语言学中形态学研究论文

关于英语语言学的论文，论文题目和主要内容已列出，供参考。链接附后1.题目：语言学英文版论文。主要内容：该论文主要讲词汇是构成语言的基本单位，词汇习得在语言学习中占有重要地位。英国著名语言学家D.A. Wilkins (1972) 说过：“没有语法，人们不能表达很多东西；而没有词汇，人们则无法表达任何东西。”这就说明了词汇在学习中的重要性。本文旨在分析二语词汇习得策略并应用于不同水平的学习者。学习者根据自己的水平选择正确的习得方法和策略学习词汇，从而提高学习效率和习得效果。http://wenku.baidu.com/link?url=SXkEsiMcpfqhM3IdT5ZZ97aNTmwfO_74dvJoNSWoCp2FIyudzpd1uBSgh2ccFJS6RN7xNBPb9WFk_matYEwCRT0EMxynK7D_vYN7D59Og5G2.题目：.英语专业毕业论文(语言学)——谈判英语文化差异。主要内容：该论文主要讲国际商务谈判中文化差异的影响，就是汉语习惯思维和西方语言文化之间表达的准确性对商务谈判带来的影响。http://wenku.baidu.com/view/ef2d20e09b89680203d825be.html4.题目：外国语言学及应用语言学硕士论文：商务英语信函的词汇特点研究，主要内容：商务英语信函词汇的选择和应用多呈现如下7种特点：1)简单词汇的选择。2)具体词汇多于笼统词汇。3)褒义词多于贬义词。4)缩写词的选择。5)确切词汇多于模糊词汇。6)礼貌、客气的词汇多于不礼貌的词汇。7)商业术语的选择。产生的原因多取决于商务活动的和商业伙伴的合作关系。商务活动的双方均为达至双赢的进行合作。这是本文所分析的词汇特点产生的主要原因。

形态学是用来特指一门专门研究生物形式的本质的学科。这门形态学同那种把有机体的生物分解成各个单元的解剖学不同，不是只注重部分的微观分析而忽略了总体上的联系，相反它要求把生命形式当作有机的系统看待形态学的方法，一方面是对接受研究中的历史学方法的补充，另方面是对比较文学的文学性的继续关注。作为生物学的主要分支学科，其目的是描述生物的形态和研究其规律性，且往往是与以机能为研究对象的生理学相对应。广义地来说，它包括研究细胞阶段形态的细胞学的大部分，以及探讨个体发生过程的发生学。狭义的形态学主要是研究生物的成年个体的外形和器官构造（解剖学、组织学和器官学）。从方法论上来讲，它分为重视器官和机能关系的生理形态学，以及重点放在比较研究上的比较形态学以至系统形态学和实验形态学或因果形态学（Causal morphology）。形态学方法被正式命名为“形态文艺学”（morphologisch Literaturwissenschaft ），这是关于文艺学的基础理论研究，其中心观点，认为诗的“构形”（Gestalt）是有机组成的大自然的“现象”（Erscheinung）；诗是“构形的整体”（Gestaltganzes），也即是有生命力的有机体，它通过和自然同等的创造力这样一个构形性的中介组成整体。总体构形中的每一个别要素与层次，组成诗的艺术品，则被视为这一整体构形的“变型”（Metamorphose）。形态学是研究动植物形态（form）的科学。它在生物学的理论框架中究竟占有什么位置一直有争议，而且在一定意义上来说，将来也会如此。值得十分注意的是，从18世纪晚期开始经常有人试图建立一种多少与生物学脱离的“纯粹形态学”（puremorphology），也就是生物学家、数学家和艺术家都同样爱好的一门科学。只有了解了形态学这个词常被人们用来表示一些互相无关甚至十分不同的事态发展后才有可能理解形态学的复杂历史。

越来越多的学者正显示有兴趣在通过语言的方法翻译研究。与1949年和1989年，一个不完整的调查，作者发现，有大约只有30教科书通道的讨论之间的关系，语言学和翻译，包括方面的普通语言学，语用学，文体学，篇章语言学，修辞学和机器翻译。从1990年至1994年，有一个令人难以置信的数目增加了通道，看翻译，从语言学的角度来看。几乎160发表的文章中对这些五年关心的翻译和普通语言学，文体学，比较语言学，语义，语用学，社会语言学，文字语言学，修辞学等新的条款，如话语分析，诠释学，动态等值，深部结构和表面结构，背景，主题和述位，合作的原则，更遑论只是一个数，出现在翻译领域的研究。我们一定可以找出一个趋势，应用语言学理论翻译研究在这些年。 今天，我们在点质疑语言学是一个必要组成部分的翻译。近年来，一些学者，谁是在赞成的免费翻译，曾多次提出这个问题向公众，并呼吁结束了语言的方法翻译。一些坚信，翻译是一种艺术和语言学，因此，既不是有用的，亦无帮助。这种说法是错误的，如果我们看看翻译作为一个整体，包括科学的翻译那里的意思是僵化和限制，自由度是有限的。灵活性，在这种情况下，既不需要也不赞赏。 但是，即使是在文学翻译，语言学，是难以负担。王宗炎指出， «如果一看到语言学作为一个机构的规则，规范的语言，翻译，最可能会哈欠与无聊。如果它标志使用的字和locutions以适合的场合，是没有任何停止译员从概括性的语言学» （王1991年： 38 ） 。争议«字面»银两«免费»翻译有着悠久的历史，与有说服力的支持者，一边一国。举例来说，古代西方学者一样，伊拉斯谟，奥古斯丁，和其他人赞成，直译。其中中国早期翻译，鸠摩罗什是被视为免费的学校，而轩zuang似乎字面和灵活性。在当代中国，严复主张诠释学的翻译，而鲁迅的首选一拙劣的版本，一个是免费的，但不精确。有没有错，在上述任何立场。当这些译员强调，免费翻译，他们从不否认的可能性直译，反之亦然。问题只出现时，讨论，轮流相当于翻译。 问题的等价性已引起很大的争议。有些人认为有可能是一个等价语文元素，独立设置他们在其中的发生。在此基础上假设，一些«字面»翻译试图分解一个文本到单一元素，希望找到等值在目标语言。这是一个天真的想法。 jakobson （ 1971年： 262 ）指出， «等价在不同的是枢机主教的问题，语言和关键的关注语言学。 » ，他并不是指«等价» ，但«的等值的不同之处»为枢机主教的问题。奈达也误解了很多，他的概念«等价， »他走上表示«翻译组成，在复制，在受体的语言最接近自然相当于源语言讯息，首先是在条款的含义和在第二条款作风» （ 1969年： 12 ） 。他进一步得出结论认为， «绝对的等值翻译是绝不可能» （ 1984年： 14 ） 。德beaugrande和德雷斯勒认为，成功或失败，无论是免费或直译的方法是不确定的：一不适当«字面»翻译可能会尴尬，甚至费解的，而过分«免费»之一，可能会使原来的文本，分化和完全消失。对他们来说，等价之间的翻译和原创，只能在实现的经验，与会者（参见德beaugrande和德雷斯勒1981 ： 216-217 ） 。卡特福德（ 1965年： 27 ）表达了同样的关注，相等于翻译只是«实证的现象，通过比较发现， SL和铊的案文。 »在列举上述例子，我有绝对无意坚持对不可译。我的意思是，一个翻译者应该把他或她自己的经验和加工活动，到文本：解决问题，减少polyvalence解释，远离任何不一致或不连续性。语言知识可以帮助我们对待不同类型以不同的方式，始终与意识，有没有确切的等价但只有逼近。因此，功放和简化成为可以接受的。 如果我们同意的文本可以翻译，那么，以何种方式是否语言学的贡献翻译？要回答这个问题，我们必须寻求在接受西方语言学在中国及其对翻译的影响。系统性，科学性的研究，中文应运而生年底才在上个世纪，当马建忠出版了一本书的语法马氏文通«马氏文通»于1898年，这是首次在中国了语法印支欧洲语言作为其模型。研究语言，反过来又影响，翻译研究在中国。在麻石wenton ，主要的重点是使用形态，这占用了6 - sevenths的这本书。影响占主导地位的趋势形态学研究，总之，被视为最低有意义的单位，和刑期，因此，合乎逻辑的组合的话，各种具体的类型。翻译，然后，主要是基于该单位的Word 。在西方，圣经的翻译提供了一个很好的例子，正如翻译佛经并在中国。 直到十九世纪末做了一些语言学家来认识到判刑，不只是总结了测序，换句话说，他们所载的。布拉格学派，创立于20世纪20年代，取得了相当大的贡献的研究语法。根据该分析方法的功能的角度来看，布拉格学派，一个句子可以分解成两部分：主题和述位。主题是反对述位在类似方式之间的区别的话题和评论，并定义为一个组成部分，句，至少这有助于推进的过程中的沟通。述位，另一方面，是一个组成部分，一句是增加最与时俱进的过程中的沟通和具有最高程度的交际动力。这两个名词，帮助启发的过程中中文翻译成英文。 在20世纪50年代中期，研究语法达到高峰，与乔姆斯基的建立转换-生成语法。这一理论的深部结构和表面结构的语言翻译的影响极大。奈达依赖于这一理论在发展中国家的他«分析- transfering -重建»模式的翻译。一些中国语言学家，在此期间，试图以提高语文研究，以更高的飞机。李进喜（ 1982年）扩大的作用句研究在他的书中一个新的汉语语法，其中三分之二是专门讨论句子的形成或语法。他写道， «没有的话，可以发现除语境中的一个句子。 »研究当时的改善，其他grammarians ，包括吕叔湘，王力。 与发展的语言学研究，翻译的基础上，单位的一句是所提出的一些学者。这是林语堂谁首先运用理论对翻译在他的文章«对翻译。 »他声称«翻译应该做的事的基础上一句[...]什么翻译应忠实，是不是个别的话，但意思转达他们» （林1984年为： r 3 ） 。的重要性的背景下，在理解句子，因此强调。超yuanren ，一个中国学者和哈佛大学教授，学者的批评和笔译谁往往忘记这一点，并采取语言为一些独立和自给自足。事实上，这是显而易见的，当我们翻译句子，我们取决于它的背景;当我们解释1话语，我们依赖的背景下的讲话（参见超1967 ） 。当一个句子，是从文字，它通常变得含糊不清，由于缺乏背景。因此，翻译成为困难。 在20世纪60年代，人们开始认识到学习语文的基础上的刑罚甚至没有足够的。完整的研究报告应作出的全文。一个简单的句子一样， «乔治通过»可能有不同的解释不同语境下。如果背景是一个考试，这意味着没有乔治，以及对测试;在一个卡片游戏，它会表明，乔治拒绝他的机会，出价;在体育这将意味着球达成的另一个球员。没有一个背景下，我们怎么能决定一个翻译？语言学家，因此他们的注意力转移到研究文本和话语分析。篇章语言学已成为越来越受欢迎的自那时起。范dijk是一个先驱在这一领域，和他的4卷版的手册，话语分析是具有极大的价值。哈利迪的凝聚力的中，英文介绍功能语法，帮助我们更好地了解英语语言对文字的水平。值得注意的是，德beaugrande和德雷斯勒（ 1981 ）提供了一个整体和系统的研究文本，这是有益的翻译研究。德beaugrande其实写了一本书所谓的因素，在一个理论的诗翻译在1978年。这本书并没有成为很受欢迎，因为它仅限于讨论诗歌的翻译。在同一时间内，书籍，语言学的方法，以翻译介绍到中国，如工程尤金奈达，彼得newmarks ， ， JC卡特福德，乔治mounin ，和其他人。这些书籍了很大的推动，应用语言学理论翻译研究在中国。 文本或discoursive的方式来研究翻译不能跟上发展的篇章语言学。一些研究仍留在句法或语义层面上，虽然甚至有文本装置被聘用。在谈到翻译单位的Word和文字，奈达写道： ...一般人天真地认为，语言是换言之，共同默契的假设，结果翻译涉及更换一个字，语文与一个字，语文乙和更多«认真»这类翻译的是，更为尖锐。在其他换句话说，传统关注的焦点，在翻译上字。人们认识到，这不是一个足够大的单位，因此，重点转移到判刑。不过，专家，翻译和语言学家已能证明个人的句子，在反过来，是不够的。重点应放在该段，并在一定程度上总的话语。 （奈达和tabber 1969 ： 152 ） 从这个声明可以看出，奈达的问候话语，作为大于一个段落，作为一篇文章，与一个开始和结束。奈达自己从未申请篇章语言学翻译，可能会有一些混乱，如果我们用他的任期在我们的解释话语，因为话语分析不仅是研究的基础上，较大的语言结构。 一些中国学者没有作出努力申请文本语言学的理论和实践的翻译。王秉勤的文章（ 1987年）是第一学术论文这一类的。他说，他的目标是研究和发现规则的内部结构，文字在根据篇章语言学。他分析，许多例子使用的词句分析，但不幸的是，所有的样品，他收集到的描述，风景或报价从书籍的伟大学者-没有对话，没有言外或成事部队在该语言。他未能提供了各种例子。基于这个原因，他的研究结果，主要是限于修辞文本在中国古代（参见王1981 ;罗1994年） 。 学者一样，他自然适用于pragamatics翻译。他的文章（ 1992 ）提出了两个新的条款， « pragmalinguistics »和«社会经济语用学» ，其中，在翻译，是指分别以«研究务实的武力或语言使用的观点，语言来源» ，并«务实研究其中，研究条件对语言使用所产生的社会和文化情况。 »他讨论的可能性，运用务实的态度，翻译，以达到一个务实的等效之间的来源和目标文本，即是重现的讯息，进行源语言本身，以及含义进行了由源语言其背景和文化。在这方面的文章，他也试图区分«语用语言学»从«社会经济语用学» ，但最后也承认， «其实，一个清晰的线之间的语用语言学和社会经济语用学有时可能难以得出。 »他仍然坚持认为，应用该务实的态度，翻译是有益的，甚至是必要的。柯莉（ 1992 ）认为，语义，而在广义相结合的语义和语用学的，应加以研究，以帮助理解，解释和解决遇到的一些问题在翻译中。在这篇文章中，他审查了4语义条款-«意义和参考， » « h yponomy， » «变化的意义»和«背景» -让许多例子，i l lusrate的重要性，有一些一般性的知识和语义理解之间的关系和语义的翻译。这篇文章中明确写道，读者可以很容易吸取灵感来自它。 这些语言学的方法，棚灯，对新标准的«信，达，雅»所界定的严复。中国学者开始批评含糊不清，这三个标准和努力给他们具体的意义，通过理论的西方语言学。结果是内容，这三个传统标准已大大丰富了，尤其是影响等值理论，这在广义上是指目标语言应相等于源语言从语义，务实和文体点查看。但我们仍无法评价翻译在一个非常科学的方法。因此，中国学者一样，范守，徐shenghuan和万亩鲤鱼走上了定量分析的翻译，用模糊集理论的数学在完成他们的分析。范发表的几篇文章，对这一领域的研究。他1987年至1990年的文章评价翻译根据的数值数量的忠诚。徐的文章«的数学模型，评价翻译质量的»提出了一种正常的数学模型。他说，是很难产生一个绝对准确的评价翻译与这个模式，因为不确定性和随机性的人的思考过程。作出这样的分析更准确和客观的，需要进一步研究。 该单位在翻译是很难啃的骨头。不解决这个问题，没有研究在翻译研究将以往任何时候都足够了。迄今为止，很少有人都集中在研究这方面的工作。奈达认为，股应判刑，并在一定意义上，话语。巴尔胡达罗夫（ 1993 ： 40 ） ，苏联的语言学家和翻译理论家，建议： 翻译是转变的过程中讲话的产品（或文字）产生的一种语言，成为一个讲话的产品（或文字）在另一种语言。 [ … … ]它如下认为，最重要的任务，译者谁进行的过程中转型，该理论家谁介绍或创建一个模型，这个过程中，是要建立最低限度的翻译单位，因为它是一般所谓，翻译单位，在源文本。 虽然他注意到的重要性，翻译单位在一个文本，并认为这个单位可以是一个单位，任何级别的语言，他没有指出是什么文字，是和它如何可能来衡量翻译。 Halliday的概念，该条文的可能显着在这种情况下。他说，一个条款，是我国的一项基本单位。他区别的三项职能的条款：文本，人际和概念。据哈利迪，这些职能是不具备的词或短语。但他是不太成功的在分析之间的关系，第和文本（参见哈利迪1985年） 。在中国，有些人曾试图解决这个问题。王春（ 1987年： 10 ）更多或更少的股份bakhudarov的看法，认为翻译单位不能局限于只为服刑。在某些方面，音素，词，词组，句，段，或什至文本都可以充当一个单位。在这一点上，我们无法找到任何特殊的治疗文本翻译，除因文本作为最高级别之间的翻译单位。这不是目的，篇章语言学或话语分析。如果我们想申请这些理论和实践的翻译，我们会要求考的做法。

转摘More and more scholars are now showing an interest in adopting linguistic approaches to translation studies. Between 1949 and 1989, an incomplete survey by the author revealed that there were only about 30 textbook passages discussing the relationship between linguistics and translation, including aspects of general linguistics, pragmatics, stylistics, text linguistics, rhetoric and machine translation. From 1990 to 1994, there was an incredible increase in the number of passages looking at translation from a linguistic point of view. Almost 160 articles published over these five years concerned translation and general linguistics, stylistics, comparative linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, text linguistics, rhetoric, etc. New terms such as discourse analysis, hermeneutics, dynamic equivalence, deep structure and surface structure, context, theme and rheme, cooperative principles, to mention just a few, appeared in the field of translation studies. We can definitely identify a trend of applying linguistics theories to translation studies in these years. Today, we are at the point of questioning whether linguistics is a necessary part of translation. In recent years, some scholars who are in favour of free translation, have repeatedly raised this question to the public and appealed for an end to the linguistic approach to translation. Some firmly believe that translation is an art and that therefore linguistics is neither useful nor helpful. Such a claim is wrong if we look at translation as a whole, including scientific translation where meanings are rigid and restricted and the degree of freedom is limited. Flexibility, in this case, is neither required nor appreciated. But even in literary translation, linguistics is hardly a burden. Wang Zongyan pointed out that « If one sees linguistics as a body of rules regulating language, translators most probably will yawn with boredom. If it signifies the use of words and locutions to fit an occasion, there is nothing to stop translators from embracing linguistics » (Wang 1991: 38). The controversy over « literal » versus « free » translation has a long history, with convincing supporters on each side. For example, ancient Western scholars like Erasmus, Augustine, and others were in favour of literal translation. Among early Chinese translators, Kumarajiva is considered to be of the free school, while Xuan Zuang appears as literal and inflexible. In modern China, Yan Fu advocated hermeneutic translation, while Lu Xun preferred a clumsy version to one that was free but inexact. There is nothing wrong in any of these stances. When these translators emphasized free translation they never denied the possibility of literal translation, and vice versa. Problems only arise when the discussion turns to equivalent translations. The problem of equivalence has caused much controversy. Some people believed that there could be an equivalence of language elements independent of the setting in which they of occurred. Based on this assumption, some « literal » translators tried to decompose a text into single elements in hopes of finding equivalents in the target language. This is a naive idea. Jakobson (1971: 262) notes that « Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. » He does not refer to « equivalence » but to « equivalence in difference » as the cardinal problem. Nida was also misunderstood by many for his notion of « equivalence, » which he took to mean that « Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style » (1969: 12). He further concluded that « Absolute equivalence in translating is never possible » (1984: 14). De Beaugrande and Dressler believed that the success or failure of either free or literal approaches was uncertain: an unduly « literal » translation might be awkward or even unintelligible, while an unduly « free » one might make the original text disintegrate and disappear altogether. To them, equivalence between a translation and an original can only be realized in the experience of the participants (cf. de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981: 216-217). Catford (1965: 27) expressed the same concern that equivalent translation is only « an empirical phenomenon, discovered by comparing SL and TL texts. » In citing the above examples, I have absolutely no intention of insisting on untranslatability. What I mean is that a translator should incorporate his or her own experience and processing activities into the text: solving the problems, reducing polyvalence, explaining away any discrepancies or discontinuities. Linguistic knowledge can help us treat different genres in different ways, always with an awareness that there are never exact equivalences but only approximations. Therefore, amplification and simplification become acceptable. If we agree that texts can be translated, then, in what way does linguistics contribute to translation? To answer this question, we must look at the acceptance of western linguistics in China and its influence on translation. Systematic and scientific study of the Chinese language came into being only at the end of the last century, when Ma Jianzhong published a grammar book Mashi Wentong «马氏文通» in 1898, which was the first in China and took the grammar of Indo-European languages as its model. The study of language was, in turn, influenced by translation studies in China. In Mashi Wenton, the main emphasis is on the use of morphology, which takes up six-sevenths of the book. Influenced by the dominant trend of morphological studies, a word was regarded as the minimum meaningful unit, and a sentence was therefore the logical combination of words of various specific types. Translation was, then, principally based on the unit of the word. In the West, Biblical translation provided a very good example, just as the translation of Buddhist scriptures did in China. Not until the end of the 19th century did some linguists come to realize that sentences were not just the summary of the sequenced words they contained. The Prague School, founded in the 1920s, made a considerable contribution to the study of syntax. According to the analytic approach of the Functional Perspective of the Prague School, a sentence can be broken down into two parts: theme and rheme. Theme is opposed to rheme in a manner similar to the distinction between topic and comment, and is defined as the part of a sentence which contributes least to advancing the process of communication. Rheme, on the other hand, is the part of a sentence which adds most to advancing the process of communication and has the highest degree of communicative dynamism. These two terms help enlighten the process of translating Chinese into English. In the mid-1950s, the study of syntax peaked with the Chomsky's establishment of transformational-generative grammar. This theory of the deep structure and surface structure of language influenced translation tremendously. Nida relied heavily on this theory in developing his « analyzing-transfering-reconstructing » pattern for translation. Some Chinese linguists, in the meantime, tried to raise language studies to a higher plane. Li Jinxi (1982) enlarged the role of sentence studies in his book A New Chinese Grammar, two thirds of which was devoted to discussing sentence formation or syntax. He writes that « No words can be identified except in the context of a sentence. » The study was then improved by other grammarians, including Lu Shuxiang, Wang Li. With the development of linguistic studies, translation based on the unit of the sentence was put forward by some scholars. It was Lin Yu-Tang who first applied the theory to translation in his article « On Translation. » He claimed that « translation should be done on the basis of the sentence [...] What a translator should be faithful to is not the individual words but the meaning conveyed by them » (Lin 1984: r 3). The importance of context in the understanding of a sentence was therefore emphasized. Chao Yuanren, a Chinese scholar and professor at Harvard University, criticized scholars and translators who tended to forget this point and take language for something independent and self-sufficient. In fact, it is obvious that when we translate a sentence, we depend on its context; when we interpret an utterance we rely on the context of the speech (cf. Chao 1967). When a sentence is removed from the text, it usually becomes ambiguous due to the lack of context. Therefore, translation becomes difficult. In the 1960s, people began to realize that the study of language based on sentences was not even sufficient. A complete study should be made of the whole text. A simple sentence like « George passed » may have different interpretations in different contexts. If the context is that of an examination, it means George did well on a test; in a card game it would indicate that George declined his chance to bid; in sports it would mean the ball reached another player. Without a context, how could we decide on a translation? Linguists therefore shifted their attention to the study of texts and to discourse analysis. Text linguistics have become increasingly popular since that time. Van Dijk was a pioneer in this field, and his four-volume edition of the Handbook of Discourse Analysis is of great value. Halliday's Cohesion in English and Introduction to Functional Grammar help us to better understand the English language on a textual level. It is worth noting that de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) provided an overall and systematic study of text, which is useful to translation studies. De Beaugrande actually wrote a book called Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating in 1978. The book did not become very popular as it confined the discussion to translating poetry. At the same time, books on a linguistic approach to translation were introduced into China, such as the works of Eugene Nida, Peter Newmarks, J.C. Catford, Georges Mounin, and others. These books gave a great push to the application of linguistic theories to translation studies in China. Textual or discoursive approaches to the study of translation could not keep pace with the development of text linguistics. Some studies remained on the syntactic or semantic level, though even there textual devices were employed. In talking about the translation units of word and text, Nida wrote: ... average person naively thinks that language is words, the common tacit assumption results that translation involves replacing a word in language A with a word in language B. And the more « conscientious » this sort of translation is, the more acute. In other words, the traditional focus of attention in translation was on the word. It was recognized that that was not a sufficiently large unit, and therefore the focus shifted to the sentence. But again, expert translators and linguists have been able to demonstrate that individual sentences, in turn, are not enough. The focus should be on the paragraph, and to some extent on the total discourse. (Nida and Tabber 1969: 152) From that statement we can see that Nida regards a discourse as something larger than a paragraph, as an article with a beginning and an ending. Nida himself never applied text linguistics to translation, and there might be some confusion if we use his term in our interpretation of discourse, because discourse analysis is not merely a study based on a larger language structure. Some Chinese scholars did make the effort to apply text linguistics to the theory and practice of translation. Wang Bingqin's article (1987) was the first academic paper of this sort. He stated his aim to study and discover the rules governing the internal structure of a text in light of text linguistics. He analyzed numerous examples using textual analysis, but unfortunately, all the samples he collected were descriptions of scenery or quotations from the books of great scholars--no dialogue, no illocutionary or perlocutionary forces in the language. He failed to provide a variety of examples. For this reason, his research findings are largely restricted to rhetorical texts in ancient China (cf. Wang 1981; Luo 1994). Scholars like He Ziran applied pragamatics to translation. He's article (1992) put forth two new terms, « pragmalinguistics » and « socio-pragmatics » which, in translation, refer respectively to « the study of pragmatic force or language use from the viewpoint of linguistic sources » and to « the pragmatic studies which examine the conditions on language use that derive from the social and cultural situation. » He discusses the possibility of applying the pragmatic approach to translation in order to achieve a pragmatic equivalent effect between source and target texts; that is, to reproduce the message carried by the source language itself, as well as the meaning carried by the source language within its context and culture. In this article he tries to distinguish « pragma-linguistics » from « socio-pragmatics » but finally admits that « Actually, a clear line between pragma-linguistics and socio-pragmatics may sometimes be difficult to draw. » Still he insists that the application of the pragmatic approach to translation is helpful and even necessary. Ke Wenli (1992) argued that semantics, which in a broad sense combines semantics and pragmatics, should be studied to help understand, explain and solve some of the problems encountered in translation. In this article, he examines four semantic terms--« sense and reference, » « hyponomy, » « changes of meaning » and « context »--giving many examples to illusrate the importance of having some general knowledge of semantics and of understanding the relationship between semantics and translation. This article is clearly written and readers can easily draw inspiration from it. These linguistics approaches shed new lights on the criteria of « faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance » defined by Yan Fu. Chinese scholars began to criticize the vagueness of these three criteria and endeavored to give them concrete significance through the theories of western linguistics. The result is that the content of these three traditional criteria has been greatly enriched, especially by the effect equivalence theory, which in a broad sense means that the target language should be equivalent to the source language from a semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic point of view. But we are still unable to evaluate translations in a very scientific way. Therefore, Chinese scholars like Fan Shouyi, Xu Shenghuan and Mu Lei embarked on quantitative analyses of translations and used the fuzzy set theory of mathematics in accomplishing their analysis. Fan published several articles on this field of study. His 1987 and 1990 articles evaluate translations according to a numerical quantity of faithfulness. Xu's article « A Mathematical Model for Evaluating a Translation's Quality » presents a normal mathematical model. He states that it is difficult to produce an absolutely accurate evaluation of translations with this model because of the uncertainty and randomness of man's thought process. Making such analysis more accurate and objective would require further research. The unit in translation is a hard nut to crack. Without solving this problem, no research in translation studies will ever be sufficient. To date, very few people have focused their research on this area. Nida holds that the unit should be the sentence, and in a certain sense, the discourse. Barkhudarov (1993: 40), Soviet linguist and translation theorist, suggests that: translation is the process of transforming a speech product (or text) produced in one language into a speech product (or text) in another language. [...] It follows that the most important task of the translator who carries out the process of transformation, and of the theorist who describes or creates a model for that process, is to establish the minimal unit of translation, as it is generally called, the unit of translation in the source text. Though he notes the importance of the unit of translation in a text and considers that this unit can be a unit on any level of language, he fails to point out what a text is and how it might be measured in translation. Halliday's notion of the clause might be significant in this case. To him, a clause is a basic unit. He distinguishes three functions of a clause: textual, interpersonal and ideational. According to Halliday, these functions are not possessed by word or phrase. But he is not quite successful in analyzing the relationship between clause and text (cf. Halliday 1985). In China, some people have tried to solve this problem. Wang Dechun (1987: 10) more or less shares Bakhudarov's view that the translation unit cannot be confined just to sentences. In some ways, the phoneme, word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or even text can all serve as a unit. At this point, we cannot find anything special in treating text translation except for having text as the highest level among translation units. This is not the aim of text linguistics or discourse analysis. If we want to apply these to the theory and practice of translation, we will require a textual approach.