本文關(guān)鍵詞： 古文 古文選篇 單元編排 注釋比較　出處：《合肥師范學(xué)院》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：隨著2001年的《全日制義務(wù)教育語(yǔ)文課程標(biāo)準(zhǔn)》頒布和編審分離制度的日趨完善，我國(guó)教材百花齊放多達(dá)數(shù)十套，其中最具代表性的有人教版、蘇教版、北師大版、語(yǔ)文版。雖然它們都是依據(jù)《全日制義務(wù)教育語(yǔ)文課程標(biāo)準(zhǔn)》編寫(xiě)的，但選篇、編寫(xiě)方式、文白比例等體例各不相同，不同的版本有著各自的優(yōu)點(diǎn)與不足。對(duì)古文選篇與注釋的研究，是雙優(yōu)與相互闡釋的需要，更是現(xiàn)代教育與學(xué)生理解的需要。所以本文主要從宏觀的角度研究四套教材古文選篇和注釋的異同，以便給教材的編寫(xiě)者和使用者提供借鑒與經(jīng)驗(yàn)。 本文采用定性研究法、定量研究法和文獻(xiàn)研究法對(duì)四套教材的古文選篇、古文注釋進(jìn)行比較與評(píng)價(jià)。在古文選篇中發(fā)現(xiàn)，四套教材均采用主題單元編寫(xiě)方式，將不同體裁的文本按單元主題的方式混編。除語(yǔ)文版外，其他三套教材將古文與現(xiàn)代文混編。四套教材各年級(jí)文白比例大致呈上升趨勢(shì)，在八年級(jí)和九年級(jí)有較為明顯的變化，其中北師大版古文比例最低，語(yǔ)文版最高，但都不超過(guò)全套書(shū)的50%。此外，，四套教材的古文選篇存在獨(dú)有作者的現(xiàn)象，北師大版最多、語(yǔ)文版最少；四套教材選文的朝代比例也各不相同，差距最大的是先秦兩漢，其次是元代、清代，語(yǔ)文版常在同一出處、同一作者重復(fù)選文。在注釋的比較中發(fā)現(xiàn)，四套教材均對(duì)“通”“同”二字使用不當(dāng)，同時(shí)對(duì)古文的注釋存在含糊不清、注釋錯(cuò)誤、注釋混亂、未注釋等問(wèn)題，其中語(yǔ)文版的注釋較多但冗雜，且常把古文寫(xiě)成今文。北師大版的注釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)最為統(tǒng)一，多數(shù)注釋從學(xué)生角度出發(fā)，易于學(xué)生理解。人教版的注釋優(yōu)缺點(diǎn)明顯，注釋功力深厚卻仍需查缺補(bǔ)漏。蘇教版的注釋中規(guī)中矩，過(guò)分強(qiáng)調(diào)字詞的注釋，忽略了句子的翻譯，且譯文整體性不強(qiáng)。 經(jīng)過(guò)研究得出，四套教材的選文標(biāo)準(zhǔn)不同、比例不同，編寫(xiě)方式欠佳，需要國(guó)家給出相對(duì)詳細(xì)的選文標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并深入探討文白的編寫(xiě)方式，仔細(xì)研究古文的安排位置；四套教材在古文注釋方面需要仔細(xì)校對(duì)并查缺補(bǔ)漏、刪繁就簡(jiǎn)，強(qiáng)調(diào)注釋用語(yǔ)的準(zhǔn)確性和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)性。最終確定各套教材自己的選文、注釋的相關(guān)原則。
[Abstract]:With the promulgation of the "Full-time compulsory Education Chinese Curriculum Standard" and the gradual improvement of the separate system of editorial review in 2001, there are dozens of sets of teaching materials in our country, among which the most representative version is the edition of "the Education of some people" and the version of "Su Education". Beijing normal University version, language version. Although they are based on the full-time compulsory education language curriculum standards, but the choice of articles, writing methods, the proportion of writing and other methods are different. Different versions have their own advantages and disadvantages. The study of ancient anthology and notes is the need of double excellence and mutual interpretation. It is also the need of modern education and students' understanding, so this paper mainly studies the similarities and differences of the four sets of textbooks from the macroscopic angle, in order to provide reference and experience for the compilers and users of the textbooks. This paper uses qualitative research, quantitative research and literature research to compare and evaluate the ancient selected texts and notes of the four sets of textbooks. It is found that the four sets of textbooks are compiled by theme unit. In addition to the language version, the other three sets of teaching materials will be mixed ancient and modern. Four sets of teaching materials each grade white ratio is on the rise. In the eighth and ninth grades there are more obvious changes, among which the Beijing normal University version of the ancient Chinese version of the lowest proportion, the language version of the highest, but not more than the full set of books 50. In addition. The ancient anthology of the four sets of textbooks has the phenomenon of unique author, the Peking normal University edition is the most, the Chinese version is the least; The proportion of the selected articles of the four textbooks is also different, the biggest gap is the pre-Qin and Han dynasties, followed by the Yuan Dynasty, the Qing Dynasty, the Chinese version is often in the same source, the same author repeated selections. Found in the comparison of notes. The four sets of textbooks all use the word "Tong" and "same" improperly. At the same time, there are some problems in the annotation of ancient Chinese, such as ambiguity, incorrect annotation, confusion of annotation, unannotated and so on, among which the Chinese version has more notes but jumbled. And often write the ancient text. Bei normal University version of the most uniform annotation standards, most of the annotations from the perspective of students, easy for students to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the version of the obvious advantages and disadvantages. The annotation of Su Jiao edition is regular, too much emphasis on the annotation of words, neglects the translation of sentences, and the whole translation of the translation is not strong. Through the study, the four sets of textbooks have different selection standards, different proportions, poor compilation methods, need the country to give a relatively detailed selection standards and in-depth discussion of the writing methods. Carefully study the placement of ancient prose; The four sets of textbooks need to be carefully proofread and check the defects and omissions, emphasize the accuracy and standardization of the annotated language, and finally determine the relevant principles of the selection and annotation of each set of textbooks.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：合肥師范學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：G633.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 曾志清;中學(xué)文言課文注釋指瑕[J];成都師專學(xué)報(bào);2000年03期

2 連劭名;;初中文言文注釋補(bǔ)證[J];北京教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年02期

3 李運(yùn)富;中學(xué)語(yǔ)文教材文言文注釋?xiě)?yīng)注意的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];課程.教材.教法;2002年11期

4 顧之川;試論中學(xué)語(yǔ)文教材注釋的原則[J];課程.教材.教法;1996年03期

5 楊小平;中學(xué)文言文注釋中的訓(xùn)詁弊病[J];樂(lè)山師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年08期

6 劉秋香;;論中學(xué)語(yǔ)文教材文言文注釋存在的問(wèn)題[J];教育教學(xué)論壇;2013年16期

7 王金娥;;“通”與“同”:人教版初中語(yǔ)文文言文注釋問(wèn)題略說(shuō)[J];內(nèi)蒙古師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(教育科學(xué)版);2013年02期

8 宣燕玲;;語(yǔ)文教材注釋芻議——以文言文注釋為例[J];語(yǔ)數(shù)外學(xué)習(xí)(語(yǔ)文教育);2013年03期

9 尹戴忠;關(guān)于初中文言文注釋的幾點(diǎn)意見(jiàn)[J];洛陽(yáng)師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年03期

10 冉漢強(qiáng);;中學(xué)語(yǔ)文文言文通假字注釋之商榷[J];教育革新;2007年02期

本文編號(hào)：1443224