LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for GERMAN-CFP-L Archives


GERMAN-CFP-L Archives

GERMAN-CFP-L Archives


GERMAN-CFP-L@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

GERMAN-CFP-L Home

GERMAN-CFP-L Home

GERMAN-CFP-L  December 2013

GERMAN-CFP-L December 2013

Subject:

CFP GSA 2014: Theory(ies) of Philology – Literary / Linguistic

From:

Elisabeth Strowick <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

German Studies CFP Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 19 Dec 2013 08:47:58 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (119 lines)

GERMAN STUDIES ASSOCIATION, Kansas City, September 18–21, 2014

Organized by: Till Dembeck (Université du Luxembourg), Georg Mein
(Université du Luxembourg), Elisabeth Strowick (Johns Hopkins University)

CFP: Theory(ies) of Philology – Literary / Linguistic

The difference between cultural and philological approaches in literary
studies is treacherous. On the one hand, cultural studies have always
generated their questions out of philological impulses: What could be more
philological than the desire to finally give details that up to now have
been neglected the attention they deserve? On the other hand, philology is
unthinkable without reference to and critical evaluation of culture.

As a consequence of this observation, philology—or perhaps cultural
philology—must go beyond its traditional restriction to textual critique,
etc. According to Werner Hamacher, philology is:

a gesture of going-beyond which can never be superfluous because it is the
movement of speech itself […]. Even before it can strengthen an epistemic
technique, it is an affective relation—a philia, a friendship or
befriending—with language: namely a language that hasn’t yet taken on a
solid outline, a fixed form and hasn’t yet become the instrument of already
established meanings. (Werner Hamacher: Für die Philologie, Frankfurt a.M.
2009, pp. 5–6, after the brackets: pp. 8–9. Translation partly from Vincent
W. J. van Gerven Oei, “‘I am like the Unicorn.’ Desiring Language,” in:
Relational Syntax. Ed. Marco Mazzi, Florence 2012, pp. 249–77) 

Such an understanding of philology has become increasingly relevant in
recent years. There is no longer any question of whether a fruitful
cooperation between cultural studies and philology is possible or necessary.
Both questions must be answered in the affirmative. Questions now instead
concern the details of this cooperation—questions that are the focus of a
panel planned for the next annual convention of the German Studies Association.

Special attention will firstly be paid to the disciplinary and systematical
significance of theory: theoretical reflections on the presuppositions, and
the imponderabilities, of both philological methods and of cultural
evolution itself—in spite of all the talk about an end of theory—are
indispensable. It is thus all the more urgent to ask which models of
description, and for which reasons, one would prefer.

Secondly, it is our perception that the description of language, which has
been somewhat neglected in recent decades, must play a central role in the
choice of these models. Linguistic structures, patterns of language
evolution and language difference must not be ignored when one cares
philologically for all nuances of significance. It remains to be questioned,
however, how they should be introduced into philology: to what extent must a
theory of philology depend on the conceptual framework of linguistics? Might
there also be, alternatively, genuinely philological or literary approaches
to the description of language that one might assert against the linguistic
monopoly of language description?

Please send an abstract not exceeding 250 words and a short biographical
statement (approx. 100 words) in German or English to Till Dembeck
([log in to unmask]), Georg Mein ([log in to unmask]), and Elisabeth
Strowick ([log in to unmask]) by February 1, 2014. 


Theorie(n) der Philologie – literarisch/linguistisch/

Die Differenz zwischen kulturwissenschaftlichen und philologischen Ansätzen
in der Literaturwissenschaft ist nur scheinbar eine sachliche. Denn
einerseits gewinnt Kulturwissenschaft ihr Interesse immer schon aus genuin
philologischen Fragestellungen. Was könnte philologischer sein als der
Impuls, vernachlässigten Details endlich die ihnen zukommende Bedeutung zu
schenken? Andererseits ist Philologie undenkbar ohne die Bezugnahme auf und
die skeptische Hinterfragung von kulturellen Zusammenhängen.

Damit ist ein Verständnis von Philologie – oder vielleicht gar: von
Kulturphilologie – skizziert, das überkommene Einengungen des Begriffs auf
Textkritik etc. aufhebt. Philologie ist, folgt man den Überlegungen Werner
Hamachers, 

die Geste eines Darüberhinaus, die nie überflüssig sein kann, weil sie die
Bewegung des Sprechens selbst ist […]. Noch bevor sie sich zu einer
epistemischen Technik verfestigen kann, ist sie ein affektives Verhältnis –
eine philίa, eine Freundschaft oder Befreundung – mit der Sprache: und zwar
einer Sprache, die noch keine feste Kontur gewonnen, keine beständige Form
angenommen hat und nicht zum Instrument zuvor schon fixierter Bedeutungen
geworden ist. (Werner Hamacher: Für die Philologie, Frankfurt a.M. 2009, S.
5–6, nach der Klammer S. 8–9) 

Gerade ein solches Philologieverständnis scheint nach den Debatten der
vergangenen Jahrzehnte wieder zunehmend an Relevanz zu gewinnen. In Frage
steht nicht mehr, ob eine fruchtbare Verbindung von Kulturwissenschaft und
Philologie möglich oder nötig ist. Beide Fragen sind eindeutig zu bejahen.
In frage stehen nunmehr die Details – und genau ihnen will sich das geplante
Panel der kommenden Jahrestagung der German Studies Association widmen.

Ein besonderes Augenmerk soll dabei zum ersten dem fachpolitischen wie
systematischen Stellenwert von Theorie gelten: Theoretische Reflexionen auf
die Voraussetzungen – und die Unwägbarkeiten – philologischen Vorgehens und
kultureller Evolution sind trotz aller Beschwörungen eines Endes von Theorie
gleichermaßen unabdingbar. Umso dringlicher muss man fragen, welche
Beschreibungsmodelle man aus welchen Gründen bevorzugen möchte. 

Unsere Intuition ist zweitens, dass in diesem Zusammenhang der Beschreibung
von Sprache, die in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten zu unrecht ins Hintertreffen
geraten ist, ein zentraler Stellenwert zukommen muss. Sprachliche
Strukturen, Evolutionsmuster und Sprachdifferenzen dürfen nicht außen vor
gelassen werden, wenn philologisch Nuancen von Bedeutsamkeit in den Blick
genommen werden. Fraglich ist aber, auf welche Weise dies geschehen kann und
soll: Wie weit muss Philologietheorie von den Vorgaben der Linguistik
abhängen? Und wo liegen umgekehrt genuin philologische oder literarische
Potentiale zur Beschreibung von Sprache, die man auch gegen das
Beschreibungsmonopol der Linguistik geltend machen kann?

Bitte senden Sie bis zum 1. Februar 2014 ein Abstract mit maximal 250 Worten
und eine kurze biografische Skizze (ca. 100 Worte) in Deutsch oder Englisch
an Till Dembeck ([log in to unmask]), Georg Mein ([log in to unmask]) und
Elisabeth Strowick ([log in to unmask]).

*******************
The German Studies Call for Papers List
Editor: Stefani Engelstein
Assistant Editor:  Olaf Schmidt
Sponsored by the University of Missouri
Info available at: http://grs.missouri.edu/resources/gerlistserv.html

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager