[ اللغة الانجليزية ] : l|][Ξ¯▪ Last Year 1st Semester ▪¯Ξ][|

[lamo0o]

بنات امتحان اللغويات> الديفنشنز لكل المنهج ولا بس الي بعد الميد تيرم ??

الله يوفقها يااارب اللي تررد

[شتاء عمري]

لكل المنهج

[Aro0oj]

[QUOTE=Eman Al-s;5258671]بنات هالتعاريف معنا .؟؟؟؟

Levels of Linguistics:

Phonetics
Phonology
Morphology
Syntax
Semantics
Pragmat


يارب لاء ... استناكم


انا سألتها قالت لا مو معنا

[شتاء عمري]

متاكده؟؟؟؟؟؟؟

[Aro0oj]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة شتاء عمري

متاكده؟؟؟؟؟؟؟

تبين تتاكدين اساليها احسن

[يآحلآتي]

بنات ياليت اللي ما ارسلت برزنتيشن النقد او الدراما ترسله

اذا احنا ماتعاونا وماهتمينا راح نخسر كثير

Cultural approach

Leavis in his writing was one of the most influential figures in twentieth-century English literary criticism. He introduced a "seriousness" into English studies, and some English and American university departments were shaped very much by Leavis’s example and ideas. Leavis appeared to possess a very clear idea of literary criticism and he was well known for his decisive and often provocative, and idiosyncratic, judgements. Leavis insisted that valuation was the principal concern of criticism, and that it must ensure that English literature should be a living reality operating as an informing spirit in society, and that criticism should involve the shaping of contemporary sensibility .
Leavis's criticism is difficult to directly classify, but it can be grouped into four chronological stages. The first is that of his early publications and essays including New Bearings in English Poetry (1932) and Revaluation (1936). Here he was concerned primarily with reexamining poetry from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries, and this was accomplished under the strong influence of T. S. Eliot. Also during this early period Leavis sketched out his views about university education.
He then turned his attention to fiction and the novel, producing The Great Tradition (1948) and D. H. Lawrence, Novelist (1955). Following this period Leavis pursued an increasingly complex treatment of literary, educational and social issues. Though the hub of his work remained literature, his perspective for commentary was noticeably broadening, and this was most visible in Nor Shall my Sword (1972).
Two of his last publications embodied the critical sentiments of his final years; The Living Principle: ‘English’ as a Discipline of Thought (1975), and Thought, Words and Creativity: Art and Thought in Lawrence (1976). Although these later works have been sometimes called "philosophy", it has been argued that there is no abstract or theoretical context to justify such a description. In discussing the nature of language and value, Leavis implicitly treats the sceptical questioning that philosophical reflection starts from as an irrelevance from his standpoint as a literary critic - a position set out in his famous early exchange with Rene Wellek. Others, however, have argued that although Leavis's thinking in these later works is hard to classify - itself an important datum - it provides valuable insights into the nature of a language.

On poetry

Though his achievements as a critic of fiction were impressive, Leavis is often viewed as having been a better critic of poetry than of the novel. In New Bearings in English Poetry Leavis attacked the Victorian poetical ideal, suggesting that nineteenth-century poetry sought the consciously ‘poetical’ and showed a separation of thought and feeling and a divorce from the real world. The influence of T. S. Eliot is easily identifiable in his criticism of Victorian poetry, and Leavis acknowledged this, saying in The Common Pursuit that, ‘It was Mr. Eliot who made us fully conscious of the weakness of that tradition’ (Leavis 31). In his later publication Revaluation, the dependence on Eliot was still very much present, but Leavis demonstrated an individual critical sense operating in such a way as to place him among the distinguished modern critics.
The early reception of T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound's poetry, and also the reading of Gerard Manley Hopkins, were considerably enhanced by Leavis's proclamation of their greatness. His criticism of John Milton, on the other hand, had no great impact on Milton's popular esteem. Many of his finest analyses of poems were reprinted in the late work, The Living Principle.

On the novel

As a critic of the novel, Leavis’s main tenet stated that great novelists show an intense moral interest in life, and that this moral interest determines the nature of their form in fiction (Bilan 115). Authors within this "tradition" were all characterised by a serious or responsible attitude to the moral complexity of life and included Jane Austen, George Eliot, Henry James, Joseph Conrad, and D. H. Lawrence, but excluded Thomas Hardy and Charles Dickens. In The Great Tradition Leavis attempted to set out his conception of the proper relation between form/composition and moral interest/art and life. This proved to be a contentious issue in the critical world, as Leavis refused to separate art from life, or the aesthetic or formal from the moral. He insisted that the great novelist’s preoccupation with form was a matter of responsibility towards a rich moral interest, and that works of art with a limited formal concern would always be of lesser quality.

F. R. Leavis

F.R. Leavis was a teacher at Cambridge University. His employment as an educator had a profound affect on his criticism, (as did his geographical location). Many of the other New Critics lived in the United States. For Leavis, living across the ocean in England gave him a different, if related, perspective. F. R. Leavis was not entirely a New Critic, but his close analysis of the poem itself (“the words on the page”) and his belief that a poem should be self-sustaining (its reason for being should exist only inside its text and meaning), make him important to New Criticism. Leavis’s major influences include T.S. Eliot and Matthew Arnold and his major works include The Common Pursuit, The Great Tradition, Revaluation, and Education and the University.
While New Criticism was especially dominant in the 1940s and 1950s, Leavisite criticism became especially dominant in the 1970s. Leavis became, according to A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, “the major single target for the new critical theory of the 1970s and beyond” (Selden, 23). Leavis’s criticism did not have a clearly defined theory, (in fact he refused to define his theories at all), but it was based on a “common sense” approach which dealt closely with the text of the poem.
Leavis believed that there were “great works” of literature, therefore remaining a strong supporter of an existing canon. He also had defined ideas about what was poetry and what was not. He did not hesitate to dismiss many popular authors as non-poetic. Tennyson, Lang (“The Odyssey”), and Browning were a few of those who he dismissed as writing in poetic form, but not writing true poetry. He believed that poetry should express something personal about the poet and the poet should be emotionally involved with the poem. Leavis also believed that the poet was (or should be) and enlightened being and be profoundly affected by life. Leavis says, in his book New Bearings In English Poetry, “poetry matters because of the kind of poet who is more alive than other people, more alive in his own age.” A poet must also have the “power of making words express what he feels” and this should be “indistinguishable from his awareness of what he feels.” He should be “unusually sensitive, unusually aware, more sincere and more himself than any ordinary man should be.” If a poet and his or her work did not conform to Leavis’s ideas, the poem was not poetry (at least, certainly not great poetry). Some of those authors who he felt accomplished “true” poetry were Eliot, Hardy, Yeats and De La Mare.
Leavis’s criticism had a sense of the past. It related historical context to the poem and poet. The era that the poem was written in and the types of poetry that were being composed in that particular era, he believed, had an effect on the poetry that was composed, the ideas behind it, and the shape/form of that poetry. Historical and social backgrounds were not a focus of Leavis’s criticism. However, the focus of Leavis’s criticism was always on the text in terms of words and how they related to one another, (their ambiguities and contrasts).

Literature and Society

Frank Raymond Leavis (14July 1895-14 April 1978) was an influential British Literary critic of the early-to-mind-twentieth century. He was born in Cambridge, England, in 1895. He was educated at a local independent private school. Leavis has been frequently (but often erroneously) associated with the American school of New Critics, a group which advocated close reading and detailed textual analysis of poetry over an interest in the mind and personality of the poet, sources, the history of ideas and political and social implications. Leavis possessed a very clear idea of literary criticism. Leavis insisted that evaluation was the principal concern of criticism, and that it must ensure that English literature should be a living reality operating as an informing spirit in society, and that criticism should involve the shaping of contemporary sensibility. According to Leavis, literatureand society are closely related. They are interrelated.
The relation between literatureand society is like body and soul. Society is body and literature its soul. He points out that the study of literature is the study of human life or inherent human nature. To him, human life is synonymous to society. The society plays a great role in making writers. The making of a successful writer occurs only when there is an adequate social collaboration / cooperation. Leavis quotes an example regarding William Blake, who lacked a public, which resulted in his loss of seriousness in writing. Thus the lack of a congenial / helpful society and the absence of adequate social collaboration failed Blake’s power to achieve the artistic achievement. Social collaboration is very essential for the nourishment of a writer’s artistic powers.
Blake’s artistic power lacks of social collaboration. But Jon Buayan is opposite to Blake. He was able to produce a human masterpiece in from of The Pilgrum’s Progress despite its moralizing aim. He got the artistic power Social Collaboration. This was because Bunyan belonged to his civilization of his time. He was at home with his society. The advantage that Buyan enjoyed was that during his time there was a popular culture of the people and he could mingle the popular culture with literary culture in his book.
By giving example of Bunyan’s allegorical book ‘The Pilgrim’s Progress’ Leavis brings the idea that without adequate social collaboration successful works of literature will not occur. Thus he established the intimate relationship between literature and society. In Dryden’s Love For All, he shows how people of all classes and different religions, caste and belief live together in a very peaceful can led the best society. Best society can produce best and immortal literature. They are interrelated, interdependent and co-operative. None can go without other. Society is unproductive without literature and literature is blind without society. After all we can say that F. R. Leavis is a modern critic who exhibits who relationship betweenliterature and society.

هذي الجزئيه من البريزنتيشنات اللي كانت بكلاسي يوم الثلاثاء وعلقت عليها الدكتوره

[heavy rain20]

بنات ابي تفريغ الدراما مع مها بليييييييييييييييييييييييييز اهي راح تداوم الاحد او لا اذا في احد ما سوا مناقشه وراح الاسبوع هذا وسوا عادي ما تقول شي ؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟؟

[أخت أخوها]

8

بتداوم الاثنين

[عهد العتيبي]

شتاء عمررري وشو اللي نزل بعد الميد للدراما علشان ابي اتاكد.؟

[شتاء عمري]

بدراما؟
وصلني محاضره الي كانت مناقشه البحوث
الي قبل بدايه المسرحيه 2