MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4316259222 · doi:10.1353/mlr.2023.0029

Nikolai Gogol: Performing Hybrid Identity by Yuliya Ilchuk

2023· article· en· W4316259222 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Modern Language Review · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDiscourse Analysis and Cultural Communication
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésUkrainianIdentity (music)LiteraturePoliticsRussian literatureHistoryOrder (exchange)ArtLinguisticsAestheticsPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Nikolai Gogol: Performing Hybrid Identity by Yuliya Ilchuk Timothy Langen Nikolai Gogol: Performing Hybrid Identity. By Yuliya Ilchuk. Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press. 2021. xvi+ 267 pp. $52.50. ISBN 978-1-4875-0825-8. From the beginning of his career to our day, Gogolʹ's works have generated highly charged interpretative fields, and in recent years, 'Russian' and 'Ukrainian' have [End Page 148] been two of the most powerful hermeneutic magnets. With this monograph, Yuliya Ilchuk subjects both terms to dynamic, historicizing analysis. By her reading, Gogolʹ's national identity is not fixed but rather constituted (at least partially) in performance, before heterogeneous audiences, with multiple cultural and linguistic codes, giving rise to gestures and texts capable of generating divergent interpretation. Her focus is not on classifying Gogolʹ as essentially 'Russian' or 'Ukrainian', or as first one and then the other, but rather on the constant (and constantly shifting) interpenetration of these categories in the contexts in which Gogolʹ enacted his own literary and personal identity. This book is methodologically and theoretically ambitious. The chapters treat, in order, the history of Ukrainian elites in the Russian empire; Gogolʹ's varying self-presentation in the 1830s; the distribution of Ukrainian and Russian (and hybridized) lexical, syntactic, and idiomatic elements among the narrators of his Evenings on a Farm near Dikanka (1831); the interaction of various languages and linguistic markers (especially Russian, Ukrainian, German, and Yiddish) in Gogolʹ's writing and in Russian cultural and political debates during his career; the changes he made to Taras Bulba and Dead Souls (both 1842); and the posthumous treatment of his texts in Russian, Soviet, and Ukrainian contexts. Ilchuk brings considerable theoretical sophistication to bear on these topics; she is as ready to see in Gogolʹ's self-conscious linguistic hybridity a challenge to Bourdieu (p. 71) as she is to find in Greenblatt's and Bhabha's paradigms a useful framework for reading Gogolʹ. Equally well managed is her use of large data sets for stylistic analysis, with technical appendices giving extra information about her methodology. The results support her overall argument that Ukrainian and Russian elements do not simply coexist in Gogolʹ's texts, but rather operate in varying manners and proportions according to audience and occasion. In addition to this lexical corpus analysis, Ilchuk draws attention to a kind of dual coding whereby (typically) a Russian reader will receive one sort of message from Gogolʹ and/or his narrator(s), while a Ukrainian reader or listener will hear something different. Both the early Dikanka tales and the later revisions of Taras Bulba and Dead Souls have this property, as she argues. One sign of the value of a book like this is the way it can reframe arguments which its subject does not address directly. Ilchuk repeatedly emphasizes performativity—Gogolʹ's social manners, his sartorial and coiffuristic gestures, and his deviations from literary Russian grammar and usage. Readers of Boris Eikhenbaum's 1919 article 'How Gogolʹs Overcoat Is Made' (repr. in Gogol from the Twentieth Century: Eleven Essays, ed. and trans. by Robert A. Maguire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974), pp. 267-91) will recognize a similar claim here but with new light cast on it. Eikhenbaum's Gogolʹ is irrepressibly performative and creative, rather than concerning himself with what one might call 'content'. For Ilchuk, performance is how Gogolʹ engages content. It is hard to think what more this book could do. Devoted to the topic of identity in its dizzying complexity, it is theoretically sophisticated, clearly and engagingly written, methodologically bold, and rich in detail. Ultimately Ilchuk's aim, in the best spirit of the theorists whose ideas she mobilizes, is not only to provide an objective [End Page 149] analysis of an acuvre, idiom, and life, but also to show its positive generative potential. She succeeds. Timothy Langen University of Missouri Copyright © 2023 Modern Humanities Research Association

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.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut 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: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,853
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,930

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

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 Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,393
Écart entre enseignants0,359 · 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