【作者】 张正；

【导师】 曹小云； 宣沫；

【作者基本信息】 合肥师范学院 ， 学科教学（专业学位）， 2015， 硕士

【摘要】 随着2001年的《全日制义务教育语文课程标准》颁布和编审分离制度的日趋完善，我国教材百花齐放多达数十套，其中最具代表性的有人教版、苏教版、北师大版、语文版。虽然它们都是依据《全日制义务教育语文课程标准》编写的，但选篇、编写方式、文白比例等体例各不相同，不同的版本有着各自的优点与不足。对古文选篇与注释的研究，是双优与相互阐释的需要，更是现代教育与学生理解的需要。所以本文主要从宏观的角度研究四套教材古文选篇和注释的异同，以便给教材的编写者和使用者提供借鉴与经验。本文采用定性研究法、定量研究法和文献研究法对四套教材的古文选篇、古文注释进行比较与评价。在古文选篇中发现，四套教材均采用主题单元编写方式，将不同体裁的文本按单元主题的方式混编。除语文版外，其他三套教材将古文与现代文混编。四套教材各年级文白比例大致呈上升趋势，在八年级和九年级有较为明显的变化，其中北师大版古文比例最低，语文版最高，但都不超过全套书的50%。此外，四套教材的古文选篇存在独有作者的现象，北师大版最多、语文版最少；四套教材选文的朝代比例也各不相同，差距最大的是先秦两汉，其次是元代、清代，语文版常在同一出处、同一作者重复选文。在注释的比较中发现，四套教材均对“通”“同”二字使用不当，同时对古文的注释存在含糊不清、注释错误、注释混乱、未注释等问题，其中语文版的注释较多但冗杂，且常把古文写成今文。北师大版的注释标准最为统一，多数注释从学生角度出发，易于学生理解。人教版的注释优缺点明显，注释功力深厚却仍需查缺补漏。苏教版的注释中规中矩，过分强调字词的注释，忽略了句子的翻译，且译文整体性不强。经过研究得出，四套教材的选文标准不同、比例不同，编写方式欠佳，需要国家给出相对详细的选文标准并深入探讨文白的编写方式，仔细研究古文的安排位置；四套教材在古文注释方面需要仔细校对并查缺补漏、删繁就简，强调注释用语的准确性和标准性。最终确定各套教材自己的选文、注释的相关原则。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the promulgation of Chinese Course Criterion of Full-time CompulsoryEducation in2001and the gradual perfection of the system of compilation andexamination separation, dozens of sets of teaching materials appear in China, among whichthe most representative ones include People’s Education Press (PEP) edition, JiangsuEducation Press edition, Beijing Normal University edition and Language and LiteraturePress edition. Compiled according to Chinese Course Criterion of Full-time CompulsoryEducation, they are actually different from each other in the aspect of passage selection,way of compilation and the proportion of classical Chinese and modern Chinese. Differenteditions have their respective advantages and disadvantages. Studying the passageselection and annotations of ancient Chinese prose is a demand of double excellence andmutual interpretation and also a demand of modern education and students’ understanding.Therefore, this paper focuses on studying the similarities and differences of the four sets ofteaching materials in the aspect of passage selection and annotations from a macroscopicperspective so as to provide reference and experience for textbook compilers and users.This paper adopts the methods of qualitative research, quantitative research anddocument research to compare and evaluate the passage selection and annotations ofancient Chinese prose in four sets of teaching materials. In the aspect of the passageselection of ancient Chinese prose, this paper finds that four sets of teaching materialsadopt theme-based units as the way of compilation and shuffle the texts of different stylesaccording to unit themes. Except for Language and Literature Press edition, other three setsof teaching materials adopt the shuffling of ancient Chinese prose and modern texts. Theproportion of classical Chinese and modern Chinese in four sets of teaching materialsgenerally presents a rising trend in various grades and witnesses an obvious change inGrade8and9. Among four sets of teaching materials, the proportion of classical Chineseand modern Chinese in Beijing Normal University edition is relatively low while theproportion of classical Chinese and modern Chinese in Language and Literature Pressedition is the highest. However, their respective proportions of classical Chinese andmodern Chinese do not exceed50%of their whole set of teaching material. In addition, thephenomenon of exclusive authors exists in the passage selection of ancient Chinese prose in four sets of teaching materials. Beijing Normal University edition owns the largestnumber of exclusive authors while Language and Literature Press edition has the minimumnumber of exclusive authors. Four sets of teaching materials show different proportions ofdynasties in texts. The proportions of Pre-Qin and Han dynasties in texts present the largestdifference, followed by Yuan dynasty and Qing dynasty. Language and Literature Pressedition usually selects texts from the same source and author repeatedly. When comparingannotations, this paper finds that four sets of teaching materials misuse two words “通”and “同” and have problems in the annotations of ancient Chinese prose includingambiguity, annotation mistakes, annotation clutter and the omittance of annotations.Language and Literature Press edition covers many and jumbled annotations and usuallytakes ancient Chinese prose as modern texts. Beijing Normal University edition isequipped with the most unified standard for annotations. Most of annotations start from theperspective of students and are easy for students to understand. PEP edition demonstratesobvious advantages and disadvantages in annotation with a solid foundation of annotations,but still needs to make up for deficiencies. Jiangsu Education Press edition has straight andnarrow annotations, overemphasizes the annotation of words, neglects the translation ofsentences and is poor in the integrality of translated texts.Through research, this paper comes to a conclusion that four sets of teaching materialsare different in standard for selecting texts and proportion and poor in the way ofcompilation and the state needs to raise a relatively detailed standard for selecting texts,deeply probe into the way of compilation for classical Chinese and modern Chinese andcarefully study the arrangement for the position of ancient Chinese prose. Four sets ofteaching materials need to carefully proofread, make up for deficiencies, eliminateundesirable words and lay emphasis on the accuracy and standardization of annotations inthe aspect of the annotations of ancient Chinese prose. Finally, this paper determines therelevant principles of selecting texts and annotations for various teaching materials.更多还原