{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","title":"现代性的哲学话语","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787544715829","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","id":"296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","uuid":"296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","title":"现代性的哲学话语","normalized_title":"现代性的哲学话语","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9787544715829","isbns":["9787544715829"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":463,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/%E7%8E%B0%E4%BB%A3%E6%80%A7%E7%9A%84%E5%93%B2%E5%AD%A6%E8%AF%9D%E8%AF%AD","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/296fac69-2927-4952-8b17-011f7141a0cd/search"},"page":{"printed_page":237,"pdf_page":245,"physical_index":245,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"9c9b0b473ba8192cb72b1e0a22e4d28e18db24eeb7d888bff2d9d2b8e35aa738"},"chapter":"现代性的哲学话语","content":"为了用言语行为理论来反驳德里达所主张的文学艺术作品自主性的观点，普拉特利用了奥曼的相关研究成果。②她认为，虚构性、以言行事力量的悬隔以及诗性语言脱离日常交往实践等，不能算是明确的范畴，因为虚构的语素，比如玩笑、讽刺、狂想、叙述以及寓言等，充斥着我们的日常话语，而且绝不会构成一个脱离“世界活动”的自主领域。相反，非虚构性作品、回忆录、游记、历史传奇以及影射小说和恐怖小说等，比如T.卡波特的《冷血》，都是以文献为根据，因此，绝不会成为一个完全虚构的世界，虽然我们一般都把这些创作称作“文学作品”。普拉特利用W.拉波夫的社会语言学研究成果来证明③：自然叙事，即日常生活中偶然讲述或希望讲述的“故事”，和文学叙事一样，同样遵从一种修辞学的结构法则，并表现出相似的结构特征：\n\n拉波夫的论据使得有必要根据并非完全是文学性的语言来解释叙事修辞；虚构的或模仿性地组织的言语几乎能在任何超文学的话语中产生，这一事实要求我们对待虚构性或模仿。换言之，作品的虚构性与其文学性之间的关系是间接的。④\n\n① 哈特曼：《拯救文本》(Saving the Text), Baltimore,1981, XXI。\n\n②请参阅奥曼：“言语、文学与空间”(Speech, Literature and the Space be-tween')，载：《新文学史》(New Literary History)5,1974,第 34 页以下。\n\n③ 拉波夫：《城市中心的语言》(Language in the Inner City),Piladelphia, 1972。\n\n④ 普拉特：《文学话语的言语行为理论》(Speech Act Theory of Literary Dis-course),Bloomington,1977;我要感谢卡勒提醒我注意到这部重要的著作。\n\n237","previous_page":236,"next_page":238}