【作者】 温华；

【导师】 陈建华；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 比较文学与世界文学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 本文是对1978年以来中国外国文学研究学术历程的整体性回顾和反思。所谓“整体性",有两重指向：其一,本文考察的对象不是各国别、各语种的研究历史,而是作为整体的“外国文学”的学术历程。其二,本文的目标不是面面俱到地梳理这一时期的学术得失,而是力求清晰呈现这一时期外国文学研究的问题意识和话语模式的变与不变。本文聚焦于中国外国文学研究百年历史当中的一个时段,即1978—-2010年之间,在中国历史文化语境变迁的背景下,以五家权威的综合性专业学术期刊——《外国文学研究》、《外国文学评论》、《外国文学》、《国外文学》、《当代外国文学》为主要考察范围,通过梳理这一时段内理论研究、作家作品研究模式及期刊话语热点的变化,勾勒外国文学研究学术话语转型的过程,揭示转型过程的复杂、多样与矛盾,探讨不同阶段外国文学秩序的建构过程,以及话语转型的学术史意义。本文认为,外国文学研究属于话语建构和话语实践活动,对于外国文学研究的学术反思应当充分借鉴话语分析的视角和知识考古的方法。因此,本文虽然在学术史的框架内展开论述,以史的梳理为要旨,必要时也会深入讨论,将某些话语热点还原至更大的历史、文化语境当中,结合这些话语在历史语境中的生成、运作过程,考察本学科相关话语实践的独特性,进而思考外国文学研究对于中国文化主体的建构作用。论文主体为四章。第一章简要勾勒“前史”,描述了“五四”时代到1978年之前外国文学研究话语模式的变化过程。论文认为,从晚清到民国,不同知识群体通过各有侧重的外国文学译介共同建构了众声喧哗,多元共生的外国文学话语,为转型期中国文化的重建提供了参考；50—70年代,在一元独尊的阶级斗争话语系统中,学界确立了具有鲜明意识形态特色的外国文学新秩序。第二章梳理1980年代外国文学话语重建和转换的过程,以1985年为界,将1980年代分为前后两段。论文指出,经过前期的论争与磨合,人道主义话语和现代派话语代替“十七年”话语传统,成为外国文学研究的主流话语,1980年代后期基本形成了重视19、20世纪西方文学、重视西方当代理论话语的外国文学新秩序。与此同时,阶级分析话语模式虽已淡出,外国文学研究的主要模式依然是社会历史批评,形式审美研究呼声渐高,但并未形成规模。第三章回顾1990年代以来西方话语强势凸显的过程,以及学界对西方话语所表达的质疑。通过对比1990年代与1980年代在理论引介、作家作品研究视野上的异同,呈现西方当代理论对外国文学研究模式日渐深入的影响；剖析“殖民文学论争”、“全球化与民族化”、“理论”三次重要论争所折射的学科困局与问题意识。第四章描述新世纪以来外国文学研究模式多元化的态势；概括理论退热、文化转向对于外国文学研究的影响及其在批评实践中的表现；并通过批评个案详析新时期以来外国文学研究话语的转型过程；最后评析几种本土批评话语建构的价值以及建构过程中存在的问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation is a general retrospection and reflection about the academic process of foreign literature studies in China since1978. By saying "general", it means that this dissertation has two orientations. One is that, instead of examining the research history of different nationalities and languages, it deals with the academic process of "foreign literature" as a whole. The other is that it steps into this period of academic history from a macroscopical perspective, with a view not to summarizing the academic gains and losses from all aspects, but to clearly presenting the problem consciousness and the change of discourse patterns about foreign literature studies in this period.The dissertation chooses to focus on a period within a hundred-year-old study of foreign literature in China, that is, the period from1978to2010. Under the context of Chinese historical and cultural transitions, it mainly covers the five authorative, comprehensive and professional academic journals:Foreign Literature Studies, Foreign Literature Review, Foreign Literature, Foreign Literatures, Contemporary Foreign Literature. Though touching upon theory studies, research models on writers and works, and the change of heated discourses in these journals, this dissertation manages to outline the transformational process of academic discourses about foreign literature studies, reveals its complexities, varieties and conflicts, and discusses the construction of order in foreign literature at different stages as well as the importance of discourse transformation in academic history.It is this dissertation’s belief that foreign literature studies belong to discourse construction and discourse practice activities, and the academic reflections on foreign literature studies should fully use for reference the perspective of discourse analysis and the approach to the archaeology of knowledge. Consequently, while this dissertation unfolds its discussions within the frame of academic history and regards rearrangement of history as its main subject, it also contains such in-depth discussions when necessary as restoring some heated discourse issues to their larger historical and cultural contexts. Combined with the emergence and the operating process of these discourses in historical contexts, these discussions examine the uniqueness of related discourse practice in this field, and thus ponder over the constructing function of foreign literature studies on Chinese culture subject.The body of the dissertation is made up of four chapters. Chapter One briefly outlines "pre-history", which describes the changing process of discourse patterns in foreign literature studies from May Fourth to1978. This chapter holds that from late Qing Dynasty to the Republic of China different groups of intellectuals, by laying respective emphasis on translation and introduction of foreign literature, constructed together a symbiotic discourse with multiple voices in foreign literature, and this provided a reference for the reconstruction of Chinese culture. From1950s to1970s, within a discourse system exclusively dominated by class struggle, a new order in foreign literature with distinct ideological characteristics was established in academia.Chapter Two mainly talks about the reconstructive and transformational process of foreign literary discourse in the1980s, with the year of1985as a division. After conflict and compromise, humanistic and modern discourses took the place of the17years’discourse tradition as the main discourse in foreign literature studies. In the late1980s, a new order in foreign literature was basically formed with an emphasis on the19th and20th western literature and western contemporary theory discourse. Despite the fact that the discourse pattern of class analysis had died out, social and historical criticism was still the main model of foreign literature studies. While the call for form aesthetics was heavy, Aesthetic criticism did not yet form the scale.Chapter Three takes a look at the process strongly and prominently dominated by the Western discourses and the questionings expressed by the academia about the phenomenon. By comparing the differences and similarities between the introduction of theories and the study perspectives of authors and works in the1980s and the1990s, this chapter reveals the increasing influence of contemporary Western theories on the research models in foreign literature, and analyses the discipline predicament and the problem consciousness reflected by three significant disputes, that is,"the issue of colonial literature","globalization and nationalization" and "theory".Chapter Four describes the pluralism of research models in foreign literature since the21st century and summarizes the influences of theory retreat and cultural turn on foreign literature studies as well as their manifestation in criticism practice. By means of case criticisms, this chapter analyses in detail the transformational process of discourse about foreign literature studies, Finally, it reviews the value of some discourse constructions and the problems existing in the constructing process.更多还原