语言维度里的哈罗德·品特戏剧
|
摘要
本论文以受到20世纪“语言转向”影响的几种理论为基础，展开对品特戏剧语言层面的分析。这些理论表面上虽各不相同，但在深层上却可以统一于对语言性质及其与世界关系的一种共识，即：语言是非指涉性的(non-referential)的，它既不是消极反映外物的镜面，也不是表达内心思想情感的工具。意义并不是来自词物吻合或能指所指之间的一一对应，意义只是语言系统内各成员之间差异化的产物。所以，语言在本质上是一种形式，而非实质。由此，语言获得了相对外在世界而具有的独立性，这使语言在人秩序化世界的过程中积极地参与了现实建构，语言赋予世界以秩序，并缔造出万事万物之间的关联。对语言性质的这种认识类似一枚铆钉，铆接了正文三个章节里所使用的不同理论，它们就像几片扇骨，而每个章节里具体展开的文本分析就像附着于其上的风景各异的扇面。
论文正文的第一部分（第二章），首先从理论层面探讨了语言维度里现实与荒诞的关系。人们用语言赋予世界秩序的方式不是唯一的，现实可以具有多重维度。品特戏剧充满自然主义式的细节与逼真的日常对话，但却缺乏现实主义内在的理性逻辑与精确表达。品特戏剧不是现实主义的，但却非常的“现实”，因为在这个时代，人们发现荒诞本身就是现实多重维度之一维。人是语言的存在，品特戏剧用语言层面的荒诞结构出人存在的荒诞。在《房间》(The Room)里，品特用语言塑造了流沙上的戏剧世界。语言的非指涉性(non-referenciality)取消了人原本预设在语言之先、之外的本质性存在,形而上学内涵的二元对立模式失去存在的根基。语言赋予人以存在的意义，然而，这种意义不具有稳定性，它只是能指符在差异化的运动里稍纵即逝的“踪迹”，这种意义，恰如品特自己的描述，就像流沙，随时可能在足底坍塌。在《看管人》(The Caretaker)里，人们“在语言里敌意地栖居”，语言成为主要的戏剧行动。人物们以言行事，一面用语言遮掩自身的虚空，一面又试图通过言说确立自己的身份。话语交锋内含着争权夺利，人际关系的网络在流动的能指符里不断波动。语言全然就是一阵阵的烟幕，指东言西，大家都在语言的遮掩下回避交流，隐藏自己。在语言角斗场上的斗败者，失去的将是其存在的根基。《生日晚会》(The Birthday Party)可以被视为一出“语言说人”的悲剧，人是语言的存在，却不是语言的主宰。人在其成长及成熟的过程中，必须进入作为象征体系的语言，在此，人会被剥夺自我独立的存在，被语言所运载的习俗和法则异化。想脱离语言铺天盖地的罗网，人只能以无意义的声音或者绝对意义上的沉默进行对抗。然而，将自我放逐于语言之外，也就等于远离整个社会系统。
正文第二部分（第三章）先从理论的层面讨论了语言与回忆的关联。语言不是镜现过去，而是“再造”过去，语言赋予过去的原始经验以某种秩序和意义，从而让其得以在现在存在。品特与历史学家不同，不以求真为嚆矢，他坚称过去是不可确证的(unverifiable)，所以，他所做的是用语言的“肌质”(texture)还原过去扑朔迷离的本性。在《风景》(Landscape)里，语言的碎片构成一组组流动的诗歌意象，牵引着观众的想象力做超出语言之外的运动，在笼罩语言碎片的朦胧诗意里寻找真相变幻莫测的面孔，此时，语言本身成为了真正的风景。在《归于尘土》（Ashes to Ashes）里，品特间接触及了纳粹大屠杀对人心灵的摧残这一主题。他试图在史学家追求的那种客观真实与自己那充满不确定性的语言之间找到平衡点。品特试着让语言超越自身，以有限的在场召唤出无限的不在场，从而悖论性地达到自身之外。品特还带动语言的运动，使其不断自我解构，那不断被推延和被回避的所指，代表着受害人永远没有勇气面对的那个过去。能指与所指之间的裂缝，恰如受害人心灵上永远无法弥合的伤口。
正文第三部分（第四章）聚焦品特戏剧里备受关注的沉默。在指涉性的语言观里，沉默被视为语言的阙如。然而，在差异性的语言观里，沉默与语言相对而生，互相转换，沉默甚至可以比语言包蕴更多的意义。值得一提的是品特本人作为作者在其作品里保持的沉默，他不佯装全知全能，也不充任自己创作的戏剧世界里的上帝。品特戏剧里的沉默分为无声沉默和有声沉默两种。品特对有声沉默的界定是：“言说实际上道出的是隐匿其下的另一种言说。”在《月光》(Moonlight)里，沉默调节着人物内心复杂情感的强度及走向；表达出语言所无法表达的人物的复杂心理状态；唤起朦胧诗意；代替语言完成人与人之间的交流。在《微痛》(The Slight Ache)里，品特尝试着将抽象的沉默“戏剧化”，赋予其可感知的外形，使其制造出戏剧张力，从而推动剧情的发展。该剧里的卖火柴老人可在象征意义上被视为沉默的化身，沉默就像漩涡的中心，带动并吞噬言说，语言的存在似乎只是为了填补沉默的空洞。
The dissertation argues for a reevaluation of Pinteresque language in the lightof the20thcentury Linguistic Turn, which has produced some profound changes in thebasic perceptions of language. The belief that language-word link is the relation ofreference, meaning of a word being the object it refers to, is replaced by the idea thatlanguage is non-referential, meaning stemming not from the correspondence betweenthe signifier and the signified but from relations of difference between components oflanguage. Therefore, language in essence is a kind of form rather than content and it isindependent from the outside world. Actually, language constitutes the world by givingit orders and forms. Meanwhile when human beings employ language, what actuallyhappens is “language speaking rather than human beings speaking”, because the subjectof human beings is a cultural structure “interpellated” by language. Furthermore,language carries power while it functions, both at a macro and micro level.
Close reading of Pinter’s seven dramas in the new understanding of languageaforementioned constitutes the main body of the present dissertation composed of threeparts. In the first part it is argued that “reality” is multi-dimensional because the wayhuman beings impose orders upon the world through language is varied. Pinter’s plays,as he himself claims, are not realistic, but real. In fact, what renders his plays a sense ofreality is not the naturalistic minutiae but a spirit of absurdity, because in thepostmodern world, the absurd is found to be one possibility of the reality. In Pinter’sdramatic world, reality is redefined in the perspective of linguistic absurdity. In his TheRoom, Pinter creates a world based on the words of quicksand, where Rose’s incessantattempts to force orders upon an orderless world with language is repeatedly frustratedand finally defeated. Unceasingly gliding signifiers only leads Rose to more and moreother signifiers rather than the absolute signified which is able to get everything fixed.The Caretaker shows how in a world linguistically constituted human beings exploitlanguage to negotiate their position or identity within various relationships into whichthey are thrust now that their existence and essence is not pre-language andextra-language. The Birthday Party is concerned with the cultural construction of subjectivity through language and can be viewed as a dramatization of what Heideggerterms as “language speaks us.” Stanley resists being spoken by language in the tragicway of keeping silent, talking nonsense, and feigning mad.
The second part first explores in a theoretical way the relations between languageand memory. Language recreates the past instead of mirroring it. It endows what mighthave disappeared with a linguistic shape. Different from historians endeavoring to seekthe only truth of history, Pinter believes that the past is misty and unverifiable. So in hismemory plays, Pinter exploits to a great degree the ambiguous potential of language toexhibit the mistiness of the past and the vagaries of memory. In Landscape, languageitself is fore-grounded as the real “landscape” of this play. Pinter focuses our attentionon the pure form, or the texture of the language of this play. Beth’s recollection iscomposed of linguistic fragments of flowing poetic images, which leads ourimagination surpassing language itself. In Ashes to Ashes, Pinter touches upon thetheme of Nazi holocaust allusively. He tries to maintain a subtle balance between theabsolute truth in historical studies and his language full of uncertainties and ambiguities.Pinter uses language in a paradoxical way, bringing into presence the infinitenon-presence with the limited presence. He makes language to deconstruct language,thus rendering language to transcend itself to reach the realm of the unfathomable. Thecontinually deferred and deluded signified symbolizes the evasive past which Rebeccafinds no courage to confront. What buries deep in the eternal split between the signifierand the signified is the unspeakable suffering the victim experienced.
The third part explores Pinter’s well-known deployment of silences. In thelinguistic theory of reference, silence is viewed as the absence of meaning due to itslack of audible sound, the signifier. After the Linguistic Turn, language is understood ascreative and constructive in nature. Thus, silence is taken as part of language, bothcomplementary and interchangeable to audible speaking. Silence is soundlesscommunication and can be just as or even more articulate than speaking. Pinter employssilences in a multitude ways to create meanings of various kinds. Apart from textual silences, there exists another kind of silence, the silence of the author. Pinter keepssilent by giving up his omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent existence in hisdramatic world. Pinter distinguishes two kinds of silences—one when no word isspoken, and the other when a torrent of words is used evasively. In his Moonlight,silences, verbal and nonverbal, regulate the intensity and trend of characters’ complexemotions; express the interior state that is beyond any expression; create poetictension; serve as ways of real communication; etc. Besides wordless silence andeloquent silence, Pinter attempts to dramatize silence, giving concrete shape to thisabstract void. In The Slight Ache, the elderly match seller who never utters a word is thesymbolization of silence per se. Like a deep whirlpool, he stimulates and assimilatesEdwards’ torrents of speech and finally leads to his collapse. Words seem to be thematerial used to fill the infinite void of silence.
论文正文的第一部分（第二章），首先从理论层面探讨了语言维度里现实与荒诞的关系。人们用语言赋予世界秩序的方式不是唯一的，现实可以具有多重维度。品特戏剧充满自然主义式的细节与逼真的日常对话，但却缺乏现实主义内在的理性逻辑与精确表达。品特戏剧不是现实主义的，但却非常的“现实”，因为在这个时代，人们发现荒诞本身就是现实多重维度之一维。人是语言的存在，品特戏剧用语言层面的荒诞结构出人存在的荒诞。在《房间》(The Room)里，品特用语言塑造了流沙上的戏剧世界。语言的非指涉性(non-referenciality)取消了人原本预设在语言之先、之外的本质性存在,形而上学内涵的二元对立模式失去存在的根基。语言赋予人以存在的意义，然而，这种意义不具有稳定性，它只是能指符在差异化的运动里稍纵即逝的“踪迹”，这种意义，恰如品特自己的描述，就像流沙，随时可能在足底坍塌。在《看管人》(The Caretaker)里，人们“在语言里敌意地栖居”，语言成为主要的戏剧行动。人物们以言行事，一面用语言遮掩自身的虚空，一面又试图通过言说确立自己的身份。话语交锋内含着争权夺利，人际关系的网络在流动的能指符里不断波动。语言全然就是一阵阵的烟幕，指东言西，大家都在语言的遮掩下回避交流，隐藏自己。在语言角斗场上的斗败者，失去的将是其存在的根基。《生日晚会》(The Birthday Party)可以被视为一出“语言说人”的悲剧，人是语言的存在，却不是语言的主宰。人在其成长及成熟的过程中，必须进入作为象征体系的语言，在此，人会被剥夺自我独立的存在，被语言所运载的习俗和法则异化。想脱离语言铺天盖地的罗网，人只能以无意义的声音或者绝对意义上的沉默进行对抗。然而，将自我放逐于语言之外，也就等于远离整个社会系统。
正文第二部分（第三章）先从理论的层面讨论了语言与回忆的关联。语言不是镜现过去，而是“再造”过去，语言赋予过去的原始经验以某种秩序和意义，从而让其得以在现在存在。品特与历史学家不同，不以求真为嚆矢，他坚称过去是不可确证的(unverifiable)，所以，他所做的是用语言的“肌质”(texture)还原过去扑朔迷离的本性。在《风景》(Landscape)里，语言的碎片构成一组组流动的诗歌意象，牵引着观众的想象力做超出语言之外的运动，在笼罩语言碎片的朦胧诗意里寻找真相变幻莫测的面孔，此时，语言本身成为了真正的风景。在《归于尘土》（Ashes to Ashes）里，品特间接触及了纳粹大屠杀对人心灵的摧残这一主题。他试图在史学家追求的那种客观真实与自己那充满不确定性的语言之间找到平衡点。品特试着让语言超越自身，以有限的在场召唤出无限的不在场，从而悖论性地达到自身之外。品特还带动语言的运动，使其不断自我解构，那不断被推延和被回避的所指，代表着受害人永远没有勇气面对的那个过去。能指与所指之间的裂缝，恰如受害人心灵上永远无法弥合的伤口。
正文第三部分（第四章）聚焦品特戏剧里备受关注的沉默。在指涉性的语言观里，沉默被视为语言的阙如。然而，在差异性的语言观里，沉默与语言相对而生，互相转换，沉默甚至可以比语言包蕴更多的意义。值得一提的是品特本人作为作者在其作品里保持的沉默，他不佯装全知全能，也不充任自己创作的戏剧世界里的上帝。品特戏剧里的沉默分为无声沉默和有声沉默两种。品特对有声沉默的界定是：“言说实际上道出的是隐匿其下的另一种言说。”在《月光》(Moonlight)里，沉默调节着人物内心复杂情感的强度及走向；表达出语言所无法表达的人物的复杂心理状态；唤起朦胧诗意；代替语言完成人与人之间的交流。在《微痛》(The Slight Ache)里，品特尝试着将抽象的沉默“戏剧化”，赋予其可感知的外形，使其制造出戏剧张力，从而推动剧情的发展。该剧里的卖火柴老人可在象征意义上被视为沉默的化身，沉默就像漩涡的中心，带动并吞噬言说，语言的存在似乎只是为了填补沉默的空洞。
The dissertation argues for a reevaluation of Pinteresque language in the lightof the20thcentury Linguistic Turn, which has produced some profound changes in thebasic perceptions of language. The belief that language-word link is the relation ofreference, meaning of a word being the object it refers to, is replaced by the idea thatlanguage is non-referential, meaning stemming not from the correspondence betweenthe signifier and the signified but from relations of difference between components oflanguage. Therefore, language in essence is a kind of form rather than content and it isindependent from the outside world. Actually, language constitutes the world by givingit orders and forms. Meanwhile when human beings employ language, what actuallyhappens is “language speaking rather than human beings speaking”, because the subjectof human beings is a cultural structure “interpellated” by language. Furthermore,language carries power while it functions, both at a macro and micro level.
Close reading of Pinter’s seven dramas in the new understanding of languageaforementioned constitutes the main body of the present dissertation composed of threeparts. In the first part it is argued that “reality” is multi-dimensional because the wayhuman beings impose orders upon the world through language is varied. Pinter’s plays,as he himself claims, are not realistic, but real. In fact, what renders his plays a sense ofreality is not the naturalistic minutiae but a spirit of absurdity, because in thepostmodern world, the absurd is found to be one possibility of the reality. In Pinter’sdramatic world, reality is redefined in the perspective of linguistic absurdity. In his TheRoom, Pinter creates a world based on the words of quicksand, where Rose’s incessantattempts to force orders upon an orderless world with language is repeatedly frustratedand finally defeated. Unceasingly gliding signifiers only leads Rose to more and moreother signifiers rather than the absolute signified which is able to get everything fixed.The Caretaker shows how in a world linguistically constituted human beings exploitlanguage to negotiate their position or identity within various relationships into whichthey are thrust now that their existence and essence is not pre-language andextra-language. The Birthday Party is concerned with the cultural construction of subjectivity through language and can be viewed as a dramatization of what Heideggerterms as “language speaks us.” Stanley resists being spoken by language in the tragicway of keeping silent, talking nonsense, and feigning mad.
The second part first explores in a theoretical way the relations between languageand memory. Language recreates the past instead of mirroring it. It endows what mighthave disappeared with a linguistic shape. Different from historians endeavoring to seekthe only truth of history, Pinter believes that the past is misty and unverifiable. So in hismemory plays, Pinter exploits to a great degree the ambiguous potential of language toexhibit the mistiness of the past and the vagaries of memory. In Landscape, languageitself is fore-grounded as the real “landscape” of this play. Pinter focuses our attentionon the pure form, or the texture of the language of this play. Beth’s recollection iscomposed of linguistic fragments of flowing poetic images, which leads ourimagination surpassing language itself. In Ashes to Ashes, Pinter touches upon thetheme of Nazi holocaust allusively. He tries to maintain a subtle balance between theabsolute truth in historical studies and his language full of uncertainties and ambiguities.Pinter uses language in a paradoxical way, bringing into presence the infinitenon-presence with the limited presence. He makes language to deconstruct language,thus rendering language to transcend itself to reach the realm of the unfathomable. Thecontinually deferred and deluded signified symbolizes the evasive past which Rebeccafinds no courage to confront. What buries deep in the eternal split between the signifierand the signified is the unspeakable suffering the victim experienced.
The third part explores Pinter’s well-known deployment of silences. In thelinguistic theory of reference, silence is viewed as the absence of meaning due to itslack of audible sound, the signifier. After the Linguistic Turn, language is understood ascreative and constructive in nature. Thus, silence is taken as part of language, bothcomplementary and interchangeable to audible speaking. Silence is soundlesscommunication and can be just as or even more articulate than speaking. Pinter employssilences in a multitude ways to create meanings of various kinds. Apart from textual silences, there exists another kind of silence, the silence of the author. Pinter keepssilent by giving up his omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent existence in hisdramatic world. Pinter distinguishes two kinds of silences—one when no word isspoken, and the other when a torrent of words is used evasively. In his Moonlight,silences, verbal and nonverbal, regulate the intensity and trend of characters’ complexemotions; express the interior state that is beyond any expression; create poetictension; serve as ways of real communication; etc. Besides wordless silence andeloquent silence, Pinter attempts to dramatize silence, giving concrete shape to thisabstract void. In The Slight Ache, the elderly match seller who never utters a word is thesymbolization of silence per se. Like a deep whirlpool, he stimulates and assimilatesEdwards’ torrents of speech and finally leads to his collapse. Words seem to be thematerial used to fill the infinite void of silence.
引文
80年代逐渐显著起来。详见：（美）迈克尔·格洛登、马丁·克雷斯沃斯、伊莫瑞·济曼《霍普金斯文学理论和批评指南》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社：2011：653.
1如Esslin就认为，品特的政治剧使其创作天资大打折扣，因为这些剧作在宣布道德和政治教条的同时放弃了他最具特色的不确定性。Arthur Ganz也表示无法认可品特的政治剧，并指出，品特的良知并不是其作品伟大性的来源。详见Charles Grimes. Harold Pinter’s Politics: A Silence Beyond Echo. Madison: Fairleigh DickinsonUniversity Press,2007:17.
1西方现代哲学的这一思想基本观点是整个西方哲学史上继笛卡尔、康德之后的又一次转向。详见张世英《两种哲学，两种语言观》北京大学学报（哲学社会科学版）2000.4.103.
1不确定性是荒诞派戏剧区别于传统戏剧的重要特征。详见严泽胜《荒诞派戏剧的后现代审美特征》
1据王燕，《哈罗德·品特戏剧话语里沉默现象的语用文体学研究》上海交通大学博士研究生论文，2008.161统计，该剧一共27页，开场独白占5页，共789字，占全剧总字数12%。
2注：本文引用的品特剧作均引自华明译，译林出版社2010年出版的《品特戏剧选集》，下同，不再作标注。
1见龙迪勇《事件：叙述与阐释——叙事学研究之三》，《江西社会科学》2001.10.16.注：此术语是作者按照按康德的“物自体”一词发明出来的。
1有论者如此理解夫妻俩各自的独白：丈夫达夫的独白类似于勃朗宁创造的“戏剧独白”，在独白里，达夫表露出的比他打算表现的要多，而且，达夫有着不参与对话的隐含读者。妻子贝丝传达的更像是内心独白，不让达夫听到。详见：Milija Gluhovic. Memory-Theatre of Harold Pinter, Tadeusz Kantor, and Heiner Muller.Graduate Centre for Study of Drama. University of Toronto.2005：136.
1形式说到底就是语言。可见《后现代历史叙事学》海登·怀特，译者序，第2页。
1统计数据来自王燕，《哈罗德·品特戏剧话语里沉默现象的语用文体学研究》上海交通大学博士研究生论文，2008：179.
1详见王燕，《哈罗德·品特戏剧话语里沉默现象的语用文体学研究》上海交通大学博士研究生论文，2008：
1注：《微痛》一剧里的引文均出自Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: One. New York: Grove Press,1996，因为国内出版的品特选集未收录此剧。
2Kimball King,“Pinter’s Achievement and Modern Drama.” Pinter at70: A Case Book. New York,London.Routledge:2001.246.
3Richard. Gilman,“The Pinter Puzzle,” New York Times, January22,1967, D5.
12Harold Pinter. Compete Works: One. New York: Grove Press,1996.6.Austin E. Quigley. The Pinter problem. Princeton: Princeton University,1975.19.
1Bold Alan. Harold Pinter: You Never Heard Such Silence. London: Vision Press,1984:35.
1Austin E. Quigley. The Pinter problem. Princeton: Princeton University,1975.116.
1Marc Silverstein.Keeping the Other in its place: Language and Self-fashioning in Selected Plays ofHarold Pinter.Ann Arbor: Brown University,1989.14.
1Michael Billington. The Life and Work of Harold Pinter. London: Faber and Faber,1997:79
1A.C. Grayling. Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introducion. Nanjing: Yilin Press,2008:65.
Abbott, Anthony S. The Vital Lie: Reality and Illusion in Modern Drama. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.1989.
Alan, Bold: Harold Pinter. You Never Heard Such Silence. London: Vision Press,1984.
Almansi, Guido, and Simon Henderson. Harold Pinter. London and New York:Methuen,1983.
Baker, William, Stephen Ely Tabachnick. Harold Pinter. Edinburgh: Oliver&Boyd,1973.
Baker, William and John C. Ross. Harold Pinter: A Bibliographical History. NewCastle, DE: Oak Knoll,2005.
Batty, Mark. Harold Pinter. Devon: Northcote House,2001.
Bernard, F. J.“Beyond Realism: The Plays of Harold Pinter”. Modern Drama. No. VIII(September1954).pp.185-191.
Billington, Michael. The Life and Work of Harold Pinter. London: Faber and Faber,1997.
Bloom Harold, ed. Harold Pinter. New York: Chelsea House Publishers,1987.
Brater, Enoch and Ruby Cohn, ed. Around the Absurd: Essays on Modern andPostmodern Drama. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,1990.
Bradbury, Malcolm, Bigsby, Christopher. Harold Pinter. London: Methuen,1983.
Brown, John Russell. Theatre Language: A Study of Arden, Osborne, Pinter and Wesker.New York: Taplinger,1972.
Bold, Alan. You Never Heard Such Silence. London: Vision:1985.
Burkman, Katherine. The Dramatic World of Harold Pinter: Its Basis in Ritual.Columbus: Ohio State University Press,1971.
Cahn, Victor L. Gender and Power in the Plays of Harold Pinter. New York: St.Martin’s.1993.
Gale, Steven H. Butter’s Going Up: A Critical Analysis of Harold Pinter’s Work.Durham: Duke University Press,1977.
Cohn, Ruby.“The World of Harold Pinter”. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol.6, No3(Mar.1962),pp.55-68.
Chris Baldick. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford, New York:Oxford university，Press,1996.
Dukore, Bernard F.“The Theatre of Harold Pinter”. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol.6,No.3(Mar.1962), pp.43-54.
Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the absurd. New York: Penguin Books Ltd.,1962.
Esslin, Marin. The Peopled Wound. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books,1970.
Esslin, Martin. Pinter: The Playwright. London: Methuen,1984.
Gale, Steven H., ed. Harold Pinter: Critical approaches. London and Toronto:Associated University Press,1986.
Ganz, Arthur. Ed. Pinter: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-hall,1972.
Gordon, Lois G. Stratagems to Uncover Nakedness: The Dramas of Harold Pinter.Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press,1968.
Gordon, Lois, ed. Pinter at70: A Case Book. New York and London: Routledge,2001.
Gordon, Robert. Harold Pinter: The Theatre of Power. Ann Arbor: The University ofMichigan Press,2012.
Grayling, A.C.. Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introducion. Nanjing: Yilin Press,2008.
Grimes, Charles. Harold Pinter’s Politics: A Silence Beyond Echo. Madison: FairleighDickinson University Press,2005.
Gussow, Mel. Conversations with Pinter. New York: Limelight editions,1994.
Hayman, Ronald. Harold Pinter. New York: Ungar,1973
Hinchliffe, Arnold P. Harold Pinter. Boston; Twayne,1981.
Hollis, James. R. The Poetics of Silence. London: Feffer&Simons, Inc.,1970.
Kane, Leslie. The language of silence: on the unspoken and the unspeakable in moderndrama. London: Associated University Press,1984.
Kerr, Walter. Harold Pinter. New York: Columbia U P,1967.
Kreps, Barbara.“Time and Harold Pinter’s Possible Realities: Art as Life and ViceVersa”. Modern Drama,22(Mar.1979), pp.47-60.
Knowles, Ronald.. Understanding Pinter. Columbia, S.C.: University of South CarolinaPress,1995.
Mark, Fortier. Theory/theatre: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge:2002.
Marc Silverstein.Keeping the Other in its place: Language and Self-fashioning inSelected Plays of Harold Pinter.Ann Arbor: Brown University,1989.
Milija Gluhovic, Memory-Theatre of Harold Pinter, Tadeusz Kantor, and Heiner Muller.University of Toronto,2005.
Olson, Elder. Tragedy and the Theory of Drama. Michigan: Wayne State UniversityPress,1972.
Packard.“An Interview with Harold Pinter”. First Stage. No.6.(Summer1967). Pp.87.
Peacock, D. Keith. Harold Pinter and the New British Theatre. London: GreenwoodUniversity,1997.
Harold Pinter.“Writing for the Theatre”. Evergreen Review. No.8(August-September1963). pp.80-82.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: One. New York: Grove Press,1996.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Two. New York: Grove Press,1996.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Three. New York: Grove Press,1997.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Four. New York: Grove Press,2011.
Pinter, Harold. Various Voices. London: Faber and Faber,1998.
Prentice, Penelope. Harold Pinter: Life, Work, and Criticism. New Brunswick: YorkPress,1991.
Prentice, Penelope. The Pinter Ethic: The Erotic Aesthetic. N Y: Garland,2000.
Quigley, Austin E.. The Pinter Problem. Princeton: Princeton University,1975.
Raby, Peter. The Cambridge Companion to Harold Pinter. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2001.
Regal, Martin S. Harold Pinter: A Question of Timing. NY: St. Martin’s,1995.
Sakellaridou, Elizabeth. Pinter’s Female Portraits: A Study of Female Characters in thePlays of Harold Pinter. Totowa, NJ: Barns&Noble Books,1988.
Schnebly, Cynthia Woodard. Repetition in Beckett, Pinter and Albee. Texas A&MUniversity,1993.
Silverstein, Marc. Harold Pinter and the Language of Cultural Power. London andToronto: Associated University Presses,1993.
Skyes, Altrene. Harold Pinter. New York: Humanities Press,1970.
Strunk, Volker. Harold Pinter: Toward a Poetics of His Plays. New York: Peter Lang,1989.
Taylor, John Russell. Harold Pinter. London: Longmans Green,1969.
Tompson, David T. Pinter: The Player’s Playwright. London: Macmillan,1985.
Trussler, Simon. The Plays of Harold Pinter: An Assessment. London: Gollancz,1973.
（英）A.C.Grayling.《维特根斯坦与哲学》，张金言译，南京：译林出版社．
（南非）安德烈·布林克《小说的语言和叙事：从塞万提斯到卡尔维诺》，汪洪章，等译，上海人民出版社，2010.
艾斯林．《荒诞派戏剧》．华明译.石家庄：河北教育出版社，2003.
蔡芳钿．《并不荒诞的笑声：品特戏剧中的滑稽人物形象》，《艺术评论》，2009．3：67-70.
曹步军《论品特作品中的静默与戏剧性》,《英美文学研究论丛》2012(01)．
陈红薇《战后英国戏剧中的哈罗·德品特》北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社，2007.
陈新.《历史·比喻·想象——海登·怀特历史哲学述评》,《史学理论研究》，2005.(02).
陈新．《历史认识：从现代到后现代》．北京：北京大学出版社，2010.
邓中良.《品品特》．武汉：长江文艺出版社，2006.
恩斯特·卡西尔《人论》．甘阳译上海：上海译文出版社，2004
恩斯特·卡西尔《语言与神话》．于晓等译，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店1988.
方柏林《哈罗德·品特的语言剧》，《戏剧艺术》．2012.1：33-36.
冯俊等.《后现代主义哲学演讲录》.北京：商务印书馆，2005.
弗朗索瓦·多斯.《从结构到解构——法国20世纪思想主潮：上》.季广茂译.北京：中央编译出版社，2004.
弗朗索瓦·多斯.《从结构到解构——法国20世纪思想主潮：下》.季广茂译.北京：中央编译出版社，2004.
格尔达·帕格尔《拉康》．李朝晖译.北京：人民大学出版社，2008
海德格尔《形而上学导论》．商务印书馆，1996.
海德格尔．《存在与时间》．陈嘉映，王庆节译．北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1987．
海德格尔．《语言的本质》，《海德格尔选集》（下）．上海：三联书店，1996.
海登·怀特《元史学》．陈新译，南京：译林出版社：2009
胡宝平．《中国的品特批评：方法、问题与展望》，《当代外国文学》2012.1.
何其莘.《品特的探索真相之旅》，《外国文学》，2006.2.
华明．《品特戏剧中的女性、女性主义与政治》，《戏剧》．2010.3.
J.卡勒．《索绪尔》．张景智译．北京：中国社会科学出版社，1989.
J.L.斯泰恩．《现代戏剧的理论与实践：第二卷》．周成等译，北京：中国戏剧出版社，2002．
凯瑟琳·乔治.《戏剧节奏》．张全全译.北京：中国戏剧出版社，1992.
昆德拉.《小说的艺术》．孟湄译，上海：三联书店，1995.
（法）拉康《拉康选集》．褚孝泉译，上海三联书店，2001
(美)理查德·坎伯.《加缪》．马振涛杨淑学译.北京：中华书局，2002.
黎林《〈看管人〉：规训社会中权力与战争游戏的隐喻》，《外国文学》，2009.5.
李华.《话语的暴力与规训——解读哈罗德品特的〈生日晚会〉》.《解放军外国语学院学报》，2010.6.
刘安刚.《意义哲学纲要》.北京：中央编译出版社，1998.
刘红卫《中国“十一五”期间英国戏剧研究》，《外国文学研究》2011.1.
刘红卫.《中国语境下的哈罗德·品特研究》,《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》.2012.2
柳鸣九《二十一世纪文学中的荒诞》．湖南教育出版社，1993.
（英）罗吉.福勒.《现代西方文学批评术语词典》,袁德成译.成都:四川人民出版社，1987.
马元龙.《雅克·拉康：语言维度中的精神分析》．北京：东方出版社，2006.
（英）M.麦金.《维特根斯坦与〈哲学研究〉》．李国山译.桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2007.
迈克尔·格洛登，马丁·克雷斯沃思，伊莫瑞·济曼.《霍普金斯文学理论和批判指南》．王逢振，等译.北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2011
乔纳森·卡勒《罗兰·巴尔特》．孙乃修译，1992.中国社会科学出版社，北京
品特．《送菜升降机》．华明译，南京：译林出版社，2010.
任生名．《西方现代悲剧论稿》．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1998．
沈松华．《试论中国传统沉默观》，《杭州师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，2010.6．
王超．《被抛性无调式断裂化——论西方荒诞派戏剧的话语模式与精神症候》，《四川戏剧》．2006.6.
王舞．《返回家园后的奥德修斯——论品特“威胁喜剧》，《戏剧艺术》，1991.01
王霞．《如何再现纳粹屠杀——海登·怀特的历史相对主义思想辨析》2012.2.《清华大学学报》（哲学学会科学版），
王燕，谢柏梁．《从〈房间〉话语看男性霸权》，《山东外语教学》，2006.6.
王燕．《哈罗德·品特戏剧话语里沉默现象的御用文体学研究》，上海交通大学，2008.
张世英．《两种哲学，两种语言观》，《北京大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2000.4.
张世英．《天人之际:中西哲学的困惑与选择》．北京：人民出版社：2007.
肖萍.《折光的汇合：暧昧与胁迫性并存——论品特戏剧作品》，上海：上海戏剧学院，博士毕业论文，2005.
(英)欣奇利夫.《荒诞说:从存在主义到荒诞派》．刘国彬译，北京:中国戏剧出版社,1992.
徐克谦.《庄子哲学新论：道·言·自由与美》，北京：中华书局，2006.
杨玉成.《奥斯汀：语言现象学与哲学》.北京：商务印书馆，2002.
袁德成.《论品特及其戏剧与政治的关系》,《当代外国文学》.2008.4.
袁德成.《品特在中国：回顾与反思》,《四川师范大学学报（社会科学版）》.2010.
袁小华，宋赟.《哈罗德·品特国内外研究现状综述》，《艺术百家》2008.1.
约翰·斯特罗克．《结构主义以来》，沈阳：辽宁教育出版社，1998.
赵毅衡.《重访新批评》.天津：百花文艺出版社，2009.
张雪，徐彬．《从贝克特到品特：荒诞派戏剧之焦虑面面观》，《外语与外语教学》，2008.4.
张雪，徐彬《〈回家〉中丰饶女神的隐喻与精神家园的重建》，《解放军外国语学院学报》.2009.11.
张一兵．《不可能的存在之真——拉康哲学映像》．北京：商务印书馆：2008.
Abbott, Anthony S. The Vital Lie: Reality and Illusion in Modern Drama. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.1989.
Alan, Bold: Harold Pinter. You Never Heard Such Silence. London: Vision Press,1984.
Alexander, Nigel.“Past,Present and Pinter”. Essays and Studies. No.27(1974). Pp.1-17.
Almansi, Guido, and Simon Henderson. Harold Pinter. London and New York:Methuen,1983.
Arden, John.“The Caretaker”. New Magzine, No.4*july,1960(,pp.29-30.atre
Armstrong, William A..Experimental Drama. London:1993.
Armstrong, William A. Experimental Drama. London: G. Bell,1963.
Aristotle. On Poetics. Trans. Seth Benardete, Michael Davis. South Bend: St.Augustine’s,2002.
Baker, William, Stephen Ely Tabachnick. Harold Pinter. Edinburgh: Oliver&Boyd,1973.
Baker, William and John C. Ross. Harold Pinter: A Bibliographical History. NewCastle, DE: Oak Knoll,2005.
Bakewell, Joan.“Interview With Harold Pinter”. The Listener,NO.6(Nov.1969), pp.34-36.
Batty, Mark. Harold Pinter. Devon: Northcote House,2001.
Bernard, F. J.“Beyond Realism: The Plays of Harold Pinter”. Modern Drama. No. VIII(September1954).pp.185-191.
Billington, Michael. The Life and Work of Harold Pinter. London: Faber and Faber,1997.
Bloom Harold, ed. Harold Pinter. New York: Chelsea House Publishers,1987.
Brater, Enoch and Ruby Cohn, ed. Around the Absurd: Essays on Modern andPostmodern Drama. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan Press,1990.
Bradbury, Malcolm and Bigsby, Christopher. Harold Pinter. London: Methuen,1983.
Brown, John Russell.“Dialogue in Pinter and Others.” Critical Quarterly Vo. VII(Autumn1965). pp.225-243.
Brown, John Russell. Theatre Language: A Study of Arden, Osborne, Pinter and Wesker.New York: Taplinger,1972.
Burkman, Katherine. The Dramatic World of Harold Pinter: Its Basis in Ritual.Columbus: Ohio State University Press,1971.
Cahn, Victor L. Gender and Power in the Plays of Harold Pinter. New York: St.Martin’s.1993.
Gale, Steven H. Butter’s Going Up: A Critical Analysis of Harold Pinter’s Work.Durham: Duke University Press,1977.
Gale, Steven H. ed.. The Films of Harold Pinter. Albany: State University of New YorkPress,2001.
Cohn, Ruby.“The World of Harold Pinter”. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol.6, No3(Mar.1962),pp.55-68.
Diamond, Ellin. Pinter’s Comic Play. Cranbury: Associated University Press,1985.
Dukore, Bernard F.“The Theatre of Harold Pinter”. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol.6,No.3(Mar.1962), pp.43-54.
Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the absurd. New York: Penguin Books Ltd.,1962.
Esslin, Martin. Pinter: The Playwright. London: Methuen,1984.
Farrington, Conor A.“The Language of Drama”. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol.5, No.2(Winer,1966(, pp.63-70.
Gale, Steven H., ed. Harold Pinter: Critical approaches. London and Toronto:Associated University Press,1986.
Ganz, Arthur. Ed.. Pinter: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-hall,1972.
Garry L. Hagberg and Walter Jost. A companion to the Philosophy of Literature.HongKong,2010.
Gelder, Lawrence Van.“Pinteresque Pinter”. New York Times,28July1989, B4.
Gilman, Richard.“The Pinter Puzzle,” New York Times, January22,1967,
Gordon, Lois G. Stratagems to Uncover Nakedness: The Dramas of Harold Pinter.Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press,1968.
Gordon, Lois, ed. Pinter at70: A Case Book. New York and London: Routledge,2001.
Gordon, Robert. Harold Pinter: The Theatre of Power. Ann Arbor: The University ofMichigan Press,2012.
Grayling, A.C.. Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introducion. Nanjing: Yilin Press,2008.
Grimes, Charles. Harold Pinter’s Politics: A silence Beyond Echo. Madison: FairleighDickinson University Press,2005.
Gross, Mirian.“Pinter on Piner”. Observer. No.5(October1980).pp.25,27.
Gussow, Mel. Conversations with Pinter. New York: Limelight editions,1994.
Hayman, Ronald. Harold Pinter. New York: Ungar,1973
Hinchliffe, Arnold P. Harold Pinter. Boston; Twayne,1981.
Hollis, James. R. The Poetics of Silence. London: Feffer&Simons, Inc.,1970.
Hooti, Noorbaksh.“A Postmodern Reading of Harold Pinter’s ‘The Homecoming’”.Cross Cultural Communication,Vol.7, No.2.2011,pp.41-45.
Kerr, Walter. Harold Pinter. New York: Columbia U P,1967.
Kreps, Barbara.“Time and Harold Pinter’s Possible Realities: Art as Life and ViceVersa”. Modern Drama,22(Mar.1979), pp.47-60.
Knowles, Ronald.. Understanding Pinter. Columbia, S.C.: University of South CarolinaPress,1995.
Lacey, Stephen. British Realist Theatre: The New Wave in its Context1956-1965.London: Routledge,1995.
Mark, Fortier. Theory/theatre: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge:2002.
Marc Silverstein.Keeping the Other in its place: Language and Self-fashioning inSelected Plays of Harold Pinter.Ann Arbor: Brown University,1989.
Milija Gluhovic, Memory-Theatre of Harold Pinter, Tadeusz Kantor, and Heiner Muller.University of Toronto,2005.
Olson, Elder. Tragedy and the Theory of Drama. Michigan: Wayne State UniversityPress,1972.
Packard.“An Interview with Harold Pinter”. First Stage. No.6.(Summer1967). Pp.87.
Peacock, D. Keith. Harold Pinter and the New British Theatre. London: GreenwoodUniversity,1997.
Harold Pinter.“Writing for the Theatre”. Evergreen Review. No.8(August-September1963). pp.80-82.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: One. New York: Grove Press,1996.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Two. New York: Grove Press,1996.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Three. New York: Grove Press,1997.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Four. New York: Grove Press,2011.
Pinter, Harold. Various Voices. London: Faber and Faber,1998.
Pinter, Harold. Essential Pinter. New York: Grove Press,2006.
Prentice, Penelope. Harold Pinter: Life, Work, and Criticism. New Brunswick: YorkPress,1991.
Prentice, Penelope. The Pinter Ethic: The Erotic Aesthetic. N Y: Garland,2000.
Quigley, Austin E.. The Pinter problem. Princeton: Princeton University,1975.
Raby, Peter. The Cambridge Companion to Harold Pinter. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2001.
Rayner, Alice.“Harold Pinter: Narrative and Presence”. Theatre Journal, Vol.40, NO.4(Dec.,1988), pp.482-497.
Regal, Martin S. Harold Pinter: A Question of Timing. Ny: St. Martin’s,1995.
Sakellaridou, Elizabeth. Pinter’s Female Portraits: A Study of Female Characters in thePlays of Harold Pinter. Totowa, NJ: Barns&Noble Books,1988.
Schnebly, Cynthia Woodard. Repetition in Beckett, Pinter and Albee. Texas A&MUniversity,1993.
Shellard, Dominic. The Golden Generation: New Light on Post-war British Theatre.London: British Library,2008.
Silverstein, Marc. Harold Pinter and the Language of Cultural Power. London andToronto: Associated University Presses,1993.
Skyes, Altrene. Harold Pinter. New York: Humanities Press,1970.
Strunk, Volker. Harold Pinter: Toward a Poetics of His Plays. New York: Peter Lang,1989.
Taylor, John Russell. Harold Pinter. London: Longmans Green,1969.
Tompson, David T. Pinter: The Player’s Playwright.London: Macmillan,1985.
Trussler, Simon. The Plays of Harold Pinter: An Assessment. London: Gollancz,1973.
Tutaev, David.“Theatre of the Absurd… How Absurd?”. Gambit, No.2, pp.68-70.
Tynan, Kathleen.“In Search of Harold Pinter”. Evening Standard. No.25(April1968).
pp.7.
艾斯林．《荒诞派戏剧》．华明译.石家庄：河北教育出版社，2003.
蔡芳钿．《并不荒诞的笑声：品特戏剧中的滑稽人物形象》，《艺术评论》，2009．3：67-70.
陈红薇．《〈虚无乡〉：品特式“威胁主题”的演变》，《外国文学评论》，2003.1.
陈新.《历史·比喻·想象——海登·怀特历史哲学述评》,《史学理论研究》2005.2.
陈新．《历史认识：从现代到后现代》．北京：北京大学出版社，2010.
邓中良.《品品特》.武汉：长江文艺出版社，2006.
（德）恩斯特·卡西尔．《语言与神话》．北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1988．
冯俊等.《后现代主义哲学演讲录》.北京：商务印书馆，2005.
弗朗索瓦·多斯.《从结构到解构——法国20世纪思想主潮：上》.季广茂译.北京：中央编译出版社，2004.
弗朗索瓦·多斯.《从结构到解构——法国20世纪思想主潮：下》.季广茂译.北京：中央编译出版社，2004.
海德格尔．《存在与时间》．陈嘉映，王庆节译．北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1987．
海德格尔．《语言的本质》，《海德格尔选集》（下）．上海：三联书店，1996.
胡宝平．《中国的品特批评：方法、问题与展望》，《当代外国文学》2012.1.
何其莘.《品特的探索真相之旅》，《外国文学》，2006.2.
韩征顺，李健鹏．《寓怪诞于现实，寄荒谬于情理——品特的看管人解析》，《外语研究》，2006.6.
华明．《品特戏剧中的女性、女性主义与政治》，《戏剧》．2010.3.
J.L.奥斯汀.《如何以言行事——1955年哈佛大学威廉·詹姆斯讲座》北京：商务印书馆，2012
J.卡勒．《索绪尔》．张景智译．北京：中国社会科学出版社，1989.
J.L.斯泰恩．《现代戏剧的理论与实践：第二卷》．周成等译，北京：中国戏剧出版社，2002．
凯瑟琳·乔治.《戏剧节奏》.张全全译.北京：中国戏剧出版社，1992.
昆德拉．《小说的艺术》.孟湄译，上海：三联书店，1995.
(美)理查德·坎伯．《加缪》．马振涛杨淑学译.北京：中华书局，2002.
黎林《〈看管人〉：规训社会中权力与战争游戏的隐喻》，外国文学，2009.5.89.
李瑶.《此在去蔽之戏剧——哈罗德·品特早期戏剧的哲学阐释》.广州：暨南大学，硕士毕业论文.2008.
李华.《话语的暴力与规训——解读哈罗德品特的〈生日晚会〉》，《解放军外国语学院学报》，2010.6.
李双志.《语言、身份与写作——试论卡夫卡、策兰和赫塔·穆勒创作的文化背景》，《当代外国文学》，2010.2.
刘安刚.《意义哲学纲要》.北京：中央编译出版社，1998.
刘红卫．《中国语境下的哈罗德·品特研究》,《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》.2012.2
刘冠才.《先秦诸子与古希腊哲学家名实观的差异及其影响》,《南京师大学报》（社会科学版），2011.6.
（英）罗吉.福勒.《现代西方文学批评术语词典》,袁德成译.成都:四川人民出版社，1987.
马元龙.《雅克·拉康：语言维度中的精神分析》.北京：东方出版社，2006.
（英）M.麦金.《维特根斯坦与〈哲学研究〉》．李国山译.桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2007.
王舞．《返回家园后的奥德修斯——论品特“威胁喜剧》，《戏剧艺术》，1991.1．
王霞．《如何再现纳粹屠杀——海登·怀特的历史相对主义思想辨析》，《清华大学学报》（哲学学会科学版），2012.2.
王燕，谢柏梁．《从〈房间〉话语看男性霸权》，《山东外语教学》，2006.6.
王燕．《哈罗德·品特戏剧话语里沉默现象的御用文体学研究》，上海交通大学，2008.
维特根斯坦.《哲学研究》，蔡远译.北京：中国社会科学出版社，2009.
肖萍.《折光的汇合：暧昧与胁迫性并存——论品特戏剧作品》，上海：上海戏剧学院，博士毕业论文，2005.
(英)欣奇利夫.《荒诞说:从存在主义到荒诞派》刘国彬译，北京:中国戏剧出版社,1992.
徐克谦.《庄子哲学新论：道·言·自由与美》，北京：中华书局，2006.
杨玉成.《奥斯汀：语言现象学与哲学》.北京：商务印书馆，2002.
袁德成.《论品特及其戏剧与政治的关系》,《当代外国文学》.2008.4.
袁德成.《品特在中国：回顾与反思》,《四川师范大学学报（社会科学版）》.2010.
袁小华，宋赟.《哈罗德·品特国内外研究现状综述》，《艺术百家》2008.1.
张雅琳.《从“离间效果”看品特戏剧中非现实的现实性》.上海：复旦大学，博士毕业论文.2010.
张世英．《两种哲学，两种语言观》，《北京大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》．2000.4.
赵毅衡.《符号学文学论文集》.天津:百花文艺出版社，2004.
赵毅衡.《重访新批评》.天津：百花文艺出版社，2009.
赵毅衡.《符号学：原理与推演》.南京：南京大学出版社，2011.
张雪，徐彬．《从贝克特到品特：荒诞派戏剧之焦虑面面观》，《外语与外语教学》．2008.4.
张雪，徐彬《〈回家〉中丰饶女神的隐喻与精神家园的重建》《解放军外国语学院学报》.2009.11.
朱虹《荒诞派戏剧评述》《世界文学》1978（2）：213-242
1如Esslin就认为，品特的政治剧使其创作天资大打折扣，因为这些剧作在宣布道德和政治教条的同时放弃了他最具特色的不确定性。Arthur Ganz也表示无法认可品特的政治剧，并指出，品特的良知并不是其作品伟大性的来源。详见Charles Grimes. Harold Pinter’s Politics: A Silence Beyond Echo. Madison: Fairleigh DickinsonUniversity Press,2007:17.
1西方现代哲学的这一思想基本观点是整个西方哲学史上继笛卡尔、康德之后的又一次转向。详见张世英《两种哲学，两种语言观》北京大学学报（哲学社会科学版）2000.4.103.
1不确定性是荒诞派戏剧区别于传统戏剧的重要特征。详见严泽胜《荒诞派戏剧的后现代审美特征》
1据王燕，《哈罗德·品特戏剧话语里沉默现象的语用文体学研究》上海交通大学博士研究生论文，2008.161统计，该剧一共27页，开场独白占5页，共789字，占全剧总字数12%。
2注：本文引用的品特剧作均引自华明译，译林出版社2010年出版的《品特戏剧选集》，下同，不再作标注。
1见龙迪勇《事件：叙述与阐释——叙事学研究之三》，《江西社会科学》2001.10.16.注：此术语是作者按照按康德的“物自体”一词发明出来的。
1有论者如此理解夫妻俩各自的独白：丈夫达夫的独白类似于勃朗宁创造的“戏剧独白”，在独白里，达夫表露出的比他打算表现的要多，而且，达夫有着不参与对话的隐含读者。妻子贝丝传达的更像是内心独白，不让达夫听到。详见：Milija Gluhovic. Memory-Theatre of Harold Pinter, Tadeusz Kantor, and Heiner Muller.Graduate Centre for Study of Drama. University of Toronto.2005：136.
1形式说到底就是语言。可见《后现代历史叙事学》海登·怀特，译者序，第2页。
1统计数据来自王燕，《哈罗德·品特戏剧话语里沉默现象的语用文体学研究》上海交通大学博士研究生论文，2008：179.
1详见王燕，《哈罗德·品特戏剧话语里沉默现象的语用文体学研究》上海交通大学博士研究生论文，2008：
1注：《微痛》一剧里的引文均出自Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: One. New York: Grove Press,1996，因为国内出版的品特选集未收录此剧。
2Kimball King,“Pinter’s Achievement and Modern Drama.” Pinter at70: A Case Book. New York,London.Routledge:2001.246.
3Richard. Gilman,“The Pinter Puzzle,” New York Times, January22,1967, D5.
12Harold Pinter. Compete Works: One. New York: Grove Press,1996.6.Austin E. Quigley. The Pinter problem. Princeton: Princeton University,1975.19.
1Bold Alan. Harold Pinter: You Never Heard Such Silence. London: Vision Press,1984:35.
1Austin E. Quigley. The Pinter problem. Princeton: Princeton University,1975.116.
1Marc Silverstein.Keeping the Other in its place: Language and Self-fashioning in Selected Plays ofHarold Pinter.Ann Arbor: Brown University,1989.14.
1Michael Billington. The Life and Work of Harold Pinter. London: Faber and Faber,1997:79
1A.C. Grayling. Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introducion. Nanjing: Yilin Press,2008:65.
Abbott, Anthony S. The Vital Lie: Reality and Illusion in Modern Drama. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.1989.
Alan, Bold: Harold Pinter. You Never Heard Such Silence. London: Vision Press,1984.
Almansi, Guido, and Simon Henderson. Harold Pinter. London and New York:Methuen,1983.
Baker, William, Stephen Ely Tabachnick. Harold Pinter. Edinburgh: Oliver&Boyd,1973.
Baker, William and John C. Ross. Harold Pinter: A Bibliographical History. NewCastle, DE: Oak Knoll,2005.
Batty, Mark. Harold Pinter. Devon: Northcote House,2001.
Bernard, F. J.“Beyond Realism: The Plays of Harold Pinter”. Modern Drama. No. VIII(September1954).pp.185-191.
Billington, Michael. The Life and Work of Harold Pinter. London: Faber and Faber,1997.
Bloom Harold, ed. Harold Pinter. New York: Chelsea House Publishers,1987.
Brater, Enoch and Ruby Cohn, ed. Around the Absurd: Essays on Modern andPostmodern Drama. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,1990.
Bradbury, Malcolm, Bigsby, Christopher. Harold Pinter. London: Methuen,1983.
Brown, John Russell. Theatre Language: A Study of Arden, Osborne, Pinter and Wesker.New York: Taplinger,1972.
Bold, Alan. You Never Heard Such Silence. London: Vision:1985.
Burkman, Katherine. The Dramatic World of Harold Pinter: Its Basis in Ritual.Columbus: Ohio State University Press,1971.
Cahn, Victor L. Gender and Power in the Plays of Harold Pinter. New York: St.Martin’s.1993.
Gale, Steven H. Butter’s Going Up: A Critical Analysis of Harold Pinter’s Work.Durham: Duke University Press,1977.
Cohn, Ruby.“The World of Harold Pinter”. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol.6, No3(Mar.1962),pp.55-68.
Chris Baldick. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford, New York:Oxford university，Press,1996.
Dukore, Bernard F.“The Theatre of Harold Pinter”. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol.6,No.3(Mar.1962), pp.43-54.
Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the absurd. New York: Penguin Books Ltd.,1962.
Esslin, Marin. The Peopled Wound. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books,1970.
Esslin, Martin. Pinter: The Playwright. London: Methuen,1984.
Gale, Steven H., ed. Harold Pinter: Critical approaches. London and Toronto:Associated University Press,1986.
Ganz, Arthur. Ed. Pinter: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-hall,1972.
Gordon, Lois G. Stratagems to Uncover Nakedness: The Dramas of Harold Pinter.Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press,1968.
Gordon, Lois, ed. Pinter at70: A Case Book. New York and London: Routledge,2001.
Gordon, Robert. Harold Pinter: The Theatre of Power. Ann Arbor: The University ofMichigan Press,2012.
Grayling, A.C.. Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introducion. Nanjing: Yilin Press,2008.
Grimes, Charles. Harold Pinter’s Politics: A Silence Beyond Echo. Madison: FairleighDickinson University Press,2005.
Gussow, Mel. Conversations with Pinter. New York: Limelight editions,1994.
Hayman, Ronald. Harold Pinter. New York: Ungar,1973
Hinchliffe, Arnold P. Harold Pinter. Boston; Twayne,1981.
Hollis, James. R. The Poetics of Silence. London: Feffer&Simons, Inc.,1970.
Kane, Leslie. The language of silence: on the unspoken and the unspeakable in moderndrama. London: Associated University Press,1984.
Kerr, Walter. Harold Pinter. New York: Columbia U P,1967.
Kreps, Barbara.“Time and Harold Pinter’s Possible Realities: Art as Life and ViceVersa”. Modern Drama,22(Mar.1979), pp.47-60.
Knowles, Ronald.. Understanding Pinter. Columbia, S.C.: University of South CarolinaPress,1995.
Mark, Fortier. Theory/theatre: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge:2002.
Marc Silverstein.Keeping the Other in its place: Language and Self-fashioning inSelected Plays of Harold Pinter.Ann Arbor: Brown University,1989.
Milija Gluhovic, Memory-Theatre of Harold Pinter, Tadeusz Kantor, and Heiner Muller.University of Toronto,2005.
Olson, Elder. Tragedy and the Theory of Drama. Michigan: Wayne State UniversityPress,1972.
Packard.“An Interview with Harold Pinter”. First Stage. No.6.(Summer1967). Pp.87.
Peacock, D. Keith. Harold Pinter and the New British Theatre. London: GreenwoodUniversity,1997.
Harold Pinter.“Writing for the Theatre”. Evergreen Review. No.8(August-September1963). pp.80-82.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: One. New York: Grove Press,1996.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Two. New York: Grove Press,1996.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Three. New York: Grove Press,1997.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Four. New York: Grove Press,2011.
Pinter, Harold. Various Voices. London: Faber and Faber,1998.
Prentice, Penelope. Harold Pinter: Life, Work, and Criticism. New Brunswick: YorkPress,1991.
Prentice, Penelope. The Pinter Ethic: The Erotic Aesthetic. N Y: Garland,2000.
Quigley, Austin E.. The Pinter Problem. Princeton: Princeton University,1975.
Raby, Peter. The Cambridge Companion to Harold Pinter. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2001.
Regal, Martin S. Harold Pinter: A Question of Timing. NY: St. Martin’s,1995.
Sakellaridou, Elizabeth. Pinter’s Female Portraits: A Study of Female Characters in thePlays of Harold Pinter. Totowa, NJ: Barns&Noble Books,1988.
Schnebly, Cynthia Woodard. Repetition in Beckett, Pinter and Albee. Texas A&MUniversity,1993.
Silverstein, Marc. Harold Pinter and the Language of Cultural Power. London andToronto: Associated University Presses,1993.
Skyes, Altrene. Harold Pinter. New York: Humanities Press,1970.
Strunk, Volker. Harold Pinter: Toward a Poetics of His Plays. New York: Peter Lang,1989.
Taylor, John Russell. Harold Pinter. London: Longmans Green,1969.
Tompson, David T. Pinter: The Player’s Playwright. London: Macmillan,1985.
Trussler, Simon. The Plays of Harold Pinter: An Assessment. London: Gollancz,1973.
（英）A.C.Grayling.《维特根斯坦与哲学》，张金言译，南京：译林出版社．
（南非）安德烈·布林克《小说的语言和叙事：从塞万提斯到卡尔维诺》，汪洪章，等译，上海人民出版社，2010.
艾斯林．《荒诞派戏剧》．华明译.石家庄：河北教育出版社，2003.
蔡芳钿．《并不荒诞的笑声：品特戏剧中的滑稽人物形象》，《艺术评论》，2009．3：67-70.
曹步军《论品特作品中的静默与戏剧性》,《英美文学研究论丛》2012(01)．
陈红薇《战后英国戏剧中的哈罗·德品特》北京：对外经济贸易大学出版社，2007.
陈新.《历史·比喻·想象——海登·怀特历史哲学述评》,《史学理论研究》，2005.(02).
陈新．《历史认识：从现代到后现代》．北京：北京大学出版社，2010.
邓中良.《品品特》．武汉：长江文艺出版社，2006.
恩斯特·卡西尔《人论》．甘阳译上海：上海译文出版社，2004
恩斯特·卡西尔《语言与神话》．于晓等译，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店1988.
方柏林《哈罗德·品特的语言剧》，《戏剧艺术》．2012.1：33-36.
冯俊等.《后现代主义哲学演讲录》.北京：商务印书馆，2005.
弗朗索瓦·多斯.《从结构到解构——法国20世纪思想主潮：上》.季广茂译.北京：中央编译出版社，2004.
弗朗索瓦·多斯.《从结构到解构——法国20世纪思想主潮：下》.季广茂译.北京：中央编译出版社，2004.
格尔达·帕格尔《拉康》．李朝晖译.北京：人民大学出版社，2008
海德格尔《形而上学导论》．商务印书馆，1996.
海德格尔．《存在与时间》．陈嘉映，王庆节译．北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1987．
海德格尔．《语言的本质》，《海德格尔选集》（下）．上海：三联书店，1996.
海登·怀特《元史学》．陈新译，南京：译林出版社：2009
胡宝平．《中国的品特批评：方法、问题与展望》，《当代外国文学》2012.1.
何其莘.《品特的探索真相之旅》，《外国文学》，2006.2.
华明．《品特戏剧中的女性、女性主义与政治》，《戏剧》．2010.3.
J.卡勒．《索绪尔》．张景智译．北京：中国社会科学出版社，1989.
J.L.斯泰恩．《现代戏剧的理论与实践：第二卷》．周成等译，北京：中国戏剧出版社，2002．
凯瑟琳·乔治.《戏剧节奏》．张全全译.北京：中国戏剧出版社，1992.
昆德拉.《小说的艺术》．孟湄译，上海：三联书店，1995.
（法）拉康《拉康选集》．褚孝泉译，上海三联书店，2001
(美)理查德·坎伯.《加缪》．马振涛杨淑学译.北京：中华书局，2002.
黎林《〈看管人〉：规训社会中权力与战争游戏的隐喻》，《外国文学》，2009.5.
李华.《话语的暴力与规训——解读哈罗德品特的〈生日晚会〉》.《解放军外国语学院学报》，2010.6.
刘安刚.《意义哲学纲要》.北京：中央编译出版社，1998.
刘红卫《中国“十一五”期间英国戏剧研究》，《外国文学研究》2011.1.
刘红卫.《中国语境下的哈罗德·品特研究》,《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》.2012.2
柳鸣九《二十一世纪文学中的荒诞》．湖南教育出版社，1993.
（英）罗吉.福勒.《现代西方文学批评术语词典》,袁德成译.成都:四川人民出版社，1987.
马元龙.《雅克·拉康：语言维度中的精神分析》．北京：东方出版社，2006.
（英）M.麦金.《维特根斯坦与〈哲学研究〉》．李国山译.桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2007.
迈克尔·格洛登，马丁·克雷斯沃思，伊莫瑞·济曼.《霍普金斯文学理论和批判指南》．王逢振，等译.北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2011
乔纳森·卡勒《罗兰·巴尔特》．孙乃修译，1992.中国社会科学出版社，北京
品特．《送菜升降机》．华明译，南京：译林出版社，2010.
任生名．《西方现代悲剧论稿》．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1998．
沈松华．《试论中国传统沉默观》，《杭州师范大学学报（社会科学版）》，2010.6．
王超．《被抛性无调式断裂化——论西方荒诞派戏剧的话语模式与精神症候》，《四川戏剧》．2006.6.
王舞．《返回家园后的奥德修斯——论品特“威胁喜剧》，《戏剧艺术》，1991.01
王霞．《如何再现纳粹屠杀——海登·怀特的历史相对主义思想辨析》2012.2.《清华大学学报》（哲学学会科学版），
王燕，谢柏梁．《从〈房间〉话语看男性霸权》，《山东外语教学》，2006.6.
王燕．《哈罗德·品特戏剧话语里沉默现象的御用文体学研究》，上海交通大学，2008.
张世英．《两种哲学，两种语言观》，《北京大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2000.4.
张世英．《天人之际:中西哲学的困惑与选择》．北京：人民出版社：2007.
肖萍.《折光的汇合：暧昧与胁迫性并存——论品特戏剧作品》，上海：上海戏剧学院，博士毕业论文，2005.
(英)欣奇利夫.《荒诞说:从存在主义到荒诞派》．刘国彬译，北京:中国戏剧出版社,1992.
徐克谦.《庄子哲学新论：道·言·自由与美》，北京：中华书局，2006.
杨玉成.《奥斯汀：语言现象学与哲学》.北京：商务印书馆，2002.
袁德成.《论品特及其戏剧与政治的关系》,《当代外国文学》.2008.4.
袁德成.《品特在中国：回顾与反思》,《四川师范大学学报（社会科学版）》.2010.
袁小华，宋赟.《哈罗德·品特国内外研究现状综述》，《艺术百家》2008.1.
约翰·斯特罗克．《结构主义以来》，沈阳：辽宁教育出版社，1998.
赵毅衡.《重访新批评》.天津：百花文艺出版社，2009.
张雪，徐彬．《从贝克特到品特：荒诞派戏剧之焦虑面面观》，《外语与外语教学》，2008.4.
张雪，徐彬《〈回家〉中丰饶女神的隐喻与精神家园的重建》，《解放军外国语学院学报》.2009.11.
张一兵．《不可能的存在之真——拉康哲学映像》．北京：商务印书馆：2008.
Abbott, Anthony S. The Vital Lie: Reality and Illusion in Modern Drama. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.1989.
Alan, Bold: Harold Pinter. You Never Heard Such Silence. London: Vision Press,1984.
Alexander, Nigel.“Past,Present and Pinter”. Essays and Studies. No.27(1974). Pp.1-17.
Almansi, Guido, and Simon Henderson. Harold Pinter. London and New York:Methuen,1983.
Arden, John.“The Caretaker”. New Magzine, No.4*july,1960(,pp.29-30.atre
Armstrong, William A..Experimental Drama. London:1993.
Armstrong, William A. Experimental Drama. London: G. Bell,1963.
Aristotle. On Poetics. Trans. Seth Benardete, Michael Davis. South Bend: St.Augustine’s,2002.
Baker, William, Stephen Ely Tabachnick. Harold Pinter. Edinburgh: Oliver&Boyd,1973.
Baker, William and John C. Ross. Harold Pinter: A Bibliographical History. NewCastle, DE: Oak Knoll,2005.
Bakewell, Joan.“Interview With Harold Pinter”. The Listener,NO.6(Nov.1969), pp.34-36.
Batty, Mark. Harold Pinter. Devon: Northcote House,2001.
Bernard, F. J.“Beyond Realism: The Plays of Harold Pinter”. Modern Drama. No. VIII(September1954).pp.185-191.
Billington, Michael. The Life and Work of Harold Pinter. London: Faber and Faber,1997.
Bloom Harold, ed. Harold Pinter. New York: Chelsea House Publishers,1987.
Brater, Enoch and Ruby Cohn, ed. Around the Absurd: Essays on Modern andPostmodern Drama. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan Press,1990.
Bradbury, Malcolm and Bigsby, Christopher. Harold Pinter. London: Methuen,1983.
Brown, John Russell.“Dialogue in Pinter and Others.” Critical Quarterly Vo. VII(Autumn1965). pp.225-243.
Brown, John Russell. Theatre Language: A Study of Arden, Osborne, Pinter and Wesker.New York: Taplinger,1972.
Burkman, Katherine. The Dramatic World of Harold Pinter: Its Basis in Ritual.Columbus: Ohio State University Press,1971.
Cahn, Victor L. Gender and Power in the Plays of Harold Pinter. New York: St.Martin’s.1993.
Gale, Steven H. Butter’s Going Up: A Critical Analysis of Harold Pinter’s Work.Durham: Duke University Press,1977.
Gale, Steven H. ed.. The Films of Harold Pinter. Albany: State University of New YorkPress,2001.
Cohn, Ruby.“The World of Harold Pinter”. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol.6, No3(Mar.1962),pp.55-68.
Diamond, Ellin. Pinter’s Comic Play. Cranbury: Associated University Press,1985.
Dukore, Bernard F.“The Theatre of Harold Pinter”. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol.6,No.3(Mar.1962), pp.43-54.
Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the absurd. New York: Penguin Books Ltd.,1962.
Esslin, Martin. Pinter: The Playwright. London: Methuen,1984.
Farrington, Conor A.“The Language of Drama”. The Tulane Drama Review, Vol.5, No.2(Winer,1966(, pp.63-70.
Gale, Steven H., ed. Harold Pinter: Critical approaches. London and Toronto:Associated University Press,1986.
Ganz, Arthur. Ed.. Pinter: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-hall,1972.
Garry L. Hagberg and Walter Jost. A companion to the Philosophy of Literature.HongKong,2010.
Gelder, Lawrence Van.“Pinteresque Pinter”. New York Times,28July1989, B4.
Gilman, Richard.“The Pinter Puzzle,” New York Times, January22,1967,
Gordon, Lois G. Stratagems to Uncover Nakedness: The Dramas of Harold Pinter.Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press,1968.
Gordon, Lois, ed. Pinter at70: A Case Book. New York and London: Routledge,2001.
Gordon, Robert. Harold Pinter: The Theatre of Power. Ann Arbor: The University ofMichigan Press,2012.
Grayling, A.C.. Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introducion. Nanjing: Yilin Press,2008.
Grimes, Charles. Harold Pinter’s Politics: A silence Beyond Echo. Madison: FairleighDickinson University Press,2005.
Gross, Mirian.“Pinter on Piner”. Observer. No.5(October1980).pp.25,27.
Gussow, Mel. Conversations with Pinter. New York: Limelight editions,1994.
Hayman, Ronald. Harold Pinter. New York: Ungar,1973
Hinchliffe, Arnold P. Harold Pinter. Boston; Twayne,1981.
Hollis, James. R. The Poetics of Silence. London: Feffer&Simons, Inc.,1970.
Hooti, Noorbaksh.“A Postmodern Reading of Harold Pinter’s ‘The Homecoming’”.Cross Cultural Communication,Vol.7, No.2.2011,pp.41-45.
Kerr, Walter. Harold Pinter. New York: Columbia U P,1967.
Kreps, Barbara.“Time and Harold Pinter’s Possible Realities: Art as Life and ViceVersa”. Modern Drama,22(Mar.1979), pp.47-60.
Knowles, Ronald.. Understanding Pinter. Columbia, S.C.: University of South CarolinaPress,1995.
Lacey, Stephen. British Realist Theatre: The New Wave in its Context1956-1965.London: Routledge,1995.
Mark, Fortier. Theory/theatre: An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge:2002.
Marc Silverstein.Keeping the Other in its place: Language and Self-fashioning inSelected Plays of Harold Pinter.Ann Arbor: Brown University,1989.
Milija Gluhovic, Memory-Theatre of Harold Pinter, Tadeusz Kantor, and Heiner Muller.University of Toronto,2005.
Olson, Elder. Tragedy and the Theory of Drama. Michigan: Wayne State UniversityPress,1972.
Packard.“An Interview with Harold Pinter”. First Stage. No.6.(Summer1967). Pp.87.
Peacock, D. Keith. Harold Pinter and the New British Theatre. London: GreenwoodUniversity,1997.
Harold Pinter.“Writing for the Theatre”. Evergreen Review. No.8(August-September1963). pp.80-82.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: One. New York: Grove Press,1996.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Two. New York: Grove Press,1996.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Three. New York: Grove Press,1997.
Pinter, Harold. Complete Works: Four. New York: Grove Press,2011.
Pinter, Harold. Various Voices. London: Faber and Faber,1998.
Pinter, Harold. Essential Pinter. New York: Grove Press,2006.
Prentice, Penelope. Harold Pinter: Life, Work, and Criticism. New Brunswick: YorkPress,1991.
Prentice, Penelope. The Pinter Ethic: The Erotic Aesthetic. N Y: Garland,2000.
Quigley, Austin E.. The Pinter problem. Princeton: Princeton University,1975.
Raby, Peter. The Cambridge Companion to Harold Pinter. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2001.
Rayner, Alice.“Harold Pinter: Narrative and Presence”. Theatre Journal, Vol.40, NO.4(Dec.,1988), pp.482-497.
Regal, Martin S. Harold Pinter: A Question of Timing. Ny: St. Martin’s,1995.
Sakellaridou, Elizabeth. Pinter’s Female Portraits: A Study of Female Characters in thePlays of Harold Pinter. Totowa, NJ: Barns&Noble Books,1988.
Schnebly, Cynthia Woodard. Repetition in Beckett, Pinter and Albee. Texas A&MUniversity,1993.
Shellard, Dominic. The Golden Generation: New Light on Post-war British Theatre.London: British Library,2008.
Silverstein, Marc. Harold Pinter and the Language of Cultural Power. London andToronto: Associated University Presses,1993.
Skyes, Altrene. Harold Pinter. New York: Humanities Press,1970.
Strunk, Volker. Harold Pinter: Toward a Poetics of His Plays. New York: Peter Lang,1989.
Taylor, John Russell. Harold Pinter. London: Longmans Green,1969.
Tompson, David T. Pinter: The Player’s Playwright.London: Macmillan,1985.
Trussler, Simon. The Plays of Harold Pinter: An Assessment. London: Gollancz,1973.
Tutaev, David.“Theatre of the Absurd… How Absurd?”. Gambit, No.2, pp.68-70.
Tynan, Kathleen.“In Search of Harold Pinter”. Evening Standard. No.25(April1968).
pp.7.
艾斯林．《荒诞派戏剧》．华明译.石家庄：河北教育出版社，2003.
蔡芳钿．《并不荒诞的笑声：品特戏剧中的滑稽人物形象》，《艺术评论》，2009．3：67-70.
陈红薇．《〈虚无乡〉：品特式“威胁主题”的演变》，《外国文学评论》，2003.1.
陈新.《历史·比喻·想象——海登·怀特历史哲学述评》,《史学理论研究》2005.2.
陈新．《历史认识：从现代到后现代》．北京：北京大学出版社，2010.
邓中良.《品品特》.武汉：长江文艺出版社，2006.
（德）恩斯特·卡西尔．《语言与神话》．北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1988．
冯俊等.《后现代主义哲学演讲录》.北京：商务印书馆，2005.
弗朗索瓦·多斯.《从结构到解构——法国20世纪思想主潮：上》.季广茂译.北京：中央编译出版社，2004.
弗朗索瓦·多斯.《从结构到解构——法国20世纪思想主潮：下》.季广茂译.北京：中央编译出版社，2004.
海德格尔．《存在与时间》．陈嘉映，王庆节译．北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，1987．
海德格尔．《语言的本质》，《海德格尔选集》（下）．上海：三联书店，1996.
胡宝平．《中国的品特批评：方法、问题与展望》，《当代外国文学》2012.1.
何其莘.《品特的探索真相之旅》，《外国文学》，2006.2.
韩征顺，李健鹏．《寓怪诞于现实，寄荒谬于情理——品特的看管人解析》，《外语研究》，2006.6.
华明．《品特戏剧中的女性、女性主义与政治》，《戏剧》．2010.3.
J.L.奥斯汀.《如何以言行事——1955年哈佛大学威廉·詹姆斯讲座》北京：商务印书馆，2012
J.卡勒．《索绪尔》．张景智译．北京：中国社会科学出版社，1989.
J.L.斯泰恩．《现代戏剧的理论与实践：第二卷》．周成等译，北京：中国戏剧出版社，2002．
凯瑟琳·乔治.《戏剧节奏》.张全全译.北京：中国戏剧出版社，1992.
昆德拉．《小说的艺术》.孟湄译，上海：三联书店，1995.
(美)理查德·坎伯．《加缪》．马振涛杨淑学译.北京：中华书局，2002.
黎林《〈看管人〉：规训社会中权力与战争游戏的隐喻》，外国文学，2009.5.89.
李瑶.《此在去蔽之戏剧——哈罗德·品特早期戏剧的哲学阐释》.广州：暨南大学，硕士毕业论文.2008.
李华.《话语的暴力与规训——解读哈罗德品特的〈生日晚会〉》，《解放军外国语学院学报》，2010.6.
李双志.《语言、身份与写作——试论卡夫卡、策兰和赫塔·穆勒创作的文化背景》，《当代外国文学》，2010.2.
刘安刚.《意义哲学纲要》.北京：中央编译出版社，1998.
刘红卫．《中国语境下的哈罗德·品特研究》,《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》.2012.2
刘冠才.《先秦诸子与古希腊哲学家名实观的差异及其影响》,《南京师大学报》（社会科学版），2011.6.
（英）罗吉.福勒.《现代西方文学批评术语词典》,袁德成译.成都:四川人民出版社，1987.
马元龙.《雅克·拉康：语言维度中的精神分析》.北京：东方出版社，2006.
（英）M.麦金.《维特根斯坦与〈哲学研究〉》．李国山译.桂林：广西师范大学出版社，2007.
王舞．《返回家园后的奥德修斯——论品特“威胁喜剧》，《戏剧艺术》，1991.1．
王霞．《如何再现纳粹屠杀——海登·怀特的历史相对主义思想辨析》，《清华大学学报》（哲学学会科学版），2012.2.
王燕，谢柏梁．《从〈房间〉话语看男性霸权》，《山东外语教学》，2006.6.
王燕．《哈罗德·品特戏剧话语里沉默现象的御用文体学研究》，上海交通大学，2008.
维特根斯坦.《哲学研究》，蔡远译.北京：中国社会科学出版社，2009.
肖萍.《折光的汇合：暧昧与胁迫性并存——论品特戏剧作品》，上海：上海戏剧学院，博士毕业论文，2005.
(英)欣奇利夫.《荒诞说:从存在主义到荒诞派》刘国彬译，北京:中国戏剧出版社,1992.
徐克谦.《庄子哲学新论：道·言·自由与美》，北京：中华书局，2006.
杨玉成.《奥斯汀：语言现象学与哲学》.北京：商务印书馆，2002.
袁德成.《论品特及其戏剧与政治的关系》,《当代外国文学》.2008.4.
袁德成.《品特在中国：回顾与反思》,《四川师范大学学报（社会科学版）》.2010.
袁小华，宋赟.《哈罗德·品特国内外研究现状综述》，《艺术百家》2008.1.
张雅琳.《从“离间效果”看品特戏剧中非现实的现实性》.上海：复旦大学，博士毕业论文.2010.
张世英．《两种哲学，两种语言观》，《北京大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》．2000.4.
赵毅衡.《符号学文学论文集》.天津:百花文艺出版社，2004.
赵毅衡.《重访新批评》.天津：百花文艺出版社，2009.
赵毅衡.《符号学：原理与推演》.南京：南京大学出版社，2011.
张雪，徐彬．《从贝克特到品特：荒诞派戏剧之焦虑面面观》，《外语与外语教学》．2008.4.
张雪，徐彬《〈回家〉中丰饶女神的隐喻与精神家园的重建》《解放军外国语学院学报》.2009.11.
朱虹《荒诞派戏剧评述》《世界文学》1978（2）：213-242
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |