论文部分内容阅读
理却慈(I.A.Richards)是近代帝国主义殖民政策的语言学辩护人之一。他和奥格登(Ogden)合著的《意义的意义》(Meaning of Meaning)对于美国语言学中的“语义学”、“人种语言学”等反动理论体系的形成,起过不小的作用。在哲学基础方面,理却慈是罗素、维特根斯坦以及毛斯纳的追随者。他所著的《实用文学批评》就是以反动的“语义哲学”为其理论基础的一部著作,在这部书里,他企图把“语义学”的观点、方法用之于研究文学批评,并且把文学批评归结为一套“心理类型”的公式。在《实用文学批评》里,我们看到语言里意义的客观性和文学批评标准的客观性同时被否定了。因为,在理却慈看来,语义决定于人们的主观,以语言为其形式的文学创作的效果也决定于人们的主观,他所制造的公式就是:人们的主观决定语义,读者的“人格”(抽象的人格,臆造的主观!)是判断文学创作好坏的标准。克洛特威尔在本文中指出了《实用文学批评》一书中许多逻辑上的自相矛盾与混乱。这些都是事实,但是,他没有说出问题的实质,也不可能。相反,我们在文中看到在许多地方好象是有两位不可知论者在那里吵架。一位在制造伪科学中否定语言与文学批评标准的客观性;另一位则从根本上否定科学,认为无论是文学批评或是文学创作都谈不到科学或教养而只能是一种“天赋才能”。
I.A. Richards is one of the linguistic defenders of the colonial policy of modern imperialism. The Meaning of Meaning, co-authored by Ogden and his co-author with Ogden, played an important role in the formation of the reactionary theoretical system such as “semantics” and “linguistics” in American linguistics . On the philosophical basis, Ritchie is a follower of Russell, Wittgenstein, and Maussner. His “Practical Literary Criticism” is a book based on the reactionary “semantic philosophy”, in which he attempts to apply the “semantics” viewpoints and methods to the study of literary criticism, and The literary criticism attributed to a set of “psychological type” formula. In “Practical Literary Criticism,” we see that both the objectivity of meaning in language and the objectivity of literary criticism standards are simultaneously denied. Because, in Riksatsu’s opinion, semantics depend on people’s subjectivity, and the effect of literary creation in the form of language is determined by people’s subjectivity. The formulas he formulates are: people’s subjective decision semantics, readers’ “personality” (Abstract Personality, Fictional Subjectivity!) Is the standard for judging the quality of literary creation. In this article, Crouterville points out many logical self-contradictions and confusions in Practical Literary Criticism. These are all facts, but he does not say the substance of the problem nor is it possible. Instead, we see in the text that in many places there seems to be two agnostic quarrels. One objected to the objectivity of denying the standards of language and literary criticism in the fabrication of pseudoscience; the other denied science fundamentally, arguing that neither literary criticism nor literary creation speaks of science or upbringing but can only be a “ Talent talent. ”