Search

The paper introduces the concept of mnemopoetics, i.e., how songs are composed to be remembered, how they are shaped by oral memory as only the songs worth remembering were preserved by the community. After a brief discussion of ‘memory of the body’ (cf. Saussy 2016), the author introduces the formal mnemopoetic features (role of incipit, genre, rhythm, dialogue, incremental repetition, strophic arrangement, etc.). In the second part, he focuses on the semantic mnemopoetic role of incipit parallelism, which announces what will happen next in the song-story (cf. Andersen 1985; Marčok 1980; Bartmiński 2016). He then analyzes the first part of Jan Poláček’s song-collection from Moravian Slovakia (Slovácké pěsničky, 1936) and distinguishes nine main groups of songs with the incipit parallelism variously announcing: 1. erotic desire, 2. courtship, 3. longing for marriage, 4. an obstacle in the way of love, 5. a sinister omen leading to a bad outcome, 6. disappointment, 7. parting, 8. death; and 9. joyousness. For example, the image of ‘running water’ in the first verse suggests an unhappy development in the love affair portrayed by the song. The study further verifies the validity of six most prominent identified announcements on the broader material of František Sušil’s (1860) classical collection of Moravian folksongs. As suggested by fieldwork introduced in the study, traditional singers from Moravia and western Slovakia are typically aware of the ‘second’ meaning in songs, and this awareness of song symbolism helps singers — and readers — not only to remember songs better, but to do them justice when interpreting them. More broadly, the study represents a contribution to the methodological analysis of symbolism in traditional song lyrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the position of retelling in literary studies. Retelling does neither play a role in narratology, nor raises further questions for text theory. In the focus of literary didactics retelling is often limited to the pragmatics of use. ›Retelling‹, however, is not a term used in literary studies. Although the term denotes a widespread cultural technique, which is used in schools and is accordingly also discussed in the didactics of literature, it has not yet been able to be acknowledged in the discipline. The greatest obstacle standing in the way of a conceptual version of retelling probably lies in its distinction from narrative. Narratology has not found any specifics in retelling that fundamentally distinguish it from narration. And the tools of trans-textuality and intertextuality developed especially in structuralism to describe textual relations are available for narrative texts anyway. Thus, literary studies already apply theories and tools that are useful for analyses of retelling: narratology, text theory and classification of a second-order literature, the theory of trans-textuality and intertextuality, and material history, as well as research on media transposition and adaptation. Defining retelling as a second-order narrative, or meta-narrative, inevitably raises the question of what is being repeated at all, and how, by means of narrative. Medieval studies particularly emphasize the aspect of repetition (›re-telling‹), which precedes a specific mediality of narration. Retelling as a variety of repetition neither presupposes a pre-text nor requires that a narrative be repeated. Rather, in retelling, the narrative procedure enters into the service of repetition. On the one hand, it is a variety of repetition, but not every repetition is also a narrative. On the other hand, one and the same text can be described from the point of view of narration or that of repetition. Literary studies that focus on the uses of retelling will pay attention to the varieties of repetition and should look at the relationship between the act of narration and repetition. Obviously, in retelling, the modes and ways, but also the degrees of reference to the pre-text can vary, so that it remains to be discussed which varieties of reference count as valid repetitions. In addition, there is the fundamental question of what falls under the concept of narrative and what components constitute it. Is narrative to be understood as a turning back with linguistic means? As an organization of events, which in turn are to be understood as displacements of actors across semantic or even physical boundaries? As little as a repetition by means of narration is linked to a preceding narrative text, it is equally questionable where and how a boundary between narrative and non-narrative representation could be drawn. In this respect, the following discussion of retelling touches, on the one hand, on the distinction between describing and narrating, which itself required its own discussion in literary theory and history. On the other hand, the distinction between retelling and paraphrasing raises the question of the suitability of linguistic and rhetorical categories of analysis for an analysis of narrative. The article will not address such fundamental questions, but only selected examples will be presented to discuss ways of retelling. The article shifts the broad question of what a retelling is into a smaller, more manageable question of how retelling is done. This shift in the problem leads to specific examples and puts the spotlight on the uses of retelling. The selection of examples presents extreme cases that lie at the edges of a normal range where research has mostly focused its attention. The discussion of examples, which comes from Thomas Bernhard/Peter Handke, Wilhelm Termeer/Herman Melville and Clemens J. Setz, is intended to show that retelling allows both an integration, appropriation or fusion of narrative voices as well as an entanglement of narrative discourse and narrative histoire. The ambiguity of the retelling, which, by retelling a histoire, always carries its own discours, contrasts with forms of use such as summary. Although content summary and retelling can be distinguished as text types according to pragmatic criteria, summarizing a narrative text and retelling a histoire can also be mixed and merge into each other. The ease with which the practice of retelling can be understood should not obscure the fact that it is not easily grasped in terms of literary theory or narratology, and brings into play fundamental questions and problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unter Otome-Games werden Dating-Simulationen verstanden, die es den Spielerinnen und Spielern ermöglichen, eine Liebesgeschichte mit einer fiktiven Figur zu erleben. Auf der Annahme basierend, dass diese Spiele potenziell die Illusion einer sozialen Wechselbeziehung vermitteln, möchte der Beitrag den Gegenstand mit Hilfe des Begriffs «parasoziale Interaktion» (beruhend auf Horton und Wohl 1956) rahmen. Es wird der Frage nachgegangen, wie Otome-Games ihre Protagonist:innen inszenieren und damit womöglich parasoziale Interaktionen offerieren können. Dabei soll insbesondere die Struktur der Spiele mit Hilfe der neoformalistischen Computerspielanalyse (vgl. Fromme und Könitz 2014) in den Blick genommen werden. Innerhalb des interaktiven Mediums manifestieren sich vor allem die Option, die Adressat:innen direkt mit dem Namen anzusprechen und somit in das Spielgeschehen zu involvieren. Auch die stets präsente Inszenierung der medialen Charaktere (bspw. stetiger Augenkontakt, vermögen mediale Kommunikation in Form von Chats und Anrufen zu simulieren) bietet neue Möglichkeiten der parasozialen Interaktion. Trotz dieser Optionen bleibt die Interaktion limitiert und einseitig, da die Figuren nicht auf die Belange der Nutzer:innen eingehen können.

This paper is focused on the relationship between (post)structuralist philosophical thinking about language and mind, and between language as an instrument of such inquiry and a means of exteriorizing its results. This makes the topic important for both philosophers and linguists. I pay particular attention to Jaroslav Peregrinʼs text How we Constructed our own Mind. The text is part of the SYNv10 corpus. This enables a view of the popularization philosophical study through the prism of corpus statistics. I focus on the frequency of the parts of speech. I deal with the properties of the most frequent representatives of important parts of speech and their grammatical categories, especially the verbal person and relative pronouns. Particles are a means of introducing a human dimension into the text. The representation of particles for the certain modality is especially surprising. Modal verbs, indefinite pronouns and indefinite pronominal adverbs aid their effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Phenomenological Studies / Phänomenologische Forschungen is the property of Felix Meiner Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The work of Vladislav Vančura has attracted the attention of literary theorists from the very beginning. Among other attempts to get a theoretical grip, those offered by Jan Mukařovský and Lubomír Doležel provide us with two different but methodologically connected approaches to the author's work. These represent two phases of Czech structuralist thought about literature. This study critically compares both approaches and highlights their similarities and dissimilarities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study describes the origin and development of the friendship between the literary scholar Jan Mukařovský (1891-1975) and the writer Vladislav Vančura (1891-1942). Mukařovský's interpretations of Vančura's literary works are the main focus of the study. Both Mukařovský's published works and texts that were never published (e.g. university lectures) are analysed. On the basis of archival research, the author of the study proves that Mukařovský analysed Vančura's work much earlier than he published his first-ever work on Vančura in 1934. In the course of the 1940s to 1960s, Mukařovský published many texts on Vančura in which he remembered Vančura as a friend, poet, Communist and anti-fascist activist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Im Anschluss an den Marxismus betont Ernst Bloch die immanente Widersprüchlichkeit von Ideologien. Neben ihren Anteilen an falschem Bewusstsein erfassen sie immer auch Wirkliches; hieran kann Ideologiekritik produktiv anknüpfen, mithin – in Blochscher Terminologie – Erbschaft finden. Im Anschluss an den Versuch, Bloch ideologietheoretisch einzuordnen, soll dessen Begriff einer mittelbaren Sachlichkeit zur Auslotung des ideologiekritischen Potentials literarischer Texte genutzt werden. Erkennbar wird hierüber ein Realismus, der ideologischen Schein nicht reproduziert, sondern aufzuheben weiß, indem er Anschluss an das findet, was die Ideologie an Wirklichkeit erfasst. Um derartige Ideologiekritik in ihrer Prozesshaftigkeit beschreiben zu können, wird auf die strukturalistische Theorie einer zweistufigen Semiose zurückgegriffen.

During the 20th century, dialectics was applied in many philosophical and scientific disciplines. The remarkable use of the dialectical method occurred, for example, in Marxism but also in structuralism, which was developed in the 1920s by the Prague Linguistic Circle. The study focuses on the works of the Czech literary scholar and aesthetician Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975). The author provides a detailed description and analysis of both Mukařovský's conception of dialectics and his efforts to find a link between structuralism and Marxism. According to Mukařovský, dialectics is a tool of thought and knowledge, a method to discover and explore the contradictions appearing in reality. The author of the study demonstrates that it was dialectics which Mukařovský considered a link between structuralism and Marxism.

Český filozof Jan Patočka (1907–1977) se velmi dobře znal s představiteli Pražského lingvistického kroužku (např. Vilémem Mathesiem, Romanem Jakobsonem a Janem Mukařovským), avšak k užší badatelské spolupráci mezi nimi nikdy nedošlo. Záměrem studie je 1) představit Patočkovy názory na strukturalismus, 2) nastínit jeho vztah k českému strukturalismu, zvláště pak k Janu Mukařovskému. Jestliže Mukařovského můžeme považovat za jednoho z hlavních představitelů českého strukturalismu a analyticko-strukturálního uvažování o umění, Patočka byl myslitelem, který usiloval o syntetizující filozofický přístup.

Copyright of Central European Journal for Contemporary Religion is the property of Charles University Prague, Karolinum Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Knihovna is the property of Library Institute of the Czech National Library and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Studia Germanica Gedanensia is the property of University of Gdansk / Uniwersytet Gdanskim and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study aims to reconstruct the impact of information theory (and cybernetics) on literary theory (semiotics) during the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the directions in which the same paradigm came to inspire 1960s Czech experimental poetry. Given the limitations of information theory vis-à-vis some crucial questions of communication, what was the foundation of this inspiration? The first part of the study concentrates on various important modifications of the paradigm in the context of information aesthetics (Max Bense), information poetics (Umberto Eco) and structuralist literary theory (Miroslav Červenka). The second part explores the position of the 'information' current within the context of 1960s Czech experimental poetry, including its avant-garde antecedents. The third part focuses on the experimental texts of Zdeněk Barborka, whose work is notable for being situated at the crossroads of several different tendencies. Finally, the study raises the question concerning the deeper implications of the 'information moment', with the suggestion that they might be found in the context of the development of media (communication) technologies as well as the genealogy of the media discourse, which emerges at this 'moment' from its prehistory to enter into its actual historical phase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revue de Synthèse is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The essay mentions Černý’s hostile relationship to Jan Mukařovský, sums up its causes, and recapitulates the texts in which Černý comments on Mukařovský’s works and on structuralism in general. On the basis of these texts, the author concludes that Černý’s contributions on the topic of “structuralism” betray an a-priori polemic bias and show that his reading of structuralist works was slightly superficial. However, these texts should not be interpreted purely as an expression of personal antipathy. Černý’s critique of structuralism points out its resignation on value judgement. According to Černý, this lack leads to the inability of structuralism to turn to criticism or literary history. The author analyzes Černý’s understanding of these two disciplines, and tries to point out the deeper causes of the polemics. The core of the dispute still seems valid today.

The author of this study deals with the transition made by Jan Mukařovský (1891-1975) and Felix Vodička (1909-1974) from structuralism to Marxism and the forms of both theorists' postwar and post-1948 thinking. It comes out against those expository stratagems that only perceive this issue to be a result of the post-1948 „ideologization" of literary studies, or that trivialize the entire issue as an expression of „tacticplaying" at that time. The author of this study counters these expositions with the imperative of the historicization of theory, i.e. in this study Marxism is understood to be a scholarly standpoint that did not lose its legitimacy (legitimacy is defined in this study as the outcome of a historically conditioned social process, and not as a normative category), while special attention is also paid to the semantics of the term „Marxism-Leninism". In the case of Jan Mukařovský, the theoretical preconditions for acceptance of Marxism may approximately indicate the mid-1940s (1943-1945 to be precise), when the theorist first begins to deal with the issues surrounding the genesis of the work, the world view and the relationship between the individual and literary development. The assumption that literature is not a prime mover of the „noetic base" and that in this respect a more crucial element is the production process, opens up the way to a basic reevaluation of the structuralist approach and its abandonment. After 1948 Mukařovský follows the role of an individual based on the example of Božena Němcová, but he did not treat the issue systematically on a Marxist basis. After 1948 the literary historian Felix Vodička abandons the structuralist idea of a creative individual as the bearer of literary trends -- and in his post-1948 studies he reflects the „will" of the individual and the social conditions for creation. This leads to a transformation in his analysis, which primarily takes account of the topical and thematic sphere to the detriment of the structural („formal" or stylistic) elements in the work. This also leads to a transformation in the understanding of literature: the originally dominant aesthetic function is superseded by the cognitive and socialcritical function. Vodička's Marxist reformulation of literary history culminates in what is known as role theory. However, this suffered from rigid teleologism, which manifested itself inter alia in the evaluation of literature from the standpoint of ex post fabricated „objectives" to be „accomplished". In spite of the theoretical limits of literary-studies Marxism as conceived by Mukařovský and Vodička, this is an example of a new formulation of literary-studies knowledge and literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concepts associated with the Structuralism of the Prague School are usually considered to respond to trends in continental philology, philosophy, and aesthetics of the 1920s and 1930s. The phenomenology of Roman Ingarden is thus viewed as a key source of inspiration for the concept of ‘concretization’ coined by Felix Vodička, a concept which would become one of the key terms of literary history. This article focuses on a less explored issue concerning the notion of meaning developed by Ingarden in his Das literarische Kunstwerk and its potential influence on the idea of meaning developed by Jan Mukařovský during the 1930s. The comparison highlights an important difference between the two concepts of meaning. While Ingarden focuses on the heterogeneity of elements involved in the production of meaning, Mukařovský aims rather at developing a universal notion of meaning as a synthetic process that operates the same way on all levels of the literary text. In this case, the author tends to consider the notion of meaning only in vague and general terms, illustrating the production of meaning at the micro level and then claiming that the same processes can be found at all higher levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the biographical perspective of a scholar of German studies with positions formerly at the German universities of Bonn and Constance and now Charles University in Prague, the article describes the discussions about theory and literary studies since the 1980s. It focuses primarily on exchange processes among various (theoretical) cultures and at the end examines the reasons why certain obvious theory transfers had not taken place.

The text provides a commentary regarding Ferdinand de Saussure‘s research in anagrammatic poetry. The author first describes three phases of Saussure’s research (1906–1907, 1907–1908, 1908–1909) and explains various changes in his approach. Secondly, the author introduces the main tendencies in reception of Saussure’s “anagrammatic work” (Tel Quel, linguistics, psychoanalysis). Finally, a comparison is drawn between Saussure’s analysis of anagrams and his Course in General Linguistics.

The paper starts from a consideration of two variant critiques of structuralism: in 1935, Marxistoriented historians polemicized with Mukařovský’s concept of the development of literature; in 1951, Mukařovský himself presented a critique based in the ideology of the totalitarian regime. A comparison between the state of the scholarly debate in the 1930s and the latter event allows us to develop some more general characteristics of the ingerence of power ideology into scientific discourse and its paradigm. The focus of our inquiry is the question as to what allowed Mukařovský to perform this radical turn and adopt an ideological doctrine. What we find is that a link between the topics pursued in our argument — i.e. between the structuralist theory, an ideology in the service of power and the deformation of the scholarly paradigm — is provided by the position of the individual in history, in both artistic and social discourse. The gist of the matter is that with the weakening or even elimination of the individual’s role disappears the ethical dimension of the human relating to the world, disappears individual responsibility as an essential, irreducible part of one’s identity.

Both texts present a systematic survey of two elementary analytical categories of Structuralist thought — binarity and opposition, especially in their semionarratological implications. In “Binarity”, one structuralist version of binary analysis is described as a decomposition “of the continuum of the observed world along universal relational axes constituting logical oppositions (contradictions). An inventory of elementary binary oppositions is established, which form a paradigmatic matrix of the observed area and structure is as a relational system or network”. Within this method an apriori aspect can be sometimes distinguished when an elementary binary logical structure is assumed as a universal principle underlying the multiplicity of observable phenomena. According to another, yet different conception, used in the context of artificial linguistic simulations and computing, binarity is understood as a principle of reversible de/composition of code based on two elementary signals or elements (formalized, for instance, as +/- or 0/1), which makes further combinatorial descriptions and operations of the system possible. The genesis of binary method, beginning with G. W. Leibniz’s binary code on one hand and Ferdinand de Saussure’s structural linguistics on the other, is followed, including Trubetzkoy’s and Jakobson’s phonology, Claude Lévi-Strauss’s ethnology, Greimas’s structural semantics and ending with the fundamental critique of binarism formulated by Jacques Derrida through his notion of différance and his descriptions of temporalization of structure. In “Opposition”, Trubetzkoy’s non-binary oppositions (gradual, equipollent, isolated, ternary, n-ary oppositions) within phonology, Greimas’s semiotic square (two types of binary oppositions: contradiction, contrariety or Mukařovský’s notions of dynamic antinomies within functionalstructuralist aesthetics are further taken into account.

Copyright of Ceska Literatura is the property of ASCR Institute of Czech Literature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The approach of structuralism came to philosophy from social science. It was also in social science where, in 1950-1970s, in the form of the French structuralism, the approach gained its widest recognition. Since then, however, the approach fell out of favour in social science. Recently, structuralism is gaining currency in the philosophy of mathematics. Aft er ascertai ning that the two structuralisms indeed share a common core, the question stands whether general structuralism could not find its way back into social science. The nature of the major objections raised against French structuralism - concerning its alleged ahistoricism, methodological holism and universalism - are reconsidered. While admittedly grounded as far as French structuralism is concerned, these objections do not affect general structuralism as such. The fate of French structuralism thus does not seem to preclude the return of general structuralism into social science, rather, it provides some hints where the difficulties may lie. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focuses on a particular distinctive moment in the Czech and French history of literary thinking which took place in the latter half of the 1960s and which saw not only an encounter of Marxism and structuralism, but also a shift and radical change in the conception of literary structure. Marxist philosopher and historian Robert Kalivodapresents the development of Jan Mukařovský's structural literary aesthetics from a Marxist and Freudian perspective; according to him, Mukařovský's conception matured -- in association with the production and reflection of the interwar artistic avant-garde (Karel Teige) -- towards a conception of aesthetic function and value as transparent anthropic principles and work of art as a dynamic ensemble of extra-aesthetic functions and values. Simultaneously, the representative of French Althusserian Marxism Pierre Macherey formulates his conception of literary output as a specific mode in the production of speech and literary structure as a space of difference, in which the ideological universalizations of the period are unconsciously presented in a critical light. Within the Czech structuralist tradition -- and in harmony with its avant-garde pedigree -- a parallel conception then emerges within the works of Oleg Sus and Milan Jankovič of literary structure as a structure that is unconsolidated and unconsolidatable, as the process and action of meaning, the movement of contradictions that will not have culminated in a final and completed synthesis. Analysis of the internal contexts and interrelations of these conceptions leads us to interpret them as the movement of concurrent misses -- a radical change in the structure and the opening of its dialectics here has different resonances, caused by a different conception of the subject and the relationship between the work and the social structure -- and also a failed meeting, whose connections have for the most part hitherto escaped the attention of literary studies and philosphy historians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - Area libraries functioning in times of communist totalitarianism are among the topics which it is possible to pay attention from different angles. Understanding the functioning and determinants of the existence of libraries at this time is also one of the keys to the broader reflection of communism as a historical stage in the development of the Czech Republic, while at the same time enabling a better understanding of how libraries work and look today. The research study seeks to provide a wider contextual insight into the issue. Design/methodology/approach - As part of a research study with work starting points structuralist historiography - based on the study of archival materials two specific libraries in South Moravia and literary-historical interpretations of the two authors try to show some aspects of the functioning of libraries and work with the Literary Fund. We do not follow the "great history" of the entire evolution of librarianship, but by focusing on concrete examples, we try to show some plasticity of this historical period. In historiography we also use work with archival sources, interpretation and literary-historical interpretation. Results - In the text, attention is paid to libraries in Znojmo and Břeclav, using the archive research of KISK students at the Faculty of Arts. We focus primarily on events that are associated with the library as a cultural and educational institution in a certain social context, and on their work with the fund. This view is complemented by a look at two typical period figures, Vašek Káňa and Jaroslav Frey. Originality/Value - The paper offers an approach combining different research methods and creating a new space for the research of the everyday life of two selected libraries, understood in a wider literary-historical context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ethnologie Française is the property of Presses Universitaires de France and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Zdeněk Kožmín produced a wealth of inspiring literary interpretations, but he is also the author of a specific interpretation method. he present study deals with Kožmín's relationship to structuralism, mapping the structuralist principles adopted by him and incorporated into his theoretical and methodological apparatus. The text outlines seven key principles (a work of art as a sui generis phenomenon, working with material, concept of the whole and structure, understanding a work of art as a sign, concept of a model, dynamics of structures, and dialectics). The author of the paper demonstrates that structural analysis of a literary work and description of structural formation became an indivisible part of Kožmín's approach to interpretation of literary works. Nonetheless, Kožmín did not perceive structuralism as the only possible method of studying literary works, but rather as a point of departure, a support for developing an interpretative dialogue with a text. Kožmín's unique contribution to Czech literary heory and criticism lies in enriching structuralism with the dimension of hermeneutics and a philosophical-existential perspective.

The essay mentions Černý's hostile relationship to Jan Mukařovský, sums up its causes, and recapitulates the texts in which Černý comments on Mukařovský's works and on structuralism in general. On the basis of these texts, the author concludes that Černý's contributions on the topic of "structuralism" betray an a-priori polemic bias and show that his reading of structuralist works was slightly superficial. However, these texts should not be interpreted purely as an expression of personal antipathy. Černý's critique of structuralism points out its resignation on value judgement. According to Černý, this lack leads to the inability of structuralism to turn to criticism or literary history. The author analyzes Černý's understanding of these two disciplines, and tries to point out the deeper causes of the polemics. The core of the dispute still seems valid today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]