Since 1990s, the concept of“paradigm” has become a highfrequency key word in the discussion, analysis and reflection of the knowledge production and theoretical construction of Chinese literary theory in the last century. In the application of the concept of “paradigm” and related theories and methods, there are many differences, divergences and ambiguities in the academic circles. There are many reasons for this, one of which is the deviation from the original meaning of the “paradigm” proposed by Kuhn. Kuhn emphasized that “paradigm” is a larger understanding framework marked by “examples” and shared by the community of scientists. Translating “paradigm” into “典范” instead of “范式” may better highlight the theoretical connotation of this concept and its methodological significance in practical research. However, whether in theory or in the process of practical application, it is difficult to completely separate the “model” meaning from the “rule” meaning. This leads people to use the concept of “paradigm” more often in the meaning of “rules” and confuse it with the concept of “knowledge types.” Rectifying the concept of “paradigm” and clarifying its relationship with “knowledge types” from the theoretical perspective of the sociology of knowledge provides us with the theoretical basis of knowledge science that can be used as reference to observe and reflect on the knowledge production of Chinese literary theory.