This paper argues that literature is an art form and proposes three ways to approach the issue. The issue is then rephrased as three views of literariness: the formalist, the ontological and the procedural. The formalist view claims that the literariness exists in special linguistic and narrative features, such as defamiliarization. The ontological view emphasizes on a certain form of existence of the text and takes a literary work as a pure intentional object. The procedural view asserts that literariness exists in the appropriate attitude of reading as a result of long-term literature education.
Key words
literariness /
formalism /
ontology of art works /
procedural definition
{{custom_keyword}} /
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
Altieri, Charles. “A Procedural Definition of Literature.” What is Literature? Ed. Paul Hennadi. Bloomington: Indiana UP., 1978.
Carroll, Noel. On Criticism. New York and London: Routledge, 2009.
Erlich, Victor. “Russian Formalism.” Journal of the History of Ideas 34.4 (1973): 627-38.
Fish, Stanley. Is there a Text in this Class? Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP., 1980.
Ingarden, Roman. The Literary Work of Art. Trans. George G. Grabowicz. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1973.
庞朴:《一分为三:中国传统思想考释》。深圳:海天出版社,1995年。
[Pang, Pu. Trichotomy: Textual Criticism and Interpretation. Shenzhen: Haitian Publishing House, 1995.]
Thomasson, Annie. “The Ontology of Art.” The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics. Ed. Peter Kivy. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. 78-92.
{{custom_fnGroup.title_en}}
Footnotes
{{custom_fn.content}}