英文语言学论文格式

A Contrastive Study between English and Chinese Idioms

（题目：二号，黑体，加粗，居中,除了英语小词外，其他单词首字母都要大写；另外：除了题目外，论文中所有英文的字体均采用“Times New Roman”）

（学院、专业、学号、作者姓名、指导教师姓名（小四号宋体字，加粗），依次排印在论文题目下，上空二行，居中）

【Abstract】 This paper centers on the different expressions of …… （英文摘要：上空二行；题目采用五号“Times New  Roman”字体，加粗，置于粗体方括号【】内，顶格放置；随后的内容与前面的粗体方括号【】之间空一格，不用其他任何标点符号；采用五号“Times  New Roman”字体，不加粗；单倍行距。）

【Key Words】 idiom; comparison; English; Chinese

（英文关键词：题目采用五号“Times New  Roman”字体，加粗，两个单词的首字母要大写，置于粗体方括号【】内，顶格放置；随后的内容与前面的粗体方括号【】之间空一格，不用任何其他标点符号，采用五号“Times New Roman”字体，不加粗，除了专有名词外，其他单词的首字母不大写，各单词之间用分号“；”隔开，分号之后空一格；最后一个关键词之后不用任何标点符号；单倍行距。）

1. Introduction

(顶格，除了第一个单词及专有名词外，其他单词首字母都不要大写；标题最后不用任何标点符号，上空两行)

In both English and Chinese, …. So, this essay is trying to

focus on the differences between Chinese and English idoms in terms

of their essential meaning, customary usage and typical expression

(Chang Liang, 1993:44; Li Guangling, 1999).

(段落第一行缩进4个英文字符；夹注的标注法：出现在夹注中的作者必须与文后的参考文献形成一一对应关系；注意一个或多个作者间的标点符号，时间、页码等的标注法；另外，汉语参考文献的作者要以拼音形式出现，不能出现汉语姓氏；夹注出现在标点符号之前)

…。小节以下层次，采用希腊数字加括号为序，如（i），（ii）…；之后再采用字母加括号，如(a),

(b),…;每章题目左顶格，小四号字，加粗；每节（及小节以下）题目左顶格，小四号字，不加粗但要斜体；所有章节的题目都单独一行，最后不加任何标点符号）

Feng (1998) found some problems as shown in the following

examples (注意此句中夹注的另一种写法):

(9) We never know the worth of water till the well is dry.

(10) People take no thought of the value of time until they lose

it.

….

The analysis of the differences between English and Chinese

idioms

… (i) ….

….

(ii) ….

….

4. Conclusion

….

Bibliography (References) （小四号，加粗，后面不加任何标点符号） Sanved, ed. The Oxford book of American literary anecdotes[C]. New

York: OUP, 1981.

常亮，“关于英语的偏离否定”[J] 。《外国语文》，1993，4：44。 冯树健，“否定之否定新说”[J] 。《英语辅导》，1998，6：11。 李光陵，“不完全否定浅析” [J] 。《大学英语》，2000，30：30。

（论文最后的参考文献中所有文献的排列顺序：尾注：按照编号顺序。夹注：英文文献----网络文献----汉语文献，各个文献的先后以作者的姓氏字母或拼音为序，不用单独加序号或编号；每个参考文献的第二行起必须缩进4个英文字符；倍行距；另外，与文中的夹注一一对应；不同类型的参考文献写法请参照写作指南中附件2的内容）

英语论文的写作，主要用于参加国际学术研讨会，促进中外学术文化交流；在国际学术刊物上发表，在国际上共享科研成果，英语论文也是达到学术交流的目的；另外英语论文还包括英语相关专业人员必要地用英语撰写学术报告或毕业论文等等。不同的学科或专业领域、不同的刊物对英语论文的内容、格式等有不同的要求，不同领域的研究论文在文体和语言特点上既有许多共性，也不乏各自特点。

格式：

York: OUP, 1981.

标题

一篇较长的英语论文(如英语毕业论文)一般都需要标题页,其书写格式如下:第一行标题与打印纸顶端的距离约为打印纸全长的三分之一,与下行(通常为by,居中)的距离则为5cm,第三、第四行分别为作者姓名及日期(均居中)。如果该篇英语论文是学生针对某门课程而写,则在作者姓名与日期之间还需分别打上教师学衔及其姓名(如:Dr./)及本门课程的编号或名称(如:English 734或British Novel)。打印时,如无特殊要求,每一行均需double space,即隔行打印,行距约为(论文其他部分行距同此)。

就学生而言,如果英语论文篇幅较短,亦可不做标题页(及提纲页),而将标题页的内容打在正文第一页的左上方。第一行为作者姓名,与打印纸顶端距离约为,以下各行依次为教师学衔和姓、课程编号(或名称)及日期；各行左边上下对齐,并留出左右的页边空白(下同)。接下来便是论文标题及正文(日期与标题之间及标题与正文第一行之间只需隔行打印,不必留出更多空白)。

提纲

英语论文提纲页包括论题句及提纲本身,其规范格式如下:先在第一行(与打印纸顶端的距离仍为左右)的始端打上 Thesis 一词及冒号,空一格后再打论题句,回行时左边须与论题句的第一个字母上下对齐。主要纲目以大写罗马数字标出,次要纲目则依次用大写英文字母、阿拉伯数字和小写英文字母标出。各数字或字母后均为一句点,空出一格后再打该项内容的第一个字母；处于同一等级的纲目,其上下行左边必须对齐。需要注意的是,同等重要的纲目必须是两个以上,即:有Ⅰ应有Ⅱ,有A应有B,以此类推。如果英文论文提纲较长,需两页纸,则第二页须在右上角用小写罗马数字标出页码,即ii(第一页无需标页码)。

摘要

1、英文摘要是应用符合英文语法的文字语言，提供论文内容梗概为目的的短文。（内容基本与中文摘要相同，但不用完全逐句对应）。

2、英文题目、摘要、关键词自成一页（1页即可），放在中文摘要页之后。

3、英文字体与行间距： 统一使用“西文字体”中的“Times New Roman”，倍行间距。

4、英文题目： 使用三号字加粗。

5、英文摘要： “Absract”顶格，使用四号字，并加粗。

英文摘要具体内容使用四号字。

6、英文关键词： “Key Words”顶格，使用四号字并加粗。

每个关键词使用四号字

正文

有标题页和提纲页的英语论文,其正文第一页的规范格式为:论文标题居中,其位置距打印纸顶端约5cm,距正文第一行约。段首字母须缩进五格,即从第六格打起。正文第一页不必标页码(但应计算其页数),自第二页起,必须在每页的右上角(即空出第一行,在其后部)打上论文作者的姓,空一格后再用阿拉伯数字标出页码；阿拉伯数字(或其最后一位)应为该行的最后一个空格。在打印正文时尚需注意标点符号的打印格式,即:句末号(句号、问号及感叹号)后应空两格,其他标点符号后则空一格。

参考资料：百度百科-英语论文

英文论文参考文献示例

无论在学习或是工作中，大家肯定对论文都不陌生吧，通过论文写作可以提高我们综合运用所学知识的能力。你写论文时总是无从下笔？以下是我收集整理的英文论文参考文献示例，供大家参考借鉴，希望可以帮助到有需要的朋友。

英语论文参考文献格式范本

用Times New Roman。每一条目顶格,如某一条目超过一行，从第二行起“悬挂缩进”2字符。参考文献中所有标点与符号均在英文状态下输入，标点符号后空一格。

参考文献条目排列顺序：英文文献、中文文献、网络文献。分别按作者姓氏字母顺序排列。文献前不用序号。

1)英文参考文献

(1)专著与编著

排列顺序为：作者姓、名、专著名、出版地、出版社、出版年。

例如：

Brinkley, Alan. The Unfinished Nation. New York: Knopf, 1993.

专著名中如果还包含其他著作或作品名，后者用斜体。

例如：

Dunn, Richard J ed. Charlotte Bront: Jane Eyre. New York: Norton, 1971.

A.两个至三个作者

第一作者的姓在前，名在后，中间用逗号隔开;其余作者名在前，姓在后，中间无逗号;每个作者之间用逗号隔开，最后一个作者的姓名前用“and”，后用句号。

例如：

Rowe, Richard, and Larry Jeffus. The Essential Welder: Gas Metal Arc Welding Classroom Manual. Albany: Delmar, 2000.

B. 三个以上作者

第一作者姓名(姓在前，名在后，中间加逗号)后接“et al.”，其他作者姓名省略。

例如：

Randall, John et al. Fishes of the Great Barrier Reef and Coral Sea. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997.

C. 同一作者同一年出版的不同文献，参照下例：

Widdowson, Henry G. EIL: Squaring the Circles. A Reply. London: Lomgman, 1998a.

Widdowson, Henry G. Communication and Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998b.

(2)论文集

参照下例：

Thompson, Pett. “Modal Verbs in Academic Writing”. In Ben Kettlemann & Marko, Henry ed. Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis. New York: Rodopi, 2002: 305-323.

(3)百科全书等参考文献

参照下例：

Fagan, Jeffrey. “Gangs and Drugs”. Encyclopedia of Drugs, Alcohol and Addictive Behavior. New York: Macmillan, 2001.

(4)学术期刊论文

参照下例：

Murphy, Karen. “Meaningful Connections: Using Technology in Primary Classrooms”. Young Children. 2003, (6): 12-18.

(5)网络文献

参照下例：

----“Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About URL” .

2)中文参考文献

(1)专著

参照下例：

皮亚杰.结构主义[M].北京：商务印书馆，1984.

(2)期刊文章

参照下例：

杨忠，张韶杰.认知语音学中的类典型论[J].外语教学与研究，1999，(2)：1-3.

(3)学位论文

参照下例：

梁佳.大学英语四、六级测试试题现状的理论分析与问题研究[D].湖南大学，2002.

(4)论文集

参照下例：

许小纯.含义和话语结构[A].李红儒.外国语言与文学研究[C].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社，1999：5-7.

(5)附录本

翻译学论文参考文献范例

参考文献：

奥马利 第二语言习得的学习策略上海：上海外语出版社，2001

陈保亚 20 世纪中国语言学方法论 济南：山东教育出版社，1999

丁言仁 英语语言学纲要 上海：上海外语出版社，2001

费尔迪南 德 索绪尔 普通语言学教程 长沙：湖南教育出版社，2001

冯翠华 英语修辞大全 北京：商务印书馆，1996

桂诗春，宁春言主编 语言学方法论 北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1998

桂诗春 应用语言学长沙：湖南教育出版社，1998

何兆熊 新编语用学概要 上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000

何自然 语用学与英语学习 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1997

侯维瑞 英语语体 上海：上海外语教育出版社，1988

胡壮麟 语言学教程(修订版)北京：北京大学出版社，2001

黄国文 语篇与语言的功能 北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2002

黄国文 语篇分析概要长沙：湖南教育出版社，1988

李延富主编 英语语言学基本读本 济南：山东大学出版社，1999

李运兴 语篇翻译引论 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2000

刘润清 西方语言学流派北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1999

刘润清等 现代语言学名著选读(上下册)北京：测绘出版社，1988

刘润清等 语言学入门 北京：人民教育出版社，1990

陆国强 现代英语词汇学(新版)上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999

拓展内容：

书写格式

1.参考文献标注的位置

2. 参考文献标标注方法和规则

3. 参考文献标标注的格式

2007年8月20日在清华大学召开的“综合性人文社会科学学术期刊编排规范研讨会”决定，2008年起开始部分刊物开始执行新的规范“综合性期刊文献引证技术规范”。该技术规范概括了文献引证的“注释”体例和“著者—出版年”体例。不再使用“参考文献”的说法。这两类文献著录或引证规范在中国影响较大，后者主要在层次较高的人文社会科学学术期刊中得到了应用。

⑴文后参考文献的著录规则为GB/T 7714-2005《文后参考文献著录规则》，适用于“著者和编辑编录的文后参考文献，而不能作为图书馆员、文献目录编制者以及索引编辑者使用的文献著录规则”。

⑵顺序编码制的具体编排方式。参考文献按照其在正文中出现的先后以阿拉伯数字连续编码，序号置于方括号内。一种文献被反复引用者，在正文中用同一序号标示。一般来说，引用一次的文献的页码（或页码范围）在文后参考文献中列出。格式为著作的“出版年”或期刊的“年，卷（期）”等+“：页码（或页码范围）.”。多次引用的文献，每处的页码或页码范围（有的刊物也将能指示引用文献位置的信息视为页码）分别列于每处参考文献的序号标注处，置于方括号后（仅列数字，不加“p”或“页”等前后文字、字符；页码范围中间的连线为半字线）并作上标。作为正文出现的参考文献序号后需加页码或页码范围的，该页码或页码范围也要作上标。作者和编辑需要仔细核对顺序编码制下的参考文献序号，做到序号与其所指示的文献同文后参考文献列表一致。另外，参考文献页码或页码范围也要准确无误。

⑶参考文献类型及文献类型，根据GB3469-83《文献类型与文献载体代码》规定，以单字母方式标识：

专著M ； 报纸N ；期刊J ；专利文献P；汇编G ；古籍O；技术标准S ；

学位论文D ；科技报告R；参考工具K ；检索工具W；档案B ；录音带A ；

图表Q；唱片L；产品样本X；录相带V；会议录C；中译文T；

乐谱I； 电影片Y；手稿H；微缩胶卷U ；幻灯片Z；微缩平片F；其他E。

书写技巧

把光标放在引用参考文献的地方，在菜单栏上选“插入|脚注和尾注”，弹出的对话框中选择“尾注”，点击“选项”按钮修改编号格式为阿拉伯数字，位置为“文档结尾”，确定后Word就在光标的地方插入了参考文献的`编号，并自动跳到文档尾部相应编号处请你键入参考文献的说明，在这里按参考文献著录表的格式添加相应文献。参考文献标注要求用中括号把编号括起来，以word2007为例，可以在插入尾注时先把光标移至需要插入尾注的地方，然后点击 引用-脚注下面的一个小箭头，在出现的对话框中有个自定义，然后输入中括号及数字，然后点插入，然后自动跳转到本节/本文档末端，此时再输入参考文献内容即可。

在文档中需要多次引用同一文献时，在第一次引用此文献时需要制作尾注，再次引用此文献时点“插入|交叉引用”，“引用类型”选“尾注”，引用内容为“尾注编号（带格式）”，然后选择相应的文献，插入即可。

不要以为已经搞定了，我们离成功还差一步。论文格式要求参考文献在正文之后，参考文献后还有发表论文情况说明、附录和致谢，而Word的尾注要么在文档的结尾，要么在“节”的结尾，这两种都不符合我们的要求。解决的方法似乎有点笨拙。首先删除尾注文本中所有的编号（我们不需要它，因为它的格式不对），然后选中所有尾注文本（参考文献说明文本），点“插入|书签”，命名为“参考文献文本”，添加到书签中。这样就把所有的参考文献文本做成了书签。在正文后新建一页，标题为“参考文献”，并设置好格式。光标移到标题下，选“插入|交叉引用”，“引用类型”为“书签”，点“参考文献文本”后插入，这样就把参考文献文本复制了一份。选中刚刚插入的文本，按格式要求修改字体字号等，并用项目编号进行自动编号。

打印文档时，尾注页同样会打印出来，而这几页是我们不需要的。当然，可以通过设置打印页码范围的方法不打印最后几页。这里有另外一种方法，如果你想多学一点东西，请接着往下看。

选中所有的尾注文本，点“格式|字体”，改为“隐藏文字”，切换到普通视图，选择“视图|脚注”，此时所有的尾注出现于窗口的下端，在“尾注”下拉列表框中选择“尾注分割符”，将默认的横线删除。同样的方法删除“尾注延续分割符”和“尾注延续标记”。删除页眉和页脚（包括分隔线），选择“视图|页眉和页脚”，首先删除文字，然后点击页眉页脚工具栏的“页面设置”按钮，在弹出的对话框上点“边框”，在“页面边框”选项卡，边框设置为“无”，应用范围为“本节”；“边框”选项卡的边框设置为“无”，应用范围为“段落”。切换到“页脚”，删除页码。选择“工具|选项”，在“打印”选项卡里确认不打印隐藏文字（Word默认）。

注：以上在word中的处理是比较常用的做法，不过作者需要了解，投稿稿件是word格式或pdf格式或wps格式，但是很多期刊是用方正排版系统排版的，二者不“兼容”。因此，作者的word投稿只是编辑部排版的原稿，排版问题作者无需太过担心；而作者如想要编辑部出刊前最后的电子稿（有些作者着急要清样或已经排版的电子稿）其实也没有太大意义，因为没有方正的软件就无法打开这个电子稿。

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, . 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.