发布时间：
关于英语语言学的论文，论文题目和主要内容已列出，供参考。链接附后1.题目：语言学英文版论文。主要内容：该论文主要讲词汇是构成语言的基本单位，词汇习得在语言学习中占有重要地位。英国著名语言学家D.A. Wilkins (1972) 说过：“没有语法，人们不能表达很多东西；而没有词汇，人们则无法表达任何东西。”这就说明了词汇在学习中的重要性。本文旨在分析二语词汇习得策略并应用于不同水平的学习者。学习者根据自己的水平选择正确的习得方法和策略学习词汇，从而提高学习效率和习得效果。http://wenku.baidu.com/link?url=SXkEsiMcpfqhM3IdT5ZZ97aNTmwfO_74dvJoNSWoCp2FIyudzpd1uBSgh2ccFJS6RN7xNBPb9WFk_matYEwCRT0EMxynK7D_vYN7D59Og5G2.题目：.英语专业毕业论文(语言学)——谈判英语文化差异。主要内容：该论文主要讲国际商务谈判中文化差异的影响，就是汉语习惯思维和西方语言文化之间表达的准确性对商务谈判带来的影响。http://wenku.baidu.com/view/ef2d20e09b89680203d825be.html4.题目：外国语言学及应用语言学硕士论文：商务英语信函的词汇特点研究，主要内容：商务英语信函词汇的选择和应用多呈现如下7种特点：1)简单词汇的选择。2)具体词汇多于笼统词汇。3)褒义词多于贬义词。4)缩写词的选择。5)确切词汇多于模糊词汇。6)礼貌、客气的词汇多于不礼貌的词汇。7)商业术语的选择。产生的原因多取决于商务活动的和商业伙伴的合作关系。商务活动的双方均为达至双赢的进行合作。这是本文所分析的词汇特点产生的主要原因。
形态学是用来特指一门专门研究生物形式的本质的学科。这门形态学同那种把有机体的生物分解成各个单元的解剖学不同，不是只注重部分的微观分析而忽略了总体上的联系，相反它要求把生命形式当作有机的系统看待形态学的方法，一方面是对接受研究中的历史学方法的补充，另方面是对比较文学的文学性的继续关注。作为生物学的主要分支学科，其目的是描述生物的形态和研究其规律性，且往往是与以机能为研究对象的生理学相对应。广义地来说，它包括研究细胞阶段形态的细胞学的大部分，以及探讨个体发生过程的发生学。狭义的形态学主要是研究生物的成年个体的外形和器官构造（解剖学、组织学和器官学）。从方法论上来讲，它分为重视器官和机能关系的生理形态学，以及重点放在比较研究上的比较形态学以至系统形态学和实验形态学或因果形态学（Causal morphology）。形态学方法被正式命名为“形态文艺学”（morphologisch Literaturwissenschaft ），这是关于文艺学的基础理论研究，其中心观点，认为诗的“构形”（Gestalt）是有机组成的大自然的“现象”（Erscheinung）；诗是“构形的整体”（Gestaltganzes），也即是有生命力的有机体，它通过和自然同等的创造力这样一个构形性的中介组成整体。总体构形中的每一个别要素与层次，组成诗的艺术品，则被视为这一整体构形的“变型”（Metamorphose）。形态学是研究动植物形态（form）的科学。它在生物学的理论框架中究竟占有什么位置一直有争议，而且在一定意义上来说，将来也会如此。值得十分注意的是，从18世纪晚期开始经常有人试图建立一种多少与生物学脱离的“纯粹形态学”（puremorphology），也就是生物学家、数学家和艺术家都同样爱好的一门科学。只有了解了形态学这个词常被人们用来表示一些互相无关甚至十分不同的事态发展后才有可能理解形态学的复杂历史。
越来越多的学者正显示有兴趣在通过语言的方法翻译研究。与1949年和1989年，一个不完整的调查，作者发现，有大约只有30教科书通道的讨论之间的关系，语言学和翻译，包括方面的普通语言学，语用学，文体学，篇章语言学，修辞学和机器翻译。从1990年至1994年，有一个令人难以置信的数目增加了通道，看翻译，从语言学的角度来看。几乎160发表的文章中对这些五年关心的翻译和普通语言学，文体学，比较语言学，语义，语用学，社会语言学，文字语言学，修辞学等新的条款，如话语分析，诠释学，动态等值，深部结构和表面结构，背景，主题和述位，合作的原则，更遑论只是一个数，出现在翻译领域的研究。我们一定可以找出一个趋势，应用语言学理论翻译研究在这些年。 今天，我们在点质疑语言学是一个必要组成部分的翻译。近年来，一些学者，谁是在赞成的免费翻译，曾多次提出这个问题向公众，并呼吁结束了语言的方法翻译。一些坚信，翻译是一种艺术和语言学，因此，既不是有用的，亦无帮助。这种说法是错误的，如果我们看看翻译作为一个整体，包括科学的翻译那里的意思是僵化和限制，自由度是有限的。灵活性，在这种情况下，既不需要也不赞赏。 但是，即使是在文学翻译，语言学，是难以负担。王宗炎指出， «如果一看到语言学作为一个机构的规则，规范的语言，翻译，最可能会哈欠与无聊。如果它标志使用的字和locutions以适合的场合，是没有任何停止译员从概括性的语言学» （王1991年： 38 ） 。争议«字面»银两«免费»翻译有着悠久的历史，与有说服力的支持者，一边一国。举例来说，古代西方学者一样，伊拉斯谟，奥古斯丁，和其他人赞成，直译。其中中国早期翻译，鸠摩罗什是被视为免费的学校，而轩zuang似乎字面和灵活性。在当代中国，严复主张诠释学的翻译，而鲁迅的首选一拙劣的版本，一个是免费的，但不精确。有没有错，在上述任何立场。当这些译员强调，免费翻译，他们从不否认的可能性直译，反之亦然。问题只出现时，讨论，轮流相当于翻译。 问题的等价性已引起很大的争议。有些人认为有可能是一个等价语文元素，独立设置他们在其中的发生。在此基础上假设，一些«字面»翻译试图分解一个文本到单一元素，希望找到等值在目标语言。这是一个天真的想法。 jakobson （ 1971年： 262 ）指出， «等价在不同的是枢机主教的问题，语言和关键的关注语言学。 » ，他并不是指«等价» ，但«的等值的不同之处»为枢机主教的问题。奈达也误解了很多，他的概念«等价， »他走上表示«翻译组成，在复制，在受体的语言最接近自然相当于源语言讯息，首先是在条款的含义和在第二条款作风» （ 1969年： 12 ） 。他进一步得出结论认为， «绝对的等值翻译是绝不可能» （ 1984年： 14 ） 。德beaugrande和德雷斯勒认为，成功或失败，无论是免费或直译的方法是不确定的：一不适当«字面»翻译可能会尴尬，甚至费解的，而过分«免费»之一，可能会使原来的文本，分化和完全消失。对他们来说，等价之间的翻译和原创，只能在实现的经验，与会者（参见德beaugrande和德雷斯勒1981 ： 216-217 ） 。卡特福德（ 1965年： 27 ）表达了同样的关注，相等于翻译只是«实证的现象，通过比较发现， SL和铊的案文。 »在列举上述例子，我有绝对无意坚持对不可译。我的意思是，一个翻译者应该把他或她自己的经验和加工活动，到文本：解决问题，减少polyvalence解释，远离任何不一致或不连续性。语言知识可以帮助我们对待不同类型以不同的方式，始终与意识，有没有确切的等价但只有逼近。因此，功放和简化成为可以接受的。 如果我们同意的文本可以翻译，那么，以何种方式是否语言学的贡献翻译？要回答这个问题，我们必须寻求在接受西方语言学在中国及其对翻译的影响。系统性，科学性的研究，中文应运而生年底才在上个世纪，当马建忠出版了一本书的语法马氏文通«马氏文通»于1898年，这是首次在中国了语法印支欧洲语言作为其模型。研究语言，反过来又影响，翻译研究在中国。在麻石wenton ，主要的重点是使用形态，这占用了6 - sevenths的这本书。影响占主导地位的趋势形态学研究，总之，被视为最低有意义的单位，和刑期，因此，合乎逻辑的组合的话，各种具体的类型。翻译，然后，主要是基于该单位的Word 。在西方，圣经的翻译提供了一个很好的例子，正如翻译佛经并在中国。 直到十九世纪末做了一些语言学家来认识到判刑，不只是总结了测序，换句话说，他们所载的。布拉格学派，创立于20世纪20年代，取得了相当大的贡献的研究语法。根据该分析方法的功能的角度来看，布拉格学派，一个句子可以分解成两部分：主题和述位。主题是反对述位在类似方式之间的区别的话题和评论，并定义为一个组成部分，句，至少这有助于推进的过程中的沟通。述位，另一方面，是一个组成部分，一句是增加最与时俱进的过程中的沟通和具有最高程度的交际动力。这两个名词，帮助启发的过程中中文翻译成英文。 在20世纪50年代中期，研究语法达到高峰，与乔姆斯基的建立转换-生成语法。这一理论的深部结构和表面结构的语言翻译的影响极大。奈达依赖于这一理论在发展中国家的他«分析- transfering -重建»模式的翻译。一些中国语言学家，在此期间，试图以提高语文研究，以更高的飞机。李进喜（ 1982年）扩大的作用句研究在他的书中一个新的汉语语法，其中三分之二是专门讨论句子的形成或语法。他写道， «没有的话，可以发现除语境中的一个句子。 »研究当时的改善，其他grammarians ，包括吕叔湘，王力。 与发展的语言学研究，翻译的基础上，单位的一句是所提出的一些学者。这是林语堂谁首先运用理论对翻译在他的文章«对翻译。 »他声称«翻译应该做的事的基础上一句[...]什么翻译应忠实，是不是个别的话，但意思转达他们» （林1984年为： r 3 ） 。的重要性的背景下，在理解句子，因此强调。超yuanren ，一个中国学者和哈佛大学教授，学者的批评和笔译谁往往忘记这一点，并采取语言为一些独立和自给自足。事实上，这是显而易见的，当我们翻译句子，我们取决于它的背景;当我们解释1话语，我们依赖的背景下的讲话（参见超1967 ） 。当一个句子，是从文字，它通常变得含糊不清，由于缺乏背景。因此，翻译成为困难。 在20世纪60年代，人们开始认识到学习语文的基础上的刑罚甚至没有足够的。完整的研究报告应作出的全文。一个简单的句子一样， «乔治通过»可能有不同的解释不同语境下。如果背景是一个考试，这意味着没有乔治，以及对测试;在一个卡片游戏，它会表明，乔治拒绝他的机会，出价;在体育这将意味着球达成的另一个球员。没有一个背景下，我们怎么能决定一个翻译？语言学家，因此他们的注意力转移到研究文本和话语分析。篇章语言学已成为越来越受欢迎的自那时起。范dijk是一个先驱在这一领域，和他的4卷版的手册，话语分析是具有极大的价值。哈利迪的凝聚力的中，英文介绍功能语法，帮助我们更好地了解英语语言对文字的水平。值得注意的是，德beaugrande和德雷斯勒（ 1981 ）提供了一个整体和系统的研究文本，这是有益的翻译研究。德beaugrande其实写了一本书所谓的因素，在一个理论的诗翻译在1978年。这本书并没有成为很受欢迎，因为它仅限于讨论诗歌的翻译。在同一时间内，书籍，语言学的方法，以翻译介绍到中国，如工程尤金奈达，彼得newmarks ， ， JC卡特福德，乔治mounin ，和其他人。这些书籍了很大的推动，应用语言学理论翻译研究在中国。 文本或discoursive的方式来研究翻译不能跟上发展的篇章语言学。一些研究仍留在句法或语义层面上，虽然甚至有文本装置被聘用。在谈到翻译单位的Word和文字，奈达写道： ...一般人天真地认为，语言是换言之，共同默契的假设，结果翻译涉及更换一个字，语文与一个字，语文乙和更多«认真»这类翻译的是，更为尖锐。在其他换句话说，传统关注的焦点，在翻译上字。人们认识到，这不是一个足够大的单位，因此，重点转移到判刑。不过，专家，翻译和语言学家已能证明个人的句子，在反过来，是不够的。重点应放在该段，并在一定程度上总的话语。 （奈达和tabber 1969 ： 152 ） 从这个声明可以看出，奈达的问候话语，作为大于一个段落，作为一篇文章，与一个开始和结束。奈达自己从未申请篇章语言学翻译，可能会有一些混乱，如果我们用他的任期在我们的解释话语，因为话语分析不仅是研究的基础上，较大的语言结构。 一些中国学者没有作出努力申请文本语言学的理论和实践的翻译。王秉勤的文章（ 1987年）是第一学术论文这一类的。他说，他的目标是研究和发现规则的内部结构，文字在根据篇章语言学。他分析，许多例子使用的词句分析，但不幸的是，所有的样品，他收集到的描述，风景或报价从书籍的伟大学者-没有对话，没有言外或成事部队在该语言。他未能提供了各种例子。基于这个原因，他的研究结果，主要是限于修辞文本在中国古代（参见王1981 ;罗1994年） 。 学者一样，他自然适用于pragamatics翻译。他的文章（ 1992 ）提出了两个新的条款， « pragmalinguistics »和«社会经济语用学» ，其中，在翻译，是指分别以«研究务实的武力或语言使用的观点，语言来源» ，并«务实研究其中，研究条件对语言使用所产生的社会和文化情况。 »他讨论的可能性，运用务实的态度，翻译，以达到一个务实的等效之间的来源和目标文本，即是重现的讯息，进行源语言本身，以及含义进行了由源语言其背景和文化。在这方面的文章，他也试图区分«语用语言学»从«社会经济语用学» ，但最后也承认， «其实，一个清晰的线之间的语用语言学和社会经济语用学有时可能难以得出。 »他仍然坚持认为，应用该务实的态度，翻译是有益的，甚至是必要的。柯莉（ 1992 ）认为，语义，而在广义相结合的语义和语用学的，应加以研究，以帮助理解，解释和解决遇到的一些问题在翻译中。在这篇文章中，他审查了4语义条款-«意义和参考， » « h yponomy， » «变化的意义»和«背景» -让许多例子，i l lusrate的重要性，有一些一般性的知识和语义理解之间的关系和语义的翻译。这篇文章中明确写道，读者可以很容易吸取灵感来自它。 这些语言学的方法，棚灯，对新标准的«信，达，雅»所界定的严复。中国学者开始批评含糊不清，这三个标准和努力给他们具体的意义，通过理论的西方语言学。结果是内容，这三个传统标准已大大丰富了，尤其是影响等值理论，这在广义上是指目标语言应相等于源语言从语义，务实和文体点查看。但我们仍无法评价翻译在一个非常科学的方法。因此，中国学者一样，范守，徐shenghuan和万亩鲤鱼走上了定量分析的翻译，用模糊集理论的数学在完成他们的分析。范发表的几篇文章，对这一领域的研究。他1987年至1990年的文章评价翻译根据的数值数量的忠诚。徐的文章«的数学模型，评价翻译质量的»提出了一种正常的数学模型。他说，是很难产生一个绝对准确的评价翻译与这个模式，因为不确定性和随机性的人的思考过程。作出这样的分析更准确和客观的，需要进一步研究。 该单位在翻译是很难啃的骨头。不解决这个问题，没有研究在翻译研究将以往任何时候都足够了。迄今为止，很少有人都集中在研究这方面的工作。奈达认为，股应判刑，并在一定意义上，话语。巴尔胡达罗夫（ 1993 ： 40 ） ，苏联的语言学家和翻译理论家，建议： 翻译是转变的过程中讲话的产品（或文字）产生的一种语言，成为一个讲话的产品（或文字）在另一种语言。 [ … … ]它如下认为，最重要的任务，译者谁进行的过程中转型，该理论家谁介绍或创建一个模型，这个过程中，是要建立最低限度的翻译单位，因为它是一般所谓，翻译单位，在源文本。 虽然他注意到的重要性，翻译单位在一个文本，并认为这个单位可以是一个单位，任何级别的语言，他没有指出是什么文字，是和它如何可能来衡量翻译。 Halliday的概念，该条文的可能显着在这种情况下。他说，一个条款，是我国的一项基本单位。他区别的三项职能的条款：文本，人际和概念。据哈利迪，这些职能是不具备的词或短语。但他是不太成功的在分析之间的关系，第和文本（参见哈利迪1985年） 。在中国，有些人曾试图解决这个问题。王春（ 1987年： 10 ）更多或更少的股份bakhudarov的看法，认为翻译单位不能局限于只为服刑。在某些方面，音素，词，词组，句，段，或什至文本都可以充当一个单位。在这一点上，我们无法找到任何特殊的治疗文本翻译，除因文本作为最高级别之间的翻译单位。这不是目的，篇章语言学或话语分析。如果我们想申请这些理论和实践的翻译，我们会要求考的做法。
转摘More and more scholars are now showing an interest in adopting linguistic approaches to translation studies. Between 1949 and 1989, an incomplete survey by the author revealed that there were only about 30 textbook passages discussing the relationship between linguistics and translation, including aspects of general linguistics, pragmatics, stylistics, text linguistics, rhetoric and machine translation. From 1990 to 1994, there was an incredible increase in the number of passages looking at translation from a linguistic point of view. Almost 160 articles published over these five years concerned translation and general linguistics, stylistics, comparative linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, text linguistics, rhetoric, etc. New terms such as discourse analysis, hermeneutics, dynamic equivalence, deep structure and surface structure, context, theme and rheme, cooperative principles, to mention just a few, appeared in the field of translation studies. We can definitely identify a trend of applying linguistics theories to translation studies in these years. Today, we are at the point of questioning whether linguistics is a necessary part of translation. In recent years, some scholars who are in favour of free translation, have repeatedly raised this question to the public and appealed for an end to the linguistic approach to translation. Some firmly believe that translation is an art and that therefore linguistics is neither useful nor helpful. Such a claim is wrong if we look at translation as a whole, including scientific translation where meanings are rigid and restricted and the degree of freedom is limited. Flexibility, in this case, is neither required nor appreciated. But even in literary translation, linguistics is hardly a burden. Wang Zongyan pointed out that « If one sees linguistics as a body of rules regulating language, translators most probably will yawn with boredom. If it signifies the use of words and locutions to fit an occasion, there is nothing to stop translators from embracing linguistics » (Wang 1991: 38). The controversy over « literal » versus « free » translation has a long history, with convincing supporters on each side. For example, ancient Western scholars like Erasmus, Augustine, and others were in favour of literal translation. Among early Chinese translators, Kumarajiva is considered to be of the free school, while Xuan Zuang appears as literal and inflexible. In modern China, Yan Fu advocated hermeneutic translation, while Lu Xun preferred a clumsy version to one that was free but inexact. There is nothing wrong in any of these stances. When these translators emphasized free translation they never denied the possibility of literal translation, and vice versa. Problems only arise when the discussion turns to equivalent translations. The problem of equivalence has caused much controversy. Some people believed that there could be an equivalence of language elements independent of the setting in which they of occurred. Based on this assumption, some « literal » translators tried to decompose a text into single elements in hopes of finding equivalents in the target language. This is a naive idea. Jakobson (1971: 262) notes that « Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. » He does not refer to « equivalence » but to « equivalence in difference » as the cardinal problem. Nida was also misunderstood by many for his notion of « equivalence, » which he took to mean that « Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style » (1969: 12). He further concluded that « Absolute equivalence in translating is never possible » (1984: 14). De Beaugrande and Dressler believed that the success or failure of either free or literal approaches was uncertain: an unduly « literal » translation might be awkward or even unintelligible, while an unduly « free » one might make the original text disintegrate and disappear altogether. To them, equivalence between a translation and an original can only be realized in the experience of the participants (cf. de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981: 216-217). Catford (1965: 27) expressed the same concern that equivalent translation is only « an empirical phenomenon, discovered by comparing SL and TL texts. » In citing the above examples, I have absolutely no intention of insisting on untranslatability. What I mean is that a translator should incorporate his or her own experience and processing activities into the text: solving the problems, reducing polyvalence, explaining away any discrepancies or discontinuities. Linguistic knowledge can help us treat different genres in different ways, always with an awareness that there are never exact equivalences but only approximations. Therefore, amplification and simplification become acceptable. If we agree that texts can be translated, then, in what way does linguistics contribute to translation? To answer this question, we must look at the acceptance of western linguistics in China and its influence on translation. Systematic and scientific study of the Chinese language came into being only at the end of the last century, when Ma Jianzhong published a grammar book Mashi Wentong «马氏文通» in 1898, which was the first in China and took the grammar of Indo-European languages as its model. The study of language was, in turn, influenced by translation studies in China. In Mashi Wenton, the main emphasis is on the use of morphology, which takes up six-sevenths of the book. Influenced by the dominant trend of morphological studies, a word was regarded as the minimum meaningful unit, and a sentence was therefore the logical combination of words of various specific types. Translation was, then, principally based on the unit of the word. In the West, Biblical translation provided a very good example, just as the translation of Buddhist scriptures did in China. Not until the end of the 19th century did some linguists come to realize that sentences were not just the summary of the sequenced words they contained. The Prague School, founded in the 1920s, made a considerable contribution to the study of syntax. According to the analytic approach of the Functional Perspective of the Prague School, a sentence can be broken down into two parts: theme and rheme. Theme is opposed to rheme in a manner similar to the distinction between topic and comment, and is defined as the part of a sentence which contributes least to advancing the process of communication. Rheme, on the other hand, is the part of a sentence which adds most to advancing the process of communication and has the highest degree of communicative dynamism. These two terms help enlighten the process of translating Chinese into English. In the mid-1950s, the study of syntax peaked with the Chomsky's establishment of transformational-generative grammar. This theory of the deep structure and surface structure of language influenced translation tremendously. Nida relied heavily on this theory in developing his « analyzing-transfering-reconstructing » pattern for translation. Some Chinese linguists, in the meantime, tried to raise language studies to a higher plane. Li Jinxi (1982) enlarged the role of sentence studies in his book A New Chinese Grammar, two thirds of which was devoted to discussing sentence formation or syntax. He writes that « No words can be identified except in the context of a sentence. » The study was then improved by other grammarians, including Lu Shuxiang, Wang Li. With the development of linguistic studies, translation based on the unit of the sentence was put forward by some scholars. It was Lin Yu-Tang who first applied the theory to translation in his article « On Translation. » He claimed that « translation should be done on the basis of the sentence [...] What a translator should be faithful to is not the individual words but the meaning conveyed by them » (Lin 1984: r 3). The importance of context in the understanding of a sentence was therefore emphasized. Chao Yuanren, a Chinese scholar and professor at Harvard University, criticized scholars and translators who tended to forget this point and take language for something independent and self-sufficient. In fact, it is obvious that when we translate a sentence, we depend on its context; when we interpret an utterance we rely on the context of the speech (cf. Chao 1967). When a sentence is removed from the text, it usually becomes ambiguous due to the lack of context. Therefore, translation becomes difficult. In the 1960s, people began to realize that the study of language based on sentences was not even sufficient. A complete study should be made of the whole text. A simple sentence like « George passed » may have different interpretations in different contexts. If the context is that of an examination, it means George did well on a test; in a card game it would indicate that George declined his chance to bid; in sports it would mean the ball reached another player. Without a context, how could we decide on a translation? Linguists therefore shifted their attention to the study of texts and to discourse analysis. Text linguistics have become increasingly popular since that time. Van Dijk was a pioneer in this field, and his four-volume edition of the Handbook of Discourse Analysis is of great value. Halliday's Cohesion in English and Introduction to Functional Grammar help us to better understand the English language on a textual level. It is worth noting that de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) provided an overall and systematic study of text, which is useful to translation studies. De Beaugrande actually wrote a book called Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating in 1978. The book did not become very popular as it confined the discussion to translating poetry. At the same time, books on a linguistic approach to translation were introduced into China, such as the works of Eugene Nida, Peter Newmarks, J.C. Catford, Georges Mounin, and others. These books gave a great push to the application of linguistic theories to translation studies in China. Textual or discoursive approaches to the study of translation could not keep pace with the development of text linguistics. Some studies remained on the syntactic or semantic level, though even there textual devices were employed. In talking about the translation units of word and text, Nida wrote: ... average person naively thinks that language is words, the common tacit assumption results that translation involves replacing a word in language A with a word in language B. And the more « conscientious » this sort of translation is, the more acute. In other words, the traditional focus of attention in translation was on the word. It was recognized that that was not a sufficiently large unit, and therefore the focus shifted to the sentence. But again, expert translators and linguists have been able to demonstrate that individual sentences, in turn, are not enough. The focus should be on the paragraph, and to some extent on the total discourse. (Nida and Tabber 1969: 152) From that statement we can see that Nida regards a discourse as something larger than a paragraph, as an article with a beginning and an ending. Nida himself never applied text linguistics to translation, and there might be some confusion if we use his term in our interpretation of discourse, because discourse analysis is not merely a study based on a larger language structure. Some Chinese scholars did make the effort to apply text linguistics to the theory and practice of translation. Wang Bingqin's article (1987) was the first academic paper of this sort. He stated his aim to study and discover the rules governing the internal structure of a text in light of text linguistics. He analyzed numerous examples using textual analysis, but unfortunately, all the samples he collected were descriptions of scenery or quotations from the books of great scholars--no dialogue, no illocutionary or perlocutionary forces in the language. He failed to provide a variety of examples. For this reason, his research findings are largely restricted to rhetorical texts in ancient China (cf. Wang 1981; Luo 1994). Scholars like He Ziran applied pragamatics to translation. He's article (1992) put forth two new terms, « pragmalinguistics » and « socio-pragmatics » which, in translation, refer respectively to « the study of pragmatic force or language use from the viewpoint of linguistic sources » and to « the pragmatic studies which examine the conditions on language use that derive from the social and cultural situation. » He discusses the possibility of applying the pragmatic approach to translation in order to achieve a pragmatic equivalent effect between source and target texts; that is, to reproduce the message carried by the source language itself, as well as the meaning carried by the source language within its context and culture. In this article he tries to distinguish « pragma-linguistics » from « socio-pragmatics » but finally admits that « Actually, a clear line between pragma-linguistics and socio-pragmatics may sometimes be difficult to draw. » Still he insists that the application of the pragmatic approach to translation is helpful and even necessary. Ke Wenli (1992) argued that semantics, which in a broad sense combines semantics and pragmatics, should be studied to help understand, explain and solve some of the problems encountered in translation. In this article, he examines four semantic terms--« sense and reference, » « hyponomy, » « changes of meaning » and « context »--giving many examples to illusrate the importance of having some general knowledge of semantics and of understanding the relationship between semantics and translation. This article is clearly written and readers can easily draw inspiration from it. These linguistics approaches shed new lights on the criteria of « faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance » defined by Yan Fu. Chinese scholars began to criticize the vagueness of these three criteria and endeavored to give them concrete significance through the theories of western linguistics. The result is that the content of these three traditional criteria has been greatly enriched, especially by the effect equivalence theory, which in a broad sense means that the target language should be equivalent to the source language from a semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic point of view. But we are still unable to evaluate translations in a very scientific way. Therefore, Chinese scholars like Fan Shouyi, Xu Shenghuan and Mu Lei embarked on quantitative analyses of translations and used the fuzzy set theory of mathematics in accomplishing their analysis. Fan published several articles on this field of study. His 1987 and 1990 articles evaluate translations according to a numerical quantity of faithfulness. Xu's article « A Mathematical Model for Evaluating a Translation's Quality » presents a normal mathematical model. He states that it is difficult to produce an absolutely accurate evaluation of translations with this model because of the uncertainty and randomness of man's thought process. Making such analysis more accurate and objective would require further research. The unit in translation is a hard nut to crack. Without solving this problem, no research in translation studies will ever be sufficient. To date, very few people have focused their research on this area. Nida holds that the unit should be the sentence, and in a certain sense, the discourse. Barkhudarov (1993: 40), Soviet linguist and translation theorist, suggests that: translation is the process of transforming a speech product (or text) produced in one language into a speech product (or text) in another language. [...] It follows that the most important task of the translator who carries out the process of transformation, and of the theorist who describes or creates a model for that process, is to establish the minimal unit of translation, as it is generally called, the unit of translation in the source text. Though he notes the importance of the unit of translation in a text and considers that this unit can be a unit on any level of language, he fails to point out what a text is and how it might be measured in translation. Halliday's notion of the clause might be significant in this case. To him, a clause is a basic unit. He distinguishes three functions of a clause: textual, interpersonal and ideational. According to Halliday, these functions are not possessed by word or phrase. But he is not quite successful in analyzing the relationship between clause and text (cf. Halliday 1985). In China, some people have tried to solve this problem. Wang Dechun (1987: 10) more or less shares Bakhudarov's view that the translation unit cannot be confined just to sentences. In some ways, the phoneme, word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or even text can all serve as a unit. At this point, we cannot find anything special in treating text translation except for having text as the highest level among translation units. This is not the aim of text linguistics or discourse analysis. If we want to apply these to the theory and practice of translation, we will require a textual approach.
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
1、汉语言文学专业的本科论文，按研究内容大致可以分为文学和语言学，其中又细分多个类别，例如古代文学、现当代文学、外国文学、比较文学、编辑出版学、语言学等等，每个学校的具体要求和设置不一样，一般来说是根据老师来设置的，在选择论文方向的时候，一是参考自己喜欢的方向、喜欢的作家，同时也要考虑论文老师可能带来的影响
2、在选择了方向以及确定了论文导师的前提下，要做的就是具体确定自己的论文标题和内容，
3、在确定了大的方向后，就要考虑具体写什么了。
4、构建目录，构建论文体系，是在正式写作前必备的。在这个阶段，你要大致清楚自己的创作动机、自己的研究对象、研究对象的特点、大概的结论以及所需要的论据，论文其实就是一个抛出问题，然后解决问题的过程。
5、一般的论文，大多是从艺术特色、语言、故事设置等方向来设计
6、确定了具体的选题以及大致的内容之后，就要为主体内容做准备了，格式上面按照学员给予的模板，按部就班去完成就行。
7、充实文献材料的话，知网是最好的选择，一般高校的图书馆，都是可以免费使用知网资源的，如果是自己使用，其中的文献也很便宜，2元到10元不等。
8、在论文撰写的过程中会遇到各种各样的问题，所以搭建好框架是很重要的
9、与伙伴、导师建立良好的关系，长期就论文保持密切的交流。由。
10、以认真严谨的态度对待
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.
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.
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。
Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition Strategies 二语词汇习得策略 [摘 要] 词汇是构成语言的基本单位，词汇习得在语言学习中占有重要地位。英国著名语言学家D.A. Wilkins (1972) 说过：“没有语法，人们不能表达很多东西；而没有词汇，人们则无法表达任何东西。”这就说明了词汇在学习中的重要性。本文旨在分析二语词汇习得策略并应用于不同水平的学习者。学习者根据自己的水平选择正确的习得方法和策略学习词汇，从而提高学习效率和习得效果。 关键字： 二语词汇习得 词汇习得策略 元认知策略 认知策略 Abstract Vocabulary is the basic unit of a language. Language acquisition plays an important role in language learning. Famous linguistics D. A. Wilkins said, “Without grammar, very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary, nothing can be conveyed (Lewis, 1993:16).” It speaks volumes for the importance of vocabulary in language learning. This paper aims to analysis the second language acquisition strategies and applies to different levels of learners. According to the different levels, the learners should choose the proper methods and strategies to promote learning efficiency and acquisition effect. Key words: Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition； Vocabulary Acquisition Strategies； Metacognitive strategy； Cognitive strategy Introduction With economic globalization and multi-polarization of the world, especially the population of the internet, English becomes more and more important, because it is considered as the tool for absorbing and communicating information. As we all known, vocabulary acquisition is one of the most noticed-question of the second language learners. “Vocabulary” appears in the area of linguists’ study. Nowadays, researchers still can not give a complete and reasonable definition of vocabulary. Since 1970s, the second language vocabulary acquisition research has gradually become the hot point and important subject in the second language vocabulary acquisition research area. These researches aim to discuss the efficiency vocabulary memory strategies to promote the memory skills and vocabulary levels. Then how to acquire vocabulary become popular among the researchers. Wenden &Rubin (1987), O’Malley& Chamot (1990) refer to the content of vocabulary acquisition strategies; Rubin (1987) and Oxford (1990) classify the memory strategy to the direct cognitive strategies. Especially, CohenAphek (1981), Porte (1988), O’Malley (1990), Vann (90), Cohen (1990), etc made a basic searching of vocabulary acquisition. In a word, there are various opinions in how to acquire vocabulary. Firstly, it talks about the importance of vocabulary. Secondly, what does it mean to “acquire” a word? This paper mainly aims to the detail analysis of the vocabulary acquisition from three aspects：Meta-cognitive Strategy; Cognitive Strategy and Social or Affective Strategy. Especially, it highlights the effect of the context and rending to vocabulary acquisition. This paper talks about the applications of the vocabulary acquisition strategies. And it puts forward some problems and difficulties of vocabulary acquisition. This paper also discusses the influencing factors to the acquisition. It includes the mother tongue, age, language contact, logical thinking ability, identity degree, and academic motivation . The purpose of this paper is to rise the awareness of English learners that the importance of vocabulary in language learning and the vocabulary acquisition strategies can not be neglected, and each strategies is deeply rooted in its language. Through the analysis of the theory of study, the paper tries to draw the learner’s attention to the strategies of the second language vocabulary acquisition and using the vocabulary in communication. In order to improve the acquisition efficiency, some strategies put into practice are introduced. The first presents the importance of vocabulary, some basic concepts of vocabulary and vocabulary learning, the second part tells what does it mean to know a word, the third part deals with the theory of vocabulary acquisition and presents the factors and differences influencing the vocabulary acquisition. The fourth part is detailed discussion of vocabulary acquisition strategies in different levels of learners. The last part is conclusion. Literature review 1. The importance of vocabulary As the first time, when we go to school and our English teacher will tell us that vocabulary is of great importance in learning English. After several years, we understand words gradually, especially when we study in high school. If we know a little about vocabulary, we may have poor English. That is because the listening, speaking, reading and writing show the necessary of learning vocabulary. Many researchers agree that lexis is at least as important as structure, because it is using wrong words and not wrong grammar that usually breaks down communication. Mistakes in lexis much more often lead to misunderstanding and may be less generously tolerated outside classroom than mistakes in syntax. (Carter, 1987). As Stephen Krashen remarked, “When students travel, they don’t carry grammar books, they carry dictionaries. A significant role of vocabulary in both teaching and learning processes was first stated by Stephen Krashen in The Natural Approach (1985): “Vocabulary is basic for communication. If acquirers do not recognize the meaning of the key words used by those who address them they will be unable to participate in the conversation.” Words are basic tools in human communication; therefore they determine the main part of people’s life-relationships between people and associations with the surrounding world that people live in. The larger one’s vocabulary, the easier it is to express one’s thoughts and feelings. In real communication, correctly and idiomatically used vocabulary can even decrease some structural inaccuracy and grammar errors. (Zhang Jiying, 2002). So learners should enrich and expand their knowledge of words as much as possible in order to communicate effectively in a foreign language. 2. What does it mean to “know” a word? Knowing a word is not a simple phenomenon. In fact, it is quite complex and goes far beyond the word’s meaning and pronunciation. (Zhang Jiying, 2002). Richards (1976) think knowing a word means also knowing the frequency of words and their likely collocates; being aware of the functional and situation limitations that apply; knowledge of the “syntactic behavior”; derivational forms and word class; associative and connotative knowledge; semantic value-breaking down words into minimal units as with componential analysis (see Katz&Fodor1963or Leech1974); knowing the other (possible) meaning associated. Nagy and Scott (2000) identify several dimensions that describe the complexity of what it means to know a word. First, word knowledge is incremental, which means that readers need to have many exposures to a word in different contexts before they “know” it. Second, word knowledge is multidimensional. This is because many words have multiple meanings and serve different functions in different function in different sentences, texts, and even conversations. Third, word knowledge is interrelated in that knowledge of one word connects knowledge of other words. What all of this means is that “knowing” a word is a matter of degree rather than an all-or-nothing proposition (Beck&Mckeown, 1991; Nagy&Scott, 2000). The degree of knowing a word are reflected in the precision with which we use a word, how quickly we understand a word, and how well we understand and use words in different modes and different purpose. The memory strategy, cognitive strategy, social strategy and metacognitve strategy are used more frequently than the affective strategy and compensative strategy. Conclusion This paper has attempted to provide some theories of second language vocabulary acquisition and some strategies. Such as metacognitive strategy, cognitive strategy, and social strategy. However, this paper also put forward some microcosmic strategy. As a matter of fact, vocabulary acquisition should combine the context. In addition, this paper hasn’t mentioned that culture is also an important factor in vocabulary acquisition. In the study of second language vocabulary acquisition, we should pay attention to the process and the acquiring results. This paper focuses on the study of the second language vocabulary acquisition strategies. Bibliography [1] A.U. Chamot. The Learning Strategies of ESL Students. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin, (eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 1987. [2] Cater. R. and M. McCarthy. Vocabulary and Language Teaching. New York: Longman, 1987. [3] Nation, L. S. P. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New Newbury House Publishers, 1990. [4] O’Malley, J. & Chamot, A. U.. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition [J]. Cambridge University Press, 1990:12-15. [5] 陈桦，张益芳.中国儿童英语词汇记忆策略探究[J].外语学刊,2001(4). [11] 戴曼纯. 论第二语言词汇习得研究[J]. 外语教学与研究，2002(2). [12] 徐德凯.大学英语词汇教学理论与实践[M].长春：吉林出版集团有限责任公司，2009. [6] 王文宇.观念、策略与英语词汇记忆[J].外语教学与研究，1998(1). [13] 文秋芳. 英语学习策略论.上海：上海外语教育出版社，1996. [7] 吴霞，王蔷.非英语专业本科生词汇水平研究. 外语教学与研究，1998(1). [15] 张纪英.英语词汇学教学与研究[M]. 武汉：华中科技大学出版社,2007. [16] 朱厚敏. 英语词汇学习策略研究[M] 长春：吉林大学出版社，2009.
语言学教案 - Chapter 1 Invitations to Linguistics (2)What is linguistics?1.6 What is linguistics?Linguistics is the branch of learning which studies the languages of any and all human societies. It can be defined as the scientific study of language. In a word, linguistics studies the general principles upon which all languages are constructed and operate as systems of communication in the societies in which they are used.The guiding principles for linguistic studies:Exhaustiveness---the aim is to specify totally the linguistic contrasts in a set of data, and ultimately in the language as a whole.Consistency---total statements should be logically self-consistent.Economy---a criterion requires that, other things being equal, an analysis should aim to be as short and use as few terms as possible. It is a measure which permits one to quantify the number of formal constructs used in arriving at a solution to problem, and has been used, explicitly or implicitly, in most areas of linguistic investigation.Objectivity---linguistic analyses should be as objective as possible. Truth should come from facts1.7 Some basic distinctions in linguistics1.7.1 speech and writingthe primacy of speech:1) Speech is prior to writing historically2) genetically, children always learn to speak before they learn to write.The importance of writing:1) space displacement2) time displacement3) a visual recording of a speech
语言是交际工具、思维工具、认知工具， 文化 的载体、信息(知识、情报、资料)的载体。下文是我为大家整理的关于英语语言文化论文的 范文 ，欢迎大家阅读参考! 关于英语语言文化论文篇1 浅谈英语语言中姓氏的文化内涵 摘要：每个人都拥有自己的姓氏，它作为一种符号，构成了文化载体的一个重要部分。作为一种较为特殊的文化现象，英语姓氏有着极其复杂的构成和来源，其中可能埋藏着历史、经济、文化、地理等众多因素。对于接触语言、文化的研究者，探析英文姓氏来源的工作十分必要。本文尝试探索英语姓氏的演变历程，从而揭开现代英文姓氏与其本源的关系。这必将对英文教学以及加深学生了解 英语文化 具有重要意义。 关键词：英语姓氏 来源 文化 英语语言 自从有了文明，人类为了便于繁衍生息、交流沟通，就发明了姓氏。随着历史进程和社会的发展，姓名的构成和习用逐步形成。每人都有属于自己的姓氏，它作为一种符号，构成了文化载体的一个重要部分。作为一种较为特殊的文化现象，英语姓氏有着极其复杂的构成和来源，其中可能埋藏着历史、经济、文化、地理等诸多的因素。对于 学习英语 语言的人来说，探析英文中的姓氏来源，具有重要的意义。 古代英国在经历了多次外族入侵，才得以形成英语民族及其语言。这是以盎格鲁撒克逊人和凯尔特人为主的世界上众多民族共同努力的结果。 到了近代，英语民族的活动舞台随着大英帝国不断向海外的扩张而进一步扩展，也就更大范围地吸收了其他民族的血统和语言。其中，尤以美利坚民族和美国英语的形成最为典型。 这自然也就让英语姓名系统变的更加复杂化。尤其是在现、当代，英语民族血统进一步多元化，英语语言体系进一步扩大化，这当归功于大批涌入英语国家或地区的移民。尽管外来移民的姓名不断被英语同化，但多多少少都会保持原民族的某些特征。据英美 姓名学 家统计，如今英语姓名的语源就与三十多个大小语种相关。下面，我们着重来看英语姓名在其本土的演化发展过程。 在英伦三岛被诺曼底人入侵以前，即公元1006年的诺曼征服前，英国人没有姓，只有名。 英国封建主义的高峰是在公元9世纪到15世纪。在手工业和商业发展的基础上，商业关系与市场关系不断加强，英国人口也急剧增加。由于备选的个人名的数量远不能满足剧增的人口需要，所以越来越多的人只好选择了相同的名字作为个人名。这样当同名的人相遇或同居相处时，问题就产生了，通常会出现诸如呼此彼应、一呼几应之类的误会。所以，人们就在自己的名字上添个词来区别。于是，英语民族的先民们便开始在个人名后面添加个人附加名，作为区分同名人的手段，以增强人名的社会区分职能。 个人附加名大多是本人的出生地名、职业名称或着绰号等。例如，一个名叫 Mike 的人，如果他的职业是渔夫(the Fisherman)，人们就叫他 Mike the Fisherman(渔夫麦克)。如果一个人的名叫作 Hen-rye，而他出生于牛津(Cambridge)，人们就习惯性地称呼他为 Henry of Cambridge(牛津的亨利)。个人附加名并不世袭，因此还是在个人名的范畴内，而“正宗”的英语姓往往是由个人附加名发展而来的。例如，Mike the Fisherman 和 Henry of Cam-bridge 分别演化成 Mike Fisherman(麦克?费士曼)和 Henry Cambridge(亨利?剑桥)。 到了十七世纪，英国的封建制度逐步腐朽没落，而资产阶级却迅速发展。于是，社会经济不断发展，科技文化不断进步，英国人口也急剧上升，人们联系日益密切，而随之出现的同名现象给人们的交往带来了不少麻烦。以防混淆，人们便在附加名和姓之间再添加一个或多个词来进一步区别。后来加上可变的中间名(middle name)。例如： George McadamSmith，其中的“Macadam”即为可变的中间名。 那么姓又是何时在美国出现的呢? 一些学者的结论是美国的姓始自公元 1000 年。其实，在 1492年美洲新大陆被哥伦布“发现”之前，现在美国境内的原始居民，即土著印第安人没有姓，只有个人名。姓是随着 16 世纪欧洲白人的到来才开始出现的。16 至 17 世纪，英国移民及其后裔姓名的基本构成部分是名和姓，如法学家 James Iredell。从 18 世纪起，由于英籍移民的增加和社会联系的增多，美利坚人作为全美的主体民族也开始用中间名(Middle name )了。现 在 我 们 熟 悉 的 前 总 统 George W.Bush，他的名字就是这种情况。 英语姓氏经过了若干年的发展，以变得纷繁复杂，来源更是多种多样，但是有些来源却是相同的。一种是来自地名。世界各民族的姓都和地名有密切关系 ，英姓中也有类似情况，如由祖先居住的地名而沿用下来的“Arlington”、“Ford”、“Scott”等姓。还有的是起源于行业名。在中世纪后期，英国经济曾突发地繁荣，各种手工业如雨后春笋般兴起，于是人们就根据职业或者工种来决定自己的姓。现今较为常见的有“Archer”(弓箭手)、“Butcher”(屠夫 )、“Glover”(手套商)、“Harper”(竖琴师)、“Locker”(仓库保管员)、“Potter”(陶工)、“Smith”(金属工 )等等。这些姓在一定程度上折射出当时的社会环境及经济发展情况。另外，贵族等的头衔也是来源之一。 有些姓最初是一些贵族家庭用来称呼一家之长的，后来为了永保家族荣誉感，便将他们传给了后代，代代相传就渐渐成了姓。“Constable”(王室总管)、“Judge”(审判官)、“King”(国王)、“Mar-shall”(元帅 )等便是此类英姓中常见的。这正是封建社会烙下的印迹。动物也给英语姓氏的产生做出了贡献。 某些人出于对动植物的崇拜和赞颂，就把它们的名称拿来作自己的姓。常见的如“Bird”(鸟)、“Fish”(鱼)、“Lion”(狮子)、“Swan”(天鹅)、“Wolf”(狼 )等，以及 Wood”(森林)、“Apple”(苹果)、“Flower”(花 )、“Bush”(灌木丛 )、“Rose”(玫瑰花 )等。还有一些英文姓氏来源于颜色的名称： 英语中的“Brown”(棕色的)、“Pink”(粉红色的)、“Red”(红色的)、“Silver”(银白色的)、“White”(白色的)等就是如此。江河湖海等 通过以上简单的回顾分析，我们不难看出，英语的姓氏来源十分广博，其历史成因也非常复杂。正是由于各种多变因素的参与，才导致英文姓氏的演变这般有趣。由于姓氏与人类各种社会活动休戚相关，因此才具有非凡的意义。进一步地研究英语姓氏来源可以帮助我们加深对西方的认识，促进中西文化的交流。并且，对于引导学生更加深刻地理解英语文化也具有重要意义。 参考文献： [1] 关翠琼.英语姓氏的起源[J].写作，2006，(22). 关于英语语言文化论文篇2 浅论英语语言文化内涵的多元化英语教学 摘要：从跨文化交际视域和语言运用的层面上诠释文化在英语语言使用中所蕴涵的多样性、内在丰富性以及该语言与其所承载的文化间密不可分的联系是世界多元文化格局的要求。可为多元文化区域内如何学习吸纳异域语言，借鉴、融合异域文化进行跨文化交际提供一个语言与文化相结合的新的理论研究空间。 关键词：文化内涵;多元化;英语教学 一、语言与文化 语言与文化相辅相承，密不可分。语言是文化的特殊载体，文化是民族的灵魂和精神支柱，文化影响和制约着语言交际的过程和效果。语言作为交际工具，可以表达客体的概念意义;此外，作为文化的载体，还蕴涵着该语言的民族文化含义和文化心理。 二、英语与英语文化 人们在学习英语过程中，主要通过阅读了解对象国的社会风貌，文化风俗，而阅读材料多出自一两个母语国。于是有些人就认定“英语这种语言和某一两个使用英语的国家的文化是密不可分的。” 这是一种错觉，因为这种理论不能充分解释英语作为跨文化交际的媒介的作用。这些人所说的“语言既不是抽象的'人类语言'，也不是微观到个人的'言语'，而是指一个国家、一个地区、一个部族的语言。” 因此，似乎可得出这样的推论--英国文化即英语文化。但这种错觉是由于混淆文化离不开语言，与一定的文化离不开某一具体的语言之间的界限而产生的。所以切不可在语种与文化之间划等号。因为，今天的English culture(英语文化)一词包含甚广。 三、多元的英语文化 从社会语言学角度看今天的English culture(广义的英语文化)具有多元性，其内容可以涵指：①英国文化;②以英语为母语国家的文化，即狭义的英语文化，如美国文化，加拿大文化，新西兰文化，澳大利亚文化及加勒比海地区部分国家的文化;③以英语为传播媒介的非英语、非西方文化;④古希腊和古罗马文明的文化内容。 毋庸置疑，英语运载着英美文化。作为以英美为代表的母语国家的语言，英语承载主流社会的文化，同时也担当非主流的、非英语移民社团与主流社会的交际媒介。如果英语不具备跨文化运载能力，身居于纽约市约25万的华人是无法同美国主流社会交流的(当然他们的交流是通过那些懂英语的移民来进行的)。由此看来，英语是英美文化的载体，推而广之英语是西方文化的载体，同时英语也是外来的、非英美的、非西方文化的载体。另外，作为外语型国家(如中国)的国际交流语言工具，它反映的是该国的政府的政治立场和人民的文化生活(即在中国是中国文化的载体，在南非是南非文化的载体)。 四、英语与各国的文化之间的关系 作为国际交流语言的英语与各国的文化之间是怎样的关系呢?可以用变化着的对抗融合关系来概括。世界语言——英语正作为母语国家和第二语言型国家的内部语言而被使用，同时，还作为英语国家与非英语国家，非英语国家与非英语国家的交流工具而被广泛使用。 在使用中，英语本身固载着的西方人的逻辑和传统与该地的使用者的母语逻辑和民族传统规范不断产生“碰撞”，即所谓的英语与该国文化的对抗;而随着时间的推移与环境的适应，某些英语本身固载着的东西，甚至某些“碰撞”，竟然在该国文化环境下留存下来，即所谓的英语与该国文化的融合。在世界上的多元文化区域内，时时都在进行着学习吸纳异域语言，借鉴、融合异域文化进行跨文化交际活动。 五、英语语言文化内涵的多元化与英语教学 “作为世界语言，英语的文化内涵是多元的，既包括西方文化要素，也包括东方文化要素;既有__的元素，也有佛教和伊斯兰教的元素。” 由此可见，英语语言教学中要充分考虑英语语言文化的多元化对英语教学过程及效果的影响。因此， 教育 者应注意以下几方面的问题： 1.创设立体化教学环境，避免与当地文化对抗，真正实现语言和文化的协调。 英语语言文化教学要创设立体化教学环境，是指把语言文化教学的三维即学习者、学习者将来使用语言的目的环境及学习者当时的学习和生活环境有机地统一起来，构成立体的课堂结构。以中国的英语教学为例，“英语基本是中国人教，中国人学，在中国用”。在此环境中，“中国文化始终占支配地位，异域文化的输入只能起补充作用。” Smith 在1981年曾指出：“一种语言一旦成为国际性的，它就不可能恪守一种文化规约。” 也就是说为了用英语跟菲律宾人做生意，中国人并不需要学习欣赏英国的生活方式，也不需要发标准的英国音。近年由于英语文化教学意识的加强，教师在英语语言教学过程中一味的强调异域文化的某些规约，强调片面的语言和文化的协调。殊不知他们忽视了学习者当时的学习和生活环境，其结果是“语言似乎纯粹了，但协调被破坏了，因为犯了与当地文化对抗的错误。” 所以，切不可忘记英语运载着的中国文化。 2.正确理解学校课程的作用。 对于少数将要从事与异域文化密切相关的工作的人来说，了解对象国的文化是必要的。即使这样学校的课程也只能起到指导作用，正如我们在上面提到的教学中只顾遵循课本内容(英语的文化规约)，不能正确做到因时因地制宜(指的是不能按照言语事件发生的现实环境即学习者当时的学习和生活环境来决定材料的选择，来确定言语的适宜度)，那么教学中的某些行为将导致文化误导现象的产生。因此，要正确理解学校课程的作用，切不可片面夸大其作用。“要了解异国文化的全貌并能在实践中适应它，非得深入其地住上一段时间不可”。 3.补充教学力量，聘请母语使用者任教。 为了补充教学力量，我们请了很多母语使用者来教书。他们应该清楚的意识到英语是多元文化的载体。来中国任教的人应该接受过必要的训练，对在这一异域文化(中国文化)中“交流时可能遇到的文化歧异有必要的思想准备，这样他们便不会因为听到一个不顺耳的招呼而变得愤怒，不会因为对方的自谦自贬而大惑不解。” 师生必须认识到 “学生的文化环境是文化课的起点，对象国的文化环境是终点”。只有起点确定了，师生才能最终顺利达到终点。 切不可本末倒置，在学习之初教师便一味地将对象国的文化环境强加给学生(将终点作为了起点)。“从这个意义上讲，教师了解学生的文化环境要比让学生了解教师将把他们引进的文化环境更重要。” 而在现实的教学实践当中，外籍教师若对学生所在的文化环境一无所知，仅把对象国的文化规约呈现在课堂上，不顾冒着与该国文化产生对抗的风险，让学生模仿并接受，可想而知将会受到怎样的教学效果。 在世界范围内，不同民族、不同语言相互接触交流形成了一个多元文化格局。语言是文化的载体，而英语已成为多元文化的载体。面对跨文化交际的需要，英语语言文化教育成为高校英语教育中不可忽视的重要内容。明确英语是多元文化的载体这一事实，从跨文化交际视野中研究英语语言与其所承载的文化之间的关系。这无疑将对原有的英语语言文化教学理念和 方法 提出挑战。从而为多元文化区域如何学习吸纳异域语言，借鉴、融合异域文化进行跨文化交际提供一个语言与文化相结合的新理论研究空间。 参考文献 [1]颜治强.世界英语概论[M].外语教学与研究出版社，2002 [2]陈原.社会语言学[M].学林出版社，1983 [3]张正东.外语立体教学法的原理与模式[M].科学出版社，1999
应用语言学的理论及研究现状论文
应用语言学在语言学研究的范畴之内，目前已经成为语言学的最大组成部分之一。下面是我收集整理的应用语言学的理论及研究现状论文，希望对您有所帮助！
摘要： 应用语言学是与英语教学息息相关的交叉学科，是近些年才出现的新兴学科，在英语教学体系不断优化的过程中，应用语言学对其起着巨大的推动作用。应用语言学提高英语教学时效性和教学质量，有助于完善和改进英语教学系统。本文将以应用语言学作为研究对象，在分析和简述应用语言学的基础上，着重强调探究应用语言学对英语教学的指导作用和积极影响，以帮助教育工作者认识到应用语言学对英语教学的重要意义，为英语教学现代化改革提供有力帮助和有效途径。
关键词： 应用语言学 英语教学改革 有效途径
应用语言学在语言学研究的范畴之内，目前已经成为语言学的最大组成部分之一。应用语言学是指运用语言学理论知识处理具体的实际问题。学习语言的最终目标是运用语言维持人际关系，提高自身的交际能力，然而，语言的基础性知识并不是交际能力好坏的仅有决定性评判依据，交际能力的好坏更依赖于人们对语言技巧使用的熟练度，换言之，语言知识是语言学的基础，技巧是语言学的媒介，而最终的目标是提高自身的交际能力。所以，学生在掌握一定语言学知识的同时还应当加强语言使用能力的培训力度，主要强调听、读、写、练等方面的技能训练。尽管英语教学在国内的推广范围已经很大，但从目前的教学情况上来看，大部分学生的英语水平都不高，基本都属于“哑巴英语”，而应用语言学在英语教学中的有效应用，可以改善这一英语学习现状，激发学生的英语学习兴趣，提高自身的学习能力，对英语教学的顺利进行有着不可替代的实践意义。
1应用语言学的理论及研究现状
1.1应用语言学的理论
最近这些年，教学专家们以应用语言学作为研究对象和教学依据，对其进行多方面的强化和发展，其中主要包括：行为主义、内心主义、对照分析、错误分析以及实践分析等方面的理论研究。应用语言学对英语教学的指导是以理论原则为基础，而教学结果的成败是由应用语言学是否正确的对其进行指导。应用语言学作为实践要求较高的学科，其理论知识的积累固然重要，但若只关注理论知识的学习，没有与实践性活动相结合，就不能够发挥出应用语言学的真正指导作用。尽管我国目前的应用语言学理论体系还不够健全，关于理论知识的理解也不尽相同，但是这也正为应用语言学研究带来前所未有的发展机遇。
1.2当前应用语言学的研究现状
相对与发达国家而言，我国对应用语言学的研究起步较晚，而国内最先对其进行研究的是广东外贸大学。最近这些年，教育工作者们又加大了对应用语言学的研究力度，扩大了其研究范围，使应用语言学的研究内容更加丰富。
2应用语言学与英语教学间的关系
2.1从学生角度出发，明确教学方法
学习语言的第一任务就是口语的练习，而口语是在学好书面语的'前提下慢慢发展起来的。英语教学中的语言学应用方法比较独特，就是确定口语和书面语两者之间的比例。从我国目前的英语教学内容来看，主要分基础和加强两部分，基础是指听说读写，加强是指英语翻译。其中听说读写之间属于协调关系，都是互相扶持的，但同时又有自身的特色和难点，需要不同的教学手段和教学方式来实施教学。在进行英语课程设置时，一定要明确教学的最终目的和根本任务，再按照一定比例安排课时。例如，实时翻译与文学翻译的培养目标就同，所以对课时设置的要求也就不同，换句话说，对应用语言学的教学应当从学生角度出发，明确教学目的，进而加强英语教学的灵活性。
2.2透过学生错误，明确学生不足
对比西方国家的应用语言学教育，我国对其在英语教学中的运用主要存在两点问题，第一，过去强调语法运用方式，忽略语言的情感表达。教师在进行英语授课时，过于注重学生对语法、发音、理解和整理语句的能力，从而忽视了对学生英语情感表现力的教育，特别是在高中的英语教学中，这种现象尤为突出。英语教师在对课文进行分析和讲解时，对语法使用和句子结构组成进行过去的分析，在很大程度上减弱了教学效果，使学生忽略了英语运用的实际环境，只注重语法使用的正确性以及意思表达的完整性。第二，当英语教学发现学生在英语学习过程中的错误时，有立刻纠正的习惯，不会进行深入的观察和分析，而事实上，教师应当针对学生所犯的错误进行分析和研究，最终明确学生学习方式中存在的不足，有针对性的对其进行处理和完善。
3整合应用语言学与高校英语教学改革
3.1基于应用语言学理论的英语教学方法设计
（1）规划英语学习方案。我国英语教学基本上都在课堂内完成，而课堂时间有限，因此，为了强国英语课堂学习的学习效果，学生就应当针对英语的整个学习过程进行方案规划，在对英语教学内容进行分类和整理的基础上，对学习任务进行划分，将其分割成课内任务和课外任务两部门。教师通过对考试任务和教学目标的确认，对学生进行全面的指导和教育，确保英语教学质量以及应用语言学在英语教学中的运用效果，优化英语教学体系。
（2）组织和开展英语实践性教学活动。有很强的英语交际能力和应用能力是所有英语学习者的共同目标。应用语言学中有一个原则就是以学生的具体需求为基础，制定相关的教学方案。例如，学生的英语基础知识掌握程度不佳，就应当对其强化口语的培训力度，使学生养成“口说英语”的习惯。另外，实现应用语言学的有效教学还可以通过广播、报刊等多媒体形式，提高学生的英语学习兴趣，鼓励他们多参加英语实践活动，为学生创造良好的英语学习氛围，进一步提高学生英语技巧应用能力。
3.2应用语言学指导英语教学改革的有效途径
（1）应用语言学对英语教学有指导作用。加强应用语言学的学习可以有效的指导英语教学，深化英语教育改革和创新。英语教育改革的顺利开展同全体教育工作者的积极参与和共同努力是密不可分的。在英语教学改革过程总，所有的英语教师都应当不断加大应用语言学的学习和研究力度，积极有效的将应用语言学融入到英语教学的过程中去，然后在此基础上，加大对其理论知识的探究力度，总结英语教学经验，并完善应用语言学教学体系。
（2）激发英语教师在教学改革中的巨大潜能。激发英语教师在教学改革中的巨大潜能，使其推动英语教学改革的现代化进程。要想应用语言学发挥出巨大作用就必须加大对其的研究力度，组织讨论小组，使所有的英语教师都在熟知应用语言学知识的基础上，进行英语教学的研究工作，使其适应英语教学的未来发展。在英语教学改革过程中，英语教师的作用是不容忽视的，激发英语教师的巨大潜能不但是现代化教学对英语教师的基本要求，同时也是英语教师提高自身综合素养和英语能力的重要前提。英语教师作为教学活动的指导者、组织者和规划者，对应用语言学在英语教学中的运用起着非常重要的推动作用，一方面可以在课堂上强化学生的英语学习能力，另一方面可以将学生作为研究主体切实做到理论和实践的协调工作，使应用语言学发展更好的适应时代要求。
（3）加大对英语说、写能力的培养力度。英语说、写能力的培养与应用语言学的学习密切相关，也是英语教学必不可少的环节之一。随着我国现代化进程的不断加快，国际交流机会越来越多，以往的应试教育已经不能够适应英语教学的发展要求了，因此，英语说、写能力的培养和加强是提高学生英语交流能力的有效保障，可以为社会培养更多的国际型交际人才。为了更好的满足社会需求，教师在教学过程中必须加大对学生英语交流能力的培养力度。
（4）结合具体的教学现状进行英语教学改革。英语教学改革涉及的范围比较广，在具体的实施过程中，英语教师应当结合具体的教学现状进行英语教育改革，强调对学生学习态度和探究态度的培养。另外，高等院校还应当着重强调对学生创意意识和实践能力的培养，提高学生的英语应用能力，使他们更好的适应社会发展。
总而言之，应用语言学与高校英语教学是息息相关的。在英语教学改革中，应用语言学是一项巨大的系统性研究工程，具有复杂、灵活等特点，因此，高等院校在进行英语教学时，必须结合具体的教学情况，只有这样才能发挥应用语言学的潜在力量，提高英语教学水平。
参考文献 ：
［1］周慧慧.应用语言学与外语教学［J］．辽宁行政学院学报，2011
［2］李素素.浅谈应用语言学对英语教育的意义［J］．玉溪师范学院学报，2010．
［3］房明远.外语教学中应用语言学的应用［J］．教改聚焦，2012