在坎特伯利故事集裡，喬叟將一股喜劇般的元素融入神聖的朝聖團中，藉此呈現出世界的兩面性。此作品結合詼諧性和正統文學，低下階層和上流社會而形成了一個充滿嘉年華精神的世界，進而推翻了中古社會的故舊。本論文引用巴赫汀的嘉年華理論來還原坎特伯利故事集中的顛覆特質，以探討喬叟如何批判和嘲諷當時不平等的社會現象和老舊觀念。首先，介紹嘉年華的沿革並解釋這樣的狂歡特質如何形成反官方的力量，進而為低下階層發聲。第一章揭露序言中的怪誕本質，由此突顯出來自社會各階層的朝聖者與朝聖團之間的矛盾衝突。第二章中，藉由騎士的故事裡大量呈現出的傳統社會刻板印象，喬叟詮釋出當時上流社會對政治權威和階級制度的擁護。第三章磨坊主的序言和故事完全顛覆了前一章所提倡的官方主義，尤其是對父權制度的推翻，藉由這樣的反差來表現出巴赫汀的狂歡怪誕精神，其中包括廣場語言、假面、平民節慶氣氛、肉體下半部意象。結論為此篇論文的重點回顧，並再次強調喬叟為他的作品創造了一個嘉年華式的自由世界。

By infusing comic elements into a solemn pilgrimage, Geoffrey Chaucer creates a sort of dual-world fantasy in The Canterbury Tales. With its juxtaposition of comic tradition and high literature as well as the lower class and the upper class, The Canterbury Tales becomes what Mikhail Bakhtin might call a carnivalesque world, one that in many ways subverts the medieval world in which it is set. The current study explores this subversive spirit in The Canterbury Tales, by examining it in the light of Bakhtin’s theory of carnival and elaborating on Chaucer’s criticism of the social inequality established by the lofty official culture in the Middle Ages. The study first looks at the general idea of carnival, and explains how such a festive atmosphere forms an anti-official force for the lower class in Chaucer’s work. Next, the grotesque nature that The General Prologue possesses is demonstrated, and it is shown to clash with the more solemn aspects of the pilgrimage and to create ambivalence among Chaucer’s pilgrims regarding their social status in the pilgrimage. In subsequent chapters, the study highlights a contrast between The Knight’s Tale, which presents a stereotyped image of a traditional society and advocates the existing patterns of political authority and hierarchy, and The Miller’s Prologue and Tale, which manifests Bakhtin’scarnivalesque spirit and consequently undermines the importance of the patriarchal system in medieval society. The study expounds on many of Bakhtin’s carnivalesque characteristics, for example marketplace language, masquerade, popular festive atmosphere, and so on. The study concludes with a general discussion of how Chaucer creates an open world in The Canterbury Tales, one that subverts hierarchical order, undermines medieval officialdom, and grants a temporary equality to all its inhabitants.
Keywords:

Arner, Timothy D. “No Joke: Transcendent Laughter in
the ‘Teseida’ and the ‘Miller's Tale’.” Studies in
Philology 102.2 (2005):143-58. Print.
Bakhtin, M. M. Rabelais and His World. Trans. H. Iswolsky.
Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1984. Print.
Harper, Douglas. Online Etymology Dictionary. N.p., 2011.
Web. 20 Jan. 2012.
Benson, C. David. “The ‘Knight's Tale’ as History.” The
Chaucer Review. 3.2 (1968):107-23. Print.
Bristol, Michael D. Carnival and Theater. New York:
Methuen, 1985. Print.
Butwin, M. Joseph. “Seditious Laughter.” Radical History
Review 18 (1978):17-34. Print.
Canby, Seidel Henry. “The English Fabliaux.” PMLA 21.1
(1906):200-14. Print.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. Trans. Wright
David. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Print
---.The Riverside Chaucer. Ed. Larry Benson. 3rd ed.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987. Print.
Cooke, D. Thomas. The Old French and Chaucerian Fabliaux: A
Study of Their Comic Climax. Columbia: University of
Missouri Press, 1978. Print.
Cooper, Helen. The Canterbury Tales. New York: Oxford
University Press
Ganim, John M. Chaucerian Theatricality. Princeton:
Princeton UP, 1990. Print.
George, W. Michael. “An Austere Age without Laughter.” The
Misconceptions about the Middle Ages. Ed. Stephen J. H
arris, and Bryon L. Grigsby. New York: Routledge, 2008.
183-87. Print.
Guidry, Marc S. “The Parliaments of Gods and Men in the
Knight's Tale.” The Chaucer Review. 43.2 (2008):140-70.
Print.
Hoffman, Arthur W. “Chaucer's Prologue to Pilgrimage: The
Two Voices.” ELH 21.1 (1954): 1-16. Print.
Howard, Donald R. Writers and Pilgrims:Medieval Pilgrimage
Narratives and Their Posterity. Berkeley: U of
California P, 1980. Print.
Hussey, Maurice, A.C. Spearing, and James, Winny. An
Introduction to Chaucer. New York: Cambridge UP, 1965.
Print.
Kendrick, Laura. Chaucerian Play: Comedy and Control in the
Canterbury Tales. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988.
Print.
The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Ed. C.T.Onions.
Oxford University Press, 1966. Print.
Lindahl, Carl. “The Festive Form of the Canterbury Tales.”
ELH 52.3 (1985): 531-74. Print.
“Medieval Estates and Orders – Making and Breaking Rules.”
The Norton Anthologies of English Literature : Norton
Topic Online. W.W. Norton and Company, n.d. Web. 3
March. 2012.
Murray, Alexander. Reason and Society in the Middle Ages.
New York: Oxford UP, 1978. 240-44. Print.
Neville, Grace. “Medieval French Fabliaux and Modern Urban
Legends: The Attraction of Opposites.” Béaloideas, Iml.
57 (1989):133-49. Print.
Pearsall, Derek. The Canterbury Tales. New York: Routledge.
1985. Print.
Perfetti, Lisa R. "Taking Laughter Seriously: The Comic and
Didactic Functions of Helmbrecht." Bakhtin and Medieval
Voices. Ed. Thomas J. Farrell. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida, 1995. 38-60. Print.
Ramsey, S, David. “Authority and Subversive Narrations:
Rereading the Canterbury Tales.” Language and Culture
Research Series 4 (2005): 195-215. Print.
Reiss, Edmund. “The Pilgrimage Narrative and the Canterbury
Tales." Studies in Philology 67.3 (1970): 295-305. Print.
Rigby, S.H. “Introduction: Social Structure and Economic
Change in Late Medieval England.” A Social History of
England, 1200-1500. Ed. Rosemary Horrox and W. Mark
Ormrod.New York: Cambridge UP, 2006. 1-30. Print.
Zaret, David. Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing,
Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern
England. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2000. 20–43. Print.