加入VIP
  • 专属下载特权
  • 现金文档折扣购买
  • VIP免费专区
  • 千万文档免费下载

上传资料

关闭

关闭

关闭

封号提示

内容

首页 *新书上架*文学的质:文学评价中的语言学研究

*新书上架*文学的质:文学评价中的语言学研究.pdf

*新书上架*文学的质:文学评价中的语言学研究

九月虺
2009-09-29 0人阅读 举报 0 0 暂无简介

简介:本文档为《*新书上架*文学的质:文学评价中的语言学研究pdf》,可适用于人文社科领域

TheQualityofLiteratureVolumeTheQualityofLiteratureLinguisticstudiesinliteraryevaluationEditedbyWillievanPeerTimothyRAustinLoyolaUniversityChicagoDouglasBiberNorthernArizonaUniversityLubomirDolezelUniversityofTorontoDonaldCFreemanUniversityofSouthernCaliforniaHaraldFrickeUniversityofFribourgRaymondWJrGibbsUniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruzRachelGioraTelAvivUniversityPaisleyLivingstonUniversityofCopenhagenColinMartindaleUniversityofMaineSaraMillsSheffieldHallamUniversityMickShortLancasterUniversityMichaelToolanUniversityofBirminghamReuvenTsurTelAvivUniversityJeanJacquesWeberUniversityCentreLuxemburgPeterVerdonkUniversityofAmsterdamWillievanPeerUniversityofMunichSoniaZyngierFederalUniversityofRiodeJaneiroAdvisoryEditorialBoardEditorsLinguisticApproachestoLiterature(LAL)LinguisticApproachestoLiterature(LAL)providesaninternationalforumforresearcherswhobelievethattheapplicationoflinguisticmethodsleadstoadeeperandmorefarreachingunderstandingofmanyaspectsofliteratureTheemphasiswillbeonpragmaticapproachesintersectingwithareassuchasdiscourseanalysis,sociolinguistics,ethnolinguistics,rhetoric,philosophy,cognitivelinguistics,psycholinguisticsandstylisticsTheQualityofLiteratureLinguisticstudiesinliteraryevaluationEditedbyWillievanPeerLudwigMaximilianUniversity,MunichJohnBenjaminsPublishingCompanyAmsterdamPhiladelphiaLibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationDataThequalityofliterature:linguisticstudiesinliteraryevaluationeditedbyWillievanPeerpcm(LinguisticApproachestoLiterature,issnv)IncludesbibliographicalreferencesandindexCriticismLiteratureHistoryandcriticismDiscourseanalysis,LiteraryIPeer,WillievanPNQ’dcisbn(Hbalkpaper)©–JohnBenjaminsBVNopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyform,byprint,photoprint,microfilm,oranyothermeans,withoutwrittenpermissionfromthepublisherJohnBenjaminsPublishingCo·POBox·meAmsterdam·TheNetherlandsJohnBenjaminsNorthAmerica·POBox·Philadelphiapa·usaThepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsofAmericanNationalStandardforInformationSciences–PermanenceofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,ansizTMJBvPrn::F:LALCOtexp()TableofcontentsAcknowledgmentsviiForewordixintroductionTheevaluationofliterarytexts:AnewperspectiveWillievanPeerPartITextualandgenericcomparisonschapterCanonformation:IdeologyoraestheticqualityWillievanPeerchapterWhyHughMaccollisnot,andwillneverbe,partofanyliterarycanonSteinHaugomOlsenchapterPopularCanonical:ThecaseofTheSecretAgentJanGorakchapterLiteraryevaluationandpoeticform:PoeticformandcreativetensionTomBarneychapterPoeticvalue:PoliticalvalueLaurenceLernerchapter“Toosoontransplanted”:ColeridgeandtheformsofdislocationDavidSMiallJBvPrn::F:LALCOtexp()TableofcontentschapterEvaluationandstylisticanalysisMickShortandElenaSeminochapterThevalueofJuvenalWalterNashPartIITheoreticalreflectionschapterSomecorrelatesofliteraryeminenceColinMartindalechapterMacbeththroughthecomputer:LiteraryevaluationandpedagogicalimplicationsSoniaZyngierchapterHowscientificcanliteraryevaluationbeArgumentsandexperimentsHaraldFrickechapterPhilosophicalperspectivesonliteraryvaluePaisleyLivingstonchapterThequalitiesofliteratures:AconceptofliteraryevaluationinpluralisticsocietiesRenatevonHeydebrandandSimoneWinkoAuthorindexSubjectindexJBvPrn::F:LALACtexp()AcknowledgmentsPermissionhaskindlybeengrantedbyOxfordUniversityPresstoreprintthecontributionsbySteinHaugomOlsenandWillievanPeerThepermissionisgratefullyacknowledgedhereInChapter,WilliamEmpson’sReflectionfromAnitaLoosisreproducedbykindpermissionofChattoWindusJBvPrn::F:LALFRtexp()ForewordInpreparingthisvolumeIhavehadthehelpandsupportofmanypeople,firstandforemost,ofcourse,fromthevariouscontributors,whomIwouldliketothankfortheirkindnessandtheirpatienceinthelongroadofpreparingthevolumeforpublicationIwouldliketothankespeciallythosecolleagueswhohaveprovidedmewithextensivefeedbackinearlierstagesofthebook’spreparation:DonFreeman,ElrudIbsch,GerardSteen,PeterVerdonkandSoniaZyngierIowethemmypersonalthanksfortheirkeencriticismandtheirwideningofmyperspectiveJBvPrn::F:LALINtexp()TheevaluationofliterarytextsAnewperspectiveWillievanPeerTheevaluationofliterarytextsissomethingthatreadersalmostalways,automatically,andspontaneously,engageinTheyjudgethedevelopmentofaplotandgeneratefeelingsofpleasureordislikeatparticularevents,theyfeelthatthetextdoesnotyieldwhattheyhadexpected,ortheyfindtheauthor’sstylerewardingorawkwardAllofthisevaluationusuallytakesplaceasanintegralpartofthereadingprocessButalsoofflinejudgmentsaboutthetextaremade:inconversationswithspousesorfriends,inadiscussionwithcolleagues,orinwritinganemailtoastudentAndthenthereare,finally,thedebatesabouttheevaluationoftextsbyprofessionals:criticsoracademicswhowritereviewsinthenewspapers,inmagazines,orinjournalsandbooks,orwhomayengageinpublicdebateorinthemassmediaEvaluationisasignificantactivitybothforindividualreadersandforculturesatlargeEvaluatingaliterarytextisaninstinctivepracticeinwhichweengagebothroutinelyandwithfervorYetamongthisubiquityofevaluativeactivitiesonemustacknowledgethatwehaveextremelylittleinformationastohowsuchjudgmentalprocessesandoutcomesfunctionTheoreticallyonecanconceiveofthreemajorfeaturesplayingaroleintheprocess:thetext,thereader,andthecontextWemayassumethatreadersevaluatespecificfeaturesofthetext:whetheritinducessuspensioninthemormakesthemlaugh,whetheritmakesforeasyreadingoritemployselevatedlanguage,orwhetheritscontentiseroticorrisquéAllthesearelinguisticelementsofsomekindorotherthatcouldinfluenceaparticularreadertomakethetextpleasantorunpleasanttoreadButitseemsintuitivelyclearthatnotonlythetext,butalsofeaturesofthereaderplayarole:presumablyreadersdifferintheirtastesandpreferences,sothatthesamelinguisticingredientmayproduceanagreeablefeelinginonereader,butbeboringorinsultingtoanotherReaders’concretegoalsandexpectations,theirpastreadingexperiencesandpersonalbiography,ortheirknowledgeofcertaingenreconventions,mayalldrivetheirevaluativeprocessinonedirectionoranotherButsuchreadersdonotliveinavacuum:theyaresurJBvPrn::F:LALINtexp()WillievanPeerroundedbyotherpeoplewhoequallyevaluatetexts,thusmutuallyinfluencingeachotherItiseasytoimaginehowaparticularreadermaybereceptivetotheopinionsofpersonsdeartohimher,ormaybeafraidofutteringhisownopinioninatotalitarianstate,ormayletjudgmentbeinfluencedbytheprestigeoftheauthorThesethreefactors,thetext,thereader,andthecontext,mayallsteertheevaluativeprocessesinaparticulardirectionMoreover,theydonotoperateinisolation,butmayinterpenetrate,enhance,counteract,orneutralizeeachotherForinstance,readersleadingadailylifeofroutineinaCatholicsurrounding(context)maywelcomecontentthatisofanadventurousorrebelliousnature(text),becausesuchsemanticmaterialprovidesthemwiththepossibilityofescapism(reader)HowarestudiesofthesefactorsrepresentedinliterarystudiesSurprisingly,thereseemstobeastrongbiasinfavorofcontextualexplanations,definedhereasideologicalcontextsMostliteraryscholarsseemtobelievethatthejudgmentofliterarytextsoccursunderastronginfluenceofreaders’immediatesurroundings,theirgender,class,race,nationalityorsexualandideologicalinclinations,andsoforthThatcertainlyistheopinionofHerrnsteinSmith(),whoassertedthattheevaluativeprocessesinvolvedincanonformationareinherentlybiasedtowardexistingpowerstructuresandtheirideologicallegitimationMosttheoreticians,includingscholarslikeCuller(),Eagleton(),Fish(),Guillory(),allemphasizethecontextualdeterminacyofevaluativemechanismsWhileitiscertainlynottobedeniedthatcontextualfactorsareatplay,andmayundercertaincircumstancesevenimposepowerfulimperativesfortheevaluationofliterarytexts,anoveremphasisonthemcouldleadtheseauthorsintoanawkwardpositionForonething,theytherebyseemtoassumethatevaluatingliterarytextsisdrivenbyonefactoronly,thuspresumingsomekindofmonocausalityBydenyingthatanyinfluencefromthereader’spersonalcharacteristicsorparticularlinguisticfeaturesofthetextplayaroleintheevaluativeprocess,theseauthorsclaimthatoutofarangeofpotentialexplanations,onlyoneappliesSuchformsofmonocausalityare,however,extremelyrareinthesocialandculturalfield,whereusuallyseveral,ifnotdozensoffactorsareatplaysimultaneously,andinteractwitheachotherinhighlycomplexwaysBydenyingthecomplexityoftheseprocesses,mostliterarytheoristscreatearadicallyoversimplifiedpictureofculturalprocessesandarethusinvolvedinanextremeformofreductionismTrue,someformofreductionismmaybeunavoidableinresearch,butoneshouldatthesametimebeconsciousofthereduction,andnotforgetthefactorsthatonehasfactoredoutInthecaseoftheevaluationofliterarytexts,itseemshighlyimplausiblethatonlyoneofthethreefactorsdiscussedearlierwouldbeinvolvedThereisalsosomethingstrangeinapositionthatexplainsculturalphenomenainadeterministicwayGiventhenatureofculture,itseemssomuchmoreprobableJBvPrn::F:LALINtexp()IntroductiontoexpectitsphenomenatoemergeinahighlydynamicratherthancontextuallypredeterminedwayDefendersofthecontextualistexplanationdonotprovideanyargumentswhyprocessesofliteraryevaluationshouldfollowamonocausalanddeterministicpathAgainstthisposition,IclaimthattherearenoreasonstoexpectthatreaderortextcharacteristicsdonotexertaninfluenceintheevaluativeprocesseseitherTheoveremphasisoncontextualexplanationshasledtoasituation,however,inwhichveryfewstudieshavebeencarriedoutoftheinfluenceofthesefactorsGranted,itisnotalwayseasytofindappropriatemethodstodisentangletheseparatefactorsinacomplexnetworkofinteractionsButdifficultyisnotimpossibilityThepresentvolumeatleastmakesanattemptinthisdirectionbyinvestigatingtheroleoftextualfactorsThisisnottodenytheimportanceofreaders’characteristics,nor,indeed,ofcontextualfactorsButforthoseofuswhohaveakeeninterestinthenatureofliterarytextsthemselves,thequestioninwhatwaytheformalandsemanticelementsofthetextmaycontributetopositiveornegativeevaluationsisanintriguingoneTheenterpriseofbringingtogetherthevariouscontributionsinthisvolumegoesbacktoanessaythatwaspublishedseveralyearsagoinTheBritishJournalofAesthetics(Vol,No,:–)Inthisarticle,Imadeadetailedanalysisoftwotextsthatareidenticalintheme,andsimilarincontent,andwrittenatapproximatelythesametime,oneofwhichendedupintheliterarycanon,whiletheotherdidnotThetextsselectedwereShakespeare’sRomeoandJulietandArthurBrooke’sTheTragicallHistoryeofRomeusandJuliet,publishedinLondonsomethirtyyearsbeforeShakespeare’stextBytakingadetailedlookatthelanguageofbothworks,IhopedtogathersomedegreeofinsightinpossibletextualfactorsthatmayhavecontributedtocanonizationinShakespeare’scase,andtovirtualneglectinthecaseofBrookeTheresultswereinterestinginatleasttworespectsOntheonehand,thelanguageofShakespeare’splayturnedout–incomparisontoBrooke’s–tobesubstantiallymorecomplexandinnovative,morevariedandricherinstyleandregister,whileatthesametimereverberatingwithmultiplemeaningsAtthesametime,whiletheplotlinesofthetwotextsrunalmostcompletelyparallel,thespecificcontent,andespeciallytheevaluativeslantontheeventsfromanarrativeperspectivedifferedremarkablyThepointofviewtakeninBrooke’stextiscompletelyinlinewithcontemporarypowerpositionsandtheirideologyinElizabethanEngland,whileShakespeare’sisatoddswiththemHerethenwasapairoftextsshowingtherelativeunimportanceofcontextualelements,obviouslyfalsifyingHerrnsteinSmith’sthesis:Shakespeare’stextclearlyunderminestheprevalentviewsofthoseinpowerduringhistimeInthecourseofhistoryhistextcametobevaluedmorehighlythanthatofBrooke,whoseviewswerecompletelyinlinewiththepowerstructureofhistimeJBvPrn::F:LALINtexp()WillievanPeerWhilethiswasinterestinginitself,theenterprisewasoflimitedvalueforanobviousreason:itconcernsonecasestudyonly,andasiswellknown,itisnotoriouslydangeroustodrawconclusionsfromasinglecaseIfothersimilaranalysescouldbecarriedoutandcomparedwiththepresentone,thecaseforgaininginsightinthetext’scontributiontoevaluationcouldbemadestrongerInthecourseoftime,favorablereactionstomyarticlefromseveralcolleaguesledtoacollaborativeeffortatextendingthedatabaseofsuchtextualcomparisonsThepresentvolumeistheoutcomeofthevariousinteractionsandcollaborativeeffortsthatgrewoutofthisideaItcontainsarangeofstudiescarriedoutbycolleagues,makingsimilarcomparisonsbetweenpairsofcomparabletextsorgenresbylookinginadetailedwayatthelanguageemployedinthosetexts,complementedbysometheoreticalreflectionsontheevaluativeprocessTheclearestverdictcomesfromSteinHaugomOlsenThedefendersoftheviewthatliteraryvalueisessentiallybasedonsocialpowerorinfluencesufferasignificantdefeatatthehandsofOlsen:theassumptionsunderlyingtheirclaimsaretakenapartpiecebypieceYetthemajorforceofhisargumentcomesfromhispredictionabouttheworksofHughMacColl(–),anowforgottenScottishauthoroftwonovelswhich,soOlsenconvincinglyshows,areartisticfailures,andwillthereforeneverbepartofaliterarycanonWhiletheideologypresentedinbothworksistotallyinagreementwiththethenprevailingideasandattitudesinsociety,thisdidnotpreventtheauthorfromdisappearingaltogetherfromthehistoryofEnglishliteratureThereasonforthisbecomesclearwhenoneanalysesthecharactersandtheirproblems,thethemeandthelanguageofthenovels,andcontraststhemwithcomparablecontemporaneousworks,suchas,forinstance,MrsHumpreyWard’sRobertElsmere(),aworkthatstillisrememberedandreadOlsenwrites:“OnecouldcontinueaspectbyaspectwithMacColl’stwonovelsanddemonstratethislackofimaginativerealisationofevents,situations,characters,andrelationships,andhowthisiscloselylinkedwithanextensiveusebothofclichésinthelanguageandofstocksituationsandcharacters”IthinkOlsenisrightinhisclaimthatHughMacCollisnot,norwilleverbe,partofaliterarycanonItisnotsimplytheclaimaboutthisparticularauthor,however,thatmakeshisargumentsignificant:itisthatOlsenaddressestheissueintheappropriatearena:thatofempiricalstatementsaboutrealityWewouldcertainlyadvancemoreinourunderstandingofliteraryevaluationifmorescholarswerepreparedtomakesuchpredictionsaboutthefuturecanonIbelievetheexampleprovesOlsenright:evenifallhisopponentswerefromthisverymomenttosetout‘canonizing’HughMacColl,itisperfectlyclearthattheywouldnotevenremotelysucceedAsimilarapproachistakenbyJanGorakBysettingJosephConrad’sTheSecretAgentinitscontextofproduction,bycomparingittothemorepopular(andcommerciallysuccessful)spynovelsofhisdaysGorakisabletohighlightJBvPrn::F:LALINtexp()IntroductionhowinConrad’shandsthegenericmaterialandconventionsaresystematicallydefamiliarizedAswithShakespeareBrooke,thesemanticmateriallookssimilaronlyatfirstsightAcloseranalysisbringstolighttheextenttowhichentrenchedideologicalcategoriesofthetimearesystematicallyunderminedAsfarasthecorrespondencewithhispublishersreveals,Conradwasanauthorwhosoughtpopularity(butmuchtohischagrin,neverreallyattainedit–andendedupintheliterarycanoninstead)Atfirstsight,TheSecretAgentmakesuseofapopulargenre,thespynovelYet,asGorakdemonstrates,Conradusesthegenreinahighlyinnovativeway,namelytoinvestigatetherupturesinnationalandculturalidentitythatpresentedaseriouscrisissweepingthroughEnglandandEuropeatthetime“InConrad,canonicityandpopularityareinterdependent,”writesGorakBycomparingConrad’sworkwithpopularEdwardianspynovelslikeWilliamLeQueux’sTheInvasionof(),ErskineChilders’RiddleoftheSands(),andEdgarWallace’sTheFourJustMen(),Gorakdocumentshowintheseworks“thesecretagentembodiesthevaluesofindividuality,goodbreeding,andcoolcourageThesecretagentofthespynovelanswersthefearsoftheinvasionnarrativesthatthenationalvirtueshaveentereddecline”Verloc,Conrad’scharacter,bycontrast,istheveryoppositeofthesevirtues,andtheoutcomeis“ingloriousdisaster”ratherthansalvationGenericcomparisonisalsothethemeofTomBarney’sanalysisWhileGorak’semphasisisonthesemanticaspectsoftexttype,BarneyconcentratesonthelinguisticformofaparticulargenreHismainthesisisthatformplaysapredominantroleinliteraryevaluation:howwelldoesthewriteremploythepossibilitiesoftraditionalform,andtowhatextentissheabletotranscendthesepossibilitiesTheformselectedbyBarneyfordetailedstudyisthevillanelle:oneisErnestDowson’sVillanelleofMarguerites,theotherWilliamEmpson’sReflectionfromAnitaLoos“Isitpossibleforapoettobedefeatedbyaform,”Barneyasks–andafterameticulousanalysisofbothpoems,concludesthatDowson’scaseisreallythattheformalrequirementsdictatethecontentofhispoem,preventingcoherencefromemergingInthecaseofWilliamEmpson’svillanelle,bycontrast,oneobserveshowtherisksinvol

用户评价(1)

关闭

新课改视野下建构高中语文教学实验成果报告(32KB)

抱歉,积分不足下载失败,请稍后再试!

提示

试读已结束,如需要继续阅读或者下载,敬请购买!

文档小程序码

使用微信“扫一扫”扫码寻找文档

1

打开微信

2

扫描小程序码

3

发布寻找信息

4

等待寻找结果

我知道了
评分:

/49

*新书上架*文学的质:文学评价中的语言学研究

仅供在线阅读

VIP

在线
客服

免费
邮箱

爱问共享资料服务号

扫描关注领取更多福利