英语语言学论文_英语专业的毕业论文，语言学方向如何选题 _生活经验

英语语言学论文转摘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.
英语语言学毕业论文哪些题目好写？由于信息技术的发展,计算机得到了广泛的多层次的应用,尤
其是在教育领域内的应用计算机辅助学习、计算机辅助教学和计算机辅助测试等。计算机硬件技术的发展和应用与教学和测试的软件系统的开发催生了大量的帮助学
生学习的“语言学习中心”和建设有测试题库的“语言测试中心” 。然而,这些中心的题库大部分是为学生的语言技能而建设的,比如听、说、读、写等,尽管目前
语言测试中对学生书面表达的测试和评分技术尚处于开发阶段,各种写作的评分手段都在探索中。像“英语语言学”这样的知识理论课题库还较为少见,对于这门课
程怎样教和学的讨论,自从1987和1988年的“关于《语言学引论》的教学的自由论坛”以来就很少出现。因此,本文作者付出艰辛的劳动,建设了“英语语
言学题库”(ELIB) 。本文是对该题库建设和应用的描述。该题库的理论依据是经典测试理论(CTT)、项目反应理论(IRT)和计算机自测试理论
(CAT)等测试理论和认知学习理论。其目的是帮助学生学习《英语语言学》这门课程,增强他们对语言的认知能力和运用语言理论解决语言问题的能力。
该题库
初步建设了一千多道试题,分为选择、填空、判断、名词解释和问答等五种题型,组成一张CD光盘或网络学习测试系统。不能用网络的学生或老师可以通过个人电
脑的光盘驱动器进行学习和组题测试；那些可以利用网络的学生或老师可以通过互联网注册后学习或组题测试。这样就可以减轻老师的负担、逐步提高学生的语言学
学习能力。
参考文献
[1] 蓝纯.本科生“语言学导论”课程的评估与反思(英文)[J]. Teaching English in China.
2007(06)
[2] 孔文,邹申.语料库在语言测试中的应用[J]. 外语电化教学.
2007(04)
[3] 杨端和.大学英语四、六级考试语料库建设分析[J]. 外语电化教学.
2007(01)
[4] 邓文英.基于语料库的中国大学生动/名词搭配研究(英文)[J]. 成都信息工程学院学报.
2005(06)
[5] 马广惠.基于语料库的小说文体学研究[J]. 常熟理工学院学报.
2005(05)
[6] 杨端和.外语考试的计算机语料库建设[J]. 云南民族大学学报(哲学社会科学版).
2005(04)
[7] 梁茂成.利用WordPilot在外语教学中自建小型语料库[J]. 外语电化教学.
2003(06)
关于英语语言学的论文【英语语言学论文_英语专业的毕业论文，语言学方向如何选题】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。
英语语言学论文有哪些常见的题目Causes of Chinglish from the Differencesbetween Chinese and English Thinking
从汉英思维差异看中式英语的成因
The Influence of Chinese Thinking on the English Expression of Chinese Students
汉语思维对中国学生英语表达的影响
A Study of Chinglish in Translation of Public Signs
公示语翻译中的中式英语现象研究
Cultivating Students' Humanistic Quality inEnglish and American LiteratureStudying
浅析英美文学学习中大学生人文素养的形成
The Application of Intertexuality in Advertising Translation
互文性在广告翻译中的应用
The Influence of Cooperative Principle on Teaching and Learning of English and American Literature
合作原则对英美文学教与学的影响
英语语言学毕业论文哪些题目好写选题注意事项：
1，选你自己感兴趣的题目，毕业论文是个浩大的工程，要是不能写自己想写的，相信我，在这漫长的写作时间里，你会相当痛苦的。
2，题目不能太大，也不能太小，否则不好驾驭。最好是那种“从小角度看大问题”的题目。例如，我写一部电影，电影体现了中美文化差异，分别有婚姻观，家庭教育观等。但是我以一部电影为出发点，这个角度就比较小，也不容易和别人雷同，不是被写滥了的题目。
3，题目要好找资料的，所以内容不可能完完全全出自“自己”，于是就要大量的从网上，参考书上，图书馆搬来。所以最好就是找参考资料比较多的题目，切忌是参考，不是照搬。
部分选题参考：
1
从《远离尘嚣》看偶然与巧合
2
从亨伯特看纳博科夫的流亡观
3
透过餐具看中西方饮食文化
4
从女性主义角度解读《太阳照常升起》中的女主角——勃莱特
5
从文化视角探讨隐喻的翻译
6
从生态批评角度看威廉·福克纳的《熊》中人与自然的关系
7
从功能对等角度分析常用英语修辞格汉译
8
任务型语言教学法的优势
9
自我身份的探寻—评拉尔夫·埃里森《看不见的人》
10
浅析英文报纸中体育新闻用语的模糊修辞
11
从电影《肖申克的救赎》和《当幸福来敲门》中探究美国人的个人主义
12
中美恭维言语行为跨文化比较研究
13
表现主义技巧在《推销员之死》中的运用
英语专业的毕业论文，语言学方向如何选题一、英语语言学毕业论文题目： 1、中西语言方式对比 2、词汇学 3、近代英语语言的衍变二、英语语言学课程由三个知识模块组成:理论启蒙、基础理论、研究方法。理论启蒙模块内容涉及英语的词汇知识、语音知识、语法知识、修辞知识、语体知识