作者、读者与阐释的边界

发布时间：2018-09-07 17:23

【摘要】：文章回应了张江教授的论文《"意图"在不在场》,并且参与了张江教授与《意图谬见》《叙事作品结构分析导论》的争论。笔者同意张江教授的观点,认为作者的意图始终在场,尽管这些意图在场的"形式"可能多种多样;《意图谬见》忽略了作者意图与语言符号体系的顽强搏斗,这可能忽略文学研究所必须关注的另一些极为重要的症候;《叙事作品结构分析导论》出自结构主义时期的罗兰·巴特,他切割"叙述者"与"作者"的目的仍然是强调结构主义语言自足的观念。尽管结构主义已经退潮,但是,结构主义关于语言构建主体的观念仍然是一种重要的理论遗产。《作者的死亡》时的罗兰·巴特已经进入后结构主义时期,他否认作者的目的是将阐释权交给读者。罗兰·巴特的读者仍然是文本的组成部分而不是真实的历史人物,这是批评"狂欢化"的重要原因。如果说,批评"狂欢化"的负面效果往往导致张江教授所批评的"强制阐释",那么,作者提出的解决方案是恢复"读者"的历史身份,亦即让阐释回到历史语境之中。
[Abstract]:The article responds to Professor Zhang Jiang's thesis < "intent" is absent"and participates in the debate between Professor Zhang Jiang and"intentional fallacy" by Roland Barthes of the Structuralist Period, whose purpose of cutting "narrators" and "authors" is still to emphasize the notion of structuralist language self-sufficiency. Roland Barthes has entered the post-structuralist period, denying that the author's aim is to give the power of interpretation to the reader. The reader of Roland Barthes is still an integral part of the text rather than a true calendar. If the negative effects of criticism often lead to the "mandatory interpretation" criticized by Professor Zhang Jiang, then the solution proposed by the author is to restore the historical identity of the "reader", that is, to return the interpretation to the historical context.
【作者单位】：福建社会科学院;
【分类号】：I02

【相似文献】