Wordsworth's View of Poetic Language

Wordsworth의 시론에서 가장 논란의 대상이 되고 있는 것은 그의 언어이론이다. 그 이유는 이론 자체의 불합리성과 이론과 실제의 모순에 있었다. 그러나 그의 이론을 좀더 면밀히 검토하고 동일한 주제에 고나한 여러가지 진술을 종합하는 동시에 실제 작품과 서로 비교해 보면 표면적인 모순의 이면에 시인의 일관된 생각이 지속되고 있음을 알게 된다. 본 논문은 그가 언어이론에서 일관되게 주장하는 것이 무엇인가를 밝히는데 그 목적이 있다. Wordsworth의 언어관을 밝히기 위해서 "Preface"(1800-2)를 중심으로 한 산문으로 된 시론과 The Prelude의 언어이론을 비교하여 그가 추구하는 것이 무엇인가 알아 보았다. 그는 시의 본질인 감정을 전달할 수 있는 매체로서 구체적 사물의 심상에 관심을 갖고 있다. "PReface"에서 "사회 중하류층의 생활어" 또는 소박한 시골사람들의 언어를 시어로 사용한다는 주장을 한 것과, "The Thorn"의 주에서 "事物로서의 言語"라는 표현을 사용한것, 그리고 "Essay upon Epitaphs"와 "化身"의 비유와 The prelude의 "투명한 베일"의 비유는 모두 언어의 구체성에 대한 관심을 표명한 것이다. 이러한 언어의 구체성에 대한 관심은 현대시의 이미지론이나 Eliot의 "객관적 상관물"이론과 유사하다.Nobody can be a great poet without mastery of his medium. Wordsworth was one of the most conscious artists in the history of the English literature. The most controversial part of his theory of poetry was that which was concerned with the contradictions in his prose essays and the discrepancy between his theory of poetic language and his theory of poetic language and his practice. However, a consistent view of poetic language underlies the apparent contradictions in his theory and practice. This essay is an attempt to explicate this underlying consistency. In so doing, his prefaces and essays in prose will be compared with those passages of The Prelude which are concerned with his view of poetic language. Wordsworth's main concern in his theory of poetic language is how to find out the effective means of communicating objectively his subjective emotions which he thinks are the essence of poetry. He thinks that a poet should be able to use language in such a way that it can present things in their thingness. And in practice he uses words which denote concrete things which are universally intelligible: these things are employed as images, which in his poetry are usually copies of external objects. His interest in the physicality of poetic language is consistently revealed in such expressions as the "language of conversation in the middle and lower classes of society" and the language of "low and rustic people" and "the real language of men in a state of vivid sensation"; it is also revealed in his view of "words as things"(Note to "The Thorn") of language as "incarnation of thought"("Essay upon Epitaphs") or "transparent veil" (The Prelude Bk. V), Such a view of poetic language has much in common with that of the Imagists and with Eliot's concept of "objective correlative."Nobody can be a great poet without mastery of his medium. Wordsworth was one of the most conscious artists in the history of the English literature. The most controversial part of his theory of poetry was that which was concerned with the contradictions in his prose essays and the discrepancy between his theory of poetic language and his theory of poetic language and his practice. However, a consistent view of poetic language underlies the apparent contradictions in his theory and practice. This essay is an attempt to explicate this underlying consistency. In so doing, his prefaces and essays in prose will be compared with those passages of The Prelude which are concerned with his view of poetic language. Wordsworth's main concern in his theory of poetic language is how to find out the effective means of communicating objectively his subjective emotions which he thinks are the essence of poetry. He thinks that a poet should be able to use language in such a way that it can present things in their thingness. And in practice he uses words which denote concrete things which are universally intelligible: these things are employed as images, which in his poetry are usually copies of external objects. His interest in the physicality of poetic language is consistently revealed in such expressions as the "language of conversation in the middle and lower classes of society" and the language of "low and rustic people" and "the real language of men in a state of vivid sensation"; it is also revealed in his view of "words as things"(Note to "The Thorn") of language as "incarnation of thought"("Essay upon Epitaphs") or "transparent veil" (The Prelude Bk. V), Such a view of poetic language has much in common with that of the Imagists and with Eliot's concept of "objective correlative.

알루미나 분말 기지 혼합체의 상온 반복압축후 가압소결 - 상온 반복압축 효과

2

PPARα agonists inhibit inflammatory activation of macrophages through upregulation of β-defensin 1

BACKGROUND: Effects of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα) agonists on cardiovascular outcome have been controversial. Although these agents primarily affect lipoprotein metabolism, their pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effect is one of the potential anti-atherosclerotic mechanisms. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of fenofibrate and gemfibrozil on inflammation in macrophages and reveal pathways these agents may affect. METHODS AND RESULTS: The two PPARα agonists inhibited secretion of CXCL2, TNF-α, IL-6, activation of p65 of NF-κB, ERK, and TLR4 expression. These changes occurred simultaneously with upregulation and secretion of β-defensin 1, an inflammation-modulating peptide. To demonstrate the role of β-defensin 1, it was knocked-down by target-specific siRNA. The effects of PPARα agonists on TLR4 expression and chemokine secretion were obviously abrogated with this treatment. In experiments investigating whether β-defensin 1 acts extracellularly, inflammatory chemokines decreased significantly after the addition of recombinant β-defensin 1 or conditioned media to cells. In experiments designed to clarify if the effects of the two agents are PPARα-dependent, induction of mRNA and secretion β-defensin 1 and inhibition of chemokine release were clearly reduced with GW6471, a PPARα blocker. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal the pathways by which fenofibrate and gemfibrozil inhibit LPS-induced inflammatory activation of macrophages. This study elucidated a novel anti-inflammatory mechanism that acts through PPARα, β-defensin 1, and TLR4 pathways.ope