
近几年来,我在哈佛、耶鲁和哥伦比亚大学新闻学院给本科生和研究生讲授非文学写作。每个学期我都希望、但同时也担心没有东西可以传授给学生,想着他们应该已经知道如何写作了。而每个学期我都一再发现,他们仍然不知道如何写作。
他们能用专业术语串起来,组成有耍嘴皮子句式特征的东西。他们可以把写的东西关联到自己凑巧感兴趣的任何主题或意识XingTai层面的概念上去。他们在这方面干得很好。但是他们做不到清晰而简单地写作、做不到专注、开放地对待自己的思想、情感和周围的世界。
写作和阅读风格清晰、直接,仁爱的作品是人文精神的根源,是语言媒介的一套标准,我们最终企图用它来检查和理解人类这个物种的文化、社会、历史活动。
人文学科的教学已经陷入困境。美国文理科学院最近发表的关于人文学科现状的报告得出了上述结论,而几乎所有学院或大学教师的教学经历也与此结论不谋而合。本科生会对你说,他们面临来自父母的压力、来自负债的压力,以及来自己社会的压力,去选择他们所认为的最有助于找到好工作的专业。在大多数情况下,这实际上意味着不选择人文学科的课程。
换言之,现在学生和家长们在考虑上大学要学什么课程时,有一种越来越窄的、偏重职业技能的新倾向。美国文理科学院的报告指出,这种新倾向由很多事情导致,包括人们对文化体验的降级:人们平时吸收的东西,例如父母是否给孩子们朗读儿童读物。结果就是人文学科的毕业生数量急剧下降。在我的母校波莫纳大学,今年春季的1560名毕业生中,只有16名英语专业的毕业生,这是一个非常小的数字。
耶鲁大学在1991年有165名英语文学学士学位的毕业生,2012年有62名。耶鲁大学在1991年最顶尖的两个专业分别是历史和英语,到了2013年,变成了经济学和政治学。波莫纳大学今年最顶尖的两个专业分别是经济学和数学。
当孩子们成了英语专业的学生,父母们总是忧心仲仲。英语专业对什么好呢? 在某种程度上,最好的答案总是“等着瞧吧”——这么回答没人满意。然而,这是一个真实的答案,它反映了学习英语文学带来的思想和语言的多样性。以前,英语专业的学生几乎出现在任何地方从事任何职业,他们几乎总有对于语言、文学或其他方面有着丰富的感觉和无限可能。
过去,我们对于哪些是值得研究的书籍和作家,似乎有一种既定的,不言而喻的共识。 但是经典一直在变化,现在比40年前更具包容性,这是件好事。 现在我们没有过去清楚的是,研究经典的目的是什么,以及,为什么我们选择一些工具来研究经典。
有一种可能从研究生课程发现的技术狭隘性,已经渗透到本科生课程——强调那种专业分工,强调理论。这种狭隘有时是因为教授紧迫的研究课题导致的,但也反映了人们对人文学科一直以来的困惑。这经常让本科生们疑惑,就像我从与他们的谈话中了解到的:他们一直在想自己在学习什么,为什么学习。
研究学习人文学科,应该就像在一艘沿着无边无际的人类体验之海岸线航行的轮船甲板上,站在其他同事和同学中间。相反,现在研究人文学科的人,已经退缩到了船舱中的小格子间去了,从那里,他们只能管窥蠡测到海岸线的一小部分、雾堤,或喷涌而出的鲸鱼的背部。
当人们将注意力逐渐从人文学科转移开来的时候,这是在考虑专业选择的某种实用性。这揭示了一系列的事情。第一,急于使教育产生回报,这是因为人们事先就认为,只有适用性最强的技能才值得学习。第二,人文学科自身往往不善于说明其重要性。第三,人文学科教学本身存在问题。你不必从以上三条选其一,它们同时存在。
人文学科最基本的馈赠中究竟蕴含着多大的价值,这点本科生一无所知,而老师也从没告诉过他们。这种馈赠就是清晰的思路、流畅的文笔、以及对文学的终身兴趣。
个中道理,也许需要有一定的生活阅历之后才能领悟。我发现,我教的年纪较大的学生,无论是本科生、研究生还是年轻教师,都深感需要掌握这种没能早一点学到的技能。这种技能,他们既不称之为人文学科,也不称之为文学。他们称之为写作,即可以将自己的思考用句子表达出来的能力,这些句子有其自身的价值,乃至文学价值。
良好的写作能力曾是人文学科最基本的一项要求,其重要性不亚于数学和统计学知识对自然科学的重要性。然而较强的写作能力也不仅仅是一种实用技能。它能让你在与人交流时,展现个人的理性优雅和活力。
没人能找到为这种读写能力贴上金钱标签的方法,我怀疑任何人都不会这么做。但每一个拥有它的人——无论如何或何时获得它——都知道它是一种稀有而珍贵的传承。
By Verlyn Klinkenborg, June 22, 2013
In the past few years, I’ve taught nonfiction writing to undergraduates and graduate students at Harvard, Yale, Bard, Pomona, Sarah Lawrence and Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism. Each semester I hope, and fear, that I will have nothing to teach my students because they already know how to write. And each semester I discover, again, that they don’t.
They can assemble strings of jargon and generate clots of ventriloquistic syntax. They can meta-metastasize any thematic or ideological notion they happen upon. And they get good grades for doing just that. But as for writing clearly, simply, with attention and openness to their own thoughts and emotions and the world around them — no.
That kind of writing — clear, direct, humane — and the reading on which it is based are the very root of the humanities, a set of disciplines that is ultimately an attempt to examine and comprehend the cultural, social and historical activity of our species through the medium of language.
The teaching of the humanities has fallen on hard times. So says a new report on the state of the humanities by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and so says the experience of nearly everyone who teaches at a college or university. Undergraduates will tell you that they’re under pressure — from their parents, from the burden of debt they incur, from society at large — to choose majors they believe will lead as directly as possible to good jobs. Too often, that means skipping the humanities.
In other words, there is a new and narrowing vocational emphasis in the way students and their parents think about what to study in college. As the American Academy report notes, this is the consequence of a number of things, including an overall decline in the experience of literacy, the kind of thing you absorbed, for instance, if your parents read aloud to you as a child. The result is that the number of students graduating in the humanities has fallen sharply. At Pomona College (my alma mater) this spring, 16 students graduated with an English major out of a student body of 1,560, a terribly small number.
In 1991, 165 students graduated from Yale with a B.A. in English literature. By 2012, that number was 62. In 1991, the top two majors at Yale were history and English. In 2013, they were economics and political science. At Pomona this year, they were economics and mathematics.
Parents have always worried when their children become English majors. What is an English major good for? In a way, the best answer has always been, wait and see — an answer that satisfies no one. And yet it is a real answer, one that reflects the versatility of thought and language that comes from studying literature. Former English majors turn up almost anywhere, in almost any career, and they nearly always bring with them a rich sense of the possibilities of language, literary and otherwise.
The canon — the books and writers we agree are worth studying — used to seem like a given, an unspoken consensus of sorts. But the canon has always been shifting, and it is now vastly more inclusive than it was 40 years ago. That’s a good thing. What’s less clear now is what we study the canon for and why we choose the tools we employ in doing so.
A technical narrowness, the kind of specialization and theoretical emphasis you might find in a graduate course, has crept into the undergraduate curriculum. That narrowness sometimes reflects the tight focus of a professor’s research, but it can also reflect a persistent doubt about the humanistic enterprise. It often leaves undergraduates wondering, as I know from my conversations with them, just what they’ve been studying and why.
STUDYING the humanities should be like standing among colleagues and students on the open deck of a ship moving along the endless coastline of human experience. Instead, now it feels as though people have retreated to tiny cabins in the bowels of the ship, from which they peep out on a small fragment of what may be a coastline or a fog bank or the back of a spouting whale.
There is a certain literal-mindedness in the recent shift away from the humanities. It suggests a number of things. One, the rush to make education pay off presupposes that only the most immediately applicable skills are worth acquiring (though that doesn’t explain the current popularity of political science). Two, the humanities often do a bad job of explaining why the humanities matter. And three, the humanities often do a bad job of teaching the humanities. You don’t have to choose only one of these explanations. All three apply.
What many undergraduates do not know — and what so many of their professors have been unable to tell them — is how valuable the most fundamental gift of the humanities will turn out to be. That gift is clear thinking, clear writing and a lifelong engagement with literature.
Maybe it takes some living to find out this truth. Whenever I teach older students, whether they’re undergraduates, graduate students or junior faculty, I find a vivid, pressing sense of how much they need the skill they didn’t acquire earlier in life. They don’t call that skill the humanities. They don’t call it literature. They call it writing — the ability to distribute their thinking in the kinds of sentences that have a merit, even a literary merit, of their own.
Writing well used to be a fundamental principle of the humanities, as essential as the knowledge of mathematics and statistics in the sciences. But writing well isn’t merely a utilitarian skill. It is about developing a rational grace and energy in your conversation with the world around you.
No one has found a way to put a dollar sign on this kind of literacy, and I doubt anyone ever will. But everyone who possesses it — no matter how or when it was acquired — knows that it is a rare and precious inheritance.
约翰·班扬 约翰·班扬(John Bunyan,1628—1688)是和莎士比亚齐名的、同属英国文艺复兴后期的著名作家。他出身贫寒,16岁便应征参加了一场集宗教和政治于一体的双重战争,后来又经历了历时多年的生活和信仰危机。在多重的矛盾之中,班扬从1656年开始先后完成了《福音真理基要》和《律法和恩典的原则》等书。1660年查理复辟后,班扬因为信仰的缘故而遭到逮捕,开始了12年的监狱生涯。在漫长的监禁中,他写出了《圣城》和自传体小说《丰盛的恩典》,并在1667年—1672年问完成了《天路历程》的第一部。 班扬的这部寓言体作品被称为“具有永恒意义的百科全书”,是英国文学史上里程碑式的篇章。本书中的许多修辞造句也成了英语世界中广泛引用的谚语、俗语、成语和经典表达手法。许多文学史家将他和莎士比亚、米尔顿相提并论,把《天路历程》与但丁的《神曲》、奥古斯丁的《忏悔录》并列为世界三大宗教体文学杰作,班扬也被公认为英国通俗文学的鼻祖。 作为一部具有重要文学价值的英语文学作品,三百多年来,《天路历程》突破了民族、种族、宗教和文化的界限,风靡全球,被奉为“人生追寻的指南”,“心路历程的向导”。即便在非基督教文化的氛围中,它也是学术界最热门的研究话题之一。迄今为止,这部作品在全世界各地已有多达二百余种译本,是除了《圣经》之外流传最广、翻译文字最多的书籍。一百年以前,如果有个人说到揭丑人(muckraker),或者市井圣人(worldly-wise man),或者名利场(Vanity Fair),或者失望泥沼(the slough of despond)及耻辱山谷(the valley of humiliation),他一定知道自己是在引用《天路历程》中的话。自从这一作品第一部发表于1678年以后,两个多世纪以来,英国国家这本书恐怕是除去《圣经》以外阅读人数最多的书籍。当然,现在对于我们当今读者来说,它不会象对班扬时代那些淳朴的非国教信徒影响那么大,那些人对于原罪深信不移,害怕地狱的火焰,虔诚地期待救赎。然而,尽管该书有些复古主义信仰,其主要读者是非国教信徒,但它仍然值得一读,不仅因为其重要的历史意义,而且因为它是一部几乎没有故意使用技巧的书。基督教仅由寥寥数人创立,而且这些人绝大多数默默无闻,未曾见于文字记载,对此我们惊叹不已。但如果我们想象这些人有可能像约翰·班扬一样,这样这一奇迹就没那么令人困惑了。我们来回忆一下班扬的一生:一个穷补锅匠,当过兵,几乎完全没上过学--他确实说过他一度忘记了如何读书写字,后来转信清教,于1660年因“支持参与几次非法集会”而被捕,此后十二年,除去几个星期以外,一直在本特沃特(Bedford)监狱中度过,拒绝有条件开释,声称,“你今天放我出去,我明天还要祈祷。”入狱后留下妻子和四个孩子,其中一个孩子双目失明,在狱中依靠写作和背诵《圣经》及约翰·福克斯(John Foxe)的《殉教者书》(Book of Martyrs)度日。1675年再度入狱六个月,在此期间他写下了《天路历程》的第一部分,后来再度被释放,却成为了他所在时代最著名的牧师。《天路历程》用今天看来怪异的英语写成,是一部写给一般人看的简单的讽喻体小说,用异常简单的答案回答了那个令人生畏的问题,“我该做什么才能得到救赎?”这一作品从整体文化上与奥古斯汀[22]和但丁[30]相去甚远,但这该书与这两个人的作品在某些方面有相似之处。该书只奉那种非黑即白的道德,呼吁强烈的虔诚(尽管班扬本人善良而宽容),而这种虔诚今天只能在我们知识未能触及的蛮荒地带才能发现。作为本书的作者,他的梦想,口吻,幻想,和赤裸裸的良知,简直就是个疯子,无疑为弗洛伊德[98]提供了完美的实习机会。但《天路历程》依旧是本优秀的书。它不仅影响了上百万对于上帝心存恐惧的普通人,而且同样能感动知识分子,例如肖伯纳[99]。它的散文风格是天生而非人为的,强劲,坚硬如钉,有力,甚至是睿智的。对于商人道德的描述,还有比那个安逸舒服的“私心先生”描述利得更简明吗?“可我的曾祖父不过是个水手,眼睛看一边,船划向另一边,我绝大多数财产也是靠同样手段获得的。”如果我们对于神学无动于衷,那么作品达到胜利的高潮时的节奏和不加掩饰的真诚也很难打动我们,“当他走的那天到来之时,很多人伴着他来到河边,他走下河去,说道,‘死亡,你的尖刺在哪里?’他越走越深,说道,‘坟墓,你的胜利在何处?’然后他就死了,所有的小号都在河的另一边为他奏响。”
社会主义核心价值观的英文:The core values of Chinese socialism
value 读法 英 ['væljuː] 美 ['væljuː]
n. 价值;价格;重要性;(pl)价值观;数值
v. 估价;重视;评价
例句
1、You'd better ask an expert concerned to value your apartment.你应该请一位有关的专家来对你的房子进行估价。
2、The Chinese highly value the strong family ties.中国人高度重视家庭关系。
短语
1、literary value 文学价值
2、market value 市场价格,市价
3、middle class values 中产阶级的价值观
词语用法
1、value用作名词时,基本意思是“价值,价格”,指人们估计的一件东西的价值或其交换价值,引申还可表示“用处,益处,实用性,重要性”,指某物有一定的价值,值得人们去珍视。
2、value还可作“等值,划算,上算”解,有时还可表示数学中的“值”。
3、value用作动词的基本意思是“给…估价”,指通过客观判断,对某事物的价格或价值作出精准的估计,但不表示权威性或内行的判断。
4、value是及物动词,接名词或代词作宾语,当宾语后接具体价格时,常用介词at。
词汇搭配
1、at a certain value 以某一价格
2、at face value 以票面价格
3、high degree of value 很高的价值
4、jewels of value 贵重的珠宝