Article

In six languages ABOUT THE BOOK PRAGUE SCHOOL OF CORRESPONDENCE

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

This article refers to recent literature on the history of the Prague Linguistic Circle, primarily focusing on an extensive edition of correspondence The Prague School in Correspondence: Letters 1924-1989, edited by Vladimir Petkevic and Marie Havrankova. The author compares the state of knowledge of the history of the Prague Linguistic Circle and the Moscow Linguistic Circle, concluding that the Russian material has previously only been partially published and annotated, and that the most recent publications on the history of the Prague Linguistic Circle will serve as a model to compete against and imitate.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
This article presents, in a programmatic way, the histoire croisée approach, its methodological implications and its empirical developments. Histoire croisée draws on the debates about comparative history, transfer studies, and connected or shared history that have been carried out in the social sciences in recent years. It invites us to reconsider the interactions between different societies or cultures, erudite disciplines or traditions (more generally, between social and cultural productions). Histoire croisée focuses on empirical intercrossings consubstantial with the object of study, as well as on the operations by which researchers themselves cross scales, categories, and viewpoints. The article first shows how this approach differs from purely comparative or transfer studies. It then develops the principles of pragmatic and reflexive induction as a major methodological principle of histoire croisée. While underlining the need and the methods of a historicization of both the objects and categories of analysis, it calls for a reconsideration of the way history can combine empirical and reflexive concerns into a dynamic and flexible approach.