学科之间的融合乃为创新的一种通用之法，它也可用认知语言学家提出的“概念整合论”做出合理解读。笔者注意到，20世纪90年代同时从西方传来两股学术思潮：后现代哲学与认知语言学，但两者一直未能对话和融合。虽有学者述及此事，但收效甚微。本文尝试融合这两股思潮，且在此基础上反思了CL之不足，尝试将其修补为“体认语言学（ECL）”，从哲学角度论述了语言研究中的象豹观、唯物论、体验人本性（含非理性）、隐喻认知论等，探索了语言学理论的本土化和前沿性问题，为国内外的语言学界开辟了一个新方向，也为语言教学提出了新思路。

学术研究，这里主要指的是人文和社会科学的研究，进入20世纪以后变得越来越理论化（theorization）、程序化（proceduralization）、专门化（specialization）和体制化（institutionalization）, 其结果是学术研究与一般的问题探讨和传统的真理追求大相径庭。学术研究也因此有了其高度专门的学理性，学术规范也演变成了一套不同于一般伦理的专门规约。学术关注的特殊性也使学术发表成了特殊的学术交流活动。国内的许多学术研究和发表规范的讨论大多从一般伦理的角度出发，对学术研究和发展本身的一些特性重视不足。我们将对学术研究的四化过程、对四化后的学术研究规范以及学术发表的相关要素（写作要素和期刊审读和采用等）进行探讨和分析。

Herewith the discussion of historical developments among scholars. They happen to reflect trends on the scholarly market that interact with disciplines, hence with research. One of the conclusions will be that scholarly topics (World Literature: WL; Comparative Literature: CL; Translation Studies: TS) often happen to reflect more than scholarly perspectives, particularly from the moment they refer to the “World”.

As one of the secretaries of the International Literature Association (1985-1991), I happen to be embarrassed for several reasons by the story of interdisciplinarities that I have studied – recently only - on the basis of a large corpus. Anyway the topic is fascinating, and not only for academic reasons.

One of the well-known topoi in CL is the concept of Weltliteratur, often quoted in German, borrowed from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (18^th-19^th Century). During a long period however, CL tended to avoid taking WL too seriously as an object of study. But WL suddenly became a hot topic at the end of the 20^th century, under the influence of contemporary Internationalization and, more particularly, due to the success of Casanova 1999, where the Goethe-heritage was fully revised. Which is not really an event in scholarship: the revision of traditions.

But the arguments underlying the sudden shift (volte-face) in CL reflect symptomatic orientations in the views on literature and CL (the discipline) on behalf of (mainly USA-based) comparatists that look enlightening as a key to Literary Studies in general to the extent that they indicate how a scholarly research topic (literature) is implicitly defined on the basis of national implications and priorities. And exclusions.

The first exclusion was associated with important scholarly work produced by – at least – one particular Marxist scholar, Dionýz Ďurišin, at least until the 1980s. A second exclusion, which also applied to the same Ďurišin, was the treatment of translation (rather than TS). This double exclusion was a paradox to the extent that Ďurišin was several times active within ICLA. And so was TS. The group around Holmes that gave birth to TS in very different environments (Holmes 1972) was accepted in 1976 (Budapest congress) as the ICLA Translation Committee, it is still active within ICLA – with no links any more in TS - but it was never integrated into the agendas of ICLA and certainly not into the program of ICLA’s prestigious History of Literatures in European Languages, which left the title World literature to a team of Russian comparatists. Both WL and TS happened to be simply tolerated.

The fact is that since the beginning of the new century the new ICLA claims to have supported both WL and TS. André Lefevere, who protested in 1979 against the treatment of TS within ICLA, and who is now systematically quoted as one of the favorite ICLA pilots in TS, had a summarizing name for such a recuperation story: selective un-attention. A few years earlier, he called translation the Guilty Conscience of CL.- TS, what’s in a name? Is it just a province in a given kind of CL?

In its peripheries, academic research has always cultivated radical conflicts. While some among the canonized experts in TS wondered why and how TS would suddenly have changed after say twenty centuries, most contemporary experts are convinced that cultural and technological environments render further radical changes very predictable. How could we avoid applying to translation phenomena Walter Ong’s views from Orality and Literacy? (Ong: Basic changes in the research and the production of communication generate changes in societies).

Several key concepts that belong to the canon of our young discipline (e.g. the idea of individual translators, binary relations between individual texts, the stability of meaning in discourse, etc.) seem to need revision due to the permanent flow of communications in our contemporary age.

How such a revision is possible? – Ay, there’s the rub! (Shakespeare)

It has been told that the birth of Translation Studies (TS) was a success story. The question is now to what extent the new challenges of the globalizing world from the 21^st century will find responses in the new discipline. Questions about the origins of disciplines have chances to be relevant from the moment they go beyond picturesque stories or pictures (but we have them!). In fact it is not unknown that translation is as old as the Garden of Eden, whereas Translation Studies (TS) is very young as an Academic Discipline (as stressed by Daniel Gile). James Holmes’ text on The Name and Nature of TS (Holmes 1972) as well as Toury 1980 or Hermans’ The Manipulation of Literature (Hermans 1985) need to be contextualized, e.g. in their dissatisfaction with many translation theories from the recent past, or with the unawareness of any translation conceptualization in everyday Academia. While many innovative initiatives developed from 1990 on, the impact of the networking around Holmes and others remains strong in the institutionalization of Target (https://benjamins.com/catalog/target ), Cetra (https://www.arts.kuleuven.be/cetra ), in the sudden boom of scholarly publications, etc. The growing interdisciplinarity and the recent globalization trends on five continents may look spectacular, but fragmentation, a well-known feature of academic traditions, is threatening also in TS.

This presentation does not claim to lead into any narrative historiography nor into utopian futurology. It rather leads into research on translation culture(s) from the contemporary perspective with reference to traditions, while going beyond nation-state frameworks and on the basis of communication and networking. The result will remain fragmented anyhow, but much less than in traditional societies. It has been demonstrated that the search for regularities in large corpora can be efficient in the culture of national bibliographies (Van Bragt 1995); the sociological study of translation markets (e.g. in the Bourdieu-teams) extends the networking further into electronic communication; hopefully, similar projects may be running. As long as international teams cannot or do not really coordinate their cooperation beyond national borders, globalization in TS will not really take off, but a better use of common resources will allow for more panoramic insights in the dynamics of international translation cultures. A better use of research already achieved is not too difficult. And this is what the Institutionalization of the Discipline ought to promote.

My talk on the process of adapting It Can’t Happen Here, the novel written by Sinclair Lewis, for the stage along with Tony Taccone, which was originally performed by Berkeley Repertory Theater in 2016 and has since been published by Dramatist’s Play Service and produced numerous times throughout the United States and in England, will focus not only on that work, but also on the  experience with adaptations over the past 35 years in theater, film, and television.  During that time, I have adapted such works as the German play The Soldiers, by Jakob Lenz, the novels Rainbow Drive, The Night of the Fox, and The Snarkout Boys and the Avocado of Death, for television, and have had my own book, The Zebra Murders: A Season of Killing, Racial Madness, and Civil Rights adapted for both film and television, while also being involved in the adaptations of other works as both a producer and a consultant.  My talk will touch upon the different demands made on adaptations by all three mediums, and the unique set of circumstances that surrounded our adaptation of It Can’t Happen Here, a fictional play about a Presidential election that proved devastating for America, in the midst of a real Presidential election that proved much the same.

近藤教授将全面回顾介绍伊朗学在日本的发端、成长、主要流派、主要代表人物和学科研究现状。

- Key milestones of China’s retail development

- Different faces of e-commerce

- Success and failure of digital transformation

- New retail : towards omni-channels