漢語言文學(xué)專業(yè)英語學(xué)習(xí)術(shù)語

1、Preface寒假里我接受了下學(xué)期講授漢語言文學(xué)專業(yè)英語這樣一個(gè)任務(wù)， 于是便開始了這方面的準(zhǔn)備工作。 首先是落實(shí)教材， 經(jīng)過多種渠道查閱， 到目前為止新聞學(xué)、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、 法學(xué)等很多專業(yè)都已經(jīng)有了自己的專業(yè)英語教材， 而漢語言文學(xué)專業(yè)還不曾出現(xiàn)一本這樣的的英語教材， 因此必須自己動(dòng)手來編選一本這樣的教材。 漢語言文學(xué)專業(yè)英語為何物？在此之前可以說我們很多人都很模糊， 我個(gè)人的教育履歷也不曾接受過這方面的課程和學(xué)習(xí)，因此只能根據(jù)相關(guān)資料以及個(gè)人的理解、思考來完成。首先是專業(yè)詞匯編選， 開始我想把專業(yè)詞匯按照相關(guān)課程分類細(xì)化， 這樣會(huì)讓學(xué)生更明晰， 但是真正做起來很難只得放棄， 因?yàn)檎n程交叉很緊密，

2、 一個(gè)單詞可能在很多課程中出現(xiàn)。 最后我只好根據(jù)專業(yè)特點(diǎn)把詞匯主要分為兩個(gè)方面， 一是語言學(xué)詞匯，一是文學(xué)詞匯，這其實(shí)也就囊括了整個(gè)漢語言文學(xué)專業(yè)的課程，這兩類詞匯以字母順序排列，以附錄形式出現(xiàn)，以供學(xué)生查閱、識(shí)記。按照院里要求， 完成這項(xiàng)工作其實(shí)也就算完成了任務(wù)。 但是我總覺得作為一本講義和一門課程， 作為英語學(xué)習(xí)， 僅有這樣一本詞匯手冊(cè)是遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠的， 必須有相關(guān)的文章作為支撐。 于是我便開始了文章的編選， 做這樣一件工作很是艱難的， 一方面文章很多如何遴選和分類， 二是確定的文章網(wǎng)上搜不到只得敲擊鍵盤一個(gè)字母一個(gè)字母的完成， 這些都需要大量的時(shí)間。 最后我將文章分為四大類四個(gè)單元，即語言學(xué)

3、理論、文學(xué)理論、中國文學(xué)、外國文學(xué)。根據(jù)課時(shí)和教學(xué)實(shí)際每類只選兩篇代表性文章， 借助這些文章一方面學(xué)習(xí)了英語， 更重要的是我試圖讓學(xué)生初步了解自己所學(xué)的專業(yè)， 懂得她的特點(diǎn)和魅力， 養(yǎng)成自己對(duì)專業(yè)的興趣，為后面的專業(yè)學(xué)習(xí)奠定基礎(chǔ)。 由于時(shí)間限制， 每篇文章所需要的要素只得在講課中完成。 最后所附的書目一方面表明我所借鑒的資料， 另一方面也是提供給學(xué)生的學(xué)習(xí)參考書。整個(gè)寒假的大部分時(shí)間都耗在了這樣一件工作上， 由于沒有現(xiàn)成的教材可借鑒， 也由于時(shí)間的限制， 更由于自己一個(gè)人孤軍奮戰(zhàn)和水平所限， 呈現(xiàn)在大家眼前的這本姑且稱之為教材的文本無疑顯得不夠成熟和亟待完善， 因此需要更多人的批評(píng)和指教。 我

4、當(dāng)然希望這樣一本不成熟的講義能對(duì)學(xué)生的專業(yè)英語學(xué)習(xí)有所幫助。Unit One: Theory of LinguisticsText 1Language and LiteratureEdward SapirLanguages are more to us than systems of thought-transference They are invisible garments that drape themselves about our spirit and give a predetermined form to all its symbolic expression When the

5、 expression is of unusual significanc，e we call it 1iterature. Art is so personal an expression that we do not like to feel that it is bound to predetermined form of any sort The possibilities of individual expression are infinite ， language in particular is the most fluid of mediums Yet some limita

6、tion there must be to this freedom， some resistance of the medium In great art there is the illusion of absolute freedom The formal restraints imposed by the material-paint， black， and white， marble， piano tones， or whatever it may be are not perceived； it is as though there were a limitless margin

7、of elbow-room between the artis t s fullest utilization of form and the most that the material is innately capable of. The artist has intuitively surrendered to the inescapable tyranny of the material， made its brute nature fuse easily with his conception .The material “ disappears elpyrebceiscause

8、there is nothing in the artist s conception to indicate that any otheremxisattserialFor the time being， he， and we with him ， move in the artistic medium as a fish moves in the water， oblivious of the existence of an alien atmosphere No sooner, howev，er does the artist transgress the law of his medi

9、um than we realize with a start that there is a medium to obey.Language is the medium of literature as marble or bronze or clay are the materials of the sculptor Since every language has its distinctive peculiaritie，s the innate formal limitations-and possibilities-of one literature are never quite

10、the same as those of another The literature fashioned out of the forms and substance of a language has the color and the texture of its matrix The literary artist may never be conscious of just how he is hindered or helped or otherwise guided by the matrix ， but when it is a52question of translating

11、 his work into another language， the nature of the original matrix manifests itself at once .All his effects have been calculated, or intuitively fel，t with reference to the formal “genius owonf lhainsguage； they cannot be carried over without loss or modification. Croce is therefore perfectly right

12、 in saying that a work of literary art can never be translated Nevertheless literature does get itself translated， sometimes with astonishing adequacy. This brings up the question whether in the art of literature there are not intertwined two distinct kinds or levels of art a generalized non linguis

13、tic art which can be transferred without loss into an alien linguistic medium ， and a specifically linguistic art that is not transferable 1 believe the distinction is entirely valid ， though we never get the two levels pure in practice Literature moves in language as a medium， but that medium compr

14、ises two layers， the latent content of language-our intuitive record of experience-and the particular conformation of a given language-the specific how of our record of experience Literature that draws its sustenancemainly never entirely-from the lower, say a play of Shakespeare， is trans slatable w

15、ithout too great a loss of character If it moves in the upper rather than in the lower level a fair example is a lyric of Swinburne s。 一 it is as good as untranslatabl e Both types of literary expression may be great or mediocre.There is really no mystery in the distinction. It can be clarified a li

16、ttle by comprising literature with science. A scientific truth is impersonal， in its essence it is untinctured by the particular linguistic medium in which it finds expression. It can as readily deliver its message in Chinese as in English. Nevertheless it must have some expression， and that express

17、ion must needs be a linguistic one. Indeed the apprehension of the scientific truth is itself a linguistic process， for thought is nothing but language denuded of its outward garb. The proper medium of scientific expression is therefore a generalized language that may be defined as a symbolic algebr

18、a of which all known languages are translations. One can adequately translate scientific literature becausethe original scientific expression is itself a translation. Literary expressionis personal and concrete， but this does not mean that its significance is altogether bound up with the accidental

19、qualities of the medium. A truly deepsymbolism， for instance， does not depend on the verbal associations of a particular language but rests securely on an intuitive basis that underlies all linguistic expression. The artist “isntuition ， to” use Croce tserm， is immediately fashioned out of a general

20、ized human experience-thought and feeling-of which his own individual experience is a highly personalized selection. The thought relations in this deeper level have no specific linguistic vesture； the rhythms are free， not bound， in the first instance， to the traditional rhythms of the artist s lang

21、uage. Certain artists whose spiritmoves largely in the non-linguistic ( better, in the generalized linguistic) layer even find a certain difficulty in getting themselves expressed in the rigidly set terms of their accepted idiom One feels that they are unconsciously striving for a generalized art la

22、nguage， a literary algebra， that is related to the sum of all known languages as a perfect mathematical symbolism is related to all the roundabout reports of mathematical relations that normal speech is capable of conveying. Their art expression is frequently strained， it sounds at times like a tran

23、slation from an unknown original-which ， indeed， is precisely what it is These artists-Whitmans and Brownings-impress us rather by the greatness of their spirit than the felicity of their art Their relative failure is of the greatest diagnostic value as an index of the pervasive presence in literatu

24、re of a larger, more intuitive linguistic medium than any particular language.Nevertheless， human expression being what it is， the greatest-or shall we say the most satisfying-literary artists， the Shakespeares and Heine，sare those who have known subconsciously to fit or trim the deeper intuition to

25、 the provincial accents of their daily speech. In them there is no effect of strain Their personal “ intuition ” appears as a completed synthesis of the absolute art of intuition and the innate， specialized art of the linguistic medium. With Heine ， for instance， one is under the illusion that the u

26、niverse speaks German. The material“ disappears ” .Every language is itself a collective art of expression There is concealed in it a particular set of esthetic factors-phonetic， rhythmic ， symbolic ， morphological-which it does not completely share with any other languag e These factors may either

27、mergetheir potencies with those of that unknown， absolute language to which I have referred this is the method of Shakespeare and Heine-or they may weave a priva，te technical art fabric of their own ， the innate art of the language intensified or sublimated The latter type， the more technically lite

28、rary art of Swinburne and of hosts of delicate “ minor ” poets， is too fragile for endurance It is built out of spiritualized material， not out of spirit. The successesof the Swinburnes are as valuable for diagnostic purposes as the semi-failures of the BrowningsThey show to what extent literary art

29、 may lean on the collective art of the language itself. The more extreme technical practitioners may so over-individualize this collective art as to make it almost unendurable One is not always thankful to have one s flesh and bloodfrozen to ivory Text 2Sign, Signified, SignifierFerdinand de Saussur

30、eSome people regard languag，e when reduced to its element, as a naming-processonly a 1ist of words， each corresponding to the thing that it names. For examp：leThis conception is open to criticism at several points. It assumes that ready-made ideas exist before words； it does not tell us whether a na

31、me is vocal or psychological in nature ( arbor， for instance， can be considered from either viewpoint；) finally, it lets us assume that the linking of a name and a thing is a very simple operation-an assumption that is anything but true. But this rather naive approach can bring us near the truth by

32、showing us that the linguistic unit is a double entity, one formed by the association of two terms.We have seen in considering the speaking-circuit that both terms involved in the linguistic sign are psychological and are united in the brain by an associatedbond. This point must be emphasized.The li

33、nguistic sign unites， not a thing and a name， but a concept and a sound-image. The 1atter is not the material sound， a purely physical thing ， but the psychological imprint of the sound ， the impression that it makes on our sense. Thesound-image is sensory, and if I happen to call it， “itmisatoenrli

34、yalin ”that sense,and by way of opposing it to the other term of the association， the concept， which is generally more abstract.The psychological character of our sound images becomes apparent when we observe our own speech Without moving our lips or tongue， we can talk to ourselves or recite mental

35、ly a selection of verse. Because we regard the words of our language as soundi-mages, we must avoid speaking of the“ phonemes” that make up the words.This term， which suggests vocal activity； is applicable to the spoken word only, to the realization of the inner image in discourse. We can avoid that

36、 misunderstanding by speaking of the sounds and syllables of a word provided we remember that the names refer to the sound image.The linguistic sign is then a two sided psychological entity that can be represented by the drawing：The two elements are intimately united， and each recalls the other. Whe

37、ther we try to find the meaning of the Latin word arbor or the word that Latin uses to designate the concept“itriesecl”ear that only the associations sanctioned by thatlanguage appear to us to conform to reality, and we disregard whatever others might be imaginedOur definition of the linguistic sign

38、 poses an important question of terminology I call the combination of a concept and a sound image a sign, but in current usage the term generally designates only a sound-imag，ea word， for example (arbor， etc) .One tends to forget that arbor is called a sign only because it carries the concept，“ tree

39、 ”with the result that the idea of the sensory part implies the idea of the whole.Ambiguity would disappear if the three notions involved here were designated by three names， each suggesting and opposing the others. I propose to retain the word signsigne to designate the whole and to replace concept

40、 and sound-Image respectively by signified signifieand signifiersignificant ； the last two terms have the advantage of indicating the opposition that separatesthem from each other and from the whole of which they are parts. As regards sig，n if I am satisfied with it ， thisis simply becauseI do not k

41、now of any word to replace it ， the ordinary language suggesting no other.The linguistic sign， as defined， has two primordial characteristics In enunciating them I am also positing the basic principles of any study of this typePrinciple l ： The Arbitrary Nature of the SignThe bond between the signif

42、ier and the signified is arbitrary Since I mean by sign the whole that results from the association of the signifier with the signified ， I can simply say： the linguistic sign is arbitrary The idea of “sisteris ”not linked by any inner relationship to the succession of sounds s-o-r which serves as i

43、ts signifier in French； that it could be represented equally by just any other sequence is proved by differences among languages and by the very existence of different language：s the signified“ ox” has as its s-iog-nfi，fier b(boeuf) on one side of the border and o-k-s (Ocbs) on the other.No one disp

44、utes the principle of the arbitrary nature of the sig，nbut it is often easier to discover a truth than to assign to it its proper place Principle 1 dominates all the linguistics of language； its consequences are numberless. It is true that not all of them are equally obvious at first glance； only af

45、ter many detours does one discover them, and with them the primordial importance of the principle.One remark in passing： when semiology becomes organized as a science， the question will arise whether or not it properly includes modes of expression based on completely natural signs， such as pantomime

46、. Supposing that the new science welcomes them， its main concern will still be the whole group of systems grounded on the arbitrariness of the sign. In fact， every means of expression used in society is based， in principle ， on collective behavior or-what amounts to the same thing on convention Poli

47、te formulas， for instance， though often imbued with a certain natural expressiveness(as in the case of a Chinese who greets his emperor by bowing down to the ground nine times),are nonetheless fixed by ru；leit is this rule and not the intrinsic value of the gestures that obliged one to use them. Sig

48、ns that are wholly arbitrary realize better than the others the ideal of the semiological process； that is whylanguage, the most complex and universal of all systems of expression， is also the most characteristic； in this senselinguistics call become the master-pattern for all branches of semiology

49、although language is only one particular semiological system.The word symbol has been used to designate the linguistic sign， or more specifically, what is here called the signifier. Principle I in particular weighs against the use of this term 0ne characteristic of the symbol is that it is never who

50、lly arbitrary, it is not empty, for there is the rudiment of a natural bond between the signifier and the signified The symbol of justice， a pair of scales， could not be replaced by just any other symbol， such as a chariot.The word arbitrary also calls for comment The term should not imply that the

51、choice of the signifier is left entirely to the speaker(we shall see below that the individual does not have the power to change a sign in any way once it has become established in the linguistic community)； I mean that it is unmotivated， i.e. arbitrary in that it actually has no natural connection

52、with the signifiedUnit Two: Theory of LiteratureText 1Some Coordinates of Art CriticismM.H. AbramsThe diversity of aesthetic theories ， however, makes the task of the historian a very difficult one. It is not only that answers to such questions as“What is art“ whatis poetry? ” disagree. The fact is

53、that many theories of art cannot readily be compared at all, becausethey lack a common ground on which to meet and clash. They seem incommensurable because stated indiverse terms， or in identical terms with diverse signification ， or because they are an integral part of larger systems of thought whi

54、ch differ in assumptions and procedure. As a result it is hard to find where they agree， where disagree， or even， what the points at issue are.Our first need， then， is to find a frame of reference simple enough to be readily manageable， yet flexible enough so that ， without undue violence to any one

55、 set of statements about ar，t it will translate as many sets as possible onto a single plane of discourse Most writers bold enough to undertake the history of aesthetic theory have achieved this end by silently translating the basic terms of all theories into their own favorite philosophical vocabul

56、ary, but this procedure unduly distorts its subject matter， and merely multiplies the complications to be unraveled The more promising method is to adopt an analytic scheme which avoids imposing its own philosophy, by utilizing those key distinctions which are already common to the largest possible

57、number of the theories to be compared， and then to apply the scheme warily, in constant readiness to introduce such further distinctions as seem to be needed for the purpose in hand.Four elements in the total situation of a work of art are discriminated and made salient， by one or another synonym， i

58、n almost all theories which aim to be comprehensive. Firs，t there is the work， the artistic product itself. And since this is a human product， an artifact, the second common element is the artificer ， the artist.Third ， the work is taken to have a subject which，directly or deviously, is derived from

59、 existing things to be about， or signify, or reflect something which either is， or bears some relation to， an objective state of affairs This third element ， whether held to consist of people and actions ， ideas and feelings， material things and events， or super-sensible essence，s has frequently been denoted by that word-of-all-