新中国成立以来文学理论教材建设管窥——以中外“三分法”、“四分法”为例

发布时间：2018-06-09 16:37

本文选题：新中国成立以来 + 文学理论　；参考：《宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版)》2011年01期

【摘要】：新中国成立以来,文学理论教材中的"三分法"、"四分法"在分类称谓、分类对象、分类标准及其性质等方面存在诸多分歧情形,这些现状尚没有引起广大教材编写者的足够重视和注意。词汇自身的多义性、创作手法与文类名称关系的认识缺位导致了"三分法"称谓杂出,此又直接造成分类对象分歧的可能。作为分别诞生于中西不同历史文化语境的影响较大的两种分类法,我们要坚决摒弃西方"三分法"具有相对整一划分标准的系统期望,摒弃执意在"四分法"中寻求单一的划分标准,并和"三分法"进行优劣比较的做法;即便提出了综合性的划分标准,亦不可基于同"三分法"相比较而言。
[Abstract]:Since the founding of the people's Republic of China, there have been many divergences between the "three-point method" and the "four-part method" in the teaching materials of literature theory in terms of classification terms, classification objects, classification criteria and their nature. These present situations have not attracted enough attention and attention of the vast number of textbook writers. The polysemy of vocabulary itself, the lack of understanding of the relationship between the creation technique and the name of literary category leads to the mixed description of "three-point method", which directly leads to the possibility of different classification objects. As two kinds of classification, which were born in different historical and cultural contexts of China and the West respectively, we should resolutely abandon the systematic expectation that the Western "Triple method" has a relatively whole standard of division. We should abandon the practice of seeking a single standard of division in the Quadratic method and compare the advantages and disadvantages of the Triple method. Even if the comprehensive criterion is put forward, it can not be based on the comparison with the Triple method.
【作者单位】：扬州大学文学院;
【基金】：国家社会科学基金青年项目“文类范畴研究”(10CZW001) 江苏省社会科学基金项目“文学理论基本问题:文类研究”(07WXC014)
【分类号】：I0-4

【共引文献】