查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- Cite/Siting Alter-natives: the Heterological Discourse in Mario Vargas Liosa's «The Storyteller»
- 書寫「不可能」:西蘇的另類書寫
- 「賦」的敍事對話設計
- Dis-Cursivity of Psychoanalysis: The Lost Origin vs an Imaginary Return
- 解讀「比丘尼」在西方人眼中的隱含
- 鴛鴦繡出「重」教看--《兒女英雄傳》的新觀察
- 從精神分析學論陶淵明「感士不遇賦」
- The Myth of the Origin: On the Last of the Mohicans as a National Narrative
- 性別、身分和女性文本的閱讀:「連環套」的女性主義批評視角
- The Gift of Writing: A Comparative Analysis of Blanchot's “Negative” Poetics and Cixous's “Affirmative” Poetics
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | Cite/Siting Alter-natives: the Heterological Discourse in Mario Vargas Liosa's «The Storyteller»=異族論述之另類書寫:以法加斯.尤沙《說書人》為例 |
---|---|
作 者 | 李翠玉; | 書刊名 | 高雄師大學報 |
卷 期 | 11 民89.04 |
頁 次 | 頁307-322 |
分類號 | 885 |
關鍵詞 | 異族論述; 法加斯尤沙; 米歇塞多; 他者; Heterological discourse; Vargas liosa; Michel de certeau; Otherness; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 晚近的文化研中,後殖民文化論述正方興未艾,論者多?語言、種族、權力等面向多重切入,企面從殖民歷史脈絡中,重塑被殖民者長久以來被刻意遺煮、打壓、缺度、失音之主體性,並再殖民學舌過程中牽動(撼動)的權力關?及文化機制。 本文藉著異族論述相關評論之爬梳,參日剔析南限作家法加斯.瓏沙所著《沙書人》書中所呈現異族論述之侷限。從法國學者塞多之「異族文類」、史碧瓦克之「他者論述」到傅柯之「知識暴力」,本文對尤沙小說蘊涵之再現政治提出以下質詰:(一)歐洲自我真能再現異族他者?(二)異族論述可否免於現象化約、知識暴力及文本之浪漫化?(三)異族論述再現文本模式有否存在之可能。在搜尋此類問題答案中,本文剖析異族論述文本所充斥之曖昧糾葛、滑動矛盾及含混不定,並揭櫫異族/他者論述是由「自我認可╱複寫」轉化而成的文本場域。 |
英文摘要 | This paper aims to explore the problems of the heterological discourse by tracing the example from Mario Vargas Lloas's most famous novel The Storyteller. The theoretical references be adopted include Michel de Certeau's Heterologrical tradition, Guatari Spivak's notion of subaltern discourse, and Michel Foucault's epistemic violence. The paper primarily deals with the issue of representation by rising the following questions: (a)Can the self represent the other? (b)Can the discourse of the other be immune to a phenomenological reduction, to an epistemic violence, or to a textual romanticization? (c)Is there a mode of representation that privileges other modes of representation? In search of the possible answers to these questions, the paper proposes the slippage of textual mediation, the unrepresentability, instability and "thickness" of the heterological discourse. In orther words, there is no fixed discourse of the other because the discourse on/of the other is always prompted by the autjor-ization of the self. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。