文学研究中的严谨与不精确

IF 0.2 0 LITERATURE, ROMANCE

Romanic Review Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.1215/00358118-8819637

T. Pavel

{"title":"文学研究中的严谨与不精确","authors":"T. Pavel","doi":"10.1215/00358118-8819637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The article examines several twentieth-century polemics between mechanist approaches to language and art and studies that emphasize creativity and historical developments. The 1944 exchange between Leonard Bloomfield and Leo Spitzer was an eloquent example of such polemics, as were the various points of view of Russian formalists as well as the French debates concerning historical determinism and creativity in literary studies.","PeriodicalId":39614,"journal":{"name":"Romanic Review","volume":"111 1","pages":"455-461"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rigor and Imprecision in Literary Studies\",\"authors\":\"T. Pavel\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/00358118-8819637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The article examines several twentieth-century polemics between mechanist approaches to language and art and studies that emphasize creativity and historical developments. The 1944 exchange between Leonard Bloomfield and Leo Spitzer was an eloquent example of such polemics, as were the various points of view of Russian formalists as well as the French debates concerning historical determinism and creativity in literary studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39614,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Romanic Review\",\"volume\":\"111 1\",\"pages\":\"455-461\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Romanic Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8819637\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE, ROMANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanic Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00358118-8819637","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, ROMANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章考察了20世纪语言和艺术的机械主义方法与强调创造力和历史发展的研究之间的几场争论。1944年伦纳德·布鲁姆菲尔德和利奥·斯皮策之间的交流是这种争论的一个雄辩的例子，俄罗斯形式主义者的各种观点以及法国关于历史决定论和文学研究创造力的辩论也是如此。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Rigor and Imprecision in Literary Studies

The article examines several twentieth-century polemics between mechanist approaches to language and art and studies that emphasize creativity and historical developments. The 1944 exchange between Leonard Bloomfield and Leo Spitzer was an eloquent example of such polemics, as were the various points of view of Russian formalists as well as the French debates concerning historical determinism and creativity in literary studies.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Romanic Review Arts and Humanities-Arts and Humanities (all)

CiteScore

0.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Romanic Review is a journal devoted to the study of Romance literatures.Founded by Henry Alfred Todd in 1910, it is published by the Department of French and Romance Philology of Columbia University in cooperation with the Departments of Spanish and Italian. The journal is published four times a year (January, March, May, November) and balances special thematic issues and regular unsolicited issues. It covers all periods of French, Italian and Spanish-language literature, and welcomes a broad diversity of critical approaches.