韋勒克“內(nèi)部研究”論重估
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-09-06 19:01
【摘要】： 勒內(nèi)·韋勒克是20世紀(jì)西方最杰出的文學(xué)理論家和批評(píng)家之一,也是對(duì)中國(guó)影響最大的西方文學(xué)理論家之一。他在與奧斯丁·沃倫合著的《文學(xué)理論》中提出的“內(nèi)部研究”論在80年代的中國(guó)引起了一場(chǎng)熱烈的爭(zhēng)論并直接引發(fā)了中國(guó)文藝學(xué)界研究思路與方法的深刻變革。本文對(duì)韋勒克“內(nèi)部研究”論的重估力圖從當(dāng)前文學(xué)批評(píng)界存在的主要問(wèn)題出發(fā),關(guān)注“內(nèi)部研究”論中具有糾正時(shí)弊作用的相關(guān)論述,試圖通過(guò)對(duì)韋勒克“內(nèi)部研究”論的重新審視,糾正以往對(duì)這一理論的誤解和當(dāng)前文學(xué)理論中的偏向,從而為完善當(dāng)前的文學(xué)理論研究及教學(xué)、為建設(shè)當(dāng)代中國(guó)的文學(xué)理論,提供一些可供參考的資料和意見(jiàn)。 本文將韋勒克的“內(nèi)部研究”論劃分為文學(xué)作品存在方式論、文學(xué)作品層面論和文學(xué)整體研究三方面的論述,力圖對(duì)韋勒克的“內(nèi)部研究”論做到全面、準(zhǔn)確的把握。 第一章分析“內(nèi)部研究”論的基石——文學(xué)作品存在方式論。國(guó)內(nèi)一些學(xué)者把“內(nèi)部研究”簡(jiǎn)單地等同于文學(xué)作品層面論,而沒(méi)有注意到這一理論的基石——文學(xué)作品存在方式論,從而導(dǎo)致了對(duì)“內(nèi)部研究”簡(jiǎn)單、片面的理解。事實(shí)上,韋勒克關(guān)于文學(xué)的所有思考都是以對(duì)“文學(xué)作品是如何存在的”這一問(wèn)題的思考為基礎(chǔ)的。韋勒克認(rèn)為,文學(xué)作品是一個(gè)“經(jīng)驗(yàn)的客體”,它通過(guò)讀者的閱讀經(jīng)驗(yàn)而存在,但并非經(jīng)驗(yàn)本身,而是造成經(jīng)驗(yàn)的原因。文學(xué)的本體是文學(xué)作品的“決定性結(jié)構(gòu)”,而這一結(jié)構(gòu)的“決定性”則是內(nèi)在于結(jié)構(gòu)的價(jià)值。韋勒克正是由此劃分了“內(nèi)部研究”和“外部研究”的界限:“內(nèi)部研究”研究作品的“決定性結(jié)構(gòu)”,“外部研究”則研究與之相關(guān)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)事實(shí)。只有“內(nèi)部研究”才能揭示文學(xué)之為文學(xué)的根本,“外部研究”則為“內(nèi)部研究”提供必要的資料。因此,韋勒克并不否定和排斥“外部研究”,但他更強(qiáng)調(diào)“內(nèi)部研究”,這種強(qiáng)調(diào)來(lái)自他對(duì)文學(xué)之為文學(xué)的根本價(jià)值的關(guān)切。在當(dāng)今價(jià)值虛無(wú)主義泛濫的文壇上,韋勒克對(duì)于文學(xué)價(jià)值的關(guān)切或許正是一劑糾偏的良藥。 第二章分析“內(nèi)部研究”論的主體——文學(xué)作品層面論。這是韋勒克“內(nèi)部研究”論在中國(guó)文藝學(xué)界影響最大的部分。國(guó)內(nèi)一些學(xué)者囿于“內(nèi)容—形式”二分法的思維框架,將“內(nèi)部研究”簡(jiǎn)單地理解為“形式研究”,而韋勒克的文學(xué)作品層面論最重要的理論貢獻(xiàn)之一,就是用縱向的層面分析法取代的“內(nèi)容—形式”的橫向分析法,從而改寫了文學(xué)作品的研究方式。根據(jù)中國(guó)學(xué)者劉象愚的觀點(diǎn),韋勒克是把文學(xué)作品劃分為三個(gè)層面:聲音(諧音、節(jié)奏和格律)、意義(文體和文體學(xué))、世界(意象、隱喻、象征和神話),本章試圖通過(guò)對(duì)韋勒克這一理論的深入分析和“正本清源”,廓清國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)者對(duì)這一理論的誤解,并說(shuō)明這一理論在當(dāng)前的借鑒意義。 第三章討論“內(nèi)部研究”論的合理延伸——文學(xué)整體研究。韋勒克認(rèn)為,不但每一部文學(xué)作品是一個(gè)有機(jī)整體,而且,所有的文學(xué)作品也構(gòu)成了“文學(xué)”這個(gè)整體。針對(duì)這個(gè)整體,韋勒克探討了文學(xué)的類型、文學(xué)的評(píng)價(jià)和文學(xué)史三個(gè)問(wèn)題。在“文學(xué)的類型”這一問(wèn)題上,韋勒克認(rèn)為,對(duì)文學(xué)進(jìn)行共時(shí)態(tài)的、終極的類型劃分是不可能的,文學(xué)類型的研究應(yīng)該是對(duì)歷史上出現(xiàn)的文學(xué)類型的研究。在“文學(xué)的評(píng)價(jià)”這一問(wèn)題上,韋勒克強(qiáng)調(diào)文學(xué)評(píng)價(jià)應(yīng)當(dāng)關(guān)注的是文學(xué)作品的文學(xué)價(jià)值,同時(shí),他反對(duì)將文學(xué)作品的藝術(shù)價(jià)值與思想價(jià)值割裂開(kāi)來(lái),因?yàn)槲膶W(xué)作品的形而上品質(zhì)不是外在于作品的說(shuō)教,而是從作品本身浮現(xiàn)出來(lái)的世界觀。在“文學(xué)史”的研究中,韋勒克指出,在文學(xué)史的編寫中,歷史與價(jià)值之間存在著互動(dòng)關(guān)系,歷史參照價(jià)值,價(jià)值從歷史中來(lái)。以此為指導(dǎo)思想,韋勒克探討了文學(xué)類型史、文學(xué)史的分期等問(wèn)題,并提出了新的文學(xué)史的理想,那就是把文學(xué)作為一門藝術(shù)來(lái)寫,強(qiáng)調(diào)文學(xué)自身的價(jià)值體系,強(qiáng)調(diào)文學(xué)之為文學(xué)的根本。 第四章分析我國(guó)文論界對(duì)韋勒克“內(nèi)部研究”論的借鑒,以及這一理論的當(dāng)下意義。韋勒克的“內(nèi)部研究”論在20世紀(jì)80年代的中國(guó)曾掀起研究的高潮,但其中也存在著在中國(guó)特定的文化語(yǔ)境中對(duì)其進(jìn)行的有意無(wú)意的誤讀和變異,而且至今仍不乏誤解�！拔幕芯俊钡囊氪_實(shí)在某種程度上推動(dòng)了中國(guó)文學(xué)理論的發(fā)展,但也帶來(lái)了一些新的問(wèn)題。其中最重要的是文學(xué)研究對(duì)象的無(wú)限泛化,甚至出現(xiàn)了主張以文化研究取代文學(xué)研究的錯(cuò)誤傾向�！皟�(nèi)部研究”最主要的貢獻(xiàn)就在于對(duì)審美價(jià)值的關(guān)切和作品中心的強(qiáng)調(diào)。在當(dāng)今文學(xué)理論的背景下,重新發(fā)掘和審視韋勒克“內(nèi)部研究”論的合理內(nèi)涵,對(duì)于矯正時(shí)弊有重要的作用和意義。 總之,本文的興趣在于我國(guó)當(dāng)前的文學(xué)理論,關(guān)注的是韋勒克的“內(nèi)部研究”論在我國(guó)當(dāng)代文學(xué)理論發(fā)展中所作的貢獻(xiàn),以及尚未被人發(fā)現(xiàn)和重視的積極意義。本文在結(jié)語(yǔ)中,既肯定了“內(nèi)部研究”論帶給我們的啟示,又指出了其局限性,這同樣是我們建設(shè)和完善自己的文學(xué)理論所需要的。
[Abstract]:Rene Wellek is one of the most outstanding western literary theorists and critics in the 20th century and one of the most influential western literary theorists in China. His theory of "internal research" in "Literary Theory" co-authored by Austin Warren aroused a heated debate in China in the 1980s and directly triggered the Chinese literature. This paper attempts to reevaluate Wellek's theory of "internal research" from the main problems existing in the current literary criticism circles, and to pay attention to the relevant expositions of the theory of "internal research" which has the function of correcting the current maladies, and to correct the past by re-examining Wellek's theory of "internal research". The misunderstanding of this theory and the bias in the current literary theory provide some references and opinions for the improvement of the current literary theory research and teaching and the construction of contemporary Chinese literary theory.
This paper divides Wellek's theory of "internal research" into three aspects: the existential mode of literary works, the level of literary works and the overall study of literature, trying to grasp Wellek's theory of "internal research" comprehensively and accurately.
The first chapter analyzes the foundation stone of the theory of "internal research" - the theory of literary works'existential mode.Some domestic scholars simply equate "internal research" with the theory of literary works, but fail to notice the cornerstone of this theory-the theory of literary works' existential mode, which leads to a simple and one-sided understanding of "internal research". All of Wellek's thinking about literature is based on the question of how literary works exist. Wellek believes that literary works are an "object of experience" which exists through the reader's reading experience, but is not the experience itself, but the cause of experience. Wellek distinguishes between "internal research" and "external research": the "decisive structure" of "internal research" and the "empirical fact" of "external research". Therefore, Wellek does not deny and reject "external research", but he emphasizes "internal research", which comes from his concern that literature is the fundamental value of literature. In the literary world, Wellk's concern for literary value may be a good remedy for rectifying.
The second chapter analyzes the subject of the theory of "internal research" - literary works level theory, which is the most influential part of Wellek's "internal research" theory in Chinese literary and artistic circles. According to Liu Xiangyu, a Chinese scholar, Wellek divides literary works into three levels: sound (homophony, rhythm and metrics), meaning (meaning). Stylistics and Stylistics, the world (imagery, metaphor, symbolism and myth), this chapter attempts to clarify the misunderstanding of this theory by domestic scholars through the in-depth analysis of Wellek's theory and "clearing the source of the original", and to illustrate the significance of this theory in the current reference.
Chapter Three discusses the rational extension of the theory of "internal research" - literary holism. Wellek holds that not only every literary work is an organic whole, but also all literary works constitute the whole of "literature". On the issue of "literary types", Wellek holds that it is impossible to classify literary types synchronically and ultimately, and that the study of literary types should be the study of literary types that have appeared in history. At the same time, he objected to separating the artistic value and ideological value of literary works, because the metaphysical quality of literary works is not the preaching of literary works, but the world outlook emerging from the works themselves. With this as the guiding ideology, Wellek explored the problems of the history of literary types and the phases of literary history, and put forward the ideal of a new literary history, that is, to write literature as an art, to emphasize the value system of literature itself, and to emphasize that literature is the foundation of literature.
Chapter Four analyzes the reference of Wellek's theory of "internal research" in Chinese literary circles and its current significance. Wellek's theory of "internal research" once set off a climax of research in China in the 1980s, but there are also deliberate or unintentional misunderstandings and variations in it in the specific cultural context of China, and To some extent, the introduction of "cultural studies" has promoted the development of Chinese literary theory, but also brought about some new problems. The most important thing is the infinite generalization of literary research objects, and even the wrong tendency to advocate replacing literary research with cultural studies. The contribution lies in the concern for the aesthetic value and the emphasis on the work center. In the context of contemporary literary theory, it is of great significance and significance to re-explore and examine the rational connotation of Wellek's "internal research" theory for correcting current maladies.
In a word, the interest of this paper lies in the current literary theory of our country. It focuses on Wellek's contribution to the development of our contemporary literary theory and the positive significance that has not yet been discovered and valued. This is also what we need to build and perfect our own literary theory.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2008
【分類號(hào)】：I0
本文編號(hào)：2227229
[Abstract]:Rene Wellek is one of the most outstanding western literary theorists and critics in the 20th century and one of the most influential western literary theorists in China. His theory of "internal research" in "Literary Theory" co-authored by Austin Warren aroused a heated debate in China in the 1980s and directly triggered the Chinese literature. This paper attempts to reevaluate Wellek's theory of "internal research" from the main problems existing in the current literary criticism circles, and to pay attention to the relevant expositions of the theory of "internal research" which has the function of correcting the current maladies, and to correct the past by re-examining Wellek's theory of "internal research". The misunderstanding of this theory and the bias in the current literary theory provide some references and opinions for the improvement of the current literary theory research and teaching and the construction of contemporary Chinese literary theory.
This paper divides Wellek's theory of "internal research" into three aspects: the existential mode of literary works, the level of literary works and the overall study of literature, trying to grasp Wellek's theory of "internal research" comprehensively and accurately.
The first chapter analyzes the foundation stone of the theory of "internal research" - the theory of literary works'existential mode.Some domestic scholars simply equate "internal research" with the theory of literary works, but fail to notice the cornerstone of this theory-the theory of literary works' existential mode, which leads to a simple and one-sided understanding of "internal research". All of Wellek's thinking about literature is based on the question of how literary works exist. Wellek believes that literary works are an "object of experience" which exists through the reader's reading experience, but is not the experience itself, but the cause of experience. Wellek distinguishes between "internal research" and "external research": the "decisive structure" of "internal research" and the "empirical fact" of "external research". Therefore, Wellek does not deny and reject "external research", but he emphasizes "internal research", which comes from his concern that literature is the fundamental value of literature. In the literary world, Wellk's concern for literary value may be a good remedy for rectifying.
The second chapter analyzes the subject of the theory of "internal research" - literary works level theory, which is the most influential part of Wellek's "internal research" theory in Chinese literary and artistic circles. According to Liu Xiangyu, a Chinese scholar, Wellek divides literary works into three levels: sound (homophony, rhythm and metrics), meaning (meaning). Stylistics and Stylistics, the world (imagery, metaphor, symbolism and myth), this chapter attempts to clarify the misunderstanding of this theory by domestic scholars through the in-depth analysis of Wellek's theory and "clearing the source of the original", and to illustrate the significance of this theory in the current reference.
Chapter Three discusses the rational extension of the theory of "internal research" - literary holism. Wellek holds that not only every literary work is an organic whole, but also all literary works constitute the whole of "literature". On the issue of "literary types", Wellek holds that it is impossible to classify literary types synchronically and ultimately, and that the study of literary types should be the study of literary types that have appeared in history. At the same time, he objected to separating the artistic value and ideological value of literary works, because the metaphysical quality of literary works is not the preaching of literary works, but the world outlook emerging from the works themselves. With this as the guiding ideology, Wellek explored the problems of the history of literary types and the phases of literary history, and put forward the ideal of a new literary history, that is, to write literature as an art, to emphasize the value system of literature itself, and to emphasize that literature is the foundation of literature.
Chapter Four analyzes the reference of Wellek's theory of "internal research" in Chinese literary circles and its current significance. Wellek's theory of "internal research" once set off a climax of research in China in the 1980s, but there are also deliberate or unintentional misunderstandings and variations in it in the specific cultural context of China, and To some extent, the introduction of "cultural studies" has promoted the development of Chinese literary theory, but also brought about some new problems. The most important thing is the infinite generalization of literary research objects, and even the wrong tendency to advocate replacing literary research with cultural studies. The contribution lies in the concern for the aesthetic value and the emphasis on the work center. In the context of contemporary literary theory, it is of great significance and significance to re-explore and examine the rational connotation of Wellek's "internal research" theory for correcting current maladies.
In a word, the interest of this paper lies in the current literary theory of our country. It focuses on Wellek's contribution to the development of our contemporary literary theory and the positive significance that has not yet been discovered and valued. This is also what we need to build and perfect our own literary theory.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2008
【分類號(hào)】：I0
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 劉再?gòu)?fù);;文學(xué)研究思維空間的拓展(續(xù))——近年來(lái)我國(guó)文學(xué)研究的若干發(fā)展動(dòng)態(tài)[J];讀書;1985年03期
2 林大中;;文學(xué)的純文學(xué)研究——評(píng)韋勒克·沃倫《文學(xué)理論》[J];讀書;1986年05期
3 尉天驕;文學(xué)批評(píng):批評(píng)什么和怎樣批評(píng)?——借鑒韋勒克[J];淮北煤師院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1995年04期
4 陳雪虎;文學(xué)性:現(xiàn)代內(nèi)涵及其當(dāng)代限度[J];河北學(xué)刊;2004年04期
5 曠新年;“重寫文學(xué)史”的終結(jié)與中國(guó)現(xiàn)代文學(xué)研究轉(zhuǎn)型[J];南方文壇;2003年01期
6 金元浦;文化研究:學(xué)科大聯(lián)合的事業(yè)[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)戰(zhàn)線;2005年01期
7 胡蘇曉,王諾;文學(xué)的“本體性”與文學(xué)的“內(nèi)在研究”——雷納·威勒克批評(píng)思想的核心[J];外國(guó)文學(xué)評(píng)論;1992年01期
8 劉再?gòu)?fù);;論文學(xué)的主體性[J];文學(xué)評(píng)論;1985年06期
9 楊春時(shí);;論文藝的充分主體性和超越性——兼評(píng)《文藝學(xué)方法論問(wèn)題》[J];文學(xué)評(píng)論;1986年04期
10 支宇;文學(xué)作品的存在方式——韋勒克文論的邏輯起點(diǎn)和理論核心[J];西南民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年03期
，本文編號(hào)：2227229
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/wenyilunwen/wenxuell/2227229.html
教材專著
