Diachronic Metalepsis Network

在过去的二十年里，元诗(叙事层面的越界)在文学研究的不同学科中经历了批判性的繁荣。这个话题之所以如此吸引人，除了人们对叙事学方法越来越感兴趣之外，还有一个事实，那就是元怀疑现象允许讨论叙事的关键概念。“叙述”的确切含义是什么？叙述者是如何行动的？叙事发生在哪些层面上？这些层面是如何联系在一起的？《故事世界》与现实有何关联？通过超越真实或想象的界限，元意象揭示了叙事文本的一个中心目标：在被叙事世界和叙事世界之间架起一座桥梁。通过这种方式，元记忆作为一种内在的(至少是隐含的)元认知手段出现了。有影响的研究对比了现代文学中以错觉干扰为主的元记忆和古代和中世纪文学中以幻觉兼容为主的元记忆。从形式上看似乎具有可比性的现象在不同的文本和时期显然具有不同的功能。因此，许多学者表示需要一种历时和/或跨学科的方法，特别是对于元事件的研究。另一方面，人们开始发现，这个概念的广泛性、表征该现象的流动性以及每种用法所需的详细工作，使得写一部有意义的、全面的“变质史”变得不可能。为了应对这一双重挑战，我们想推出历时超感网络，来自不同学科的文学学者将在其中进行合作。该网络将就结构上可比较的现象对从希腊古代到当代文学的文本进行比较，以回答以下问题：具体的元怀疑现象在不同的历史背景下是否以及如何具有不同的形式和功能，以及在多大程度上可以追踪连续性和发展。我们将着眼于不同时期文本中出现的明确定义的元怀疑现象，以示范性的方式讨论来自不同历史和文学语境的有教育意义的段落，以求确定文本所依据的叙事概念(包括个别作品的具体情况)。这些比较的首要目标是洞察普遍叙事概念和原则的历时发展和历史文化相对性。通过这种方式，比较涉及历时叙事学和历史叙事学的中心主题。

Over the past two decades, metalepses (transgressions of narrative levels) have experienced a critical boom in different disciplines of literary studies. What makes this topic so attractive, apart from an increasing interest in narratological approaches in general, is the fact that metaleptical phenomena allow to discuss key concepts of narrating. What exactly does ‘narrating’ mean and how does a narrator act? On which levels does narrating take place and how are these levels connected? How does the storyworld relate to reality? By transgressing real or imagined boundaries, metalepses shed light on a central objective of narrative texts: to bridge the border between the narrated and the narrating world. In this way, metalepses emerge as inherently (at least implicitly) metanarrative devices.Influential studies have drawn a contrast between predominantly illusion-disturbing metalepses in modern literatures and predominantly illusion-compatible metalepses in ancient and medieval literatures. Phenomena that appear comparable from a formal point of view can evidently have different functions in different texts and periods. Many scholars have therefore expressed the need of a diachronic and/or interdisciplinary approach especially for the study of metalepses. On the other hand, it begins to emerge that the breadth of the concept, the fluidity characterizing the phenomenon, and the detailed work required by each usage make it hardly possible to write a meaningful and comprehensive ‘history of metalepsis’. In response to this double challenge, we want to launch the Diachronic Metalepsis Network, in which literary scholars from different disciplines will cooperate. The network will compare texts from Greek antiquity through to contemporary literature with regard to structurally comparable phenomena in order to answer the question as to whether and how specific metaleptical phenomena take different forms and functions in different historical contexts and to what extent one can trace continuities and developments. Focussing on clearly defined metaleptical phenomena that are found in texts of different periods, we will discuss instructive passages from different historical and literary contexts in an exemplary way in order to carve out the narrative concepts the texts are premised on (including specific conditions of individual works). The overarching goal of these comparisons is to gain insights into the diachronic development and historico-cultural relativity of universal narrative concepts and principles. In this way, the comparisons address central topics of both diachronic and historical narratology.