|
|
|
| Logical Changes of the Knowledge Form of Western Literary Text Theory: Classical, Modern and Post-modern Text Theories |
| Fu Changling |
| School of Literature, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Since the beginning of the 21st Century, some of the frontier issues in the domestic literary theory, such as the prediction of the end of literature, the aestheticization of daily life, the boundary of literature and cultural studies, the essentialism and constructionism of literary theory, and the compulsory interpretation theory, etc. have been closely related to the logical changes of Western literary text theories to some extent. The emergence of disputes is due to the lack of a scientific consciousness of reflection on the knowledge form and internal logic of the development of Western literary text theories. There is an urgent need of adopting a perspective of epistemological reflection to investigate and study the knowledge form, paradigm transformation and meaning of literary text of Western literary text theories.Influenced by philosophical aesthetics, linguistics and interdisciplinary theoretical knowledge, Western literary text theories show three types of knowledge: classical text theory, modern text theory and post-modern text theory. The knowledge of classical text theory was produced mainly through the parasitic ideas of philosophy or aesthetics. In ancient Greece and Rome, “form”, as a philosophical aesthetic category, had already come into being, mainly including Pythagoras’s mathematical form, Plato’s absolutist form and Aristotle’s matter and form. Among them, Aristotle put forward the organic unified view of literary text on this basis, which became the origin of formal literary theory. In the 18th Century, on the basis of “transcendental form”, Kant put forward the views of “purposeless purpose” and “aestheticism without interest”, which initiated the formal aesthetic view with aesthetic and artistic self-discipline as the mainstream, and influenced the formal theory of literary texts. This is particularly evident in romantic literary theories. They attach great importance to texts, but because they are not derived from the pure pursuit of form within literature and are often produced by relying on philosophical or aesthetic ideas, they can only be called the classical text theory.The production of the knowledge of modern text theory is also determined by the parasitism of literary theory, which can only realize its own theoretical knowledge production by relying on the theoretical achievements of related disciplines. At the beginning of the 20th Century, a “linguistic turn” occurred in Western philosophy, which shifted from the modern focus on the relationship between subject and object to the study of the communication between subjects and the meaning of human life. As far as literary theory is concerned, the linguistic turn directly led to the emergence of the modern text theory.The production of the knowledge of post-modern text theory mainly focuses on the interdisciplinary dimension, which has emerged since the 1960s with the rise of post-structuralism and deconstructionism. It emphasizes a breakthrough of the boundaries of disciplines, i.e. to study literature as a kind of discourse or culture, no longer being confined to the knowledge of a single discipline. Intertextuality and pan-text are its important contents. Intertextuality emphasizes that any text is the result of the integration of several texts, which highlights its own value by re-reading, adapting and integrating other texts. Pan-text holds the view that all social history exists in the form of text, so the underlying cultural and political factors such as race, gender and identity can be analyzed from the perspective of language structure. The meaning of literary text depends on the dialogue and communication between the author, the text and the reader, and the textual poetics, which gives full play to the thought of dialogue, shows a good viewpoint on meaning of literary text.To sum up, by adopting a perspective of epistemological reflection, this paper elevates the Western literary text theories to the level of epistemology of the humanities, and carefully examines the key issues presented in different stages, such as the forms of knowledge production, the transformation of paradigms and the search for meaning. Therefore, it has great significance in clarifying the underlying causes of the domestic disputes and avoiding the verbal arguments beyond theoretical analysis. What’s more, it is a kind of important guidance for searching and sorting out the textual thoughts of Chinese classical and modern literary theories, as well as realizing the breakthrough and reconstruction of contemporary textual theories under current interference of hypertext.
|
|
Received: 02 March 2021
|
|
|
|
1 余虹： 《文学理论的学理性与寄生性》，《文学评论》2007年第4期，第201-203页。
2 加拿大］诺思罗普·弗莱： 《批评的解剖》，陈慧、袁宪军、吴伟仁译，吴持哲校译，天津：百花文艺出版社，2006年。
3 邢建昌： 《文学理论知识生产的动力学根据》，《中国语言文学研究》2018年第2期，第204-213页。
4 美］雷纳·韦勒克： 《近代文学批评史》（第2卷），杨岂深、杨自伍译，上海：上海译文出版社，1987年。
5 美］勒内·韦勒克、奥斯汀·沃伦： 《文学理论》，刘象愚等译，南京：江苏教育出版社，2005年。
6 李朝东： 《语言论转向与哲学解释学》，《西北师大学报（社会科学版）》1996年第2期，第13-17页。
7 张冰： 《陌生化诗学：俄国形式主义研究》，北京：北京师范大学出版社，2000年。
8 英］特里·伊格尔顿： 《现象学，阐释学，接受理论——当代西方文艺理论》，王逢振译，南京：江苏教育出版社，2006年。
9 童明： 《互文性》，《外国文学》2015年第3期，第86-102页。
10 法］罗兰·巴特： 《从作品到文本》，杨庭曦译，《外国美学》2012年第1期，第347-353页。
11 张京媛主编： 《新历史主义与文学批评》，北京：北京大学出版社，1993年。
12 美］杰姆逊： 《后现代主义与文化理论》，唐小兵译，北京：北京大学出版社，1997年。
13 张昊臣： 《多模态》，《外国文学》2020年第3期，第110-122页。
14 周宪： 《论作品与（超）文本》，《外国文学评论》2008年第4期，第12-24页。
15 胡友峰： 《论电子媒介时代文论话语转型》，《文学评论》2018年第1期，第46-55页。
16 德］沃尔夫冈·伊瑟尔： 《怎样做理论》，朱刚等译，南京：南京大学出版社，2008年。
17 de Man P.， The Resistance to Theory， Minneapolis： University of Minnesota Press， 1986.
18 法］朱莉娅·克里斯蒂娃： 《语言，这个未知的世界》，马新民译，上海：复旦大学出版社，2015年。
19 汪正龙： 《语言转向与文学研究》，《湖北大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2019年第4期，第31-35页。
20 英］拉曼·塞尔登、彼得·威德森、彼德·布鲁克： 《当代文学理论导读》，刘象愚译，北京：北京大学出版社，2006年。
21 陈后亮： 《理论会终结吗？——近30年来理论危机话语回顾与展望》，《文学评论》2019年第5期，第80-89页。
22 Cunningham V.， Reading after Theory， Oxford： Blackwell Publishers Press， 2002.
23 Culler J.， The Literary in Theory， Stanford： Stanford University Press， 2007.
24 Krieger M.， The Institution of Theory， Baltimore： Johns Hopkins University Press， 1994.
25 美］莫瑞·克里格： 《批评旅途：六十年代之后》，李自修等译，北京：中国社会科学出版社，1998年。
26 马大康、王正中： 《“理论”“后理论”的症结及其疗救——对西方理论话语的批判》，《社会科学》2019年第9期，第173-183页。
27 汪正龙： 《论20世纪文学意义观念的转变》，《学术研究》2001年第12期，第140-144页。
28 美］乔纳森·卡勒： 《结构主义诗学》，盛宁译，北京：中国社会科学出版社，1991年。
29 法］保罗·利科： 《历史与真理》，姜志辉译，上海：上海译文出版社，2004年。
30 张江： 《强制阐释论》，《文学评论》2014年第6期，第5-18页。
31 苏联］米哈伊尔·巴赫金： 《诗学与访谈》，白春仁等译，石家庄：河北教育出版社，1998年。
32 苏联］米哈伊尔·巴赫金： 《巴赫金全集》（第2卷），李辉凡等译，石家庄：河北教育出版社，1998年。
33 胡友峰： 《“本文诗学”论》，《文艺理论研究》2008年第6期，第120-126页。 |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 51 
