One of the unfortunate corollaries of poststructuralist theorizing about literary texts has been the equation of a skepticism concerning language with a skepticism concerning meaning. The menace of unrestrained relativism has tended to polarize the critical community into proponents of a 'logo-diffuse' onto-epistemology and proponents of a 'logo-centric' one, and critical practice has followed this lead. The critic who attempts to situate literature within the parameters of such a debate is likely to fail unless he or she appeals to a much more extensive discourse, one which antedates the provincial contours of the current discussion. Medieval mysticism is a significant entry in the lineage of influence which comprises the western tradition. This thesis looks at the apophatic or negative strategies of mystical texts in order to locate meaning in the interplay of negation and affirmation with which they are concerned.

No description available.

No description available.

Richard Feynman once remarked, “What I cannot create, I do not understand.” In Simulating Fiction: Models of Narrative and Literary Culture, I argue for a paradigm shift in literary and cultural criticism. Placing Feynman’s maxim in the context of the humanities, I contend that scholars of literature and culture should embrace a “generative” approach to knowledge production that re-centers the discipline around simulation and modeling as a complement to the field’s traditional reliance on description, interpretation, and critique. Since its inception, literary criticism has lacked methods to model and test claims about how narrative and literary culture work at a fundamental mechanistic level. Over the past decade, the explosive popularity of big data, natural language processing, and machine learning has helped digital humanists discover many striking historical trends and correlations, but it has not solved this basic epistemological problem of explanation. Scholars are better equipped to answer questions of ‘how’ and ‘what’ but not ‘why.’ Computational modeling offers a path forward by extending, complementing, and contradicting humanistic intuition. Whereas literary theory produces knowledge by deduction and big data by induction, simulation does so via abduction—that is, modeling possible causes. Theoretical claims about how narrative and culture work are instantiated algorithmically. Artificial worlds are then grown from the bottom up and their simulated output is validated against real literary and cultural systems. The archive of narrative and cultural theory is brimming with candidate models, ranging from generative storytelling grammars to sociological models of cultural production. Instantiating such theories computationally enables literary scholars to play out the implications in far more vivid detail than is possible solely in the mind’s eye. The most persuasive way to make the case for a new research paradigm is by positive example. Simulating Fiction therefore consists of several extended case studies focused on modeling narrative at various scales. The first three chapters offer an in-depth investigation into the question, “Why do narratives (almost universally) develop characters unequally?” While literary critics would traditionally approach such a question qualitatively, I argue that character development begins as a quantitative phenomenon. To quote the noble laureate P. W. Anderson: “More is different.” If one measures the number of words spoken by each character in a Shakespearean drama, the number of times each character is named in a Victorian novel, and the number of seconds each character appears on-screen in a contemporary American film, the same distribution usually appears—what statisticians call a power law or “long tail.” In a field like literary criticism, which concentrates almost exclusively on the particularity of texts, the discovery of such a large-scale statistical regularity is remarkable. But even more compelling is the question of what causes it. Literary critics are generally trained to seek explanations at the level of historical period, genre, or medium. What, then, should we do when confronted by a pattern that persists despite extreme differences in all three? I contend that we are forced to look below the level of history and form to fundamental mechanisms that operate at the level of narrative structure, cognition, and probability. To lay the foundation for an explanation, I develop a series of models, each of which is capable of generating a “long tail” distribution and has a plausible interpretation in the context of narrative. These include: (1) a model of forces of “unification” and “diversification” in narrative structure that determine the shape of character development; (2) an information theoretic model of how authors “maximize entropy” by pushing the limits of creative exploration within the constraints of memory, empathy, and attention; (3) a “building block” model in which characters are composed through the accumulation of characteristics; and (4) a “rich get richer” model in which major and minor characters are differentiated through a positive feedback loop. While the first three chapters investigate narrative at the scale of character, the fourth chapter widens focus to the scale of plot. I explore the question, “Can social network models generate what we consider ‘plot’?” Network theory has become extremely popular within the digital humanities over the past decade as a means of measuring and visualizing the relationships between characters within texts. Such descriptive networks, however, are merely a trace of the underlying literary phenomenon—a forensic tool, like an X-ray, for visualizing plot after the fact. My concern in the fourth chapter is to invert and elevate the use of literary networks by simulating their dynamics to generate “proto-narratives.” As a case study, I develop the first computational model of “triangular desire,” an influential theory of character psychology proposed by philosopher and literary critic René Girard in Deceit, Desire, and the Novel (1961), along with a simulation of Structural Balance Theory, a sociological model of group formation based on patterns of friendship and enmity. My goal is to demonstrate the potential of modeling and simulation as disciplinary practices for the humanities and to make allies and converts of an interdisciplinary audience, including literary and cultural critics, digital humanists, computational social scientists, and complexity theorists.

No description available.

李貴生. / 論文(哲學博士)--香港中文大學, 1999. / 參考文獻 (p. 323-341) / 中英文摘要. / Available also through the Internet via Dissertations & theses @ Chinese University of Hong Kong. / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Mode of access: World Wide Web. / Li Guisheng. / Lun wen (zhe xue bo shi)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 1999. / Can kao wen xian (p. 323-341) / Zhong Ying wen zhai yao

The aim of this study was to examine the approaches to the teaching of English composition writing in Botswana junior secondary classrooms and to produce models that might enhance the effective teaching of composition writing at the junior secondary school level. The aims of the study triggered the objectives of identifying the challenges posed by the use of such approaches to teachers; determining if the approaches used by teachers inhibit students' performance in composition writing; and proposing possible solutions or models to the challenges in the teaching and learning of English composition writing in the classroom context. Relevant theoretical and practical literature germane to the study was reviewed and descriptions of the conceptual framework/ the research design, and methodology provided. The study utilized the qualitative technique through interviews, observations, reviews, examination of documents and students' artifacts. Based on the aforementioned methodologies, the major findings were that: * Teachers utilized mainly the product oriented approach to the teaching of English composition writing. * Teachers were confronted with challenges emanating from the use of the product oriented approach to writing such as surface level errors, wrong grammar/tense, lack of vocabulary and organization skills, and inability of students to compose and communicate effectively in writing. * The teachers' use of the product oriented approach is believed to have among other things, contributed greatly to the students' poor development of writing skills such as wrong spelling and punctuation, lack of organization, lack of ideas and vocabulary, and inability to compose and communicate effectively in writing. * A model to improve the teaching of English composition writing was developed based on the major findings above. Finally, on the basis of the findings and the conclusions made, pertinent recommendations were made to enhance the effective teaching of English composition writing at the junior secondary schools in Botswana. / Educational Studies / D.Ed. (Didactics)

蕭淳鏵. / 呈交日期: 一九九八年十二月. / 論文(博士)--香港中文大學, 1999. / 參考文獻 (p. 300-314) / 中英文摘要. / Cheng jiao ri qi: Yi jiu jiu ba nian shi er yue. / Available also through the Internet via Dissertations & theses @ Chinese University of Hong Kong. / Electronic reproduction. Hong Kong : Chinese University of Hong Kong, [2012] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, MI : ProQuest Information and Learning Company, [200-] System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Available via World Wide Web. / Mode of access: World Wide Web. / Xiao Chunhua. / Lun wen (Bo shi)--Xianggang Zhong wen da xue, 1999. / Can kao wen xian (p. 300-314) / Zhong Ying wen zhai yao.

在歷史上，南宋與金處於對峙狀態，兩方沒有文學與文化的交流，就詩歌而言，在當時是兩個獨立的詩壇，各自發展；但是在元、明以後的詩歌論述中，它們逐漸發生聯繫，最終被置於同一詩歌傳統中。究竟從分到合，是怎麼的一個過程？過程背後蘊含著甚麼文化及詩學觀念？ / 陸游（1125-1210）、元好問（1190-1257）是繼蘇軾、黃庭堅以後，最著名的古典詩人，分別代表南宋、金源詩學。他們的詩論與詩作都一直是學界關注的議題。由於他們分屬南宋、金源，兩方詩學互不關涉，近世學者遂視他們為彼此無關的詩人。無論是文學通史還是斷代文學史，都是南北各自論述，陸、元絶無關聯。 / 但是，筆者經研究發現，自元代以來，南宋、金詩便被關聯起來，不斷做對比與評價，而衡量標準實既牽涉到正統朔閏的政治問題，也涉及到詩學源流的審美問題。元初文人關注文化承傳，從時代政治判斷金詩優於南宋；明代復古派關注詩歌取徑，以兩者分屬中唐、晚唐，一概貶斥；而清代主變者關注詩學傳統，他們雖承認南宋、金詩並非正統，卻認同兩者值得取逕，甚至將兩者從中、晚唐傳統抽離，視之為杜詩傳統的發展。南宋、金詩地位提高之餘，更由兩個原來獨立的傳統，統合在同一脈絡之下。 / 元明以來，南宋、金詩的比較是詩歌史敘述重要的一環。歷代的評價環環相扣，側重點卻各有不同。這些側重點的差異正反映了論者論述南宋、金詩時用以參照系統的不同。從中，我們可看到陸游、元好問成為後世典範的原因和過程：他們面對唐、宋詩完全成熟的階段，卻能出入唐、宋，自成一家；儘管詩風、詩論有差異，二人均可上溯不同源流，故對宗唐還是主宋者而言，都是重要的師法對象。筆者期望通過本研究，能夠釐清陸游、元好問，乃至南宋、金詩對後來詩學發展的影響。 / Relations between the Southern Song and Jin were tense and hostile, hense there were very limited communications in literature and culture. At that time, the two schools of poetry developed independently. However, from the Yuan Dynasty onwards, scholars often made comparisons with the two schools, and gradually treated them as one poetic tradition. The thesis explores this emerging progess and the poetic concepts behind. / Lu You (1125-1210) and Yuen Haowen (1190-1257) are the most famous poets of classical Chinese literature after Su Xi and Huang Tingjian. They represent the Southern Song and Jin poetry respectively. Their poetic theories and works are always discussed, but not compared. It is because scholars of the recent generations recognized Southern Song and Jing as two independent schools of poetry. Therefore, in the Chinese literature history, no matter it is in general or by stages, the coexistence of the two poets are often neglected. / The author proposes since the Yuan Dynasty, the relationship between the schools of the Southern Song and Jin poetry started to gain notice. The works were compared as a way of review and the standards were mainly about legitimacy and the poetic origins. The Yuan scholars concerned heritage aspect and approved that the Jin poetry was better than the Southern Song. The Ming scholars concerned the way to assimilate the Tang poetry. They regarded Southern Song and Jing poetry as the mid and late Tang poetry, whereas Qing Scholars recognized them as a development of the school of Tu Fu poetry. The values of the Southern Song and Jin poetry raised and emerged into one school. / In he Yuan Ming and Qing Dynasties, the comparison of the Southern Song and Jin poetry is one of the most important issues in Chinese literary history. Evaluations were done from different aspects and with different purposes and they all reflect different points of views of the scholars. Through the comparison, we can have a better understanding of the reasons and progress of how Lu You and Yuan Haowen became the paragons of the later generations and how they made themselves stand out from Tang and Song poetry and became the important studying models of classical poetry. By this research, the author wishes to give a clear image of the influence of the Chinese classical poetry development given by Lu You, Yuan Haowen and also the Song and Jin poetry. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / 蘇穎添. / Thesis submitted: December 2012. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2013. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 208-221) / Abstracts in Chinese and English. / Su Yingtian. / 論文提要 --- p.i / Abstract of Thesis --- p.ii / 目錄 --- p.iv / Chapter 緒論 --- 現今詩學研究對南宋、金源分合未有足夠重視 --- p.2 / Chapter 一、 --- 南宋、金詩的高下是歷代均關注的詩學命題 --- p.6 / Chapter 二、 --- 南宋、金詩歌史敘述圍繞陸游、元好問展開 --- p.13 / Chapter 三、 --- 南宋、金詩歌史敘述圍繞陸游、元好問展開 --- p.13 / Chapter 第一章 --- 陸游、元好問可比性探析 --- p.17 / Chapter 一、 --- 俱有針砭詩壇流弊的主張 --- p.18 / Chapter 二、 --- 轉益多師，兼宗唐、宋 --- p.24 / Chapter 三、 --- 詩論、詩風同中有異，並論是詩歌史敘述的結果 --- p.38 / Chapter 第二章 --- 南北爭衡：南宋、金詩在元代的文化正統之爭 --- p.49 / Chapter 一、 --- 陸游、元好問分別代表東南、中原詩學，實出於文化認同 --- p.51 / Chapter 二、 --- 南北分合引發宋、金詩之爭 --- p.59 / Chapter 三、 --- 南宋、金源詩學衰落牽涉南北文化消長 --- p.66 / Chapter 四、 --- 後人視元好問為元代詩學先導 --- p.77 / Chapter 第三章 --- 偏離盛唐：宋、金詩在明代的評價問題 --- p.80 / Chapter 一、 --- 元代文化在明初得到承認，南宋、金源詩受排斥 --- p.81 / Chapter 二、 --- 在明代復古派興起前的宋、元詩之爭 --- p.85 / Chapter 三、 --- 陸游、元好問被派入中唐、晚唐的傳統 --- p.91 / Chapter 四、 --- 宋、元詩風從相爭到融合 --- p.109 / Chapter 第四章 --- 折衷唐宋：宋、金詩在清代合流的過程 --- p. 116 / Chapter 一、 --- 清人反思宋、元詩之失 --- p.116 / Chapter 二、 --- 陸游從南宋江西體中被抽離 --- p.122 / Chapter 三、 --- 杜詩傳統將陸游、元好問結合為同一發展脈絡 --- p.131 / Chapter 第五章 --- 「天放奇葩角兩雄」：清中葉翁方綱的陸游、元好問比較 --- p.142 / Chapter 一、 --- 突破「詩到蘇、黃盡」的困境 --- p.143 / Chapter 二、 --- 以元好問七古在陸游之上，帶出二人詩學淵源的分歧 --- p.146 / Chapter 三、 --- 强調陸游「自行於千古」，否定其與傳統的淵源 --- p.155 / Chapter 四、 --- 通過元優於陸，反思清初詩學 --- p.161 / Chapter 第六章 --- 以金接宋：翁方綱對「蘇學盛於北」說的强調 --- p.167 / Chapter 一、 --- 古今學者質疑「蘇學盛於北」說 --- p.169 / Chapter 二、 --- 趙秉文、元好問反思蘇學 --- p.180 / Chapter 三、 --- 翁方綱為何强調「蘇學盛於北」 --- p.202 / 結語 --- p.205 / 參考書目 --- p.208

嚴宇樂. / 論文(碩士) -- 香港中文大學硏究院中國語言及文學部, 1997. / 參考文獻: leaves 1-8 (3rd group) / Yan Yuyue. / 提要 / Chapter 第一章、 --- 緒論 --- p.1 / Chapter 1. --- 有關選本的問題 --- p.1 / Chapter 2. --- 「重建傳統」槪念簡析 --- p.3 / Chapter 3. --- 重建詩歌傳統與陸氏編選《詩鏡》的宗旨 --- p.9 / Chapter 第二章、 --- 陸時雍詩論之時代背景 --- p.14 / Chapter 1. --- 歷史背景 --- p.14 / Chapter 1.1 --- 社會背景 --- p.14 / Chapter 1.2 --- 思想背景 --- p.18 / Chapter 2. --- 文學史背景 --- p.20 / Chapter 2.1 --- 明代詩壇槪況 --- p.20 / Chapter 2.2 --- 明詩創作之取徑 --- p.26 / Chapter 2.3 --- 明人對歷代詩總集之選編與刊印 --- p.32 / Chapter 第三章、 --- 陸時雍生平和著述 --- p.36 / Chapter 1. --- 陸時雍生平及交遊 --- p.36 / Chapter 2. --- 陸時雍的著述 --- p.40 / Chapter 2.1 --- 陸時雍著述簡介 --- p.40 / Chapter 2.2 --- 《詩鏡》槪說 --- p.43 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- 解題 --- p.43 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- 體例 --- p.45 / Chapter 2.2.3 --- 底本 --- p.47 / Chapter 3. --- 前人對陸時雍之硏究與本文硏究方法 --- p.48 / Chapter 3.1 --- 前人硏究陸時雍槪況 --- p.48 / Chapter 3.2 --- 本論文之硏究方法 --- p.51 / Chapter 第四章、 --- 陸時雍之基本詩論 --- p.53 / Chapter 1. --- 總綱：情生於文，文生於情 --- p.53 / Chapter 2. --- 情 --- p.62 / Chapter 2.1 --- 前代與明代之緣情說 --- p.62 / Chapter 2.2 --- 陸氏的情感論 --- p.65 / Chapter 2.2.1 --- 性情之辨 --- p.65 / Chapter 2.2.2 --- 情意之辨 --- p.67 / Chapter 2.2.3 --- 情之生成：感興而成、緣境而生 --- p.74 / Chapter 2.2.4 --- 情、境關係 --- p.78 / Chapter 2.2.5 --- 真情實境 --- p.83 / Chapter 2.2.6 --- 真：率性，當情，稱物 --- p.92 / Chapter 2.2.7 --- 人情、物情感通 --- p.94 / Chapter 2.2.8 --- 詩可以觀 --- p.96 / Chapter 3. --- 韻 --- p.97 / Chapter 3.1 --- 「有餘意之謂韻」與言意之辨 --- p.98 / Chapter 3.2 --- 形器與超形器 --- p.103 / Chapter 3.3 --- 韻與其他範疇 --- p.109 / Chapter 第五章、 --- 陸時雍之批評實踐（上） --- p.113 / Chapter 1. --- 通代批評 --- p.114 / Chapter 1.1 --- 一代詩有一代之特色 --- p.114 / Chapter 1.2 --- 雅衰艷盛與踵事增華 --- p.115 / Chapter 2. --- 斷代批評 --- p.118 / Chapter 2.1 --- 先秦 --- p.121 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- 詩騷之辨 --- p.122 / Chapter 2.1.2 --- 《詩經》 --- p.126 / Chapter 2.1.3 --- 楚辭 --- p.131 / Chapter 2.1.4 --- 《詩》《騷》與漢魏文學 --- p.135 / Chapter 2.2 --- 漢詩 --- p.136 / Chapter 2.3 --- 魏詩 --- p.141 / Chapter 2.4 --- 晉詩 --- p.146 / Chapter 2.5 --- 南朝宋詩 --- p.151 / Chapter 2.6 --- 齊詩 --- p.154 / Chapter 2.7 --- 梁詩 --- p.156 / Chapter 2.8 --- 陳詩 --- p.161 / Chapter 2.9 --- 隋詩 --- p.162 / Chapter 2.10 --- 六朝與唐之辨 --- p.163 / Chapter 2.11 --- 初唐 --- p.173 / Chapter 2.12 --- 盛唐 --- p.182 / Chapter 2.13 --- 中唐 --- p.186 / Chapter 2.14 --- 晚唐 --- p.198 / Chapter 2.15 --- 宋 --- p.203 / Chapter 第六章、 --- 陸時雍之批評實踐（下） --- p.209 / Chapter 1. --- 作者批評 --- p.209 / Chapter 1.1 --- 建安詩人：三曹、王粲、劉楨 --- p.209 / Chapter 1.2 --- 正始詩人：嵇康、阮籍 --- p.217 / Chapter 1.3 --- 西晉詩人：傅玄 --- p.220 / Chapter 1.4 --- 晉宋之際詩人：陶謝 --- p.223 / Chapter 1.5 --- 齊梁詩人：謝眺到梁武帝 --- p.241 / Chapter 1.6 --- 南梁詩人：何遜 --- p.246 / Chapter 1.7 --- 初唐詩人：四傑、陳子昂、沈宋 --- p.248 / Chapter 1.8 --- 盛唐詩人：李白、杜甫、王維 --- p.263 / Chapter 1.9 --- 中唐詩人：劉長卿、李益、韋應物、柳宗元 --- p.283 / Chapter 1.10 --- 晚唐詩人：溫李 --- p.293 / Chapter 第七章、 --- 結論一一陸氏詩論的意義與得失 --- p.301 / 參考書目