语言学学位论文目录1981

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, . 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.

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. 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。.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。.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。

国外语言学方向硕士论文引言语类分析

无论在学习或是工作中，大家都接触过论文吧，论文是探讨问题进行学术研究的一种手段。你知道论文怎样写才规范吗？以下是我整理的国外语言学方向硕士论文引言语类分析，欢迎阅读，希望大家能够喜欢。

摘要： 本文依据Swales的CARS 模式， 对50 篇国外语言学方向硕士论文引言进行了语类分析。结果表明，国外硕士论文引言的语类结构基本符合Swales 的三语步模式， 并且大部分语篇都出现语步循环现象，但是，三语步在各语篇中的分布差异很大, 并出现新的步骤。基于此，本研究概括出了外国硕士论文引言写作的基本模式， 希望能对中国英语语言学方向硕士论文的写作有所启示和帮助。

关键词： 硕士论文引言；语类分析；CARS 模式

1. 研究背景

硕士论文是评价硕士研究生学术水平的一个重要标准，而论文引言是论文中不可缺少又非常关键的一部分。通过访谈发现， 引言是论文写作中非常难写的一部分， 特别是对英语作为外语的中国学生似乎更难，这不仅表现在词汇、语法、思想表达上， 更是表现在有些同学根本就不知道引言部分应该写什么内容以及如何组织这些内容。徐有志等学者在2007 年的一项调查研究也发现，有些学生会学术论文体裁的结构、社会功能和认知模式不甚了了， 难以有效实现学术论文的交际目的。但是在英语语言学专业学术论文引言写作中，究竟什么样的模式能够有效实现学术论文的交际目的？

此问题引发了作者研究国外英语本族语者硕士论文引言的动机。

2.理论框架及文献综述

从语类角度对学术论文引言进行分析， 美国密执安大学学者Swales 可谓是先驱。继1981 年， 他提出的引言结构四语步之后，Swales 于1990 年分析了110 篇科研论文引言，对其前期成果进行了修订， 并提出了著名的建立学术研究空间 （Create A Research Space）的分析思想， 并建立了以语步（move）和步骤（step）为出发点的语类结构分析模式。CARS 模式包括三个语步：语步一：确立研究领域， 即通过对前人研究成果的回顾来阐述所研究问题的重要性及必要性， 其中包括三个步骤，建立议题中心、概括议题内容和回顾前人研究结果；语步二：确立研究地位，是通过指出前人研究空白再次强调某一研究的必要性， 包括反驳已有观点、指出研究空白、提出问题和继承前人研究成果四个步骤； 语步三： 占据研究地位， 是告诉读者如何解决论文中提出的问题， 包括概述研究目的、通报本课题当前研究情况、通报主要发现和介绍论文结构四个步骤。Swales 认为尽管引言的主要形式是三语步顺序排列， 但是也会出现非顺序组合的情况， 并且有的语步循环出现。

CARS 语篇模式已被学术界公认， 成为国内外引言研究的通用分析模式。如Ahmad（1997） 对20 篇马来西亚学术会议论文引言进行了分析Aravy 和Tank?(2004)对比研究了英语和西班牙语的理论科研论文引言；Samraj （2008） 在美国对三个学科的硕士论文引言做了分析。这些研究都是建立在Swales 的语步步骤的分析模式上， 结合各领域的学术特点对CARS 模式做出了适合各领域的修订。但是目前，还没有人对国外应用语言学领域的硕士学位论文引言进行研究。

3.语料收集及研究方法

本研究从ProQuest 数据库选取了50 篇应用语言学领域硕士论文作为语料， 为确保研究的准确性， 这些论文均由英语本族语者写于2000 年到2008 年。为保证分析的信度，本研究的语料分析由两名通晓语类理论及CARS 模式的分析者分三个阶段完成。第一阶段两人各分析五篇相同的文本，找出两人所分析的语步和步骤偏差， 进一步统一对模式和文本的理解；第二阶段，两名分析者对所有文本进行分析； 第三阶段，再次找出两人的分析偏差，共同研究后达成协议。分析发现， 这些偏差主要是由于某些步骤在文本中具有多种功能。

最后统计数据，分析结果。

4.结果与讨论

研究发现，50 篇引言中实现语篇的语步（M）共有418 个，其中语步一155， 语步二106，语步三157， 平均每个文本有 个语步。齐性方差检验表明各语步分布均匀， 出现频率之间没有显着性差异（P >）。并且我们发现，有规律的语步组合模式占58%， 其中语步按照（1-2-3）n 顺序组织的语篇占24%， 大部分语篇都以其他形式组织语篇，如（1-2）n-3 占8%，（1-3）n 占14%，（3-2-1）-X（X 是不定语步）占12%。

没有规律的语步组织模式占42%，其中不规律的含有（1-2-3）模式的占32%，如3-1-2-3-1，1 -2 -3 -2 -3，1 -2 -3 -1 -3 -1等， 另外只有第三语步的语篇占10%。

语步由一个一个步骤（S）组成。Swales 在CARS 模式中提到的11 个步骤在本研究中都有所发现。并且有些步骤出现频繁， 如92%的语篇都出现M1S1，60%的语篇都出现M1－S2,76%的语篇都出现M1S3。在实现语步二的过程中，指出研究空白和提出问题这两个步骤出现频率比较高， 分别占72%和54%， 另外两个步骤频率较低， 分别占8%和28%。语步三中，除了步骤二通报主要发现出现率比较低（14%）外，其他三个步骤出现频率也比较高， 分别占80%，70%和66%。

齐性方差检验结果P= 表明国外应用语言学硕士论文引言的写作符合Swales 的CARS语篇组织模式。

研究还发现除了CARS 模式中的11 个步骤，语篇中还存在其他新的步骤， 并且有的语步出现频率很高。在实现语步一的过程中，92%的语篇都描述研究背景、现实存在的问题或讲述个人经历，58%的语篇都对相关的术语进行了解释、分类或评价； 还有一些语篇中体现了研究动机； 一些语篇在综述完前人研究成果以后，对其做出总结或评价； 一些语篇还介绍了学者之间的分歧。语步二中只发现一个新步骤，及陈述研究的必要性与紧迫性（22%）。语步三种共发现9 个新语步，其中（58%）、陈述问题或提出假设（68%）、陈述研究意义（52%）出现频率较高。

根据Nwugo （2002） 的研究， 出现频率在50%以上的语步才是稳定语步， 基于CARS模式， 作者总结出国外应用语言学硕士论文的引言模式为：

语步一：确立研究领域步骤1： 描述研究背景、现实存在的问题或讲述个人经历步骤2：建立议题中心步骤3：解释、界定、评价相关术语步骤4：概括议题内容步骤5：回顾前人研究结果语步二：确立研究地位步骤1：指出研究空白步骤2：提出问题语步三：占据研究地位步骤1：概述研究目的步骤2：陈述问题或提出假设步骤3：概述研究方法步骤4：通报本课题当前研究情况步骤5：陈述研究意义步骤6：介绍论文结构根据此次研究统计结果，我们认为国外硕士论文的写作非常注重对研究背景或现实存在的问题或个人经历介绍，大多作者不惜用几段甚至几页的篇幅实现次步骤的交际目的。

进入建立研究议题以后，作者把所有与议题有关的定义或术语都呈现给读者， 以便读者更容易理解其研究议题。而在中国学生的论文引言写作中对此涉及偏少， 有些学生想当然觉得议题的研究背景是众所周知的， 没必要写（ 徐有志，2007），而这很容易对实现交际目的产生障碍。另外，英语本族语者通常会在介绍自己的研究时，把研究方法介绍给读者，让读者更清楚地了解研究过程，这都是值得我们借鉴的。没有实践意义的.研究是空洞的，国外作者没有忽略掉这一点，他们一般会在论文开头或介绍完自己的研究以后阐述研究意义。

5.结语

综合以上分析， 国外学生的语篇在总体上遵从学术写作的规范， 但也呈现出自己鲜明的特点。这是因为语篇结构除了受到学术规范的制约外，还受到作者自身在学术领域的地位、专业领域、写作任务以及作者所处的文化和教育背景的影响。希望本研究的研究结果有利于更好的指导中国应用语言学领域硕士生的论文写作，使之更快地与国际学术论文写作接轨。

扩展：论文格式要求

论文最好能建立在平日比较注意探索的问题的基础上，写论文主要是反映学生对问题的思考， 详细内容请看下文本科司法论文格式。

毕业论文包括以下内容：

封面、内容提要与关键词、目录、正文、注释、附录、参考文献。其中附录视具体情况安排，其余为必备项目。如果需要，可以在正文前加引言，在参考文献后加后记。

各项目含义

(1)封面

封面由文头、论文标题、作者、学校名称、专业、年级、指导教师、日期等项内容组成。

(2)内容提要与关键词

内容提要是论文内容的概括性描述，应忠实于原文，字数控制在300字以内。关键词是从论文标题、内容提要或正文中提取的、能表现论文主题的、具有实质意义的词语，通常不超过7个。

(3)目录

列出论文正文的一二级标题名称及对应页码，附录、参考文献、后记等对应的页码。

(4)正文

正文是论文的主体部分，通常由绪论(引论)、本论、结论三个部分组成。这三部分在行文上可以不明确标示。

(5).注释

对所创造的名词术语的解释或对引文出处的说明，注释采用脚注形式。

(6)附录

附属于正文，对正文起补充说明作用的信息材料，可以是文字、表格、图形等形式。

(7)参考文献

作者在写作过程中使用过的文章、著作名录。

4、毕业论文格式编排

第一、纸型、页边距及装订线

毕业论文一律用国家标准A4型纸(297mmX210mm)打印。页边距为：天头(上)30mm，地脚(下)25mm，订口(左)30mm，翻口(右)25mm。装订线在左边，距页边10mm。

第二、版式与用字

文字、图形一律从左至右横写横排，倍行距。文字一律通栏编辑，使用规范的简化汉字。忌用繁体字、异体字等其他不规范字。