Забытый отклик на татлиновскую постановку ЗАНГЕЗИ (антиконструктивистская рецензия опоязовца Бориса Казанского)

This article explores the motivic system in the lyrical works of Kazakh poet B. Kanapyanov, focusing on the content and structural components of his poetic language. The study aims to describe stable motives through their creation and development in Kanapyanov's poetry, considering both literal and figurative expressions. The authors compare Kanapyanov's motives with general cultural motives, classifying the ways and means of their representation in his literary texts. Special attention is given to the image of the steppe, which is filled with national-specific semantic associations. Kanapyanov's poetry is characterized by genre synthesis, combining strategies from epistolary writing, documentary prose, elegy, philosophical ode, high book style, romantic nostalgia, social pathos, and piercing confession. His poetic heritage includes various genre varieties that allow him to express his worldview fully. Kanapyanov's lyrics are influenced by both nomadic thinking and Russian futurism, with the rhythmic structure of syllabics from Kazakh versification and the clarity and poster-like accent verse from Russian futurism. The categories of memory and conscience serve as ethical assessments of time in his works, while the repeated images of a child, sleep, paths, souls, birds, horses, flocks, mares, and dombra are explained by ethnic stereotypes that create a sense of the author's involvement in his native culture. Folklore and mythological symbolism play a defining role in expressing the national picture of the world and ideological dominants that determine the lyrical hero's dialogue with the world. Kanapyanov's bilingualism and commitment to syllabics as an aesthetic strategy for expressing the national worldview have led to the creation of the "Vekzametry" concept, a collection showcasing his poetic experimentation with ancient, classical forms of versification to reveal his sense of modernity.

安井重雄著, 『藤原俊成 判詞と歌語の研究』, 二〇〇六年一月二五日, 笠間書院刊, 三八〇頁, 一一〇〇〇円

The article analyzes the methodological views of the academician V. N. Peretz, an outstanding Russian researcher and teacher. Refusing to follow the canons of the cultural-historical school of Russian literary criticism, in his works “From Lectures on the Methodology of the History of Russian Literature” (Kiev, 1914) and “A Brief Essay on the Methodology of the History of Russian Literature” (Petrograd, 1922) the researcher tried to find new approaches to the analysis of literary works. He believed that “the history of literature examines and studies the formal side of the works of verbal creativity, its evolution, leaving the cultural historian to study the content, the ideological side of the monuments of the past as such.” Peretz’s judgments were similar to those adopted by the followers of the OPOYAZ school (The Society for the Study of Poetic Language), and even had a certain influence on the development of formalism at the initial stage. This circumstance was noted by such researchers close to this research community as V. M. Zhirmunsky and its active members like Roman Jakobson. The relationship of Peretz’s theoretical positions with the methods of the Russian formalist school caused criticism from the followers of “Marxist” methodology in the 1920s. In the disputes between the formalists and the “Marxists”, Peretz clearly sympathized with the former believing that they were trying to “resurrect philology.” Peretz himself characterized his “Methodology” as “not Marxist” and had faint hopes for the possibility of its publication, although he continued to work on it. However, he never finished and published the extended version. His “Short Sketch” was reprinted twice abroad before being printed again in his homeland in 2010, 88 years after the first edition.

In analysing a range of 20th century poems and excerpts, stylisticians and literary critics have individuated a number of linguistic and textual features which they relate – with various degrees of explicitness – to the complex notion of ‘difficulty’. While there is a fair amount of agreement in the set of phenomena identified, to the best of my knowledge these have never been analysed, grouped and classified from a linguistic and unified perspective. This is the chief aim of the present paper, in which I reconsider previously discussed poetic excerpts in order to derive a checklist of linguistic phenomena demanding further investigation and even future empirical testing. Another major aim is that of illustrating how widespread and problematic the use of ‘difficult’ and ‘difficulty’ is, often implying quite distinct senses. The meaning of this pair will be kept indeterminate throughout the whole paper, where it simply refers to the personal usage of the critic or stylistician at stake. At the end of the paper, by contrast, a clearer characterization will emerge in the light of the textual excerpts analysed: difficulty is regarded as a combination of semantic opacity and hypothesized processing effort at syntagmatic level. However, being part of a wider ongoing research project, a more satisfactory formulation is still to come. Finally, an additional outcome of the paper is that of adding some evidence to the study of poetic language by taking into account recent poetic developments that so far have been given little attention in stylistics.

Although the pivotal role of the Russian linguist L. P. Yakubinsky (1892-1945) in the development of modern linguistics and literary theory has been repeatedly stated by prominent scholars, he has remained virtually unknown outside Russia. Yakubinsky was educated at Petersburg University in 1909–15 during a period of academic renewal and challenge in Russian linguistics, a field that hitherto had been dominated by the neogrammarian study of language. The neogrammarians' positivist and historicist concerns were contested by a range of scholars interested in the functional diversity of language and concomitantly in the processuality of language as an individual and a collective activity. In this heated atmosphere of reevaluation and change Yakubinsky, with some of his fellow students and colleagues, such as Osip Brik and Viktor B. Shklovsky, initiated the movement that later came to be called Russian formalism. In fact, the functional distinction between “poetic” and “practical” language that Yakubinsky introduced in his groundbreaking study “On the Sounds in Poetic Language” (“O”; Jakubinskij 163-76) became the cornerstone of formalist criticism and “served as the activating principle for the Formalists' treatment of the fundamental problems of poetics” (Èjchenbaum 8). Yakubinsky thus laid the foundation for structuralism. However, he soon moved away from the formalists' preoccupation with poetic and literary texts and devoted himself to the social dimension of the functions and forms of language.

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY BAUDELAIRE AND THE TRANSLATION OF MODERNITY ZAHI ZALLOUA INVOLVING questions of fidelity and distance, and the reduction of the foreign to the familiar, translation enacts an ethical relation. Perhaps because of its potential to provoke ethical questioning, translation – as both an instrument of comprehension and a self-reflexive discovery of alterity – preoccupied Charles Baudelaire throughout his career, from his early rendering of Edgar Allen Poe into French to his “retranslation,” in a larger sense, of modern life in his move from poetry to prose. Etymologically derived from trans (across) and latus (the past participle of ferre, to carry), translation evokes the idea of transportation or transfer. In the Middles Ages, for instance, the notions of translatio studii and translatio imperii carry with them this sense of transfer, the transfer of knowledge and political power from one civilization to another, respectively . In its more common usage, translation conveys the transmission of meaning from one language to another. In a wider sense, however, translation is more or less synonymous with the activity of interpretation : to translate is to make something comprehensible, accessible in terms of something else. As such, translation includes the act of rephrasing within a single language, as well as the use of one medium to reinterpret concepts expressed in another. This broader definition opens up a space for a consideration of form: what is communicated becomes inseparable from how it is communicated. This essay explores Baudelaire’s engagement with translation as a means for unsettling understandings about poetry and reality and, more urgently, for thinking differently about the experience and framing of modern life. Beginning with an analysis of Baudelaire’s art criticism and profound attraction to the visual arts, especially painting and caricature, I YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 67 will examine the insights into modernity that each genre provided him, insights that he sought, in turn, to translate into poetic language.1 I will then turn to the ethical dilemmas of translation that increasingly concerned Baudelaire, especially in his later prose poems, which betray a growing attention to what can be described as the limits of translatability. In painting, no artist, for Baudelaire, surpassed Delacroix’s imaginative and powerful depictions of the human condition. The poet’s unqualified admiration for Delacroix is evidenced by his many laudatory remarks regarding the painter’s works in the Salons. As early as the Salon de 1846, Baudelaire asserts that “Delacroix est universel,”2 placing him alongside two masters of literature, Dante and Shakespeare: “Delacroix affectionne Dante et Shakespeare, deux autres grands peintres de la douleur humaine; il les connaît à fond, et il sait les traduire librement. En contemplant la série de ses tableaux, on dirait qu’on assiste à la célébration de quelque mystère douloureux” (OC 2: 440). The translation metaphor (translation as imaginative interpretation) is telling since it underscores the literariness of Delacroix’s art (establishing a “correspondence” between his images and their texts), as well as his creative (free) approach to the originals, which stand out themselves as excellent translations in their own right. Delacroix’s retranslation of Dante and Shakespeare – his artistic interpretation of their own poeticized perception of the human condition – is not an act of duplication or slavish fidelity, but an imaginative practice in itself. Translation creates as it transfigures the original, and it is this act of poiesis that Baudelaire admires and will seek to imitate. But what is perhaps most significant here is what brings these three figures together: “la douleur humaine,” or more specifically, the painting of “la douleur humaine.” By describing Dante and Shakespeare as “grands peintres de la douleur humaine,” Baudelaire complicates not only the notion of fidelity, but also the prior68 ROMANCE NOTES 1 For prior studies that address the relation between Baudelaire’s art criticism and poetry in terms of translation, see, in particular, Michèle Hannoosh’s “Painting as Translation in Baudelaire’s Art Criticism,” Forum for Modern Language Studies 22 (1986): 2233 ; Sara Pappas’s “Managing Imitation: Translation and Baudelaire’s Art Criticism,” Nineteenth Century French Studies 33, 3-4 (2005): 320-341; Sima Godfrey’s “Baudelaire ’s Windows,” L’Esprit Créateur 22, 4 (1982): 83-100. 2 Charles Baudelaire, Œuvres complètes (OC...

Have wireless mobile communication technologies changed the way people talk to one another? What does it mean to be able to speak or write to anyone, anywhere, 24/7/365, and get an immediate response? And what does the current profusion of these technologies mean for the study of language in social life? Do we need to develop new approaches, methodologies and theories? Taking a global perspective, this volume provides readers with a nuanced, ethnographically-informed understanding of mobile communication and sociolinguistics. The text explores a wide range of digital applications, including SMS, email, tweeting, Facebook, YouTube, chatting, blogging, Wikipedia, Second Life and gaming Raising important questions about the nature of language and the creativity of speakers, Ana Deumert examines the role of multimodality and intertextuality in creating meaning, as well as the realities and consequences of digital linguistic inequality. Key features Illustrates core concepts in sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology Applies sociolinguistic theories of language from Humboldt and Sapir to post-structuralism to new media Provides a global and multilingual perspective on digital communication practices and discusses digital inequality and its consequences for sociolinguistic research Includes a focus on linguistic creativity and poetic language Drawing on examples from across the world, as well as original multilingual data and analyses from South Africa, this innovative book provides undergraduate and postgraduate readers with accessible explanations of sociolinguistic theories as they apply to the growing field of mobile communication.