文学意义的生成：重审雅各布森与里法泰尔、卡勒之争

文艺理论研究 ›› 2016, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (5): 171-189.

文学意义的生成：重审雅各布森与里法泰尔、卡勒之争

江飞

安庆师范大学文学院

出版日期:2016-09-25 发布日期:2017-09-30
作者简介:江飞，文学博士，安庆师范大学文学院副教授，主要从事文学理论和中国当代文学研究。
基金资助:
本文为国家社科基金重大项目“20世纪中国美学史”[项目编号：12&ZD111]、安徽省哲学社会科学规划青年项目“朱光潜语言诗学思想研究”[项目编号：AHSKQ2014D102] 、安徽省2016年高校优秀青年人才支持计划重点项目[项目编号：gxyqZD2016203]的阶段性成果。

The Becoming of Literary Significance: A Review of the Debate Jakobson vs. Riffaterre and Culler

Jiang Fei

the School of Literary Studies, An'qing Normal University (An'qing 246011, China)

Online:2016-09-25 Published:2017-09-30
About author:Jiang Fei, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the School of Literary Studies, An'qing Normal University (An'qing 246011, China). His research interests cover literary theory and Contemporary Chinese Literature.

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 1960-1970年代，罗曼·雅各布森语言诗学的批评方法与实践取得了巨大成功，但也先后遭到结构主义阵营中里法泰尔和卡勒等人的批评，前者坚持“读者反应”立场，后者则立论于读者的“文学能力”；而雅各布森则努力追求和捍卫对“语法的诗歌”和“诗歌的语法”问题的系统探究，分别从语言学立场、读者期待和能力培养、语法结构研究的正当性、诗性结构的主导、诗学分析的客观性等方面予以反批评；双方争论的焦点是读者阐释与语言阐释在文学意义生成过程中孰先孰后，孰轻孰重。在后结构主义时代的今天，反思这场争论，有利于我们更加科学地理解跨学科研究的必要，认清从语言诗学走向文化诗学的必然。

关键词: 罗曼·雅各布森, 里法泰尔, 卡勒, 语言诗学, 文学意义, 文学能力

Abstract: Although the critical methods and practices of Roman Jakobson's linguistic poetics made great achievements during the 1960s-1970s, Michael Riffaterre and Jonathan Culler, as representatives in the structuralist camp, successively introduced the criticisms of Jakobson, the former espousing the theory of "reader-response" and the latter that of the reader's "literary competence". Jakobson strives and keep fighting for research on "poetry of grammar" and "grammar of poetry", counter-criticizing from the perspectives of linguistics, reader expectation and competence development, the legitimacy of studies of linguistic structure, the dominance of poetic structure, and the objectivity of poetic analysis. The focus of the both sides' arguments is the function and sequence of reader interpretation and linguistic interpretation in the becoming of literary significance. In the post-structuralism times, reflections on this argument may help better understand the need for interdisciplinary research and the inevitability of the cultural turn in linguistic poetics.

Key words: Roman Jakobson, Riffaterre, Culle, linguistic poetics, literary significance, literary competence

江飞. 文学意义的生成：重审雅各布森与里法泰尔、卡勒之争[J]. 文艺理论研究, 2016, 36(5): 171-189.

Jiang Fei. The Becoming of Literary Significance: A Review of the Debate Jakobson vs. Riffaterre and Culler [J]. Theoretical Studies in Literature and Art, 2016, 36(5): 171-189.

Bradford,Richard.Roman Jakobson:Life,Literature,Art.London&New York:Roudedge,1994.
乔纳森·卡勒:《结构主义诗学》,盛宁译。北京:中国社会科学出版社,1991年。[Culler,Jonathan.Structuralist Poetics.Trans.Sheng Ning.Beijing:China Social Sciences Press,1991.]
戈蒂耶:《回忆波德莱尔》,陈圣生译。上海:上海译文出版社,2011年。[Gautier.T..Recall Charles Baudelaire.Trans.Chen Shengsheng.Shanghai:Shanghai Translation Publishing House,2011.]
Jakobson,Roman.Language in Literature,eds.Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy.Cambridge:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1987.
——.Selected WritingsⅢ:Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry.Ed.Stephen Rudy.Paris&New York:Mouton Publishers,1981.
Jakobson,Roman and Pomorska,Krystyna.Dialogues.New York:Cambridge University Press,1983.
安纳·杰弗森戴维·罗比:《西方现代文学理论概述与比较》,包华福译。长沙:湖南文艺出版社,1986年。[Jafferson,Anna,and David Robbie.Modern Western Literary Theories:An Introduction and Comparison.Trans.Bao Huafu.Changsha:Hu'nan Literature and Arts Publishing House,1986.]
Riffaterre,Michael."Describing Poetic Structures:Two approaches to Baudelaire's les Chats."Structuralism.New Haven:Yale University Press,1966.
Rorty,Richard,ed.The Linguistic Turn.Chicago:Chicago University Press,1967.
(1)在1960-1970年代,雅各布森分别与各语种的专家合作,对二十余位不同时期、不同风格的诗人诗作进行了诗性功能的语言细察,涉及俄国、英国、法国、德国、葡萄牙、波兰、罗马利亚、保加利亚、希腊等近二十个(种)国家和语言,甚至还对中国的古典格律诗和日本古典诗歌进行了深入研究。其研究时空跨度之大(近十三个世纪,横跨欧亚),内容之丰富,分析之细致,令人惊叹,至今无人能出其右。
(2)参见方维规:“‘文学作为社会幻想的试验场'——另一个德国的‘接受理论'”,《外国文学评论》4(2011):137-52。

[1]	冯毓云, 周丽明. 语境的创新机制——以瑞恰慈和卡勒为中心的考察 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2023, 43(2): 172-181.
[2]	吴芳. 乔纳森·卡勒的女性主义阅读理论 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2017, 37(2): 148-154.
[3]	姚文放. 文学经典之争向文学研究回归的迹象 [J]. 文艺理论研究, 2013, 33(3): 164-171.