Literary nature Literary nature is an obvious but not essential characteristic. Reportage uses a variety of expression methods, pays equal attention to narrative and description, and skillfully summarizes and refines a large amount of materials without exaggerating or fictionalizing. It uses figurative language, exquisite structure, and can also be used appropriately. The plot has twists and turns, and uses various literary and artistic techniques to reflect characters and events in society. Literary nature is first reflected in the image. Reportage not only needs to directly appeal to readers, that is to say, it combines reportage with literature, but also absorbs many literary expression techniques and artistic techniques. In order to better portray the characters, reportage most obviously absorbs the expression techniques of novels, such as character characterization, psychological description, environmental rendering, and detail presentation. However, due to the intensity of expression of thoughts and philosophies, due to more external observations and faster writing and publishing, reportage is still not a literary work. It needs to improve on the inner experience of individual life and the persistent pursuit of artistic expression in order to win independent status. Artistic life and character.
Before the end of the 19th century, literary research had not yet become an independent social activity. It was not until the rise of literary criticism and professional literary research that people really raised the issue of literary particularity and literary nature. Therefore, the definition of literariness has become a century issue in literary criticism and theory circles in the 20th century, and has also become one of the world's difficult problems. Western scholars have conducted long-term and tireless explorations on this issue, but have not yet found a satisfactory definition. Jonathan Khanna in "Literary Theory" (edited by Angénot, Bessière, Fokkema, and Kushner, French University Press, 1989; the Chinese translation will be published by Tianjin Baihua Literature and Art Publishing House (Shi Zhongyi, Tian Qingsheng Translation) Chapter 2 introduces these explorations. The various definitions proposed by Western scholars can be summarized into five categories. I call the first definition the formalist definition. Jacobson raised this question in 1921: "The object of the science of literature is not literature, but 'literariness,' the quality of a given work that becomes a literary work." (Jacobson, Noveishaia russkaia poeziia. Nabrosok pervyi , Praha, Tip. Politica. For the French translation, see Jacobson: "Problems of Poetics", Sey Publishing House, Paris, 1973). The basic criterion affirmed by the formalists is: "The purpose of literary science should be the study of literary works. Characteristics unique to any other work” (Echenbaum, “On the Method of Formalism”, 1927, see Todorov, “Literary Theory, Selected Essays of the Russian Formalists”, Sey, Paris. Press 1965) Then finding the characteristics of a literary work that is universal in prose and poetry has become the key to determining the issue of literariness. Shklov believes that literariness is mainly reflected in three aspects. Ski emphasized that "the language of poetry is distinguished from (daily) prose language by the perceptibility of its structure" (ibid.). Mukarovsky, the founder of the Prague School, defined poetry in terms of "emergency" language (Mukarovsky, The Word and Verbal Art: Selected Essays, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1997; see Literary Theory, Université Press de France, 1989). To be touching is to be literary, and to be plain is not to be literary. There are many ways to make language highly perceptual through emergence, and the second point of literaryness is reflected in the traditional symbolic paradigm, traditional novel model, traditional character model and causal principle. Criticism. The third point is reflected in the status and prospect of the materials used in the text in the complete structure. The basic spirit of the latter two points can be summarized as: innovation is literariness; literariness and conformity are incompatible.
Scholars are not satisfied with the definition of formalism and have reservations about the idea of ??"literature as novelty" because many elegant literary languages ??and literary images come from tradition. The vocabulary and structure belong to literary language. In addition, limiting literariness to the expression of language means will also encounter many obstacles, because all these language means of expression may appear in non-literary texts. Busson himself admits that "alliteration and other assonance devices are also used in common spoken language. On streetcars you can hear many jokes that have the same image structure as the most subtle lyric poetry; and in leisure time God The structural rules of Kan are actually the same as those of short stories" (Jacobson: "Poetic Questions"). Advertising language, wordplay, and expression errors can also cause strong perceptual effects. However, we cannot say that advertising language, wordplay, and errors of expression also reflect literary qualities. The author believes that Russian formalists tried and captured several characteristics of literariness. However, the idea of ??using points to represent areas and making it absolute makes it impossible for them to find a universal definition of literariness.
The second definition can be called the utilitarian definition, that is, the literary text, through the emergence of language, separates itself from the time and real environment of the production of the statement, and achieves what the textual language is trying to accomplish. The actual act becomes a literary device, placing it within the context of a series of texts and literary devices. This means that literary techniques are not a means of expressing information, but the protagonist and theme of literary language. The choice of words, sentences, and composition in literary texts can be regarded as language for literature's sake and language for language's sake.
This definition is not rigorous, because literary texts also have a certain function of transmitting information, but it has changed from a real-time and on-the-spot transmission form to a specific object to an abstract form of transcendence in a different place. The information is conveyed as intended by the author. "Human Comedy", "War and Peace", "Dream of Red Mansions", "Song of Youth", etc. all convey complex and profound messages. Even the works of aesthetic writers, such as Oscar Wilde and Gautier, convey various messages. On the contrary, a purely literary game may lose its literary character. In addition, the two aspects of functional changes also occur in texts from other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, such as philosophy texts, history texts, sociology texts, psychology texts, etc.
I call the third definition the structuralist definition. That is to say, the emergence of language cannot be a sufficient criterion of literariness: the fusion of linguistic structure and rhetorical structure, that is, the establishment of a unified and functional interdependence according to the norms of tradition and literary background, seems to be a literary feature. sign. There are three levels or three types of fusion included here. The first level is to integrate structures or relationships that have no functional role in other languages, mobilize the function of language to generate thoughts, and produce semantic and theme effects through formal structures. The second level of integration refers to the integration of the entire artistic work, and unity is one of the basic concepts of literature. Russian Formalists talked about unifying an entire text with an element, a structural form, or a rhetorical form. This definition is too idealistic. First of all, it is difficult to find a single material that unifies the work in the above way; in addition, the assumption of unity often shows friction and contradiction between different components, different levels, and different structures. In fact, any attempt to limit a literary work to a single taste or vision is based on repeated simplification of the text. Similarly, other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences also pursue structural unity as their goal. At the third level of integration, the work strongly expresses its own meaning based on the literary background, its relationship with literary techniques, habits, genres, and the rules and paradigms through which readers interpret the world through literature. In other words, literature is a criticism of literature itself and the literary concepts it inherits. Literaryness is a kind of reflexivity. Research by Western scholars has shown that there are always some phenomena in text operation that escape metalinguistic thinking or definition. In this sense, the unknowability of literature is an eternal theme deep in literature; for absolute literary pursuits, works mark a certain degree of failure (Blanchot: "Literary Space", published by Gallimard, Paris Society 1955).
The fourth definition of "literariness" is the definition of literary ontology, which believes that the reference of literary language is not historical reality, but imaginary people and things. This definition is also very loose. There are elements of fiction in everyday speech, linguistic and philosophical texts, didactic fables, and dramas; and literary works do often bring historical and psychological truths to the stage. There are countless such examples from ancient times to the present. Therefore, some Western theorists assert that the act of reference itself is fictional, and that literary imitation is not an imitation of characters and events, but an imitation of "natural" speech or "serious" language behavior. The Spanish theorist Martinez-Bonati even asserted that the linguistic symbols of literary works are not linguistic symbols in the true sense, but imitations of real linguistic symbols (Martinez-Bonati, Fictive Discourse and the Structures of Literature; A Phenomenological Approach, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1981; see "Literary Theory", French University Press, 1989). Martinez-Bonatier’s definition is bizarre and absurd. It should be said that literature is not a fictional imitation of non-fictional "serious" language behavior, but a special language behavior, such as narrative language behavior, descriptive language behavior or lyrical language behavior.
The fifth definition of "literariness" involves the cultural environment of literary narrative, that is, the statement conditions of literary language are related to certain special conditions. The "narratability" of literary stories takes the place of information. Literary texts are "super-protected" by selection mechanisms represented by publishing, literary criticism, and education, which confirm the cooperative intention of literary works, that is, predetermine the pertinence and value of difficult passages, fallacies, and off-topic chapters, and strive to cultivate readers cooperative attitude. However, this principle of cogency and cooperation also exists in most daily communicative behaviors and communicative speech.
In order to break the cyclical deadlock on "literariness", Western scholars later seemed to be inclined to accept Paul Ricoeur's "textual definition", that is, "any form of speech that fixes text" are called "text" definition.
This attitude is tantamount to settling for the next best thing, giving up the pursuit of a definition of literariness and accepting the simplest, relatively stable text form.
The author believes that the long-term search for the definition of "literariness" reflects the good wishes and rigorous scientific attitude of Western scholars in pursuing scientific principles. This is a trend of Western humanistic society since the Industrial Revolution. A fine tradition in the field of science. However, it is regrettable that from an epistemological perspective, the above pursuit contains obvious elements of metaphysics and dogmatism. What I am puzzled by is that since Western scholars recognize the connection between language and discourse, why do they still oppose the two, isolate literary language, and completely oppose literary language to the language of various disciplines in the humanities and social sciences? ? Why bother searching for the absolute meaning of "literariness", the absolute standards that distinguish literary language and discourse, and the language of other humanities and social disciplines? It should be noted that such absolute definitions and absolute standards do not exist. On the contrary, it is not advisable to use the definition of "text" instead of the definition of "literaryness", which is tantamount to fundamentally avoiding the important issue of "literaryness".
The author believes that "literariness" is a relatively general, extensive, seemingly understandable but difficult to express concept that has gradually formed in the long-term understanding process of human beings. Since this concept exists in our minds, it should be defined as much as possible. However, this definition should be a macroscopic and open definition, rather than a dead standard in a microscopic sense.
The author believes that literariness exists in the general sublimation of discourse in terms of expression, narration, description, imagery, symbolism, structure, function and aesthetic processing, and in image thinking. Image thinking and literary fantasy, ambiguity and ambiguity are the most basic characteristics of literature. The definition of literariness is closely related to the language environment and cultural background. In the definition of "literariness", the role of the recipient is active, not passive.
In this macro, open and living definition, "universal sublimation" is compared with general discourse; "image thinking", "literary fantasy", "ambiguity and ambiguity" Compared with other humanities and social disciplines, it is opposed to the characteristics of philosophical "logical thinking and rigorous inference" and historical "authenticity". The general sublimation from discourse to the expression of "literary nature" has opened up an infinitely broad space for artists' image thinking and creation, and also fully takes into account the colorful and varied aesthetic tastes of various readers or recipients. The degree of sublimation is reflected in different literary levels such as elegant literature, general literature, popular literature and vulgar literature. The connection between "literary nature" and context and cultural background can reflect the past, present and future of "literary nature", as well as the form and development of "literary nature" in both temporal and diachronic directions. The explanation of the role of the recipient draws on Bakhtin’s dialogue principle and the many echoes and developments of this principle in the theoretical community. The act of receiving or reading is a necessary step for the realization of literariness. As for the specific definition of micro aspects, the author believes that it is unnecessary and difficult to achieve: in the face of the infinite vast aesthetic world of the recipients, any generalization and any rigid standards will make us fall into the trap of elegance. Jacobsen's mistake led to a deadlock.
The "universal sublimation theory" recognizes the inextricable connection between literary language and discourse, and recognizes that discourse is the source of literary language. Yu Lotman once said that natural language is the pillar of meaning and communication in literary works; they constitute the "first shaping system" in the form of symbols; literary texts constitute the "second shaping system" (Yu Lotman : "The Structure of Artistic Texts", Gallimard, Paris, 1973). From the perspective of cultural anthropology, literature is first of all an oral art. Even after the invention of writing and the emergence of true written literature, orality continued to have an influence and remained one of the main features of folk creation. The source of written literature is folk oral literature. The "universal sublimation theory" recognizes that literariness also exists in discourse, and further recognizes the profound origin of literary texts and life.
Before human beings mastered the language of clear pronunciation, they experienced a long period of artistic chaos that integrated various artistic embryos. Primitive sacrificial ritual activities include various artistic activities such as speaking, singing, dramatic performance and dance, incantation, lyricism, prayer, fantasy, logical thinking, etc., coupled with the independent thinking of human beings in the fields of humanities and social sciences, It is natural that literariness may also appear in the language of other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. It is just as normal that philosophical textuality, historical textuality, sociological textuality, psychological textuality, etc. may appear in literary texts. The "universal sublimation theory" acknowledges the existence of a chaotic period of art in the history of human development, and believes that the connection between cross-textuality, literary language and the language of other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences is innate. The concepts of intertextuality and intertextuality are different. Multiple meanings and multifunctionality are distinctive images of the complex literary language that is layered upon layers of networks.