略论类型学与历史类型学的异同

On the Similarities and Differences between the Typology and Historical Typology

国内教材对类型学的定义大多只强调对跨越时空、文化、民族、语言背景下的文学现象作类同性的研究,而忽视对异质性的关注。而苏俄历史类型学是既求同,也求异的,只不过是偏重于求同而已。曹顺庆先生提倡类型学应该在寻觅整体文学演进通则和规律的同时,发掘出相似类型表象下深层次的文化差异,彰显民族文学的异质性。这是对苏俄历史类型学求同存异的研究思路的回归,但是又与之不完全相同,而是更偏重于寻求不同文化的异质性。

It is found that most of these definitions of typology merely stress on the similar study of the phenomena of literature which across time, space, cultural, ethnic and linguistic background,while ignoring the heterogeneity study. The historical typology of Soviet Russia are not only seeking the similar, but also heterogeneity, though it emphasis more on the similar. Professor Cao Shunqing advocates that typology should be looking for general rules and laws of evolution of general literature, and in the same time, explore the deep cultural differences under the appearances of similar type, highlights the heterogeneity of national literature. This idea is a return of historical typology to the Russian Soviet, but is not identical with it, and puts more emphasis than the Russian Soviet on finding the heterogeneity of different cultures.