Reflectionson Process Researchseminar

大学英语指南英文A Guide to University EnglishUniversity is an exciting time, and one of the most significant challenges many students face is adapting to the language demands of higher education. Whether you are a native English speaker or learning English as a second language, the academic style and vocabulary required in university classes and assignments can be vastly different from what you are used to. However, with the right preparation and strategies, you can succeed in mastering university-level English.One of the key differences between high school and university-level English is the emphasis on critical thinking and analysis. In high school, the focus is often on recalling and summarizing information. At the university level, instructors expect you to delve deeper, to evaluate arguments, to consider multiple perspectives, and to develop your own well-reasoned opinions. This shift can be daunting, but it is essential for success in your studies.To develop your critical thinking skills, it is important to engage actively with the course materials. Do not simply read or listen passively - instead, ask questions, challenge assumptions, and look for connections between different ideas and concepts. Take notes that go beyond just listing facts and instead capture your own thoughts and reflections. When writing essays or research papers, make sure to present a clear thesis statement and support it with evidence from reliable sources.In addition to critical thinking, university-level English also requires a more formal and academic writing style. Gone are the days of casual, conversational language. Instead, you will need to master the conventions of academic writing, which include using appropriate tone, avoiding contractions and slang, and citing sources correctly. Pay close attention to the formatting and citation style specified by your instructor, whether it is APA, MLA, or another style.One of the most important aspects of academic writing is the ability to synthesize information from multiple sources. Rather than relying on a single textbook or website, you will be expected to consult a variety of scholarly sources, such as journal articles, books, and credible online resources. Carefully evaluate the reliability and relevance of these sources, and then integrate the information into your own original analysis and arguments.Vocabulary is another crucial component of university-level English. The language used in academic texts and class discussions can be highly specialized and technical, covering a wide range of disciplines from the sciences to the humanities. To keep up, you will need to expand your vocabulary and develop strategies for understanding unfamiliar terms. This might involve using context clues, consulting dictionaries or glossaries, or even studying word roots and prefixes.Effective note-taking is also essential for success in university English. Whether you are attending a lecture, participating in a seminar, or reading a textbook, you will need to capture the key ideas and information in a concise and organized manner. Experiment with different note-taking methods, such as outlining, mind mapping, or the Cornell method, to find the approach that works best for you.Finally, do not underestimate the importance of active class participation. University instructors often use discussion-based formats, and they expect students to engage actively with the material and with each other. This can be challenging for some students, particularly those who are more introverted or who are learning English as a second language. However, participating in class discussions not only helps you better understand the course content but also demonstrates to your instructor that you are actively engaged and invested in your learning.In conclusion, navigating the language demands of university-level English can be a significant challenge, but with the right strategies and mindset, you can succeed. By developing critical thinking skills, mastering academic writing conventions, expanding your vocabulary, honing your note-taking abilities, and actively participating in class, you can become a confident and effective communicator in the university setting. Remember, the journey may be challenging, but the rewards of mastering university-level English will serve you well throughout your academic and professional career.。

心得体会三个更加注重心得体会英文回答：Three Cs to Enhance Reflection:1. Clarity: Ensure your insights and observations are well-articulated and expressed with precision. Avoid ambiguous or imprecise language. Example: Instead of saying "The experience taught me a lot," write "The project taught me the importance of meticulous planning and effective communication."2. Connection: Demonstrate how your experiences and reflections relate to broader concepts, theories, or real-world contexts. Example: After attending a seminar on leadership, write "The principles discussed resonated with my experiences as a team manager, confirming the importance of fostering collaboration and empowering others."3. Contribution: Highlight the value and significanceof your insights. Explain how your reflections can contribute to personal growth, professional development, or the advancement of knowledge. Example: After completing a research project, write "My findings not only deepen my understanding of the topic but also have potential implications for industry practices."中文回答：更加注重心得体会的三大原则。

John Benjamins Publishing CompanyThis is a contribution from Target 22:1© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyThis electronic file may not be altered in any way.The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: ). Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at ObituaryProf. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans J. VermeerHeidemarie SalevskyBerlin“cuncta fluunt, omnisque vagans formatur imago; ipsa quoque adsiduo labunturtempora motu, non secus ac flumen; neque enim consistere flumen nec levis horapotest: sed ut unda inpellitur unda urgeturque prior veniente urgetque priorem,tempora sic fugiunt pariter pariterque sequuntur et nova sunt semper; nam quodfuit ante, relictum est, fitque, quod haut fuerat, momentaque cuncta novantur.”(Ovid : Metamorphoses, Book XV: 177–185)The community of translation scholars has lost one of its most distinguished members. On February 4, 2010, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans Josef Vermeer died in Hei-delberg, Germany. He would have turned eighty on September 24 of this year. His family placed the following words above the announcement of his death: “When an old man dies a library burns.” I would like to modify this statement somewhat: “When a scholar of Hans Vermeer’s calibre dies a library burns.”Hans Vermeer was a very special kind of person. Right until the final weeks of his life he devoted his energies to his chosen field, Translation Studies. He did pio-neering work in shedding light on translating and interpreting. The announcement of his death posted by his colleagues, friends and pupils (Süddeutsche Zeitung, Feb-ruary 13, 2010) lists 41 names, including such well-known professors of our disci-pline as Rosemary Arrojo, Justa Holz-Mänttäri, Mary Snell-Hornby, Klaus Kaindl, Gauti Kristmansson, Franz Pöchhacker, Erich Prunč, Katharina Reiß, Miriam Sh-lesinger, Gideon Toury and Lawrence Venuti to mention just a few.Hans Vermeer was a translation scholar who had the ability to navigate the paradigm shifts in theory, to follow the numerous different threads in history and to demonstrate how these run in parallel, cross each other, gradually intertwine or interconnect. He was at ease in adjacent disciplines such as philosophy or rhetoric, and au fait with translators’ comments on their work in the past and present, as well as with developments in literary history and Bible translations. Hans Ver-meer was equally at home with the absolutization of the idea in Plato, the un-successful imitatio concept of the Renaissance, the culturally sensitive approaches2Heidemarie Salevskyof Wilhelm von Humboldt and Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher and the relapse into reductionism associated with the ostensibly rigorous scholarship of the 19th-century.In his quest for the roots — always using the relevant languages — Hans Ver-meer gained insights for the present era, identified fundamental positions as ex-planations and conditions for resulting attitudes in theory and practice, engaged in source criticism, pointed out explicit and implicit theoretical approaches and provided impressive illustrations of the links between “external” and “internal”translation history. Hans Vermeer embedded theoretical approaches in the course of translation history, unearthing examples to support the skopos theory which he established. Even so, he never failed to point out, to quote Hamlet’s words “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”, that no theory is unrelated to space, time and situation. This was very helpful, not least in the East-West debate after German reunification, when Hans Vermeer in 1992 accepted my invitation toa visiting professorship at the Department of Translation Studies of Humboldt Uni-versity in Berlin (Institute of Slavonic Studies) which I directed at the time. Before that I had served as a visiting professor at the Ruprecht Karls University in Hei-delberg in 1991. Hans Vermeer had attended my lectures in Heidelberg and I had attended his in Berlin, both periods being marked by intensive discussions, and not just about subject-specific matters. We had first met at an international meet-ing held in the GDR in September 1989, i.e. a few weeks before the fall of the Wall.A prominent characteristic of Hans Vermeer was his openness, which alwaysproved an asset during discussions at the Research Seminar on Translation Stud-ies. When this discussion forum was established at Berlin’s Humboldt University in March 1989, it never occurred to me that the first event would be followed by another seventy six and that over the following twenty years Hans Vermeer would put on seven events either alone or together with others. I vividly remember the event in 1992 devoted to the translation of the Decalogue at the Theological Fac-ulty of Humboldt University and also the interdisciplinary colloquium to mark the 225th anniversary of the birth of the German theologian, philosopher and philolo-gist Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher in November 1993. Hans Vermeer also read a paper dealing with language and culture at the international conference held in 1995 to mark 100 years of training translators and interpreters for Russian at Berlin University (1894–1994).After my place of work had changed to Magdeburg in 1996 we had very ani-mated discussions there in 1998 about the need to change the curriculum. In 2004, at the seventieth event marking fifteen years of the Research Seminar, our discus-sions about his paper on the enhancement of translation and reflections on Jacques Derrida were just as animated. Small wonder, then, that the Research Seminar organized an honorary colloquium to mark Hans Vermeer’s seventy fifth birthdayProf. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans J. Vermeer 3 in 2005. It was met with a lively response, attracting scholars from Austria, Brazil, Britain, Finland, Turkey, the United States and several German universities.Hans Vermeer opened doors — between disciplines and between universities, for example at the conference on problems with translator and interpreter training curriculums in the former East and West Germany in November 1991, that is ata time when he held the chair of Translating and Interpreting Studies and Portu-guese at the Ruprecht Karls University in Heidelberg.Hans Vermeer always allowed us to share his scholarly curiosity and the plea-sure he derived from research. His publications, his lectures in Berlin and the pa-pers presented at the Research Seminar always took us on journeys of adventure across the centuries, sometimes involving excursions into intriguing and occa-sionally amusing thematic sideshows, and they were always manifestations of a brilliant mind of breathtaking erudition. They drew our attention to what might be and provided an opportunity to measure out the space that opened up and revealed a light that made something else visible, namely perspectives. The result was changes both in our discipline and in the way people felt and thought aboutits problems.For all those who admired Hans Vermeer not “only” as a scholar, but also asa friend, it was a great joy to see that decades of work devoted to teaching and research ultimately earned him the highest accolade a scholar can hope to receive. On January 17, 2010 the University of Mainz/Germersheim conferred an honor-ary doctorate on Hans Vermeer. This was the first to be granted in Translation Studies at any German university.At the University of Mainz in Germersheim Hans Vermeer was Professor of General and Applied Linguistics from 1971 to 1983 before he was offered the chairof Translation Studies with special reference to Portuguese at Heidelberg Univer-sity in 1984, which he held until becoming an emeritus professor in 1992. After spells as a visiting professor at Leopold Franzens University in Innsbruck/Austria from 1999 to 2002, at Boğaziçi University (Bosphorus University) in Istanbul from 2002 to 2003 and finally at Okan University in Istanbul from 2004 till the winter semester of 2007/08, Hans Vermeer returned to the University of Heidelberg andto the University of Mainz in Germany to teach in the final years of his life.The honorary doctorate was a well-deserved tribute to a scholar with over 300 publications to his credit in which he continually reappraised and questioned what he (and others) had said, displaying a stunning knowledge of literature.Hans Vermeer’s first publication can be traced back to the year 1959 and con-cerned the Portuguese language. Contributions to German studies were made from 1960 onwards, and in 1963 he began to publish works dealing with linguis-tics and indology. This was also the period when he turned to translation studies and foreign language teaching for the first time.4Heidemarie SalevskyHis editing career began in 1986 with the periodical TEXTconTEXT. The series translatorisches handeln followed in 1989 and the series TEXTconTEXT Wissen-schaft somewhat later.There is no need to mention the standard works because they are well known.But who could have written the seven volumes on the history of translation and translation theory other than someone who was as familiar with Hebrew, Greek and Latin as with various Romance languages and English, someone who was both an Indologist and well versed in the historical development of the German lan-guage.One of Hans Vermeer’s books that left a particularly deep impression on me was Skizzen zu einer Geschichte der Translation. It always seemed to me that Hans Vermeer himself lived up to the quotation (after Anguttara Nikaya 3,66) which precedes the second part of the first volume of this work:Geht nicht nach Hörensagen, Überlieferungen, Tagesmeinungen, Autorität hei-liger Schriften, Vernunftsgründen, logischen Schlüssen, Theorien, Meinungen,persönlichen Vorlieben und Autorität! Wenn ihr selber erkennt, dass etwas un-gut, verwerflich und tadelnswert ist und zu Unheil führt, dann gebt es auf. Wennihr selber erkennt, dass etwas gut, untadelig und lobenswert ist und zu Segen undHeil führt, dann macht es euch zu eigen. (Nach dem Anguttara Nikaya 3,66)1 Vermeer’s last article “Vom Altern der Texte” will be published posthumously in Berlin.Heidemarie SalevskyThe Board of Target wants to join the many colleagues mentioned by Heidemarie Salevsky in their expression of respect for the memory of Professor Hans Vermeer.They consider his work as a truly monumental contribution to the development of Translation Studies during recent decades. Several of us particularly remember Pro-fessor Vermeer as a most inspiring CERA Chair Professor at K.U. Leuven in 1990.List of books on Translation Studies1983 Aufsätze zur Translationstheorie; Heidelberg.1984 (with Katharina Reiß) Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie; Tübingen (= Linguistische Arbeiten 147) — 21991. — Finnish translation by Pauli Roinila: Mitä kään-täminen on. Teoriaa ja käytäntöa; (Helsinki 1986). — Spanish translation by Sandra Gar-cía Reina and Celia Martín de León with Heidrun Witte as consultant and coordinator:Fundamentos para una teoría funcional de la traducción; (Madrid 1996).1986 voraus-setzungen für eine translationstheorie — einige kapitel kultur- und sprachtheorie.Heidelberg.Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Hans J. Vermeer 5 1992 Skizzen zu einer Geschichte der Translation, Bd. 1 und 2; (Frankfurt a. M.) (= thw 6.1f). 1996 A skopos theory of translation (Some arguments for and against); Heidelberg (= TEXTcon-TEXT Wissenschaft 1)Die Welt, in der wir übersetzen. Drei translatologische Überlegungen zu Realität, Vergleichund Prozeß; Heidelberg (= TEXTconTEXT Wissenschaft 2).Übersetzen als Utopie — Die Übersetzungstheorie des Walter Bendix Schoenflies Benjamin;Heidelberg (= TEXTconTEXT Wissenschaft 4).Das Übersetzen im Mittelalter (13. und 14. Jahrhundert), Bd. 1: Das arabisch-lateinischeMittelalter — Bd. 2: Deutsch als Zielsprache — Bd. 3: Literaturverzeichnis und Register;Heidelberg (= TEXTconTEXT 4.1–3).2000 Das Übersetzen in Renaissance und Humanismus (15. und 16. Jahrhundert) — Band 1: Westeuropa; Band 2: Der deutschsprachige Raum, Literatur und Indices; Heidelberg:TEXTconTEXT (= TEXTconTEXT Wissenschaft 6f).2006 Luhmann’s “Social Systems” Theory: Preliminary Fragments for a Theory of Translation;Berlin: Frank & Timme.Versuch einer Intertheorie der Translation; Berlin: Frank & Timme.2007 Ausgewählte Vorträge zur Translation und anderen Themen — Selected Papers on Transla-tion and other Subjects; Berlin: Frank & Timme (= TransÜD 13).Note1. The Standard English translation (from the Pali, by Ñanamoli Thera) of the fragment of the Salha Suttra on which Vermeer draws here reads as follows (see /accesstoinsight/html/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.066.than.html:… do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with a liking for a view after pondering it or with someone else’s ability or with the thought ‘The monk is our teacher.’ When you know in yourself ‘These things are unprof-itable, liable to censure, condemned by the wise, being adopted and put into effect, they lead to harm and suffering,’ then you should abandon them.…W hen you know in yourself: ‘These things are profitable, blameless, commended by the wise, being adopted and put into effect they lead to welfare and happiness,’ then you should practice them and abide in them…Author’s addressProfessor Dr. Heidemarie SalevskyFachbereich Kommunikation und MedienHochschule Magdeburg-Stendal (FH)Breitscheidstr. 2, Haus 1, Raum 1.12D-39114 MAGDEBURGGermanyheidemarie.salevsky@hs-magdeburg.de。

Mirror stageLacan's first official contribution to psychoanalysis was the mirror stage, which he described as "formative of the function of the I as revealed in psychoanalytic experience." By the early 1950s, he came to regard the mirror stage as more than a moment in the life of the infant; instead, it formed part of the permanent structure of subjectivity. In "the Imaginary order," their own image permanently catches and captivates the subject. Lacan explains that "the mirror stage is a phenomenon to which I assign a twofold value. In the first place, it has historical value as it marks a decisive turning-point in the mental development of the child. In the second place, it typifies an essential libidinal relationship with the body-image".[35]As this concept developed further, the stress fell less on its historical value and more on its structural value.[36] In his fourth Seminar, "La relation d'objet," Lacan states that "the mirror stage is far from a mere phenomenon which occurs in the development of the child. It illustrates the conflictual nature of the dual relationship."The mirror stage describes the formation of the Ego via the process of objectification, the Ego being the result of a conflict between one's perceived visual appearance and one's emotional experience. This identification is what Lacan called alienation. At six months, the baby still lacks physical co-ordination. The child is able to recognize themselves in a mirror prior to the attainment of control over their bodily movements. The child sees their image as a whole and the synthesis of this image produces a sense of contrast with the lack of co-ordination of the body, which is perceived as a fragmented body. The child experiences this contrast initially as a rivalry with their image, because the wholeness of the image threatens the child with fragmentation—thus the mirror stage gives rise to an aggressive tension between the subject and the image. To resolve this aggressive tension, the child identifies with the image: this primary identification with the counterpart forms the Ego.[36] Lacan understands this moment of identification as a moment of jubilation, since it leads to an imaginary sense of mastery; yet when the child compares their own precarious sense of mastery with the omnipotence of the mother, a depressive reaction may accompany the jubilation.[37]Lacan calls the specular image "orthopaedic," since it leads the child to anticipate the overcoming of its "real specific prematurity of birth." The vision of the body as integrated and contained, in opposition to the child's actual experience of motor incapacity and the sense of his or her body as fragmented, induces a movement from "insufficiency to anticipation."[38] In other words, the mirror image initiates and then aids, like a crutch, the process of the formation of an integrated sense of self.In the mirror stage a "misunderstanding" (méconnaissance) constitutes the Ego—the "me" (moi) becomes alienated from itself through the introduction of an imaginary dimension to the subject. The mirror stage also has a significant symbolic dimension, due to the presence of the figure of the adult who carries the infant. Having jubilantly assumed the image as their own, the child turns their head towards this adult, who represents the big Other, as if to call on the adult to ratify this image.[39]35. Lacan, J., "Some Reflections on the Ego" in Écrits36.Dylan Evans, An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysiscan, J., "La relation d'objet" in Écrits.can, J., "The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I", in Écrits: a selection, London, Routledge Classics, 2001; p. 5can, Tenth Seminar, "L'angoisse," 1962–1963。

BIBLIOGRAPHYAbercrombie, D. (1965). “Pseudo-procedures in linguistics” in Studies in Phonet-ics and Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.Alexander, P. (1963). A preface to the logic of science. London: Sheed and Ward. Allen, J.P.B. and Corder, S.P. (eds.) (1973-1977). The Edinburgh Course in Ap-plied Linguistics. Vol.1-4. London: Oxford University Press.Allen, J.P.B. and Widdowson, H.G. (1974). “Teaching the communicative use of English”. International Review of Applied Linguistics 12: 1-21.Allen, W.S. (1966). “On the linguistic study of languages” in Strevens (ed.) 1966. Alston, W.P. (1963/1968). “Meaning and use”. Philosophical Quarterly 13: 107-24. Reprinted in Parkinson (ed.) 1968.Ardener, E. (ed.) (1971). Social anthropology and language. London: Tavistock. Armstrong, R.P. (1959). “Content analysis in folkloristics” in Pool (ed.) 1959. Ashby, M.C. (1972). Some analyses of discourse. Birmingham University, mimeo.Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Austin, J.L. (1963). “The meaning of a word” in Caton (ed.) 1963.Bach, E. (1968). “Nouns and noun phrases” in Bach & Harms (eds.) 1968. Bach, E. and Harms, R.T. (eds.) (1968). Universals in linguistic theory. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Bar-Hillel, Y. (1967). Review of Fodor & Katz, 1964. Language 43: 526-50.Bar-Hillel, Y. (1970). Aspects of language. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.Bar-Hillel, Y. (1971). “Out of the pragmatic wastebasket”. Linguistic Inquiry 2(3): 401-6.Bazell, C.E., Catford, J.C., Halliday, M.A.K. and Robins, R.H. (eds.) (1966). In memory of J.R. Firth. London: Longmans.Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control, Vol. 1. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Billows, F.L. (1961). The techniques of language teaching. London: Longmans. Blansitt, E.L. (ed.) (1967). Report of the 18th Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. Georgetown monographs No. 20. Wash-ington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Bloomfield, L. (1935). Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.Blom, J.P. and Gumperz, J.J. (1972). “Social meaning in linguistic structures: code-switching in Norway” in Gumperz & Hymes (eds.) 1972.Bolinger, D.L. (1952/1965). “Linear modification”. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 67: 1117-44. Reprinted in Bolinger 1965.Page references to the reprint.Bolinger, D.L. (1965). Forms of English. Tokyo: Hokuon.237238 An applied linguistic approach to discourse analysisBolinger, D. (1971). “Semantic overloading: a restudy of the verb remind”. Lan-guage 47 (3): 522-47.Boomer, D.S. and Laver, J.D.M. (1968). “Slips of the tongue”. British Journal of Disorders of Communication 3: 2-12.Boyd, J. and Thorne, J.P. (1969). “The semantics of modal verbs”. Journal of Linguistics 5: 57-74.Brookes, H.F. and Ross, H. (1967). English as a Foreign Language for science students. London: Heinemann.Bruton, J.G. (1965). “For the young teacher: the presentation of material”. Eng-lish Language Teaching 19 (4): 179-82.Campbell, R. and Wales, R. (1970). “The study of language acquisition” in Lyons (ed.) 1970.Candlin, C.N. (1972). Acquiring communicative competence. Paper given at the 32nd Dutch Philologists’ Conference, Utrecht, April, 1972, mimeo. Catford, J.C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation. London: Oxford Univer-sity Press.Caton, C.E. (ed.) (1963). Philosophy and Ordinary Language. Urbana: Univer-sity of Illinois Press.Cherry, C. (1966). On human communication. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Chomsky, N. (1961/64). “Some methodological remarks on generative grammar”.Word 17 (1961): 219-39. Reprinted as “Degrees of grammaticalness” in Fodor & Katz (eds.) 1964. Page references to the reprint.Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Press.Chomsky, N. (1968). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpre-tation, mimeo.Corder, S.P. (1973). “Linguistic theory and applied linguistics” in Corder & Roulet (eds.) 1973.Corder, S.P. and Roulet, E. (eds.) (1973). Theoretical linguistic models in ap-plied linguistics. Brussels: AIMAV, and Paris: Didier.Coulthard, R.M., Sinclair, J.McH., Forsyth, I.J. and Ashby, M.C. (1972). The Eng-lish used by teachers and pupils, SSRC report, Birmingham University, mimeo.Criper, C. and Widdowson, H.G. (1975). “Sociolinguistics and language teaching”in Allen & Corder (eds.) 1975, Vol. 2.Crystal, D. and Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English style. London: Longmans. Curme, G.O. (1931). English syntax. New York: D.C. Heath & Co.Dakin, J. (1970). “Explanations”. Journal of Linguistics 6 (2): 199-214.Daneš, F. (1964). “A three-level approach to syntax”. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 1: 225-40.De Saussure, F. (1955). Cours de linguistique générale, 5th Edition. Paris: Payot.Bibliography239Dineen, F.P. (1967). An introduction to general linguistics. New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston.Dixon, R.M.W. (1965). What is language? A new approach to linguistic de-scription. London: Longmans.Dressler, W. (1970). “Towards a semantic deep structure of discourse grammar”in Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society,Illinois.Ellis, J. (1966). “On contextual meaning” in Bazell et al. (eds.) 1966.Enkvist, N.E., Spencer, J. and Gregory, M.J. (1964). Linguistics and style. Lon-don: Oxford University Press.Ervin-Tripp, S. (1964). “An analysis of the interaction of language, topic and lis-tener” in Hymes (ed.) 1964.Ervin-Tripp, S. (1971). “Sociolinguistics” in Fishman (ed.) 1971.Ewer, J.R. and Latorre, G. (1967). “Preparing an English course for students ofscience”. English Language Teaching 21 (3): 221-9.Ewer, J.R. and Latorre, G. (1969). A Course in Basic Scientific English. London:Longmans.Ferguson, C.A. (1959/1964). “Diglossia”. Word 15: 325-40. Reprinted in Hymes(ed.) 1964. Page references to the reprint.Fillmore, C.J. (1968). “The case for case” in Bach and Harms (eds.) 1968.Fillmore, C.J. (1969). “Types of lexical information” in Kiefer (ed.) 1969.Fillmore, C.J. (1971). “Verbs of judging: an exercise in semantic description” inFillmore & Langendoen (eds.) 1971.Fillmore, C.J. and Langendoen, D.T. (eds.) (1971). Studies in linguistic seman-tics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Firbas, J. (1972). “On the interplay of prosodic and non-prosodic means of Func-tional Sentence Perspective” in Fried (ed.) 1972.Firth, J.R. (1957). Papers in linguistics (1934-1951). London: Oxford UniversityPress.Fishman, J.A. (ed.) (1968). Readings in the sociology of language. The Hague:Mouton.Fishman, J.A. (ed.) (1971). Advances in the sociology of language, Vol. 1. TheHague: Mouton.Fishman, J.A. (1971). “The sociology of language: an inter-disciplinary social sci-ence approach to language in Society” in Fishman (ed.) 1971.Fodor, J.A. (1970). “Three reasons for not deriving kill from cause to die”. Lin-guistic Inquiry 1 (4): 429-38.Fodor, J.A. and Garrett, M. (1966). “Some reflections on competence and per-formance” in Lyons & Wales (eds.) 1966.Fodor, J.A. and Katz, J.J. (eds.) (1964). The structure of language: reading in thephilosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Fowler, R. (1971). The languages of literature: some linguistic contributions tocriticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.240 An applied linguistic approach to discourse analysisFrake, C.O. (1964). “How to ask for a drink in Subanun”. American Anthropolo-gist 66 (2): 127-32.Fried, V. (ed.) (1972). The Prague school of linguistics and language teaching.London: Oxford University Press.Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Garfinkel, H. (1972). “Remarks on ethnomethodology” in Gumperz & Hymes (eds.) 1972.Garner, R. (1971). “‘Presupposition’ in philosophy and linguistics” in Fillmore & Langendoen (eds.) 1971.Geertz, C. (1960). The religion of Java. Glencoe: Free Press.Gladwin, T. and Sturtevant, W.C. (eds.) (1962). Anthropology and human behav-ior. Washington, D.C.: Anthropological Society of Washington. Greenbaum, S. (1969). Studies in English adverbial usage. London: Longmans. Gregory, M. (1967). “Aspects of varieties differentiation”. Journal of Linguistics3 (2): 177-98.Gumperz, J.J. (1964). “Linguistic and social interaction in two communities”American Anthropologist 66 (6, Pt. 2): 137-54.Gumperz, J.J. (1972). Introduction to Gumperz & Hymes (eds.) 1972. Gumperz, J.J. and Hymes, D.H. (eds.) (1972). Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Halle, M. (ed.) (1962). Preprints of papers for the 9th International Congress of Linguists. Cambridge, Mass.Halliday, M.A.K. (1961). “Categories of the theory of grammar”. Word 17: 241-92.Halliday, M.A.K. (1962). “The linguistic study of literary texts” in Halle (ed.) 1962. Halliday, M.A.K. (1964). “Syntax and the consumer” in Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 17. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University, pp.11-24.Halliday, M.A.K. (1966). “Descriptive linguistics in literary studies” in Halliday & McIntosh 1966.Halliday, M.A.K. (1967-68). “Notes on transitivity and theme in English”. Jour-nal of Linguistics 3: 37-81, 199-244, and 4: 179-215.Halliday, M.A.K. (1969). “Relevant models of grammar”. Educational Review 22(1): 26-37.Halliday, M.A.K. (1970). “Functional diversity in language as seen from a consid-eration of modality and mood in English”. Foundations of Language 6 (3): 322-61.Halliday, M.A.K. (1970a). “Language structure and language function” in Lyons (ed.) 1970.Halliday, M.A.K. (1970b). The place of ‘Functional Sentence Perspective’ in the system of linguistic description. A report prepared for the international Sym-Bibliography241posium on Functional Sentence Perspective. Mārianske Lāznē, October 1970,mimeo. University College, London.Halliday, M.A.K. (1973). Talking one’s way in: a socio-linguistic perspective onlanguage and learning. Paper prepared for the S.S.R.C. Research Seminar onLanguage and Learning. Edinburgh, January 1973, mimeo.Halliday, M.A.K. and McIntosh, A. (1966). Patterns of language: papers in gen-eral, descriptive and applied linguistics. London: Longmans.Halliday, M.A.K., McIntosh, Angus and Strevens, Peter (1964). The linguisticsciences and language teaching. London: Longmans.Harris, Z. (1952/1964). “Discourse analysis”. Language 28: 1-30. Reprinted inFodor & Katz (eds.) 1964. Page references to the reprint.Hasan, R. (1968). Grammatical cohesion in spoken and written English, PartOne. Programme in linguistics and English Teaching Paper No. 7. London:Longmans.Haugen, E. (1966). “Dialect, language, nation”. American Anthropologist 68 (4):922-7.Hawkins, W.F. and Mackin, R. (1966). English studies series 3: physics, mathe-matics, biology, applied science. London: Oxford University Press.Hendricks, W.O. (1967). “On the notion ‘beyond the sentence’”. Linguistics 37:12-51.Hill, L.A. (1967). Selected articles on the teaching of English as a Foreign Lan-guage. London: Oxford University Press.Hilyer, R.G. (1970). “An essay in discourse analysis”. Paper delivered at Linguis-tics Association Meeting, Norwich, October 1970.Hinde, R.A. (ed.) (1972). Non-verbal communication. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Hockett, C.F. (1968). The state of the art. The Hague: Mouton.Hough, G. (1969). Style and stylistics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Householder, F.W. (1970). Review of Hockett, 1968. Journal of Linguistics 6 (1):129-34.Howatt, A.P.R. (1968). The Edinburgh audio-visual course: aims and princi-ples. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Department of Applied Linguis-tics.Huddleston, R.D., Hudson, R.A., Winter, E. and Henrici, A. (1968). Sentence andclause in scientific English. London: University College London. Communi-cation Research Centre. Report of the O.S.T.I. programme in the linguisticproperties of scientific English, mimeo.Hymes, D.H. (1962/1968). “The ethnography of speaking” in Gladwin & Sturte-vant (eds.) 1962. Reprinted in Fishman 1968. Page references to the reprint.Hymes, D.H. (ed.) (1964). Language in culture and society: a reader in linguis-tics and anthropology. New York: Harper and Row.Hymes, D.H. (1971). On communicative competence. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.242 An applied linguistic approach to discourse analysisJacobs, R.A. and Rosenbaum, P.A. (1968). English transformational grammar.Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell/Ginn.Jacobs, R.A. and Rosenbaum, P.A. (eds.) (1970). Readings in English transfor-mational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.Jakobson, R. (1960). “Concluding statement: linguistics and poetics” in Sebeck (ed.) 1960.Jakobson, R. and Halle, M. (1956). Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mou-ton.Jakobson, R. and Levi-Strauss, C. (1962/1970). “Charles Baudelaire’s ‘Les chats’”.L’Homme 2. Reprinted in Lane (ed.) 1970.Joos, M. (1962). “The five clocks”. International Journal of American Linguis-tics. Part. 5, Vol. 28, No. 2.Kac, M.B. (1969). “Should the passive transformation be obligatory?”. Journal of Linguistics 5 (1): 145-7.Karttunen, L. (1970). On the semantics of complement sentences. Paper deliv-ered at the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, mimeo. Karttunen, L. (1971). “Implicative verbs”. Language 47 (2): 340-58.Katz, J.J. (1964). “Semi-sentences” in Fodor & Katz (eds.) 1964.Katz, J.J. and Fodor, J.A. (1963/64). “The structure of a semantic theory”. Lan-guage 39: 170-210. Reprinted in Fodor & Katz (eds.) 1964. Page references to the reprint.Katz, J.J. and Postal, P.M. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions.Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Kiefer, F. (ed.) (1969). Studies in syntax and semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel. Labov, W. (1969). The study of non-standard English. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.Labov, W. (1970). “The study of language in its social context”. Studium Gener-ale 23: 30-87.Lackstrom, J.E., Selinker, L. and Trimble, L. (1970). “Grammar and technical English” in Lugton (ed.) 1970.Lackstrom, J.E., Selinker, L. and Trimble, L. (1972). Technical rhetorical princi-ples and grammatical choice. Paper read at 3rd International Congress of Applied Linguistics, mimeo.Lakoff, G. (1968). “Instrumental adverbs and the concept of deep structure”.Foundations of Language 4: 4-29.Lakoff, G. (1970). Linguistics and natural logic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Lakoff, G. (1970a). Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Lakoff, R. (1969). “Transformational grammar and language teaching”. Language Learning 19, Nos. 1-2.Lane, M. (ed.) (1970). Structuralism: a reader. London: Jonathan Cape.Bibliography243Langendoen, D.T. (1969). The study of syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.Leech, G.N. (1965). “‘The bread I break’ – language and interpretation”. A Re-view of English Literature 6 (2): 66-75.Leech, G.N. (1966). English in advertising. London: Longmans.Leech, G.N. (1969). Towards a semantic description of English. London:Longmans.Lees, R.B. (1963). The grammar of English nominalizations. The Hague: Mou-ton.Lehrer, A. (1969). “Semantic cuisine”. Journal of Linguistics 5 (1): 39-56.Levin, S.R. (1962). “Poetry and grammaticalness” in Halle (ed.) 1962.Levin, S.R. (1964). Linguistic structures in poetry. The Hague: Mouton.Lugton, R.C. (ed.) (1970). English as a second language: current issues. Lan-guage and the teacher: a series in applied linguistics. Vol. 6. Philadelphia,Pa.: The Center for Curriculum Development.Lyons, J. (1963). Structural semantics. Publications of the Philological Society,No. 20. Oxford: Blackwell.Lyons, J. (1966). “Firth’s theory of ‘meaning’” in Bazell et al. (eds.) 1966.Lyons, J. (1966a). “Towards a ‘notional’ theory of the ‘parts of speech’”. Journalof Linguistics 2 (2): 209-36.Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Lyons, J. (ed.) (1970). New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth: PenguinBooks.Lyons, J. (1972). “Human language” in Hinde (ed.) 1972.Lyons, J. and Wales, R.J. (eds.) (1966). Psycholinguistics papers. Edinburgh: TheUniversity Press.McCawley, J.D. (1968). “The role of semantics in a grammar” in Bach & Harms(eds.) 1968.Mackey. W.F. (1965). Language teaching analysis. London: Longmans.McIntosh, A. (1966). “Patterns and ranges” in Halliday & McIntosh 1966.McIntosh, A. (1966a). “Predictive statements” in Bazell et al. (eds.) 1966.Mathesius, V. (1936/1964). “On some problems of the systematic analysis ofgrammar”. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 6: 95-107. Reprinted in Vachek(ed.) 1964.Matthews, P.H. (1967). Review of Chomsky 1965. Journal of Linguistics 3 (1):119-52.Matthews, P.H. (1972). Review of Jacobs & Rosenbaum 1970. Journal of Lin-guistics 8 (1): 125-36.Morgan, J.O. (1967). “English structure above the sentence level” in Blansitt (ed.)1967.244 An applied linguistic approach to discourse analysisMorris, C. (1938). Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Palmer, F.R. (1965). A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longmans. Palmer, F.R. (ed.) (1968). Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952-59. London: Long-mans.Parkinson, G.H.R. (ed.) (1968). The theory of meaning. London: Oxford Univer-sity Press.Perren, G. (ed.) (1969). Languages for special purposes. CILT Reports and Pa-pers 1. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. Perren, G. (ed.) (1971). Science and technology in a second language. CILT Reports and Papers 7. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.Pool, I. de S. (ed.) (1959). Trends in content analysis. Urbana: University of Illi-nois Press.Postal, P.M. (1964). Constituent structure: a study of contemporary models of syntactic description. The Hague: Mouton.Posta., P.M. (1970). “On the surface verb remind”. Linguistic Inquiry 1 (1): 37-120.Poutsma, H. (1928). A grammar of late modern English. Gröningen: Noordhoff. Powlison, P.S. (1965). “A paragraph analysis of a Yagua folktale”. International Journal of American Linguistics 31 (2): 109-18.Pride, J.B. (1971). The social meaning of language. London: Oxford University Press.Pride, J.B. (1971a). “Customs and cases of verbal behaviour” in Ardener (ed.) 1971.Quirk, R. (1962). The use of English. London: Longmans.Riffaterre, M. (1966). “Describing poetic structures: two approaches to Baude-laire’s ‘Les chats’”. Yale French Studies 36/37: 200-42.Roberts, P. (1956). Patterns of English. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Roberts, P. (1962). English sentences. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Roberts, P. (1964). English syntax. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Robins, R.H. (1964). General linguistics: an introductory survey. London: Longmans.Robins, R.H. (1967). A short history of linguistics. London: Longmans.Ross, J.R. (1970). “On declarative sentences” in Jacobs & Rosenbaum (eds.) 1970. Rubin, J. (1962). “Bilingualism in Paraguay”. Anthropological Linguistics 4 (1): 52-58.Rutherford, W.E. (1968). Modern English: a textbook for foreign students. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Sacks, H. (1972). “On the analyzability of stories by children” in Bumperz & Hymes (eds.) 1972.Bibliography245Sampson, G. (mimeo). Towards a linguistic theory of reference. Yale University,mimeo.Saporta, S. (1967). “Applied linguistics and generative grammar” in Valdman (ed.)1967.Schegloff, E.A. (1971). “Notes on conversational practice: formulating place” inSudnow (ed.) 1971.Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cam-bridge: The University Press.Sebeok, T.A. (ed.) (1960). Style in language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Sebeok, T.A. (1964). “The structure and content of Chemeris charms” in Hymes(ed.) 1964.Sebeok, T.A. (ed.) (1966). Current trends in linguistics. Vol. III. The Hague:Mouton.Seuren, P.A.M. (1969). Operators and nucleus. Cambridge: The University Press.Sinclair, J. McH. (1966). “Beginning the study of lexis” in Bazell et al. (eds.) 1966.Sinclair, J. McH., Jones, S. and Daley, R. (1970). English lexical studies. OSTIReport. Birmingham: Dept. of English, University of Birmingham.Skalička, V. (1948/1964). “The need for a linguistics of ‘la parole’”. Reprinted inVachek (ed.) 1964. Page references to the reprint.Spencer, J. and Gregory, M.J. (1964). “An approach to the study of style” in Enk-vist, Spencer & Gregory 1964.Stockwell, R.P., Schachter, P. and Partee, B.H. (1968). English Syntax Project.U.C.L.A., mimeo.Strang, B.M.H. (1962). Modern English structure. London: Edward Arnold.Strawson, P.F. (1950/1968). “On referring”. Mind 59 (1950): 320-44. Reprinted inParkinson (ed.) 1968. Page references to the reprint.Strevens, P.D. (ed.) (1966). Five inaugural lectures. London: Oxford UniversityPress.Sudnow, D. (ed.) (1971). Studies in social interaction. Glencoe: Free Press.Taylor, G. (1968). Language and learning: deep structure in a chemical text.Unpublished M. Litt thesis. University of Edinburgh.Thorne, J.P. (1965). “Stylistics and generative grammars”. Journal of Linguistics1 (1): 49-59.Thorne, J.P. (1966). “On hearing sentences” in Lyons & Wales (eds.) 1966.Thorne, J.P. (1970). “Generative grammar and stylistic analysis” in Lyons (ed.)1970.Thorne, J.P. (1972). On the natural interpretation of quantifiers, mimeo.Vachek, J. (ed.) (1964). A Prague School reader in linguistics. Bloomington,Indiana: University Press.Valdman, A. (ed.) (1967). Trends in language teaching. New York: McGraw Hill.Wales, R.J. and Marshall, J.C. (1966). “Which syntax: a consumer’s guide”. Jour-nal of Linguistics 2 (2): 181-7.246 An applied linguistic approach to discourse analysisWardhaugh, R. (1970). “Language structure and language teaching”. RELC Journal 1 (1): 5-16.Weinreich, U. (1966). “Explorations in semantic theory” in Sebeok (ed.) 1966. Widdowson, H.G. (1965). A case for the teaching of English through science.Dissertation for the Diploma in Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh. Unpublished. Widdowson, H.G. (1971). “The teaching of rhetoric to students of science and technology” in Perren (ed.) 1971.Widdowson, H.G. (1972). “Stylistic analysis and literary interpretation”. The Use of English 24 (1): 28-33.Widdowson, H.G. (1972a). “Deviance and poetic communication”. Work in Pro-gress 5: 107-9. (Department of Linguistics, University of Edinburgh). Widdowson, H.G. (1972b). “A linguistic approach to written communication”.The Use of English 23 (3): 206-11.Widdowson, H.G. (1972c). “The teaching of English as communication”. English Language Teaching 27 (1): 15-19.Widdowson, H.G. (1973). “On the deviance of literary discourse”. Style 6 (2): 294-305.Widdowson, H.G. (1973a). “Directions in the teaching of discourse” in Corder & Roulet (eds.) 1973.Wilkins, D.A. (1972). Linguistics in language teaching. London: Arnold. Wilkins, D.A. (1972a). Grammatical, situational and notional syllabuses. Paper given at the 3rd International Congress of Applied Linguistics. Copenhagen, August 1972, mimeo.Wilkins, D.A. (1972b). An investigation into the linguistic and situational com-mon core in a unit of the credit system. Council of Europe, mimeo. Winburne, J.N. (1962). “Sentence sequence in discourse” in Halle (ed.) 1962. Winter, E.O. (1971). “Connection in science material” in Perren (ed.) 1971. Winterowd, W.R. (1968). Rhetoric. A synthesis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. Wolff, H. (1959/1964). “Intelligibility and inter-ethnic attitudes”. Anthropologi-cal Linguistics 1 (3): 34-41. Reprinted in Hymes 1964.Ziff, P. (1964). “On understanding ‘understanding utterances’” in Fodor & Katz (eds.) 1964.。

【副题名】从拉康的镜像阶段理论解读《了不起的盖茨比》【摘要】美国小说家司各特·菲茨杰拉德深深抓住了时代的主旋律,其中篇小说《了不起的盖茨比》生动形象地折射出美国现代化过程中个体的感受,向我们生动呈现了二十世纪二十年代处于转型时期美国社会的全景画面。

那个时代以追求喧嚣、名利、金钱为主流,放荡的性行为、欺诈等不道德行为成为“喧嚣时代”的代名词,作者也因其生动记录了浮华世象掩盖下人们生活的腐化、堕落以及精神的严重空虚,而被誉为“爵士乐时代”的代言人。

《了不起的盖茨比》因思想深度和艺术表现力而成为美国文学的典范,也因其叙事手段的多样性、文本的多义性及其深刻的历史记录享誉世界文坛。

二十世纪八十年代以来,随着各种文学理论的涌现,对《了不起的盖茨比》的研究摆脱了以往从作者生平解读文本的传统窠臼,许多专家、学者重新从新的理论视角去解读。

其中有运用女性主义观点批判小说中女性生存状况,有运用社会文化角度探讨消费主义;还有从解构主义、后殖民主义等视角去解读文本。

总而言之,对这部小书的解读主要集中在对美国梦的独特阐释、别具一格的叙事技巧和文体风格等方面,但很少有批评家和文论者从拉康的镜像阶段理论去解读《了不起的盖茨比》。

拉康的镜像理论主要是从后解构主义发展而来的心理学说,它主要关于自我的建构、自我身份的确立;父亲之名及其象征意义;镜像误认以及镜像认可的一种理论。

论文以拉康的镜像阶段理论为切入点,进一步发掘盖茨比悲剧的深层原因,详细考察主人公梦想失败的自身因素,旨在提供一种新的解读途径,以便在前人研究成果的基础上,更深入地探究盖茨比悲剧的必然性。

小说中的主人公因拒绝父亲之名的存在以及镜像混淆及误认,从而一直生活在现实和镜像之间的混乱状态之中,最终导致无根的状态和自我的迷失。

论文主要分五个部分。

第一部分首先简要介绍作者生平及其文学成就,并就本论文的写作目的和理论视角进行简要说明,其次回顾了国内外对《了不起的盖茨比》的研究现状以及最新进展。

第1篇一、活动背景随着我国教育改革的深入推进，英语教育作为基础学科之一，其教学质量和效果受到了广泛关注。

为了进一步提高英语教学质量，促进教师专业成长，我校英语学科组于XX年XX月XX日开展了教研活动。

本次活动旨在加强教师之间的交流与合作，提高教学水平，为学生的英语学习提供更好的服务。

二、活动目标1. 深入探讨英语教学方法，提高课堂教学效果；2. 加强教师之间的沟通与协作，形成良好的教研氛围；3. 培养教师的教学研究能力，提升教师的专业素养；4. 促进学生英语学习兴趣，提高英语学习成绩。

三、活动内容1. 课堂观摩本次教研活动首先进行了课堂观摩，由我校英语教师进行公开课展示。

教师们展示了不同的教学风格和教学方法，如情景教学法、任务型教学法、合作学习法等。

在观摩过程中，教师们认真记录，互相学习，共同探讨如何提高课堂教学效果。

2. 专题讲座为了进一步提高教师的教学水平，我们邀请了资深英语教师进行专题讲座。

讲座内容涵盖了英语教学理论、教学方法、课堂管理等各个方面。

讲座过程中，教师们积极参与互动，分享了自己的教学经验，为今后的教学工作提供了有益的启示。

3. 教学研讨在课堂观摩和专题讲座的基础上，教师们进行了教学研讨。

针对教学中的实际问题，如如何激发学生学习兴趣、如何提高学生的英语口语表达能力、如何进行有效的课堂管理等，教师们各抒己见，共同探讨解决方案。

通过研讨，教师们对教学问题有了更深入的认识，为今后的教学工作积累了宝贵的经验。

4. 教学反思在活动最后，教师们进行了教学反思。

他们回顾了自己的教学过程，分析了教学中的优点和不足，提出了改进措施。

通过反思，教师们更加明确了今后的教学方向，为提高英语教学质量奠定了基础。

四、活动成果1. 教师的教学水平得到了提高。

通过本次教研活动，教师们掌握了更多的教学方法，提高了课堂教学效果，为学生的英语学习提供了更好的服务。

2. 教师之间的沟通与协作得到了加强。

在活动过程中，教师们相互学习、相互借鉴，形成了良好的教研氛围。

Title: My Reflections on Career AchievementAs a high school student, Ive always been intrigued by the concept of career success. Recently, I attended a seminar on Career Achievement which profoundly impacted my perspective on what it means to achieve in ones professional life. Heres my take on the experience and the insights I gained.The seminar started with an inspiring keynote speech by a successful entrepreneur who shared her journey from a humble beginning to the pinnacle of success. What struck me the most was her emphasis on the importance of passion and perseverance. She mentioned that career achievement isnt just about reaching the top of the corporate ladder or earning a high salary its about finding joy in what you do and sticking to it even when the going gets tough.During the breakout sessions, we were divided into groups and tasked with discussing our own definitions of career achievement. This exercise was eyeopening as it allowed me to hear diverse viewpoints from my peers. Some believed that achieving a worklife balance was the ultimate goal, while others felt that making a significant impact in their field was the true measure of success.What resonated with me was the idea that career achievement is subjective and personal. Its not about comparing oneself to others or adhering to societal expectations. Its about setting your own goals, working towards them diligently, and finding fulfillment in the process.Moreover, the seminar highlighted the significance of continuous learning and adaptability. In todays fastpaced world, where industries are constantly evolving, its crucial to stay updated with the latest trends and technologies. This means being open to acquiring new skills and knowledge, even if it means stepping out of your comfort zone.One of the most impactful moments was when a panel of industry experts shared their experiences with failure and how they used those setbacks as stepping stones to success. It was a humbling reminder that even the most accomplished individuals have faced challenges and that its okay to stumble. What matters is the resilience to get back up and keep moving forward.In conclusion, the seminar on career achievement has broadened my horizons and given me a more nuanced understanding of what it means to be successful in ones career. Its not just about the end goal but also about the journey, the growth, and the lessons learned along the way. As I look to the future, I am more determined than ever to pursue my passions, embrace challenges, and continuously strive for personal and professional growth.。