【正文】 rt h. The rai si ng and l oweri ng of a nat i onal fl ag cer tai nl y suggest m eani ngs l arger than t he acts t hem sel ves. And f inal y t oast i ng and shaki ng hands on form al or i nform al occasi ons. As r het or i cal devi ce, sym bol i s dif fer ent f rom m etaphor , whi ch i s li ter al l y false but fi gur ati vel y tr ue. Unl i ke al egor y, which r epr esents abst r act t erm s li ke “l(fā)ove” or “t r ut h, ” sym bol s ar e per cepti ble obj ect s. I n li ter at ure alm ost anythi ng—par ti cul ar obj ect s, char act ers, set i ng, and act i ons—can be sym bol i c if t he aut hor wi shes t o make it so by ei ther hi nti ng or insisti ng t hat the m at er i al m eans mor e than it l it era l y does. Sym bol s are suggested t hrough special tr eat ment such as im ager y, r epeti ti on, connot ati ve l anguage, or ot her art isti c devi ces. I n F. Scott Fit zger al d’s novel The Great Gat sby, a huge pai r of bespect acl ed eyes star es acr oss a wi ldnes of ash heaps fr om a bi l boar d adver ti si ng t he ser vi ces of an ocul ist. Repeat edl y appear ing i n t he st or y, t he bespect acl ed eyes e t o m ean m or e t han sim pl y t he avail abi li t y of eye exam inati on. A char act er i n t he st or y pares it t o t he eyes of God。 i t is, rather, a symbol the poet or t he wr iter adopt s for t he pur pose of hi s/ her wor k, and i t is t o be under st ood onl y in the context of t hat wor k. I t dif fer s fr om t he kind of sym bol i l ust rated by t he fi gure 3 because i t is concr ete and specif ic. A poet or a wri ter uses s ymbols f or the sam e reason he/ she uses simi les, metaphor s, and i mages, etc: they hel p t o expr es hi s/ her meaning i n a way t hat wi l l appeal t o the senses and to the emoti ons of t he reader . Most symbols, in li teratur e and ever yday l if e as wel , possess a t remendous condensing power. Their f ocusing on t he rel at ionshi ps bet ween the vi si bl e ( audibl e) and what they suggest can ki ndl e it i nto a si ngl e impact. Of course, in l it er ary works, symbols, unlike t hose i n ordi nar y l if e, usual ly do not “st and f or” any one meaning, nor f or anythi ng absolut el y defi ni te。t ypes of sent ence ar e used, what is t hei r f uncti on? Sent ence pl exi t y: Do sent ences on whol e have a sim pl e or a pl ex str uct ure? What i s the aver age sent ence l engt h? Does pl exit y var y st ri ki ngly f r om one sent ence t o anot her ? I s pl exi t y m ainl y due t o ( i) coor di nati on, (i ) subor di nati on, ( i ) j uxt aposit on of clauses or of other equi val ent str uct ures? I n what part s of t he t ext does pl exi t y tend t o occur ? cl ause t ypes: What types of cl auses are f avor ed—r el at i ve cl auses, adver bial cl auses, or di f er ent t ypes of nomi nal cl auses? Ar e nonf init e f orms m onl y used, and if so, of what t ypes ar e t hey (i nfi ni ti ve, i ng form , ed f orm, ver bl es str uct ure) ? What is t hei r f uncti on? Clause st r uct ur e: I s t her e anyt hi ng signif icant about cl ause el em ent s (eg f r equency of objects, adver bi al s, pl em ent s。 they point , they hint, or , as Henr y James put it , they cast long shadows. Sym bol ism The term symbolism ref er s t o the use of symbol s, or to a set of rel at ed sym bol s, whi ch is one of the devices that enr ich shor t fi cti on and pensat e for i ts bri efnes in space. 2. There are t wo broad types of li terary symbols Sym bol i s general ly acknowl edged t o be one of the most fr equentl y employed devi ces i n poetr y. I n wor ks of f icti on it i s no less fr equent and no less impor tant. The fact is t hat , when a reader r eads a work of f icti on, hi s focus is most ly cast upon the pl ot, the character, and the l anguage used, so that the symbol s are aut omat ical y backgrounded on the r eader ’s part . But i n some novel s and st ori es, the symboli sm looms so l arge t hat the r eader wi l f ai l to get a prehensive understanding of t he work wi t hout payi ng special at ent ion t o the symbols. The Scarlet Let er by Nathani el Hawt horne i s one of such works. The ver y t it le point s to a double symbol: t he scarl et l et er A worn by Hest er conveys a mult iple of senses which di f er gr eat ly fr om what it l it er al y st ands f or, and the wor k event ual y devel ops into a test and cr it que of symbols themsel ves. Thom as Pynchon’ s V. cont inues al ong much the same li ne, t est ing an alphabet ical symbol . Anot her exam ple i s Herm an Melvi le’ s MobyDi ck, i n which t he huge white whal e i n the t it le of the book acqui res gr eat er m eaning t han the l it er al di ct ionary def ini ti on of an aquatic mammal. I t al so suggest s mor e than the devil , to whom som e of the char act ers l iken i t. The huge whal e, as t he st or y unfol ds, es to i mpl y an am pli tude of meani ngs : among them the f or ces of natur e and the whol e uni ver se. Li terar y sym bol s are of t wo broad types : one t ype includes those em bodyi ng uni versal suggest ions of meani ng. Fl owi ng wat er suggests t im e and et er nit y, a j ourney int o the underwor ld and r etur n fr om i t is i nterpr et ed as a spi ri tual experi ence or a dark night of t he soul , and a ki nd of redem pti ve odyssey. Such symbols ar e used wi del y ( and somet imes unconsciousl y) in wester n li ter at ure. The other t ype of symbol secures i ts suggestivenes not fr om quali ti es inher ent i n i tself but f r om t he way in which it i s used i n a gi ven wor k, in a speci al cont ext . Thus, in Moby Di ck the voyage, t he l and, and t he ocean ar e obj ect s pregnant wi t h m eani ngs t hat seem alm ost i ndependent of t he aut hor ’ s use of t hem in t he st or y。 f or i nst ance, the ways sent ences are connect ed. This i s t he i nt er nal ani zat i on of a t ext . Under cont ext, r oug