To write about "Vladimír Skalička and Linguistic Anthropology" might seem somewhat surprising if we take into consideration the generaly prevailing immanentist attitudes of the great Czech linguist (1909-1991; see also „Skaličkiana“, in Skalička 2004: 16). These attitudes may have been most strikingly documented, with even international repercusions, in the area of language typology. And yet: let us stress that at least since the time of the study Problém jazykové různosti (The Problems of Language Variety, 1947/48), there have appeared themes in Skalička‘s work that could be qualified as expressions of an interest in what is today called „linguistic anthropology“; this scope can be divided into three groups: (1) The „Eurasian“ group (or „Sprachbund“), which can be found in in Skalička‘s early bibliography but which returns later - albeit on a purely general level - in his considerations of language affinities. (2) The group of „primitive language", once a popular object of both linguistics and ethnology (the best example is the Australian aranta). Let us add that this group is not free of certain paradoxes: on one hand, Skalička admits an organic, distinctive role of gestures, but on the other hand he rejects the existence of a primitive language. (3) The group of „language and society", in which it is interesting not only to observe Skalička‘s explicit „ethnolinguistic" scepticism or circumspection, but also - precisely in this context - echoes of both Marrism and Marxism, which exteriorize the somewhat simplistic evolutionist and social perspective that can be hardly made compatible with the perspective of modem empirie ethnology. The explicitness of these echoes in Skalička‘s attitudes toward the above mention relation, gradually fades away.
Vladimír Vand - astronom, vynálezce, vědec, badatel, a především člověk moudrý a navýsost osvícený - jeden z těch, jež se vtisknou do paměti a "zadřou se doslova až pod kůži", jak říká jeho prasynovec, matematik prof. Michal Křížek. Je dobře, že jejich geny putují dalšími generacemi s touhou dohlédnout dál, dozvědět se více, bádat a tvořit... a mít na to dostatek času. Vladimír Vand jej bohužel neměl, zemřel v pouhých 57 letech., Jana Žďárská., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
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.