本文選題：泛文本 + 互文理論　； 參考：《蘭州大學(xué)》2008年碩士論文

【摘要】： 在結(jié)構(gòu)主義與后結(jié)構(gòu)主義影響下,“文本”范疇從狹義的語(yǔ)言文字文本發(fā)展至廣義的泛文本。在此基礎(chǔ)上,互文理論通過(guò)對(duì)間性的探索打破了傳統(tǒng)的、封閉的、靜態(tài)的文本觀,將文本看成一個(gè)無(wú)限開(kāi)放、動(dòng)態(tài)發(fā)展的結(jié)構(gòu)過(guò)程,集中體現(xiàn)了文本發(fā)生的無(wú)源性、文本存在的超鏈接性以及文本闡釋的無(wú)限性。而新歷史主義則是在文本間性的基礎(chǔ)上,以文學(xué)與歷史的關(guān)系為著眼點(diǎn),通過(guò)考察“歷史的文本性”和“文本的歷史性”及二者之間的關(guān)系,揭示了文本網(wǎng)絡(luò)結(jié)構(gòu)中社會(huì)能量的流通和意識(shí)形態(tài)的作用過(guò)程。具體來(lái)看,互文理論和新歷史主義中都貫穿了“間性”的思維意識(shí),或者說(shuō)它們恰恰是有關(guān)文本間性的兩種理論和實(shí)踐途徑。 本文一方面對(duì)互文理論和新歷史主義文本觀的特征進(jìn)行了宏觀的比較研究,詳細(xì)考察了理論內(nèi)容上從文本到泛文本的發(fā)展,形式方法上從闡釋表意代碼的相關(guān)性到探尋社會(huì)能量的流通性的轉(zhuǎn)變以及理論功能方面從文本間性到文化詩(shī)學(xué)的深化;另一方面又通過(guò)闡釋文學(xué)文本的實(shí)現(xiàn)過(guò)程對(duì)兩種理論的研究實(shí)踐進(jìn)行了具體分析,分別以文學(xué)四要素為維度深刻揭示二者的相關(guān)性與差異性,文本層面體現(xiàn)為從文本網(wǎng)絡(luò)的呈現(xiàn)到歷史化闡釋,主體層面是從作者群與讀者群的交互構(gòu)成到其對(duì)歷史的參與,世界層面則是從文學(xué)史的建構(gòu)到文本歷史文化意義的追尋。由此可知,在文本之間平等對(duì)話、交互構(gòu)成關(guān)系的基礎(chǔ)上,互文理論始終以文本為出發(fā)點(diǎn)和落腳點(diǎn),去探求此文本與彼文本的相關(guān)性,揭示其相互影響、彼此借鑒之處,從而構(gòu)建起一個(gè)多維立體、無(wú)限開(kāi)放的文本網(wǎng)絡(luò)體系;而新歷史主義則是在文本間性認(rèn)識(shí)的基礎(chǔ)上把文本的社會(huì)歷史維度納入研究視野,將文本各要素進(jìn)行徹底的歷史化,試圖從更深層面上揭示表意實(shí)踐過(guò)程中所暗含的社會(huì)能量的流通過(guò)程和意義實(shí)現(xiàn)過(guò)程中所承載的意識(shí)形態(tài)變化,或者可以將新歷史主義的研究認(rèn)為是對(duì)互文理論某一方面內(nèi)容的延展,即對(duì)文學(xué)文本與社會(huì)歷史文化文本之間間性關(guān)系的深層探索。 在此基礎(chǔ)上,對(duì)互文理論與新歷史主義之文本觀的比較還應(yīng)該落實(shí)到具體的文本實(shí)例上,本文選取了兩個(gè)文本群落即“大歷史小寫(xiě)化”文本群和“小歷史大寫(xiě)化”文本群。前者是對(duì)重要?dú)v史人物、事件、歷史時(shí)代的非常規(guī)化、多元化、生活化的書(shū)寫(xiě),以秦始皇文本群為例;后者是將民間的、復(fù)數(shù)的、多元的小歷史納入歷史闡釋的范疇,對(duì)平凡小人物在歷史時(shí)代變遷中的生存狀況和心路歷程進(jìn)行書(shū)寫(xiě),二者都是闡釋歷史的重要方式。一方面這些文本在內(nèi)容題材、形式方法以及主體接受過(guò)程中都存在明顯的文本間性關(guān)系;另一方面,在這些相關(guān)歷史的互文本中,又由于不同的社會(huì)歷史文化語(yǔ)境而具有各自的歷史具體性,其中包含著社會(huì)權(quán)力話語(yǔ)和意識(shí)形態(tài)等的影響。 所以互文理論更多地強(qiáng)調(diào)文本本身的闡釋、接受,而新歷史主義研究看重的是此文本與其它社會(huì)文化文本之間的關(guān)系,它要發(fā)掘文本互文現(xiàn)象背后所蘊(yùn)藏的社會(huì)歷史內(nèi)涵�；ノ睦碚摓槲覀兘�(gòu)起一個(gè)巨大復(fù)雜的文本網(wǎng)絡(luò),而新歷史主義則是揭示文本間動(dòng)態(tài)交構(gòu)的社會(huì)歷史動(dòng)因,前者是橫向聯(lián)結(jié)、客觀呈現(xiàn),后者則更多的是縱向考察、深入發(fā)掘。 總之,互文理論為新歷史主義研究提供了間性的思維方式和開(kāi)放的文本觀念,而新歷史主義又將文本間性的理論引申至社會(huì)歷史文化領(lǐng)域,很大程度上豐富了互文理論,因此二者既是聯(lián)系的又是差異的,既是繼承的又是發(fā)展的。與此同時(shí),二者也共同豐富完善了文本理論及其實(shí)踐研究。
[Abstract]:Under the influence of structuralism and post structuralism, the category of "text" develops from the narrow sense of language and text to the generalized pan text. On this basis, the intertextuality theory breaks the traditional, closed, static text view through the exploration of intersubjectivity, and regards text as a process of unrestricted and dynamic development, and concentrates on the text. The passivity of the present, the hyperlinks of the text and the infinity of text interpretation, and the new historicism, based on the intertextuality of the text, is based on the relationship between literature and history, and reveals the social ability of the text network structure by examining the relationship between the textual nature of history and the relationship between the two and the text. In particular, the theory of intertextuality and the new historicism all run through the "intersex" thinking consciousness, or they are the two theoretical and practical ways of intertextuality.
On the one hand, this paper makes a macroscopic comparative study of the characteristics of intertextuality theory and new historicist text view, and examines the development of the theory from text to pan text in detail, and forms the transformation from the relevance of the ideographic code to the exploration of the circulation of social energy, and the intertextuality to the cultural poetry in the theoretical function. On the other hand, the research practice of the two theories is analyzed in detail through the interpretation of the realization process of literary text. The correlation and difference of the two are revealed by the four elements of literature. The text level is reflected from the presentation of the text network to the historical interpretation, and the main body level is from the author group and the reader group. The interaction is composed of its participation in history, and the world level is from the construction of literary history to the pursuit of the meaning of text history and culture. Thus, on the basis of equal dialogue and interaction between texts, the theory of intertextuality always uses text as the starting point and the foothold to explore the relevance of the text to the other text, and to reveal the mutual relationship between the text and the text. The influence is to draw lessons from each other and build up a multi-dimensional and unlimited open text network system, while the new historicism integrates the social and historical dimension of the text into the research field of research on the basis of the understanding of the text, and makes a thorough historicification of the various elements of the text, trying to reveal the process of ideographic practice from a deeper level. The ideological change contained in the process of the implied social energy circulation and significance, or the study of the new historicism, is the extension of the content of one aspect of the intertextual theory, that is, the deep exploration of the interrelationship between the literary text and the social historical and cultural texts.
On this basis, the comparison of the intertextuality theory and the view of the new historicism should be compared to the concrete examples of the text. This article selects two text communities, the "big history small case" text group and the "small history capitalization" text group. The former is a very regular, diversified, and born of important historical figures, events and historical times. The active writing takes the Qin Shihuang text group as an example; the latter takes the folklore, plural and pluralistic history into the category of historical interpretation, and writes about the existence and course of the ordinary small characters in the change of historical times. The two are the important formulas to explain history. On the one hand, these texts are subject to content and form methods. There are obvious intertextual relationships in the course of subject acceptance; on the other hand, in the Intertext of these related histories, they have their respective historical concreteness because of different social historical and cultural contexts, including the influence of social power discourse and ideology.
Therefore, the intertextuality theory emphasizes more on the interpretation and acceptance of the text itself, and the study of the new historicism emphasizes the relationship between the text and other socio cultural texts. It should explore the social and historical connotation behind the intertextual phenomenon. The intertextuality theory constructs a huge and complex text network for us, and the new historicism is a new historicism. It is a social and historical motivation to reveal the dynamic interaction between texts. The former is horizontal association and objective presentation, while the latter is more longitudinal investigation and in-depth exploration.
In a word, the intertextuality theory provides a way of thinking and an open text concept for the study of new historicism, and the new historicism extended the theory of intertextuality to the field of social history and culture, and greatly enriched the theory of intertextuality. Therefore, the two are both connected and different, both inheriting and developing. At the same time, the two have also enriched and perfected the research of text theory and practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2008
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：I0

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 秦志希,曹茸;電視歷史劇:對(duì)集體記憶的建構(gòu)與消解[J];現(xiàn)代傳播;2004年01期

2 陳林俠;;歷史:作為一種修辭的敘事——論當(dāng)下影像中歷史敘事的多重策略[J];云南藝術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

3 吳玉杰;歷史劇題材的審美特性[J];遼寧大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年06期

4 吳紫陽(yáng);影視史學(xué)的思考[J];史學(xué)史研究;2001年04期

5 董希文;;互文本:一種挑戰(zhàn)傳統(tǒng)的文本觀念[J];山西師大學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年01期

6 劉悅笛;在“文本間性”與“主體間性”之間——試論文學(xué)活動(dòng)中的“復(fù)合間性”[J];文藝?yán)碚撗芯?2005年04期

7 張廣智;影視史學(xué)與書(shū)寫(xiě)史學(xué)之異同——三論影視史學(xué)[J];學(xué)習(xí)與探索;2002年01期

8 王昕;中國(guó)歷史題材電視劇的類(lèi)型與美學(xué)精神[J];當(dāng)代電影;2005年02期

9 溫朝霞;對(duì)當(dāng)代歷史題材影視劇的文化觀批判[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(人文科學(xué)與社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年03期

10 季廣茂;笑談古今也從容——試論“戲說(shuō)歷史”的文化內(nèi)涵[J];北京師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1974078