Переводы

This paper strives to pursue two goals at the same time: – how can one get to know in depth the intellectual life of the Soviet Union in the 1930s–50s?

Despite both being great names in semiotics, Roland Barthes and Juri Lotman have more differences than they share similarities – not only because of their different political and historico-cultural environments, but also because they do not have the same object of study: it is ‘ideology’ for Barthes, and ‘culture’ for Lotman. Thus, there is no intellectual common ground between them, yet comparing them can lead us to a more important question: what is semiotics, and what has structuralism to do with it.

Between both solutions to the crisis of positivism at the beginning of the 20th century, V. N. Voloshinov chose K. Vossler’s idealistic neophilology, entirely rejecting Saussurianism. Voloshinov transposed Vossler’s stylistic individual idealism into sociological concepts: “spirit” becomes “ideology”, “culture” becomes “superstructure”, and “idealistic neophilology” becomes “sociological poetics”. This terminological rearrangement has caused constant misunderstandings in the interpretation of the book “Marxism and the Philosophy of Language”.

The theory of performative speech acts has had important consequences for several academic fields: philosophy and linguistics (naturally), as well as literary theory, anthropology, and education. In recent years, it has been incorporated into the discourse of the law, by both legal scholars and sociolinguists. But nowhere does speech act theory have such concrete and far-reaching consequences as in the definitions of hate speech and its legal status.

With a view toward developing a more inclusive understanding of indirectness in interaction, author returns to Bateson's notion of abduction (a mental process by which meaning is created by analogy) and three related theoretical frameworks: Friedrich's polytropy, Becker's prior text, and Bakhtin's dialogicality – all theories of intertextuality.

The aim of this article is to outline the terminological differences and dissimilarities in studies on texts, as well as present problems in the classification of texts or, more specifically, difficulties in their descriptions in German and Polish philological reflection and in finding common points in defining particular phenomena and terms. This is an attempt at systematization in order to avoid terminological discrepancies and the misunderstanding of terms.

The aim of the article is to characterize the basic assumptions and developments of current research within linguistic genology of usual texts. It's about phrases for specific practical purposes. Their genological presentation covers the most important concepts in the subdiscipline, which can also be referred to as linguistic genology. The article is a discussion about the Polish research on genres of phrases, including the foundations for this theory made by Bakhtin.

Drawing on interviews I conducted with women about their sisters, I identify three narrative types: small-n narratives, big-N Narratives and Master Narratives. Small-n narratives are accounts of specific events or interactions that speakers said had occurred with their sisters. Big-N Narratives are the themes speakers developed in telling me about their sisters, and in support of which they told the small-n narratives. Master Narratives are culture-wide ideologies shaping the big-N Narratives.

The term and the category of national style was introduced in the period of pre-romanticism in Germany (Winckelmann, Herder, Goethe) in response to radical social and cultural transformations. At that time in Eu-rope, the modern understanding of the nation was being formed, with national societies being constituted and national identities dominating over other forms of collective identity.