新读写研究的理论和实践

? 2003 Current Issues in Comparative Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol. 5(2) 77

What's "new" in New Literacy Studies?

Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice

Brian Street

Kings College, London

The Context and Background

A rich vein of articles and books has recently addressed some critical issues in the field of New Literacy Studies, both in terms of theoretical perspectives and of their implications in educational and policy contexts. I address some of these critiques as a way of both updating NLS and of addressing its implications for practice.

What has come to be termed the "New Literacy Studies" (NLS) (Gee, 1991; Street, 1996) represents a new tradition in considering the nature of literacy, focusing not so much on acquisition of skills, as in dominant approaches, but rather on what it means to think of literacy as a social practice (Street, 1985). This entails the recognition of multiple literacies, varying according to time and space, but also contested in relations of power. NLS, then, takes nothing for granted with respect to literacy and the social practices with which it becomes associated, problematizing what counts as literacy at any time and place and asking "whose literacies" are dominant and whose are marginalized or resistant.

To address these issues ethnographically, literacy researchers have constructed a conceptual apparatus that both coins some new terms and gives new meanings to some old ones. My own work, for instance, begins with the notion of multiple literacies, which makes a distinction between "autonomous" and "ideological" models of literacy (Street, 1985) and develops a distinction between literacy events and literacy practices (Street, 1988). The standard view in many fields, from schooling to development programs, works from the assumption that literacy in itself--autonomously--will have effects on other social and cognitive practices. Introducing literacy to poor, "illiterate" people, villages, urban youth etc. will have the effect of enhancing their cognitive skills, improving their economic prospects, making them better citizens, regardless of the social and economic conditions that accounted for their "illiteracy" in the first place. I refer to this as an "autonomous" model of literacy. The model, I suggest, disguises the cultural and ideological assumptions that underpin it so that it can then be presented as though they are neutral and universal and that literacy as such will have these benign effects. Research in NLS challenges this view and suggests that in practice literacy varies from one context to another and from one culture to another and so, therefore, do the effects of the different literacies in different conditions. The autonomous approach is simply imposing western conceptions of literacy on to other cultures or within a country those of one class or cultural group onto others.

The alternative, ideological model of literacy, offers a more culturally sensitive view of literacy practices as they vary from one context to another. This model starts from different premises than the autonomous model--it posits instead that literacy is a social practice, not simply a technical and neutral skill; that it is always embedded in socially constructed epistemological principles. It is about knowledge: the ways in which people

Brian Street

address reading and writing are themselves rooted in conceptions of knowledge, identity, and being. It is also always embedded in social practices, such as those of a particular job market or a particular educational context and the effects of learning that particular literacy will be dependent on those particular contexts. Literacy, in this sense, is always contested, both its meanings and its practices, hence particular versions of it are always "ideological", they are always rooted in a particular world-view and in a desire for that view of literacy to dominate and to marginalize others (Gee, 1991; Besnier & Street, 1994). The argument about social literacies (Street, 1995) suggests that engaging with literacy is always a social act even from the outset. The ways in which teachers or facilitators and their students interact is already a social practice that affects the nature of the literacy being learned and the ideas about literacy held by the participants, especially the new learners and their position in relations of power. It is not valid to suggest that "literacy" can be "given" neutrally and then its "social" effects only experienced afterwards.

It follows from this distinction that researchers in NLS employing an "ideological" model of literacy would find it problematic to simply use the term "literacy" as their unit or object of study. Literacy comes already loaded with ideological and policy pre-suppositions that make it hard to do ethnographic studies of the variety of literacies across contexts. So we have found it helpful to develop alternative terms. I have developed a working distinction between "literacy events" and "literacy practices" (Street, 1988) that I suggest is helpful for both research and in teaching situations. Barton (1994) notes that the term literacy events derived from the sociolinguistic idea of speech events. It was first used in relation to literacy by A.B. Anderson et. al. (1980), who defined it as an occasion during which a person "attempts to comprehend graphic signs" (pp. 59-65). Shirley Brice Heath, further characterized a "literacy event" as "any occasion in which a piece of writing is integral to the nature of the participants' interactions and their interpretative processes" (Heath, 1982, p. 93). I have employed the phrase "literacy practices" (Street, 1984, p. 1) as a means of focusing upon "social practices and conceptions of reading and writing", although I later elaborated the term to take into account both "events" in Heath's sense and of the social models of literacy that participants bring to bear upon those events and that give meaning to them (Street, 1988). David Barton, in an introduction to his edited volume on Writing in the Community (Barton & Ivanic, 1991, p.1) attempted to clarify these debates about literacy events and literacy practices and in a later collaborative study of everyday literacies in Lancaster, England, Barton and Hamilton begin their account with further refinements of the two phrases (1998, p. 6). Baynham (1995) entitled his book Literacy Practices: investigating literacy in social contexts. Similarly Prinsloo and Breier's volume on The Social Uses of Literacy (1996), which is a series of case studies of literacy in South Africa, used the concept of "events", but then extended it to "practices", by describing the everyday uses and meanings of literacy amongst, for instance, urban taxi drivers, struggle activists in settlements, rural workers using diagrams to build carts and those involved in providing election materials for mainly non-literate voters. The concept of literacy practices in these and other contexts not only attempts to handle the events and the patterns of activity around literacy events, but to link them to something broader of a cultural and social kind.

Recently, I have further elaborated the distinction with respect to work on literacies and 78May 12, 2003

What's "new" in New Literacy Studies?

Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice

multilingualism, in an important edited volume by Martin-Jones and Jones (2000). As part of that broadening, for instance, I noted that we bring to literacy event concepts and social models regarding what the nature of the event is and makes it work, and give it meaning. Literacy practices, then, refer to the broader cultural conception of particular ways of thinking about and doing reading and writing in cultural contexts. A key issue, at both a methodological and an empirical level, then, is how we can characterize the shift from observing literacy events to conceptualizing literacy practices.

A wealth of "ethnographies of literacy" has emerged deploying and developing these and other key concepts in a variety of international contexts, including the U.K. (Barton & Hamilton, 1998); the U.S.A. (Collins, 1995; Heath, 1983); South Africa (Prinsloo & Breier, 1996); Iran (Street, 1986); India (Mukherjee and Vasanta, 2003);

Mexico (Kalman, 1999); South America (Aikman, 1999); and multiple development contexts (Street, 2001). The strength and significance of the approach and the considerable literature it has generated is attested by a recent spate of critical accounts that have addressed some of the problems raised by it both in general theoretical terms and, more specifically, for practice in educational contexts. I firstly summarize some of the theoretical critiques and then turn to the applications to policy and practice that they entail.

Theoretical Concerns

In terms of theory, Brandt & Clinton (2002) have recently commented on "the limits of the local" apparent in many NLS studies. They argue that NLS ought to be more prepared to take account of the relatively "autonomous" features of literacy without succumbing to the autonomous model with its well documented flaws. This would involve, for instance, recognizing the extent to which literacy does often come to "local" situations from outside and brings with it both skills and meanings that are larger than the emic perspective favored by NLS can always detect. Whilst acknowledging the value of the social practice approach, they:

wonder if the new paradigm sometimes veers too far in a reactive direction, exaggerating the power of local contexts to set or reveal the forms and meanings that literacy takes. Literacy practices are not typically invented by their practitioners. Nor are they independently chosen or sustained by them. Literacy in use more often than not serves multiple interests, incorporating individual agents and their locales into larger enterprises that play out away from the immediate scene. (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 1)

They also point out the important and powerful role of consolidating technologies that can destabilize the functions, uses, values and meanings of literacy anywhere. These technologies generally originate outside of the local context; they cannot be undertood simply in terms of local practices. Whilst the field has learned much from the recent turn to "local literacies", they fear that "something [might] be lost when we ascribe to local contexts responses to pressures that originate in distant decisions, especially when seemingly local appropriations of literacy may in fact be culminations of literate designs originating elsewhere" (p.2).

I would agree with most of Brandt & Clinton's characterization here of the relationship Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol.5 (2) 79

Brian Street

between the local and the "distant" and indeed it is the focus on this relationship, rather than on one or other of the sites, that characterizes the best of NLS. Brandt & Clinton's account here provides a helpful way of characterizing the local/ global debate in which literacy practices play a central role. But, I would want to distinguish between agreeing with their caveat about overemphasizing "the local" and labeling the "distant" as more "autonomous". The "distant" literacies to which Brandt & Clinton refer are also always ideological and to term them autonomous might be to concede too much to their neutralist claims.

Brandt & Clinton's concern with the overemphasis on the local in some NLS accounts; their recognition that for many people the literacies they engage with come from elsewhere and are not self invented; and that there is more going on in a local literacy than "just local practice", are all important caveats to deter NLS from over emphasizing or romanticizing the local, as it has been accused of doing (cf response by Street to McCabe, 1995 in Prinsloo & Breier, 1996). But this important debate can be continued without resorting to terming "distant" literacies as "autonomous"--as Brandt& Clinton imply in their attempt to address certain "autonomous" aspects of literacy without appealing to the "autonomous model" of literacy. The features of distant literacies are actually no more autonomous than those of local literacies, or indeed than any literacy practices: their distantness, their relative power over local literacies and their "non-invented" character as far as local users are concerned, do not make them "autonomous", only "distant", "new", or hegemonic. To study such processes we need a framework and conceptual tools that can characterize the relation between local and "distant". The question raised in the early NLS work concerning how we can characterize the shift from observing literacy events to conceptualizing literacy practices does, I think, provide both a methodological and empirical way of dealing with this relation and thereby taking account of Brandt and Clinton's concern with the "limits of the local".

NLS practitioners might also take issue with the apparent suggestion that distant literacies come to local contexts with their force and meaning intact. As Kulick & Stroud (1993) indicated a decade ago in their study of new literacy practices brought by missionaries to New Guinea, local peoples more often "take hold" of these new practices and adapt them to local circumstances. The result of local-global encounters around literacy is always a new hybrid rather than a single essentialized version of either. It is these hybrid literacy practices that NLS focuses upon rather than either romanticizing the local or conceding the dominant privileging of the supposed "global". As we shall see when we discuss practical applications of NLS across educational contexts, it is the recognition of this hybridity that lies at the heart of an NLS approach to literacy acquisition regarding the relationship between local literacy practices and those of the school.

Collins and Blot (2002) are similarly concerned that, whilst NLS has generated a powerful series of ethnographies of literacy, there is a danger of simply piling up more descriptions of local literacies without addressing general questions of both theory and practice. In exploring why dominant stereotypes regarding literacy are so flawed, such as the notions of a great divide between oral and literate, and the now challenged assumptions of the autonomous model, they invoke NLS, but then want to take account of its limitations and to extend beyond them:

80May 12, 2003

What's "new" in New Literacy Studies?

Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice

Such understanding also has a more general intellectual value for it forces us to explore why historical and ethnographic cases are necessary but insufficient for rethinking inherited viewpoints…although ethnographic scholarship has demonstrated the pluralities of literacies, their context--boundness, it still has also to account for general tendencies that hold across diverse case studies. (pp. 7-8).

They argue, then, for "a way out of the universalist/particularist impasse" which had troubled Brandt as we saw above, "by attending closely to issues of text, power and identity". These are issues that are at the heart of current developments in NLS, from Bartlett and Holland's concern with identities in practice (see below), to Street's attention to literacy and power in the ideological model and Maybin's refinement of Bakhtin's "intertextuality" with respect to literacy practices. Writing in Situated Literacies (2000), Maybin, also links NLS to wider strands of social-critical work, offering a way of linking Foucauldian notions of Discourse, Bakhtinian notions of intertextuality and work in Critical Discourse Analysis with the recognition from NLS of "the articulation of different discourses [as] centrally and dynamically interwoven in people's everyday literacy activities". Gee (2000), in the same Situated Literacies volume, also located the "situated" approach to literacies in relation to broader movements towards a "social turn" which he saw as a challenge to behaviorism and individualism--a challenge which NLS has also pursued. Janks (2000), located in South Africa, likewise links literacy studies to broader social theory, invoking the concepts of "Domination, Access, Diversity and Design" as a means of synthesizing the various strands of critical literacy education. Freebody, writing from Australia, but like Janks taking a broad theoretical and international view, likewise writes of the relationship between NLS and "critical literacy", an approach to the acquisition and use of reading and writing in educational contexts that takes account of relations of power and domination (Freebody, forthcoming).

Bartlett & Holland (2002) likewise link NLS to broader social theory. They propose an expanded conception of the space of literacy practices, drawing upon innovations in the cultural school of psychology, sociocultural history and social practice theory. In locating literacy theory within these broader debates in social theory, they build, especially, on the concern of Bourdieu to characterize the relationship between social structures (history brought to the present in institutions) and "habitus" (history brought to the present in person) and suggest ways in which NLS can adapt this approach: Bourdieu's theory suggests that we can analyze literacy events with an eye to the ways in which historical and social forces have shaped a person's linguistic habitus and thus impinges upon that person's actions in the moment (p. 6).

However, they argue that Bourdieu's theory is itself "limited by his tendency to underplay the importance of culturally produced narratives, images and other artefacts in modifying habitus" (p.x). It is here that they suggest ways of extending both Bourdieu and literacy studies by putting them together with other key concepts in their work:

We propose to strengthen a practice theoretical approach to literacy studies by specifying the space of literacy practice, examining in particular the locally operant Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol.5 (2) 81

Brian Street

figured world of literacy, identities in practice, and artefacts (p. 6).

Applying their concept of "figured worlds"--"a socially produced and culturally constructed realm of interpretation"--to literacy practices, they suggest that 'a figured world of literacy might include "functional illiterates", "good readers" and "illiterates" any of which might be "invoked, animated, contested and enacted through artefacts, activities and identities in practice" (p. 6). In the world of schooled literacy in particular, scholars have noted the tendency to invoke and deploy such figurings and identities to characterize children and their attainment--Holland and Bartlett enable us to see such characterizations as themselves part of what we should be taking into account when we try to understand literacy practices in context: we should be wary of taking them at face value, a skepticism that will prove useful as we move towards applying social literacy theory to education in general and schooling in particular.

Pahl (2002a and b) has built upon Holland and Bartlett's use of habitus in relation to figured worlds in order to help her describe the multi modal practices of young children at home in her research on London families. Drawing also upon Kress and van Leeuwen (2001) for multi-modality and Street 1988; 1995) for literacy practices, she describes the ways in which young children take from and adapt family narratives as they do drawings, create three dimensional objects and write graffiti on walls. The work of figuring these family worlds is done through a combination of oral, visual and written artefacts through which over time key themes--such as a family's connection with the railways in India or with a farm in Wales--become sedimented and persistent. Through these narratives, embedded in material and linguistic form, the identity of family members is constructed and adapted over time. Again, there is a pedagogic message regarding how schools might recognize and build upon such home practices, but there is also an important theoretical contribution to NLS, namely that Pahl shows how any account of literacy practices needs to be contextualized within other communicative modes. Also, like Bartlett & Holland (2002) and Collins (1995), she develops a sophisticated analysis of how such practices relate to concepts of textuality, figured worlds, identity and power.

Another update and extension of NLS is to be found in Hornberger's edited volume (2002) in which authors attempt to apply her conception of the "continua of biliteracy" to actual uses of reading and writing in different multilingual settings: biliteracy is defined as "any and all instances in which communication occurs in two (or more) languages in or around writing" and is described in terms of four nested sets of intersecting continua characterizing the contexts, media, content, and development of biliteracy. A number of the authors, as in the Martin-Jones & Jones (2001) book, draw out the links of NLS to such multilingual settings.

Applications to Education

The next stage of work in this area is to move beyond these theoretical critiques and to develop positive proposals for interventions in teaching, curriculum, measurement criteria, and teacher education in both the formal and informal sectors, based upon these principles. It will be at this stage that the theoretical perspectives brought together in the "New Literacy Studies" will face their sternest test: that of their practical applications to mainstream education. Hull and Schultz (2001) have been amongst the first researchers 82May 12, 2003

What's "new" in New Literacy Studies?

Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice

to directly apply insights from NLS to educational practice and policy. They build upon the foundational descriptions of out-of-school literacy events and practices developed within NLS, to return the gaze back to the relations between in and out of school, so that NLS is not seen simply as "anti school" or interested only in small scale or "local" literacies of resistance. They especially want to use the understandings of children's emerging experiences with literacy in their own cultural milieus to address broader educational questions about learning of literacy and of switching between the literacy practices required in different contexts. They

are troubled by a tendency…to build and reify a great divide between in school and out of school and that sometimes this dichotomy relegates all good things to out-of-school contexts and everything repressive to school. Sometimes it dismisses the engagement of children with non-school learning as merely frivolous or remedial or incidental (Hull & Schultz, 2002; p. 3).

In contrast to this approach and drawing strongly on work in NLS, they argue for "overlap or complementarity or perhaps a respectful division of labor". They cite Dewey's argument that there is much we can learn about successful pedagogies and curricula by foregrounding the relationship between formal education and ordinary life. From the standpoint of the child" he observed, the great waste in the school comes from his inability to utilize the experiences he gets outside of the school in any complete and free way within the school itself; while on the other hand, he is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning in school (Dewey, 1899/ 1998; pp. 76-78).

But how are we to know about the experiences of the child outside of school? Many teachers express anxiety that the children in their classes may come from a wide variety of backgrounds and it is impossible to know them all. Hull & Schultz (2002) respond by invoking the work of researchers "who have made important contributions to understanding literacy learning through ethnographic or field-based studies in homes, community organizations and after-school programs" (p. 14). Their edited volume consists of accounts of such research in a variety of settings. They are aware of the criticism of such approaches that might over-emphasize the "local" or even "romanticize out-of-school contexts" and aim instead to "acknowledge the complexities, tensions and opportunities" that are found there. Nor is their aim to provide an exhaustive account of such contexts--teachers are right to argue that this cannot all be covered. Instead, they aim to provide us all, but especially those responsible for the education of children, with understanding of the principles underlying such variation and with help in listening to and appreciating what it is that children bring from home and community experience. Indeed, the book consists of both articles about such experience and comments by teachers and teacher educators on their significance for learning. Here, then, NLS meets educational practice in ways that begin to fulfill the potential of the approach, but through dialogue rather than simply an imposition of researchers' agendas on educators. In Australia the work of Peter Freebody and Allan Luke, provide powerful examples of the application of new theoretical perspectives on literacy, including NLS, to education, especially work on curriculum and assessment in Queensland (cf Luke, and Carrington 2002; Luke and Freebody 2002.

Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol.5 (2) 83

Brian Street

In a forthcoming edited volume (Street, forthcoming) a number of authors from a variety of international contexts likewise take on this challenge and attempt to follow through such practical applications of the NLS approach. As with Hull & Schultz's work, the authors are conscious of the links between theoretical debate and the work of teachers in school addressing literacy issues. The collection of case studies ranges from formal education, including elementary, secondary and higher education and informal sectors such as community associations, international development programs and workplace literacies. Across these educational contexts, the authors are concerned not just to apply the general principles of NLS but with offering practical critiques of its application that force us to refine the original conceptualization: the volume, then, is intended to be not a static "application" of theory to practice, but a dynamic dialogue between the two. In attempting to work through the implications of these approaches for different sectors of education, the authors find limitations and problems in some NLS approaches--such as the "limits of the local" in educational as well as theoretical terms--that require them to go back to the underpinning conceptual apparatus. Theory as well as practice is subject to the critical perspective being adopted there and researchers and practitioners will have to either adapt or even reject parts of NLS as it engages with such new tasks.

Such a challenge is raised by current research by Baker, Street and Tomlin (2002) applying literacy theory to the understanding of numeracy practices in and out of school (Baker et al, 2002; Baynham & Baker, 2002). Numeracy even more than literacy has been seen as a "universal", "context free" set of skills that can be imparted across the board, irrespective of children's background experiences and prior cultural knowledge. Recent approaches to "situated learning", when allied to those from situated literacy suggest that such a "banking" model of education, as Paulo Freire termed it, is inappropriate especially in the multilingual, multicultural situations that characterize contemporary hybrid cultural contexts. The question that Street & Baker address is how far such a culturally-sensitive approach can be applied to numeracy education: can we talk of multiple numeracies and of numeracy events and practices as we do of literacy? Can we build upon cultural knowledge of number, measurement, approximation etc. in the way that Hull & Schultz and those in the Literacies across the Curriculum volume believe we can do for cultural knowledge of literacies, scripts, languages? Again, the questions being raised by NLS, when applied to new fields such as this will lead to critiques not only of current educational practice but also of the theoretical framework itself. As with the critiques by Brandt, Collins etc., NLS will be forced to adapt and change--the validity and value of its original insights and their applications to practice will be tested according to whether they can meet this challenge.

In an international context the application of NLS to both schooling and adult literacy has likewise raised new questions and faced new problems contingent on the nature of the particular context. The aim of such "applications" has not been to simply impose a pre-given template on to local work in the field but to enter a dialogue (cf Street's 2001 edited volume of essays on literacy and development in a dozen different countries for detailed examples). A telling case of such work is the Community Literacies Project in Nepal (CLPN, 2001) supported by the U.K.'s Department for International Development (DFID) and based in Kathmandu. CLPN provides a resource for supporting local literacy initiatives, be they women working in credit groups, Forestry User Groups, or 84May 12, 2003

What's "new" in New Literacy Studies?

Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice

people setting up wall newspapers and local broadcasting. Such organizations come to CLPN for support when their members need to enhance their literacy but instead of sending them to sit in formal classes--to be "infantilized", treated like their children with desks, grade levels and demeaning assessments--the CLPN team attempt to work with them in the local context and to build upon what they already know as a way of developing what else they want to know--to create better forms for the credit group, to read and write minutes for the Forestry Users Group, to makes tape recordings for broadcast .

However, as with other "applications" of NLS (cf Rogers, 1994; Street, 2001), the local context generates it own new problems that force us to rethink and adapt the initial conceptualization. In this case, as in many development contexts, the problem arises as to whether there is a conflict between theory and policy and between the local and the needs of scale faced by administrators? The more those ethnographers explain the "complexity" of literacy practices, the more policy makers find it impossible to design programs that can take account of all that complexity. The more ethnographers demonstrate that literacy does not necessarily have the effects that the rhetoric has suggested--improved health, cognition, empowerment--the harder does it become for policymakers to persuade funders to support literacy programs. The more ethnographers focus on specific local contexts, the harder does it seem to "upscale" their projects to take account of the large numbers of people seen to be in need. So how can contemporary literacy projects bridge this apparent divide between policy and research in general and in particular between large scale needs and micro ethnographic approaches?

The Community Literacy Project Nepal aims to do precisely this. Based on a spirit of engagement between theory and practice, academic and applied concerns, it aims to make a contribution at the interface, clarifying conceptual issues, and enhancing knowledge on the one hand and aiding policy making and program building on the other (cf Rogers, 1992). The participants approach the issues in a spirit of reflective and critical enquiry, less concerned to advocate particular approaches, methodologies and theories than to extend current thinking and thereby facilitate informed local practice. Anna Robinson-Pant's book about Nepal, 'Why Eat Green Cucumbers at the Time of Dying?' Exploring the Link between Women's Literacy and Development (Unesco, 2000), which won the Unesco Literacy Prize, provides some of the answers to the worries about ethnography that some literacy campaigners might express. "Why eat green cucumbers at the time of dying?"--why take on the luxury of new literacy practices when your communicative repertoire seems already sufficient?--because, says Anna Robinson-Pant, "learning to read--like eating cucumber in rural areas--is both a luxury and a challenge when you are old" (indeed, at any age) (p. 1). Taking on reading, new readings, and new literacy practices, broadening the communicative repertoire, and challenging dominant epistemologies are continuing processes, not a one-off shift from "illiteracy" to "literacy", from dark to light, as the early approaches to literacy work would have it. There are always new things to experience and learn and life can always be enhanced--even at the time of dying!

Policy Issues

Despite the willingness of DFID to fund such imaginative approaches to literacy work Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol.5 (2) 85

Brian Street

overseas, in the UK itself as in the U.S.A., the qualitative and ethnographic--style work that characterizes NLS and underpins such an approach is currently out of fashion in higher policy circles. A recent important political development in the validating and funding of research in education in general and literacy in particular has been the demand that such research conform to "scientific" standards. Key words in this approach include "Systematic Reviews", "Rigor", and "Evidence-Based Policies". In both the U.K. and U.S.A., governments and their agencies are insisting that funding will only be permitted on the basis that programs and the research on which they are based can be proven to be "scientific". A number of commissions and panels have reviewed research on literacy in this light e.g. the National Academy of Science report "Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children" (Snow, Burns, Griffin, 1998); the National Reading Panel set up by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NRP, 2000); and the U.S. Department of Education's (ED) newly formed Institute of Education Sciences plan to evaluate research as part of its web-based What Works Clearinghouse project. For instance, the Clearinghouse, founded in August 2002, aims to become a trusted, one-stop source of scientifically proven teaching practices for educators, policy makers, and the public. It will contain systematically evaluated research to help educators more easily identify scientifically proven teaching methods as required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

Academic researchers, including those active in the field of literacy, are playing a leading role in these developments. For instance, in the USA Robert Slavin, the founder of "Success for All", argued in a recent paper in Educational Researcher that: "the use of randomized experiments that transformed medicine, agriculture and technology in the 20th century is now beginning to affect educational policy" (p. x). He concludes from a survey of such research that "a focus on rigorous experiments evaluating replicable programs and practices is essential to build confidence in educational research among policymakers and educators" (Slavin, 2002, p. x). In particular, this approach suggests ways in which what is known from experimental studies of literacy acquisition can be built into programs and policies for early schooling. In the U.K., the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Coordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) has been established at the Institute for Education in London to conduct "systematic reviews" of research in designated fields and the English National Literacy Strategy was justified on similar grounds, although the use of "systematic reviews" etc. was less well developed at the initial stages. Researchers summarizing the research base for the National Literacy Strategy have since claimed that we now "know what works" in teaching initial literacy and that the task is simply to apply this in schooling (Beard, 2000; Harrison, 2002). Critiques of these approaches have come from a number of well-known qualitative researchers in the literacy field (Gee, 2002; Coles, 2001; Goodman, 2001; Hamersley, 2001; Erickson & Gutierrez, 2002). A special issue of Educational Researcher (Vol. 31, no. 8, Nov 2002) was devoted to the question of "Scientific Research in Education" and a special edition of the Journal of Teacher Education was devoted to teacher preparation research (Journal of Teacher Education 53 (3): May-Jun 2002; see refs below). In the UK the British Educational Research Journal likewise published a number of articles on Systematic Reviews in its Nov 2001 issue (Vol. 27, No. 5, 2001). Hamersley, for instance, writing in that issue, links the trend to "systematic reviews" to a resurgence of positivist epistemology as an alternative to "narrative" ("subjective", qualitative, interpretive?) 86May 12, 2003

What's "new" in New Literacy Studies?

Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice

reviews. Hamersley comments: "What is curious about the dual (both doing research and producing research reviews) application of the positivist model to the task of reviewing is that it takes little or no account of the considerable amount of criticism that has been made of that model since at least the middle of the twentieth century" (Hamersley, 2001, p. 545). Adam Lefstein (2003) provides a helpful survey of much of this literature, invoking the philosophical terms "techne" and "phronesis" to analyze the difference between "scientific technical rationality" and "practical reason" as they are applied to education and specifically to the UK Literacy Strategy.

In the U.S. likewise qualitative researchers in the literacy field have addressed both the wider epistemological assumptions underpinning the "scientific" move and the specific issues regarding acquisition of reading that are often the focus of such approaches. Ken Goodman has set up an email network (see refs) that circulates details of new initiatives, e.g. the What Works Clearinghouse project, and offer scathing critiques. Joanne Larson's wittily titled Literacy as Snake Oil (2001) has a number of sharp criticisms of the way the Reading Panels have been set up, run and then invoked for policy purposes. The authors demonstrate some of the problems with the "scientific" approach--its inability to engage with the nuances of cultural meanings, the variation in uses of literacy across contexts and the problems already highlighted with the autonomous model of literacy - and attempt to construct more meaningful solutions. (cf , 2001; Coles, 2001). Similarly, critics in a special issue of Educational Researcher, berate the U.S. Dept of Education initiatives for "confusing the methods of science with the process of science" (Berliner, 2002). Erickson and Gutierrez, for example, critique the NRC Committee for taking "an evidence-based social engineering approach to educational improvement" and argue for replacing the "'white coat' notion of science…with a more complicated and realistic view of what actual scientists do" (cited in Lefstein, 2003).

All of this has considerable importance for literacy work, both in terms of the kind of research that can get funded , the kinds of procedures for reviewing research that are considered legitimate and the policy effects of that research which does get through the sieve. The wider political and ideological context of such research is itself part of what counts as engaging with literacy in theory and practice

Conclusion

The effects of these critical engagements with social theory, educational applications and policy is that New Literacy Studies is now going through a productive period of intense debate that firstly establishes and consolidates many of the earlier insights and empirical work and secondly builds a more robust and perhaps less insular field of study. A major contribution arising from the work cited here has been the attempt to appeal beyond the specific interests of ethnographers interested in the "local" in order to engage with both educationalists interested in literacy acquisition and use across educational contexts, both formal and informal, and with policy makers more generally. That practical engagement, however, will still need to be rooted in sound theoretical and conceptual understanding if the teaching and studying of literacy are to avoid being simply tokens for other interests. We still, then, need to analyze and contest what counts as "literacy" (and numeracy); what literacy events and practices mean to users in different cultural and social contexts-- the original inspiration for NLS - but also what are the "limits of the local"; and, as the writers cited here indicate, how literacy relates to more general issues Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol.5 (2) 87

Brian Street

of social theory regarding textuality, figured worlds, identity and power.

References

Anderson, A. B., Teale, W.H. and Estrada,E (1980) 'Low-income children's preschool literacy experiences: some naturalistic observations' in Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition 2, 59-65

Aikman, S. (1999) Intercultural education and literacy: An ethnographic study of indigenous knowledge and learning in the Peruvian Amazon. Benjamins: Amsterdam.

Baker, D. A., Street, B., and Tomlin, A. (2002) Math as social: Understanding relationships between home and school Numeracy Practices submitted to FLM

Bartlett ,L and Holland,D (2002) "Theorizing the Space of Literacy Practices". Ways of Knowing,2(1) University of Brighton, pp.

Barton (1994) Literacy: an introduction to the ecology of written language. Blackwell: Oxford

Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (1998) Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. Routledge: London.

Barton, D., Hamilton, M. and Ivanic, R. (2000) Situated Literacies: reading and writing in context. Routledge: London.

Barton, D. and Ivanic, R. (1991) Writing In The Community, Sage; Newbury Par, CA

Baynham, M. (1995).Literacy Practices: investigating literacy in social contexts Routledge: London

Baynham, M. & Baker, D. (2002) '" 'Practice' in literacy and Numeracy research: multiple perspectives", Ways of Knowing 2(1). University of Brighton,

Baynham, M. and Prinsloo, M. (eds.) (2001) "New directions in literacy research:

Policy, pedagogy, practice" Language & Education, 5(2-3), pp.83-91

Beard, R. (2000) "Research and the national literacy strategy." Oxford Review of Education 26, (3-4), 421-36.

Berliner, D. (2002) "Educational research: The hardest Science of All". Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20.

Besnier, N. and Street, B. (1994). "Aspects of Literacy" in Encyclopedia of Anthropology, T. Ingold (ed),. pp. 527-562

Brandt, D. and Clinton, K. (2002) "Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a social practice", Journal of Literacy Research, 34(3) pp. 337-356

88May 12, 2003

What's "new" in New Literacy Studies?

Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice

Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American Lives, CUP: Cambridge.

Coles,G (2001) 'Reading research and Skills-Emphasis Instruction: forging "facts" to fit an explanation' in Larson, J. (Ed.) (2001). Literacy as snake oil: Beyond the quick fix. Peter Lang Publishing Inc: New York. Pp. 27-44

Collins, J. (1995). "Literacy and Literacies." Annual Review of Anthropology, 24: 75-93 Collins, J. and Blot, R. (forthcoming) Literacy and Literacies: Texts Power and Identity. CUP: Cambridge.

.

Community Literacies Project Nepal (CLPN), (2000) Newsletter of CLPN. [Online]. Available at: http://www/https://www.wendangku.net/doc/a710392471.html,

Erickson, F. and Gutierrez, K. (2002)."'Culture, rigor and science in educational research". Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21-4.

Freebody, P. (forthcoming) "Critical literacy." In R. Beach et.al. (Eds.) Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research. Cresskills, NJ: Hampton Press, pp.

Gee, J.P. (1990). "Orality and literacy: From the savage mind to ways with words". In Social Linguistics and Literacy: Ideology in Discourses, London: Falmer Press, pp. missing

Gee (1991) Social Linguistics: Ideology in Discourses, Falmer Press: London

Gee (2001) 'Reading Language Abilities and Semiotic Resources: beyond limited perspectives on reading' in Larson, J. (Ed.) (2001). Literacy as snake oil: Beyond the quick fix. Peter Lang Publishing Inc: New York. pp. 7-26

Gee (2000) 'The New Litercay Studies; form "socially situated" to the work of the social' in Barton, D., Hamilton, M. and Ivanic, R. (2000) Situated Literacies: reading and writing in context. Routledge: London. pp. 180-196

Goodman, K. (2003) Kgoodman@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/a710392471.html,

Hammersly (2001) 'On "Systematic" reviews of research literatures: a "narrative" response to Evans & Benefield' in British Educational Research Journal 27(5) pp. 542554 Incomplete Heath, S.B. (1983) Ways with Words CUP : Cambridge

Harrison, C. (2002) "The national strategy for English. Key Stage 3: Roots and Research DfES: London. ref 0353/2002

Hornberger, N. (ed.) (2002). The continua of biliteracy: a framework for educational policy, research and practice in multiple settings. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Hull, G. and Schultz, K. (2002). School's Out: Bridging out-of-school literacies with Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol.5 (2) 89

Brian Street

classroom practice. Teachers College Press: NY.

(2001). Literacy and Learning Out of School: a review of theory and practice' in Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 575-611.

Janks, H. (2000) "Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis for critical literacy education." Educational Review, 52(2), 175-186.

Kalman, J. (1999). Writing on the Plaza: mediated literacy practices among scribes and clients in Mexico City. Hampton Press: Cresskill NJ.

Kress,G and van Leeuwen,T 2001 Multimodal Discourse: the modes and media of contemporary communication Arnold: London

Kulick, D. and Stroud, C. (1993) "Conceptions and uses of literacy in a Papua New Guinean village." In Street, B. (Ed.) Cross Cultural Approaches to Literacy. Cambridge: CUP,30-61.

Larson, J. (Ed.) (2001). Literacy as snake oil: Beyond the quick fix. Peter Lang Publishing Inc: New York.

Lefstein, A. (2003) "Teaching and reading between technical rationality and practical reason in the National Literacy Strategy" Paper for discussion in RWLL, King's College London.

Luke, A. and Carrington, V. (2002) "Globalisation, literacy, curriculum practice." In R. Fisher, M. Lewis and G. Brooks (Eds.) Language and Literacy in Action. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Luke, A. and Freebody, P. (2002). "Reading as a social practice". In Muspratt, S., Luke, A. and Freebody, P. (Eds.) Constructing Critical Literacies. New York: Hampton Press.

Martin-Jones,M and Jones,K (2000) (Eds.) Multilingual Literacies: Comparative Perspectives on Research and Practice Amsterdam: John Benjamin's

Maybin, J. (1993). Language and Literacy in Social Practice. Open University Press.

Maybin, J. (2000) 'The New Literacy Studies: context, intertextualioty and discourse' in Barton, D., Hamilton, M. and Ivanic, R. (2000) Situated Literacies: reading and writing in context. Routledge: London. pp. 197-209

Mukherjee, A. and Vasanta, D. (Eds.) (2003). Practice and research in literacy. Delhi and London: Sage Publications.

Prinsloo, M. ad Breier, M. (1996). The Social Uses of Literacy Benjamins/Sacched.

Pahl, K. (2002a) "Ephemera, mess and miscellaneous piles: Texts and practices in families." Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2(2), 145-166.

90May 12, 2003

What's "new" in New Literacy Studies?

Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice

Pahl, K. (2002b) "Habitus and the home: Texts and practices in families." Ways of Knowing Journal, 2(1), 45-53.

Robinson-Pant, A. (1997). 'Why eat green cucumbers at the time of dying?': The Link between Women's Literacy and Development. Unesco: Hamburg.

Rogers, A. (1992). Adults learning for development. London: Cassell Educational Ltd. Rogers, A. (1994). Using Literacy: A new approach to post literacy materials. London: ODA (DfID).

Slavin, R. (2002) "Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research." Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15-21.

Snow, C. E., et al. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Street, B. (1984) Literacy in Theory and Practice Cambridge: CUP

Street, B. (1988). "Literacy practices and literacy myths." In R. Saljo (Ed.) The Written Word: Studies in Literate Thought and Action, Springer-Verlag Press, 59-72.

Street, B. (1995) Social Literacies Longman: London

Street, B. (forthcoming) (Ed.) Literacies Across Educational Contexts. Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing.

Street, B. (2000) "Literacy Events and Literacy Practices" In M. Martin-Jones & K. Jones (Ed.) Multilingual Literacies: Comparative Perspectives on Research and Practice Amsterdam: John Benjamin's, 17-29.

Street, B. (2001) ed. Literacy and Development: ethnographic perspectives. Routledge: London.

What Works Clearinghouse.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/a710392471.html,/news/ssunreg.cfm?ArticleID=4110&ul=%2Fnews%2Fsh owStory%2Ecfm%3FArticleID%3D4110.

Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol.5 (2) 91

创新理论与实践 创新理论与创新型国家

创新理论与实践-第1讲创新理论与创新型国家 1 【单选】在韩国创新型国家的建设过程中，（）功不可没，对合理配置科技创新资源发挥了重要作用 A. 科研投入 B. 教育发展 C. 技术进步 D. 科技管理 A B C Dright 正确答案：D 2 【单选】哪个国家是世界上发明专利最多的国家（） A. 德国 B. 日本 C. 美国 D. 中国 A B C Dright 正确答案：C 3 【单选】建设创新型国家，核心就是（） A. 把增强自主创新能力作为发展科学技术的战略基点，走出中国特色自主创新道路，推动科学技术的跨越式发展 B. 把增强自主创新能力作为调整产业结构、转变增长方式的中心环节，建设资源节约型、环境友好型社会，推动国民经济又快又好发展 C. 把增强自主创新能力作为国家战略，贯穿到现代化建设各个方面，激发全民族创新精神，培养高水平创新人才，形成有利于自主创新的体制机制，大力推进理论创新、制度创新、科技创新，不断巩固和发展中国特色社会主义伟大事业 D. 以上皆是 A B C Dright 正确答案：D 4 【判断】2006年1月18日，中国在新世纪第一次全国科技大会上，正式提出了“以增强自主创新能力为主线，建设创新型国家为目标”的创新战略。这种说法是否正确？（） A. 正确 B. 错误 正确错误right 正确答案：正确 5 【判断】英国创新战略的规划设计以国家创新体系为核心展开，以实现从创新体系向创新能力的转变。这种说法是否正确？（） A. 正确 B. 错误 正确错误right 正确答案：正确

6 【判断】党的“十六大”明确的提出认真落实国家中长期科技发展规划纲要，加大对自主创新的投入，着力突破制约经济社会发展的关键技术。这种说法是否正确（） A. 正确 B. 错误 正确错误right 正确答案：错误 7 【判断】创新型国家应该具备的基本特征包括国家科技投入占国内生产总值的2%以上、科技进步贡献率高达70%以上、国家对外技术依存度在30%以下。这种说法是否正确？（） A. 正确 B. 错误 正确错误right 正确答案：正确 1 【单选】关于内在制度特征描述正确的是（） A. 从人类经验中演化出来 B. 通过政治过程获得权威的代理人设计和确立 C. 被自上而下强加并执行 D. 通常配有惩罚措施 A B C Dright 正确答案：A 2 【单选】我国家庭承包经营制度变革属于哪一种何种制度变迁方式？（） A. 强制性制度变迁 B. 诱致性制度变迁 C. 源于诱致性制度变迁，之后的改革推广属于强制性制度变迁 A B Cright 正确答案：C 3 【单选】改革以来中国的制度变迁属于（） A. 渐进式制度变迁 B. 突进式制度变迁 A Bright 正确答案：A 4 【判断】家庭承包经营改革是一步到位的全局合法化改革。（） A. 正确 B. 错误 正确错误right 正确答案：错误 5 【判断】写在纸上的制度，与实际实施的制度总是一致的。（）

浅谈语言研究方法的发展历史与趋势

浅谈语言研究方法的发展历史与趋势 摘要：在科学研究中，每一次发现或创新，实质上都是研究方法上的变革。纵观语言研究方法的发展历史和趋势，可以看出，随着社会和科技的进步，人们研究语言的方法在不断改进，而方法上的不断进步又直接推动着语言理论向纵深发展。 关键词：语言研究；研究方法 在科学研究中，每一次发现或创新，实质上都是研究方法上的变革。语言科学的发展同样依赖于研究方法的更新或变革。从19世纪语言研究学科的独立到现在语言学流派林立、新学科层出不穷，每次一变化都伴随着研究方法上的改进。 一、语言研究方法的发展历史 1、语文学时期 在语言学作为一个学科体系正式独立之前，语言研究的方法也是基本局限于哲学、逻辑学、历史学和文学的方法。这个阶段，人们不是为了弄清语言而研究语言，相反，对语言问题的研究只不过是研究其他事物的需要。比如在公元5世纪，古希腊哲学家在辩论过程中认识到语言的逻辑问题，于是从逻辑的角度讨论语言的起源和结构；古印度人和咱们中国的祖宗，出于准确传授经典的需要，从释义的角度研究语言。所以说，这一时期语言研究没有独立，其研究方法也只不过是其他学科方法的延伸，还谈不上是一种科学的研究方法。 2、历史比较语言学兴起时期 19世纪，在语言研究内部发展的推动下，在自然科学和其他因素的影响下，历史比较语言学派迅速形成。该学派的语言学家开始把语言作为独立的对象进行研究，主要运用历史比较法对语言的亲属关系

及其历史演变展开研究，从而使语言研究作为一门独立学科建立起来。该学派在整个19世纪都几乎一直是西方语言学的主流。该学派以拉斯克、葆朴、格里木、施莱歇尔等为代表的语言学家创造并扩大了历史比较的研究方法，他们依靠这种新颖、有效的研究方法使语言的亲属关系得到了普遍确认。 3、结构主义语言学主导时期 结构主义语言学是由索绪尔创立并在20世纪30—50年代深刻影响全世界的语言学流派。其特点是：区分语言和言语，认为语言是一个系统，系统的结构是由声音和意义的关系、语言单位之间的关系构成的，语言学只研究纯粹的语言形式和关系模式，可以采用形式化的方法研究语言系统。它重视关系，忽略实体，注重静态描写。主要包括布拉格学派、哥本哈根学派、美国描写学派三大分支。结构主义语言学不仅在理论上是全新的，在方法上也与以前大不相同——他们将语言看成一个结构体，严格运用形式主义的方法对语言系统进行解剖、分析，其中最常用的方法就是通过二分法对语言展开描写。结构主义的研究方法不仅影响到语言学领域，还影响到艺术、文学、哲学、心理学和社会科学的多个领域，使语言学成了社会科学与人文科学中的领先科学。正如布罗克曼所说：“现代语言学所起的作用，在某种程度上相当于一种数学的作用。”① 4、转换—生成学派盛行时期 美国语言学家乔姆斯基在20世纪50年代创立了转换—生成学派。因为这一学派在哲学基础、理论主张，以及研究方法上相对与描写的结构主义来说都是革命性的，因此被称为“乔姆斯基革命”。转换—生成语法强调对人的语言能力作出解释，而不是仅仅描写语言行为，它要研究的是体现在人脑中的认知系统和普遍语法。乔姆斯基认为“语言”不是实际存在的东西，这个概念是从语法中派生出来的，

实践创新理论创新制度创新的有机统一

实践创新理论创新制度创新的有机统一 在21世纪初的世界东方有一道亮丽的风景，有一面风展如画的旗帜， 有一种与众不同且令人惊艳的发展模式，这就是中国特色社会主义。 在国际社会主义运动处于低潮、“万花纷谢一时稀”的大背景下，社会主义的中国不仅占尽风情，充满了生机与活力，取得了骄人的发展成就，从根本上改变了中国人民和中华民族的前途命运，而且对人类和平与发展的崇高事业作出了越来越大的贡献，对世界上众多的发展中国家解决自身的发展问题，也提供了重要 的启示和某种可资借鉴的经验。 那么，“中国道路”“中国奇迹”的成功奥秘是什么？其最鲜明的特色是什么？ 学习党的十八大报告，使我们对这一问题有了更深刻的认识。 在解放思想、实事求是的马克思主义思想路线的指引下，坚持我们党在长期的革命建设和改革实践中形成的独立自主、走自己的路的思维方式，以改革开放为强大动力和政策取向，把实践创新、理论创新、制度创新有机地统一起来，使之相互促进、相互支撑，这就是中国特色社会主义的成功秘诀，也是它的特色所 在。 中国特色社会主义形成和发展的进程，是一个坚持马克思主义实践第一的 观点、尊重人民群众首创精神奋勇开拓的历史进程 实践的观点是马克思主义第一的和基本的观点。列宁曾经说过：“生气勃勃的创造性的社会主义是由人民群众自己创立的。”社会主义不在书斋里，不是某种先验的、一成不变的固有模式。社会主义在实践中，在亿万人民群众创造自己幸福生活和美好未来的实践中。它是鲜活的，日益更新的。不妨回顾一下：中国特色社会主义是怎样发源的？建设中国特色社会主义这一时代命题是怎样提出来的？正是因为有了真理标准的大讨论，有了冲破“两个凡是”的坚冰，有了“实践是检验真理的唯一标准”这一马克思主义原理的复归和坚持，建设中国特色社会主义才找到了哲学上的理论支点，找到了现实的逻辑起点。在改革开放初期，邓小平同志有一句非常著名的话——摸着石头过河。“望河兴叹”是不可能到达胜利的彼岸的。他反复强调，要大胆试、大胆闯，没有一股干呀、冒呀的劲头，改

新公共管理理论

新公共管理理论 新公共管理思想以现代经济学和企业的管理理论与方法作为自身的理论基础，包括公共选择理论、委托代理理论和治理理论，主要强调的是市场与政府的协调。首先，新公共管理从现代经济学中获得诸多理论依据，如“理性人”的假设，即人的理性都是为自己的利益，有自身的需求，不可能以为处于政治市场就会变为“大公无私”的人，都希望以最小的付出获得最大利益，只要财政补贴这部分公共资金的支出能够有利于地区社会利益的增进，能够为整个社会创造出更多的社会福利，配置财政补贴就认为是有效率的，就是理性的。本文从该假设中能够得到绩效评价的依据；公共选择理论和交易成本理论认为政府应以市场和居民为导向的，形成一种“企业式的政府”模式，为社会公共的“顾客”提供较高的政府服务，政府的成本不再是依据各项规章制度，而是管理活动的产出以及绩效，从成本－效益分析中对政府绩效目标进行界定、测量和评估的依据等等。其次，新公共管理又从企业管理方法中消化吸收新的内容，引入了市场机制的概念。新公共管理理论认为，企业许多管理方式和手段都具有可行性，政府也可以拿来借用。例如，企业科学的组织管理形式能灵活地适应环境；对产出和结果的高度重视（对企业来说，产出就意味着利润，而要想实现自身利润的最大化就必须为企业的顾客和利益相关者提供高质量的服务，同时尽可能地降低企业的成本），而不是只关心企业的投入、不重视企业的产出等等。新的公共管理认为，政府作为公共服务的提供者，负有公共受托责任，引入市场竞争机制，能够提高政府服务的质量和效率，企业所成功运用着的管理方法，如绩效管理模式、目标管理制度、组织发展方法等政府机构也可以进行借鉴，这些并非是企业所独有的，这些科学有效的管理模式也可以运用到公共管理中，以促进政府服务的质量和效果。 政府财政补贴的的有效率使用是将其合理用于公共产品，为本地居民增加社会公共福利，例如改善地区生产或生活环境，用于医疗、教育、扶贫、基础设施、改善自然环境等多个方面，使本地的居民能够通过政府财政补贴政策获得实惠以提高地区的福利水平。但是，政府财政补贴资金在一定约束条件下配置给企业，企业对这部分公共资金的使用就应该产生一种公共利益，这种公共利益表现为促进增加固定资产投资扩建和促进研发经费的支出、提高企业的竞争优势和长期发展、为本地居民提供更多就业机会以及提高本地区的形象，并提高长期的财政收

语言学及其研究方法

1 学方法、转换生成语言学方法和综合性的方法。指出了语言研究应由“表层结构”向“深层结构”转换, 通过循序渐进的层次对比研究,抓住寓于语言深部的综合特征, 从而准确把握对比中的语言特征, 充分发挥对比语言的对策性。 对比语言学(contrastive linguistics. Contrastive analysis) 在1980 年上海辞书出版社的《语言与语言学辞典》中, 将contrastive analysis 只译作“对比分析”, 许多属于对比语言学范畴的我国学者们的论著, 也大都冠以“比较”二字, 归在比较语言学的领域。也就是说, 对于对比语言学这门学科, 人们还缺乏充分认识。然而就方法论而言, 对比语言学是一门共时语言学（synchronic）, 它只是共时地对两种或两种以上语言进行考查分析, 指出它们之间的语音、语法、词汇等各个部门里的同异点, 并努力运用哲学、心理学、民族学等各学科的知识与理论去说明这些同异点之所以产生的根源。 一、对比语言学的历史演变 虽然对比语言学的研究经历了较长的孕育期, 但真正的研究史只有短短的五十多年。如果要讨论对比语言学的雏形, 我们可以追溯到非常久远的年代。公元初年,佛教开始传入我国; 接着, 我们中华民族光辉灿烂的古代文化传播到日本、朝鲜等国, 形成了举世瞩目的汉字文化圈。在这种吸收消化异族文化与学习吸取异邦文明的过程中, 无疑将首先对其运载工具—— 语言进行研究, 而这种研究也只能是建立在同民族的语言比较对比的基础上。因此, 从这个意义上来说, 我国古代的先哲们译释佛教经典, 五六世纪的日本人“训读”我们的古文的工作都可以认为是对比性的。不过, 事实告诉我们, 这种译释或“训读”远远不是一种建立在严格的语言科学基础上的成体系的工作, 因此, 我们无从把它划入对比语言学的范畴。 而真正的对比语言学诞生于20 世纪50 年代, 它是结构主义语言理论和外国语教育发展的联合产物。19世纪末, 索绪尔树立起语言学史上第一座划时代的丰碑, 他的语言理论影响了包括布龙菲尔德在内的众多的语言学家。

实现了实践基础上的科学性和革命性的统一

2 ②实现了实践基础上的科学性和革命性的统一。其科学性在于它坚持了科学的实践观点，其革命性在于它是“改变世界”的科学、指导人类解放的科学，是无产阶级的科学的世界观和方法论。（3）马克思主义中国化的理论成果：毛泽东思想、中国特色社会主义理论体系（邓小平理论、“三个代表”重要思想、科学发展观。）第二单元探索世界与追求真理一、世界的物质性1、物质的含义物质是不依赖于人的意识，并能为人的意识所反映的客观实在。●注意：物质的概念概括了宇宙间的一切客观存在着的事物和现象的共同本质，而不是指某一种具体物质形态。物质和物质的具体形态是共性和个性，一般和个别的关系，而不是整体和部分的关系。2、世界的物质性原理：世界是物质的世界，世界的真正统一性就在于它的物质性。（1）自然界具有物质性。（2）人类社会具有物质性。（3）人的意识是物质世界长期发展的产物，是人脑的机能，是客观存在的反映。二、认识运动，把握规律1、运动（1）哲学上讲的运动是指宇宙间一切事物、现象的变化和过程。（2）物质和运动的关系：①世界的一切事物都处于运动和变化中，运动是物质的固有属性和存在方式，世界上不存在脱离运动的物质。②运动是物质的运动，物质是运动的承担着，脱离物质的运动是根本不存在的，物质和运动是不可分割的。●注意：物质的根本属性和存在方式是运动。区别物质的根本属性和唯一特性。（3）运动和静止的关系：①世界上的一切事物都处在运动变化中，没有不运动的物质，运动是绝对的、无条件的和永恒的；静止是运动的一种特殊形态，静止是相对的、有条件的和暂时的。②物质世界是绝对运动和相对静止的统一③只承认静止而否认运动是形而上学的不变论，只承认绝对运动而否认相对静止则导致相对主义和诡辩论2、运动是有规律的（1）规律的含义：规律是事物运动过程中固有的、本质的、必然的、稳定的联系。（2）规律的客观性和普遍性：规律是客观的，是不以人的意志为转移的，它既不能被创造，也不能被消灭。规律是普遍的，自然界、人类社会和人的思维，在其运动变化和发展中都普遍遵循其固有规律。（3）方法论：①规律的客观性和普遍性要求我们，必须遵循规律，按客观规律办事，而不能违背规律。违背规律就会受到规律的惩罚。②在规律面前，人并不是无能为力的。人可以发挥主观能动性，在认识和把握规律的基础上，根据规律发生作用的条件和形式利用规律，改造客观世界，造福于人类。3、尊重客观规律和发挥主观能动性的辩证关系（1）原理：规律具有普遍性和客观性，制约着主观能动性的发挥，尊重规律，是正确发挥主观能动性的前提和基础。但人在规律面前又不是无能为力的，人可以发挥主观能动性认识和利用规律，改造客观世界，造福于人类。发挥主观能动性，是认识和利用规律的必要条件。(2)方法论：想问题、办事情，既要尊重客观规律，按规律办事，又要充分发挥主观能动性，把尊重客观规律和发挥主观能动性有机地结合起来。三、意识的本质1、从意识的起源看，意识是物质世界长期发展的产物。（1）意识是自然界长期发展的产物。一切物质都具有的反应特性是人类意识产生的物质基础。生物的反应形式是人类意识产生的前提。（2）意识一开始就是劳动的产物，社会的产物。2、从意识的生理基础看，意识是人脑的机能。人脑是意识活动的物质器官。人脑结构的复杂性和组织的严密性，决定了它具有产生意识的生理基础。 3 3、从意识的内容看，意识是客观存在的反映。（意识是客观存在的主观映象）总之，物质世界先于人的意识而存在，物质第一性，意识第二性，物质决定意识。四、意识的能动作用1、人能够能动地认识世界。①意识活动具有目的性和计划性、主动创造性和自觉选择性。人不仅能认识事物外部现象，还能透过现象把握事物的本质和规律。不仅能认识现在，还能追溯过去，预测未来。②意识活动的主动性和创造性，是人能够认识世界的重要条件。世界上只有尚未认识之物，而没有不可认识之物。2、人能够能动地改造世界。 ①意识对改造客观世界具有指导作用。人们在意识的指导下能动地改造世界，即通过实践把意识中的东西变成现实的东西，创造出没有人的参与永远也不可能出现的东西。（意识对物质具有反作用，正确反映客观事物及其发展规律的意识，能够指导人们有效地开展实践活动，

一、本课题研究的理论和实际应用价值,目前国内外研究的现...

一、本课题研究的理论和实际应用价值，目前国内外研究的现状和趋势（限 2 页，不能加页） （一）理论价值 （ 1）自译活动是一个特殊而显著的翻译现象。由于学术体制与政策的原因，中外翻译史的研 究通常只关注单语作家和译他译者，而且自译本身的相关概念很难做出科学界定，所以在很长一段时期以来自译没有引起翻译理论界应有的重视。通过对自译理论基础、本质特性、运作机制、标准 策略等分析研究，有利于人们认识和关注自译活动，确立自译研究的学术地位，从而推进自译理论 与实践研究，进一步丰富和发展翻译理论。 （2）研究文学自译现状，探究文学自译的产生和发展，有利于廓清自译的概念和内涵。借助 对自译作家及其作品的分析研究，并通过梳理自译理论，旨在分析出自译这种翻译方式存在的特殊性， 以及发现其对翻译研究的理论价值和启示，并希望能指导翻译实践，揭示文学自译在翻译研究 中的实际价值和理论意义。 （3）译者的创作与翻译思想决定着翻译的过程。自译作家的创作与翻译思想在其自译作品中 有着明显体现。自译作家的创作在语汇、句式、节奏等语言形式上对翻译有促进。其创作为翻译提 供了丰富的语汇，特别是在翻译中遇到难以解决的问题时，以前的创作可以为其带来灵感。 （4）自译者的翻译与创作相互影响，相互调和。主要表现为译中有作、亦译亦作和作中有译 等三种情况。由于翻译与创作存有互动，所以译作与创作之间存在巨大相似性。 （二）实际应用价值 （1）研究自译者的自译行为及其自译作品，目的在于分析出自译这种翻译方式存在的特殊性 并揭示其本质属性，不仅能丰富翻译研究内涵，还能揭示自译在翻译理论中的价值和意义。 （2）本项目以文学自译研究为主题，并选取我国著名自译作家林语堂、白先勇、张爱玲、萧 乾等四位自译作家为例，通过考察其个人创作观与翻译观，对比分析其自译作品是如何在各自创作观 与翻译观的引导下得以实现的，试图解释翻译过程即译者是如何进行自译的？自译和译他究竟有何不同？ 进而试图揭示同为“环境性转换语者”的自译家们的自译活动有何“共性”与“个性”。 这对推动文学自译的发展，具有重要的理论意义和学术价值，对翻译理论建设有一定的意义。 （3）在国内翻译领域中，对自译研究较少。通过本项目研究，可以启发更多学者从理论上对 自译这一领域进行更深入的探索和研究。 （三）国内外研究现状和趋势述评 在国外，自译活动历史悠久，国外学者主要在三方面进行了研究： （1）关于自译定义。对自译下过定义的主要有 Grutman（ 2004）、Popovic（ 1976）、Whyte（ 2002）等学者。其中 Grutman 的定义不仅“准确” ，还超出关于自译是否是真正翻译的讨论，深入到自译 更为广泛的层面。他不仅认为自译是“翻译自己作品的行为或者是这样一种行为的结果” ，指出了自译可指翻译过程也可是翻译结果，并暗示自译常常用于文学翻译，还将自译分为即时自译和延时自译两种状态，并强调自译文本的内部互文关系。更具参考价值。 （ 2）双语写作视域的自译理论。西方自译研究一个显著特点是立足双语写作视角，如Fitch （1988）、 Beaujour （ 1995）、 Beatson （ 1999）、 Scheiner （ 2000 ）、 Liberman （ 2005）、 Trzeciak （ 2005）、 Hokenson & Munson （ 2007）等。最值一提，Hokenson & Munson （ 2007）将自译文本和 自译者同时并置于西方中世纪以来的社会和学术发展史中，从自译实践活动描述和自译理论分析两 个角度，详述了西方翻译史上自译现象：①首次清晰梳理了西方自译史并科学划分为中世纪与文艺 复兴时期（ 1100-1600 ）、近代时期（1600-1800 ）和现当代时期（1800-2000 ）等三个发展阶段。 ②对自译与双语写作进行平行研究，认为自译文本的关系可以视作在一个转化性语者的共同带中，以 文化间代表的方式展现了两个文本间的策略性关系。如果把自然双语者称为自然性双语习得者，那么 自译者则可称作策略性双语习得者。这一视角为双语和自译研究提供了新思路。③从“作者中

创新理论与实践心得体会1

创新理论与实践心得体会 在11月21日，学校组织了新时期法治思维与法治风尚、创新理论与实践的两项专题讲座，在全天的学习中，我对创新理论与实践专题更为感到兴趣，我对这专题谈谈自己的心得体会。通过学习，我对创新有了全新的认识和理解。这里，我结合本职工作浅显地谈谈这项专题的心得：在本职工作中培育创新思维，重点要抓住三个方面。 一、要善于发现问题 在我们的工作当中，或多或少都存在问题。有问题不要紧，关键是要善于发现问题，及时认识不足。只有发现问题，才能解决问题，才能为创新思维提供素材，创造“入口”。 发现问题，最主要的是增强观察能力。一是要善于从高处着眼，看一看你的工作计划、方针、指导思想是否对路，是否符合上级要求，是否符合社会发展方向。二是要善于从低处观察，看一看你的工作是否符合实际，是否符合民意，群众是否乐意接受和执行。三是要善于在过程中追踪，看一看工作过渡、衔接等是否畅通高效，措施能否有效落实兑现。这样一来，问题就不难被发现。 二、要掌握最基本的方法 要做到创新思维，还要掌握正确的方法，加强训练。 第一，加强学习，注意训练。在当今社会，不论你从事什么工作，学习已成为人的第一需要，一刻不学习、不进步，就面临被社会淘汰的危险。要做到创新思维，就要加强学习。同时，在学习的基础上，注意加强思维方面的训练，开发自己的智力。平时，在工作当中遇到

问题，要养成经常问自己“到底应该怎么办?”的习惯，从而给自己思维施加压力，使思维保持在灵活状态，一旦注入要素，就能确保正常运转。 第二，对自己的工作要经常系统思考。系统思考是指从全局性、层次性、动态性、互动性等方面综合考虑问题的一种方法，系统思考将引导人们产生一种新的思路，使人们从复杂细节中，抓住主要矛盾，找到解决问题的方法。 第三，借鉴比较，寻找启发。唯物辩证法认为，世界是普遍联系的，没有孤立存在着的事物。我们要善于从此事物联想到彼事物，在历史和现实之间移位，在时间和空间上转换，在物与物之间寻找桥梁，在事与事之间搜寻纽带。找到了联系，认识了共性，我们就要结合本职工作实际，进行借鉴比较，启发自己的思路，去创新求解。 三、要勇于付诸实践 创新思维作为一种思维，从根本上说，还停留在认识的层面。如果没有实践，那么再好的思维也是空中楼阁。只有把创新思维与创新实践紧密结合起来，才能不断把工作推向一个新层次、新水平。在实际工作当中，能指出工作中弊端的人不少，但亲自去付诸实践的人却不多，他们缺乏实践的勇气和对工作的使命感、责任感。所以，在竞争时代，我们迫在眉睫的一项重要工作，就是要增强敢于创新、敢于实践的勇气，不断开创本职工作的新局面。 唯物辩证法告诉我们，存在决定意识，意识具有能动性。思维作为意识的范畴，是从实践中产生的，又反作用于实践。我们有什么样

智慧树创新创业理论与实践章节测试答案

智慧树创新创业理论与实践章节测试答案第一章单元测试 1、单选题： 最先提出创新理论的著名经济学家是( ) 选项： A:皮得 B:歌德 C:爱默生 D:熊彼特 答案: 【熊彼特】 2、单选题： 制度创新与技术创新的本质区别在于( ) 选项： A:是否依存于新发明的出现 B:是否依存于物质资本的寿命长短 C:是否依存于灵感的来源 D:是否依存于政策制定者的抉择 答案: 【是否依存于物质资本的寿命长短】 3、单选题： 创新与创业的依托和基石是( ) 选项：

A:经验 B:理论 C:灵感 D:资本 答案: 【理论】 4、单选题： 我国当前的原始创新能力的主体为( ) 选项： A:政府 B:个人 C:研究院所与高校 D:企业 答案: 【研究院所与高校】 5、单选题： 实现地区技术跨越式发展的创新模式为( ) 选项： A:模仿创新模式 B:系统创新模式 C:集成创新模式 D:原始创新模式 答案: 【模仿创新模式】

6、单选题： 哪一类不属于按照创业时间划分的创业模式( ) 选项： A:大学后创业 B:法人股份制创业 C:休学创业 D:兼职创业 答案: 【法人股份制创业】 7、单选题： 管理能力的核心部分为( ) 选项： A:领导能力 B:把握机会的能力 C:决策能力 D:学习能力 答案: 【决策能力】 8、单选题： 创业成功的重要标识为( ) 选项： A:学习能力 B:把握机会的能力 C:领导能力

D:决策能力 答案: 【领导能力】 9、单选题： “创业及其相关内容是可以被教的”，这句话暗示创新创业的必要条件为( ) 选项： A:人脉的建立 B:资本 C:合理的知识结构 D:政策的支撑 答案: 【合理的知识结构】 10、单选题： 哪种创业模式平台是由政府、学生、企业三者共同参与的优质创业平台( ) 选项： A:“创意课程+多渠发展”模式 B:“技术导向+园区孵化”模式 C:系统创新模式 D:“模拟企划+资金注入”模式 答案: 【“技术导向+园区孵化”模式】 第二章单元测试

五步尝试教学的理论研究与实践探索

有效尝试教学的理论研究与实践探索 临河区第二小学 二〇一三年三月

有效尝试教学的理论研究与实践探索 有效尝试是一种教育思想，有效尝试是一种教学原则，有效尝试是一种教学理论，有效尝试是一种教学模式，有效尝试是一种教学方法，有效尝试是一种学习方式……它们之间是相互联系、相互制约的，它们的共同精髓：让学生去试一试，在尝试中学习。相信学生能尝试，尝试能成功，成功能创新。 一、有效尝试教学理论基础 尝试教学的理论是从古今中外的一些有影响的教育思想和教学方法中吸取的积极因素，又密切结合我国当前的课程改革和教育革新的实际需求升华而成的一种教学理论。孔子提倡启发式，主张“不愤不启，不悱不发”即是“先愤后启，先悱后发”，这就是“先试后导”。孟子主张“我虽不敏，请尝试之”。《学记》提倡：“力不能问，然后语之”，这就是“先练后讲”，概括之：“先学后教”。 尝试教学理论提出一个基本观点：“学生能在尝试中学习，而且能成功”。两个基本方法：“先试后导，先练后讲”。有效尝试的三个基本特点：阶段+阶梯，有效+方向，体验+探究。有效尝试提出四大基本准则：生为主体，师为主导，练为主线，会为主旨。基本模式的五大环节是：一步尝试，情境导入，以旧引新；二步尝试，尝试导学，探究新知；三步尝试，模拟导练，生成智能；四步尝试，课堂训练，矫正评价；五步尝试，拓展延伸，提升技能。 遵循尝试教学的六大原则是：准备铺垫原则、尝试指导原则、问题探究原则、合作互补原则、即时矫正地原则、民主和谐原则。并提的尝试成功的七大因素：学生的主体作用、教师的主导作用、课本的示范作用、知识的迁移作用、学生之间的互补作用、教学手段的辅助作用、师生之间的情谊作用。 尝试教学体现三大优势：一是尝试教学克服“满堂灌”，取缔“注入式”，引入体验、探究和合作学习，强调要让学生“尝试”，在尝试中学习，有指导地尝试，力求取得成功。这就为发挥学生的主体作用和教师主导作用找到一种切实可靠的途径和方法。二是尝试教学对于提高教师的科研意识，从而改进教学方法、提高质量成绩显著。要让学生尝试，教师必须先尝试，要让学生尝试成功，教师必须充分准备，这就大大促进教师去研究学生实际，钻研教材内容，设计辅助手段，充分发挥尝试成功的各种因素，这就有利于提高教师素质，转变教学方式，端正教育思想。三是尝试教学能促进学生的探索精神、尝试精神和创造精神，提高学生学习的积极性、自主性、参与度，能够增强学生学习的兴趣，形成学生良好的学习习惯，培养学生的自学能力，根本上提高学生的学习质量。 二、有效尝试教学的基本模式

新公共管理理论的主要理论基础——公共选择理论

新公共管理理论的主要理论基础——公共选择理论新公共管理的主要理论基石是公共选择理论。他不是一个独立的理论，而是许多理论的集合，其主要代表人物是经济学家詹姆斯·布坎南，他是布莱克斯堡弗吉尼亚大学公共选择中心的教授，从1955年开始研究政治决策问题，20世纪60年代明确提出了公共选择的理论，与他人建立和公共选择协会，推动这一理论的发展与传播。布坎南在1972年出版了《公共选择理论：经济学在政治方面的应用》，比较完整的提出了自己的主张。 公共选择理论的理论基础有三个： 个人主义、经济理性、政治交易。 第一，个人主义，是指该理论应从个体的角度去寻找人的社会行为原因，个体行为的集合构成了集体行为。 第二，经济理性认为人的本性是理性的追求个人利益的最大化，公共选择理论提出，一般人所有的这种特性，政府官员在公务行为中也表现出来。 第三，政治交易是指公共选择理论认为政治是在解决利益冲突时的谈判和妥协的过程，具有交易的性质。 公共选择理论研究的主题是选民行为、政治官僚，以及政府官员们的行为，研究的核心问题是政府失败。 政府失败：指政府不能很好的满足个人对公共物品的需要，提供公共物品时存在巨大浪费。 政府失败的原因：

第一，由于政治家迎合短见，只代表少数人利益， 第二，信息不完全等原因造成的决策失误； 第三，由于对公共事务的垄断而缺乏竞争压力，以及没有降低成本的激励机制而导致的政府机构工作效率低下。 第四，政府官僚机构存在自我权力扩张的冲动，试图成为无所不为的政府，造成代替市场干预经济； 第五，政府权力寻租导致腐败。 基于这些弊端，公共选择理论主张改变政府职能，还权于市场，将对经济和大部分社会事务的管理建立在公共选择的基础之上。公共选择是一种社会机制，它通过集体行动和政治过程来决定资源在公共物品间的分配，八个人的选择转化为集体的选择。

创新与实践

创新与实践 在当今社会，创新与实践是一个很敏感的话题。创新与实践是一个国家发展的源动力，创新才能发展，实践才出真知。创新与实践，这一对双胞胎兄弟主宰着一个国家的发展、繁荣和兴盛，推动着历史的车轮，向世界的前沿迈进。其中，尤其是青少年特别是大学生的创新与实践尤为重要。 创新是以新思维、新发明和新描述为特征的一种概念化过程。起源于拉丁语，它原意有三层含义，第一，更新；第二，创造新的东西；第三，改变。创新是人类特有的认识, 能力和实践能力，是人类主观能动性的高级表现形式，是推动民族进步和社会发展的不竭动力。一个民族要想走在时代前列，就一刻也不能没有理论思维，一刻也不能停止理论创新。 创新对于人们来说，其价值恰恰在于“价值”的增长，学习可以使很多人“成绩”优秀，创新却是个体间差别的最佳裁判。 创新的意义在于满足客观存在的需求，并能够有效解决工作生活中碰到的和即将碰到的问题。创新首先是一个观念上的更新，事物在不断发展变化，人的观念随着新的信息、理论和新事物的出现而不断更新，引领变革的思想和理论是最高层次的创新，由此可以说创新是发展的源动力。创新的模式其实很多，但任何创新都不能脱离实践，而且要在实践中有针对性地培养。创新的时机、实用价值和创新的程度等都非常重要。创新就是要敢为天下先，也就是改变过去的不尽合理，使一个人、一个团队、一个集体永远获得领先的机会。

创新，从认识论上概括，包括理论创新和实践创新。理论创新就是理论认识上的新飞跃，依据新的实践和事实探索新的规律，提出新发现，形成新思想、新观点、新论断。认识和实践是具体的历史的统一，理论创新来源于实践，实践是理论创新的动力和检验标准，理论创新要指导实践，为实践服务。人的认识是由感性认识到理性认识又回到实践、在实践中检验和发展的过程，理论创新也是一个不断科学总结新经验、并在实践中不断发展、丰富、完善的过程，不断从群众中来，到群众中去的过程。实践创新指实践领域的新的突破、变革和飞跃，如制度和体制创新、技术革命技术革新等皆属于此。实践创新推动理论创新，理论创新又指导和推动实践创新，两者是相互促进的。 实践有着诸多的含义，经典的观点是主观见之于客观，包含客观对于主观的必然及主观对于客观的必然。马克思主要强调人的社会实践，强调实践的社会性。 作为新时代的大学生，积极参加社会实践活动是非常有必要也是非常有意义的，我们应该在掌握理论知识的基础上，真正的走上社会，将其应用于其中。 社会实践活动有利于大学生对理论知识的转化和创新，增强运用理论知识解决实际问题的能力。社会实践使大学生接近社会和自然，获得大量的感性认识和许多有价值的新知识，同时使他们能够把自己所学的理论知识与实际现象进行比较，把抽象的理论知识逐渐转化为认识和解决实际问题的能力，把理论知识进一步转化与创新并运用与实践。

语言理论研究

语言学 一、语言理论研究 近几年“词汇扩散理论”和相关研究、“语言联盟”的概 念和相关研究、韵律构词学和韵律句法学研究、语言起源 和建模仿真的研究、语言符号的任意性和相似性研究都取 得了一些新的成果和进展，但在整体上，我国语言学研究 的理论意识仍需加强，理论研究与事实描写脱节的现象尚 未根本扭转。近年可在汉藏语同源词确定的原则、语言的 共时平面和历时平面如何交互作用、语言共性和个性的关 系等方面加强研究。 二、汉语研究 1.现代汉语研究 随着语音应用技术和相关理论的发展需求，对自然口语的 研究特别是面向语音合成的韵律研究已成为热点。词汇方 面应加强语用环境下词义变异研究和类义词的语言/方言 类型研究。形式语法研究和功能语法研究都有实质性的进 展，韵律句法和韵律词法理论渐趋深入。语言类型学比较 研究和语义系统研究较为薄弱，认知语法研究也须加强。 2.汉语方言研究 近几年研究的热点是：方言分区、方言历史层次、方言语 法的调查研究等问题。不足的是：在许多领域仍缺乏理论 探讨，未能与普通话和近代汉语研究接轨，缺少比较研究

和综合研究。建议继续以汉语方言历史层次研究和汉语方言语法研究为重点，在研究中注意横向与纵向的联系，加强比较研究。 3.历史语法词汇研究 词汇史研究开始注意常用词演变研究，专书和断代语法词汇研究都有一些新的成果。语法史方面的热点是语法化和语言接触研究。总地来看，研究比较零散，理论思考还不够深入。今后要在发掘事实和理论探讨的基础上，以建立更为翔实的汉语词汇史、语法史为目标，开展系列专题、专书、断代研究。当前，建设一个精加工的汉语史研究语料库十分必要。 4.文字学、音韵学、训诂学研究 文字学研究比较活跃，现代汉字与汉字应用研究、《说文》学与传统文字研究、古文字研究、俗字研究等方面都有长足的进步。应加强汉字理论和汉字发展史研究，规范汉字的理论研究和规范字的确定和整理等问题也很重要。音韵学、训诂学的专题研究续有推进，但传统音韵学的研究重文献考证，往往忽略与活的方音的比较；而方言音韵的研究重共时描写，往往忽略方言的历史联系和语音史的逻辑关系；训诂学在词源研究上有新进展，但从宏观着眼的论著不多。在今后的研究中，可注意参考或引进现代语言学的有关理论和方法。

大力推进实践基础上的制度创新思想汇报(多篇)

姓名：XXX 部门： XX部YOUR LOGO Your company name 2 0 X X 大力推进实践基础上的制度创新 思想汇报

大力推进实践基础上的制度创新思想汇报 尊敬的党组织： 中国特色社会主义制度，是当代中国发展进步的根本制度保障。党的十八大报告强调，中国特色社会主义道路，中国特色社会主义理论体系，中国特色社会主义制度，是党和人民90多年奋斗、创造、积累的根本成就，必须倍加珍惜、始终坚持、不断发展。在新形势下，全面建成小康社会，实现伟大中国梦，必须继续深化改革开放，大力推进实践基础上的制度创新，构建系统完备、科学规范、运行有效的制度体系。 制度带有根本性、全局性、稳定性和长期性。在长期的革命、建设和改革进程中，我们党坚持以马克思主义为指导，把制度设计建立在对我国国情的深刻认识上，建立在对共产党执政规律、社会主义建设规律、人类社会发展规律的深刻把握上，形成了中国特色社会主义制度。这一制度是当代中国发展进步的根本制度保障，集中体现了中国特色社会主义的特点和优势。特别是在改革开放以来我国取得伟大成就的发展过程中，中国特色社会主义制度发挥了无可替代的重要作用。 制度建设离不开制度创新。创新是一个民族进步的灵魂，是一个国家兴旺发达的不竭动力，也是一个政党永葆生机的源泉。邓小平同志多次强调，要切实改革并完善党和国家的制度，从制度上保证党和国家政治生活的民主化、经济管理的民主化、整个社会生活的民主化，促进现代化建设事业的顺利发展。正是遵循这一重要思想，我们党不断完善和发展社会主义制度，推动中国特色社会主义事业取得了巨大成就。 中国特色社会主义实践在不断推进，中国特色社会主义制度也必 第2 页共13 页

《中国特色社会主义理论与实践研究》学习心得体会

《中国特色社会主义理论与实践研究》学习心得体会 《中国特色社会主义理论与实践研究》学习心得体会本学期，我学习了《中国特色社会主义理论与实践研究》的课程，在上课过程中，学到了许多知识，对马克思主义与中国实际相结合的科学理论指导有了更进一步的认识，中国特色社会主义必须坚持社会主义经济建设、政治建设、文化建设、社会建设“四位一体”协调发展、共同推进，只有这样，才能更稳、更好、更快的全面建设中国特色社会主义。在此，浅谈一下对这门课的学习心得体会。 不同于以前政治课灌输形式的授课方式，本学期政治课老师采用新型的教学方法，每次课都有不同的老师给我们上课，使我们领略不同老师的上课风采，又使得上课内容更加新颖，使枯燥无味的政治课变得趣味而生动。本学期政治课老师将本节课的内容分成七个主题，分别是当代中国的基本国情，中国特色社会主义经济建设，中国特色社会主义政治建设，中国特色社会主义文化建设，中国特色社会主义社会建设，中国特色社会主义生态文明建设以及当代中国与实践。每一个专题由最擅长的老师进行讲解，使我们收获颇丰。 学习完了《中国特色社会主义理论与实践研究》，使我更加坚定了要坚决拥护中国共产党的领导，一切听党指挥，没有共产党，就没有新中国。坚持中国共产党的领导是走中国特色社会主义道路的根本保证，这不仅因为这条道路是中国共产党开创的，而且只有坚持中国共产党的领导，中国特色社会主义道路才能始终坚持和不断推进。中国特色社会主义是前无古人的开创性事业，前进的道路并不平坦，会遇到各种困难和风险，包括可以预料的和难以预料的，来自国内的和来自国外的，经济生活中的和社会政治生活中的困难和风险，顺利推进中国特色社会主义伟大事业需要有一个坚强的领导核心。历史和现实证明，在中国，只有中国共产党才是这样的坚强领导核心，才具有强大的凝聚力和领导能力。 纵观历史的发展，中国能够在世界舞台上站稳脚步，这与始终坚持中国特色科学主义密不可分。20世纪后期震撼世界的重大事件——苏东剧变之所以发生，从历史原因来说，苏东国家在思想理论、体制制度上长期处于僵化状态，改革的成效不大，经济上的困难诱发政治危机和民族矛盾，使社会主义逐渐失去了应有的活力；从现实原因来说，苏东国家主动放弃了马克思主义在意识形

新公共管理理论

新公共管理理论 百科名片 新公共管理（new public management,NPM）是80年代以来兴盛、美等西方国家的一种新的公共行政理论和管理模式，也是近年来西方规模空前的行政改革的主体指导思想之一。它以现代经济学为自己的理论基础，主张在政府的等公共部门广泛采用私营部门成功的管理方法和竞争机制，重视公共服务的产出，强调文官对社会公众的响应力和政治敏感性，倡导在人员录用、任期、工资及其他人事行政环节上实行更加灵活、富有成效的管理。 新公共管理理论概念 20世纪70年代末以来，西方发达资本主义国家实行的政府改革，引起了极大的社会反响。“重塑政府运动”、“企业型政府”、“政府新模式”、“市场化政府”、“代理政府”、“国家市场化”、“国家中空化”等，只是对这场改革的不同称谓。人们普遍认为，区别于传统公共行政典范的、新的公共管理模式正在出现。赫克谢尔（C.Heckscher）指出，政府改革打破了单向的等级指挥关系，建立了互动交流和导向管理，并开始向“后官僚组织”变迁[1]。而巴扎雷（Michael Barzelay）说，摒弃官僚制的时代已经到来，公共管理由重视“效率”转而重视服务质量和顾客满意度，由自上而下的控制转向争取成员的认同和争取对组织使命和工作绩效的认同[2]。“重塑政府”运动的积极倡导者奥斯本和盖布勒总结美国改革地方政府和联邦政府的经验，宣扬政府管理的新范式[3]。胡德（Christopher Hood）把西方国家的政府改革所体现出来的政府管理新模式称作新公共管理典范[4]。“新公共管理”实践催生出不同于传统公共行政理论的理论新范式。这就是新公共管理理论。 新公共管理理论产生的历史背景 自上世纪中叶开始，西方发达资本主义国家普遍实行“福利国家”制度。它们运用凯恩斯主义经济学指导国家的经济活动，试图依靠政府的作用来弥补市场的不足。然而过了多年，“福利国家”制度并未取得如愿的经济增长和社会满意度。上世纪六七十年代以来，经济滞胀、政府扩大支出产生高税收、政府公共服务无效率，造成社会普遍不满，最终导致意识形态变革。人们开始从政治上批判“福利国家”的政策基础，主张以自由市场、个人责任、个人主义来重塑国家和社会。在意识形态上崛起的“新右派”思想，主要来源于自由经济思想、新制度经济学和公共选择经济学。它强调自由市场的价值，批评政府干预的弊端，主张用市场过程取代政治或政府过程来配置社会资源并且做出相应的制度安排。它认为国家和政府作为非市场力量，会扭曲社会资源的有效配置。高税收将资源从“创造财富”的私营部门转移到“消费财富”的公共部门，妨碍经济增长和削减社会福利。只有让市场进行资源的最佳配置，

“语言和语言研究”含义起源历史与发展

语言和语言研究 语言和文字曾经是人们崇拜的对象 语言是人类的创造，只有人类有真正的语言。许多动物也能够发出声音来表示自己的感情或者在群体中传递信息。但是这都只是一些固定的程式，不能随机变化。只有人类才会把无意义的语音按照各种方式组合起来，成为有意义的语素，再把为数众多的语素按照各种方式组合成话语，用无穷变化的形式来表示变化无穷的意义。 人类创造了语言之后又创造了文字。文字是语言的视觉形式。文字突破了口语所受空间和时间的限制，能够发挥更大的作用。 语言和文字是人类自己创造的，可是在语言文字的神奇作用面前，人们又把它当做神物崇拜起来。他们用语言来祝福，用语言来诅咒。他们选用吉利的字眼做自己的名字，做城市的名字，做器物和店铺的名字。他们甚至相信一个人的名字跟人身祸福相连，因而名字要避讳。皇帝的名字、长官的名字、祖宗和长辈的名字不能叫，一般人也都在“名”之外取一个“号”，彼此不称名而称号。在后世，认为这是礼貌；在远古，这是人身保护。现代各地口语里也常常有些词语起源于避讳；不久以前，很多行业有各自的避讳字眼。从前有些人家，因为小孩儿不懂得避讳，在堂屋里贴一张纸条“童言无忌”，意思是小孩儿说的话不算数。 文字的发明，古人更加认为是一件了不起的大事。《淮南子》里说:“昔者仓颉作书而天雨粟，鬼夜哭。”最能表示文字的神力的是符箓，这是跟口语里的咒语相当的东西。一般的文字也都沾上迷信的色彩，有字的纸不能乱扔，要放在有“敬惜字纸”标签的容器里，积聚起来烧掉。文字里边当然也有避讳，嘴里不能说的名字，纸上也不能写；必得要写就得借用同音字，或者缺一笔。 语言研究的开始和发展 语文学的兴起有了语言，人们用来抒情达意；有了文字，人们用来记言记事。 于是有了书册，世代相传，成为经典。为了方便后世的人读通这些经典，有人出来加以解释，这样就产生了语文学，这是语言学的早期形式。把语言文字从崇拜的对象改变为研究的对象（或研究兼崇拜的对象），这是一大进步。 为了读通古书而产生语文学，这是中国与西方──印度、希腊、罗马相同的，但是表现的形式不同。西方用的是拼音文字，中国用的是汉字。汉字自成一种体系，跟语言的配合关系比较复杂。这就使得中国的语文学和西方的语文学呈现不同的面貌。 中国语文学的重点是汉字的形、音、义之间的错综复杂的关系。语文学的著作大致有四种形式：①随经典本文加注字音字义，往往跟“串讲”相连。也有汇集成书的。如陆德明的《经