Ⅰ. 다음 각각의 발췌문에 대해,
① 발췌된 부분이 교재 몇 페이지에 실렸는지 밝힌다.
② 발췌된 부분을 번역한다.
③ 발췌된 부분이 나오게 된 맥락을 설명한다.
(아래한글 기준 글자크기 10, 5줄 내외)
④ 발췌된 부분을 통해서 Eagleton은 무엇을 설명하는지, 혹은 주장하는지 논한다.
1) But even the briefest reflection on what people commonly include under the heading of literature suggests that this will not do.
2) It has been argued, for instance, that our own opposition between ‘historical’ and ‘artistic’ truth does not apply at all to the early Icelandic sagas.
3) By having to grapple with language in a more strenuous, self conscious way than usual, the world which that language contains is vividly renewed.
4) Though ‘ordinary language’ is a concept beloved of some Oxford philosophers, the ordinary language of Oxford philosophers has little in common with the ordinary language of Glaswegian dockers.
5) But what if I were to hear someone at the next pub table remark ‘This is awfully squiggly handwriting!’ Is this ‘literary’ or ‘non literary’ language?
6) Consider a prosaic, quite unambiguous statement like the one sometimes seen in the London underground system: ‘Dogs must be carried on the escalator’.
7) A piece of writing may start off life as history or philosophy and then come to be ranked as literature; or it may start off as literature and then come to be valued for its archaeological significance.
8) John M. Ellis has argued that the term ‘literature’ operates rather like the word ‘weed’: weeds are not particular kinds of plant, but just any kind of plant which for some reason or another a gardener does not want around.
II. Terry Eagleton은 문학을 문학으로 부를 수 있게 만드는 본질적인 요소는 없다고 주장한다. 이에 대한 자신의 견해를 밝힌다.
(아래한글 기준 글자크기 10, 10줄 내외)
접기