论文部分内容阅读
“特征论者”雅可布森以“形式化”视界提出“文学性”命题,“功能论者”穆卡若夫斯基以“语义化”视界拓展“文学性”空间,“合成论者”英加顿则是以“意向化”视界进入“文学性”生成机制。他们在言说“文学性”这一命题时,实际上很少关心什么是文学性,而更多地专注于“文学性”何以生成;他们在使用“文学性”这一概念时,实际上很少是在对文学是什么加以界说,而更多地是在言说文学研究科学化的路径。他们的探索表明:“文学性”理论的建构是可以不断深化的。
“Characteristicist” Jacobs put forward the proposition of “literaryness” in the field of “formalization”, “functionalist” Mukarovski expands the space of “literaryness” with the vision of “semanticization”, and “synthesisist” In contrast, Imparton entered the “literary” generation mechanism with the “intentionalization” horizon. In their proposition of “literary nature,” they are practically seldom interested in what is literary but more focused on why “literary” is generated. When they use the concept of “literary nature,” they actually Less is to define what is literature, but more is to speak of the scientific approach to literature. Their explorations show that the construction of “literary” theory can be deepened.