本文将从语言学的角度探讨文体演变的内在机制。俄国形式主义与英美新批评热衷于谈论文学活动的“内”与“外”的区别。并把注意力集中于“内”。所谓“内”,就是指文学的形式方面、结构方面、文本构成方面;而所谓“外”,则是指与文体的创作与接受有关的作者方面、读者方面以及社会文化背景方面。当然,这样的划分只是一种相对的甚至是知其不可为而为之的权宜之计,文学的内与外常常是很难划分的。但人类知识探求所面临的一个悖论,就是明知不可为而为之。科学研究的基本特征之一就是对现象作种种区分。就世界上的一切都是相互联系而言,这种区分都有其人为性;但区分恰好又是把握联系的途径。如果不先从区分入手,我们就永远无法认识联系。因而解决这个悖论策略就是:先作区分,但不把这种区分绝对化,区分的最终目的还是要回到综合,以便更好地说明联系。同样,我们对文学的内在与外在的区分,不是要否定两者的关联,而恰恰是要更好地说明这种关联。事实证明:不是建立在区分基础上的综合,只能是两败俱伤:既粗暴地否定了文学的特殊性,又不能合理地、科学地说明文学与社会文化的关系。在这方面,我们的教训已经够沉痛的了。 This article will explore the internal mechanism of stylistic evolution from the perspective of linguistics. Russian Formalism and Anglo-American Criticism Enthusiastically Talk about the Differences between “Inside” and “Outside” in Literary Activities. And focus on the “inner”. The so-called “inner” refers to the formal aspects, structural aspects, and textual aspects of literature. The so-called “outer” refers to the authors, readers and socio-cultural backgrounds related to the creation and acceptance of style. Of course, such a division is only a relative expediency or even a measure of expediency, and it is often difficult to distinguish between the inside and outside of literature. However, one of the paradoxes faced by the search for human knowledge is knowing it can not do it. One of the basic features of scientific research is the distinction made between phenomena. As far as everything in the world is concerned with each other, this distinction has its own humanity; but differentiation is just the way to grasp the connection. If we do not start with the distinction, we will never know the connection. Therefore, to solve this paradox strategy is to first make a distinction, but not to distinguish this distinction, the final purpose of the distinction is to return to synthesis, in order to better illustrate the link. In the same way, our distinction between internal and external literature does not mean negating the connection between the two. Instead, it is precisely to better explain this link. As it turns out, it is not a combination based on distinction that can only be a lose-lose: it rudely denies the particularity of literature and can not reasonably and scientifically explain the relationship between literature and social culture. Our lesson has been painful in this regard.