Özet:

In the theory of historical literature, which designs the testimony in the category of ‘full confidence’ and positions literature as ‘a witness to the past’, literary work is lost and becomes a historical subject. The formalist theory of literature, however, predicts that literary works are a linguistic existence rather than a historical existence, while it tries to preserve the literature of the work in the form of a "linguistic indicator's testimony" not by viewing history. Nevertheless, the limitation with the network of works-rhin language-internal relations makes them unhistoric by making them a "closed object". In the second half of the twentieth century, a new literary historical writing concept that defends the role of the reader in the production of meaning rather than the text or historical context is promoted. The liberal clarity that the reader has gained in the interpretation of the literary text and the second world war, especially after the catastrophe of the genocide, the word witness can also be linked to a certain semantic mutility. At this point, literary hermetic literary works try to overcome the problem of autonomy and history-discrimination, not as witnesses to the past and the linguistic indicator, but as "services to the language itself". The literary work suggests that literature changes the meaning of the historical context in which literature is produced. The literary works that have created such a historical impact begin to produce their own times. Thus, literary works do not testify to the past or linguistic indicator, but to the history and the bias of the language they produce themselves.

Özet:

In the historicist literary theory, which designs witnessing in the category of absolute trust and positions literature as a witness to the past, the liter-ary work loses its literariness to become a historical document. Formalist literary theory emphasizes that literary works are linguistic beings rather than historical ones. In this way, it tries to preserve the literariness of the work as a witness to the linguistic sign of the work, not by looking at history. However, the limitation of the works with the network of linguistic rela-tions renders them a closed object and makes them unhistorical. In the sec-ond half of the twentieth century, a new conception of literary history writing that advocates the role of the reader in the production of meaning ra-ther than text or historical context is proposed. The liberal openness of the reader has achieved in the interpretation of the literary text and the seman-tic ambiguity of the word witness after the genocide disaster may seem to be related. At this point literary hermeneutics does not see literary works as witnesses of the past and linguistic sign. The literariness of the literary work comes from changing the meaning of the historical context in which it was produced. Literary works that have created a historical effect begin to produce their own history and time. Thus, literary works do not witness to the past or linguistic sign, but to the history which their produce and language itself.

Anahtar Kelimeler: