MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2178908872 · doi:10.1163/9789401207393_002

The Commonwealth Legacy: Towards a Decentred Reading of World Literature

2012· book-chapter· en· W2178908872 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frank Schulze–Engler

Notice bibliographique

RevueLiterature For Our Times · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCommonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCommonwealthPoliticsPostcolonial literaturePolitical scienceSophisticationHistorySociologyEpistemologyLawSocial sciencePhilosophyColonialism

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

IRONICALLY ENOUGH, AN ESSAY ON THE COMMONWEALTH LEGACY in proceedings of a Triennial Conference of Association for Commonwealth Literature and Language Studies these days is an oddity likely to generate stifled yawns or, at best, raised eyebrows: although ACLALS continues to bear term 'Commonwealth' in its name, there seems to be an overwhelming consensus that idea of 'Commonwealth literature' constitutes a largely dysfunctional, perhaps even embarrassing, semantic leftover. 'Commonwealth literature' thus seems to derive from what is now habitually regarded as prehistory of our field, a somewhat antediluvian phase of academic activity characterized by political naivety and theoretical unsophistication which was eventually terminated by celebrated transition from 'Commonwealth' to 'postcolonial' in mid-1980s.1This essay confronts this consensus with a rather more critical look at this transition, and it also suggests that what I have - in a deliberately provocative manner - termed the Commonwealth Legacy constitutes a set of unfinished business that is far from antediluvian, but continues very much to be with us even in our current state of theoretical sophistication. The second part of this essay takes a critical look at recent attempts to reformulate idea of 'world literature' in field of comparative literature and, in final section, sets out why field of comparative study of English-language literatures offers a chance to move beyond some of shortcomings to be found in comparative literature's account of 'world literature'.What, then, constitutes 'Commonwealth legacy' and what is its significance for contemporary literary studies? In a nutshell, this legacy consists in a latent field and an unsolved problem.To begin with field: 'Commonwealth legacy' is arguably grounded neither in a theoretical model nor in an explicitly elaborated methodology (both of which 'Commonwealth literature studies' notoriously failed to develop) but, rather, in a transnational academic practice and an implicit dialogic comparative methodology that together constituted a new field of enquiry. The contours of this field may have become increasingly blurred in last two decades, but in pragmatic terms it is still very much with us and continues to circumscribe practice of teaching and research of scholars who are institutionally based in English literary and cultural studies. The transnational academic practice just referred to was established by adventurous English departments (or, at least, individual members of such departments) that began to explore dynamics of English-language literatures emerging in various parts of world. These departments were initially often staffed by British expatriates, but soon involved scholars from a vast variety of national and cultural backgrounds and a large number of universities in Africa, Asia, Caribbean, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand as well as Europe and USA.The implicit comparative methodology that emerged together with this academic practice was based on what from today's vantage point might be called an inherent transcultural approach of relating English-language literature to a wide variety of cultural and social backgrounds. For this implicit methodology, idea of a comparative practice based on literature in one language was vital: it moved beyond conventional notions of literary comparison based on an identification of language and culture and began to address complex location of English-language literatures embedded in more than one 'national' or 'regional' culture. Thus, practice of 'Commonwealth literature studies' often rested on a genuine interest in newly emerging life-worlds that had come into existence in aftermath of colonialism and in role of English-language literatures in exploring these life-worlds. Another major characteristic of this implicit methodology was a principle of dialogicity based on actively sought-for and intense exchanges with writers; what thus emerged from both academic practice and implicit methodology was a discursive field encompassing writers, critics, and literary scholars who often shared an acute sense of critical participation in momentous literary, cultural, and social changes in an increasingly globalized world. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,022
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,046

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0070,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,064
Communication savante0,0220,028
Science ouverte0,0020,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,010
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,324
Écart entre enseignants0,291 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLiterature For Our TimesMême sujetCommonwealth, Australian Politics and FederalismTravaux en français237 207