8000字外文医学论文

差不多也八千字左右吧

主题是什么，有哪些要求呢？建议你去资讯一下那些专业的机构。

(一)题名(Title,Topic)题名又称题目或标题。题名是以最恰当、最简明的词语反映论文中最重要的特定内容的逻辑组合。论文格式相关书籍论文题目是一篇论文给出的涉及论文范围与水平的第一个重要信息，也是必须考虑到有助于选定关键词不达意和编制题录、索引等二次文献可以提供检索的特定实用信息。论文题目十分重要，必须用心斟酌选定。有人描述其重要性，用了下面的一句话：“论文题目是文章的一半”。对论文题目的要求是：准确得体：简短精炼：外延和内涵恰如其分：醒目。(二)作者姓名和单位(Author and department)这一项属于论文署名问题。署名一是为了表明文责自负，二是记录作用的劳动成果，三是便于读者与作者的联系及文献检索(作者索引)。大致分为二种情形，即：单个作者论文和多作者论文。后者按署名顺序列为第一作者、第二作者……。重要的是坚持实事求是的态度，对研究工作与论文撰写实际贡献最大的列为第一作者，贡献次之的，列为第二作者，余类推。注明作者所在单位同样是为了便于读者与作者的联系。(三)摘要(Abstract)论文一般应有摘要，有些为了国际交流，还有外文(多用英文)摘要。它是论文内容不加注释和评论的简短陈述。其他用是不阅读论文全文即能获得必要的信息。摘要应包含以下内容：

1.苏东坡的文学背景和他的赋SU TUNG-PO’S LITERARY BACKGROUND AND HIS PROSE-POETRY by Qian Zhongshu (Primarily written as a foreword to “Su Tung-Po’s Prose-poems” translated into English With Notes and Commentaries by C. D. Le Gros Clark, this is published here by kind permission of Mr. Le Gros Clark. Those who are interested in textual criticism may consult Mr. Wu Shih-ch’ang’s review in Chinese which appeared in The Crescent Monthly, Vol. IV, No. 3. –Ed.)Of the Sung dynasty, it may be said, as Hazlitt said of himself, that it is nothing if not critical. The Chinese people dropped something of their usual wise passiveness during the Sung dynasty, and “pondered, searched, probed, vexed, and criticized”. This intellectual activity, however, is not to be compared with that of the Pre-Chin period, the heyday of Chinese philosophy. The men of the Sung dynasty were inquisitive rather than speculative, filled more with a sense of curiosity than with a sense of mystery. Hence, there is no sweep, no daring, no roominess or margin in their intellectualism. A prosaic and stuffy thing theirs is, on the whole. This critical spirit revealed itself in many directions, particularly in the full flourish of literary criticism and the rise of the tao-hsüeh （道学）, that mélange adultere of metaphysics, psychology, ethics and criticism in China is an unduly belated art. Apart from a handful of obiter dicta scattered here and there, Liu Hsieh’s Literary Mind （刘勰文心雕龙） and Lo Chi’s A Prose-poem on Literature （陆机文赋） are the critical writings that count up to the Sung dynasty. There is Chung Yung’s Classification of Poets (钟嵘诗品) of course. But Chung Yung is a literary genealogist rather than a critic, and his method of simply dividing poets into sheep and goats and dispensing praise or dispraise where he thought due, is the reverse of critical, let alone his fanciful attempts to trace literary parentages(1). Ssu-Kung Tu’s Characterisations of Poetry (司空图诗品) is a different matter(2). Ssu-Kung Tu seeks to convey purely with imagery the impressions registered by a sensitive mind of twenty four different kinds of poetry: “pure, ornate, grotesque,” etc. His is perhaps the earliest piece of “impressionistic” or “creative criticism” ever written if any language, so quietly ecstatic and so autonomous and self-sufficient, as it were, in its being but it fails on that very account to become sober and proper criticism. It is not until the Sung dynasty that criticism begins to be practiced in earnest. Numerous “causeries on poetry” （诗话）are written and principles of literature are canvassed by way of commentaries on individual poets. Henceforth, causeries on poetry become established as the vehicle for Chinese criticism. One must note in passing that there do not appear professional critics with the rise of criticism. In those good old days of China, criticism is always the prerogative of artists themselves. The division of labour between critics and artists in the West is something that the old Chinese literati would scoff at. The criticism of Sung dynasty, like all Chinese criticismsbefore the “New Literature Movement” with the possible exception of Hsieh’s Literary Mind, is apt to fasten upon particulars and be given too much to the study of best words in best places. But it is symptomatic of the critical spirit, and there is an end of Chinese common reader often regards the men of the Sung dynasty as prigs. Their high seriousness and intellectual and moral squeamishness are at once irritating and amusing to the ordinary easy-going Chinese temperament. There is something paralyzing and devitalizing in their wire-drawn casuistry which induces hostile critics to attribute the collapse of the Sung dynasty to its philosophers. There is also a disingenuousness in their attempts at what may be called for want of a better name, philosophical masquerade: to dress up Taoism of Buddhism as orthodox Confucianism. One need but look into Sketches in a Villa（阅微草堂笔记）and Causeries on Poetry in a Garden（随园诗话） to see what a good laugh these two coxcombs of letters, Chi Yuen （纪昀） and Yuan Mei （袁枚） have had at the expense of the Sung philosophers and critics respectively. Nevertheless ofe is compelled to admit that the Sung philosophers are unequalled in the study of mental chemistry. Never has human nature been subject to a more rigorous scrutiny before or since in the history of Chinese thought. For what strikes one most in the tao-hsüeh is the emphasis on self-knowledge. This constant preying upon itself of the mind is quite in the spirit of the age. The Sung philosophers are morbidly introspective, always feeling their moral pulses and floundering in their own streams of consciousness. To them, their mind verily “ a kingdom is”. They analyse and pulverize human nature. But for that moral bias which Nietzsche thinks to be also the bane of German philosophy, their vivisection of human soul would have contributed a good deal to what Santayna calls literary poetry of the sung dynasty is also a case in point. It is a critical commonplace that the Sung poetry furnishes a striking contract to the T’ang poetry. Chinese poetry, hitherto ethereal and delicate, seems in the Sung dynasty to take on flesh and becomes a solid, full-blooded thing. It is more weighted with the burden of thought. Of course, it still looks light and slight enough by the side of Western poetry. But the lightness of the Sung poetry is that of an aeroplane describing graceful curves, and no longer that of a moth fluttering in the mellow twilight. In the Sung poetry one finds very little of that suggestiveness, that charm of a beautiful thing imperfectly beheld, which foreigners think characteristic of Chinese poetry in general. Instead, one meets with a great deal of naked thinking and outright speaking. It may be called “sentimental” in contradistinction to the T’ang poetry which is on the whole “naïve”, to adopt Schiller’s useful antithesis. The Sung poets, however, make up for their loss in lisping naivete and lyric glow by a finesse in feeling and observation. In their descriptive poetry, they have the knack of taking the thing to be described sur le vif: witness Lo Yu (陆游) and Yang Wan-li （杨万里）. They have also a better perception of the nuances of emotion than the T’ang poets, as can be seen particularly in their Ts’u （词）, a species of song for which the Sung dynasty is justly famous(3). Small wonder that they are deliberate artists, considering the fact that they all have been critics in the off hours of their inspiration. The most annoying thing about them is perhaps their erudition and allusiveness which makes the enjoyment of them to a large extent the luxury of the initiated even among the Chinese. （3000字）还有一篇在玩偶之家的身份抗争（6000字）和一篇马丁路德金的《我有一个梦》文体分析（10000字）如果需要就麻烦您告诉我您的邮箱，再给您发过去。

其实这样算也没多大意义的，如果想堆词汇量的话，一半也就是4000中文字也能堆出来，但是废话太多，最好还是认真的写满8000中文吧

大约10000字左右