语言学论文摘要模板

应用语言学作为一门独立的新兴学科和语言学的重要构成部分。下文是我为大家整理的关于应用语言学论文的范文，欢迎大家阅读参考!

EQS在应用语言学中的应用

[摘要]EQS是结构方程模型(SEM)的应用软件之一，它能同时分析多变量之间错综复杂的关系，处理非正态分布和缺失值，具有多重拟合指标。近年来，EQS在应用语言学领域应用较少。文章简要归纳了国内外应用语言学中运用EQS的情况，并介绍了EQS的基本操作原理及建模步骤，此外，运用EQS对中学生学习策略、学习观念及自我效能相关性这一实例进行了建模研究，以期为应用语言学和外语教学的研究提供一些借鉴作用。

[关键词]结构方程模型;EQS;应用语言学;学习策略

引言

结构方程模型(SEM，Structural Equation Modeling)是综合因子分析(Factor Analysis)和路径分析(PathAnalysis)来探索研究变数和因子之间因果关系的一种模型，其最大的特点是应用变量的协方差矩阵(Covariance Matrix)来同时分析多种变量间交错复杂的关系，即利用各潜在的观测因子来探讨因果关系的隐含结构，而传统的线性回归分析只能提供变量间的直接效应而不能显示可能存在的间接效应，以及回避了因共线性而导致出现单项指标与总体出现负相关等无法解释的数据分析结果。结构方程模型最初起源于心理学，后被广泛应用到其他研究领域，例如社会学、经济学、市场分析、应用语言学等。目前应用较为广泛的SEM软件有AMOS、LISREL、EzPATH、EQS等。

一、EQS综述

EQS(Structural Equation Modeling Software)是1986年由Peter M。Bentler开发的一种统计软件。其基本思路为：基于专业理论知识，构建一个关于一组变量间相互关系的假设理论模型。自变量数值通过测量所得，并形成一个自变量协方差矩阵，即样本矩阵。EQS对样本矩阵与假设理论矩阵进行拟合度的检测，若能较好地满足拟合度标准，则说明此假设模型成立;否则，就需要对该假设理论模型反复调整修正以提高拟合度，直至获得较理想的模型为止;若拟合度仍然未达到理想状态，则该否定此假设理论模型。

国外将EQS应用于语言学的研究主要侧重于学习者个体因素研究以及语言测试研究等，前者如Sasaki和Noels分别探讨了二语水平、外语学能及智力间的关系和学习者目标与教师交际能力问的相关性：后者主要有Purpura测试了西班牙语测试因素结构，Stevens探寻了认知及元认知策略与二语测试的关系。此外，在外语教学中的应用有Lee研究了英语写作的有利及不利因素;Gorsuch还将EQS应用在外语教育政策的研究中。

国内这方面的研究仍处于起步阶段，且主要侧重于语言测试。刘宝权、郭晓群较为系统地介绍了EQS在语言评估中的应用。邹申、孙海洋等利用EQS分别对TEM8人文知识部分和职前中学英语教师口语考试进行构念效度验证。彭康洲、李清华应用项目反应理论借助EQS分析2007年TEM4听力理解项目的质量。侯艳萍借助EQS探讨了可能对TEM4阅读理解任务难度产生影响的阅读任务特征变量，其中包括变量的种类、数量、它们的内部因子构念和测量属性以及各个因子贡献率大小。

纵观国内应用语言学研究，研究者多使用LISREL和AMOS，EQS还未全面吸引国内应用语言学研究者的视线。但笔者在实践中发现相对于前两种传统软件而言，EQS灵活性更高，允许自变量有测量误差，变量间可存在协方差;对原始数据可进行直接加工;此外还可分析非多元正态分布，它能更准确地处理更大容量模型，这将为研究者带来更大的便捷。

二、EQS基本概念

包含有两类变量，两种模型和两种路径。两类变量指潜在变量(Latent Variable)和观测变量(Observed Variable)前者为不可直接测量的非观测变量(Unobserved Variable)，又称因子，它通常通过多个外显或可观测指标间接推算;后者是通过测量、观测可直接获得的原始数据，又称指标。在EQS路径图中圆形表示潜在变量或因子，长方形表示观测变量或指标。

两种模型即测量模型和结构模型。测量模型(Measurement Model)指观测变量和潜在变量间的关系模型，即指标和因子间的关系模型。结构模型(Structural Model)指潜在变量之间的关系模型。并不是所有的实际应用中都同时存在两种模型，例如在验证性因子分析中，可能只出现包含观测变量和潜在变量的测量模型。

两种路径为自变量(Independent Variable)和因变量(Dependent Variable)之间的路径，以及因变量和因变量之间的路径。在EQS描绘的路径图中，单向箭头表示一个变量直接影响另一个变量，如潜在变量指向指标的单向箭头表示因子负荷，直接指向指标的单向箭头表示潜在变量的误差;双向弧形箭头表示两个变量可能相关;潜在自变量不应有箭头指向，所有指向潜在因变量的箭头来自潜在自变量或其他潜在因变量。

三、EQS的建模步骤

根据Bollen和Long的研究，结构方程建模具有五个步骤：(1)模型构建(Model Specification)、(2)模型识别(ModelIdentification)、(3)模型估算(Model Estimation)、(4)模型拟合(Testing Model Fit)、(5)模型重构(Model Re-Specification)。

1.模型构建

在该步骤，研究者要在已有的理论和专业基础上确定具体的模型，通过EQS模型图和方程来表达该模型各变量间的相互关系，根据各变量对模型的路径参数进行模型估算，查看并评估各因子、潜在变量间的各种关系，并通过数据检验模型整体的拟合度。 2.模型识别

Kunnan认为在模型识别阶段会时会出现三种情况：(1)模型不可识别(Under-identified)，即不能从协方差矩阵中估算出一个或多个参数的情况;(2)模型正好识别(Just-identified)，可估算出所有参数的情况;(3)模型超识别(Over-identified)，可有不止一种方法估算出所有参数的情况。因参数估算计值不稳定，模型识别不足的情况不能信赖。只有增加制约参数，才可达到正好识别或超识别这两种可以接受的模型。

3.模型估计

根据自变量的方差协方差模型估算所有参数的估计值，使模型再生矩阵与样本协方差矩阵间的差异渐进最吻合状态。目前最常用的估算方法是最大似然法，要求数据等距且多变量正态分布。EQS系统有个强韧选项(Robust Option)生成Satorra-Benfle卡方值，可获得一个比其他统计量更接近的分布。即使分布假设不能满足，出现非多元正态分布，强韧标准误在大样本中也可接受。EQS为所有变量、因子及变量因子间的误差设定了标准，从而固定了参数，获得新的估算值。

4.模型拟合

模型拟合是检测假设模型矩阵与样本矩阵在多大程度上的拟合，即检测模型的拟合度。因其中一个重要统计指标卡方值较敏感，容易受到样本大小的影响，所以在实际操作中还得考虑样本数据大小对模型拟合度所产生的影响。根据以往的研究经验，理想模型拟合度的参照标准如表1。

5.模型重构

若模型拟合度与各标准量范围差异较大或个别指标不理想，则该模型构建有误，需重构。重构时需检验两组估计值：第一组为具有显著意义的参数估计值，将没有显著意义的参数估计值设为0，但需在足够的专业理论基础上才可进行。第二组为残余值矩阵，若个别变量残余值较大，如大于或等于，则该变量未设定好;若较多变量残余值都较大，则该模型整体构建有误。在此过程中EQS系统的LM-检验和W-检验功能可对模型重构提供进一步的帮助信息。但每个参数及变量之间的相互关系非常密切，任何一处的改动都可能对总体模型产生较大的影响。因而每个参数的调整都需重新估算，得出新的模型拟合指数，直至获得最终的理想模型为止。

四、EQS在应用语言学中的应用实例

笔者曾运用EQS研究了中学生英语学习策略、学习观念和自我效能的相关性，下文将予以展示。本研究首先通过问卷调查的方式对某中学109名高二被试者进行测试。问卷由三部分组成：第一部分是Oxford设计的《英语学习策略量表》，它由记忆策略、认知策略、补偿策略、元认知策略、情感策略、社会策略等6个要素50个项目组成;第二部分是Horwitz设计的《语言学习观念调查表》，包含外语学能、语言学习难度、语言学习性质、学习与交际策略、动机观念等5个要素34个项目;第三部分是德国心理学家Schwarzer和Jerusalem设计的《自我效能量表》，包含1个要素10个项目。

收集了调查数据后，我们运用EQS对数据进行分析。首先打开EQS界面，新建一个原始数据库文件，设定应变量名称及数目，输入原始数据。三个量表所测量的12个要素为自变量，学习策略、学习观念和学习效能不可直接测量，需通过各量表12个要素间接测量，则为潜在变量。其次，对EQS作包括描述性分析、回归分析、相关分析、因子分析、误差分析在内的描述性统计，以观察样本整体情况。然后对EQS作验证性统计，即因子模型统计分析。根据已有的专业知识，构建初始模型如图1。

EQS运行后所得各拟合指数结果见表2。

按理想模型拟合度的参照标准，该模型并未达到可接受的理想模型程度。根据二语习得中学习策略、学习观念及自我效能的有关理论和最大标准化残差(Largest Standardized Residuals)所提供的修正指数(参见表3)，通过设定自由参数和在模型的多组误差间增添多条双向箭头的路径以建立相应误差变量间的协方差矩阵，反复修正之后得到较理想的模型(如图2)。修正模型拟合效果指标如表4，该模型拟合度较高，可接受。

学习策略、学习观念和自我效能之间具有高度的相关性，但各自的路径强度却有所区别。相对于自我效能而言，学习观念对学习策略的影响更大(>)。学习策略、观念及效能的各个因素相互之间也具有不同程度的相关性，所以在平时的英语教学和学习中，既要在整体上注意对学习策略的选择、加强对学习观念的引导，注重对自我效能的提高，又要对具体的学习策略如补偿策略、记忆策略、认知策略以及语言难度和学习动机等方面有充分的认知，才能更有效地引导学习者的英语学习。

五、结语

本文介绍了EQS统计软件的基本操作原理及步骤，并通过对中学生英语学习策略、观念及自我效能间相关性的模型构建、拟合、重构、修正等过程，最终创建出满足各项指标的修正模型。结果发现学习策略、学习观念和自我效能之间高度相关，但相关强度有差异。学习者较多使用补偿、认知、记忆策略，较少使用社会策略。观念的学能和动机对学习策略的影响较大。在结构方程模型软件中，EQS更易操作，灵活性更高，能更准确地处理大容量多维度变量模型，尤其在处理非正态分布和有缺失值数据中效果良好，且允许变量测量误差和协方差的存在。EQS评估模型拟合指标的多重性可以为应用语言学中多因素间多维量化提供更准确、科学、直观的信息，具有广阔的应用前景。

应用语言学质化研究发展综述

【摘要】1960年开始，应用语言学作为一门独立的新兴学科和语言学的重要构成部分，应用语言学除了涉及语言教学外，还涉及结合语言和心理学、自然和社会等学科。而应用语言学质化研究逐渐成为人们关注的焦点。由于我国应用语言学质化研究的方式较为生疏，与量化研究相比要落后。因此，本文通过简要介绍应用语言学，对应用语言学质化研究遇到的问题进行分析，并针对应用语言学质化研究方式及重点方向进行了阐述。

【关键词】应用语言学;质化研究;发展

在应用语言学中，量化与质化问的差别在于它们主、客观的不同，以及文字和数字的不同等。这种差异间的研究主要是针对知识本质和本质问理解与信念的不同研究范式。这两种范式占据着后实证主义、解释主义地位。随着应用语言学的深入研究，质化研究方式主要有：语篇分析和个人叙述、人种志和专题陈述，以及互动分析等。例如：日记和传记研究、访谈和课堂互动分析等。新世纪的到来使应用语言学研究偏向量与质方式的融合和巩固。

一、应用语言学

19世纪初，语言理论方面的研究和应用方面的研究开始分化。19世纪叶末，.博杜恩·德·库尔德内提出了应用语言学这个概念，但没有得到广泛的注意。20世纪以后，语言科学得到了进一步的发展，应用范围空前扩大，语言应用方面的研究和理论方面的研究明确地区分开来，应用语言学这个名词开始广泛运用，并促成了应用语言学和理论语言学的分化。

从广义的角度来分析，应用语言学主要是将语言学的知识在其它学科领域问题解决中得以应用。换句话来说，就是跨学科实现问题的解决。

从狭义的角度来分析，应用语言学主要是专门的语言教学，尤其是外语和第二语言的教学。其应用的知识有：语言理论与描述、相关语言学科，以及相关语言教学学科。主要涉及语言的模式，描绘语音和语法、语义和语用，及词汇等，在语言学边缘的学科，以及一些不是语言学，但与语言学教育学紧密联系的学科。

二、应用语言学质化研究遇到的问题

时代的发展必然对应用语言学的研究有着不断扩大与变换的影响。由于应用语言学具有跨科学性和实验性，以及开放性，因此，应用语言学质化研究所遇到的问题更具挑战性。

其一，在应用语言学质化研究中，由于相关学科知识的缺乏，使语言学质化研究受到严重的阻碍。例如：很多从事英汉语言教学的工作者和教师，常常因为自己对英、汉知识的缺乏，而放弃该领域的发展，因而影响到语言学科的发展。标准语的建立和规范化，文字的创制和改革。建立通用于各方言区的标准语是很重要的。应用语言学要解决的问题是如何选好这种标准语的基础方言和标准音。为无文字的语言创制文字时，基础方言和标准音更是重要的依据。文字改革包括文字系统(字母表、正词法和标点符号)的部分改进和彻底更换。标准语的建立只是语言规范化的开始。为了确定语音、语法、词汇规范，需要编出相应的正音词典、规范语法和各种类型的词典。

其二，应用语言学作为新的学科，它在理论基础上还不够完善，使质化研究的任务更为艰巨。尽管我国许多学者对应用语言学质化的研究有了一定的理论成果，但是应用语言学是否加大理论范式的建构，任然需要以多学科做后盾的理论研究。词汇是语言中变化最快的部分，新词新义不断涌现。及时、准确地把这些新词新义固定在词典中，指导人们如何运用，这是辞书对语言规范化最有效的影响。

三、应用语言学质化研究方式及重点方向

1、应用语言学质化研究方式

在应用语言学质化研究方式中，主要有：语篇分析和个人叙述、人种志和专题陈述，以及互动分析等。其中，语篇分析和个种志是目前语言教学研究中使用最多的。

其一，语篇分析。语篇分析主要是通过对真实口语语篇进行考察的一种研究，始于社会学，例如：在第二语言习得和口语测试，及技巧等教学方面研究中都有展现。语篇分析者是种处于兴趣的社交行为，而语言学者是以研究语言本身为重点的行为。语篇分析者认为语言是与语用结合的系统，它将语法和词汇等都作为可操纵的资源。总的来说，其语篇分析的对象主要是在交际中有秩序、有组织的交谈，确保社交行为的顺利进行。也可以视为站在交际者的角度，将社交行为进行发现和描述。突出内在机制。一般来说，语篇分析主要是利用语篇样本中的示例，描述和追踪交际的优势、分析和理解，已达成共识。其质化思想：交际中的秩序与以往的主导观点和研究的方向与目的完全相反;交际的过程真实语料誉写和分析不可缺少;分析的方式必须有实证资料的理论。

在以往应用语言质化语篇分析发展的最初阶段，只能通过录音的方式记录下口语语言资料，随着时代的发展，口语语言资料开始有图片和视频，以及非语言式的交际资料。根据语篇分析研究表明，语言学界开始对非语言线索的详细记录产生了争执。尤其是技术的发展与语篇分析的结合，技术的不断影响着语篇分析研究。

其二，人种志。人种志主要是对某文化群体的行为和语言，以及互动等进行的深度研究，属于人类学，并与自然学紧密联系，例如：深入发现人们的实际所做与应该做之间存在的矛盾等。在研究前详细描绘了研究对象的文化背景。在研究的同时，研究者必须与群体保持一定的认知距离，为了更准确的获取客观性。同时研究者必须反思自身所存在不同假想，以保持客观研究的态度。在自然背景下对群体的形体和表述进行研究，并深入群体，利用各种不同的方式对研究的资料进行采集、实验。其研究资料来源于非结构式的访谈。涉及的研究规模较小，数据分析通常涉及研究人员研究对象本身各自的行为意义的理解和解释。

2、应用语言学质化研究的重点方向

应用语言学质化研究的重点方向在于对教学方式与教师认知的研究。前者教师对交际教学观念和方法层见叠出，但结果是不一样的。除此之外，在听、说、读、写等教学方面研究中质化的应用也很普遍。在写作上，进行访谈和记录、日志和观察等采集的方式。听力上，以听力策略和技巧为主，融合了量与质。例如：Markee通过小组方式巧妙进行了非任务交谈，并且顺利进行任务与非任务交谈之间的变换。后者，由于教师是思考和积极的决策者，教学主要建立在实际导向和背景等不同思想和知识上的研究。

其认知研究内容一般为：教师认知和教育、认知和课堂教学，以及认知和语言学习等。虽然研究方式，出现了问卷为主的量化研究，但是绝大多教师认知都是利用质化研究。在教师认知研究中，量化和质化间主要出现争议的问题，量化研究多依靠问卷的方式来认知，并没通过实际考察因此受到批评。而质化研究利用回忆解说和启发式回顾、书面形式，以及课堂观察和访谈等进行资料的收集。同时，为抓住到隐形的认知过程，还需更进一步的研究。

总而言之，在应用语言学质化研究中，我国在提倡科学超越经验研究的同时，还要重视实证主义存在的缺陷，将质化研究进行规范，避免出现对学术范式的影响。虽然应用语言学质化研究在我国地位并不牢固，但是，在国外的研究中，已经占有牢固的地位。因此，就针对我国外语的语言质化研究来说，在掌握实践和质化方式的前提下，对混合方式的思考和时间应用，将对我国应用语言质化研究具有非常重要的意义。

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.

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。