洛特曼的结构文艺符号学研究

【作者】 康澄；

【导师】 张杰；

【作者基本信息】 南京师范大学 ， 比较文学与世界文学， 2002， 硕士

【摘要】 尤利·米哈依洛维奇·洛特曼(Юрий　ииайлович　Лотман)(1922—1993)是20世纪苏联著名文艺理论家、符号学家，他创造性地构建了自己的结构文艺符号学，在他的领导下形成了塔尔图文化符号学派。作为塔尔图学派的代表人物，他对文艺理论和符号学做出的重大贡献越来越为国际文艺学界及符号学界所瞩目。 本文将洛特曼的结构文艺符号学置于俄罗斯和西方文艺理论发展的坐标系中，在仔细研读他的《结构诗学讲义》、《艺术本文的结构》等主要理论著作的基础上，力求抓住洛特曼文艺理论的核心部分，以他对艺术语言这个重要问题的重新认识为切入点，对其理论内核进行阐释和分析。本文认为，洛特曼理论的基本出发点是把艺术看作一种特殊的语言，这种特殊的语言是作为第二模拟系统建立在自然语言基础上的，在把艺术确定为一种语言体系后，他用语言学的方法对它进行阐释。这一理论的核心是用整体性、系统化的研究方法来阐释艺术本文问题，把艺术本文系统作为一个符号系统来加以考察，侧重分析各种文艺现象和要素之间的相互关系，努力揭示整体结构与各个组成部分之间的联系，通过对艺术本文结构的研究来达到对艺术创作内容与形式的统一认识。洛特曼在理论上的成功之处是他把艺术的内容与形式有机地结合到了一起，他认为，艺术本文结构的变化直接决定着艺术作品的内容和意义，因此在探讨艺术本文的意义生成时，往往从内在联系的角度，把本文的内容与形式看成是一个不可分割的有机整体。在阐释和剖析其理论的基础上，本文接着探寻这一理论的历史渊源，揭示洛特曼在继承俄国形式主义的基础上所作的超越和创新，指出这一理论的独特价值在于它继承了早期苏联结构主义，即俄国形式主义的理论精华，摈弃了俄国形式主义的片面性，纠正了它研究方法上的失误，做到了分析艺术作品时思想内容与艺术形式的有机结合，正是在这一点上洛特曼超越了俄国形式主义。理论上的独创和对前人的超越根植于思维方法的更新与重建，本文在第三部分主要探讨洛特曼的理论在方法论上给予我们的启示，通过回顾19世纪后半期和20世纪的西方文艺批评理论发展的进程，揭示这一百多年来西方文艺批评理论所走过的“批评的循环”，并以此指出洛特曼走出了传统科学研究中“二元对立”思维模式的门槛，步入了“多元共生”的新境地，这种思维方式的转变是洛特曼的结构文艺符号学创新的基础。本文认为，洛特曼一直在探寻一种能够把形式主义批评与社会历史批评结合起来的理论途径，也就是把空间的静态分析与历史的动态分析融合起来，把本文的形式研究与文化的语境研究联系起来。他在寻求把这两种批评结合起来的过程中，走的是一条中西方文学批评传统相结合的途径，这是洛特曼研究方法的一个重要特征。 本文旨在通过对洛特曼理论的研究，指出洛特曼及其追随者们对西方文艺理论和批评发展所做的贡献，分析他的理论在西方文论发展史中所处的位置，揭示其理论在批评思维模式和分析方法上的创新，并进一步指出洛特曼的贡献己超越了文艺学的界限，对我们整个人文社会科学研究方法论的重新构建，都具有十分重要的意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 As a famous Russian literal theorist and symbolist in the 20th century, Yury Mikhailovich Lotman established his own structural literal semiotics creatively, and made so much great contribution to this field that it has started to catch attention internationally, and a new school-Tartu Semiotic School has taken shape with him as the driving force.With careful studies of his main theoretical works such as Lectures on Structural Poetics and The Structure of Artistic Text in the coordinates of literal theoretical development in Russia and the West, this thesis aims to explain and analyze the core of Lotman’s literal theories. It is argued in this thesis that the starting point of Lotman’s theory is that art is regarded as a special language, which is a kind of second simulated system based on natural language. Given art as a linguistic system, Lotman tries to explain it with linguistic approaches. The core of his theory is that a holistic, systematic methodology is adopted to explain texts, which are studied as a whole semiotic system. Therefore, the relations between literal phenomena and elements, the interaction between the whole system and internal components, are demonstrated, and a unity of content and form of the artistic creations is achieved successfully. He maintains that the changes in textual structure directly determine its content and meaning, so the creation of the meaning of any literal works should be traced back to the internal relations between elements in the wholeness of combination of content and form. Guided by this doctrine, the thesis continues to track his thought down in history to find its root-its heritage from and revision of the Russian formalism, in terms of research perspectives and methodology. The third part of the thesis focused on the inspiration the Lotman’s theories provide. A review of the development of the western literal criticism in the second half of the 19th century and the 20th reveals the century-long "critical cycle", which is broken by Lotman through a shift from dualism to pluralism as the base for his innovation. It is stressed in this paper that the theoretical combination of formalistic criticism and social and historical criticism is also a combination of analysis of texts’ form and their cultural contexts. His attempt to incorporate the two critical approaches indicates a path with both western and Chinese characteristics, which is an important feature of Lotman methodology.Through studies of Lotman’s theories, the thesis points out the contribution Lotman and his followers made to western literal theories and criticism, locates him in this field, and reveals his originality in critical pattern and analytical methods. His contribution has already gone beyond the border of literal theory, and it is significant to the reconstruction of the methodology of the whole humanities studies.更多还原