本文選題：神話批評(píng) + 原型批評(píng)�。� 參考：《東北師范大學(xué)》2002年碩士論文

【摘要】： 神話批評(píng)與原型批評(píng)，進(jìn)而言之，心理原型與文學(xué)原型等概念以及它們之間的關(guān)系，一直是我們?cè)趯?duì)這一流派研究中面臨的重要問(wèn)題。國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)術(shù)界對(duì)這些概念認(rèn)識(shí)上的模糊和內(nèi)涵使用上的混亂，常常使讀者閱讀這類(lèi)著作時(shí)，，如墜云霧之中。所以，認(rèn)真分析和科學(xué)把握這些概念的內(nèi)涵，以期正確地使用它們，是當(dāng)前批評(píng)界要做的主要任務(wù)。本文正是在這種認(rèn)識(shí)的基礎(chǔ)上，選擇這一課題進(jìn)行研究的。本論文的重要內(nèi)容如下： 一、神話批評(píng)和原型批評(píng)的關(guān)系。很多學(xué)者認(rèn)為兩者異名同實(shí)，筆者經(jīng)過(guò)辨析，提出了不同意見(jiàn)。本篇論文的第一章集中論述了神話批評(píng)和原型批評(píng)各自的研究重心所在，并依照美國(guó)學(xué)者M(jìn)·H·艾布拉姆斯在《鏡與燈》中對(duì)文學(xué)批評(píng)理論的總結(jié)成果，區(qū)分了二者。筆者認(rèn)為神話批評(píng)主要是一種對(duì)文學(xué)的外在性研究，原型批評(píng)則是一種對(duì)于文學(xué)內(nèi)部的本體論研究，內(nèi)外視角的不同是它們的根本區(qū)別所在。 二、對(duì)于原型概念的理解。原型概念在榮格和弗萊的著作中均占據(jù)重要位置，但它們的意義并不一致。榮格和弗萊十分強(qiáng)調(diào)他們分別從事的心理學(xué)和文學(xué)研究的學(xué)科獨(dú)立性，因此原型概念的內(nèi)涵和外延在他們那里具有鮮明的學(xué)科特色，也就是說(shuō)他們對(duì)于原型概念的使用是在不同層面上、不同領(lǐng)域中展開(kāi)的。但是，后來(lái)的許多學(xué)者在使用原型概念時(shí)對(duì)這兩層含義并未首先做出區(qū)分，這造成了對(duì)作為文學(xué)批評(píng)方法的原型批評(píng)理論理解上的混亂。本文第二章建議明確提出“心理原型”和“文學(xué)原型”之分，并分別就原型在心理學(xué)領(lǐng)域和文學(xué)領(lǐng)域中的具體所指做山了論述。 筆者出于興趣涉足原型批評(píng)領(lǐng)域，但在閱讀中遇上了許多難題。本篇論文針對(duì)原型批評(píng)理論中的一些重要問(wèn)題陳述了筆者十分簡(jiǎn)略的個(gè)人看法，希望能在眾多老師的幫助下進(jìn)一步開(kāi)展研究。
[Abstract]:Mythological criticism and archetypal criticism, and furthermore, the concepts of psychological archetype and literary archetype, as well as the relationship between them, have always been the important problems we face in the study of this school.The vagueness of understanding of these concepts and the confusion of the use of their connotations in domestic academic circles often make readers fall into a cloud when reading such works.Therefore, it is the main task of the current critical circle to analyze and scientifically grasp the connotation of these concepts in order to use them correctly.This paper chooses this subject to study on the basis of this understanding.The main contents of this thesis are as follows:First, the relationship between mythological criticism and archetypal criticism.Many scholars believe that the two are synonymous, the author through differentiation, put forward different views.The first chapter of this thesis focuses on the focus of research on mythological criticism and archetypal criticism, and distinguishes them according to the American scholar M. H. Abrams' summary of literary criticism theory in Mirror and Lamp.The author holds that mythological criticism is mainly a study of the externality of literature, while archetypal criticism is an ontological study of literature, and the fundamental difference lies in their internal and external perspectives.Second, understanding the concept of prototype.Archetypal concepts play an important role in both Jung and Frye's works, but their meanings are not the same.Jung and Fry stressed the independence of the psychology and literature studies they were engaged in, so the connotation and extension of the prototype concept had distinct disciplinary characteristics.In other words, their use of archetypal concepts takes place at different levels and in different domains.However, many scholars did not distinguish these two meanings in the use of archetypal concept, which caused confusion in understanding the archetypal criticism theory as a method of literary criticism.In the second chapter, the author puts forward the distinction between "psychological archetype" and "literary prototype", and discusses the specific implications of archetype in the field of psychology and literature respectively.Out of interest, the author dabbles in the field of archetypal criticism, but encounters many difficulties in reading.This paper presents my personal views on some important problems in archetypal criticism theory and hopes to carry out further research with the help of many teachers.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2002
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：I06

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 周津丞;楊效宏;;大眾媒介話語(yǔ)的原型沉淀——以突發(fā)性公共事件為中心[J];江西社會(huì)科學(xué);2010年06期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 王慧;論弗萊“神話—原型”批評(píng)對(duì)中國(guó)古典詩(shī)歌的闡釋功能[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2011年

2 陳鳳霞;解讀《莫娜在希望之鄉(xiāng)》中圣經(jīng)原型的位移[D];華北電力大學(xué);2011年

3 陳博;“含蓄”范疇新釋與含蓄詩(shī)學(xué)體系建構(gòu)[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2010年

4 王莉;鄂溫克民族文學(xué)的神話原型探究[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2012年

本文編號(hào)：1764100