【作者】 胡涛；

【导师】 胡亚敏；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 文艺学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 “文学性”是一个亟待清理的文学理论术语：其问题的逻辑缘起与诞生的事件文本尚须祛魅；其在不同研究模式之下的际遇尚未获系统认识；其多重源头的身份使之在汉译和使用中实际上是一个披着西洋外观的本土概念。“文学性”到目前仍然还是一个不确定的概念,几乎可以被运用到任何人类活动领域中并被赋予不同的涵义,不同专业和普通领域都对之推崇备至,却又似乎都不愿去确定它是一个概念还是一个俗语。“文学性”陷于这种尴尬处境的原因是多方面的。首先,“文学性”诞生于雅各布森的《最新俄诗》似乎已成公论,不过人们大多仅知晓一句转译自英文或法文的句子,最为常见的出处是艾亨鲍姆文章的引文,但也仅限于那一句话而不提及其上下文；而对真正首次阐释并使之成为概念的埃利希及其《俄国形式主义》却鲜有提及。其次,“文学性”和“陌生化”被视为俄国形式主义的“核心概念”,但现有的原始文献无法证明它们为俄国形式主义者们所公认。最后,现行译著中汉译的“文学性”大多是对英文形容词“文学的”的曲译,而汉语语境里自20世纪30年代以来“文学性”的使用常常被忽视。正是由于对“文学性”的中西方源流尚未厘清,其在汉语语境中的流变缺乏重视,以致人们依据各自的需要在著述中随意阐释和使用。在某种意义上,“文学性”的这种尴尬处境或许正是当下文学理论的表征：既不能正本清源,又不能有效阐释文学现象,只能作为一种“知识生产”囿于狭小的学术圈子里哀叹“失语”。虽然现代“文学”概念和“文学理论”都不过是近两百年的事情,但是文学现象和对它的研究已有几千年的历史,可以说并不存在全新的文学问题。目前关于“文学性”问题的缘起存在两种有缺陷的说法,一种认为源于雅各布森所提出的“文学科学的研究对象”；另一种则如卡勒所认为的那样,是对“什么是文学”这一问题追问的结果。从理论逻辑上来看,文学研究的对象即文学现象,“什么是文学”的追问即文学本质的诉求,这些都无须再造一个术语来取代；从历史文献上来看,雅各布森的使用的JIHTeparyPHOCTb并无“文学性质”之义,而其他语言对该词的翻译都受到了各自母语词汇的影响,附加上了“特征”、“本质”等义。要探索“文学性”问题的真正起源,必须返回具体的历史语境。“文学性”首次被视为概念是在1955年,埃利希的《俄国形式主义》将它列为俄国形式主义文论最重要的概念,而“陌生化”、“程序”、“形式”、“主导”等概念都被视为受其影响才出现。埃利希的研究罔顾历史事实颠倒时间先后,而将雅各布森塑造为俄国形式主义核心人物的同时也将“文学性”描述为一个多义的概念：既是文学的“区别性特征”,又是文学作品的“格式塔质”。《最新俄诗》被追溯为“文学性”的创始文献,不过雅各布森在这篇文章中所要阐明的是：文学科学要研究文学自身的规律,而不能用其他学科的方法来处理文献。那个19世纪就已出现的俄文词不可能是雅各布森杜撰,其本义是“语言规范性”,在文学论文中用来指“文学自身(规律)”或“文学”,蒂尼亚诺夫也是在此意义上来使用该词,俄国人至今都未将它视为特别的文学术语。由于文化在战乱时的迁移的和意识形态对峙时的隔绝,流亡理论家的研究受到了更特别的青睐而被高估和广泛传播。埃利希著作的三次再版奠定了“文学性”在英语世界的基本理解；托多洛夫的译介则开启了其在法语世界的传播；而相对接近俄国的德语和斯拉夫语世界里对之并无特别的反应。主要在英法世界旅行的“文学性”及对它的研究逐渐形成了三种模式或形态：文学研究、理论研究和文化研究。俄国形式主义及与之同样关注文学自身的新批评派可以视为文学研究的模式,在类比和比较的基础上人们认为这两派的“文学性”阐释为与语言形式相关,虽然这两派的主要文论家都不曾使用过这个词语。卡勒在一番历史追溯后也不得不承认“文学性”难以界定。伴随着结构主义的兴起,独立于文学的各种“理论”或“批评理论”盛行,托多洛夫、热奈特、伊格尔顿、德里达、德曼等人的理论著述赋予了“文学性”更多的内涵和更广泛的用途。而辛普森的“后现代学术”思想则引发了在文化研究中阐释文学和有关“文学性”的论争,并间接催生了许多新的理论,诸如“文学性蔓延”、“‘文学性’(研究)将取代‘文学’(研究)”等。俄国形式主义文论尚未汉译之前,汉语中已有“文学性”的使用。1932年苏汶针对“文学的阶级性”使用它来指文学作品固有的价值和特征,但当时并未形成概念共识。解放后“文学性”与“形象性”、“虚构性”等文学基本概念互训互释,经常出现在一些文学杂志上。新时期“文学性”被寄予厚望,在争取文学独立和与政治撇清关系的各种争论中不时被祭出。随着西方各种文学理论译介的展开,“文学性”在渐趋丰富的同时也日渐复杂混乱起来。基于一篇主要观点源自埃利希的译介文章,“文学性”被视为俄国形式主义文论的“旗帜”,国内学界关于俄国文论的研究大多与之关联附会。“文学性”概念和问题研究的热潮还催生了两种错误的翻译,一种将literary及其同根词或词组均译为“文学性”；另一种则根据类比和逻辑推理而将许多近似概念也视为“文学性”(或其变种),甚至还有人进而认为所有的理论流派都有自己的“文学性”概念。而在对概念的译介阐释上,则多依据“性”在汉语中的理解而解释为“文学本质”。西方文论、汉语传统和汉语曲译的“文学性”构成了这个概念的三重来源,但国内学界似乎并未意识到来源的多样复杂性,因而在具体的阐释和使用上明显呈现出传统文化对实用性、价值倾向性和本质诉求的特征的同时,依然声称其源自雅各布森。不过也正是在这种矛盾与混乱中,“文学性”积极参与了中国当代文论建设的各个方面。首先,“文学性”带来了对“文学”和文学研究的全新认识,在一定程度上影响了文学观念的重铸；其次,借助新的文学观念重新审视了西方、中国传统和近代以来的不同理论资源；再次,在文学研究与文化研究的冲突中作为纽带激发了对疆界和身份问题的思考；最后,刺激了对本土文学和新媒介时代文学新变的关注,带来了新的危机意识和文论不断重构的创新意识。一个文学概念,无论来自何人或是何种语言,也无论在旅行中遭遇到怎样的误读,其积极参与到我们理论建构之中的事实是不容回避的,而应是我们反思的起点。“文学性”概念的多种内涵和多重用途只是表象,我们必须通过还原历史语境去探索其内在的逻辑理路；并立足于自身的民族文化、语言和文学现象,方能建构出有效的文学理论来。更多还原

【Abstract】 "Literariness" is a concept that needs to clean up urgently. Its logic origin and the text where it first appeared and was defined need to be clarified. Its understanding in different research models has not formed the systematic knowledge. Its multiple sources have made it a native concept with western appearance in the context of Chinese. This concept has already spread for centuries and can be applied to almost any field of human activities and is endowed with various connotations. But, by far,"literariness" is still an indefinite concept. Different professional and common fields have rated it highly, but it seems that all of them do not concern whether it is a concept or proverb.Variety of reasons is responsible for such an embarrassing position of "literariness". The first, it is widely accepted by the public that "literariness" first appeared in Jakobson’s "Newest Russian Poetry", but only the sentence translated from English or French is focused on, not the original Russian text. At the same time, the one who first interpreted "literariness" and converted it into a concept as well as his book, Erlich and his "Russian Formalism", have rarely been concerned. Actually, the most common source is from Eichenbaum who quoted Jakobson, but it is also the quotation from the secondary sources without the specific context. The second,"literariness" and "estrangement" are considered as the core conception of Russian Formalism, but no enough original documents prove that it has been recognized by the Russian Formalists. The last,"literariness" in most current translated books are the mistranslation of an English adjective "literary", and the use of "literariness" in the context of Chinese since1930s has rarely been mentioned. It is because the western origin of "literariness" has not yet been clarified and its emergence and evolution in Chinese context is lacking of attention, that theorists use and interpret the concept in their papers and books randomly according to their necessity. To some degree, the embarrassing position of "literariness" is perhaps the representation of literary theory itself, which, difficult to seek the origins and comb the variety and to explain the literary phenomena, is voiceless as the "knowledge production" in certain narrow academic circles. Although the concept of "literature" and "literary theory" has existed only about two hundred years, but literary phenomena as well as the studies on them have passed down for thousands of years, therefore there are no completely new literary issues. There are two different origins of "literariness". The one is "the research object of literary science" which was made by Jacobson; the other is, as Culler has argued, the pursuit of "what is literature". But there are serious flaws in two statements, both in theoretical logic and in the historical literature. From the perspective of theoretical logic, the object of literary study is the literary phenomena and "what is literature" questions the literary essence, which means that there is no use to recreate a new term. In the perspective of historical literature, Jakobson’s usage of литератрностъ has no connotation of "literary nature", but the translation of the word into other languages was attached with the meaning of "features","essence", etc., subjecting to the impact of their own native languages.To explore the actual origin of "literariness ", we have to return to the specific historical context. It was in1955that "literariness" was first treated as a concept when Erlich listed it as the most important concept and "Estrangement","Device","Form","Dominant" and other concepts were considered to be proposed under its influence in his writings about Russian Formalism. Erlich ignored the historical facts to portray Jakobson as the point person of Russian Formalism and described "literariness" as a polysemic concept. That is, it is the "distinctive feature" of literature, and also the "gestaltqualitat" of literary works. Jakobson’s "Newest Russian Poetry" was also treated as the founding document of Russian Formalism. Actually, the Russian word, which was used at least from19th century, was impossibly coined by Jakobson. At that time, the original meaning of that word was "normalization of language" and it referred to "(law of) literature itself" in literary theses. At the same period, Tynjanov also applied the word in the sense of the latter and no Russians regarded it as a special literary term.Due to the cultural communication and ideological confrontation brought by the war, the studies of exiled researchers were favored so as to have far-reaching influence. The four editions of Erlich’s writing founded the basic understanding of "literariness" in the English-speaking world. Todorov’s translation started its spread in the French-speaking world. However, there was no particular reaction in the German-and Slavic-speaking world, which was relatively close to Russian. The research on "literariness", which mainly travelled in the English-and French-speaking world, gradually formed three patters:literary studies, theoretical studies and cultural studies. Russian Formalism and the New Criticism were regarded as the pattern of literary studies. Based on the analogies and comparison, the "literariness" of these two schools was interpreted as the association with language and forms, although the main theorists of the two schools never used the word "literariness". Culler had to admit that it was difficult to define "literariness" after the historical tracing. With the rise of Structuralism, the various "theories" and "critical theories" prevailed. Todorov, Genette, Eagleton, Derrida, de Man, etc., endowed "literariness" with more connotations and extensive applications in their writings. Simpson’s thoughts of "postmodern academy" triggered the upsurge of interpretation of "literariness" in the cultural study, and indirectly spawned many new theories, such as "literariness spread" and "’literariness’will replace’literature’".Before the translation of Russian Formalism,"literariness" in Chinese appeared in1932when Su Wen referred to the inherent value and features of literature, but the consensus on the concept was not arrived at that time. After liberation,"literariness" and "imagination", and "fictionality" and other basic concepts of literary theory were employed to interpret each other in literary magazines constantly. In1980s,"literariness" was used for the independence of literature and disassociation from politics in various arguments. With a variety of translation of western literary theories, the understanding about "literariness" was increasingly rich as well as complicated. As a translated article whose basic ideas were from Erlich established the status of "literariness" in Russian Formalism, a variety of studies on the Russian literary theories were associated with "literariness" more or less. The boom of research on "literariness" also spawned two errors in translation. One was to translate "literary" as well as the words or phrases of the same root into "literariness"; the other is to translate the similar schools or concepts as the formalism studies into "literariness." As for the interpretation of the concept,"literariness" was explained as "the essence of literature" according to the meaning of "Xing" in Chinese.Western literary theories, Chinese tradition and the mistranslation of "literariness" constitute the triple sources of the concept of "literariness". However, the domestic academic circles have not realized the complexity of the sources, thus the specific interpretation and usage has clearly demonstrated the appeals of traditional culture for practicality, value and nature while still claimed its origin from Jakobson. But it is precisely in this kind of contradiction and confusion that the "literariness" has actively participated in the construction of Chinese contemporary literary theory. Firstly,"literariness" has brought a new understanding of "literature" and literary study and affected the recast of literary conception to a certain extent. Secondly, the adoption of new conception promotes to re-examine the different theoretical resources of the western and Chinese traditional theories as well as their modern counterpart. Thirdly, as the bond in the conflict of literary and cultural studies,"literariness" has stimulated the thinking of boundary. Finally, it stimulated the focus on the local literature and on changes of literature in the new media era, and brought about a new sense of crisis and the sense of innovation of the reconstruction of literary theories.A literary concept, regardless of any origin or language, no matter what misunderstanding in the travelling, has actively participated in our theoretical construction, which is unavoidable and also the starting point of our reflection. The variety of connotations and usage of "literariness" is just the appearance. We have to restore the historical context to explore its inherent logical thoughts and construct an effective literary theory based on our own culture, language and literary phenomena.更多还原