Steven totosy de zepetnek biography of william

New York: Oxford UP. Chen, Peng-hsiang. Taipei: Bookman. Chevrel, Yves. Comparative Literature Today: Methods and Perspectives. Farida Elizabeth Dahab. Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson UP. Chic, Petra. Chiose, Simona. Cometti, Jean-Pierre. Conrad, Michael. Corino, Karl. Robert Musils "Vereinigungen. Corner, John, and Jeremy Hawthorn, eds.

Communication Studies: An Introductory Reader. London: Edward Arnold. Cornis-Pop[e], Marcel. Cornis-Pope, Marcel. Iai: Polirom. Corse, Sarah M. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Crohmalniceanu, Ovid. By Mircea Crtrescu. Culler, Jonathan. Alex Preminger and T. Princeton: Princeton UP. Cupchik, G. The Oxford History of Hungarian Literature.

Oxford: Clarendon. Dafoe, Chris. Davies, Ioan. De Berg, Henk. Delany, Paul, and George P. Landow, eds. Hypermedia and Literary Studies. Cambridge: MIT P. Deltcheva, Roumiana. Dixon, Peter, and Marisa Bortolussi. Alexanderplatz Berlin. The Story of Franz Biberkopf. Eugene Jolas. New York: Frederick Ungar. Dollerup, Cay. Dubois, Jacques. Paris: Bordas.

G-O Ducrot, Oswald, and Tzvetan Todorov. Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Sciences of Language. Duncan, Sarah Jeanette. Carole Gerson and Kathy Mezei. Downs-view: ECW. Durisin, Dionyz. Vergleichende Literaturforschung. Bratislava: Slovenskej Akademie. Eggert, Hartmut, and Christine Garbe. Literarische Socialization. Stuttgart: Metzler. Deutschland, aber wo liegt es?

Deutschland und Mitteleuropa. Analysen und historische Dokumente. Amsterdam: Rodopi. London: Weidenfield. Estivals, Robert. Paris: Retz. The Economist 28 October-3 November, : Even-Zohar, Itamar. Polysystem Studies. Special Issue of Poetics Today Falk, Richard. Farnoaga, Georgiana, and Sahron King, ed. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P. Fast, Piotr, and Marian Kisiel.

Flynn, Elizabeth A. Schweickart, eds. Fokkema, Douwe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Franklin, Phyllis, ed. Profession Friedrich, Werner P. Outline of Comparative Literature. Deutschsprachige Literatur in Kanada. Hildesheim: Olms. Nachrichten aus Ontario. Occasional Papers 7 : Funk, Nanette, and Magda Mueller, eds. New York: Routledge. Gehrke, Ralph.

Gessell, Paul. Geulen, Hans. Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Toward a Systems Theory of Organization. Seaside: Intersystems Publications. Ghesquiere, Rita. London: Sage. Gilman, Sander L. Giroux, Henry. Living Dangerously: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Difference. Bern: Peter Lang. Glasersfeld, Ernst von. Wissen, Sprache und Wirklichkeit. Arbeiten zum Radikalen Konstruktivismus.

Braunschweig: Vieweg. Siegfried J. Rusch and Schmidt Glatz, Ferenc. Budapest: Europa Institut. Goodman Gilman, Alfred, Theodore W. Rall, and Ferid Murad. The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. New York: Macmillan. Graesser, Arthur C. Mio, and K. Meutsch and R. Graves, B. Greiner, Ulrich. Groeben, Norbert. Rezeptionsforschung als Empirische Literaturwissenschaft.

Groeben, Norbert, and Peter Vorderer. Grosz, Elisabeth. London: Routledge. Budapest: Mozaik. The Challenge of Comparative Literature. Cola Franzen. Cambridge: Harvard UP. Guillory, John. Chicago: U of Chicago P. Gunew, Sneja. Guthrie, John T. Measuring Readership: Rationale and Technique. Gwyn, Richard. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

Halliburton, David. The Fateful Discourse of Worldly Things. Hall, James B. Modern Culture and the Arts. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hanscombe, Gillian E. By Dorothy Richardson. Urbana: U of Illinois P. London: Peter Owen. Hassner, Pierre. Nicole Dewandre and Jacques Lenoble. Berlin: Schelzky and Jeep. Heble, Ajay. Heighton, Steven. Quarles U. Toth, Noemi —.

Toth, Judit b. Toth, Donald James Moosomin. Toth, Beatrix. Toth, Alexis. Toth v. Quarles Toth Harsanyi, Borbala —. Many great scholars and theorists And their works are especially readable. A respected colleague recently insisted to me that scholarly books must be readable books, and I agree" 4. I beg to differ. First, scholarship should be performed in the form and content of "high" science and only after that should popularization occur.

There is "popular science" and such is necessary. But scholarly books and work should not be written for the general public neither in the natural basic and medical sciences nor in the humanities and literary study. I would like to add that my suggestions should not be understood as a thoughtless importation of the paradigms used in the scholarship of the natural and medical sciences.

I am fully aware that "twentieth-century science has been eminently successful in its pursuit of scire. Cognitively, however, mathematical formulations are, by themselves, incomplete. The narrative aspects of science, the concepts and meanings to which the computations point, have been neglected" Pribram But while the natural and medical sciences are in need of the narrative practices used in the humanities, in turn the humanities are in need to adopt some of the methods, exactitude, replicability, and objectivity -- as questionable and difficult that may be -- used in the natural sciences.

That the study of literature and the social relevance of the study and teaching of literature are in need of legitimization and are in need of relevant approaches and methods is widely recognized. For instance, the Modern Language Association of America bulletin, Profession , devotes its issues concerning the professional aspects of the field, and in its and issues there are more specific signs that a more operational and functional approach in both study and teaching would meet with interest see Franklin; Profession Whether such approaches as the Systemic and Empirical framework would attract a proportionally and statistically significant mass of scholars remains to be seen I doubt it.

Proposals for functionalism and social relevance of the study of literature as, for example, in the The Politics of Teaching Literature , do not satisfy my concerns and will not do so those of the taxpayer or politician either. Neither do arguments put forward -- to cite yet another example from the North American landscape of scholarship -- who argue that a response to the need for change in literary study toward a rational approach ignores "its unrationalized object of analysis" O'Hara On the other hand, it should be mentioned that rationality and objectivity -- even if without explicit methodology -- are again emerging, witness, for example -- from the general mass of works emanating from the humanities and independent from systemic and empirical work -- Mas'ud Zavarzadeh and Donald Morton's Theory, Post Modernity, Opposition: An "Other" Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory , Satya P.

Based on the troubled and precarious situation of literary study in general and Comparative Literature in particular, I follow with a proposal of theoretical frameworks and methodologies which in my opinion have the potential to respond to at least some of the criticism I mentioned.

Steven totosy de zepetnek biography of william

Although collectively these approaches can be designated as "systemic," there are significant differences among them and this will be evident in my discussion. While neither previous designations nor my own gained wide acceptance in English see Andringa , it has begun to be noticed and to be accepted and this can be seen in works where the designation is referred to or where certain aspects of the framework or its applications are cited.

My designation of The Systemic and Empirical Approach to Literature and Culture as well as my theoretical and methodological developments of the original framework emanate and draw heavily on Siegfried J. Schmidt's and his colleagues' Empirische Literaturwissenschaft. My designation focuses on the two main aspects of these compatible frameworks, namely on the "systemic" and the "empirical.

Thus, the proposed type of Comparative Literature and the chiefly methodological framework of The Systemic and Empirical Approach to Literature and Culture result in a combination where there is mutual enrichment of compatibility in theory and, as I will demonstrate, in application. Historically, in the study of literature the origins of the systemic approach can be traced to structuralism, the sociology of literature, and Russian Formalism.

Structuralism in particular has influenced, via Saussure and the Russian Formalists, a variety of disciplines such as philosophy, ethnology, anthropology, psychoanalysis, and sociology, etc. The specific relationship between structuralism and the systemic approaches in general is often not clear. In the development of similar systemic theoretical frameworks such as the Empirische Literaturwissenschaft Siegfried J.

Generally speaking, systemic and institutional theories of literature, although borrowing from a range of disciplines such as mathematics, biology, and physics, and other theories from the humanities and social sciences, as well as other frameworks for the study of literature, emanate mainly from sociology -- in particular from Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann -- that is, in the more specific form of the the sociology of literature as well as theories of communication see, for example, Corner and Hawthorne; Schmidt b, a.

In this context, it should be noted that the systemic approach to literature, in general, refers to a microstructure although it could also be understood in the context of literature as a macrostructure. In order to offer a more detailed taxonomy of the notion "literature as system," definitions by the originator of the polysystem theory, Itamar Even-Zohar, are relevant.

But first, I would like to draw attention to the notion that Even-Zohar's and similar definitions are clearly located within an a priori notion of literature while they are applicable to culture in general as well. Also Russell L. Ackoff's definition of systems thinking -- although not specifically in relation to literature and culture Note 1 -- is helpful to illustrate how systems theory can be applied in the study of literature and culture:.

In the systems approach there are also three steps: 1 identify a containing whole system of which the thing to be explained is a part; 2 explain the behavior or properties of the containing whole; and 3 then explain the behavior or properties of the thing to be explained in terms of its role s or function s within its containing whole. Schmidt has developed, from philosophy such as Constructivism and Radical Constructivism Note 2 since the late s and early s -- although Ackoff's thinking in the time of the publication of his definition above is remarkably "constructivist" -- and from general systems theory an even more carefully delineated description of the literary system, specifically, within the pre-postulates of literary communication and social interaction:.

As a system of communicative interaction, literary communication must meet the conditions for systems: it must be delimited by a relatively stable borderline between it and other systems; it must manifest an internal structure; and it must be accepted by society and fulfil a social function not fulfilled by any other system. The delimiting borderline is provided by the aesthetic convention.

The structure of the system is determined by the distribution of the roles of action stabilized in social expectations: producer, mediator, receiver, and post-production processor. In the English taxonomical designation of Schmidt's framework, because in English-language literary studies the terms "empirical" and "science" have particularly negative connotations, the term "science" from the more usual designation of "Empirical Science of Literature" has been first replaced with "theory," as in the "Empirical Theory of Literature" Barsch As I mentioned previously, first, my designation of "The Systemic and Empirical Approach to Literature" has been accepted by Schmidt and his colleagues at the University of Siegen, and since I further extended the designation and name of the framework and approach to "The Systemic and Empirical Approach to Literature and Culture.

Empirische Literaturwissenschaft originally attracted proponents particularly in the areas of reception and audience studies such as Norbert Groeben or Peter Vorderer Note 3 and in cognitive psychology when it is concerned with questions of reading e. In these two areas research and studies based on the framework are steadily growing see Segers.

In communication studies the notion of system is clearly established see Corner and Hawthorn It is also worth noting that a number of researchers in cognitive science and artificial intelligence have been attempting to articulate frameworks for the study of text, particularly those interested in narrative who employ methods of story grammars e.

Despite the mentioned lack of the framework's recognition in literary scholarship in general, it is clear that there is a significant growth of works employing the framework and that it has also begun to attract the interest of scholars working in cultural studies see, e. In other words, on the one hand the Systemic and Empirical approach concerns primarily literature as in its study, on the other hand "literature" itself is understood as a subsystem of culture that in turn is another subsystem of the system of communication:.

Hypothesis about the system of literary communicative interaction: There exists in our society a system of communicative interaction with the following properties: a communicative interactions are thematically directed toward linguistic aesthetic communicative texts; b the actions of text producers and receivers follow the conventions of aestheticity and polyvalence, and those of mediators and post-production processors must be compatible with those conventions; c the system reveals an inner structure, is delimited from other systems, is accepted by society, and fulfils functions not performed by another system.

Schmidt , While criticism of the systemic approach to literature is endemic and strong among literary scholars, in my opinion most discussions demonstrate unfamiliarity with both the basic points of departure of systems theory and the large secondary literature as well as the epistemological bases of the approach. As I mentioned earlier, in North America there is established and continuous objection to systems theory for the study of literature, probably owing to its history -- and now in literary theory wide-spread negation -- of British and American pragmatism: a good example is the review of my book on the preface to nineteenth-century English- and French-Canadian novels a.

In the book review, the reviewer closes an otherwise more or less favourable opinion by saying that the book "is an awkward and perplexing study, at least to scholars unfamiliar with ETL [Empirical Theory of Literature] ideology [ sic ] and methodology. However, even scholars such as myself who are handicapped in this way should be able to recognize the potential value of this study as a starting point for further research" Rundle With regard to Germany, the negative response is also frequent and here is one recent example.

Unfortunately, here too as elsewhere, the problem is in misunderstanding or unfamiliarity with the tenets of the approach. The system-oriented approach of "literature as an institution" was first been authored theoretically for the study of literature by Jacques Dubois in see also , for elaborations. The systemic and institutional approaches are, however, conceptually related and the analogy may be explained from a basic point of departure: institutions or subsystems are components of a system when literature is viewed as a system of subsystems.

Most basically, this conceptual and taxonomical postulate can be drawn, for instance, from works such as Melvin G. Blase's definition of institution is that "institutions are variables within the economic domain that respond to the dynamics of economic growth This definition is applicable to literature. In the sense of the French definition of l'institution , sociologists of culture generally employ the concept to cover the entire range of factors involved in the production, transmission, and consumption of "artifacts" of literature, the visual arts, cinema, music, and other cultural activities.

These factors include both institutions in a narrow sense i. A similar definition of the concept of "institution," applicable again to the notion of the "literary institution," is as follows: "[An institution] thus concentrates itself to combine functionally the above discussed phenomena, to present them as combinations of basic resolutions of systems which regulate society empirically" Lipp In other words, the theoretical and methodological proposition is that the study of literature should focus on the "how" of literature, not the "what.

Interestingly and importantly. Also, Villanueva not only approximates systemic and pragmatics oriented theories of literature, he argues that systemic and empirical approaches would be particularly advantageous for the discipline of Comparative Literature Because intuition is an overriding concept in the study of literature and literary scholars often contend that this is not so in the natural sciences, it should be noted that intuition is not dispensed with in systemic and empirical frameworks.

To the contrary, intuition is in the natural sciences or in such as the statistical sciences and physics, for instance, too, a fundamental and necessary component in and of research see "On Being a Scientist" and this recognition remains an integral element in systemic and empirical approaches to literature. What is of importance, rather, is the point of entry of intuition when analysing what has been observed, usually in the context of second order observation.

The elements in the basic concepts of systemic and institutional theories allow in particular from a comparative point of view to study literature, that is, "literature" in its widest definition. But most importantly -- and here the discipline has played traditionally a significant role -- Comparative Literature means the recognition of and the engagement with the Other, may that be a "non-canonical" text popular literature, for instance or the literary and cultural aspects of another race, gender, nation, etc.

To me, this historical enacting of a basic principle of Comparative Literature is implicitly systemic. Also, with regard to Comparative Literature and cultural studies, while cultural studies is concerned with literature as one of many cultural activities and cultural production see, for example, Bernheimer; Gunew , Comparative Literature maintains a focus on literature proper although in the widest possible definition of "literature.

However, as I will illustrate further on, while Comparative Literature has the systemic approach built in in its theory and practice, it lacks methodology, that is, the operational and functional postulates the Systemic and Empirical approach offers. And the study of literature, generally practised as the study of "national" literatures, lacks the systemic as well as the above mentioned notions of recognizance and engagement.

It is not surprising, then, that the notion of system -- although here not yet related to the empirical and still without precise methodology -- is put forward in many cases by comparatists see, for example, Angenot et al. Frequently, the authors of the scholarly study appear to be uninformed or disregard the large corpus of systemic approaches both in theory and in application.

Other examples demonstrate more familiarity with systemic thinking although again, they refrain from references to or an intellectual engagement with works in the Systemic and Empirical approach. For instance, Stephen Greenblatt's and his colleagues' framework, New Historicism, comes, in part, remarkably close in concept, if not in methodological precision to the Systemic and Empirical approach; and the same can be said about Edward Said's treatment of Derrida's and Foucault's thought in his chapter "Criticism between Culture and System," in his book, The World, the Text, and the Critic.

Abstract This book serves several purposes, all very much needed in today's embattled situation of the humanities and the study of literature. First, in Chapter One, the author proposes that the discipline of Comparative Literature is a most advantageous approach for the study of literature and culture as it is a priori a discipline of cross-disciplinarity and of international dimensions.