricercatori e del personale insegnante accademico raccolto nell’Associazione ceca degli slavisti, sembra che l’analisi teorica cominci a dare i suoi primi frutti nella prassi.
Lentamente, partendo dalla tipologia comparata del testo e dell’arealità, si è riusciti con un certo successo a mettere insieme diversi ambiti di studio, così come veniva presupposto dal maggior teorico ceco degli studi areali, il comparatista e storico della letteratura Ivo Pospíšil.
Naturalmente non tutti i tentativi fatti sono stati coronati immediatamente da successo. Emblematico ed allarmante è stato il caso della slavistica praghese presso l‘Università carolina, che malgrado il proclamato avanzamento in direzione degli studi areali, ha perso la sua forza motrice, cadendo in una profonda crisi.
L‘importanza simbolica di Praga rimane ovviamente ancora indiscutibile e, per fortuna, la crisi praghese è ridotta piuttosto ad eun fenomeno locale che, con l‘eccezione di casi isolati, non ha investito tutta la Repubblica ceca. Inoltre, la crisi della slavistica praghese andrebbe da imputare a cause interne ed alla non accettazione di fatto almeno dei priencipi elementari della teoria degli areali, piuttosto che a fattori di tipo generale o „obettivo“.
Fulcro dello studio è un‘analisi empirica sistematica basata su di un indagine effettuata in quattro dipartimenti universitari in Repubblica ceca (Praga, Brno, Plzeň, Pardubice). L’indagine rappresenta l‘esempio di base su cui formulare il modello da cui sono partiti i ricercatori e gli insegnanti di discipline slavistiche cechi per mettere in pratica la teoria degli studi areali.
Miroslav Mikulášek