|
|
|
| Epistemological Study of Textual Interpretation Pattern and Meaning Generation |
| Fu Changling |
| School of Literature, Shandong University, Jinan 250100, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Questions of interpretation of the meaning of texts have for some time been a major area of focus in literary theory. Overinterpretation, against-interpretation and imposed-interpretation constitute three patterns of interpretation, attempting the integration of text, meaning and truth. It has great significance for the development of contemporary Chinese literary theory to study patterns of textual interpretation.First of all, knowledge genealogy in hermeneutics involves interpretative methodology and interpretative ontology, which are related to the correspondence theory of truth, and that of existential theory respectively. Focusing on mechanisms like the generation process of textual meaning, intertextuality, subject reception and aesthetic empathy, interpretative methodology achieves a breakthrough for the pattern of “interpretation of scripture” in traditional theological hermeneutics. Methods such as the study of textual form from the perspective of scientism, receptive aesthetics with open meaning, deconstruction with intersubjectivity and intertextuality, etc., enrich the patterns of textual interpretation and thus construct a hermeneutic landscape of multi-level integration of author subject, reader subject, text and social history. The theory of “overinterpretation” proposed by Umberto Eco emphasizes that the interpretation of the meaning of a text should rely on the text itself to achieve a dynamic balance between the author, the text and the reader, so as to interpret literary works objectively and accurately. The dynamic balance between “textual intention” and the “standard reader” represents the mechanism of meaning production with text as the core, and reflects the truth view of correspondence theory of textual meaning. Simultaneously, focusing more attention on the meaning of artistic text and the consciousness of subject’s existence, interpretative ontology emphasizes that the understanding of text itself can achieve the subject’s existential goal of “poetic inhabitation”. By adopting philosophical theories such as phenomenology and the existential subject, Heidegger and Gadamer highlighted the truth attribute of textual meaning and poetic discourse with the subject’s “being”. On the basis of the noumenon of art form and by adopting the strategy of “meaningful form”, Susan Sontag’s theory of “against-interpretation” realizes the “intersubjective” connection between the textual subject and the interpretative one, and thus reconstructs the “mass production” strategy with the text as the core through new aesthetic perception. Secondly, on the basis of western hermeneutic methodology and ontology, positive reflection and continuous construction on the generation of textual meaning has also been carried out in contemporary Chinese hermeneutics. “The theory of imposed interpretation” not only involves the evaluation of western literary theory and the construction of contemporary Chinese literary theory, but also involves the construction of literary criticism methods and the key fields of generation of literary meaning, so that it integrates hermeneutic methodology and hermeneutic ontology. Chinese scholars represented by Professor Zhang Jiang have made sufficient and in-depth thinking on the limit, boundary and meaning of interpretation, and put forward a series of innovative concepts such as ontological interpretation, core interpretation, and great cycle of interpretation, which have promoted the further development of contemporary interpretation theory. Ontological interpretation and core interpretation require probing into the original meaning of textual language, image and structure on the basis of close reading, realizing the self-clarity of “textual intention” to the greatest extent, and constructing a kind of “holistic” interpretation pattern based on the social and historical environment of the “second boundary”, which enriches the interpretative methodology. By integrating the elements of tradition, times and society into the grand context of interpretation, the great cycle of interpretation and public interpretation realize the opening of textual meaning to the subject, enhance the subject’s ability of spiritual practice, and thus form a kind of ontological hermeneutics.In a word, when the construction process of a contemporary Chinese hermeneutics is reviewed, it can be found that the issue of imposed interpretation has always existed in the discourse system of contemporary Chinese literary theory, and it has gone through three stages: the imposition of Soviet model, the imposition of western literary theory, and the construction of discourse system of contemporary literary theory. By having had a detailed discussion on the relationship between elements like misapplication of irrelevant theories, subjective presupposition, legitimacy of criticism, ethics of criticism, and generation of textual meaning, this paper explains how Chinese scholars have constructed a kind of hermeneutic discourse system with Chinese characteristics. As a great breakthrough of hermeneutic theory, Chinese contemporary “imposed interpretation theory” not only realizes the integration of methodology and ontology, but also further expands the knowledge space of literary theory. Therefore it provides powerful and rich theoretical resources for literary research and the development of literary theory.
|
|
Received: 26 October 2021
|
|
|
|
1 韩模永： 《从文本中心到理论中心——反对阐释、过度阐释与强制阐释的意义危机和范式转换》，《华南师范大学学报（社会科学版）》2018年第1期，第170-174，192页。
2 意］艾柯等： 《诠释与过度诠释》，王宇根译，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1997年。
3 德］海德格尔： 《艺术作品的本源》，见孙周兴选编： 《海德格尔选集》上，上海：上海三联书店，1996年，第237-308页。
4 孙周兴、王庆节主编： 《海德格尔文集：康德与形而上学疑难》，王庆节译，北京：商务印书馆，2018年。
5 袁晓玲： 《对苏珊·桑塔格“反对阐释”之批判》，《武汉大学学报（人文科学版）》2010年第4期，第422-427页。
6 张江： 《强制阐释论》，《文学评论》2014年第６期，第5-18页。
7 张江： 《再论强制阐释》，《中国社会科学》2021年第2期，第4-23，204页。
8 毛莉： 《当代文论重建路径：由“强制阐释”到“本体阐释”——访中国社会科学院副院长张江教授》，《中国社会科学报》2014年6月16日，第4版。
9 张江： 《公共阐释论纲》，《学术研究》2017年第6期，第1-5，177页。
10 张江： 《关于场外征用的概念解释——致王宁、周宪、朱立元先生》，《清华大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2015年第2期，第21-24，187页。
11 张江主编： 《阐释的张力：强制阐释论的“对话”》，北京：中国社会科学出版社，2017年。
12 张江： 《批评的伦理》，《求是学刊》2015年第5期，第115-119页。 |
|
|
|
2022, Vol. 52 
