解构与“误差”
|
摘要
本文以保罗·德曼批评文本中反复出现的一个关键词:“误差”(error)作为突破口,试图寻找到贯穿于批评家学术生涯始终的一条思想线索,从而能够较为深入地理解这位解构大师的批评理论并透视其“盲视”与“洞见”。
“耶鲁学派”的核心人物保罗·德曼是当代美国文学批评界解构主义阵营中的领军人物,被称为美国六十年代以来文学理论界最具影响力、也是最具争议的批评家。德曼的文本艰深晦涩、内容深刻庞杂,国内学界对其关注较少。本篇论文的建构方法是:“以点带面、缩紧范围”,即由一个潜藏于德曼文本中的核心思想基点“误差”(error)意识出发,辐射德曼的整体思想框架;鉴于德曼的文本并非纯粹的文学批评,其论述经常在不同的学科框架下穿梭,故将考察范围限定在德曼的文学批评文本之内。
“误差”意识在德曼一生的学术生涯中从未中断,表现为一种分裂、背离的思想观和“真理”与“谬误”相伴相生的观点。本文选取了德曼批评文本中最重要的三个研究主题:“时间性”、“意向性”、“修辞性”作为研究对象,梳理并考察三大主题中贯穿始终“误差”意识,从而水到渠成地解读德曼的解构批评理论,并在此过程中找到德曼阅读理论的“盲点”。“误差”意识使德曼还原了文学文本独立复杂的建构性,并建立了“修辞性阅读”理论;但同时,德曼将这种文本与客观现实之间的分裂极端化、扩大化,最终剥夺了文学语言存在的语境,从而将文学批评引入一种虚无主义的泥潭之中。
当然,解构作为一种思潮已渐渐消退,然而,德曼的解构性批评理论所引发的许多理论问题并没有随着它的离场而得到解决,本文的讨论也仅仅是一个开始。
This dissertation is aimed toward introduce and analyze Paul de Man’s literary criticism through a key word error which occurrence in his texts repeatedly.
As a Yale School theorist, Paul de Man is the chief theorist of Deconstruction literary criticism of modern America. The most famous points of Paul de Man, such as blindness and insight and rhetoric reading, etc., have the vividly deconstructive characteristic and which did not copy the European literary criticism simply. Just as Derrida said that the Deconstruction origins of America, not import from Europe, and then effected all over the world. Jonathan Culler remanded that the main task of America literary criticism is to interpret the works of Paul de Man and find the deep means of these works.
As the most effective and controversial theorist of America since 1950s, Paul de Man’s criticism became the focus of attention for several years. Though there were so many study works about Paul de Man, and those comments had different standpoint and evaluation, it is no question that Paul de Man has universal effect to all over the world. Contrary to the foreign, the study on Paul de Man’s literary criticism is very rare in China. There are only two books of Paul de Man had been translated into Chinese, and there no any academic work had been published.
The reason of this phenomenon is very sophisticate, but the most important reason is that the works of Paul de Man is very difficult. The academic background of Paul de Man is very complex and his discussion across several different branch of learning, such as philosophy, literary, linguistic and sociology. For this reason, logicality is the main characteristic of Paul de Man’s work. The language of his work is very obscure and fierce. Rather, his works has no systematicness. All of these become the barrier of reading. During my studies on Paul de Man’s works, I found the error is very important in his works; it occurs again and again and passes through the whole life of Paul de Man. Paul de Man give rich meaning to error and that conform to his deconstructive reading. Thus the method of this dissertation is that according the key concept that is error to interpret the entire thought of Paul de Man. The range of this dissertation limits in the literary criticism of Paul de Man and in my opinion, this conform to Paul de Man’s criticism. As Paul de Man said:“My interest in criticism is subordinate to my interest in primary literary texts……My tentative generalization are not aimed a criticism of criticism but toward literary language in general”.
Choose this question as my project needs my great bravery. I use the close reading read Paul de Man’s works. In this process I must deep into his criticism, meanwhile, I cannot confused by his sophisticate thought. I cannot lose in his criticism forest. The main intention of my study is to find the blindness of his criticism.
In general, Paul de Man’s criticism can be divided into two sections. In his early works Paul de Man was deliberate upon the subjectivity, temporality and intentionality. During his latter scholarship stage, he put forward the deconstructive reading and his deconstruction criticism which is considered the real theory of Paul de Man. This dissertation thinks that Paul de Man had his own theory which was not formed by Derrida’s theory. During Paul de Man’s whole scholarship life, he insists on the error theory which includes separation, deviation and the truth live with the error. The deconstruction theory has the close relation with the error. In order to understand the deconstructive reading theory clearly, the dissertation analysis three key concepts, temporality, intentionality and rhetoricity, and the error theory is the internal clue of the dissertation.
In the investigation of temporality, the dissertation concerns temporality, modernity, the relation between memory and art, the connotation of the method of rhetoric. Paul de Man concerned the temporality from different viewpoint at different stage, but concerned the error all along. In the context of modernity, Paul de Man thought that represent the present is the basis characteristic of literary; meanwhile, literary language is the unique sign which is deferring and difference. This separation dispelled the literary modernity. In the context of temporality, memory looks like duration on a linear chain. But Paul de Man said that we should remember the forgetting in fact, because neither memory nor writing can represent the presence and they are the process of reconstruct the presence. Then, reading or understanding could not reconstruct the object. The error hides in the process of memory which origins of the rhetoricity language. Paul de Man thought that allegory and irony are both origin of the error. Allegory is the difference of sign and irony is the deviation between the self-experience and the sign itself. This is the important transition of Paul de Man from subjectivity and temporality to rhetoricity.
Paul de Man emphasized on the relation between his criticism and New Critics when he analysis the intentionality. Paul de Man deconstructed the theory of reproduce the original intention of Richards and the intentional fallacy theory of Wimsatt. Furthermore, Paul de Man re-interpreted the pre-structure of Martin Heidegger and the totality of Hans-Georg Gadamer. Paul de Man used the hermeneutic circle theory found the blind of the organic unity of the New Critics. Paul de Man put forward his own theory and made deeply research about the intentionality in this process. Thus study showed the error conscious of Paul de Man which include the error between the original intention of the author and its representation, which posed by Richards and Empson’s, the error of the New Critics between the organicism and the natural object, and the error of Martin Heidegger’s hermeneutic circle and Paul de Man’s pre-structure, the error of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s totality in the horizon of temporality. All of the theories have influenced the emergence of Paul de Man’s rhetoric reading theory.
Rhetoric reading theory is the most famous theory of Paul de Man. After the studies on the temporality and the intentionality, especially the error of the temporality and the intentionality, rhetoricity naturally enter the horizon of Paul de Man. Just as Paul de Man said that the rhetoricity is the nature of language, the literary text consists of the rhetoric language. Paul de Man benefit from the linguistic of Ferdinand de Saussure, Saussure assertion that the relation of langue and parole is arbitrary which conform to the error theory of Paul de Man. This is not only the error of the rhetoric language when the text represents the object, but also the coexistence of blindness and insight. Paul de Man asserts that blindness and insight are both in the critics reading and the error is the tie point of them.
Therefore, error is the key concept of deconstructive reading of Paul de Man. The error manifest in the separation of ego, awareness and nature, the Being and the beings, in the difference of symbols and meaning, language and reality. Blindness and insight is coexistence and the rhetoric reading find that the intention of the author and the text is difference, what the text said and what it had did is inconsistent. The task of deconstruction is the error and separation, that is, deconstruct any unity or totality.
The dissertation concludes that symptom of the criticism of Paul de Man is: firstly, generalizes the construction of language, the text is separates from the reality and become a closed area, the writing turn into the play of symbols. Secondly, the conflict between the readings is misreading and the construction of the authoritative reading mode. Paul de Man asserts that the blindness and insight is coexistence in critics’text, but his assertion is very irrefutable. The third symptom is the confusion of the synchrony and diachrony. According Martin Heidegger’s temporality, Paul de Man asserts that the rhetoricity is the nature of language; meanwhile, he distorts Saussure’s linguistics and emphasis the difference between signifier and signifie. The double standard make Paul de Man falls deep into contradictions.
Though deconstruction criticism has been declined, many key concepts and problems are not solute, the dissertation is only the beginning of my studies. To prepare for this project, the author collected many materials about Paul de Man, and I provide a chronicle of his works in order to promote the studies on deconstruction criticism.
“耶鲁学派”的核心人物保罗·德曼是当代美国文学批评界解构主义阵营中的领军人物,被称为美国六十年代以来文学理论界最具影响力、也是最具争议的批评家。德曼的文本艰深晦涩、内容深刻庞杂,国内学界对其关注较少。本篇论文的建构方法是:“以点带面、缩紧范围”,即由一个潜藏于德曼文本中的核心思想基点“误差”(error)意识出发,辐射德曼的整体思想框架;鉴于德曼的文本并非纯粹的文学批评,其论述经常在不同的学科框架下穿梭,故将考察范围限定在德曼的文学批评文本之内。
“误差”意识在德曼一生的学术生涯中从未中断,表现为一种分裂、背离的思想观和“真理”与“谬误”相伴相生的观点。本文选取了德曼批评文本中最重要的三个研究主题:“时间性”、“意向性”、“修辞性”作为研究对象,梳理并考察三大主题中贯穿始终“误差”意识,从而水到渠成地解读德曼的解构批评理论,并在此过程中找到德曼阅读理论的“盲点”。“误差”意识使德曼还原了文学文本独立复杂的建构性,并建立了“修辞性阅读”理论;但同时,德曼将这种文本与客观现实之间的分裂极端化、扩大化,最终剥夺了文学语言存在的语境,从而将文学批评引入一种虚无主义的泥潭之中。
当然,解构作为一种思潮已渐渐消退,然而,德曼的解构性批评理论所引发的许多理论问题并没有随着它的离场而得到解决,本文的讨论也仅仅是一个开始。
This dissertation is aimed toward introduce and analyze Paul de Man’s literary criticism through a key word error which occurrence in his texts repeatedly.
As a Yale School theorist, Paul de Man is the chief theorist of Deconstruction literary criticism of modern America. The most famous points of Paul de Man, such as blindness and insight and rhetoric reading, etc., have the vividly deconstructive characteristic and which did not copy the European literary criticism simply. Just as Derrida said that the Deconstruction origins of America, not import from Europe, and then effected all over the world. Jonathan Culler remanded that the main task of America literary criticism is to interpret the works of Paul de Man and find the deep means of these works.
As the most effective and controversial theorist of America since 1950s, Paul de Man’s criticism became the focus of attention for several years. Though there were so many study works about Paul de Man, and those comments had different standpoint and evaluation, it is no question that Paul de Man has universal effect to all over the world. Contrary to the foreign, the study on Paul de Man’s literary criticism is very rare in China. There are only two books of Paul de Man had been translated into Chinese, and there no any academic work had been published.
The reason of this phenomenon is very sophisticate, but the most important reason is that the works of Paul de Man is very difficult. The academic background of Paul de Man is very complex and his discussion across several different branch of learning, such as philosophy, literary, linguistic and sociology. For this reason, logicality is the main characteristic of Paul de Man’s work. The language of his work is very obscure and fierce. Rather, his works has no systematicness. All of these become the barrier of reading. During my studies on Paul de Man’s works, I found the error is very important in his works; it occurs again and again and passes through the whole life of Paul de Man. Paul de Man give rich meaning to error and that conform to his deconstructive reading. Thus the method of this dissertation is that according the key concept that is error to interpret the entire thought of Paul de Man. The range of this dissertation limits in the literary criticism of Paul de Man and in my opinion, this conform to Paul de Man’s criticism. As Paul de Man said:“My interest in criticism is subordinate to my interest in primary literary texts……My tentative generalization are not aimed a criticism of criticism but toward literary language in general”.
Choose this question as my project needs my great bravery. I use the close reading read Paul de Man’s works. In this process I must deep into his criticism, meanwhile, I cannot confused by his sophisticate thought. I cannot lose in his criticism forest. The main intention of my study is to find the blindness of his criticism.
In general, Paul de Man’s criticism can be divided into two sections. In his early works Paul de Man was deliberate upon the subjectivity, temporality and intentionality. During his latter scholarship stage, he put forward the deconstructive reading and his deconstruction criticism which is considered the real theory of Paul de Man. This dissertation thinks that Paul de Man had his own theory which was not formed by Derrida’s theory. During Paul de Man’s whole scholarship life, he insists on the error theory which includes separation, deviation and the truth live with the error. The deconstruction theory has the close relation with the error. In order to understand the deconstructive reading theory clearly, the dissertation analysis three key concepts, temporality, intentionality and rhetoricity, and the error theory is the internal clue of the dissertation.
In the investigation of temporality, the dissertation concerns temporality, modernity, the relation between memory and art, the connotation of the method of rhetoric. Paul de Man concerned the temporality from different viewpoint at different stage, but concerned the error all along. In the context of modernity, Paul de Man thought that represent the present is the basis characteristic of literary; meanwhile, literary language is the unique sign which is deferring and difference. This separation dispelled the literary modernity. In the context of temporality, memory looks like duration on a linear chain. But Paul de Man said that we should remember the forgetting in fact, because neither memory nor writing can represent the presence and they are the process of reconstruct the presence. Then, reading or understanding could not reconstruct the object. The error hides in the process of memory which origins of the rhetoricity language. Paul de Man thought that allegory and irony are both origin of the error. Allegory is the difference of sign and irony is the deviation between the self-experience and the sign itself. This is the important transition of Paul de Man from subjectivity and temporality to rhetoricity.
Paul de Man emphasized on the relation between his criticism and New Critics when he analysis the intentionality. Paul de Man deconstructed the theory of reproduce the original intention of Richards and the intentional fallacy theory of Wimsatt. Furthermore, Paul de Man re-interpreted the pre-structure of Martin Heidegger and the totality of Hans-Georg Gadamer. Paul de Man used the hermeneutic circle theory found the blind of the organic unity of the New Critics. Paul de Man put forward his own theory and made deeply research about the intentionality in this process. Thus study showed the error conscious of Paul de Man which include the error between the original intention of the author and its representation, which posed by Richards and Empson’s, the error of the New Critics between the organicism and the natural object, and the error of Martin Heidegger’s hermeneutic circle and Paul de Man’s pre-structure, the error of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s totality in the horizon of temporality. All of the theories have influenced the emergence of Paul de Man’s rhetoric reading theory.
Rhetoric reading theory is the most famous theory of Paul de Man. After the studies on the temporality and the intentionality, especially the error of the temporality and the intentionality, rhetoricity naturally enter the horizon of Paul de Man. Just as Paul de Man said that the rhetoricity is the nature of language, the literary text consists of the rhetoric language. Paul de Man benefit from the linguistic of Ferdinand de Saussure, Saussure assertion that the relation of langue and parole is arbitrary which conform to the error theory of Paul de Man. This is not only the error of the rhetoric language when the text represents the object, but also the coexistence of blindness and insight. Paul de Man asserts that blindness and insight are both in the critics reading and the error is the tie point of them.
Therefore, error is the key concept of deconstructive reading of Paul de Man. The error manifest in the separation of ego, awareness and nature, the Being and the beings, in the difference of symbols and meaning, language and reality. Blindness and insight is coexistence and the rhetoric reading find that the intention of the author and the text is difference, what the text said and what it had did is inconsistent. The task of deconstruction is the error and separation, that is, deconstruct any unity or totality.
The dissertation concludes that symptom of the criticism of Paul de Man is: firstly, generalizes the construction of language, the text is separates from the reality and become a closed area, the writing turn into the play of symbols. Secondly, the conflict between the readings is misreading and the construction of the authoritative reading mode. Paul de Man asserts that the blindness and insight is coexistence in critics’text, but his assertion is very irrefutable. The third symptom is the confusion of the synchrony and diachrony. According Martin Heidegger’s temporality, Paul de Man asserts that the rhetoricity is the nature of language; meanwhile, he distorts Saussure’s linguistics and emphasis the difference between signifier and signifie. The double standard make Paul de Man falls deep into contradictions.
Though deconstruction criticism has been declined, many key concepts and problems are not solute, the dissertation is only the beginning of my studies. To prepare for this project, the author collected many materials about Paul de Man, and I provide a chronicle of his works in order to promote the studies on deconstruction criticism.
引文
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第16页。
①《形式主义批评的绝境》是这一期间德曼论文中较为特殊的一篇,是唯一一篇以美国本土的批评现象为研究对象的文章,用法文写成,是为向法国学界介绍新批评派而作的。
②[美]林赛·沃特斯:《美学现代性批判》,昂智慧译,北京:北京大学出版社,2000年,第56页。
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社1999年,第5页。
②The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, v. 8, From Formalism to Poststructuralism, edited by Raman Selden, Cambridge University Press, 1995,P167
③[美]理查德·罗蒂:《后哲学文化》,黄勇编译,上海:上海译文出版社,2004年,第109页。
①Jeffrey T. Nealon The Discipline of Deconstruction PMLA,Vol.107,No.5.(Oct.,1992),pp.1274.
②杨冬:《韦勒克的批评史研究方法述评》,《文艺理论研究》,1999年,第4期。
③雷纳·韦勒克奥·沃伦《文学理论》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1984年,第16页。
①这篇文章的标题《转义修辞学(里尔克)》(Tropes(Rilke))在沈勇先生翻译的《阅读的寓言》一书译为《修辞手段(里尔克)》,我个人更倾向于将“Tropes”一词译为“转义”,是修辞手段的一种,而且它也是德曼在这篇文章中着重强调的一种修辞方法。
②梁启超:《学与术》,见《饮冰室合集》第三册,影印版,北京:中华书局1989年,第12页。
③梁启超:《学与术》,见《饮冰室合集》第三册,影印版,北京:中华书局1989年,第12页。
①Jeffrey T. Nealon The Discipline of Deconstruction PMLA,Vol.107,No.5.(Oct.,1992),pp.1266.
②Martin Mc Quillan Paul de Man USA,Canada:Routledge,2001 pp.1-2.
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第26页。
②Stanley Corngold Error in Paul de man, Criticical Inquiry, Vol.8. No.3.(Spring, 1982)
③Christopher Norris, Paul de Man: Deconstruction and the Critique of Aesthetic Ideology, London and New York: Routledge, 1998. P2
①Jonathan Culler“Paul de Man’s Contribution to Literary Criticism and Theory”,in The Furure of Literary heory,ed.by RalPh Cohen,Routledge,1989,P268
①Stanley Corngold Error in Paul de man, Criticical Inquiry, Vol.8. No.3.(Spring, 1982)
②一些国外的期刊资料显示,德曼早期的一些用法文写作的论文文笔清新流畅,和后期的英语写作的那些晦涩尖锐的文章形成鲜明的对比。《海德格尔对赫尔德林的解释》一文最初就是1956年用法文写成的,法语标题为“Les Exégèses de Holderlin par Martin Heidegger”,后来德曼将其译为英文“Heidegger’s Exegeses of Holderlin”,1983年《盲视与洞见》一书再版的时候,将此文收入到其中。
①周颖:《保罗·德曼:从主体性到修辞性》,《外国文学》,2001年3月。
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第221页。
②茨韦坦·托多罗夫(Tzvetan Todotov),法国批评家,刊物《诗学》的创办人之一,德曼去世前一直是该刊物的编委。此人曾经发表过抨击德曼的文章。
③[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第261页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. VIII FOREWORD
②这三篇博士论文是:徐润拓:《保罗·德曼:理论与批评》,导师:董学文教授,北京大学中国语言文学系,2002年;周颖:《阅读之旅:从主体性到修辞性——论保尔·德曼的解构历程》,导师:盛宁研究员,中国社会科学院外国语言文学系,2003年;王广州:《论保罗·德曼的解构修辞》,导师:刘象愚教授,北京师范大学外语学院,2003年。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P14
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 237
①[瑞士]费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1999年,第167页。
②Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P5
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P102-103
①见1980年德曼与罗伯特·莫尼汉的一次访谈,the Yale review,73:4,summer 1984,P589
②[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第23页。
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P247
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P250
②[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第22页。
③这种情况与德曼的学术背景、写作风格有关。德曼无论是在文学领域,还是在哲学方面都是博采众长、兼收并蓄,而且他在论文中极少直接引证哲学作品。
①[德]海德格尔:《存在与时间》,陈嘉映、王庆节合译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999年,第23页。
①[德]海德格尔:《存在与时间》,陈嘉映、王庆节合译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999年,第239页。
②引同上书,第387页。
③引同上书,第329页。
④Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P243
①[美]马泰·卡林内斯库:《现代性的五副面孔——现代主义、先锋派、颓废、媚俗艺术、后现代主义》,顾爱彬李瑞华译,北京:商务印书馆,2002年,第1页。
①[法]司汤达:《拉辛与莎士比亚》,王道乾译,上海:上海译文出版社,1979年,第26页。
②[法]波德莱尔:《波德莱尔美学论文选》郭宏安译,北京:人民文学出版社1987年,第218页。
①[德]瓦尔特·本雅明:《发达资本主义时代的抒情诗人》,王才勇译,南京:江苏人民出版社,2005年,第81页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983, P144
①[德]弗里德里希·尼采:《历史的用途与滥用》,陈涛周辉荣译,上海:上海人民出版社,2005年,第74页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983, P147
③[德]哈贝马斯:《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海:译林出版社,2004年,第97、98页。
④德曼与哈贝马斯都将尼采反历史的倾向归结为在时间层面上的对现代性内在精神的把握,马泰·卡林内斯库在《现代性的五副面孔》一书中对这种观点提出了不同的意见。他认为,在这篇尼采的前期作品中并没有明晰的文字从正面对现代性问题进行表达,而且在尼采后期的作品中对“现代性”的分析更突出颓废的后现代意识。三位理论家出现这种意见相左的局面,其中一个重要原因是双方考察的角度不同,德曼单纯从现代性与历史的对比关系中在时间性的框架下分析尼采,卡林内斯库则是从“现代性”这个概念的演变历史的角度进行考察的。
①[德]弗里德里希·尼采:《历史的用途与滥用》,陈涛周辉荣译,上海:上海人民出版社,2005年,第92页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983 P149
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983 ,P151—152
①德曼在引用波德莱尔的原文是将“现在的再现”(representation of the present)下面加上了重点号。德曼对一概念的关注源于海德格尔的影响,在《存在与时间》一书中“当前的呈现”(the presence of the present)是一个重要的概念,表现了海德格尔对时间性的思考。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983,P156
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983, P157
①Paul de Man, Critical Writings, 1953-1978, edited and with an introduction by Lindsay Waters, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989. p137
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第58页。
①[法]昂利·柏格森:《材料与记忆》,肖聿译,北京:华夏出版社,1999年,第51页。
②引同上书,第67页。
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第67页。
①Paul de Man, Romanticism and Contemporary Criticism: the Gauss Seminar and Other Papers, edited by E.S. Burt, Kevin Newmark, Andrzej Warminski, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.P 81
②[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,中央编译出版社,1999年,第67页。在法语中“tumeur”一词意为“肿瘤”,与“tumeurs”(你必死)一词谐音。德曼是得肿瘤而死的,在写这封时,德曼已经得知自己患了癌症,死亡不久将至。
③[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第69页。
①Paul de Man, Romanticism and Contemporary Criticism: the Gauss Seminar and Other Papers, edited by E.S. Burt, Kevin Newmark, Andrzej Warminski, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.P 83。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 92
②[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第89-90页。
①关于这两个词的翻译非常复杂,尤其是在黑格尔、德曼、德里达三者的文本中,这两个词经历了德语、英语、法语三种语言的对译转换,每种语言都有各自的文化内涵与词源演变历程,所以只能在汉语中姑且对应译为“记忆”与“回忆”,在蒋梓骅先生翻译的《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》一书中也是这样翻译的。本文对这两个词的理解更多关注的是德曼的解释,这样才能在德曼的文本中更好地理解其用意。
②Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P95
③Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P95译文转引自蒋梓骅翻译的《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,中央编译出版社,1999年,第64页。
①Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P97
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 92
③[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第69页。
④在柏拉图的《斐德罗篇》中,书写被描述为药(pharmakon):书写不能代替记忆,它只是备忘录,使记忆得到补充,从这一意义上讲书写是良药,但它使记忆淡漠,是活的思想的死的印象,不能说话,没有作者活的声音去解释它,有遭受曲解的危险,所以,它同时也是一剂坏药。
⑤在《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》这本书中,译者将remembrance一词译为“回忆”;在此处,本文将该词译为“记忆力”。从这个词本身的意思来看两种译法皆可,但是从上下文的语境来看,德曼的原文更强调一种记忆的能力,故译为“记忆力”。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 92
②引同上书第93页。
③[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗?德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第69页。
④拉撒路是《圣经》中的人物,死后四天,耶稣赶来,大声呼喊:“拉撒路,起来!”使其复活。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 92
②[法]普鲁斯特:《追忆似水年华》,周克希译,上海:上海译文出版社,1997年,第69页。
①[法]普鲁斯特:《复得的时间》,《西方现代文论选》,伍蠡甫主编,上海:上海译文出版社,1983年,第128页。
②[德]瓦尔特·本雅明:《发达资本主义时代的抒情诗人》,王才勇译,南京:江苏人民出版社,2005年,第110页。
③Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979.P57
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P78
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 93
③Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P64
①[法]普鲁斯特:《复得的时间》,《西方现代文论选》,伍蠡甫主编,上海:上海译文出版社1983年,第127页。
①Meyer Abrams, Structure and Style in the Greater Romantic.见Blindness and Insight第194页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 198
②雷纳·韦勒克:《近代文学批评史》,第一卷,杨岂深杨自伍译,上海:上海译文出版社,1997年,第278页。
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 198—19
①[法]卢梭:《新爱洛漪斯》(第三四卷),伊信译,北京:商务印书馆,1993年,第241页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P203
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P207
②引同上书,第207页。
①本雅明:《德国悲剧的起源》,陈永国译,北京:文化艺术出版社,2001年,第136页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 201
①Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, University of Minnesota Press, 1996, P. 163
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 211
①转义(trope)这种修辞手段,德曼在《阅读的寓言》中有专门的篇章进行论述,该文的英文标题为:Tropes(Rilke)。
②Northrop Frye: Anatomy of Criticism Princeton: Princeton university Press,1973,p.124
③[法]波德莱尔:《波德莱尔美学论文选》,郭宏安译,北京:人民文学出版社,1987年,第311页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 213
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 213
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 220
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 214。
①[美]威廉·K·维姆萨特、蒙罗·C·比尔兹利:《感受谬见》,《新批评文集》,赵毅衡编选,天津:百花文艺出版社,2001年,第257页。
①[美]威廉·K·维姆萨特、蒙罗·C·比尔兹利:《感受谬见》,《新批评文集》,赵毅衡编选,天津:百花文艺出版社,2001年,第273页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 230
②Chris Baldick, Criticism and Literary Theory 1890 to the Present, London and New York: Longman House, 1996, p. 176转引自昂智慧:《文学创作和阅读中的语言问题———论保尔·德曼对“新批评”的批评》,《文艺研究》2006年,第3期。
③[英]瑞恰兹:《文学批评原理》,杨自伍译,南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1997年,第51页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 231
②引同上书第231页。
③引同上书第232页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P232
①[英]瑞恰兹著:《文学批评原理》,杨自伍译,南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1997年,第110-111页。
②引同上书,第112页。
①[英]瑞恰兹著:《文学批评原理》,杨自伍译,南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1997年,第113、117页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 233
①[法]波德莱尔:《恶之花》,郭宏安译,漓江出版社,1992版,第72页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 232
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 235
④“Ambiguity”一词的中文译法很多,有的译成“复义”,有的译成“歧义”,有的译成“含混”,其本意就是指文学语言的这种模糊性、多义性,这里我们依从该书中译本的译名。
①[英]威廉·燕卜荪:《朦胧的七种类型》,周邦宪等译,杭州:中国美术学院出版社,1996年,第1页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 235
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 236
②[英]威廉·燕卜荪:《朦胧的七种类型》,周邦宪等译,杭州:中国美术学院出版社,1996年,第302页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 237
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 237
①[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 23
①[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①赵一凡:《从胡塞尔到德里达——西方文论讲稿》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007年,第121页。
②倪梁康:《现象学及其效应——胡塞尔与当代德国哲学》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996年,第38页。
①[美]赫伯特·施皮格伯格:《现象学运动》,王炳文译,北京:商务印书馆,1995年,第167页。
②[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①Northrop Frye: Anatomy of Criticism Princeton: Princeton university Press,1973,p.86
②倪梁康:《现象学及其效应——胡塞尔与当代德国哲学》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996年,第48页。
①[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①[美]布鲁克斯:《反讽——一种结构原则(1949)》,袁可嘉译,赵毅衡编选:《新批评文集》,天津:百花文艺出版社,2001年,第378页。
①[德]海德格尔:《存在与时间》,陈嘉映、王庆节译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999年,第179页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 29-30
①保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
②[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
③同上。
②[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①[德]汉斯-格奥尔格·伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海:上海译文出版社,1999年,第342-343页。
②[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①[美]乔纳森·卡勒:《论解构》,陆扬译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第203页。
②引同上书,第236页。
①[美]乔纳森·卡勒:《论解构》,陆扬译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第237页。
②[美]乔纳森·卡勒:《论解构》,陆扬译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第239页。
①[美]乔纳森·卡勒:《论解构》,陆扬译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第243页。
①[古希腊]亚里士多德:《解释篇》,秦典华译,《亚里士多德全集》第1卷,北京:中国人民大学出版社,1990年,第49页。
①[古希腊]亚里士多德:《修辞学》,罗念生译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996年,第149页。
②[英]维特根斯坦:《逻辑哲学论》,吴寿彭译,北京:商务印书馆,1996年,第2页。
③[英]维特根斯坦:《逻辑哲学论》,吴寿彭译,北京:商务印书馆,1996年,第5-6页。
①[英]特里·伊格尔顿:《当代西方文学理论》,王逢振译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988年,第94页。
①[英]特里·伊格尔顿:《当代西方文学理论》,王逢振译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988年,第95页。
②[法]莫里斯·梅洛-庞蒂:《世界的散文》,杨大春译,北京:商务印书馆,2005年,第9页。
③[德]马丁·海德格尔:《林中路》,孙周兴译,上海:上海译文出版,1997年,第57页。
①[德]海德格尔:《存在与时间》,陈嘉映、王庆节合译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999年,第192页。
②引同上书,第192页。
③[法]贝尔纳·亨利·列维:《萨特的世纪——哲学研究》,闫素伟译,北京:商务印书馆,2005年版,第88页。
①Paul de Man, Critical Writings, 1953-1978, edited and with an introduction by Lindsay Waters, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.P4
①《如当节日的时候……》这首诗的译文自[德]海德格尔:《荷尔德林诗的解释》,孙周兴译,北京:商务印书馆,2000年,第55页。
①[德]海德格尔:《荷尔德林诗的解释》,孙周兴译,北京:商务印书馆,2000年,第60页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 250
③原文中“是”的词形是“sei”而不是“ist”,是一种虚拟语气的句式,在汉语中很难传达这种意思。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. p254
②Paul de Man, Romanticism and Contemporary Criticism: the Gauss Seminar and Other Papers, edited by E.S. Burt, Kevin Newmark, Andrzej Warminski, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.P55
③引同上书,第60页。“Doch weh mir!……/ Weh mir!……德曼英译为“Woe is me!”,中文译为:“我真不幸啊!”或“哀哉!”
④引同上书,第60页。
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编辑出版社,1999年,第20页。
②Paul de Man, Critical Writings, 1953-1978, edited and with an introduction by Lindsay Waters, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989. P34
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P258-259
②[古希腊]亚里士多德:《修辞学》,罗念生译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996年,第2页。
①[古希腊]柏拉图:《文艺对话集》,朱光潜译,北京:人民文学出版,1963年,第143页。
②[古希腊]亚里士多德:《修辞学》,罗念生译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996年,第24页。
③[苏]巴赫金:《小说理论》,白春仁、晓河译,石家庄:河北教育出版社,1998年,第37页。
①Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P34
①[英]洛克:《人类理解论》,关文运译,北京:商务印书馆,1997年,第475-476页。
②[英]洛克:《人类理解论》,关文运译,北京:商务印书馆,1997年,第497页。“修辞语言”这个词组在关文运先生的译文中译为“绮语”,这个词的英文对应词为“figurative speech”,德曼在《隐喻认识论》一文中有“figural language”的用法与前者非常相似。在德曼的文本中“figural”一词是在修辞性的层面上使用的,所以译为“修辞性”,洛克的这段文字作为德曼的引文,“figurative speech”译为“修辞语言”在这篇文章的语境中似乎更为恰切。
③Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P37
①Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P37
②Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. IX
①[美]保罗·德曼:《阅读的寓言》,沈勇译,天津:天津人民出版社,2008年,第158页。
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. p152
②引同上书,第158页。
①[美]希利斯?米勒:《重申解构主义》,郭英剑等译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年,第201页。
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. p105
②引同上书,第106页。
③[美]保罗·德曼:《阅读的寓言》,沈勇译,天津:天津人民出版社,2008年,第113页。
①[美]保罗·德曼:《阅读的寓言》,沈勇译,天津:天津人民出版社,2008年,第115页。
②引同上书,第116页。
①[美]保罗·德曼:《阅读的寓言》,沈勇译,天津:天津人民出版社,2008年,第127页。
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. p9
②引同上书,第10页。
③Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. p 10
①[美]保罗·德曼:《阅读的寓言》,沈勇译,天津:天津人民出版社,2008年,第13页。
②Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. p12
①[法]普鲁斯特:《追忆似水年华》,周克希译,上海:上海译文出版社,1997年,第81页。
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P16
②引同上书,第14页。
③引同上书,第16页。
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P12
①[瑞士]费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1999年,第167页。
②Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P5
①[瑞士]费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1999年,第167页。
②[美]弗雷德里克·詹姆逊:《语言的牢笼》,钱佼汝译,南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1997年,第25-26页。
③[瑞士]费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1999年,第157页。
①[法]德里达:《论文字学》,汪堂家译,上海:上海译文出版社,1999年。第70页。
②[瑞]费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1999年,第38页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P102-103
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P 158
②Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P94
③[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗?德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第82—83页。
1. Reed Way Dasenbrock, Paul de Man, the Modenrnist as Fascist [J]. South Central Review, Vol.6, No.2, Fascist Aesthetics. (Summer 1989), pp.6-18.
2. Stern, Barbara B, Textual analysis in advertising research: Construction and deconstruction of meaning [J]. Journal of Advertising; Fall 1996; 25, 3.
3. Jeffrey T. Nealon, The Discipline of Deconstruction [J]. PLMA, Vol, 107, No.5.( Oct, 1992 ), pp. 1266-1279.
4. Stanley Corngold, Error in Paul de Man [J]. Criticical Inquiry, Vol.8. No.3.(Spring, 1982), pp.489-507.
5. Marc W. Redfield, Review: Humanizing de Man [J]. Diacritics, Vol.19, No.2(Summer, 1989), pp.35-53.
6. Jerome Christensen,"LikeaGuiltyThingSurprised":Deconstruction,Coleridge,and the Apostasy of Criticism [J]. Critical Inquiry,Vol.12,No.4.(Summer,1986), pp.769-787.
7. Paul Morrison, Paul de Man: Resistance and Collaboration [J]. Representations, No.32.(Autumn, 1990), pp.50-74.
8. Terry Eagleton, Marxism and Deconstruction [J]. Contemporary Literature ,Vol.22,No.4, Marxism and the Crisis of the World. (Autumn, 1981), pp.477-488.
9. Reed Way Dasenbrock, Reading Demanians Reading de Man [J]. South Central Review, Vol.11,No.1.(Spring,1994),pp.23-43.
10. Shuli Barzilai, A Review of Paul de Man's "Review of Harold Bloom's Anxiety of Influence" [J]. Yale French Studies, No.69, The Lesson of Paul de Man. (1985), pp.134-141.
1. Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust [M], Yale University Press, 1979.
2. Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism [M], Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
3. Paul de Man, Critical Writings, 1953-1978 [M], edited and with an introduction by Lindsay Waters, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.
4. Paul de Man, Romanticism and Contemporary Criticism: the Gauss Seminar and Other Papers [M], edited by E.S. Burt, Kevin Newmark, Andrzej Warminski, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
5. Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology [M], edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
6. Christopher Norris, Paul de Man: Deconstruction and the Critique of Aesthetic Ideology [M], London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
7. Christopher Norris, Deconstruction: Theory and Practice [M], London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
8. Christopher Norris, The Deconstructive Turn: essays in the rhetoric of philosophy [M], London and New York: Methuen, 1983.
9. Leonard Jackson, The Poverty of Structuralism: Literature and Structuralist Theory [M], London and New York: Longman, 1991.
10. J. Hillis Miller, On Literature [M], London and New York: Rout ledge, 2002.
11. J. Hillis Miller, Theory Now and Then [M], Harvester Wheat sheaf, 1991.
12. J. Hillis Miller, The Ethics of Reading: Kant, de Man, Eliot, Trollope, James, and Benjamin [M],New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.
13. The J. Hillis Miller Reader [C], edited by Julian Wolfreys, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005.
14. Modern Literary Theory: A Reader [C], edited by Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh, Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group, 1996.
15. Jacques Derrida, Memoires for Paul de Man [M], trans. Cecile Lindsay, Jonathan Culler and Eduardo Cadava, New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
16. Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy [M], translated, with additional notes by Alan Bass, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.
17. Jacques Derrida, Dissemination [M], translated, with introduction and additional notes by Barbara Johnson, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981.
18. Jacques Derrida, Acts of Literature [M]. Edited by Derek Attridge, London and New York: Routledge, 1992.
19. Geoffrey H. Hartman, Criticism in the Wilderness: The Study of Literature Today [M], New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980.
20. Geoffrey H. Hartman, Saving the Text: Literature/ Derrida/ Philosophy [M], Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.
21. Deconstruction: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies [M], VolumeⅠ, ed. Jonathan Culler, London and New York: Routledge, 2003.
22. Deconstruction: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies [M], VolumeⅡ, ed. Jonathan Culler, London and New York: Routledge, 2003.
23. John M. Ellis, Against Deconstruction [M], Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.
24. Howard Felperin, Beyond Deconstruction: The Uses and Abuses of Literary Theory [M], Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
25. Frank Lentricchia, After the New Criticism [M]. Methuen, 1980.
26. Art Berman, From the New Criticism to Deconstruction: The Reception of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism [M], Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988.
27. Jonathan Culler, Framing the Sign: Criticism and Its Institutions [M], Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988.
28. Terry Eagleton, The Function of Criticism: From the Spectator to Post-Structuralism [M], London and New York: Verso, 1996.
29. RenéWellek, Concepts of Criticism [M], New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1963.
30. RenéWellek, Discriminations: Further Concepts of Criticism [M], New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1970.
31. Cleanth Brooks, The Well Wrought Urn [M], San Diego, New York and London, A Harvest Book, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1975.
32. Martin Mc Quillan, Paul de Man [M],USA,Canada:Routledge,2001
33. Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms [M], General Editor and Compiler: Irena R. Makaryk, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.
34. The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, v. 8, From Formalism to Poststructuralism [M], edited by Raman Selden, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
1.张智义.保罗·德·曼的华兹华斯诗学研究[J].南京师范大学文学院学报,2005 (3 ).
2.李显杰.从现代到后现代:当代修辞学理论辨析[J].华中师范大学学报人文社会科学版,2004 (5 ).
3.萧莎.德里达的文学论与耶鲁学派的解构批评[J].外国文学评论,2002(4).
4.罗杰鹦.德曼与布鲁姆解构阅读法之比较[J].思想战线,2004 (1 ).
5.刘方喜.二十世纪西方“语音”本体论诗学初探[J].外国文学研究,2000 (4 )
6.盛宁.后结构主义的批评:“文本”的解构[J].文艺理论与批评,2004(2).
7.萧莎.解构主义研究现状[J].文艺研究,2002(2).
8.徐珂.解构主义在中国的传播和研究综论[J].社会科学辑刊,2001( 4 ).
9.李增.论保罗·德·曼情感理论和修辞理论的统一[J].东北师大学报哲学社会科学版,2002 (6 ).
10.李增.论保罗·德·曼修辞阅读策略的符号学及修辞学基础[J].外语学刊,2004(6).
11.王广州.美国解构主义理论家保罗·德曼研究述评.国外理论动态,2006(3).
12.张雄.文学文本中的隐喻认识.辽宁师范大学学报社会科学版,2005 (7 ).
13.王成军:自传文本的解构和建构——论保罗·德曼的《卢梭〈忏悔录〉论》[J].国外文学,2003 (3).
14.周颖.保罗·德曼:从主体性到修辞性.外国文学,2001 ( 3 ).
15.郭军.保罗·德·曼的误读理论或修辞学版本的解构主义.四川外语学院学报,2005(7).
16.孟岗,张一冰.解构批评的谱系———德里达、罗兰·巴特与保罗·德曼.石油大学学报社会科学版,2004 (8 ).
17.罗良清.保罗·德·曼的语言意识形态论.新疆大学学报社会科学版,2004 (12).
18.昂智慧.保罗·德曼、“耶鲁学派”与“解构主义”.外国文学,2003 (11 ).
19.崔雅萍.论美国的解构主义批评[J].西北大学学报哲学社会科学版,2002 ( 5 ).
1.保罗·德曼.解构之图[M].李自修,等,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
2.保罗·德曼.阅读的寓言[M].沈勇,译.天津:天津人民出版社,2008.
3.雅克·德里达.论文字学[M].汪堂家,译.上海:上海译文出版社,1999.
4.雅克·德里达.书写与差异[M].张宁,译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2001.
5.雅克·德里达.多重立场[M].佘碧平,译.北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,2004.
6.雅克?德里达.文学行动[M].赵兴国,等,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
7.希利斯?米勒.重申解构主义[M].郭英剑,等,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
8. J.希利斯?米勒.解读叙事[M].申丹,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2002.
9.约翰·克罗·兰色姆.新批评[M].王腊宝,张哲,译.南京:江苏教育出版社,2006.
10.哈罗德·布鲁姆.影响的焦虑:一种诗歌理论[M].徐文博,译.南京:江苏教育出版社,2006.
11.约翰?斯特罗克编.结构主义以来[M].渠东,李康,李猛,译.辽宁教育出版社、牛津大学出版社,1998.
12.弗朗索瓦·多斯.从结构到解构:法国20世纪思想主潮[M].季广茂,译.北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
13.马克·爱德蒙森.文学对抗哲学——从柏拉图到德里达:为诗一辩[M].王柏华,马晓冬,译.北京:中央编译出版社2000年版。
14.理查德·罗蒂.后哲学文化[M].黄勇编,译.上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
15.赵毅衡编选.符号学文学论文集[C].天津:百花文艺出版社,2004.
16.赵毅衡编选.“新批评”文集[C].天津:百花文艺出版社,2001.
17.弗雷德里克·詹姆逊.语言的牢笼[M].钱佼汝,译.南昌:百花洲文艺出版社。1997.
18. J.M.布洛克曼.结构主义:莫斯科-布拉格-巴黎[M].李幼蒸,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社2003.
19.乔纳森?卡勒.结构主义诗学[M].盛宁,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1991.
20.乔纳森·卡勒.论解构[M].陆扬,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
21.乔纳森·卡勒.当代学术入门:文学理论[M].李平,译.沈阳:牛津大学出版社、辽宁教育出版社,1998.
22.拉曼·塞尔登.文学批评理论:从柏拉图到现在[M].刘象愚,陈永国等,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
23.谢少波.抵抗的文化政治学[M].陈永国,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999.
24.德里达.多义的记忆[M].蒋梓骅,译.北京:中央编辑出版社,1999.
25.林赛·沃特斯.美学现代性批判[M].昂智慧,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
26.梁启超.饮冰室合集[M].北京:中华书局(影印版),1989
27.费尔迪南?德?索绪尔.普通语言学教程[M].高名凯,译.北京:商务印书馆,1999
28.海德格尔.存在与时间[M].陈嘉映、王庆节,译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店1999
29.马泰·卡林内斯库.现代性的五副面孔——现代主义、先锋派、颓废、媚俗艺术、后现代主义[M].顾爱彬李瑞华,译.北京:商务印书馆,2002
30.司汤达.拉辛与莎士比亚[M].王道乾,译.上海:上海译文出版社,1979
31.波德莱尔.波德莱尔美学论文选[M].郭宏安,译.北京:人民文学出版社,1987
32.瓦尔特·本雅明.发达资本主义时代的抒情诗人[M].王才勇,译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2005
33.弗里德里希·尼采.历史的用途与滥用[M].陈涛,周辉荣,译.上海:上海人民出版社,2005
34.哈贝马斯.现代性的哲学话语[M].曹卫东,译.南京:译林出版社2004年版第97、
35.昂利·柏格森.材料与记忆[M].肖聿,译.北京:华夏出版社,1999
36.伍蠡甫主编.西方现代文论选[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1983
37.雷纳·韦勒克.近代文学批评史第一卷[M].杨岂深,杨自伍,译.上海:上海译文出版社1997
38.本雅明.德国悲剧的起源[M].陈永国,译.北京:文化艺术出版社,2001
39.瑞恰兹.文学批评原理[M].杨自伍,译.南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1997
40.威廉·燕卜荪.朦胧的七种类型[M].周邦宪等,译.杭州:中国美术学院出版社,1996
41.赵一凡.从胡塞尔到德里达——西方文论讲稿[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007
42.倪梁康.现象学及其效应——胡塞尔与当代德国哲学[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996
43.亚里士多德.亚里士多德全集第1卷[M].秦典华,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1990
44.赫伯特·施皮格伯格:《现象学运动》[M].王炳文,译.北京:商务印书馆,1995
45.亚里士多德.修辞学[M].罗念生,译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996
46.维特根斯坦,逻辑哲学论[M].吴寿彭,译.北京:商务印书馆,1996
47.特里·伊格尔顿.当代西方文学理论[M].王逢振,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988
48.莫里斯·梅洛-庞蒂.世界的散文[M].杨大春,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005
49.马丁·海德格尔.林中路[M].孙周兴,译.上海:上海译文出版社,1997
50.贝尔纳·亨利·列维.萨特的世纪——哲学研究[M].闫素伟,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005
51.海德格尔.荷尔德林诗的解释[M].孙周兴,译.北京:商务印书馆,2000
52.柏拉图.文艺对话集[M].朱光潜,译.北京:人民文学出版社,1963
53.巴赫金.小说理论[M].白春仁,晓河,译.石家庄:河北教育出版社,1998
54.洛克.人类理解论[M].关文运,译.北京:商务印书馆,1997
55.弗雷德里克·詹姆逊.语言的牢笼[M].钱佼汝,译.南昌:百花洲文艺出版社1997
1.徐润拓.保罗·德曼:理论与批评. [D].北京:北京大学中国语言文学系,2002.
2.周颖.阅读之旅:从主体性到修辞性——论保尔·德曼的解构历程. [D].北京:中国社会科学院外国语言文学系,2003.
3.王广州.论保罗·德曼的解构修辞. [D].北京:北京师范大学外文学院,2003.
①《形式主义批评的绝境》是这一期间德曼论文中较为特殊的一篇,是唯一一篇以美国本土的批评现象为研究对象的文章,用法文写成,是为向法国学界介绍新批评派而作的。
②[美]林赛·沃特斯:《美学现代性批判》,昂智慧译,北京:北京大学出版社,2000年,第56页。
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社1999年,第5页。
②The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, v. 8, From Formalism to Poststructuralism, edited by Raman Selden, Cambridge University Press, 1995,P167
③[美]理查德·罗蒂:《后哲学文化》,黄勇编译,上海:上海译文出版社,2004年,第109页。
①Jeffrey T. Nealon The Discipline of Deconstruction PMLA,Vol.107,No.5.(Oct.,1992),pp.1274.
②杨冬:《韦勒克的批评史研究方法述评》,《文艺理论研究》,1999年,第4期。
③雷纳·韦勒克奥·沃伦《文学理论》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1984年,第16页。
①这篇文章的标题《转义修辞学(里尔克)》(Tropes(Rilke))在沈勇先生翻译的《阅读的寓言》一书译为《修辞手段(里尔克)》,我个人更倾向于将“Tropes”一词译为“转义”,是修辞手段的一种,而且它也是德曼在这篇文章中着重强调的一种修辞方法。
②梁启超:《学与术》,见《饮冰室合集》第三册,影印版,北京:中华书局1989年,第12页。
③梁启超:《学与术》,见《饮冰室合集》第三册,影印版,北京:中华书局1989年,第12页。
①Jeffrey T. Nealon The Discipline of Deconstruction PMLA,Vol.107,No.5.(Oct.,1992),pp.1266.
②Martin Mc Quillan Paul de Man USA,Canada:Routledge,2001 pp.1-2.
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第26页。
②Stanley Corngold Error in Paul de man, Criticical Inquiry, Vol.8. No.3.(Spring, 1982)
③Christopher Norris, Paul de Man: Deconstruction and the Critique of Aesthetic Ideology, London and New York: Routledge, 1998. P2
①Jonathan Culler“Paul de Man’s Contribution to Literary Criticism and Theory”,in The Furure of Literary heory,ed.by RalPh Cohen,Routledge,1989,P268
①Stanley Corngold Error in Paul de man, Criticical Inquiry, Vol.8. No.3.(Spring, 1982)
②一些国外的期刊资料显示,德曼早期的一些用法文写作的论文文笔清新流畅,和后期的英语写作的那些晦涩尖锐的文章形成鲜明的对比。《海德格尔对赫尔德林的解释》一文最初就是1956年用法文写成的,法语标题为“Les Exégèses de Holderlin par Martin Heidegger”,后来德曼将其译为英文“Heidegger’s Exegeses of Holderlin”,1983年《盲视与洞见》一书再版的时候,将此文收入到其中。
①周颖:《保罗·德曼:从主体性到修辞性》,《外国文学》,2001年3月。
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第221页。
②茨韦坦·托多罗夫(Tzvetan Todotov),法国批评家,刊物《诗学》的创办人之一,德曼去世前一直是该刊物的编委。此人曾经发表过抨击德曼的文章。
③[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第261页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. VIII FOREWORD
②这三篇博士论文是:徐润拓:《保罗·德曼:理论与批评》,导师:董学文教授,北京大学中国语言文学系,2002年;周颖:《阅读之旅:从主体性到修辞性——论保尔·德曼的解构历程》,导师:盛宁研究员,中国社会科学院外国语言文学系,2003年;王广州:《论保罗·德曼的解构修辞》,导师:刘象愚教授,北京师范大学外语学院,2003年。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P14
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 237
①[瑞士]费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1999年,第167页。
②Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P5
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P102-103
①见1980年德曼与罗伯特·莫尼汉的一次访谈,the Yale review,73:4,summer 1984,P589
②[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第23页。
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P247
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P250
②[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第22页。
③这种情况与德曼的学术背景、写作风格有关。德曼无论是在文学领域,还是在哲学方面都是博采众长、兼收并蓄,而且他在论文中极少直接引证哲学作品。
①[德]海德格尔:《存在与时间》,陈嘉映、王庆节合译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999年,第23页。
①[德]海德格尔:《存在与时间》,陈嘉映、王庆节合译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999年,第239页。
②引同上书,第387页。
③引同上书,第329页。
④Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P243
①[美]马泰·卡林内斯库:《现代性的五副面孔——现代主义、先锋派、颓废、媚俗艺术、后现代主义》,顾爱彬李瑞华译,北京:商务印书馆,2002年,第1页。
①[法]司汤达:《拉辛与莎士比亚》,王道乾译,上海:上海译文出版社,1979年,第26页。
②[法]波德莱尔:《波德莱尔美学论文选》郭宏安译,北京:人民文学出版社1987年,第218页。
①[德]瓦尔特·本雅明:《发达资本主义时代的抒情诗人》,王才勇译,南京:江苏人民出版社,2005年,第81页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983, P144
①[德]弗里德里希·尼采:《历史的用途与滥用》,陈涛周辉荣译,上海:上海人民出版社,2005年,第74页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983, P147
③[德]哈贝马斯:《现代性的哲学话语》,曹卫东译,上海:译林出版社,2004年,第97、98页。
④德曼与哈贝马斯都将尼采反历史的倾向归结为在时间层面上的对现代性内在精神的把握,马泰·卡林内斯库在《现代性的五副面孔》一书中对这种观点提出了不同的意见。他认为,在这篇尼采的前期作品中并没有明晰的文字从正面对现代性问题进行表达,而且在尼采后期的作品中对“现代性”的分析更突出颓废的后现代意识。三位理论家出现这种意见相左的局面,其中一个重要原因是双方考察的角度不同,德曼单纯从现代性与历史的对比关系中在时间性的框架下分析尼采,卡林内斯库则是从“现代性”这个概念的演变历史的角度进行考察的。
①[德]弗里德里希·尼采:《历史的用途与滥用》,陈涛周辉荣译,上海:上海人民出版社,2005年,第92页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983 P149
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983 ,P151—152
①德曼在引用波德莱尔的原文是将“现在的再现”(representation of the present)下面加上了重点号。德曼对一概念的关注源于海德格尔的影响,在《存在与时间》一书中“当前的呈现”(the presence of the present)是一个重要的概念,表现了海德格尔对时间性的思考。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983,P156
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight : Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983, P157
①Paul de Man, Critical Writings, 1953-1978, edited and with an introduction by Lindsay Waters, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989. p137
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第58页。
①[法]昂利·柏格森:《材料与记忆》,肖聿译,北京:华夏出版社,1999年,第51页。
②引同上书,第67页。
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第67页。
①Paul de Man, Romanticism and Contemporary Criticism: the Gauss Seminar and Other Papers, edited by E.S. Burt, Kevin Newmark, Andrzej Warminski, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.P 81
②[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,中央编译出版社,1999年,第67页。在法语中“tumeur”一词意为“肿瘤”,与“tumeurs”(你必死)一词谐音。德曼是得肿瘤而死的,在写这封时,德曼已经得知自己患了癌症,死亡不久将至。
③[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第69页。
①Paul de Man, Romanticism and Contemporary Criticism: the Gauss Seminar and Other Papers, edited by E.S. Burt, Kevin Newmark, Andrzej Warminski, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.P 83。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 92
②[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第89-90页。
①关于这两个词的翻译非常复杂,尤其是在黑格尔、德曼、德里达三者的文本中,这两个词经历了德语、英语、法语三种语言的对译转换,每种语言都有各自的文化内涵与词源演变历程,所以只能在汉语中姑且对应译为“记忆”与“回忆”,在蒋梓骅先生翻译的《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》一书中也是这样翻译的。本文对这两个词的理解更多关注的是德曼的解释,这样才能在德曼的文本中更好地理解其用意。
②Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P95
③Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P95译文转引自蒋梓骅翻译的《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,中央编译出版社,1999年,第64页。
①Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P97
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 92
③[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第69页。
④在柏拉图的《斐德罗篇》中,书写被描述为药(pharmakon):书写不能代替记忆,它只是备忘录,使记忆得到补充,从这一意义上讲书写是良药,但它使记忆淡漠,是活的思想的死的印象,不能说话,没有作者活的声音去解释它,有遭受曲解的危险,所以,它同时也是一剂坏药。
⑤在《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》这本书中,译者将remembrance一词译为“回忆”;在此处,本文将该词译为“记忆力”。从这个词本身的意思来看两种译法皆可,但是从上下文的语境来看,德曼的原文更强调一种记忆的能力,故译为“记忆力”。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 92
②引同上书第93页。
③[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗?德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第69页。
④拉撒路是《圣经》中的人物,死后四天,耶稣赶来,大声呼喊:“拉撒路,起来!”使其复活。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 92
②[法]普鲁斯特:《追忆似水年华》,周克希译,上海:上海译文出版社,1997年,第69页。
①[法]普鲁斯特:《复得的时间》,《西方现代文论选》,伍蠡甫主编,上海:上海译文出版社,1983年,第128页。
②[德]瓦尔特·本雅明:《发达资本主义时代的抒情诗人》,王才勇译,南京:江苏人民出版社,2005年,第110页。
③Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979.P57
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P78
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 93
③Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P64
①[法]普鲁斯特:《复得的时间》,《西方现代文论选》,伍蠡甫主编,上海:上海译文出版社1983年,第127页。
①Meyer Abrams, Structure and Style in the Greater Romantic.见Blindness and Insight第194页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 198
②雷纳·韦勒克:《近代文学批评史》,第一卷,杨岂深杨自伍译,上海:上海译文出版社,1997年,第278页。
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 198—19
①[法]卢梭:《新爱洛漪斯》(第三四卷),伊信译,北京:商务印书馆,1993年,第241页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P203
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P207
②引同上书,第207页。
①本雅明:《德国悲剧的起源》,陈永国译,北京:文化艺术出版社,2001年,第136页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 201
①Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, University of Minnesota Press, 1996, P. 163
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 211
①转义(trope)这种修辞手段,德曼在《阅读的寓言》中有专门的篇章进行论述,该文的英文标题为:Tropes(Rilke)。
②Northrop Frye: Anatomy of Criticism Princeton: Princeton university Press,1973,p.124
③[法]波德莱尔:《波德莱尔美学论文选》,郭宏安译,北京:人民文学出版社,1987年,第311页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 213
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 213
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 220
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 214。
①[美]威廉·K·维姆萨特、蒙罗·C·比尔兹利:《感受谬见》,《新批评文集》,赵毅衡编选,天津:百花文艺出版社,2001年,第257页。
①[美]威廉·K·维姆萨特、蒙罗·C·比尔兹利:《感受谬见》,《新批评文集》,赵毅衡编选,天津:百花文艺出版社,2001年,第273页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 230
②Chris Baldick, Criticism and Literary Theory 1890 to the Present, London and New York: Longman House, 1996, p. 176转引自昂智慧:《文学创作和阅读中的语言问题———论保尔·德曼对“新批评”的批评》,《文艺研究》2006年,第3期。
③[英]瑞恰兹:《文学批评原理》,杨自伍译,南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1997年,第51页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 231
②引同上书第231页。
③引同上书第232页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P232
①[英]瑞恰兹著:《文学批评原理》,杨自伍译,南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1997年,第110-111页。
②引同上书,第112页。
①[英]瑞恰兹著:《文学批评原理》,杨自伍译,南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1997年,第113、117页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 233
①[法]波德莱尔:《恶之花》,郭宏安译,漓江出版社,1992版,第72页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 232
③Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 235
④“Ambiguity”一词的中文译法很多,有的译成“复义”,有的译成“歧义”,有的译成“含混”,其本意就是指文学语言的这种模糊性、多义性,这里我们依从该书中译本的译名。
①[英]威廉·燕卜荪:《朦胧的七种类型》,周邦宪等译,杭州:中国美术学院出版社,1996年,第1页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 235
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 236
②[英]威廉·燕卜荪:《朦胧的七种类型》,周邦宪等译,杭州:中国美术学院出版社,1996年,第302页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 237
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 237
①[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 23
①[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①赵一凡:《从胡塞尔到德里达——西方文论讲稿》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007年,第121页。
②倪梁康:《现象学及其效应——胡塞尔与当代德国哲学》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996年,第38页。
①[美]赫伯特·施皮格伯格:《现象学运动》,王炳文译,北京:商务印书馆,1995年,第167页。
②[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①Northrop Frye: Anatomy of Criticism Princeton: Princeton university Press,1973,p.86
②倪梁康:《现象学及其效应——胡塞尔与当代德国哲学》,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996年,第48页。
①[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①[美]布鲁克斯:《反讽——一种结构原则(1949)》,袁可嘉译,赵毅衡编选:《新批评文集》,天津:百花文艺出版社,2001年,第378页。
①[德]海德格尔:《存在与时间》,陈嘉映、王庆节译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999年,第179页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 29-30
①保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
②[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
③同上。
②[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①[德]汉斯-格奥尔格·伽达默尔:《真理与方法》,洪汉鼎译,上海:上海译文出版社,1999年,第342-343页。
②[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①[美]保罗·德曼:《美国新批评的形式与意向》,周颖译,《外国文学》,2001年,第2期。
①[美]乔纳森·卡勒:《论解构》,陆扬译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第203页。
②引同上书,第236页。
①[美]乔纳森·卡勒:《论解构》,陆扬译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第237页。
②[美]乔纳森·卡勒:《论解构》,陆扬译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第239页。
①[美]乔纳森·卡勒:《论解构》,陆扬译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年版,第243页。
①[古希腊]亚里士多德:《解释篇》,秦典华译,《亚里士多德全集》第1卷,北京:中国人民大学出版社,1990年,第49页。
①[古希腊]亚里士多德:《修辞学》,罗念生译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996年,第149页。
②[英]维特根斯坦:《逻辑哲学论》,吴寿彭译,北京:商务印书馆,1996年,第2页。
③[英]维特根斯坦:《逻辑哲学论》,吴寿彭译,北京:商务印书馆,1996年,第5-6页。
①[英]特里·伊格尔顿:《当代西方文学理论》,王逢振译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988年,第94页。
①[英]特里·伊格尔顿:《当代西方文学理论》,王逢振译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988年,第95页。
②[法]莫里斯·梅洛-庞蒂:《世界的散文》,杨大春译,北京:商务印书馆,2005年,第9页。
③[德]马丁·海德格尔:《林中路》,孙周兴译,上海:上海译文出版,1997年,第57页。
①[德]海德格尔:《存在与时间》,陈嘉映、王庆节合译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1999年,第192页。
②引同上书,第192页。
③[法]贝尔纳·亨利·列维:《萨特的世纪——哲学研究》,闫素伟译,北京:商务印书馆,2005年版,第88页。
①Paul de Man, Critical Writings, 1953-1978, edited and with an introduction by Lindsay Waters, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.P4
①《如当节日的时候……》这首诗的译文自[德]海德格尔:《荷尔德林诗的解释》,孙周兴译,北京:商务印书馆,2000年,第55页。
①[德]海德格尔:《荷尔德林诗的解释》,孙周兴译,北京:商务印书馆,2000年,第60页。
②Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P 250
③原文中“是”的词形是“sei”而不是“ist”,是一种虚拟语气的句式,在汉语中很难传达这种意思。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. p254
②Paul de Man, Romanticism and Contemporary Criticism: the Gauss Seminar and Other Papers, edited by E.S. Burt, Kevin Newmark, Andrzej Warminski, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.P55
③引同上书,第60页。“Doch weh mir!……/ Weh mir!……德曼英译为“Woe is me!”,中文译为:“我真不幸啊!”或“哀哉!”
④引同上书,第60页。
①[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗·德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编辑出版社,1999年,第20页。
②Paul de Man, Critical Writings, 1953-1978, edited and with an introduction by Lindsay Waters, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989. P34
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P258-259
②[古希腊]亚里士多德:《修辞学》,罗念生译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996年,第2页。
①[古希腊]柏拉图:《文艺对话集》,朱光潜译,北京:人民文学出版,1963年,第143页。
②[古希腊]亚里士多德:《修辞学》,罗念生译,北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996年,第24页。
③[苏]巴赫金:《小说理论》,白春仁、晓河译,石家庄:河北教育出版社,1998年,第37页。
①Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P34
①[英]洛克:《人类理解论》,关文运译,北京:商务印书馆,1997年,第475-476页。
②[英]洛克:《人类理解论》,关文运译,北京:商务印书馆,1997年,第497页。“修辞语言”这个词组在关文运先生的译文中译为“绮语”,这个词的英文对应词为“figurative speech”,德曼在《隐喻认识论》一文中有“figural language”的用法与前者非常相似。在德曼的文本中“figural”一词是在修辞性的层面上使用的,所以译为“修辞性”,洛克的这段文字作为德曼的引文,“figurative speech”译为“修辞语言”在这篇文章的语境中似乎更为恰切。
③Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P37
①Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P37
②Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. IX
①[美]保罗·德曼:《阅读的寓言》,沈勇译,天津:天津人民出版社,2008年,第158页。
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. p152
②引同上书,第158页。
①[美]希利斯?米勒:《重申解构主义》,郭英剑等译,北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998年,第201页。
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. p105
②引同上书,第106页。
③[美]保罗·德曼:《阅读的寓言》,沈勇译,天津:天津人民出版社,2008年,第113页。
①[美]保罗·德曼:《阅读的寓言》,沈勇译,天津:天津人民出版社,2008年,第115页。
②引同上书,第116页。
①[美]保罗·德曼:《阅读的寓言》,沈勇译,天津:天津人民出版社,2008年,第127页。
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. p9
②引同上书,第10页。
③Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. p 10
①[美]保罗·德曼:《阅读的寓言》,沈勇译,天津:天津人民出版社,2008年,第13页。
②Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. p12
①[法]普鲁斯特:《追忆似水年华》,周克希译,上海:上海译文出版社,1997年,第81页。
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P16
②引同上书,第14页。
③引同上书,第16页。
①Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P12
①[瑞士]费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1999年,第167页。
②Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust, Yale University Press, 1979. P5
①[瑞士]费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1999年,第167页。
②[美]弗雷德里克·詹姆逊:《语言的牢笼》,钱佼汝译,南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1997年,第25-26页。
③[瑞士]费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1999年,第157页。
①[法]德里达:《论文字学》,汪堂家译,上海:上海译文出版社,1999年。第70页。
②[瑞]费尔迪南·德·索绪尔:《普通语言学教程》,高名凯译,北京:商务印书馆,1999年,第38页。
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.P102-103
①Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983. P 158
②Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology, edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. P94
③[法]德里达:《多义的记忆——为保罗?德曼而作》,蒋梓骅译,北京:中央编译出版社,1999年,第82—83页。
1. Reed Way Dasenbrock, Paul de Man, the Modenrnist as Fascist [J]. South Central Review, Vol.6, No.2, Fascist Aesthetics. (Summer 1989), pp.6-18.
2. Stern, Barbara B, Textual analysis in advertising research: Construction and deconstruction of meaning [J]. Journal of Advertising; Fall 1996; 25, 3.
3. Jeffrey T. Nealon, The Discipline of Deconstruction [J]. PLMA, Vol, 107, No.5.( Oct, 1992 ), pp. 1266-1279.
4. Stanley Corngold, Error in Paul de Man [J]. Criticical Inquiry, Vol.8. No.3.(Spring, 1982), pp.489-507.
5. Marc W. Redfield, Review: Humanizing de Man [J]. Diacritics, Vol.19, No.2(Summer, 1989), pp.35-53.
6. Jerome Christensen,"LikeaGuiltyThingSurprised":Deconstruction,Coleridge,and the Apostasy of Criticism [J]. Critical Inquiry,Vol.12,No.4.(Summer,1986), pp.769-787.
7. Paul Morrison, Paul de Man: Resistance and Collaboration [J]. Representations, No.32.(Autumn, 1990), pp.50-74.
8. Terry Eagleton, Marxism and Deconstruction [J]. Contemporary Literature ,Vol.22,No.4, Marxism and the Crisis of the World. (Autumn, 1981), pp.477-488.
9. Reed Way Dasenbrock, Reading Demanians Reading de Man [J]. South Central Review, Vol.11,No.1.(Spring,1994),pp.23-43.
10. Shuli Barzilai, A Review of Paul de Man's "Review of Harold Bloom's Anxiety of Influence" [J]. Yale French Studies, No.69, The Lesson of Paul de Man. (1985), pp.134-141.
1. Paul de Man, Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust [M], Yale University Press, 1979.
2. Paul de Man, Blindness and Insight:Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism [M], Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.
3. Paul de Man, Critical Writings, 1953-1978 [M], edited and with an introduction by Lindsay Waters, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.
4. Paul de Man, Romanticism and Contemporary Criticism: the Gauss Seminar and Other Papers [M], edited by E.S. Burt, Kevin Newmark, Andrzej Warminski, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
5. Paul de Man, Aesthetic Ideology [M], edited and with an introduction by Andrzej Warminski, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
6. Christopher Norris, Paul de Man: Deconstruction and the Critique of Aesthetic Ideology [M], London and New York: Routledge, 1998.
7. Christopher Norris, Deconstruction: Theory and Practice [M], London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
8. Christopher Norris, The Deconstructive Turn: essays in the rhetoric of philosophy [M], London and New York: Methuen, 1983.
9. Leonard Jackson, The Poverty of Structuralism: Literature and Structuralist Theory [M], London and New York: Longman, 1991.
10. J. Hillis Miller, On Literature [M], London and New York: Rout ledge, 2002.
11. J. Hillis Miller, Theory Now and Then [M], Harvester Wheat sheaf, 1991.
12. J. Hillis Miller, The Ethics of Reading: Kant, de Man, Eliot, Trollope, James, and Benjamin [M],New York: Columbia University Press, 1987.
13. The J. Hillis Miller Reader [C], edited by Julian Wolfreys, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005.
14. Modern Literary Theory: A Reader [C], edited by Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh, Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group, 1996.
15. Jacques Derrida, Memoires for Paul de Man [M], trans. Cecile Lindsay, Jonathan Culler and Eduardo Cadava, New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
16. Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy [M], translated, with additional notes by Alan Bass, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1982.
17. Jacques Derrida, Dissemination [M], translated, with introduction and additional notes by Barbara Johnson, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981.
18. Jacques Derrida, Acts of Literature [M]. Edited by Derek Attridge, London and New York: Routledge, 1992.
19. Geoffrey H. Hartman, Criticism in the Wilderness: The Study of Literature Today [M], New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980.
20. Geoffrey H. Hartman, Saving the Text: Literature/ Derrida/ Philosophy [M], Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.
21. Deconstruction: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies [M], VolumeⅠ, ed. Jonathan Culler, London and New York: Routledge, 2003.
22. Deconstruction: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies [M], VolumeⅡ, ed. Jonathan Culler, London and New York: Routledge, 2003.
23. John M. Ellis, Against Deconstruction [M], Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.
24. Howard Felperin, Beyond Deconstruction: The Uses and Abuses of Literary Theory [M], Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
25. Frank Lentricchia, After the New Criticism [M]. Methuen, 1980.
26. Art Berman, From the New Criticism to Deconstruction: The Reception of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism [M], Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988.
27. Jonathan Culler, Framing the Sign: Criticism and Its Institutions [M], Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988.
28. Terry Eagleton, The Function of Criticism: From the Spectator to Post-Structuralism [M], London and New York: Verso, 1996.
29. RenéWellek, Concepts of Criticism [M], New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1963.
30. RenéWellek, Discriminations: Further Concepts of Criticism [M], New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1970.
31. Cleanth Brooks, The Well Wrought Urn [M], San Diego, New York and London, A Harvest Book, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, 1975.
32. Martin Mc Quillan, Paul de Man [M],USA,Canada:Routledge,2001
33. Encyclopedia of Contemporary Literary Theory: Approaches, Scholars, Terms [M], General Editor and Compiler: Irena R. Makaryk, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993.
34. The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, v. 8, From Formalism to Poststructuralism [M], edited by Raman Selden, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
1.张智义.保罗·德·曼的华兹华斯诗学研究[J].南京师范大学文学院学报,2005 (3 ).
2.李显杰.从现代到后现代:当代修辞学理论辨析[J].华中师范大学学报人文社会科学版,2004 (5 ).
3.萧莎.德里达的文学论与耶鲁学派的解构批评[J].外国文学评论,2002(4).
4.罗杰鹦.德曼与布鲁姆解构阅读法之比较[J].思想战线,2004 (1 ).
5.刘方喜.二十世纪西方“语音”本体论诗学初探[J].外国文学研究,2000 (4 )
6.盛宁.后结构主义的批评:“文本”的解构[J].文艺理论与批评,2004(2).
7.萧莎.解构主义研究现状[J].文艺研究,2002(2).
8.徐珂.解构主义在中国的传播和研究综论[J].社会科学辑刊,2001( 4 ).
9.李增.论保罗·德·曼情感理论和修辞理论的统一[J].东北师大学报哲学社会科学版,2002 (6 ).
10.李增.论保罗·德·曼修辞阅读策略的符号学及修辞学基础[J].外语学刊,2004(6).
11.王广州.美国解构主义理论家保罗·德曼研究述评.国外理论动态,2006(3).
12.张雄.文学文本中的隐喻认识.辽宁师范大学学报社会科学版,2005 (7 ).
13.王成军:自传文本的解构和建构——论保罗·德曼的《卢梭〈忏悔录〉论》[J].国外文学,2003 (3).
14.周颖.保罗·德曼:从主体性到修辞性.外国文学,2001 ( 3 ).
15.郭军.保罗·德·曼的误读理论或修辞学版本的解构主义.四川外语学院学报,2005(7).
16.孟岗,张一冰.解构批评的谱系———德里达、罗兰·巴特与保罗·德曼.石油大学学报社会科学版,2004 (8 ).
17.罗良清.保罗·德·曼的语言意识形态论.新疆大学学报社会科学版,2004 (12).
18.昂智慧.保罗·德曼、“耶鲁学派”与“解构主义”.外国文学,2003 (11 ).
19.崔雅萍.论美国的解构主义批评[J].西北大学学报哲学社会科学版,2002 ( 5 ).
1.保罗·德曼.解构之图[M].李自修,等,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
2.保罗·德曼.阅读的寓言[M].沈勇,译.天津:天津人民出版社,2008.
3.雅克·德里达.论文字学[M].汪堂家,译.上海:上海译文出版社,1999.
4.雅克·德里达.书写与差异[M].张宁,译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2001.
5.雅克·德里达.多重立场[M].佘碧平,译.北京:生活?读书?新知三联书店,2004.
6.雅克?德里达.文学行动[M].赵兴国,等,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
7.希利斯?米勒.重申解构主义[M].郭英剑,等,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
8. J.希利斯?米勒.解读叙事[M].申丹,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2002.
9.约翰·克罗·兰色姆.新批评[M].王腊宝,张哲,译.南京:江苏教育出版社,2006.
10.哈罗德·布鲁姆.影响的焦虑:一种诗歌理论[M].徐文博,译.南京:江苏教育出版社,2006.
11.约翰?斯特罗克编.结构主义以来[M].渠东,李康,李猛,译.辽宁教育出版社、牛津大学出版社,1998.
12.弗朗索瓦·多斯.从结构到解构:法国20世纪思想主潮[M].季广茂,译.北京:中央编译出版社,2004.
13.马克·爱德蒙森.文学对抗哲学——从柏拉图到德里达:为诗一辩[M].王柏华,马晓冬,译.北京:中央编译出版社2000年版。
14.理查德·罗蒂.后哲学文化[M].黄勇编,译.上海:上海译文出版社,2004.
15.赵毅衡编选.符号学文学论文集[C].天津:百花文艺出版社,2004.
16.赵毅衡编选.“新批评”文集[C].天津:百花文艺出版社,2001.
17.弗雷德里克·詹姆逊.语言的牢笼[M].钱佼汝,译.南昌:百花洲文艺出版社。1997.
18. J.M.布洛克曼.结构主义:莫斯科-布拉格-巴黎[M].李幼蒸,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社2003.
19.乔纳森?卡勒.结构主义诗学[M].盛宁,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1991.
20.乔纳森·卡勒.论解构[M].陆扬,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
21.乔纳森·卡勒.当代学术入门:文学理论[M].李平,译.沈阳:牛津大学出版社、辽宁教育出版社,1998.
22.拉曼·塞尔登.文学批评理论:从柏拉图到现在[M].刘象愚,陈永国等,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
23.谢少波.抵抗的文化政治学[M].陈永国,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1999.
24.德里达.多义的记忆[M].蒋梓骅,译.北京:中央编辑出版社,1999.
25.林赛·沃特斯.美学现代性批判[M].昂智慧,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2000.
26.梁启超.饮冰室合集[M].北京:中华书局(影印版),1989
27.费尔迪南?德?索绪尔.普通语言学教程[M].高名凯,译.北京:商务印书馆,1999
28.海德格尔.存在与时间[M].陈嘉映、王庆节,译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店1999
29.马泰·卡林内斯库.现代性的五副面孔——现代主义、先锋派、颓废、媚俗艺术、后现代主义[M].顾爱彬李瑞华,译.北京:商务印书馆,2002
30.司汤达.拉辛与莎士比亚[M].王道乾,译.上海:上海译文出版社,1979
31.波德莱尔.波德莱尔美学论文选[M].郭宏安,译.北京:人民文学出版社,1987
32.瓦尔特·本雅明.发达资本主义时代的抒情诗人[M].王才勇,译.南京:江苏人民出版社,2005
33.弗里德里希·尼采.历史的用途与滥用[M].陈涛,周辉荣,译.上海:上海人民出版社,2005
34.哈贝马斯.现代性的哲学话语[M].曹卫东,译.南京:译林出版社2004年版第97、
35.昂利·柏格森.材料与记忆[M].肖聿,译.北京:华夏出版社,1999
36.伍蠡甫主编.西方现代文论选[M].上海:上海译文出版社,1983
37.雷纳·韦勒克.近代文学批评史第一卷[M].杨岂深,杨自伍,译.上海:上海译文出版社1997
38.本雅明.德国悲剧的起源[M].陈永国,译.北京:文化艺术出版社,2001
39.瑞恰兹.文学批评原理[M].杨自伍,译.南昌:百花洲文艺出版社,1997
40.威廉·燕卜荪.朦胧的七种类型[M].周邦宪等,译.杭州:中国美术学院出版社,1996
41.赵一凡.从胡塞尔到德里达——西方文论讲稿[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,2007
42.倪梁康.现象学及其效应——胡塞尔与当代德国哲学[M].北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996
43.亚里士多德.亚里士多德全集第1卷[M].秦典华,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1990
44.赫伯特·施皮格伯格:《现象学运动》[M].王炳文,译.北京:商务印书馆,1995
45.亚里士多德.修辞学[M].罗念生,译.北京:生活·读书·新知三联书店,1996
46.维特根斯坦,逻辑哲学论[M].吴寿彭,译.北京:商务印书馆,1996
47.特里·伊格尔顿.当代西方文学理论[M].王逢振,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988
48.莫里斯·梅洛-庞蒂.世界的散文[M].杨大春,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005
49.马丁·海德格尔.林中路[M].孙周兴,译.上海:上海译文出版社,1997
50.贝尔纳·亨利·列维.萨特的世纪——哲学研究[M].闫素伟,译.北京:商务印书馆,2005
51.海德格尔.荷尔德林诗的解释[M].孙周兴,译.北京:商务印书馆,2000
52.柏拉图.文艺对话集[M].朱光潜,译.北京:人民文学出版社,1963
53.巴赫金.小说理论[M].白春仁,晓河,译.石家庄:河北教育出版社,1998
54.洛克.人类理解论[M].关文运,译.北京:商务印书馆,1997
55.弗雷德里克·詹姆逊.语言的牢笼[M].钱佼汝,译.南昌:百花洲文艺出版社1997
1.徐润拓.保罗·德曼:理论与批评. [D].北京:北京大学中国语言文学系,2002.
2.周颖.阅读之旅:从主体性到修辞性——论保尔·德曼的解构历程. [D].北京:中国社会科学院外国语言文学系,2003.
3.王广州.论保罗·德曼的解构修辞. [D].北京:北京师范大学外文学院,2003.