文学意义的生成:重审雅各布森与里法泰尔、卡勒之争

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

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。

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.