| 批评的历史维度 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 弗雷德里克·詹姆逊,胡亚敏,李恒田.批评的历史维度[J].华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2004,43(5):6-14. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 弗雷德里克·詹姆逊 胡亚敏 李恒田 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 1. 美国杜克大学,达纳姆
2. 华中师范大学 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 本文针对20世纪文学批评领域出现的热衷于自我证明并拒绝历史语境的倾向，通过剖析文体学批评、道德批评、神话批评、精神分析批评和结构主义批评等五种批评方法，说明没有一种阐释模式是完全自足的，它们所谓的自主性来自阐释过程中的任意限定和设界。如果将其中的任何一种方法延伸，即使完全用它自身的术语，也会再次进入批评的历史维度。
|
| 关 键 词： | 马克思主义批评 历史维度 文体学批评 道德批评 神话批评 精神分析批评 结构主义批评 |
| 文章编号： | 1000-2456(2004)05-0006-09 |
A Criticism in History |
| |
| Fredric Jameson.A Criticism in History[J].Journal of Central China Normal University(Humanities and Social Sciences),2004,43(5):6-14. |
| |
| Authors: | Fredric Jameson |
| |
| Abstract: | Faced with the tendency to refuse the context of society and history, to be fond of self-prove in criticism methods and the tending of formalism in critical field, the paper, by means of five critical methods which are stylistic analysis?ethical criticism?myth criticism?Freudianism criticism and structuralism criticism, illustrates that: none of these models of interpretation is complete in themselves, and that their appearance of autonomy results from the limits and boundaries arbitrarily during their interpretative process. If we prolong any one of these methods, even on its own terms, we always reemerge into the historical dimension itself, which thus comes as an implicit or explicit completion of all literary analysis or interpretation. |
| |
| Keywords: | Marxism criticism historical dimension stylistics ethical criticism myth criticism Freudianism criticism structuralism criticism |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 维普 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)》下载免费的PDF全文 |
