发布时间：
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
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.
英语语言学课堂教学论文范文
1建构主义下的英语语言学课堂教学方式
建构主义下的英语语言学课堂教学是人们不断地深入认知。建构主义说明了构建学习观点的意义以及观念，建构主义是人们获取知识本质与过程的认识。在建构主义观念指导中，在习英语对老师以及学生都提出了不同的要求。从学生这一主体分析，建构主义要充分体现出学生的地位，英语教师作为课堂参与者以及组织者,应该把学生放在主体地位，同时还要密切关注学生的综合素质发展。在建构主义下开展英语语言学课堂教育可以使学生弘扬个性、充分发挥自身潜能，每一个学生学习的自身基础上提高英语能力。对英语教师来讲，作为英语课堂教学的主要组织人员，应该在课堂上充分给学生创设教学情境，给学生良好的学习环境激发学生在学习中的主动性以及积极性。同时在课堂上通过对学生适当引导，使英语课堂逐步的向着构建主义方向发展，建立互相信任的师生关系，保证提高英语课堂教学的质量。
2构建英语课堂教学的方式
在建立学习环境以及建构学习英语理论时，应该随时与学生为主体对象，在英语课堂教学中老师对学生而言是促进者、帮助者、指导者以及组织者，在课堂教学中充分调动学生学习的积极性，最终达到学生掌握知识和构建主义下学习的目的。
2.1重视学生学习的主体地位
在建构主义下学习英语可强调学生在英语学习中的主体地位，学生在建构主义中学习英语是主动的，而不是由于受到外部刺激被迫接受学习。英语教师的教学效果关键是学生学习英语的积极性以及学习英语效果，学习英语成败与否主要在于学生在学习的过程中有没有主动积极的参与学习过程。只有学生明确学习目标主动学习，才能完成对英语知识的构建。因此要在课堂中有效的教学要充分发挥学生在学习过程中的主体地位，作为老师积极主动的引导学生进行学习，只有把英语学习内容转换成学生的内在需求，变成个人积极主动的学习，学生才可以真正的把自己的潜能发展出来，建构知识体系下的学习方式。重视学生的主体地位，就要让学生积极主动的进行英语学习，作为英语教师要教会学生主动的学习并且及时的归纳英语知识，引导学生自觉的运用知识。提醒学生在学习英语的过程中要不断地自我调整和掌控。
2.2重视学生个体特征
在学习的过程中学生应该根据已有的认知行为主动的选择外部信息，对外部英语信息进行处理以及加工，英语知识是学生在学习的过程中逐步建立起来的整体内容。因为学生理解英语知识是根据已有的背景以及经验进行构建的'，所以每一个学生都会对同一知识结构有不同理解，每个学生自主学习英语的过程中都印证自我个性以及特征，以往传统的英语教学模式只会阻碍学生的创新能力，严重遏制了学生的个性。所以英语教师在讲授知识时，要以人为本，尊重每一个学生的个性发展，充分给予学生弘扬自我个性以及体现价值的空间，保证每一位学生在已有学习基础的能力上把自我个性进一步发展以及提高。教学的关键是学生之间互相合作，作为英语教师应该鼓励每一位学生都参与到学习之中，推出主动交流、合理创新的英语学习氛围。
2.3鼓励学生自主学习
学习英语的过程就是语言不停结合的过程，这是从知识理论转换到自身应用的一个过程，要想帮助学生成功的转变掌握住学习知识的技巧，就要让学生不断主动参加实践课程。建构主义下开展英语语言学课堂知识就是强调每一位学生参与性以及能动性，所以在教学的过程中应该避免对学生实施“填鸭式”教育。建构主义主要主张学生可以完成设置问题的情况下进行学习，所以作为老师可以采取任务型学习方法以及课题式学习方式进行教学，在英语教学的过程中从生活中寻找好的学习材料，让学生实时参与并且参与解决问题的过程，引发学生建构新知识的欲望。
2.4强调教学互动
学生在学习英语的过程中，教师应该选取资料应该从英语网站、专著以及期刊等专业领域中获取学生所需的资料，把这些资料以多种形式提供给学生，在给学生提供材料的同时把问题一起导入，和学生互相讨论，让学生在学习的过程中自己归纳语言。除此之外还应该及时的整理学生在阅读中所遇到的问题，保证基于建构主义下建构英语教学模式把学生的思维能力进一步提高。
3结语
总而言之，随着新课改不断的深化改革，使英语语言学教学有了更多的理论指导、英语语言教学创新科教学模式以及方法，英语教师可通过和学生之间和谐互动，与各个学科之间的教学成果相互评价，使学生可以自主学习，提高学生建构系统知识的能力。同时在建构主义下实施英语语言学教学可以开展类型多样的教学方式，促进英语教学质量稳定提升。
随着对 英语 文化 学习的不断深入,随着英语重要地位的不断确立,英语语言学的研究工作也越来越深入。下文是我为大家整理的关于英语语言学论文 范文 参考的内容，欢迎大家阅读参考! 关于英语语言学论文范文参考篇1 浅探英语语言学中的幽默话语 幽默是指在人类交际的过程中，能够引人发笑的话语、动作和表情等，其内容丰富多彩，表现形式多种多样，比例幽默话语、幽默动作、幽默音乐等等。因为人们的交际活动多依赖于语言，所以幽默也多来源于话语当中。 一、英语语言学中的幽默话语 在繁忙的生活中，幽默是一剂强力润滑剂。幽默话语是借助于语言手段来表述幽默的。它是以语言为媒介，根据特定的情境下，以轻松诙谐的语调，机智、风趣、戏谑的话语风格，通过讽刺、夸张、映射、双关等手法，来表达话语者自己的思想和观点，并使受话者不知不觉地接受，达到“随风潜入夜，润物细无声”的效果和境界。幽默话语往往带有一些意味深长的色彩，对揭露生活中的丑恶或不公平现象，还可以起到发人深省的作用。而对于受话者来说，要把话语和当时具体的语境线索结合起来，利用自己既有的语言知识和社会认知，去发现说话者的言外之意和要表达的真实意图，才能真正的理解幽默，并从中获得愉悦。 例如，“Mr Zhou have a sharp tongue，look out，it doesn’t cut your throat.”这句话看起来是像是在说舌头，但是，我们把这句话放到语境中，就可以想到，这里的“a sharp tongue”并不是什么锋利的舌头，而是牙尖嘴利、毒舌的意思，是发话者幽默、含蓄、间接的表达方式。 二、幽默话语与合作原则 (一)合作原则 胡范畴认为，所谓幽默话语是语言的各要素通过变异和创造而出来的。而美国语言哲学家Grice则认为，幽默话语的作用是为了确保交际活动顺利进行。Grice认为，在人们运用语言进行交际时，交际的双方(发话者和受话者)还要遵守一些先决条件和原则，例如使用双方都能熟练运用的语言、交谈内容是双方都熟悉的话题，还有最重要的合作原则(cooperative principle，CP)。合作原则包括四个范畴，即数量准则、质量准则、关联准则和方式准则。在合作原则下，要求发话者和受话者者要端正态度，在谈话中做到“一唱一和”，避免造成“鸡同鸭讲”“话不投机半句多”的情况。 (二)合作原则与幽默话语的关系 如果说要遵循“数量准则、质量准则、关联准则和方式准则”的合作原则是一位西装革履、步态稳健的中年人，那么幽默话语就是一位穿着休闲时尚、语态随意轻松的新新人类。合作原则与幽默话语的结合，就是传统沉稳美与时尚活力没的结合，在这种结合中，传统的合作原则难免要接受新的挑战，甚至在一定程度上被打破。以下，本文以数量准则和质量准则为例，对合作原则与幽默话语进行举例分析。 (1)幽默话语与数量准则 合作原则之质量准则要求说话者和听话者之间交谈的内容要包含适当的信息量。但是在实际的语言环境中，我们常常需要打破这一数量原则，来起到幽默话语的喜剧效果。例如： Jack：I saw Mr Green having lunch with a woman the day before yesterday. Eason：Oh my god!Is she beautiful? Jack：Yes，she is not only beautiful，but also young. Eason：Dose Mrs Green know about it? Jack：Of course.She was the young and beautiful woman. 在这段对话中，Eason理解的和Mr Green共进午餐的年轻貌美的女人应该是除了Mrs Green以外的其他女人，同时也不是Mr Green家里的其他女性亲戚。而Jack如果不想引起误会的话，应该直接说他前天看到Mr Green和Mrs Green共进午餐，但是为了引起Eason的好奇心，促使他进一步追问，就在第一句话中只说看到Mr Green与一位女性共进午餐，这虽然是违反了数量准则的，但也就此产生体现了幽默话语的有趣、逗乐原则。而Eason心理期待与实际情况之间的落差导致其认知的突然重构，给交谈双方带来乐趣，达到愉悦和反讽的效果。 (2)幽默话语与质量准则 合作原则之质量准则要求说话者不说自知是虚假的话，不说无稽之谈，但是在幽默话语中，说话者经常会采用诸如反语、夸张的休息手法。这样虽然会打破“质量准则”，但是带来的幽默效果也是非常显著的。在上世纪90年代即被引入中国并风靡十几年的美国NBC情景剧《老友记》中就存在很多这样的例子。例如： Phoebe：You do not want to wine the lottery? Rose：Uh surely I do，and I want to be the king of my own country. 通过思考并分析这段对话，我们得出Phoebe问Rose，你是否对有意买彩票，有没有兴趣去试一下自己的运气，通过片中的特点情景和人物关系，我们可以看出Rose对彩票不感兴趣，但是她没有直接了当的说“没兴趣”，而是采用了幽默话语说“想啊，我当然想，我还想当国家元首呢。”因为一个平民是几乎没有可能成为国家元首的，所以Rose的话语是违背了质量准则的。但是，这种“有意违背”和“夸大其词”正是这段对话的笑点所在。 三、幽默话语与指称语 指称语(indexicals)就是具有指称功能的语言结构形式，是日常生活中常见的语言现象。是发话人与受话人，在共同的知识环境、语言环境下，可以彼此理解的，映射出话语的，潜在的指称义和指称关系。当指称语所指示的信息不明确或者出现谬误，发话人的意思就是变得令人费解，幽默话语很可能就此产生。同时，指称语还受到人文背景、社会文化、交际距离、环境等多种因素的影响。指称语可以分为人称指称语、时间指称语、地点指称语等等，其中以人称指称语最为常见。我本文就以人称指称语为例，幽默话语和指称语之间的关系。 人称指称语可以分为第一人称、第二人称和第三人称，是对话参与者角色关系的客观体现。第一人称是发话人、第二人称是受话人、第三人称是话语谈及的对象。在话语中，如果这种规则被打破，就会出现人称指称语不相对应的现象，可能会起到幽默效果。例如： Jim was down the local pub with his mate Mark. Jim：Do you know，Mark，I never kissed my wife before we were married.What about you?” Mark：I don’t know，What was her maiden name?” 这段对话是Jim与Mark之间的酒后之言。Jim的提问，真正的意思是“Have you ever kissed your wife before you were married?” 在指称语中，第二人称是针对受话人而言的，谈及的是隐私或伤痛，所以受话人Mark就采用了幽默话语来回避问题，轻描淡写地将这一问题带过去了，其机智幽默值得我们参照和学习。 四、关联理论与幽默话语 从关联理论的角度来看，受话者会故意曲解发话者的意图，到处与发话者截然相反的信息，产生意外的幽默效果。例如： Teacher：Tom，there were three peaches，ate one，how many would you have? Tom：Three，tow outside and one inside. Tom作为孩子，其对事物的思考方式不同于成人，因为无法认清老师出题的意图，而给出出人意料的答案，起到了幽默的效果。 结语： 从上述讨论中，我们可以看出，在不同语境中，人们会对对话意义、指称语、 语言意义等的理解产生偏差或者错位。幽默话语具有深层次的、含蓄的、深沉的、巧妙的作用，避免交际中的尴尬或难堪，增强语言表达的效果，可以起到愉悦交流、点缀生活的作用。 关于英语语言学论文范文参考篇2 浅谈从建构主义角度探析英语语言学教学 21 世纪 教育 的基点是终身学习，是不断提出问题、解决问题的学习，是敢于打破狭隘的专业界限面向真实复杂任务的学习。在英语课程学习过程中，学生普遍认为英语语言学这门课更加的枯燥，无味和吃力。英语语言学课程涉及面广、内容多、概念多、理论多，理论性和实践性都很强;同时英语语言学课时少，而语言学的发展引起的教学内容不断扩充，暴露出和教学时数有限之间日益严重的矛盾。因而继续沿用传统的教学理念和教学模式进行教学已经不能适应新形势下的教学过程，必须用一种更好的教学方式，使学生和老师尽快适应新形势的要求。 随着建构主义学习理论的出现，提出了建构主义的教学设计。建构主义强调情境、协作、会话和意义建构四大要素，倡导以“学”为中心的理念。将建构主义的教学理论引入到英语语言学教学过程中，进行了许多有益的尝试，取得了显著的效果。 1 建构主义的四大要素 在 学习 方法 上建构主义提倡的是教师指导下的以学生为主体的学习,在学习环境上要求是开放的、充满意义解释和建构性的,理想的学习环境主要有情境、协作、会话和意义建构四大要素构成。 1.1“情境”：学习环境中的情境必须有利于学习者对所学内容的意义建构。这就意味着在建构主义学习环境下，要把为学生创设建构意义的情境问题看作是教学设计的主要内容之一。“在课堂教学中播放有助于理解教学内容的录像、录音、参与 社会实践 、向学生提供网络的丰富的学习资源等等，凡是有助于学习者理解掌握学习内容的情境，都属于情境创设的范畴。” 1.2“协作”：协作发生在学习过程的始终。协作在一定意义上是协商的意思。协商主要有自我协商和相互协商。 1.3“会话”：会话是协作过程中的不可缺少环节。学习小组成员之间通过会话来商讨如何完成规定的学习任务达到意义建构的目标，怎样更多地获得教师或他人的指导和帮助等等，推进学习进程。在会话的过程中，每个学习者的思维成果(智慧)为整个学习群体所共享 ，因此会话是达到意义建构的重要手段之一。 1.4“意义建构”：这是整个学习过程的最终目标。在学习过程中帮助学生建构意义就要帮助学生对当前学习的内容所反映事物的性质、规律以及该事物与其他事物之间的内在联系达到较深刻的理解。 2 建构主义环境下对英语语言学教学启示 2.1强调以学为中心的设计 在建构主义学习环境下，师生的地位、作用与传统的教学发生了很大的变化。学生由知识的被动接受者转变为信息加工的主体、知识意义的主动建构者。教师也不再是知识的灌输者，而是教学环境的设计者、学生学习的组织者和指导者、知识的管理者，是学生的学术顾问。因此，教师要从前台退到幕后，从“演员”转变为“导演”。在建构主义的语言学教学中，学习环境中要充分发挥学生的主动性，教师要为学生创设尽可能真实的情境去应用他们所学的知识。具体来说,英语英语语言学课程教学应该激发教学主体的主动性和积极性,强调教学任务的适合性和针对性,注重教学环境的互动性和趣味性。 2.2强调学习环境的设计 建构主义教学设计的重心便是学习环境的设计。这里的学习环境是一个支持和促进学习者自主探索、自主学习的场所。学习环境的设计应围绕支持学习者开展有意义的学习来创设支持条件。它主要包括基于问题的学习环境的设计、合作学习环境的设计、真实情境的设计等。建构主义学习环境的设计的宗旨是通过支持学习者的有意义学习，促进学习者的发展。 例如，在讲授语言的任意性时，不少学生对于语言中音和义之间没有必然的联系这一属性存在疑惑，原因是在语言中的确存在一些音和义有一定联系的语言现象，如拟声词，对于这种问题，教师可以在深入讲解之前，给学生布置一些任务，让他们课前收集英语中的拟声词，并让其与汉语中对应的拟声词相比较，然后以 报告 的形式在课上做出来，教师则在这一过程中起着引导、监督、组织的作用，在学生做完报告后，教师做出归纳 总结 。 2.3教学任务的适合性和针对性 语言教学中任务的设置必须以学生的实际情况为前提,任务太困难或太容易都不利于学生主动建构知识。在选择英语语言学课程教学内容时，应适当减少课堂教学内容的广度和深度。所选课堂教学内容如下:语言、语言学、语音学、音系学、句法学、语义学、语用学、二语习得、语言与文化。明确学习任务,选择训练方式,使学生有足够的机会进行练习。教师应懂得如何控制自己的情绪,并通过积极的语言来激励学生。应及时地对正确回答问题,出色完成学习任务的学生进行表扬。如:Well done!Very good!Good job! Excel lent!这些词语看似简单,却能给学生以信心和动力。同时,对学生的缺点和不足要多指导,少批评少责备。 3 建构主义的教学评价 建构主义评价观具有几个方面的特征。首先，诊断性和 反思 性是建构主义学习评价的重要组成部分。这就意味着，学习者必须从事自我监控、自我测试、自我检查等活动，以诊断和判断他们在学习中所追求的是否是自己设置的目标。其次，建构主义评价观认为评价是评价者和被评价者“协商”进行的共同心理建构过程，评价受“多元主义”价值观所支配。因此，建构主义注重评价主体的多元化和评价方式的多样化。再次，建构主义认为，评价是学习者活动过程中的一个必然组成部分，而不是教学后的评价，它是一个持续性和实时性的镶嵌过程。因此，建构主义强调过程性评价，倡导“质性”的方法。所谓过程性评价是在某项教学活动的过程中，为使活动效果更好而不断进行的评价，它能及时了解阶段教学的结果和学生学习的进展情况、存在问题等，以便及时反馈，及时调整和改进教学工作。可见，建构主义评价观提倡以学为中心的理念，更加关注学生的发展。 4 结束语 建构主义教学观为课堂教学提供了新模式,为习惯于被动式接受的学生阐释了学习的新理念,从而为英语语言学课堂的教与学带来了新的启示和体验。在英语语言学课堂教学中教授学习策略,引导学生自主学习及改进 教学方法 。这些方面有助于学生建构知识,形成能力。 参考文献 [1]陈莉.社会建构主义与外语教学[J].外语论坛, 2003(1). [2]胡壮麟.对中国英语教育的若干思考[J].外语研究, 2002(3). [3]盛群力、__强.现代教学设计论[M].浙江教育出版社，2000
像语音学，音位学，以及形态学，句法都不好下手建议写社会语言学或是心理语言学方面的，可以深入对比一下中西方思维的差异之类的，应该是一个好的论点加油~~