本论文主要以文体与意识形态的关系作为考察的视角，以蒋光慈、郭沫若、丁玲及其文学写作为中心，对现代文学史上的“革命文学”书写作一番考察。全文共六部分： 导论部分首先对本论题涉及的研究范式、研究视角、“革命文学”的历史谱系，以及三位作家在其中的特殊意义和为何以之为研究对象的原因等作一番简略的阐述。 论文第一章，主要以蒋光慈“革命加恋爱”小说叙事模式的建构及其小说人物菊芬（《菊芬》）的形象塑造为中心，来揭陈现今这一看似众口铄金的、典型的“革命文学”书写范式背后，可能存在着的非关宏大的革命叙事却更关切蒋光慈本人自我需要（生活、情感、自我实现等）的小说写作的深层意蕴。 第二章，主要以郭沫若文学写作中的改写问题为中心，围绕他的“青春”写作中的抒情困惑，1928年革命意识主导下的修改问题，来论述郭氏这种有意凸现革命政治企图的写作和修改，其革命功用意图是否在文学文本的艺术呈现中达成的问题。 第三章，以丁玲从早期“自叙”式抒情文体到后期大众/人民叙事的史诗文体的转变为中心，揭示丁玲早期写作技艺粗疏却独放异彩的女性心理书写，在后期写作技艺相对纯熟的阶段如何被革命叙事的史诗文体压制，却依旧对后者构成了“反叛”，并因此最终影响到作家本人意欲为革命政治撰“史”的写作意图。 第四章，在前三章讨论的基础上，以文体与意识形态的交互关系为中心，来继续阐述中国现代历史语境下，“革命”“革命文学”“文学革命”三者彼此间相互纠缠的关系，由此对其间蒋光慈、郭沫若、丁玲三人文体与意识形态之间的文学书写姿态予以揭示；并在此基础上对文体与意识形态之间的关系本身作延伸性探讨，指出文体问题对于包括“革命文学”在内的文学研究的重要意义，进而在探讨文学如何为政治修辞的问题上阐明：文体本身即意识形态的表达。 最后的余论部分，就“革命文学”研究的范式问题作展开性讨论，并指出“革命文学”乃“为意识形态目的”和“为审美目的”的双重“修辞”，因此就文学本身而言，“革命文学”研究在其政治向度的研究之外，同样也须以文学本位研究为基础和前提。

Through the perspective of the relationship between style and ideology, this paper focuses on Jiang Kuang-tz’u（蒋光慈）, Guo Mo-jo（郭沫若）, Ding Ling（丁玲） and their literary works to explore the writings of Revolutionary Literature in the history of Chinese modern literature. It consists of six parts： In the introduction part, firstly, it briefly describes the research paradigm, research perspective and the historical pedigree of Revolutionary Literature, and in which the special significance of the three writers as well as Why taking them as the research object. Chapter 1, by focusing on the construction of the narrative mode of "revolution plus love" in Jiang Kuang-tz’u 's fictions, as well as the characterization of Ju Fen in his fiction of the same name, it is intended to reveal his fiction’s deeper meanings which would not refer to the grand narrative of Revolutionary Narrative but to his own needs（life, personal feelings, self-fulfillment etc.）behind this mode which seems to seems to have been axiomatic and typical writings of Revolutionary Literature. Chapter 2, it is mainly aim to reveal the phenomenon of modification（or revision, rewriting）in Guo Mo-jo's literary works. Through investigating the lyric puzzlement in his youth writing and the revision of his lyric poetry under the revolution consciousness, it discusses whether his attempt is realized in the artistic presentation of literary texts, which is deliberated to highlight the political revolution’s significance. Chapter 3, By observing the change of Ding Ling’s Style from lyrical fictions in her early years, which approximates to her autobiographies, to epic novels for the mass or people in her later period, it draws out that Ding Ling's crudely but unique female psychological writing is suppressed by the epic style of revolutionary narration when she has owned relatively skillful in the later period, but still rebelling against the latter. As a result, the writer's intention to write History for revolutionary politics has been seriously weakened. Chapter 4, On the basis of the discussion in the above three chapters，centering on the interaction between style and ideology, it continues to elaborate on the relationship between the Revolution, Revolutionary Literature and Literary Revolution, which are entangled with each other in the context of modern Chinese history, and then reveals Jiang Kuang-tz’u, Guo Mo-jo and Ding Ling’s attitude to their literary writings. In addition, it extends the relationship between style and ideology, points out the importance of style issues to literary studies (including revolutionary literature), and therefore clarifies how literature would speaks for politics：style itself is the expression of ideology. At the end of the remaining part, it carries out an extended discussion on the paradigm of the study of Revolutionary Literature, and points out that Revolutionary Literature is the double rhetoric of ideological purpose and aesthetic purpose. Therefore, as far as literature itself is concerned, apart from the study of its political orientation, the study of Revolutionary Literature would also be based on the basic study of literature.