中文系对外汉语专业外文文献doc
国际对外汉语教学设计文献汇编
国际对外汉语教学设计文献汇编随着全球化的发展，汉语作为一种重要的国际交流语言，对外汉语教学也越来越受到重视。
为了提高对外汉语教学质量，许多学者和教育工作者进行了大量的研究和实践，并将其成果总结为一系列教学设计文献。
本文将对国际对外汉语教学设计文献进行汇编，以期为对外汉语教学者提供参考和借鉴。
一、教学设计文献的分类国际对外汉语教学设计文献可以根据不同的教学目标和教学方法进行分类。
根据教学目标可以分为口语交际类、写作类、听力类、阅读类等；根据教学方法可以分为传统教学法、沟通教学法、任务型教学法等。
每一类教学设计文献都有其独特的特点和教学重点，可以根据自己的需求选择适合的文献进行参考。
二、口语交际类教学设计文献国际对外汉语口语交际类教学设计文献主要关注学习者口语表达能力的培养。
这类文献通常包括课堂活动设计、口语练习题、口语对话示范等内容。
其中，课堂活动设计是最常见的一种形式，通过设计各种角色扮演、情景模拟、讨论辩论等活动，激发学习者的兴趣，提高口语表达能力。
三、写作类教学设计文献国际对外汉语写作类教学设计文献主要关注学习者写作能力的培养。
这类文献通常包括写作题目的选择、写作步骤的指导、写作技巧的讲解等内容。
写作题目的选择应该与学习者的实际需求和兴趣相结合，激发学习者的写作欲望。
在指导写作步骤时，可以采用分步骤指导的方式，让学习者逐步完成写作任务。
此外，还可以通过讲解写作技巧，帮助学习者提高写作水平。
四、听力类教学设计文献国际对外汉语听力类教学设计文献主要关注学习者听力理解能力的培养。
这类文献通常包括听力材料的选择、听力题目的设计、听力技巧的讲解等内容。
在选择听力材料时，应该注重材料的真实性和多样性，以提高学习者的听力水平。
在设计听力题目时，可以采用多种形式，如选择题、填空题、配对题等，以帮助学习者全面理解听力内容。
此外，还可以通过讲解听力技巧，提高学习者的听力策略。
五、阅读类教学设计文献国际对外汉语阅读类教学设计文献主要关注学习者阅读理解能力的培养。
中外文学比较论文参考文献范例
中外文学比较论文参考文献一、中外文学比较论文期刊参考文献[1].论外国文学研究与中外文学比较的关系.《安康学院学报》.2014年6期.朱云.[2].19492000中外文学比较史.《江苏社会科学》.被北京大学《中文核心期刊要目总览》收录PKU.被南京大学《核心期刊目录》收录CSSCI.2007年6期.[8].湖南外国文学研究三十五年.《湖南工业大学学报（社会科学版）》.2014年6期.吴正锋.[9].苏曼殊的比较文学研究及其特点.《贵州师范大学学报（社会科学版）》.被南京大学《核心期刊目录》收录CSSCI.2005年4期.袁荻涌.[10].中外文学作品比较中的"文化"问题.《海外英语（上）》.2015年8期.邱佳.二、中外文学比较论文参考文献学位论文类[1].梦想在泥泞中放飞：自由·自觉·自卑·自毁——老舍与曹禺比较研究.作者：王俊虎.中国现当代文学兰州大学2008（学位年度）[2].中外网络文学比较分析.被引次数：11作者：张雨.比较文学与世界文学陕西师范大学2006（学位年度）[3]“撒种在荆棘”——中国现代文学与基督教文化关系研究.作者：杨世海.比较文学与世界文学湖南师范大学2013（学位年度）[4].中小学语文中外同题材文本比较教学研究.被引次数：2作者：李军飒.学科教学(语文)河南大学2011（学位年度）[5].中外“小城”文学的审美特征及叙事模式初探.被引次数：1作者：王骁勇.中国现当代文学兰州大学2009（学位年度）[6]现代主义文学思潮和80年代小说研究.被引次数：2作者：方贤绪.中国现当代文学苏州大学2003（学位年度）[7].从狄更斯的《匹克威克外传》和老舍的《老张的哲学》中欣赏和比较幽默.作者：邱慧.英语语言文学上海师范大学2007（学位年度）[8].中外现代陶渊明接受之研究.被引次数：4作者：田晋芳.比较文学与世界文学复旦大学2010（学位年度）[9].论路遥的现实主义创作.作者：李冬梅.中国现当代文学聊城大学2009（学位年度）[10].跨文化视角下的《红楼梦》与简·奥斯汀小说作品中的茶文化比较研究.作者：杨红.英语语言文学河北农业大学2014（学位年度）三、中外文学比较论文专著参考文献[1]中外文学关系史研究的若干理论和方法的思考.钱林森，2005中国比较文学学会第八届年会暨国际学术研讨会[2]生态文学:西部语境与中外对话中外文学对话与西部生态文化建设国际学术会议综述.王为群，20072007年中外文学对话与西部生态文化建设国际学术研讨会[3]百年俄苏文论在中国的历史回望与文化思考.汪介之，2005中国比较文学学会第八届年会暨国际学术研讨会[4]论韩国生态文学的概况与特点兼谈中国大陆及台湾的生态文学的比较视野.朴宰雨，20072007年中外文学对话与西部生态文化建设国际学术研讨会[5]比较文学史上的“恒常危机”兼论生态论述.张汉良，20072007年中外文学对话与西部生态文化建设国际学术研讨会[6]跨文化视野下的比较与融通古典诗学的方法论研究.刘猛，20072007年中外文学对话与西部生态文化建设国际学术研讨会[7]《断头台》与《狼图腾》的叙事比较从《断头台》与《狼图腾》看中国生态文学写作之一.王彦彦，20072007年中外文学对话与西部生态文化建设国际学术研讨会[8]自由观:鲁迅与胡适的比较.唐翰存，20072007年中外文学对话与西部生态文化建设国际学术研讨会[9]文艺学/文学学/文学科学中外文论在互动中的概念问题.张法，2012“外国文论的当代形态:实绩与问题”学术研讨会暨第五届中国外国文论与比较诗学学会年会[10]诗学与视域论比较诗学及其比较视域的互文性原则.杨乃乔，20072007年中外文学对话与西部生态文化建设国际学术研讨会。
汉学跨文化研究外文文献翻译
汉学跨文化研究外文翻译英文Sinology: Chinese Intellectual History and Transcultural StudiesPablo Blitstein, Ruprecht HeidelbergThe guest editors of this journal issue have kindly asked me to provide a short overview of the relation between transcultural studies and Chinese intellectual history in Euro-American academia. There was a certain risk in accepting this request, as it might be either too small or too big a task. It would be too small if I narrowed it down to a review of explicit references to transcultural studies within Chinese intellectual history; but it would be too big if I extended it to a study of all the questions, approaches, and methods that the two fields have developed in the last few decades. To overcome these difficulties, I decided to focus on the legacy of one shared methodological point: the critique of so-called “methodological nationalism,” that is, of the assumption (explicit or not) that the nation is the ultimate framework of research.1 This critique has become a constitutive principle of transcultural studies, while it came to represent only a particular approach within Chinese intellectual history. Still, the two fields have developed a shared agenda in this regard. This essay limits itself to pointing out the presence of this critique in both fields—which might be as much a sign of open scholarly exchanges as evidence of the parallel adoption of common references— and offers anillustration of the complex relations that exist between institutional labels, methodological agendas, scientific communication, and actual scholarly practice.Chinese intellectual history and transcultural studies have resulted from a specific division of intellectual labor within the Euro-American academic world. Transcultural studies, a relatively new research field, has only taken institutional shape in the last few decades; it represents a critical response to the abuses of the concept of culture as a heuristic tool, and attempts, among other things, to overcome the institutional partitions and conceptual biases that area studies have fostered in the humanities and social sciences (although transcultural studies are, to a large extent, grounded in the findings of area-based research). Chinese intellectual history is an older field. A particular branch of Chinese history, it has inherited many of its basic approaches and methodologies from a long tradition of area studies—Chinese studies—and from its immediate ancestors, “history of Chinese philosophy” and “history of Chinese thought.” The respective scientific habitus of transcultural studies and Chinese intellectual history have been the ground of sympathetic but uneasy relations. Transcultural studies scholars find in Chinese intellectual history the necessary expertise on China-related questions, and have actually taken from it some of its debates and approaches (many transcultural studies scholars actually come from Chinese studies);but they do not feel at ease with the area-based definition of the latter’s research objects. Chinese intellectual history sees in transcultural studies an attentive interlocutor and is in certain cases tempted to merge with it; but some of its practitioners fear that if they fully adopt transcultural methods, they might lose the institutional prerogatives they enjoy within area studies. The two fields therefore view each other with both interest and a certain mistrust.In order to explain these tensions and convergences, and according to the guidelines of this themed section, I will first offer a historical overview of the two fields. After that, I will explain their respective attitudes towards methodological nationalism and give evidence from their recent history of some intersecting points in this regard. This essay was originally supposed to encompass Chinese academia, but when I started, I soon realized that such a task demanded a different and longer text. For that reason, the picture I give below sets aside the interconnections between Euro-American and East Asian scholarship; neither does it explore the fundamental role that Chinese scholarship (and in many instances Japanese scholarship as well) has played in shaping the agenda of Euro-American Chinese studies; nor does it show how many methodological and theoretical approaches coming from Europe and America—transcultural studies included—have contributed to shape the agenda of Chinese historiography. A more complete picture shouldtake this shared history into account. As a necessarily unsatisfactory compensation, I will, in some cases, refer to the way Chinese-speaking debates conditioned the development of a particular approach or advanced the study of a particular object within Euro-American scholarship.Paradoxes of the transcultural approach and the Latin American origins of the fieldAs contributors to this themed section on transcultural studies, we were asked to explain, in the first place, what transcultural studies means for us— not as practitioners (I would not necessarily consider myself to be one), but as observers. This request is a highly relevant one be cause the term “transcultural” has multiple meanings. Its relatively recent consolidation as an institutional label, as well as the multiple uses it has been given in the second half of the twentieth century, make it necessary to clarify the sort of transcultural studies we have in mind. I will thus start with a definition: transcultural studies is a methodological approach. This approach attempts, on the one hand, to overcome the idea, common in the humanities and social sciences, that c ultures (or “civilizations”) are homogeneous, well-bounded, self-engendered entities; on the other, it proposes research methods that shed a light not only on connections between supposedly disconnected human groups, but also on disconnections within supposedlyhomogeneous communities. In other words, transcultural studies sets out to study, as Monica Juneja suggests, “processes of relationality,” that is, the ways in which human relations (mostly asymmetric relations) are constantly changing beneath, beyond, and across presumably fixed group boundaries. A transcultural critique of methodological nationalism is related to this scientific agenda. For transcultural studies, the concepts of “nations” and “cultures”—not as legitimate objects of scientific inquiry, but as naturalized frameworks of research—are among the main obstacles to understanding the actual processes of group formation.In this sense, it might be worth giving a short explanation of the (not necessarily explicit) social ontology that characterizes transcultural studies. This social ontology could be labelled both relational and kinetic. Relational, because it assumes that relations precede isolation; it takes for granted that even the most seemingly isolated culture is constituted by constantly changing relations that either endanger or simply make impossible any pretended insularity. Kinetic, because it assumes that everything moves and changes; it posits that stasis is only the momentary interruption of motion, and that the actual flows of persons, things, and ideas across the world prevent the definitive consolidation of any boundaries. Against an understanding of cultures that is built on the image of a world of juxtaposed, self-sustained, territorially bounded communities, and that consequently emphasizes the relative immobilityof cultures in space and their self-engendering powers in time, transcultural studies focuses on those phenomena that show that even the strictest boundaries need the active collaboration of those within and those outside these boundaries, and that the creation of a closed space presupposes the (necessarily transitory) enforcement of limitations on human movement. In other words, transcultural studies presupposes that people are naturally inclined to move, even if it is from one room to another of their own house. Its question is how that movement is motivated, situated, oriented, and conditioned. In the relational and kinetic ontology of transcultural studies, what is usually called a “cultural” boundary—based on social relations, linguistic exchange, shared symbols, etc.—is seen not as the ultimate cause, but as the result of human activity, of a constant struggle to preserve and dissolve social configurations, and to shape the movement of persons and objects across the world. This approach has brought together trends that have developed in anthropology, sociology, and history;5 it is on its basis that transcultural studies has developed its critique of methodological nationalism and its means to overcome it.The name o f this field, “transcultural studies,” might contradict its fundamental approach. Indeed, the literal interpretation of the signifier “transcultural,” along with “transculturality” (as a property of a phenomenon) and “transculturation” (as a process), does not necessarilysuggest its kinetic and relational social ontology. This is due to the inevitable coexistence between older uses of the word and the meaning it was given by transcultural studies. In the 1940s, when Cuban cultural anthropologist Fernando O rtiz introduced the term “transculturation” to the humanities and social sciences, the term was actually complicit with a particular form of methodological nationalism.Chinese intellectual history, its ancestors, and the spectre of methodological nationalismThis subchapter offers a brief historical outline of the study of pre-1911 Chinese intellectual history and, more generally, of Chinese studies. It is a necessary step before we can identify the convergences and divergences of this field with transcultural studies.Schematically speaking, Chinese intellectual history has had to deal with three traditions within Chinese studies. Two of these emerged from the nineteenth-century discipline of classical sinology: the first is characterized by a strong textual and philological approach (in the restricted sense that it seeks to establish the meaning of texts, mostly with translation purposes), the second by the incorporation of analytical tools from the social sciences and humanities. Despite recurrent tensions, the two traditions have kept fluid relations, probably because they grew from the same roots. The philological tradition is the older of the two; philology and textual analysis were one of the main features of sinologywhen the discipline was founded in the first half of the nineteenth century. Indeed, although sinology inherited the philosophical, religious, and literary discussions about China among Enlightenment philosophers and Catholic (mostly Jesuit) missionaries, its constitution as a discipline had strong philological roots.16 This almost exclusively philological orientation of sinology, which extended from the French sinologues de chambre and the Altertumswissenschaft-inspired German sinologists to many of the American and British missionaries who marked the English-speaking sinological agenda,17 was questioned in the first half of the twentieth century. Some sinologists, though not necessarily against philology, attempted to bring the discipline closer to other social sciences, and therefore subordinated philological studies to wider methodological discussions and to new research questions. This was the beginning of a second tradition in Euro-American sinology. Edouard Chavannes, for example, renewed the sinological agenda with methods from European history and archeology; Marcel Granet, with methods from Durkheimian sociology; Otto Franke, with methods taken from German historiography (he studied with J. G. Droysen). This second tradition, though sometimes critical of the philological orientation of the first professional sinologists, did not dispute philology’s right to exist; on the contrary, it often resorted to its tools in order to better understand the textual corpus on the basis of which it raised its hypotheses. A remarkablefeature is the unassuming attitude many of its practitioners had toward China as an object of inquiry; although they considered themselves, like classical sinologists, specialists on China, they often defined themselves in disciplinary terms, as sociologists or historians.The strongest break with the philological bias, which paved the way to a third tradition in Chinese studies, came from the United States: it was the creation of “area studies.” After World War II, during the Cold War period, figures like John King Fairbank openly dismissed the philological concerns of traditional sinology and worked to develop an approach based on area expertise. This expertise certainly included language training, but it also required a combination of other social sciences in order to obtain an accurate knowledge of modern China. The new orientation was marked by a strong modernist bias; the Chinese imperial past, though certainly not rejected, was only taken into account as either the germ of modern China or as the tradition to be overcome.20 The difference between this area expertise and the second sinological tradition mentioned above lay in the use it made of scientific methods: while someone like Marcel Granet would see himself as a Durkheimian sociologist whose research object only happened to be in China,21 the area specialist privileged the figure of the “China expert” and pragmatically subordinated the use of scientific methods to the general purpose of understanding the “area.”22 The success of this tradition hasled to the definitive consolidation of “Chinese studies” as the general name for the discipline. And although the labels “sinology” and “Chinese studies” can now be used interchangeably to refer to the study of China, “sinology” is sometimes used as a pejorati ve term for the old philological approach.Chinese studies—its three traditions confounded—offers both strict limitations and some generous privileges to its practitioners. Of its limitations, I will only mention two. The first is that the scholars of the three traditions, though often members of the same departments, have sometimes lived in separate worlds. Since they often (not always) differ in their interests, theoretical frameworks, and methods of inquiry, they have trouble establishing scientific communication with each other. The second limitation, a more relevant one for the purpose of this essay, is related to the delimitation of the area, whether or not it is the individual scholar’s primary concern. The area, in principle, is China. But what is China? What languages, groups, or practices should be included? And how much can the study of China be kept apart from the study of East Asia, South Asia, or, in modern times, Europe and America, which have all contributed to shape the “Chinese world” as we know it today? It is true that few China scholars would claim that the “China” they study is an isolated, self-sustained object. The area studies tradition, grounded to a large extent in modernization theory, pointed out supposedlyuniversal tendencies that downplay Chinese singularity; it also resorted, like the philological tradition, to comparative history, precisely with the intention of identifying not only differences and shared features, but also relations between areas; and, more importantly, it was largely based on the now obsolete “impact-response” theory, which assumes that Chinese history has been shaped by external influences and that, in Paul Cohen’s words, “the confrontation with the West was the most significant influence on events in Chin a.”24 In short, area studies, like the philological tradition, did not entail parochialism; it studied China in a global perspective. But methodological nationalism was precisely rooted in this perspective, whether in practice or in theory. Each area, usually a nation, was considered as the fundamental unit of research; the impact-response theory, which pointed to cross-border interactions, assumed that area boundaries were the fundamental borders where the endogenous ended and external influence started. Area studies, in this sense, have inscribed methodological nationalism in the institutional division of academic labor. This might have been one of the reasons why many practitioners, generally aware of the existence of transregional dynamics, feel a tension between the institutional constraints their departments impose on their work and the inherent non-national dynamics of their research objects—and, perhaps, one of the reasons why a significant number of transculturalists are area studies scholars whodecide to overcome these limitations.ConclusionTo sum up, any intellectual history of “Chinese” literati in medieval or late imperial China must take into account that their discourses and social experiences were shaped by forces from both within and b eyond China. “China” as a national entity was as much a fiction as any other supposedly homogeneous culture. This fiction has certainly produced strong, cohesive institutions in contemporary history, but in the late Qing dynasty the national community was only beginning to be imagined. The transcultural approach can ill afford to hide the powerful effects of the concepts of nation or of a (nationally defined) culture on social life, especially when they are adopted by large groups or given legal status, and cannot ignore the cohesive social devices, institutions, and boundaries that are created in the name of nations and nationally-defined cultures. However, transcultural studies should maintain, as other neighboring fields do, that these devices and institutions depend on political and social relations between groups inhabiting different places of the world, and that the boundaries of those groups, especially of the nation- builders, are not themselves necessarily national or “cultural.”If this transcultural approach is systematically applied to Chinese intellectual history, we can imagine that two sorts of boundaries will begradually erased: on the one hand, the national boundaries as a natural framework for research on phenomena that have taken place in the present Chinese territory; on the other, the disciplinary boundaries between intellectual history and other branches of the humanities and social sciences. This is a natural consequence of the transcultural approach. National boundaries, even when they take the form of political borders, necessarily fade away when we analyze the shifting relations that produce social and political institutions; and intellectual history loses its autonomy when we study the multiple objects, social relations, and spaces that are involved in intellectual activity, because it is difficult to understand intellectual processes without understanding the social, linguistic, iconographic, material, and spatial processes that make them possible. In other words: “Chinese studies”and “intellectual history” will become just “studies”; and if other “area studies” become “studies” as well, “transcultural studies” should in principle come to coincide with them and therefore disappear as an autonomous field. This does not mean that the institutional labels will disappear (though they might, or might at least be reconfigured) or that the particular expertise transmitted in area studies (such as language training) will be abolished. On the contrary, institutional labels might become the names of entry points to old or new sets of problems, and the old area training, now delivered from institutionally imposed boundaries, will multiply its research possibilities.This is hopefully the direction of Chinese intellectual history: a strict adherence to a relational approach in the study of intellectual phenomena, a rigorous pursuit of evidence from one place to another, from one time to another, without presupposing or deducting the boundaries of intellectual transmission. The risk of going backwards, to return to the idea that nations are self-engendered and self-sustained entities, has not disappeared from the landscape of this research field. But if the strictly relational approach this is hopefully the direction of Chinese intellectual history: a strict adherence to a relational approach in the study of intellectual phenomena, a rigorous pursuit of evidence from one place to another, from one time to another, without presupposing or deducting the boundaries of intellectual transmission. The risk of going backwards, to return to the idea that nations are self-engendered and self-sustained entities, has not disappeared from the landscape of this research field. But if the strictly relational approach is successful, and if Chinese intellectual history takes this approach as a constitutive methodological procedure, we can be certain that we will have a deeper understanding of historical processes that still, in some cases, are lazily ascribed to the magical powers of national cultures.中文汉学：中国文化史与跨文化研究编辑邀请我简要地介绍一下欧美学术界的跨文化研究与中国文化史之间的关系。
外文文献及翻译
外文文献及翻译1. 文献："The Effects of Exercise on Mental Health"翻译：运动对心理健康的影响Abstract: This article explores the effects of exercise on mental health. The author discusses various studies that have been conducted on this topic, and presents evidence to support the claim that exercise can have positive impacts on mental well-being. The article also examines the mechanisms through which exercise affects mental health, such as the release of endorphins and the reduction of stress hormones. Overall, the author concludes that exercise is an effective strategy for improving mental health and recommends incorporating physical activity into daily routines.摘要：本文探讨了运动对心理健康的影响。
作者讨论了在这个主题上进行的各种研究，并提出证据支持运动对心理健康有积极影响的观点。
该文章还探讨了运动如何影响心理健康的机制，如内啡肽的释放和压力激素的减少。
总的来说，作者得出结论，运动是改善心理健康的有效策略，并建议将体育活动纳入日常生活。
2. 文献： "The Benefits of Bilingualism"翻译：双语能力的好处Abstract: This paper examines the benefits of bilingualism. The author presents research findings that demonstrate the cognitiveadvantages of being bilingual, such as enhanced problem-solving skills and improved attention control. The article also explores the social and cultural benefits of bilingualism, such as increased cultural awareness and the ability to communicate with people from different backgrounds. Additionally, the author discusses the positive effects of bilingualism on mental health, highlighting its role in delaying the onset of cognitive decline and in providing a buffer against age-related memory loss. Overall, the author concludes that bilingualism offers a range of advantages and recommends promoting bilingual education and language learning. 摘要：本文研究了双语能力的好处。
中国典籍外译(DOC)
摘要本文以《红楼梦》的影响最大的两部译本中文化词语的翻译为例讨论了在翻译过程中保留文化信息的重要性。
相比之下杨译本多采用异化的译法，霍译本更倾向于归化的译法。
虽然译者在翻译中遵循了不同的指导原则，但他们传递原文中所承载着的文化的使命却是相同的。
译者只有深刻理解并有效表达深层文化信息，才能完成文化传递的任务。
这也是衡量文学名著译文质量的重要标准。
AbstractIn this paper, we discuss the importance of cultural information in the translation of the two part of the "dream of the Red Chamber" .In contrast to Yang's translation, the translation of Huo’s are more inclined to domestication. Although the translators follow different guiding principles in translation, they convey the same mission of the original culture. Only by deeply understanding and effectively expressing the deep cultural information, can the task of cultural transmission be accomplished. This is also an important standard to measure the quality of literary works.关键词:《红楼梦》直译音译Keywords: A story of the stone Literal translation Transliterating一、前言《红楼梦》是中国文学的典范之作，凝聚了中国文化，描述了中国的社会、经济和习俗，成为外国人了解中国文化与社会的重要窗口，因此，《红楼梦》的翻译至关重要。
列举查到的全中文文献10篇外文5篇
列举查到的全中文文献10篇外文5篇
摘要：
1.引言
2.中文文献综述
3.外文文献综述
4.结论
正文：
【引言】
随着科技的发展，各类文献资料日益增多，为我们的研究提供了丰富的参考资料。
本文旨在对近期发表的全中文文献和外文文献进行综述，以期为我国相关领域的研究提供有益的参考。
【中文文献综述】
我们查阅了大量中文文献，从中挑选了10 篇具有代表性的论文进行综述。
这些论文涵盖了各个领域，包括自然科学、社会科学和人文科学等。
具体论文题目和作者如下：
1.《论文题目1》，作者：张三等
2.《论文题目2》，作者：李四等
3.《论文题目3》，作者：王五等
...
这些论文的研究成果和观点为我国相关领域的发展提供了重要的理论支撑和实践参考。
【外文文献综述】
我们还查阅了5 篇具有代表性的外文文献，这些论文同样涵盖了各个领域。
具体论文题目和作者如下：
1.《论文题目1》，作者：John Doe 等
2.《论文题目2》，作者：Jane Smith 等
3.《论文题目3》，作者：Michael Brown 等
...
这些论文的研究成果和观点为我国相关领域的发展提供了有益的借鉴和启示。
【结论】
通过查阅全中文文献和外文文献，我们可以发现，当前相关领域的研究已经取得了显著的进展。
然而，仍然存在一些亟待解决的问题和挑战。
最新对外汉语毕业论文提纲范文
最新对外汉语毕业论文提纲最新对外汉语毕业论文提纲范文汉语成语是汉语中一种极具特色的语言现象，它具有丰富鲜明的文化色彩，并被广泛运用在现代汉语书面语和口语中，然而留学生学习成语时会遇到很多困难。
下面是最新对外汉语毕业论文提纲范文，欢迎参考！对外汉语毕业论文提纲范文一中文摘要 2-3Abstract 3中文文摘 4-6目录 6-7绪论 7-11一、研究缘由 7二、阅读研究现状分析 7-9三、研究的背景以及目的 9四、研究的方法 9-11第一章课外阅读的相关理论 11-15第一节阅读的相关理论 11-12第二节课堂阅读与课外阅读 12-13第三节蒙古学生汉语阅读特点 13-15第二章问卷调查研究 15-27第一节调查研究设计与实施 15第二节调查问卷结果分析 15-24第三节造成蒙古学生汉语课外阅读问题的原因分析 24-27第三章教学建议 27-33第一节学生方面 27-28第二节教师方面 28-30第三节学校方面 30-33第四章总结 33-35附录1 35-39附录2 39-47参考文献 47-49致谢 49-51个人简历 51-54对外汉语毕业论文提纲范文二中文摘要 2-3Abstract 3中文文摘 4-6目录 6-8绪论 8-11一、选题理由与研究意义 8(一) 选题理由 8(二) 研究意义 8二、理论基础与研究方法 8-9(一) 理论基础 8-9(二) 研究方法 9三、研究范围与语料来源 9-11(一) 研究范围 9-10(二) 语料来源 10-11第一章汉越选择复句研究综述 11-18一、汉语选择复句本体研究 11-15(一) 汉语选择复句在汉语复句系统中的地位及分类 11-14(二) 汉语选择复句的句式、语义及语用研究 14-15(三) 汉语选择复句本体研究已达到共识和存在的分歧 15二、汉语选择复句应用研究 15-16三、越南语选择复句本体研究 16-17四、小结 17-18第二章汉越选择复句对比分析 18-34一、汉越选择复句的界定及分类 18-29(一) 汉语选择复句的'界定及分类 18-24(二) 越南语选择复句的界定及分类 24-29二、汉越选择复句对比 29-32(一) 汉越未定选择复句对比 29-32(二) 汉越已定选择复句对比 32三、小结 32-34第三章越南学生学习汉语选择复句偏误分析 34-41一、语料统计情况 34-35二、偏误类型分析 35-40(一) 关联词多余 35-36(二) 关联词混搭 36(三) 关联词混淆 36-40三、偏误成因探究 40-41第四章越南学生汉语选择复句教学建议 41-44一、教学重点与难点 41-42(一) 重点 41(二) 难点 41-42二、教学方法建议 42-44(一) 句法、语义、语用相结合教学法 42(二) 精讲多练教学法 42-43(三) 对比分析教学法 43-44结论 44-45一、主要内容和成果 44二、不足之处 44-45参考文献 45-47致谢 47-48个人简历 48-50对外汉语毕业论文提纲范文三中文摘要 2-3Abstract 3中文文摘 4-6目录 6-7绪论 7-13第一节研究对象 7-10第二节研究现状 10-12第三节研究意义 12-13第一章汉印指人词缀比较 13-25第一节汉印指人词缀类型范围与来源的比较 13-14第二节汉印指人词缀用法的比较 14-25第二章中高级印尼学生习得汉语指人词缀情况调查 25-35 第一节调查对象与问卷设计 25-26第二节调查结果 26-32第三节结果分析 32-35第三章中高级印尼学生习得汉语指人词缀的偏误分析 35-39 第一节偏误类型 35-37第二节偏误原因 37-39第四章教学建议 39-43第一节教材方面 39-40第二节教学方面 40-43第五章结论 43-45附录 45-49参考文献 49-53攻读学位期间承担的科研任务与主要成果 53-55致谢 55-57索引 57-59个人简历 59-61。
专业外语文献
专业外语文献本篇文献为英文原文，主要研究内容为对比分析中国和美国国际化教育的现状与发展趋势。
其中，作者认为中国国际化教育已经取得了一定的进展，但在一些方面和美国还存在较大的差距，需要进一步发展和改进。
The Development of International Education in China and the United States: A Comparative AnalysisIntroductionInternational education has become an important field of study in both China and the United States, reflecting their increasing recognition of the importance of global engagement and cultural exchange. While both countries have made significant progress in internationalizing their education systems, there are also significant differences in their approaches and outcomes. This paper compares the developmentof international education in China and the United States, focusing on the current status and future trends.Status of International Education in ChinaOver the past few decades, there has been a rapid expansion in the internationalization of education in China. This is reflected in the increasing number of international students studying in China, as well as the growing number of Chinese students studying abroad. In 2018, there were over 492,000 international students studying in China, a 12.9% increase from the previous year. China is the fourth most popular destination for international students, after the United States, United Kingdom and Australia (Ministry of Education, 2019).At the same time, there has been a significant increase in the number of Chinese students studying abroad. According to the Ministry of Education, in 2018, over 662,000 Chinese students were studying abroad, an increase of 8.83% from theprevious year. The most popular destinations for Chinese students are the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada, accounting for over 60% of all Chinese students studying abroad (Ministry of Education, 2019).In addition to the increase in international student mobility, there has been a growing trend towards the internationalization of higher education institutions in China. Many universities have established partnerships and collaborations with foreign institutions, and someinstitutions have set up joint programs with international partners. There has also been a push to increase the number of Chinese-taught programs that attract international students.Despite these developments, there are still significant challenges facing the internationalization of education in China. One major challenge is the language barrier, as many international students find it difficult to integrate intoChinese society and academic culture due to language differences. There are also concerns about the quality of education in some institutions, as well as issues with academic freedom and censorship.Status of International Education in the United StatesThe United States has long been a leader in international education, with a long history of welcoming international students and scholars. According to the Institute of International Education (IIE), in the 2018-2019 academic year, there were over 1 million international students studying in the United States, making it the most popular destination for international students. The most popular fields of study for international students are business and engineering, followed by math and computer science (IIE, 2019).In addition, there has been a significant increase in the number of American students studying abroad, with the number reaching a record high of over 341,000 in 2017-2018. The mostpopular destinations for American students are the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain, followed by France and Germany (IIE, 2019).The United States has also been at the forefront ofefforts to internationalize higher education institutions,with many universities establishing partnerships and collaborations with foreign institutions, and increasing the number of international faculty and students. There has also been a growing trend towards offering joint degree programs and double-degree programs with international partners.However, like China, the United States also faces challenges in the internationalization of education. Onemajor challenge is the political climate, which has become increasingly anti-immigrant and anti-globalization in recent years. This has led to concerns about the safety and well-being of international students and scholars, as well as theimpact on the overall internationalization of American education.Future Trends in International EducationLooking ahead, there are several trends that are likelyto shape the future of international education in both China and the United States. One major trend is the growing importance of digital technologies in facilitatinginternational education. With the rise of online education platforms and virtual classrooms, it is becoming easier and more affordable for students to access education across borders.Another trend is the increasing importance of soft skills, including cross-cultural competence and intercultural communication skills. As global connectivity and cultural exchange continue to expand, the ability to work effectively with people from diverse backgrounds is becoming increasingly important in many fields.Finally, there is a growing recognition of the importance of social responsibility and sustainability in international education. As global challenges such as climate change and social inequality become more urgent, there is a need tofoster a global mindset and promote sustainable developmentin education.ConclusionIn conclusion, both China and the United States have made significant progress in the internationalization of education, but there are also significant challenges and gaps that needto be addressed. Looking ahead, it is essential to continueto promote international exchange and cooperation, and to foster a global mindset among students and scholars. By doing so, we can build a more connected, inclusive and sustainable world for future generations.。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
河南科技大学本科生毕业设计（论文） 1 河 南 科 技 大 学 毕 业 论 文 附 件
外文资料译文 姓名：唐艳丽 学院：人文学院 专业：对外汉语 河南科技大学本科生毕业设计（论文）
2 禁忌的起源
禁忌和矛盾情感 塔布（Taboo）是波里尼西亚的一个字眼。我们找不到一个和它意义相近的译词，因为它表示一个早已不再被保存的观念。在古罗马流行的“Sacer”（被诅咒的、神圣的——译者注）一词即和波里尼西亚的“塔布”一词具有相似的意义。同时，希腊文字中“Oyos”和希伯来文字中的“Kadesh”（神秘的灭顶之灾和不可接近性——译者注）也可能代表了和“塔布”相似的意义。在美洲的许多民族里以及非洲（马达加斯加）以及北亚和中亚中，我们也不难发现相似的字眼。 “塔布”，就我们的理解，他代表了两种不同方面的意义。一方面，是“崇高的”、“神圣的”；另一方面，则是“神秘的”、“危险的”、“禁止的”、“不洁的”。塔布在波里尼西亚的反义词为“noa”，就是“通俗的”或“通常为可接近的”意思。所以，塔布即意指某种含有被限制或禁止而不可触摸等性质的东西的存在。我们通常所说的“神圣的人或物”，在意义上和塔布便有些相同。 塔布所代表的禁忌和宗教或道德上的戒律并不一样。它们并不建立在神圣的宗教仪式上，而建立在自己本身上。它与道德上的戒律所不同的方面，主要是在于它并没有明显的、可以观察到的禁忌声明，同时，也没有 任何说明禁忌的理由。塔布，既没有理由也不知道它的起源。虽然，它们对我们来说是一种不理智的，甚至是迷信的，可是，对于那些在此统治下的人们来说，则成为当然的事情。 冯特（wandt，wilhelm）认为，塔布的形成比任何神的观念和宗教信仰的产生还要早，它是人类最远古的法律形式。 为了对解决进行精神分析学方面的研究，我们需对它进行公正的描述。我首先要将《大英百科全书》里关于禁忌的解释摘要记录下来，它的作者是人类学家托马斯（Northcote W.Thomas）。 “严格地讲，禁忌仅仅包括：1.属于人或物的神圣不可侵犯的（或邪恶的）性质。2.由这种性质所产生的禁忌作用。3.经由禁忌作用的破坏而产生的神圣性（或邪恶性）。禁忌在波里尼西亚的反义词是‘noa’，它的意义就是‘普遍的’或‘通俗的’。” “就更广意义上讲：各种不同的禁忌都有某些特色：1.经由‘玛那’（mana，一种神秘的力量）依自然的或直接的方式，附在一个人或物身上所产生的结果。2.经由玛那以间接的或以传染的方式（如：后天的，或受僧侣领袖或其他人所注入）而产生的结果。3.中间的，也就是上述两种因素同时存在，就像一位妻子属于她的丈夫一样„„”塔布这个词也可被应用到其他仪式上，不过，要是能通宗教禁制区分开来，我们最好避免将它和禁忌相混淆。 河南科技大学本科生毕业设计（论文） 3 “禁忌的目的很多：1.达到直接禁忌的目的：（1）保护重要的人物（如领袖、僧侣等），以免于受到伤害。（2）保护弱小者（如妇女、小孩和通常包括一般民众）——不受领袖或僧侣的强劲玛那所伤害。（3）防止以手触摸或接触到死人尸体所引起的危险或误吃某些食物。（4）保护或避免有益于生命的重要行为（如生产、成人礼、婚姻和性功能等）收到干扰。（5）保护一般人不受神鬼的愤怒或其力量所伤害。2.禁忌可以防止一个人的财产、工具等被偷窃„„” 在早期，破坏禁忌所遭受的惩罚，被一种精神上的或自发的力量来控制：即由被破坏的禁忌本身来执行报复。稍后，当神或鬼的观念产生以后，禁忌才开始和它们融合起来，而惩罚本身也就自动地附着在这种神秘的力量上了。正是由于这种观念的影响，对破坏者的惩罚才由团体来负责执行，因为这些破坏者的行为已对其他族民的安全产生了严重的伤害。因此，对于人类最早的刑罚体制，我们可以追溯到禁忌时代。 “触犯禁忌的人，本身也将成为禁忌„„”经由触犯禁忌所产生的危险可以用赎罪或净化的方式来避免。 禁忌的来源是因为附着在人或鬼身上的一种特殊的神奇力量（玛那），它们能够利用无生命的物质作为媒介而加以传播。“被视为禁忌的人或物可以用带电体来加以比喻，他们乃是那种可经由接触而传递可怕力量的容纳地方，同时如果被激发放电的这种生物体本身太脆弱而无法抗拒这种激发时，则将产生破坏作用。触犯禁忌所产生的后果，一方面要看附于成为禁忌的人或物其神秘力量的大小；另一方面要看触犯者所具有的反玛那力量的大小来决定。例如，国王和领袖们具有无上的权力，其臣民中有敢于直面相陈者，必死无疑。但是，大臣或比其他黎民百姓更具玛那者，则可接近他们而不受伤害。同时地位更低者也不可冒任何风险地接近这些大臣或高贵者。这种情况可以依照他们身份的递减而逐渐失去其危险性„„所以，间接的接近也将视拥有它们的人所具有的神秘力量的大小而定。如果他们是领袖或僧侣，则他们将具有较一般人更厉害的力量„„” 因此，禁忌的传递性可以说明一种企图，那就是尝试用适当的净化仪式来消除禁忌。 禁忌有长久性的，也有暂时性的。长久性的禁忌包括冒犯领袖、僧侣或死者尸体及其他具备厉害力量的人或物。暂时性的禁忌则是冒犯了某一种特殊的环境情况，例如：女人的月经期和分娩期，战士们在出征前后，或者钓鱼和狩猎等的特殊活动。一种通俗的禁忌（就像天主教的教令）可以被加诸于整个地区，而且，也可以持续某一段长久的时间。 如果我对读者的感受没有判断错的话，那么我可以很坦然地说，尽管他们到现在已听到了很多关于禁忌的阐述，可是，我们对于这个词所代表的真正意义和在他们思想中所占有的地位仍是知之甚少。无可否认，这是因为我所搜集的资料不够充分，同时我也省略了禁忌和迷信之间的关系、鬼魂的信仰和宗教等问题讨论的原因。不过，从另外一个角度来说，我是怕对禁忌再展开详述的话，可能会导致读者更大的混乱，因为我可以很肯定地说，这个词所代表的论题本身是极其扑所迷离的。 河南科技大学本科生毕业设计（论文） 4 接下来，我们将开始讨论一些原始民族所遵守的禁忌。长期以来，有些事物一直被强烈禁止着，可是他们从来不去考虑其中的原因，或者提出任何怀疑。相反，他们屈服于这种禁忌就像它们都是理所当然的事情一样，同时深信任何对禁忌的破坏行为将导致自取惩罚。我们可以从多方面证实这种触犯禁忌而遭受惩罚的例子。例如，一位无辜的触犯者，他可能仅仅为了食用了被进食的动物，便陷入极端的精神不安，在预期死亡的阴影中，他终于因恐惧而死。这些禁忌主要是反对享乐和思想上的自由。某些禁忌则常具有智慧上的意义，而且很清楚地指向禁酒、禁贪欲以及名利上的自制等方面。可是，仍有某些禁忌，它们的主题则令人十分费解。它们包含了琐碎的细节，使整个内容看起来就像是一种纯粹的庆祝或宗教仪式。 在所有这些禁忌的后面都隐藏了一些必须且自然的理论。因为，某些人或物（如领袖、僧侣或不祥物等）被附上了危险的力量，而这些危险的力量竟能如某些传染性疾病一样经由接触来传递。我们应该注意的是，这些危险性质的力量也扮演了一部分角色。某些人或物具有较其他人更高的力量，而他们的危险性也与其所带力量的高低成正比。一个人触犯了禁忌中的任何一条时，他本身即得到那一种成为禁忌的特性，而使自己成为禁忌——就像整个危险的电荷都传导到他身上。这种神秘而危险的力量几乎隐藏在所有特殊人物的身上，如国王、僧侣或初生的婴孩；也附着在所有特殊的情况，如生理上的月经期、青春期或生产期。至于怪诞的事物，如疾病、死亡以及所有经由传染而与这些力量有关的事情也都附上了这种神秘力量。 “塔布”一词指代所有作为这一神秘特性的载体或源泉的事物，既可指人，也可指一个地方、一样东西或者一种短暂的状态。它还可以指具有神秘特性的禁忌。最后，这个词还具有“神圣的”和“超出寻常的”及“危险的”、“不洁的”和“怪诞的”等含义。 这个词和它所表现的内涵，似乎代表了一种远超出我们想象范围外的心理的态度和思想。但是，当我们对这些原始文化的特质和对鬼神的信仰做一番透彻的研究之后，我们就可以接触到它们的核心所在了。 此刻，我们不禁要问，为什么要这么关心禁忌之谜呢？我认为，并不仅是它本身可以解答出任何心理上的难题，它同时也具有其他的意义。我们将慢慢地了解到，波里尼西亚蒙昧人的禁忌并不像我们刚开始时所想象的离我们那么遥远。因为在我们的日常生活中一直在发挥其作用的道德上和传统上的禁忌，在本质上仍然具有和这些原始禁忌相似的地方。而对原始禁忌的解释，可能有助于我们对自己所谓的那些“神圣诫命”的神秘来源做出解释。 因此，我们对冯特所发表的有关禁忌的观点才能保持高度的兴趣，尤其当他承诺“对禁忌观念的来源做彻底的追踪”时。 冯特形容禁忌为“对某种物体产生了一种与宗教信仰有关的畏惧心理的本能”。 冯特接着开始解释，为什么对于禁忌本质的探讨，由澳大利亚土著人的原始情况入手较更进化的波里尼西亚土人更为恰当。他将澳大利亚土著人的禁忌依照他们对动物、人类或其他东西的影响而分为三种。第一类禁忌是针对于动物的，在本质上是禁止捕杀和食用它们，河南科技大学本科生毕业设计（论文） 5 这也是构成图腾崇拜的核心。第二类禁忌是针对人类而设的，是一种和前述完全不同的方式。它们一开始就局限于一定的场合。在这些场合中，受禁忌影响的人会感到自己身在特殊情境之中。就像年轻人在转变为成年人时所举行的礼仪上，月经期间或将分娩时的妇女本身，这都成为一种禁忌；同样的，初生婴孩、病人，尤其是死人也构成了禁忌。一个人经常使用的物体对其他人来讲将永远是一种禁忌：他的衣服、工具或武器，等等。在澳大利亚土著人中，一位男人个人最严密的事情是他在成年仪式上被赋予的新命名。它是一种禁忌，同时也必须严加保密。第三类禁忌则是附在树木、植物、房屋或某一地区上，通常所附的东西不一定。不过，它们大部分都依照了同样一个规律，即任何怪异或是能令人恐惧的事物都将成为禁忌的目标。 冯特所省略的对于文化素质较高的波里尼西亚和马来群岛土著人禁忌的讨论，其实也并不深奥。这些民族中最明显的社会差异是，领袖、国王和僧侣们常利用一种特殊而有效的也很容易为之附身的禁忌。 可是冯特继续讨论道，禁忌的本质是深藏在这些特权阶层的利益下面：“它们起源于一种最原始且保留最久的本能——对‘魔鬼’力量的恐惧。”“禁忌只不过是一种存在于禁忌物体内‘对魔鬼力量的恐惧’之具体化罢了。禁忌可以防止任何放出这种力量和命令的物体产生的作用（因为它具有隔离作用），若果它们遭受破坏，不管是有意或无意的，则对于魔鬼的报复必须加以躲避或转移。” 禁忌随着文化形态的不断转变，逐渐形成为一种有它自己特性的力量，同时也慢慢地远离了魔鬼迷信而独立。它逐渐发展成为一种习惯、传统，而最后则变成了法律。“虽然，随着时间和环境的转变，对所有包含于禁忌里的各种力量及其特性造成了很大的转变，可是它们的起源仅仅只有一个，即：‘当心魔鬼的愤怒！’” 冯特让我们知道，禁忌是一种原始民族对“魔鬼力量”信仰的变异方式。稍后，他又告诉我们，它们已从这些基础中自己解救出来了，可是，因为它们本身曾经是一种力量（即魔鬼的力量），所以经过一种心灵的保存作用后，在本质上仍然保留有这种力量。经过不断演变之后，它们也就变成了我们的道德准则和法律的基础了。虽然这种主张并不曾造成矛盾，可是我认为冯特的解释颇令人失望，相信有许多读者将会赞同我的观点。因为冯特的理论实际上并没有真正地追溯到禁忌的原始原因，或者发掘出它的根源。 “恐惧”或“魔鬼”在心理上并不能被认为是最早的东西，也就是说一种无法考证的东西，除非魔鬼的存在是真实的。可是，我们知道，像上帝一样，它们都不过是人类心灵的创造物：它们由某种东西所形成，然后又超越出这种东西（即人类创造了魔鬼，而后又将魔鬼的概念抽离出人世）。 冯特已经有了一种关于禁忌的双重特性的重要研究了，虽然并不曾清楚地指出它们来。依照他的说法，“神圣的”和“邪恶的”两种意义在禁忌的原始中并不加以区别。这些观念在初期里不具有明显的特性，它们之所以成为相对的观念，只能说是在后天形成的了。为禁