Název: Prague Linguistic Circle in English: semantic shifts in selected texts and their consequences
Zdrojový dokument: Theatralia. 2014, roč. 17, č. 2, s. 148-161
Rozsah
148-161
-
ISSN1803-845X (print)2336-4548 (online)
Trvalý odkaz (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/130885
Type: Článek
Jazyk
Licence: Neurčená licence
Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.
Abstrakt(y)
The author examines selected scholarly studies available in English translation, and the ways in which they form or deform the understanding of the Prague Linguistic Circle for the English speaking reader. The contribution aims to show how the semantic shifts alter some theoretical concepts of the Prague School theorists. The semantic shifts mentioned here are indicative of both individual concretization in the sense introduced by Roman Ingarden, and in its broader meaning formulated by Felix Vodička. The selected texts are mostly present in collections chosen by scholars, who are not necessarily specializing in drama or theatre. They contain three sorts of semantic shifts: terms, titles and editorial interventions.
eng
Reference
[1] AMBROS, Veronika. 2013. Petr Bogatyrev (1893‒1971) et E. F. Burian (1904–1959). Entre formalisme et structuralisme, entre ethnographie et sémiotique du théâtre. In Sergei Tschougounnikov and Celine Trautmann-Walter (eds.). Petr Bogatyrev et les Débuts du Cercle de Prague. Recherches Ethnographiques et Theatrales. Paris: Sorbonne Nouvelle, 2013: 135‒46.
[2] BENJAMIN, Walter. 1977. Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers. In id. Illuminationen. Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1977: 50‒62.
[3] BORGES, Jorge Luis. 2000. The Translators of The Thousand and One Nights. Transl. Esther Allen. In Lawrence Venuti (ed.). 2000. The Translation Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge, 2000: 34‒48.
[4] BÜHLER, Karl. 1990. The Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Transl. Donald Fraser. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1990.
[5] CARLSON, Marvin. 1984. Theories of the theatre: a historical and critical survey from the Greeks to the present. Ithaca (N.Y.): Cornell University Press, 1984.
[6] DEÁK, František. 1976. Structuralism in Theatre: The Prague School Contribution. Drama Review 20 (1976): 4: 83–94. | DOI 10.2307/1145077
[7] DOLEŽEL, Lubomír. 1991. Innovation as world transformation. In Andrew Donskow a Richard Sokolski (eds.). Slavic Drama. The Question of innovation. Proceedings.Ottawa: University of Ottawa: 1991: 1‒9.
[8] ELAM, Keir. 2002. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002.
[9] ERLICH, Victor. 1955. Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine. Preface by René Wellek. The Hague: Mouton, 1955
[10] ERLICH, Victor. 1978. Semiotics of Artby Ladislav Matejka and Erwin R. Titunik. Comparative Literature 30 (1978): 3: 274.
[11] FIEGUTH, R. 1971. Rezeption contra falsches und richtiges Lesen? Oder Mißverstandnisse mit Ingarden. Sprache im technischen Zeitalter 38 (1971): 142‒59.
[12] GARVIN, Paul L. (ed.). 1964. A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1964.
[13] HAVRÁNEK, Bohuslav. 1964. The Functional Differentiation of the Standard Language. In Paul L. Garvin (ed.). A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style.Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1964: 3‒16.
[14] HAWTHORNE, Jeremy. 1992. Contemporary Literary Theory. New York: Routledge, 1992.
[15] HERMAN, David. 1997. Ingarden and the Prague School. Neophilologus 81 (1997):481–7.
[16] INGARDEN, Roman. 1960. Das literarische Kunstwerk. 2. verb. und erweiterte Aufl. Mit einem Anhang: Von den Funktionen der Sprache im Theaterschauspiel. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1960.
[17] JAKOBSON, Roman. 2000. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In Lawrence Venuti (ed.).The Translation Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge, 2000: 113‒8.
[18] JESTROVIČ, Silvija. 2006. Theatre of Estrangement: Theory, Practice, Ideology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.
[19] LEVÝ, Jiří. 1963. Umění Překladu [The Art of Translation]. Praha: Československý spisovatel, 1963.
[20] LEVÝ, Jiří. 2000. Translation as a Decision Process. In Lawrence Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge, 2000: 148‒59.
[21] LEVÝ,Jiří. 2011. The Art of Translation. Transl. by Patrick Corness; ed. by Zuzana Jettmarová. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co., 2011.
[22] MATĚJKA, Ladislav and I. R. TITUNIK. 1967. Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1976.
[23] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1964. Karel Čapek's Prose as Lyrical Melody. In Paul Garvin (ed.). A Prague School Readeron Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1964: 133‒49.
[24] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1966a [1931]. Pokus o strukturní rozbor hereckého zjevu: Chaplin ve Světlech velkoměsta [Chaplin in City Lights. An Attempt at an Analysis of Actors Appearance]. In K. Chvatík (ed.). Studie z estetiky. Praha: Odeon, 1966: 184‒7.
[25] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1966b. Studie z estetiky. Ed. by K. Chvatík. Praha: Odeon, 1966.
[26] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1982. An Attempt at a Structural Analysis of a Dramatic Figure. In Peter Steiner (ed.). The Prague School. Selected Writings 1929‒1946. Austin, 1982: 171‒7. Ostensive definition [online]. Wikipedia [accessed 8 Oct, 2013]. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensive_definition/.
[27] QUINN, Michael. 1987. Jakobson and the Liberated Theater. Stanford Slavic Studies (1987): 1: 153‒5.
[28] QUINN, Michael. 1989. The Prague School Concept of Stage Figure. In Gerald F. Carr and Irmengard Rauch (eds.). The Semiotic Bridge. Trends from California. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1989: 75‒85.
[29] QUINN, Michael. 1995. The Semiotic Stage. New York: Peter Lang, 1995.
[30] SCHMID, Herta. 1970. Zum Begriff der ästhetischen Konkretisation im tschechischen Strukturalismus. Sprache im technischen Zeitalter 36 (1970): 290‒318.
[31] SCHMID, Herta. 1973. Strukturalistische Dramentheorie. Semantische Analyse von Cechovs 'Ivanov' und 'Der Kirschgarten'. Kronberg im Taunus: Scriptor, 1973.
[32] SCHMID, Herta. 1988. Samuel Beckett's Play Quad: An Abstract Synthesis of the Theater. Canadian American Slavic Studies 22 (1988): 1‒4: 263‒88. | DOI 10.1163/221023988X00230
[33] SCHMID, Herta. 2008. A historical outlook on theatrical ostension and its links with other terms of the semiotics of drama and theatre. Semiotica 168 (2008): 67‒91.
[34] SCHMID, Herta and A. van KESTEREN (eds.). 1984. Semiotics of Drama and Theatre. Lisse: Benjamins Publishing Company, 1984. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe.
[35] STEINER, Peter. 1982. The Prague School: Selected Writings, 1929‒1946. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982.
[36] STRIEDTER, Jurij and Witold KOŚNY. 1969. Texte Der Russischen Formalisten. Munich: W. Fink, 1969.
[37] VELTRUSKY, Jarmila F. 1985. A sacred farce from medieval Bohemia: Mastičkář. Ann Arbor: Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, The University of Michigan, 1985.
[38] VELTRUSKÝ, Jiří. 1964. Man and Object in the Theatre. In Paul L. Garvin (ed.). APrague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style.Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1964: 83‒92.
[39] VELTRUSKÝ, Jiří. 1979. Theatre in the Corridor. The Drama Review 23 (1979): 4: 67‒80.
[40] VENUTI Lawrence. 1993. Translation as cultural politics: Regimes of domestication in English. Textual Practice 7 (1993): 2: 208‒23. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09502369308582166 [accessed 17 Mar, 2014]. | DOI 10.1080/09502369308582166
[41] VENUTI, Lawrence (ed.). 2012. The Translation Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge, 2012.
[42] VODIČKA, Felix. 1948. Počátky krásné prózy novočeské [Beginnings of the Modern Czech Fiction]. Praha: Melantrich, 1948.
[43] VODIČKA, Felix. 1967. Response to Verbal Art. In Ladislav Matějka and I. R. Titunik (eds.). Semiotics of art.Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1976: 197‒208.
[44] VODIČKA, Felix. 1969. Vývoj literární struktury [A Development of aLiterary Structure]. In id. Struktura vývoje [The Structure of Development]. Odeon: Praha, 1969: 24‒35.
[45] VODIČKA, Felix. 1982. The Concretization of the Literary Work. Problems of the Reception of Neruda's Works. In Peter Steiner (ed.). The Prague School. Selected Writings, 1929‒1946. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982: 105‒34.
[46] WELLEK, René. "Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style" by Paul L. Garvin, review. Language 31 (1955): 4: 584‒7. | DOI 10.2307/411379
[2] BENJAMIN, Walter. 1977. Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers. In id. Illuminationen. Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1977: 50‒62.
[3] BORGES, Jorge Luis. 2000. The Translators of The Thousand and One Nights. Transl. Esther Allen. In Lawrence Venuti (ed.). 2000. The Translation Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge, 2000: 34‒48.
[4] BÜHLER, Karl. 1990. The Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Transl. Donald Fraser. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1990.
[5] CARLSON, Marvin. 1984. Theories of the theatre: a historical and critical survey from the Greeks to the present. Ithaca (N.Y.): Cornell University Press, 1984.
[6] DEÁK, František. 1976. Structuralism in Theatre: The Prague School Contribution. Drama Review 20 (1976): 4: 83–94. | DOI 10.2307/1145077
[7] DOLEŽEL, Lubomír. 1991. Innovation as world transformation. In Andrew Donskow a Richard Sokolski (eds.). Slavic Drama. The Question of innovation. Proceedings.Ottawa: University of Ottawa: 1991: 1‒9.
[8] ELAM, Keir. 2002. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002.
[9] ERLICH, Victor. 1955. Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine. Preface by René Wellek. The Hague: Mouton, 1955
[10] ERLICH, Victor. 1978. Semiotics of Artby Ladislav Matejka and Erwin R. Titunik. Comparative Literature 30 (1978): 3: 274.
[11] FIEGUTH, R. 1971. Rezeption contra falsches und richtiges Lesen? Oder Mißverstandnisse mit Ingarden. Sprache im technischen Zeitalter 38 (1971): 142‒59.
[12] GARVIN, Paul L. (ed.). 1964. A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1964.
[13] HAVRÁNEK, Bohuslav. 1964. The Functional Differentiation of the Standard Language. In Paul L. Garvin (ed.). A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style.Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1964: 3‒16.
[14] HAWTHORNE, Jeremy. 1992. Contemporary Literary Theory. New York: Routledge, 1992.
[15] HERMAN, David. 1997. Ingarden and the Prague School. Neophilologus 81 (1997):481–7.
[16] INGARDEN, Roman. 1960. Das literarische Kunstwerk. 2. verb. und erweiterte Aufl. Mit einem Anhang: Von den Funktionen der Sprache im Theaterschauspiel. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1960.
[17] JAKOBSON, Roman. 2000. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In Lawrence Venuti (ed.).The Translation Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge, 2000: 113‒8.
[18] JESTROVIČ, Silvija. 2006. Theatre of Estrangement: Theory, Practice, Ideology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.
[19] LEVÝ, Jiří. 1963. Umění Překladu [The Art of Translation]. Praha: Československý spisovatel, 1963.
[20] LEVÝ, Jiří. 2000. Translation as a Decision Process. In Lawrence Venuti (ed.). The Translation Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge, 2000: 148‒59.
[21] LEVÝ,Jiří. 2011. The Art of Translation. Transl. by Patrick Corness; ed. by Zuzana Jettmarová. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co., 2011.
[22] MATĚJKA, Ladislav and I. R. TITUNIK. 1967. Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1976.
[23] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1964. Karel Čapek's Prose as Lyrical Melody. In Paul Garvin (ed.). A Prague School Readeron Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1964: 133‒49.
[24] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1966a [1931]. Pokus o strukturní rozbor hereckého zjevu: Chaplin ve Světlech velkoměsta [Chaplin in City Lights. An Attempt at an Analysis of Actors Appearance]. In K. Chvatík (ed.). Studie z estetiky. Praha: Odeon, 1966: 184‒7.
[25] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1966b. Studie z estetiky. Ed. by K. Chvatík. Praha: Odeon, 1966.
[26] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1982. An Attempt at a Structural Analysis of a Dramatic Figure. In Peter Steiner (ed.). The Prague School. Selected Writings 1929‒1946. Austin, 1982: 171‒7. Ostensive definition [online]. Wikipedia [accessed 8 Oct, 2013]. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensive_definition/.
[27] QUINN, Michael. 1987. Jakobson and the Liberated Theater. Stanford Slavic Studies (1987): 1: 153‒5.
[28] QUINN, Michael. 1989. The Prague School Concept of Stage Figure. In Gerald F. Carr and Irmengard Rauch (eds.). The Semiotic Bridge. Trends from California. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1989: 75‒85.
[29] QUINN, Michael. 1995. The Semiotic Stage. New York: Peter Lang, 1995.
[30] SCHMID, Herta. 1970. Zum Begriff der ästhetischen Konkretisation im tschechischen Strukturalismus. Sprache im technischen Zeitalter 36 (1970): 290‒318.
[31] SCHMID, Herta. 1973. Strukturalistische Dramentheorie. Semantische Analyse von Cechovs 'Ivanov' und 'Der Kirschgarten'. Kronberg im Taunus: Scriptor, 1973.
[32] SCHMID, Herta. 1988. Samuel Beckett's Play Quad: An Abstract Synthesis of the Theater. Canadian American Slavic Studies 22 (1988): 1‒4: 263‒88. | DOI 10.1163/221023988X00230
[33] SCHMID, Herta. 2008. A historical outlook on theatrical ostension and its links with other terms of the semiotics of drama and theatre. Semiotica 168 (2008): 67‒91.
[34] SCHMID, Herta and A. van KESTEREN (eds.). 1984. Semiotics of Drama and Theatre. Lisse: Benjamins Publishing Company, 1984. Linguistic and Literary Studies in Eastern Europe.
[35] STEINER, Peter. 1982. The Prague School: Selected Writings, 1929‒1946. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982.
[36] STRIEDTER, Jurij and Witold KOŚNY. 1969. Texte Der Russischen Formalisten. Munich: W. Fink, 1969.
[37] VELTRUSKY, Jarmila F. 1985. A sacred farce from medieval Bohemia: Mastičkář. Ann Arbor: Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, The University of Michigan, 1985.
[38] VELTRUSKÝ, Jiří. 1964. Man and Object in the Theatre. In Paul L. Garvin (ed.). APrague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style.Georgetown: Georgetown University Press, 1964: 83‒92.
[39] VELTRUSKÝ, Jiří. 1979. Theatre in the Corridor. The Drama Review 23 (1979): 4: 67‒80.
[40] VENUTI Lawrence. 1993. Translation as cultural politics: Regimes of domestication in English. Textual Practice 7 (1993): 2: 208‒23. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09502369308582166 [accessed 17 Mar, 2014]. | DOI 10.1080/09502369308582166
[41] VENUTI, Lawrence (ed.). 2012. The Translation Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge, 2012.
[42] VODIČKA, Felix. 1948. Počátky krásné prózy novočeské [Beginnings of the Modern Czech Fiction]. Praha: Melantrich, 1948.
[43] VODIČKA, Felix. 1967. Response to Verbal Art. In Ladislav Matějka and I. R. Titunik (eds.). Semiotics of art.Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1976: 197‒208.
[44] VODIČKA, Felix. 1969. Vývoj literární struktury [A Development of aLiterary Structure]. In id. Struktura vývoje [The Structure of Development]. Odeon: Praha, 1969: 24‒35.
[45] VODIČKA, Felix. 1982. The Concretization of the Literary Work. Problems of the Reception of Neruda's Works. In Peter Steiner (ed.). The Prague School. Selected Writings, 1929‒1946. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982: 105‒34.
[46] WELLEK, René. "Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style" by Paul L. Garvin, review. Language 31 (1955): 4: 584‒7. | DOI 10.2307/411379