The authors present their respective views on the development of the Czech post-war syntactic studies. Their approach is influenced by the fact that they were educated by the different syntactic schools: thus the paper is a combination of Prague’s and Brno´s views. V. Šmilauer´s Novočeská skladba (Syntax of Modern Czech, 1947) is understood as a source of the contemporary research of the Czech syntax. The paper describes the results reached by individual investigators as well as the results of the research teams. According to the authors´ opinion, Two-Level Valency Syntax (represented by F. Daneš and his close collaborators and reflected in the Czech Academic Grammar) and Functional Generative Grammar (developed by P. Sgall and his colleagues) form the main paradigms of the Czech syntax since 1960. Both theories incorporate the results of the classical Praguian functional approach as well as results of the generative paradigm. The authors conclude that the Prague‘s and Brno´s views on the development of Czech syntactic studies are not incompatible but rather complementary and that the methods of formal and corpus linguistics are attractive and useful for the young researchers.
Th e approach of structuralism came to philosophy from social science. It was also in social science where, in 1950–1970s, in the form of the French structuralism, the approach gained its widest recognition. Since then, however, the approach fell out of favour in social science. Recently, structuralism is gaining currency in the philosophy of mathematics. Aft er ascertai ning that the two structuralisms indeed share a common core, the question stands whether general structuralism could not fi nd its way back into social science. Th e nature of the major objections raised against French structuralism – concerning its alleged ahistoricism, methodological holism and universalism – are reconsidered. While admittedly grounded as far as French structuralism is concerned, these objections do not aff ect general structuralism as such. Th e fate of French structuralism thus does not seem to preclude the return of general structuralism into social science, rather, it provides some hints where the diffi culties may lie. and Strukturalismus přišel do fi losofi e ze společenských věd. Byly to také společenské vědy kde, v letech 1950–1970 v podobě Francouzského strukturalismu, získal strukturalismus nejširší uznání. Od té doby však jeho popularita ve společenských vědách opadla. V nedávné době však začal strukturalismus nabývat na popularitě ve fi losofi i matematiky. Ukazuje se, že tyto dvě formy strukturalismu mají na obecné úrovni mnoho společného. Otázkou pak je, zda neexistuje možnost, aby se obecně chápaný strukturalismus navrátil do společenských věd. Hlavní námitky proti Francouzskému strukturalismu – jeho ahistorismus, metodologický holismus a universalismus – jsou opětovně uváženy. Ačkoliv jsou námitky relevantní, pokud jde o Francouzský strukturalismus, nejedná se o námitky proti obecnému strukturalismu jako takovému. Osud Francouzského strukturalismu se tak nezdá být překážkou pro případný návrat obecného strukturalismu do společenských věd, spíše poskytuje postřehy, kde by se mohly vyskytnout největší obtíže.
This study describes the origin and development of the friendship between the literary scholar Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975) and the writer Vladislav Vančura (1891–1942). Mukařovský’s interpretations of Vančura’s literary works are the main focus of the study. Both Mukařovský’s published works and texts that were never published (e.g. university lectures) are analysed. On the basis of archival research, the author of the study proves that Mukařovský analysed Vančura’s work much earlier than he published his first-ever work on Vančura in 1934. In the course of the 1940s to 1960s, Mukařovský published many texts on Vančura in which he remembered Vančura as a friend, poet, Communist and anti-fascist activist.
The work of Vladislav Vančura has attracted the attention of literary theorists from the very beginning. Among other attempts to get a theoretical grip, those offered by Jan Mukařovský and Lubomír Doležel provide us with two different but methodologically connected approaches to the author’s work. These represent two phases of Czech structuralist thought about literature. This study critically compares both approaches and highlights their similarities and dissimilarities.