发布时间：
论文选题是按一定价值标准或条件对可供选择的课题进行评价和比较并对研究方向、目标、领域和范围作出抉择的过程，是决定论文内容和价值的关键环节。这里学术堂整理了十五个论文选题供大家进行参考：1、从语用学视角看汉英口译中的语用失误2、英语心智谓词的模糊性及其语际语用发展研究3、英语科技术语的词汇特征及翻译4、Moment in Peking中异国形象之汉译5、中医典籍中“气”的源流与翻译探析6、女性主义视角下张爱玲的翻译观--以英译《海上花列传》为中心7、二语习得视觉化研究的几个关键问题8、晚清以降的中国佛典英译高潮9、基于降维法的译者风格研究10、中国英语口音研究述评11、口译中视角转换的语用原则12、模因理论指导下的汉语歇后语英译13、本土英语教学法：流派、体系与特色14、《骆驼祥子》三个英译本中叙述话语的翻译--译者风格的语料库考察15、基于语料库的“人生”隐喻英汉对比研究
题目：①实物大写（如apple ……），虚物小写（如a，an……）但是若虚物大于5个字母，则大写（如before……） ②第一个单词首字母，末单词首字母大写！ ③专有词汇大写（地名，名字，城市，宗教，书名……）
英语语言学论文题目 13论国际商务谈判中的语言交际技巧 33成人世界的童话——从文体学角度解析现今童话再度流行的现象 49论文化差异与英汉商标互译 55浅谈英汉句子结构差异 59诗意的美和喜剧性幽默 62试论广告英语的语言特点 65统觉团对英语初学者词汇学习的影响 67外语学习中应该重视中介语的作用 69新闻报道中的转述动词研究 73英汉禁忌语、委婉语的对比研究 74英汉数字习语的对比研究 76英译汉中词序的变动 78英语广告的语言特征 80英语双关语汉译的可译性限度 101词义演变的原因与方式 137从汉语中英语借词的翻译看文化交流 138从价值观转换看斯佳丽的角色特征 142从礼貌准则看中英文化的异同 146从习语看英汉民族的文化差异 149从英语人名中看性别歧视 157动词过程类型的选择和话语隐性态度的表达 161对母语在英语写作中词汇负迁移现象的思考 162对严复译作中“信”的质疑 167法律英语用词特征分析 168法律语言翻译与法律文体 177副词EVER的句法环境和语义特征 180功能语法视角下的英语报纸新闻标题的功能 183广告口号语的语言特点 189国际商务文化之对比研究 204汉语中双关语的翻译 213基于概念隐喻的诗歌解读 228论广告英语中的幽 默 265论广告英语的语言特点 268论汉英谚语的语言特征 280论清教理念与美国西进运动 282论莎士比亚十四行诗中的时间 300论英语广告中几种常用修辞格及其汉译 310论尤金?奥尼尔的表现主义手法 324名词化的语篇功能 330诺曼时期法语对英语词汇的影响 339浅谈英语虚拟语气的语用功能 340浅谈英语虚拟语气及其语用功能 345浅析二十世纪计算机英语词汇的构成特点
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.
步骤一：选题 英语专业的论文的选题很重要，选对了题，接下来的写作就会很顺利，否则不然。 步骤二：开题报告 要给自己的论文拟定一个标题，然后给这个标题构思一个主题，也就是整篇论文到底在讲什么，要论述什么英语专业本科毕业论文怎么写英语专业本科毕业论文怎么写。接着，构思自己文章的大致框架，也就是提纲。 步骤三：正文(重点) 1.开题报告确定之后，就要开始论文正文部分的写作了。开始写正文之前还有一个小插曲，那就是摘要部分的写作。 2.英语论文写作对原创性有一定的要求，一般是直接引用的内容不得超过30% 论文一定要自己动手写，不然答辩的时候就会一头雾水。
：现在本科学历，如果能找人进事业单位，还是可以的，如果是到普通公司打工，基本老板看的都是实际能力，能为公司带来什么效益，对学历要求不是那么严格。
先不要着急。 论文答辩的时候，给5分钟自述只是一个形式上的要求。通常不会有人非得要求你一定要讲足5分钟的。那些老师通常不会太认真听滴...:) 非要凑够5分钟的话，就说你的写作原由，内容提要，主要观点什么的，最重要的是，你要说说文中你认为的亮点。
我发表英文文章的个人经验 （1）多看专业核心外文期刊的相关文章，向别人学习相关的写作，包括单词、语句，甚至是段落和文章结构。比如老外写的前言部分，往往都进行了综合归纳，如果我们看到这样的文章，一定要多多拜读。 （2）注意文章的逻辑性，打算投往高级别的国际期刊更是如此。一些国外编辑和审稿人对中国人写的文章存在一种怀疑的态度，因此我们自身的文章必须具有足够的事实证据，推理严密，只有这样才能够“打动”编辑和审稿人的心。 （4）写文章一定要有自己的新观点或者新的idea，不能是大量实验数据的堆砌。老外一般喜欢对数据进行深入分析。记住文章是交流学术思想的，不是交流实验工作量的。 （5）注意英语语言。这不可能在一夜之间有质的飞越，但是平时多积累是绝对有益处的，当然如果请国外的朋友或者在国外留学多年的朋友帮着修改语言，那是最好不过的了。 （6）其他需要注意的小地方： A:严格遵循“作者须知”的规定，尊重拟投稿期刊所惯用的论文结构，特别注意图表的位置（一些期刊要求图表在文中，一些则要求图表放在文字部分之后），投稿的份数要足够，重视稿件给编辑和审稿人的“第一印象”。 B:核对通讯作者详细的通信地址、E-mail地址、电话号码、传真号码等。 C:务必遵照期刊的要求将稿件投寄给指定的收稿人或收稿单位（期刊的编辑部、编委会、主编、执行编委或助理编辑）。 D:与编辑部联系的所有信件（包括磁盘、打印稿或复印件等），都应标注联系作者的姓名。
专业原创代写，需要联系
自考本科段英语论文的标准应该和全日制英语本科论文相同，但老师会酌情放宽给分，毕竟自考和全日制水平会有点差别。 中英文题目，中英文摘要，中英文关键词， 英文正文， 7000字以上。加reference。 具体格式可参考网上的MIA论文格式。
我不是自己写的，找脚印论文网写的，又不贵，还能节约点时间泡妞呢。哈哈
有文学方面，翻译学方面，教学法方面的。自己选一个方向，再定题目，写开提报告，再找资料啥的。
有五个方向 英语教学方向 语言学方向 英美文学 英美文化 翻译方向
毕业论文无论在内容或形式上都有一定的要求，这也是考核论文成绩的基本依据之一。关于毕业论文写作的具体要求，在以后的有关章节中将作详细论述，这里先说说毕业论文写作的一些原则要求。 一、坚持理论联系实际的原则 撰写毕业论文必须坚持理论联系实际的原则。理论研究，特别是社会科学的研究必须为现实服务，为社会主义现代化建设服务，为两个文明建设服务。理论来源于实践，又反作用于实践。科学的理论对实践有指导作用，能通过人们的实践活动转化为巨大的物质力量。科学研究的任务就在于揭示事物运动的规律性，并用这种规律性的认识指导人们的实践，推动社会的进步和发展。因此，毕业论文在选题和观点上都必须注重联系社会主义现代化建设的实际，密切注视社会生活中出现的新情况、新问题。 坚持理论研究的现实性，做到理论联系实际，就必须迈开双脚，深入实际，进行社会调查研究。这也是我们正确认识社会的基本途径。人们只有深入到实际中去，同客观事物广泛接触，获得大量的感性材料，然后运用科学的逻辑思维方法，对这些材料进行去粗取精，去伪存真，由此及彼，由表及里的加工制作，才能从中发现有现实意义而又适合自己研究的新课题。在我国改革开放的实践中，新情况、新问题、新经验层出不穷，需要研究的问题遍布社会的方方面面，只要我们对现实问题有浓厚的兴趣和高度的敏感性，善于捕捉那些生动而具有典型性的现实材料，通过深入的思考和研究，就能从中引出有利于社会主义现代化建设的规律性认识，提高毕业论文的价值。当然撰写毕业论文可选择的课题十分广泛，并不只限于现实生活中的问题，也可以研究专业基本理论，中西方比较研究等。但无论选择什么研究课题，都必须贯彻理论联系实际的原则，做到古为今用，洋为中用，从历史的研究中吸取有益于现实社会发展的经验教训，从对外国的研究中，借鉴其成功经验和失败的教训，或为我国的对外政策提供某些依据。 贯彻理论联系实际的原则和方法，必须认真读书，掌握理论武器。 *** 同志指出：“强调联系实际，绝不意味着否定读书的重要，恰恰相反，更要认真地读，反复地读，深钻苦研，做到真正读懂弄通。否则，没有掌握理论，怎么谈得上理论联系实际?”(《求是》杂志1989年第24期)认真读书包括两个方面的内容，一是学好专业课，具备专业基础知识。这是写好毕业论文的前提和必要条件。经验告诉我们，只有具备了相应水平的知识积累，才能理解一定深度的学术问题；同时，也只有具备了某一特定的知识结构，才能对某学科中的问题进行研究。正如黑格尔所说，在讨论学术问题之前，必须“先有具备某种程度的知识”，否则，“没有凭借作为讨论出发的根据，于是他们只能徘徊于模糊空疏以及毫无意义的情况中”。(小逻辑》第三版序言)二是要认真学习马克思主义的基本原理，学会运用马克思主义的立场、观点和方法分析问题、解决问题。马克思主义正确地揭示了自然界、人类社会和思维发展的最一般规律，成为无产阶级和革命人民认识世界和改造世界的强大思想武器。马克思主义作为伟大的认识工具，虽然并不直接提供解决各种具体问题的答案，但它对我们如何正确地发现问题，分析和解决问题提供了正确的立场、观点和方法，因此，大学毕业生在撰写毕业论文时，应当努力学习和掌握马克思主义基本理论，自觉地用马克思主义的立场、观点和方法来指导毕业论文的写作。 二、立论要科学，观点要创新 (一)立论要科学 毕业论文的科学性是指文章的基本观点和内容能够反映事物发展的客观规律。文章的基本观点必须是从对具体材料的分析研究中产生出来，而不是主观臆想出来的。科学研究作用就在于揭示规律，探索真理，为人们认识世界和改造世界开拓前进的道路。判断一篇论文有无价值或价值之大小，首先是看文章观点和内容的科学性如何。 文章的科学性首先来自对客观事物的周密而详尽的调查研究。掌握大量丰富而切合实际的材料，使之成为“谋事之基，成事之道”。 2 毕业论文写作的基本要求 其次，文章的科学性通常取决于作者在观察、分析问题时能否坚持实事求是的科学态度。在科学研究中，既不容许夹杂个人的偏见，又不能人云亦云，更不能不着边际地凭空臆想，而必须从分析出发，力争做到如实反映事物的本来面目。 再次，文章是否具有科学性，还取决于作者的理论基础和专业知识。写作毕业论文是在前人成就的基础上，运用前人提出的科学理论去探索新的问题。因此，必须准确地理解和掌握前人的理论，具有广博而坚实的知识基础。如果对毕业论文所涉及领域中的科学成果一无所知，那就根本不可能写出有价值的论文。 (二)观点要创新 毕业论文的创新是其价值所在。文章的创新性，一般来说，就是要求不能简单地重复前人的观点，而必须有自己的独立见解。学术论文之所以要有创新性，这是由科学研究的目的决定的。从根本上说，人们进行科学研究就是为了认识那些尚未被人们认识的领域，学术论文的写作则是研究成果的文字表述。因此，研究和写作过程本身就是一种创造性活动。从这个意义上说，学术论文如果毫无创造性，就不成其为科学研究，因而也不能称之为学术论文。毕业论文虽然着眼于对学生科学研究能力的基本训练，但创造性仍是其着力强调的一项基本要求。 当然，对学术论文特别是毕业论文创造性的具体要求应作正确的理解。它可以表现为在前人没有探索过的新领域，前人没有做过的新题目上做出了成果；可以表现为在前人成果的基础上作进一步的研究，有新的发现或提出了新的看法，形成一家之言3也可以表现为从一个新的角度，把已有的材料或观点重新加以概括和表述。文章能对现实生活中的新问题作出科学的说明，提出解决的方案，这自然是一种创造性；即使只是提出某种新现象、新问题，能引起人们的注意和思考，这也不失为一种创造性。国家科委成果局在1983年3月发布的《发明奖励条例》中指出：“在科学技术成就中只有改造客观世界的才是发明，……至于认识客观世界的科学成就，则是发现。”条例中对“新”作了明确规定：“新”是指前人所没有的。凡是公知和公用的，都不是“新”。这些规定，可作为我们衡量毕业论文创造性的重要依据。 根据《条例》所规定的原则，结合写作实践，衡量毕业论文的创造性，可以从以下几个具体方面来考虑： (1)所提出的问题在本专业学科领域内有一定的理论意义或实际意义，并通过独立研究，提出了自己一定的认识和看法。 (2)虽是别人已研究过的问题，但作者采取了新的论证角度或新的实验方法，所提出的结论在一定程度上能够给人以启发。 (3)能够以自已有力而周密的分析，澄清在某一问题上的混乱看法。虽然没有更新的见解，但能够为别人再研究这一问题提供一些必要的条件和方法。 (4)用较新的理论、较新的方法提出并在一定程度上解决了实际生产、生活中的问题，取得一定的效果。或为实际问题的解决提供新的思路和数据等。 (5)用相关学科的理论较好地提出并在一定程度上解决本学科中的问题。 (6)用新发现的材料(数据、事实、史实、观察所得等)来证明已证明过的观点。 科学研究中的创造性要求对前人已有的结论不盲从，而要善于独立思考，敢于提出自己的独立见解，敢于否定那些陈旧过时的结论，这不仅要有勤奋的学习态度，还必须具有追求真理、勇于创新的精神。要正确处理继承与创新的关系，任何创新都不是凭空而来的，总是以前人的成果为基础。因此，我们要认真地学习、研究和吸收前人的成果。但是这种学习不是不加分析地生吞活剥，而是既要继承，又要批判和发展。 三、论据要翔实，论证要严密 (一)论据要翔实 一篇优秀的毕业论文仅有一个好的主题和观点是不够的，它还必须要有充分、翔实的论据材料作为支持。旁征博引、多方佐证，是毕业论文有别于一般性议论文的明显特点。一般性议论文，作者要证明一个观点，有时只需对一两个论据进行分析就可以了，而毕业论文则必须以大量的论据材料作为自己观点形成的基础和确立的支柱。作者每确立一个观点，必须考虑：用什么材料做主证，什么材料做旁证；对自己的观点是否会有不同的意见或反面意见，对他人持有的异议应如何进行阐释或反驳。毕业论文要求作者所提出的观点、见解切切实实是属于自己的，而要使自己的观点能够得到别人的承认，就必须有大量的、充分的、有说服力的理由来证实自己观点的正确。 3 毕业论文写作的基本要求 毕业论文的论据要充分，还须运用得当。一篇论文中不可能也没有必要把全部研究工作所得，古今中外的事实事例、精辟的论述、所有的实践数据、观察结果、调查成果等全部引用进来，而是要取其必要者，舍弃可有可无者。论据为论点服务，材料的简单堆积不仅不能证明论点，强有力地阐述论点，反而给人以一种文章拖咨、杂乱无章、不得要领的感觉。因而在已收集的大量材料中如何选择必要的论据显得十分重要。一般来说，要注意论据的新颖性、典型性、代表性，更重要的是考虑其能否有力地阐述观点。 毕业论文中引用的材料和数据，必须正确可靠，经得起推敲和验证，即论据的正确性。具体要求是，所引用的材料必须经过反复证实。第一手材料要公正，要反复核实，要去掉个人的好恶和想当然的推想，保留其客观的真实。第二手材料要究根问底，查明原始出处，并深领其意，而不得断章取义。引用别人的材料是为自己的论证服务，而不得作为篇章的点缀。在引用他人材料时，需要下一番筛选、鉴别的功夫，做到准确无误。写作毕业论文，应尽量多引用自己的实践数据、调查结果等作为佐证。如果文章论证的内容，是作者自己亲身实践所得出的结果，那么文章的价值就会增加许多倍。当然，对于掌握知识有限、实践机会较少的大学生来讲，在初次进行科学研究中难免重复别人的劳动，在毕业论文中较多地引用别人的实践结果、数据等，在所难免。但如果全篇文章的内容均是间接得来的东西的组合，很少有自己亲自动手得到的东西，那也就完全失去了写作毕业论文的意义。 (二)论证要严密 论证是用论据证明论点的方法和过程。论证要严密、富有逻辑性，这样才能使文章具有说服力。从文章全局来说，作者提出问题、分析问题和解决问题，要符合客观事物的规律，符合人们对客观事物认识的程序，使人们的逻辑程序和认识程序统一起来，全篇形成一个逻辑整体。从局部来说，对于某一问题的分析，某一现象的解释，要体现出较为完整的概念、判断、推理的过程。 毕业论文是以逻辑思维为主的文章样式，它诉诸理解大量运用科学的语体，通过概念、判断、推理来反映事物的本质或规律，从已知推测未知，各种毕业论文都是采用这种思维形式。社会科学论文往往是用已知的事实，采取归纳推理的形式，求得对未知的认识。要使论证严密，富有逻辑性，必须做到：(1)概念判断准确，这是逻辑推理的前提；(2)要有层次、有条理的阐明对客观事物的认识过程；(3)要以论为纲，虚实结合，反映出从“实”到“虚”，从“事”到“理”，即由感性认识上升到理性认识的飞跃过程。 此外，撰写毕业论文还应注意文体式样的明确性、规范性。学术论文、调查报告、科普读物、可行性报告、宣传提纲等都各有自己的特点，在写作方法上不能互相混同。
论文的结构应该包括以下几部分：介绍页封面标题页论文审查委员对论文做出贡献的（可选）知识范畴（可选）摘要题词（可选）目录表格列表（可选）符号和缩略语（可选）词汇表（可选）内容
你准备写跨文化交际还是翻译，还是文学，还是其他的？
毕业 论文是高校人才培养方案中不可或缺的重要组成部分，是高校英语专业的大学生毕业前必须完成的教学任务，而论文的题目确定工作则是毕业论文管理中的首要环节。下面是我带来的关于本科英语专业毕业论文题目的内容，欢迎阅读!英语专业毕业论文题目(一) 1. 浅析 广告 翻译中的 文化 顺应处理 2. 从文化角度分析中美房地产广告的差异 3. 浅析动画《加菲猫》和《加菲猫之双猫记》中的享乐主义和利己主义 4. 圣经原型解读《弗洛斯河上的磨坊》 5. 论《卡斯特桥市长》中哈代的进化向善论思想 6. 顺从的女人——分析《荒凉山庄》中埃斯特的形象 7. 从中美传统节日对比看节日的文化内涵 8. 成人的童话——《爱丽丝漫游奇境记》中象征主义的体现 9. 简析网络时代英语全球化 10. 《查泰莱夫人的情人》的生态女性主义解读 11. 从社会文化价值方面比较中美情景喜剧差异 12. 论《喧哗与骚动》中昆丁的宿命 13. 《蝇王》的启示：理性的呼唤 14. 中文旅游文本英译中的歧义现象分析 15. 从中美婚宴差异看集体主义和个人主义 16. 影响非英语专业大一新生口语输出的因素 17. 《走出非洲》：走出迪内森的矛盾态度 18. 旅游宣传资料中的误译与解决 方法 19. 从女性主义角度解读华顿《纯真年代》中的埃伦 20. 电子词典与 英语学习 英语专业毕业论文题目(二) 1. 英语习语与 ____ 2. 《伤心咖啡馆之歌》中爱米利亚性别身份分析 3. 从关联理论的角度欣赏幽默翻译 4. 英语缩略语及其语用功能 5. 英专和非英专学生 英语 作文 中错误的对比研究 6. 武汉方言对英语语音的影响及其对教学的启示 7. 中西行星命名的文化探源 8. 英语新闻中的新词 9. 中国古典诗歌英译中对“三美”理论的探索 10. 从电影《七宗罪》浅析原罪 11. 浅论体态语的社会功能 12. 中西 思维方式 差异对中英语篇的影响 13. 中国和西方国家婚俗的比较 14. 浅析合作原则的违背在广告语言中的运用 15. 浅析电影《推手》中中美家庭的文化冲突 16. 从广告语言看中美文化价值观差异 17. 用言语行为理论浅析英语广告中的双关语 18. 论新闻英语汉译中的归化与异化策略 19. 以Of Study(《论读书》)的两个中译本为例浅析译者主体性 英语专业毕业论文题目(三) 1. 广告语言模糊性的语用研究 2. 利用美剧进行 英语听力 自主学习 3. 大学生 英语口语 学习动机研究 4. 从文化视角看中国白酒广告 5. 从功能翻译看《围城》英译本中文化信息的传递 6. 对《达罗卫夫人》中克莱丽莎和塞普提默斯形象的研究 7. 公示语汉译英错误及对策探析 8. 探究美国安利公司的 企业文化 ：基于其网站内容的文本分析 9. 运用写长法促进 英语写作 能力的提高 10. 中美“面子文化”对比分析 11. 英汉恭维语和告别语的对比分析 12. 英汉爱情隐喻的对比研究 13. 新闻英语汉译的翻译技巧浅析 14. 中美家庭文化比较 15. 从文化的角度浅析中美企业 人力资源管理 的差异 16. 华中农业大学英语专业学生高级英语学习状况调查 17. 跨文化交际中中西方馈赠礼仪刍议 18. 解读《双城记》中的人道主义思想 19. 论《了不起的盖茨比》中的消费主义 20. 从戴姆勒克莱斯勒事件看文化因素对跨国企业合并的影响 21. 对中美离岸外包过程中跨文化交际案例的分析 22. 从"老友记"中看合作原则在英语称赞语及其回应语中的应用 23. 浅论美国文化与美语词汇 24. 英汉植物词语联想意义的跨文化对比 25. 一个被忽视的“准则英雄”——论《永别了，武器》中的女主人公凯瑟琳 英语专业毕业论文题目(四) 1. 美国二十世纪六十年代反战文化研究 2. 中国英语热的真相——文化帝国主义 3. 中美恭维语对比研究 4. 论民族中心主义与美国媒体近年来涉华报道 5. 从弗大枪击案看美国的枪支问题 6. 《推销员之死》中威利与比夫的父子关系 7. 从拉康的镜像理论看杨克的悲剧根源 8. 从正负值面子理论简析中美面子差异 9. 中国菜名翻译中的文化翻译策略 10. 从旧南方到新南方——斯佳丽·奥哈拉在内战前后的成长历程 11. 探究家乐福公司的企业文化:基于其网站内容的文本分析 12. 汉语对英语写作词汇的负迁移作用 13. 《美国悲剧》的消费文化分析 14. 从二语习得角度对比分析英语习语学习中的翻译导向模式与文化导向模式 15. 礼貌原则在英文商务信函中的应用 16. 南方哥特式小说特征在《心是孤独的猎手》中的体现 17. 城市公示语的汉译英探索 18. 归化与异化理论在汉语 歇后语 翻译中的应用 19. 《婚礼的成员》中弗兰淇·亚当斯双性同体现象的研究 20. 论《喜福会》中的文化冲突与共存 猜你喜欢： 1. 英语系文化类毕业论文 2. 本科英语专业毕业论文题目 3. 英语专业毕业论文选题文化 4. 翻译英语专业毕业论文选题 5. 英语语言学论文题目参考大全
学术堂整理了十五个好写的英语专业毕业论文题目供大家进行参考：1. 英语中的性别歧视（Sex Discrimination in English Language ）2. 电影《乱世佳人》长期受到青睐的原因（Gone with the Wind – Why This Movie Has the Lasting Popularity）3. 广告英语特点分析（An Analysis of Language Features in English Advertisement）4. 美国青少年教育问题浅析（An Attempting Study of the Problems of American Adolescents）5. 简爱自我价值的实现（The Realization of Jane Eyre’s Self-Worth ）6. 自由贸易与保护主义（Free Trade Versus Protectionism）7. 如何在课堂上调动学生的积极性（How to Promote Motivation in the Classroom）8. 在英语教学中运用“交际法”提高学生的交际能力（Using CLT in English Teaching to Improve Students’ Communicative Competence）9. 文化差异对跨文化交际的影响（The Influence of Cultural Difference Upon Cross-cultural Communication）10. 论基督教对中世纪早期西欧文化的影响（On Christianity’s Influence Upon European Culture in the Early-stage Middle Ages ）11. 《哈克贝利费恩历险记》是一部种族主义小说吗？（The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn-a Racist Novel?）12. 第二语言学习中的文化学习（Culture Learning in Second Language Learning）13. 试论哈姆雷特的两个主题（On the Two Themes of Hamlet）14. 谚语中的文化差异（Cultural Differences in Proverbs）15. 浅谈电视暴力和儿童的关系（TV Violence and Children）
英语语言学论文题目有浅谈英汉句子结构差异、英汉否定问句的答句对比研究等。 扩展资料 英语语言学论文题目有很多，比如浅谈英汉句子结构差异、英汉否定问句的`答句对比研究、英汉否定问句的答句对比研究、汉英色彩词汇的对比研究及其象征意义等。
关于英bai语专业的论文题目，学术堂整理了十五个好写的，供大家参考：1．《红字》中海丝特 白兰不理智的一面（The Irrational Side of Hester Prynne of The Scarlet Letter）2. 《董贝父子》中的矛盾冲突（The Conflict in Donbey and Son）3. 论文化不同对联想意义及翻译的影响（On Influence of Cultural Differences on Associative Meanings and Translation）4. 美国教育的衰弱（The Drop of American Education）5. 19世纪欧洲移民对美国工业化的积极影响（The Positive Impacts of European Immigration on American Industrialization in the 19th Century。6. 朱丽叶之人物分析（Character Studies in Juliet）7. 主述理论在文学中的运用（The Application of the Thematic Theory in Literature）8. 语用学中的会话含义理论（Conversational Implicature Theory in Pragmatics）9. 英语语音简析及对提高初学者口语的指导（A Brief Analysis of English Phonetics as well as a Guide to Improve Learners’ Oral English）10. 比较两种对于哈姆雷特复仇的评论（Comparison on Two Kinds of Comments on Hamlet’s Revenge）11. 英语语言中的性别歧视 (Sexism in English Language)12. 英语的学与教 (English Learning and Teaching)13. 由美国2004年总统选举所想到的 (More than 2004 Presidential Election)
英语语言教学方面的论文题目有很多，只是在进行选题的时候一定要针对自己的专业和对于论文中的内容事项进行，并且要按照相对应的论文选题原则来进行，有关更多的论文事项的问题，大家可以来期刊目录网看看。
学术堂整理了十五个英语语言教学方向的论文题目供大家进行参考：1、翻转课堂在初中英语语言技能教学中的应用2、大学英语跨文化教学中的问题与对策3、“渗透式”跨文化交际能力培养模式研究4、大学英语教师激发学生学习动机策略的有效性研究5、文化交往视角下中文商业广告英译研究6、中国语境下EFL学习者文化身份焦虑研究7、网络资源与大学生英语自主学习--关于大学生英语自主学习能力发展的行动研究8、评《红楼梦》两个英译本的可接受性9、大学英语教学中通用英语与专用英语之争：问题与对策10、莫言作品在英语世界的译介11、国英语学习者请求言语行为的语用研究12、庄子哲学英译研究新发展与翻译标准多元互补论13、邓罗对《三国演义》的译介14、英语词汇教学中母语翻译的作用15、中国英语学习者的隐喻理解策略及理解模型建构
教学文学方面都可以
一.关于本专业毕业论文的选题 英语专业本科生毕业论文选题可以在三个大的方向中进行，即英语文学，语言学和翻译学。各个大方向中又可以选择小的方向，具体解释如下： 1.英语文学：选择英语文学的毕业论文选题可以从三个方向进行：国别文学研究、文学批评理论研究和比较文学研究。 在进行国别文学研究选题时，一般选取英国文学或美国文学中的某一经典作家（如海明威），某一经典作品（如《双城记》），某一写作手法（如象征手法的运用）或某一文学思潮（如浪漫主义运动）作深入研究。但在选择作家或作品时最好选择在文学史上作为经典的作家或作品。有个别流行作家或作品极富盛名，容易引起学生的兴趣，如《飘》或《荆棘鸟》，学生有强烈愿望选择它们作为研究对象。在不可避免上述情况时，应该尽可能地挖掘作品内在的深刻含义，不能流于肤浅的分析。 文学批评理论的选题一般不太适合英语专业本科生，因为该理论知识的学习在英语专业研究生阶段，本科生一般不具备文学批评理论的知识结构。这个方向的选题可以有关某一文学批评理论,一文学批评术语的阐释或某两种或以上的文学批评理论的比较。 比较文学研究就是将两个以上的作家或作品进行比较。这两个作品或作家可以是同一国别的（如“雪莱与拜伦的诗歌比较”），也可以是不同国别的（如《牡丹亭》与《罗密欧与朱丽叶》） 2.语言学：选择语言学的毕业论文选题可以在两个大的方向进行：普通语言学和应用语言学。 普通语言学的研究就是对于英语语言的任何一个方面的研究，如对一种词性、或一种时态、或拼写、语调等等方面的研究（如“一般现在时及其交际功能”）。 应用语言学包括教学法的研究和其它一些新兴的应用语言学分支的研究。师范专业或本身从事教师职业的学生选择教学法方向的较多。在这个方向选题，也要避免过大范围的选题，而应对一个具体问题进行研究，最重要的是要结合教学实践或实验。这个方向的好的选题有：“个性与英语教学”，“方言对英语学习的影响”等。 3.翻译学：翻译学的选题一般可以在两个方向上进行：翻译理论以及翻译活动。对翻译理论的研究就是探讨某一种翻译理论等等。相比之下，对翻译活动的研究更多一些，这些选题可以是对一种语言现象的翻译、或一种修辞格的翻译的研究（如“汉语成语的英译”）。应该注意的是，在对翻译活动作研究时，往往需要某种翻译理论支撑，总结规律，并对这一活动作出评价，要避免仅仅时例子的罗列。 二.英语专业毕业论文格式要求 学位论文包括前置、主体、附录等三个部分。 （一）前置 1．英文封面：由论文英文题目、解释、作者、指导老师姓名和职称、时间组成。 2．目录：由论文的中、英文摘要、篇、章、条、款以及参考书目、附录等序号、题名和页码组成，排在英文封面之后另页。 3．中、英文内容摘要：摘要是论文的内容不加注释和评论的简短陈述，宜以最简洁的语言介绍论文的概要、作者的突出论点、新见解或创造性成果以及实验方法、数据或结论，是一篇完整的短文，可以独立使用，中文摘要一般在200字左右 4关键词：关键词是用以表示全文主题内容信息的单词或术语。为便于文献检索，学位论文应注明三至五个具有代表意义中、外文“关键词”，这些关键词就是论文的中心词，以显著的字符另起一行，分别排在中、外文摘要的左下方。各关键词之间用“分号”隔开。外文关键词应与中文关键词相对应。 （二）主体部分 主题部分包括引言（Introduction）、正文(Body)、结论(Conclusion)、参考文献(Bibliography)。主体部分必须由另页右页开始。 1．引言：主要说明研究工作的目的、涉及范围、相关领域的前人研究成果和知识空白、研究设想、研究方法等方面的概述、理论意义和实用价值等。 2．正文：论文的正文是核心部分，占主要篇幅。一般论文选题需要从几个方面来论述或论证。要求论据充分，论点明确。行文必须实事求是，客观真切，准确完备，合乎逻辑，层次分明，简练可读。正文部分要有分级标题，章、条、款、项的序号编码方法，采用阿拉伯数分级系列编号法，论文中的章、条、款、项依次排列，依次从1开始，连续编号，中间用“．”相隔，最末级编号之后不加点。示例： 1． 2．…… 2.1 2.2…… 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3.… 2.2.3.1 3．结论：学位论文的结论是最终的、总体的结论，它是对正文部分的论述的概述，也可以在结论或讨论中提出建议、研究设想、尚待解决的问题等。 4．参考文献：写作学位论文过程中，阅读或运用过某些文献所列出的书目清单，置于正文之后，另页开始。参考文献的著录按原文献语种为原则。 （1）文献目录应另页书写，外文文献排前，中文文献排后。外文文献书名须用斜体。 （2）文献目录一律按作者姓氏汉语拼音或外文字母顺序排列。 （3）每条文献必须顶格写，回行时空两字或五个英语字母。 （4）将各文献的类型代号（即文献英文名的首字母）注明在文献之后： 专著[M] 学位论文[D] 论文集〔C〕 报纸文章〔N〕 期刊文章〔J〕 报告[R] 专利 [P] 专著、论文集的析出文献[A] 其他未说明文件 〔Z〕 电子文献中光盘图书 [M／CD]（MONOGRAPH ON CD） 网上期刊〔J/OL〕（serial online） 5．文内所引文献：要求附夹注，应在引文后加括号注明作者姓名（英文只注姓），出版年和引文页码。若为转引文献，则加quoted in 字样。 例：（王佐良，1982：38） （Newmark，8：26-33） 6.文献中列出的文献应该与正文中标注的文献一一对应。正文中没有出现的，不应出现在参考文献中。 （三）附录部分 附录包括所有与论文有关的补充材料，如图表或照片等。（A，其实这我都不懂哦，只是帮你找一下，转过来的而已，不用太感动拉，我会不好意思的，哈哈！）
用笔写。。。。
论文的结构应该包括以下几部分：介绍页封面标题页论文审查委员对论文做出贡献的（可选）知识范畴（可选）摘要题词（可选）目录表格列表（可选）符号和缩略语（可选）词汇表（可选）内容
英语专业毕业论文格式要求及范本
毕业论文格式要求：
1、毕业论文应依次包括如下页面：
1)中文封面 2)英文封面 3)作者声明 4)致谢
5)英文摘要和关键词 6)中文摘要和关键词 7)正文
8)注释(如无尾注，可省略) 9)参考文献 10)附录 2、页码标号：
正文前页码用罗马数字如 I, II, III, IV，从正文开始用阿拉伯数字1，2，3标明页码。页码一律居中打印。 3、摘要、关键词： 英文
(1) Abstract：三号;“Abstract”粗体, 居中;
(2) Keywords：3-5个用“;”分隔;小四号; 最后一个关键词后不用标点符号;除专有名词，单词首字母不大写;“Keywords” 粗体 汉语
参照论文格式范本。 行距为1.5倍。 4、正文格式：
1) 文章题目不必出现在正文页。
2) 各级标题一般要求左对齐打印。标题一律用粗体。一级标题：粗体四号字;二
级标题：粗体小四号字;三级标题：粗体小四号字。
3) 英文一律采用Times New Roman小四号，全文双倍行距;如有汉字(参考文献
部分)，一律用五号宋体。
4) 正文中如每一段开头缩进两个汉字(或四个英文)字符的位置，则段与段之间
不空行;如每一段开头不缩进，段与段之间必须空一行。 5) 正文中一级标题间的段落空一行。 5、引用：
1)文中引用人名应与参考文献保持一致，即参考文献部分为英文的用英文，汉语的则用汉语拼音;
2)文中直接引用成段文字时，该段文字用五号，第一行缩进6个字符，其余行两端缩进4个字符。 6.注释：
(1)除了文学类毕业论文可以使用尾注注释方式，其余要求使用夹注注释方式。 (2) 夹注中所列指的文献，必须在参考文献中列出。如作者及作品为中文，夹注 中书写作者姓氏时必须使用拼音。) 例如： 1) 直接引用
—— Rees said, “As key aspects of …in the process”(1986:241).
—— The underlying assumption is that language “bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways”(Elli, 1968: 3). 2 ) 间接引用
—— According to Alun Rees (1986)〔也可位于引语的最后〕, the writers focus on the unique contribution that each individual learner brings to the learning situation 〔(1986〕. —— It may be true that in the appreciation of medieval art the attitude of the observer is of primary importance ( Robertson,1987). 3 ) 互联网资料： 格式：编号
例： “A deconstructive reading is a reading which analyses the specificity of a text’s critical difference from itself” (Net. 2).
(注：Net. 1, Net. 2, Net. 3,„„只是为了便于注明文内引语的出处，具体格式见下文参考文献中的相关内容)
7.参考文献：
1)参考文献须另起一页。 2)“References”三号粗体，居中。
3)英文参考文献在前，中文参考文献在后。英文参考文献按作者首字母顺序排列;同一作者按年排列。中文按照作者姓氏的.拼音字母顺序，排到所有英文文献后。 4)字体为英文小四号,中文五号。
5) 参考文献(即引文出处)的类型以单字母方式标识，具体如下：
M——专著 C——论文集 N——报纸文章 J——期刊文章 D——学位论文 R——报告 P——专利 A——文章
6) 作者姓名采用“姓在前名在后”原则，具体格式是： 姓，名字的首字母. 如： Malcolm Richard Cowley 应为：Cowley, M.R.，如果有两位作者，第一位作者方式不变，&之后第二位作者名字的首字母放在前面，姓放在后面，如：Frank Norris 与Irving Gordon应为：Norris, F. & I. Gordon;
7)书名、报刊名使用斜体字，如：Mastering English Literature，English Weekly。