The concept of methodology in the philosophical sense refers to the sum of means, tools, and ways used by the subject of research in the process of grasping the object. The theory of research method is methodology. Literary theory also has its own methodological system and methodology.　　In general, the methodological system of literary theory includes three levels, namely, the level of philosophical method, the level of scientific method and the level of professional method.　　(1) The level of philosophical method. Philosophical method is the method of grasping the world in general, which is of guiding significance for each specific discipline, therefore, philosophical method is the highest level of the methodological system of literary theory and the theoretical foundation of this system, which includes the method of linking theory to practice, the method of unification of logic and history, and the method of abstraction rising to specificity, etc.; (2) The level of scientific method. This is a method gradually formed in the natural sciences, social sciences and humanities, which is absorbed and borrowed by literary theory with its transversality and intersectionality. It is at the intermediate level and plays an inestimable role in accurately grasping the object of study of literary theory, and it includes the methods of system theory, cybernetics, information theory, synapse theory, dissipative structural theory, fuzzy mathematical theory and so on; (3) The level of professional method. This is a special method applicable to the professional characteristics of literature and art, which includes traditional methods naturally formed from its own long-term development process, such as the appreciation method, the method of verification, the method of evaluation, etc., as well as methods transplanted from other disciplines and gradually fixed, which are more specific and closest to the object of study of literature and art, such as sociological methods, psychological methods, cultural methods and so on.　　Here for the philosophical and scientific methods are not prepared to make a special explanation, only a few commonly used professional methods for some introduction: (a) empirical method empirical method is China's ancient literary theory adopted by the important method, which is characterized by feeling, by experience, through appreciation, experience, taste and realize some of the truth, in the conclusions of a large number of senses and conjecture components, and all this is built on the basis of experience, therefore, China's literature and art research is based on the experience, so China's literature and art research. All this is based on experience, so many of China's ancient literary theorists are often literati and artists themselves. This empirical method pays much attention to refining and following the laws and rules, standardizing and guiding literary creation with relatively fixed theoretical paradigms, and thus establishing some kind of masters and schools, like Wang Changling's Poetry Style, Kyauk Ran's Poetry Style, Sikong Tu's Twenty-four Poetry Pieces, and Wang Gide's Songs of Songs and Rhythms, and up to Jin Shengxian's Read the Fifth Talented Man in Calligraphy, and Read the Sixth Talented Man's Law of Reading the Book of the Western Box, etc., which all show this theoretical tendency. Theoretical tendency. It is accustomed to use figurative reasoning method in expounding literary theories, and seldom uses logical reasoning and deduction method, but adopts the techniques of metaphor, exegesis, analogy, analogy, and implication, etc. For example, Liu Innocence compares the human body to the "bones" of an article: "The bones of the rhetoric, such as the bones of the body of the tree, the emotions of the The wind, as if the shape of the package gas." (Liu Fo: "Wenxin Diao Long? Bones of Style") Another example is the Preface to Mao Poetry, which uses exegetical techniques to illustrate the social function of literature: "The wind, the wind, the teaching. Wind moves, and teaching transforms." Furthermore, the empirical method in refining and applying the concepts and categories often reflects the simple dialectical thinking, and many of the conceptual categories it uses correspond to each other, revealing the essence and laws of literature in the mutual opposition and connection of different contradictory aspects within things, such as the text and the way, the text and the quality, the shape and the god, the wind and the bones, the meaning and the situation, the feelings and the reason, etc., etc., and the conceptual categories it applies often show a kind of For example, the important concept "structure" put forward by Li Yu in his "Occasional Remarks on Idle Feelings" is not the "structure" that we now understand as a formal factor, but an integrated concept that includes both form and content. The concept. In addition, China's ancient literary theories often take a sensualized narrative mode, some of which are poetic, such as on poetry, Du Fu's "Playing for Six Absolute Sentences", Lu You's "On Poetry", Yuan Haoqian's "On Poetry", etc., and some of them are loose culture, such as essays, preface and postscripts, epigraphs, commentaries, notes, etc. The above characteristics of China's ancient literary theories have the following features.　　The above characteristics of China's ancient literary theory has obvious strengths, it can be complete, dialectical grasp of the object, not in the artificial analysis and dissection of the object of fragmentation and dismemberment, it can be directly deepened from the emotional level to the rational level, the understanding of the problem to give full play to the subjective, including inspiration, enlightenment, intuition and talent, to avoid the abstract theoretical derivation of the stereotypes caused by and mechanical. Of course, it also has weaknesses, such as the lack of systematic, systematic, it is difficult to form the kind of logical, systematic and complete theoretical system; it puts forward the concept of the scope of the connotation of the notion is not too clear, not too sure, it is difficult to do quantitative analysis and scientific verification; its unique form of narration also tends to cause the theoretical ambiguities and ambiguities. In short, the strengths of this empirical method should continue to be developed today, while its shortcomings are expected to be reversed and improved with the help of modern thinking.　　(II) Sociological Approach The sociological approach to literature has a long history, but the emergence of the sociology of literature and art as an independent discipline is a recent event. The publication of the book "Literature from the Relationship between the Social System and Literature" by the French writer Mrs. Stahl in 1800 (the Chinese translation of the book is called "On Literature") is a symbol of this. The book set a precedent of "explaining literature by factors other than literature", and in Mrs. Starr's words, it aimed at "examining the influence of religion, fashion and law on literature and the influence of literature on religion, fashion and law" (Mrs. Starr: "On Literature"). Literature? Introduction. People's Literature Publishing House, 1986 edition .) . Dana, a French scholar, put forward the three elements of "race, environment and age", i.e. to explain the emergence and evolution of literature and art by the inherent hereditary factors of a certain race, the external conditions such as geography, climate, politics, legislation, war and religion, and the spirit of the times as an acquired factor. Their contemporaries, such as Sainte-Beuve, Guyot, Zola and others, put forward important ideas in this regard. The birth of Marxism laid a good starting point for the sociology of literature. Although Marx and Engels did not put forward a systematic theory of the sociology of literature, their discussions on the study of literary phenomena by means of dialectical and historical materialism laid a solid foundation for the sociology of literature, which is still of classic significance today. Later on, Merlin, Lafargue, Plekhanov and others also made useful attempts on this path and achieved important results.　　The basic point of the sociological approach to literature is to recognize literature as a social phenomenon and to emphasize that literature is related to social life at both ends, on the one hand it comes from social life and is subject to its constraints, on the other hand it leads to social life and in turn has an impact on it. Therefore, the sociology of literature advocates that literature should be examined in the context of social life as a whole, examining what and how social life affects literature, and what and how literature in turn affects social life. At present, the development of sociology of literature is extremely rapid, and its disciplinary field has been continuously expanded, and its academic achievements are also very impressive, for example, in the production of literature and art, dissemination of literature and art, consumption of literature and art, literature and art policy, management of literature and art, literature and art prediction and other aspects of the study of the optimization and development of the modern society has an important value, and it is receiving more and more extensive attention.　　It must be pointed out that in the history of the development of sociology of literature, there have been major twists and turns and mistakes, which reminds us that in the theoretical research and practical application of sociology of literature, we should guard against the tendency of vulgar sociology, and should not make a simple comparison between literary phenomena and social phenomena, regard the constraints of the material and economic life on literature as a direct determining effect, and simply subordinate literature to the political and economic needs, while neglecting the aesthetic features and artistic characteristics of literature itself, and neglecting the role of literature in the society. Literature's own aesthetic characteristics and artistic nature, otherwise it will cause disastrous consequences for literature, and in this regard, it can be said that the lessons are not far off. The emergence of the sociological and natural scientificization of literary theory in contemporary western literary sociology warns us that we cannot but pay attention to it, that is to say, literary theory must keep its own position when absorbing the results and methods of sociology, the research of sociology can not replace the research of literary theory, the method of sociology can not replace the method of literary theory, and the research of social attributes of literature still needs to be in line with the research of its social attributes. The study of the social attributes of literature in literary theory still needs to be well combined with the study of its aesthetic attributes.　　(III) Psychological Methods The German psychologist Von Teil founded the world's first psychological laboratory in Leipzig in 1879, marking the birth of psychology as an independent discipline. Since then, psychology has penetrated into various disciplines and has also influenced the study of literature, gradually becoming an important research method. This method is mainly characterized by the cross-penetration of literature and psychology, it has to study literary phenomena with the help of the principles, principles and categories of psychology, such as psychology according to the law of the movement of human appearance to study the characteristics and role of imagination and association in literary creation; it also has to carry out literary research with the help of the unique ways, techniques and means of psychology, such as the use of questionnaires, case studies, statistics, etc. to study the social function of literature and readers' groups, as well as to study the role of psychology. The social function of literature and the value orientation of the readers' group.　　When applying psychological methods, we should also avoid the tendency of mechanically applying psychological theories to literary research and neglecting the social nature and content of literature. Freud's psychoanalysis, which has had a great impact on modern academic thinking, is guilty of such a fault, and he puts the important categories of this doctrine, such as the "complex", "ego", "self", and so on, into the study of literature, He applied the important categories of this theory, such as "complex", "ego", "libido", "sublimation", and so on, directly to the study of literature, and came up with the results of Sophocles' Oedipus the King, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Dostoyevsky's Karamazov, and so on. Shakespeare's Hamlet, Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, and so on, are due to the author's "Oedipal complex". This is obviously arbitrary and untrue. It can be seen that it is better to combine the methodology of literary psychology with the methodology of literary sociology in order to reach scientifically sound conclusions.　　(d) Formalist Approach This is a method of literary research that was prevalent in Western literature in the 20th century, from Russian formalism to British and American New Criticism, to French structuralism, and then to deconstructionism, which is an important trend of thought that runs through the whole of this century.　　The main point of the formalist approach is to emphasize that literature is form-based, that form is not an appendage of content, that it is independent and self-sufficient in itself, that it is not limited by content, that it has nothing to do with society, history, culture, morality, or religion. This approach centers on the text, ignores the world outside the text, the author and the reader, and considers it a fallacy to advocate the study of the text in terms of factors other than the text. Thus the social attributes and content of literature, its social role, the social roots of its development, etc., are excluded from the field of view of this approach. In the famous words of Shklovsky, the representative of Russian formalist literary theory: "Art is always independent of life, its colors never reflect the colors of the flag flying over the castle." (Shklovsky, "Literary Prose? Meditations and Analyses", p. 6. Moscow, 1961 edition.) For example, Russian formalist literature emphasizes that literature should be "literary", embodying the principle of "strangeness". The so-called "literary character" is "that which makes a work a literary work" (Jacobson, Recent Russian Poetry, p. 11. Prague, 1921 edition.) It is not in the content, but in the linguistic techniques, rhetorical devices, structural layout, etc... The so-called "strangeness" is the alienation and mutation of the literary language from the everyday language through the intensification, overlapping, inversion, condensation, distortion and retardation of the formal elements, thus receiving a refreshing effect, as Shklovsky said: "The technique of art is to make the object strange, to make the form difficult, to increase the sensation, to make the form difficult, to make the form difficult, to make the form difficult, to increase the sensation. The technique of art is to make the object unfamiliar, to make the form difficult, to increase the difficulty of the senses and the length of time" (Shklovsky, Art as Technique, Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays, p.12.). (University of Nebraska Press, 1965 edition.) In a word, Russian formalist literature emphasizes that the essence of literature lies in the form, and the fascination of literature lies in the variation of the form. In addition, it emphasized the importance of reading and appreciating the works in depth (the so-called "close reading"), so as to realize the phonetics, meter, rhythm and meaning of the written forms of the works. In analyzing literary works, the New Criticism absorbed the views of phenomenological literature and classified works into five levels, namely (1) sound level, (2) units of meaning, (3) imagery and metaphors, (4) symbols and symbolic systems, and (5) forms and techniques. This is undoubtedly a useful complement to the traditional "content-form" dichotomy.　　The formalist approach emphasizes the independence and specificity of literature, insists on the objectivity of research, and attaches importance to the detailed appreciation of the formal elements of a work, all of which have something to learn from, but it suffers from the shortcomings of non-historicism, and the best way to do so is to combine it with sociological, psychological, and other methods.　　(E) Comparative Literary Method The theoretical origin of comparative literary method can be traced back to ancient Rome, where the Romans emphasized the imitation of ancient Greeks, and most of the works of important Roman writers such as Virgil and Ovid were imitations of Greek literature, therefore, in the the treatises of ancient Roman theorists such as Horace and Macropius, they all advocated that the works of Virgil, Ovid and others should be compared with their Greek originals, so that their imitations and subordination could be revealed. and subordination. Herein lies the germ of comparative literature. In modern times, influenced by the comparative methods of other disciplines (such as "comparative anatomy" and "comparative linguistics"), comparative literature as an important method of literary research was finally formed, and the French Noel and Laplace published an anthology of literary works in 1816. In 1816, Frenchmen Noel and Laplace published an anthology of literary works entitled "Course of Comparative Literature", which was the first appearance of the name "Comparative Literature".　　Comparative literature aims at comparing and contrasting or analogizing two or more literary phenomena across countries and regions, defining their respective characteristics from the complex relationship between their similarities and differences, and searching for ways of ****similar development. The two schools of comparative literature with greater influence are the French school, which emphasizes the study of influence (cross study), and the American school, which emphasizes the study of parallelism.　　The French school's research method is more rigorous and at the same time more rigid, it often limits the scope of research to the same cultural system, and to the literary phenomena of different countries and regions where there is direct contact and factual links, and it advocates empirical evidence and evidence-based research methods with a strong tendency of positivism. This passage from the book Comparative Literature by the French scholar Kia can show its purpose: "Comparative literature is the history of international literary relations, and comparative literati cross the boundaries of language or nationality, watching the exchange of themes, books, and sentiments between the literatures of two countries or several countries." (Kia: Comparative Literature, pp. 79-80 in Comparative Literature Studies in Translation. (Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1985 edition.) This opens up the methodology of impact studies . The French school is sometimes caught up in the tedious examination of the factual connection between the objects of comparison, neglecting the aesthetic analysis of literary phenomena, especially confining itself to the narrow scope of the European cultural system to discuss the problem, and considering France as the center and source of European literature, with a tendency to Eurocentrism, and therefore has its limitations.　　On the basis of the denial of the above limitations of the French school, the American school emerged after the Second World War. It advocated cross-cultural and interdisciplinary study of literature, especially focusing on the study of literary phenomena that have no actual contact or factual connection. If the French school takes the actual connection between the objects of comparison as the starting point of its research, the American school takes the problems contained in the objects of comparison as the starting point of its research, as Aldrich said, the school pays attention to "the similarity of style, structure, tone or conception between two unrelated works". ". (Aldrich, Selected Essays on Comparative Literature, p. 17 in Comparative Literary Studies in Translation. (Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1985 edition.) Another difference between the American school and the French school is that it searches not only for the ****similarities between the objects of comparison, but also for their differences. In short, this school emphasizes parallels and contrasts, is problem-centered, and undertakes a wide range of studies on a multitude of literary issues as well as related questions of knowledge and belief. It is noteworthy that this school breaks with the Eurocentrism of the French school and tries to draw a general picture of the development of world literature. In particular, some people begin to recognize the important position occupied by Chinese literature in world literature, and believe that major theoretical problems can be really solved only when European and American literature and Chinese literature are combined for understanding and thinking. This undoubtedly represents a positive direction of comparative literature.　　At present, the study of comparative literature in China is flourishing, and many important achievements have been made, and there are many expansions and innovations in research methods, and some people even propose the establishment of a "Chinese school" of comparative literature, in short, the prospect of comparative literature in China is bright.　　In a word, the above methods of literary research have their own theoretical backgrounds and operating principles, and they have formed unique angles and ways in grasping the essence and laws of literature, showing their own strengths, and at the same time, they are complementary to each other and share the same goal, and they have made their due contributions to the construction of literary research and literary theories. Therefore, all of them are worth attention, worthy of reference and learning, and in the specific operation of the best choice is to integrate them and comprehensive utilization.