學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 書寫失語主體:柯慈《敵人》中的賤斥與他者
Writing Aphasics, Encountering Foe: Between the Semiotic and the Symbolic作者 彭俊維
Peng, Chun Wei貢獻者 胡錦媛
Hu, Chin Yuan
彭俊維
Peng, Chun Wei關鍵詞 柯慈
失語症
敵人
賤斥
大他者
J. M. Coetzee
aphasia
Foe
abject
the Other日期 2012 上傳時間 1-三月-2013 09:23:50 (UTC+8) 摘要 本論文以柯慈 (J. M. Coetzee) 的小說《敵人》(Foe 1987) 作為分析文本,討 論書中敘事者蘇珊.巴頓 (Susan Barton) 的書寫過程。《敵人》是部以丹尼爾. 狄佛 (Daniel Defoe) 所著的《魯賓遜漂流記》(Robinson Crusoe 1719) 為藍本的 後設小說。書中透過蘇珊多種形式的書寫描繪其漂流至荒島與重回英國間的經 歷。有別於多數評論著重於書中的後設結構,本論文將討論重點置於「失語主 體」與其「敵人」,探討蘇珊的書寫以及她與不同角色相遇所呈現的生命情境。 論文中角色們的失語症狀是其各自在語言中所遭遇困境之隱喻,而書名所暗示 的「敵人」則通指蘇珊在書寫過程中所遇見、相對於「我」之外的存有。本論文架構主要透過語言與主體位置間的相互關係串聯。第二章「失語主 體」 (Aphasic Subjects) 引用米哈伊爾.巴赫汀 (Mikhail Bakhtin) 對於主體「挪 用」(appropriation) 語言的討論,進而分析書中角色「星期五」 (Friday) 的行為 表述。雅各.拉岡 (Jacque Lacan) 對於分裂主體 (the barred Subject) 與大他者 (the Other) 的功能在第三章「書信與他者」(Epistles and the Other) 中成為閱讀蘇 珊的書寫形式與其寫作慾望的的重要依據。第四章「面對賤斥體」(In the Face of the Abject) 則透過茱莉亞.克莉斯蒂娃 (Julia Kristeva) 的「賤斥」 (abjection) 與「符號界」 (the Semiotic) 理論,將蘇珊與星期五之間不尋常的關聯視為主體 與賤斥體的牽引關係,並將書中最後兩部分詮釋為象徵語言與符號傾向 (semiotic disposition)的對應關係。
The present thesis takes a close look at J. M. Coetzee’s novel Foe, ametafictional retelling of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. Given the critical interests already attributed to the intertextuality of the two works, the current project seeks not to reinforce the relationship between the two, but to focus on Coetzee’s creation alone. The thesis, entitled “Writing Aphasics, Encountering Foe: Between the Semiotic and the Symbolic,” addresses issues that concern the writing of the protagonist Susan Barton, together with the encounters throughout her literary journey. While the “aphasia” ascribed to all characters functions as a metaphor that unifies all types of speech impediments, the term “foe” refers to whoever stands counter to Susan on her way to deliverance.The organization of the thesis follows a series of theoretical approaches centering on the relationship between language and subjectivity. Bakhtinian theory introduced in the second chapter concerns a subject and its language appropriation, providing an interpretation to Friday’s unusual performances. Meanwhile, Lacanian treatise given in Chapter Three discusses a subject essentially split in its dealings with the language of the Other, proposing a reading to the transformation in Susan’s narrative style and her unrelenting pursuit of the writer Mr. Foe. The fourth chapter then identifies Susan as a Kristevan deject, who finds her existence threatened in the face of Friday’s abject existence. The subject-abject dyad in turn helps determine the symbiosis between the symbolic language and the semiotic disposition in the final two sections of Foe.參考文獻 Attridge, Derek. J. M. Coetzee & the Ethics of Reading: Literature in the Event.Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2004. Print.Bakhtin, M., The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. Caryl Emerson andMichael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 2008. Print.Begam, Richard, and J. M. Coetzee. “An Interview with J. M. Coetzee.” Contemporary Literature 33.3 (1992): 419-31. Print.Coetzee, J. M. Age of Iron. New York: Random House, 1990. Print.---. Diary of a Bad Year. New York: Viking, 2008. Print.---. Foe. New York, NY: Penguin, 1987. Print.---. In the Heart of the Country. New York, NY: Penguin, 1982. Print.---. The Master of Petersburg. New York, NY: Penguin, 1995. Print.Defoe, Daniel, and John J. Richetti. Robinson Crusoe. London: Penguin, 2003. Print. Deleuze, Gilles. “He Stuttered.” Essays Critical and Clinical. Trans. Daniel W. Smith.Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1997. 107-114. Print.Dragunoiu, D. “Existential Doubt and Political Responsibility in J. M. Coetzee`sFoe.” Critique Minneapolis Then Atlanta Then Washington 42.3 (2001): 309-26. Print.England, F. “Foes: Plato, Derrida, and Coetzee: Rereading J. M. Coetzee`s Foe.”Journal of Literary Studies Pretoria 24.4 (2008): 44-62. Print.Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London:Routledge, 1996. Print.Fink, Bruce. The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance. Princeton, NJ:Princeton UP, 1997. Print.Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. Trans. James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton, 1962. Print.Greenberg, Valerie D. Freud and His Aphasia Book: Language and the Sources ofPsychoanalysis. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell UP, 1997. Print.Hewitson, Owen. “What Does Lacan Say About Desire.” LacanOnline.com. 9 May2010. Web. 8 August 2012.Hu, Chin-yuan. “Seemingly Close, Really Distant: Kafka’s Letter to Felice.”WenShan Review 1.6 (2007): 49-80. Print.Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art.Trans. Thomas Gora. New York: Columbia UP, 1980. Print.---. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Trans. Leon S. Roudiez. New York:Columbia UP, 1982. Print.Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English. Trans. Bruce Fink.New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2006. Print.---. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller.Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Norton, 1978. Print.Laurence, Patricia O. The Reading of Silence: Virginia Woolf in the English Tradition.Stanford, Calif: Stanford UP, 1991. Print.Morgan, P. E. “Foe’s Defoe and La Jeune Nee: Establishing a Metaphorical Referentfor the Elided Female Voice.” Critique Minneapolis Then Atlanta ThenWashington 35.2 (1994): 81-85. Print.Oliver, Kelly. Reading Kristeva: Unraveling the Double-Bind. Bloomington: IndianaUP, 1993. Print.Oxford Online Dictionary. Web. 20 September 2012.Penner, Dick. “J. M. Coetzee’s Foe: The Muse, the Absurd, and the ColonialDilemma.” World Literature Written in English 28.2 (1987): 207-15. Print.Post, Robert. “The Noise of Freedom: J. M. Coetzee`s Foe.” Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction 30.3 (1989): 143-54. Print.Waugh, Patricia. Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of Self-Conscious Fiction. London: Methuen, 1984. Print.Woolf, Virginia. The Common Reader: Second Series. London: Hogarth P, 1945. Print.Wright, L. “Displacing the Voice: South African Feminism and J. M. Coetzee`s Female Narrators.” African Studies 67.1 (2008): 11-32. Print.Žižek, Slavoj. “Why Does a Letter Always Arrive at its Destination?” Enjoy Your Symptom!: Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and Out. London: Routledge, 2008. 1- 28. Print. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
英國語文學研究所
98551009
101資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098551009 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 胡錦媛 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Hu, Chin Yuan en_US dc.contributor.author (作者) 彭俊維 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) Peng, Chun Wei en_US dc.creator (作者) 彭俊維 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Peng, Chun Wei en_US dc.date (日期) 2012 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-三月-2013 09:23:50 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-三月-2013 09:23:50 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-三月-2013 09:23:50 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0098551009 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/57027 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 英國語文學研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 98551009 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 101 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本論文以柯慈 (J. M. Coetzee) 的小說《敵人》(Foe 1987) 作為分析文本,討 論書中敘事者蘇珊.巴頓 (Susan Barton) 的書寫過程。《敵人》是部以丹尼爾. 狄佛 (Daniel Defoe) 所著的《魯賓遜漂流記》(Robinson Crusoe 1719) 為藍本的 後設小說。書中透過蘇珊多種形式的書寫描繪其漂流至荒島與重回英國間的經 歷。有別於多數評論著重於書中的後設結構,本論文將討論重點置於「失語主 體」與其「敵人」,探討蘇珊的書寫以及她與不同角色相遇所呈現的生命情境。 論文中角色們的失語症狀是其各自在語言中所遭遇困境之隱喻,而書名所暗示 的「敵人」則通指蘇珊在書寫過程中所遇見、相對於「我」之外的存有。本論文架構主要透過語言與主體位置間的相互關係串聯。第二章「失語主 體」 (Aphasic Subjects) 引用米哈伊爾.巴赫汀 (Mikhail Bakhtin) 對於主體「挪 用」(appropriation) 語言的討論,進而分析書中角色「星期五」 (Friday) 的行為 表述。雅各.拉岡 (Jacque Lacan) 對於分裂主體 (the barred Subject) 與大他者 (the Other) 的功能在第三章「書信與他者」(Epistles and the Other) 中成為閱讀蘇 珊的書寫形式與其寫作慾望的的重要依據。第四章「面對賤斥體」(In the Face of the Abject) 則透過茱莉亞.克莉斯蒂娃 (Julia Kristeva) 的「賤斥」 (abjection) 與「符號界」 (the Semiotic) 理論,將蘇珊與星期五之間不尋常的關聯視為主體 與賤斥體的牽引關係,並將書中最後兩部分詮釋為象徵語言與符號傾向 (semiotic disposition)的對應關係。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The present thesis takes a close look at J. M. Coetzee’s novel Foe, ametafictional retelling of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. Given the critical interests already attributed to the intertextuality of the two works, the current project seeks not to reinforce the relationship between the two, but to focus on Coetzee’s creation alone. The thesis, entitled “Writing Aphasics, Encountering Foe: Between the Semiotic and the Symbolic,” addresses issues that concern the writing of the protagonist Susan Barton, together with the encounters throughout her literary journey. While the “aphasia” ascribed to all characters functions as a metaphor that unifies all types of speech impediments, the term “foe” refers to whoever stands counter to Susan on her way to deliverance.The organization of the thesis follows a series of theoretical approaches centering on the relationship between language and subjectivity. Bakhtinian theory introduced in the second chapter concerns a subject and its language appropriation, providing an interpretation to Friday’s unusual performances. Meanwhile, Lacanian treatise given in Chapter Three discusses a subject essentially split in its dealings with the language of the Other, proposing a reading to the transformation in Susan’s narrative style and her unrelenting pursuit of the writer Mr. Foe. The fourth chapter then identifies Susan as a Kristevan deject, who finds her existence threatened in the face of Friday’s abject existence. The subject-abject dyad in turn helps determine the symbiosis between the symbolic language and the semiotic disposition in the final two sections of Foe. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements...................................................................................... iv Chinese Abstract.......................................................................................... vii English Abstract........................................................................................... ixChapter One: The Unfathomable Foe............................................................ 1 1. Introduction............................................................ 1 Foe and Literature Review................................... 3 Contribution of the Thesis.................................. 82. Theoretical Approaches.......................................... 11 Bakhtin: Language Appropriation........................12 Lacan: the Self and the Other............................. 13 Kristeva: the Abject and the Semiotic..................143. Organization.......................................................... 15 Chapter Two: The Aphasic Subjects.............................................................. 19 1. Mapping Aphasia................................................... 20 2. Aphasics in Foe...................................................... 23 3. The Silent Slave and Bakhtin................................... 25 4. Friday’s Performances............................................ 27 Chapter Three: Epistles and the Other.......................................................... 35 1. The Lacanian Subject............................................. 37 2. The Other as Language.......................................... 38 3. The Other as Desire/ Object a................................ 45Chapter Four: In the Face of the Abject......................................................... 531. Identifying the Abject............................................. 55 2. The Semiotic and the Symbolic............................... 59 3. The Two-sided Foe................................................. 61Chapter Five: Subject and its Discontents..................................................... 69 1. From Section One to Section Three......................... 70 2. Section Four........................................................... 72 3. The Coetzeean Motifs............................................. 72 4. Epilogue................................................................. 74Works Cited................................................................................................... 77 zh_TW dc.language.iso en_US - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098551009 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 柯慈 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 失語症 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 敵人 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 賤斥 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 大他者 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) J. M. Coetzee en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) aphasia en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Foe en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) abject en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) the Other en_US dc.title (題名) 書寫失語主體:柯慈《敵人》中的賤斥與他者 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Writing Aphasics, Encountering Foe: Between the Semiotic and the Symbolic en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Attridge, Derek. J. M. Coetzee & the Ethics of Reading: Literature in the Event.Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2004. Print.Bakhtin, M., The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Trans. Caryl Emerson andMichael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 2008. Print.Begam, Richard, and J. M. Coetzee. “An Interview with J. M. Coetzee.” Contemporary Literature 33.3 (1992): 419-31. Print.Coetzee, J. M. Age of Iron. New York: Random House, 1990. Print.---. Diary of a Bad Year. New York: Viking, 2008. Print.---. Foe. New York, NY: Penguin, 1987. Print.---. In the Heart of the Country. New York, NY: Penguin, 1982. Print.---. The Master of Petersburg. New York, NY: Penguin, 1995. Print.Defoe, Daniel, and John J. Richetti. Robinson Crusoe. London: Penguin, 2003. Print. Deleuze, Gilles. “He Stuttered.” Essays Critical and Clinical. Trans. Daniel W. Smith.Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1997. 107-114. Print.Dragunoiu, D. “Existential Doubt and Political Responsibility in J. M. Coetzee`sFoe.” Critique Minneapolis Then Atlanta Then Washington 42.3 (2001): 309-26. Print.England, F. “Foes: Plato, Derrida, and Coetzee: Rereading J. M. Coetzee`s Foe.”Journal of Literary Studies Pretoria 24.4 (2008): 44-62. Print.Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London:Routledge, 1996. Print.Fink, Bruce. The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance. Princeton, NJ:Princeton UP, 1997. Print.Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. Trans. James Strachey. New York: W.W. Norton, 1962. Print.Greenberg, Valerie D. Freud and His Aphasia Book: Language and the Sources ofPsychoanalysis. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell UP, 1997. Print.Hewitson, Owen. “What Does Lacan Say About Desire.” LacanOnline.com. 9 May2010. Web. 8 August 2012.Hu, Chin-yuan. “Seemingly Close, Really Distant: Kafka’s Letter to Felice.”WenShan Review 1.6 (2007): 49-80. Print.Kristeva, Julia. Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art.Trans. Thomas Gora. New York: Columbia UP, 1980. Print.---. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Trans. Leon S. Roudiez. New York:Columbia UP, 1982. Print.Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English. Trans. Bruce Fink.New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2006. Print.---. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller.Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Norton, 1978. Print.Laurence, Patricia O. The Reading of Silence: Virginia Woolf in the English Tradition.Stanford, Calif: Stanford UP, 1991. Print.Morgan, P. E. “Foe’s Defoe and La Jeune Nee: Establishing a Metaphorical Referentfor the Elided Female Voice.” Critique Minneapolis Then Atlanta ThenWashington 35.2 (1994): 81-85. Print.Oliver, Kelly. Reading Kristeva: Unraveling the Double-Bind. Bloomington: IndianaUP, 1993. Print.Oxford Online Dictionary. Web. 20 September 2012.Penner, Dick. “J. M. Coetzee’s Foe: The Muse, the Absurd, and the ColonialDilemma.” World Literature Written in English 28.2 (1987): 207-15. Print.Post, Robert. “The Noise of Freedom: J. M. Coetzee`s Foe.” Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction 30.3 (1989): 143-54. Print.Waugh, Patricia. Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of Self-Conscious Fiction. London: Methuen, 1984. Print.Woolf, Virginia. The Common Reader: Second Series. London: Hogarth P, 1945. Print.Wright, L. “Displacing the Voice: South African Feminism and J. M. Coetzee`s Female Narrators.” African Studies 67.1 (2008): 11-32. Print.Žižek, Slavoj. “Why Does a Letter Always Arrive at its Destination?” Enjoy Your Symptom!: Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and Out. London: Routledge, 2008. 1- 28. Print. zh_TW
