The term “Hungarian literature in Slovakia” has been present as a problematic concept in literaryhistoriography since the emergence of minority Hungarian literatures defined by geopolitics. Following established practice, the phrase “Hungarian
In a world of globalization it is the task of literary historians to reassess their national legacy from the new perspective. The past can never be taken for granted and never be forgotten; it is the result of interpretation. Poetic traditions are inseparable from linguistic structures, language as collective memory, and so they cannot be easily transferred into another culture. If historiography cannot do without teleology, we have to think in terms of different teleologies. It is undeniably difficult to fulfill contradictory demands, but a literary historian cannot stop making arguments and counterarguments.
This thesis aims at offering solutions for the present structuralist and hermeneutic anomalies of literary science. Relying
on the epistemology of empirical literary science, radical constructivism and the constructivist theory of language, it asserts
the view that meaning is not to be considered as part of the text. Its primary goal is to eliminate the anomalies of meaning,
evaluation and historicity from the discourse of literary science. It introduces the theory of autopoietic systems and presents
the non-conservative approach to literary science. Finally, it outlines the meta-and object theories of non-conservative literary
historiography, and thoroughly argues for a perception of the past as an intellectual construction made by communities of
Since world literature is represented in different languages, translation has played an important role in reconstructing such
world literatures in different languages and cultural backgrounds. In the past decades, the postcolonial literary attempts
have also proved that even in the same language, for instance, English, literary writing is still more and more diversifying,
hence the birth of international English literature studies. Thus the concept “world literature” is no longer determinate,
for it has evolved in the historical development of literature of all countries. Today’s literary historiography is thereby
pluralistically oriented: not only by means of nation-state, for instance, British literature and American literature, but
also by means of language, such as (international) English literature(s), and (international) Chinese literature(s). Walter
Benjamin, in dealing with the task of the (literary) translator, pertinently points out that translation endows a literary
work with “continued life” or “afterlife”, without which many literary works of world significance will remain dead or marginalized.
Inspired by Benjamin’s thinking of translation and Damrosch’s emphasis on the role played by translation in constructing world
literature, the author lays particular emphasis on the translation of literary works which may well help form such a world
literature. The reason why Chinese literature is little known to the world is largely for lack of excellent translation. The
author thereby calls for translating Chinese literature into some of the major world languages.