语言学中形态学研究论文参考文献

自己从网上转帖和编辑了下，总结了包括语言学、语用学、翻译、跨文化交际、二语习得、测试、教学法等方向的参考书籍 社会心理语言学 上海外教 王德春 2000 对比语言学概论 上海外教 许余龙 2000 语义学 上海外教 李瑞华 2000 语义理论与语言教学 上海外教 王 寅 2001 国俗语义研究 上海外教 吴友富 1999 当代西方语法理论 上海外教 俞如珍 2000 英汉修辞比较研究 上海外教 胡曙中 1999 美国新修辞学研究 上海外教 胡曙中 1999 英汉语言文化对比研究 上海外教 李瑞华 2000 英汉对比研究论文集 上海外教 李自俭 1999 现代修辞学 上海外教 王德春 2001 辞格与词汇 上海外教 李国南 2001 中国英汉翻译教材研究(1949-1998) 上海外教 张美芳 2001 语篇分析的理论与实践 上海外教 黄国文 2001 系统功能语言学多维思考 上海外教 朱永生 2001 现代语言学丛书 上海外教 新编心理语言学 上海外教 桂诗春 2000 心理语言学 上海外教 桂诗春 2000 语言问题探索 上海外教 王宗炎 2000 生成语法理论 上海外教 徐烈炯 2000 美国语言学简史 上海外教 赵世开 1999 汉语的语义结构和补语形式 上海外教 缪锦安 2000 应用语言学 上海外教 刘涌泉 2000 语篇的衔接与连贯 上海外教 胡壮麟 2000 神经语言学 上海外教 王德春 2000 自然语言的计算机处理 上海外教 冯志伟 1996 现代语言学的特点和发展趋势 上海外教 戚雨村 2000 语言学和语言的应用 上海外教 王宗炎 2000 语言系统及其运作 上海外教 程雨民 1998 模糊语言学 上海外教 伍铁平 2000 汉英对比语法论集 上海外教 赵世开 2000 语言共性论 上海外教 程 工 2000 语义学教程 上海外教 李福印 2000 教学篇章语言学 上海外教 刘辰诞 2000 英语语言学纲要 上海外教 丁言仁 2001 交际法英语教学和考试评估 上海外教 徐 强 2000 英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究 上海外教 朱永生 2001 认知语言学概论 上海外教 赵艳芳 2001 新编语用学概要 上海外教 何兆熊 2000 语法的多视角研究 上海外教 金立鑫 2000 英语词汇学研究 上海外教 汪榕培 2000 英汉语篇综合对比 上海外教 彭宣维 2000 隐喻学研究 上海外教 束定芳 2000 第二语言习得研究 上海外教 Ellis 2000 第二语言研究方法 上海外教 Selinger 2000 话语与文学 上海外教 Cook 2000 客观语言测试 上海外教 Spolsky 2000 口语语法 上海外教 Brazil 2000 第二语言习得概论 上海外教 Ellis 2000 实用文体学 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 应用语言学的原理与实践 上海外教 Cook 2000 英语教学史 上海外教 Howatt 2000 语言教学交际法 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 语料库、检索与搭配 上海外教 Sindair 2000 语言测试实践 上海外教 Bachman 2000 语言测试要略 上海外教 Bachman 2000 语言教学的基本概念 上海外教 Stern 2000 语言教学面面观 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 语言教学的问题与可选策略 上海外教 Stern 2000 语言教学的环境与文化 上海外教 Kramsch 2000 语言学习认知法 上海外教 Skehan 2000 语言与理解 上海外教 Brown 2000 文学与语言教学 上海外教 Carter 2000 交际法语言教学 上海外教 Johnson 2000 模糊语言 上海外教 Channell 2000 习语与习语特征 上海外教 Fernando 2000 语篇中的词汇模式 上海外教 Hoey 2000 词汇短语与语言教学 上海外教 DeCarrio 2000 语言领域的帝国主义 上海外教 Phillipson 2000 第二语言学习的条件 上海外教 Spolsky 2000 论以语言学习者为中心 上海外教 Yule 2000 英语会话 上海外教 Tzri 2000 语用学 上海外教 Yule 2000 语言与文化 上海外教 Kramsch 2000 语言学 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 第二语言习得 上海外教 Ellis 2000 心理语言学 上海外教 Scovel 2000 社会语言学 上海外教 Spolsky 2000 隐喻的研究与应用 上海外教 Low 2001 对比修辞:第二语言写作的跨文化层面 上海外教 Connor 2001 第二语言教与学的文化因素 上海外教 Hinkel 2001 语言课程评估:理论与实践 上海外教 Lynch 2001 社会语言学与语言教学 上海外教 Hornberger 2001 学习者为中心的课程设置:第二语言教学研究 上海外教 Nunan 2001 语言的迁移:语言学习的语际影响 上海外教 Odlin 2001 第二语言习得的学习策略 上海外教 Chamot 2001 体裁分析:学术与科研英语 上海外教 Swales 2001 第二语言词汇习得 上海外教 Huckin 2001 文化构建——文学翻译论集 上海外教 Lefevere 2001 跨文化交际——翻译理论与对比篇章语言学 上海外教 Hatim 2001 目的性行为——析功能翻译理论 上海外教 Nord 2001 语用学与翻译 上海外教 Hickey 2001 翻译问题探讨 上海外教 Newmark 2001 翻译学——问题与方法 上海外教 Wilss 2001 翻译教程 上海外教 Newmark 2001 通天塔之后——语言与翻译面面观 上海外教 Steiner 2001 语篇与译者 上海外教 Mason 2001 翻译研究:综合法 上海外教 Hornby 2001 描述翻译学及其他 上海外教 Toury 2001 语言与文化:翻译中的语境 上海外教 Nida 2001 翻译的理论建构与文化透视 上海外教 谢天振 2000 翻译文化史论 上海外教 王克非 2000 比较与翻译 上海外教 汪榕培 1997 翻译论丛 上海外教 耿龙明 1998 中国翻译教学研究 上海外教 穆 雷 2000 实用翻译美学 上海外教 傅仲选 2000 语言、文化与翻译 上海外教 奈达 2000 译介学 上海外教 谢天振 2000 语言与文化 上海外教 顾嘉祖 2000 中国译学理论史稿(修订版) 上海外教 陈福康 2000 语法隐喻理论研究 外研社 范文芳 2001 应用语言学研究方法与论文写作 外研社 文秋芳 2001 认知语言学概论——语言的神经认知基础 外研社 程琪龙 2001 语言与语言学：实用手册 外研社 语用与认识--关联理论研究 外研社 2001 第二语言习得研究 外研社 蒋祖康 2000 理论文体学 外研社 胡壮麟 2000 语言文化差异的认识与超越 外研社 高一虹 1999 语言测试和它的方法(修订版) 外研社 刘润清 1991 语言的符号性 外研社 丁尔苏 2000 跨文化非语言交际 外研社 毕继万 2000 跨文化交际学概论 外研社 胡文仲 2000 英语习语与英美文化 外研社 平 洪 2000 跨文化交际面面观 外研社 胡文仲 1999 俄汉语言文化习俗探讨 外研社 刘光准 1999 语言与文化论文集 外研社 二十一世纪大学英语教学改革 外研社 中国辞书学文集 外研社 2000 汉英篇章对比研究 外研社 论新开端:文学与翻译研究集 外研社 文化与交际 外研社 许国璋先生纪念文集 外研社 陶渊明诗歌英译比较研究 外研社 语言与文化 外研社 邓炎昌 2001 中西人际称谓系统 外研社 田惠刚 1998 中国语言学的现状与展望 外研社 许嘉璐 1998 语言要略 外研社 方 立 1999 语言学方法论 外研社 桂诗春 1998 西方语言学流派 外研社 刘润清 1999 文化与语言 外研社 王福祥 2000 许国璋论语言 外研社 功能主义纵横谈 外研社 胡壮麟 2000 洪堡特--人文研究和语言研究 外研社 语言学教程 外研社 2000 当代国外语言学与应用语言学文库： 语言论:言语研究导论 外研社 Sapir 2001 普通语言学教程 外研社 Saussure 2001 语言论 外研社 Bloomfiefd 2001 语言学综览 外研社 Aronoff 2001 语言学理论:对基要原著的语篇研究 外研社 Beaugrande 2001 吉姆林英语语音教程 外研社 Cruttenden 2001 音系学通解 外研社 Gussenhouen 2001 汉语方言的连读变调模式 外研社 Chen 2001 优选论 外研社 kaqer 2001 汉语形态学:语言认知研究法 外研社 Packard 2001 转换生成语法导论:从原则和参数到最简方案 外研社 Ouhalla 2001 当代句法理论通览 外研社 Ballin 2001 乔姆斯基:思想与理想 外研社 Smith 2001 语言知识及其本质、来源和使用 外研社 Chomsky 2001 当代语义理论指南 外研社 Lappin 2001 关联性:交际与认知 外研社 Sperber 2001 语用学引论 外研社 May 2001 语用学 外研社 Leuinsou 2001 言辞用法研究 外研社 Grice 2001 如何以言行事 外研社 Austin 2001 言语行为:语言哲学论 外研社 Searle 2001 表述和意义:言语行为研究 外研社 Searle 2001 言语的萌发:语言起源与进化 外研社 Aitchison 2001 语言学简史 外研社 Robins 2001 英语学习词典史 外研社 Cowie 2001 现代词典学入门 外研社 Bejoint 2001 英诗学习指南:语言学的分析方法 外研社 Leech 2001 小说文体论:英语小说的语言学入门 外研社 Leech 2001 人类语言学入门 外研社 Foley 2001 英语:全球通用语 外研社 Crystal 2001 社会语言学通览 外研社 Coulmas 2001 认知语言学入门 外研社 Schmid 2001 语言的范畴化:语言学理论中的类典型 外研社 Taylor 2001 英语的衔接 外研社 Halliday 2001 作为社会符号的语言:从社会角度诠释语言与意义 外研社 Halliday 2001 英语的功能分析:韩礼德模式 外研社 Bloor 2001 历史语言学导论 外研社 Lehmamm 2001 英语史:从古代英语到标准英语 外研社 Baugh 2001 翻译与翻译过程：理论与实践 外研社 Bell 2001 儿童语言发展引论 外研社 Cohen 2001 语言学习与运用中的错误:错误分析探索 外研社 James 2001 第二语言教与学 外研社 Nunan 2001 第二语言课堂反思性教学 外研社 Richards 2001 ESL/EFL英语课堂上的学习风格 外研社 Reid 2001 语言学习与教学的原则 外研社 Brown 2001 根据原理教学:交互式语言教学 外研社 Broen 2001 词汇、语义学和语言教育 外研社 Hatch 2001 语言教学大纲要素:课程设计系统法 外研社 Brown 2001 外语学习与教学论 外研社 Johnson 2001 语言测试词典 外研社 Dauies 2001 语言测试指南:发展、评估与研究 外研社 Henning 2001 第二语言习得与语言测试研究的接口 外研社 Bachman 2001 评估与测试:研究综述 外研社 Wood 2001 语言学课题:语言研究实用指南 外研社 Wray 2001 用语料库研究语言 外研社 Thomas 2001 语法化学说 外研社 Hopper 2001 剑桥语言百科全书 外研社 Crystal 2001 应用语言学百科辞典:语言教学手册 外研社 Johnson 2001

语言学可以写的内容很多。基本上不外乎以下一些:一，语音类如语音的属性、音韵与语音的关系、强弱、轻浊、音节等二，词汇类如词汇形态学，语义学，构词，词化，语义场等等三，语法类如语法结构，层次，修辞等四，句子类如分析句子的各种成分，语序，基本句型等五，语篇类如连贯性，思维逻辑性，结构修辞，主体与客体意识等这方面的教材很多，就看你的要求了。现在英语与汉语的对比语言学和对比文学比较热，从这方面下手也不错。

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.