scholarly journals Counterpoint as a contentive and stylistic device in the intermedial genre (about Viktor Shenderovich’s A Flute Solo)

Literatūra ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-124
Author(s):  
Eleonora Lassan
Keyword(s):  
Publishing House ◽  
The Other ◽  
Political Satire ◽  
Detailed Characterization ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Symbolic Value ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Stylistic Device

In 2015, Vremya Publishing House issued A Flute Solo, a book by V. Shenderovich, a multigenre and, according to the author of the article, intermedial work, since the peculiarities of the content of a political satire and a tragedy, a farce and a fantasy on the one hand and some features of musical pieces, a fugue in particular, on the other hand, have merged there. The author provides a detailed characterization of the plot, constructed as a grotesque depiction of the reality, the composition as relating a verbal text to a piece of music, and the symbolic value of certain elements, allowing not to agree to the definition of the book as being “desperately hopeless”.

Oxymoronim as a Semantic Unity of Contrasts

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 13-18
Author(s):  
Коробкина ◽  
N. Korobkina
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
English Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
Conceptual Integration ◽  
Lexical Meaning ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Communicative Space ◽  
Stylistic Device

An oxymoronimis is considered as a reflection of linguistic duality and a result of conceptual integration. An oxymoronimas as a result of a modern word creation and an oxymoron as a well-known stylistic device are compared structurally and semantically. The key semantic sign of an oxymoronim (a unity of contrasts) is singled out. In addition to that a possible definition of this notion is stated.On the one hand a cognitive dissonance of an oxymoron is underlined, on the other hand an attention is paid on the instability, diffusion and emergence of an oxymoronim’s semantics. It is obviously possible to interpret a lexical meaning of an oxymoronim by means of the following: extralinguistic and linguistic contexts of its appearance and functioning and this nomination’ssynonymic paroemias. Uniqueness of an occasional oxymoronimis is noted for the Russian lingvoculture in view of quantitative leveling of these linguistic novelties in the communicative space of the modern English language.

scholarly journals Handling i narratologien, litteraturen og livet

2006 ◽  
Vol 34 (101) ◽  
pp. 122-139
Author(s):  
Thor Grünbaum
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Communicative Function ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of

Action in Narratology, Literature, and LifeIn this article I argue that the representation of simple, bodily action has the function of endowing the narrative sequence with a visualizing power: It makes the narrated scenes or situations ready for visualization by the reader or listener. By virtue of this visualizing power or disposition, these narrated actions disrupt the theoretical divisions, on the one hand, between the narrated story and the narrating discourse, and on the other hand, between plot-narratology and discourse-narratology. As narrated actions they seem to belong to the domain of plot-narratology, but in so far as they serve an important visualizing function, these narrated actions have a communicative function and as such they can be said to belong to the domain of discourse-narratology. In a first part of the article, I argue that a certain type of plot-narratology, due to its retrospective epistemology and abstract definition of action, is unable to conceive of this visualizing function. In a second part, I argue that discourse-narratology fares no better since the visualizing function is independent of voice and focalization. In a final part, I sketch a possible account of the visualizing function of simple actions in narratives.

Vladimir Titov’s Letter to Vladimir Odoevsky as a Well-Known Response to Ivan Turgenev’s Article “Hamlet and Don Quixote” (Contemporaries’ Reception of Turgenev’s Interpretation of the Image of Hamlet)

2021 ◽  
pp. 104-116
Author(s):  
Ivan O. Volkov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
German Idealism ◽  
Don Quixote ◽  
The Other ◽  
National Library ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
First Time

For the first time, in the article, Vladimir Titov’s letter (dated 12/24 February 1869) is published and commented. In the 1820s, in Russia, Titov was well-known as a writer and literature theorist, the author of a romantic novella The Remote House on Vasilyevsky Island (1829) close to Society of Lyubomudriye. The letter extracted from the archives of the National Library of Russia is addressed to Duke Vladimir Odoevsky whose relationship with Titov was friendly from the very beginning of their acquaintance. The letter focuses on Ivan Turgenev’s speech published in the first issue of Sovremennik and titled “Hamlet and Don Quixote”. Reacting to Turgenev’s article, Titov shortly and critically accesses the comparison concentrating mainly on the image of Hamlet and thoroughly expresses his opinion on the essence of his tragic state. Titov’s opinion is just the opposite of Turgenev’s complex and multidimensional interpretation. Having experienced the great impact of the philosophy of German idealism at the beginning of his career, Titov to a great extent idealizes Shakespeare’s character whom he long knows and whom he is clearly eager to vindicate. Meanwhile, Titov does not pursue the aim to absolutely advocate the romantic halo of Hamlet as a Titanic personality (grandiose intellect and scale of feeling) and to enact the tragic pathos of the inner fight only. Developing Goethe’s definition of the essence of the character’s inner conflict, Titov, on the one hand, approaches its real understanding underlying the prince’s necessity to stay in a derogatory position of a “pitiful semiclown, indecisive grouch and shred”. On the other hand, the assessment can not be absolutely objective because Titov wants to see Hamlet as a victim of the fatal fortune which turns him into a character of an almost classical tragedy of fate. Titov’s bright and developed reaction (in the document of private nature) to Turgenev’s article is attractive and important first of all for its vividly demonstrated novelty and creativity of the writer’s view, wideness and multimodality of the author’s perception of Hamlet’s image. For the first time, Turgenev gave a developed interpretation of Shakespeare’s image in the tale “Hamlet of Shchigrovsky Province” (1848). Continuing his searches in the area of “Russian” (or “steppe”) Hamlet, Turgenev creates moral and philosophical problems of the English tragedy in the crisis socio-historical and cultural atmosphere of Russia of the 1840s. However, the principles of the artistic generalization and the peculiarities of the new reading, not mentioned and not fully comprehended by his contemporaries, were surprising and rejected when the speech “Hamlet and Don Quixote” appeared, in which Shakespeare’s character is presented ultimately vividly and lively in the then current interpretation.

Die Erklärbarkeit von Erfahrung

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ursula Renz
Keyword(s):  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Human Mind ◽  
The Other ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Subject Theory

Spinoza's ethics is grounded by a conviction which is as simple as it is programmatic: Subjective experience can be explained, and its successful explanation is of ethical relevance. For it makes us smarter, freer and happier. This is the programmatic conviction behind Spinoza's ethics and motivates many of the theses it puts forward. Ursula Renz shows which kind of a theory of the human mind informs this program. The systematic differentiation of theory parts in the architecture of ethics proves to be a decisive move: A theory part that deals with questions of the ontology of the mental is followed by a definition of the human mind as a kind of subject theory, which in turn is separated from a theory part dealing with the constitution of content. This structure makes it possible to deal separately with different problems that arise in the course of the explanation of experience. In the end, Spinoza succeeds in avoiding both reductionisms and skepticisms right from the start. In this way, two intuitions are brought together that are often considered incompatible: on the one hand, the view that experience is something irreducibly subjective, and on the other hand, the assumption that there are better and worse explanations of experience.

Il Boccaccio di Baldassar Castiglione: la duplice immagine del Certaldese nelle pagine del Cortegiano

2020 ◽  
pp. 231-245
Author(s):  
Flavia Palma
Keyword(s):  
Giovanni Boccaccio ◽  
The Other ◽  
Literary Language ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Questione Della Lingua ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of

Giovanni Boccaccio is quoted several times in Castiglione’s Cortegiano, but all these mentions are inserted in two specific contexts: on the one hand, the debate on literary language, developed in the letter of dedication to don Michel De Silva and in the first book; on the other hand, the definition of the joke in book II. Starting from these premises, this essay analyses the meanings of Boccaccio’s presence in the Cortegiano. It shows that Castiglione’s treatise provides two different and concurrent representations of the author of the Decameron: a positive one, connected to the ‘questione della lingua’, that offers Boccaccio as a promoter of the usage (‘uso’); a critical one, deriving from the theory of the ‘facezia’, that makes Boccaccio a challenging and challenged model.

A Characterization of the Topological Dimension

1982 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-490
Author(s):  
Gerd Rodé
Keyword(s):  
Hausdorff Space ◽  
The Other ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Topological Dimension ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One

AbstractThis paper gives a new characterization of the dimension of a normal Hausdorff space, which joins together the Eilenberg-Otto characterization and the characterization by finite coverings. The link is furnished by the notion of a system of faces of a certain type (N1,..., NK), where N1,..., NK, K are natural numbers. It is shown that a space X contains a system of faces of type (N1,..., NK) if and only if dim(X) ≥ N1 + … + NK. The two limit cases of the theorem, namely Nk = 1 for 1 ≤ k ≤ K on the one hand, and K = 1 on the other hand, give the two known results mentioned above.

Unzuverlässigkeit bei heterodiegetischen Erzählern: Konturierung eines Konzepts an Beispielen von Thomas Mann und Goethe

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-92
Author(s):  
Matthias Löwe
Keyword(s):  
Fairy Tale ◽  
Literary Work ◽  
Thomas Mann ◽  
The Other ◽  
Niklas Luhmann ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Psychic System

Abstract Heterodiegetic narrators are not present in the story they tell. That is how Gérard Genette has defined heterodiegesis. But this definition of heterodiegesis leaves open what ›absence‹ of the narrator really means: If a friend of the protagonist tells the story but does not appear in it, is he therefore heterodiegetic? Or if a narrator tells something that happened before his lifetime, is he therefore heterodiegetic? These open questions reveal the vagueness of Genette’s definition. However, Simone Elisabeth Lang has recently made a clearer proposal to define heterodiegesis. She argues that narrators should be called heterodiegetic only if they are fundamentally distinguished from the ontological status of the fictional characters: Heterodiegetic narrators are not part of the story for logical reasons, because they are presented as inventors of the story. This is, for example, the case in Johann Wolfgang Goethe’s novel Elective Affinities (1809): In the beginning of this novel the narrator presents himself as inventor of the character’s names (»Edward – so we shall call a wealthy nobleman in the prime of life – had been spending several hours of a fine April morning in his nursery-garden«). Based on that recent definition of heterodiegesis my article deals with the question whether such heterodiegetic narrators can be unreliable. My question is: How could you indicate that the inventor of a fictitious story tells something which is not correct or incomplete? In answering this question, I refer to some proposals of Janina Jacke’s article in this journal. Jacke shows that the distinction between homodiegetic and heterodiegetic narrators should not be confused with the distinction between personal and non-personal narrators or with the distinction between restricted and all-knowing narrators. If you make such differentiations, then of course heterodiegetic narrators can be unreliable: They can omit some essential information or interpret the story inappropriately. Heterodiegetic narrators of an invented story can even lie to the reader or deceive themselves about some elements of the invention. That means: A heterodiegetic narration cannot only be value-related unreliable (›discordant narration‹), but also fact-related unreliable. My article delves especially into this type of unreliability and shows that heterodiegetic narrators of a fictitious story can be fact-related unreliable, if they tell something which was not invented by themselves. In that case, the narrator himself sometimes does not really know whether he tells a true or a fictitious story. Such narrators are unreliable if they assert that the story is true, although they are suggesting at the same time that it is not. I call this type of unreliable narrator a ›fabulating chronicler‹ (›fabulierender Chronist‹): On the one hand, such narrators present themselves as chroniclers of historical facts but, on the other hand, they seem to be fabulists who tell a fairy tale. This type of unreliability occurs especially if a narrator tells a legend or a story from the Bible. My article demonstrates this case in detail with two examples, namely two novels by Thomas Mann: The Holy Sinner (1951) and Joseph and His Brothers (1933–1943). My article also discusses some cases where it is not appropriate or counter-intuitive to call a heterodiegetic narrator ›unreliable‹: i. e. the narrator of Thomas Mann’s novel The Magic Mountain (1924) and the narrator of Johann Wolfgang Goethe’s novel Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship (1795/1796). On the one hand, these narrators show some characteristics of unreliability, because they omit essential pieces of information. On the other hand, these narrators are barely shaped as characters, they are nearly non-personal. However, in order to describe a narrator as unreliable, it is – in my opinion – indispensable to refer to some traces of a narrative personality: Figural traits of a narrator provoke the reader to identify all depicting, describing and commenting sentences of a narration as utterances of one and the same ›psychic system‹ (Niklas Luhmann). Only narrators who can be interpreted as such a ›psychic system‹, provoke the reader to assume the role of an analyst or ›detective‹, who perhaps identifies the narrator’s discordance or unreliability. In my article the unreliability of a narration is understood as part of the composition and meaning of a literary work. I argue that a narrator cannot be described as unreliable without designating a semantic motivation for this composition by an act of interpretation. Therefore, my suggestion is that a narration should be merely called unreliable if it encourages the reader not only to imagine the told story, but also to imagine a discordant or unreliable storyteller.

scholarly journals ON THE DEFINITIONS OF SOBOLEV AND BV SPACES INTO SINGULAR SPACES AND THE TRACE PROBLEM

2007 ◽  
Vol 09 (04) ◽  
pp. 473-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID CHIRON
Keyword(s):  
Sobolev Spaces ◽  
Metric Spaces ◽  
The Other ◽  
Dirichlet Energy ◽  
Singular Spaces ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One

The purpose of this paper is to relate two notions of Sobolev and BV spaces into metric spaces, due to Korevaar and Schoen on the one hand, and Jost on the other hand. We prove that these two notions coincide and define the same p-energies. We review also other definitions, due to Ambrosio (for BV maps into metric spaces), Reshetnyak and finally to the notion of Newtonian–Sobolev spaces. These last approaches define the same Sobolev (or BV) spaces, but with a different energy, which does not extend the standard Dirichlet energy. We also prove a characterization of Sobolev spaces in the spirit of Bourgain, Brezis and Mironescu in terms of "limit" of the space Ws,p as s → 1, 0 < s < 1, and finally following the approach proposed by Nguyen. We also establish the [Formula: see text] regularity of traces of maps in Ws,p (0 < s ≤ 1 < sp).

Entitlement Theories of Justice: From Nozick to Roemer and Beyond

1985 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. van der Veen ◽  
Philippe Van Parijs
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Robert Nozick ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Entitlement Theory ◽  
Theories Of Justice ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
Principles Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
Alternative Theories

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick contrasts entitlement theories of justice and “traditional” theories such as Rawls', utilitarianism or egalitarianism, and advocates the former against the latter. What exactly is an entitlement theory (or conception or principle) of justice? Nozick's book offers two distinct characterizations. On the one hand, he explicitly describes “the general outlines of the entitlement theory” as maintaining “that the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer, or by the principle of rectification of injustice (as specified by the first two principles of just acquisition and transfer)” (Nozick, 1974, p. 153). On the other hand, his famous “Wilt Chamberlain” argument against alternative theories is first said to apply to (all) “non-entitlement conceptions” (p. 160), and later to any “end-state principle or distributional patterned principle of justice” (p. 163) — which amounts to an implicit characterization of an entitlement conception (theory, principle) as a conception of justice which is neither end-state nor patterned.

The Technocene or Technology as (Neo)Environment

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agostino Cera ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Technology ◽  
The Other ◽  
Current Form ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
The Core ◽  
The World ◽  
Conditio Humana ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract: While putting forward the proposal of a “philosophy of technology in the nominative case,” grounded on the concept of Neoenvironmentality, this paper intends to argue that the best definition of our current age is not “Anthropocene.” Rather, it is “Technocene,” since technology represents here and now the real “subject of history” and of (a de-natured) nature, i.e. the (neo)environment where man has to live.This proposal culminates in a new definition of man’s humanity and of technology. Switching from natura hominis to conditio humana, the peculiarity of man can be defined on the basis of an anthropic perimeter, the core of which consists of man’s worldhood: man is that being that has a world (Welt), while animal has a mere environment (Umwelt). Both man’s worldhood and animal’s environmentality are derived from a pathic premise, namely the fundamental moods (Grundstimmungen) that refer them to their respective findingness (Befindlichkeit).From this anthropological premise, technology emerges as the oikos of contemporary humanity. Technology becomes the current form of the world – and so gives birth to a Technocene – insofar as it introduces in any human context its ratio operandi and so assimilates man to an animal condition, i.e. an environmental one. Technocene corresponds on the one side to the emergence of technology as (Neo)environment and on the other to the feralization of man. The spirit of Technocene turns out to be the complete redefinition of the anthropic perimeter.While providing a non-ideological characterization of the current age, this paper proposes the strategy of an ‘anthropological conservatism,’ that is to say a pathic desertion understood as a possible (pre)condition for the beginning of an authentic Anthropocene, i.e. the age of an-at-last-entirely-human-man.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document