乔纳森·卡勒：解读理论多元时代
摘要
本论文从卡勒思想史这个角度出发,遵循卡勒所提倡的“避免过度简化”的原则,从形式层面(基本学术思路、文学研究特色)、实体层面(三次转型思考、关键词溯源研究)这两个层面来立体把握其学术思想,并勾勒其在文学思想史的地位。
在卡勒研究上,国外英美界并未有系统的研究,只有几次访谈以及众多书评,目前较为零散;而国内的研究主要多为国内众多学者的译介与评述,较少系统化的研究。
鉴于上述思考,本次研究试图基于卡勒所有著作、重要论文、前言(如给燕卜逊等)、并结合国内与国外英美文学及文论界著名学者对卡勒的评论,来分析卡勒“如何说”与“为何说”,而非“说了什么”。由此,本文第一章介绍了卡勒其人与作品;第二章通过分析他批评的切入点、目标、方式与态度,试图着重把握住卡勒的基本学术批评思路;第三章则通过与其它批评家(詹姆逊、斯科尔斯、诺里斯、利奇、伊格尔顿)的比较,突出介绍了卡勒在“三次转型思考”中所表现出的良好应对;而第四章为“关键词研究”,系统梳理了卡勒语言学、“诗学”、与“理论”研究中的一些重要概念;第五章则将卡勒与詹姆逊、米勒进行比较,以探讨卡勒在理论批评以及文学研究中的特色;最后一章为总结,结合卡勒批评研究的实际,讨论他的理论贡献与将来可能的走向。
相对来说,在卡勒的批评理论和学术生涯中,他能把文学理论、文学批评及文学研究有效地相互结合起来,而这三者在中国恰恰是相互分割的。虽然卡勒的选择不一定就是中国批评界的选择,但本论文仍然希望:对卡勒系统研究也许会在某种程度上对中国的批评界有所启示。
This dissertation is firmly grounded upon Jonathan Culler’s thought on literary studies and criticism. To“avoid overgeneralization”as promoted by Culler, we explore his critical ideas in terms of both form (referring to the pivotal anchoring points and its characteristics of Culler’s literary studies and criticism) and content (his three transformations in thinking and keyword studies). In so doing, it is anticipated that Culler’s critical thoughts could be fished out in a more comprehensive way, and his influence on literary studies and criticism could thus be traced.
At present, no systematic study focusing on Jonathan Culler has been found abroad and only very scarce and randomized interviews or book reviews could be located. Similarly, in China, Culler’s study is dominated by translations or reviews from various scholars and it is also very rare to find a systematic study in this respect.
In view of such fact, we attempt to base our study on all Culler’s works, selected articles and numerous prefaces (e.g., for Empson), which are further complemented by book reviews from those celebrated scholars both abroad and at home. By doing so, our emphasis is placed on“How Culler says”and“Why he says so”rather than“What he says”. Accordingly, Chapter One briefly introduces who Jonathan Culler is and what he has written; Chapter Two intends to formulate a framework to describe his colorful journey of literary studies and criticism, by illustrating his cutting points, objectives, modes of analysis and attitudes in or towards literary study and criticism; Chapter Three further highlights Culler’s sophisticated maneuvering practices in his three transformations in thinking, which is achieved by comparing Culler with such critics as Frederic Jameson, Robert Scholes, Christopher Norris, Vincent Leitch and Terry Eagleton. Chapter Four deals with“Keyword studies”, trying to comb through those essential concepts in Culler’s linguistics,“Poetics”and“Theory”studies; Furthermore, Chapter Five compares Culler with Frederic Jameson and J. Hillis Miller, to detect the underlying characteristics featured in Culler’s studies; Chapter Six serves as the conclusion part, discussing Culler’s theoretical contributions and possible trends in his literary studies and criticism with reference to his critical practices.
Generally speaking, Culler has integrated literary theory, literary criticism and literary study into his critical practices in an efficient way. On the contrary, these three studies are clearly separated in Chinese contexts. Though Culler’s critical practices does not justify the integration option for Chinese criticism, we still hope that a systematic study on Culler may, to some extent, contribute a little to literary study and criticism in China.
在卡勒研究上,国外英美界并未有系统的研究,只有几次访谈以及众多书评,目前较为零散;而国内的研究主要多为国内众多学者的译介与评述,较少系统化的研究。
鉴于上述思考,本次研究试图基于卡勒所有著作、重要论文、前言(如给燕卜逊等)、并结合国内与国外英美文学及文论界著名学者对卡勒的评论,来分析卡勒“如何说”与“为何说”,而非“说了什么”。由此,本文第一章介绍了卡勒其人与作品;第二章通过分析他批评的切入点、目标、方式与态度,试图着重把握住卡勒的基本学术批评思路;第三章则通过与其它批评家(詹姆逊、斯科尔斯、诺里斯、利奇、伊格尔顿)的比较,突出介绍了卡勒在“三次转型思考”中所表现出的良好应对;而第四章为“关键词研究”,系统梳理了卡勒语言学、“诗学”、与“理论”研究中的一些重要概念;第五章则将卡勒与詹姆逊、米勒进行比较,以探讨卡勒在理论批评以及文学研究中的特色;最后一章为总结,结合卡勒批评研究的实际,讨论他的理论贡献与将来可能的走向。
相对来说,在卡勒的批评理论和学术生涯中,他能把文学理论、文学批评及文学研究有效地相互结合起来,而这三者在中国恰恰是相互分割的。虽然卡勒的选择不一定就是中国批评界的选择,但本论文仍然希望:对卡勒系统研究也许会在某种程度上对中国的批评界有所启示。
This dissertation is firmly grounded upon Jonathan Culler’s thought on literary studies and criticism. To“avoid overgeneralization”as promoted by Culler, we explore his critical ideas in terms of both form (referring to the pivotal anchoring points and its characteristics of Culler’s literary studies and criticism) and content (his three transformations in thinking and keyword studies). In so doing, it is anticipated that Culler’s critical thoughts could be fished out in a more comprehensive way, and his influence on literary studies and criticism could thus be traced.
At present, no systematic study focusing on Jonathan Culler has been found abroad and only very scarce and randomized interviews or book reviews could be located. Similarly, in China, Culler’s study is dominated by translations or reviews from various scholars and it is also very rare to find a systematic study in this respect.
In view of such fact, we attempt to base our study on all Culler’s works, selected articles and numerous prefaces (e.g., for Empson), which are further complemented by book reviews from those celebrated scholars both abroad and at home. By doing so, our emphasis is placed on“How Culler says”and“Why he says so”rather than“What he says”. Accordingly, Chapter One briefly introduces who Jonathan Culler is and what he has written; Chapter Two intends to formulate a framework to describe his colorful journey of literary studies and criticism, by illustrating his cutting points, objectives, modes of analysis and attitudes in or towards literary study and criticism; Chapter Three further highlights Culler’s sophisticated maneuvering practices in his three transformations in thinking, which is achieved by comparing Culler with such critics as Frederic Jameson, Robert Scholes, Christopher Norris, Vincent Leitch and Terry Eagleton. Chapter Four deals with“Keyword studies”, trying to comb through those essential concepts in Culler’s linguistics,“Poetics”and“Theory”studies; Furthermore, Chapter Five compares Culler with Frederic Jameson and J. Hillis Miller, to detect the underlying characteristics featured in Culler’s studies; Chapter Six serves as the conclusion part, discussing Culler’s theoretical contributions and possible trends in his literary studies and criticism with reference to his critical practices.
Generally speaking, Culler has integrated literary theory, literary criticism and literary study into his critical practices in an efficient way. On the contrary, these three studies are clearly separated in Chinese contexts. Though Culler’s critical practices does not justify the integration option for Chinese criticism, we still hope that a systematic study on Culler may, to some extent, contribute a little to literary study and criticism in China.
引文
Abbott, H. Porter (2002), The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Adorno, Theodor, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Bertolt Brecht and Georg Lukacs [2007 (1986)], Aesthetics and Politics (Radical Thinkers), London: Verso.
Allen, Graham (2000), Intertextuality, London: Routledge.
—(2003), Roland Barthes, London: Routledge.
Austin, John L [1978 (1955)], How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bal, Mieke (2002), Traveling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Bart, Benjamin F. (1975),“Review on‘Flaubert, The Uses of Uncertainty’by Jonathan Culler, The Modern Language Journal, 59(7), 403-405.
Barthes, Roland (1966), Critique et Verité(Criticism and Truth), Paris: Seuil.
—(1970), S/Z. Paris: Seuil.
—(1986), The Rustle of Language, Trans. Richard Howard, Oxford: Blackwell.
Bellos, David (1977),“Review on Flaubert: The Uses of Uncertainty”, The Modern Language Review, 72(1),197-198.
Bernheimer, Charles (1976),“Review: La Ironie des Idées re?ues”, NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction, 9(2): 189-192.
Bordwell, David (1989), Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Havard University Press.
Bordwell, David and No?l Carroll (1996), eds. Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Brown, Marshal (1983),“Review on On Deconstruction”, Modern Language Quarterly, 44, 327-30.
Butler, Judith, John Guillory, Kendall Thomas (2000), eds. What's Left of Theory? London: Routledge.
Cain,William E. (1984),“Review on On Deconstruction”, College English, 46(8), 811-820.
Chatman, Seymour (1990), Coming to Terms, Ithaca: Cornell UP.
—(1988),“On Deconstructing Narratology”, Style, 22, 9-17.
Chen, Xiao Mei (1995), Occidentalism: A Theory of Counter-Discourse in Post-Mao China, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collini, Stephano (1992), ed. Interpretation and Overinterpretation, contributed by, Umberto Eco, Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler, and Christina Brooke-Rose, Cambridge: CUP.
Contemporary Authors Online, Gale (2008), Reproduced in Biography Resource Center, Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC.
Cunningham, Valentine (2002), Reading After Theory, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
de Man, Paul (1979), Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Derrida, Jacques (1978), Writing and Difference, London: Routledge.
—(1988), Limited Inc., Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Dictionary of Literary Biography, Gale (Detroit, MI), Volume 67 (1988), Modern American Critics since 1955; Volume 246 (2001), Twentieth-Century American Cultural Theorists.
Eagleton, Terry (1983), Literary Theory: An Introduction, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
—(2003), After Theory, New York: Basic Books.
Eco, Umberto (1992),“Tanner Lectures in Human Values”, in Stefan Collini, ed. Interpretation and Overinterpretation, by Umberto Eco et al., Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Eikhenbaum, Boris [1965 (1926)],“The Theory of the Formal Method”, In Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis, eds. Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays, Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Eliot, Thomas Stearns (1934),“Tradition and Individual Talent”, in The Sacred Wood, Essays on Poetry and Criticism, London: Metheun & Co. Ltd.
Fish, Stanley (1970),“Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics”, New Literary History, 2, 123-162.
Fludernik, Monika (1996), Towards a 'Natural' Narratology, London and New York: Routledge.
Frow, John (1986), Marxism and Literary History, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Frye, Northrop (1957), Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP. Genette, Gérard (1972), Figures III, Paris: Seuil.
Grossberg, Lawrence, Cary Nelson, Paula Treichler (1992), eds. Cultural Studies, New York: Routledge.
Harpham, Geoffrey G. (1991),“The Future and Literary Theory (Review-essay of Framing the Sign)”, Modern Philology, 89(1), 8-24.
Harris, Roy (2001), Saussure and his Interpreters, Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.
Hernadi, Paul (1989), ed. The Rhetoric of Interpretation and the Interpretation of Rhetoric, Durham: Duke UP.
Hirsch, Eric Donald (1976), The Aims of Interpretation, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press.
Homer, Sean (2006),“Narratives of History, Narratives of Time”, In Caren Irr and Ian
Buchanan, eds. On Jameson: From Postmodernism to Globalization, New York: State University of New York Press.
Iser, Wolfgang (1972),“The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach”, New Literary History, 3, 279-99.
Jakobson, Roman (1974), Questions de poetique (Problems of Poetics). Paris: du Seuil.
Jameson, Frederic (1972), The Prison-House of Language, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
—(1981), The Political Unconscious, New York: Cornell University Press.
—(1991), Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham: Duke University Press.
—(1998), The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern, 1983-1998, Verso: London and New York.
—(1984),“Foreword”, in Jean Fran?ois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Johnson, Barbara (1980), The Critical Difference: Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kafalenos, Emma (1997),“Functions after Propp: Words to Talk about how We Read Narrative”, Poetics Today, 18(4), 470-494.
Kellner, Douglas (1998), Frederic Jameson, http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell19.htm.
Knapp, Steven and Walter B. Michaels (1981-1982),“Against Theory”, Critical Inquiry, 8, 723-742.
Kumar, Amitava (1999), ed. Poetics/Politics: Radical Aesthetics for the Classroom, New York: St. Martin's Press.
Leitch, Vincent B. (2003), Theory Matters, New York & London: Routledge.
—(2005),“Theory Ends”, Profession, 1, 122-128.
Lentricchia, Frank (1980), After the New Criticism, Chicago: The Univerisity of Chicago Press.
Lyotard, Jean Fran?ois (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Martin, Wallace (1986), Recent Theories of Narrative, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Maxwell, Richard (1979),“Dickens's Omniscience”, ELH, 46, 290-313.
McQuillan, Martin, Graeme Macdonald, Robin Purves and Steven Thomson (1999), eds. Post-Theory: New Directions in Criticism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Miller, J. Hillis (1982), Fiction and Repetition: Seven English Novels, Oxford: Blackwell.
—(1987a), The Ethics of Reading: Kant, de Man, Eliot, Trollope, James, and Benjamin, New York: Columbia University Press.
—(1992), Ariadne's Thread: Story Lines, New Haven: Yale University Press.
—(1998), Reading Narrative, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
—(2005), The J. Hillis Miller Reader (ed. Julian Wolfreys), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
—(1976a),“Ariadne's thread: Repetition and the Narrative Line”, Critical Inquiry, 3(1), 57-77.
—(1976b),“Stevens' Rock and Criticism as Cure, I & II”, The Georgia Review, 30, 330-348.
—(1977),“The Critic as Host”, Critical Inquiry, 3, 439-447.
—(1980),“The Figure in the Carpet”, Poetics Today, 1(3), 107-118.
—(1980/1981),“A Guest in the House: Reply to Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan's Reply”, Poetics Today, 2(1b), 189-191.
—(1987b),“Presidential Address: The Triumph of Theory, the Resistance to Reading, and the Question of the Material Base”, PMLA, 102, 281-291.
—(2007),“Defense of Literature and Literary Study in a Time of Globalization and the New Tele-Technologies”, Neohelicon, 34(2), 13-22.
Moriarty, Moriarty (1991), Roland Barthes, Oxford: Polity.
New Literary History Editoral Office, retrieved Oct. 6th, 2008, http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/new_literary_history/guidelines.html.
Norris, Christopher (1982), Deconstruction: Theory and Practice, London: Methuen.
—(1988), Deconstruction and the Interests of Theory, London: Pinter Publishers.
Olson, Barbara K. (2006),“Who Thinks This Book? Or Why the Author/God Analogy Merits Our Attention”, Narrative, 14 (3), 339-346.
Payne, Michael and John Schad (2003), eds. Life.after.theory., London and New York: Continuum.
Prince, Gerald (1994),“Narratology”, in Michael Groden, Martin Kreiswirth, Imre Szeman, eds. The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 524-527.
Readings, Bill (1996), The University in Ruins, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Riffaterre, Michael (1986),“Textuality: W. H. Auden's Musee des Beaux Arts”, in Mary Ann Caws, ed. Textual Analysis: Some Readers Reading, New York: MLA.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith (1980-1981),“Deconstructive Reflections on Deconstruction: In reply to Hillis Miller”, Poetics Today, 2, 185-188.
Rorty, Richard (1992),“The Pragmatist’s Progress”, in Stefan Collini, ed. Interpretation and Overinterpretation, by Umberto Eco et al., Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Russo, John Paul (1979),“A Review on Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature”, Modern Philology, 76,(4), 444-448.
S. F. R (1984),“Review on On Deconstruction”, Comparative Literature, 36(3), 263-268.
Said, Edward (1982),“Traveling Theory”, Raritan, 1(3), 41-67.
—(2000),“Traveling Theory Reconsidered”, in Reflections on Exile and Other Essays, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, pp. 436–452.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1974), Course in General Linguistics, Translated by W. Baskin, London: Fontana/Collins.
—(2002),écrits de linguistique générale.Texteétabli etéditépar, Simon Bouquet et Rudolf Engler, Paris:éditions Gallimard.
Saville, Julia (1989),“Review on Framing the Sign”, MLN, 104(5), 1183-1186.
Scholes, Robert E. (1974), Structuralism in Literature: An Introduction, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Shaumyan, Sebastian K. (1965), Structural Linguistics, Moscow: Nauka.
Shen, Dan and Xiao Yi, Zhou (2006),“Western Literary Theories in China: Reception, Influence and Resistance”, Comparative Critical Studies, 3 (1-2), 139-155.
Shen, Dan (2002),“Defence and Challenge: Reflections on the Relation between Story and Discourse”, Narrative, 10, 222-243.
Simpson, David (1995), The Academic Postmodern and the Rule of Literature: A Report on Half-Knowledge, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (2003), Death of a Discipline (The Wellek Library Lectures Series), New York: Columbia University Press.
Staten, Henry (1985),“Review on On Deconstruction”, MLN (French Issue), 100(4), 871-877.
Sturrock, John (1979), ed. Structuralism and Since: From Lévi-Strauss to Derrida, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Todorov, Tzvetan (1970),“Comment lire?”La nouvelle revue francaise, 214, 129-43.
Veronica, Forrest-Thomson (1978), Poetic Artifice: A Theory of Twentieth-Century Poetry, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Walsh, Richard (1997),“Who Is the Narrator?”Poetics Today, 18(4), 495-513.
Wang, Ning (1998),“Postmodernizing Ibsen: Toward a New Interpretation of the Fin-de-Siecle”, in Maria Deppermann, et al. eds. Ibsen im europaiscben
Spannungsfeld zwischen Naturalismus und Symbolismus, Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang, 295-307.
—(2006),“Toward a Global/Local Orientation of Comparative Literature in China”, Neohelicon, 33(2), 149-163.
—(2007),“Contemporary Theories Revisited: Theoretical Trends in the‘Post-theoretic Era’and Cultural Construction”, National Central University Journal of Humanities, 32, 1-34.
Wegner, Phillip (2006),“Periodizing Jameson, or, Notes towards a Cultural Logic of Globalization”, In Caren Irr and Ian Buchanan eds. On Jameson: From
Postmodernism to Globalization, New York: State of University of New York Press, 241-280.
West, Martin L. Times: Literary Supplement, 4 June 1976.
Zavarzadeh, Mas'ud (1982),“Review on The Pursuit of Signs”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 40(3), 329-333.
Zhang, Long Xi (1992),“Western Theory and Chinese Reality”, Critical Inquiry, 19(1), pp. 105-130.
"Narrative." Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 15 June 2008, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/403613/narrative.
鲍尔德温等著:《文化研究导论》,陶东风等译,北京,高等教育出版社,2004年版。
曹顺庆:“是泛文化?还是跨文化,世纪之交比较文学研究的战略性转变”,《社会科学战线》,1997年第1期,第159-162页。
陈永国:《文化的政治阐释学:后现代语境中的詹姆逊》,北京,中国社会科学出版社,2000年版。
陈永国:“互文性”,《外国文学》,2003年第1期,第76-82页。
弗莱:《批评的剖析》,陈慧、袁宪军、吴伟仁译,天津,百花文艺出版社,1998年版。
雷颐:“现代的‘华夏中心观’与‘民族主义’”,载萧旁编:《中国如何面对西方》,香港:明镜出版社,1997年版,第49-50页。
米勒:“全球化时代文学研究还会继续存在吗?”《文学评论》,2001年第1期,第131-139页。
米勒:《重申解构主义》,北京,中国社会科学出版社,1998年版。
秦海鹰:《互文性问题研究》(国家社会科学基金项目结项报告),2000年立项,2003年8月结项。
申丹:《叙述学与小说文体学研究》,北京,北京大学出版社,1998年版。
申丹等:《英美小说叙事理论研究》,北京,北京大学出版社,2005年版。
生安锋:“对文学研究的呼唤:J.希利斯·米勒访谈录”,《外国文学研究》,2006年第6期,第1-12页。
盛宁:“对‘理论热’消退后美国文学研究的思考”,《文艺研究》,2002年第6期,第5-14页。
盛宁:“‘理论热’的消退与文学理论研究的出路”,《南京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2007年第1期,第59-73页。
汪晖、张天蔚:“文化批判理论与当代中国民族主义问题”,《战略与管理》,1994年第4期,第17-20页。
王逢振:“詹姆逊近年来的学术思想”,《文学评论》,1997年第6期,第141-149页。
王逢振:“前言”,载詹姆逊:《快感:文化与政治》(王逢振等译),北京,中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第1-18页。
王敬民:《乔纳森卡勒诗学研究》,四川大学未出版博士论文,2005年版。
王宁:“希利斯·米勒和他的解构批评”,《南方文坛》,2001年第1期,第11-12页。
王宁:“‘后理论时代’西方理论思潮的走向”,《外国文学》,2005年第3期,第32—41页。
王宁:“中国比较文学学科的全球本土化发展历程及走向”,《学术月刊》,2006年第12期,第16-25页。
徐贲:“‘第三世界批评’在当今中国的处境”,《二十一世纪》(香港出版),1995年第27期,第16-27页。
詹姆逊:《后现代主义与文化理论》(精校本),唐小兵译,北京,北京大学出版社,2005[1997]年版。
詹姆逊:《晚期资本主义的文化逻辑》,陈清侨等译,北京,三联书店,1997年版。
詹姆逊:《快感:文化与政治》,王逢振等译,北京,中国社会科学出版社,1998年版。
詹姆逊:“现代性的神话”,《上海文学》,张旭东译,2002年第10期,第73-79页。
詹姆逊:《现代性的幽灵》,2002年7月28日在华东师范大学的演讲,有关该讲演的中文译文采用张旭东根据杰姆逊访华时带来的手稿翻译。
张法:《走向全球化时代的文艺理论》,合肥,安徽教育出版社,2005年版。
赵毅衡:“‘后学’与中国新保守主义”,《二十一世纪》(香港出版),1995年第27期,第4-15页。
郑敏:“从多元到对抗—谈弗·杰姆逊学术思想的新变化”,《外国文学评论》,1993年第4期,第20-26页。
周玉宁:“我对文学的未来是有安全感的:希利斯·米勒谈访录”,《文艺报》,2004年6月24日。
Adorno, Theodor, Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Bertolt Brecht and Georg Lukacs [2007 (1986)], Aesthetics and Politics (Radical Thinkers), London: Verso.
Allen, Graham (2000), Intertextuality, London: Routledge.
—(2003), Roland Barthes, London: Routledge.
Austin, John L [1978 (1955)], How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bal, Mieke (2002), Traveling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Bart, Benjamin F. (1975),“Review on‘Flaubert, The Uses of Uncertainty’by Jonathan Culler, The Modern Language Journal, 59(7), 403-405.
Barthes, Roland (1966), Critique et Verité(Criticism and Truth), Paris: Seuil.
—(1970), S/Z. Paris: Seuil.
—(1986), The Rustle of Language, Trans. Richard Howard, Oxford: Blackwell.
Bellos, David (1977),“Review on Flaubert: The Uses of Uncertainty”, The Modern Language Review, 72(1),197-198.
Bernheimer, Charles (1976),“Review: La Ironie des Idées re?ues”, NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction, 9(2): 189-192.
Bordwell, David (1989), Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Havard University Press.
Bordwell, David and No?l Carroll (1996), eds. Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Brown, Marshal (1983),“Review on On Deconstruction”, Modern Language Quarterly, 44, 327-30.
Butler, Judith, John Guillory, Kendall Thomas (2000), eds. What's Left of Theory? London: Routledge.
Cain,William E. (1984),“Review on On Deconstruction”, College English, 46(8), 811-820.
Chatman, Seymour (1990), Coming to Terms, Ithaca: Cornell UP.
—(1988),“On Deconstructing Narratology”, Style, 22, 9-17.
Chen, Xiao Mei (1995), Occidentalism: A Theory of Counter-Discourse in Post-Mao China, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collini, Stephano (1992), ed. Interpretation and Overinterpretation, contributed by, Umberto Eco, Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler, and Christina Brooke-Rose, Cambridge: CUP.
Contemporary Authors Online, Gale (2008), Reproduced in Biography Resource Center, Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC.
Cunningham, Valentine (2002), Reading After Theory, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
de Man, Paul (1979), Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Derrida, Jacques (1978), Writing and Difference, London: Routledge.
—(1988), Limited Inc., Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Dictionary of Literary Biography, Gale (Detroit, MI), Volume 67 (1988), Modern American Critics since 1955; Volume 246 (2001), Twentieth-Century American Cultural Theorists.
Eagleton, Terry (1983), Literary Theory: An Introduction, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
—(2003), After Theory, New York: Basic Books.
Eco, Umberto (1992),“Tanner Lectures in Human Values”, in Stefan Collini, ed. Interpretation and Overinterpretation, by Umberto Eco et al., Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Eikhenbaum, Boris [1965 (1926)],“The Theory of the Formal Method”, In Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis, eds. Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays, Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
Eliot, Thomas Stearns (1934),“Tradition and Individual Talent”, in The Sacred Wood, Essays on Poetry and Criticism, London: Metheun & Co. Ltd.
Fish, Stanley (1970),“Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics”, New Literary History, 2, 123-162.
Fludernik, Monika (1996), Towards a 'Natural' Narratology, London and New York: Routledge.
Frow, John (1986), Marxism and Literary History, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Frye, Northrop (1957), Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP. Genette, Gérard (1972), Figures III, Paris: Seuil.
Grossberg, Lawrence, Cary Nelson, Paula Treichler (1992), eds. Cultural Studies, New York: Routledge.
Harpham, Geoffrey G. (1991),“The Future and Literary Theory (Review-essay of Framing the Sign)”, Modern Philology, 89(1), 8-24.
Harris, Roy (2001), Saussure and his Interpreters, Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.
Hernadi, Paul (1989), ed. The Rhetoric of Interpretation and the Interpretation of Rhetoric, Durham: Duke UP.
Hirsch, Eric Donald (1976), The Aims of Interpretation, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press.
Homer, Sean (2006),“Narratives of History, Narratives of Time”, In Caren Irr and Ian
Buchanan, eds. On Jameson: From Postmodernism to Globalization, New York: State University of New York Press.
Iser, Wolfgang (1972),“The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach”, New Literary History, 3, 279-99.
Jakobson, Roman (1974), Questions de poetique (Problems of Poetics). Paris: du Seuil.
Jameson, Frederic (1972), The Prison-House of Language, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
—(1981), The Political Unconscious, New York: Cornell University Press.
—(1991), Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham: Duke University Press.
—(1998), The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern, 1983-1998, Verso: London and New York.
—(1984),“Foreword”, in Jean Fran?ois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Johnson, Barbara (1980), The Critical Difference: Essays in the Contemporary Rhetoric of Reading, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kafalenos, Emma (1997),“Functions after Propp: Words to Talk about how We Read Narrative”, Poetics Today, 18(4), 470-494.
Kellner, Douglas (1998), Frederic Jameson, http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell19.htm.
Knapp, Steven and Walter B. Michaels (1981-1982),“Against Theory”, Critical Inquiry, 8, 723-742.
Kumar, Amitava (1999), ed. Poetics/Politics: Radical Aesthetics for the Classroom, New York: St. Martin's Press.
Leitch, Vincent B. (2003), Theory Matters, New York & London: Routledge.
—(2005),“Theory Ends”, Profession, 1, 122-128.
Lentricchia, Frank (1980), After the New Criticism, Chicago: The Univerisity of Chicago Press.
Lyotard, Jean Fran?ois (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Translated by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Martin, Wallace (1986), Recent Theories of Narrative, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Maxwell, Richard (1979),“Dickens's Omniscience”, ELH, 46, 290-313.
McQuillan, Martin, Graeme Macdonald, Robin Purves and Steven Thomson (1999), eds. Post-Theory: New Directions in Criticism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Miller, J. Hillis (1982), Fiction and Repetition: Seven English Novels, Oxford: Blackwell.
—(1987a), The Ethics of Reading: Kant, de Man, Eliot, Trollope, James, and Benjamin, New York: Columbia University Press.
—(1992), Ariadne's Thread: Story Lines, New Haven: Yale University Press.
—(1998), Reading Narrative, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
—(2005), The J. Hillis Miller Reader (ed. Julian Wolfreys), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
—(1976a),“Ariadne's thread: Repetition and the Narrative Line”, Critical Inquiry, 3(1), 57-77.
—(1976b),“Stevens' Rock and Criticism as Cure, I & II”, The Georgia Review, 30, 330-348.
—(1977),“The Critic as Host”, Critical Inquiry, 3, 439-447.
—(1980),“The Figure in the Carpet”, Poetics Today, 1(3), 107-118.
—(1980/1981),“A Guest in the House: Reply to Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan's Reply”, Poetics Today, 2(1b), 189-191.
—(1987b),“Presidential Address: The Triumph of Theory, the Resistance to Reading, and the Question of the Material Base”, PMLA, 102, 281-291.
—(2007),“Defense of Literature and Literary Study in a Time of Globalization and the New Tele-Technologies”, Neohelicon, 34(2), 13-22.
Moriarty, Moriarty (1991), Roland Barthes, Oxford: Polity.
New Literary History Editoral Office, retrieved Oct. 6th, 2008, http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/new_literary_history/guidelines.html.
Norris, Christopher (1982), Deconstruction: Theory and Practice, London: Methuen.
—(1988), Deconstruction and the Interests of Theory, London: Pinter Publishers.
Olson, Barbara K. (2006),“Who Thinks This Book? Or Why the Author/God Analogy Merits Our Attention”, Narrative, 14 (3), 339-346.
Payne, Michael and John Schad (2003), eds. Life.after.theory., London and New York: Continuum.
Prince, Gerald (1994),“Narratology”, in Michael Groden, Martin Kreiswirth, Imre Szeman, eds. The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 524-527.
Readings, Bill (1996), The University in Ruins, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Riffaterre, Michael (1986),“Textuality: W. H. Auden's Musee des Beaux Arts”, in Mary Ann Caws, ed. Textual Analysis: Some Readers Reading, New York: MLA.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith (1980-1981),“Deconstructive Reflections on Deconstruction: In reply to Hillis Miller”, Poetics Today, 2, 185-188.
Rorty, Richard (1992),“The Pragmatist’s Progress”, in Stefan Collini, ed. Interpretation and Overinterpretation, by Umberto Eco et al., Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Russo, John Paul (1979),“A Review on Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature”, Modern Philology, 76,(4), 444-448.
S. F. R (1984),“Review on On Deconstruction”, Comparative Literature, 36(3), 263-268.
Said, Edward (1982),“Traveling Theory”, Raritan, 1(3), 41-67.
—(2000),“Traveling Theory Reconsidered”, in Reflections on Exile and Other Essays, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, pp. 436–452.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1974), Course in General Linguistics, Translated by W. Baskin, London: Fontana/Collins.
—(2002),écrits de linguistique générale.Texteétabli etéditépar, Simon Bouquet et Rudolf Engler, Paris:éditions Gallimard.
Saville, Julia (1989),“Review on Framing the Sign”, MLN, 104(5), 1183-1186.
Scholes, Robert E. (1974), Structuralism in Literature: An Introduction, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Shaumyan, Sebastian K. (1965), Structural Linguistics, Moscow: Nauka.
Shen, Dan and Xiao Yi, Zhou (2006),“Western Literary Theories in China: Reception, Influence and Resistance”, Comparative Critical Studies, 3 (1-2), 139-155.
Shen, Dan (2002),“Defence and Challenge: Reflections on the Relation between Story and Discourse”, Narrative, 10, 222-243.
Simpson, David (1995), The Academic Postmodern and the Rule of Literature: A Report on Half-Knowledge, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (2003), Death of a Discipline (The Wellek Library Lectures Series), New York: Columbia University Press.
Staten, Henry (1985),“Review on On Deconstruction”, MLN (French Issue), 100(4), 871-877.
Sturrock, John (1979), ed. Structuralism and Since: From Lévi-Strauss to Derrida, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Todorov, Tzvetan (1970),“Comment lire?”La nouvelle revue francaise, 214, 129-43.
Veronica, Forrest-Thomson (1978), Poetic Artifice: A Theory of Twentieth-Century Poetry, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Walsh, Richard (1997),“Who Is the Narrator?”Poetics Today, 18(4), 495-513.
Wang, Ning (1998),“Postmodernizing Ibsen: Toward a New Interpretation of the Fin-de-Siecle”, in Maria Deppermann, et al. eds. Ibsen im europaiscben
Spannungsfeld zwischen Naturalismus und Symbolismus, Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang, 295-307.
—(2006),“Toward a Global/Local Orientation of Comparative Literature in China”, Neohelicon, 33(2), 149-163.
—(2007),“Contemporary Theories Revisited: Theoretical Trends in the‘Post-theoretic Era’and Cultural Construction”, National Central University Journal of Humanities, 32, 1-34.
Wegner, Phillip (2006),“Periodizing Jameson, or, Notes towards a Cultural Logic of Globalization”, In Caren Irr and Ian Buchanan eds. On Jameson: From
Postmodernism to Globalization, New York: State of University of New York Press, 241-280.
West, Martin L. Times: Literary Supplement, 4 June 1976.
Zavarzadeh, Mas'ud (1982),“Review on The Pursuit of Signs”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 40(3), 329-333.
Zhang, Long Xi (1992),“Western Theory and Chinese Reality”, Critical Inquiry, 19(1), pp. 105-130.
"Narrative." Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, 15 June 2008, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/403613/narrative.
鲍尔德温等著:《文化研究导论》,陶东风等译,北京,高等教育出版社,2004年版。
曹顺庆:“是泛文化?还是跨文化,世纪之交比较文学研究的战略性转变”,《社会科学战线》,1997年第1期,第159-162页。
陈永国:《文化的政治阐释学:后现代语境中的詹姆逊》,北京,中国社会科学出版社,2000年版。
陈永国:“互文性”,《外国文学》,2003年第1期,第76-82页。
弗莱:《批评的剖析》,陈慧、袁宪军、吴伟仁译,天津,百花文艺出版社,1998年版。
雷颐:“现代的‘华夏中心观’与‘民族主义’”,载萧旁编:《中国如何面对西方》,香港:明镜出版社,1997年版,第49-50页。
米勒:“全球化时代文学研究还会继续存在吗?”《文学评论》,2001年第1期,第131-139页。
米勒:《重申解构主义》,北京,中国社会科学出版社,1998年版。
秦海鹰:《互文性问题研究》(国家社会科学基金项目结项报告),2000年立项,2003年8月结项。
申丹:《叙述学与小说文体学研究》,北京,北京大学出版社,1998年版。
申丹等:《英美小说叙事理论研究》,北京,北京大学出版社,2005年版。
生安锋:“对文学研究的呼唤:J.希利斯·米勒访谈录”,《外国文学研究》,2006年第6期,第1-12页。
盛宁:“对‘理论热’消退后美国文学研究的思考”,《文艺研究》,2002年第6期,第5-14页。
盛宁:“‘理论热’的消退与文学理论研究的出路”,《南京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,2007年第1期,第59-73页。
汪晖、张天蔚:“文化批判理论与当代中国民族主义问题”,《战略与管理》,1994年第4期,第17-20页。
王逢振:“詹姆逊近年来的学术思想”,《文学评论》,1997年第6期,第141-149页。
王逢振:“前言”,载詹姆逊:《快感:文化与政治》(王逢振等译),北京,中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第1-18页。
王敬民:《乔纳森卡勒诗学研究》,四川大学未出版博士论文,2005年版。
王宁:“希利斯·米勒和他的解构批评”,《南方文坛》,2001年第1期,第11-12页。
王宁:“‘后理论时代’西方理论思潮的走向”,《外国文学》,2005年第3期,第32—41页。
王宁:“中国比较文学学科的全球本土化发展历程及走向”,《学术月刊》,2006年第12期,第16-25页。
徐贲:“‘第三世界批评’在当今中国的处境”,《二十一世纪》(香港出版),1995年第27期,第16-27页。
詹姆逊:《后现代主义与文化理论》(精校本),唐小兵译,北京,北京大学出版社,2005[1997]年版。
詹姆逊:《晚期资本主义的文化逻辑》,陈清侨等译,北京,三联书店,1997年版。
詹姆逊:《快感:文化与政治》,王逢振等译,北京,中国社会科学出版社,1998年版。
詹姆逊:“现代性的神话”,《上海文学》,张旭东译,2002年第10期,第73-79页。
詹姆逊:《现代性的幽灵》,2002年7月28日在华东师范大学的演讲,有关该讲演的中文译文采用张旭东根据杰姆逊访华时带来的手稿翻译。
张法:《走向全球化时代的文艺理论》,合肥,安徽教育出版社,2005年版。
赵毅衡:“‘后学’与中国新保守主义”,《二十一世纪》(香港出版),1995年第27期,第4-15页。
郑敏:“从多元到对抗—谈弗·杰姆逊学术思想的新变化”,《外国文学评论》,1993年第4期,第20-26页。
周玉宁:“我对文学的未来是有安全感的:希利斯·米勒谈访录”,《文艺报》,2004年6月24日。