Au milieu du bouillonnement intellectuel des années vingt en U.R.S.S., Mikhaïl Bakhtine, philosophe et critique littéraire, sʹinterroge sur les rapports entre lʹidéologie, le langage et le psychisme. Refusant la dichotomie saussurienne langue / parole, qui vide la pratique linguistique de sa substance, il affirme la nature sociale du signe et pose les fondements dʹune linguistique de lʹénonciation en tant que manifestation sociale et non individuelle. Au signe figé, réduit à nʹêtre quʹun "signal", il oppose le signe mouvant, changeant, arène où (...) se jouent les conflits sociaux. Publié en 1929 à Leningrad sous le nom de Volochinov, élève de Bakhtine, cet ouvrage paraît pour la première fois sous le nom de son véritable auteur. -- Back cover. (shrink)

Abstract:Roman Jakobson remains a crucial figure in the history of linguistics and literary criticism. This paper explores how a mid-twentieth-century intellectual curated his own legacy across Cold War divides. Thinking with Jakobson's own formulation of communication functions, this paper argues for a connection between the success of particular structuralist ideas in academic contexts and the tactical efforts of individual scholars embedded in scholarly institutions. Considered in this light, investigating Roman Jakobson's late career during the period (...) known as the Thaw can move beyond "vulgar biographism" to a better understanding of the different fates of formalism between East and West. (shrink)

The article describes and analyses connections established between Roman Jakobson’s scholarly legacy and the topic of translation in a selection of academic reference works. The aim in doing so is twofold: first, to look beyond the conventionalised image of Jakobson as an influential scholar for several disciplines, such as translation studies, linguistics and semiotics, and to provide an overview of the actual reception of his ideas on the level of general academic knowledge as presented by scholarly reference (...) works in these fields. Another aim is to find out whether and how Jakobson’s ideas on translation are seen to relate to his other ideas concerning language and communication. It appears that — while there also exist some differences fieldwise as well as among individual reference works — the general reception of Jakobson is based predominantly on just two of his articles (out of his overall legacy of several hundred works) and to a large extent ignores the inner logic of Jakobson’s thought as it manifests in his different works (i.e. there are few connections made between his ideas expressed in his different works). (shrink)

The term “structuralism” was introduced into linguistics by Roman Jakobson in the early days of the Linguistic Circle of Prague, founded in 1926. The cluster of ideas defended by Jakobson and his colleagues can be specified but differ considerably from the concept of structuralism as it has come to be understood more recently. That took place because from the 1930s on it became customary to equate structuralism with the ideas of Ferdinand de Saussure, as expounded in his (...) posthumous Cours de linguistique générale (1916). It can be shown, however, that Jakobson’s group rejected Saussure’s theory for ideological reasons. As theterm “structuralism” became more widely used it came to be associated with positivist approaches to linguistics rather than with the original phenomenologicalorientation that had characterized the Linguistic Circle of Prague. The purpose of this paper is to clarify these different approaches and to suggest that because ofits extreme porosity the word “structuralism” is an example of a “terminological pandemic”. More research on the varied uses to which the key terms “structure”and “structuralism” were put will undoubtedly further elucidate this important episode in 20th-century intellectual history. (shrink)

Roman Jakobson, who had left Russia in 1920 and in 1941 took refuge in the USA from the Nazis, was one of the main figures in post war linguistics and structuralism. Two aspects of his work are examined in this article. Firstly, Jakobson purifies his linguistic theory of pragmatic references. Secondly, he develops his own diplomatic mission of mediating between East and West. In this article, I argue that these two aspects did not develop independently from one (...) another. Instead I claim that his theory is designed to slip through the Iron Curtain, while at the same time providing the means to analyse ways of acting politically by using language. This argument is unfolded in two steps, each consisting of two parts. First, I compare the theory of pronominal expressions as developed by Emil Benveniste to Jakobson’s theory of shifters. While Benveniste focuses on the relation of language and its subject using language, Jakobson introduces a model of communication to allow maximal formalisation of language. According to this even the category of person can be freed from its reference to a subject which would be understood as having a place in space and time. Then, Jakobson’s theory of shifters is studied in relation to his analyses of poetry. For this, two examples are chosen: Jakobson’s text on two poems by Russian poet Alexandr Blok, and his text on a poem by Bertold Brecht. In both texts, the theory of shifters—and the alleged purification from pragmatic aspects of language use ensuing from this theory—is challenged by the simple fact that they focus on the pronoun of the first person plural. According to Jakobson, the category of number does not belong to the shifters. Rather, number quantifies participants of the related event. The pronoun ‘we’ is at the same time a shifter and a non-shifter, as it refers to the speech event and the related event. Thus the pronoun ‘we’ opens up the possibility to include or exclude the participants of a communicative situation, and thereby enables the speaker to act socially or even politically by using language. The article concludes by coming back to the historical situation in which Jakobson developed his analyses of poetry. Analysing poetry seems to have been a passe-partout for him, a seemingly harmless subject that allowed him to get a foot in the door of remote and secluded lecture halls. (shrink)

In Roman Jakobson Richard Bradford reasserts the value of Jakobson's work, arguing that he has a great deal to offer contemporary critical theory and providing a critical appraisal the sweep of Jakobson's career. Bradford re-establishes Jakobson's work as vital to our understanding of the relationship between language and poetry. By exploring Jakobson's thesis that poetry is the primary object language, Roman Jakobson: Life, Language, Art offers a new reading of his work which (...) includes the most radical elements of modernism. This book will be invaluable to students of Jakobson and to anyone interested in the development of critical theory, linguistics and stylistics. (shrink)

Namen pričujoče raziskave je prikazati do sedaj zanemarjeno vlogo češkoslovaških slavistov pri oblikovanju Parry-Lordove teorije ustnega pesništva. Potek predstavlja v obliki zgodbe o pristnem odkritju, ki izhaja iz določenega znanstvenega okolja (Antoine Meillet, praški lingvistični krožek itd.). Glavne vloge v njej igrajo Matija Murko, ustanovitelj češkoslovaške slavistike Roman Jakobson in nekateri drugi raziskovalci. Največ pozornosti članek posveča Murkovim in Parryjevim znanstveno-raziskovalnim strategijam, ki sta jih uporabljala med potovanji na Balkan leta 1930, in jih primerja. Članek razkriva tudi določene (...) povezave med Murkom in Lordom, ter nekatere njihove dokaze, ki do sedaj še niso bili objavljeni. (shrink)

Roman Jakobson, né à Moscou en 1896, est aujourd’hui professeur à Harvard. Il est l’auteur de très nombreux travaux dans tous les domaines de la linguistique et de la théorie littéraire. Mais son activité s’est aussi exercée dans de nombreuses autres disciplines : anthropologie, folklore, psychanalyse, théorie de l’information, etc. L’objet de ce livre est d’élucider la « philosophie latente » de Roman Jakobson et de son structuralisme linguistique. La thèse fondamentale de l’auteur est l’affirmation et (...) la preuve que la philosophie constituant la base du structuralisme jakobsonien n’est nulle autre que la phénoménologie husserlienne. L’origine de cette interprétation réside dans le fait qu’elle remonte aux sources et aux débuts du structuralisme dans les cercles de Moscou et de Prague. (shrink)

Review of Dinda L. Gorlée: Wittgenstein in Translation (2012).