Cyfryngau ein Llen [trans. Welsh Literature and Media]

许多威尔士部门现在教授文学，戏剧和电影模块，在许多学术机构，如斯旺西大学，重点是跨学科研究。我希望把迄今为止在威尔士语研究出版物中保持独立的学术兴趣结合起来，尽管中小学和大学课程的变化表明这样的研究早就应该进行了。这项研究的目的是将文化理论的各个方面应用于文学，广播和电影文本。文本的选择是普遍的，必须指出的是，这项研究不是一系列无关的散文，而是对口头和书面之间关系的探索，质疑什么构成了一个文本。在这方面，它遵循了Sioned Davies的“Crefft y Cyfarwydd”（1995年），该研究将口头文学领域的最新国际研究应用于Mabinogion的威尔士中世纪文本。同样，本研究将应用到威尔士批评方面的国际性能和后结构主义理论，挑战文本的专有权，它的意义。在过去的十年里，许多作家在英国和美国提出，我们现在写在一个时期的“后理论”。目前的研究也承认威尔士也存在类似的情绪。然而，从2006年出版的《Llenaidiaeth Mewn Theori》中的论文集和2007年出版的《Ysgrifau Beirniadol》中可以看出，在文本分析和文化理论之间产生了一种丰富而活跃的对话，这是一种新的兴趣。本研究旨在首先确定为什么20世纪上半叶的批评家如此重视文本。在威尔士权威版本的出现，研究将讨论其文化意义的文本性和民族主义之间的关系，借鉴后殖民理论领域的最新研究。在威尔士文学批评的学者，如Ifor威廉姆斯和托马斯帕里的书面文本提供的特权地位相反，这项研究将考虑其他方式的阅读的文本，包括表演理论和后结构主义。鉴于在过去四十年的批判理论的这种转变，这项研究将探讨口头和写作之间的关系，在四个“文本”，其中两个日期之前出现的印刷文本在威尔士，其中两个是广播和电影文本。这项研究将考察口语和写作之间的关系，涉及到6世纪世纪诗人埃辛，15世纪世纪诗人刘易斯格林科蒂，桑德斯刘易斯的广播剧，以及奥斯卡提名电影“赫德温”和“所罗门和盖诺”-所有这些都是过去六年来我的论文，文章，章节或讲座的主题。这项研究已被约翰罗兰兹接受，该系列的总编辑，'Y Meddwl a' r Dychymyg Cymreig '，威尔士大学出版社。它的目的是弥合文化理论家和文学学者之间的分歧，并提出一个合适的模式，以评估新的国际地位的文本，这不是文学，但有很多共同点与口头中世纪文学，因为他们之间的复杂关系，口头和书面。

Many Welsh departments now teach modules on both literature, drama and film, and in many academic institutions such as Swansea University the emphasis is on cross-disciplinary research. I hope to bring together academic interests which thus far have been kept separate in Welsh-medium research publications, although curricular changes at school and university level suggest that such a study is long overdue.The study aims to apply aspects of cultural theory to literary, radio and film texts. The choice of texts is catholic, and it must be noted that this study is not a series of unrelated essays, but an exploration into the relationship between orality and writing, questioning what constitutes a text. In this respect, it follows Sioned Davies' 'Crefft y Cyfarwydd' (1995), which applied the latest international research in the field of oral literature to the Welsh medieval texts of the Mabinogion. In a similar vein, this study will apply to Welsh criticism aspects of international performance and post-structuralist theories which challenge the exclusive right of the text to its meaning.In the past ten years, many writers in both England and America have suggested that we are now writing in a period of 'after theory'. The present study too acknowledges that a similar mood exists in Wales. However, as can be seen from the collection of essays presented in 'Llenyddiaeth Mewn Theori' (2006), and the rebirth of 'Ysgrifau Beirniadol' (2007), there is a new interest in producing a rich and invigorating dialogue between textual analysis and cultural theory.The study aims firstly to establish why critics in the first half of the twentieth century placed such emphasis on the text. In looking at the emergence of authoritative editions of canonical texts in Welsh, the study will discuss their cultural significance in terms of the relationship between textuality and nationalism, drawing upon recent research in the field of post-colonial theory. In contrast to the privileged position afforded to the written text in Welsh literary criticism by scholars such as Ifor Williams and Thomas Parry, the study will consider other ways of reading which have destabilised the text, including both performance theory and post-structuralism. In view of this shift in critical theory over the past fourty years, the study will explore the relationship between orality and writing in four 'texts', two of which pre date the emergence of printed texts in Welsh, two of which are radio and film texts. The study will examine the relationship between orality and writing in relation to the 6th century poet Taliesin, the 15th century poet Lewys Glyn Cothi, Saunders Lewis' radio plays, and the Oscar nominated films 'Hedd Wyn' and 'Solomon and Gaenor' - all of which have either been subjects of papers, articles, chapters or lectures of mine in the past six years.The study has been accepted by John Rowlands, general editor for the series, 'Y Meddwl a'r Dychymyg Cymreig', University of Wales Press. It aims to bridge the divide between cultural theorists and literary scholars, and suggest a suitable model for appraising new texts of international standing which are not literary, but which have much in common with oral mediaeval literature, in that they exemplify the complex relationship between orality and writing.