CAJ | 학술논문

内容摘要：乔纳森·卡勒博士是康奈尔大学文学教授，先后荣任美国比较文学学会会长（1999-2001）、美国符号学会会长（1987．1988）等学术要职，并担任《新文学史》、《今日诗学》、《美国符号学学报》等学术期刊编委。卡勒教授在符号学、结构主义、解构主义、文化研究和比较文学等诸多研究领域均取得了突出成就，著有《文学理论入门》（1997）、《结构主义诗学》（1975）、《论解构》（1982）等。他从语言学视角出发，借助语言学研究的方法和范式，探索文学研究的模式与方法，从而有力地推动了文学研究的发展。笔者在2011-2012年赴康奈尔大学访学期间，受（（外国文学研究》委托，对卡勒教授进行了专访。卡勒就当前国内外学术界的热点问题（如结构主义和解构主义的关系、文化研究与文学研究的对立与调整、经典文化与通俗文化、经典的重新定义等）发表了自己的观点。卡勒认为，结构主义和解构主义之间并无根本对立，文学研究和文化研究并非势不两立，而是可以和谐共存；流行并不等同于经典，所谓的经典应经得其时间的考验。他还对中国学者的学术发展提出了自己中肯的建议，认为中国学者应植根于自己的本土文化，在中西方对话中做出自己独特的贡献。
내용적요：교납삼·잡륵박사시강내이대학문학교수，선후영임미국비교문학학회회장（1999-2001）、미국부호학회회장（1987．1988）등학술요직，병담임《신문학사》、《금일시학》、《미국부호학학보》등학술기간편위。잡륵교수재부호학、결구주의、해구주의、문화연구화비교문학등제다연구영역균취득료돌출성취，저유《문학이론입문》（1997）、《결구주의시학》（1975）、《론해구》（1982）등。타종어언학시각출발，차조어언학연구적방법화범식，탐색문학연구적모식여방법，종이유력지추동료문학연구적발전。필자재2011-2012년부강내이대학방학기간，수（（외국문학연구》위탁，대잡륵교수진행료전방。잡륵취당전국내외학술계적열점문제（여결구주의화해구주의적관계、문화연구여문학연구적대립여조정、경전문화여통속문화、경전적중신정의등）발표료자기적관점。잡륵인위，결구주의화해구주의지간병무근본대립，문학연구화문화연구병비세불량립，이시가이화해공존；류행병불등동우경전，소위적경전응경득기시간적고험。타환대중국학자적학술발전제출료자기중긍적건의，인위중국학자응식근우자기적본토문화，재중서방대화중주출자기독특적공헌。
Professor Jonathan Culler is one of the leading literary critics in the world who made great achievements in the fields of Semiotics, Stmcturalism and Deconstruction, Cultural Study and Comparative Literature. He has worked at Cornell University since 1977, and served as President of American Comparative Literature Association 0999-2001） and Semiotic Society of America （1987-88） as well as other academic societies, as well as editor of some important academic journals such as New Literary History, Poetics Today, and The American Journal of Semiotics. Culler is famous for his critical works such as Literary Theory： A Very Short Introduction （1997）, Structuralist Poetics （1975）, and On Deconstruction 0982）. On behalf of Foreign Literature Studies, Dr. Zheng Li conducted an interview with Professor Culler when doing research at Cornell University as a visiting scholar during 2011-2012. Prof Culler shares his enlightening views of some hot issues both at home and abroad, such as the relations between Structuralism and Deconstruction, Classic Culture and Pop Culture, the rivalry and adjustment of Cultural Study and Literary Study, as well as the redefinition of Canon. For Culler, there is no fundamental division between Structuralism and Deconstruction. Cultural study and literary study could live relatively peacefully nowadays, despite their inescapable competition in certain fields. Pop culture isn＇t equal to classic culture. The criteria of Canon haven＇t changed much in that it must stand the test of the time. Finally, he gives sound advice to Chinese scholars as regards their academic pursuit. He insists that Chinese scholars should stick to their own heritage and make their unique contribution to Western conversation.