摘要
在后现代叙事理论中,解构主义是一股不可小觑的力量,它为叙事学的政治化和多元化发展做出了突出的贡献,而解构主义与叙事学研究的冲突与融合在米勒身上体现得最为淋漓尽致。本文论述了米勒的“反叙事学”内容以及他在后现代语境下所形成的解构主义叙事立场。米勒尖锐地指出了结构主义叙事学难以逾越的形式主义和程式化倾向,并声称热奈特的叙事话语只是一个僵化、机械的系统。此外,米勒在与叙事学家里蒙-凯南的对话中重新定义了“歧义”及其在文本中的普遍存在性,再现了结构主义叙事学与解构主义批评在某些关键问题上的分歧。米勒的“反叙事学”以一种更为开放和广阔的视野看待文本和理论,并强调文本的独特性与复杂性,这种思想是推动结构主义叙事学走向语境叙事学的一股强劲力量。
This paper discusses J. Hillis Miller’s ananarratology and his stand of deconstructive narrative in the postmodern context. For postmodern narrative theories,deconstruction demonstrates itself as a strong force which has benefited the politicization and diversification of narratology. Meanwhile,the conflicts and integration between deconstruction and narratology are most vividly manifested in Miller’s studies. Miller criticizes the insurmountable formalized and stylized tendency of structuralist narratology,and claims that Genette’s Narrative Discourse was only a machinelike system. In addition,Miller redefines“ambiguity”and its ubiquitous existence in all texts in his dialogue with narratologist Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan,representing the differences between structuralist narratology and deconstructive criticism on some key issues. Miller’s “Ananarratology” treats text and theories with a more open and broad vision and emphasizes the uniqueness and complexity of texts,which is powerful enough to push structuralist narratology to develop towards contextual narratology.
出处
《广东外语外贸大学学报》
2022年第5期114-126,159,160,共15页
Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
基金
教育部人文社会科学基金项目“中西叙事诗学比较研究:以西方经典叙事学和中国明清叙事思想为对象”(16YJC752015)
北京语言大学校级规划项目“后经典叙事学新著翻译与研究”(17ZDJ08)。
