A Survey of Twentieth-century Literary Theory and Criticism in Chinese
In their article "A Survey of Twentieth-century Literary Theory and Criticism in Chinese"
Xiaoming Chen and Anfeng Sheng survey Chinese-language scholarship that for the reason of the East-
West divide is less known in the West. Although heavily influenced by both Western and Soviet Marxist
thought, twentieth-century Chinese literary theorization and criticism produced much incisive
scholarship based on the vast knowledge existing in Chinese culture and literary scholarship. Chen and
Sheng survey pioneering works by numerous Chinese literary theorists and critics who have been
influential in their own time and exerted persistent modeling influences until today and the article is
meant to adjust the anonymous position of Chinese literary theorization in the West and thus to
contribute to the diversity of literary studies.
Review Article about Chinese Comparative Humanities Journals Published in 2013
Part of the American Studies Commons, Comparative Literature Commons, Education Commons, European Languages and Societies Commons, Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other Film and Media Studies Commons, Reading and Language Commons, Rhetoric and Composition Commons, Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons, Television Commons, and the Theatre and Performance Studies Commons
Snapshots of the Balkans through ethnographic investigation of the linguistic landscape
This paper investigates the linguistic landscape of Dubrovnik and Kotor on the Southeastern Adriatic coast, and Mytilene in the north Aegean attempting a theorization of its findings at the intersection of (socio)linguistics, ethnography, and semiotics, which has gained ground as the platform of choice in linguistic landscape (LL) research. I argue that the influx of both tourists and refugees, despite the obvious differences between the two groups, has had radical consequences for the LL which have so far attracted virtually no attention in the relevant literature. And yet, tourism and the arrival of new populations have considerable and lasting effects on the LL which can only be adequately investigated by systematic ethnographic studies of the semiotic means employed in inscribing it. Nevertheless, ethnography, as a methodological sociolinguistic tool, cannot substitute or supersede cognitive aspects of language. If doing LL research means doing semiotic landscape research, then we also have to consider semiosis and higher-order indexicality qua categorization. I understand ethnographic LL research as contributing to a better comprehension of the dynamic indexical relation between language and physical space (turned into place through human agency). Just as a certain accent and particular morphosyntactic choices may index the place of origin of a speaker, a specific LL may index populations and their socioeconomic relations at a certain historical moment. Focusing on these dynamic indexical relations may have far-reaching consequences for superdiversity as a way of making sense of language-in-society.