语言类论文word

语言是思维的表达方式，不同的语言特征往往反映着不同地域、民族的思维习惯差异。下文是我为大家整理的关于英汉语言对比方面论文的 范文 ，欢迎大家阅读参考!关于英汉语言对比方面论文篇1 浅探英汉委婉语对比 摘 要： 本文应用范畴和构造手段对英汉委婉语进行了对比，通过对比英汉两种语言中的委婉语可以了解委婉语不仅是一种语言现象，更是一种社会 文化 现象。研究英汉委婉语的异同，有助于我们了解英语国家的社会风俗与文化。 关键词： 英汉委婉语 应用范畴 构造手段 一、引言 委婉语euphemism源自希腊语，由词头“eu”(good)和词干“phemism”(speech)构成，意为吉利之语(words of good omen)或优雅的说法(good speech)。委婉语是人类语言使用过程中的一种普遍现象。 通过对比英汉两种语言中的委婉语，我们可以了解委婉语不仅是一种语言现象，更是社会文化现象。委婉语的产生和发展是不同社会心理和语言因素共同作用的结果。委婉语反映了不同社会的发展、价值观、道德观和社会文化。 二、英汉委婉语应用范畴的对比 1.关于疾病的委婉语 生病是人们忌讳说的，因而东西方人常常用委婉语表达。在现代英语中，多用trouble婉指病，如heart trouble，lung trouble等。cancer的委婉语为“the Big C”或“long illness”，“terminally ill”。性病在英语里被称为“social disease”，“the French disease”，“certain disease”，“communicable disease”。汉语里人们把这种病称为“花柳病”、“富贵病”、“那种病”。汉语中，我们把“生病”称作“身体不好”、“身体欠安”，说“癌症”为“不治之症”。 而在身体缺陷方面，英语中婉称crippled(残疾)为physically handicapped(有生理缺陷的)或者用disabled，the inconvenienced表示crippled(瘸子)，用imperfect hearing(听觉不完美)代替the deaf(聋子)，用visually retarded(视力有障碍的)代替the blind(瞎子、盲人)。在汉语中，四肢残疾称“手脚不灵便、走路不便”，偏瘫称“半身不遂”等，秃顶婉称“谢顶”，耳朵聋称“耳背、耳朵不灵”。其他的还有“挨了一下子”、“划了个口子”等代称“受伤”。 2.关于性的委婉语 从古至今，各民族对性爱及与其相关的一些说法均持谨慎态度。随着人类的进步，也出现了一些开放性的说法，但其主流仍然采用回避、模糊、委婉的说法。英语中谈及性行为的委婉语有make love，to have sex with，to go to bed with etc.汉民族历来对性行为持封闭态度，谈及性行为时总是遮遮掩掩，含混模糊。汉语中表达性爱的委婉语有：同房、夫妻生活、房事、云雨之事、那种事等。在谈到性行为不检点时，英语中有free love，trial marriage，love companion，mixed singles等模糊与中性化的委婉语。汉语中则采用较严厉的贬义词抨击不检点的性行为。如男盗女娼、三者插足、寻花问柳、水性杨花等。对于妓女这一令人鄙弃的角色，西方社会给予了许多雅号，如，street walker，street girl，a woman of the town，pavement princess。谈到怀孕时，英汉两种语言均用委婉语，如英语很少直接说pregnancy(怀孕)，而说be in the family way，in an interesting condition，in a delicate condition，knitting little bootees etc.汉语则说，有喜了、要当妈妈了、身怀六甲等。 3.关于死亡的委婉语 古今中外，无论东西方，“死亡”都是一个避讳莫深的话题。人们在语言交际中尽量回避“死亡”二字而尽可能用委婉语代替。虽然英汉语中都有很多表示“死亡”的委婉语，但其中的差异具体表现在： (1)英汉表达死的委婉语在体现社会地位上大相径庭。中国经历了几千年的封建社会，封建制度对中国文化影响颇深。天子死称“崩”，诸侯死称“薨”，大夫死曰“卒”，士死曰“不禄”。西方人笃信__，认为人都是上帝创造的，故生来人人平等。英语中有一条古老的格言：Popes，Kings，beggars，and thieves alike must die.头衔和地位并不能免人一死。在死神面前，卑贱者和高贵者一律平等。 (2)由不同的宗教文化带来的表达差异。英语中die的很多委婉语来自《圣经》，如to go to a better place/world(到一个更美好的地方、世界)，to go to Heaven/Paradise(进入天国)。汉语中，入佛门的则说“迁化、圆寂、舍生”等;对信仰道教的则说“蝉脱、羽化、别驾、遁化”等。 (3)因价值观念的不同，英汉委婉语也不同。汉语中表“死亡”的委婉语还有褒贬之分，如壮烈牺牲、慷慨就义、为国捐躯等。英语国家的民族英雄常常受人敬仰，在英语里找到一些表示为国家或事业而捐躯的委婉词语，如bite the dust/the ground，fire one’s last shot，give one’s life，kiss the dust lay down one’s life。 4.有关“低微职业”的委婉语 在英汉这两种语言里，职业也是一个敏感的话题，因为它直接反映了一个人的社会和经济地位。为提高某些职业的社会地位，人们往往使用委婉语加以美化。这种现象在现代英语中俯拾皆是：把maid(女仆)或housekeeper(女管家)称为domestic help(家务助手)、day-help(白天帮工)或live-in help(住家帮手);一般服务员也升级为service manager(服务管理人员);butcher(屠夫)也改称为meat technologist(肉类技术专家);garbage collector(垃圾收集工)也称sanitation engineer(环境卫生工程师)。 现代汉语也有类似的职业委婉语，“理发师“成了“发型设计师”，理发店也随之改成了发型设计中心，“佣人”成了“家政人员”，“厨子”婉称为“大厨”、“大师傅”，用“服务员”代替“跟班、听差、跑堂”，“司机”代替“车夫”等。这些职业委婉语的使用一方面反映出人们文明程度的提高和追求高雅的心理趋势，另一方面体现出现代人的尊重意识和平等观念。 5.关于年龄上的委婉语 英语中有关老的委婉语很多，这与其文化密切相关。美国文化以个人主义为中心，讲究独立与隐私，子女成人后即与父母分居，老人生活孤单寂寞，于是老成了生活中的一大忌。因此，英语中有许多关于老的委婉语。如：senior citizen，advantage in the age，the mature，seasoned man等。 同时人们把晚年称为golden years(黄金年华)，养老院并非理想去处，也被婉称为a home for adults(成人之家)、a rest home(休养所)等。然而在中国，情况却正好相反，因为中国历来有尊老敬老的传统观念和价值观。在中国，“老”字带敬意，是资历和地位的象征。人们有时还倚老卖老，以老为荣。 如什么“老板、老大、老总、老师、老师傅”等。汉语中类似“年老”的委婉语也很多，如：古稀之年、高龄、高寿、桑榆、夕阳红等。同时，中国人还常把老字放在姓氏的前面或者后面，来称呼那些德高望重的老年人，以表尊重，如：老赵、王老。这体现了中国重视老人的价值观，而这些在英美文化中是不可思议的。可见，在不同的文化背景中，人们对同一事物的态度可能截然相反。 三、英汉委婉语构造手段的对比 由于英汉民族的语言不同，两种语言在文化、语言形式和 思维方式 等方面存在较大的差异。英汉委婉语的差别正是由于两种语言的语言特点差异所造成的，主要体现在英汉委婉语各自的词汇形态特点、语义特点和语法特点等方面。英语是一种拼音文字，通过语音及语法手段构成委婉语，或拼写形式的变异，达到委婉的目的，汉语却侧重于词汇手段。 英语委婉语的构成方式： (1)缩略(Abbreviation)：ladies代替ladies’ room，婉指女厕所。 (2)尾脱落(Apocopation)：lav代替lavatory(厕所)。 (3)首字母缩略(Initiating)：.代替body odor(狐臭)。 (4)逆生(Backforming)：ecnop 代替ponce，婉指“拉皮条的人”。 (5)音节或字母重复(Reduplication)pee-pee=piss(小便)。 (6)音节扭曲(Phonetic Distortion)Cripes=Christ(基督)、God(上帝)。 (7)混合词(Blend word)：gezunda=This object“goes under”the bed.(那东西放在床底下，即“夜壶”)。 (8)小词(Diminutive)：heinie=hind end(后端，即“臀部”)。 汉语委婉语独特的构成方式： (1)拆字法。如：张俊氏道：“胡子老官，这事你作法便了，做成了，少不得言身寸。”(“谢”拆开后即“言”、“身”、“寸”)。(《儒林外史》第32回) (2) 歇后语 法。人们在做一些消极评论时，常会借助一些歇后语来缓冲过于直白的语气，以达到委婉的目的。比如骂人时说：茶壶里的水(滚开)。 (3)换字法。例如，北方话口语中常说“扯蛋”，书面语转写时，换成“扯淡”。 (4)符号替换法。例如：“×你妈!你怎么不说话，哑巴吗?” (5)反义法。所谓反义就是指与禁忌语的意义相反。如广州人把“气死我”说成“激生我”;把“笑死我”说成“笑生我”。显然，生与死是 反义词 ，这里用“生”避开了“死”。 三、结语 笔者对英语和汉语中的委婉语从应用范畴与构造手段两方面进行了比较，试图找到两种语言中的差异和相似之处。委婉语不仅仅是修辞现象、语言学现象，更蕴含浓厚文化内涵、民族特征。在各个国家的日常交往及工作中，委婉语的运用极为广泛，它可以润滑和协调人际关系，使交际活动顺利进行。充分认识其构造手段、形式特点、发展规律将有助于我们了解英语国家的社会风俗与文化，从而增强跨文化交际的能力。 参考文献： [1]邓志昌，刘润清.语言与文化[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1989. [2]束定芳，徐金元.委婉语研究：回顾与前瞻[J].外国语，1995(5). [3]王希杰.汉语修辞学[M].北京：商务印书馆，2004. [4]刘瑞琴.英汉委婉语对比与翻译[M].银川：宁夏人民出版社，2010. 关于英汉语言对比方面论文篇2 浅谈英汉词缀对比研究 【摘 要】英语和汉语是两种不同的语言，两者在构词法上有着巨大的差别。分析了这两种语言的词缀，通过前缀和后缀的词缀对比，会给英语教学以及英汉互译提供一些启发。 【关键词】词缀;前缀;后缀;对比 1 词缀的定义 词缀法是把词缀附加在词根上构造新词的 方法 (陈，1991)，也叫做派生法。总的来说，前缀起着语义功能，而后缀有语法功能。在英语中，它是一种重要的构词法，自从第二次世界大战以来，它在新的 英语单词 中占。在汉语中，由词缀法构成的词非常少，然而词缀化是汉语本身发展的自然趋势(吴，2001)。 2 英汉前缀对比 英汉前缀的不同反映在英语比汉语有更多的前缀。英语前缀是构词主要的成分，仅次于词根。整体来说，英语派生过程比汉语更复杂、更多样化。 英语前缀的分类 英语前缀大多只是改变词义而不改变词性，所以英语单词是在意义的基础上分类的，英语前缀可以分为九类，列举如下： 汉语前缀的分类 汉语的前缀表示语法意义，其首要功能是改变词性，这种功能相当于英语的后缀，这是两种语言最大的区别。汉语的前缀可以分为两类，一类只是为了构词，如“老”，老婆、老大、老虎;“阿”，阿爹、阿婆。另外一类不全是语法的性质，可能会改变词性，汉语前缀根据意义可以划分为以下类型。 汉语前缀和其相对应的英语形式： 1)否定前缀 不人道 inhuman 非正式 informal 不科学 unscientific 非导体 nonconductor 无形 invisible 无条件 unconditional 2)态度前缀 反建议 counterproposal 亲美 pro-American 反常 abnormal 伪政府 pseudo-government 反社会 anti-social 3)程度或大小前缀 超自然 supernatural 泛非 pan-African 超音速 hypersonic 次大陆 subcontinent 准学者 quasi-scholar 4)数字前缀 半封建 semi-feudal 单边 unilateral 半人半神 demigod 单晶体 monocrystal 双音节 disyllabic 多中心 polycentric 双语 bilingual 多级 multipolar 英汉前缀的对比分析 通过上面的分析，可以推测出两种语言的大多数前缀都有对应关系。总体来说，英语前缀在不改变词性的基础上，对词根起着语义功能，而汉语前缀具有语法的功能，更倾向于语义分类。 然而，在两种语言中，由相对应的前缀构成的派生词并不是一一对应的关系。也就是说，一种语言中的派生词在另一种语言中有着相同意义也可能不是派生词。例如，“不毛”在汉语中是个派生词，由前缀“不”和名次“毛”组成。在英语中相对应的词是“barren”，是个单词素的词。同样，英语中派生名词“non-smoker”是由一个前缀“non-”和一个名词“smoker”组合起来的，在汉语中是个名词词组“不吸烟的人”。 许多前缀具有多种意义，这种现象是非常普遍的，即一种语言的前缀在另一种语言中具有几种意义，反之亦然。英语前缀“a-”有三种意思：a. 强调原来的意思，如await; b. 改变词性和意思，如awash; c. 非、不， atypical。在汉语中，前缀“不”可以用英语中不同的前缀来表示，如un-， il-， ir-， a-等。 3 英汉后缀对比 与英语相比，汉语中表示人的后缀比指示状态和动作等的后缀多。两种语言的后缀都是加在词根之后。 英语后缀的四种范畴 英语后缀是对原来的词的一种修饰，它改变了词原有的词性。英语后缀有四种类型：名词后缀、形容词后缀、副词后缀和动词后缀。当词根加上这些后缀后，分别形成名词、形容词、副词和动词。 汉语后缀的分类 与英语后缀不同，汉语后缀主要构成名词。加上后缀的词根几乎限于名词、动词和形容词，尤其是名词。下文选择了若干汉语后缀和所对应的英语后缀。 1)名词后缀 ①表示代理人和职业的后缀 专家 specialist 教员 teacher 银行家 banker 打字员 typist 发明家 inventor 技术员 technician 读者 reader 讲师 lecturer 逃亡者 escapee 工程师 engineer 马克思主义者 Marxist 魔术 师 magician 助手 assistant 积极分子 activist ②表示属性、状态和学说意义的后缀 灵活性 flexibility 创造性 creativity 正确性 correctness 湿度 humidity 长度 length 唯心论 idealism 相对论 relativity 社会主义 socialism 达尔文主义 Darwinism 电子学 electronics ③表示亲昵或轻蔑意味的后缀 胖子 fatty 酒鬼 drunkard 赌棍 gamester 电影迷 filmnik 2)动词后缀 人格化 personify 简化 simplify 深化 deepen 现代化 modernize 革命化 revolutionize 3)形容词后缀 男孩子气 manly 孩子气 childish 阔气 luxurious 傲气 cocky 井然 orderly 默然 speechless 4)副词后缀 油然 spontaneously 惨然 miserably 特地 specially 继而 afterwards 率尔 rashly 英汉后缀对比分析 如上所述，汉语在构成名词方面有丰富的后缀，尤其是指示人的名词。据估计汉语表示人的后缀在词缀中达到32%，在英语中只有13%。两种语言的后缀很明显的不同在于汉语后缀大多带有些许感情色彩，尤其是轻蔑意义;而英语后缀很少带有这种贬义的感情色彩。 汉语中一定量的后缀在英语中没有相对应的后缀，因此，在英语中由自由词来表达这些后缀的意思，例如桌子(desk)、杯子(cup)、石头(stone)、尾巴(tail)、泥巴(mud)。同样，当表示女性的后缀附加于对应的动词之上，整个词就代表了女性。然而，在汉语中单个词就代表了相同的意义，比如女演员(actor-actress) and母老虎 (tiger-tigress)。 后缀中有一种有趣的现象，加上后缀的英语派生词与加上前缀的汉语派生词相对应，比如，“lawless” 和 “fearless”分别译成“非法”和“无畏”。英语中带有指小意义名词后缀在汉语中经常译成前面加“小”的名词，如小鸭(duckling)、小猫(kitten)。有时，同时使用前缀“小”和后缀“儿”，如小罐儿(cannikin)。 4 结语 总之，科技全球化给英语和汉语提供了更多的接触机会，在此过程中相互学习、相互比较。英汉词缀既有相似处也有不同点，将两者相比不仅有益于 英语学习 者深刻认识两种语言，而且有益于他们丰富英汉词汇。 【参考文献】 [1]陈治安.英汉词缀法构词比较[J].四川外语学院学报，1991(1). [2]韩汉雄.英汉词缀比较及 其它 [J].杭州师范学院学报，1994(7). [3]胡壮麟.语言学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2006. [4]吴东英. 再论英语借词对现代汉语词法的影响[J].当代语言学，2001 (3). [5]萧立明.英汉比较研究与翻译[M].上海：上海外语 教育 出版社，2010. [6]张晗.英汉构词法对比[J].厦门大学外文学院，2010(3).

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。

On suprasegmental features 一． Introduction So far we have been talking about phonetic features as they apply to single phonetic segments, or phones. Phonetic features can also apply to a string of several sounds, such as a syllable, or an entire word or utterance. The study of phonological features which applies to groups larger than the single segment, are known as suprasegmental features, such as the syllable or the word. The study of these features is known as prosody. It mainly includes syllable, stress, pitch, tone, and intonation. In this paper, I will talk about the suprasegmental features in great detail. Key words: phonetic, suprasegmental.二． Syllable The most obvious prosodic feature in language is the syllable. Let's briefly discuss the notion of syllables. Like all of our other basic linguistic concepts, although everyone knows what a syllable is, the concept "syllable" is difficult to define in absolute terms. A syllable can be divided into three parts, that is, onset, nucleus, and coda, of which nucleus is a must. A syllable that has no coda is called an open syllable while a syllable with coda is called a closed syllable. In English only long vowels and diphthongs can occur in open syllables. The onset may be empty or filled by a cluster of as many as three consonants, while the coda position may be filled as many as four consonants. The maximal onset principle states that when there is a choice as to where to place a consonant, it is put into the onset rather than the coda. In some languages, syllables are always open, that is, they always end in a vowel, never a consonant. (Hawaiian) On the other hand, every Hawaiian syllable must begin with a consonant. (Aloha spoken as a single word begins in a glottal stop.) In other languages, syllables are always closed; they must end in a consonant (Navaho): Háá'ishah dididiljah. Let's build a fire. Táá diné 'ooljéé'go naaskai' Three men went to the moon. (Like Hawaiian, they must also begin in a consonant.)三． Stress The nature of stress The word stress is used differently by different authors, and the relationship between stress, emphasis, accent and prominence is also defined differently. Robins has defined it as “a generic term for the relatively greater force exerted in the articulation of part of utterance”. The nature of stress is simple enough—practically everyone would agree that the first syllable of words like“father”, “open” is stressed, that the middle syllable is stressed in “potato”, “apartment” and the final syllable is stressed in “about”, “perhaps”, and most people feel they have some sort of idea of what the difference is between stressed and unstressed syllables, though they might explain it in many different production of stress is generally believed to depend on the speaker using more muscular energy than is used for unstressed syllables. From the perceptual point of view, all stressed syllables have one characteristic in common, and that is “prominence”. Roach has manifested that at least four different factors are important to make a syllable prominent:i) Loudness: Most people seem to feel that stressed syllables are louder than unstressed ones; in other words, loudness is a component of ) Length: The length of syllables has an important part to play in prominence; the syllables which are made longer than the others will be heard as ) Pitch: Pitch in speech is closely related to the frequency of vibration of the vocal folds and to the musical notion of low-pitched and high-pitched notes; if one syllable is said with a pitch that is noticeably different from that of the others, this will have a strong tendency to produce the effect of ) Quality: a syllable will tend to be prominent if it contains a vowel that is different in quality from neighboring vowels. Languages differ in how they use ) In some languages, each syllable is equally stressed or unstressed，as in Cambodian2) the syllable in each word is more stressed. The place of stress is fixed on a certain syllable:1) initial. Finnish, Hungarian and other Finno-Ugric languages2) penultimate. Polish,3) final. ) Complex set of rules. In Bulgarian nouns and verbs have separate sets of rules for stress placement. Hopi (phonetic: first syllable of a two syllable word: síkwi meat; in words of three or more syllables, accent falls on the first long vowel: máamatsi to recognize; or on the first short vowel before a consonant cluster: péntani to write; otherwise it falls on the next to last syllable: wunúvtu stand up)The place of stress is ) In Russian the stress is completely random: xoroshó, xoró) In English the stress is more predictable but still random. Usually a middle syllable of a longer word receives the stress. In two syllable words stress is rando and often renders differences in meaning: project/to project, produce/produce, and insult/ to insult. Some languages have more than one stress per word: English is such a language. In English, words of four syllables or more have a primary and a secondary stress. Some English compounds have phrasal stress on the first element of the compound. Phrasal stress often distinguishes meaning in adjective/noun combinations. Sentence stress in English According to He Shanfen (1992), English sentence stress has two main functions:⑴ to indicate the important words in the sentence; ⑵ to serve as the basis for the rhythmic structure of the sentence. Consequently, in connected English speech, sentence stress usually falls on content ( or lexical) words, which carry the basic meaning of a sentence, . nouns, adjectives, adverbs etc. Those which are usually unstressed in sentences are form (or structural) words, which show grammatical relationships, such as articles, auxiliary and modal verbs, monosyllabic prepositions, etc.

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.

像语音学，音位学，以及形态学，句法都不好下手建议写社会语言学或是心理语言学方面的，可以深入对比一下中西方思维的差异之类的，应该是一个好的论点加油~~