David Herman splits narratology into “classical narratology” and “postclassical narratology.” However, the paradox he repeats is that the “postclassical” does not necessarily mean “poststructuralist,” and “the prefix ‘post’ does not quite signify a clean break with structuralism” but an enriched theory, which “draws on the concepts and methods to which classical narratologists did not have access.” Unlike postmodernism that is of both dependence on and independence from the modernism, Herman’s “postclassical narratology” is of continuities of “classical narratology.” Thus, his split of narratology into “classical” and “postclassical” arouses confusion about the value and developing orientation of narratology. The author of the present essay will employ the basic ideas of structuralism to analyze Herman’s reproaches of the so-called classical narratology and therefore to argue about the invalidity of Herman’s split.

中文翻译：

---

叙事学应该分为古典叙事学和后古典叙事学吗？

大卫赫尔曼将叙事学分为“古典叙事学”和“后古典叙事学”。然而，他重复的悖论是，“后古典”并不一定意味着“后结构主义”，“前缀‘后’并不完全意味着与结构主义的彻底决裂”，而是一种丰富的理论，它“借鉴了概念和方法古典叙事学家无法接触到的东西。” 与既依赖又独立于现代主义的后现代主义不同，赫尔曼的“后古典叙事学”是“古典叙事学”的延续。因此，他将叙事学分为“古典”和“后古典”，引起了人们对叙事学价值和发展方向的混淆。