Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKaplický, Martin
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-17T11:49:00Z
dc.date.available2019-12-17T11:49:00Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn2336-6680
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11956/115555
dc.language.isocs_CZcs_CZ
dc.publisherUniverzita Karlova, Filozofická fakultacs_CZ
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
dc.sourceSlovo a smysl - Word & Sense, 2019, 16, 32, 203-214cs_CZ
dc.source.urihttps://wordandsense.ff.cuni.cz
dc.subjectRoman Ingardencs_CZ
dc.subjectWolfgang Isercs_CZ
dc.subjectliterary theorycs_CZ
dc.subjectplaces of indeterminacycs_CZ
dc.subjectblankscs_CZ
dc.subjectreading processcs_CZ
dc.subjectliterární teoriecs_CZ
dc.subjectmísta nedourčenostics_CZ
dc.subjectprázdná místacs_CZ
dc.subjectproces čtenícs_CZ
dc.titleKombinace, nebo doplnění? O dvou typech procesu v literární teorii Romana Ingardena a Wolfganga Iseracs_CZ
dc.typeVědecký článekcs_CZ
uk.abstract.enThere can be no doubt that Wolfgang Iser’s literary theory was strongly influenced by Roman Ingarden’s writings on literature. Iser often quotes from Ingarden and develops some of his key ideas. The main aim of this article is to show that even in the cases where Iser develops Ingarden’s ideas and concepts he significantly changes their meaning and function. This tendency is not arbitrary but rather mirrors the difference of aims between the two theories. In this article, the author tries to show how Ingarden’s theory revolves around his consideration of the differences between the real and purely intentional object. Here, the literary work serves as an example of the purely intentional object. By contrast, Iser’s work revolves around his opposition to any theory which emphasizes the essential meaning of a work of literature without considering the reading process itself. This attention to the reading process is the main aim of Iser’s theory. The article develops the thesis that the two opposing definitions of the literary work arise from this essential difference, which in turn explains the dissimilarity, in terms of both meaning and function, between such seemingly similar concepts as Ingarden’s ‘places of indeterminacy’ (die Unbestimmtheitstellen) and Iser’s ‘blanks’ (die Leerstellen).cs_CZ
uk.internal-typeuk_publication
dc.identifier.doi10.14712/23366680.2019.2.9cs_CZ
dc.description.startPage203
dc.description.endPage214
dcterms.isPartOf.nameSlovo a smysl - Word & Sensecs_CZ
dcterms.isPartOf.journalYear2019
dcterms.isPartOf.journalVolume16
dcterms.isPartOf.journalIssue32


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/

© 2017 Univerzita Karlova, Ústřední knihovna, Ovocný trh 560/5, 116 36 Praha 1; email: admin-repozitar [at] cuni.cz

Za dodržení všech ustanovení autorského zákona jsou zodpovědné jednotlivé složky Univerzity Karlovy. / Each constituent part of Charles University is responsible for adherence to all provisions of the copyright law.

Upozornění / Notice: Získané informace nemohou být použity k výdělečným účelům nebo vydávány za studijní, vědeckou nebo jinou tvůrčí činnost jiné osoby než autora. / Any retrieved information shall not be used for any commercial purposes or claimed as results of studying, scientific or any other creative activities of any person other than the author.

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
Theme by 
@mire NV