浅谈《金瓶梅》的作者与方言     

张庆梅 《连云港职业技术学院学报》2003,16(3):49-50,59

从《金瓶梅词话》有关方言研究的材料入手，联系当今《词话》作者的有关学说，浅析《词话》语言相当驳杂的原因，力图说明其与说唱文学有关系，支持《词话》乃集体创作学说。  相似文献   

公文修辞的理性、情感和美感蕴涵   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  

王晓红 《信阳师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2006,26(2):101-103

关于修辞的论述向来无一定的范围。本文主要依据谭永祥的“修辞说”，从公文的内容和形式上看其理性、情感和美感蕴涵，从而揭示公文语言的修辞特点。  相似文献   

《天妃娘妈传》作者初探   总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1  

刘福铸 《莆田学院学报》2003,10(4):89-94

通过“南州”一词含义的考证,并根据诗词押韵特点、使用的方言语汇以及出现莆仙及众多周边的地名,得出《天妃娘妈传》一书作者“南州散人吴还初”应是莆田人的结论。  相似文献   

《西游记》作者为唐顺之考论     

胡令毅 《洛阳师范学院学报》2010,29(3):9-23

通过对世德堂本《西游记》"陈元之序"的分析,康光禄就是唐征鹤,征鹤的父亲唐顺之是唐宋古文大家,既擅作古文,也擅作今文,《西游记》既是一部证道书,更是史书,其"史"的性质在于三藏隐涉的是嘉靖皇帝,三藏取经故事隐射的是嘉靖皇帝南巡,孙悟空是唐顺之的自我写照,《西游记》的原作者就是唐顺之。  相似文献   

"辨骚"与"变乎骚"的批评学意义--从对屈原论争的评价看刘勰的作者批评观     

张利群 《山西师大学报(社会科学版)》2002,29(4):87-92

刘勰《文心雕龙·辨骚》不仅是一篇作者批评专论 ,而且也是一篇对屈原进行评价的文学论争专论。刘勰确立屈原及其《离骚》“变乎骚”的立论视角 ,在对屈原论争中两派不同观点进行评析的同时 ,充分肯定了屈原的价值和地位 ,从而使屈原论争走出误区 ,将作者批评提升到更高层次。刘勰的屈原批评和对屈原论争的批评具有批评学方法论的重要意义。  相似文献   

印象的复述:沈从文文学批评方法论     

邵滢 《南阳师范学院学报》2003,2(7):80-83,86

沈从文是中国现代文学史上的著名作家，其次才是批评家。这决定了他的批评方法中具有“印象的复述”的特征，这一特征由直觉感悟、整体把握、描述传达、比较定位四个层次构成，其中无一例外地烙上“作家”的身份印记。恰是这份独特，使沈从文不仅为中国现代文学留下了独特意义的批评文本，更为批评学提供了“作家批评”的范型，从而获得了批评类型的研究价值。  相似文献   

Exploring the forward citation patterns of patents based on the evolution of technology fields     

Su Jung Jee  Minji Kwon  Jung Moon Ha  So Young Sohn 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(4):100985

Forward citations of patents have been used extensively to capture the impact of technological knowledge. However, our understanding of the factors shaping patent citation patterns remains limited. One of the main limitations is the lack of scholarly attention paid to the dynamic influences arising from the evolution of technology fields. From an evolutionary perspective, technological impact is not simply determined by the static attributes of a technology itself; it is also dynamically affected by changes in the external conditions. Drawing on this viewpoint, this study suggests a model for understanding patent citation patterns by reflecting the evolution of the technology fields to which each patent belongs. Four such factors are explored: technology cycle time, potential of technological convergence, popularity of the technology field, and technological novelty. Based on the proposed model, we show how expected citation patterns can change as a result of different scenarios for technology field evolution. We conduct a case study of patents in the information technology and healthcare industries to show citation patterns of patents across heterogeneous industries as well as those within an industry. Contributions to the innovation literature and research investment decisions are discussed.  相似文献   

Can Google Scholar and Mendeley help to assess the scholarly impacts of dissertations?     

Kayvan Kousha  Mike Thelwall 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):467-484

Dissertations can be the single most important scholarly outputs of junior researchers. Whilst sets of journal articles are often evaluated with the help of citation counts from the Web of Science or Scopus, these do not index dissertations and so their impact is hard to assess. In response, this article introduces a new multistage method to extract Google Scholar citation counts for large collections of dissertations from repositories indexed by Google. The method was used to extract Google Scholar citation counts for 77,884 American doctoral dissertations from 2013 to 2017 via ProQuest, with a precision of over 95%. Some ProQuest dissertations that were dual indexed with other repositories could not be retrieved with ProQuest-specific searches but could be found with Google Scholar searches of the other repositories. The Google Scholar citation counts were then compared with Mendeley reader counts, a known source of scholarly-like impact data. A fifth of the dissertations had at least one citation recorded in Google Scholar and slightly fewer had at least one Mendeley reader. Based on numerical comparisons, the Mendeley reader counts seem to be more useful for impact assessment purposes for dissertations that are less than two years old, whilst Google Scholar citations are more useful for older dissertations, especially in social sciences, arts and humanities. Google Scholar citation counts may reflect a more scholarly type of impact than that of Mendeley reader counts because dissertations attract a substantial minority of their citations from other dissertations. In summary, the new method now makes it possible for research funders, institutions and others to systematically evaluate the impact of dissertations, although additional Google Scholar queries for other online repositories are needed to ensure comprehensive coverage.  相似文献   

How does collaboration affect researchers’ positions in co-authorship networks?     

Xiangjie Kong  Mengyi Mao  Huizhen Jiang  Shuo Yu  Liangtian Wan 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(3):887-900

Collaboration usually has a positive effect on researchers’ productivity: researchers have become increasingly collaborative, according to recent studies. Numerous studies have focused on enhancing research collaboration by recommendation technology and measuring the influence of researchers. However, few studies have investigated the effect of collaboration on the position of a researcher in the research social network. In this paper, we explore the relationships between collaboration and influence by social analytical methods, which are pertinent to analyzing the network structure and individual traits. We evaluate three aspects of the researchers’ influence: friendship paradox validation, social circle, and structure of a researcher's ego network. Furthermore, the ”six degrees of Bacon number” theory, generalized friendship paradox, and triadic closure theory are introduced to support our analysis. Experimental results show that collaboration can help researchers increase their influence to some extent.  相似文献   

Measuring scientific contributions with modified fractional counting     

Gunnar Sivertsen  Ronald Rousseau  Lin Zhang 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(2):679-694

We develop and propose a new counting method at the aggregate level for contributions to scientific publications called modified fractional counting (MFC). We show that, compared to traditional complete-normalized fractional counting, it eliminates the extreme differences in contributions over time that otherwise occur between scientists that mainly publish alone or in small groups and those that publish with large groups of co-authors. As an extra benefit we find that scientists in different areas of research turn out to have comparable average contributions to scientific articles. We test the method on scientists at Norway’s largest universities and find that, at an aggregate level, it indeed supports comparability across different co-authorship practices as well as between areas of research. MFC is thereby useful whenever the research output from institutions with different research profiles are compared, as e.g., in the Leiden Ranking. Finally, as MFC is actually a family of indicators, depending on a sensitivity parameter, it can be adapted to the circumstances.  相似文献