發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-08 16:29

  本文選題：莫言　切入點(diǎn)：諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)　出處：《文藝爭(zhēng)鳴》2013年04期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：正筆者向韓民族新聞社發(fā)去對(duì)莫言文學(xué)世界的簡(jiǎn)介是在2012年度諾貝爾文學(xué)獎(jiǎng)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)呙麊喂?7分鐘后。之所以能如此迅速地發(fā)出稿件,是受益于崔在鳳記者的先見之明,事先準(zhǔn)備好了內(nèi)容。幸運(yùn)的是筆者的文字似乎與稍后看到的瑞典文學(xué)院發(fā)表的內(nèi)容出入不大。由于發(fā)現(xiàn)不同新聞社所使用的措辭略有差異,因此感到在措辭差異的背后存在著某種內(nèi)容上的可疑之處,于是便直接訪問了諾貝爾獎(jiǎng)官網(wǎng),查看了一下英文原文的相關(guān)內(nèi)容,找到了發(fā)生這種情況的原因。但是這次查看卻使筆者覺得瑞典文學(xué)院發(fā)表的英文原文本身也有令人困惑之處,為什么會(huì)有這種感覺呢?是筆者此前的相關(guān)知識(shí)和認(rèn)識(shí)有
[Abstract]:A brief introduction to Mo Yan's literary world was sent by the author to the Korean National News Service 27 minutes after the publication of the 2012 Nobel Prize in Literature list. The reason why the manuscript was sent so quickly was because of Cui Zaifeng's foresight. The content was prepared beforehand. Fortunately, the author's words did not seem to differ much from those published by the Swedish Academy of Letters later. As a result of the slight differences found in the language used by different news agencies, So I felt that there was something suspicious behind the differences in wording, so I went directly to the Nobel Prize website and looked at the relevant contents of the original English text. I have found out why this happened. But this time I find that the original text published by the Swedish Academy of Letters has its own puzzles. Why does it feel like this? Is the author's previous relevant knowledge and understanding of
【作者單位】： 韓國首爾大學(xué)中文系;山東師范大學(xué)文學(xué)院;
【分類號(hào)】：I106
，

本文編號(hào)：1584684