首页> 外文OA文献 >Geleerd of niet. Literatuurkritiek en literatuurwetenschap in Nederland, sinds 1876
【2h】

Geleerd of niet. Literatuurkritiek en literatuurwetenschap in Nederland, sinds 1876

机译:学与否。自1876年以来在荷兰的文学批评和文学研究

摘要

In order to define their own academic practice Dutch literary scholars tend to differentiate between academic literary criticism (in Dutch: literatuurwetenschap) and (journalistic) literary reviewing (in Dutch: literatuurkritiek). According to this generally accepted theoretical distinction, academic criticism is characterized as descriptive, objective, unbiased and detached, whereas literary reviewing is understood as normative, subjective and explicitly participating in the literary debate. In practice, however, this theoretical distinction between academic literary criticism and literary reviewing is difficult to maintain. Firstly, because from an institutional perspective it should be noted that a considerable amount of literary scholars engage actively in the literary field (e.g. they participate in literary jury’s, write literary reviews, work as editors or even as creative writers themselves). Secondly, because both the object of study and the products of literary scholarship are determined – often implicitly – by predominant ideas of what literature is, what it is not, and what it should be.This PhD-thesis traces the roots of the contemporary distinction between the practice of academic literary criticism and literary reviewing in order to better understand the present dichotomy. Where, when and why does the tension between critics and scholars occur within the history of Dutch literary studies? What institutional and cultural circumstances make it possible for scholars, critics and writers alike to talk and think about a distinction between academic and non-academic literary criticism? And how is the distinction between public and academic criticism evaluated through time, both within and outside of the university? By investigating from an discourse analytical and institutional perspective the work of scholars who were also poets, critics or essayists (e.g. Albert Verwey (1865-1937), Nico Donkersloot (1902-1965) and Hans Gomperts (1915-1998)) this study sheds light on the general development of literary studies in the Netherlands since 1876 and the way scholars in the past have perceived the societal role of literary studies in particular. In addition, the study touches upon a fundamental and longstanding conceptual problem within the humanities, namely the conflict between subjective and objective standards and approaches at work in scholarly practice.
机译:为了定义自己的学术实践,荷兰文学学者倾向于区分学术文学批评(荷兰语:literatuurwetenschap)和(新闻)文学评论(荷兰语:literatuurkritiek)。根据这种公认的理论差异,学术批评的特征是描述性,客观性,公正性和超然性,而文学评论被理解为规范性,主观性和明确地参与文学辩论。但是在实践中,学术文学批评和文学评论之间的这种理论区别很难维持。首先,因为从制度的角度出发,应该指出的是,有相当多的文学学者积极地参与文学领域(例如,他们参加文学评审团,撰写文学评论,担任编辑甚至是创意作家自己)。其次,因为研究的对象和文学学术的产物都是(通常是隐性地)由关于什么是文学,什么不是文学以及应该是什么的主导思想所决定。这一博士学位论文追溯了当代区别的根源。为了更好地理解当前的二分法,在学术文学批评实践和文学评论实践之间进行了研究。在荷兰文学研究的历史上,评论家和学者之间的矛盾在哪里,何时何地出现?什么样的制度和文化环境使学者,评论家和作家都可以谈论和思考学术和非学术文学批评之间的区别?在大学内部和外部,如何评价公共和学术批评之间的区别?通过从话语分析和制度角度进行调查,研究人员也成为了诗人,评论家或散文家(例如阿尔伯特·韦威(Albert Verwey,1865-1937年),尼科·唐克斯(Nico Donkersloot,1902-1965年)和汉斯·贡珀特(Hans Gomperts,1915-1998年)。回顾了1876年以来荷兰文学研究的总体发展以及过去学者对文学研究在社会中的作用的认识。此外,该研究还涉及人文学科中一个基本且长期存在的概念问题,即在学术实践中工作的主观和客观标准与方法之间的冲突。

著录项

  • 作者

    Winkler M.F.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2017
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类
  • 入库时间 2022-08-20 20:48:34

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号