|
注释： ①虽然克里斯蒂娃曾杜撰过一个可以表述其文本外在形态的词语“互文性”，但由于它不是从对文学文本的分析研究中开发出来的，而是从对巴赫金对话理论的思辨中推演出来的，因而未触及互文性文学文本的根本性能，在文学批评中的可用性有限。 ②R. E. Asher(ed.). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Volume 2, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1993, p. 940. ③福柯：《知识考古学》，谢强、马月译，三联书店2003年版，第27页。 ④Julia Kristeva, Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, New York: Columbia University Press, 1980, p. 66. ⑤转引自Jim Hunter, A Fable Critical Guide: Tom Stoppard, London: Faber and Faber Limited, 2000, pp. 1-2. ⑥⑦⑧(14)(15)Edward Bond, Plays: Two, London: Methuen Drama, 1989, p. 3, p. 5, p. x, p. 3, p. 5. ⑨Jim Hunter, A Faber Critical Guide: Tom Stoppard, p. 35. ⑩(11)Giles Gordon, "Giles Gordon's Interview", Transatlantic Review, 29(1968), pp. 17-20, pp. 17-20. (12)Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, London: Faber and Faber Limited , 1968, p. 73. (13)M. M. Badawi, Background to Shakespeare, London: Macmillan, 1981, p. 130. (16)关于《罗吉之死》的讨论，请参阅：Ronald Bryden, "First Prodiction: 'The Best Thing at Edinburgh'", Oberserver Weekend Review(28 Aug. 1966); William E Gruber, "A Version of Justice", in T. Bareham(ed.), Tom Stoppard: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Jumpers & Travesties, London: Macmillan Press LTD 1990, p. 92; Robert Brustein, "Something Disturbingly Vaguish and Available", in T. Bareham(ed.), Tom Stoppard: Rosencrantz and Guildenstem are Dead, Jumpers & Travesties, pp. 93-94，等等。关于《李尔》的讨论，请参阅：Christopher Innes, Modern British Drama 1890-1990, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 156-161; Rosette Clementine Lamont, "Edward Bond's DE-LEAR-IUM", The Massachusetts Review, Vol. 44, No. 1/2, (Spring-Summer, 2003), pp. 308-313; Hilde Klein, "Edward Bond: 'Lear Was Standing in My Path'", Atlantis, Vol. 11, No. 1/2(Junionoviembre 1989), pp. 71-78，等等。 (责任编辑：admin) |