Since the beginning of human activities, especially in writing, the research has never been interrupted. Every time the activity culminates, the research tends to go deeper and the debate becomes more intense. This is not surprising. The recent debate has been about art and science. At the heart of the problem is disagreement over the view of science. It is wrong to assume that science and not science have two sides. In addition to the differences in understanding of "science", it seems that the question of scientific opinion is more important. Let's take a look at the relevant issues.
Is it art? Is art! Only the person who must use the language to reshape the image that has been created in the original text should be art. This is beyond reproach. But, art, not only for "in the art world, no matter what artistic image in the social life in the form of a source for your own life, with the vivid perceptual form to reflect the nature of life". The source of "life" is still in the original book. Even in literature, once upon a time, the understanding of the original works can't be played on its own. It also needs to be understood by language and logic. Besides literature, besides literature, technology, politics and so on. Of course, there are creations in this class, but we're not going to be ridiculous enough to say that this is not, or that a lot of these are artistic. So, whether it's literature, technology, or other kinds of things, there's always something to be said about science. On this question, Mr. Dong has already expounded on the construction of theory. As for the idea of "learning" in the early 2000s, or earlier, it was not like "imported goods".
Since then, the development of many related disciplines, especially the development of linguistics, has led to the exploration of the research along the science. In the last decade and a half, the general practitioners have made unremitting efforts to build up learning to speak up and cry out, and have conducted large-scale and beneficial explorations. Many scholars have high hopes for the establishment of science, and many scholars have also put great hopes on it. Such monographs and monographs have proliferated, but the research on this side is often misunderstood. It should be said that there are some incompleteness in the research work itself, so that the subject still in the gestation is frequently criticized. This has to raise our concerns.
What is science? Some people associate the word "science" with natural science such as physics and chemistry, but there is also social science and humanistic science in addition to natural science. The objects, methods and methods of the three types of scientific research are different. The comparison of learning with physics and chemistry is not impossible. It is not enough to deny that learning is a science.
The concept of science is confused, and it is regarded as a natural science to understand and operate, and there are people at home and abroad, causing a pool of water to get mixed up.
In fact, science is the system of knowledge, but not all knowledge can immediately form a system, and overnight it becomes a science. As prof qian pointed out, "knowledge consists of two parts: one part is the modern science system; And part of it is the pre-science, the experience of human practice before it goes into the scientific system." "... Whether science or pre-science is a small part of the objective world, and the situation is changing. Part of the former science, which will be rationalized in the future, is incorporated into the scientific system... "In our opinion, although human activities have been around for over a thousand years, people have long been largely dependent on other people or their own experiences. Most of the existing elaboration is only a summary of such practical experience. So, it's just "pre-science". But we cannot, therefore, categorically deny that it can move towards a science. The world is progressing and the discipline is developing. Objective things cannot be said to be science, not science. Can't make arbitrary in academia, to put forward to establish a learning thought just ` when you give a blow, trying to suppress her. We should allow exploration. To put forward "thinking" means to explore. So it is more appropriate that someone has proposed a science in exploration.
Since it is exploration, people should be allowed to carry on from many aspects and disciplines. A negative negation does not necessarily work. Even in natural science, the "heliocentric" of Copernicus was confirmed by Galileo, but it was only a few hundred years later that he was vindicated. But from the other side, we can't make the doctrines of the theory very well, and the more it seems, the more profound it seems. After all, learning is the result of practice, and then comes back to practice to guide the practice of learning. Study cannot be divorced from practice, which has become the consensus of workers. At present, some studies seem to have fallen into a purely collegiate study. Taking dozens of disciplines, with countless terms, does not indicate that a discipline is mature, only to make many of its concepts unclear. This "theory" appears to be extremely complex, but not necessarily practical. As for the study of unit, according to the theory of western theory, it is divided into phoneme layer, morpheme layer, word layer, phrase layer, sentence layer and discourse layer. Even the author of this theory
"One of the fundamental difficulties is how to find the corresponding levels in the linguistic hierarchy in each case." Even the author of this "theory" is in a quandary, and it is doubtful that such a kind of collegiate study would be of great significance to the practice of our country. Especially for pictographic and western languages like Chinese, it's harder to find value. Then further discuss what "necessary and sufficient level" or "low, high level", will become a piece of empty talk.
When it comes to building learning, you must design linguistics. It should be admitted that the development of linguistics has opened up new ideas for the development of science. Side, from the perspective of linguistics, by comparison with two kinds of language words, phenomenon and essence of language have wider and more profound understanding, thus can more consciously in contrast to master some language rules; Researchers from the linguistics Angle to the other side, many theory research, using the term in linguistics to the concept, in the practice of language phenomenon, sums up the experience of some systems, has obtained certain achievement. All this is due to the application of linguistics in the study. Now, the scholars who insist on being art have not yet been able to disengage from some systematic experience in the practice of the applied linguistics theory, which illustrates this point. But, as the public generally acknowledged, is art. There are no rules for artistic creation. You can do that with the same original sentence, and he can do that. Even the same person has different laws in different periods, which are not to blame, and the whole person "creates" in context. This is a; Second, as the linguists have repeatedly stated, they are "first interested in the linguistic aspects of the study process", "purely in terms of linguistic meaning". Obviously, they studied language and did not pay attention to the subjective consciousness of the author and the author. They can only make static comparisons of existing cases in language, and can only consider its surface phenomena. So, in terms of research, their research has to be biased, or very superficial; Thirdly, the modern linguistic theory is basically the study object of the west language, and the language of Chinese language is almost untouched. Such as Chen Wangdao pointed out: "so far, the theory of general linguistics can not, or rarely fully and accurately summarized has the largest population in the world, very long history, rich and developed Chinese facts and law". The origin of Chinese language, the overall structure of language and the use of language are very different from western languages. It is almost impossible to construct a linguistic set based on the western language model. And it's not just the language. To this end, linguistics has certain limitations to research. To such founded based on study of linguistics, "is not limited to find out in the process of the rule of objective existence, and to provide some workers or ` norms' ' ', it can only be a dream!
Here's another question about how to deal with the western theory. Admittedly, we know too little about foreign countries. Far from it, we have introduced only a few foreign theories since the reform and opening up. We hope that this situation will improve in the future to broaden our horizons and increase our knowledge. But on the other hand, we don't have to be thin on the face of the world. It is a fact that our country is backward in talent cultivation and discipline construction. But, to say our country contemporary theory research, knowledge on later than west at least twenty years `, we can't agree to this. As far as culture is concerned, cultures are not developed in accordance with the same route, and cannot be carried out in a general and equal phase. The cultural background of people's life in the world is different, and the different objective world is confronted, and the problems that need to be solved and the problems that need to be solved are different, and the experience is different. Therefore, there cannot be a universal and objective value criterion to judge the merits and disadvantages of any traditional culture, or to judge another cultural standard with some cultural values. Obviously, we can't take the theory that is produced in a certain cultural context as the standard of theory in another cultural context. It is not possible to divide the order of time, but only complement, learn from and infiltrate each other.
In fact, the foreign theory is also in the exploration, is not necessarily settled, even some of the embankment is not reasonable. For us, learning is a science in exploration. Based on the detailed understanding, we would not be foreign theory as a treasure, to see if ` bible,,, or surprise. In the case of naida, he thought it was science in his early days, and in The Times he emphasized it was an art. This shows that people's understanding of objective things is not immutable and should be allowed to change. There is no "this clear source" problem. Don't change the view of others, we have to follow them. On the west side of BBS has proposed equivalence problems. This formulation is not without controversy in the west.
Equivalence in the natural sciences as "equivalent" refers to the "value" or "effect" size "and" below. In some subjects, only "class", "generation". The western people applied it to the middle, and after it was introduced into our country, we didn't know how to "equal". And then there is the equivalent of an article. In some ways, this is an activity that cannot be done and has to be done. It involves different languages, different cultures, different customs, different ways of thinking and so on. The difference between things is particularly striking. For this reason, there is "no" phenomenon in China, which has so many "equivalent"? Moreover, there has been no quantitative formula in the humanities for the natural sciences. Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no "value" for "waiting". The "lower level" and "the higher level" mentioned above are just another way of saying "straight" and "meaning", without "advanced" and "backward". Recognizing that the world is all about learning, we don't have to worship the theory of the west.
Since the reform and opening up, "and the world... It has gradually become a "name". Recently we have seen this on our altar. We do not yet know more meaning of the "world" 2 words, but a carefully polished feel, in the development of the culture of the countries all over the world can't be a country, or some nation first on the "track", and then other country or nation all should develop along the orbit. In the study, it is impossible to generalize from their practice the laws of the world that are universally applicable in the world. Only those who understand the language of things, have the language of things (for example, the foreign language) or the various languages of the world to enrich the experience, are qualified to discuss the true and ordinary phenomena in the discussion. In this sense, it is impossible to have a theory that is universally applicable to people who only know the language of the west. Countries or peoples with different languages should establish and develop their own theories in accordance with the characteristics of their own language. The culture of the world is not directed toward one yuan, but toward diversity. Theory of our country should move towards the world, but that should not sacrifice its own characteristics, in the west by the practice of the concept of set we made a ` ` theory ", but according to our practice put forward our nation's mouth in the forest of world culture, more with national culture is more cosmopolitan.
It is very important to explore the theory of the traditional Chinese system. Mr. Luo xin zhang has given us an example in this area. But this research has not done much. If our understanding of the theory of abroad, study enough, that we were on their traditional theory research is insufficient, because should we feel deficiencies in current research were attributed to the traditional theory of our country. It is not helpful for our theoretical research to move forward without the theory of predecessors. Can't say we, of course, the traditional theory is perfect, we can die hold '` elegant writing', or only 'good ` elegant writing ". From the modern perspective, there are many shortcomings of the traditional theory system in our country, it reflects the historical process of research in our country, we carefully study the foreign theory is easy to find, while countries are on the basis of its society, language and culture to build its own theory, but its development process and the theory of development in our country about the same. Therefore, we need not accuse the ancients much. We cannot measure the past by today's standards. The historical and objective view of our traditional theories will make our research less prone to "total westernization" or "Chinese cultural standard". Say from the other side, we can't take the traditional theory of only as a "burden", is a kind of, ` disorder ", at the same time should also see it as the basis of our study. The theory of our country that has been formed for over a thousand years has been handed down to the present, because it conforms to our cultural background, thinking style and practice of our country. It is conform to the rules of the development of the traditional theory in our country, as long as the careful study of our country's theory, it is not difficult to found that traditional theory system in China are composed of the paper are the culture of our country as the background, is based on the theory of people before, combined with the practice of our country to absorb foreign theory and creation. Yan fu's '` elegant writing "is one of the most typical example. Today, we should take some reasonable factors from our traditional theories and use them as the basis for our research. At the same time, we should absorb the latest achievements of contemporary foreign theories and other related disciplines at home and abroad. This kind of absorption is not only far-fetched to put the ancients' views or claims to be put together with some of the western people, one is better than the other. Absorption is based on our original theoretical system, considering the us and westerners in the cultural background, thinking style and multidimensional differences such as language structure practically sucking is good for our nutrients, their theories, short of our study and to establish the modern theory of our country.