Cyfryngau ein Llen [trans. Welsh Literature and Media]

威尔士的许多院系现在都教授文学、戏剧和电影的模块，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媒体的研究出版物中被分开的学术兴趣结合起来，尽管学校和大学水平的课程变化表明这样的研究早就应该进行了。本研究旨在将文化理论的各个方面应用于文学、广播和电影文本。文本的选择是广泛的，必须指出的是，这项研究不是一系列不相关的文章，而是对口头和写作之间关系的探索，质疑什么构成了文本。在这方面，它遵循了sionondavies的“Crefft y Cyfarwydd”（1995），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，本研究将适用于国际表演和后结构主义理论的威尔士批评方面，这些理论挑战了文本对其意义的专有权。在过去的十年里，英国和美国的许多作家都提出，我们现在正处于一个“后理论”时期。目前的研究也承认威尔士也存在类似的情绪。然而，从《Llenyddiaeth Mewn Theori》（2006）的论文集和《Ysgrifau Beirniadol》（2007）的重生中可以看出，在文本分析和文化理论之间产生丰富而充满活力的对话是一种新的兴趣。本研究首先旨在确定为什么评论家在20世纪上半叶如此重视文本。在看权威版本的规范文本在威尔士的出现，该研究将讨论他们的文化意义在文本和民族主义之间的关系方面，借鉴最近的研究后殖民理论领域。与Ifor Williams和Thomas Parry等学者在威尔士文学批评中给予书面文本的特权地位相反，该研究将考虑其他破坏文本稳定的阅读方式，包括表演理论和后结构主义。鉴于过去四十年来批判理论的这种转变，本研究将探讨四个“文本”中口头和写作之间的关系，其中两个在威尔士印刷文本出现之前，其中两个是广播和电影文本。这项研究将从6世纪诗人塔里埃森、15世纪诗人路易·格林·科西、桑德斯·刘易斯的广播剧、奥斯卡提名电影《赫德·温》和《所罗门与盖诺》等方面考察口语和写作之间的关系。在过去的六年里，所有这些都是我论文、文章、章节或讲座的主题。这项研究已被威尔士大学出版社出版的《Y Meddwl和Dychymyg Cymreig》系列丛书的总编辑约翰·罗兰兹接受。它旨在弥合文化理论家和文学学者之间的鸿沟，并提出一个合适的模型来评估具有国际地位的新文本，这些文本不是文学，但与口头中世纪文学有很多共同点，因为它们例证了口头和写作之间的复杂关系。

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.