No description available.

No description available.

This study gives the Zulu's views and ideas about celestial bodies and associated natural phenomena and how they illustrate features in both the oral and written literature. It sketches various focussing mainly on The concentration is conceptions about the whole universe celestial bodies and natural phenomena. on the sun, moon, stars, thunder and lightning in poetry and prose both modern and traditional. Emphasis is on the fact that Zulus do not perceive celestial bodies as mere bodies but assign certain beliefs and philosophies to them. In examining these different conceptions, Western as well as African literary theories have been used in this study. I~ ~r=rli~ional izibongo amakhosi are associated with the sun, the moon as well as the stars. Their warriors' attack is associated with the thunderstorm. These celestial bodies are also used as determinants of time in terms of day and night, seasons and different times for different daily chores. In modern poetry these bodies are mainly associated with God and in some instances they are referred to as God himself. In prose they are used as determinants of time and are also used figuratively to describe certain circumstances. The study gives an idea of how Zulus in general perceive these celestial bodies and natural phenomena. / African Languages / D.Litt. et Phil. (African Languages)

Ce travail propose une histoire de l’école de Genève à travers l’étude comparée des œuvres de Georges Poulet, Jean Starobinski et Jean-Pierre Richard. Une première partie retrace l’histoire intellectuelle du groupe à une époque marquée par l’influence de la phénoménologie, puis par la pensée structuraliste ; ainsi que par les tensions entre une nouvelle critique extrauniversitaire et une critique universitaire. En s’appuyant sur la correspondance inédite entre ces trois auteurs, ce récit historique permet de découvrir l’histoire du groupe de l’intérieur, et s’efforce de nouer la pensée à la vie. Une deuxième partie analyse les études de Poulet, Starobinski et Richard pour tenter de cerner la spécificité de leur démarche critique au-delà de leurs singularités de style et des différentes théories et méthodes auxquelles ces trois auteurs ont pu être associés. La notion de « geste critique » permet de proposer une analyse immanente de leurs textes, en se focalisant sur les mouvements de la pensée interprétative. Ces auteurs mobilisent images et métaphores pour penser l’acte et la relation critique, et cet imaginaire influe sur leurs gestes herméneutiques. Ceci rapproche leur pratique d’une pensée rêvante qui transforme l’interprétation des textes en un acte d’« imagination critique », compris comme la conjonction entre identification et prise de distance, discernement et force créatrice, logique et sensibilité. / This dissertation proposes a history of the Geneva School through the comparative study of the works of Georges Poulet, Jean Starobinski and Jean-Pierre Richard. The first part traces the intellectual history of the group at a period in time marked by the influence of phenomenology and later, of structuralism; and by tensions between the new extra-academic criticism and traditional academic criticism. Based on the unpublished correspondence between these three authors, this historical account allows for the discovery of the group from within, and endeavors to link thought to life. The second part analyzes the works of Poulet, Starobinski and Richard in an attempt to grasp the specificity of the critical process, looking beyond their stylistic singularities and different theories and methods to which the three authors have been associated. The notion of “critical gesture” allows for an immanent analysis of their texts, focusing on the movements of interpretive thought. These authors employ images and metaphors to reflect on the critical act and on critical relations, and this imagination in turn influences their hermeneutic gestures. This brings their practice of dreamlike thought that transforms the interpretation of texts into an act of “critical imagination”, understood as the convergence between identification and distancing, discernment and creative force, logic and sensitivity.

This thesis explores the origin and expression of dialectical thought in the life and writings of the American modernist Laura Riding. Within a biographical framework, I trace the steps by which it became the defining characteristic of her poetic, literary and critical works. A few have noted Riding's dialectical manner; none have appreciated its centrality. This is the first detailed study. An introductory outline of the origin and definition of dialectic provides a working theoretical context for the study that follows. Riding was born Laura Reichenthal in New York City, 1901. Her father, a Jewish émigré, was a committed activist for the left and included Riding in his campaigning at a very young age, immersing and educating her in the political and philosophical radicalism thriving in New York's Jewish communities of the era. There she internalised the revolutionary dialectics that would inform her aesthetic practice. Breaking with her father in her teens, she abandoned politics for literature. As Laura Riding - the name she adopted in 1927 and with which her literary writings continue to be associated - she moved to London and began collaborating with Robert Graves, relocating with him to Majorca in 1929. Producing poetry, fiction, criticism and experimental philosophico-literary works, she became a formidable presence within European literary modernism. Many aspects of her work are dialectical. Paradox, inversion and negation are perennial textual features. Key events in her life were also experienced as dialectical. Her insistence upon 'death' as an inverted sigil of unmediated vitality points toward a negatively dialectical mode of thought. In this regard, the theories of Theodor W. Adorno prove invaluable. Adorno provides a unique lexicon of terms - 'constitutive subjectivity', 'administered world', 'true object' - with which to draw out Riding's dialectical subtleties. Reading them alongside Adorno's negatively dialectical theory of modernist art and aesthetic praxis, certain aspects of Riding's writings are illuminated and, in some respects, they correspond. After a suicide attempt in 1929, Riding's perspective changed. Before it, her point of view was positioned within institutionally determined 'reality', and 'truth' beyond it was adumbrated by dialectical means. Afterwards, she believed herself transfigured: the embodiment of immediate, consciously apprehended noumenal objectivity. But the written word remained recalcitrant toward her attempts to inscribe this newfound positive 'truth'. This frustration contributed to her abandonment of poetry at the end of the 1930s. Re-emerging in the 1960s as Laura (Riding) Jackson, her disavowal of poetry and exploration of 'truth-potential' in language utilised dialectical approaches derived from her earlier experiences and writings.

At the centre of this study lies the question if normative gender thinking affects the way poetry gets reviewed and how the reviews are written, this in relation to both the gender of the reviewer and the poet. The study crosses three academic fields; gender studies, poetry and journalism, and is based on the cultural studies theory of media affecting and even creating the world around it. The study is based on two types of analysis. One quantitative analysis based on the thematic criticism theory about detail studies that shows bigger patterns, this analysis focuses on how the poet and his/hers work are being treated in the reviews in areas such as how much space they´re given in the newspapers, how they are named by the reviewer and the tendency to quote the reviewed work.  And one qualitative analysis based on the new criticism method of close reading, that focuses on the reviewers way of writing and how that may be connected with theories of gender differences, this both connected to the gender of the reviewers and the poets. The material chosen for this study are all the reviews that were published in the same newspapers and that reviewed two specific poetry works by two specific poets chosen with great sensibility to age and career so that their difference in gender would be the most significant difference between them. The works were chosen based on year of publishing, they were supposed to be published as newly as possible and as close to each other in time as possible. The works I ended up with were Dimman av allt (2001) and Svart som silver (2008) by Bruno K. Öijer and Silverskåp (2000) and Nu försvinner vi eller ingår (2007) by Birgitta Lillpers. The results of this study show several differences in how poetry is being judged and how poetry reviews are being written are connected with the gender of the poets and the reviewer. Lillpers got 35% less space in the newspapers and Öijers poetry got quoted a lot more which confirms that female poetry often is considered as less important than the male poetry, and that men in general tends to be judged as more professional than woman. The male reviewers tended to express themselves with greater certainty than the female reviewers who held a more professional tone in their reviews and focused more on the technical aspects of the poetry. This confirms the theory of the male words are being looked upon as the truth but contradicts the theory of women writing more based on personal experience and of women being less skilled in language techniques. In conclusion, there are differences in how poetry gets reviewed and how the reviews are written that are connected to the genders of the poet and the reviewer but these differences are complex and does not show a clear normative way of thinking about gender

This study gives the Zulu's views and ideas about celestial bodies and associated natural phenomena and how they illustrate features in both the oral and written literature. It sketches various focussing mainly on The concentration is conceptions about the whole universe celestial bodies and natural phenomena. on the sun, moon, stars, thunder and lightning in poetry and prose both modern and traditional. Emphasis is on the fact that Zulus do not perceive celestial bodies as mere bodies but assign certain beliefs and philosophies to them. In examining these different conceptions, Western as well as African literary theories have been used in this study. I~ ~r=rli~ional izibongo amakhosi are associated with the sun, the moon as well as the stars. Their warriors' attack is associated with the thunderstorm. These celestial bodies are also used as determinants of time in terms of day and night, seasons and different times for different daily chores. In modern poetry these bodies are mainly associated with God and in some instances they are referred to as God himself. In prose they are used as determinants of time and are also used figuratively to describe certain circumstances. The study gives an idea of how Zulus in general perceive these celestial bodies and natural phenomena. / African Languages / D.Litt. et Phil. (African Languages)

Abstract Literary criticism lost its connection with textual criticism as formalist theories gained ground after the 1950s. The formalist conceptions of the autonomy of the literary work, however, have been subsequently questioned while the relationship between literary and textual criticism has remained distant. The present study searches for the historical reasons for this, and with the help of literary philosophy strives to revive the vanished relationship by demonstrating the essential signification of textual criticism to literary criticism. In the Anglo-American context the literary critics’ disinterest in textual criticism has been explained away as a vestige of New Critical literary theory. The present study brings a new interdisciplinary viewpoint to this discussion by showing that Analytic Aesthetics has had a central role in maintaining the separation of textual criticism and literary criticism. By examining prominent theories of the ontology of the literary work the study reveals a tradition of a monolithic conception of the literary work within Analytic Aesthetics that considers the literary work to have only one stable text. In this tradition different phenomena of textual variation are marginalised as inessential to the identity of the work. By the same token, textual criticism is cast out from the field of literary criticism as being aesthetically insignificant. The study criticises the monolithic tradition for its historically limited conception of the work, one that is grounded in the invention of print and the modern conception of the author. This conception does not take into account the historically and constantly changing media of production, recording and transmitting that affects the relationship between the concepts of work and text. The monolithic conception is wholly unsuitable for the thinking of the works of oral literature, medieval manuscript culture and contemporary hypertexts. Neither does it work well with printed literature. This study demonstrates how this conception of the work supports a blind faith approach to the stability of the printed text that gives a completely false impression of the historical nature of the literary work. According to this study literary criticism should be based on an aesthetic of suspicion that approaches every text with a critical attitude. The literary critic should examine the history of textual transmission of the work under study and only then determine and justify from the viewpoint of the given research frame the selection of which text versions the work’s interpretation is based on. By examining unpublished as well as published versions of Aaro Hellaakoski’s Me kaksi, the present study demonstrates in practice how taking textual variation into account produces interpretations of the work that would not otherwise be possible when working only with a single text version. / Tiivistelmä Kirjallisuudentutkimus kadotti yhteyden tekstikritiikkiin formalististen teorioiden yleistyessä 1950-luvun jälkeen. Sittemmin formalistiset käsitykset teoksen historiattomuudesta ja autonomisuudesta on kyseenalaistettu, mutta suhde tekstikritiikkiin on jäänyt etäiseksi. Käsillä olevassa tutkimuksessa etsitään historiallisia syitä tähän ja pyritään elvyttämään näiden tutkimusalojen vuorovaikutusta osoittamalla kirjallisuuden filosofian keinoin tekstikritiikin olennainen merkitys kirjallisuudentutkimukselle. Angloamerikkalaisessa kontekstissa kirjallisuudentutkijoiden välinpitämättömyyden tekstikritiikkiä kohtaan on selitetty periytyvän uuskriittisestä kirjallisuusteoriasta. Tämä tutkimus tuo keskusteluun uuden poikkitieteellisen näkökulman osoittamalla, että analyyttinen estetiikka on ollut keskeinen tekijä tekstikritiikin ja kirjallisuudentutkimuksen välisen erottelun ylläpitämisessä. Tarkastelemalla keskeisiä kirjallisen teoksen ontologian teorioita tutkimus paljastaa analyyttisessa estetiikassa vallitsevan monoliittisen teoskäsityksen tradition, jossa teoksella ajatellaan olevan vain yksi muuttumaton teksti. Tässä traditiossa erilaiset tekstuaalisen variaation ilmiöt marginalisoidaan teoksen identiteetin kannalta epäolennaisina. Samalla tekstikriittinen tutkimus rajataan pois kirjallisuudentutkimuksen alueelta esteettisesti merkityksettömänä. Tutkimus kritisoi monoliittisen tradition historiallisesti rajoittunutta teoskäsitystä, joka pohjautuu kirjapainotekniikkaan ja moderniin tekijäkäsitykseen. Tämä teoskäsitys ei huomioi teoksen historiallisesti muuttuvien tuottamisen, tallentamisen ja välittämisen välineiden vaikutusta teoksen ja tekstin suhteeseen. Monoliittinen teoskäsitys ei sovellu esimerkiksi suullisen runouden, keskiajan käsikirjoituskulttuurin tai nykyajan hypertekstien tekstuaalisuuden ajattelemiseen, muttei myöskään painetun kirjallisuuden tekstuaalisuuteen. Tutkimus osoittaa, miten tämä teoskäsitys ylläpitää sokeaa luottamusta painettuun tekstiin, joka antaa virheellisen kuvan kirjallisen teoksen historiallisesta luonteesta. Tutkimuksen mukaan kirjallisuudentutkimuksen tulisi perustua epäilyksen estetiikkaan, jossa jokaiseen tekstiin suhtaudutaan kriittisesti. Kirjallisuudentutkijan olisi selvitettävä tutkimansa teoksen tekstuaalisen transmission historia sekä määritettävä ja perusteltava tutkimusongelmansa näkökulmasta mihin teoksen tekstiversioihin hän perustaa tulkintansa. Tarkastelemalla Aaro Hellaakosken Me kaksi -runoelman julkaisemattomia ja julkaistuja versioita tutkimuksessa osoitetaan käytännössä, miten tekstuaalisen variaation huomioiminen tuottaa tulkintoja teoksesta, jotka eivät olisi mahdollisia yksittäisen tekstiversion pohjalta.

Les XIXe et XXe siècles sont caractérisés comme des siècles de la critique. La plus grande partie de cette thèse porte sur l’analyse de la « Nouvelle Critique » en relation avec l’œuvre de Jean Racine. Ce mouvement critique qui a marqué les années soixante, s’intéresse plutôt aux structures sous-Jacentes qui peuvent être dégagées d’une œuvre littéraire.Les représentants de la Nouvelle Critique qui sont en principe, Lucien Goldmann, Charles Mauron et Roland Barthes dégagent de l’œuvre racinienne, chacun de sa propre façon, une structure de base. La critique sociologique de Goldmann, la psychocritique de Mauron et la critique structurale de Barthes offrent plusieurs pistes de réflexion.Présenter les méthodes proposées par la Nouvelle Critique, dégager l’essentiel de ses théories et apprécier leur valeur en démontrant la raison qui les a rendues fondamentales ainsi que comprendre la polémique déclenchée autour d’elle sont pour ce travail des tâches à accomplir. Or, cerner les enjeux de la « Nouvelle Critique » dans la critique racinienne en examinant les critiques faites par d’autres critiques constitue l’objectif de ce travail. / The nineteenth and twentieth centuries are characterized as centuries of literary criticism. The primary objective of this thesis will focus on the methodology used by “New Criticism” in relation to the work of Jean Racine. The New Criticism was a formalist movement, popular in the sixties, which focuses on objectively evaluating the underlying structure and text from literary work.Representatives of ‘‘New Criticism”, such as, Lucien Goldmann, Charles Mauron and Roland Barthes utilized structure methods to interpret Racine's literary works. The Sociological criticism of Goldmann, the Psychoanalytic criticism of Mauron, and the Structuralism of Barthes offer several areas of consideration.The aim of this study is to present the methods proposed by “New Criticism”, to reveal the essence of its theories, to assess their value by demonstrating the reason of their importance, and to understand controversy sparked around this formalist movement. So, identifying the “challenges of the ‘’New Criticism” in Racine’s criticism’’ by examining the criticisms made by other critics is the purpose of this work.

Les XIXe et XXe siècles sont caractérisés comme des siècles de la critique. La plus grande partie de cette thèse porte sur l’analyse de la « Nouvelle Critique » en relation avec l’œuvre de Jean Racine. Ce mouvement critique qui a marqué les années soixante, s’intéresse plutôt aux structures sous-Jacentes qui peuvent être dégagées d’une œuvre littéraire.Les représentants de la Nouvelle Critique qui sont en principe, Lucien Goldmann, Charles Mauron et Roland Barthes dégagent de l’œuvre racinienne, chacun de sa propre façon, une structure de base. La critique sociologique de Goldmann, la psychocritique de Mauron et la critique structurale de Barthes offrent plusieurs pistes de réflexion.Présenter les méthodes proposées par la Nouvelle Critique, dégager l’essentiel de ses théories et apprécier leur valeur en démontrant la raison qui les a rendues fondamentales ainsi que comprendre la polémique déclenchée autour d’elle sont pour ce travail des tâches à accomplir. Or, cerner les enjeux de la « Nouvelle Critique » dans la critique racinienne en examinant les critiques faites par d’autres critiques constitue l’objectif de ce travail. / The nineteenth and twentieth centuries are characterized as centuries of literary criticism. The primary objective of this thesis will focus on the methodology used by “New Criticism” in relation to the work of Jean Racine. The New Criticism was a formalist movement, popular in the sixties, which focuses on objectively evaluating the underlying structure and text from literary work.Representatives of ‘‘New Criticism”, such as, Lucien Goldmann, Charles Mauron and Roland Barthes utilized structure methods to interpret Racine's literary works. The Sociological criticism of Goldmann, the Psychoanalytic criticism of Mauron, and the Structuralism of Barthes offer several areas of consideration.The aim of this study is to present the methods proposed by “New Criticism”, to reveal the essence of its theories, to assess their value by demonstrating the reason of their importance, and to understand controversy sparked around this formalist movement. So, identifying the “challenges of the ‘’New Criticism” in Racine’s criticism’’ by examining the criticisms made by other critics is the purpose of this work.