reader-response theory 读者反映论(精选)
读者反应论reader
读者反应论reader's response／responses of receptors
奈达早期的重要论点之一，在其《翻译科学初探》(1964)中提出。
他说：译文“接受者和译文信息之间的关系应该与原文接受者和原文信息之间的关系基本上相同”。
“翻译的重点不应当是语言的表现形式，而应当是读者对译文的反应”。
奈达从社会语言学和语言交际功能的观点出发，认为翻译必须以接受者为服务中心，要根据不同接受者的要求而对译文作相应调整。
奈达既是翻译理论家，也是翻译《圣经》的专家。
他认为《圣经》传达上帝的旨意，其语言对古代读者和听众来说是浅显易懂的，今天没有任何理由为追求语言的精美而阻碍平民直接聆听上帝的教诲。
他强调指出，任何信息如果起不到交际即思想交流的作用，就会变得毫无价值。
“要判断某个译作是否译得正确，也必须以译文的服务对象为衡量标准。
”也就是说，要判断译文质量的优劣，必须看读者对译文的反应如何，同时必须把这种反应和原作读者对原作的反应加以比较，看两种反应是否基本一致。
奈达的读者反应论20世纪80年代初进入我国译界，是有争议的。
思辨英语视阈下的读者反馈理论综述
思辨英语视阈下的读者反馈理论综述作者：姜婷仪来源：《赤峰学院学报·哲学社会科学版》2022年第01期摘要：英语教学作为各阶段教育的重要组成部分，肩负着深化教学改革，满足新时期国家和社会对人才培养需求的重大任务。
学生除了应当具备英语的综合应用能力之外，还应当具有一定的思辨能力。
在各教育阶段的英语教学过程中应用Louise Rosenblatt开创的读者反馈理论（reader response theory）教授阅读，可以将教学模式从传统的“以老师为中心”转变为“以学生为中心”，并通过图式理论和反馈日记的辅助作用，逐步培养学生的思辨能力。
国内外的教师和研究者应用读者反馈理论进行阅读教学的实践都证明，这一方法能够帮助学生逐步成为独立而有见地的阅读者，进而具有一定的思辨能力。
关键词：思辨能力;读者反馈理论;读者反馈研究中图分类号：H319.3 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1673-2596（2022）01-0084-06一、英语教学现状过去的很多年，我国传统的教育体系使不少英语老师习惯于在阅读课上详细讲解作者和相关历史事件等背景知识，以及生词、语法规则和文章结构等对于学生应试至关重要的内容。
另一方面，受儒家教育的影响，很多孩子从小就形成了固有的思维模式，以规定的结构进行思考和写作，而不敢轻易表达自己的观点。
这种传统的以教师为中心的课堂里，师生间的互动较少，不能很好地激发学生对于文章的开阔的和有创造性的思考[1]，学生思维能力的发展有可能会受到极大的牵制，从而阻碍他们成为独立的思考者。
近年来，随着全球化竞争的推进，很多国家都将思辨能力列入了各级教育的培养任务中。
“思辨”一词，最早语出《礼记·中庸》：“博学之，审问之，慎思之，明辨之，笃行之”。
“慎思”与“明辨”强调周密的思考和明晰的分辨，即基于对信息的分析，而并非信息的简单叠加。
培养思辨能力，就要求我们通过对事物或问题的分析、推理、评估，最终解决问题，或形成决策和结论。
从读者反映论看文学翻译
从读者反映论看文学翻译作者：李彬靳翘楚来源：《大东方》2017年第06期摘要：运用相应适当的翻译策略，能让文学作品中的精彩得到最大限度的表现。
以读者反映论为理论指导，在翻译过程中将读者放在首位。
结合在翻译过程中出现的典型实例，分析翻译策略和技巧，并得出结论。
关键词：文学翻译；读者反映论；翻译Key words： literary translation；Reader-response Theory ； translationAbstract： In translation，we should pay attention to readers’ response and give first priority to readers. Combined with the typical cases in translation and guided by the Cultural Theory of Translation， the practice report mainly discusses how to choose translation strategies when dealing with the typical difficulties， and then a conclusion is drawn.古今中外产生过大量的著名文学作品，他们以高超的艺术手法、生动故事情节、鲜明的认为形象、广阔的社会信息和作者对社会的观察受到读者的喜爱。
一、读者反映论读者反映论（Reader-response Theory）源于文学理论中的读者反映批评理论（Reader-response Criticism），强调以读者对文学作品的反应为中心。
美国翻译名家奈达首先将读者反映论用于翻译，读者反映论是作为奈达动态对等理论（Dynamic equivalence）的解释提出来的，奈达（1964）认为：“翻译既然是一种交际，那么，不对信息接受者的作用进行全面的研究，对交际的任何分析都是不完整的。
接受理论和读者反应批评概要
文学文本 和 文学作品
文本是指作家创造的同读者发生关系之前的作品本身的自 在状态；作品是指与读者构成对象性关系的东西，它已经 突破了孤立的存在，融会了读者即审美主体的经验、情感 和艺术趣味的审美对象。 文本是以文字符号的形式储存着多种多样审美信息的硬载 体；作品则是在具有鉴赏力读者的阅读中，由作家和读者 共同创造的审美信息的软载体。 文本是一种永久性的存在，它独立于接受主体的感知之外， 其存在不依赖于接受主体的审美经验，其结构形态也不会 因事而发生变化；作品则依赖接受主体的积极介入，它只 存在于读者的审美观照和感受中，受接受主体的思想情感 和心理结构的左右支配，是一种相对的具体的存在。由文 本到作品的转变，是审美感知的结果。也就是说，作品是 被审美主体感知、规定和创造的文本。
沃尔夫冈· 伊瑟尔 （Wolfgang Iser）
德国美学家、文学批评家， 接受美学的创始人与主要 代表之一。康士坦茨大学 英文系教授。
2
代 表 人 物
其主要文论著作有： 《文本的召唤结构》（1970） 《隐在的读者》（The Implied Reader, 1972） 《阅读行为》（The Act of Reading, 1976） 《阅r-response Theory and Criticism
Li Zhujun
Content
· 接受美学的兴起和发展
· 接受理论内容及其代表人物 · 读者反应批评及其代表人物
· 读者反应批评的意义和局限
接受美学
接受美学(Receptional Aesthetic)又称接受理论、 接受研究，接受方法，是西方文学研究中一 种新兴的方法论。因为它产生于联邦德国南 部康斯坦茨，又称康斯坦茨学派。
康斯坦茨学派： 1960年代, 5位德国学者聚集在德国南部新建的 康斯坦茨大学提出了接受美学。 代表人物： 汉斯·罗伯特·姚斯（Hans Robert Jauss）、 沃尔夫冈·伊瑟尔(Wolfgang Iser)。
READER RESPONSE THEORY
2. Defining a reader and a text: All ask the question, "What is a text?" Is it simply words on a page? Does the real text actually exist in the mind of the reader? Or does it exist through the interaction of text and reader? They also ask, "What is a reader?" Are there different kinds of readers? What makes readers different? Do difr kinds of readers?
01
Plato and Aristotle——The reader as Passive Agent. Looking at the effect of the literary work on the reader or
audience.
From Plato's time until the beginning of the romantic movement at the beginning of the 1800s, such a passive view of the reader predominated. Although many critics recogmized that a text did indeed have an effect on its readers, criticism concerned itself primarily with the text.
接受理论和读者反应批评
伊瑟尔是从研究“新批评”和叙事理论走向文学接受理论的，他的理论 兴趣主要在个别文本与读者的关系，注重对文本接受过程中读者能动作 用的细致考察，因而他的理论也被称为微观接受理论。 他将自己的接受美学研究称作作用美学或效应美学。
什么是“召唤结构”？
“召唤结构”（The Appeal Structure)，即由意义的不确定性 与艺术空白构成的文本结构，对读 者的参与再创造，具有一种刺激与 召唤作用，令人震惊，令人百读不 厌、常读常新、回味无穷。 • 伊瑟尔接受了英伽登 的作品存在理论和伽达默尔 的视野 融合理论，加以改造和综合形成了“文本的召唤结构”这一 术语。召唤性是文学文本最根本的结构特征。 • 伊瑟尔强调“空白”是文本召唤读者阅读的结构机制，具有 多种表现形式。 • 伊瑟尔认为文本的“否定性”也是一种召唤读者阅读的结构 性机制，它唤起读者熟悉的主题和形式并对之加以否定。 • “空白”、“空缺”和“否定”构成文本的“否定性”，联 结作者创作意识和读者接受意识，促使读者在阅读中赋予不 确定以确定的含义。
康斯坦茨学派： 1960年代, 5位德国学者聚集在德国南部新建的 康斯坦茨大学提出了接受美学。 代表人物： 汉斯·罗伯特·姚斯（Hans Robert Jauss）、 沃尔夫冈·伊瑟尔(Wolfgang Iser)。
接受美学是以现象学和阐释学为理论基础的。接受美学与阐释学不 同的是，它不再只是关注对过去文本的理解，而是研究读者在整个 文学接受活动中的作用，因此它也是“一个全新的发展”。 ------ 马新国 ※ 接受美学是20世纪60年代后期兴起于联邦德国 的一个美学学派，由德国康茨坦斯大学文艺学教授 姚斯在1967年提出。 ※ 接受美学的核心是从受众出发，从接受出发。 强调读者或者阅读行为在阐释文本问题上的作用， 认为在文学阐释中，最重要的因素不是文本，而是 读者。 ※ 这种批评理论寻求阅读文学活动的理论化，探 讨其动力机制，界定阅读文学活动的因素，分析针 对具体文本的阅读活动的机理。
reader-response-theory-读者反映论
By Zhang Xi
Main Contents
➢ The Origin of the Theory ➢ Various models of the readers
The Origin of the Theory
➢ hermeneutics ➢ Phenomenology
➢ For Fish, this reader is someone who projects, expects and corrects his responses all the way as he moves from one word to the next in his linear processing of a text.
J. Culler
➢ The ideal reader ➢ Someone who has possessed , or rather internalized ,the
literary conventions , the mastery of which would enable him to perform literary readings acceptable to other readers, for such conventions constitute the very institution of literature itself.
➢
Hans Robert Jauss
➢ For him, textual interpretation is largely a question of reconstructing the reader’s “horizon of expectation”.
读者反映理论
Real Reader⏹The “real readers”, or members of a particular reading public, are historicallyreal people. To reconstruct these readers, one needs to know, among other things, the norms (both literary and social) of their time, their emotions and attitudes aroused by the work, and the critical judgments they passed on it.⏹Here Iser must have in mind the work of his colleague H.R. Jauss, whose“aesthetics of reception” deals chiefly with the “history of responses”. Hypothetical Reader⏹Unlike the real historical reader, the hypothetical reader owes its existence tothe critic when the latter creates it as the receiver of the potential effect of a particular work.⏹There are two types of the hypothetical reader (as shown in the diagram), butwhat concerns Iser more is the first type, the ideal reader, because the second type, the contemporary reader, though often casually mentioned by critics, is difficult to specify.⏹Unlike the real reader and the contemporary reader, the ideal reader is a“fictional being” tha t crops up now and then in discussions of contemporary theory, often with different references and implications. P.J. Rabinowitz, for instance, defines it as theoretical models (such as G. Prince‟s “narratee”, W.Gibson‟s “mock reader”, and even Iser‟s “implied reader”) that help to show the ideal operation or processing of the text.The Psychologically Describable Reader⏹The reader in this category refers to one “whose psychology has been openedup by the findings of psychoanalysis” (Iser, 1987, pp.27-28). The typical psychoanalytical reader is found in the work of N. Holland, who defines his psychoanalytical reading of texts as “transactive criticism”, and his reader as the “transactive reader”, namely, one who “works explicitly from his transaction of th e text”The Reader as Heuristic Models⏹This category is important for the present discussion because Iser‟s “impliedreader” is, to a great extent, one such model along with many others.⏹We will begin our discussion of Iser‟s reading theory by first reca lling some ofthe “limitations” of the concepts of the reader discussed just now, in order to see how Iser tries to avoid, or rather, to overcome them in his model of the reader.The problem with the “real reader”, as we have seen, is that the reconstruc tion of the horizon of expectations depends heavily on the availability of historical data. The “ideal reader”, on the other hand, is believed to presuppose the total consumption of the work and therefore demolishes the very basis of its potential effects on the reader. As for Holland and Fish who try to locate meaning in the reader‟s mind (the unconscious for Holland and the internalized competences for Fish), the link seems loose between the literary experience they are talking about and the process ofcommunication that takes place to shape this very experience.Against these “limitations” Iser‟s concept of the reader stands as a good contrast. He says:⏹If, then, we are to try and understand the effects caused and the responseselicited by literary works, we must allow for the reader‟s presence without in any way predetermining his character or his historical situation. We may call him, for want of a better term, the implied reader. He embodies all those predispositions necessary for a literary work to exercise its effect -- predispositions laid down, not by an empirical outside reality, but by the text itself. Consequently, the implied reader as a concept has his roots firmly planted in the structure of the text; he is a construct and is in no way to be identified with any real reader. (179)The passage quoted above is a concentrated expression of Iser‟s basic ideas concerning the construction of his model and his reactions to the other models. It shows⏹i) the implied reader, as a theoretical construct, could avoid the practicaldifficulties faced by the concept of the “real reader”,⏹ii) though it does not stand for any actual reader, the concept itself implies hispresence and his operation in the process of literary communication,⏹iii) the implied reader carries within itself the “predispositions” that ensure theliterary work both to produce the desired effects on the reader and to elicit relevant responses from him, and⏹iv) what constitutes a major difference between Iser and Holland or Fish isthat the predispositions necessary for the production of effects and responses are determined not by personal desires or competences, but by the very structure of the text itself.Iser‟s concept of the implied reader may be better apprehended through an examination of its structure. From the above brief account it is clear that this structure should be able to account for both the “predispositions” prestructured by the text and the actualizations performed by the reader. For the former, Iser proposes the concept of “the reader‟s role as textual structure”, and for the latter, “the reader‟s role as structured acts”.Each author, in his composition of a fictional work, selects useful materials to create a world of his own inventions, which in on e way or another represents the author‟s view of the real world. But few authors would present their views too explicitly or directly if they want their works to achieve any effect on the reader. Generally, the author‟s view is expressed through the variou s perspectives in the text, which perform two functions, namely, to “outline the author‟s view and also provide access to what the reader is meant to visualize” (180)Thus the textual structure of the implied reader, as we have seen, is composed of or prestructured by three basic components: the textual perspectives, their convergentplace, and the vantage point of the reader. The last two components, i.e., the convergent place of the textual perspectives and the vantage point of the reader, however, only remain potential in the textual structure and have to be actualized by the reader. This actualization is made possible by the other component of the implied reader, i.e., the structured acts.We may take A Dream of Red Mansions for an illustration of the concept of the implied reader. At the beginning of Chapter One, the viewpoints from the narrator‟s perspective tell that the whole story is but the dreams and illusions of the author, therefore the reader‟s vantage point decides that the story is purely f ictional.But this is immediately followed by the statement (another textual viewpoint) that the story is a record of the girls the author has known well, and that the dreams and illusions actually represent the real intention of the novel. So the reader changes his vantage point and believes that the story is real.Then the origin of the story (another textual viewpoint) from the perspective of the Reverend V oid once again puts the reader in an uncertain position as to the credulity of the story, but th is uncertainty is soon cleared up, this time from the stone‟s perspective, when the reader is told that the story is based on true facts without any modification.But this is not all, the reader‟s vantage point may undergo another shift to the contrary when he comes to the Illusory Land of Great V oid (太虚幻境) revealed through the perspective of the plot, especially when he reads the couplet “假作真时真亦假；无为有处有还无” “When false is taken for true, true becomes false; If non-being turns into being, being becomes non-being. ”The perspectives and viewpoints prescribed by the text provide instructions for the reader to build up mental images. The continuous replacement of these images results in shifts of the reader‟s vantage point, reflecting his changing attitudes in the process of reading. Finally, the textual viewpoints and the reader‟s vantage point meet at the convergent place, where the meaning potential of the work is actualized by the reader‟s structured acts.After these shifts of vantage point, most readers would finally agree, as indicated by the author‟s viewpoints, that the pages of the novel are not full of fantastic talks (“满纸荒唐言”), nor would they call the author mad (“都云作者痴”), but that they should read the story carefully and try to understand the au thor‟s message (“解其中味”)This is what we might call the final convergent place of the textual viewpoints and the reader‟s vantage points, or the meaning reached by the reader about the credulity of the story, after his interaction with the text under the guidance of the textual perspectives.From the above description of the implied reader, we may make several general observations about the concept:⏹1) Iser‟s theoretical construct of the implied reader is not an actual reader, noris it an abstraction of it. For any concept of the reader which centers chiefly on the reader to the neglect of other elements in the process of reading is unlikely to give an account of literary communication.⏹2) The implied reader is thus best understood as a phenomenological constructof the actual reader with two roles both as textual structure and as structured acts. These two roles are interrelated and interdependent in that the textual structure provides framework of perspectives for the structured acts to work within, while the latter implements the former to determine a vantage point and to arrive at the convergent place.Y et, the two roles are also in a sense separate, because only a separation allows of the possibility of a relationship between them and makes possible their mutual interaction and final combination in the concept of the implied reader. Just as the idea of the literary work is the result of the interaction between the text and the reader, the two are “separate” though by no means “autonomous” objects.T. Eagleton, believes that “Iser is aware of the social dimension of reading, but chooses to concentrate largely on its …aesthetic‟ aspects”, therefore his reader does not have a foothold in history (Eagleton, 1985, p.83).S.R. Suleiman has made a similar observation when she says that Iser‟s reader “is not a specific, historically situated individual but a transhistorical mind whose activities are ... everywhere the same”. She gives credit to Iser‟s effort at introducing a historical dimension to the description of the reading process by the use of the repertoire, but complains that his readers are still “implied”, not actual (Suleiman in Suleiman & Crosman, 1980, pp.25-26).Iser tries to keep in his phenomenological reader both its virtual presence in terms of “textual repertoire” or “structured acts” and brackets its historical presence. This treatment of the historicity of the reader in a way resembles the textualization of history and the idea of “praxis” (i.e., theoretical but not social practice) fa vored by the post-structuralists (cf. Zhu Gang. 2001, pp.173-175).Other Heuristic Models of the Reader: H.R. Jauss: The Historical ReaderJauss has devised a particular reader, labeled by Jauss himself as “the historical reader”:⏹The role of this historical reader should presuppose that one is experienced inone‟s associations with lyrics, but that one can initially suspend one‟s literary historical or linguistic competence, and put in its place the capacity occasionally to wonder during the course of the reading, and to express this wonder in the form of questions. (Jauss, 1989, p.144)⏹First, this historical reader is one who deals with the effect of a literary workand the reader‟s response to it, and helps to reveal the nature of literary reading as an eventful and process-like experience in more or less the same way as Iser‟s implied reader shows. But the historical reader only wonders during the course of reading. Though this is a clear indication of the reader playing a role and responding to the effects of the text, it does not, in fact, say much about the intricate relationship between the reader and the text.Secondly, contrary to the ideal reader who is free to use his perfect historical knowledge and literary competence, the historical reader suspends both of these in order to have “the capacity occasionally to wonder”. This is understandable, for a reader with perfect knowledge and competence would only provide answers, rather than pose questions to bring about an aesthetic experience.Stanley Fish is perhaps the best known and most polemic American reader-response critic of all . Many of his early ideas (the dramatic nature of reading, the temporal unfolding of meaning, the active role played by the reader in the reading process, etc.) come closest to those of Iser‟s, yet one great difference between them, among others, is reflected in the concept of the role of the reader in their respective heuristic models.For Fish, this reader is someone who projects, expects and corrects his responses all the way as he moves from one word to the next in his linear processing of a text. In formulating his theory of reading, Fish draws on the theory of Chomskian transformational-generative grammar.Fish builds up his model of the reader, which he calls the “informed reader”, characterized by three notable competences: i) competence in the language of the text; ii) semantic competence; and iii) literary competence. The combination of these three competences, as Fish assures us, would unfailingly make any actual reader an “informed” one, and enable him to realize the potential and probable responses a text might elicit. The “informed reader”, therefore, is an abstraction of the idealized actual reader.Iser has observed in his critique of Fish‟s theory t hat the informed reader must “observe his own reactions during the process of actualization, in order to control them” (Iser, 1987, p.32). What Iser is saying here is that Fish‟s reader himself functions as a controlling element in the reading process, as the responses are regulated and organized by the three competences internalized in the informed reader and thus preexist the actual processing of the text.This difference about the controlling element in reading is ultimately again an epistemological question. Here it is enough to point out that such a difference already anticipates the Iser-Fish debate that took place a few years later, and that with the controlling power invested entirely in the reader, the Iserian process of dyadic二元的interaction between the reader and the text necessarily becomes non-existent. Holland maintains that a person reveals his unique personality in the various things hedoes and the various ideas he expresses. Behind these “behavioral transformations”, however, lies an “invariant”, the “unchanging core of personality”, which he calls the “primary identity”, or “identity theme”, a term he borrowed from the modern psychologist Heinz Lichtenstein, and upon which he builds his theory of transactive criticism.For Holland, literary interpretation is inseparable from the question of identity. It is in fact a function of identity, for differences in interpretation can be accounted for in terms of the differences in personality, both being “variations upon an identity theme” (Holland in Tompkins, 1984, p.123). But what is more important is Holland‟s discovery that the “overarching principle” of the function of identity is that “identity re-creates itself.”That is to say, the reader, while reading, makes use of the text to replicate his own characteristic patterns of desires, anxieties, expectations, etc.. This, as Holland seems to argue, is the purpose of reading a literary work, and it is also what his “transactive reader” actually does in the act of reading.In the reading process in which identity recreation is carried out, what the transactive reader does is to find in the text the match for his expectations (e.g., similar wishes and fears), and then to respond by defending against them with his characteristic strategies, either to gratify the wishes, or to defeat the fears.Once the deep wishes and fears are defensively adapted, the reader will be able to derive from the text “fantasies of the particular kind that yield him pleasure” and, therefore, begin to enjoy the text by transforming the guilt and anxiety aroused by the fantasies into “a total experience of aesthetic, moral, intellectual or social coherence and significance.”The brief description given above concerning the recreation of identity through what Holland calls the DEFT (defence-expectation-fantasy-transformation) mechanism serves to show that the “transactive reader” is neither the real reader nor the ideal reader, but an abstraction of any actual reader who reads psychoanalytically, or rather, who is read psychoanalytically by the text he is reading.The concept of the transactive reader has undoubtedly extended our investigation of the reader into the deeper realms of his unconscious, but as a key element in a theory of reading, it is inadequate for a satisfactory explanation of the complex process of literary reading. To use Culler‟s words, Holland “fails to study reading as a process with its own operations and goals” (Culler in Suleiman & Crosman, 1980, p.55).J. Culler: The Ideal ReaderM. Riffaterre: The SuperreaderG. Prince: The Zero-Degree Narratee, and C. Brooke-Rose: The Encoded Reader W. Gibson: The Mock ReaderW.C. Booth: The Reader Created by the Author, or the Implied Reader。