本文關(guān)鍵詞：語義懸置:強(qiáng)制闡釋的符號學(xué)理據(jù)——兼談當(dāng)代中國文論研究的問題與方法　出處：《暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版)》2017年05期 　論文類型：期刊論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 強(qiáng)制闡釋 語義懸置 符號學(xué) 當(dāng)代中國文論

【摘要】：中國社會科學(xué)院張江教授提出的"強(qiáng)制闡釋"的確是西方文論家在闡釋文學(xué)作品意義上的總體特征,有其合理性。綜觀中西文學(xué)批評史,"強(qiáng)制闡釋"有兩種類型。第一種是作家故意"懸置"語言符號的所指,從而造成意義的難解。根據(jù)"闡釋學(xué)循環(huán)"原理,批評家闡發(fā)作品意義的唯一途徑是通過"語境折射"找到一個(gè)"二度指稱"的所指,而這個(gè)所指往往是批評家預(yù)設(shè)的意義。第二種是由于時(shí)間距離某個(gè)詞匯的意義古今有別,后人以今度古,對作品整體意義的闡釋有可能嚴(yán)重偏離作者原意,這不單是"強(qiáng)制闡釋",更是一種錯(cuò)讀、錯(cuò)釋。前者是不可避免的,后者是必須加以禁止的。文學(xué)闡釋是二十世紀(jì)西方文論的主流,但不是唯一的范式,更不是文學(xué)研究的理想狀態(tài)。當(dāng)代中國文論研究者并沒有看到西方文論的全貌,應(yīng)繼續(xù)譯介,同時(shí)在夯實(shí)文學(xué)語言研究的基礎(chǔ)上解決會通中西的"文學(xué)問題",至于解決問題的方法則是次要問題。
[Abstract]:The "compulsory interpretation" proposed by Professor Zhang Jiang of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is indeed the overall characteristic of the western literary theorists in the interpretation of literary works and has its rationality. There are two types of "forced interpretation". The first is that the writer deliberately "suspends" the meaning of the language symbol, thus causing the meaning difficult to understand. According to the "hermeneutics cycle" principle. The only way for critics to elucidate the meaning of the works is to find out the meaning of a second reference through "context refraction". The second is that the meaning of a word is different between ancient and modern, so the interpretation of the whole meaning of the works may deviate from the author's original meaning. This is not only "forced interpretation", but also a misreading. The former is inevitable, the latter must be prohibited. Literary interpretation is the mainstream of western literary theory in 20th century, but it is not the only paradigm. The researchers of contemporary Chinese literary theory have not seen the whole picture of western literary theory, so they should continue to translate and introduce, and at the same time solve the "literary problems" of understanding Chinese and Western literature on the basis of ramming up the study of literary language. The solution to the problem is secondary.
【作者單位】： 沈陽師范大學(xué)文學(xué)院;
【基金】：沈陽師范大學(xué)重大孵化項(xiàng)目《轉(zhuǎn)型時(shí)期的文學(xué)理論建設(shè)與批評實(shí)踐研究》(批準(zhǔn)號:ZD201610)
【分類號】：I206.7
【正文快照】： 從2014年開始,中國社會科學(xué)院張江教授在《中國社會科學(xué)》《文學(xué)評論》等刊物上發(fā)表了一系列文章,指出了“當(dāng)代西方文論”在論證過程中的通病,并將其概括為“強(qiáng)制闡釋”。這些文章在學(xué)界引起了強(qiáng)烈反響,各類學(xué)術(shù)刊物也刊登了不少書信、筆談、論文等延伸討論“強(qiáng)制闡釋”的文章

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 魏建亮;;關(guān)于“強(qiáng)制闡釋”的七個(gè)疑惑[J];山東社會科學(xué);2015年12期

2 李明彥;;“反思與重構(gòu):‘強(qiáng)制闡釋論’理論研討會”綜述[J];文藝爭鳴;2015年08期

3 王侃;;理論霸權(quán)、闡釋焦慮與文化民族主義——“強(qiáng)制闡釋論”略議[J];文藝爭鳴;2015年05期

4 祝，

本文編號：1409227