Janice Comfort Walsh, 90, Pearl Buck's daughter
http://www.philly.com/philly/obituaries/20160316_Janice_Comfort_Walsh__90__Pearl_Buck_s_daughter.html?mobi=true
2016年9月14日星期三
2016年9月5日星期一
http://www.cctss.org/show/newsdetail/347ba69608e54658902574ce85a8df3f
【学术】古诗里的西洋景
2016-03-27 | 信息来源: | 原作者: | 查看:520
摘要: 中国的古代诗歌题材,一向以中原文明及其周边地区的素材为主。近代以来,中国突然发现自己必须面临三千年未有之大变局。外面的那个陌生新世界,对古老的华夏文明从政治、经济和科技等几乎所有领域都发起了剧烈冲击。即使是在最为坚固的文化壁垒上,亦开始有了稍稍的撬动。
中国的古代诗歌题材,一向以中原文明及其周边地区的素材为主。近代以来,中国突然发现自己必须面临三千年未有之大变局。外面的那个陌生新世界,对古老的华夏文明从政治、经济和科技等几乎所有领域都发起了剧烈冲击。即使是在最为坚固的文化壁垒上,亦开始有了稍稍的撬动。
1813年,有一位华人造访了英国伦敦。他的名字和身份,已经湮没无闻,不过他在这次旅行途中留下了十首古体诗,可谓开了一个先河。这十首诗都是中国风的五言律诗,主题却是诗人在伦敦所见的异国风物。在当时,这可是极其罕见的作品。这十首诗叫做《兰墩十咏》,兰墩,指的就是伦敦。姑且摘录一首来看:
“海遥西北极,有国号英伦。地冷宜亲火,楼高可摘星。意诚尊礼拜,心好尚持经。独恨佛啷嘶,干戈不暂停。”这是对伦敦的阴冷气候、城市风貌、国教民俗的综合性描述。佛啷嘶就是法兰西,英法交恶历史渊源已久,诗人注意到了这点,写入诗中。单就水准来说,这些诗作十分平庸,所以在国内不曾有任何影响。然而,却被一位叫德庇士的英国汉学家注意到,把其收录进《汉文诗解》。他大概也觉得这种“中为洋用”的方式很新鲜吧。
同时被德庇士收录进去的还有另外一组旧体诗,叫做《西洋杂咏》。这组诗的作者名气就大多了,叫潘有度,广东十三行的大商人,是最早一批和洋人打交道的中国人。潘有度是翰林院庶吉士出身,文化水准不低,这组《西洋杂咏》是在他晚年时所写,时间和《兰墩十咏》差不多,姑且摘录一首咏西洋婚姻的:“缱绻闺闱只一妻,犹知举案与齐眉。婚姻自择无媒妁,同忏天堂佛国西。”潘有度的水平,比前面那位诗人要强出不少。虽然这些诗作也不是什么佳作,但至少证明了用中国诗歌来描绘西洋,也并非什么不可能的事。
《兰墩十咏》和《西洋杂咏》差不多是有案可查的第一批写西洋的旧诗作品,它们的意义在于突破了文化藩篱,使中西合璧,赋予了中国诗一个新的发展方向。
“中为洋用”真正的好诗诞生,要等到黄遵宪去美国的时候。
黄遵宪是晚清著名诗人、名臣,思想开明,号称“近代中国走向世界第一人”。他曾经在光绪八年担任驻美国旧金山总领事。在那里,他正赶上1884年美国大选,近距离观摩到了民主国家的选举制度。黄遵宪欣然提笔,写下了一系列《纪事》诗,堪为精妙:“吹我合众笳,击我合众鼓,擎我合众花,书我合众簿。汝众勿喧哗,请听吾党语。”
光绪十六年,黄遵宪前往伦敦任驻英使馆参赞。他以《今别离》为题写了四首乐府,分别写了火车、轻气球、电报、照相术和东西半球有时差日夜颠倒的自然现象。
“钟声一及时,顷刻不少留。虽有万钧柁,动如绕指柔……去矣一何速,归定留滞不?所愿君归时,快乘轻气球。”(火车与轻气球)
“一息不相闻,使我容颜悴。安得如电光,一闪至君旁!”(电报)
“开函喜动色,分明是君容。自君镜奁来,入妾怀袖中。”(照相)
“恐君魂来日,是妾不寐时。妾睡君或醒,君睡妾岂知。”(东西半球时差)
《今别离》的高明之处,不止在词句。无论《兰墩十咏》《西洋杂咏》还是黄遵宪在美国的《纪事》,都只停留在中诗描摹西物的层次;但到了《今别离》,黄遵宪已经可以反其道而行之,用西方这些新鲜发明的功用,来表达东方传统的闺怨、思念等主题。比如,以电报来形容思念之切,“安得如电光,一闪至君旁”;更借用东西时差之别,把“君生我未生”巧妙地化为“妾睡君或醒”,洋为中用,境界又高了一层。
2016年9月4日星期日
http://zelligharris.org/Minimalist.pdf
Harris' footnote here gives a rare glimpse of his social philosophy, which was for him a matter of deeply committed practice and not a merely theoretical espousal: "The pitting of one linguistic tool against another has in it something of the absolutist postwar temper of social institutions, but is not required by the character and range of these tools of analysis." It is entirely in keeping with his views, for example, that he did not seek to impose them upon others. The absolutism Harris mentions here is also seen in the recurring demand for `the' `correct' grammar of `the' language. An early instance of this is the controversy over non-uniqueness in phonology, alluded to earlier, and Householder's famous (and oversimplifying) dichotimization of `God's Truth' linguists vs. `hocus-pocus' linguists (see Hymes & Fought 1981:150- 151). Harris admitted different, non-unique descriptions by application of alternative distributional procedures, so long as, given the primitive contrasts, "the defining of the elements and the stating of the relations among them be based on distribution, and be unambiguous, consistent and subject to check" (1951a:9). "In any case, there is no harm in all this non-uniqueness, since each system can be mapped onto the others, so long as any special conditions are explicit and measurable" (1954:5; Harris [1951a:32] gives an earlier formulation). The notion that there is some sort of harm in non-uniqueness reflects a conception that because the ideal of science is to give a "correct" description eventually, failure to find "the correct" description at every stage constitutes failure to be scientific. Hymes & Fought (1981:148- 149) identify this character in Trager's insistance that one start with phonetic data and proceed in rigid, stepwise fashion, never mixing levels, in contrast with Harris' much more flexible (though no less rigorous) approach. 31 Harris' footnote here reads: Because of the mass of idiomatic and quasi-idiomatic expressions in language, each type of description has to treat of various special small categories of words, and in some cases even of unique words. But in the case of string and transformational analyses, and less adequately in the case of constituent analysis, the statements for aberrant and idiomatic material can be made in the terms of the given description (constituent, string, or transformation) or in limited extension or weakenings of the rules of that description. In these analyses, the treatment of difficult material does not require us to go completely outside the terms of the given description into the terms of another or into the metalanguage. In the elided text is a slightly different statement of the footnoted passage: "Each of these properties can be used as the basis for a description of the whole language because the effects of the other properties can be brought in as restrictions on the chosen property". In this formulation, the import of added restrictions is emphasized. 32 Contrast this with the long-running controversies over the generative capacity of one or another formal metalanguage, construed as systems of generative rules for language.
2016年8月9日星期二
how a Chinese poem is translated
Winding Up
by Derek Walcott
I live on the water,by Derek Walcott
alone. Without wife and children,
I have circled every possibility
to come to this:
a low house by grey water,
with windows always open
to the stale sea. We do not choose such things,
but we are what we have made.
We suffer, the years pass,
we shed freight but not our need
for encumbrances. Love is a stone
that settled on the sea-bed
#13
under grey water. Now, I require nothing
from poetry but true feeling,
no pity, no fame, no healing. Silent wife,
we can sit watching grey water,
and in a life awash
with mediocrity and trash
live rock-like.
I shall unlearn feeling,
unlearn my gift. That is greater
and harder than what passes there for life.
2016年8月7日星期日
mod_virgule running on Amazon Web Services
just a note to test syndication/blog feed back to v2dev.p2b.tv
2016年7月2日星期六
张千帆VS张维为:西方民主还是中国模式? by 宋鲁郑
From http://songluzheng.bokerb.com/633505
北京大学法学院张千帆教授和复旦大学张维为教授有许多共同点:都姓张,都是上海人,都是海归,一个长期留美,一个长期旅欧。但更令人关注的是两者的不同:一个是西方民主的信奉者,一个是中国模式的推崇者。世人颇为期待的是,当这两位学者相遇时,将会撞出何等的火花。
著名的自由派刊物《炎黄春秋》2014年12月号发表了张千帆教授的文章《民主是绕不过的坎》----评《中国震撼:一个“文明型国家”的崛起》。
张千帆教授选择《中国震撼》做为双方观点交锋的切入点,确实显示了学者的眼光:中国国家主席习近平阅读此书之后,就把它推荐给了世界银行前行长罗伯特·佐利克(Robert Zoellick)等人物;2012年6月20日,英国牛津大学中国中心为张维为教授的《中国震撼》一书举行了专场研讨会;此书曾荣膺《光明日报》2011年度光明书榜十大图书、《中外书摘》2011年度十大好书、新闻出版总署全民阅读办2011年度大众喜爱的50种书·文化类、河北省阅读办2011年度十大好书等好评,而且早已译成英文,成为西方主流学者研究和引用的对象。西方主流媒体如BBC、纽约时报也多次采访。
北京大学法学院张千帆教授和复旦大学张维为教授有许多共同点:都姓张,都是上海人,都是海归,一个长期留美,一个长期旅欧。但更令人关注的是两者的不同:一个是西方民主的信奉者,一个是中国模式的推崇者。世人颇为期待的是,当这两位学者相遇时,将会撞出何等的火花。
著名的自由派刊物《炎黄春秋》2014年12月号发表了张千帆教授的文章《民主是绕不过的坎》----评《中国震撼:一个“文明型国家”的崛起》。
张千帆教授选择《中国震撼》做为双方观点交锋的切入点,确实显示了学者的眼光:中国国家主席习近平阅读此书之后,就把它推荐给了世界银行前行长罗伯特·佐利克(Robert Zoellick)等人物;2012年6月20日,英国牛津大学中国中心为张维为教授的《中国震撼》一书举行了专场研讨会;此书曾荣膺《光明日报》2011年度光明书榜十大图书、《中外书摘》2011年度十大好书、新闻出版总署全民阅读办2011年度大众喜爱的50种书·文化类、河北省阅读办2011年度十大好书等好评,而且早已译成英文,成为西方主流学者研究和引用的对象。西方主流媒体如BBC、纽约时报也多次采访。
订阅:
博文 (Atom)