PPT\读者反应理论--陈小凡

StanleyFish(1938-)StanleyFishwasborninProvidence,RhodeIsland,andraisedinPhiladelphia.In1986hebecamebothaprofessoroflawandthechairoftheEnglishDepartmentatDukeUniversity,wherehehasattractedastellargroupoftheorists.StanleyFish(1938-)AffectiveStylistics(感受文体学)SocialReader-ResponseTheory(社会读者反应理论)AffectiveStylisticsAliterarytextisaneventthatoccursintime—thatcomesintobeingasitisread—ratherthananobjectthatexistsinspace.Thetextisnolongeranobjective,autonomousentity—itdoesnothaveafixedmeaningindependentofreaders—becausethetextconsistsoftheresultsitproduces,andthoseresultsoccurwithinthereaders.AffectiveStylisticsAndaffectivestylisticsisnotadescriptionofthereader’simpressionisticresponsesbutacognitiveanalysisofthementalprocessesproducedbyspecificelementsinthetext.Thetextisexaminedclosely,oftenlinebylineorevenwordbyword,inordertounderstandhow(stylistics)itaffects(affective)thereaderintheprocessofreading.AffectiveStylisticsThemeaningoftextdoesnotconsistofthefinalconclusionwedrawaboutwhatthetextsay;rather,themeaningofthetextconsistsofourexperienceofwhatthetextdoestousaswereadit,thatistheexperienceofreading.AccordingtoFish’saffectivestylisticstheory,thecriticsdoaphrase-by-phraseanalysisofashorttexttoshowwhatthetextdoestothereaderandwhatthereader’sresponseis.AffectiveStylisticsThisphrase-by-phrasereading,however,isdifferentfromthe“closereading”ofNewcriticism.Theformerisananalysisor“slow-motion”ofcognitiveprocessproducedduringthereadingprocess,whichtakestheroleofreaderintoconsideration.Thelatterisacloseexaminationofeachword,phraseandsentencetofindtheonlyinterpretationofthetext.AlittlecasestudyThatJudasperishedbyhanginghimself,thereisnocertaintyinScripture:thoughinoneplaceitseemstoaffirmit,andbyadoubtfulwordhathgivenoccasiontotranslateit;yetinanotherplace,inamorepunctualdescription,itmakethitimprobable,andseemstooverthrowit.(“Literautre”71)AlittlecasestudyThatJudasperishedbyhanginghimself,thereisnocertaintyinScripture:thoughinoneplaceitseemstoaffirmit,andbyadoubtfulwordhathgivenoccasiontotranslateit;yetinanotherplace,inamorepunctualdescription,itmakethitimprobable,andseemstooverthrowit.(“Literautre”71)Alittlecasestudy“That”,“place”,“affirm”,“punctual”and“overthrow”givereadersasenseofaffirmation;whereas“nocertainty”,“doubtful”,“yet”,“improbably”and“seems”createasenseofuncertainty,overwhelmingthepreviousfeeling—affirmation.howtoreadthattextand,perhaps,howtoreadtheworld.Thus,thistextisn’tprimarilyaboutJudasorScripturebutabouttheexperienceofreading.Alittlecasestudy????I’mconfused…notquitesure…Acriticmightsaythatthetextteachesus,throughapatternofraisedexpectations(hereadesireofaffirmation)disappointed,StanleyFish(1938-)AffectiveStylistics(感受文体学)SocialReader-ResponseTheory(社会读者反应理论)SocialReader-ResponseTheoryInhismostrecentwork,theobjectsofFish’sconcernhasshiftedformtheimpliedreaderimmanentwithinthetexttotheexperienceofactualreadersandinterpretivecommunitiesofreaders,whichhewroteaboutinIsThereaTextinThisClass?(1980)Socialreader-responsetheoryusuallyisassociatedwiththelaterworkofStanleyFish—IsThereaTextinThisClass?(1980)IsThereaTextinThisClass?:《这门课里有没有文本？》SocialReader-ResponseTheoryAccordingtoFish,whatwetaketobeourindividualsubjectiveresponsestoliteraturearereallyproductsoftheinterpretivecommunity(阐释群体/解释团体),towhichwebelong.Byinterpretivecommunity,Fishmeansthegroupofpeoplewhoshareaparticularreadingorinterpretivestrategies(阐释策略/解释策略),or“setofcommunityassumptions”.SocialReader-ResponseTheoryOfcourse,interpretivecommunitiesarenotstatic;theyevolveovertime.Fishclaimsthatamultiplicityofinterpretivecommunitiestowhichstudentsalreadybelongdetermineshowtheyreadthetextinthefirstplace.Allreaderscometothetextalreadypredisposedtointerpretitinacertainwaybasedonwhateverinterpretivestrategieswe’velearned,consciouslyorunconsciously,beforeweeverencounteredthetext.SocialReader-ResponseTheoryEachinterpretationwillsimplyfindwhateveritsinterpretivestrategiesputthere.Thisdoesn’tmean,however,thatweareleftwiththeanarchyofunconstrainedinterpretation.AsFishnotes,interpretationswillalwaysbecontrolledbytherelativelylimitedrepertoireofinterpretivestrategiesavailableatanygivepointinhistory.DavidBleich(1936-)DavidBleichteacheswriting,teaching,languageuse,womenstudies,Jewishstudies,andsciencestudiesintheEnglishDepartmentandintheCollegeofArtsandSciencesattheUniversityofRochester.Hemadegreatcontributionstothedevelopmentofsubjectivereader-responsetheory.SubjectiveReader-ResponseTheoryForsubjectivereader-responsecritics,anypurportedly“objective”readingofatextturnsouttobebasedonaresponsethatisnotdeterminedbythetext,butinsteada“subjectiveprocess”determinedbythedistinctivepersonalityoftheindividualreader.Reader’sresponsesarethetext,bothinthesensethatthereisnoliterarytextbeyondthemeaningscreatedbyreaders’interpretationsandinthesensethatthetextthecriticanalyzesisnottheliteraryworkbutthewrittenresponsesofreaders.SubjectiveReader-ResponseTheoryRealobjectsarephysicalobjects,suchastables,chairs,cars,books,andthelikeSymbolicobjectoccursnotinthephysicalworldbutintheconceptualworld,thatis,inthemindofthereader.ThatiswhyBleichcallsreading—thefeelings,associations,andmemoriesthatoccuraswereactsubjectivelytotheprintedwordsonthepage—symbolization:ourperceptionandidentificationofourreadingexperiencecreateaconceptual,orsymbolic,worldinourmindasweread.SubjectiveReader-ResponseTheoryHethuscallstheactofinterpretationresymbolization.Resymbolizationoccurswhenourexperienceofthetextproducesinusadesireforexplanation.Thus,thetextwetalkaboutisn’treallythetextonthepage;itisthetextinourmind.Reader’sresponsesarethetext,bothinthesensethatthereisnoliterarytextbeyondthemeaningscreatedbyreaders’interpretationsandinthesensethatthetextthecriticanalyzesisnottheliteraryworkbutthewrittenresponsesofreaders.KnowledgeBleich’sconceptofproducingknowledge“Objectiveknowledge”AllknowledgeissubjectiveKnowledgeInotherwords,“truth”isn’tan“objective”realitywaitingtobediscovered;itisconstructedbycommunitiesofpeopletofulfillspecificneedsproducedbyspecifichistorical,sociological,andpsychologicalsituations.Thus,Bleicharguesthatmeaningdoesnotresideinthetextbutisdevelopedwhenthereaderworksincooperationwithotherreaderstoachievethetext’scollectivemeaning(whatBleichcalls“theinterpretation”).Thestartingpointforinterpretationisthereader’sresponsestoatext,notthetextitself.However,theseresponsesdonotconstitutethetext’smeaning.Bleichdifferentiatesbetweenthereader’sresponsestoatextandreader’sinterpretationormeaning(?Ofthetext)Thereader’sresponse(s)toatext≠Thereader’sinterpretationforthereader’sinterpretationoratextmeaningmustbedevelopedfromandoutofthereader’sresponses,workinginconjunctionwithotherreader’sresponsesandwithpastliteraryandlifeexperiencestonegotiatemeaning.Thekeytodevelopingatext’smeaningistheworkingoutofone’sresponsestoatextsothattheseresponseswillbechallengedandamendedandthenacceptedbyone’ssocialgroup.ATwo-StepMethodologyReadersareaskedtorespondtoaliterarybyWritingaresponsestatementWritingananalysisoftheirownresponsestatement.Inaddition,Bleichpromotesexperience-orientedresponsestatements,whichdiscussthereader’sreactiontothetext,describingexactlyhowspecificpassagesmadethereaderfeel,think,orassociate.However,reader-orientedreponsessubstitutetalkaboutoneselffortalkaboutone’sreadingexperience.Andreality-orientedonessubstitutetalkaboutissuesintheworldfortalkaboutone’sreadingexperience.Response-analysisstatementThereaderCharacterizeshisorherresponsetothetextasawholeIdentifiesthevariousresponsespromptedbydifferentaspectsofthetext,whichultimatelyledtothereader’sresponsetothetextasawholeDetermineswhytheseresponsesoccurred.DifferenceInstarkcontrasttoaffectivestylisticsandtoallformsoftransactionalreader-responsetheory,subjectivereader-responsetheorydoesnotcallfortheanalysisoftextualcues.NormanHollandNormanHolland,theMarston-MilbauerEminentScholarinEnglishattheUniversityofFlorida,has,overalongcareer,exploredhowthehumanmindrelatestoliterature.Hemakesgreatcontributionstopsychologicalreader-responsetheory.PsychologicalReader-ResponseTheoryPsychologicalcriticNormanHolland(alsocalledsubjectivereader-responsecritic)accountsfortheresponseofareadertoatextbyrecoursetoFreudianconcepts.Hollandbelievesthatwereacttoliterarytextswiththesamepsychologicalresponseswebringtoeventsinourdailylives.Giventhatvirtuallyallliterarytextswillinsomewayarouseourdefensesbytappingsomeunconsciousfearsorforbiddendesires,wemusthaveawaytocopewiththetextsifwearegoingtoreadthematall.Hollandcallthatcopingprocessinterpretation.PsychologicalReader-ResponseTheoryTheimmediategoalofinterpretation,liketheimmediatepsychologicalgoalofourdailylives,istofulfillourpsychologicalneedsanddesires.Whenweperceiveatextualthreattoourpsychologicalequilibrium,wemustinterpretthetextinsomewaythatwillrestorethatequilibrium.PsychologicalReader-ResponseTheoryHollandcallsthepatternofourpsychologicalconflictsandcopingstrategiesouridentitytheme.(身份主)Hebelieveswhenwereadliterature,weprojectouridentitytheme,orvariationsofit,ontothetext.Thatis,invariouswaysweunconsciouslyrecreateinthetexttheworldthatexistsinourownmind.identitythemecanalsobecalledasprimaryidentityOurinterpretation,then,areproductsofthefears,defenses,needs,anddesiresweprojectontothetext.Interpretationisthusprimarilyapsychologicalprocessratherthanintellectualone.Aliteraryinterpretationmayormaynotrevealthemeaningofthetext,buttoadiscerningeyeitalwaysrevealsthepsychologyofthereader.Similarly,thesubjectmatterofaworkofliteratureisaprojectionofthefantasies—engenderedbytheinterplayofunconsciousneedsanddefenses—thatconstitutetheparticular“identity”oftheauthor.Theindividualreader’s“subjective”responsetoatextisa“transactive”encounterbetweenthefantasiesprojectedbyitsauthorandtheparticulardefenses,expectations,andwish-fulfillingfantasiesthatmakeupthereader’sownidentity.ForHolland,literaryinterpretationisafunctionofidentity,anddifferencesininterpretationcanbeaccountedforintermsofthedifferencesinpersonality(人格),thesedifferencesbeing“variationsuponanidentitytheme”.(Holland1984:123)DEFTThistransactivereaderrecreateshisidentityinreadingthroughaprocesscalledDEFT(defense-expectation-fantasy-transformation):thetransactivereaderbringstothetexthisexpectations,wishesandfears,findsinthetextthematchforallofthese,andthenrespondsbydefendingagainstthemwithhischaracteristicstrategies,eithertogratifythewishes(expectation),ortodefeatthefears.DEFTOncethedeepwishesandfearsaredefensivelyadapted,thereaderwillbeabletoderivefromthetextfantasiesthatyieldshimpleasureandbeginstoenjoythetextbytransformingthefantasycontent,whichhehascreatedfromthematerialsofthestoryhisdefensesadmitted,intoaunityormeaningfultotality,whichconstitutesthereader’sparticularinterpretationofthetext.Thus,Hollanddoesn’tanalyzetheauthorthewriter,buttheauthorthereader.Thatis,thefocusofanalysisistheauthorasapersonreadingtheworldinwhichhelives,reactingtoandinterpretingit,inordertodiscovertheauthor’sidentitytheme.Thepurposeofsuchananalysisisanempathicmergerwiththeauthor.Understandinganauthor'sidentitythemeallowsustofullyexperience,as“minglingofselfandother”,thegifttheartistoffersus.PsychologicalReader-ResponseTheoryHolland’sdefinitionofinterpretationcanthusbesummarizedasaprocessconsistingofthreestagesormodesthatoccurandrecurasweread:thedefensemodethefantasymodethetransformationmodeThreestagesormodesInthedefensemode,ourpsychologicaldefensesareraisedbythetext.Inthefantasymode,wefindawaytointerpretthetextthatwilltranquilizethosedefensesandthusfulfillourdesiretobeprotectedfromthreatstoourpsychologicalequilibrium.Inthetransformationmode,wetransformsteps#1and#2intoanabstractinterpretationsothatwecangetthepsychologicalsatisfactionwedesirewithoutacknowledgingtoourselvestheanxiety-producingdefensesandguilt-producingfantasiesthatunderlieourassessmentofthetext.StructuralismAccordingtostructuralistcritics,areaderbringstothetextapredeterminedsystemforascertainingmeaning(acomplexsystemofsignsorcodeslikethesirensandtheredlight)andappliesthissignsystemdirectlytothetext.Thetextbecomesimportantbecauseitcontainssignsorsignalstothereaderthathavepreestablishedandacceptableinterpretations.Manystructuralistsarethereforemoreconcernedabouttheoverallsystemofmeaningagivensocietyhasdevelopedthanwithtextualanalysisitselfandconcentratetheireffortsonwhatareaderneedstoknowaboutinterpretinganysigninthecontextofacceptablesocietalstandard.StructuralismInthe1970s,GerardPrincehelpeddevelopaspecifickindofstructuralismknownasnarratology,whichistheprocessofanalyzingastoryusingalltheelementsinvolvedinitstelling,suchasnarrator,voice,style,verbtense,personalpronouns,audience,andsoforth.Princenotedthatcriticsoftenaskquestionsaboutthestory’spointofview—omniscient,limited,firstperson,andsoon—butrarelydotheyaskaboutthepersontowhomthenarratorisspeaking,thenarratee.StructuralismUsually,thenarrateeisnottheactualpersonreadingthetext,forPrincearguesthatthenarrativeitself—thatis,thestory—producesthenarrated.Byfirstobservingandthenanalyzingvarioussignsinthetext,suchaspronounreference;directaddress(“Dearreader”);gender,race,andsocialclassreferences;andwritingstyle,Princebelievesitispossiblenotonlytoidentifythenarrateebutalsotoclassifystoriesbasedonthedifferentkindsofnarrateescreatedbythetextsthemselves.Suchnarrateesmayincludetherealreader(personactuallyreadingthebook),thevirtualreader(thereadertowhomtheauthorbelievesheorsheiswriting),andtheidealreader(theonewhoexplicitlyandimplicitlyunderstandsallthenuances细微差别,terminology,andstructureofatext)CaseStudy--TheGreatGatsbyTheGreatGatsbyisaspecificdepictionofAmericansocietyduringtheRoaringTwenties(the1920s)tellingthequintessentialAmericanstoryofamanrisingfromragstorichesandhistragicdestiny.TheprotagonistofthisstoryisJayGatsby,awealthybutmysteriousNewYorkerwithanundeterminedoccupation.HismysterywhichisascribedtosomeinaccurateinformationsuchasoutlandishrumorsabouthimandNick’snarration,createindeterminacy,invitingnotonlythecharactersinthenovelbutalsousreaderstoprojectourowndesireintointerpretationofGatsby.WithJayGatsbyasthe“text”theydecode,thecharactersinthenovelmodelareadingexperiencethatcouldbedescribedbythefollowingformula:Projection(Defense&Expectation)+Datagathered(Fantasy)=confirmationofprojection(Transformation).DaisywantstobelieveGatsbyisherupper-classknightinshiningarmor,sosheconvenientlydoesn’tseethroughhisveneerofwealthandstatus,whichisasthinasthe“thinbeardofrawivy”coveringthetowerofhismansion.InChapterVII(Page246)“‘Hervoiceisfullofmoney,’hesaidsuddenly.Thatwasit.I’dneverunderstoodbefore.Itwasfullofmoney—thatwastheinexhaustiblecharmthatroseandfellinit,thejingleofit,thecymbals’songofit…Highinawhitepalacetheking’sdaughter,thegoldengirl…”Judgingfromthese,wecanseemammonismandanunrestrainedaspirationformoneyinDaisy,whichisalsocanberegardedasheridentitytheme.Therefore,DaisywantstobelieveGatsby,whoisinexhaustivepursuitofher,iswealthymansion-ownerwithalargequantityofassets.Asaresult,sheprojectthisexpectationontoherinterpretationofGatsby.Maybeormaybenot,shehasalreadyseenGatsby’sveneerofwealthandstatus.However,theindeterminacyaboutGatsby,tosomedegree,arousesherdefensearoused.Shejustneglectssomefactsordistortsometruth,whichformsherfantasytomakeherexpectationsatisfy.ThenitcomestothefinaltransformationofherinterpretationofGatsby,whomsheregardsasherupper-classknightinshiningarmor.Tom,whoisactuallyaracistandholdsanattitudeofclassdiscriminationtowardsGatsby,wantstobelievethatGatsbyisacrookwithnorespectablefamilybackground,andhehiresprivateinvestigatorstoprovidehimwiththeevidenceheneedstoproveit.GeorgeWilsonwantstobelievethatGatsbyseducedandmurderedhiswifebecauseachievethisbeliefwillpermithimtoavengeMyrtle’sseductionanddeathandachievetheemotionalclosureheneeds.SoWilsonreadilybelievesthefirststoryhehears:heasksnoquestionsandhasnodoubtsaboutTom’sexplanationdespitehavingseenTomhimselfdrivingthe“death”carearlierthatdayanddespiteTom’sunfulfilledpromisestohimintherecentpast.ThemostworthnotinginterpretationisNick’s,thenarratorofthisstory.ThetextsupporttwoopposinginterpretationsofGatsby:(1)Gatsbythecriminal,whowillhurtanyoneanddoanythingtogetwhathewants,and(2)Gatsbytheromantichero,whohaspulledhimselfoutofpovertyanddevotedhislifetoDaisyas“tothefollowingofaGrail”.However,NickfinallyinterpretsGatsbyinaone-sidedmanner.AsGatsby’schiefdefender,NickseesGatsbytheonlypersonhemetintheEastwho“turnedoutallrightattheend”NickinterpretsGatsbythroughthelensofhisownprojections;inotherwords,heprojectshisowndesiresontoGatsby.Nick’sIdentitythemeAttheageofthirty,andstilledbeingfinancedbyhisfatherwhilehetriestofigureoutwhatheshoulddowithhimself,itisnotsurprisingthatNickwantstobelievelifestillholdspromisebecauseheisafraidthatitdoesn’t.Hefearsthatallhehastolookforwardtois,asheputsit,“athinninglistofsinglementoknow,athinningbriefcaseofenthusiasm,thinninghair”.WithonefailedromancebackhomeandoneinNewYork,Nickwantstobelievethatthepossibilityofromancestillexists.WithhissummerinNewYork—hislatestinseriesofadventures—havingendedindisaster,hewantstobelieveinthepossibilityoffulfilledhopeheseesinGatsby:hopethatayoungmanatlooseendscanmakethekindofoutrageousfinancialsuccessofhimselfthatGatsbyhasmade,canfallsocompletelyinlovewithawoman,andcanfeelsooptimisticaboutthefuture.Thus,NickissoemotionallyinvestedinGatsbythat,withouthesitationanddespitehisownconservativeupbringing,hefacilitatesGatsby’sadulterousaffairwithDaisy,Nick’sownrelative.Andreader’scredulityiscontinually“switched”indifferentdirectionsaswemakeourwaythroughNick’snarration;thefinaloutcomeofourspeculation—interpretationofGatsbyandthereforeofthemeaningofthenovelasawhole—islargelyaproductofreader’sownbeliefsanddesires.Inthissense,TheGreatGatsbydramatizesreader-responsetheory’sconceptofindeterminacyandprojection.