韦恩·布斯与西方文学批评的修辞视角
|
摘要
作为当代西方著名修辞学家和文学批评家,韦恩·布斯是一位在修辞和文学理论领域都卓有建树的“两栖学者”。布斯的修辞理论深刻地影响着其文学批评实践和理论。在他的学术观点中,西方文学和修辞思想传统上难解难分的关系尤其是当代西方文学批评对修辞的回归同时得到了突出的体现。然而,这一对我们全面了解布斯必不可少的视角却几乎为国内研究西方文论的学者所忽略。长期以来,我国学者仅将他视为在叙事理论方面曾经有所建树的文学批评家,完全忽略了他不可割裂的双重身份,以及这一身份对理解其文学理论的至关重要性。为了将一位完整的布斯介绍给国内学术界,为了更好地理解和把握其修辞理论和文学批评理论(包括小说叙事理论),同时也为了使我们意识到西方文学思想和修辞思想源远流长的复杂关系,本文拟从西方修辞(rhetoric)的角度,对其人其作及其理论实践的智力语境进行一番再审视和再解读。
“Rhetoric”和“修辞”是一对“错位对应词”。在中西语境中,修辞的含义迥然不同。西方修辞的理论研究源远流长、博大精深,在西方智力史上曾长期被接受为文学批评理论的出发点和框架。西方修辞强调话语效果,坚持修辞者与受众的互动是话语生成的唯一途径。修辞理论和话语理论几乎呈“同延”或“重合”关系。因此,侧重于文学产生的社会效果的研究,必须借重于修辞的视角。在当代西方,布斯是将修辞理论应用于文学批评实践及其理论建构的成功典范。从《小说修辞》的“内在批评”到《小说伦理》的“外在批评”,布斯对于修辞的关注是一以贯之的。布斯的文学批评理论有其历史局限性和诸多不足之处,但是我们没有理由忽视其一定程度上所代表的西方文学批评的修辞化传统。
这一传统的历史渊源亦体现在当代西方文学批评理论中。雅克德里达、保罗·德曼、罗兰·巴特乃至特里·伊格尔顿等当代西方文学批评理论大师均在修辞方面造诣极深。他们也都无一例外地将目光投向修辞的视角。可以说,当代西方文学批评正在进行一场波澜壮阔的“修辞转向”(rhetorical turn)。以布斯的个案研究为一个“话点”和写作平台,并由此映射到西方文学批评的修辞化传统及其当代的最新理论成果,从而促使国内文论界、比较文学界正视、重视、审视这一重大的“修辞转向”。
As a well-known contemporary Western rhetorician and literary critic, Wayne Booth is what we term an "amphibian scholar" whose scholarly interests cover both of the fields of rhetorical theory and literary theory. Booth has yielded fruitful achievements both in rhetorical theory and literary criticism, with the former exerting a strong impact upon the latter one. In Booth we could identify a close and hardly dissociated relationship between literary criticism and rhetoric and also a tendency for contemporary Western literary criticism to return to the ancient path of rhetoric. However, little attention has thus far been paid by domestic Chinese scholars specializing in Western literary theories to this unique perspective which is indispensable and of great importance for us to understand Booth in an overall way. In the long past, Booth has always been regarded as an accomplished literary critic in narrative theories, with his dual and inseparable identities and the importance of these two for a true understanding of his literary theories being unfortunately ignored. In order to introduce an all-around Booth as a scholar to Chinese scholarly community, and for a true and better understanding and mastery of his rhetorical and literary theories including his narrative and novel theories, and also for our awareness of the long-held and complex relationship between rhetorical thoughts and literary thoughts, this dissertation makes an attempt to reinterpret and re-observe Booth and his works and the intellectual climate in which he used to do literary critical practice from a Western rhetorical perspective.
Xiuci, as a term understood in a Chinese context, is no equivalent for "rhetoric" as it has been understood and practiced in a Western context. Seen from both their denotations and connotations in a Chinese context and a Western one respectively, these two terms could hardly mean the same. Having a long history of theoretical studies in the West and being extremely profound and complex in its theories, rhetoric has long been accepted as the departure for literary theory and served as its theoretical framework. Western rhetoric attaches great importance to the discursive effect and assumes itself as the only channel for producing discourse. In this sense, rhetorical theories and discourse theories form a relationship of overlapping over each other. Thus, literary studies mainly concerned with the social effect of a literary work, must rely on a rhetorical perspective. In the contemporary West, Booth has set a successful example for us by applying his rhetorical theories into his literary critical practice and theoretical construction. From the so-called intrinsic criticism embodied in The Rhetoric of Fiction to the so-called extrinsic criticism embodied in The Company We Keep, rhetoric has always been Booth's central concern. There being no doubt that both Booth's rhetorical theories and his literary theories have their drawbacks and historical limitations, no reasons could possibly account for our neglect of the rhetorical tradition of Western literary criticism, with Booth as one of the most successful practitioners of this tradition.
This tradition, with a long history, has been carried forward by some contemporary Western literary critics among who are Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Paul de Man and Terry Eagleton. As masters in literary theories, they are all literary-theorists-as-rhetoricians. They always keep a close eye on rhetoric while practicing literary criticism. It could be adequately assumed that a spectacular and grand "rhetorical turn" of literary criticism is currently underway in the West. Booth being a topic and writing platform for us, we hold that the stakes are high in attending to the rhetorical tradition of Western literary criticism and its latest theoretical development.
“Rhetoric”和“修辞”是一对“错位对应词”。在中西语境中,修辞的含义迥然不同。西方修辞的理论研究源远流长、博大精深,在西方智力史上曾长期被接受为文学批评理论的出发点和框架。西方修辞强调话语效果,坚持修辞者与受众的互动是话语生成的唯一途径。修辞理论和话语理论几乎呈“同延”或“重合”关系。因此,侧重于文学产生的社会效果的研究,必须借重于修辞的视角。在当代西方,布斯是将修辞理论应用于文学批评实践及其理论建构的成功典范。从《小说修辞》的“内在批评”到《小说伦理》的“外在批评”,布斯对于修辞的关注是一以贯之的。布斯的文学批评理论有其历史局限性和诸多不足之处,但是我们没有理由忽视其一定程度上所代表的西方文学批评的修辞化传统。
这一传统的历史渊源亦体现在当代西方文学批评理论中。雅克德里达、保罗·德曼、罗兰·巴特乃至特里·伊格尔顿等当代西方文学批评理论大师均在修辞方面造诣极深。他们也都无一例外地将目光投向修辞的视角。可以说,当代西方文学批评正在进行一场波澜壮阔的“修辞转向”(rhetorical turn)。以布斯的个案研究为一个“话点”和写作平台,并由此映射到西方文学批评的修辞化传统及其当代的最新理论成果,从而促使国内文论界、比较文学界正视、重视、审视这一重大的“修辞转向”。
As a well-known contemporary Western rhetorician and literary critic, Wayne Booth is what we term an "amphibian scholar" whose scholarly interests cover both of the fields of rhetorical theory and literary theory. Booth has yielded fruitful achievements both in rhetorical theory and literary criticism, with the former exerting a strong impact upon the latter one. In Booth we could identify a close and hardly dissociated relationship between literary criticism and rhetoric and also a tendency for contemporary Western literary criticism to return to the ancient path of rhetoric. However, little attention has thus far been paid by domestic Chinese scholars specializing in Western literary theories to this unique perspective which is indispensable and of great importance for us to understand Booth in an overall way. In the long past, Booth has always been regarded as an accomplished literary critic in narrative theories, with his dual and inseparable identities and the importance of these two for a true understanding of his literary theories being unfortunately ignored. In order to introduce an all-around Booth as a scholar to Chinese scholarly community, and for a true and better understanding and mastery of his rhetorical and literary theories including his narrative and novel theories, and also for our awareness of the long-held and complex relationship between rhetorical thoughts and literary thoughts, this dissertation makes an attempt to reinterpret and re-observe Booth and his works and the intellectual climate in which he used to do literary critical practice from a Western rhetorical perspective.
Xiuci, as a term understood in a Chinese context, is no equivalent for "rhetoric" as it has been understood and practiced in a Western context. Seen from both their denotations and connotations in a Chinese context and a Western one respectively, these two terms could hardly mean the same. Having a long history of theoretical studies in the West and being extremely profound and complex in its theories, rhetoric has long been accepted as the departure for literary theory and served as its theoretical framework. Western rhetoric attaches great importance to the discursive effect and assumes itself as the only channel for producing discourse. In this sense, rhetorical theories and discourse theories form a relationship of overlapping over each other. Thus, literary studies mainly concerned with the social effect of a literary work, must rely on a rhetorical perspective. In the contemporary West, Booth has set a successful example for us by applying his rhetorical theories into his literary critical practice and theoretical construction. From the so-called intrinsic criticism embodied in The Rhetoric of Fiction to the so-called extrinsic criticism embodied in The Company We Keep, rhetoric has always been Booth's central concern. There being no doubt that both Booth's rhetorical theories and his literary theories have their drawbacks and historical limitations, no reasons could possibly account for our neglect of the rhetorical tradition of Western literary criticism, with Booth as one of the most successful practitioners of this tradition.
This tradition, with a long history, has been carried forward by some contemporary Western literary critics among who are Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Paul de Man and Terry Eagleton. As masters in literary theories, they are all literary-theorists-as-rhetoricians. They always keep a close eye on rhetoric while practicing literary criticism. It could be adequately assumed that a spectacular and grand "rhetorical turn" of literary criticism is currently underway in the West. Booth being a topic and writing platform for us, we hold that the stakes are high in attending to the rhetorical tradition of Western literary criticism and its latest theoretical development.
引文
[1]Booth,Wayne C.A,Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ⅸ.
[2]可参阅汪建峰.西方修辞与西方的中圈形象塑造[J].修辞学习,2007(5):26-30.
[1]其主笔人为詹姆斯·费伦(James Phelan),此人系美国叙事文学研究协会前主席、《叙事》杂志现任主编、美国俄亥俄州立大学英文教授,与布斯亦师亦友,同时也被认为是当代西方叙事学理论的领军人物。
[2]Phelaa,James.Wayne C.Booth[A].In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965"[C].Gregory S.Jay,editor.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[1]Phelan,James.Wayne C.Booth[A].In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965"[C].Gregory S.Jay,editor.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[2]Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth[M].London and New York:Routledge,2006,p.11.
[2]这一段话的英文原文是:"I should finally make explicit an even larger debt that may be obscured by the widespread belief that 'Chicago critics,'of whom I am supposed to be one Aristotelians."(Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony[M].Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ⅹⅳ.)
[3]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth[M].Chicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.4.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent[M].Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.4.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent[M].Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.6.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of Fiction[M].Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1961,p.149.
[4]Phelan,James.Editor's Column:Wayne C.Booth(1921-2005)[J].Narrative.Vol.14,No.2,2006:pp.113-7.
[1]Phelan,James.Wayne C.Booth[A].In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965"[C].Gregory S.Jay,editor.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[2]Phelan,James.Wayne C.Booth[A].In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965"[C].Gregory S.Jay,editor.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[3]Phelan,Janes.Wayne C.Booth[A].In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965"[C].Gregory S.Jay,editor.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[4]Covino,William A.,and DavidA.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,pp.33-4.
[5]Herrick,James A.The History and Theory of Rhetoric:An Introduction.Needham Heights:Allyn & Bacon,2001,p.2.
[6]Herriek,James A.The History and Theory of Rhetoric:An Introduction.Needham Heights:Allyn & Bacon,2001,p.237.
[1]Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth[M].London and New York:Routledge,2006,pp.1-2.
[2]Rawlings,Peter.American Theoriea of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C Booth[M].London and New York:Routledge,2006,p.55.
[3]戴维·洛奇.小说的艺术[M].王峻岩译.北京:作家出版社,1998年版,第9页.
[4]李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版杜,2003年版,第22-23页.
[1]申丹,韩加明,王丽亚.英美小说叙事理论研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005,第223-275页.
[2]Shen,Dan."Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context"[J]NARRATVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.167-186.当代西方著名叙事理论刊物《叙事》(Narrative)于2007年春季专门出版了一期旨在纪念布斯逝世两周年的专号。申丹先生应约撰稿。
[3]Shen,Dan.Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context[J].Narrative,2007(2):pp.167-8.
[1]程锡麟,王晓路.当代美国小说理论研究[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2001年版,第21-22页.
[2]程锡麟,王晓路.当代美国小说理论研究[M].同上,第22-42页.
[3]程锡麟.析布斯的小说伦理学[J].四川大学学报(哲社版),2000(1):64-71.
[4]程锡麟.析布斯的小说伦理学川.四川大学学报(哲社版),2000(1):64-72.
[1]程锡麟,王晓路.当代美国小说理论研究[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2001年版,第23页.
[2]李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中田人民大学出版社,2003.
[3]李建军.论小说修辞的理论基源及定义[J].陕西师范大学学报(哲社版),2000(1):56-60.
[4]李建军.论布斯小说修辞理论的贡献和意义[J].中国人民大学学报(哲社版),1999(6):98-103.
[5]高辛勇.修辞学与文学阅读[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[1]李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版杜,2003年版,第23-25页.
[1]Shen,Dan.Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context[J].Narrative,2007(2):p.170.
[2]曹禧修.修辞学:文学批评新思维[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002(1):73-6.
[3]程锡麟.小说理论的里程碑-析布斯的《小说修辞》[J].四川大学学报(哲社版),1997(3):45-52.
[1]Shen,Dan.Booth's The Rheoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context[J].Narrative,2007(2):p.169.
[2]申丹.作者,文本与读者:论布斯的修辞性小说理论[A].英美文学研究论丛(第三辑)[C].虞建华编.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002年版,第169-170页.
[3]申丹.作者,文本与读者:论布斯的修辞性小说理论[A].英美文学研究论丛(第三辑)[C].虞建华编.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002年版,第169-170页.
[4]程锡麟.试论布斯的《小说修辞》[J].外国文学评论,1997(4):17-25.
[5]胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999年版,第1页。
[6]胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999年版,第504页.
[7]温科学.20世纪西方修辞学理论研究[M].中国社会科学出版社,2006年版,第107-108页.
[1]刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第312-314页。
[3]朱立元.当代西方文艺理论[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2003年版,第257页.
[4]乔田强.二十世纪西方文论选读[C].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006年版,第182页.
[5]朱刚.二十世纪西方文论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006年版,第234页.
[6]朱立元主编.当代西方文艺理论[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2003年版,第4-5页。
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.183.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第295页.
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第294-295页。
[4]朱刚.二十世纪西方文论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006年版,第233-234页.
[5]朱刚.二十世纪西方文论[M].北京,北京大学出版社,2006年版,第234页.
[6]乔国强.二十世纪西方文论选读[C].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006年版,第182-185页。
[7]申丹.究竟是否需要“隐含作者”--叙事学界的分歧与网上的对话[J].国外文学,2003(3):7-13。
[8]韦思·布斯,小说修辞学[M].付礼军译.南宁:广西人民出版社,1987年版,第1页.
[1]韦思·布斯.小说修辞学[M].华明译.北京:北京大学出版社,1987,第1页。
[2]刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9。
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第295页。
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第27页。
[2]Kennedy,George A.A New History of Classical Rhetoric.Princeton:Princeton UP,1994,p.3.
[3]鉴于“修辞”(rhetoric)一词在当代中西语境中的涵义差异极大,又由于本文从西方修辞的视角介绍、审视布斯的相关理论著作以及西方文学批评的修辞视角,除非特别说明,“修辞”指的是“西方修辞”。为了行为方便,本文只用“修辞”而非“西方修辞”.可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第2页.
[4]Aristotle.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.Trans.George A.Kennedy.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991,p.7.
[1]Aristotle.On Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.Second Edition.Trans.George A.Kennedy.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,2007,p.7.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第19页。
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第19-20页.
[4]Murphy,James J.,ed.A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric[M].Davis:Hermagoras Press,1983,p.3.
[1]Kennedy,George A.Comparative Rhetoric:A Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,1998,pp.2-3.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第26-27页.
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第40页。
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.3.
[5]Aristotle.Aristotle's "Art" of Rhetoric.Trans.J.H.Freese.Cambridge,MA:Harvard UP,2000,p.ⅹⅲ.
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第2页。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.8.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第130页。
[1]转引自刘亚猛2007-2008第一学期博士生课程“当代西方话语与修辞理论”的讲义.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第54页.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第54-55页。
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第52页.
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第52页。
[4]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第53页。
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第53页。
[6]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第54页。
[1]大卫·宁等.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[M].常昌富,顾宝桐译.北京:中国社会科学出版杜,1998年版,第19页.
[2]Perelman,Chaim.The Realm of Rhetoric.Notre Dame:U ofNotre Dame P,1982,p.162.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第49页.
[4]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第4-12页。
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.ⅹⅳ-ⅹⅴ.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.ⅹⅴ.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.ⅹⅲ.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.ⅹⅲ.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.ⅹⅲ-ⅹⅳ.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.ⅹⅳ.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Phetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.20.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.21.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.A P,hetoric of Moties.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.22.
[4]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.27.
[5]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.41.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,pp.41-2.
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第110-111页.原文见Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,pp.55-56.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.ⅹⅳ.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.ⅹⅳ.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.46.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.301.
[4]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.301.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.301.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.301.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.302.
[4]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.302.
[1]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.12.
[2]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.12.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第110页.
[4]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第257页.从这一点来看,传统意义上的中西修辞理论都忽视了对于受众的研究.这正如谭学纯等在《接受修辞学》中所指出的:“我们注意到,国内迄今为止的修辞学研究,表现出明显的理论倾向:研究者的目光,过于集中地投向了修辞信息的表达者,或修辞信息的物质承担者(话语材料),而冷落了修辞信息的接受者[即受众].”(1992:3)
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第257页。
[1]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.13.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第257页。
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版。第258页。
[4]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第258页。
[5]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.35.
[6]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第257页。
[7]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第258页.
[8]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,pp.37-8.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.35.
[2]“修辞形势”(rhetorical situation)这一当代西方修辞理论的核心概念之一,由美田当代修辞学家Lloyd Bitzer 于1968年提出,其构成要素有三:“缺失/exigcncc”(“当前存在的一个迫切需要、一种亟待填补的缺憾、或一个必须马上解决的问题,而且只有通过修辞手段,比如发布一个口号或书面修辞文本,才能填补这一需要或解决这一问题”);“受众,atldience''(任何修辞行为总是针对一个特定的受众):“局限/constraints”(修辞者面临一些局限因素,如信仰、态度、资料、事实、传统、形象、兴趣与动机等)(Bitzer,1968.6-8;刘亚猛,2004:62)。
[3]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.19-20.
[4]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第136页。
[5]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第136页。
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第143页。
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第143页.
[3]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.14.
[4]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.12.
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第2页。
[2]刘亚猛.跨文化“交流迷失”及其因应之道[M].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004a(2):85-89.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第3-4页.
[4]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第10页.
[5]吕叔湘,丁声树主编.现代汉语词典[Z].第5版.北京:商务印书馆,2005,第1532页.
[6]夏征农主编.辞海[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社,1999年版,第1913页.
[7]夏征农主编.辞海[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社,1999年版,第1913页。
[1]陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].第3版.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2001,第1页.
[2]陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].第3版.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2001,第11页。
[3]陈光磊,王俊衡.中国修辞学通史(先秦两汉魏晋南北朝卷)[M].郑子瑜,宗廷虎主编.长春:吉林教育出版社,1998年版,第1-2页.
[4]谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1992年版,第2页。
[5]谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1992年版,第6页.
[6]谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1992年版,第6-7页。
[7]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第2页.
[8]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第93页.
[1]刘亚猛.跨文化“交流迷失”及其因应之道[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(2):87.
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第3-4页.
[3]夏征农主编.辞海[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社,1999版缩印本,第2082页.
[4]吕叔湘,丁声树主编.现代汉语词典[Z].第5版.北京:商务印书馆,2005,第1665页。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.135.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma andthe Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.142.
[3]Habermas,Jutgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,pp.24-25.
[4]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.24.
[5]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The M1T Press,1990,p.24.
[6]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p,25.
[1]Hsberrnas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.25.
[2]Hahbermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciouaness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.133.
[3]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.134.
[1]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.134.
[2]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The M1T Press,1990,p.134.
[3]相关讨论可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第110-119页.
[4]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.135.
[1]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Conaciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.136:
刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第306页。
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社。2008年版。第306页。
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第306-307页。
[4]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第307-308页.
[1]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.9.
[2]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.10.
[3]Rorty,Richard.Contingent,Irony and Solidarty.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.13.
[4]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.18.
[1]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.16.
[2]以上有关“话语”定义的讨论,转引自刘亚猛2007-2008学年第一学期博士生课程“当代西方话语与修辞理论”的讲义。特此致谢.
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第5页。另可参阅Foucault,Michel.The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language.New York:Pantheon Books,1972,p.80.
[2]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.Now York and London:Routledge,2003,pp.55-56.
[3]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.54.
[4]Foucault,Michel.The History of Sexuality,Volume I:An Introduction.Trans.Robert Hurley.New York:Random House,1978,pp.100-101.
[5]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第27页.
[6]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第26-27页。
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第28页;
Foucault,Michel.The History of Sexuality;Volume I:An Introduction.Trans.Robert Hurley.New York:Random House,1978,p.86.
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第23页。
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第23页.
[4]Herrick,James A.The Hiatory and Theory of Rhetoric:An Introduction.Needham Heights:Allyn & Bacon,2001,p.18.
[5]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第29页。
[6]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量一关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第29页。
[7]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第29-30页。
[1]Rufo,Kenneth.Rhetoric and Power:Rethinking and Relinking[J].Argumentation andAdvocaey 40(Fall,2003):69.
[2]Rufo,Kenneth.Rhetoric and Power:Rethinking and Relinking[J].Argumentation and Advocaey 40(Fall,2003):69.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第263页.
[4]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.5.
[5]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.55.
[6]Mills,Sara.MichelFoucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.55.
[1]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.59.
[2]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Roufledge,2003,p.59.
[3]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.59.
[4]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Conaciouaness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lonhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.1.
[1]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.60.
[1]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,pp.61-2.
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第4页.
[3]有关“学术”定义的讨论,转引自刘亚猛2006-2007学年第二学期博士生课程“西方学术修辞”的讲义。特表致谢。
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don t Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,27.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,27.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,27.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,30.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,32.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,16.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.,and Marshall W.Gregory.The Harper and Row Rhetoric:Writing as Thinking and Thinking as Writing.2~(nd) Edition.New York:The HarperCollins Pulblishers,1991,pp.ⅹⅱ-ⅹⅲ.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.,and Marshall W.Gregory.The Harper and Row Rhetoric:Writing as Thinking rout Thinking as Writing.2~(nd) Edition.New York:The HarperCollins Pulblishers,1991,pp.23-27.
[2]在西方,对于一些人来说,“修辞”与“空谈”(empty talk)、“夸夸其谈”(bombastic words)甚至“欺骗”(deception)同义。
[3]刘亚猛.修辞与当代西方史学论争[J].修辞学习,2007(4):7-12.
[4]修辞由于柏拉图的这一指控在此后长达两千多年的历史中一直挥之不去,也从此挑起了修辞与哲学岁月漫长的缠斗,修辞的兴衰亦一直与哲学有关.为了给自己“正名”,修辞与哲学打了2000多年的笔墨官司.正因为修辞的“臭名声”,使得多数人谈修辞“色变”,对修辞采取表面上“敬而远之”,实际上却是“扛着红旗反红旗”,柏拉图本人及其后许多的哲学家手段如出一辙,都是“以反修辞之名行修辞之实"(practicing rhetoric in the narne of anti-rhetoric)。
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第42页.
[1]Locke,John.An Essay Concerning Human Understanding(BookThr,,,Chapter Ⅱ).tn Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Eds.Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle.Beijing:Pelting UP,2006,p.296.
[2]转引自刘亚猛2006-2007学年第二学期博士生课程“西方学术修辞”的讲义。特此致谢。
[3]大卫·宁.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[M].常昌富,顾宝桐译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第198页.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motivex.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.101.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.101.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.102.
[4]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Ncedham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.497.
[1]Covino,Will1am A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.497.
[2]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,199:5,p.497.
[3]Covino,William A.,and DavidA.Joiliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,pp.497-498.
[4]Scharbach,Alexander.Rhetoric and Literary Criticism:Why Their Separation[J].College Composition and Communication.Vol.23,No.2,1972:p.185.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.The Philosophy of Literary Form:Studies in Symbolic Action.Third Edition.Berkeley:U of California P,1973,pp.110-1.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Maan,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.5.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.5.
[3]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[4]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[5]刘亚猛,诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[6]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[7]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[1]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[2]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[3]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[4]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[5]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5);23-28.
[6]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[7]刘亚猛,诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[1]Hyde,Michael J.,and Craig R.Smith.Hermeneutics and Rhetoric:A Seen But Unob servable Relationship.In Thomas B.Farrell,ed.Landmark Essays on Contemporary Rhetoric.Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1998:68-69.
[2]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第20页.
[1]陈光磊,王俊衡.中国修辞学通史(先秦两汉魏晋南北朝卷)[M].郑子瑜,宗廷虎主编.长春:吉林教育出版社,1998,第101页。
[2]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第21页.
[3]《文心雕龙》自1990年代初以来,引起了国际比较修辞学界的浓厚兴趣。各种介绍、评述的文章频见于各类学术期刊。
[4]《文则》是另一部引起国际比较修辞学界注意的理论专著。澳大利亚比较修辞学者Andy Kirkpatrick(中文名:柯安竹)择其要义而将其译成英文版.详见Kirkatrick,Andy.China's First Systematic Account of Rhetoric:An Introduction to Chen Kui's Wen Ze.Rhetarica,2005(2):103-152.
[5]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第158-162页.
[1]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第308-312页。
[2]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第350-页。
[3]高万云.中国文学的修辞批评[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(5):13-18.
[4]高万云.中国文学的修辞批评[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(5):13-18.
[1]高万云.中图文学的修辞批评[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(5):13-18.
[2]白春仁.文学修辞学[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1993年版,第4-5页.
[3]白春仁.文学修辞学[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1993年版,第6-8页。
[1]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第3页.
[2]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第25-59页。
[3]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第51页.
[4]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第93页。
[6]王一川.修辞论美学[M].长春;东北师范大学出版社,1997年版,第2页。
[7]王一川.修辞论美学[M].长春:东北师范大学出版社,1997年版,第3页。
[8]王一川.修辞论美学[M].长春:东北师范大学出版社,1997年版,第4-5页。
[9]王一川.修辞论美学[M].长春:东北师范大学出版社,1997年版,第5页.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第316页。
[2]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第84页。
[3]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第84页。
[4]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第84页。
[5]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第85页。
[6]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第86页。
[7]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第86页。
[1]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第86页。
[2]Aristotle.Aristotle's "Art" of Rhetoric.Trans.J.H.Freese.Cambridge and London:The Loeb Classical Library,1926.
[3]Aristotle.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.Trans.George A.Kennedy.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991,p.38.
[4]可参阅刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社。2008年版。第57页.
[5]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第96页.
[6]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第96页.
[7]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第4页。
[1]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第98页。
[2]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第98页。
[3]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第100页。
[4]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第101页。
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第63页.
[6]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第63页.
[7]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第105页.
[1]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第105页.
[2]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第105页。
[3]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第103页.
[4]Liu,Yameng.Dick Morris,Ideology,and Regulating the Flow of Rhetorical Resources[A].In Rhetorical Bodies[C].Eds.Jack Selzer and Sharon Crowley.Wisconsin:The U of Wisconsin P,1999:pp.314-25.
[5]Liu,Yameng.Dick Morris,Ideology,and Regulating the Flow of Rhetorical Resources[A].In Rhetorical Bodies[C].Eds.Jack Selzer and Sharon Crowley.Wisconsin:The U of Wisconsin P,1999:pp.316-7.
[6]Althusser,Louis.Essays on Ideology.London and New York:Verso,1984,p.44.
[7]Althnsser,Louis.Essays on Ideology.London and New York:Verso,1984,pp.44-5.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives,Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.104.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.103.
[1]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,ModernAmerican Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory $.Jay.Detroit,MI:Grale,1988:p.51.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,Modern American Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,Modern American Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Grale,1988:p.51.
[1]当时在全美大学校园里爆发了反越战游行以及各种抗议活动。
[1]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,Modern American Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,/vii:Gale,1988:pp.49-66.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.4.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ⅹⅳ.
[1]程锡麟.当代美国文学理论[--布斯教授访谈][J].外国文学评论,1990(1):136.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.ⅹⅳ-ⅴ.
[2]据笔者了解,在当今美国各大学里,明确以“修辞”命名的院系极少。到目前为止,只加州大学伯克利分校(University of California at Bcrkeley)设立了“修辞学系”.绝大多数的高校在“英语系”(Department of English)、“交流系”(Department of Communication)或“言语交流系”(Department of Speech Communication)的学科框架下,设置了修辞学专业研究方向,配备专业师资队伍和研究人员,并设立了修辞学研究方向的硕博士点(MA or PhD program in rhetoric).
[1]布斯认为,从某种意义上说,他个人将“英语”和“修辞”融为一体纯属历史偶然。但是,他说这种融合令人愉快.要不然,“英语”作为一个领域如果其定位不那么含糊,他就不可能遇到那些他将《教师这一职业》一书献给他们的人。此外,不像很多他的同事认为将英语教师说成"an English teacher"是一个语病(solecism)(因"English"含有"British"之意,他们主张说成“ateacherofEnglish"),布斯却一向坚持“an English teacher”这一说法.
[2]这是布斯杜撰的一个新词,与他杜撰的另一个新词rhctorology(我们主张将其翻译成”理想修辞学”)系同源词.我们主张将rhetorologist翻译为“修辞艺术家”.它既不同于擅长修辞实践的“修辞师”(rhctor),又有别于以修辞理论见长的“修辞学家”(rhetorician).
[3]布斯描述的这一状况也从侧面说明了修辞这一学科在当代欧美人文研究领域的全面复兴.
[4]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.51-2.
[1]Pcrelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.52.
[1]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Trease on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.53-4.
[2]Leiteh,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.63.
[1]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.60.
[2]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.64.
[1]这一段英文原文是:"First,it made Special use of history to serve philosophlical or mcthodological purpOSCS.Second,it advocated an inductive,differential mode of reasoning and demanded care with data and conclusions.Third,it conceptualized textual meaning as 'shaping intention,' seeking to recover this fundamental motive in sympathetic acts of reconstructive understanding.Fourth,it rejected deductive reasoning,and transcendental thinking,deploring Plato,Hegel,Marx,and other 'dialectical' monists.Fifth,it lodged all propositions in a theory of pluralism.And sixth,it proposed a Neo-Aristotelian formalist poetics."(Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,pp.76-7.)
[2]Leiteh,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,pp.66-7.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,Modern American Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.52.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ⅹⅳ.
[2]程锡麟.当代美国文学理论--布斯教授访谈[J].外国文学评论,1990(1):134-7.
[3]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.75.
[1]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,pp.26-7.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth:The Effect of His Being."[J]Pedagogy:Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature,Languase,Composition,and Culture,Vol.7,No.1,2007:pp.91-8.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography.Vol.67,Modern American Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Grale,1988:p.51.
[1]申丹,韩加明,王丽亚.英美小说叙事理论研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005年版,第230页。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.35.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Nosy Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.39.[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don;t Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.36.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,pp.40-41.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,pp.40-41.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.41.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,pp.44-45.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.45.
[1]关于西方古典修辞理论所划分的这三大修辞体裁,可参阅刘亚猛:《西方修辞学史》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第55页.
[2]布斯这一观点也提醒我们,不可片面地、机械地、夸大其词地将布斯《小说修辞》与亚里士多德‘修辞学》的理论渊源关系.
[3]这是一个富有创意的理论观点,布斯显然丰富、发展、完善了亚里士多德《修辞学》中所划分的三大修辞体裁,即政治、法律与仪典修辞.
[1]布斯接受了Bernard Crick在书中有关政治定义的观点.Bernard Crick以为,理想状态下的政治应能“将利益各方召集在一起,以便各方能就政府的一般性运作、秩序的维护做出积极贡献”。即便这一理想状况无法现实或者这一有意的协商过程如何地不尽如人意,“政治与暴政、寡头政治、王权、专制君主制以及中央集权制有着天壤之别”.这一政治观反映了布斯作为一个象牙塔内的学究,对那种受伦理道德制约下的清明、廉洁、有序的政治现实的渴望.
[2]但是,对于这一次前提,因其并不具有不言自明性(self-evidence),布斯觉得有必要加以解释.布斯引用Bernard Crick在《为政治辩护》一书中的观点认为,当出现利益冲突时,其解决之道有二:要么强权一方通过诉诸武力或以武力相威胁把自己的意见强加于弱势方,要么利益各方寻求一个政治解决即一种取决于利益各方间相互协调的解决方案。此外,贿赂也算是可能的第三个解决之道。然而,布斯以为,贿赂要么可归入“力量”范畴(“由于所提供之数额巨大,[对受贿方而匍可认为具有强制性。”),要么可归入修辞范畴(“是的,乔治,我知道你认为受贿是不道德的,但是,你可想想,倘若你在此不跟我站在一起[接受我的贿赂],实际上。你是站在我们共同的敌人一边了……”)。详阅Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation ofA Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.38-9.
[3]布斯指出,对于这一次前提,也许有人会问:“任何政治进程取决于政客所可资利用之修辞质量,何以见得?”对此,布斯认为,现今的政治现实充满着公共欺骗行为(public 1ying)。布斯说道:“处于竞争状态之中的利益各方之间的道理互动取决于维护一定程度的诚实正直和信任,以便道理可以实际交流”。布斯进一步地指出,“显而易见,假如任何社会发展到了这样一个节点,以致每个人都以为,每个人都极可能说谎,那么,真正意义上的政治进程就死了.接踵而至的不人道骚乱很快就得以暴政接管的方式加以解决。因此,我们所说的政治腐败其实就是修辞的腐败.假如它发展到超越一定的总是难以决定的节点,我们就完了(We are doomed.)。在美国,人们经常想知道,我们距离这一节点还有多远。我怀疑,在过去,公共欺骗不如现今这样有利可图。”布斯说.人们不可避免地将尼克松和霍尔德曼新近出版的书与此联系在一起.在布斯看来,这些书都是由“谎言、真伪混同的欺骗陈述(halfqzuths)、偶尔有之的真话构成的有利可图的混合物”.布斯认为,关键是这些书“不仅对我们的政治修辞不利:它们污染了我们的政治氛围,使我们当下的生活堕落”.从这里我们也可以看出,布斯对修辞伦理的两面性始终认识不清.
[4]布斯补充说道:“也许我们应该注意到,以武力相威胁本身即可视为一种修辞,但是,它肯定是一种堕落的[修辞]形式,即‘微不足道'修辞(‘mere'rhetoric),常难以与使用武力本身相区别;它实乃以言辞伪装的武力。这种言辞确实使现实模糊了.”
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.40-1.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.41.
[1]在此,布斯实际上在暗示自己的隐喻(“畅游其中的大海”)比肯尼斯·伯克(Kcnneth Burke)所创造的“辞屏”(Terminjstic Screen)这一隐喻要更好.故而,我们以为,布斯此处有与伯克暗中较劲之嫌。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.41-2.
[1]布斯这一将西方民主制与修辞挂钩的看法使我们想起了一个至今仍然流行于当代西方修辞学界的有失偏颇的观点--在非西方社会不存在一个类似于西方所理解的“修辞/rhetoric”的话语实践及其理论总结。有关这一观点的详细讨论,可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量-关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第48页.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The location of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.42.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.43.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.36-7.
[1]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.47.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第329-330页.
[3]“信仰(adherence)”是帕尔曼在其名著The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation(《新修辞学:关于论辩的求索》)中提出的一个全新概念,也是其修辞思想的核心概念之一。在帕尔曼看来,一切的论辩的最终目的在于获取、强化某一特定受众对某一观点或主张的信仰,直至受众将其加以内化(internalize)并“自觉地”按修辞者的设计采取某一行动。这一概念与亚里士多德修辞思想中的“说服(persuasion)”以及肯尼斯·伯克修辞思想中的“认同(identification)”等概念既有区别又有联系。有关它们之间的区别与联系,可参阅刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第321-347页.
[4]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.48.
[4]如,对一个曾作出突出贡献的市民的悼词;或者没有实际利益的言说,如对一种美德的赞美,对上帝的赞美等。可参阅Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.48.以及刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第330页.
[5]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.47-8.
[6]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.48.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第330页.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第330页.
[3]值得一提的是,作为哲学家和法学家的帕尔曼本人在对论辩进行十多年研究的历程中,发现现代主义论辩观无法解决关于“正义”、“价值',等概念之类的争议。帕尔曼正是由此将目光投向古典修辞理论,并从中得到了极大启发,其代表作《新修辞学:关于论辩的探索》亦是在这一背景下应运而生的。可参阅Perelman,Chaim.The Realm of Rhetoric.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1982.
[4]帕尔曼这一观点有点牵强附会,难以令人信服.这一观点大概跟他的学术身份--哲学家和法学理论家有关。修辞作为一个学科的分裂与没落跟哲学的打压关系极大.但囿于自己的学术身份,帕尔曼当然不愿意承认这一点。关于修辞“没落”的“历史叙事”,可参阅刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第227-278页.
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第330页.
[6]帕尔曼这一令人耳目一新的重要论断使我们进一步地明了布斯的一个类似论断,即三大修辞体裁以仪典/表现修辞为中心.
[7]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第330页.
[1]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tryteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.49.
[2]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteea.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.51.
[3]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.51.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p33.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.35-6.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.36.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.12.
[1]这一观点实际上体现了叙事是一种特殊修辞形态的思想。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.17.
[3]在布斯看来,这里的“言辞”和“形象”自然包括文学话语和文学形象。
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,pp.17-8.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,pp.13-4.
[1]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,pp.3-4.
[1]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,pp.4-5.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.34.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第228-229页.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第229页.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第47页;Richards,I.A.The Philosophy of Rhetoric.New York:Oxford UP,1965,p.3.
[1]布斯曾于1964至1969年担任美国芝加哥大学英语系系主任。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ix.
[3]布斯这一观点显然得益于古典哲辩大师普罗塔哥拉(Pr otagoras)翠先提出的一个修辞基本原则,即“针对一切事物都存在着两种相反[又都讲得通]的说法”.古典修辞理论对布斯的影响在此可见一斑。有关这一修辞基本原则的讨论,可参阅刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第30-31页.
[4]布斯指出,“交流失败”这一说法其实不太准确,因为这一说法表明,如果我们词语使用得当,言语交流 之间的交流应该就可以顺利进行。所以,他选择将这一状况定义为“修辞失败”(rhetorical failure)。他说之所以使用“修辞失败”这一说法是因为他认为“在话语中,很多重大问题面临胜败攸关之际,而不仅仅是选择恰当言辞或表达技巧的修饰性失败”(substantive issues are at stake in the discourse itself,not mere ornamental failures to choose the right word or trick of presentation).见 Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.10.
[5]布斯指出,他之所以选择“修辞”这一传统概念,是因为他要倡导“人们如何在话语中去共同发现双方之前未曾表示过质疑的真理(或至少是一致看法)的新层面的一整套原理”(the whole philosophy of how men succeed or fail in discovering together,in discourse,new levels of truth[or at least agreement]that neither side suspected before)。因而,这里所体现的修辞观是“将修辞视为发现和共享可证当直认的艺术”(a view of rhetoric as the whole art of discovering and sharing warrantable assertion).见Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.11.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicgo and London:The U of Chicago P.1974.p.14.
[2]当然这样说并不一定符合“史实”,毕竟之前已有不少来自哲学界、修辞学界、人类学界、史学界、社会学界、法学理论界以及文学批评界等多个领域的众多学者对现代主义思潮进行了严厉批判。如,针对现代主义思潮下的“事实”与“价值”这个二元对立,哲学家迈克尔·波拉尼(Michael Polanyi)、修辞学家肯尼斯·伯克(Kenneth Burke)和法学理论家兼修辞学家凯姆·帕尔曼(Chaim Perelman)以及布斯曾受教其中的芝加哥学派都曾对其予以严厉批判.然而,正如布斯所指出,虽然这些“一线的研究人员”已发觉这个二元对立“不必要”、“不符逻辑”或“有害”,但是,总体的智力气候仍然依赖这个二元对立及其派生物(the pairings that it spawns)。见Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.20.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.14-22.
[2]这一“戏剧五元模式”的五个要素是:表演(act)、场景(scene)、演员(agent)、道具(agency)以及目的(purpose)。有关这一模式的详细讨论,见刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第339-343页.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.22.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.14.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.23.
[2]这一动机主义形成各种过于简单化的模式来解读人类各种行为,将人类动机简约为几个驱动力(drives)或欲望(urges)或渴望(itches),如“食物”、“性”、“权力”、“名望”等之类。
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.26.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.24-32.
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第284-285页.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.12.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.37.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.37.
[3]Booth.Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.37.
[4]布斯这一“分两步走”的论辩策略同样见诸于他在其他理论著作中.如,他在《小说修辞》中对现代主义小说理论的批判也采取了这一策略。布斯的“切蛋糕法”论辩成略同样见诸于他在其他场合的论辩中(见本文第六章有关“当代西方美学与伦理批评之争”的讨论)。值得一提的,从布斯在批判罗素过程中所采用的论辩策略来看,他显然受到了修辞思想家理查德·惠特利(Richard Whately)《修辞的基本原则》(Elements of ghetoric)一 书的影响。布斯修辞思想的多元来源在此亦可见一斑。有关这一“内在”和“外在”论辩策略的讨论,可参阅刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第277页。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.43-44.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.47-49.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.46-47.
[2]相关讨论可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第30-46页.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.50-51.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.52.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.53.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chic,ago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.54.
[4]Boo th,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chic,ago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.58.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.57.
[1]布斯认为,这里的辨证学或修辞指的是“对或多或少[称得上是]好的理由加以仔细掂量,以达致或多或少具有可能性的结论[的]艺术”.在布斯看来,这一言说艺术有一个好处,那就是“虽然所达致的并非很肯定(none too secure),但是,总比偶然或思维冲动而达致的结论要好”。从这一表述来看,布斯实际上混淆了辨证与修辞之间的区别.据刘亚猛在《西方修辞学史》中指出,“辨证可用于讨论任何一般性话题而修辞只限于讨论跟公共事务相关的一般性话题”;“通过辨证过程取得的往往是超越具体语境的一般性结论而通过修辞过程取得的则通常都是关于具体事务的结论”。二者在方法上亦有区别。有关辨证与修辞的关系的讨论,可参阅刘亚猛:《西方修辞学史,[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第50-51页。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U or Chicago P,1974,pp.59-60.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.59-60.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.76-77.
[1]刘亚猛.二十世纪美图修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.ⅸ-ⅹⅰ.
[1]刘亚猛.《西方修辞学史》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2003年版,第277页。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.91.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.92-99.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.99.
[1]伯克这一定义包含两个命题即“人是发明象征的动物”与“人是滥用象征的动物”。参阅刘亚猛.《西方修辞学史》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第336-337页。
[2]刘亚猛.《西方修辞学史》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第316页。从布斯就自己的理论灵感来源的公开说明来看,布斯的修辞观实际上深受上自哲辩大师普罗塔哥拉、古典修辞学家亚里士多德、西塞罗、昆提利安(Quintilian),下自理查德·麦克基思、凯姆·帕尔曼、肯尼斯·伯克等修辞大师的影响。显然,其修辞思想的理论来源是多元的。有鉴于此,如果我们如国内一些学者那样,直接将布斯的修辞思想与亚里士多德的修辞理论相挂钩,则不仅显得过于狭隘,而实际上也曲解了布斯。这一点应该引起我们的注意。
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.112-115.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.115-116.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.121-122.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.125.
[4]有关符号意义与“遗痕”之同的关系,可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第12页.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.125-126.
[2]Kennedy,George A.Comparative Rhetoric:an Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,1998,p.3.
[3]Kennedy,George A.Comparative Rhetoric:an Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,1998,p.3.
[1]Kennedy,George A.Comparative Rhetoric:an Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,1998,p.26.
[2]刘亚猛.《西方修辞学史》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第4-5页。
[3]有关这方面的讨论,可参阅刘亚猛.《西方修辞学史》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第315-321页。
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.126.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.126.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.126.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.128.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.125.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.129.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.129-130.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.130.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.131.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.131-132.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.132.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.132.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.132.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.132.
[3]也许正是在这一意义上,当我们重新对现代主义思潮的思想建构议程进行反思时,现代主义将宗教观念也斥为垃圾思想时,这无意中却成全了尼采这位后现代主义思潮的萌发始祖一个“修辞发明”的着力点,并以此为一个杠杆支点,将现代主义智力思想整个地颠覆过来。也正是在这一意义上,现代主义思潮“无意中”为人类思想解放运动做出了历史性贡献。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.133.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.134.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.134.
[1]也许正是布斯“我们不需要回归上帝”这一观点,使得詹姆斯·费伦等学者认为布斯在其思想的后期,有一种反宗教的倾向.也许这一论断有其事实依据。然而,我们却认为,从这里的上下文清晰可见,与其说布斯有反宗教倾向,不如说这是布斯建构同意修辞理论的一个话语策略。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.135.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.136.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.136-137.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.137.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.137-138.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.138.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.138.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.139.
[1]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.31-34.
[2]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p,68.
[3]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrcehts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.67.
[4]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.68.
[5]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbreehts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Tratise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.68.
[1]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.5.
[2]有关这一“争议点理论”的详细讨论,可参阅刘亚猛:追求象征的力量--关于面方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第62-66页.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第59页.
[4]有关这个一体两面的新观点的详细讨论,可参阅刘亚猛:追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第62-94页.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.ⅸ-ⅹⅰ.
[2]布斯这里所表达的部分观点让人莫名其妙,而且与他在其他地方所表达的类似观点有自相矛盾之嫌。修辞一向诉诸于具体受众,一向以公共意见(public opinion)而不是真理为其出发点,一向基于或然性(probability/liklihood)。他这里所表达的部分观点也使我们进一步地认识到一点,那就是布斯对修辞的两面性一向认识不足.其伦理道德制约下的、理想化的修辞观在此亦可见一斑。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.ⅹⅱ-ⅹⅴ.
[2]刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.141.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.142.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.142.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetonic of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,pp.142-3.
[1]本文这里采用的三大修辞资源的译名参照刘亚猛《追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考》一书。详见刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第165页.
[2]根据我们的了解,在当代西方修辞学界,亚里士多德《修辞学》的流行译本有两个.一个由当代著名的西方修辞史学家George A.Kennedy所译,另一个译本的作者是J.H.Freese。目前,大多数学者采用的是前一个译本。而布斯在这里所参考的是W.Rhys.Roberts的译本,这个译本现在已很少人采用。从布斯的转述可以看出,前两个译本在对三大修辞资源的理解上存在着一个重大区别,主要体现在对“威”(ethos)的解读上。按照前一个译本,“威”(ethos)是说服中的“支配性因素”(the controlling factor in persuasion),而在后一个译本中,“理”(logos)取代了“威”(ethos)而排在第一位。可参阅Kennedy,George A.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991,p.38.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.144.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.144.
[3]Kennedy,George A.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991,p.38.
[4]Kennedy,George A.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991,p.38.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第71页.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第57页.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.144.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.146.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.147.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.148.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.148.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.149-150.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.150.
[6]值得一提的是,布斯在《小说修辞》一书中的写作议程也正是从批判现代主义小说观开始的。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.165.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.165.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.165.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.166.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.166.
[2]这一段话的英文原文如下:"We master it or appreciate it or enjoy it;it works,hits us hard,carries us away,absorbs or transports us.To me,as to Kenneth Burke,the most nearly adequate metaphors lead here to the notion of identification--I take the work in,or as phenomenologists say,it enables me to dwell in it.I live the work;it lives its life in me.It creator and I become,in apart of our life,indistinguishable as we live the work togethe."参阅Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.169.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.177.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.178,
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.108.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.108.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.108.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.109.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.xv.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.107.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.109-113.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-I988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.315-329.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.40,
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHTORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.51.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.51.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.113.
[2]刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
[3]刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.104.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.316.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ⅸ.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ⅸ.
[5]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.57.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.5-6.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.117.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.118-119.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.120-121.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.121.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.121.
[2]Booth,Wayne C,A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.10-12.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.13.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.14.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.14.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.16.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.58.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.58.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.53.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irorty.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.54-5.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.59.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.196.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.222-7.
[5]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.59.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.227-8.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.60.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第312页.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.60.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.60.
[1]Wayne C.Booth.Critical Understanding:The Powers and Limits of Pluralism.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1979,pp.ⅹⅰ-ⅹⅱ.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Critical Understanding:The Powers and Limits of Pluralism.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1979,pp.3-4.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Critical Understanding:The Powers and Limits of Pluralism.Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1979,pp.4-24.
[1]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.63.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.63.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.63.
[1]有关这场旷日持久的争论,可参阅尚必武,胡全生.西方叙事学界的“隐含作者”之争述评--兼纪念韦恩·布斯去世两周年[J].山东外语教学,2007(5):6-13.
[1]Shen,Dan.Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context[J].NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.175.
[2]Booth,Wayne C."Resurrection of the Implied Author:Why Bother?" In A Companion to Narrative Theory.Eds.James Phelan and Peter J.Rabinowitz.Malden,MA:Blaekwell Publishing Ltd.,2005,pp.75-88.
[1]申丹.关于西方叙事理论新进展的思考--评国际上首部《叙事理论指南》[J].外国文学,2006(1):92-9.
[1]Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth.London and New York:Routledge,2006,p.13.
[2]曾经的芝加哥学派主将之一,也即当代西方叙事学界领军人物、著名学术期刊《叙事》(Narrative)现任主编詹姆斯·费伦(James Phelan)的博士论文指导老师。
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.163.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetorical Stance[J].College Composition and Communication 14(1963):139-45.Reprinted in Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,pp.25-33.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.131.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.131.布斯对现代主义小说观的批判见本文第五章。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.162.
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,(前言)第4页.
[3]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbreehts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatiae on Argu,emtatopm.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.19-20.
[4]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第136页。
[1]如,李建军在《小说修辞研究》中说道:“布斯的小说修辞理论缺乏历史感和时代感,缺乏对制约小说修辞语境因素的考察。……‘新批评'强调作品的客观自足性,反对联系作者的意图和读者的感受来阐释作品,布斯当然是反对这些文学观点的,但是,他的‘隐含作者'理论,却是向‘新批评'妥协的产物,他把作者一分为二,认为文本内容或写作时的作者与实际的作者是完全不同的,这就否定了、切断了作者在创作中的那种内外一致的真实性和联系性,从而从根本上否定了修辞的有效性,造成了交流的虚幻性:读者怎么会放心地与一个同真实作者并不一致的‘隐含作者'交流和沟通呢?”参阅李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003年版,第25页.
[2]Killham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.279.
[3]Shen,Dan.Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context[J].NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.175.
[4]李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003年版,第25页。
[1]Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth.London and New York:Routledge,2006,p.2.
[2]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.63.
[3]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.65.
[1]Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth.London and New York:Routledge,2006,p.14.
[2]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.63.
[3]Killham,John.The "Second Self" in Novel Criticism[J].British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.273.
[4]Killham,John.The "Second Self" in Novel Criticism[J].British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.273.
[5]Killham,John.The "Second Self" in Novel Criticism[J].British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.273.
[6]Killham,John The "Second Self" in Novel Criticism[J].British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.273.
[1]Killham,John.The "Second Self' in Novel Criticism[J].British Journal of Aesthstics.No.6,1966:p.280.
[2]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.106.
[3]Killham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetica.No.6,1966:p.285.
[4]Killham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.286.
[5]Killham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.289.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.155.
[7]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.155.
[8]Kiliham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.279.
[9]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.155.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第277页。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.154.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.155.
[4]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:pp.105-117.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.153.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.156.
[7]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.156.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.157.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,pp.157-8.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.158.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.158.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.159.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.159.
[5]这应该是《小说修辞》中“修辞”的定义。然而,布斯并未如很多读者期望的那样,在《小说修辞》中对修辞更加明确地加以界定。
[1]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.110.
[2]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.111.
[3]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:pp.111-112.
[4]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.112.
[1]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.112.
[2]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.112.
[3]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.112.
[4]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.113.
[5]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.114.
[6]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.114.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of Califomia P,1966,p.294.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.295.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.295.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.296.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.297.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,P.297.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.297.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.297.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.297.
[4]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Fssays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,pp.297-8.
[5]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.298.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.295.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of california P,1966,p.302.
[3]Bakhtin,Mikhail.Problems of Dostoyevsky's Poetics[M].Trans.Caryl Emerson.Minneapolis:U of Minnesota P,1984,pp.ⅹⅲ-ⅹⅹⅶ./Booth,Wayne C.How Bakhtin Woke Me Up[A].In The Essential Wayne Booth[C].Ed.Waiter Jost.Chicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,pp.141-153.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.102.
[1]Boo th,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.8.
[1]Boo th,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.25.
[2]Boo th,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.25.
[3]据布斯所述,此人曾为芝加哥大学文学助理教授,于1963年代在一次内部制定教学计划的会议中出乎意料地极力主张要将马克·吐温的名著《哈克贝利·费思历险记》剔除出文学经典课堂,理由是马克·吐温有关吉姆的描述对于黑人极具“冒犯性”。
[4]Boo th,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.5.
[5]Boo th,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.5.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.32.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.36-7.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.38-44.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.8.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.8.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.7.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.7-8.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.8.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.8-9.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.9.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.1.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.2.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.3.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.4.
[5]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.4.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.4.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.4.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.4.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.5.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.6.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.6.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.7.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.7.
[5]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.7.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.7.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.7.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.8.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Mint Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.8.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,pp.8-9.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.9.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.9-10.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.10.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.10.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.10.
[7]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.11.
[8]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.11.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.11.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.11.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.12.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.12.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.12.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.14.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of CalifomiaP,1988,p.13.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of Fiction.2~(nd) Edition.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1983,p.ⅹⅲ.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.14.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.16.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics_of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.16.
[6]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.200.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.182.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.182.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.72.
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004,第10-11页.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.82.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.51.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.49-50.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.51.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.52-53,
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of Califomia P,1988,p.56.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.60.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.60.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.60.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.62.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.62.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.64.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.64.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.65-69.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.69.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.70.
[7]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.70.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.70.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.71.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.71.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.71.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.72.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.72.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction,Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.72-73.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.72.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.74-75.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.76.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.76.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.73.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.84.
[3]Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1395.
[4]Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1395.
[5]Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1395.
[1]Fish,Stanley.Is There a Text in This Class? In Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle,eds.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1402.
[2]Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Sinnce Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1395.
[3]Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1395.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.85.
[1]共四篇文章.分别是:理查德·波斯纳的Against Ethical Criticism(《反伦理批评》)、马莎·努斯鲍姆的Exactly and Responsibly:A Defense of Ethical Criticism(《确切与责任:为伦理批评辩护》)、韦恩·布斯的Why Banning Ethical Criticism is a Serious Mistake(《为什么禁止伦理批评是个严重错误》)以及波斯纳对努斯鲍姆和布斯的回应文章Against Ethical Criticism:Part Two(《反伦理批评:Ⅱ》).
[2]理查德·波斯纳(Richard A.Posner),享有“美国20世纪最重要的100位法律人之一”之美誉.1939年生.1959毕业于耶鲁大学英国文学系,在联邦最高法院当过助手,1962毕业于哈佛大学法学院,1981年经里根总统提名成为美国联邦第七巡回区上诉法院(芝加哥)法官(自1993年以来为首席法官).芝加哥大学法学院客座教授.论著等身,被认为是“著述最丰的法官.前无古人”.他还是“法律与文学”运动的一位中心人物,该运动的起步标志事件是1973年詹姆斯·伯艾特·怀特(James Boyd White)所著The Legal Imagination(《法律的想象》)一书的出版.其实,怀特这本书“来者不善”,矛头直指当时因波斯纳的论著《法律的经济学分析》一书的出版而兴起的“法律经济学”运动,而波斯纳则在《法律与文学:一场误会》一书中予以反击.但是,10年后阴差阳错,改版了的《法律与文学:再思考》却成了“法律与文学”运动的经典教材。在书中。波斯纳指出,除了法律写作中充满了文学也使用的隐喻、律师强调类比推理与诗人使用比喻相近、法律人使用了文学作品中使用的形象化语言等表面的联系外.法律与文学的联系还有.(1)有数量惊人的文学作品中涉及到法律甚至是正义的一般问题;(2)法律和文学都关注文本的含义,解释是一个中心争议;(3)法律文本特别是法院的意见,很像文学文本。有很多修辞;(4)文学是法律规制的一个传统对象,并且文学作品有时会引出诉讼;以及(5)法律程序,特别是英美的陪审抗辩制,有重要的戏剧化向度等(李国庆:2002,v).
[3]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.156.
[1]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.5.
[2]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.5.
[3]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.5.
[4]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.5.
[5]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.5.
[6]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.181.
[7]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.181.
[8]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.181.
[1]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.156.
[2]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.156.
[3]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅸ.
[4]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅸ.
[5]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅸ.
[6]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹ.
[1]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹ.
[2]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹ.
[3]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹ.
[4]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹⅰ.
[1]仅在这篇文章中,我们就能看到波斯纳对英美文学令人赞叹的熟悉度,其对于相关文学作品几乎可以说信手拈来;此外,我们亦能感觉到他在西方文艺批评理论方面同样是功力深厚。上述这两点是无庸置疑的.
[2]其实,波斯纳在《法律与文学》的导论部分,将自己对于法律与文学运动的立场交代的很清楚.他说他并没有否定法律与文学运动,“我支持它,并且希望看到它繁荣……我希望它繁荣.但不想它被高估,法律和文学有着重要的共同之处和交叉的地方.但是他们之间的区别也一样重要.法律除了是一组文本以外,也是一种社会控制的体系.而且法律的运作有社会科学阐明,并依据伦理标准进行判断;文学是一门艺术,对之进行解释和评价的最佳方法是美学的方法.在文学领域里是一个形式主义者,而在法律里是一个反形式主义者、一个实用主义者.这中间并没有什么不和谐的地方--而这正是我的立场”(着重号为笔者所加).参阅理查德·波斯纳.法律与文学[M]。李国庆译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002年版.第9页.
[1]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹⅰ.
[2]波斯纳在两书《法律与文学:一场误会)(1988)与《法律与文学:再思考》(1998)中对法律和文学的基本判断没有什么变化.尽管他在后一书中列举了一系列法律和文学的相关性(见第一页注解1).但他同时又强调:法律与文学相互启发的程度是有限的。这一领域的一些实践者夸大了两大领域的共同性,对两者的深刻差别关注不够。在1998年版中,他仍然认为法律与文学这个领域仍然“充满了虚假的起点、夸张的解释、肤浅的争论、轻率的概括和表面的感悟”.参阅理查德·波斯纳.法律与文学[M].李国庆译.北京:中国政法大学出版社。2002年版,第ⅴ页.
[3]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.2.
[1]Posner,RichardA."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.1.
[2]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.1.
[3]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.1.
[4]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店.2004年版,第6页.
[5]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.3.
[6]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.3.
[7]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第61-62页.
[8]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第164-165页.
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第165页.
[2]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.3.
[3]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford UP,1990.
Nussbaum,Martha.Poetic Justice:The Literary Imagination and Public Life.Boston:Beacon Press,1995.
[1]有关这个著名的比喻,可参见 Booth,Wayne C."The Way I Loved George Eliot:Friendship with Books as a Neglected Critical Metaphor."[A]In The Essential Wayne C Booth[C].Ed.Walter Jost.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,2006:pp.155-178.
[2]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1,(1997):p.22.
[1]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.344.
[2]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,pp.344-5.
[1]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.1.
[2]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.2.
[3]Posner,RichardA."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.20.
[4]Nussbaum,Mattha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.351.
[5]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.359.
[1]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.360.
[2]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.366-7.
[3]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.366.
[4]Nussbaum,Martha Lave's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.367.
[1]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.394.
[2]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.395.
[1]Abrams,M.H.The Mirror and the Lamp:Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition.London/Oxford/New York:Oxford UP,1953,pp.8-14.
[2]Abrams,M.H.The Mirror and the Lamp:Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition.London/Oxford/New York:Oxford UP,1953,pp.15-16.
[3]对这一传统渊源关系.我们将在本文的最后一章予以详述.
[4]本文将在以下章节适当处论及理查兹、肯尼斯·伯克等人的文学批评视角.
[1]Scharbach,Alexander.Rhetoric and Literary Criticism:Why Their Separation[J].College Composition and Communication.Vol.23,No.2,1972:p.186.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版杜,2008年版,第131页。
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第132页.
[4]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第131页.
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第132页.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M]。北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第132页.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第335-336页.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.123.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.219.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.217.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.ⅹⅰ.
[4]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.ⅶ.
[5]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.124.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Counter.Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,pp.124-7.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications.1953,p.31.
[3]伯克将自己在不同时期创作的三大修辞与文学批评理论名著即《动机语法学》(A Grammar of Motives,1945)、《动机修辞学》(A Rhetoric of Motives,1950)及《语言作为象征行动》(Language As Symbolic Action,1966)统称为“动机工程”(The Motivorum Project).
[4]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd )Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.219.
[5]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.31.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition,Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,pp.40-41.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,pp.70-71.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,pp.71-72.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,pp.72-73.
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版。第294页.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.ⅹⅴ.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.36.
[1]对于这一反击,可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第198-203页.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.180.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.77.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.77.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.77.何谓“修辞性疑问”?刘亚猛在《追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考》一书中指出,“修辞性疑问”实际上是一个“以疑问句为伪装的肯定陈述”,其运作方式是“向某个方向做个假动作却朝另一个方向运动”.意图在于“通过‘在场'的疑问句与‘缺席'的肯定陈述打一种‘假想拳'而取得特殊的修辞效果.”“修辞性疑问”“貌似实意陈述,实则喻意表达。在实意和喻意之间飘忽不定”,从辞格来说,是一个“非转义辞格”(figure)而不是“转义辞格”(trope).其修辞功能是为修辞者提供一个渠道,通过它“轻轻触动受众早已内化了的一种有问必答的‘社会责任感'而使受众在不知不觉中担负起本该属于修辞者的举证责任,也就是将自己和修辞者同化起来了”.见刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第245-246页.
[1]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwatdsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.124-5.
[2]“修辞主义”(rhetoricism)一词极少见诸于西方古典与现当代修辞理论中.应该是德里达所杜撰的一个词.在布斯看来,“修辞主义”一词指的是“一个幼稚的看法.以为修辞效果完全不受除修辞结构(rhetorical structure)之外其它一切因素的影响--完全不受修辞行为发生于其中的语境因素的影响”(Olson,1991:77-78).此外.布斯认为这一看法否认了自己上文所提及的第一现实.即“永久的、不可变更的,非偶然性的真理”(Booth,2004:12-13).我们以为,“修辞主义”一词在一定程度上体现了德里达修辞观的两面性.正如布斯所指出,一方面.德里达强调修辞的重要性.认为修辞无所不在;而另一方面,却又“正确地决定不能让修辞研究取代一切”(Booth.2004:77).
[3]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsvilie:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.135.
[4]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.135.
[1]在国内,“The Sop hists”一词的通用中文译名是“诡辩师/家”或“智者学派”.对这一通用译名.刘亚猛在《追求象征的力量》一书中表达了不同意见,认为前者“不加批判地接受了始于柏拉图,并在近代和现代西方主要出于意识形态的需要而被强化并广为流传的某些偏见”、“包含了该名词在其原始语境里并不带有的负面价值判断”.而后者则“将'the sophists'完全‘智能化'和‘哲学化',无端淡化了他们主要的身份特征,即当时广受崇敬的修辞大师、专家、教授”,故而主张将“The Sophists”改译为“哲辩师”(2004:16).
[2]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Catbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.136.
[1]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.136.
[2]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Dcrrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.135.
[1]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,p.136.
[1]在这里.德里达实际上对“解构反传统”这一指控做出了回应.在德里达看来.如果没有一个得以解构的传统.解构就不可能发生.那些有意将“虚无主义”(nihilism)读入解构的人.一向将解构简约性地描述为“主张无序”(an advocacy for disorder)、“对传统和文化的解构”.正如沙伦·克劳利(Sharon Crowley)指出.“这是完全不可能的(sheer impossibility).”克劳利质问道:“假如人们从来没有感觉到经典所施压的排他性的压力,怎么可能觉得有必要去解构这一文学经典?”“假若人们从来没有感受到传统方法的指导所强加给作者的压迫.怎么可能觉得有必要将作文指导向除了形式主义指导之外的其他因素敞开呢?”(Crowley,Sharon.“Jacques Derrida on Teaching and Rhetoric:A Response." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Liteacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,p.142.)
[2]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,p.140.
[3]Olson,Gary A."Rhetoric,Cultural Studies and the Future of Critical Theory:A Conversation with J.Hillis Miller."In Philosophy,Rhetoric,Literary Criticism:(Inter)views.Ed.Gary A.Olson.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1994,pp.120-121.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.On Literature.London and New York:Routledge,2002,p.13.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.On Literature.London and New York:Routledge,2002,pp.15-16.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.On Literature.London and New York:Routledge,2002,p.18.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.On Literature.London and New York:Routledge,2002,p.21.
[1]有关这场从公共舆论界到哲学界对于解构主义理论的同仇敌忾式的异口同声之讨伐,可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版.第198-203页.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.9.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.9.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Matt Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.9.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987.p.10.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第294页.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第56页
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,pp.102-3.
[1]Eaglcton,Terry,.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.103.
[2]Eagleton,Tony.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.103.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.104.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.159.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.161.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,pp.160-1.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.161.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.161.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.161.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.177.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.177.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,pp.177-8.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.178.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.178.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.179.
[5]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.179.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.179.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.179.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.179.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.180.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.180.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.180.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.180.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.182.
[5]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.183.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction,2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.183.
Abbott,H.Porter.The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative.Cambridge:Cambridge UP,2002.
Abrams,M.H.The Mirror and the Lamp:Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition.London/Oxford/New York:Oxford UP,1953.
Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006.
Allen,Graham.Intertextuality.London and New York:Routledge,2000.
Althusser,Louis.Essays on Ideology.London and New York:Verso,1984.
Antczak,Frederick J.Rhetoric and Legacies of Wayne Booth.Columbus:Ohio State UP,1995.
Aristotle.Aristotle's "Art" of Rhetoric.Trans.J.H.Freese.Cambridge,MA:Harvard UP,2000.
Aristotle.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.Trans.George A.Kennedy.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991.
Aristotle.On Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.Second Edition.Trans.George A.Kennedy.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,2007.
Bal,Mieke,ed.Narrative Theory:Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies (Volume Ⅲ).London and New York:Routledge,2004.
Bal,Mieke,ed.Narrative Theory:Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies (Volume Ⅱ).London/New York:Routledge,2004.
Baldatin,M.M.The Dialogic Imagination.Ed.Michael Holquist.Trans.Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist.Austin:U of Texas P,1981.
Baldatin,M.M.Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics.Minneapolis:U of Minnesota P,1984.
Baldatin,M.M.Speech Genres and Other Late Essays.Trans.Vern W.McGee.Eds.Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist.Austin:the U of Texas P,1986.
Belsey,Catherine.Post-structuralism:A Very Short Introduction.New York:Oxford UP, 2002.
Benson,Thomas A.,ed.Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism.Davis,CA:Hermagoras Press,1993.
Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of Fiction.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1961.
Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970.
Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974.
Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974.
Booth,Wayne C.Critical Understanding:The Powers and Limits of Pluralism.Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1979.
Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of Fiction.2~(nd) Edition.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1983.
Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988.
Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988.
Booth,Wayne C,and Marshall W.Gregory.The Harper and Row Rhetoric:Writing as Thinking and Thinking as Writing.2~(nd) Edition.New York:The HarperCollins Pulblishers,1991.
Booth,Wayne C,Gregory G.Colomb,and Joseph M.Williams.The Craft of Research.Chicago &London:The U of Chicago P,1995.
Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004.
Booth,Wayne C.My Many Selves:The Quest for a Plausible Harmony.Logan,Utah:Utah State UP,2006.
Burke,Kenneth.Permanence and Change.New York:New Republic,Inc.,1935.
Burke,Kenneth.A Grammar of Motives.New York:Prentice-Hall,Inc.,1945.
Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953.
Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action." Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966.
Burke,Kenneth.A Grammar of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969.
Burke,Kenneth.The Philosophy of Literary Form:Studies in Symbolic Action.Third Edition.Berkeley:U of California P,1973.
Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969.
Burke,Kenneth.On Symbols and Society.Joseph R.Gusfield,ed.Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1989.
Butler,Christopher.Postmodernism:A Very Short Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,2002.
Chatman,Seymour.Story and Discourse:Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film.Ithaca and London:Cornell UP,1978.
Conley,Thomas M.Rhetoric in the European Tradition.New York and London:Longman,1990.
Cooper,David E.,ed.Ethics:The Classic Readings.Oxford/Malden:Blackwell Publishers,1998.
Corbett,Edward P.J.Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student.Third Edition.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1990.
Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995.
Culler,Jonathan.Literary Theory:A Very Short Introduction.Oxford:Oxford UP,1997.
Culler,Jonathan.On Deconstruction:Theory and Criticism after Structuralism.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2004.
Currie,Mark.Postmodern Narrative Theory.Hampshire and London:Macmillan Press LTD.,1998.
Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001.
Dentith,Simon.Bakhtinian Thought:An Introductory Reader.London and New York:Routledge,1995.
Derrida,Jacques.Writing and Difference.Trans.Alan Bass.Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1978.
Eaglestone,Robert.Ethical Criticism:Reading after Levinas.Edinburgh:Edinburgh UP,1997.
Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996.
Eagleton,Terry.Marxism and Literary Criticism.London and New York:Routledge,2002.
Eagleton,Terry.After Theory.New York:Basic Books,2003.
Eco,Umberto.The Limits of Interpretation.Bloomington and Indianapolis:Indiana UP,1990.
Eide,Marian.Ethical Joyce.Cambridge:Cambridge UP,2002.
Foss,Sonja K.,Karen A.Foss,and Robert Trapp,eds.Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric.Prospect Heights:Waveland Press,2002.
Foucault,Michel.The History of Sexuality,Volume I:An Introduction.Trans.Robert Hurley.New York:Random House,1978.
Garber,Marjorie,Beatrice Hanssen,and Rebecca L.Walkowitz,eds.The Turn to Ethics.New York/London:Routledge,2000.
George,Stephen K.,ed.Ethics,Literature,& Theory:An Introductory Reader.2~(nd) Edition.Lanham/Oxford:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,2005.
Gibson,Andrew.Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative.George Square,Edinburgh:Edinburgh UP,1996.
Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990.
Harland,Richard.Literary Theory from Plato to Barthes:An Introductory History.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2005.
Herrick,James A.The History and Theory of Rhetoric:An Introduction.Needham Heights:Allyn & Bacon,2001.
Hirsch,E.D.,Jr.Validity of Interpretation.New Haven and London:Yale UP,1967.
Hyde,Michael J.,and Craig R.Smith.Hermeneutics and Rhetoric:A Seen But Unobservable Relationship.In Thomas B.Farrell,ed.Landmark Essays on Contemporary Rhetoric.Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1998.
Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006.
Kearns,Michael S.Rhetorical Narratology.Lincoln and London:U of Nebraska P,1999.
Kennedy,George A.A New History of Classical Rhetoric.Princeton:Princeton UP,1994.
Kennedy,George A.Comparative Rhetoric:an Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,1998.
Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988.
Levinson,Jerrold,ed.Aesthetics and Ethics:Essays at the Intersection.New York:Cambridge UP,1998.
Lucaites,John Louis,Celeste Michelle Condit,and Sally Caudill,eds.Contemporary Rhetorical Theory:A Reader.New York:The Guilford Press,1999.
Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987.
Miller,Hillis J.On Literature.London and New York:Routledge,2002.
Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003.
Murphy,James J.,ed.A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric[M].Davis:Hermagoras Press,1983.
McQuillan,Martin,ed.The Narrative Reader.London and New York:Routledge,2000.
Nussbaum,Martha C.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1990.
Ogden,C.K.,and I.A.Richards.The Meaning of Meaning:A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism.San Diego and New York and London:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,1989.
Olson,Gary A.,and Irene Gale,eds.Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991.
Olson,Gary A.,ed.Philosophy,Rhetoric,Literary Criticism:(Inter ) views.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1994.
Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969.
Perelman,Chaim.The Realm of Rhetoric.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1982.
Phelan,James,ed.Reading Narrative:Form,Ethics,Ideology.Columbus:Ohio State UP,1989.
Phelan,James,ed.Narrative as Rhetoric:Techniques,Audiences,Ethics,Ideology.Columbus:Ohio State UP,1996.
Phelan,James,ed,and Peter J.Rabinowitz,eds.A Companion to Narrative Theory.Malden,MA:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2005.
Punday,Daniel.Narrative after Deconstruction.Albany,NY:State U of New York P,2003.
Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth.London and New York:Routledge,2006.
Richards,I.A.Principles of Literary Criticism.13~(th) Impression.London:Routledge &Kegan Paul Ltd.,1952.
Richards,I.A.The Philosophy of Rhetoric.New York:Oxford UP,1965.
Rimmon-Kenan,Shlomith.Narrative Fiction:Contemporary Poetics.2~(nd) Edition.London and New York:Routledge,2002.
Roberts,W.Rhys.Greek Rhetoric and Literary Criticism.New York:Longmans,Green and Co.,1928.
Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989.
Swartz,Omar.The Rise of Rhetoric and Its Intersections with Contemporary Critical Thought.Boulder:Westview Press,1998.
Weaver,Richard M.The Ethics of Rhetoric.Chicago:Henry Regnery Company,1953.
Wellek,Rene,and Austin Warren.Theory of Literature.Harmondsworth:Penguin Books,1963.
Whately,Richard.Elements of Rhetoric.New York:Sheldon & Co.,1871.
Baker,John Ross."From Imitation to Rhetoric:The Chicago Critics,Wayne C.Booth,and Tom Jones."[J]NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction.Vol.6,No.3,1973:pp.197-21.
Bialostosky,Don."The Rhetorical Tradition and Recent Literary Theory."[J]College English.Vol.51,No.3,1989:pp.325-329.
Bialostosky,Don."Booth's Rhetoric,Bakhtin's Dialogics,and the Future of Novel Criticism."[J]NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction.Vol.18,No.3,1985:pp.209-21.
Bloom,Edward,and Wayne C.Booth,et al."In Defense of Authors and Readers."[J] NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction.Vol.11,No.1,1977:pp.5-25.
Booth,Wayne C."'The Self-Portraiture of Genius':'The Citizen of the World' and Critical Method,Part 2:A Supplement to Honor Arthur Friedman."[J]Modern Philology.Vol.73,No.4,1976:pp.S85-S96.
Booth,Wayne C."Dawn,Delight,Dew,Dove."[J]College English.Vol.15,No.3,1953:pp.171-176.
Booth,Wayne C."Three Functions of Reviewing at the Present Time."[J]The Bulletin of the Midwest Modern Language Association.Vol.11,No.1,1978:pp.2-12.
Booth,Wayne C."Irony and Pity Once Again:'Thais' Revisited."[J]Critical Inquiry.Vol.2,No.2,1975:pp.327-344
Booth,Wayne C."The Meeting of Minds."[J]College Composition and Communication.Vol.23,No.3,1972:pp.242-250.
Booth,Wayne C."A Report on the Failure of IDECOM."[J]College English.Vol.43,No.2,1981:pp.111-121.
Booth,Wayne C."'The Rhetoric of Fiction' and the Poetics of Fictions."[J]NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction.Vol.1,No.2,1968:pp.105-117.
Booth,Wayne C."M.H.Abrams:Historian as Critic,Critic as Pluralist."[J]Critical Inquiry.Vol.2,No.3,1976:pp.411-445.
Booth,Wayne C."Pluralism in the Classroom."[J]Critical Inquiry.Vol.12,No.3,1986:pp.468-479.
Booth,Wayne C."Imaginative Literature Is Indispensable."[J]College Composition and Communication.Vol.7,No.1,1956:pp.35-38.
Booth,Wayne C."Systematic Wonder:The Rhetoric of Secular Religions."[J]Journal of the American Academy of Religion.Vol.53,No.4,1985:pp.677-702.
Booth,Wayne C."Preserving the Exemplar."[J]Critical Inquiry.Vol.3,No.3,1977:pp.407-423.
Booth,Wayne C."Censorship and the Values of Fiction."[J]The English Journal.Vol.53,No.3,1964:pp.155-164.
Booth,Wayne C."Kenneth Burke's Way of Knowing."[J]Critical lnquiry.Vol.1,No.1,1974:pp.1-22.
Booth,Wayne C."The Self-Conscious Narrator in Comic Fiction before Tristram Shandy."[J]PMLA. Vol.67,No.2,1952:pp.163-185.
Booth,Wayne C."Presidential Address:Arts and Scandals 1982."[J]PMLA.Vol.98,No.3,1983:pp.312-322.
Booth,Wayne C."Freedom of Interpretation:Bakhtin and the Challenge of Feminist Criticism."[J]Critical Inquiry.Vol.9,No.1,1982:pp.45-76.
Booth,Wayne C."Why Banning Ethical Criticism is a Serious Mistake."[J]Philosophy and Literature,1998,22:pp.366-393.
Booth,Wayne CBoyle,Thomas E."Unreliable Narration in 'The Great Gatsby.'"[J]The Bulletin of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association.Vol.23,No.1,1969:pp.21-26.
Cain,William E."The Ethics of Criticism:Does Literature Do Any Good?"[J]College English.Vol.53,No.4,1991:pp.467-476.
Comstock,Gary."Wayne Booth,Pluralist."[J]Religious Studies Review.Vol.10,No.3,1984:pp.252-257.
Darby,David."Form and Context:An Essay in the History of Narratology."[J]Poetics Today.Vol.22,No.4,2001:pp.829-852.
Darby,David."Form and Context Revisited."[J]Poetics Today.Vol.24,No.3,2003:pp.423-437.
Fludemik,Monika."History ofNarratology:A Rejoinder."[J]Poetics Today.Volume 24,No.3,2003:pp.405-1.
Hale,Dorothy J."Fiction as Restriction:Self-Binding in New Ethical Theories of the Novel."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.187-206.
Irwin,William."Against Intertextuality."[J]Philosophy and Literature.Vol.28,No.2,2004:pp.227-42.
Kennedy,George A.A New History of Classical Rhetoric.Princeton:Princeton UP,1994.
Killham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:pp.272-290.
Kindt,Tom."Narratology and Interpretation:A Rejoinder to David Darby."[J]Poetics Today.Vol.24,No.3,2003:pp.413-421.
Kirkpatrick,Andy.China's First Systematic Account of Rhetoric:An Introduction to Chen Kui's Wen Ze[J].Rhetorica,2005(2):103-152.
Liu,Yameng.To Capture the Essence of Chinese Rhetoric:An Anatomy of a Paradigm in Comparative Rhetoric[J].Rhetoric Review 14.2,1996b:318-35.
Bitzer,Lloyd F.The Rhetorical Situation[J].Philosophy and Rhetoric 1(Winter 1968):1-14.
Lynch,James J."Moral Sense and the Narrator of Tom Jones."[J]Studies in English Literature,1500-1900.Vol.25,No.3,1985:pp.599-614.
Matalene,Carolyn.Contrastive Rhetoric:An American Writing Teacher in China[J].College English,1985(8):789-808.
Nussbaum,Martha."Exactly and Responsibly:A Defense of Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature,1998,22:343-365.
Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:pp.49-66.
Phelan,James."Editor's Column:Wayne C.Booth(1921-2005)."[J]Narrative.Vol.14,No.2,2006:pp.l13-117.
Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth:The Effect of His Being."[J]Pedagogy:Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature,Language,Composition,and Culture,Vol.7,No.1,2007:pp.91-8.
Phelan,James."Estranging Unreliability,Bonding Unreliability,and the Ethics of Lolita."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.222-238.
Porter,James E."Intertextuality and the Discourse Community."[J]Rhetoric Review.Vol.5,No.1,1986:pp.34-47.
Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):pp.1-27.
Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism:Part Two."[J]Philosophy and Literature,1998,22:pp394-412.
Rabinowitz,Peter J."The Rhetoric of Reference;or,Shostakovich's Ghost Quartet."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.239-256.
Richter,David."The Second Flight of the Phoenix:Neo-Aristotelianism Since Crane."[J]Eighteenth Century:Theory and Interpretation.Vol.23,1982:pp.27-48.
Richter,David.H."Keeping Company in Hollywood:Ethical Issues in Nonfiction Film."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.140-166.
Rufo,Kenneth.Rhetoric and Power:Rethinking and Relinking[J].Argumentation and Advocacy 40(Fall,2003):65-84.
Scharbach,Alexander."Rhetoric and Literary Criticism:Why Their Separation."[J]College Composition and Communication.Vol.23,No.2,1972:pp.185-88.
Schwartz,Daniel R."Reading as a Moral Activity:Wayne Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction."[J]The Sewanee Review.Vol.93,No.3,1985:pp.480-485.
Schwartz,Daniel R."A Humanistic Ethics of Reading."[A]In Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory[C].Eds.Todd F.Davis and Kenneth Womack.Charlottesville and London:The University Press of Virginia,2001.
Shaw,Harry E."Making Readers."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.207-221.
Shen,Dan."Why Contextual and Formal Narratologies Need Each Other?"[J]Journal of Narrative Theory.Volume 35,Number 2,2005:pp.141-71.
Shen,Dan."Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.167-186.
Stecker,Robert."Apparent,Implied,and Postulated Authors."[J]Philosophy and Literature.Vol.11,1987:pp.258-271.
Stow,Simon."Unbecoming Virulence:The Politics of the Ethical Criticism Debate."[J]Philosophy and Literature.Vol.24,No.1,/2000:pp.185-96.
Sweeney,John,Jens Holsoe,and Ed Vulliamy.Nato Bombed Chinese Deliberately.Available at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,,203214,00.html.
白春仁.文学修辞学[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1993.
常耀信.美国文学简史[M].天津:南开大学出版社,1990.
陈光磊,王俊衡.中国修辞学通史(先秦两汉魏晋南北朝卷)[M].郑子瑜,宗廷虎主编.长春:吉林教育出版社,1998.
陈平原.中国小说叙事模式的转变.北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
陈望道.修辞学发凡.第3版.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2001.
程锡麟.王晓路.当代美国小说理论研究[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
高辛勇.修辞学与文学阅读[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
葛桂录.他者的眼光--中英文学关系论稿[M].宁夏人民出版社,2003.
泓峻.文学修辞批评[M].北京:中国国际广播出版社,2005.
胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
胡亚敏.叙事学(第二版)[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社,2004.
李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004.
刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
申丹,韩加明,王丽亚.英美小说叙事理论研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
申丹.叙述学与小说文体学研究(第三版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1992.
谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001.
谭学纯,朱玲.修辞研究:走出技巧论[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社,2004.
徐岱.小说叙事学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1992
王一川.修辞论美学[M].长春:东北师范大学出版社,1997.
温科学.20世纪西方修辞学理论研究[M].中国社会科学出版社,2006.
杨乃乔.东西方比较诗学--悖立与整合.北京:文化艺术出版社,2006.
叶维廉.比较诗学:理论架构的探讨.台湾:东大图书公司,1983.
乐黛云.比较文学原理.长沙:湖南文艺出版社,1988.
朱刚.二十世纪西方文论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
祝敏青.小说辞章学[M].福州:海峡文艺出版社,2000.
吕叔湘,丁声树主编.现代汉语词典[Z].第5版.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002.
乔国强.二十世纪西方文论选读[C].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006.
夏征农主编.辞海[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社,1999.
杨乃乔主编.比较文学概论.第二版.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
虞建华.英美文学研究论丛(第三辑).上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990.
朱立元主编.当代西方文艺理论[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2003.
大卫·宁.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[M].常昌富,顾宝桐译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
戴维·赫尔曼.新叙事学[M].马海良译.北京:北京大学出版社,2002,
戴维·洛奇.小说的艺术[M].王峻岩译.北京:作家出版社,1998.
厄尔·迈纳.比较诗学:文学理论的跨文化研究札记.王宇根,宋伟杰译.北京:中央编译出版社,1998.
肯尼斯·博克.当代西方修辞学:演讲与批评话语[M].常昌富,顾宝桐译。北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
拉曼·塞尔登,彼得·威德森。彼得·布鲁克。当代文学理论导读[M].刘象愚译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006。
理查德·波斯纳.法律与文学[M].李国庆译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
马克·柯里.后现代叙事理论[M].宁一中译.北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
热奈特.叙事话语 新叙事话语[M].王文融译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1990.
特里·伊格尔顿.现象学,阐释学,接受理论--当代西方文艺理论[M].王逢振译.南京:江苏教育出版社,2006.
韦恩·布斯.小说修辞学[M].付礼军译.南宁:广西人民出版社,1987。
韦恩·布斯。小说修辞学[M].华明译.北京:北京大学出版社,1987.
吴伟仁。英国文学史及选读(上、下)。北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1988.
吴伟仁.美国文学史及选读(上、下).第二版.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1990.
亚里士多德.诗学[M].陈中梅译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
詹姆斯·费伦.作为修辞的叙事:技巧、读者、伦理、意识形态[M].陈永国译。北京:北京大学出版社,2002.
郑克鲁.外国文学史(上、下).北京:高等教育出版社,1999.
曹禧修.修辞学:文学批评新思维[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002 (1):73-6.
曹禧修.小说修辞学框架中的隐含作者与隐含读者[J].当代文坛,2003(5):51-4.
陈浩.叙事再现、叙事语法与叙事修辞--论西方叙事学发展的三个阶段[J]。绍兴文理学院学报,2001(6):66-70.
程锡麟。当代美国文学理论[--布斯教授访谈][J].外国文学评论,1990(1):134-7.
程锡麟.析布斯的小说伦理学[J].四川大学学报(哲社版),2000(1):64-71.
程锡麟.叙事理论概述[J].外语研究,2002(3):10-15.
程锡麟.试论布斯的{小说修辞》[J].外国文学评论,1997(4):17-25.
程锡麟.小说理论的里程碑--析布斯的{小说修辞》[J]。四川大学学报(哲社版),1997(3):45-52.
范晓明.浅谈“隐含作者”及其意义[J].黑龙江教育学院学报,2005(4):88-9.
高万云.中国文学的修辞批评[J]。福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(5):13-18.
赫凌敏.对韦恩·布斯《小说修辞》批判观点的再批判[J]。吉林师范大学学报(哲社版),2005(4):84-6。
李建军.论布斯小说修辞理论的贡献和意义[J]。中国人民大学学报(哲社版),1999(6):98-103.
李建军.论小说修辞的理论基源及定义[J]。陕西师范大学学报(哲社版),2000(1):56-60。
李建军.论小说作者与隐含作者[J].中国人民大学学报(哲社版),2000(3):103-7.
李建军。哪一种更好--论小说修辞中作者与读者的两种关系形态[J].小说评论,1999(6):72-9。
刘俐俐.论西方新叙事理论文本批评的方法论意义[J].陕西师范大学学报(哲社版),2005(7):19-26。
刘亚猛.修辞与关联[J]。外语教学与研究,2004(4):252-256。
刘亚猛。跨文化“交流迷失”及其因应之道[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(2):85-89.
刘亚猛.修辞与当代西方史学论争[J].修辞学习,2007(4):7-12.
刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J]。修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
刘亚猛。诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
刘月新.试论隐含作者及其艺术生成.三峡大学学报(人文社会科学版),1995(1):156-162.
刘月新.文学阅读与隐含作者[J].当代文坛,1995(4):24-6.
刘月新.“隐含作者”与艺术真实[J].长沙水电师院(社会科学版),1994(4):69-74.
乔国强.叙事学与文学批评--申丹教授访谈录[J].外国文学研究,2005(3):5-10.
尚必武,胡全生。西方叙事学界的“隐含作者”之争述评--兼纪念韦恩·布斯去世两周年[J].山东外语教学,2007(5):6-13.
佘向军。论小说阅读中“隐含作者”的建构[J].中南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),2004(3):151-4.
佘向军.论作者对“隐含作者”的审美创造[J].怀化学院学报,2004(3):66-8。
申丹。20世纪90年代以来叙事理论的新发展[J].当代外国文学,2005(1):47-54.
申丹.关于西方叙事理论新进展的思考--评国际上首部《叙事理论指南》[J].外国文学,2006(1):92-9。
申丹.经典叙事学究竟是否已经过时[J].外国文学评论,2003(2):92-102。
申丹.究竟是否需要“隐含作者”--叙事学界的分歧与网上的对话[J].国外文学,2003(3):7-13。
申丹.修辞学还是叙事学?经典还是后经典?--评西摩·查特曼的叙事修辞学[J].外国文学,2002(2):40-46.
申丹.叙事学[J].外国文学,2003(3):60-65.
申丹.叙事学研究在中国与西方[J].外国文学研究,2005(4):110-113。
申丹.语境、规约、话语--评卡恩斯的修辞性叙事学.外语与外语教学,2003(1):2-10.
施定.近20余年中国叙事学研究述评[J].学术研究,2003(8):129-132.
唐伟胜.国外叙事学研究范式的转移--兼评国内叙事学研究现状[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(2):13-7.
唐伟胜.阐释还是诗学,借鉴还是超越--再论后经典叙事学与经典叙事学的共存关系[J].外国语,2008(6):74-81.
汪建峰.西方修辞与西方的中国形象塑造[J]。修辞学习,2007(5):26-30。
王杰红.作者、读者与文本动力学--詹姆斯·费伦《作为修辞的叙事》的方法论诠释[J].国外文学,2004(3):19-23.
王丽亚.分歧与对话--后结构主义批评下的叙事学研究[J].外国文学评论,1999(4):32-9.
肖锦龙.文学叙事和语言交流--试论西方的修辞叙事学理论和思想范式[J].文艺理论研究,2005(6):67-78.
韦恩·布斯.隐含作者的复活[J].申丹译.江西社会科学,2007(5):30-40.
姚小平。追求修辞的力量[J]。外语教学与研究,2005(1):73-75.
詹姆斯·费伦,唐伟胜.“伦理转向”与修辞叙事伦理[J].四川外语学院学报,2008(5):1-6.
朱玲。 “修辞立其诚”:中国早期修辞理论的核心[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(6):19-24.
[2]可参阅汪建峰.西方修辞与西方的中圈形象塑造[J].修辞学习,2007(5):26-30.
[1]其主笔人为詹姆斯·费伦(James Phelan),此人系美国叙事文学研究协会前主席、《叙事》杂志现任主编、美国俄亥俄州立大学英文教授,与布斯亦师亦友,同时也被认为是当代西方叙事学理论的领军人物。
[2]Phelaa,James.Wayne C.Booth[A].In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965"[C].Gregory S.Jay,editor.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[1]Phelan,James.Wayne C.Booth[A].In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965"[C].Gregory S.Jay,editor.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[2]Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth[M].London and New York:Routledge,2006,p.11.
[2]这一段话的英文原文是:"I should finally make explicit an even larger debt that may be obscured by the widespread belief that 'Chicago critics,'of whom I am supposed to be one Aristotelians."(Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony[M].Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ⅹⅳ.)
[3]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth[M].Chicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.4.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent[M].Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.4.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent[M].Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.6.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of Fiction[M].Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1961,p.149.
[4]Phelan,James.Editor's Column:Wayne C.Booth(1921-2005)[J].Narrative.Vol.14,No.2,2006:pp.113-7.
[1]Phelan,James.Wayne C.Booth[A].In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965"[C].Gregory S.Jay,editor.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[2]Phelan,James.Wayne C.Booth[A].In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965"[C].Gregory S.Jay,editor.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[3]Phelan,Janes.Wayne C.Booth[A].In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965"[C].Gregory S.Jay,editor.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[4]Covino,William A.,and DavidA.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,pp.33-4.
[5]Herrick,James A.The History and Theory of Rhetoric:An Introduction.Needham Heights:Allyn & Bacon,2001,p.2.
[6]Herriek,James A.The History and Theory of Rhetoric:An Introduction.Needham Heights:Allyn & Bacon,2001,p.237.
[1]Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth[M].London and New York:Routledge,2006,pp.1-2.
[2]Rawlings,Peter.American Theoriea of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C Booth[M].London and New York:Routledge,2006,p.55.
[3]戴维·洛奇.小说的艺术[M].王峻岩译.北京:作家出版社,1998年版,第9页.
[4]李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版杜,2003年版,第22-23页.
[1]申丹,韩加明,王丽亚.英美小说叙事理论研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005,第223-275页.
[2]Shen,Dan."Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context"[J]NARRATVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.167-186.当代西方著名叙事理论刊物《叙事》(Narrative)于2007年春季专门出版了一期旨在纪念布斯逝世两周年的专号。申丹先生应约撰稿。
[3]Shen,Dan.Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context[J].Narrative,2007(2):pp.167-8.
[1]程锡麟,王晓路.当代美国小说理论研究[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2001年版,第21-22页.
[2]程锡麟,王晓路.当代美国小说理论研究[M].同上,第22-42页.
[3]程锡麟.析布斯的小说伦理学[J].四川大学学报(哲社版),2000(1):64-71.
[4]程锡麟.析布斯的小说伦理学川.四川大学学报(哲社版),2000(1):64-72.
[1]程锡麟,王晓路.当代美国小说理论研究[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2001年版,第23页.
[2]李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中田人民大学出版社,2003.
[3]李建军.论小说修辞的理论基源及定义[J].陕西师范大学学报(哲社版),2000(1):56-60.
[4]李建军.论布斯小说修辞理论的贡献和意义[J].中国人民大学学报(哲社版),1999(6):98-103.
[5]高辛勇.修辞学与文学阅读[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[1]李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版杜,2003年版,第23-25页.
[1]Shen,Dan.Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context[J].Narrative,2007(2):p.170.
[2]曹禧修.修辞学:文学批评新思维[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002(1):73-6.
[3]程锡麟.小说理论的里程碑-析布斯的《小说修辞》[J].四川大学学报(哲社版),1997(3):45-52.
[1]Shen,Dan.Booth's The Rheoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context[J].Narrative,2007(2):p.169.
[2]申丹.作者,文本与读者:论布斯的修辞性小说理论[A].英美文学研究论丛(第三辑)[C].虞建华编.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002年版,第169-170页.
[3]申丹.作者,文本与读者:论布斯的修辞性小说理论[A].英美文学研究论丛(第三辑)[C].虞建华编.上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002年版,第169-170页.
[4]程锡麟.试论布斯的《小说修辞》[J].外国文学评论,1997(4):17-25.
[5]胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999年版,第1页。
[6]胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999年版,第504页.
[7]温科学.20世纪西方修辞学理论研究[M].中国社会科学出版社,2006年版,第107-108页.
[1]刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第312-314页。
[3]朱立元.当代西方文艺理论[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2003年版,第257页.
[4]乔田强.二十世纪西方文论选读[C].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006年版,第182页.
[5]朱刚.二十世纪西方文论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006年版,第234页.
[6]朱立元主编.当代西方文艺理论[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2003年版,第4-5页。
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.183.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第295页.
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第294-295页。
[4]朱刚.二十世纪西方文论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006年版,第233-234页.
[5]朱刚.二十世纪西方文论[M].北京,北京大学出版社,2006年版,第234页.
[6]乔国强.二十世纪西方文论选读[C].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006年版,第182-185页。
[7]申丹.究竟是否需要“隐含作者”--叙事学界的分歧与网上的对话[J].国外文学,2003(3):7-13。
[8]韦思·布斯,小说修辞学[M].付礼军译.南宁:广西人民出版社,1987年版,第1页.
[1]韦思·布斯.小说修辞学[M].华明译.北京:北京大学出版社,1987,第1页。
[2]刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9。
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第295页。
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第27页。
[2]Kennedy,George A.A New History of Classical Rhetoric.Princeton:Princeton UP,1994,p.3.
[3]鉴于“修辞”(rhetoric)一词在当代中西语境中的涵义差异极大,又由于本文从西方修辞的视角介绍、审视布斯的相关理论著作以及西方文学批评的修辞视角,除非特别说明,“修辞”指的是“西方修辞”。为了行为方便,本文只用“修辞”而非“西方修辞”.可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第2页.
[4]Aristotle.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.Trans.George A.Kennedy.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991,p.7.
[1]Aristotle.On Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.Second Edition.Trans.George A.Kennedy.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,2007,p.7.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第19页。
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第19-20页.
[4]Murphy,James J.,ed.A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric[M].Davis:Hermagoras Press,1983,p.3.
[1]Kennedy,George A.Comparative Rhetoric:A Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,1998,pp.2-3.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第26-27页.
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第40页。
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.3.
[5]Aristotle.Aristotle's "Art" of Rhetoric.Trans.J.H.Freese.Cambridge,MA:Harvard UP,2000,p.ⅹⅲ.
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第2页。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.8.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第130页。
[1]转引自刘亚猛2007-2008第一学期博士生课程“当代西方话语与修辞理论”的讲义.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第54页.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第54-55页。
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第52页.
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第52页。
[4]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第53页。
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第53页。
[6]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第54页。
[1]大卫·宁等.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[M].常昌富,顾宝桐译.北京:中国社会科学出版杜,1998年版,第19页.
[2]Perelman,Chaim.The Realm of Rhetoric.Notre Dame:U ofNotre Dame P,1982,p.162.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第49页.
[4]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第4-12页。
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.ⅹⅳ-ⅹⅴ.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.ⅹⅴ.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.ⅹⅲ.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.ⅹⅲ.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.ⅹⅲ-ⅹⅳ.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.ⅹⅳ.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Phetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.20.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.21.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.A P,hetoric of Moties.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.22.
[4]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.27.
[5]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.41.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,pp.41-2.
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第110-111页.原文见Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,pp.55-56.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.ⅹⅳ.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.ⅹⅳ.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.46.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.301.
[4]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.301.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.301.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.301.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.302.
[4]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.302.
[1]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.12.
[2]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.12.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第110页.
[4]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第257页.从这一点来看,传统意义上的中西修辞理论都忽视了对于受众的研究.这正如谭学纯等在《接受修辞学》中所指出的:“我们注意到,国内迄今为止的修辞学研究,表现出明显的理论倾向:研究者的目光,过于集中地投向了修辞信息的表达者,或修辞信息的物质承担者(话语材料),而冷落了修辞信息的接受者[即受众].”(1992:3)
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第257页。
[1]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.13.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第257页。
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版。第258页。
[4]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第258页。
[5]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.35.
[6]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第257页。
[7]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第258页.
[8]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,pp.37-8.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.35.
[2]“修辞形势”(rhetorical situation)这一当代西方修辞理论的核心概念之一,由美田当代修辞学家Lloyd Bitzer 于1968年提出,其构成要素有三:“缺失/exigcncc”(“当前存在的一个迫切需要、一种亟待填补的缺憾、或一个必须马上解决的问题,而且只有通过修辞手段,比如发布一个口号或书面修辞文本,才能填补这一需要或解决这一问题”);“受众,atldience''(任何修辞行为总是针对一个特定的受众):“局限/constraints”(修辞者面临一些局限因素,如信仰、态度、资料、事实、传统、形象、兴趣与动机等)(Bitzer,1968.6-8;刘亚猛,2004:62)。
[3]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.19-20.
[4]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第136页。
[5]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第136页。
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第143页。
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第143页.
[3]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.14.
[4]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.12.
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第2页。
[2]刘亚猛.跨文化“交流迷失”及其因应之道[M].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004a(2):85-89.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第3-4页.
[4]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第10页.
[5]吕叔湘,丁声树主编.现代汉语词典[Z].第5版.北京:商务印书馆,2005,第1532页.
[6]夏征农主编.辞海[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社,1999年版,第1913页.
[7]夏征农主编.辞海[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社,1999年版,第1913页。
[1]陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].第3版.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2001,第1页.
[2]陈望道.修辞学发凡[M].第3版.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2001,第11页。
[3]陈光磊,王俊衡.中国修辞学通史(先秦两汉魏晋南北朝卷)[M].郑子瑜,宗廷虎主编.长春:吉林教育出版社,1998年版,第1-2页.
[4]谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1992年版,第2页。
[5]谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1992年版,第6页.
[6]谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1992年版,第6-7页。
[7]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第2页.
[8]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第93页.
[1]刘亚猛.跨文化“交流迷失”及其因应之道[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(2):87.
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第3-4页.
[3]夏征农主编.辞海[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社,1999版缩印本,第2082页.
[4]吕叔湘,丁声树主编.现代汉语词典[Z].第5版.北京:商务印书馆,2005,第1665页。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.135.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma andthe Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.142.
[3]Habermas,Jutgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,pp.24-25.
[4]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.24.
[5]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The M1T Press,1990,p.24.
[6]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p,25.
[1]Hsberrnas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.25.
[2]Hahbermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciouaness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.133.
[3]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.134.
[1]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.134.
[2]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The M1T Press,1990,p.134.
[3]相关讨论可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第110-119页.
[4]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.135.
[1]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Conaciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.136:
刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第306页。
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社。2008年版。第306页。
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第306-307页。
[4]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第307-308页.
[1]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.9.
[2]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.10.
[3]Rorty,Richard.Contingent,Irony and Solidarty.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.13.
[4]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.18.
[1]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.16.
[2]以上有关“话语”定义的讨论,转引自刘亚猛2007-2008学年第一学期博士生课程“当代西方话语与修辞理论”的讲义。特此致谢.
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第5页。另可参阅Foucault,Michel.The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language.New York:Pantheon Books,1972,p.80.
[2]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.Now York and London:Routledge,2003,pp.55-56.
[3]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.54.
[4]Foucault,Michel.The History of Sexuality,Volume I:An Introduction.Trans.Robert Hurley.New York:Random House,1978,pp.100-101.
[5]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第27页.
[6]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第26-27页。
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第28页;
Foucault,Michel.The History of Sexuality;Volume I:An Introduction.Trans.Robert Hurley.New York:Random House,1978,p.86.
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第23页。
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第23页.
[4]Herrick,James A.The Hiatory and Theory of Rhetoric:An Introduction.Needham Heights:Allyn & Bacon,2001,p.18.
[5]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第29页。
[6]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量一关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第29页。
[7]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第29-30页。
[1]Rufo,Kenneth.Rhetoric and Power:Rethinking and Relinking[J].Argumentation andAdvocaey 40(Fall,2003):69.
[2]Rufo,Kenneth.Rhetoric and Power:Rethinking and Relinking[J].Argumentation and Advocaey 40(Fall,2003):69.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第263页.
[4]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.5.
[5]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.55.
[6]Mills,Sara.MichelFoucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.55.
[1]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.59.
[2]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Roufledge,2003,p.59.
[3]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.59.
[4]Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Conaciouaness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lonhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990,p.1.
[1]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,p.60.
[1]Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003,pp.61-2.
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第4页.
[3]有关“学术”定义的讨论,转引自刘亚猛2006-2007学年第二学期博士生课程“西方学术修辞”的讲义。特表致谢。
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don t Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,27.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,27.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,27.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,30.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,32.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,16.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.,and Marshall W.Gregory.The Harper and Row Rhetoric:Writing as Thinking and Thinking as Writing.2~(nd) Edition.New York:The HarperCollins Pulblishers,1991,pp.ⅹⅱ-ⅹⅲ.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.,and Marshall W.Gregory.The Harper and Row Rhetoric:Writing as Thinking rout Thinking as Writing.2~(nd) Edition.New York:The HarperCollins Pulblishers,1991,pp.23-27.
[2]在西方,对于一些人来说,“修辞”与“空谈”(empty talk)、“夸夸其谈”(bombastic words)甚至“欺骗”(deception)同义。
[3]刘亚猛.修辞与当代西方史学论争[J].修辞学习,2007(4):7-12.
[4]修辞由于柏拉图的这一指控在此后长达两千多年的历史中一直挥之不去,也从此挑起了修辞与哲学岁月漫长的缠斗,修辞的兴衰亦一直与哲学有关.为了给自己“正名”,修辞与哲学打了2000多年的笔墨官司.正因为修辞的“臭名声”,使得多数人谈修辞“色变”,对修辞采取表面上“敬而远之”,实际上却是“扛着红旗反红旗”,柏拉图本人及其后许多的哲学家手段如出一辙,都是“以反修辞之名行修辞之实"(practicing rhetoric in the narne of anti-rhetoric)。
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第42页.
[1]Locke,John.An Essay Concerning Human Understanding(BookThr,,,Chapter Ⅱ).tn Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Eds.Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle.Beijing:Pelting UP,2006,p.296.
[2]转引自刘亚猛2006-2007学年第二学期博士生课程“西方学术修辞”的讲义。特此致谢。
[3]大卫·宁.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[M].常昌富,顾宝桐译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第198页.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motivex.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.101.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.101.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.102.
[4]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Ncedham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.497.
[1]Covino,Will1am A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,p.497.
[2]Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,199:5,p.497.
[3]Covino,William A.,and DavidA.Joiliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995,pp.497-498.
[4]Scharbach,Alexander.Rhetoric and Literary Criticism:Why Their Separation[J].College Composition and Communication.Vol.23,No.2,1972:p.185.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.The Philosophy of Literary Form:Studies in Symbolic Action.Third Edition.Berkeley:U of California P,1973,pp.110-1.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Maan,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.5.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.5.
[3]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[4]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[5]刘亚猛,诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[6]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[7]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[1]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[2]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[3]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[4]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[5]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5);23-28.
[6]刘亚猛.诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[7]刘亚猛,诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
[1]Hyde,Michael J.,and Craig R.Smith.Hermeneutics and Rhetoric:A Seen But Unob servable Relationship.In Thomas B.Farrell,ed.Landmark Essays on Contemporary Rhetoric.Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1998:68-69.
[2]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第20页.
[1]陈光磊,王俊衡.中国修辞学通史(先秦两汉魏晋南北朝卷)[M].郑子瑜,宗廷虎主编.长春:吉林教育出版社,1998,第101页。
[2]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第21页.
[3]《文心雕龙》自1990年代初以来,引起了国际比较修辞学界的浓厚兴趣。各种介绍、评述的文章频见于各类学术期刊。
[4]《文则》是另一部引起国际比较修辞学界注意的理论专著。澳大利亚比较修辞学者Andy Kirkpatrick(中文名:柯安竹)择其要义而将其译成英文版.详见Kirkatrick,Andy.China's First Systematic Account of Rhetoric:An Introduction to Chen Kui's Wen Ze.Rhetarica,2005(2):103-152.
[5]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第158-162页.
[1]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第308-312页。
[2]袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990年版,第350-页。
[3]高万云.中国文学的修辞批评[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(5):13-18.
[4]高万云.中国文学的修辞批评[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(5):13-18.
[1]高万云.中图文学的修辞批评[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(5):13-18.
[2]白春仁.文学修辞学[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1993年版,第4-5页.
[3]白春仁.文学修辞学[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1993年版,第6-8页。
[1]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第3页.
[2]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第25-59页。
[3]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第51页.
[4]谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001年版,第93页。
[6]王一川.修辞论美学[M].长春;东北师范大学出版社,1997年版,第2页。
[7]王一川.修辞论美学[M].长春:东北师范大学出版社,1997年版,第3页。
[8]王一川.修辞论美学[M].长春:东北师范大学出版社,1997年版,第4-5页。
[9]王一川.修辞论美学[M].长春:东北师范大学出版社,1997年版,第5页.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第316页。
[2]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第84页。
[3]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第84页。
[4]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第84页。
[5]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第85页。
[6]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第86页。
[7]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第86页。
[1]南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002年版,第86页。
[2]Aristotle.Aristotle's "Art" of Rhetoric.Trans.J.H.Freese.Cambridge and London:The Loeb Classical Library,1926.
[3]Aristotle.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.Trans.George A.Kennedy.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991,p.38.
[4]可参阅刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社。2008年版。第57页.
[5]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第96页.
[6]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第96页.
[7]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第4页。
[1]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第98页。
[2]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第98页。
[3]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第100页。
[4]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第101页。
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第63页.
[6]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第63页.
[7]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第105页.
[1]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第105页.
[2]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第105页。
[3]南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008年版,第103页.
[4]Liu,Yameng.Dick Morris,Ideology,and Regulating the Flow of Rhetorical Resources[A].In Rhetorical Bodies[C].Eds.Jack Selzer and Sharon Crowley.Wisconsin:The U of Wisconsin P,1999:pp.314-25.
[5]Liu,Yameng.Dick Morris,Ideology,and Regulating the Flow of Rhetorical Resources[A].In Rhetorical Bodies[C].Eds.Jack Selzer and Sharon Crowley.Wisconsin:The U of Wisconsin P,1999:pp.316-7.
[6]Althusser,Louis.Essays on Ideology.London and New York:Verso,1984,p.44.
[7]Althnsser,Louis.Essays on Ideology.London and New York:Verso,1984,pp.44-5.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives,Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.104.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969,p.103.
[1]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,ModernAmerican Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory $.Jay.Detroit,MI:Grale,1988:p.51.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,Modern American Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.51.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,Modern American Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Grale,1988:p.51.
[1]当时在全美大学校园里爆发了反越战游行以及各种抗议活动。
[1]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,Modern American Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,/vii:Gale,1988:pp.49-66.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.4.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ⅹⅳ.
[1]程锡麟.当代美国文学理论[--布斯教授访谈][J].外国文学评论,1990(1):136.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.ⅹⅳ-ⅴ.
[2]据笔者了解,在当今美国各大学里,明确以“修辞”命名的院系极少。到目前为止,只加州大学伯克利分校(University of California at Bcrkeley)设立了“修辞学系”.绝大多数的高校在“英语系”(Department of English)、“交流系”(Department of Communication)或“言语交流系”(Department of Speech Communication)的学科框架下,设置了修辞学专业研究方向,配备专业师资队伍和研究人员,并设立了修辞学研究方向的硕博士点(MA or PhD program in rhetoric).
[1]布斯认为,从某种意义上说,他个人将“英语”和“修辞”融为一体纯属历史偶然。但是,他说这种融合令人愉快.要不然,“英语”作为一个领域如果其定位不那么含糊,他就不可能遇到那些他将《教师这一职业》一书献给他们的人。此外,不像很多他的同事认为将英语教师说成"an English teacher"是一个语病(solecism)(因"English"含有"British"之意,他们主张说成“ateacherofEnglish"),布斯却一向坚持“an English teacher”这一说法.
[2]这是布斯杜撰的一个新词,与他杜撰的另一个新词rhctorology(我们主张将其翻译成”理想修辞学”)系同源词.我们主张将rhetorologist翻译为“修辞艺术家”.它既不同于擅长修辞实践的“修辞师”(rhctor),又有别于以修辞理论见长的“修辞学家”(rhetorician).
[3]布斯描述的这一状况也从侧面说明了修辞这一学科在当代欧美人文研究领域的全面复兴.
[4]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.51-2.
[1]Pcrelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.52.
[1]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Trease on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.53-4.
[2]Leiteh,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.63.
[1]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.60.
[2]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.64.
[1]这一段英文原文是:"First,it made Special use of history to serve philosophlical or mcthodological purpOSCS.Second,it advocated an inductive,differential mode of reasoning and demanded care with data and conclusions.Third,it conceptualized textual meaning as 'shaping intention,' seeking to recover this fundamental motive in sympathetic acts of reconstructive understanding.Fourth,it rejected deductive reasoning,and transcendental thinking,deploring Plato,Hegel,Marx,and other 'dialectical' monists.Fifth,it lodged all propositions in a theory of pluralism.And sixth,it proposed a Neo-Aristotelian formalist poetics."(Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,pp.76-7.)
[2]Leiteh,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,pp.66-7.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,Modern American Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.52.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ⅹⅳ.
[2]程锡麟.当代美国文学理论--布斯教授访谈[J].外国文学评论,1990(1):134-7.
[3]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.75.
[1]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,pp.26-7.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth:The Effect of His Being."[J]Pedagogy:Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature,Languase,Composition,and Culture,Vol.7,No.1,2007:pp.91-8.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography.Vol.67,Modern American Critics Since 1965.Ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Grale,1988:p.51.
[1]申丹,韩加明,王丽亚.英美小说叙事理论研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005年版,第230页。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.35.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Nosy Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.39.[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don;t Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.36.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,pp.40-41.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,pp.40-41.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.41.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,pp.44-45.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.45.
[1]关于西方古典修辞理论所划分的这三大修辞体裁,可参阅刘亚猛:《西方修辞学史》[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第55页.
[2]布斯这一观点也提醒我们,不可片面地、机械地、夸大其词地将布斯《小说修辞》与亚里士多德‘修辞学》的理论渊源关系.
[3]这是一个富有创意的理论观点,布斯显然丰富、发展、完善了亚里士多德《修辞学》中所划分的三大修辞体裁,即政治、法律与仪典修辞.
[1]布斯接受了Bernard Crick在书中有关政治定义的观点.Bernard Crick以为,理想状态下的政治应能“将利益各方召集在一起,以便各方能就政府的一般性运作、秩序的维护做出积极贡献”。即便这一理想状况无法现实或者这一有意的协商过程如何地不尽如人意,“政治与暴政、寡头政治、王权、专制君主制以及中央集权制有着天壤之别”.这一政治观反映了布斯作为一个象牙塔内的学究,对那种受伦理道德制约下的清明、廉洁、有序的政治现实的渴望.
[2]但是,对于这一次前提,因其并不具有不言自明性(self-evidence),布斯觉得有必要加以解释.布斯引用Bernard Crick在《为政治辩护》一书中的观点认为,当出现利益冲突时,其解决之道有二:要么强权一方通过诉诸武力或以武力相威胁把自己的意见强加于弱势方,要么利益各方寻求一个政治解决即一种取决于利益各方间相互协调的解决方案。此外,贿赂也算是可能的第三个解决之道。然而,布斯以为,贿赂要么可归入“力量”范畴(“由于所提供之数额巨大,[对受贿方而匍可认为具有强制性。”),要么可归入修辞范畴(“是的,乔治,我知道你认为受贿是不道德的,但是,你可想想,倘若你在此不跟我站在一起[接受我的贿赂],实际上。你是站在我们共同的敌人一边了……”)。详阅Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation ofA Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.38-9.
[3]布斯指出,对于这一次前提,也许有人会问:“任何政治进程取决于政客所可资利用之修辞质量,何以见得?”对此,布斯认为,现今的政治现实充满着公共欺骗行为(public 1ying)。布斯说道:“处于竞争状态之中的利益各方之间的道理互动取决于维护一定程度的诚实正直和信任,以便道理可以实际交流”。布斯进一步地指出,“显而易见,假如任何社会发展到了这样一个节点,以致每个人都以为,每个人都极可能说谎,那么,真正意义上的政治进程就死了.接踵而至的不人道骚乱很快就得以暴政接管的方式加以解决。因此,我们所说的政治腐败其实就是修辞的腐败.假如它发展到超越一定的总是难以决定的节点,我们就完了(We are doomed.)。在美国,人们经常想知道,我们距离这一节点还有多远。我怀疑,在过去,公共欺骗不如现今这样有利可图。”布斯说.人们不可避免地将尼克松和霍尔德曼新近出版的书与此联系在一起.在布斯看来,这些书都是由“谎言、真伪混同的欺骗陈述(halfqzuths)、偶尔有之的真话构成的有利可图的混合物”.布斯认为,关键是这些书“不仅对我们的政治修辞不利:它们污染了我们的政治氛围,使我们当下的生活堕落”.从这里我们也可以看出,布斯对修辞伦理的两面性始终认识不清.
[4]布斯补充说道:“也许我们应该注意到,以武力相威胁本身即可视为一种修辞,但是,它肯定是一种堕落的[修辞]形式,即‘微不足道'修辞(‘mere'rhetoric),常难以与使用武力本身相区别;它实乃以言辞伪装的武力。这种言辞确实使现实模糊了.”
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.40-1.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.41.
[1]在此,布斯实际上在暗示自己的隐喻(“畅游其中的大海”)比肯尼斯·伯克(Kcnneth Burke)所创造的“辞屏”(Terminjstic Screen)这一隐喻要更好.故而,我们以为,布斯此处有与伯克暗中较劲之嫌。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.41-2.
[1]布斯这一将西方民主制与修辞挂钩的看法使我们想起了一个至今仍然流行于当代西方修辞学界的有失偏颇的观点--在非西方社会不存在一个类似于西方所理解的“修辞/rhetoric”的话语实践及其理论总结。有关这一观点的详细讨论,可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量-关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第48页.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The location of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.42.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.43.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.36-7.
[1]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.47.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第329-330页.
[3]“信仰(adherence)”是帕尔曼在其名著The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation(《新修辞学:关于论辩的求索》)中提出的一个全新概念,也是其修辞思想的核心概念之一。在帕尔曼看来,一切的论辩的最终目的在于获取、强化某一特定受众对某一观点或主张的信仰,直至受众将其加以内化(internalize)并“自觉地”按修辞者的设计采取某一行动。这一概念与亚里士多德修辞思想中的“说服(persuasion)”以及肯尼斯·伯克修辞思想中的“认同(identification)”等概念既有区别又有联系。有关它们之间的区别与联系,可参阅刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第321-347页.
[4]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.48.
[4]如,对一个曾作出突出贡献的市民的悼词;或者没有实际利益的言说,如对一种美德的赞美,对上帝的赞美等。可参阅Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.48.以及刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第330页.
[5]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.47-8.
[6]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.48.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第330页.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第330页.
[3]值得一提的是,作为哲学家和法学家的帕尔曼本人在对论辩进行十多年研究的历程中,发现现代主义论辩观无法解决关于“正义”、“价值',等概念之类的争议。帕尔曼正是由此将目光投向古典修辞理论,并从中得到了极大启发,其代表作《新修辞学:关于论辩的探索》亦是在这一背景下应运而生的。可参阅Perelman,Chaim.The Realm of Rhetoric.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1982.
[4]帕尔曼这一观点有点牵强附会,难以令人信服.这一观点大概跟他的学术身份--哲学家和法学理论家有关。修辞作为一个学科的分裂与没落跟哲学的打压关系极大.但囿于自己的学术身份,帕尔曼当然不愿意承认这一点。关于修辞“没落”的“历史叙事”,可参阅刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第227-278页.
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第330页.
[6]帕尔曼这一令人耳目一新的重要论断使我们进一步地明了布斯的一个类似论断,即三大修辞体裁以仪典/表现修辞为中心.
[7]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第330页.
[1]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tryteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.49.
[2]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteea.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.51.
[3]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.51.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p33.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.35-6.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.36.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.12.
[1]这一观点实际上体现了叙事是一种特殊修辞形态的思想。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.17.
[3]在布斯看来,这里的“言辞”和“形象”自然包括文学话语和文学形象。
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,pp.17-8.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,pp.13-4.
[1]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,pp.3-4.
[1]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,pp.4-5.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.34.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第228-229页.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第229页.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第47页;Richards,I.A.The Philosophy of Rhetoric.New York:Oxford UP,1965,p.3.
[1]布斯曾于1964至1969年担任美国芝加哥大学英语系系主任。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ix.
[3]布斯这一观点显然得益于古典哲辩大师普罗塔哥拉(Pr otagoras)翠先提出的一个修辞基本原则,即“针对一切事物都存在着两种相反[又都讲得通]的说法”.古典修辞理论对布斯的影响在此可见一斑。有关这一修辞基本原则的讨论,可参阅刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第30-31页.
[4]布斯指出,“交流失败”这一说法其实不太准确,因为这一说法表明,如果我们词语使用得当,言语交流 之间的交流应该就可以顺利进行。所以,他选择将这一状况定义为“修辞失败”(rhetorical failure)。他说之所以使用“修辞失败”这一说法是因为他认为“在话语中,很多重大问题面临胜败攸关之际,而不仅仅是选择恰当言辞或表达技巧的修饰性失败”(substantive issues are at stake in the discourse itself,not mere ornamental failures to choose the right word or trick of presentation).见 Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.10.
[5]布斯指出,他之所以选择“修辞”这一传统概念,是因为他要倡导“人们如何在话语中去共同发现双方之前未曾表示过质疑的真理(或至少是一致看法)的新层面的一整套原理”(the whole philosophy of how men succeed or fail in discovering together,in discourse,new levels of truth[or at least agreement]that neither side suspected before)。因而,这里所体现的修辞观是“将修辞视为发现和共享可证当直认的艺术”(a view of rhetoric as the whole art of discovering and sharing warrantable assertion).见Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.11.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicgo and London:The U of Chicago P.1974.p.14.
[2]当然这样说并不一定符合“史实”,毕竟之前已有不少来自哲学界、修辞学界、人类学界、史学界、社会学界、法学理论界以及文学批评界等多个领域的众多学者对现代主义思潮进行了严厉批判。如,针对现代主义思潮下的“事实”与“价值”这个二元对立,哲学家迈克尔·波拉尼(Michael Polanyi)、修辞学家肯尼斯·伯克(Kenneth Burke)和法学理论家兼修辞学家凯姆·帕尔曼(Chaim Perelman)以及布斯曾受教其中的芝加哥学派都曾对其予以严厉批判.然而,正如布斯所指出,虽然这些“一线的研究人员”已发觉这个二元对立“不必要”、“不符逻辑”或“有害”,但是,总体的智力气候仍然依赖这个二元对立及其派生物(the pairings that it spawns)。见Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.20.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.14-22.
[2]这一“戏剧五元模式”的五个要素是:表演(act)、场景(scene)、演员(agent)、道具(agency)以及目的(purpose)。有关这一模式的详细讨论,见刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第339-343页.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.22.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.14.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.23.
[2]这一动机主义形成各种过于简单化的模式来解读人类各种行为,将人类动机简约为几个驱动力(drives)或欲望(urges)或渴望(itches),如“食物”、“性”、“权力”、“名望”等之类。
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.26.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.24-32.
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第284-285页.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.12.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.37.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.37.
[3]Booth.Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.37.
[4]布斯这一“分两步走”的论辩策略同样见诸于他在其他理论著作中.如,他在《小说修辞》中对现代主义小说理论的批判也采取了这一策略。布斯的“切蛋糕法”论辩成略同样见诸于他在其他场合的论辩中(见本文第六章有关“当代西方美学与伦理批评之争”的讨论)。值得一提的,从布斯在批判罗素过程中所采用的论辩策略来看,他显然受到了修辞思想家理查德·惠特利(Richard Whately)《修辞的基本原则》(Elements of ghetoric)一 书的影响。布斯修辞思想的多元来源在此亦可见一斑。有关这一“内在”和“外在”论辩策略的讨论,可参阅刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第277页。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.43-44.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.47-49.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.46-47.
[2]相关讨论可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第30-46页.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.50-51.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.52.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.53.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chic,ago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.54.
[4]Boo th,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chic,ago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.58.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.57.
[1]布斯认为,这里的辨证学或修辞指的是“对或多或少[称得上是]好的理由加以仔细掂量,以达致或多或少具有可能性的结论[的]艺术”.在布斯看来,这一言说艺术有一个好处,那就是“虽然所达致的并非很肯定(none too secure),但是,总比偶然或思维冲动而达致的结论要好”。从这一表述来看,布斯实际上混淆了辨证与修辞之间的区别.据刘亚猛在《西方修辞学史》中指出,“辨证可用于讨论任何一般性话题而修辞只限于讨论跟公共事务相关的一般性话题”;“通过辨证过程取得的往往是超越具体语境的一般性结论而通过修辞过程取得的则通常都是关于具体事务的结论”。二者在方法上亦有区别。有关辨证与修辞的关系的讨论,可参阅刘亚猛:《西方修辞学史,[M],北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第50-51页。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U or Chicago P,1974,pp.59-60.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.59-60.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.76-77.
[1]刘亚猛.二十世纪美图修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.ⅸ-ⅹⅰ.
[1]刘亚猛.《西方修辞学史》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2003年版,第277页。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.91.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.92-99.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.99.
[1]伯克这一定义包含两个命题即“人是发明象征的动物”与“人是滥用象征的动物”。参阅刘亚猛.《西方修辞学史》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第336-337页。
[2]刘亚猛.《西方修辞学史》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第316页。从布斯就自己的理论灵感来源的公开说明来看,布斯的修辞观实际上深受上自哲辩大师普罗塔哥拉、古典修辞学家亚里士多德、西塞罗、昆提利安(Quintilian),下自理查德·麦克基思、凯姆·帕尔曼、肯尼斯·伯克等修辞大师的影响。显然,其修辞思想的理论来源是多元的。有鉴于此,如果我们如国内一些学者那样,直接将布斯的修辞思想与亚里士多德的修辞理论相挂钩,则不仅显得过于狭隘,而实际上也曲解了布斯。这一点应该引起我们的注意。
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.112-115.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.115-116.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.121-122.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.125.
[4]有关符号意义与“遗痕”之同的关系,可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第12页.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.125-126.
[2]Kennedy,George A.Comparative Rhetoric:an Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,1998,p.3.
[3]Kennedy,George A.Comparative Rhetoric:an Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,1998,p.3.
[1]Kennedy,George A.Comparative Rhetoric:an Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,1998,p.26.
[2]刘亚猛.《西方修辞学史》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第4-5页。
[3]有关这方面的讨论,可参阅刘亚猛.《西方修辞学史》[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第315-321页。
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.126.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.126.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.126.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.128.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.125.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.129.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.129-130.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.130.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.131.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.131-132.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.132.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.132.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.132.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.132.
[3]也许正是在这一意义上,当我们重新对现代主义思潮的思想建构议程进行反思时,现代主义将宗教观念也斥为垃圾思想时,这无意中却成全了尼采这位后现代主义思潮的萌发始祖一个“修辞发明”的着力点,并以此为一个杠杆支点,将现代主义智力思想整个地颠覆过来。也正是在这一意义上,现代主义思潮“无意中”为人类思想解放运动做出了历史性贡献。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.133.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.134.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.134.
[1]也许正是布斯“我们不需要回归上帝”这一观点,使得詹姆斯·费伦等学者认为布斯在其思想的后期,有一种反宗教的倾向.也许这一论断有其事实依据。然而,我们却认为,从这里的上下文清晰可见,与其说布斯有反宗教倾向,不如说这是布斯建构同意修辞理论的一个话语策略。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.135.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.136.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.136-137.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.137.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.137-138.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.138.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.138.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.139.
[1]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.31-34.
[2]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p,68.
[3]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrcehts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.67.
[4]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.68.
[5]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbreehts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Tratise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,p.68.
[1]Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989,p.5.
[2]有关这一“争议点理论”的详细讨论,可参阅刘亚猛:追求象征的力量--关于面方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第62-66页.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第59页.
[4]有关这个一体两面的新观点的详细讨论,可参阅刘亚猛:追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第62-94页.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.ⅸ-ⅹⅰ.
[2]布斯这里所表达的部分观点让人莫名其妙,而且与他在其他地方所表达的类似观点有自相矛盾之嫌。修辞一向诉诸于具体受众,一向以公共意见(public opinion)而不是真理为其出发点,一向基于或然性(probability/liklihood)。他这里所表达的部分观点也使我们进一步地认识到一点,那就是布斯对修辞的两面性一向认识不足.其伦理道德制约下的、理想化的修辞观在此亦可见一斑。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.ⅹⅱ-ⅹⅴ.
[2]刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.141.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.142.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.142.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetonic of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,pp.142-3.
[1]本文这里采用的三大修辞资源的译名参照刘亚猛《追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考》一书。详见刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第165页.
[2]根据我们的了解,在当代西方修辞学界,亚里士多德《修辞学》的流行译本有两个.一个由当代著名的西方修辞史学家George A.Kennedy所译,另一个译本的作者是J.H.Freese。目前,大多数学者采用的是前一个译本。而布斯在这里所参考的是W.Rhys.Roberts的译本,这个译本现在已很少人采用。从布斯的转述可以看出,前两个译本在对三大修辞资源的理解上存在着一个重大区别,主要体现在对“威”(ethos)的解读上。按照前一个译本,“威”(ethos)是说服中的“支配性因素”(the controlling factor in persuasion),而在后一个译本中,“理”(logos)取代了“威”(ethos)而排在第一位。可参阅Kennedy,George A.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991,p.38.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.144.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.144.
[3]Kennedy,George A.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991,p.38.
[4]Kennedy,George A.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991,p.38.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第71页.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第57页.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.144.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.146.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.147.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.148.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.148.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.149-150.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.150.
[6]值得一提的是,布斯在《小说修辞》一书中的写作议程也正是从批判现代主义小说观开始的。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.165.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.165.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.165.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.166.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.166.
[2]这一段话的英文原文如下:"We master it or appreciate it or enjoy it;it works,hits us hard,carries us away,absorbs or transports us.To me,as to Kenneth Burke,the most nearly adequate metaphors lead here to the notion of identification--I take the work in,or as phenomenologists say,it enables me to dwell in it.I live the work;it lives its life in me.It creator and I become,in apart of our life,indistinguishable as we live the work togethe."参阅Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.169.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.177.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.178,
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.108.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.108.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.108.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.109.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.xv.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.107.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.109-113.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-I988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,pp.315-329.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.40,
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHTORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.51.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.51.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.113.
[2]刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
[3]刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J].修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.104.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.316.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ⅸ.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.ⅸ.
[5]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.57.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.5-6.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.117.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.118-119.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.120-121.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.121.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.121.
[2]Booth,Wayne C,A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.10-12.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.13.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.14.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.14.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.16.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.58.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.58.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.53.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irorty.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.54-5.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.59.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.196.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.222-7.
[5]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.59.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,pp.227-8.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.60.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第312页.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.60.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.60.
[1]Wayne C.Booth.Critical Understanding:The Powers and Limits of Pluralism.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1979,pp.ⅹⅰ-ⅹⅱ.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Critical Understanding:The Powers and Limits of Pluralism.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1979,pp.3-4.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Critical Understanding:The Powers and Limits of Pluralism.Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1979,pp.4-24.
[1]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.63.
[2]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.63.
[3]Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:p.63.
[1]有关这场旷日持久的争论,可参阅尚必武,胡全生.西方叙事学界的“隐含作者”之争述评--兼纪念韦恩·布斯去世两周年[J].山东外语教学,2007(5):6-13.
[1]Shen,Dan.Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context[J].NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.175.
[2]Booth,Wayne C."Resurrection of the Implied Author:Why Bother?" In A Companion to Narrative Theory.Eds.James Phelan and Peter J.Rabinowitz.Malden,MA:Blaekwell Publishing Ltd.,2005,pp.75-88.
[1]申丹.关于西方叙事理论新进展的思考--评国际上首部《叙事理论指南》[J].外国文学,2006(1):92-9.
[1]Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth.London and New York:Routledge,2006,p.13.
[2]曾经的芝加哥学派主将之一,也即当代西方叙事学界领军人物、著名学术期刊《叙事》(Narrative)现任主编詹姆斯·费伦(James Phelan)的博士论文指导老师。
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.163.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetorical Stance[J].College Composition and Communication 14(1963):139-45.Reprinted in Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,pp.25-33.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.131.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974,p.131.布斯对现代主义小说观的批判见本文第五章。
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.162.
[2]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,(前言)第4页.
[3]Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbreehts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatiae on Argu,emtatopm.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969,pp.19-20.
[4]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第136页。
[1]如,李建军在《小说修辞研究》中说道:“布斯的小说修辞理论缺乏历史感和时代感,缺乏对制约小说修辞语境因素的考察。……‘新批评'强调作品的客观自足性,反对联系作者的意图和读者的感受来阐释作品,布斯当然是反对这些文学观点的,但是,他的‘隐含作者'理论,却是向‘新批评'妥协的产物,他把作者一分为二,认为文本内容或写作时的作者与实际的作者是完全不同的,这就否定了、切断了作者在创作中的那种内外一致的真实性和联系性,从而从根本上否定了修辞的有效性,造成了交流的虚幻性:读者怎么会放心地与一个同真实作者并不一致的‘隐含作者'交流和沟通呢?”参阅李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003年版,第25页.
[2]Killham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.279.
[3]Shen,Dan.Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context[J].NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.175.
[4]李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003年版,第25页。
[1]Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth.London and New York:Routledge,2006,p.2.
[2]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.63.
[3]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.65.
[1]Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth.London and New York:Routledge,2006,p.14.
[2]Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988,p.63.
[3]Killham,John.The "Second Self" in Novel Criticism[J].British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.273.
[4]Killham,John.The "Second Self" in Novel Criticism[J].British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.273.
[5]Killham,John.The "Second Self" in Novel Criticism[J].British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.273.
[6]Killham,John The "Second Self" in Novel Criticism[J].British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.273.
[1]Killham,John.The "Second Self' in Novel Criticism[J].British Journal of Aesthstics.No.6,1966:p.280.
[2]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.106.
[3]Killham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetica.No.6,1966:p.285.
[4]Killham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.286.
[5]Killham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.289.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.155.
[7]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.155.
[8]Kiliham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:p.279.
[9]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.155.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第277页。
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.154.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.155.
[4]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:pp.105-117.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.153.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.156.
[7]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.156.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.157.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,pp.157-8.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.158.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.158.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.159.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970,p.159.
[5]这应该是《小说修辞》中“修辞”的定义。然而,布斯并未如很多读者期望的那样,在《小说修辞》中对修辞更加明确地加以界定。
[1]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.110.
[2]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.111.
[3]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:pp.111-112.
[4]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.112.
[1]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.112.
[2]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.112.
[3]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.112.
[4]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.113.
[5]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.114.
[6]Booth,Wayne C."The Rhetoric of Fiction" and the Poetics of Fictions[J].NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction 1.2,1968:p.114.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of Califomia P,1966,p.294.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.295.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.295.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.296.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.297.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,P.297.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.297.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.297.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.297.
[4]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Fssays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,pp.297-8.
[5]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.298.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966,p.295.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action:Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of california P,1966,p.302.
[3]Bakhtin,Mikhail.Problems of Dostoyevsky's Poetics[M].Trans.Caryl Emerson.Minneapolis:U of Minnesota P,1984,pp.ⅹⅲ-ⅹⅹⅶ./Booth,Wayne C.How Bakhtin Woke Me Up[A].In The Essential Wayne Booth[C].Ed.Waiter Jost.Chicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,pp.141-153.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.102.
[1]Boo th,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.8.
[1]Boo th,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.25.
[2]Boo th,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.25.
[3]据布斯所述,此人曾为芝加哥大学文学助理教授,于1963年代在一次内部制定教学计划的会议中出乎意料地极力主张要将马克·吐温的名著《哈克贝利·费思历险记》剔除出文学经典课堂,理由是马克·吐温有关吉姆的描述对于黑人极具“冒犯性”。
[4]Boo th,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.5.
[5]Boo th,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.5.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.32.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.36-7.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.38-44.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.8.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.8.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.7.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.7-8.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.8.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.8-9.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.9.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.1.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.2.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.3.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.4.
[5]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.4.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.4.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.4.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.4.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.5.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.6.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.6.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.7.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.7.
[5]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.7.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.7.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.7.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.8.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Mint Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.8.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,pp.8-9.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.9.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.9-10.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.10.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.10.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.10.
[7]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.11.
[8]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.11.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.11.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.11.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.12.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.12.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.12.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.14.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of CalifomiaP,1988,p.13.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of Fiction.2~(nd) Edition.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1983,p.ⅹⅲ.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.14.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.16.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics_of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.16.
[6]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.200.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.182.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.182.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.72.
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004,第10-11页.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.82.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.51.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.49-50.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.51.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.52-53,
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of Califomia P,1988,p.56.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.60.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.60.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.60.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.62.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.62.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.64.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.64.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.65-69.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.69.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.70.
[7]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.70.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.70.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.71.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.71.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.71.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.72.
[6]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.72.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction,Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.72-73.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.72.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,pp.74-75.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.76.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.76.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.73.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.84.
[3]Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1395.
[4]Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1395.
[5]Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1395.
[1]Fish,Stanley.Is There a Text in This Class? In Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Hazard Adams and Leroy Searle,eds.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1402.
[2]Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Sinnce Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1395.
[3]Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006,p.1395.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988,p.85.
[1]共四篇文章.分别是:理查德·波斯纳的Against Ethical Criticism(《反伦理批评》)、马莎·努斯鲍姆的Exactly and Responsibly:A Defense of Ethical Criticism(《确切与责任:为伦理批评辩护》)、韦恩·布斯的Why Banning Ethical Criticism is a Serious Mistake(《为什么禁止伦理批评是个严重错误》)以及波斯纳对努斯鲍姆和布斯的回应文章Against Ethical Criticism:Part Two(《反伦理批评:Ⅱ》).
[2]理查德·波斯纳(Richard A.Posner),享有“美国20世纪最重要的100位法律人之一”之美誉.1939年生.1959毕业于耶鲁大学英国文学系,在联邦最高法院当过助手,1962毕业于哈佛大学法学院,1981年经里根总统提名成为美国联邦第七巡回区上诉法院(芝加哥)法官(自1993年以来为首席法官).芝加哥大学法学院客座教授.论著等身,被认为是“著述最丰的法官.前无古人”.他还是“法律与文学”运动的一位中心人物,该运动的起步标志事件是1973年詹姆斯·伯艾特·怀特(James Boyd White)所著The Legal Imagination(《法律的想象》)一书的出版.其实,怀特这本书“来者不善”,矛头直指当时因波斯纳的论著《法律的经济学分析》一书的出版而兴起的“法律经济学”运动,而波斯纳则在《法律与文学:一场误会》一书中予以反击.但是,10年后阴差阳错,改版了的《法律与文学:再思考》却成了“法律与文学”运动的经典教材。在书中。波斯纳指出,除了法律写作中充满了文学也使用的隐喻、律师强调类比推理与诗人使用比喻相近、法律人使用了文学作品中使用的形象化语言等表面的联系外.法律与文学的联系还有.(1)有数量惊人的文学作品中涉及到法律甚至是正义的一般问题;(2)法律和文学都关注文本的含义,解释是一个中心争议;(3)法律文本特别是法院的意见,很像文学文本。有很多修辞;(4)文学是法律规制的一个传统对象,并且文学作品有时会引出诉讼;以及(5)法律程序,特别是英美的陪审抗辩制,有重要的戏剧化向度等(李国庆:2002,v).
[3]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.156.
[1]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.5.
[2]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.5.
[3]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.5.
[4]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.5.
[5]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.5.
[6]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.181.
[7]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.181.
[8]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.181.
[1]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.156.
[2]Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006,p.156.
[3]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅸ.
[4]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅸ.
[5]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅸ.
[6]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹ.
[1]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹ.
[2]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹ.
[3]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹ.
[4]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹⅰ.
[1]仅在这篇文章中,我们就能看到波斯纳对英美文学令人赞叹的熟悉度,其对于相关文学作品几乎可以说信手拈来;此外,我们亦能感觉到他在西方文艺批评理论方面同样是功力深厚。上述这两点是无庸置疑的.
[2]其实,波斯纳在《法律与文学》的导论部分,将自己对于法律与文学运动的立场交代的很清楚.他说他并没有否定法律与文学运动,“我支持它,并且希望看到它繁荣……我希望它繁荣.但不想它被高估,法律和文学有着重要的共同之处和交叉的地方.但是他们之间的区别也一样重要.法律除了是一组文本以外,也是一种社会控制的体系.而且法律的运作有社会科学阐明,并依据伦理标准进行判断;文学是一门艺术,对之进行解释和评价的最佳方法是美学的方法.在文学领域里是一个形式主义者,而在法律里是一个反形式主义者、一个实用主义者.这中间并没有什么不和谐的地方--而这正是我的立场”(着重号为笔者所加).参阅理查德·波斯纳.法律与文学[M]。李国庆译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002年版.第9页.
[1]Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001,p.ⅹⅰ.
[2]波斯纳在两书《法律与文学:一场误会)(1988)与《法律与文学:再思考》(1998)中对法律和文学的基本判断没有什么变化.尽管他在后一书中列举了一系列法律和文学的相关性(见第一页注解1).但他同时又强调:法律与文学相互启发的程度是有限的。这一领域的一些实践者夸大了两大领域的共同性,对两者的深刻差别关注不够。在1998年版中,他仍然认为法律与文学这个领域仍然“充满了虚假的起点、夸张的解释、肤浅的争论、轻率的概括和表面的感悟”.参阅理查德·波斯纳.法律与文学[M].李国庆译.北京:中国政法大学出版社。2002年版,第ⅴ页.
[3]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.2.
[1]Posner,RichardA."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.1.
[2]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.1.
[3]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.1.
[4]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店.2004年版,第6页.
[5]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.3.
[6]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.3.
[7]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第61-62页.
[8]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第164-165页.
[1]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第165页.
[2]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.3.
[3]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford UP,1990.
Nussbaum,Martha.Poetic Justice:The Literary Imagination and Public Life.Boston:Beacon Press,1995.
[1]有关这个著名的比喻,可参见 Booth,Wayne C."The Way I Loved George Eliot:Friendship with Books as a Neglected Critical Metaphor."[A]In The Essential Wayne C Booth[C].Ed.Walter Jost.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,2006:pp.155-178.
[2]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1,(1997):p.22.
[1]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.344.
[2]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,pp.344-5.
[1]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.1.
[2]Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.2.
[3]Posner,RichardA."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):p.20.
[4]Nussbaum,Mattha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.351.
[5]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.359.
[1]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.360.
[2]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.366-7.
[3]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.366.
[4]Nussbaum,Martha Lave's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.367.
[1]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.394.
[2]Nussbaum,Martha.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York:Oxford University Press,1990,p.395.
[1]Abrams,M.H.The Mirror and the Lamp:Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition.London/Oxford/New York:Oxford UP,1953,pp.8-14.
[2]Abrams,M.H.The Mirror and the Lamp:Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition.London/Oxford/New York:Oxford UP,1953,pp.15-16.
[3]对这一传统渊源关系.我们将在本文的最后一章予以详述.
[4]本文将在以下章节适当处论及理查兹、肯尼斯·伯克等人的文学批评视角.
[1]Scharbach,Alexander.Rhetoric and Literary Criticism:Why Their Separation[J].College Composition and Communication.Vol.23,No.2,1972:p.186.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版杜,2008年版,第131页。
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第132页.
[4]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第131页.
[5]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第132页.
[1]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M]。北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第132页.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第335-336页.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.123.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.219.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.217.
[3]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.ⅹⅰ.
[4]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.ⅶ.
[5]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.124.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Counter.Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,pp.124-7.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications.1953,p.31.
[3]伯克将自己在不同时期创作的三大修辞与文学批评理论名著即《动机语法学》(A Grammar of Motives,1945)、《动机修辞学》(A Rhetoric of Motives,1950)及《语言作为象征行动》(Language As Symbolic Action,1966)统称为“动机工程”(The Motivorum Project).
[4]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd )Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.219.
[5]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,p.31.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition,Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,pp.40-41.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,pp.70-71.
[1]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,pp.71-72.
[2]Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953,pp.72-73.
[3]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版。第294页.
[1]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.ⅹⅴ.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1988,p.36.
[1]对于这一反击,可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第198-203页.
[2]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.180.
[3]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.77.
[4]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.77.
[5]Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004,p.77.何谓“修辞性疑问”?刘亚猛在《追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考》一书中指出,“修辞性疑问”实际上是一个“以疑问句为伪装的肯定陈述”,其运作方式是“向某个方向做个假动作却朝另一个方向运动”.意图在于“通过‘在场'的疑问句与‘缺席'的肯定陈述打一种‘假想拳'而取得特殊的修辞效果.”“修辞性疑问”“貌似实意陈述,实则喻意表达。在实意和喻意之间飘忽不定”,从辞格来说,是一个“非转义辞格”(figure)而不是“转义辞格”(trope).其修辞功能是为修辞者提供一个渠道,通过它“轻轻触动受众早已内化了的一种有问必答的‘社会责任感'而使受众在不知不觉中担负起本该属于修辞者的举证责任,也就是将自己和修辞者同化起来了”.见刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第245-246页.
[1]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwatdsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.124-5.
[2]“修辞主义”(rhetoricism)一词极少见诸于西方古典与现当代修辞理论中.应该是德里达所杜撰的一个词.在布斯看来,“修辞主义”一词指的是“一个幼稚的看法.以为修辞效果完全不受除修辞结构(rhetorical structure)之外其它一切因素的影响--完全不受修辞行为发生于其中的语境因素的影响”(Olson,1991:77-78).此外.布斯认为这一看法否认了自己上文所提及的第一现实.即“永久的、不可变更的,非偶然性的真理”(Booth,2004:12-13).我们以为,“修辞主义”一词在一定程度上体现了德里达修辞观的两面性.正如布斯所指出,一方面.德里达强调修辞的重要性.认为修辞无所不在;而另一方面,却又“正确地决定不能让修辞研究取代一切”(Booth.2004:77).
[3]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsvilie:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.135.
[4]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.135.
[1]在国内,“The Sop hists”一词的通用中文译名是“诡辩师/家”或“智者学派”.对这一通用译名.刘亚猛在《追求象征的力量》一书中表达了不同意见,认为前者“不加批判地接受了始于柏拉图,并在近代和现代西方主要出于意识形态的需要而被强化并广为流传的某些偏见”、“包含了该名词在其原始语境里并不带有的负面价值判断”.而后者则“将'the sophists'完全‘智能化'和‘哲学化',无端淡化了他们主要的身份特征,即当时广受崇敬的修辞大师、专家、教授”,故而主张将“The Sophists”改译为“哲辩师”(2004:16).
[2]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Catbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.136.
[1]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.136.
[2]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Dcrrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,pp.135.
[1]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,p.136.
[1]在这里.德里达实际上对“解构反传统”这一指控做出了回应.在德里达看来.如果没有一个得以解构的传统.解构就不可能发生.那些有意将“虚无主义”(nihilism)读入解构的人.一向将解构简约性地描述为“主张无序”(an advocacy for disorder)、“对传统和文化的解构”.正如沙伦·克劳利(Sharon Crowley)指出.“这是完全不可能的(sheer impossibility).”克劳利质问道:“假如人们从来没有感觉到经典所施压的排他性的压力,怎么可能觉得有必要去解构这一文学经典?”“假若人们从来没有感受到传统方法的指导所强加给作者的压迫.怎么可能觉得有必要将作文指导向除了形式主义指导之外的其他因素敞开呢?”(Crowley,Sharon.“Jacques Derrida on Teaching and Rhetoric:A Response." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Liteacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,p.142.)
[2]Olson,Gary A."Jacques Derrida on Rhetoric and Composition:A Conversation." In Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Eds.Gary A.Olson and Irene Gale.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991,p.140.
[3]Olson,Gary A."Rhetoric,Cultural Studies and the Future of Critical Theory:A Conversation with J.Hillis Miller."In Philosophy,Rhetoric,Literary Criticism:(Inter)views.Ed.Gary A.Olson.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1994,pp.120-121.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.On Literature.London and New York:Routledge,2002,p.13.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.On Literature.London and New York:Routledge,2002,pp.15-16.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.On Literature.London and New York:Routledge,2002,p.18.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.On Literature.London and New York:Routledge,2002,p.21.
[1]有关这场从公共舆论界到哲学界对于解构主义理论的同仇敌忾式的异口同声之讨伐,可参阅刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版.第198-203页.
[2]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.9.
[3]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.9.
[4]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Matt Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987,p.9.
[1]Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987.p.10.
[2]刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008年版,第294页.
[3]刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004年版,第56页
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,pp.102-3.
[1]Eaglcton,Terry,.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.103.
[2]Eagleton,Tony.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.103.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.104.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.159.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.161.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,pp.160-1.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.161.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.161.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.161.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.177.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.177.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,pp.177-8.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.178.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.178.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.179.
[5]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.179.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.179.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.179.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.179.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.180.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.180.
[2]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.180.
[3]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.180.
[4]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.182.
[5]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.183.
[1]Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction,2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996,p.183.
Abbott,H.Porter.The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative.Cambridge:Cambridge UP,2002.
Abrams,M.H.The Mirror and the Lamp:Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition.London/Oxford/New York:Oxford UP,1953.
Adams,Hazard,and Leroy Searle,eds.Critical Theory Since Plato.Third Edition.Beijing:Peking UP,2006.
Allen,Graham.Intertextuality.London and New York:Routledge,2000.
Althusser,Louis.Essays on Ideology.London and New York:Verso,1984.
Antczak,Frederick J.Rhetoric and Legacies of Wayne Booth.Columbus:Ohio State UP,1995.
Aristotle.Aristotle's "Art" of Rhetoric.Trans.J.H.Freese.Cambridge,MA:Harvard UP,2000.
Aristotle.Aristotle on Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.Trans.George A.Kennedy.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1991.
Aristotle.On Rhetoric:a Theory of Civic Discourse.Second Edition.Trans.George A.Kennedy.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,2007.
Bal,Mieke,ed.Narrative Theory:Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies (Volume Ⅲ).London and New York:Routledge,2004.
Bal,Mieke,ed.Narrative Theory:Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies (Volume Ⅱ).London/New York:Routledge,2004.
Baldatin,M.M.The Dialogic Imagination.Ed.Michael Holquist.Trans.Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist.Austin:U of Texas P,1981.
Baldatin,M.M.Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics.Minneapolis:U of Minnesota P,1984.
Baldatin,M.M.Speech Genres and Other Late Essays.Trans.Vern W.McGee.Eds.Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist.Austin:the U of Texas P,1986.
Belsey,Catherine.Post-structuralism:A Very Short Introduction.New York:Oxford UP, 2002.
Benson,Thomas A.,ed.Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism.Davis,CA:Hermagoras Press,1993.
Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of Fiction.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1961.
Booth,Wayne C.Now Don't Try to Reason with Me.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1970.
Booth,Wayne C.A Rhetoric of Irony.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974.
Booth,Wayne C.Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1974.
Booth,Wayne C.Critical Understanding:The Powers and Limits of Pluralism.Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1979.
Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of Fiction.2~(nd) Edition.Chicago/London:The U of Chicago P,1983.
Booth,Wayne C.The Company We Keep:An Ethics of Fiction.Berkeley and London:U of California P,1988.
Booth,Wayne C.The Vocation of A Teacher:Rhetorical Occasions 1967-1988.Chicago and London:The U of Chicago P,1988.
Booth,Wayne C,and Marshall W.Gregory.The Harper and Row Rhetoric:Writing as Thinking and Thinking as Writing.2~(nd) Edition.New York:The HarperCollins Pulblishers,1991.
Booth,Wayne C,Gregory G.Colomb,and Joseph M.Williams.The Craft of Research.Chicago &London:The U of Chicago P,1995.
Booth,Wayne C.The Rhetoric of RHETORIC:The Quest for Effective Communication.Malden:Blackwell Publishing,2004.
Booth,Wayne C.My Many Selves:The Quest for a Plausible Harmony.Logan,Utah:Utah State UP,2006.
Burke,Kenneth.Permanence and Change.New York:New Republic,Inc.,1935.
Burke,Kenneth.A Grammar of Motives.New York:Prentice-Hall,Inc.,1945.
Burke,Kenneth.Counter-Statement.2~(nd) Edition.Los Altos:Hermes Publications,1953.
Burke,Kenneth.Language as Symbolic Action." Essays on Life,Literature,and Method.Berkeley:U of California P,1966.
Burke,Kenneth.A Grammar of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969.
Burke,Kenneth.The Philosophy of Literary Form:Studies in Symbolic Action.Third Edition.Berkeley:U of California P,1973.
Burke,Kenneth.A Rhetoric of Motives.Berkeley:U of California P,1969.
Burke,Kenneth.On Symbols and Society.Joseph R.Gusfield,ed.Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1989.
Butler,Christopher.Postmodernism:A Very Short Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,2002.
Chatman,Seymour.Story and Discourse:Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film.Ithaca and London:Cornell UP,1978.
Conley,Thomas M.Rhetoric in the European Tradition.New York and London:Longman,1990.
Cooper,David E.,ed.Ethics:The Classic Readings.Oxford/Malden:Blackwell Publishers,1998.
Corbett,Edward P.J.Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student.Third Edition.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1990.
Covino,William A.,and David A.Jolliffe.Rhetoric:Concepts,Definitions,Boundaries.Needham Heights:Allyn and Bacon,1995.
Culler,Jonathan.Literary Theory:A Very Short Introduction.Oxford:Oxford UP,1997.
Culler,Jonathan.On Deconstruction:Theory and Criticism after Structuralism.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2004.
Currie,Mark.Postmodern Narrative Theory.Hampshire and London:Macmillan Press LTD.,1998.
Davis,Todd F.,and Kenneth Womack,eds.Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory.Charlottesville and London:UP of Virginia,2001.
Dentith,Simon.Bakhtinian Thought:An Introductory Reader.London and New York:Routledge,1995.
Derrida,Jacques.Writing and Difference.Trans.Alan Bass.Chicago:The U of Chicago P,1978.
Eaglestone,Robert.Ethical Criticism:Reading after Levinas.Edinburgh:Edinburgh UP,1997.
Eagleton,Terry.Literary Theory:An Introduction.2~(nd) Edition.Minneapolis:The U of Minnesota P,1996.
Eagleton,Terry.Marxism and Literary Criticism.London and New York:Routledge,2002.
Eagleton,Terry.After Theory.New York:Basic Books,2003.
Eco,Umberto.The Limits of Interpretation.Bloomington and Indianapolis:Indiana UP,1990.
Eide,Marian.Ethical Joyce.Cambridge:Cambridge UP,2002.
Foss,Sonja K.,Karen A.Foss,and Robert Trapp,eds.Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric.Prospect Heights:Waveland Press,2002.
Foucault,Michel.The History of Sexuality,Volume I:An Introduction.Trans.Robert Hurley.New York:Random House,1978.
Garber,Marjorie,Beatrice Hanssen,and Rebecca L.Walkowitz,eds.The Turn to Ethics.New York/London:Routledge,2000.
George,Stephen K.,ed.Ethics,Literature,& Theory:An Introductory Reader.2~(nd) Edition.Lanham/Oxford:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers,2005.
Gibson,Andrew.Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative.George Square,Edinburgh:Edinburgh UP,1996.
Habermas,Jurgen.Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action.Trans.Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen.Cambridge:The MIT Press,1990.
Harland,Richard.Literary Theory from Plato to Barthes:An Introductory History.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2005.
Herrick,James A.The History and Theory of Rhetoric:An Introduction.Needham Heights:Allyn & Bacon,2001.
Hirsch,E.D.,Jr.Validity of Interpretation.New Haven and London:Yale UP,1967.
Hyde,Michael J.,and Craig R.Smith.Hermeneutics and Rhetoric:A Seen But Unobservable Relationship.In Thomas B.Farrell,ed.Landmark Essays on Contemporary Rhetoric.Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,1998.
Jost,Walter,ed.The Essential Wayne Booth.Cicago:The U of Chicago P,2006.
Kearns,Michael S.Rhetorical Narratology.Lincoln and London:U of Nebraska P,1999.
Kennedy,George A.A New History of Classical Rhetoric.Princeton:Princeton UP,1994.
Kennedy,George A.Comparative Rhetoric:an Historical and Cross-cultural Introduction.New York:Oxford UP,1998.
Leitch,Vincent B.American Literary Criticism from the Thirties to the Eighties.New York:Columbia UP,1988.
Levinson,Jerrold,ed.Aesthetics and Ethics:Essays at the Intersection.New York:Cambridge UP,1998.
Lucaites,John Louis,Celeste Michelle Condit,and Sally Caudill,eds.Contemporary Rhetorical Theory:A Reader.New York:The Guilford Press,1999.
Miller,Hillis J.The Ethics of Reading:Kant,de Man,Eliot,Trollope,James,and Benjamin.New York:Columbia UP,1987.
Miller,Hillis J.On Literature.London and New York:Routledge,2002.
Mills,Sara.Michel Foucault.New York and London:Routledge,2003.
Murphy,James J.,ed.A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric[M].Davis:Hermagoras Press,1983.
McQuillan,Martin,ed.The Narrative Reader.London and New York:Routledge,2000.
Nussbaum,Martha C.Love's Knowledge:Essays on Philosophy and Literature.New York and Oxford:Oxford UP,1990.
Ogden,C.K.,and I.A.Richards.The Meaning of Meaning:A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism.San Diego and New York and London:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,1989.
Olson,Gary A.,and Irene Gale,eds.Interviews:Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Rhetoric and Literacy.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1991.
Olson,Gary A.,ed.Philosophy,Rhetoric,Literary Criticism:(Inter ) views.Carbondale and Edwardsville:Southern Illinois UP,1994.
Perelman,Chaim and L.Olbrechts-Tyteca.The New Rhetoric:A Treatise on Argumentation.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1969.
Perelman,Chaim.The Realm of Rhetoric.Notre Dame:U of Notre Dame P,1982.
Phelan,James,ed.Reading Narrative:Form,Ethics,Ideology.Columbus:Ohio State UP,1989.
Phelan,James,ed.Narrative as Rhetoric:Techniques,Audiences,Ethics,Ideology.Columbus:Ohio State UP,1996.
Phelan,James,ed,and Peter J.Rabinowitz,eds.A Companion to Narrative Theory.Malden,MA:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,2005.
Punday,Daniel.Narrative after Deconstruction.Albany,NY:State U of New York P,2003.
Rawlings,Peter.American Theories of the Novel:Henry James,Lionel Trilling,Wayne C.Booth.London and New York:Routledge,2006.
Richards,I.A.Principles of Literary Criticism.13~(th) Impression.London:Routledge &Kegan Paul Ltd.,1952.
Richards,I.A.The Philosophy of Rhetoric.New York:Oxford UP,1965.
Rimmon-Kenan,Shlomith.Narrative Fiction:Contemporary Poetics.2~(nd) Edition.London and New York:Routledge,2002.
Roberts,W.Rhys.Greek Rhetoric and Literary Criticism.New York:Longmans,Green and Co.,1928.
Rorty,Richard.Contingency,Irony and Solidarity.New York:Cambridge UP,1989.
Swartz,Omar.The Rise of Rhetoric and Its Intersections with Contemporary Critical Thought.Boulder:Westview Press,1998.
Weaver,Richard M.The Ethics of Rhetoric.Chicago:Henry Regnery Company,1953.
Wellek,Rene,and Austin Warren.Theory of Literature.Harmondsworth:Penguin Books,1963.
Whately,Richard.Elements of Rhetoric.New York:Sheldon & Co.,1871.
Baker,John Ross."From Imitation to Rhetoric:The Chicago Critics,Wayne C.Booth,and Tom Jones."[J]NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction.Vol.6,No.3,1973:pp.197-21.
Bialostosky,Don."The Rhetorical Tradition and Recent Literary Theory."[J]College English.Vol.51,No.3,1989:pp.325-329.
Bialostosky,Don."Booth's Rhetoric,Bakhtin's Dialogics,and the Future of Novel Criticism."[J]NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction.Vol.18,No.3,1985:pp.209-21.
Bloom,Edward,and Wayne C.Booth,et al."In Defense of Authors and Readers."[J] NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction.Vol.11,No.1,1977:pp.5-25.
Booth,Wayne C."'The Self-Portraiture of Genius':'The Citizen of the World' and Critical Method,Part 2:A Supplement to Honor Arthur Friedman."[J]Modern Philology.Vol.73,No.4,1976:pp.S85-S96.
Booth,Wayne C."Dawn,Delight,Dew,Dove."[J]College English.Vol.15,No.3,1953:pp.171-176.
Booth,Wayne C."Three Functions of Reviewing at the Present Time."[J]The Bulletin of the Midwest Modern Language Association.Vol.11,No.1,1978:pp.2-12.
Booth,Wayne C."Irony and Pity Once Again:'Thais' Revisited."[J]Critical Inquiry.Vol.2,No.2,1975:pp.327-344
Booth,Wayne C."The Meeting of Minds."[J]College Composition and Communication.Vol.23,No.3,1972:pp.242-250.
Booth,Wayne C."A Report on the Failure of IDECOM."[J]College English.Vol.43,No.2,1981:pp.111-121.
Booth,Wayne C."'The Rhetoric of Fiction' and the Poetics of Fictions."[J]NOVEL:A Forum on Fiction.Vol.1,No.2,1968:pp.105-117.
Booth,Wayne C."M.H.Abrams:Historian as Critic,Critic as Pluralist."[J]Critical Inquiry.Vol.2,No.3,1976:pp.411-445.
Booth,Wayne C."Pluralism in the Classroom."[J]Critical Inquiry.Vol.12,No.3,1986:pp.468-479.
Booth,Wayne C."Imaginative Literature Is Indispensable."[J]College Composition and Communication.Vol.7,No.1,1956:pp.35-38.
Booth,Wayne C."Systematic Wonder:The Rhetoric of Secular Religions."[J]Journal of the American Academy of Religion.Vol.53,No.4,1985:pp.677-702.
Booth,Wayne C."Preserving the Exemplar."[J]Critical Inquiry.Vol.3,No.3,1977:pp.407-423.
Booth,Wayne C."Censorship and the Values of Fiction."[J]The English Journal.Vol.53,No.3,1964:pp.155-164.
Booth,Wayne C."Kenneth Burke's Way of Knowing."[J]Critical lnquiry.Vol.1,No.1,1974:pp.1-22.
Booth,Wayne C."The Self-Conscious Narrator in Comic Fiction before Tristram Shandy."[J]PMLA. Vol.67,No.2,1952:pp.163-185.
Booth,Wayne C."Presidential Address:Arts and Scandals 1982."[J]PMLA.Vol.98,No.3,1983:pp.312-322.
Booth,Wayne C."Freedom of Interpretation:Bakhtin and the Challenge of Feminist Criticism."[J]Critical Inquiry.Vol.9,No.1,1982:pp.45-76.
Booth,Wayne C."Why Banning Ethical Criticism is a Serious Mistake."[J]Philosophy and Literature,1998,22:pp.366-393.
Booth,Wayne CBoyle,Thomas E."Unreliable Narration in 'The Great Gatsby.'"[J]The Bulletin of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association.Vol.23,No.1,1969:pp.21-26.
Cain,William E."The Ethics of Criticism:Does Literature Do Any Good?"[J]College English.Vol.53,No.4,1991:pp.467-476.
Comstock,Gary."Wayne Booth,Pluralist."[J]Religious Studies Review.Vol.10,No.3,1984:pp.252-257.
Darby,David."Form and Context:An Essay in the History of Narratology."[J]Poetics Today.Vol.22,No.4,2001:pp.829-852.
Darby,David."Form and Context Revisited."[J]Poetics Today.Vol.24,No.3,2003:pp.423-437.
Fludemik,Monika."History ofNarratology:A Rejoinder."[J]Poetics Today.Volume 24,No.3,2003:pp.405-1.
Hale,Dorothy J."Fiction as Restriction:Self-Binding in New Ethical Theories of the Novel."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.187-206.
Irwin,William."Against Intertextuality."[J]Philosophy and Literature.Vol.28,No.2,2004:pp.227-42.
Kennedy,George A.A New History of Classical Rhetoric.Princeton:Princeton UP,1994.
Killham,John."The 'Second Self' in Novel Criticism."[J]British Journal of Aesthetics.No.6,1966:pp.272-290.
Kindt,Tom."Narratology and Interpretation:A Rejoinder to David Darby."[J]Poetics Today.Vol.24,No.3,2003:pp.413-421.
Kirkpatrick,Andy.China's First Systematic Account of Rhetoric:An Introduction to Chen Kui's Wen Ze[J].Rhetorica,2005(2):103-152.
Liu,Yameng.To Capture the Essence of Chinese Rhetoric:An Anatomy of a Paradigm in Comparative Rhetoric[J].Rhetoric Review 14.2,1996b:318-35.
Bitzer,Lloyd F.The Rhetorical Situation[J].Philosophy and Rhetoric 1(Winter 1968):1-14.
Lynch,James J."Moral Sense and the Narrator of Tom Jones."[J]Studies in English Literature,1500-1900.Vol.25,No.3,1985:pp.599-614.
Matalene,Carolyn.Contrastive Rhetoric:An American Writing Teacher in China[J].College English,1985(8):789-808.
Nussbaum,Martha."Exactly and Responsibly:A Defense of Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature,1998,22:343-365.
Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth." In Dictionary of Literary Biography,Vol.67,"Modern American Critics Since 1965," ed.Gregory S.Jay.Detroit,MI:Gale,1988:pp.49-66.
Phelan,James."Editor's Column:Wayne C.Booth(1921-2005)."[J]Narrative.Vol.14,No.2,2006:pp.l13-117.
Phelan,James."Wayne C.Booth:The Effect of His Being."[J]Pedagogy:Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature,Language,Composition,and Culture,Vol.7,No.1,2007:pp.91-8.
Phelan,James."Estranging Unreliability,Bonding Unreliability,and the Ethics of Lolita."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.222-238.
Porter,James E."Intertextuality and the Discourse Community."[J]Rhetoric Review.Vol.5,No.1,1986:pp.34-47.
Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism."[J]Philosophy and Literature 21.1(1997):pp.1-27.
Posner,Richard A."Against Ethical Criticism:Part Two."[J]Philosophy and Literature,1998,22:pp394-412.
Rabinowitz,Peter J."The Rhetoric of Reference;or,Shostakovich's Ghost Quartet."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.239-256.
Richter,David."The Second Flight of the Phoenix:Neo-Aristotelianism Since Crane."[J]Eighteenth Century:Theory and Interpretation.Vol.23,1982:pp.27-48.
Richter,David.H."Keeping Company in Hollywood:Ethical Issues in Nonfiction Film."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.140-166.
Rufo,Kenneth.Rhetoric and Power:Rethinking and Relinking[J].Argumentation and Advocacy 40(Fall,2003):65-84.
Scharbach,Alexander."Rhetoric and Literary Criticism:Why Their Separation."[J]College Composition and Communication.Vol.23,No.2,1972:pp.185-88.
Schwartz,Daniel R."Reading as a Moral Activity:Wayne Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction."[J]The Sewanee Review.Vol.93,No.3,1985:pp.480-485.
Schwartz,Daniel R."A Humanistic Ethics of Reading."[A]In Mapping the Ethical Turn:A Reader in Ethics,Culture,and Literary Theory[C].Eds.Todd F.Davis and Kenneth Womack.Charlottesville and London:The University Press of Virginia,2001.
Shaw,Harry E."Making Readers."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.207-221.
Shen,Dan."Why Contextual and Formal Narratologies Need Each Other?"[J]Journal of Narrative Theory.Volume 35,Number 2,2005:pp.141-71.
Shen,Dan."Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction and China's Critical Context."[J]NARRATIVE,Vol.15,No.2,May 2007:pp.167-186.
Stecker,Robert."Apparent,Implied,and Postulated Authors."[J]Philosophy and Literature.Vol.11,1987:pp.258-271.
Stow,Simon."Unbecoming Virulence:The Politics of the Ethical Criticism Debate."[J]Philosophy and Literature.Vol.24,No.1,/2000:pp.185-96.
Sweeney,John,Jens Holsoe,and Ed Vulliamy.Nato Bombed Chinese Deliberately.Available at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Story/0,,203214,00.html.
白春仁.文学修辞学[M].长春:吉林教育出版社,1993.
常耀信.美国文学简史[M].天津:南开大学出版社,1990.
陈光磊,王俊衡.中国修辞学通史(先秦两汉魏晋南北朝卷)[M].郑子瑜,宗廷虎主编.长春:吉林教育出版社,1998.
陈平原.中国小说叙事模式的转变.北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
陈望道.修辞学发凡.第3版.上海:上海世纪出版集团,2001.
程锡麟.王晓路.当代美国小说理论研究[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
高辛勇.修辞学与文学阅读[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
葛桂录.他者的眼光--中英文学关系论稿[M].宁夏人民出版社,2003.
泓峻.文学修辞批评[M].北京:中国国际广播出版社,2005.
胡曙中.美国新修辞学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
胡亚敏.叙事学(第二版)[M].武汉:华中师范大学出版社,2004.
李建军.小说修辞研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
刘亚猛.追求象征的力量--关于西方修辞思想的思考[M].北京:三联书店,2004.
刘亚猛.西方修辞学史[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2008.
南帆,刘小新,练署生.文学理论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
申丹,韩加明,王丽亚.英美小说叙事理论研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
申丹.叙述学与小说文体学研究(第三版)[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
谭学纯,唐跃,朱玲.接受修辞学[M].上海:上海教育出版社,1992.
谭学纯,朱玲.广义修辞学[M].合肥:安徽教育出版社,2001.
谭学纯,朱玲.修辞研究:走出技巧论[M].合肥:安徽大学出版社,2004.
徐岱.小说叙事学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1992
王一川.修辞论美学[M].长春:东北师范大学出版社,1997.
温科学.20世纪西方修辞学理论研究[M].中国社会科学出版社,2006.
杨乃乔.东西方比较诗学--悖立与整合.北京:文化艺术出版社,2006.
叶维廉.比较诗学:理论架构的探讨.台湾:东大图书公司,1983.
乐黛云.比较文学原理.长沙:湖南文艺出版社,1988.
朱刚.二十世纪西方文论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
祝敏青.小说辞章学[M].福州:海峡文艺出版社,2000.
吕叔湘,丁声树主编.现代汉语词典[Z].第5版.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
南帆主编.文学理论[新读本][M].杭州:浙江文艺出版社,2002.
乔国强.二十世纪西方文论选读[C].上海:复旦大学出版社,2006.
夏征农主编.辞海[Z].上海:上海辞书出版社,1999.
杨乃乔主编.比较文学概论.第二版.北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
虞建华.英美文学研究论丛(第三辑).上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
袁晖,宗廷虎主编.汉语修辞学史.合肥:安徽教育出版社,1990.
朱立元主编.当代西方文艺理论[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2003.
大卫·宁.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法[M].常昌富,顾宝桐译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
戴维·赫尔曼.新叙事学[M].马海良译.北京:北京大学出版社,2002,
戴维·洛奇.小说的艺术[M].王峻岩译.北京:作家出版社,1998.
厄尔·迈纳.比较诗学:文学理论的跨文化研究札记.王宇根,宋伟杰译.北京:中央编译出版社,1998.
肯尼斯·博克.当代西方修辞学:演讲与批评话语[M].常昌富,顾宝桐译。北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
拉曼·塞尔登,彼得·威德森。彼得·布鲁克。当代文学理论导读[M].刘象愚译.北京:北京大学出版社,2006。
理查德·波斯纳.法律与文学[M].李国庆译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002.
马克·柯里.后现代叙事理论[M].宁一中译.北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
热奈特.叙事话语 新叙事话语[M].王文融译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1990.
特里·伊格尔顿.现象学,阐释学,接受理论--当代西方文艺理论[M].王逢振译.南京:江苏教育出版社,2006.
韦恩·布斯.小说修辞学[M].付礼军译.南宁:广西人民出版社,1987。
韦恩·布斯。小说修辞学[M].华明译.北京:北京大学出版社,1987.
吴伟仁。英国文学史及选读(上、下)。北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1988.
吴伟仁.美国文学史及选读(上、下).第二版.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1990.
亚里士多德.诗学[M].陈中梅译.北京:商务印书馆,2005.
詹姆斯·费伦.作为修辞的叙事:技巧、读者、伦理、意识形态[M].陈永国译。北京:北京大学出版社,2002.
郑克鲁.外国文学史(上、下).北京:高等教育出版社,1999.
曹禧修.修辞学:文学批评新思维[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002 (1):73-6.
曹禧修.小说修辞学框架中的隐含作者与隐含读者[J].当代文坛,2003(5):51-4.
陈浩.叙事再现、叙事语法与叙事修辞--论西方叙事学发展的三个阶段[J]。绍兴文理学院学报,2001(6):66-70.
程锡麟。当代美国文学理论[--布斯教授访谈][J].外国文学评论,1990(1):134-7.
程锡麟.析布斯的小说伦理学[J].四川大学学报(哲社版),2000(1):64-71.
程锡麟.叙事理论概述[J].外语研究,2002(3):10-15.
程锡麟.试论布斯的{小说修辞》[J].外国文学评论,1997(4):17-25.
程锡麟.小说理论的里程碑--析布斯的{小说修辞》[J]。四川大学学报(哲社版),1997(3):45-52.
范晓明.浅谈“隐含作者”及其意义[J].黑龙江教育学院学报,2005(4):88-9.
高万云.中国文学的修辞批评[J]。福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(5):13-18.
赫凌敏.对韦恩·布斯《小说修辞》批判观点的再批判[J]。吉林师范大学学报(哲社版),2005(4):84-6。
李建军.论布斯小说修辞理论的贡献和意义[J]。中国人民大学学报(哲社版),1999(6):98-103.
李建军.论小说修辞的理论基源及定义[J]。陕西师范大学学报(哲社版),2000(1):56-60。
李建军.论小说作者与隐含作者[J].中国人民大学学报(哲社版),2000(3):103-7.
李建军。哪一种更好--论小说修辞中作者与读者的两种关系形态[J].小说评论,1999(6):72-9。
刘俐俐.论西方新叙事理论文本批评的方法论意义[J].陕西师范大学学报(哲社版),2005(7):19-26。
刘亚猛.修辞与关联[J]。外语教学与研究,2004(4):252-256。
刘亚猛。跨文化“交流迷失”及其因应之道[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(2):85-89.
刘亚猛.修辞与当代西方史学论争[J].修辞学习,2007(4):7-12.
刘亚猛.二十世纪美国修辞的宣言--评韦恩·布斯的《关于修辞的修辞:对有效交流的求索》[J]。修辞学习,2006(5):47-9.
刘亚猛。诠释与修辞[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2006(5):23-28.
刘月新.试论隐含作者及其艺术生成.三峡大学学报(人文社会科学版),1995(1):156-162.
刘月新.文学阅读与隐含作者[J].当代文坛,1995(4):24-6.
刘月新.“隐含作者”与艺术真实[J].长沙水电师院(社会科学版),1994(4):69-74.
乔国强.叙事学与文学批评--申丹教授访谈录[J].外国文学研究,2005(3):5-10.
尚必武,胡全生。西方叙事学界的“隐含作者”之争述评--兼纪念韦恩·布斯去世两周年[J].山东外语教学,2007(5):6-13.
佘向军。论小说阅读中“隐含作者”的建构[J].中南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),2004(3):151-4.
佘向军.论作者对“隐含作者”的审美创造[J].怀化学院学报,2004(3):66-8。
申丹。20世纪90年代以来叙事理论的新发展[J].当代外国文学,2005(1):47-54.
申丹.关于西方叙事理论新进展的思考--评国际上首部《叙事理论指南》[J].外国文学,2006(1):92-9。
申丹.经典叙事学究竟是否已经过时[J].外国文学评论,2003(2):92-102。
申丹.究竟是否需要“隐含作者”--叙事学界的分歧与网上的对话[J].国外文学,2003(3):7-13。
申丹.修辞学还是叙事学?经典还是后经典?--评西摩·查特曼的叙事修辞学[J].外国文学,2002(2):40-46.
申丹.叙事学[J].外国文学,2003(3):60-65.
申丹.叙事学研究在中国与西方[J].外国文学研究,2005(4):110-113。
申丹.语境、规约、话语--评卡恩斯的修辞性叙事学.外语与外语教学,2003(1):2-10.
施定.近20余年中国叙事学研究述评[J].学术研究,2003(8):129-132.
唐伟胜.国外叙事学研究范式的转移--兼评国内叙事学研究现状[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(2):13-7.
唐伟胜.阐释还是诗学,借鉴还是超越--再论后经典叙事学与经典叙事学的共存关系[J].外国语,2008(6):74-81.
汪建峰.西方修辞与西方的中国形象塑造[J]。修辞学习,2007(5):26-30。
王杰红.作者、读者与文本动力学--詹姆斯·费伦《作为修辞的叙事》的方法论诠释[J].国外文学,2004(3):19-23.
王丽亚.分歧与对话--后结构主义批评下的叙事学研究[J].外国文学评论,1999(4):32-9.
肖锦龙.文学叙事和语言交流--试论西方的修辞叙事学理论和思想范式[J].文艺理论研究,2005(6):67-78.
韦恩·布斯.隐含作者的复活[J].申丹译.江西社会科学,2007(5):30-40.
姚小平。追求修辞的力量[J]。外语教学与研究,2005(1):73-75.
詹姆斯·费伦,唐伟胜.“伦理转向”与修辞叙事伦理[J].四川外语学院学报,2008(5):1-6.
朱玲。 “修辞立其诚”:中国早期修辞理论的核心[J].福建师范大学学报(哲社版),2004(6):19-24.