论文部分内容阅读
编辑活动和著作活动关系密切,又具有不同的本质属性,正确地区分两者的性质,把握两者的关系,对于编辑学学科的正常发展有着十分重要的意义。编辑学研究开始之初,一般的研究者都认为,编辑学研究既要看到两者的联系,更要重视两者的区别;只有明确独立的研究对象,才能建设独立的学科体系。在探讨编辑活动的内容方式、活动规律等问题时,许多研究者都很注意通过对著作活动与编辑活动不同特点的比较来寻找答案。因此,有关编辑活动特有的社会功能和社会作用,有关编辑创造的特殊规律,有关编辑事业的发展特点等研究,很快都取得了突破性的成果。但是,后来的情况发生了很大的变化。有的研究者不大强调著作活动和编辑活动的区别,反而强调两者的共性了;有的研究者则强调区分两者的难处,不再重视区分的意义;特别是编辑史研究中出现了“编著合一是中国古代编辑活动的特征”的论点以后,许多研究者都认为对编辑活动和著作活动作出科学区分已经不是重要问题;有人提出难分论,主张不要把精力花在如何区分上,有人干脆提出同一论,说编辑活动本质上是一种著作活动,两者不可能有什么严格的区别。当然,认为编辑学研究必须而且可能把编辑活动与著作活动区别开来的观点,也因此而深化和展开了自己的论证。于是,关于区分“编辑”和?
Editing activities and writings activities are closely related, but also have different essential attributes. To correctly distinguish the nature of the two and grasp the relationship between the two is of great significance to the normal development of editorial disciplines. At the beginning of editorial study, most researchers think that editorial study should not only see the connection between the two, but also pay attention to the difference between the two. Only with a clear and independent research object can an independent discipline system be constructed. When discussing the contents of editing activities and the rules of activities, many researchers pay attention to find out the answers by comparing the different characteristics of writing activities and editing activities. Therefore, research on the social functions and social functions peculiar to editorial activities, the special laws on editorial creation, and the development characteristics of editorial undertakings soon achieved breakthrough results. However, much later changes took place. Some researchers emphasize the difference between the activities and the editing activities, but emphasize the similarities between the two. Some researchers emphasize the difficulty of distinguishing the two from the importance of distinction. Especially in the research of editorial history “Editing and Combining is the Feature of Ancient Chinese Editing Activities”, many researchers think that it is not an important issue to make scientific distinction between editorial activities and book activities. Some people make difficult arguments and do not advocate not to focus on how to distinguish them Some people simply put forward the same theory, saying that editorial activities are essentially book activities and that there can be no strict distinction between the two. Of course, the argument that editorial studies must and may make a distinction between editorial activities and writings deepens and expands my argument. So, on the distinction between “editorial” and?