A New Paradigm for Comparative Literature

Author(s): Pierre Swiggers

Source: Poetics Today, Vol. 3, No. 1, Types of the Novel Semiotics of Social Discourse (Winter,
1982), pp. 181-184
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772213
Accessed: 05/08/2009 02:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Poetics Today.

http://www.jstor.org
 A New Paradigmfor
Literature*
Comparative
PIERRE SWIGGERS
NFWO-Belgian National Science Foundation, Leuven

0. This article is concerned with the fundamental change taking place in

the methodology of comparative literature. In fact, it seems that the old
paradigm is now being replaced by a new model. The purpose of this arti-
cle is to outline the epistemological structure of both theories, and to point
out the radically divergent methodological scope and strategy of these
models. For the methodological comparison of these paradigms, I will use
Mario Bunge's description of the sense and reference of scientific models
(Bunge 1974: 32-82) which allows comparison (pace the views of Kuhn and
Feyerabend) of theories with different epistemological structures.
Bunge's view is that within a scientific theory one can distinguish a direct
(immediate) referent and an indirect (mediate) referent of the theory.
The direct or immediate referent of a theory is the model object defined
and used by the theory, whereas the mediate referent is what the theory is
about ("thereal thing"). The mediate referent, or the real thing is, in fact,
the immediate referent of the model object. Bunge gives the following
examples (p.36):

Specific theory Model object Real system

t m s
Contagiontheory Diffusionequation Epidemics
Eye dioptricstheory Systemof lenses Mammalianeye
It seems to me that Bunge's metatheory of science can be used to
describe the methodological differences between the older and the newer
theories of comparative literature. I will first offer a brief axiomatic char-
acterization of both theories, before comparing them with regard to their
immediate and mediate referents.

1. The old paradigm of comparative literature, which grew out of

nineteenth-century developments in natural science (Cuvier, Ritter) and
linguistics (Bopp, Schleicher, Delbriick), was almost methodologically un-
conscious. The practical case studies were scarcely reflected upon, and

*I am indebted to J. Lambert and L. d'Hulst (Department of Literature, Louvain

University)
and to H. Roelants (Department of Philosophy, Louvain University) for the fruitful
exchange of ideas on the topic discussed here. I also want to thank F. Dekoning for the
excellent typing.
Poetics Today, Vol. 3:1 (1982), 181-184.
182 PIERRE SWIGGERS

methodological strategies were borrowed from other sciences (history

having the leading role). This methodological uncertainty is clearly
reflected in the classical handbooks' and in the very unprecise definitions
of the notion "comparative literature." If we were to characterize the old
paradigm,2 we would describe it axiomatically as follows:
1. comparativeliterature is the study of literary contacts and relations
(betweentwo or more nationalliteratures)
2. these relationsare mostly (andpreferably)establishedbetweenauthors,or
works, or genres,and they are describedin terms of "influence," "source,"
"export(of themes, of ideas),""success"("lafortunelitt6raire").
3. emphasis is laid upon the descriptionof these relations, but without
attemptingto constructa typologyof these relationsand withoutconsider-
ing the causes and modalitiesof these relations.
2. The new paradigm of comparative literature owes much of its existence
and of its epistemological structure to the scientific research program3
sketched in D. Durisin's work (1968; 1972).4 Durisin has been the first to
offer a systematic typology of literary relations (or metatextual relations),
and his program has been sophisticated by, among others, Even-Zohar and
Popovic, mostly under the influence of developments in semiotics,
communication science and (socio-)linguistics.5
The new paradigm aims at providing covering-law explanations6 within
the field of comparative literature. Axiomatically the theory can be
described as follows:

1. comparativeliteratureis the study, by means of a hypothetical-deductive

model, of the hierarchizedrelationsbetween (translinguistic) metatexts.
2. these relationsare establishednot so much between authorsand works,
but ratherbetween systems and subsystems,governedby certainnorms
(cf. Toury 1978:85-8) and tendencies (aesthetic,political,social).
3. the purposeis not only to describethese relations,but alsoto explainthem
by means of a fully elaboratedtheory and a stratifiedterminological
apparatus.
3. If we apply Bunge's metatheory to both paradigms it seems that the
divergences (which reflect a fundamental change in the conception of
"comparative literature")can be articulated as follows.
1. Especiallythose of the Frenchschool of comparativeliterature,e.g., Guyard(1951)and
Pichois and Rousseau (1967).
2. For a somewhat more detailed descriptionof theories in comparativeliteratureand in
the sciences of literaturesee Swiggers(1981).
3. I take this term in the strict sense it has in Lakatos(1970).
4. Of course, this new trend had alreadybeen preparedby theoreticalinnovationsin lin-
guistic science in the Slaviccountries(RussianFormalism,PragueSchool).Since the latter
are sufficiently known, and have alreadybeen describedelsewhere, I will focus here on
buriSin'stheory, which is specificallyconcernedwith comparativeliterature.
5. For a few interestingexemplificationsof the new paradigm,see Holmes, Lambert,van
den Broeck (eds. 1978) and Even-Zohar(1978a).One should also include here Popovic's
work on the notion of "metatext" (Popovic1976b)and his short dictionary(Popovic1976a).
6. I have used the term in the same sense as it is used by Hempel in his classical expose
(Hempel 1963).
 A New Paradigm for Comparative Literature 183

The privileged research type of the old paradigm is the study of the
influence or the success of an author or literary work. The model object is
mostly a token of the type "literaryexport/import."The indirect referent of
the theory (and the direct referent of the model object) is the quantum of
influences and contacts between authors and works. The important thing
to notice is that these influences and contacts are studied for themselves
and are not related to deeper explanatory causes.
The model object of the new paradigm is a certain quantity of metatexts
which function within the literary (poly)systems (cf. Even-Zohar 1978b).
The indirect referent of the theory (and the direct referent of the model
object) is constituted by the systematic transformations the metatext
undergoes under the influence of the norms imposed by the literary sys-
tem and tradition.7 The aim of the new paradigm is to provide an explana-
tion of the way metatexts behave within one or more literary systems.
The epistemological structure of both theories can be visualized in the
following table:

Specific theory Model object Real system

t m s
1. Old paradigm:
Atomistictheory Literaryexport/ Contactsbetween
of comparative , import authors,works
literature
2. New paradigm:
Structuraltheory Metatextual i Transformations
of comparative relations of texts within
literature i literarysystems
I J

REFERENCES

Bunge, Mario, 1974. Treatise on Basic Philosophy. Semantics I: Sense and Reference, Vol.
I (Dordrecht: Reidel).
DuriSin, Dionyz, 1968. "Die wichtigsten Typen literarischen Beziehungen und Zusam-
menhange," in: G. Ziegengeist ed. Aktuelle Probleme der vergleichenden Literaturfor-
schung (Berlin: Akademie Verlag), 47-58.
1972 VergleichendeLiteraturforschung(Berlin: Akademie Verlag).
Etkind, Efim, 1978. "Latraduction et les courants litt6raires," in: Holmes, Lambert and van
den Broeck eds. 1978, 128-141.
Even-Zohar, Itamar, 1978a. Papers in Historical Poetics (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University).
1978b. "The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem," in:
Holmes, Lambert, and van den Broeck, eds. 1978, 117-127.
Guyard, Marius-Franqois, 1951. La litterature comparee (Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France).
Hempel, Carl G., 1963. "Reasons and Covering Laws in Historical Explanation," in: S. Hook,
ed. Philosophy and History (New York: New York UP) 143-163.
Holmes, James S., Jose Lambert and Raymond van den Broeck, eds. 1978. Literature and
Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies (Leuven: Acco).

7. On the role of tradition in (the exchange between) literary systems, see Etkind
(1978).
184 PIERRE SWIGGERS

Lakatos, Imre, 1970. "Falsificationand the Methodology of Scientific Research Pro-

grammes,"in: I. Lakatosand A. Musgrave,eds. Criticismand the Growthof Knowledge
(Cambridge:CambridgeUP), 91-195.
Pichois, Claude & A.M. Rousseau, 1967. La litt6raturecompar6e(Paris:A. Colin).
Popovit, Anton, 1976a. "Aspects of Metatexts," Canadian Review of Comparative Literature
3:3, 225-235.
1976b. Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translations (Edmonton: University of
Alberta).
Swiggers, Pierre, 1981."Methodologischevernieuwing in de literatuurwetenschap,"
Com-
municatie & Cognitie (in press).
in: Holmes,
Toury,Gideon, 1978."TheNatureand Role of Norms in LiteraryTranslation,"
Lambertand van den Broeckeds., 1978, 83-100.