乔纳森·卡勒的文学理论范式研究

【作者】 徐志强；

【导师】 姚文放；

【作者基本信息】 扬州大学 ， 文艺学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 乔纳森·卡勒是美国当代具有国际影响力的文学理论家。本文以卡勒不同时期的文学理论范式为研究对象,阐述了卡勒结构主义时期的诗学研究、解构视野中的理论研究与理论之后的“文学”回归等理论研究框架。并探讨了卡勒的文学理论范式对中国学界的影响与启示。论文包括绪论、正文与结语几部分：绪论部分主要介绍了卡勒生平、国内外研究现状以及本选题的研究思路与基本结构。第一章：文学与结构主义：诗学研究。卡勒的结构主义诗学是欧陆结构主义与美国本土新批评积极融合的结果。从理论来源看,卡勒借鉴了索绪尔的结构语言学、以列维一斯特劳斯、巴尔特等为代表的法国结构主义以及美国本土的语言学资源,并创造性地将欧陆理论与美国理论加以融合；从学术动机上看,卡勒为反拨英美新批评派狭隘单一的文本分析弊端,在对结构语言学与欧陆结构主义进行系统深入剖析的基础上建立了他的富有创见的结构主义诗学；从理论建构来看,卡勒的诗学来源于不同于美国本土的新批评与欧陆的结构主义,他认为应该以发现文本意义产生的机制为目的,同时以读者的“文学能力”与“文学惯例”等概念来阐发文本意义生成的功能与过程。卡勒的结构主义诗学首先将文学的内部研究作出科学界定,同时将结构主义方法运用于文学研究实践,形成了贯穿他不同时期文论思想的一条时隐时现的研究线索。第二章：文学与解构：理论研究。卡勒在参与解构思想在美国的论争与传播过程中,并没有否定之前的结构主义诗学研究,而认定其是对诗学的延续与补充。关于德里达解构思想在美国的兴起和散播的过程,卡勒的解构论争首先从女性主义阅读活动切入,并论述了解构主义在美国的归化与变异。在卡勒看来,解构是后现代跨学科性的内在动因,因此,此一阶段的文学研究就是在以解构为核心的理论中来关照文学问题,可以概括为解构的理论范式。随后本章将重新审视卡勒眼中理论的实践——文化研究中的结构主义和解构主义倾向问题。解构的理论范式研究是上一章诗学研究的延续和发展,一方面彻底革新了文学理论的语言学模式,另一方面却偏离了文学本体,潜伏着危机。第三章：理论中的文学：回归“文学”。针对理论终结的危机,卡勒接受了大卫·辛普森的观点,提出了理论中的“文学”,即理论形态的文学。具体体现为他对民族想象中的“文学”、诗性正义中的“文学”和述行语理论中的“文学”的认识。卡勒所提出的“文学”实际上是后理论的文学范式,即文学成为理论生成和理论革新的范式。后理论的文学范式代表了20世纪90年代以来文学理论界对文学和理论的关系的反思和调整,为文学研究的未来走向提供了新的路径。第四章：“文学性”论争中对卡勒的误读及启示。由卡勒观点引发的中国语境下文学理论的探讨,最突出体现在“文学性”问题的论争。但由于一些原因,“文学性”论争在对卡勒原初问题域界定、理论话语的传播和指向上存在着误读。在对“文学性”论争相关背景和原因的梳理后,我们认为“文学性”论争的发起和引用资源主要来源于卡勒,但争论的“文学性”却不是卡勒原初语境中的“文学”(the literary)——即上一章中理论形态的文学,而类似于米勒观念上的“文学性”(literarity)。结语：在西方当代文论发展史上对卡勒各个时期的文学理论范式的特点、影响及局限作出总结、评价与反思,并结合卡勒近期言论对其眼中的西方文论发展趋势进行展望。更多还原

【Abstract】 Jonathan Culler is an American literary theorist who has international impact. The dissertation regards his paradigms of literary theory as the object of study to elucidate Culler’s theoretical frame, namely, structuralist poetics, his elaboration on deconstructivism and theory, and the literary return, through a combination with the shifts of literary study from literary theory to theory, and then to post-theory. And it explores these paradigms’influence and significance for literary study in China.The dissertation includes the introduction, the main body, and the conclusion:The Introduction concentrates on Culler’s life, his academic process and the study on Culler at home and abroad, and the research ideas and the basic structure of this dissertation.Chapter One:Literature and Structuralism-Poetics Study. Culler’s structuralist poetics turns out to a positive combination between French Structrualism influenced by the analysis mode of structuralist linguistics and American New Criticism. As the theoretical origins are concerned, Culler learns form Saussure’s structuralist lingustics, French Structuralism represented by Levi-Strauss, Roland Barthe and American native linguistic resources to introduce European theories to America with his creativity. In view of his academic motivation, Culler initiates the structuralist poetics based on his systematic and further exploration on structuralist linguistics and French Structuralism with an aim to rectify a deviation from the limitation on singular text analysis of New Critics. In the respect of theoretical creativity, different from American native interpretation and European structuralism, Culler’s structuralist poetics aims to seek the mechanism of the production of meaning, and reveals the function and process of the production of meaning with readers’ literary capability and convention system. The notion of structuralist poetics suggests a clue during his theoretical study process.Chapter Two:Literature and Deconstruction-Theoretical Study. Culler did not deny the previous sturcturalist poetics while participating in the debates and spreading process of deconstructionism. On the Contrary, he thinks deconstructionism is the continuance and supplement of poetics. Culler’s discuss begins from the feminist reading, and presents the assimilation and deviation of deconstructionism in the United States. For Culler, deconstruction is the internal cause of postmodern interdisciplinarity, so he chooses to explore literary study in theory based on deconstruction. This period’s paradigm can be called deconstructionist theoretical paradigm. Then the problem on tendencies towards structuralism and deconstructionism in culture study which in Culler’s words is the practice of theory will be discussed. Deconstructionist theoretical paradigm is the continuance and development of Chapter One, on one hand innovating the linguistic mode of literary theory, and on the other hand, deviating the subject of literature which suggests a crisis in literary study.Chapter Three:The Literary in Theory-The Return to the Literary. Culler accepts David Simpson’s view and proposes "the literary in theory", namely theorizing literature, represented by his exploration on the literary in national imagine, the literary in poetic justice, and the literary in performative studies. His "the literary" is actually post-theoretical literary paradigm in which literature proves to be the paradigm for the production and shift of theory. Post-theoretical literary paradigm represents the rethinking and rectification on the relation between literature and theory by scholars in the circle of literary study in the1990s, providing a new approach for the future of literary study.Chapter Four:Misfires in the "Literariness" Debate and its Enlightment for the Study on Culler. The literariness debate in China was inspired by Culler’s views but came out misfires on his original topic, reception of his theoretical discourses and his orientation for lots of reasons. The dissertation tries to explain the "literariness" in the literariness debate is not Culler’s "the literary"(the theorizing literature in Chapter Three), but analogue to Miller’s "literarity", though this debate originated from Culler’s works.The Conclusion. The characteristics, influences and limitation of Culler’s paradigms of literary theory are introspected, and the future tendencies of western literary theory are explored based on Culler’s recent expressions.更多还原