【作者】 何宇宏；

【导师】 何锡章；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 语言学及应用语言学， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 文学的魅力首先来自于成功的话语策略,丰厚的内蕴必须借助恰当的文体承载,因此,文学文体研究实际上是一个通过解读语言密码进入文本内涵世界和审美殿堂的学术路径。这也正是笔者进行曹禺戏剧文体研究的初衷。而巴赫金的话语理论则为本文提供了更宽广的研究视野和更丰富的研究方法,它使笔者能够摆脱传统语言学方法的束缚,更自由深入地挖掘曹剧文体的本质特征及其艺术魅力。本文认为,曹禺戏剧的文体独创性在话语模式、语言特征和叙事结构三个层面都得到了充分体现。戏剧文体的话语模式主要有两种:再现话语与叙述话语。前者以亚里士多德戏剧理论所规定的戏剧体戏剧为代表,后者以布莱希特的叙事体戏剧为代表。曹禺戏剧的话语模式却是一种再现话语与叙述话语同生共存的形态。曹禺戏剧中存在着大量的叙述话语,它是作者凸显个人话语的重要途径,是对第一文本内涵的阐释、补充乃至颠覆、提升。在曹禺戏剧文体里,再现话语与叙述话语并置,以表与里、显与隐的方式相互支撑,构筑起实与虚、情感与理智相对立的强大张力空间;它们也为其它艺术元素设置了特定的话语情境,无论是语言、角色还是叙事结构都被安放在了写实与隐喻、具体与抽象的交叉点上,同时传递着多重指涉。动作性、抒情性和个性化被公认为曹禺戏剧文体最突出的语言特征,但它们只是体现了曹禺戏剧作为戏剧体戏剧的外在语言特点,既不能囊括其戏剧语言的所有特质,也不能承担起全部的表意功能。曹禺戏剧丰富深邃的内蕴主要是借助另外一些语言策略传达的,比如“话题的符码化”、“多样化的镶嵌手法”、“错综复杂的叙述”等等。所谓“话题的符码化”,是指在曹禺戏剧中存在着一些以元语言为主导功能的对白段落,在这些段落中,作者对话题内涵的强调超越了对行动、情节的指涉,从而使话题本身在成为被阐释对象的同时,也成为启发观众超越现实关照、进入存在之思的功能结构。“镶嵌手法”是把来自于戏剧情节之外的社会话语引入剧中,使剧作获得更广泛的时空背景、更丰富的思想指涉的方法。对曹禺戏剧语言来说,“镶嵌”既是一种具体的语言修辞策略,又是一种抽象的话语理念,是作者对文本间性的深刻认知与追求。其最终目的是要将社会杂语引入到角色个体的话语中,让读者不仅能听到角色的声音,还能听到他者的声音,看到角色自我与他者话语之间的相互作用相互塑造的复杂的对话关系。在曹禺戏剧中还有大量的叙述话语,它们或者以第二文本的方式居于舞台演出之外,或者以伪对白的方式混迹于再现话语之中,这些叙述话语一方面为剧场演出进行必要的环境交待和角色阐释,另一方面却又以“不可靠的叙述”、“客观描写中的主观意向”、“角色介绍的未完成性”等语言策略设置语义迷宫,使这些叙述变得模棱两可。要穿越这个语义迷宫,不仅需要读者的细致敏锐,还需要借助文本各部分之间,甚至是文本与文本之间的对比参照。曹禺戏剧文体的叙事特征主要体现为反射式参照的空间化结构。面对这样的结构,读者不能仅仅靠一页一页,一个行动接一个行动的线性阅读对文本形成完整的印象,还需要在整个阅读的时间性过程中,不断地把那些看似偶然的事件、细节和象征互相参照,才能完成对文本的正确解读。这实际上是将诗歌的组织技巧引入到戏剧的叙事结构中来,甚至把它上升为主导结构,使剧作的丰富意蕴得到细腻而又充分的表现。曹禺戏剧的这种空间化结构主要是通过紧张激烈与平静舒缓的节奏掌控、独白话语与对话关系的辩证统一、普遍多样的意象并置等叙述策略实现的。曹禺的四大名剧,甚至包括《家》,虽然风格各异,但上述文体特征又使它们保持了内在一致性。曹禺戏剧文体的这种表面差异与内在统一之间构成的“有意味的形式”,值得我们更深入地关注与解读。如果说这些戏剧文本之间形式风格的巨大差异反映了作者在社会舆论作用下的苦闷彷徨,那么它们在文体上的内在统一则证明了作者对自己的艺术立场与戏剧创作理念的执著追求。反过来,也正是这份执著,使他能够在喧闹的他人话语中反复寻找着个人话语的表达途径,从而造就了其戏剧文体的独特风貌,造就了曹禺戏剧的独特艺术魅力。然而,这种艺术执著、文体风貌只能存活于文化转型期的多元文化语境之中,一旦语言杂多局面结束,新的中心话语确立,作者的主体意识也便随之消泯。曹禺抗战时期及建国后的剧作就正是大一统神话话语语境下的产物,其文体风貌也随之发生了天翻地覆的变化。更多还原

【Abstract】 The charm of literature first comes from the successful discourse strategy, and the rich connotation must draw support from the appropriate literary style. Therefore, the literary style research is actually, by decoding and interpreting the language, an academic access to the connotation world of and the esthetic palace of the text. Here, it is precisely the original intention of this paper to make a research on the literary style of Cao Yu’s drama. On the other hand, King Barher’s discourse theory provides this paper with the broader research vision and the richer research methodology. In other words, it enables the paper to free from constraint of the traditional linguistic methodology and meanwhile to more freely and thoroughly unearth the essential characteristics and the artistic charm of the literary style of Cao’s drama.According to this paper, the literary style originality of Cao’s drama is fully manifested in the discourse mode, the language characteristics and the narrative structure.For the discourse mode of the drama literary style, there are mainly has two categories: reappearance discourse and narrative discourse. The former is represented by the dramatic drama which is stipulated by the dramatic theory of Aristotle, while the latter takes as representative the narrative drama of Brecht. However, the discourse mode of Cao’s drama combines reappearance and narrative discourse together. Plenty of narrative discourse in Cao’s drama helps Cao to show the individual discourse. It explains, supplements, and even subverts and promotes the first text connotation. Coexisting in the literary style of Cao’s drama, the reappearance discourse and the narration discourse sustain each other in the way of outside versus inside as well as apparent versus latent. They construct the space of tension which is featured by the coexistence of reality and illusion and that of emotion and reason. Also, They set the specific discourse situation for other artistic elements so that language, role, narrative structure and the like are all placed on the intersection formed by realism and metaphor or by concreteness and abstract.Movement, lyricism and individualization are publicly recognized as the most prominent language characteristics of the literary style of Cao’s drama, but they are only the external language characteristics when Cao’s drama takes the form of the dramatic drama. They could neither include all the attributes of drama languages, nor undertake all the function of representation. The transmission of rich and profound connotation of Cao’s drama is mainly dependent on other language strategies such as "topic symbolization", "diversification of inlay techniques", "complicated narration" and so on. "Topic symbolization" can be explained as follows. In Cao’s drama, there are some dialogue paragraphs that take the meta-language as the leading function, and in which the author’s emphasis of the topic connotation outweigh reference to motion and scenario. Consequently, once the topic is the object of interpretation, it will also become functional structure which inspires audience to move from attention of reality to enter into thought of existence. "Inlay technique" means to introduce social discourse which comes from outside drama scenario so that the dramatic work could obtain a broader background of space and time as well as richer methods of reference to thought. As for Cao’s drama language, "inlay" is not only a specific language rhetoric strategy, but also is a kind of abstract discourse concept, reflecting the author’s profound cognition and pursue of intertextality. Its final aim is through introduction of social mixed discourse to individual discourse of the role, audience will be able to hear not only sound of the role, but also that of the other, and to see the complex dialogue relations interacted and inter-shaped between the self of the role and the discourse of the other. Cao’s drama includes plenty of narrative discourses, which either are beyond stage performance by taking the form of the second text, or mingle among the reappearance discourse by taking the form of the false dialogue. These narrative discourses, on the one hand, make necessary explanation of environment and roles for the theater performance. On the other hand, they establish semantic labyrinths by language strategies such as "unreliable narration", "subjective intention in objective description" and“incompleteness of role introduction”, all of which make the narrations ambiguous. In order to pass through the semantic labyrinth, audience is expected not only to be careful and keen, but also to draw support from comparison between parts within the text and even that between texts.Narrative characteristics of the literary style of Cao’s drama are mainly manifested as the space structure of reflection-type reference. Therefore, forming a complete impression of the text doesn’t merely depend on linear reading. The audience, in the entire reading process, also needs to compare accidental events, details and symbols with each other to have correct interpretation of the text. Here, we can say it actually introduces the organized skill of poetry to the narrative structure of drama and even upgrade it to the leading structure, and thus the rich connotation of the dramatic work can be elaborately and fully revealed. The space structure in Cao’s drama is accomplished by narrative strategies such as rhythm controls of tension and peace, dialectical unification of monologue discourse and dialogue relations as well as universal and diverse image juxtaposition.Cao Yu’s four famous dramas, even including "Family", though totally different in the form style, maintain the intrinsic uniformity in the above literary style characteristics. "The form with meaning", constituted by the superficial divergence and the intrinsic unification in the literary style of Cao’s drama, is worth our more thorough attention and interpretation. If the huge differences between these drama texts in the form style reflect the author’s depression which is due to pressure of the public opinion, then the intrinsic unification in the literary style can prove the author’s persistent pursue of his own artistic standpoint and drama creation concept. It is also the persistent pursue that enables him to constantly search for the expression way of the individual discourse among uproarious discourse of other people and thus accomplish the unique features of the literary style in his drama as well as the unique artistic charm of his drama. However, the artistic persistence and the literary style features can only survive in the multicultural language context during the period of cultural transformation. Once the phenomenon of varied language disappears and the new central discourse is established, the author’s subject consciousness will then vanish. Cao’s dramatic work during the period of Sino-Japanese War and after the founding of the People’s Republic of China is precisely the product under the language context of unification, and thus the features of its literary style also have great change.更多还原