广义叙述学
出版社:四川大学出版社
出版日期:2013-12
ISBN:9787561472934
作者:赵毅衡
页数:324页
作者简介
叙述是人组织个体与社会经验的普遍方式。人是用符号来讲故事的动物。这一点，半个世纪来许多学者都体会到，尤其在所谓[叙述转向]之后。但是迄今没有一本著作，如《中国符号学丛书：广义叙述学》那样，对所有叙述进行分类，并讨论其普遍规律。
书籍目录
前言 叙述分类总表及其说明
导论
第一部分 叙述的分类
第一章 文本意向性
第二章 演示类叙述
第三章 心像叙述
第四章 意动类叙述
第五章 纪实型与虚构型：双区隔
第二部分 叙述的基本构筑方式
第一章 叙述者
第二章 二次叙述化
第三章 底本与述本
第三部分 时间与情节
第一章 广义叙述时间
第二章 情节诸问题
第三章 可能世界与三界通达
第四章 情节的否定性推进动力
第四部分 叙述文本中的主体冲突
第一章 “全文本”与普遍隐含作者
第二章 叙述的“不可靠性”
第三章 叙述框架中的人格填充
第四章 分层，跨层，回旋分层
第五章 元叙述
附录 本书所用术语及人名中英对照表
内容概要
赵毅衡，中国社科院研究生院硕士，伯克利加州大学博士，长期执教于英国伦敦大学东方学院，现为四川大学文学与新闻学院教授。
主要中文著作：《远游的诗神》、《新批评》、《符号学导论》、《苦恼的叙述者》、《当说者被说的时候：比较叙述学导论》、《必要的孤独：形式文化学论集》、《建立一种现代禅剧：高行健与中国实验戏剧》、《礼教下延之后：中国文化批判诸问题》等。2013年出版《赵毅衡文集》8卷本。
主要英文著作：The Uneasy Narrator：Chinese Fiction from theTraditional to the Modern、Towards a Modern Zen Theatre等。
主要文学创作：《居士林的阿辽沙》、《沙漠与沙》等。
主要译著：《美国现代诗选》、《化身博士》等。
发布书评
精彩书评 (总计6条)
-
叙述，是人类组织个人生存经验和社会文化经验的普遍方式。叙述学并非一个新兴学科，从柏拉图、亚里士多德时代开始，人们在各种探索中或多或少地加入了对“叙述”的研究，1969年托多罗夫首次提出“叙述学”概念，标志着叙述学作为一门正式的学科诞生了，这期间，出现了如托多洛夫、热奈特、罗兰·巴特、格雷玛斯等经典叙事学家。到了20世纪90年代，随着解构主义，新历史主义等学科的发展冲击，叙述学也发生了演化，戴维·赫尔曼在其著作中将这种变化称为从经典结构主义阶段走向后经典阶段。而叙述作为人最基本的生存方式，对其研究不能仅放在文字作品上，当向传媒、广告、电影、音乐、游戏等各个领域的“叙述转向”已形成宏大规模时，叙述学自然应当从小说叙述学中破茧而出，建立起更为广泛适用的“广义叙述学”学科。赵毅衡的《广义叙述学》便是在这样的大背景下应运而生。赵毅衡在以往对叙述学研究的基础上，将其放在了符号学下，将叙述学作为符号学的一个分支，广义叙述学实质上就是符号叙述学，其是对一切包含叙述的符号文本进行研究的叙述学。前言中的一张表格，便向我们清晰地介绍了广义叙述学的分类，“沿着纵横两条轴线展开：一条轴线是在线的本体地位类型，即纪实型诸体裁/虚构型诸体裁；另一条轴线是媒介-时向方式，媒介与时向在这个分类上相通……分布在这条轴线上的，有过去式记录类诸体裁、进行时演示类诸体裁……”[①]这样的纵横轴线所形成的坐标网，使得每一种叙述都能在其间找到自己的分类属性，这样，广义叙述学的研究框架便建立起来。《广义叙述学》整本书分为导论和四个具体阐释部分，导论就“广义叙述学的必要性”“符号学与叙述学”“叙述的定义”等问题做了一个总结性地阐述，在对本书的背景、必要性等做出论述的同时，也给出了叙述的底线定义。本书的第一部分首先谈到了叙述的分类这一个大问题，其指出“文本的意向性”是叙述分类的原则，“所有的叙述文本，都靠意向性才能执行最基本的意义表达和接收功能。”[②]根据这一原则与过去、现在、未来三种时间向度，叙述被分为了记录、演示和意动三个基本类型。其中的记录类叙述以小说和历史为代表，演示类叙述以戏剧、比赛、游戏为代表，意动型叙述则以预言、广告、宣传等为典型。其后，本书就“演示类叙述”“心像叙述”和“意动类叙述”进行了具体的分章分析研究。虚构与纪实，是叙述最基本的分类，也是叙述研究最基本的分类，在第一部分的最后一个章节中，《广义叙述学》对叙述型与虚构型做出了自己的阐释，并且提出了“双区隔”的原则:一度区隔用媒介化把再现和经验分开，二度区隔把虚构叙述与纪实再现相区隔。“在同一区隔世界中，再现并不表现为再现，虚构也并不表现为虚构，而是显现为事实。”[③]当因为某种原因忽视了区隔时，虚构世界就会被当作“真实”来对待，同样，一旦虚构框架区暴露，虚构的“内真实”就会被破坏。书中用电影《感官世界》与《楚门的故事》等为例让我们清楚地看到此原则的运作。用双区隔的原则对媒介化的各种叙述中的虚拟与“真实”进行探讨，跳出了对文本的虚拟叙述的限定框架，使得虚构在特定的意义上亦能成为“真实”。本书的第二部分探讨的是叙述的基本构筑方式，有关“叙述者”的研究一直是叙述学研究中的重点，但是叙述者的身份问题，一直都围绕在小说研究的课题中，在叙述学发生转向后，越来越多的其他体裁需要找寻自己的叙述方式，如何在每一种体裁中找到叙述者，成了争论不休的难题。就此，赵毅衡提出了“人格-框架二象”，其按照叙述者“人格化”程度，将各种叙述体裁分成了五个类别进行分析，即“纪实型”叙述、书面文字虚构型叙述、记录演示类虚构叙述、现场演示类虚构叙述和内心拟虚构型叙述。“虽然叙述者形态各异，其共同特点是，叙述者既是一个人格，又是框架：兼有二象，才使叙述者能完成传达功能。”[④]在这部分中，还有关于“二次叙述化”的观点，“一次叙述化，发生于文本构成的过程中，叙述化在一个文本中加入叙述性，从而把一个符号文本变成叙述文本。”而“二次叙述化则发生于文本接收的过程中。只有叙述化，只有叙述文本，而没有接受者的二次叙述化，文本就没有完成叙述传达过程，任何文本必须经过二次叙述化，最后才能成为叙述文本。”[⑤]书中列出了四种二次叙述化方式，并对“‘还原’式二次叙述”“妥协式二次叙述”“创造式二次叙述”做了详细的分析。二次叙述是角度多媒介叙述之必须，在叙述转向后对叙述学的扩充起到了作用。“二次叙述对文化的塑型作用，文化的人二次叙述能力的演变，是广义叙述学的重要课题。”[⑥]底本与述本分层问题，是叙述学发展的出发点，也是其至今仍依靠的理论基础。本书回顾了各叙述学家对这一理论的各种批驳，并且从符号学双轴关系出发，重新理解了分层，提出“三层次论”，即“底本1—底本2—述本”。本书的第三部分重点论述了“时间与情节”。时间问题，是叙述学研究中的核心问题。“广义叙述时间”章节论述的是“叙述时间”，其将可被称为“时间”的四种范畴，即被叙述时间、叙述行为时间、叙述文本内外时间间距和叙述意向时间，与时间的三种不同形态：时刻、时段和时向，形成了一个时间网，而各种体裁的叙述行为在时间网关系都不同，在分析了几种可能的组合后，本书提出了基本的分型方式。“‘情节’，是叙述性的来源，是任何叙述之所以为叙述的原因。”[⑦]在本部分第二章中，本书就情节的“可述型”与“叙述性”、“否叙述”与“另叙述”以及情节选择的标准进行了分析。在这一部分中，我们还看到了有关可能世界的理论，本书详细定义了实在世界、可能世界、不可能世界的存在方式，描述了虚构叙述世界与这三个世界的联系，指出虚构文本在线的世界，是一个“三界通达”的混杂世界。并将通达与风格，社会性等联系起来。《广义叙述学》的最后一个部分主要论述的是叙述文本中的主题冲突，首先，本书就叙述学中老生常谈的“隐含作者”问题做出了再审视，随着多媒介符号文本进入了叙述学的讨论范围内，文本的边界就开始变动不居，某些伴随文本甚至已经融入文本中，这种现象在本书中被定义为 “全文本”。而不同边界的全文本，便有不同的隐含作者，“当文本身份需要一个拟主题集合时，我们便需要一个‘发出者拟主体’，即‘隐含作者’，此时可以称作普遍隐含作者。”[⑧]叙述是否可靠，便在于隐含作者与叙述者在意义和评价上是否有差距，在紧接着的章节中，本书论述了“叙述的‘不可靠性’”，指出两种不可靠：全局不可靠和局部不可靠，并对全局不可靠的辨别方法，部分不可靠的“纠正方式”都做了论述。就叙述者隐藏，伪装等棘手情况，提出在叙述框架中“填充人格”来解决这些问题。在这部分关于隐含作者与可靠性的论述中，本书跳出了叙述学的传统研究，使得理论适用于所有的叙述文本。本书还就叙述分层问题进行了探讨，其中重点研讨了演示类叙述如何分层及其分层中的时间问题，亦提出了回旋分层等值得探讨的题目。本书的最后一个章节对“元叙述”进行了分析，列举了纪实型叙述中的“元叙述化”与虚构型叙述文本中的“元叙述化”，列出当代文化中的五种“元叙述化”的途径，将“元叙述”和我们的生活联系起来。无疑，“广义叙述学”学科在叙述转向的大环境下意义深刻，若叙述学仍旧固守自己的文学领地必然会造成自我封闭直至死亡，“广义叙述学”的提出很好地应对了这一难题，至少为后续的发展研究提供了一条思路。而《广义叙述学》一书对其基本原理框架进行了细致的构建。但这只是基础，“广义叙述学”的理论建构还没有结束，其发展道路依旧长远。首发于符号学论坛：www.semiotics.net.cn -
In Zhao Yiheng’s recent book A General Narratology, he makes it clear at the outset that his book is intended as a ‘semiotic study of narratives in a general sense, that is, a study of the universal rules of all narrative genres’. (Zhao, 2013, 3) A general narratology is thus a semio-narratology that examines all forms of narrative-based semiotic texts. This is a task that has never been attempted before. The academic study of narratives has long revolved around the novel, and, therefore, the theoretical model is largely set up by the narratology of fiction. With Zhao’s definition of narrative as ‘an event involving human character(s) being organised into a text’, the ‘past by default’ tense of the fictional narrative is challenged and expanded to include other time dimensions such as the performative, the mental and the conative narratives. (Zhao, 2013, 8)Zhao formulates his theory around four major concerns. Starting from a classification of narratives by the principle of textual intentionality, the first part offers a categorical analysis of different genres in terms of the time dimension, medium and framing. The second part discusses three crucial factors involved in the construction of narratives: the narrator, the secondary narrativisation and the ‘fabula-syuzhet’ relations. The third part explores the time and plot that lead to a philosophical contemplation of the ontological qualities and accessibility of the three worlds, namely, the possible world, the impossible world and the actual world. Finally, the tensions between the narrative subjectivities are dealt with to illuminate the tangling conceptions of the implied author, personalisation of frames and stratification.Compared with Zhao’s When the Teller is Told About published sixteen years ago, A General Narratology shares with it a critical scope and methodology based on a comparative poetics that incorporates discussions of both western and eastern (mostly Chinese) narrative texts, while further extending the cross-national perspective to a cross-media concern. However, the breakthrough is prominent as A General Narratology adopts a semiotic approach with aims to offer a more ubiquitous theoretical paradigm and moves beyond the narratology of the novel by taking into account a wide range of narrative genres across media, including genres neglected by traditional or post-traditional narratology, such as news, advertisements, computer games, sports, law and so on. The classical theorisation of the narrator, the implied author, narratorial unreliability and issues of time and plot has been revisited and revised to accommodate narrative texts of alternative media. Throughout the book, Zhao introduces notions such as textual intentionality as the criteria for genre categorisation, double segregations that differentiate fictional and factual narratives, frame-person duality of the narrator, cross-world accessibility that seeks to explain differences in textual styles, the omni-text and the general implied author as the reservoir of the textual meanings and values. In order to catch a glimpse of semio-narratology in the book, I would like to go over some of the key concepts.Zhao first discusses the concept of “textual intentionality” as the starting point for establishing a classification of narrative genres. Textual intentionality is defined as the relationship between the narrator and the narratee, in which the text assumes ‘interior intentions of meaning and time’. (Zhao, 2013, 23) Based on one of three moods, Zhao proposes to classify narrative genres into the three modes of intentions (declarative, interrogative, imperative), which, according to Emile Benveniste, correspond with three times (past, present, future), and various media (man-made media, ready-made media, etc). Thereupon, all narrative genres break into three groups: the recorded, the performative, and the conative. Furthermore, both the recorded and performative categories can be divided into factual and fictional narratives, while the conative (e.g., advertisements, promises and prophecies) intending to exert influences on the addressee, must be factual. Zhao has noted that the conative narrative as an important category has not been investigated by narratological scholars so far. (Zhao 2013, 57)When dealing with the distinctions between factual and fictional narratives, Zhao brings in the notion of “frame-segregation” as a feasible foundation for differentiating the two groups. The primary framing is a process of mediation that segregates the represented world from the actual world. The factual narrative marked by the primary framing is therefore referring to the actual world, and would sometimes be mistaken for the facts due to the illusion created by the transparency of the frame. Photography or images, for example, might be seen as reality itself rather than its reflection. (Zhao 2013, 75) The fictional narrative is segregated by a secondary framing on top of the primary one, and what is within the secondary frame does not refer to exterior reality but constitutes a narrated world claiming “horizontal authenticity”. (Zhao 2013，71) The fictional narrative is opaque to the actual world. This factual/fictional dichotomy induces an interesting contrast between lies and fiction: the fictional narratives unfolding within the secondary frame cannot be taken as a lie, while a lie can be regarded as a lie because it is factual, that is, concerning with facts. The double segregation in effect determines how a narrative text should be read “culturally” by the community. The theory of frame-segregation is closely related to the idea of “frame-person” duality of the narrator which presents itself either as a person or a narrative frame. The narrator takes the form of a human story-teller when personalised, otherwise a frame of cues is set for constructing the narrative. The two narratorial phases coexist in any narrative text, though the dominant phase determines the particular narrative genre and style. Zhao examines forms of the narrator in various genres. In factual narratives the narrator is identifiable with the author, and is, therefore, highly personalised. In fictional recorded narratives both phases of the narrator appear. In performative narratives the narrator appears as a set of cues. In interactive narratives such as in computer games, and in dream narratives, the narrative frame is manifest only to the narratee. The problem of narrator has always been a core and yet annoying issue in traditional and post-traditional narratology. From this perspective, the narrator in the novel can be better understood. The third-person implicit narrator in fiction is virtually the frame, but at times the implicit narrator shows up as a person intruding on the narrative. In When the Teller is Told About, the narrator is basically treated as personalised subjectivity. Theoretically, the formulation of the frame-person narrator is a step forward as Zhao puts it, “If we are to establish a general narratology, we have to find a general narrator”. (Zhao 2013, 91) The final part of the book concerning the tension between narrative subjectivities revisits and reinvents the frustrating issues of the implied author, narratorial unreliability, narrative hierarchy, and meta-narratives. In order to deduce a general implied author, Zhao brings in a semiotic perspective and a new concept of “omni-text” consisting of the text and its indispensable co-textual elements in order to provide a grounding for textual interpretation. It is predicated upon the omni-textual integrity that constructing the general implied author as a unified quasi-subjectivity becomes possible. Zhao regards the implied author in factual narratives as identifiable with the author and narrator, pointing out that the factual narrative may be unbelievable but must be “reliable” for the three parties of the narratorial subjectivity are converged as one by its genre conventions. In the section about narrative hierarchy, Zhao proposes new terms, such as ‘stratification’, ‘trespass of stratification’, and ‘cyclical trespass of stratification’, to clarify existent terminological and conceptual confusion. He defines ‘stratification’ as ‘the higher narrative level providing the lower level with a narrator or narratorial frame’. (Zhao 2013, 264) This expanded definition encompasses narrative frame—“push in” and “pop out”—that functions as the sub-narratorial frame in the performative narratives. In modern narratives of films and fiction, Zhao notes, the absence of “push in” for the subnarratorial frame is a technique frequently used in creating suspense and illusions. Whilst stratification per se is found in all narrative genres, trespass of stratification is characteristic of, though not exclusive to, the fictional narrative. He highlights the paradoxical form of “cyclical trespass of stratification”, in which the lower narrative level turns to encircle a high narrative level. Only by this cyclical structure, though inevitably causing contradictions in time and logic, can the self-referential dilemma of narration be resolved. Zhao compares these cyclical “trespasses” in the recorded and performative narrative, demonstrating the fact that the time entanglement produced in the novel is generally ignored in the performative narratives due to their stratified synchonicity.Zhao examines meta-narrativisation as the inter-relation of narrative levels and frames that generally exist in a variety of semio-narrative texts. All meta-narratives share the quality of disturbing the frame that is supposed to segregate the narrated world from the actual one. Zhao sums up 5 types of meta-mechanism extensively adopted in contemporary culture: self-exposure of narrative construction, narrative options coexisting in a text, interactions of different narrative levels, and narrative parasitic upon pre-texts. In his earlier work When the Teller is Told About, Zhao points out that meta-fiction is a form of “performative criticism” where narrative strategies are deliberately exposed in order to subvert the naturalisation of the represented ‘reality’ and dissolve the embedded ideology. (Zhao 1994, 291) The meta-consciousness is in essence a critical consciousness. But in the multi-media milieu of contemporary society, meta-consciousness is more actively at work as it has to accommodate the commercialism of narratives. In A General Narratology, Zhao looks at meta-narrative features, such as how advertisements expose their making for humorous effects, how games interact to produce a meta-game, and how films and fiction refer to one another either for parody or for subversive recreation.One notable phenomenon of the contemporary culture, Zhao suggests, is the ramification of one narrative text into other media, which Zhao calls the omni-mediation of a pre-text. Prototypes of the Batman, Transformers and Superman have endlessly been reproduced and adapted into any possibly profitable medium. In this digitalised, media age, the question mark is left as to how to preserve the critical edge of meta-consciousness in face of pervasive meta-consumption and how to deploy this critical potential for a breakthrough of human knowledge. The study of narratology has reached a critical moment after a century’s development while the ‘narrative turn’ in every discipline of the humanities has become increasingly prominent. The narratology of fiction set up by scholars like Wayne C. Booth and Gerard Genette can hardly live up to the epistemological challenges and demands of the multi-media age. Although some sporadic studies on narratives of certain media have appeared, there is want for a full-length book about what is common to all narratives. A General Narratology is such an effort that could bring the century-old discipline of narratology, after the traditional and the post-traditional stages, to its Version III. In Zhao Yiheng’s recent book A General Narratology, he makes it clear at the outset that his book is intended as a ‘semiotic study of narratives in a general sense, that is, a study of the universal rules of all narrative genres’. (Zhao, 2013, 3) A general narratology is thus a semio-narratology that examines all forms of narrative-based semiotic texts. This is a task that has never been attempted before. The academic study of narratives has long revolved around the novel, and, therefore, the theoretical model is largely set up by the narratology of fiction. With Zhao’s definition of narrative as ‘an event involving human character(s) being organised into a text’, the ‘past by default’ tense of the fictional narrative is challenged and expanded to include other time dimensions such as the performative, the mental and the conative narratives. (Zhao, 2013, 8)Zhao formulates his theory around four major concerns. Starting from a classification of narratives by the principle of textual intentionality, the first part offers a categorical analysis of different genres in terms of the time dimension, medium and framing. The second part discusses three crucial factors involved in the construction of narratives: the narrator, the secondary narrativisation and the ‘fabula-syuzhet’ relations. The third part explores the time and plot that lead to a philosophical contemplation of the ontological qualities and accessibility of the three worlds, namely, the possible world, the impossible world and the actual world. Finally, the tensions between the narrative subjectivities are dealt with to illuminate the tangling conceptions of the implied author, personalisation of frames and stratification.Compared with Zhao’s When the Teller is Told About published sixteen years ago, A General Narratology shares with it a critical scope and methodology based on a comparative poetics that incorporates discussions of both western and eastern (mostly Chinese) narrative texts, while further extending the cross-national perspective to a cross-media concern. However, the breakthrough is prominent as A General Narratology adopts a semiotic approach with aims to offer a more ubiquitous theoretical paradigm and moves beyond the narratology of the novel by taking into account a wide range of narrative genres across media, including genres neglected by traditional or post-traditional narratology, such as news, advertisements, computer games, sports, law and so on. The classical theorisation of the narrator, the implied author, narratorial unreliability and issues of time and plot has been revisited and revised to accommodate narrative texts of alternative media. Throughout the book, Zhao introduces notions such as textual intentionality as the criteria for genre categorisation, double segregations that differentiate fictional and factual narratives, frame-person duality of the narrator, cross-world accessibility that seeks to explain differences in textual styles, the omni-text and the general implied author as the reservoir of the textual meanings and values. In order to catch a glimpse of semio-narratology in the book, I would like to go over some of the key concepts.Zhao first discusses the concept of “textual intentionality” as the starting point for establishing a classification of narrative genres. Textual intentionality is defined as the relationship between the narrator and the narratee, in which the text assumes ‘interior intentions of meaning and time’. (Zhao, 2013, 23) Based on one of three moods, Zhao proposes to classify narrative genres into the three modes of intentions (declarative, interrogative, imperative), which, according to Emile Benveniste, correspond with three times (past, present, future), and various media (man-made media, ready-made media, etc). Thereupon, all narrative genres break into three groups: the recorded, the performative, and the conative. Furthermore, both the recorded and performative categories can be divided into factual and fictional narratives, while the conative (e.g., advertisements, promises and prophecies) intending to exert influences on the addressee, must be factual. Zhao has noted that the conative narrative as an important category has not been investigated by narratological scholars so far. (Zhao 2013, 57)When dealing with the distinctions between factual and fictional narratives, Zhao brings in the notion of “frame-segregation” as a feasible foundation for differentiating the two groups. The primary framing is a process of mediation that segregates the represented world from the actual world. The factual narrative marked by the primary framing is therefore referring to the actual world, and would sometimes be mistaken for the facts due to the illusion created by the transparency of the frame. Photography or images, for example, might be seen as reality itself rather than its reflection. (Zhao 2013, 75) The fictional narrative is segregated by a secondary framing on top of the primary one, and what is within the secondary frame does not refer to exterior reality but constitutes a narrated world claiming “horizontal authenticity”. (Zhao 2013，71) The fictional narrative is opaque to the actual world. This factual/fictional dichotomy induces an interesting contrast between lies and fiction: the fictional narratives unfolding within the secondary frame cannot be taken as a lie, while a lie can be regarded as a lie because it is factual, that is, concerning with facts. The double segregation in effect determines how a narrative text should be read “culturally” by the community. The theory of frame-segregation is closely related to the idea of “frame-person” duality of the narrator which presents itself either as a person or a narrative frame. The narrator takes the form of a human story-teller when personalised, otherwise a frame of cues is set for constructing the narrative. The two narratorial phases coexist in any narrative text, though the dominant phase determines the particular narrative genre and style. Zhao examines forms of the narrator in various genres. In factual narratives the narrator is identifiable with the author, and is, therefore, highly personalised. In fictional recorded narratives both phases of the narrator appear. In performative narratives the narrator appears as a set of cues. In interactive narratives such as in computer games, and in dream narratives, the narrative frame is manifest only to the narratee. The problem of narrator has always been a core and yet annoying issue in traditional and post-traditional narratology. From this perspective, the narrator in the novel can be better understood. The third-person implicit narrator in fiction is virtually the frame, but at times the implicit narrator shows up as a person intruding on the narrative. In When the Teller is Told About, the narrator is basically treated as personalised subjectivity. Theoretically, the formulation of the frame-person narrator is a step forward as Zhao puts it, “If we are to establish a general narratology, we have to find a general narrator”. (Zhao 2013, 91) The final part of the book concerning the tension between narrative subjectivities revisits and reinvents the frustrating issues of the implied author, narratorial unreliability, narrative hierarchy, and meta-narratives. In order to deduce a general implied author, Zhao brings in a semiotic perspective and a new concept of “omni-text” consisting of the text and its indispensable co-textual elements in order to provide a grounding for textual interpretation. It is predicated upon the omni-textual integrity that constructing the general implied author as a unified quasi-subjectivity becomes possible. Zhao regards the implied author in factual narratives as identifiable with the author and narrator, pointing out that the factual narrative may be unbelievable but must be “reliable” for the three parties of the narratorial subjectivity are converged as one by its genre conventions. In the section about narrative hierarchy, Zhao proposes new terms, such as ‘stratification’, ‘trespass of stratification’, and ‘cyclical trespass of stratification’, to clarify existent terminological and conceptual confusion. He defines ‘stratification’ as ‘the higher narrative level providing the lower level with a narrator or narratorial frame’. (Zhao 2013, 264) This expanded definition encompasses narrative frame—“push in” and “pop out”—that functions as the sub-narratorial frame in the performative narratives. In modern narratives of films and fiction, Zhao notes, the absence of “push in” for the subnarratorial frame is a technique frequently used in creating suspense and illusions. Whilst stratification per se is found in all narrative genres, trespass of stratification is characteristic of, though not exclusive to, the fictional narrative. He highlights the paradoxical form of “cyclical trespass of stratification”, in which the lower narrative level turns to encircle a high narrative level. Only by this cyclical structure, though inevitably causing contradictions in time and logic, can the self-referential dilemma of narration be resolved. Zhao compares these cyclical “trespasses” in the recorded and performative narrative, demonstrating the fact that the time entanglement produced in the novel is generally ignored in the performative narratives due to their stratified synchonicity.Zhao examines meta-narrativisation as the inter-relation of narrative levels and frames that generally exist in a variety of semio-narrative texts. All meta-narratives share the quality of disturbing the frame that is supposed to segregate the narrated world from the actual one. Zhao sums up 5 types of meta-mechanism extensively adopted in contemporary culture: self-exposure of narrative construction, narrative options coexisting in a text, interactions of different narrative levels, and narrative parasitic upon pre-texts. In his earlier work When the Teller is Told About, Zhao points out that meta-fiction is a form of “performative criticism” where narrative strategies are deliberately exposed in order to subvert the naturalisation of the represented ‘reality’ and dissolve the embedded ideology. (Zhao 1994, 291) The meta-consciousness is in essence a critical consciousness. But in the multi-media milieu of contemporary society, meta-consciousness is more actively at work as it has to accommodate the commercialism of narratives. In A General Narratology, Zhao looks at meta-narrative features, such as how advertisements expose their making for humorous effects, how games interact to produce a meta-game, and how films and fiction refer to one another either for parody or for subversive recreation.One notable phenomenon of the contemporary culture, Zhao suggests, is the ramification of one narrative text into other media, which Zhao calls the omni-mediation of a pre-text. Prototypes of the Batman, Transformers and Superman have endlessly been reproduced and adapted into any possibly profitable medium. In this digitalised, media age, the question mark is left as to how to preserve the critical edge of meta-consciousness in face of pervasive meta-consumption and how to deploy this critical potential for a breakthrough of human knowledge. The study of narratology has reached a critical moment after a century’s development while the ‘narrative turn’ in every discipline of the humanities has become increasingly prominent. The narratology of fiction set up by scholars like Wayne C. Booth and Gerard Genette can hardly live up to the epistemological challenges and demands of the multi-media age. Although some sporadic studies on narratives of certain media have appeared, there is want for a full-length book about what is common to all narratives. A General Narratology is such an effort that could bring the century-old discipline of narratology, after the traditional and the post-traditional stages, to its Version III. 首发于符号学论坛：http://www.semiotics.net.cn/index.php/publications_view/index/4219 -
对一门学科的理论进行揽总是一件不讨巧的事情，因为经历过门类繁杂此起彼伏的发展后，总括的任务就变得尤其宏大且艰深。这件事首先必须承旧，对其发展框架脉络、优势不足以及现状和发展所需都了解得透彻，才能革新，最终总其所成。实际上，学理的建设同思想的进步一样，都得站在前人的肩膀上，尤其是总括性的学理建设。从学界隐有对叙述化的感知，到历史学研究发起真正的叙述学转向，再至今日的发展态势，叙述学在实际应用方面已经悄然蔓延开来，相应的理论学说却始终受制于“体裁自限”的自我认定。没有系统的理论指导，应用就会日渐混乱，最终显得力不从心。赵毅衡所著《广义叙述学》一书是突破这一理论困境的重要著作。叙述学的发展从“经典”到“广义”，就是一个从“特殊”到“一般”的过程。这种学科扩容的本质是将“叙述放在人类文化甚至人类心理构成的大背景下进行考察”[②]。经由以“形态学”、“小说叙述理论”为主的“前经典模式”研究，到以结构主义为范式的声势浩大的“经典叙述学”讨论，再及90年代开始兴起的“后经典叙述学”热议，以文学文本为研究对象的叙述学似乎已尽其所能。但是叙述于我们的生活中无处不在[③]，这种强且有力的渗透和存在不断将我们身边的物什变为叙述的符号文本或者叙述媒介，并以越来越强势的表征引发我们渐次深入的思考。以文学文本为研究客体的局限被逐渐打破，从泛媒介化研究进入叙述学研究视野开始，叙述学已经向我们证明了其自身内容与时更新的可能性，也强调了新而广义的理论基础建设的必要性。这个新的理论基础要解决的第一个问题，是对叙述学目前表现出的繁冗的体裁进行疏理。“叙述”具有强大的包容力，各学科领域几乎都能将其作为一门工具，正因如此，叙述学门类繁多直至冗余。引发这一现象的另一原因是叙述体裁分类的根据不一，各行其是，又相互重叠。尽管“百家争鸣”是学术发展中喜闻乐见的盛象，但是就某一具体学科而言，有最基本统一的理论术语和规约是其发展壮大的根基。叙述学各种跨学科跨领域的应用已使其“转向”在世界范围内呈风靡之势，为文学文本而生的那些理论在这种情况下力有不逮。赵毅衡先生深明其义，在著作《广义叙述学》一开始就爽快利落地将这一问题的解决方案端上桌面，颇显其大气和自信。本书的前言呈明了叙述的底线定义：1. 某个主体把有人物参与的事件组织进一个符号文本中；2. 此文本可以被接收者理解为具有时间和意义向度。此中“主体”“人物”“事件”“符号文本”“接收者”“理解”“时间”和“意义”为判断叙述的八个因素。其中的“时间向度”与“适用媒介”“纪实性体裁”和“虚构型体裁”被作为叙述体裁分类的基本依据，形成该解决方案的主框架。“时间”“纪实”和“虚构”历来都是叙述学研究的重点，先生在经典理论基础上发展出新的要义，从学理上提出更为细致全面的划分和界定；“媒介”则是广义叙述学理论扩展的重要体现，“泛媒介化的外延扩容带出的不仅仅是在原有理论框架对新体裁、新媒介以及新符号样态等的收纳和适用问题，还涉及到叙述学理论框架在新的学术语境下所发生的重心转移。”[④]在广义叙述学关于叙述体裁的基本分类中，传统的记录类叙述仍坚守重镇，但大量新近叙述媒介的运用让另外几个叙述类型概念得以总出，与之相衡，譬如以胶卷与数字录制，身体、影像、实物和言语等为叙述媒介的记录演示类、演示类叙述。广义叙述学包纳了所有的叙述活动，并对其进行了归类，以小说文本研究为主的记录类叙述终于不再是一枝独秀，“广义”二字，开始显现出它的意义。前文提到过，叙述学发展至今，门类繁杂。“广义”虽是总其所成，却并非，也不可能是对门类叙述学的简单叠加。在其最简定义基础上，广义叙述学学理自成体系，在系列不同叙述体裁中寻找出共同规律，并抽象出其普适定义。要说明这一点，我们得仔细审视本书关于“时间”“情节”“虚构与纪实”等历来叙述学重心的研究。“叙述在根本上是一种时间性表意活动”[⑤]，自亚里士多德对悲剧情节结构的时间性描述开始，无论叙述学理论怎样发展，“时间”都是其研究的核心问题。叙述学中的时间问题历经了情节结构、时空探讨、时间序列等研究，但主要都是“过去时”，是一种回溯性的探究。赵毅衡先生则“试图到叙述学经常讨论的体裁之外，窥见叙述时间更本质的特征”（《广义叙述学第147页），将“现在”“未来”也带进叙述学时间研究的审视范围。先生将叙述时间分为四个时间范畴，即被叙述时间（narrative time）、叙述行为时间（narration time）、叙述文本内外时间间距（texfual-extratextual time gap)和叙述意向时间（temporal intentionality)；同时，叙述中的“时间”又被分为三种不同形态：时刻（moment）、时段（duration）和时向（directionality)（《广义叙述学》，第145页）。在对前者的论述过程中，“时刻”“时段”与“时向”成为论证的重要细节。通过将叙述行为时间同被叙述时间相对应，所有的叙述被分成了四种，即同时时段叙述，弹性时段叙述（戏剧、电影等），文字记录类叙述，零时段空间媒介叙述（绘画，雕塑等）。同时，先生提出了一个重要概念“二我差”，即“叙述者‘我’，写人物‘我’的故事，而且故事越来越迫近叙述时刻”（《广义叙述学》，第158页）。这一概念对回忆、时间旅行、成长等主题的文本研究来说大有裨益。事件的序列一方面成为叙述时间的表征，另一方面也构成叙述的情节结构。王增宝将“情节”研究分为了“故事”和“话语”两个层次，又在这两个层次下共总结出“深层结构中的情节起源研究”、“表层结构中对‘情节本身’的研究”、“表层结构中的传统情节观”、“部分俄国形式主义者如什克洛夫斯基的情节观”、“查特曼为代表的情节观”这五种类型[⑥]。可以说，在《广义叙述学》一书面世之前，这是对情节研究的理论框架较为全面的梳理。赵毅衡先生在已有的情节研究基础上，提出“可述性”与“叙述性”的问题，将思考聚焦于情节的形成，认为“事件”是“情节”的最基本特征[⑦]，也就划清了“事件”同“情节”的界线。在提供了理论理解之后，先生也给出了叙述文本情节形成的可操作标准。叙述者以完成叙述体裁既定的社会功能，并让接收者感兴趣为目的，‘筛选’大量可叙述事件[⑧]（《广义叙述学》第175页），形成组合段文本，也就是我们经常所说的“故事”（story）。“故事”与“话语”常常纠缠在一起，彼此自身的定义也无法明确，随之而来的往往还有“素材”、“情节”等术语。对于此，先生在书中提到了另外一组概念——“底本”和“述本”，以解决叙述学界内长期混乱的术语纷争。“述本”为“叙述文本”，“底本”则是叙述之所“本”，为述本形成之前的叙述形态（《广义叙述学》，第121页）。先生用符号学的双轴理论对这一对概念进行了最为明晰的解释。“从符号叙述学的观点看，述本可以被理解为叙述的组合关系，底本可以被理解为叙述的聚合关系”（《广义叙述学》，第129页）。这样一来，之前的术语自限困境得以突破，叙述学的双层模式被清楚地界定。“述本”是经过选择“可叙述事件”组合而成，“可叙述”是叙述文本情节推进的重要因素。事件是否具有“可述性”并不关乎它本身的真实或者虚构，但是“虚构”与“纪实”的问题却是叙述学研究的热点和难点，因为在文本作为符号的表意过程中，它们是读者阐释群一直想要对文本进行的界定。赵毅衡先生论及了从“风格”和“指称性”区分二者的可能性，也指出了面对文字媒介叙述之外的文本，也即面对叙述转向后出现的更为广泛的叙述文本，这两种方法的无能为力。对此，先生提出了“框架区隔”的判别标准。“区隔框架”是一个形态方式，是一种作者与读者都遵循的表意-解释模式，也是随着文化变迁而变化的体裁规范模式”。“一度区隔是再现框架，把符号再现与经验世界区隔开来”（《广义叙述学》，第74页），二度区隔则将叙述推向了虚构。区隔是一个抽象的概念，但可以广泛地表现为解释性的视觉造型。“区隔”是否被理解，直接关涉接收者对文本“虚构”或“纪实”的判定。值得注意的是，“虚构”或“纪实”只是叙述文本的体裁，而非我们对文本叙述可靠与否的判断。在本书的第四部分“叙述文本中的主体冲突”里，赵毅衡先生详尽地论述了这一问题。“叙述不可靠是叙述者与隐含作者在意义-价值观上的距离，而不是叙述与‘客观事实’的距离”（《广义叙述学》，第225页）。佩尔·克罗格·汉森也指出“对不可靠性的辨别，主要依赖于读者对叙述者话语或叙述者讲述与他所讲述的故事世界之间的不一致性或反叙事因素的辨别”[⑨]是不可取的。塔马·雅克比认为“并不存在一种用以区分可靠和不可靠的给定的、恒常的符号系统”[⑩]，因为随着语境的变化，“可靠”与“不可靠”也会相互发生转换。塔马·雅克比说的是一个事实，但是并不意味着“可靠性”问题因此不需要研究。在符号文本的生成和接收过程中，“意义-价值观”是其核心。学而敏思，得以博智；思而后作，成其新知。面对叙述学迅速发展扩容的情况，赵毅衡先生敏锐地觉察到恢弘之势下的局限和困境，建立起一般叙述的学理框架。这一本著作的出版，无疑为学界提供了新的思考角度，也为叙述学理论的进一步发展奠定了坚实的基础。首发于符号学论坛：www.semiotics.net.cn
精彩短评 (总计14条)
-
毕竟不属于赵老师期待的解释社群，所以阅读时还是自觉树立起区隔意识，免得被其巨细无靡（其实多少有点他自己嘲讽的回旋跨层的感觉）的理论建构绕懵。╮(╯▽╰)╭ -
叙述学必读书，写得很有条理。 -
2016.10.25
为了毕业论文也是拼了。 -
很不错的跨媒介叙事学教材。面面俱到地探讨了几乎所有的叙事学问题，而且还比较深入。另，作者弃用“叙事”，而特别用“叙述”来翻译narrative，也很有意思。 -
非常好的书，值得一读 -
赵师是很有野心的 -
视野广阔。他的学生可能炮制了很多文章，但是未必喜欢与了解。老赵实际上是孤独的。 -
非常好的书，将叙述学放在符号学下，观点新颖 -
赵毅衡对于梦境研究真正喜欢呢，近来读得最顺畅的文学理论。 -
理论术语大补血+躲进小楼成一统+终章救场 -
原来的叙述学没有这么细致，周全。胡亚敏的叙述学感觉一比就很粗略。作者的西文功底很扎实啊，各种引文随手拈来。 -
2016-11-3 -
作者多年潜心于形式论，以三十余年的积累，厚积薄发，写出了这部力作。放眼世界，就其抱负、创见来看，这部著作的确是近年来最为重要、最值得研读的叙述学著作之一。 -
从一般符号叙述的大范围出发，寻找叙述这一人类表意行为的共同规律与分类特征，归纳总结出原理，并放回到各种体裁中进行验证，以证明其有效性及其各种变异可能。