语音学论文格式

论文常用来进行科学研究和描述科研成果文章。它既是探讨问题进行科学研究的一种手段，又是描述科研成果进行学术交流的一种工具。那么论文格式及字体要求大家了解吗?以下是我分享的学术论文字体格式要求资料，欢迎大家阅读!

论文格式及字体要求【1】

1.页面设置：页边距上，下，左(装订线)，右,，页脚。

2.封面格式设置：字体：四号宋体，居中，指导教师签名必须手写。

3.题目：中文，三号黑体加粗居中;英文，三号Time New Roman字体, 加粗居中。

题目和摘要之间空一行(小四号)。

4.摘要：

(1)中文摘要和关键词(行间距单倍) 摘要(黑体五号加粗，左起空两格)： XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX(五号楷体)

关键词(黑体五号加粗，左起空两格)：XXXX，XXXXX，XXXXX，XXXX(五号楷体)

(2)英文摘要和关键词(行间距单倍)(置于参考文献后。

参考文献与英文摘要之间空一行，小四号)

Abstract(Time New Roman字体，五号，加粗，顶格)：XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX(Time New Roman字体，五号) Keywords(Time New Roman字体，五号，加粗，顶格)： XXXX，XXXXX，XXXXX，XXXX(Time New Roman字体，五号) 5.正文层次格式(关键词和正文之间空一行，小四号) 1.(四号黑体加粗，左起空两格)

正文左起空两格，使用小四号宋体(行间距倍)

XXXX (小四号宋体加粗，左起空两格，行间距倍) 正文左起空两格，使用小四号宋体(行间距倍) 第三级标题与第二级标题相同

6.致谢(正文和致谢之间空一行，小四号)

致谢(居中，黑体，加粗，小四号)

(中文小四号宋体，英文小四号Time New Roman字体，行间距单倍)

7.参考文献(致谢和参考文献之间空一行，小四号)：

参考文献(居中，黑体，加粗，小四号)

[1]*****************(中文五号宋体，英文五号Time New Roman字体，行间距单倍) 参考文献格式设置：

期刊：[序号]作者.题名[J].期刊名称,出版年份,卷号(期号):起止页码.

书籍：[序号]著者.书名[M].版次.出版地:出版社,出版年份:起止页码.

论文集：[序号]著者.题名[C].编者.论文集名.出版地 学位论文：[序号]作者.题名[D].保存地:保存单位,年份. 专利文献：[序号]专利所有者.专利题名[P].专利国别:专利号,发布日期.

国家、国际标准：[序号]标准代号,标准名称[S].出版地:出版者,出版年份.

电子文献：[序号]作者.电子文献题名[EB/OL].电子文献的出版或可获得地址,发表或更新日期/引用日期(任选) 8.页码规范： 位于页面底端右侧 9.图片格式设置：

字体：黑体，五号 行间距倍 10.表格格式设置： 表格内容格式设置：

字体：五号，宋体 行间距倍 表头格式设置：

字体：黑体，五号 行间距倍

11.引文标注：(作者姓名,年份),多个姓名中间用分号分隔。

注意引文标注与注释的区别，引文标注是注明文献出处，注释是对文中概念、观点等的进一步补充或解释说明。

12.脚注：用脚注方式标注，脚注格式设置如下：引用脚注格式，页面底端，五号字体。

学术论文字体格式要求【2】

1.毕业论文格式

一般说来，一篇毕业论文要具备相对固定的格式。

这些提到的毕业论文格式仅供参考。

学校有具体规定的，则按规定办。

这里以文件中规定的毕业论文格式为准。

①论文题目，有的含副标题。

题目之下是作者署名，署名之前或下边一行写作者的校、院、系、年级。

②“摘要”与“关键词”(或称“内容提要”)，一般为300字左右。

位于作者署名之后，正文之前。

关键词，结合标题和正文内容一般选取3至5个。

③引论。

用“O”标示，常写作“引言”、“引论”、“绪论”，引言较短时可不标出“O.引言”类小标题。

引论的内容一般是交代选题背景，主要有:课题来源，本课题在国内外的研究进展状况。

已有的研究成果，存在的问题。

选题的意义，讨论的问题。

本文分几部分，从哪些方面进行讨论，以及指导思想、论证方法等，均可根据内容的需要写在引论中。

④正论。

正论常分几部分写，分别标示“一”“二”“三”“四”等，有的加小标题，或以分论点的形式出现，以凸现论述的观点或主要内容。

这部分是对研究过程及分析、归纳、概括的表达，体现出分析方法与思路，充分有力的论证。

正论还要体现出明确的指导思想。

⑤结论。

一般用“结语”“小结”“余论”等标示。

也可不标示“结语”之类的词儿，在正论之后空一行直接写结论或总结。

在毕业论文格式中，结论是对整个研究工作的归纳、综合或概括，也可以提出进一步研究的建议。

若是在正论之后，对相关联的问题还想简短论述一下，或是对较为重要的问题再说一些想法，可写成“余论”。

⑥毕业论文致谢。

接上文另起一段。

简述自己撰写毕业论文的体会，并对指导老师以及有关人员表示感谢。

“毕业论文致谢”并非形式，也不是走过场，是一个大学生修养的表现。

⑦注释与参考资料。

注释专指“本文注”，即作者对论文有关内容所作的解释，一般用脚注(放在本页末)(属毕业论文格式的非必备项)。

参考文献专指“引文注”，即作者对引用他人作品的有关内容所作的说明，在引文结束处右上角用[1][2]等标示，序号与文末参考文献列表一致。

同一著作或文章被多次引用时只著录一次。

文后参考文献的著录格式见《参考文献格式》。

⑧附录。

收录和论文有直接关系的文字材料、图表、数据、试验结果等。

中文方面的毕业论文 格式中作附录的情况似乎不多见(属毕业论文格式的非必备项)。

以上是一篇毕业论文格式要求，是一般撰写毕业论文必需的表达形式，其中除“注释”和“附录”可有可无外，其他部分的毕业论文格式是必备的。

2.毕业论文格式的其他要求：

①毕业论文的字数要求。

一般来说，文学、新闻、历史、哲学等方面的毕业论文在7000字以上，语言方面的论文在6000字左右，也有对函授学员、自考生要求在5000字左右的。

我的想法是对字数不去“斤斤计较”，关键是在毕业论文的内容要有创见。

一般说来，达到了内容的要求，相应地也会满足字数的要求。

②表述要求。

毕业论文是对自己研究成果的详细表述。

要求论理正确、论据确凿、逻辑性强、层次分明，表意准确、鲜明，语言通顺、流畅，用规范汉字，不写错别字。

一般情况下应采用计算机打印成文，若手抄则要求书写工整。

③修改要求。

论文初稿写好后，全文阅读，前后对照，检查论点论据论证和词句运用，修改好了之后，搁置几天或者一两周，再来挑毛病，经过多次修改、加工、润色，最后在老师指导下定稿。

二、毕业论文的类型

不同类型的毕业论文，表达方式也有差异。

按学科可分成文科类毕业论文，理科类毕业论文，管理类毕业论文。

从写作内容分，有基础研究和应用研究。

基础研究包括理论研究，文学、语言、历史等学科的本体研究。

应用研究包括教学研究、有关理论的实际运用研究，相关的实践问题研究。

有的应用研究也可以出新理论，形成新的基础研究。

基础理论研究和实际应用研究也有紧密关联的，有时是根据侧重点来划分的。

由此，就有了(一)基础研究型毕业论文，包括理论研究型和本体研究型的毕业论文;(二)应用研究型毕业论文，包括教学研究型、理论实践研究型、实际问题研究型等类型的毕业论文。

从表达方式分，有综合型毕业论文，专题型毕业论文和实验报告型毕业论文。

就文学、语言方面的文科类毕业论文而言(如汉语言文学毕业论文)，以应用研究型毕业论文居多;其次是本体研究型毕业论文，对学科本身的某个方面的新问题进行论述阐发，表述自己的心得，或者对原有问题发表新的看法或不同的评价。

而理论研究型毕业论文，主要是探讨前人没解决的问题、没发现的规律，或是新理论、新观点，或是新的理论背景、研究方法的学术论文，这类论文难度较大。

就论文表达方式而言，综合型毕业论文很少见，这种论文围绕一个问题收集一大批资料，综合介绍并论述这个问题研究的阶段、特点、主要理论成就及其著述，研究中最早的文献、有重大突破的'文献，研究的发展状况、发展趋势等。

见得较多的是专题型毕业论文，它的表达特点是突出一点，在已有研究成果或相关研究成果的基础上把这一研究从某个方面继续向前推进。

如果说综合型论文侧重在“面”，那么专题性论文则重在“点”。

虽说是“点”，但关于这个专题的研究成果、发展状况及发展趋势则是必须了解的，在专题型毕业论文的开头作个简述。

实验报告型毕业论文多见于语言学方面的实验语音研究性报告、语言运用、方言调查分析报告类和文学作品社会作用调查分析性报告类。

须说明的是，一般的调查报告不能算作论文，但可作为论文的写作材料。

研究性调查报告不单是报告情况、数据、结论、提出一般的看法、意见，而是要“研究”，提出问题、详尽调查、作出深入的分析，并解决问题，有方法、有创见、有理论价值和实际意义。

学术论文标准格式规范【3】

一、题名(TM)

题名应简明、具体、确切，概括文章的要旨，符合编制题录、索引和检索的有关原则并有助于选择关键词和分类号。

中文题名一般不超过20个汉字，必要时可加副题名。

应避免使用非公知公用的缩略语、字符、代号以及结构式和公式。

在每篇文章首页下以脚注形式注明文章收稿日期，如：收稿日期：2006-05-20

二、作者(ZZ)

文章均应有作者署名。

作者姓名置于篇名下方，中国作者姓名的汉语拼音采用如下写法：姓前名后，中间为空格。

姓氏的全部字母均大写，复姓连写。

名字的首字母大写，双字名中间不用连字符。

姓名均不缩写。

如：

ZHANG Ying(张颖)，WANG Xilian(王锡联)，ZHUGE Hua(诸葛华)。

外国作者的姓名写法从其惯例。

对作者应标明其工作单位全称、所在省、城市名及邮政编码，加圆括号置于作者署名下方。

江 滨

(武汉大学 法学院，湖北 武汉 430072)

多位作者的署名之间用逗号隔开;不同工作单位的作者，应在姓名右上角加注不同的阿拉伯数字序号，并在其工作单位名称之前加注与作者姓名序号相同的数字;各工作单位之间连排时以分号隔开，如：

江 滨1 ，李晓述2

语言学可以写的内容很多。基本上不外乎以下一些:一，语音类如语音的属性、音韵与语音的关系、强弱、轻浊、音节等二，词汇类如词汇形态学，语义学，构词，词化，语义场等等三，语法类如语法结构，层次，修辞等四，句子类如分析句子的各种成分，语序，基本句型等五，语篇类如连贯性，思维逻辑性，结构修辞，主体与客体意识等这方面的教材很多，就看你的要求了。现在英语与汉语的对比语言学和对比文学比较热，从这方面下手也不错。

转摘More and more scholars are now showing an interest in adopting linguistic approaches to translation studies. Between 1949 and 1989, an incomplete survey by the author revealed that there were only about 30 textbook passages discussing the relationship between linguistics and translation, including aspects of general linguistics, pragmatics, stylistics, text linguistics, rhetoric and machine translation. From 1990 to 1994, there was an incredible increase in the number of passages looking at translation from a linguistic point of view. Almost 160 articles published over these five years concerned translation and general linguistics, stylistics, comparative linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, text linguistics, rhetoric, etc. New terms such as discourse analysis, hermeneutics, dynamic equivalence, deep structure and surface structure, context, theme and rheme, cooperative principles, to mention just a few, appeared in the field of translation studies. We can definitely identify a trend of applying linguistics theories to translation studies in these years. Today, we are at the point of questioning whether linguistics is a necessary part of translation. In recent years, some scholars who are in favour of free translation, have repeatedly raised this question to the public and appealed for an end to the linguistic approach to translation. Some firmly believe that translation is an art and that therefore linguistics is neither useful nor helpful. Such a claim is wrong if we look at translation as a whole, including scientific translation where meanings are rigid and restricted and the degree of freedom is limited. Flexibility, in this case, is neither required nor appreciated. But even in literary translation, linguistics is hardly a burden. Wang Zongyan pointed out that « If one sees linguistics as a body of rules regulating language, translators most probably will yawn with boredom. If it signifies the use of words and locutions to fit an occasion, there is nothing to stop translators from embracing linguistics » (Wang 1991: 38). The controversy over « literal » versus « free » translation has a long history, with convincing supporters on each side. For example, ancient Western scholars like Erasmus, Augustine, and others were in favour of literal translation. Among early Chinese translators, Kumarajiva is considered to be of the free school, while Xuan Zuang appears as literal and inflexible. In modern China, Yan Fu advocated hermeneutic translation, while Lu Xun preferred a clumsy version to one that was free but inexact. There is nothing wrong in any of these stances. When these translators emphasized free translation they never denied the possibility of literal translation, and vice versa. Problems only arise when the discussion turns to equivalent translations. The problem of equivalence has caused much controversy. Some people believed that there could be an equivalence of language elements independent of the setting in which they of occurred. Based on this assumption, some « literal » translators tried to decompose a text into single elements in hopes of finding equivalents in the target language. This is a naive idea. Jakobson (1971: 262) notes that « Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. » He does not refer to « equivalence » but to « equivalence in difference » as the cardinal problem. Nida was also misunderstood by many for his notion of « equivalence, » which he took to mean that « Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style » (1969: 12). He further concluded that « Absolute equivalence in translating is never possible » (1984: 14). De Beaugrande and Dressler believed that the success or failure of either free or literal approaches was uncertain: an unduly « literal » translation might be awkward or even unintelligible, while an unduly « free » one might make the original text disintegrate and disappear altogether. To them, equivalence between a translation and an original can only be realized in the experience of the participants (cf. de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981: 216-217). Catford (1965: 27) expressed the same concern that equivalent translation is only « an empirical phenomenon, discovered by comparing SL and TL texts. » In citing the above examples, I have absolutely no intention of insisting on untranslatability. What I mean is that a translator should incorporate his or her own experience and processing activities into the text: solving the problems, reducing polyvalence, explaining away any discrepancies or discontinuities. Linguistic knowledge can help us treat different genres in different ways, always with an awareness that there are never exact equivalences but only approximations. Therefore, amplification and simplification become acceptable. If we agree that texts can be translated, then, in what way does linguistics contribute to translation? To answer this question, we must look at the acceptance of western linguistics in China and its influence on translation. Systematic and scientific study of the Chinese language came into being only at the end of the last century, when Ma Jianzhong published a grammar book Mashi Wentong «马氏文通» in 1898, which was the first in China and took the grammar of Indo-European languages as its model. The study of language was, in turn, influenced by translation studies in China. In Mashi Wenton, the main emphasis is on the use of morphology, which takes up six-sevenths of the book. Influenced by the dominant trend of morphological studies, a word was regarded as the minimum meaningful unit, and a sentence was therefore the logical combination of words of various specific types. Translation was, then, principally based on the unit of the word. In the West, Biblical translation provided a very good example, just as the translation of Buddhist scriptures did in China. Not until the end of the 19th century did some linguists come to realize that sentences were not just the summary of the sequenced words they contained. The Prague School, founded in the 1920s, made a considerable contribution to the study of syntax. According to the analytic approach of the Functional Perspective of the Prague School, a sentence can be broken down into two parts: theme and rheme. Theme is opposed to rheme in a manner similar to the distinction between topic and comment, and is defined as the part of a sentence which contributes least to advancing the process of communication. Rheme, on the other hand, is the part of a sentence which adds most to advancing the process of communication and has the highest degree of communicative dynamism. These two terms help enlighten the process of translating Chinese into English. In the mid-1950s, the study of syntax peaked with the Chomsky's establishment of transformational-generative grammar. This theory of the deep structure and surface structure of language influenced translation tremendously. Nida relied heavily on this theory in developing his « analyzing-transfering-reconstructing » pattern for translation. Some Chinese linguists, in the meantime, tried to raise language studies to a higher plane. Li Jinxi (1982) enlarged the role of sentence studies in his book A New Chinese Grammar, two thirds of which was devoted to discussing sentence formation or syntax. He writes that « No words can be identified except in the context of a sentence. » The study was then improved by other grammarians, including Lu Shuxiang, Wang Li. With the development of linguistic studies, translation based on the unit of the sentence was put forward by some scholars. It was Lin Yu-Tang who first applied the theory to translation in his article « On Translation. » He claimed that « translation should be done on the basis of the sentence [...] What a translator should be faithful to is not the individual words but the meaning conveyed by them » (Lin 1984: r 3). The importance of context in the understanding of a sentence was therefore emphasized. Chao Yuanren, a Chinese scholar and professor at Harvard University, criticized scholars and translators who tended to forget this point and take language for something independent and self-sufficient. In fact, it is obvious that when we translate a sentence, we depend on its context; when we interpret an utterance we rely on the context of the speech (cf. Chao 1967). When a sentence is removed from the text, it usually becomes ambiguous due to the lack of context. Therefore, translation becomes difficult. In the 1960s, people began to realize that the study of language based on sentences was not even sufficient. A complete study should be made of the whole text. A simple sentence like « George passed » may have different interpretations in different contexts. If the context is that of an examination, it means George did well on a test; in a card game it would indicate that George declined his chance to bid; in sports it would mean the ball reached another player. Without a context, how could we decide on a translation? Linguists therefore shifted their attention to the study of texts and to discourse analysis. Text linguistics have become increasingly popular since that time. Van Dijk was a pioneer in this field, and his four-volume edition of the Handbook of Discourse Analysis is of great value. Halliday's Cohesion in English and Introduction to Functional Grammar help us to better understand the English language on a textual level. It is worth noting that de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) provided an overall and systematic study of text, which is useful to translation studies. De Beaugrande actually wrote a book called Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating in 1978. The book did not become very popular as it confined the discussion to translating poetry. At the same time, books on a linguistic approach to translation were introduced into China, such as the works of Eugene Nida, Peter Newmarks, . Catford, Georges Mounin, and others. These books gave a great push to the application of linguistic theories to translation studies in China. Textual or discoursive approaches to the study of translation could not keep pace with the development of text linguistics. Some studies remained on the syntactic or semantic level, though even there textual devices were employed. In talking about the translation units of word and text, Nida wrote: ... average person naively thinks that language is words, the common tacit assumption results that translation involves replacing a word in language A with a word in language B. And the more « conscientious » this sort of translation is, the more acute. In other words, the traditional focus of attention in translation was on the word. It was recognized that that was not a sufficiently large unit, and therefore the focus shifted to the sentence. But again, expert translators and linguists have been able to demonstrate that individual sentences, in turn, are not enough. The focus should be on the paragraph, and to some extent on the total discourse. (Nida and Tabber 1969: 152) From that statement we can see that Nida regards a discourse as something larger than a paragraph, as an article with a beginning and an ending. Nida himself never applied text linguistics to translation, and there might be some confusion if we use his term in our interpretation of discourse, because discourse analysis is not merely a study based on a larger language structure. Some Chinese scholars did make the effort to apply text linguistics to the theory and practice of translation. Wang Bingqin's article (1987) was the first academic paper of this sort. He stated his aim to study and discover the rules governing the internal structure of a text in light of text linguistics. He analyzed numerous examples using textual analysis, but unfortunately, all the samples he collected were descriptions of scenery or quotations from the books of great scholars--no dialogue, no illocutionary or perlocutionary forces in the language. He failed to provide a variety of examples. For this reason, his research findings are largely restricted to rhetorical texts in ancient China (cf. Wang 1981; Luo 1994). Scholars like He Ziran applied pragamatics to translation. He's article (1992) put forth two new terms, « pragmalinguistics » and « socio-pragmatics » which, in translation, refer respectively to « the study of pragmatic force or language use from the viewpoint of linguistic sources » and to « the pragmatic studies which examine the conditions on language use that derive from the social and cultural situation. » He discusses the possibility of applying the pragmatic approach to translation in order to achieve a pragmatic equivalent effect between source and target texts; that is, to reproduce the message carried by the source language itself, as well as the meaning carried by the source language within its context and culture. In this article he tries to distinguish « pragma-linguistics » from « socio-pragmatics » but finally admits that « Actually, a clear line between pragma-linguistics and socio-pragmatics may sometimes be difficult to draw. » Still he insists that the application of the pragmatic approach to translation is helpful and even necessary. Ke Wenli (1992) argued that semantics, which in a broad sense combines semantics and pragmatics, should be studied to help understand, explain and solve some of the problems encountered in translation. In this article, he examines four semantic terms--« sense and reference, » « hyponomy, » « changes of meaning » and « context »--giving many examples to illusrate the importance of having some general knowledge of semantics and of understanding the relationship between semantics and translation. This article is clearly written and readers can easily draw inspiration from it. These linguistics approaches shed new lights on the criteria of « faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance » defined by Yan Fu. Chinese scholars began to criticize the vagueness of these three criteria and endeavored to give them concrete significance through the theories of western linguistics. The result is that the content of these three traditional criteria has been greatly enriched, especially by the effect equivalence theory, which in a broad sense means that the target language should be equivalent to the source language from a semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic point of view. But we are still unable to evaluate translations in a very scientific way. Therefore, Chinese scholars like Fan Shouyi, Xu Shenghuan and Mu Lei embarked on quantitative analyses of translations and used the fuzzy set theory of mathematics in accomplishing their analysis. Fan published several articles on this field of study. His 1987 and 1990 articles evaluate translations according to a numerical quantity of faithfulness. Xu's article « A Mathematical Model for Evaluating a Translation's Quality » presents a normal mathematical model. He states that it is difficult to produce an absolutely accurate evaluation of translations with this model because of the uncertainty and randomness of man's thought process. Making such analysis more accurate and objective would require further research. The unit in translation is a hard nut to crack. Without solving this problem, no research in translation studies will ever be sufficient. To date, very few people have focused their research on this area. Nida holds that the unit should be the sentence, and in a certain sense, the discourse. Barkhudarov (1993: 40), Soviet linguist and translation theorist, suggests that: translation is the process of transforming a speech product (or text) produced in one language into a speech product (or text) in another language. [...] It follows that the most important task of the translator who carries out the process of transformation, and of the theorist who describes or creates a model for that process, is to establish the minimal unit of translation, as it is generally called, the unit of translation in the source text. Though he notes the importance of the unit of translation in a text and considers that this unit can be a unit on any level of language, he fails to point out what a text is and how it might be measured in translation. Halliday's notion of the clause might be significant in this case. To him, a clause is a basic unit. He distinguishes three functions of a clause: textual, interpersonal and ideational. According to Halliday, these functions are not possessed by word or phrase. But he is not quite successful in analyzing the relationship between clause and text (cf. Halliday 1985). In China, some people have tried to solve this problem. Wang Dechun (1987: 10) more or less shares Bakhudarov's view that the translation unit cannot be confined just to sentences. In some ways, the phoneme, word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or even text can all serve as a unit. At this point, we cannot find anything special in treating text translation except for having text as the highest level among translation units. This is not the aim of text linguistics or discourse analysis. If we want to apply these to the theory and practice of translation, we will require a textual approach.