形式批评中的实用主义及逻辑实证主义之争——克兰与“新批评”派分歧的哲学根源  

The Debate between Pragmatism and Logical Positivism in Formalist Criticism:The Philosophical Origin of the Differences between R.S.Crane and“New Criticism”

作　　者：梁心怡 Liang Xinyi(Assistant Research Fellow,Institute of Literature,Chinese Academy of Social Sciences,Beijing,China)

机构地区：[1]中国社会科学院文学研究所,北京100732

出　　处：《外国文学》2022年第4期97-107,共11页Foreign Literature

基　　金：中国社会科学院博士后创新项目阶段性成果。

摘　　要：芝加哥文学批评派与“新批评”派同时兴起于20世纪30年代,共同担起了美国文学批评改革中的先锋角色。然而哲学根源上的分歧令二者对文学形式批评持有不同的理解。作为芝加哥学派的领军人物,克兰文学批评的基石来自古典实用主义,对于“形式”的理解以杜威式自然主义经验观为基础,对文本形式的研究包括了对伦理意图与影响等方面的判断。而新批评派受逻辑实证主义影响,以对文本语言形式进行语义分析为方法,具有去价值判断的倾向。通过比较实用主义与实证主义影响下的文学批评,可发现其区分一直延伸到当下的文学理论研究阶段,意味着20世纪美国人文智识领域整体性地呈现为逻辑分析与价值判断对立的格局。The Chicago School of literary criticism and New Criticism developed almost at the same time in the 1930s and jointly played a leading role in the reform of American literary criticism.However,the different philosophical roots make them hold different understandings of formalist criticism.As the leader of Chicago school,Crane’s understanding of“form”is based on Dewey’s naturalistic experience,so the study of form will include the judgment of ethical intention and influence.Under the influence of logical positivism,the New Criticism school takes the semantic analysis of the language form as the method and has the tendency of devaluation.Comparing the literary criticisms under the influence of pragmatism and positivism,we can find that their distinction has been extended to the current state of literary theory research,which implies that the field of American humanistic intelligence in the 20th century appears to be a state of opposition between logical analysis and value judgment.

关 键 词：克兰 新批评 实用主义 逻辑实证主义 形式批评 

分 类 号：I0[文学—文学理论]