论文部分内容阅读
目前文学理论界对“文学性”概念及相关问题的思考与三个重要文献相关:雅格布森的《现代俄国诗歌》、卡勒的《文学性》和余虹的《文学的终结与文学性的蔓延》。从对三个文本的细读中可以重构出“文学性”研究的大致谱系。经由维克多·埃里希的译介,韦勒克将“文学性”导向了三种基本“属性”或“本质”;布拉格学派及此后的结构主义将之抽象为某种“文学代码”;解构主义和西方马克思主义从文学与建制的关系中否认其存在;英国的威德森则倾向于将之描述为可以取代“文学”概念的某种“品质”;余虹则将戴维·辛普森和乔纳森·卡勒对后现代文学研究状况的研究推衍出一个新的“文学性成分”概念。
At present, literary theorists’ reflections on the notion of “literary nature” and related issues are related to three important documents: the “Modern Russian Poetry” by Jacopo Sen, Karl’s “Literary” and Yu Hong’s “End of Literature And literary spread ”. The general lineage of “literary” research can be reconstructed from a careful reading of the three texts. Through the translation and introduction of Victor Ehrlich, Wellek directed “literary” to three basic “properties” or “essences”; the Pragmatism of Prague and the subsequent structuralism abstracted it as Some kind of “literary code” deconstruction and Western Marxism denied its existence from the relationship between literature and constitutionalism. The British Wittgenson tends to describe it as something that can replace the concept of “literature” “Quality”; Yu Hong will David Simpson and Jonathan Carle on the status of postmodern literature research derived a new “literary composition” concept.