论文部分内容阅读
国内外叙述学界有些学者把叙述学分为“经典叙述学”和“后经典叙述学”。这种分法是没有学理依据的。作为一门独立的学科,叙述学从诞生直至今日,始终是在结构主义的框架内构建和发展的。从考察“后经典叙述学”相关论点入手,运用结构主义的一些基本理念,可以从三个方面讨论“经典叙述学”和“后经典叙述学”分类的不合理性:梳理“经典”与“后经典”说的主要观点,可见这种区分的不合理;从结构主义的基本理念来看这种区分的非合理性;辨析赫尔曼提出的“经典叙述学”的四宗“罪”。
Some scholars at home and abroad narrative academia classify the narrative into “classical narrative learning” and “post-classical narrative learning.” This method is not theoretical basis. As an independent discipline, narratology has been constructed and developed within the framework of structuralism from birth to today. From the point of view of the related arguments of “post-classical narrative theory” and using some basic concepts of structuralism, we can discuss the irrationality of “classical narrative learning” and “post-classic narrative learning” classification from three aspects: Combining the main points of view between “classic” and “post-classical”, we can see that this distinction is irrational. From the perspective of structuralism, this distinction is irrational. Narrative learning “four ” sin ".