Suchergebnisse

Artikkelen undersøker russiskspråklig antikrigspoesi publisert det siste året og identifiserer en tendens i dette materialet til å stille spørsmålstegn ved selve grunnforutsetningene for kulturell (litterær) motstand. Mer spesifikt tematiseres språkets (og skriftens) evne, mulighet og moralske vilkår for å uttrykke krigsmotstand. Jeg se på noen hovedlinjer i argumentasjonen omkring denne problemstillingen når den diskuteres på metanivå (i forord, kommentarer, lanseringsarrangementer o.l.), og på noen strategier som manifesterer seg i det poetiske materialet.
In this article I examine Russophone anti-war poetry published in the past year and identifya tendency in this material to question the very foundations of cultural (literary) resistance.More specifically, the ability, possibility and moral conditions of language (and script) toexpress war resistance are addressed. I look at some of the main lines of argumentation linkedto these issues when discussed on a meta-level (in prefaces, commentaries, launch events,etc.), as well as at a couple of strategies that manifest themselves in the poetic material.

Konsekvensene av mangelen på et rettsoppgjør – eller transitional justice – etter stalintidens uhyrlige overgrep preger Russland mer enn noensinne. Redaktørene av The Gulag in Writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Varlam Shalamov henviser til dette manglende oppgjøret, og til den gradvise rehabiliteringen av Stalin i dagens Russland, som noen av motivasjonene for en fornyet forskningssatsning på Gulaglitteraturens to klassikere, Aleksandr Solzjenitsyn og Varlam Sjalamov.
The consequences of the dearth of efforts at transitional justice with regard to Stalin-era repressions affect Russia more than ever. The editors of The Gulag in Writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Varlam Shalamov note this circumstance, and the gradual rehabilitation of Stalin in today's Russia, as important reasons for renewed research efforts regarding the two classics authors of Gulag literature, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Varlam Shalamov.

This article discusses the ways in which culture in general, and language in particular, has become an important field of attention to the authorities in today's Russia for a particular purpose. Over the last decade, Russian authorities have significantly increased their involvement in the cultural field, creating programmes for the patriotic education of citizens, adopting new laws and regulations affecting film, literature and art, drawing on the capital of culture for all its worth. It is important to get a firm grasp of the state's renewed interest in culture, in order to assess its impact in the broader context of Russian politics and society. In the following, I discuss a few concrete examples of state involvement in the cultural sphere, focusing in particular on the question of language legislation.

This article discusses the ways in which culture in general, and language in particular, has become an important field of attention to the authorities in today's Russia for a particular purpose. Over the last decade, Russian authorities have significantly increased their involvement in the cultural field, creating programmes for the patriotic education of citizens, adopting new laws and regulations affecting film, literature and art, drawing on the capital of culture for all its worth. It is important to get a firm grasp of the state's renewed interest in culture, in order to assess its impact in the broader context of Russian politics and society. In the following, I discuss a few concrete examples of state involvement in the cultural sphere, focusing in particular on the question of language legislation.

How did Russian writers respond to linguistic debate in the post-Soviet period?Post-Soviet Russia was a period of linguistic liberalisation, instability and change with varied attempts to regulate and legislate language usage, a time when the language question permeated all spheres of social, cultural and political life. Key topics for debate included the Soviet linguistic legacy, the past and future of Russian, linguistic variation, language policy and linguistic ideologies. This book looks at how these debates featured in literature and illustrates the discussion through six interpretive readings of post-Soviet Russian prose. It analyses both the writers' explicit and implicit responses and in doing opens up new perspectives for sociolinguistic research on metalanguage. Spanning a number of theoretical fields including language variation, language policy and literary stylistics, Ingunn Lunde provides a coherent way of triangulating these fields by the introduction of the concept of performative metalanguage. The book also offers insight into the role of writers in the broader social and political context of language culture in contemporary Russia and into the various ways in which the linguistic and aesthetic practices of literary art can engage in questions related to the negotiation of linguistic norms.Key FeaturesHighlights the role of writers, and of fiction, in the language debates of post-Soviet Russia Looks at the subject from the point of view of literary language discussing six texts in detailFeatures work by Tatiana Tolstaia, Evgenii Vodolazkin, Evgenii Popov, Vladimir Sorokin, Valerii Votrin and Mikhail GigolashviliIntroduces a new concept of a 'performative metalanguage' – one that opens up new perspectives for sociolinguistic research on metalanguage Analysis of Key TextsEvgenii Popov: The True Story of 'The Green Musicians'Vladimir Sorokin: MonoklonTatiana Tolstaia: The SlynxEvgenii Vodolazkin: LaurusValerii Votrin: The Speech TherapistMikhail Gigolashvili: The Occupation of Muscovy: a national-linguistic novel