|
Conclusion
The story is a satire on the fashionable superstitions of the time: the fortune-teller reveals to be a fake, and his prediction a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is also an indictment of the confusion between morality and upper-class selfishness and conventions. As a crime without punishment, it is the opposite of a moral tale, even though it masquerades as one. The story is not realistic since it does not obey the laws of verisimilitude, and since its comic tone contrasts with the seriousness of most realistic works, yet it does have an indirect social relevance. “The Canterville Ghost” is the parody of a Gothic tale (the ghost is not frightening and is compared to an actor). It follows the structure of the fairy tale, in which a pure young girl saves the damned soul. But its main impetus is a comparison between Britain and America, or two visions of the world. One is traditional and superstitious; the other is positivistic and pragmatic: the Americans give the ghost oil to lubricate his noisy chains, the kids play tricks on him and lead him to despair. Even in his comedies and parodies, Wilde’s writings were influenced by the aestheticist philosophy of men like Pater, who associated realism with a bourgeois outlook (capitalistic, rational, morally conventional), and pictured the reality of refined life as that of the sensations and the imagination.
References.
1) Drake, S. G. History of the Early Discovery of America and Landing of the Pilgrims. Nabu Press, 2010.
2)Hall, D. D. Puritans in the New World. Princeton University Press, 2004.
3)LaPlante, E. American Jezebel: The Uncommon Life of Anne Hutchinson. HarperOne, 2005.
4)Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution: PrefaceAccessed 27 Jan 2021.
5)Taylor, A. American Colonies: The Settling of North America. Penguin Books, 2002.
6)Warren, J. A. God, War, and Providence: The Epic Struggle of Roger Williams and the Narragansett Indians against the Puritans of New England. Scribner, 2019.
7) McArthur, Tom (Ed.). 1996. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
8) Mueller, Janel. 1984. The Native Tongue and the Word. Developments in English Prose Style 1380-1580. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
9) Salmon, Vivian. 1996. Language and Society in Early Modern England. Selected Essays 1981-1994. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
10. Boers, F. and M. Demecheleer. 1998. A cognitive semantic approach
to teaching Prepositions. ELT Journal, 52, 3, 197-204.
11. Cobbett, William (1983) A Grammar of the English Language. The 1818 New York first edition with passages added in 1819, 1820, and 1823. Amsterdam: Rodopi
12. Clark, E. (1973). Nonlinguistic strategies in the acquisition of word meanings. Cognition, 2, 161-182.
13. Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999) The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (2nd edition).USA: Heinle&Heinle Publishers.
14. Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.
15. Dewell, R. (1994). Over again: image-schema transformations in semantic analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(4), 351-380
16. Evans, V. (2007a). A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
17. Gardner, D., & Davies, M. (2007). Pointing out Frequent Phrasal Verbs: A Corpus-Based Analysis. TESOL quarterly, 41(2), 339-359.
18. Geeraerts, D. (2007). Where does prototypicality come from? In V. Evans, B. Bergen & J. Zinken (Eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics Reader (pp. 168-185). London/Oakville: Equinox Publishing Ltd.
19. F. Gabdulxanov. Prospects in Development of The Methodology in Teaching Foreign Languages in Uzbekistan 2013
20. Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, E., Pullum, G., Sag, Ivan (1985) Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
21. Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning Oxford: Oxford University Press
23. Lakoff, George. 1993. “Contemporary theory of metaphor.” In Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edition, Andrew Ortony (ed), 202–251.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
24. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, i, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
25. Leech, Geoffrey, Paul Rayson and Andrew Wilson (2001) Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman
26. Levinson, S. C., & Wilkins, D. P. (Eds.). (2006). Grammar of Space: explorations of cognitive diversity. Cambridge, New York Cambridge University Press.
27. Lindstromberg, Seth. 1996. “Prepositions: meaning and method.” English Language Teaching Journal 50, (3): 225–236.
28. Lindstromberg, Seth,1998. English prepositions explained, UK.
29. Lorincz, K. and Gordon, R.(2012) ‘Difficulties in learning Prepositions and Possible Solutions’. Linguistics Potfolio.1, p.14
30. Muller, C.M. (2011) ‘English Learners’ knowledge of prepositions: Collocational Knowledge or knowledge based on meaning’ System: an international Journal of Educational technology and applied Linguistics. 39 (4), p 480-490
31. John Peck, Martin Coyle. A brief history of English literature.Palgrave, 2002.
32. Thornley G.C. An outline of English literature.Longman, 2003.
33. БақоеваМ, МуратоваЭ, ОчиловаМ., English literature. Т. : 2006
34. Liliana Sikorska. An outline history of English literature. 2003, 529p
35. Oxford companion to English literature. Margaret Drabble. Oxford University press.2000.
36. Г.В.Аникин, Н.П. Михальская История Английской литературы М.1985 й.
37. Ф. БойназаровЖаҳонадабиёти Т. 2006 й.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
