쉐도잉 연습: 1. Introduction - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

All right, now I thought I'd begin today.

This is, by the way, a regular practice.

This is as close as I get to bulleted PowerPoint.

It's all there.

I ought to have got through those topics by the end of the lecture.

If I don't, not to worry, I'll pick up wherever the dotted line emerges in the subsequent lecture.

But in any case, I thought I'd begin today by by making a few remarks about the title of our course,

because it has some big words in it, theory and literature, but also introduction.

I think it's worth saying a word or two about the word introduction as well.

Now theory has a very complicated etymological history that I won't trouble you with.

The trouble with the etymology of theory and the way in

which the word has been used traditionally is that sometimes it actually means practice,

and then at other historical periods it means something very different from practice, something typically from which practice is derived.

Well, that's the sense of theory that I like to work with, and I would pause over it by saying that after all there is a difference,

and we shouldn't too quickly at least confuse the terms.

There's a difference between theory and methodology.

Yes, it's probably fair enough to say that methodology is applied theory,

but there's a great danger in supposing that every aspect of theory has an immediate application.

Theory is very often a purely speculative undertaking.

It's a hypothesis about something the exact nature of which one needn't necessarily have in view.

It's a supposition that whatever the object of theory might be, it must, owing to whatever intellectual constraints one can imagine,

be of such a form.

At this level of abstraction, plainly, there isn't all that much incentive to apply thinking of that kind.

But on the other hand, undoubtedly, theory does exist for the most part to be applied.

Very frequently courses of this kind have a text, Lycidas, The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner,

a short story, and then once in a while the disquisition of the lecturer will pause, the text will be produced,

and whatever theory has recently been talked about will be applied to the text

so that you'll get a post -colonial reading of The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner, something, by the way, which is absolutely fascinating and important to do,

and so on through the course.

Now I suppose it's my reluctance to get into the intricacies of questions having to do with applied theory

that makes me prefer to keep it simple.

Our text is a story for toddlers called Tony the Tow Truck.

I've decided not to pass it out today because, because after all I want to get it into the right hands.

You can't read it unless you take the course.

So I'm going to wait a little bit.

We don't come back to it, at least for the moment.

But you see that it's mercifully short, and as time passes we will do some rather interesting tricks with it.

We will revert, as others revert to Lycidas, to Tawny the Tow Truck for the purpose of introducing questions of applied theory.

Now this may suggest a certain condescension both toward theory and toward literary texts, which is not at all intended.

It's much more a question of reminding you that if you can do it with this, you can do it with anything,

but also of reminding you that after all reading,

reading just anything, is a complex and potentially almost unlimited activity.

That's one of the good things that theory teaches us and

that I hope to be able to get across in the course of our varied approaches to Tony the Tow Truck.

Now theory resembles philosophy, perhaps in this,

that it asks fundamental questions and also at times builds systems.

That is to say, theory has certain ambitions to a totalization of what can be thought that resembles or rivals philosophy.

But theory differs from philosophy, and this is something

that I'm going to be coming back to persistingly in the second half of this lecture and many times hereafter.

Theory differs from most philosophy.

in that it involves a certain, and this is by no means self -evident, why should this be is one of the questions we're going to be asking.

It involves a certain skepticism.

There seems to be a doubt, a variety of doubts, about the foundations of what we can think,

about the basis of our opinions that pervades theory, seems somehow or another to characterize its history.

Now not all theory that we read in this course is skeptical.

Some of the most powerful and profound thought that's been devoted to the subject of theory of literature is positive in

its intentions and in its views.

But by and large you will, happily or unhappily, come to terms with the fact

that much of what you're going to be reading this semester is undergirded or perhaps I should could say,

undermined by this persisting skepticism.

It's crucial, as I say, and I'm going to be coming back to it, but it's just a point I want to make in passing about the nature of theory now.

Turning to the word literature, this is not theory of relativity, theory of music, theory of government.

This is a course in theory of literature, and theory of literature shares in common with other kinds of literature,

other kinds of theory, the need for definition.

That is to say, maybe the most central and for me possibly the most fascinating question theory asks is, well, what is literature?

How do we know it when we see it?

How can we define it?

Now much of what we'll be reading takes up the question, what is literature, and provides us with fascinating and always for the moment,

I think, enticing definitions.

There are definitions based on form, circularity, symmetry, economy of form, lack of economy of form, repetition.

There are definitions based on psychological complexity,

psychological balance, psychological harmony, sometimes psychological imbalance and disharmony.

There are also definitions which insist that somehow there is an epistemological difference between literature and other utterance,

whereas most utterances purport to be saying something true about the actual state of things in the world.

Literary utterance is under no such obligation.

The argument goes and ought properly to be understood as fiction, making it up as opposed to referring.

All right, now all of these definitions have had currency.

We'll be going over them again and finding them, I hope, more fascinating as we learn more about them.

But at the same time, even as I rattle off this list of possibilities, probably you felt yourself an upsurge of skepticism.

You said, my goodness, I can easily find exceptions to all those rules.

It's ridiculous to think that literature could be defined in any one of those ways

or even in a combination of all of them.

Literature is many things, a many -splendored thing,

You say to yourself, and it simply cannot be confined or trapped within a definition of that kind.

Well and good, properly ecumenical of you, but at the same time it gives rise to a sense that possibly,

after all, literature just isn't anything at all.

In other words, that literature may not be susceptible of any one definition,

but it is rather, and this is the so -called neo -pragmatist argument, but it is rather whatever you think it is,

or more precisely, whatever your interpretive community says that it is.

This isn't really a big problem.

It's kind of unsettling because we like to know what things are, but at the same time it's not really a big problem

because as long as we know about the fact that a certain notion of literature exists in certain communities,

we can begin to do very interesting work precisely with that idea,

and we can say there's a great deal to learn about what people think literature is,

and we can develop very interesting kinds of thinking about the variety of ways in which these ideas are expressed.

So it's not perhaps crippling if this is the conclusion we reach, but at the same time it's not the only possible conclusion.

The possibility of definition persists.

Definition is important to us, and we're certainly not going to give it short shrift in this course.

100

We're going to make every effort to define literature as carefully as we can.

101

Now in addition to defining literature, Literary theory also asks questions obviously not unrelated but which open up the field somewhat.

102

What causes literature and what are the effects of literature?

103

In a way, there's a subset of questions that arises from those to the effect, and this is of course what we'll be taking up next time,

104

the question, what is an author?

105

That is to say, if something causes literature, there must be some sort of authority behind it,

106

and therefore we find ourselves asking what is an author.

107

By the same token, if literature has effects, it must have effects on someone, and this gives rise to the equally interesting and vexing question,

108

what is a reader?

109

Literary theory is very much involved with questions of that kind,

110

and organizing those questions is basically what that rationalizes the structure of our syllabus.

111

You'll notice that we move in the syllabus after a couple of introductory talks that I'll mention in a minute.

112

We move in the syllabus from the idea

113

that literature is in some sense caused by language to the idea

114

that literature is in some sense caused by the human psyche to the idea

115

that that literature is in some sense caused by social, economic, and historical forces.

116

There are corollaries for those ideas in terms of the kinds of effects

117

that literature has and what we might imagine ourselves to conclude from them.

118

Finally, literary theory asks one other important question.

119

It asks many, but this is the way at least I'm organizing it for today.

120

It asks one other important question the one with which we will actually begin.

121

Not so much what is a reader, but how does reading get done?

122

That is to say, how do we form the conclusion that we are interpreting something adequately,

123

that we have a basis for the kind of reading that we're doing?

124

What is the reading experience like?

125

How do we meet the text face to face?

126

How do we put ourselves in touch with the text, which may after all in a variety of ways be remote from us?

127

Now these are the questions that are asked by what's called hermeneutics, a difficult word that we will be taking up next week.

128

It has to do with the god Hermes who conveyed language to man, in a certain sense, among many other functions,

129

the god of communication, and it is after all obviously about communication.

130

So hermeneutics will be our first topic and it attempts to answer the last question that I'll mention,

131

which is raised by theory of literature.

132

All right, now let me pause quickly over the word introduction.

133

I first started teaching this course in the late 70s and 80s when literary theory was a thing absolutely of the moment.

134

As I told the teaching fellows, I had a colleague in those days who looked at me enviously

135

and said he wished he had the black leather concession at the door.

136

Theory was both hot and cool, and it was something about which,

137

following from that, one had not just opinions but very, very strong opinions.

138

In other words, the teaching fellows I had in those days, Who knows, they may rise up against me in the same way this semester,

139

but the teaching fellows I had in those days said you can't teach an introduction, you can't teach a survey,

140

you can't say if it's Tuesday it must be Foucault, if it's Thursday it must be Lacan.

141

You can't approach theory that way.

142

Theory is important, and it's important to know what you believe, in other words, what the basis of all other possible theory is.

143

I'm a feminist, I'm a Lacanian, I'm a student of Paul Dumont.

144

I believe that these are the foundational moments of theorizing and that if you're going to teach anything like a survey,

145

you've got to derive the rest of it from whatever the moment I happen to subscribe to might be.

146

That's the way it felt to teach theory in those days.

147

It was awkward teaching an introduction, and probably for that reason while I was teaching Lit 300, which was called Lit Y, Paul Neumann was teaching Lit Z.

148

He was teaching a lecture course nearby not at the same time,

149

which was interpretation as practiced by the school of the month.

150

That was lit -z, and it did indeed imply every other form of theory, and it was extremely rigorous and interesting,

151

but it wasn't a survey.

152

It took for granted, in other words, that everything else would derive from the fundamental idea,

153

but it didn't for a minute think that a whole series of fundamental ideas could share space,

154

could be a kind of smorgasbord that you could mix and match in a kind of happy -go -lucky eclectic way,

155

which perhaps we will be seeming to do from time to time in our introductory course.

156

Well now, does one feel any nostalgia for the coolness and heat of this moment?

157

Yes and no. It was fascinating to be, as Wordsworth says, bliss was it in that dawn to be alive.

158

It was fascinating to be around in those days, But at the same time,

159

I think it's rather advantageous for us to be still in theory.

160

That is to say, we still have views.

161

We still have to recognize that what we think derives from this

162

or that understanding of theory and these or those theoretical principles.

163

We have to understand the way in which what we do and say, what we write in our papers and articles, is grounded in theoretical premises which,

164

which, if we don't come to terms with them,

165

we will simply naively reproduce without being fully aware of how we're using them and how indeed they're using us.

166

So it is as crucial as ever to understand theory.

167

At the same time, we have the vantage point of, I suppose, what we can now call history.

168

Some of what we'll be studying is no longer practiced as that that which is the absolutely necessary central path to methodology.

169

Some of what we're studying has had its moment of flourishing, has remained influential as a paradigm that shapes other paradigms,

170

but is not itself perhaps today the paradigm, which gives us the opportunity of historical perspective so

171

that from time to time during the course of the course

172

I'll be We're trying to say something about why certain theoretical issues and ideas pushed themselves into prominence at certain historical moments,

173

and that too then can become part of our enterprise.

174

So an introduction is not only valuable for those of us who simply wish to acquire knowledge.

175

It's also valuable, I think, in lending an additional perspective to the topic of theory and to an understanding about how theory is,

176

on the one hand, perhaps in a certain sense now, an historical topic and is,

177

on the other hand, something that we're very much engaged in and still committed to.

178

So all that then by way of rationale for teaching and introduction to theory.

179

All right, now the question is, how does literary theory relate to the history of criticism?

180

Now this is a course that I like to teach, too.

181

I usually teach Plato to T .S.

182

Eliot or Plato to I .A.

183

Richards or some sort of important figure in the early twentieth century, and it's a course which is absolutely fascinating in all sorts of ways.

184

It has one very important thing in common with literary theory.

185

That is to say literary criticism is, too, perpetually concerned with the definition of literature.

186

Many of the issues

187

that I raised in talking about defining literature are as relevant for literary criticism as they are for literary theory,

188

and yet we all instinctively know that these are two very different enterprises.

189

Literary theory loses something that literary criticism just takes for granted.

190

Literary theory is not concerned with issues of evaluation and it's not really concerned with concomitant issues of appreciation.

191

Literary theory just takes those for granted as part of the sense experience,

192

as one might say, of any reader and prefers rather to dwell on questions of analysis and speculation,

193

as I've said.

194

Now that's what's lost in theory, but what's new in theory?

195

Here I come to the topic which will occupy most of my attention for the remainder of the lecture.

196

What's new in theory is the element of skepticism.

197

that literary criticism, by and large which is usually affirming a canon of some sort, doesn't reflect.

198

Literary theory, as I say, is skeptical about the foundations of its subject matter

199

and also in many cases about the foundations of what it itself is doing.

200

So the question is how on earth did this come about?

201

It's an historical question, as I say, and I want to devote the rest of the lecture to it.

202

Why should doubt about the veridical or truth -affirming possibilities of interpretation be so widespread in the twentieth century?

203

Now here's a big glop of intellectual history.

204

I think it arises from what one might call and what often is called modernity, not to be confused with modernism and early twentieth -century phenomenon,

205

but the history of modern thought as it usually derives from the generation of Descartes, Shakespeare, Cervantes.

206

Notice something about all of those figures.

207

Shakespeare is preoccupied with figures who may or may not be crazy.

208

Cervantes is preoccupied with a figure who is crazy.

209

We're pretty sure of that, but he certainly is he takes it for granted

210

that he is the most rational and systematic of all thinkers and raises questions about,

211

since we all take ourselves to be rational too, just how we know ourselves not to be paranoid delusives like Don Quixote.

212

So that too can be unsettling

213

when we think of this as happening at a certain contemporaneous moment in the history of thought.

214

Now Descartes, you remember in his meditations, begins by asking a series of questions about how he can know anything,

215

and one of the skeptical questions he asks is, well, might I not be crazy?

216

In other words, Descartes is still thinking along these same lines.

217

He says, well, maybe I've been seized by an evil genius of some kind, or maybe I'm just crazy.

218

Now why, and here's the question,

219

why do we get this nervousness about the relationship between what I know and how I know it arising at this moment?

220

Well, I think it's characterized, at least in part, by what Descartes goes on to say in his meditations.

221

Descartes settles the matter, perhaps somewhat sweeping the question whether he's crazy under the rug because I'm still not sure he answers that question,

222

but he settles the matter famously by saying, saying, I think, therefore, I am.

223

Furthermore, as a concomitant, I think, therefore, all the things that I'm thinking about can be understood to exist as well.

224

Now the Cartesian Revolution establishes something that is absolutely crucial for what we call the enlightenment of the next hundred,

225

hundred and fifty years.

226

In other words, the idea that there is a distance between the mind and the things that it thinks about, but that this distance is a good thing.

227

In other words, if you look too closely at a picture or if you stand too far away from it, you don't see it clearly.

228

It's out of focus.

229

But if you achieve just the right distance from it, it comes into focus.

230

The idea of scientific objectivity, the idea that motivates the creation of the great encyclopedia by the figures of the French Enlightenment,

231

this idea all arises out of the idea that there is a certain appropriate,

232

objective distance between the perceiver and the perceived.

233

Gradually, however, the idea that this distance is not too great begins to erode, so that in 1796 Kant,

234

who isn't exactly enlisted on the side of the skeptics by most of his serious students,

235

nevertheless does say something equally famous as that which Descartes said, and a good deal more disturbing.

236

We cannot know the thing in itself.

237

Now as I said, Kant erected such an incredibly magnificent scaffolding around the thing in itself,

238

that is to say the variety of ways in

239

which although we can't know it we can sort of triangulate it and come to terms with it obliquely, that it seems churlish to enlist him on the side of the skeptics

240

but at the same time there's a sense of a danger in the distance between subject

241

and object that begins to emerge in thinking of this kind.

242

Now by 1807, Hegel and the Phenomenology of Mind is saying that in recent history

243

and in recent developments of consciousness something unfortunate has set in.

244

We have unhappy consciousness, unhappy consciousness which is the result of estrangement and tremdung,

245

which drives us too far away from the thing that we're looking at.

246

We are no longer certain at all of what we're looking at, consciousness therefore feels alienated.

247

All right, so you can already begin to see a development in intellectual history

248

that perhaps opens the way to a certain skepticism, but the crucial thing hasn't yet happened because,

249

after all, in all these accounts, even that of Hegel, there's no doubt about the authority of consciousness to think what it thinks.

250

It may not clearly think about things,

251

about objects, but it has a kind of legitimate basis that generates the sort of thinking that it does.

252

Here's where I want you to look at the passages that I've handed out.

253

Here's where three great figures, there are others but these are considered the seminal figures,

254

begin to raise questions which complicate the whole issue of consciousness.

255

Their argument is it's not just that consciousness doesn't clearly understand what it's looking at and is therefore alienated from it,

256

it's also that consciousness is alienated from its own underpinnings,

257

that it doesn't have any clear sense of where it's coming from any more than what it's looking at.

258

In other words, that consciousness is not only estranged from the world but that it is in and of itself inauthentic.

259

So just quickly look at these passages.

260

Marx, in the famous argument about commodity fetishism and capital,

261

is comparing the way in which we take the product of human labor

262

and turn it into a commodity by saying that it has objective value, by saying that we know what its value is in and of itself.

263

He compares that with religion.

264

The argument is, well, God is a product of human labor.

265

In other words, it's not a completely supercilious

266

God is brought into being the same way objects that we make use of are brought into being.

267

God is a product of human labor.

268

But then we turn around and we say God exists and has value objectively.

269

Marx's argument is that the two forms of belief,

270

belief in the objective value of the commodity and belief in God, are the same.

271

Now whether or not any of this is true, believe me, is neither here nor there.

272

The point that Marx is making is that consciousness, that is to say the way in which we believe things,

273

is determined by factors outside its control.

274

That is to say, in the case of Marx's arguments,

275

social, historical, and economic factors that determine what we think and which in general we call ideology.

276

That is to say ideology is driven by factors beyond the ken of the person who thinks ideologically.

277

So you see the problem for consciousness now is not just a single problem, it's twofold.

278

It's inauthentic relationship with the things it looks at and and also its inauthentic relationship with its own underpinnings.

279

The argument is exactly the same for Nietzsche, only he shifts the ground of attack.

280

For Nietzsche, the underpinnings of consciousness, which make the operations of consciousness inauthentic,

281

are the nature of language itself.

282

That is to say that when we think we're telling the truth, we're actually using worn -out figures of speech.

283

What then is truth? a mobile army of metaphors,

284

metonymies, anthropomorphisms, in short, a sum of human relations which became poetically and rhetorically intensified,

285

etc., etc., etc., and are now no longer of account as coins but are debased.

286

Now that word now is very important.

287

It suggests that Nietzsche does somehow believe

288

that there's a privileged moment in the history of language

289

when perhaps Perhaps language is a truth serum when it is capable of telling the truth,

290

but language has now simply become a question of worn -out figures.

291

all of which dictates what we believe to be true.

292

I speak in a figurative way about the relationship between the earth and the sky, and I believe that there's a sky god.

293

I speak because I simply don't believe that I'm using figures of speech.

294

All of this is implied in Nietzsche's argument.

295

In other words, language, the nature of language, The way language is received by us in turn determines what we can do with it,

296

which is to say determines what we think, so that for Nietzsche the distortion of truth,

297

that is to say the distortion of the power to observe in consciousness, has as its underlying cause language,

298

the state of language, the status of language.

299

Freud finally argues for exactly the same relationship between consciousness,

300

that is to say what I think I am thinking from minute to minute,

301

and the unconscious, which perpetually in one way or another unsettles what I'm thinking and saying from minute to minute.

302

You know that in the psychopathology of everyday life,

303

Freud reminded us that the Freudian slip isn't something that happens just sometimes and nobody knows knows this better than a lecturer.

304

It's something that happens all the time, and the Freudian slip is something

305

that one lives with simply as a phenomenon of the slippage of consciousness under the influence of the unconscious.

306

Now in the passage I gave you, Freud says a very interesting thing, which is that after all,

307

we have absolutely no objective evidence that the unconscious exists.

308

I mean the unconscious, if I could see the unconscious, it would be conscious, right?

309

The unconscious, what Freud is saying, is something that we have to infer from the way consciousness operates.

310

We've got to infer something.

311

We've got to figure out somehow how it is that consciousness is never completely inhibited, never completely does and says what it wants to say.

312

So the spin on consciousness for Freud is the unconscious.

313

Now someone who didn't fully believe Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud,

314

a very important modern philosopher in the hermeneutic tradition named Paul

315

Ricoeur famously said in the fourth passage on your sheet that these great precursors of modern thought,

316

and particularly, I would immediately add,

317

of modern literary theory, together dominate a school of There is,

318

in other words, in Ricard's view a hermeneutics of suspicion,

319

and skepticism or suspicion is a word that can also be appropriated perhaps more rigorously for philosophy as negativity,

320

that is to say whatever seems manifest or obvious

321

or patent in what we're looking at is undermined for this kind of mind by a negation,

322

which is counterintuitive.

323

That is to say, which would seem not just to qualify what we understand ourselves to be looking at but to undermine it altogether.

324

These tendencies in the way in which Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud have been received.

325

When we read Foucault's What is an Author? next time, we'll return to this question of how Marx, Nietzsche and Freud have been received and what we should make of

326

that in view of Foucault's idea that there's no such thing as an author, but that it's rather dangerous to believe that there are authors.

327

Well, if it's dangerous to believe that there are authors, what about Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud?

328

Foucault confronts this question in what is an author and gives us some interesting results of his thinking.

329

For us, the aftermath, even precisely of the passages I've just quoted,

330

but certainly of the oeuvre, of the three authors I've quoted from,

331

can to a large degree be understood as accounting for the topic,

332

the phenomenon of literary theory as we study it.

333

In other words, literary theory, because of the influence of these figures, is to a considerable degree a hermeneutics of suspicion,

334

recognized as such both by its proponents and famously,

335

I think this is perhaps what is historical for you, by its enemies.

336

During the same period when I was first teaching this course, a veritable six -foot shelf.

337

of diatribes against literary theory was being written in the public sphere.

338

There was the most under - I mean you can take or leave literary theory, fine,

339

but the idea that there would be such an incredible outcry against it was one of the most fascinating results of it.

340

That is to say, for many, many, many people literary theory had something to do with the end of civilization as we know it.

341

That's one of the things that seems rather strange to us today from an historical perspective.

342

But the undermining of foundational knowledge, which seemed to be part and parcel of so much that went on in literary theory,

343

was seen as the central,

344

crucial threat to rationality emanating from the academy and and was attacked in those terms in,

345

as I say, at least six feet of lively polemics.

346

All of that is the legacy of literary theory,

347

and as I say, it arises in part from this element of skepticism that I've thought it best to emphasize today.

348

Now I think that one thing Ricœur leaves out, and something that we can anticipate as becoming more

349

and more important for literary theory and other kinds of theory in the twentieth century is Darwin.

350

That is to say, it strikes me that Darwin could very easily be considered a fourth hermeneut of suspicion.

351

Of course Darwin was not interested in suspicion,

352

but he was certainly the founder of ways of thinking about consciousness that are determined,

353

sociobiologically determined, determined in the realm of cognitive science, determined as artificial intelligence, and so on.

354

All of this is Darwinian thinking and I think increasingly will be central in importance in the 21st century.

355

What will alter the shape of literary theory as it was known studied in the twentieth century is,

356

I think, an increasing emphasis on cognitive science

357

and sociobiological approaches both to literature and to interpretive processes

358

that will derive from Darwin in the same way

359

that strands of thinking of the twentieth century derive from the three figures that I've mentioned.

360

But what all this gives rise to, and this brings me finally to the passages

361

which you have on both sides of your sheet and which I don't want to take up today but just to preview.

362

The passages from James Ambassadors, 1903, and from Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, 1904.

363

In other words, I'm at pains to remind you that this is a specific historical moment in which, in a variety of ways,

364

the speaker argues that consciousness, that is to say the feeling of being alive and being someone acting in the world,

365

no longer involves agency.

366

The feeling that somehow to be conscious has become to be a puppet,

367

that there is a limitation on what we can do imposed by the idea

368

that consciousness is determined in in ways that we cannot control and cannot get the better of,

369

so that Strasser in The Ambassadors and Yepichidov in The Cherry Orchard speak for a point of view,

370

which is a kind of partially well -informed gloom and doom

371

that could be understood to pervade texts that are much better informed that we will be considering,

372

but nevertheless are especially important as an aspect of their historical moment.

373

I want to begin the next lecture by taking up those passages.

374

Please do bring them, and I will also be passing around Tony the Tow Truck,

375

and I'll give you a brief description of what the little children's book actually looks like, and then we will plunge into the question, what is an author?

376

So I'll see you on Thursday.

📺 같은 채널

✨ 추천 영상

549 문장

Philosophy of Science Lecture #1: Introduction

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

106 문장

What is History? E.H. Carr

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

65 문장

Gee: What is Discourse

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

149 문장

SEM141 - Speech Acts - An Overview

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

88 문장

Contemporary Topics 2 Unit 5 Lecture with Powerpoint

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

552 문장

The Professor Who Taught People How To Think (1962)

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

311 문장

Eco 155: Principles of Macroeconomics Class 1

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

124 문장

bassham ch3pt1

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

464 문장

Lec 1 | MIT 18.06 Linear Algebra, Spring 2005

TOEFL PrepCambridge Exam PrepUniversity Students

158 문장

Introduction to Cognitive Bias: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #1

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

135 문장

이 레슨의 어휘와 말하기 포인트

이 말하기 레슨은 영상 “1. Introduction”을(를) 바탕으로 합니다. 가장 자주 반복되는 단어는 다음과 같습니다: theory, literature, literary, consciousness, word. 이 영상에는 섀도잉할 문장 376개와 단어 5500개가 있습니다. 말하는 구간의 길이는 39:26입니다. 화자는 분당 약 139단어의 일정한 속도로 말해서 섀도잉하기에 편한 속도입니다. 단어의 83%가 영어에서 가장 많이 쓰이는 3,000단어에 속합니다. 나머지는 연습 전에 미리 확인해 두세요.

이 영상의 핵심 어휘

영상에 나오는 익혀 둘 만한 단어 15개를 발음, 뜻과 함께 정리했습니다.

단어	발음	뜻
literary 형용사	/ˈlɪt.(ə.)ɹə.ɹi/	문학의
consciousness 명사	/ˈkɑnʃəsnəs/	의식, 자각
lecture 명사	/ˈlɛk.t͡ʃə/	강의
unconscious 형용사	/ˌʌnˈkɑnʃəs/	잠재의식적, 무의식적
topic 명사	/ˈtɑpɪk/	화제, 주제
twentieth 형용사	/ˈtwɛn.ti.əθ/	스무째
suspicion 명사	/səˈspɪʃ.ən/	의혹, 의심
remind 동사	/ɹəˈmaɪnd/	생각나게 하다, 상기(想起)시키다
objective 명사	/ɒbˈd͡ʒɛk.tɪv/	목적
arise 동사	/əˈɹaɪz/	일어나다
belief 명사	/bɪˈliːf/	믿음
conclusion 명사	/kənˈkluːʒən/	종결
reader 명사	/ˈɹi.dɚ/	독자, 읽는 사람
fundamental 형용사	/ˌfʌn.dəˈmɛn.təl/	기본적
phenomenon 명사	/fəˈnɒm.ɪ.nən/	현상

영상에 나오는 구동사

단어	뜻
pick up 동사	줍다
turn around 동사	회전하다

따라 말해 볼 만한 문장

영상에 나오는 짧고 완결된 문장으로, 일상 대화에서 그대로 쓸 수 있습니다:

All right, now I thought I'd begin today.
You can't read it unless you take the course.
How do we know it when we see it?
How can we define it?
How do we meet the text face to face?

이 영상의 문법

화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.

문형	영상 속 표현
조건문 if + 절, will/would + 동사 — 조건과 그 결과	If I don't, not to worry, I'll pick
현재완료 have/has + 과거분사 — 과거의 일이 지금도 관련이 있을 때	has been · I've decided · has remained
수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점	is derived · is applied · be applied
관계절 who / which + 절 — 사람이나 사물에 대한 추가 정보	way, which is · texts, which is · that which is

주의할 발음

화자는 we're, I'm, I've 같은 축약형과 약화된 형태를 83번 사용합니다. 들리는 대로 짧게 발음하세요.

“th” 소리: twentieth /ˈtwɛn.ti.əθ/, theoretical /ˌθi.əˈɹɛt.ɪ.kəl/, methodology /ˌmɛθ.əˈdɑ.lə.d͡ʒi/, nevertheless /ˌnɛvɚðəˈlɛs/, leather /ˈlɛðɚ/
“sh”와 “zh” 소리: consciousness /ˈkɑnʃəsnəs/, unconscious /ˌʌnˈkɑnʃəs/, crucial /ˈkɹuː.ʃəl/, suspicion /səˈspɪʃ.ən/, conclusion /kənˈkluːʒən/
긴 단어 — 강세 위치에 주의: literary /ˈlɪt.(ə.)ɹə.ɹi/, psychological /ˌsaɪ.kəˈlɑː.d͡ʒɪ.kl̩/, fundamental /ˌfʌn.dəˈmɛn.təl/, intellectual /ˌɪntəˈlɛkt͡ʃʊəl/, phenomenon /fəˈnɒm.ɪ.nən/

한국어 화자가 어려워하는 소리:

/f/ — ㅍ(/p/)으로 바꾸지 말고 윗니를 아랫입술에 대기: define /dɪˈfaɪn/, belief /bɪˈliːf/, fundamental /ˌfʌn.dəˈmɛn.təl/, phenomenon /fəˈnɒm.ɪ.nən/, inform /ɪnˈfɔɹm/
/v/ — ㅂ(/b/)과 구별하기: derive /dɪˈɹaɪv/, objective /ɒbˈd͡ʒɛk.tɪv/, involve /ɪnˈvɑlv/, nevertheless /ˌnɛvɚðəˈlɛs/, cognitive /ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv/
/z/ — ㅈ이 아니라 성대를 울리는 /s/: arise /əˈɹaɪz/, pause /pɔːz/, enterprise /ˈɛntəˌpɹaɪz/, organize /ˈɔɹɡənaɪz/, resemble /ɹɪˈzɛmbəl/

이 영상으로 연습하는 방법

먼저 말하지 않고 영상을 끝까지 듣고 모르는 단어를 적어 둡니다.
보통 속도로 한 문장씩 섀도잉하고, 화자의 리듬과 맞을 때까지 반복합니다.
자신의 목소리를 녹음해 원본과 비교하고, literary, consciousness, lecture 같은 단어에 특히 주의합니다.

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법

쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.

섀도잉 방법: 단계별 전체 가이드 읽기 →

쉐도잉 연습: 1. Introduction - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

2. Foundations: This Is Your Brain

The Renovations of Notre-Dame | The Age of Cathedrals with R. Howard Bloch

1. Introduction: What is Political Philosophy?

2. Socratic Citizenship: Plato's Apology

Contract Law 1 Intro Hamer v Sidway (just say no)

Philosophy of Science Lecture #1: Introduction

What is History? E.H. Carr

Gee: What is Discourse

SEM141 - Speech Acts - An Overview

Contemporary Topics 2 Unit 5 Lecture with Powerpoint

The Professor Who Taught People How To Think (1962)

Eco 155: Principles of Macroeconomics Class 1

bassham ch3pt1

Lec 1 | MIT 18.06 Linear Algebra, Spring 2005

Introduction to Cognitive Bias: Crash Course Scientific Thinking #1

String Theory

이 레슨의 어휘와 말하기 포인트

이 영상의 핵심 어휘

영상에 나오는 구동사

따라 말해 볼 만한 문장

이 영상의 문법

주의할 발음

이 영상으로 연습하는 방법

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법