Medieval studies actually are isolated from important historical and theoretical consequences; generally, for literary studies. So it opens in its new form; an assessment of liabilities and advantages of literary investigations that claim their extra disciplinary and cross disciplinary characteristics. And also call for "renewed attention to the historical function of such claims". Another important point is that, middle age had been a "destiny" and ideology for Western Europe but it is now no more the real identity of destiny and any ideology.
The new structure of medieval studies is "primarily a function of its professed discontinuities with its historical role and intellectual heritages in modern language studies". Continuously, works of Chaucer were valued till the19th and even in the 20th century as a canon. The earlier established notions of the middle ages are regarded canonical at least because of two reasons. First, the works of the middle ages are valued as "the vocabulary and grammar of early states of the language (esp. English)". Second, these works are un-mediately represented as F.J. Furnivall called; "customs and beliefs of our ancestors."
Furthermore, now a medieval study has become professedly trans-disciplinary. Medieval studies has been less affected by the recent critical developments, for example "semiotics and deconstruction", similarly, "anthropological paradigms" rather it has been more affected by the problem of ontology (mode of being). Anyway, the canonical concept of medieval ages has been deported towards the sharply increasing interests of local details and diversity of voices.