"Aktualisace" in English scholarly literature : interpretation, ignorance, and misunderstanding

Author: Šlaisová, Eva
Source document: Theatralia. 2012, vol. 15, iss. 2, pp. 154-167
Extent
154-167
  • ISSN
    1803-845X (print)
    2336-4548 (online)
Type
Article
Language
English
License: Not specified license
Abstract(s)
This paper explores the term "aktualisace", one of the key concepts of the Prague Structuralists, and its reception in English scholarly literature. "Aktualisace" (translated to English as "foregrounding", "topicalization" or "actualization") has received varying levels of attention and appreciation in contemporary English scholarly literature. It has tended to be overshadowed by more famous concepts, such as Shklovsky's "ostranenie" and Brecht's "Verfremdung", and some scholars have failed to take notice of it entirely. Nonetheless, "aktualisace" has become a popular concept, and a growing number of scholars consider it a central idea in contemporary literary theory and related disciplines. However, common understanding of the original concept has changed. The goal of my contribution is to investigate problems which have resulted from the shift of "aktualisace" from a Czech context to an international one, in terms of its origin and meaning, translation of the term, and its relation to "ostranenie" and "Verfremdung".
Document
References:
[1] AMBROS, Veronika. 2008. Prague's Experimental Stage: Laboratory of Theatre and Semiotics . Semiotica 168 (2008): 1‒4: 45‒65.

[2] ASTON, Elaine, and George SAVONA. 1991. Theatre as Sign-System: A Semiotics of Text and Performance . London: Routledge, 1991.

[3] BOGATYREV, Petr. 1940. Lidové divadlo české a slovenské [Czech and Slovak Folk Theatre]. Prague: Fr. Borovský a Národopisná společnost československá, 1940.

[4] BRECHT, Bertolt. 1936. Alienation Effect in Chinese Theatre. Brecht on Theatre; the Devolpment of an Aesthetic . London: Methuen, 1964: 91‒99.

[5] ELAM, Keir. 1980. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama . New York: Methuen, 1980.

[6] CARLSON, Marvin. 1993. Theories of the Theatre: A Historical and Critical Survey, from the Greeks to the Present . Expanded ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1993.

[7] DEÁK, František. 1976. Structuralism in Theatre: The Prague School Contribution . Drama Review 20 (1976): 4: 83‒94. | DOI 10.2307/1145077

[8] GRYGAR, Mojmír. 1968. Pojetí literárního vývoje vruské formální metodě a včeském strukturalismu [Concept of Literary Evolution in the Russian Formal Method and Czech Structuralism]. Česká literatura 16 (1968): 3: 270‒289.

[9] HAKEMULDER, Jèmeljan. 2004. Foregrounding and its Effects on Readers' Perception . Discourse Processes 38 (2004): 2: 193‒218.

[10] HAKEMULDER, Jèmeljan. 2007. Tracing Foregrounding in Responses to Film . Language and Literature: Journal of the Poetics and Linguistics Association 16 (2007): 2: 125‒139. | DOI 10.1177/0963947007075980

[11] HAVRÁNEK, Bohumil (ed.). 1960. Aktualisace. Slovník spisovného jazyka českého [Dictionary of Standard Czech]. Prague: Nakladatelství české Akademie věd, 1960: 19.

[12] HAWTHORN, Jeremy. 1992. Glossary of Contemporary literary theory . London: Edward Arnold, 1992.

[13] HOGAN, Parick Colm. 1997. Literary universals . Poetics Today 18 (1997): 2: 223‒249. | DOI 10.2307/1773433

[14] HONZL, Jindřich. 1940. Dynamics of Sign in the Theatre . In Ladislav Matějka, and I. R. Titunik(eds.). Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1976: 75‒94.

[15] JESTROVIC, Silvija. 2006. The Theatre of Estrangement . Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.

[16] MARTIN, Jacqueline. 1995. Understanding theatre . Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1995.

[17] MARTINDALE, Colin. 2008. The Laws Governing the History of Poetry . In Sonia Zyngier, Marisa Bortolussi, Anna Chesnokova, and Jan Auracher (eds.). Directions in Empirical Literary Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008: 229‒242.

[18] MIALL, David S. 2008. Foregroundinding and Feeling in Response to Narrative . In Sonia Zyngier, Marisa Bortolussi, Anna Chesnokova, and Jan Auracher (eds.). Directions in Empirical Literary studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008: 89‒102.

[19] MIALL, David S., and Don KUIKEN. 1994. Foregrounding, Defamiliarization, and Affect: Response to Literary Stories . Poetics 22 (1994): 5: 389‒407. | DOI 10.1016/0304-422X(94)00011-5

[20] MIALL, David S., and Don KUIKEN. 2001. Shifting Perspectives: Readers' Feelings and Literary Response . In Willie Van Peer, and Seymour Chatman (eds.). New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 2001: 289‒301.

[21] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1931. An Attempt at a Structural Analysis of a Dramatic Figure . In P. Steiner (ed.). The Prague School: Selected Writings, 1929‒1946. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982: 171‒77.

[22] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1932. Jazyk spisovný a jazyk básnický [Standard Language and Poetic Language]. Studie z poetiky [Essays on Poetics]. Prague: Odeon, 1982: 34‒54.

[23] MUKAŘOVSKÝ, Jan. 1932. Standard Language and Poetic Language . In Paul L. Garvin (ed. and trans.). A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1964: 17‒30.

[24] POPE, Rob. 2002. The English Studies Book: An Introduction to Language, Literature and Culture . 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002.

[25] SHEN, Yeshayahu. 2008. Two Levels of Foregrounding in Literary Narratives . In Sonia Zyngier, Marisa Bortolussi, Anna Chesnokova, and Jan Auracher (eds.). Directions in Empirical Literary Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008: 103‒111.

[26] SHKLOVSKY, Viktor. 1925. Theory of Prose . Ed. by Benjamin Sher. Elmwood Park, IL: Dalkey Archive Press, 1990.

[27] SHKLOVSKY, Viktor. 1917. Art as Device. Theory of Prose . In Benjamin Sher (ed.). Elmwood Park, IL: Dalkey Archive Press, 1990: 1‒14.

[28] TIKHANOV, Galin. 2004. Why Did Modern Literary Theory Originate in Central and Eastern Europe? (And Why Is It Now Dead?) . Common Knowledge 10 (2004): 1: 61‒81. | DOI 10.1215/0961754X-10-1-61

[29] VÁCLAVEK, Bedřich. 1940. Lidová slovesnost v českém vývoji literárním [Folk Literature in Czech Literary Evolution]. Prague: Nakladatel Václav Petr, 1940.

[30] VAN PEER, Willie, and Jèmeljan HAKE-MULDER. 2005. Foregrounding . In K. Brown (ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 4. Oxford: Elsevier, 2005: 546‒551.

[31] VAN PEER, Willie. 2007. Introduction to Foregrounding: A State of the Art . Language and Literature 16 (2007): 2: 99‒104. | DOI 10.1177/0963947007075978

[32] VELTRUSKÝ, Jiří. 1940. Man and Object in the Theatre . In Paul L. Garvin(ed. and trans.). A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1964: 17‒30.

[33] VIANA, Vander, Natalia SILVEIRA, and Sonia ZYNGIER. 2008. Empirical Evaluation: Towards an Automatized Index of Lexical Variety . In Sonia Zyngier, Marisa Bortolussi, Anna Chesnokova, and Jan Auracher (eds.). Directions in Empirical Literary Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008: 271‒282.

[34] VOŽDOVÁ, Marie. 2009. Francouzský vaudeville: geneze a proměny žánru [French Vaudeville: Genesis and Metamorphosis of the Genre]. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2009.

[35] WILLET, John. 1964. Note to Alienation Effect in Chinese Theatre . In John Willett (ed. and trans.). Brecht on Theatre; the Development of an Aesthetic. London: Methuen, 1964: 99.

[36] WINNER, Tomáš G. 2002. Český strukturalismus v anglofonním a frankofonním světě: ignorování a nepochopení [Prague Structuralism in the Anglophone and Francophone World: Ignorance and Misunderstanding]. Česká literatura 50 (2002): 1: 80‒88.