看看英美孩子什么时候学莎士比亚

杳林春晓

这两天看到大家就读经问题发表了很多意见，很有意思。
理不辨不明，这种讨论的氛围很好。

不过其中有一条，我是绝对绝对的不赞同。
那就是用所谓的读英文经典来学英文。
昨天在关于读经的讨论帖里看到这个观点的：

原帖由
secretgarden114
于 2011-9-29 13:10 发表


我很怀疑英语不是母语的孩子靠莎士比亚的朗读背诵、英文名著的诵读来做到短时间内就能看原版的英文小说和科技读物......

别的就不说了，我先贴一段文字，大家看看美国五年级教师是怎么看待莎士比亚，以及从他字里行间可以看出，更大多数的美国人是怎么看待莎士比亚的。
这段文字出自《第56号教室的奇迹》一书：

    用心倾听，诚恳评判
   
    我们的演出吧
    莎士比亚不是一个好的读物！莎翁的剧作根本不是拿来“读”的。在1968年电影版的《罗密欧与朱丽叶》中饰演提伯特一角的米高·约克曾这么提醒我的学生：在莎翁那个年代，人们不会说他们要去看戏，而是说他们去听戏。这位吟游诗人的剧作读起来可能令人不解又乏味，但没有任何东西比这些神奇的文字听起来更悦耳动人。派崔克·史都华( Patrick Stewart)到访时对孩子们述说了自己的童年。他说他小时候会听收音机里的莎剧演出，虽然有很多听不懂的地方，但因为台词听起来太美了，他觉得就算听不懂也无所谓！他还对孩子们说，虽然他在电视和电影方面大放异彩，然而一生中最令他兴奋的日子依然是皇家莎士比亚剧团接受他成为成员的
那一天。
    就像米高·约克和派崔克·史都华一样，霍伯特·莎士比亚剧团也用听的方式学习莎剧。阿克安琪(Arkangel)公司有每一出莎剧的CD，可以单买或买完整的套装作品。这些CD对学生来说是无价之宝。聆听专业演员说台词的方式能使他们对剧作有更深刻的理解。
    就像所有播放录音的课程一样，我会在特定的段落暂停，以便说明。一开始，我会先跳过一些表达方式，让学生们在多听几遍后，自然而然地理解一场戏当中的每一句台词。孩子们一旦明白字词的意义，学起台词的速度是很惊人的，和一从收音机听到流行歌曲就能朗朗上口的情况一样。

    哪个版本的剧本
    出版莎士比亚作品的公司很多，令人眼花缭乱。我猜，每个老师都有自己的偏好。我们班用的是Folger的版本，效果很好。这个版本不但价格公道，而且在每一场戏的开头都附有摘要，提醒学生即将发生的剧情。该版本随页附有详细注解，方便学生了解像谜一般的文字，不需要翻到剧本的最后几页来回对照。
    有些新的莎剧版本把剧本内容印在左页，转换为现在口语习惯的翻译印在右页。我能理解部分教师被它吸引的原因——这种编排方式让入门者很容易上手。不过我担心因为太容易上手了，学生说不定根本就不读莎士比亚的原文。我们的目标之一是，从原文里挖出埋藏的宝石。我们不走捷径。我要学生经历一些困难，克服语言障碍，试着发现莎翁字里行间的种种力量。研究原文的做法也提高了学生们开始念台词时就能迅速掌握莎剧律动的可能性。

[ 本帖最后由 杳林春晓 于 2011-10-1 07:58 编辑 ]

杳林春晓

接下来，



有时间的话，我会来贴一些美国孩子学莎士比亚的资料，也说说英语的学法，看看学英语跟英语读经到底可以扯上什么关系没有。

也欢迎大家参与。

这个话题真值得探讨——因为孩子的时间精力有限啊，万一被某种不正确的方法都给占据了，他们苦学了，效果又看不到，家长的心，会不会疼？

苏格拉没有底

学习一下 :) :)

学而妈妈

谢谢杳林春晓！

一提到莎士比亚，我就赶紧进来了。我家孩子暑假表演过话剧《李尔王》，是他们的老师在原剧本的基础上改编的儿童版，使用的是现代英语，句子虽短小，但还算文雅。可惜我家娃演出后把剧本弄丢了。

我猜老师现在只是用简单的语言，引导孩子稍微了解一下莎士比亚及其作品，目的是希望他们在英文水平提高以后，能够有兴趣自己找原文来比较和学习吧。（顺便说一句，目前老师在阅读课上所选的作品，都是纽伯瑞获奖作品及科普读物，也就是说都是儿童喜欢的故事书和少年科普书）

您说“我会来贴一些美国孩子学莎士比亚的资料，也说说英语的学法”，我太高兴了，这都是我想要的呀

悠悠冉冉

看到这个话题，好玩儿。
正好昨天和一个朋友谈过这个，她给我贴了一个链接，在英国《独立报》上关于给英国孩子读莎士比亚的讨论——即便在英国，对此争议也很大。

The play's the thing: Can young children be wowed by Shakespeare?

The RSC wants primary school children to become fans of Shakespeare. Could A Midsummer Night's Dream really thrill an eight-year-old? Caitlin Davies finds out


Thursday, 5 February 2009


Should children be introduced to Shakespeare at the tender age of four? Or should we wait until they are eight, or even better, the teenage years, when they are able to understand some of the 17th-century language better? This is a fraught issue, on which opinion is divided, but the Royal Shakespeare Company has grabbed the bull by the horns and says that you can't be exposed to the Bard too young.

To promote its case, the RSC has just held a "Stand up for Shakespeare" school assemblies' week. Across the country, RSC big name actors took part, and primary schools were given a DVD of animated editions of Shakespeare's tales in which they meet his star-crossed lovers, witches and fairies.

This is part of a campaign begun last year to improve the teaching, learning and performance of Shakespeare in schools. As many as 10,000 people have now signed up to the RCS's online "Stand up for Shakespeare" manifesto, which will be used to lobby for a national adoption of new approaches in the classroom.

"We're not saying analyse the text at a young age," says Jacqui O'Hanlon, RSC education director. "We're saying act it out, see performances, explore. And we're happy that so many thousands of people have said yes to this."

Start a child young enough, the RSC believes, and they will become Shakespeare lovers for life. Critics, however, say that it could equally put them off for ever.

At the moment Shakespeare is the only writer that is a compulsory part of the curriculum from the age of 13. But the RSC wants to get to children before they're intimidated by the language. And it's Shakespearean language that is the real sticking point.

When my eight-year-old daughter Ruby came in from school with a copy of A Midsummer Night's Dream, my heart sank. Isn't that the play about mistaken identities? It would be too difficult, I thought, even though it was an abridged version. How was I going to explain "beseech", "entreat" and "abjure" – and that was just in the opening speech. But Ruby was not to be put off. She had chosen the book at her school library because it had a rabbit on the cover. Confusing as she found it at first, she was determined to stick with it.

The RSC approves. "Your daughter is the perfect age to start Shakespeare," says O'Hanlon. "Eight-year-olds still have their natural playfulness, they want to solve problems and they're learning new vocabulary every day, anyway."

The critics, however, find the idea of teaching Shakespeare to primary school children "utterly preposterous".

"If you teach a play to a class of 30 one or two might appreciate it but for the rest it would be torture," says Brandon Robshaw, a lecturer at Westminster Kingsway College in London. "Shakespeare certainly shouldn't be taught in primary schools. What would you tell them about Othello, that this is a play about a man who murdered his wife because he thought she'd been to bed with another man?"

According to Robshaw, young children are not capable of appreciating 17th-century language. He remembers that from his own experience at 11 when he was forced to study Henry V, and he argues that Shakespeare should be a choice a student makes at AS level.

But drama teacher Sarah Sawyer, from Ricard's Lodge School in Wimbledon, believes that teaching Shakespeare to youngsters is "fab". To her, the issues in his plays are timeless and she wouldn't have a problem teaching Othello because "it's about betrayal and children know about betrayal."

She teaches a "page to the stage" approach, choosing key scenes rather than tackling a whole play. It is methods such as these – putting aside the desks and getting dramatic – that Michael Boyd, the RSC's artistic director, is so in favour of. Never, says Boyd, think that children are too young or too stupid to study Shakespeare. His first experience with the Bard was at eight when he read a comic-style version of Hamlet with the original text. He enjoyed the "weird and spooky" language, and insists a young child will get a sense of pride at being able to deal with the vocabulary.

So, I wondered, if I took my eight-year-old to a performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream, what would she get out of it? "She will get a clarity of story telling,"promises Boyd, "the enjoyment of a good story, playfulness, humour and magic."

With this in mind we set off to the Novello Theatre in London's West End to see Gregory Doran's production of A Midsummer Night's Dream performed by the world's best Shakespearean actors at the RSC. A bonus is that she will meet Bottom and Titiana in their dressing rooms beforehand.

This is billed as a show that's suitable for all, but it's also three hours long. We could go to the cinema for half the time and a fraction of the cost. As we settle in our seats and the lights dim, I promise Ruby ice cream if she can make it to the interval. Five minutes into the show she whispers, "Mum! I can't understand anything." "I know," I whisper back, "Nor can I." "No," she hisses, "I said I CAN understand everything!"

In the end no bribery is needed. A Midsummer Night's Dream is silly, confusing and rude – and she loves it. She howls with laughter at the Wall in his red underpants, giggles at Flute's farting and Bottom's donkey head, gasps as Titania rises into the air on a very visible hoist. She does, however, ask some sharp questions about the language. What are "bosoms", she inquires, and why is Lysander holding his crotch.

It is the words that grab her most. When the fairy tells Puck, "Those be rubies, fairy favours, / In those freckles live their savours", she sits up straight.

And when the interval comes, there's no question of leaving. "This is better than Mother Goose," she says, "Tomorrow I'm going to write my own play but with Shakespeare's words." Ruby can't wait to get to school and tell everyone she went backstage and met Bottom.

Clarity of story telling? I'm not sure about that. But Boyd is right; children do get a sense of pride when they grasp the meaning, drama and humour of 400-year-old poetry. And once Ruby comes to study the Bard formally, when she has to pick apart rhyming couplets and write essays on the theme of unrequited love, she will remember underpants, flying fairies and the donkey head.

杨阳ILU

也是疑惑中，搬个凳子等听下回分解

chenlili75

很想知道英美的孩子是什么时候开始启蒙传统经典文学的教育的。

伯昏无人

I said I CAN understand everything!

xxbzh

我觉得如果孩子想阅读经典，不妨从Matilda的书单开始，达尔列举的这些书还是很经典的。

大眼宝妈

学习了啊，还是老师的从英语1000句开始吧~