Self-reference And Performance:Martin Kern’s Interpretations Of Book Of Songs And Other Texts

Martin Kern applies the concept of self-reference and performance to the interpretations of the Book of Songs and other Chinese texts. Based on the emphasis on texts’ subjectivity, texts are interpreted as vivid ritual performances, in which form elements are core of self-reference, performance and Martin Kern’s theory. There are detached, inherent, symbol and corresponding relationships between self-reference and reference. The main points are as follows:Firstly, the explanation and analysis of self-reference and performance. With the turn of linguistic and literature, self-reference runs through the Western theories. Texts manifest themselves instead of world imitating and man’s representation. According to Marin Kern, self-reference could be interpreted from respective of man and object, relationship with reference and post-modern. Performance is divided into oral performance and culture performance by anthropologist Richard Bauman. Culture performance which connects texts and society with symbol emphasizes culture’s self-reference instead of texts’ self-reference.Secondly, form elements in Kern’s analysis method. Form elements present themselves as word, narrative, theme, rhyme, pronoun, formula, style, character, scene, readers’ respective, etc. in the view of self-reference, performance and Marin Kern. Form elements’ self-reference in "Chuci" make itself referential, which is different from culture performance’s symbol between texts and society.Thirdly, Kern’s method is applied in other Chinese texts. From the view of Martin Kern, quotes, historical texts, Fu and inscriptions could be interpreted as subjective. There is formula scene for every text in his historical and cultural texts’system, such as formula of quotation, language of Fu, poetries of historical texts and themes of inscriptions. Every text is both self-reference of performance and reference of history and society.Finally, the comparison of Chinese lyric tradition, nonfictional tradition and Kern’s method. The basis of comparison is form elements, remembrances and symbol in non-duality which makes lyric tradition less important to Chinese literature than the others. Kern pays attention to texts’ subjective, performance and prototype, while the others stress man’s subjective, emotion and morality. Although Kern’s theory is not quite applicable to interpret the correspondence between texts and world, it is good for his improvement in the respective of post-modern which makes man, world and texts limited.