顺应理论在口译中的应用研究
|
摘要
21世纪的经济文化呈现全球发展的态势,随着国际性学术交流的蓬勃发展,口译作为各领域内国际交流与合作的重要途径和桥梁,在当前起着越来越重要的作用。口译研究和教学也方兴未艾,并有蓬勃发展之势。口译研究和语用学、心理学,社会学、翻译学、认知学等各学科广泛结合,跨学科研究的趋势越来越突出。
在口译过程中,译员作为交际双方的中介,必需根据发言人与受话者的话意在理解的基础上选择合适双方的语言表达习惯,使译语再现原语的所有意义,达到双方顺畅无阻的交际目的。本研究从语用学的角度去研究口译。根据比利时国际语用学秘书长Jef.Verschueren在其Understanding Pragmatics一书中提到了的顺应性理论(Theory of Adaptation),语言使用者在使用语言的过程中做出种种恰当的选择,是因为语言具有变异性、协商性和顺应性。变异性指人类语言是可以选择的,口译的语言要选择才能合适地表达原语意义。协商性则要求口译的语言选择不是机械地转译原语,而是在高度灵活的原则和策略下做出的选择,使译语合适现场语境、双方的可接受性等。译语要顺应语境因素,顺应原语的语言结构成分,顺应口译的动态过程,而且这一顺应选择是有意识的认知过程。本研究根据顺应理论所提出的语言的三大特征,从语言环境、非语言环境两大类来探讨理解如何实现口译中语境关系的顺应,更好地提高语言使用的质量以达到成功交际的目的。
本研究从顺应理论的角度,分析了口译过程中语境的适应。1)顺应语言环境。在口译活动中,译员只有把握住语言环境,选择合适得体的词,符合语言环境在语音、语义、语法上的要求,才能准确传达讲话人的意图和话语信息。2)顺应非语言环境。其中主要是顺应文化环境、心理环境和物理环境(情景环境)。在文化交流性很强的口译活动中,口译译员需要深厚的中外文化知识,口译进程中应选择得体的策略来实现文化语境的适应,达到双方交际的目的。同时,口译又是个场合性很强的工作,而且涉及内容范围广,所以口译译员要根据不同的口译场合,顺应情景环境。
本研究尝试证实顺应理论与翻译及口译的密切关系及语言的选择和语言的顺应是分不开的。翻译正如顺应论所指出的是连续不断选取的过程。口译的语言只有选择才能适合原语意义,只有顺应译语才能得体。
本研究以问卷调查、访谈与现场口译有声资料为案例,根据顺应论的概念、原则对口译中的语境适应进行了探讨研究。以定性分析为主,定量分析为辅对具体案例进行了剖析并发现被调查者均有意识或潜意识地在口译活动中应用了顺用理论的原则、策略,并注意到外语水平越高的译员、学生,其应用顺应论的频率越频繁。
总之,本研究尝试从语用学及跨学科的角度探讨了顺应理论在口译活动中的应用与价值,对其概念、原则等进行了系统梳理,为翻译,尤其是口译的理论研究开创了一个新的视角,所列的实际例证,对口译研究与教学实践有一定参考借鉴的价值。
Along with the economic and cultural globalization in the 21st century and the flourishing of international academic communication, there are greater demands for more qualified interpreters. Interpreting, which serves as a very important means and bridge in international exchange and cooperation in different fields, is now playing a vital role. Interpreting research and teaching have developed by leaps and bounds. Researches on interpreting have become more and more cross-disciplined, integrating with pragmatic, psychological, cognitive, linguistic and translational studies.
Interpreting is generally regarded as translational activity, as a special form of 'Translation'. Interpreting is an ancient human practice which clearly predates the invention of writing and (written) translation. Within the conceptual structure of translation, interpreting can be distinguished from other types of translational activity most succinctly by its immediacy; in principle, interpreting is performed 'here and now' for the benefit of people who want to engage in communication across barriers of language and culture. Kade (1971:12) defined interpreting as a form of translation in which
—the source-language text is presented only once and thus cannot be reviewed or replayed, and
—the target-language text is produced under time pressure, with little change for correction and revision.
In the process of interpreting, an interpreter will precisely convey the speaker's attempt and information to the listener(s) if only he could adapt himself to the context and choose the right words and expressions. These choices can be made at any level of linguistic forms: phonological, morphological, syntactic, lexical or semantic with the consideration of contextual and cultural factors.
Although interpreting is an ancient human practice, it appears that, through the ages, up to the twentieth century, it was usually considered too 'common' and unspectacular to deserve special mention. One reason is that interpreting is a form of translation in which a first and final rendition in another language is produced on the basis of a one-time presentation of an utterance in a source language. Nevertheless, there is some fascinating evidence of the role and status of interpreters in both history and the present world. In the early twentieth century, the first major wave of professionalization of interpreting took shape.
This dissertation is an attempt on the study of interpreting from the perspective of Theory of Adaptation initiated in 1987 and then developed in the 1990s by Jef. Verschueren, the head of Belgium Pragmatics Association, in his book Understanding Pragmatics. Adaptation Theory claims that language use consists of the continuous making of choices, consciously or unconsciously. Verschueren views language production and language comprehension from a new perspective and adopts an approach to language that takes into account the full complexity of its cognitive, social and cultural functioning. It aims at providing a systematic and all-round interpretation for the dynamic process of language use from the angle of adaptation. Linguistic choices, according to Verschueren, are generated in the correlation of mental, social and physical worlds and the utterers may make adaptive choices at various levels in order to satisfy their communicative needs and achieve their communicative ends.
The reason why language users are able to make continuous and appropriate choices in the communication process is that language itself has three properties: variability, negotiability and adaptability.
Variability is 'the property of language which defines the range of possibilities from which choices can be made' (Verschueren, 1999). Verschueren maintains that the range of possible choices cannot be seen as anything static or stable, it is constantly changing. In the process of communication, language users may rule out alternatives or create new ones for particular purposes.
Negotiabilityis 'the property of language responsible for the fact that choices are not made mechanically or according to strict rules or fixed form-function relationships, but rather on the basis of highly flexible principles and strategies' (Verschueren, 1999). That is to say, the continuous making of linguistic choices is driven by highly flexible principles and strategies for purposes of communication.
Adaptability is 'the property of language which enables human beings to make negotiable linguistic choices from a variable range of possibilities in such a way as to approach points of satisfaction for communicative needs' (Verschueren, 1999). The choices may be made in accordance with pre-existent circumstances, and circumstances also get changed by, or adapted to, the choices that are made.
These three interrelated properties, Verschueren argues, serve as a conceptual tool to come to an investigation for and understandings of linguistic pragmatics.
In the dissertation, the author has made an effort to explore and analyze the application of adaptation in both the linguistic and non-linguistic contexts of interpreting in light of the three language properties put forward by Verschueren.
As Malinowski(1993) suggests that utterance "becomes only intelligible when it is placed within its context of situation." Interpretation in essence, a communicative activity, only takes place in a special context. Due to its extemporariness, interpretation is more dependent on the context and the study of relations between contextual adaptation and interpretation should gain its due attention.
This dissertation attempts to analyze the contextual adaptation in interpreting from the perspective of Theory of Adaptation. First of all, the dissertation explores the analysis of linguistic adaptation, In interpretation, interpreters have to take into account the linguistic context, by choosing appropriate expressions in line with the requirements of phonetics, semantics and grammar in order to convey precisely the information to the listeners. Secondly, the dissertation focuses on the analysis of adaptation of non-linguistic context, including mainly the cultural, mental and physical (situational) context. Interpreting is not only an inter-lingual activity, but also a process of cultural exchange, i.e. a kind of intercultural communication. Therefore, interpreters are expected to possess a profound knowledge and awareness of both oriental and occidental cultures to adapt their interpreting to various cultural contexts by the application of different strategies. Interpreters need to adapt to a great variety of situational contexts because interpreting is also an activity of high situational context and covers a wide area of professions.
The author of this dissertation tries his hand at proving the fact that adaptation theory has a strong bearing on translation and particularly interpreting, and the making of language choice and language adaptation are inseparable. Interpreting is a continuous process of making choices. The selection of the appropriate words and expressions of the interpreted language must adapt to certain cultural, mental and physical aspects for the sake of attaining the highest equivalents between source language and target language.
This dissertation analyzes questionnaires, interviews and on-spot interpreting tests according to the concepts and principles of Adaptation Theory and intends to probe into the contextual adaptation in interpreting. This dissertation also expounds some specific cases with qualitative and quantitative study methods and finds out that the subjects consciously or sub-consciously apply strategies of adaptation theory in their interpreting and the more advanced the language learners, the more frequently they count on the application of adaptation theory.
In summary, this dissertation has made an effort in the exploration of the application and the evaluation of adaptation theory in interpreting from the pragmatic and cross-discipline angles. This dissertation has provided a new arena for the research on interpreting theory and the included case study deserves some merits in the research and instruction of interpreting.
在口译过程中,译员作为交际双方的中介,必需根据发言人与受话者的话意在理解的基础上选择合适双方的语言表达习惯,使译语再现原语的所有意义,达到双方顺畅无阻的交际目的。本研究从语用学的角度去研究口译。根据比利时国际语用学秘书长Jef.Verschueren在其Understanding Pragmatics一书中提到了的顺应性理论(Theory of Adaptation),语言使用者在使用语言的过程中做出种种恰当的选择,是因为语言具有变异性、协商性和顺应性。变异性指人类语言是可以选择的,口译的语言要选择才能合适地表达原语意义。协商性则要求口译的语言选择不是机械地转译原语,而是在高度灵活的原则和策略下做出的选择,使译语合适现场语境、双方的可接受性等。译语要顺应语境因素,顺应原语的语言结构成分,顺应口译的动态过程,而且这一顺应选择是有意识的认知过程。本研究根据顺应理论所提出的语言的三大特征,从语言环境、非语言环境两大类来探讨理解如何实现口译中语境关系的顺应,更好地提高语言使用的质量以达到成功交际的目的。
本研究从顺应理论的角度,分析了口译过程中语境的适应。1)顺应语言环境。在口译活动中,译员只有把握住语言环境,选择合适得体的词,符合语言环境在语音、语义、语法上的要求,才能准确传达讲话人的意图和话语信息。2)顺应非语言环境。其中主要是顺应文化环境、心理环境和物理环境(情景环境)。在文化交流性很强的口译活动中,口译译员需要深厚的中外文化知识,口译进程中应选择得体的策略来实现文化语境的适应,达到双方交际的目的。同时,口译又是个场合性很强的工作,而且涉及内容范围广,所以口译译员要根据不同的口译场合,顺应情景环境。
本研究尝试证实顺应理论与翻译及口译的密切关系及语言的选择和语言的顺应是分不开的。翻译正如顺应论所指出的是连续不断选取的过程。口译的语言只有选择才能适合原语意义,只有顺应译语才能得体。
本研究以问卷调查、访谈与现场口译有声资料为案例,根据顺应论的概念、原则对口译中的语境适应进行了探讨研究。以定性分析为主,定量分析为辅对具体案例进行了剖析并发现被调查者均有意识或潜意识地在口译活动中应用了顺用理论的原则、策略,并注意到外语水平越高的译员、学生,其应用顺应论的频率越频繁。
总之,本研究尝试从语用学及跨学科的角度探讨了顺应理论在口译活动中的应用与价值,对其概念、原则等进行了系统梳理,为翻译,尤其是口译的理论研究开创了一个新的视角,所列的实际例证,对口译研究与教学实践有一定参考借鉴的价值。
Along with the economic and cultural globalization in the 21st century and the flourishing of international academic communication, there are greater demands for more qualified interpreters. Interpreting, which serves as a very important means and bridge in international exchange and cooperation in different fields, is now playing a vital role. Interpreting research and teaching have developed by leaps and bounds. Researches on interpreting have become more and more cross-disciplined, integrating with pragmatic, psychological, cognitive, linguistic and translational studies.
Interpreting is generally regarded as translational activity, as a special form of 'Translation'. Interpreting is an ancient human practice which clearly predates the invention of writing and (written) translation. Within the conceptual structure of translation, interpreting can be distinguished from other types of translational activity most succinctly by its immediacy; in principle, interpreting is performed 'here and now' for the benefit of people who want to engage in communication across barriers of language and culture. Kade (1971:12) defined interpreting as a form of translation in which
—the source-language text is presented only once and thus cannot be reviewed or replayed, and
—the target-language text is produced under time pressure, with little change for correction and revision.
In the process of interpreting, an interpreter will precisely convey the speaker's attempt and information to the listener(s) if only he could adapt himself to the context and choose the right words and expressions. These choices can be made at any level of linguistic forms: phonological, morphological, syntactic, lexical or semantic with the consideration of contextual and cultural factors.
Although interpreting is an ancient human practice, it appears that, through the ages, up to the twentieth century, it was usually considered too 'common' and unspectacular to deserve special mention. One reason is that interpreting is a form of translation in which a first and final rendition in another language is produced on the basis of a one-time presentation of an utterance in a source language. Nevertheless, there is some fascinating evidence of the role and status of interpreters in both history and the present world. In the early twentieth century, the first major wave of professionalization of interpreting took shape.
This dissertation is an attempt on the study of interpreting from the perspective of Theory of Adaptation initiated in 1987 and then developed in the 1990s by Jef. Verschueren, the head of Belgium Pragmatics Association, in his book Understanding Pragmatics. Adaptation Theory claims that language use consists of the continuous making of choices, consciously or unconsciously. Verschueren views language production and language comprehension from a new perspective and adopts an approach to language that takes into account the full complexity of its cognitive, social and cultural functioning. It aims at providing a systematic and all-round interpretation for the dynamic process of language use from the angle of adaptation. Linguistic choices, according to Verschueren, are generated in the correlation of mental, social and physical worlds and the utterers may make adaptive choices at various levels in order to satisfy their communicative needs and achieve their communicative ends.
The reason why language users are able to make continuous and appropriate choices in the communication process is that language itself has three properties: variability, negotiability and adaptability.
Variability is 'the property of language which defines the range of possibilities from which choices can be made' (Verschueren, 1999). Verschueren maintains that the range of possible choices cannot be seen as anything static or stable, it is constantly changing. In the process of communication, language users may rule out alternatives or create new ones for particular purposes.
Negotiabilityis 'the property of language responsible for the fact that choices are not made mechanically or according to strict rules or fixed form-function relationships, but rather on the basis of highly flexible principles and strategies' (Verschueren, 1999). That is to say, the continuous making of linguistic choices is driven by highly flexible principles and strategies for purposes of communication.
Adaptability is 'the property of language which enables human beings to make negotiable linguistic choices from a variable range of possibilities in such a way as to approach points of satisfaction for communicative needs' (Verschueren, 1999). The choices may be made in accordance with pre-existent circumstances, and circumstances also get changed by, or adapted to, the choices that are made.
These three interrelated properties, Verschueren argues, serve as a conceptual tool to come to an investigation for and understandings of linguistic pragmatics.
In the dissertation, the author has made an effort to explore and analyze the application of adaptation in both the linguistic and non-linguistic contexts of interpreting in light of the three language properties put forward by Verschueren.
As Malinowski(1993) suggests that utterance "becomes only intelligible when it is placed within its context of situation." Interpretation in essence, a communicative activity, only takes place in a special context. Due to its extemporariness, interpretation is more dependent on the context and the study of relations between contextual adaptation and interpretation should gain its due attention.
This dissertation attempts to analyze the contextual adaptation in interpreting from the perspective of Theory of Adaptation. First of all, the dissertation explores the analysis of linguistic adaptation, In interpretation, interpreters have to take into account the linguistic context, by choosing appropriate expressions in line with the requirements of phonetics, semantics and grammar in order to convey precisely the information to the listeners. Secondly, the dissertation focuses on the analysis of adaptation of non-linguistic context, including mainly the cultural, mental and physical (situational) context. Interpreting is not only an inter-lingual activity, but also a process of cultural exchange, i.e. a kind of intercultural communication. Therefore, interpreters are expected to possess a profound knowledge and awareness of both oriental and occidental cultures to adapt their interpreting to various cultural contexts by the application of different strategies. Interpreters need to adapt to a great variety of situational contexts because interpreting is also an activity of high situational context and covers a wide area of professions.
The author of this dissertation tries his hand at proving the fact that adaptation theory has a strong bearing on translation and particularly interpreting, and the making of language choice and language adaptation are inseparable. Interpreting is a continuous process of making choices. The selection of the appropriate words and expressions of the interpreted language must adapt to certain cultural, mental and physical aspects for the sake of attaining the highest equivalents between source language and target language.
This dissertation analyzes questionnaires, interviews and on-spot interpreting tests according to the concepts and principles of Adaptation Theory and intends to probe into the contextual adaptation in interpreting. This dissertation also expounds some specific cases with qualitative and quantitative study methods and finds out that the subjects consciously or sub-consciously apply strategies of adaptation theory in their interpreting and the more advanced the language learners, the more frequently they count on the application of adaptation theory.
In summary, this dissertation has made an effort in the exploration of the application and the evaluation of adaptation theory in interpreting from the pragmatic and cross-discipline angles. This dissertation has provided a new arena for the research on interpreting theory and the included case study deserves some merits in the research and instruction of interpreting.
引文
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: OUP, 1962.
Baker, M. In other Words: A Coursebook on Translation [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Barceloan, A. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor [A]. In Barcelona, A. (ed): Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C].
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Beaugrande, R. & Derssler, W. Introduction to Text Linguistics[M]. Berling/New York: Walter de gruyter, 1977.
____________. Linguistic Theory: The Discourse of Fundamental Works [M]. Longman, 1991.
Bickerton, D. Language and Human Behavior [M]. London: UCL Press Limited, 1996.
Birner, B.J. Information status and word order: an analysis of English inversion [J]. Language 1994 (70): 233-259.
Blakemore, D: Understanding Utterances: an Introduction to Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Blank, A. Co-presence and Succession: a cognitive typology of metonymy [A]. In Panther K..&G. Radden. (eds.): Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Bruce A and W. Anderson. The Interpreting Studies Reader: Perspectives on the Role of Interpreter[C]. In Franz Pochhacker and Miriam Shlesinger (eds). London: Routledge, 2002.
Burt, S. M. Code choice in intercultural conversation: speech accommodation theory and pragmatics [J]. Pragmatics ,1994, 4:4. 535-559.
Carston,R. Syntax and Pragmatics [A]. in J.L. Mey(ed). Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics [Z]. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 1998: 978-986.
Chesterman, A. From 'Is' to 'Ought': Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies{J}. Target: International Journal of Translation studies 1993,5(1): 1-20.
Cohen, P. R. etc.(eds). Intentions in Communication [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990.
__________. and Morgan, J. (Eds) Syntax and Semantics : Speech Acts [M]. New York: AP, 1975.
Coulmas, F. Language Adaptation [M], Cambridge: CUP., 1989.
Dirven, R. Introduction [A]. In Dirven R&R. Porings (eds.): Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Ellis, A. & Beattie, G. The Psychology of Language and Communication [M]. New York: The Guilford Press, 1986.
Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Fabbro & Gran. Neurolinguistic Research in Simultaneous Interpretation [A]. Gambier, Gile &Taylor. Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research——what do we know and how? [C]. Amesterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1997.
Fauconnier, G. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985.
________& M. Turner. Metonymy and Conceptual Integration [A]. In panther K.&G Radden. (eds.): Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Feyaerts, K. Refining the Inheritance Hypothesis: Interaction Between Metaphoric and Metonymic Hierarchies [A]. In Barcelona, A. (ed.): Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Firth J.R. The semantics of Linguistics Science [M]. London: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Gallois,C.& Callan, V. J. Communication Accommodation and the Prototypical Speaker: Predicting Evaluations of Status and Solidarity [J]. Language and Communication, 1988, 8(3/4): 271-283.
Geeracerts, D. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions [A]. In Dirven R&R. Porings (eds.): Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Gerver, David. Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: a review and model [A]. Brislin R. Translation: Applications and Research[C]. New York: Gardner Press, 1976.165-207.
Gibbs, R. Speaking and thinking with metonymy [A]. In Panther K.&G Radden. (eds.): Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Gile, D. Opening up in interpretation studies [A]. Snell-Horby et al. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1994, 149.
_______ .Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training [M]. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995
_______. Prospects and challenges of interdisciplinarity in research on conference interpreting [A]. Proceedings of the 2~(nd) International Conference on Translation Studies [C]. Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University, 1999.
_______. The history of research into conference interpreting: a Scientometric approach [J]. Target, 2000, 12(2): 299-323.
_______. Conference Interpreting [J]. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Oxford: Elsevier, 2006, (3): 9-23.
Giles, H. ets. Language and Social Psychology [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1979.
_________Accommodation Theory: Some New Directions [C]. York Papers in Linguistics, 1980: 9.
_________Accommodation Theory [C], in Nikolas Coupland et (eds.) Socialinguistics, New York: Macmmillan Press LTD, 1997.
Goossens, L. Metonymic bridges in modal shifts [A]. In panther K.&G. Radden.(eds.): Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
_______. Patterns of meaning extension, "parallel chaining", subjectification, and model shifts [A]. In Barcelona, A. (ed.): Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
_______. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action [A]. In Dirven R&R. Porings(eds.): Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Gran, L.& Dodds. The Theoratical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation [C]. Udine: Campanotto Editore, 1989.
Green, G. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding [M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
Grice, P. Logic and Conversation in Studies in the Way of Words [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: HUP, 1967.
Grundy, P. Doing Pragmatics [M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1995.
Guan, Jialing. Cultural Differences In Vocabulary and English Language Teaching[J]. CELEA Journal, 2004 (27): 3.
Gutt, E. Translation and Relevance—Cognition and Context [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Haberland, H &J. Mey. Linguistics and Pragmatics [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1977, 1 (1): 1 -12.
Halliday, M.A.K. Comparison and translation [C]. In M.A.K. Halliday, M. Mcintosh and P.Strevens. The linguistic sciences and language teaching, London: Longman, 1964.
______. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning [M]. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978
_______. Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1985.
_______. & Hasan, R. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press, 1985.
_______. and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Hatim, B. Communication Across Culture—Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics [M]. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
_______.& Mason, I. Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Herbert, Jean. The Interpreter's Handbook: How to become a conference interpreter [M]. Geneva: Librairie de I'Universite, George & Cie S.A., 1952.
Hickey L.The Pragmatics of Translation[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Hoey,M.Patterns of Lexis in Text[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1991.
Holtgraves,T.Language as Social Action:Social Psychology and Language Use[M].Mahwah,New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2002.
Huang,Y.The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
Huang,Y.Anaphora:a Cross-Linguistic Study[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
Huang,Y.Reflections on theoretical pragmatics[J].Journal of Foreign Languages,2001,(1):2-14.
Hymes,D.On communicative competence[A].In J.B.Pride and J.Holmes(eds.).Sociolinguistics [M].Hamondsworth:Penguin,1972:269-293.
Hymes,D.Foundations in Socio-linguistics:an Ethnographic Approach[M].Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press,1974
Kade,O.Some Methodological Aspects of Simultaneous Interpreting[J].Babel 1971,17(2):12-16.
Kovecses,Z.Metaphor[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002.
Kramsch,Claire.Context and Culture Teaching[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1993.
Lakoff,G.& M.Johnson.Metaphors We Live By[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980.
Lakoff,G.& M.Johnson.Women,Fire,and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987.
Lambert,S.Simultaneous interpretation:One ear may be better than two[A].S.Lamert & B.Moser-Mercer.Bridging the Gap:Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation[C].Amsterdan/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Co.,1994.
Lambrecht,K.Information Structure and Sentence Form[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
Lederer,M.La traduction aujourd'hui,Lemodele interpretative[M].Hachette,Pairs,1994.
Lederer,M.Translation,The Interpretive Model[M].St.Jerome Publishing Ltd,2003.
Leech,G.Semantics[M].London:Longman,1983a.
Leech,G.Principles of Pragmatics[M].London:Longman,1983b.
Levinson,S.C.Pragmatics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983.
Lieberman,P.Preadaptation,Natural Selection and Function[J].Language and Communication,1991,(11):63-65.
Malinowski,A.The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Language[M].New York:Harcourt Brace World,1993.
Matthew,P.H.Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics[Z].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2000.
McCrimmon,J.M.Writing with a Purpose[M].Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company,1976.
Mey,J.L.Pragmatics:An Introduction[M].Oxford:Blackwell,2001.
Meyerhoff,M.Accomodating your data:the use and misuse of accommodation theory in sociolinguistics[J].Language and Communication,1998,(18):205-225.
Moser,B.Simultaneous interpretation:a hypothetical model and its practical application[A].D,Gerver & H.W.Sinaido.Language Interpretation and Communication[C].New York:Plenum,1978,353-368.
Nerlich,B.,D.Clark & Z.Todd.Mummy,I like being a sandwich:metonymy in language acquisition[A].In Panther K.&G.Radden.(eds.):Metonymy in Language and Thought[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1999.
Newmark,P.Approaches to Translation[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001a.
Newmark,P.A Textbook of Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001b.
Nida,E.A.Toward a Science of Translating[M].Leiden:E.J.Brill,1964.
Nida,E.A.The Theory and Practice of Translation[M].Leiden:Brill,1969.
Nida,E.A.Language and Culture——Contexts in Translating[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Nida,E.A.Language,Culture,and Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
Niemeier,S.Straight from the heart-metonymic and metaphorical explorations[A].In Barcelona,A.(ed.):Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C].Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2000
Nord,C.Translating as a Purposeful Activity——Functionalist Approaches Explained[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Panther,K.& L.Thornburg.The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian[A].In Panther K.& G.Radden.(eds.):Metonymy in Language and Thought[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1999.
Panther,K.& L.Thornburg The Effect for cause:Metonymy in English grammar[A].In Barcelona,A.(ed.):Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C].Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
Panther,K.& L.Thornburg.Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2003.
Pateman,T.Language in Mind and Language in Society[M].Oxford:Claerndon Press,1987.
Pauwels,P.Putting metonymy in its place[A].in Panther K.&G.Radden.(eds.):Metonymy in Language and Thought[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1999.
Pawley,A.& Syder,F.H.Natural Selection in Syntax:Notes on Adaptive Variation and Change in Vernacular and Literary Grammar[J].Journal of Pragmatics,1983,(7):551-579.
Peccei,J.S.Pragmatics[M].London:Taylor & Francis Limited,1999.
Phelan,Mary.The Interpreter's Resource[J].Multinlingual Matters,Clevedon,2001,(7):24-30.
Pochhacker, F. Those who do...: a profile of research(ers) in interpreting [J]. Target, 1995, 7(1): 47-64.
Radden, G. & Z. Kovecses. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A]. In Panther K.&G. Radden.(eds): Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
_______. How metonymic are metaphors?[A].(ed.): Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Richard, 1. A. Towards a Theory of Translating [J]. Studies In Chinese Thought, ed. Arthur F. Wright, 1953.
Price, S. Communication Studies [M]. London: Longman, 1996.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy [A]. In Barcelona, A.(ed): Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E.& L.A.Stefani. Communication Between Cultures [M]. Brooks/Cole: Thomson Learning, 1998.
Sampson, G. Schools of Linguistics [M]. Richmond South: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd, 1980.
Sapir, Edward. Language: An introduction to the Study of Speech [M]. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Education and Research Press, 2002
Searle, J. Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language[M]. Cambridge: CUP, 1969.
_______. Indirect speech acts[J]. P. Cole and J. Morgan(eds.), Cambridge: CUP, 1975.
_______. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind [M]. Cambridge: CUP, 1983.
Seleskovitch, D. L'interprete dans les conferences internationals, problems de language at communication [M]. Pairs: Minard Lettres Mondernes, 1968.
_______. Language, langues et me moire [M]. Paris: Minard Lettres modernes, 1975.
_______. et Lederer, M. Pedogogie Raisonnee de I'internation. [M]. Pairs: POPCE et Didier Erudition, 1989
Setton, R. Simultaneous Interpretation: a Cognitive-pragmatic Analysis [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999.
Shlesinger, M. Quality in simultaneous interpreting [A]. Gambier, Gile, & Taylor. Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research—What do We Know and How? [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1997.
Skehan, P. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, 157-159.
Snell-Hornby, M. Translation Studies—An Integrated Approach [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Steiner, G. After Babel—Aspects of Language and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Stephen K. Cognition: Theory and Applications [M]. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1982.
Taylor, J. R. Category extension by metonymy and metaphor [A]. In Dirven R& R. Porings(eds.): Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Thomas, J. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1983,(2): 91 -111.
________. Meaning in Interaction: an Interaction to Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman, 1995.
Toury, G. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Turner, M.& G. Fauconnier. Metaphor, metonymy and Binding [A]. In Dirven R&R. Porings(eds.): Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Ungerer, F.& H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Van Dijk, T. A.. News as Discourse [M]. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlabaum Associates, 1988.
Verschueren, J. Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation [C]. A Working Document I, Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, 1987.
_________. ragmatic Perspective on International Communication [C], in Blomaert,J. & Verschueren, J. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pusblishing Co., 1991.
_________. A Handbook of Pragmatics [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1995.
_________. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,1999.
Waltereit, R. Grammatical constraints on metonymy: on the role of the direct object [A]. In Panther K. & G. Radden. (eds): Metonymy in language and Thought [C]. Amsterdan: John Benjamins, 1999.
Warren, B. Aspects of referential metonymy [A]. In Panther K. & G. Radden.(eds.): Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Weiser, A. Deliberate Ambiguity [J]. Papers from the 10~(th) Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: 1995.723-731.
Wilss, W. Syntactic anticipation in German-English simultaneous interpreting [A]. Gerver & Sinaiko. Language Interpretation and Communication [C]. New York and London: Plenum Press, 1978.
_______. The Science of Translation—Problems and Methods [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Yule, G. Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: OUP, 1996.
艾娣雅.口译教学思考[J].语言与翻译,2000,(2):8-12.
艾赫贝尔(瑞士)、孙慧双译:口译须知[M].外语教学与研究出版社,1982.
安新奎.口译的预测机制管理[J].中国科技翻译,2001,(3):22-25.
鲍川运.关于翻译教学的一些思考[J].中国翻译,2003,(5):18-23.
鲍川运.大学本科口译教学的定位及教学[J].中国翻译,2004,(5):27-31.
鲍刚.口译理论概述[M].北京:旅游出版社,1998.
鲍刚.口译理论概述[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
卞建华.探讨新世纪的口译教学 迎接全球化的机遇与挑战[J].中国翻译,2004,(5):37-39.
柴同文.试论顺应理论汉英翻译的解释力[J].山东师大外国语学院学报,2002,(4):8-11.
蔡小红.交替传译思维过程与能力发展—对中国法语译员与学生的交替传译活动进行的实证性研究[J].现代外语,2001a(3):25-29.
蔡小红.以跨学科的视野拓展口译研究[J].中国翻译,2001b,22(2):26-30.
蔡小红.口译研究新探[M].香港:开益出版社,2002.
蔡小红、方凡泉.论口译的质量与效果评估[J].外语与外语教学,2003a,(3):5-8.
蔡小红.论口译质量评估的信息单位[J].外国语,2003b,(5):21-24.
蔡小红、曾洁仪.口译质量评估研究的历史回顾[J].中国翻译,2004,(5):31-36.
曹建新.口译的心理差异与生理影响[J].中国翻译,1997(01):18-23.
陈安定.修辞与翻译[M].北京:中国青年出版社,2004.
陈春华.顺应论和关联论-两种语用观的比较[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(2):35-37.
陈宏薇.汉英翻译基础[M].上海外语教育出版社,1998.
陈洁.英语口译技巧[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,1998.
陈明遥.论商务口译技巧[J].上海科技翻译,2004,(2):31-34
陈平文、邱元概.语言顺心理论及其对英语教学的启示[J].湖南科技学院学报,2006,27(2):252-253.
陈菁.口译教学应如何体现口译的特点[J].中国翻译,1997(6):45-49.
陈菁.从Bachman交际法语测试理论模式看口译测试中的重要因素[J].中国翻译,2002(1):13-16.
陈菁.交际法原则指导下的口译测试的具体操作[J].中国翻译,2003,(1):67-70.
陈菁.弗里斯的语言学理论与口译原则[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,(1):125.
陈秋劲、等.英汉互译理论与实践[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2005.
陈望道.修辞学研究[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2001.
陈小慰.功能,语言,翻译[M].福建教育出版社,1998.
陈小慰.翻译功能理论的启示[J].中国翻译,2000,(4):10.
陈喜华.试论翻译中的语境顺应[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版),2001(4).
陈新仁.试论语用解释的全释条件[J].现代外语,2001,(4):378-389.
程雨民.英语文体学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版,1989.
陈镇球.汉英翻译问题[A].杨自俭.翻泽新论[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1994,227-238.
陈振东.释意理论关照下的口译与口译教学[J].上海科技翻译,2003,(1):29-32.
陈振东、黄樱.口译中的模糊信息处理.上海科技翻译,2004,(1):25-27.
陈德彰.英汉翻译入门[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,.2005.
崔永禄.实用英语口译(英语)新编[M].南开大学出版,2005
达尔文.物种起源[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.
达妮卡.赛莱丝科维奇.口译技巧[M].(孙慧双译)北京:北京出版社,1979.
达妮卡.赛莱丝科维奇.口笔译概论[M].北京:中国检察出版社,1992.
戴炜栋.对外语教学“一条龙”改革的思考[J].外语界,2002,(1):26-31.
戴炜栋、何兆熊:新编简明英语语言学教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
邓炎昌、刘润清.语言与文化[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版,1989
邓炎昌、刘润清.美国社会和文化[M].高等教育出版社,1990.
董成如.转喻的认知解释[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(2):6-9.
董金道.科技口译特点和标准的探讨[J].上海科技翻译,1993,(4):25-28.
杜建慧.翻译学概论[M].北京:民族出版社,1998:167.
端木义万.外刊阅读与文化干扰[J].外语研究,1999,(3):18-22.
段连城.呼吁:请译界同仁都来关心对外宣传[J].中国翻译,1990,(5):7
杜云辉.现场口译实例分析[J].中国科技翻译,1997,(2):28-33.
杜云辉.口译中的怯场[J].上海科技翻译,1999,(2):35-37.
杜云辉.论口译人员的综合素质[J].中国科技翻译,2000,(1):12-19.
杜云辉.论跨文化交际的语用问题[J].洛阳师范学院学院,2001,(3):35-37.
方凡泉.即席翻译的笔译技艺[J].中国翻译,1996,(5):10-14.
方凡泉.好易学英汉口译[M].世界图书出版社,2000a.
方凡泉.英汉口译[M].广州:世界图书出版公司,2000b.
方健杜.品译教学改革刍议[J].中国科技翻译,1998,(1):38-41.
范存忠.“漫谈翻译”翻译理论和技巧[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1985.
范东生.翻译的本质与翻译批评的根本任务[M].中国翻译,2000,(4):58-61.
范琳、高德新.情绪调节教学模式与第二语言课堂焦虑调控[J].四川外语学院报,2005(3):136.
冯广艺.汉语语境概论[M].银川:宁夏人民出版社,1998.
冯广义.语境适应论[M].湖北:湖北教育出版,1999.
冯建忠.口译教材的统编及指导原则[J].外语研究,1999,(2):29-32.
冯建忠.实用英语口译教程[M].南京:译林出版社,2002.
冯岚.口译特点与教学[J].江西行政学院学报,2005(1):66-69.
冯树鉴.实用英汉翻译技巧[M].同济大学出版社,1997.
傅春晖、杨芳.语用失误及其对英语教学的启示[J].湖南科技学院报,2005(10):31-34..
高航、严辰松.语用学在中国20年综述[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(4):12-19.
戈玲玲.语境关系顺应论对词义选择的制约[J].中国科技翻译,2001(4):68-71.
戈玲玲.顺应论对翻译的启示—兼论语用翻译标准[J].外语学刊,2002(3):22-26.
桂诗春.应用语言学[M].湖南教育出版社,1988.
桂诗春、宁春岩.语言学方法论[M].北京外语教学与研究出版社,1997.
郭建中.翻译中的文化因素:异化与归化[J].外国语,1998,(2):56-62..
郭著章、李庆生.英汉互译实用教程[M].武汉大学出版社,2003.
郭鸿.外交英语[M].北京:科技出版社,1991.
韩振宇.笔记在口译中的作用[J].中国科技翻译,2002,(1):42-46.
贺文丽.从顺应论看‘吃食堂'动宾结构的成因[J].湘潭师范学院学报,2003(4):36-39.
何兆熊.语用、意义和语境[J].外国语,1987,(6):52-55.
何兆熊.语用—语言研究的一个视角[A].载张后尘,论文选萃[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997:5-6.
何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
何兆熊.语用学文献选读[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003.
何自然.语用学概论[M].湖南教育出版,1988.
何自然.语用学与英语学习[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
何自然、于国栋.语用学的理解—Verschueren的新作评介[J].现代外语,1999,(4):428-435.
何自然.语用学探索[M].北京:世界图书版社,2000a.
何自然.语用学新解[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000b.
何自然、再永平.语用学概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,2002.
何自然、陈新仁.当代语用学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
何自然、张淑玲.非真实话作为语用策略的顺应性研究[J].外国语,2004(6):52-55.
侯国金.元语用意识与策划[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(4):33-36.
胡德清.试论体态语的功能[J].外语与外语教学,2002,(12):8-11.
胡庚申.初探科技口译中的“简译”[J].上海科技翻译,1986,(3):89-93.
胡庚申.再谈科技口译的“简译”[J].上海科技翻译,1987,(5):35-38.
胡庚申.量体裁衣,言简意达一关于科技口译中的简译问题[J].上海科技翻译,1988,(3):28-31.
胡庚申.从发表文章的状况谈加强我国的口译研究[J].中国科技翻译,1989a,(3):3-6.
胡庚申.重复词的口译方法—“变译”与“简译”[J].上海科技翻译,1989b,(4):37-41.
胡庚申.重复词的口译方法二“省译”与“对译”[J].上海翻译,1990,(1):78-81.
胡庚申.怎样进行国际交流[M].北京:北京工业大学出版社,1992.
胡庚申.关于科技口译中的“补译”问题的探讨(上)[J].上海科技翻译,1998a,(5):52-55.
胡庚申.关于科技口译中的“补译”问题的探讨(下)[J].上海科技翻译,1998b,(7):36-39..
胡庚申、盛茜.中国口译研究又十年[J].中国翻译,2002,(2):39-41.
胡庚申.国际交流语用学—从实践到理论[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
胡凌鹊.谈Daniel Gile的《会议口译研究中的观察法和实验法》[J].职教论坛,2003,(12):60.
胡敏、Paul White.英语报刊佳句赏析[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1999.
胡启海、贾德江.从顺应理论角度看英语被动句的选择[J].南华大学学报(社会科学版),2004,55(1):98-100.
胡清平.音意兼译—外来语中译之首选[J].中国翻译,2001,(6):37-40.
胡文仲.文化与交际[M].外语教学与研究出版社,1994.
胡雅晴.英语新词新义集锦[J].中国翻译,2001,(3):41-44.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994/2000.
胡壮麟.语言学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
华先发.新实用英译汉教程[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999.
黄金琪.什么是外交[M].北京:世界知识出版社,2003.
黄敏.语境与英汉翻译中词义的确定[J].湖南大学学报,2001,(2):52-55.
黄任.英语修辞与写作[M].上海外语教育出版社,1996.
黄宜思.简论英汉翻译中的“视差”现象[J].中国翻译,1999,(5):36-39.
黄衍.Reflections on Theoretical Pragmatics[J].2001,(1):18-23.
黄忠廉.变译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2002.
纪康丽.口译与信息处理[J].外语研究,1996,(4):55-57.
纪康丽.功能语法口译教学[J].福建外语,1997,(1):33-37.
纪康丽.论口译教学[J].外语教学,1997,(4):63-67.
季绍斌.再谈口译教学及其改革[J].温州职业技术院学报,2004,(3):49-51.
贾一诚.高年级口译课教学刍议[J].外语教学,1994,(3):29-32.
贾文波.汉英时文翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000.
蒋勇、苏晓军.从Thornburg & Panther的言语行为借代理论看言语的借代功能[J].外国语,2000,(4):12-17.
金月,郝永辉.跨文化实际中语用失误的原因及语用策略[J].哈尔滨商业大学学报,2005,(4):16-19.
鞠红,戴曼纯.低调陈述作为语用策略的顺应性研究[J].外语教学与研究,2006,(1):32-35.
柯克尔.从口译实践到口译学[J].中国翻译,2003,(3):69-73.
赖恒静.商务口译的跨文化差异[J].商业时代,2004,(33):76.
黎难秋.中国口译史[M].青岛:青岛出版社,2002.
勒代雷.LA THEORIE INTERPRETATIVE DE LA TRADUCTION:UN RESME[J].LE FRANCAIS DANSLE MONDE,1987,8-9.
勒代雷.释意学派口笔译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2002.
李德渊.口语与口译[J].上海科技翻译,1998,(1):88-91.
李长栓.汉英同声传译中应注意用词简洁[J].中国翻译,1996,(1):55-58.
李芳琴.从口译的特点看口译教学[J].四川外国语学院学报,1999,(5):66-69.
李芳琴.新世纪口译—理论、技艺与实践[M]、四川人民出版社,2002.
李芳琴.口译交际的基本特点与口译教学[J].四川外语学院学报,2004,(3):57-59.
李国南.辞格与词汇[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
李锦.浅析语境在口译中的适应性[J].语言与翻译,2002,(4):33-35.
李文丹.汉语四字结构的运用及其他[J].翻译通讯,1984,(3):51-54.
李文革.西方翻译理论流派研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
李向东.对中国口译研究主题发展趋势的分析报告[J].新西部,2007,(2):62-66.
李勇忠.转喻的认知语用阐释[J].外国语言文学,2003a,(4):14-17.
李勇忠、方新柱.理想化认知模型与转喻的语用功能[J].山东外语教学,2003b,(3):53-57.
李勇忠.言语行为转喻与话语的深层连贯[J].外语教学,2004,(5):14-18.
李郁,张泳.商务英语专业口译课程教学与考试改革新探[J].外语界,2005,(3):32-35.
李元胜.顺应论在中国的研究综述[J].成都大学学报,2007a,(3):56-59.
李元胜.“冗余信息”作为语用策略的顺应性研究[J].北京第二外国语学院学报,2007b,(4):21-24.
李越然.口译方法和技巧[J].翻译通讯,1983,(6),1983
李越然.充分发挥口译的社会功能[J].中国翻译,1987,(2):36-39.
李钊.谈谈口译者应具备的素质和修养[J].上海科技翻译,1993,(3):42-46.
李占喜.语用综观论——文学翻译的一个新视角[A].英汉语比较与翻译[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
廖开洪.浅谈即席口译过程中理解的障碍[J].中国翻译,1997,(04):51-54.
廖开洪.谈'合作原则'在口译中的作用[J].中国翻译,1999,(1):38-41.
廖七一.当代英国翻译理论[M].湖北:湖北教育出版社,2001.
廖巧云.C-R-A模式:言语交际的三位阐释[M].成都:四川大学出版社,2005.
林超伦.实战口译[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
林大津.跨文化交际研究[M].福州:福州人民出版社,1996.
林耐尔(Linell Davis).中西文化之鉴:跨文化交际教程[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
林海.口译词语选择与语境制约[J].衡阳师范学院学报,2005(2):33-35.
刘宓庆.当代翻译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,1999.
刘宓庆.文体与翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2003.
刘宓庆.口笔译理论研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,2004.
刘和平、鲍刚.技能化口译教学法原则一兼论高校口译教学的问题[J].中国翻译,1999(6):28-32.
刘和平.职业口译新形式与口译教学[J].中国翻译,2000,(3):28-32.
刘和平.口译技巧——思维科学与口译推理教学法[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
刘和平.口译理论与教学研究现状及展望[J].中国翻译,2001a,(2):17-18.
刘和平.释意学派理论对翻译的主要贡献[J].中国翻译,2001b,(4):21-24.
刘和平.对口译教学统一纲要的理论思考[J].中国翻译,2002a,(5):56-58.
刘和平.科技口译与质量评估[J].上海科技翻译,2002b,(1):32-35.
刘和平.口译理论研究成果与趋势浅析[J].中国翻译,2005,(4):48-52.
刘和平.口译理论与教学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
刘件福.从图式理论看背景知识在口译中的作用[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001,(6):29-33.
刘绍忠.语境与语用能力[J].外国语,1997,(3):26-28.
刘绍忠、钟国仕.Thomas语用失误“二分法”的质疑[J].广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003,(4):47-48.
刘绍忠、欧洁.跨文化交际中的语用失误:表现、成因及教学对策[J].玉林师范学院学报,2004,(6):43-46..
刘润清.西方语言学流派[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1995.
刘廷立.口译课教学与实践[J].外语界,1992,(1):27-31..
刘天伦.从简单的统一到繁多的统一[J].外语界,1999,(2):23-25.
刘正光.选择—顺应:评Verschueren《理解语用学》的理论基础[J].外语学刊,2000,(4).39-43.
刘正光.论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系[J].现代外语,2002,(1):61-70.
刘正光、崔刚.非范畴化与“副词+名词”结构[J].外国语,2005,(2):37-44.
罗伯特.L.索尔索.认知心理学[M].教育科学出版社,1990.
吕国军.口译技能训练需要一个科学可行的大纲[J].中国翻译,2001,(6):17-18.
马桦.口译中的非言语交际[J].乌鲁木齐成人教育学院学报,2002,(1):18-22.
马英迈,孙长彦.口译中的记忆与理解[J].宁夏大学学报,2004:(4):79-81.
梅德明.英语中级口译资格证书考试口译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1998.
梅德明.《中级口译教程》(第二版),上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003.
梅德明.英语口译实务.三级[M].北京:外交出版社,2004a.
梅德明.商务口译教程[M].人民教育出版社,2004b.
梅德明.高级口译教程[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
莫爱屏.语用翻译与语境关联[J].衡阳师范学院学报(社会科学),2002(4):28-02.
穆丹、雷润宁.试论口译笔记训练中的理解和记忆[J].外语教学,1998(3):128-132.
穆丹、雷润宁.语境与口译造词[J].外语教学,2000(3):53-56.
穆雷.中国翻译教学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
皮亚杰.王宪译.发生认识论原理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996.
庞好农.浅谈跨文化交际中的语言顺应[J].重庆教育学报,2000(1):34-37.
蒲艳春.从释意理论的发展看我国的口译研究[J].莱阳农学院(社会科学版)2004,16(4),94-98.
齐宗华.略论口译[J].翻译研究论文集.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.
钱冠连.论维尔索伦的元语用选择[J].外国语,1990(4):22-25.
钱冠连.语用学:语言适应理论——Verschueren语用学新论评述[J].外语教学与研究,1991(1):47-51.
钱冠连.汉语文化语用[M].北京清华大学出版社,1997.
钱冠连.语用学:统一连贯的理论框架—《理解语用学》(1999)述评[J].外语教学与研究,2000(3).230-232.
钱冠连.语用学的大格局[J].外国语言文学,2003,(1):1-2,32.,70.
钱冠连、霍永寿译.语用学诠释[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003.
秦红、杨秀芬.中国加入世贸组织后商务谈判面临的挑战—中美商务谈判口译语用失误分析[J]. 上海科技翻译,2003,(4):37-39.
冉永平.苦语交际的顺应—关联性分析[J].外语学刊,2004,(2):28-33.
任小平.外交口译的灵活度[J].中国翻译,2000,(3):48-52.
塞莱丝科维奇、勒代雷.口译理论实践和教学[M].北京:旅游教育出版社,1990.
塞莱丝科维奇、勒代雷.口译概论[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992.
沈家煊.转指与转喻[J].当代语言,1999,(1):3-15.
申智奇、李悦娥.论围城中的语码转换[M].外语与外语教学,2001,(4):18-22.
石毓智.语法的认知义基础[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,2000.
宋德生.老调新弹——“望子成龙”英译的新思考[J].中国翻译,2004,(4):51-54.
宋志平.翻译:选择与顺应—语用顺应视角下的翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2004,(3):53-56.
谭载喜.新编奈达论翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
谭学纯、唐跃、朱玲.接受修辞学[M].安徽大学出版社,2000.
唐俭、白纯、李蓝玉.英语口译教程[M].长春:吉林大民出版社,2001.
裘克安.古诗文英译问题[J].2006,(11)http://finance.sina.com/roll/20031109/170705111136.shtml
王宝童.关于大学英语口译教学之我见[J].上海科技翻译,1994,(3):55-58.
王秉钦.文化翻译学[M].南开大学出版社,1995.
王大伟.现场汉英口译技巧与评介[M].世界图书出版公司,2000.
王大伟.现场汉英口译技巧与译析[M].上海:世界图书出版社,2002.
王德春.大学修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版,2001.
王德春、张辉.认知语言学研究现状[J].外语研究,2001,(3):1-10.
王东风.谈当代翻译理论[J].中国翻译,1999,(3):43-46.
王东风.变异还是差异——文学翻译中文体转换失误分析[J].外国语,2004,(1):2-8.
王福祥、吴汉樱.文化与语苦[M].外语教学与研究出版社,1994.
王建国.从语用顺应论的角度看翻译策略与方法[J].外语研究,2005,(4):38-42.
王建华.关于语境的定义和性质[J].渐江社会科学,2002,(2):56-59.
王建华、周明强、盛爱萍.现代汉语语境研究[M].杭州:渐江大学出版社,2002.
王建平.语言交际中的艺术—语境的逻辑功能[M].北京:求实出版社,1989.
王俊华.面向市场的口译教学[J].西安外国语学院学报,2003,(4):27-30.
王力.中国语言学史[M].山西人民出版社,1981.
王璐.空间语言与跨文化交际[J].山东外语教学,2004,4(4):34-37.
王弄笙.近年来汉英翻译中出现的一些新问题[J].中国翻译,2002,(1):23-28.
王瑞昀.口译的认知与口译教材的编写一跨学科口译理论《英语口译教程》编写中的应用[J].中国翻译,2004,(7):39-43.
王绍祥.口译应变策略[J].中国科技翻译,2004,(1):19-22
王祥.论《时代》周刊中国报道文章对汉语文化词语的翻译[J].上海科技翻译,2002,(2):53-55.
王永秋.口译听说技能训练[J].中国科技翻译,2001,(4):49-53.
王学文.新编经贸口译教程[M].北京:中国对外经贸出版社,2001.
王元.行动与效果:美国实用主义研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
王玉霓.从误译看语境在翻译中的作用[J].中国翻译,1999,(1):38-41.
王佐良.翻译中的文化比较[A].郭建中,文化与翻译[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000.
汪家荣、李胥森、史美珍译.口译理论实践与教学[M].旅游教育出版社,1990.
汪滔.论口译的跨文化语用失误[J].中国科技翻译,2002,(1):20-23.
韦美玉.口译的超语言因素[J].上海科技翻译,1993,(1):51-54.
魏永红.任务型外语教学研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2004.
文军、杨梅.外事口译标准初探及对外事口译标准的问卷调查与分析[J].外语学刊,2003,(2):37-39.
温家宝.会见两会中外记者.Nov 11,2006 http://www.fane.cn/article view.aspid=1314
吴冰.汉译英口译教程[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1995.
吴冰.关于口译教材编写的思考一兼评国内出版的六种教材[J].外语教学与研究,1999,(2):33-36.
吴冰.现代汉译英口译教程[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
吴启金.从“翻译人员须知”看口译工作译员素质[J].上海科技翻译,2001,(1):51-54.
吴琼.口译中的精力分配[J].集美大学报,2002,(4):81-83.
吴守谦.英语口译教程[M].哈尔滨工程大学出版社,1999.
吴义诚.口/笔译的认知过程评介[J].现代外语,2001,(3):44-47.
吴增生.语言顺应论与二语习得研究[J].四川外语学院学报,2004(1):22-25.
夏翠.从顺应理论看语境在口译中的作用[J].理工高教研究,2005,24(6):119-120.
夏纪梅、孔宪辉.外语课程设计的科学性初探[J].外语界,1999,(1):30-31.
夏丽娜、李梅.文化视角对释意派口译理论的积极作用[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2005,(1):101-104.
厦门大学外文系 中英英语合作项目小组编著.新编英语口译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
肖晓燕.同声传译的多任务处理模式[J].中国翻译,2001(2):33-36.
肖晓燕.西方口译研究:历史与现状[J].外国语,2002,(4):71-76.
熊学亮.认知语用学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
谢少万.顺应理论与外语教学[J].外语与外语教学,2003a,(4):25-27.
谢少万.也评“顺应理论”[J].西安外国语学院学报,2003b,11(3):9-11.
谢天振.国内翻译界在翻译研究和翻译理论认识上的误区[J].中国翻译,2001(4):10-13.
徐盛桓.论常规关系[J].外国语,1993,(6):26-28.
徐亚男、李建英.外事翻译口译和笔译技巧[M].北京:世界知识出版,1998.
许冬平.英语新词新义集锦[J].中国翻译,2001,(2):51-54.
许芳梅.上海市高职高专英语教学现状分析[J].教育发展研究,2004,(12):101-103.
许钧、袁筱一.当代法国翻译理论[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1998.
许钧、袁筱一.释意理论辨[J].中国翻译,2005,(1):63-67.
许余龙.对比语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003.
薛新东.民办高校非英语专业大学生英语学习现状调查[J].平原大学学报,2005,(1):79-84.
杨俊峰.口译与听力[M].辽宁出版社,2001.
杨俊峰.语言顺应与语用翻译[J].外语与外语教学,2005(11):85-89.
杨蒙 语境顺应与文化翻译[J].外语教学,2006(3):68-71.
杨平.关联—顺应模式[J].外国语,2001,(6):21-28
颜学金.非言语行为的跨文化交际研究[J].西南民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版),2002,23(9):53-56..
严辰松、高航.语用学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
姚志永.英汉互译中语境的适切性[J].南通师范学院学报,2003(4):277-283.
易宏根.浅谈口译员的若干基本素质[J].上海科技翻译,2000a,(3):62-65.
易宏根.从朱镕基总理的中外记者招待会谈口译员的若干基木素质,上海科技翻译,2000b,(4):75-79.
叶小广.口译教学的改革思路与实践[J].广西师院学报(哲学社会科学版),2002,(1):1018-110.
叶子南.高级英汉翻译理论与实践[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2001.
叶子南.英汉翻译对话[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
耶夫.维索尔伦.语用学诠释[M].清华大学版社,2003.
于国栋.显性施为句的顺应性解释——理解Verschueren的顺应性研究[J].外语学刊,2001(1):58-63.
于海江.谈谈英汉词典中新词的译名[J].中国翻译,1999,(4):34-37..
余东涛、邓嵘.从汉语连动句的英译看英汉语句子结构的差异[J].长沙电力学院学报,2004, (2):67-69.
余则明.浅谈如何克服英语口译的障碍[J].上海科技翻译,1999,(3):38-42.
袁斌业.语言顺应论对翻译的启示[J].四川外语学院学报,2002,(5):65-68.
袁榕.谈翻译中汉语成语的运用[J].中国翻译,1997,(4):33-35.
阮黎明.注重口译中的文化差异现象[J].江汉石油学院学报,2001,(5):29-32.
张国.语用失误与顺应理论[J].山东外语教学,2004,(4):60-63.
张海涛.英汉思维差异对翻译的影响[J].中国翻译,1999,(1):54-57.
张辉、承华.试论汉英语法形式的转喻理据与制约[J].外语研究,2002a,(6):15-19,32.
张辉、周平.转喻与语用推理图式[J].外国语,2002b,(4).46-52.
张巨文.语用失误与外语教学[J].郑州大学学报,2000,(7):28-32.
张基珮.外宣英语的原文要适当删减[J].上海科技翻译,2001,(3),21-24.
张吉良.论译员的口译准备工作[J].中国科技翻译,2003,(3):46-49.
张吉良.论听众因素对译员口译策略的影响[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(4):21-24.
张健.新闻英语文体与范文主板[M].上海:上海外语教育出版,1994.
张健.报刊新词英译纵横[M].上海:上海科技教育出版社,2001.
张经浩.译论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1996
张克定.语用句法学论纠[J].外语与外语教学,2000,(10):25-28.
张克定.Verschueren语用理论对语用句法研究的启示[J].外语教学,2002,(5):1-5.
张莉、孙来麟.口译中常见的变体形式[J].中国科技翻译,2000,(3):51-54.
张美芳.语篇语言学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译网,2000.
张宁.英汉习语的文化差异及翻译[J].中国翻译,1999,(3):38-41.
张培基.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:外语出版社,1983.
张维为.英语同声传译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
张文.论口译面对的文化差异问题[J].北京第二外语学院学报,1998,(2):85-87.
张文忠.第二语言口语流利性发展的理论模式[J].现代外语,1999,(2):202-217.
张新红.社会用语英译中的语用失误:调查与分析[J].外语教学,2003,(3):15-18.
赵丹.顺应理论在英汉翻译中的应用[J].安阳工学院学报,2005,(1):42-44.
赵军峰.论口译的翻译单位[J].中国科技翻译,2005,(2):30-33.
赵军峰.论口译语体的识别与对等转换[J],中国科技翻译,1997,(3):35-38.
赵彦春.关联理论对翻译的解释力[J].现代外语,1999,(3):273-295.
赵彦春.关联理论与翻译的翻译的木质[M].广东外语外贸大学,2001.
赵耀.跨文化交际中语境的顺应[J].长春理工大学学报,2006,19(2):108-110.
赵万长.Verschueren顺应性理论与元语用指示语的认知分析[J].哈尔滨学院学报,2004.(4):78-81.
郑菊秀.试论跨文化交际中英语语境的顺应[J].辽宁行政学院学报,2006,.8(1):111-112.
曾剑平、陈安如.空间语与文化[J].南昌航空工业学院学报(社会科学版),2002,2(2):56-58.
曾文雄.论语用学在翻译中的应用[J].西南师大学报,2000,(3):85-88.
曾文雄.口译的语用流利性[J].中国科技翻译,2002a,(4):22-24/65.
曾文雄.顺应理论对口译的解释力[J].贵阳师范高等专科学校学报(社会科学版),2002b,(69):75-78.
曾文雄.口译过和的语言运用[J].长春师范学院学报,2003a,22(1):106-107.
曾文雄.口译的语言使用[J].长春师院学报,2003b,(1):76-78.
曾文雄.现代电化教育环境下的口译教学[J].外语电化教学,2003c,(4):31-34.
曾文雄.语用学对口译的解释力[J].宜宾学院学报,2004,(2):65-68.
曾文雄.从顺应理论看口译语体的本质[J].四川外语学院学报,2005a,21(5):133-137.
曾文雄.顺应理论与口译的修辞传真[J].语文学刊(高教版),2005b,(5):58-62.
仲伟合.口译理论概谈[J].语言与翻译,1993,(4):20-32.
仲伟合.口译教学刍议[J].中国翻译,1998,(5):34-37.
仲伟合.口译训练:模式、内容、方法[J].中国翻译,2001a,(3):78-81.
仲伟合.语用能力与口译[J].中国科技翻译,2001b,(2):30-32.
仲伟合.英语口译教程[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006.
钟述孔.实用口译手册[M].北京,中国对外翻译出版社,1984.
邹姗姗.吉尔的口译理解公式对译员的启示[J].郑州航空丁业管理学院学报(社会科学版),2005,24(1):82-84.
邹振环.影响中国近代社会的一百种译作[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1996.
周靖.语言交际的艺术[M].北京:华文出版社,1998.
周青.口译教学探究[J].山东外语教学,2003,(5):79-81.
周丕炎.口译和口译的特点[J].中国翻译,1986(4):19-23.
周红民.语用能力与口译[J].中国科技翻译,1999,(2):29-31.
朱鹤鸣.叹口译中的怯场[J].上海科技翻译,1993,(4):78-81.
朱彤.朱彤口译:口译技巧与实践[M].疯狂英语出版社,1999.
朱伊革.翻译法在大学英语教学中的媒价作用[J].四川外语学院学报,2004,(1):157-159.
朱永生、严世清.系统功能语言多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
朱永生、严世清.世纪之交论功能[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
庄恩平. 东西方思维差异与口译[J]. 上海科技翻译,1998, (2):62-64.
Baker, M. In other Words: A Coursebook on Translation [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Barceloan, A. On the plausibility of claiming a metonymic motivation for conceptual metaphor [A]. In Barcelona, A. (ed): Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C].
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Beaugrande, R. & Derssler, W. Introduction to Text Linguistics[M]. Berling/New York: Walter de gruyter, 1977.
____________. Linguistic Theory: The Discourse of Fundamental Works [M]. Longman, 1991.
Bickerton, D. Language and Human Behavior [M]. London: UCL Press Limited, 1996.
Birner, B.J. Information status and word order: an analysis of English inversion [J]. Language 1994 (70): 233-259.
Blakemore, D: Understanding Utterances: an Introduction to Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Blank, A. Co-presence and Succession: a cognitive typology of metonymy [A]. In Panther K..&G. Radden. (eds.): Metonymy in Language and Thought[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Bruce A and W. Anderson. The Interpreting Studies Reader: Perspectives on the Role of Interpreter[C]. In Franz Pochhacker and Miriam Shlesinger (eds). London: Routledge, 2002.
Burt, S. M. Code choice in intercultural conversation: speech accommodation theory and pragmatics [J]. Pragmatics ,1994, 4:4. 535-559.
Carston,R. Syntax and Pragmatics [A]. in J.L. Mey(ed). Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics [Z]. Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd, 1998: 978-986.
Chesterman, A. From 'Is' to 'Ought': Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies{J}. Target: International Journal of Translation studies 1993,5(1): 1-20.
Cohen, P. R. etc.(eds). Intentions in Communication [M]. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990.
__________. and Morgan, J. (Eds) Syntax and Semantics : Speech Acts [M]. New York: AP, 1975.
Coulmas, F. Language Adaptation [M], Cambridge: CUP., 1989.
Dirven, R. Introduction [A]. In Dirven R&R. Porings (eds.): Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Ellis, A. & Beattie, G. The Psychology of Language and Communication [M]. New York: The Guilford Press, 1986.
Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Fabbro & Gran. Neurolinguistic Research in Simultaneous Interpretation [A]. Gambier, Gile &Taylor. Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research——what do we know and how? [C]. Amesterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1997.
Fauconnier, G. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language [M]. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985.
________& M. Turner. Metonymy and Conceptual Integration [A]. In panther K.&G Radden. (eds.): Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Feyaerts, K. Refining the Inheritance Hypothesis: Interaction Between Metaphoric and Metonymic Hierarchies [A]. In Barcelona, A. (ed.): Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Firth J.R. The semantics of Linguistics Science [M]. London: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Gallois,C.& Callan, V. J. Communication Accommodation and the Prototypical Speaker: Predicting Evaluations of Status and Solidarity [J]. Language and Communication, 1988, 8(3/4): 271-283.
Geeracerts, D. The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions [A]. In Dirven R&R. Porings (eds.): Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Gerver, David. Empirical studies of simultaneous interpretation: a review and model [A]. Brislin R. Translation: Applications and Research[C]. New York: Gardner Press, 1976.165-207.
Gibbs, R. Speaking and thinking with metonymy [A]. In Panther K.&G Radden. (eds.): Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Gile, D. Opening up in interpretation studies [A]. Snell-Horby et al. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1994, 149.
_______ .Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training [M]. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995
_______. Prospects and challenges of interdisciplinarity in research on conference interpreting [A]. Proceedings of the 2~(nd) International Conference on Translation Studies [C]. Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal University, 1999.
_______. The history of research into conference interpreting: a Scientometric approach [J]. Target, 2000, 12(2): 299-323.
_______. Conference Interpreting [J]. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Oxford: Elsevier, 2006, (3): 9-23.
Giles, H. ets. Language and Social Psychology [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1979.
_________Accommodation Theory: Some New Directions [C]. York Papers in Linguistics, 1980: 9.
_________Accommodation Theory [C], in Nikolas Coupland et (eds.) Socialinguistics, New York: Macmmillan Press LTD, 1997.
Goossens, L. Metonymic bridges in modal shifts [A]. In panther K.&G. Radden.(eds.): Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
_______. Patterns of meaning extension, "parallel chaining", subjectification, and model shifts [A]. In Barcelona, A. (ed.): Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
_______. Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action [A]. In Dirven R&R. Porings(eds.): Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Gran, L.& Dodds. The Theoratical and Practical Aspects of Teaching Conference Interpretation [C]. Udine: Campanotto Editore, 1989.
Green, G. Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding [M]. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
Grice, P. Logic and Conversation in Studies in the Way of Words [M]. Cambridge, Massachusetts: HUP, 1967.
Grundy, P. Doing Pragmatics [M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1995.
Guan, Jialing. Cultural Differences In Vocabulary and English Language Teaching[J]. CELEA Journal, 2004 (27): 3.
Gutt, E. Translation and Relevance—Cognition and Context [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Haberland, H &J. Mey. Linguistics and Pragmatics [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1977, 1 (1): 1 -12.
Halliday, M.A.K. Comparison and translation [C]. In M.A.K. Halliday, M. Mcintosh and P.Strevens. The linguistic sciences and language teaching, London: Longman, 1964.
______. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning [M]. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978
_______. Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold, 1985.
_______. & Hasan, R. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective [M]. Victoria: Deakin University Press, 1985.
_______. and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Hatim, B. Communication Across Culture—Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics [M]. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
_______.& Mason, I. Discourse and the Translator [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Herbert, Jean. The Interpreter's Handbook: How to become a conference interpreter [M]. Geneva: Librairie de I'Universite, George & Cie S.A., 1952.
Hickey L.The Pragmatics of Translation[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Hoey,M.Patterns of Lexis in Text[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1991.
Holtgraves,T.Language as Social Action:Social Psychology and Language Use[M].Mahwah,New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2002.
Huang,Y.The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
Huang,Y.Anaphora:a Cross-Linguistic Study[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
Huang,Y.Reflections on theoretical pragmatics[J].Journal of Foreign Languages,2001,(1):2-14.
Hymes,D.On communicative competence[A].In J.B.Pride and J.Holmes(eds.).Sociolinguistics [M].Hamondsworth:Penguin,1972:269-293.
Hymes,D.Foundations in Socio-linguistics:an Ethnographic Approach[M].Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press,1974
Kade,O.Some Methodological Aspects of Simultaneous Interpreting[J].Babel 1971,17(2):12-16.
Kovecses,Z.Metaphor[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002.
Kramsch,Claire.Context and Culture Teaching[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,1993.
Lakoff,G.& M.Johnson.Metaphors We Live By[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1980.
Lakoff,G.& M.Johnson.Women,Fire,and Dangerous Things:What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1987.
Lambert,S.Simultaneous interpretation:One ear may be better than two[A].S.Lamert & B.Moser-Mercer.Bridging the Gap:Empirical Research in Simultaneous Interpretation[C].Amsterdan/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Co.,1994.
Lambrecht,K.Information Structure and Sentence Form[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
Lederer,M.La traduction aujourd'hui,Lemodele interpretative[M].Hachette,Pairs,1994.
Lederer,M.Translation,The Interpretive Model[M].St.Jerome Publishing Ltd,2003.
Leech,G.Semantics[M].London:Longman,1983a.
Leech,G.Principles of Pragmatics[M].London:Longman,1983b.
Levinson,S.C.Pragmatics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1983.
Lieberman,P.Preadaptation,Natural Selection and Function[J].Language and Communication,1991,(11):63-65.
Malinowski,A.The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Language[M].New York:Harcourt Brace World,1993.
Matthew,P.H.Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics[Z].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2000.
McCrimmon,J.M.Writing with a Purpose[M].Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company,1976.
Mey,J.L.Pragmatics:An Introduction[M].Oxford:Blackwell,2001.
Meyerhoff,M.Accomodating your data:the use and misuse of accommodation theory in sociolinguistics[J].Language and Communication,1998,(18):205-225.
Moser,B.Simultaneous interpretation:a hypothetical model and its practical application[A].D,Gerver & H.W.Sinaido.Language Interpretation and Communication[C].New York:Plenum,1978,353-368.
Nerlich,B.,D.Clark & Z.Todd.Mummy,I like being a sandwich:metonymy in language acquisition[A].In Panther K.&G.Radden.(eds.):Metonymy in Language and Thought[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1999.
Newmark,P.Approaches to Translation[M].Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001a.
Newmark,P.A Textbook of Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001b.
Nida,E.A.Toward a Science of Translating[M].Leiden:E.J.Brill,1964.
Nida,E.A.The Theory and Practice of Translation[M].Leiden:Brill,1969.
Nida,E.A.Language and Culture——Contexts in Translating[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Nida,E.A.Language,Culture,and Translation[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2004.
Niemeier,S.Straight from the heart-metonymic and metaphorical explorations[A].In Barcelona,A.(ed.):Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C].Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2000
Nord,C.Translating as a Purposeful Activity——Functionalist Approaches Explained[M].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
Panther,K.& L.Thornburg.The potentiality for actuality metonymy in English and Hungarian[A].In Panther K.& G.Radden.(eds.):Metonymy in Language and Thought[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1999.
Panther,K.& L.Thornburg The Effect for cause:Metonymy in English grammar[A].In Barcelona,A.(ed.):Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads[C].Berlin/New York:Mouton de Gruyter,2000.
Panther,K.& L.Thornburg.Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2003.
Pateman,T.Language in Mind and Language in Society[M].Oxford:Claerndon Press,1987.
Pauwels,P.Putting metonymy in its place[A].in Panther K.&G.Radden.(eds.):Metonymy in Language and Thought[C].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1999.
Pawley,A.& Syder,F.H.Natural Selection in Syntax:Notes on Adaptive Variation and Change in Vernacular and Literary Grammar[J].Journal of Pragmatics,1983,(7):551-579.
Peccei,J.S.Pragmatics[M].London:Taylor & Francis Limited,1999.
Phelan,Mary.The Interpreter's Resource[J].Multinlingual Matters,Clevedon,2001,(7):24-30.
Pochhacker, F. Those who do...: a profile of research(ers) in interpreting [J]. Target, 1995, 7(1): 47-64.
Radden, G. & Z. Kovecses. Towards a Theory of Metonymy [A]. In Panther K.&G. Radden.(eds): Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
_______. How metonymic are metaphors?[A].(ed.): Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Richard, 1. A. Towards a Theory of Translating [J]. Studies In Chinese Thought, ed. Arthur F. Wright, 1953.
Price, S. Communication Studies [M]. London: Longman, 1996.
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy [A]. In Barcelona, A.(ed): Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000.
Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E.& L.A.Stefani. Communication Between Cultures [M]. Brooks/Cole: Thomson Learning, 1998.
Sampson, G. Schools of Linguistics [M]. Richmond South: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd, 1980.
Sapir, Edward. Language: An introduction to the Study of Speech [M]. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Education and Research Press, 2002
Searle, J. Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language[M]. Cambridge: CUP, 1969.
_______. Indirect speech acts[J]. P. Cole and J. Morgan(eds.), Cambridge: CUP, 1975.
_______. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind [M]. Cambridge: CUP, 1983.
Seleskovitch, D. L'interprete dans les conferences internationals, problems de language at communication [M]. Pairs: Minard Lettres Mondernes, 1968.
_______. Language, langues et me moire [M]. Paris: Minard Lettres modernes, 1975.
_______. et Lederer, M. Pedogogie Raisonnee de I'internation. [M]. Pairs: POPCE et Didier Erudition, 1989
Setton, R. Simultaneous Interpretation: a Cognitive-pragmatic Analysis [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999.
Shlesinger, M. Quality in simultaneous interpreting [A]. Gambier, Gile, & Taylor. Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research—What do We Know and How? [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1997.
Skehan, P. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, 157-159.
Snell-Hornby, M. Translation Studies—An Integrated Approach [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Steiner, G. After Babel—Aspects of Language and Translation [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Stephen K. Cognition: Theory and Applications [M]. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1982.
Taylor, J. R. Category extension by metonymy and metaphor [A]. In Dirven R& R. Porings(eds.): Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Thomas, J. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1983,(2): 91 -111.
________. Meaning in Interaction: an Interaction to Pragmatics [M]. London: Longman, 1995.
Toury, G. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004.
Turner, M.& G. Fauconnier. Metaphor, metonymy and Binding [A]. In Dirven R&R. Porings(eds.): Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast [C]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002.
Ungerer, F.& H. J. Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Van Dijk, T. A.. News as Discourse [M]. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlabaum Associates, 1988.
Verschueren, J. Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation [C]. A Working Document I, Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association, 1987.
_________. ragmatic Perspective on International Communication [C], in Blomaert,J. & Verschueren, J. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pusblishing Co., 1991.
_________. A Handbook of Pragmatics [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1995.
_________. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,1999.
Waltereit, R. Grammatical constraints on metonymy: on the role of the direct object [A]. In Panther K. & G. Radden. (eds): Metonymy in language and Thought [C]. Amsterdan: John Benjamins, 1999.
Warren, B. Aspects of referential metonymy [A]. In Panther K. & G. Radden.(eds.): Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999.
Weiser, A. Deliberate Ambiguity [J]. Papers from the 10~(th) Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: 1995.723-731.
Wilss, W. Syntactic anticipation in German-English simultaneous interpreting [A]. Gerver & Sinaiko. Language Interpretation and Communication [C]. New York and London: Plenum Press, 1978.
_______. The Science of Translation—Problems and Methods [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
Yule, G. Pragmatics [M]. Oxford: OUP, 1996.
艾娣雅.口译教学思考[J].语言与翻译,2000,(2):8-12.
艾赫贝尔(瑞士)、孙慧双译:口译须知[M].外语教学与研究出版社,1982.
安新奎.口译的预测机制管理[J].中国科技翻译,2001,(3):22-25.
鲍川运.关于翻译教学的一些思考[J].中国翻译,2003,(5):18-23.
鲍川运.大学本科口译教学的定位及教学[J].中国翻译,2004,(5):27-31.
鲍刚.口译理论概述[M].北京:旅游出版社,1998.
鲍刚.口译理论概述[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
卞建华.探讨新世纪的口译教学 迎接全球化的机遇与挑战[J].中国翻译,2004,(5):37-39.
柴同文.试论顺应理论汉英翻译的解释力[J].山东师大外国语学院学报,2002,(4):8-11.
蔡小红.交替传译思维过程与能力发展—对中国法语译员与学生的交替传译活动进行的实证性研究[J].现代外语,2001a(3):25-29.
蔡小红.以跨学科的视野拓展口译研究[J].中国翻译,2001b,22(2):26-30.
蔡小红.口译研究新探[M].香港:开益出版社,2002.
蔡小红、方凡泉.论口译的质量与效果评估[J].外语与外语教学,2003a,(3):5-8.
蔡小红.论口译质量评估的信息单位[J].外国语,2003b,(5):21-24.
蔡小红、曾洁仪.口译质量评估研究的历史回顾[J].中国翻译,2004,(5):31-36.
曹建新.口译的心理差异与生理影响[J].中国翻译,1997(01):18-23.
陈安定.修辞与翻译[M].北京:中国青年出版社,2004.
陈春华.顺应论和关联论-两种语用观的比较[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(2):35-37.
陈宏薇.汉英翻译基础[M].上海外语教育出版社,1998.
陈洁.英语口译技巧[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,1998.
陈明遥.论商务口译技巧[J].上海科技翻译,2004,(2):31-34
陈平文、邱元概.语言顺心理论及其对英语教学的启示[J].湖南科技学院学报,2006,27(2):252-253.
陈菁.口译教学应如何体现口译的特点[J].中国翻译,1997(6):45-49.
陈菁.从Bachman交际法语测试理论模式看口译测试中的重要因素[J].中国翻译,2002(1):13-16.
陈菁.交际法原则指导下的口译测试的具体操作[J].中国翻译,2003,(1):67-70.
陈菁.弗里斯的语言学理论与口译原则[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2005,(1):125.
陈秋劲、等.英汉互译理论与实践[M].武汉:武汉大学出版社,2005.
陈望道.修辞学研究[M].上海:上海教育出版社,2001.
陈小慰.功能,语言,翻译[M].福建教育出版社,1998.
陈小慰.翻译功能理论的启示[J].中国翻译,2000,(4):10.
陈喜华.试论翻译中的语境顺应[J].湖南大学学报(社会科学版),2001(4).
陈新仁.试论语用解释的全释条件[J].现代外语,2001,(4):378-389.
程雨民.英语文体学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版,1989.
陈镇球.汉英翻译问题[A].杨自俭.翻泽新论[C].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1994,227-238.
陈振东.释意理论关照下的口译与口译教学[J].上海科技翻译,2003,(1):29-32.
陈振东、黄樱.口译中的模糊信息处理.上海科技翻译,2004,(1):25-27.
陈德彰.英汉翻译入门[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,.2005.
崔永禄.实用英语口译(英语)新编[M].南开大学出版,2005
达尔文.物种起源[M].北京:人民出版社,1972.
达妮卡.赛莱丝科维奇.口译技巧[M].(孙慧双译)北京:北京出版社,1979.
达妮卡.赛莱丝科维奇.口笔译概论[M].北京:中国检察出版社,1992.
戴炜栋.对外语教学“一条龙”改革的思考[J].外语界,2002,(1):26-31.
戴炜栋、何兆熊:新编简明英语语言学教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
邓炎昌、刘润清.语言与文化[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版,1989
邓炎昌、刘润清.美国社会和文化[M].高等教育出版社,1990.
董成如.转喻的认知解释[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(2):6-9.
董金道.科技口译特点和标准的探讨[J].上海科技翻译,1993,(4):25-28.
杜建慧.翻译学概论[M].北京:民族出版社,1998:167.
端木义万.外刊阅读与文化干扰[J].外语研究,1999,(3):18-22.
段连城.呼吁:请译界同仁都来关心对外宣传[J].中国翻译,1990,(5):7
杜云辉.现场口译实例分析[J].中国科技翻译,1997,(2):28-33.
杜云辉.口译中的怯场[J].上海科技翻译,1999,(2):35-37.
杜云辉.论口译人员的综合素质[J].中国科技翻译,2000,(1):12-19.
杜云辉.论跨文化交际的语用问题[J].洛阳师范学院学院,2001,(3):35-37.
方凡泉.即席翻译的笔译技艺[J].中国翻译,1996,(5):10-14.
方凡泉.好易学英汉口译[M].世界图书出版社,2000a.
方凡泉.英汉口译[M].广州:世界图书出版公司,2000b.
方健杜.品译教学改革刍议[J].中国科技翻译,1998,(1):38-41.
范存忠.“漫谈翻译”翻译理论和技巧[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1985.
范东生.翻译的本质与翻译批评的根本任务[M].中国翻译,2000,(4):58-61.
范琳、高德新.情绪调节教学模式与第二语言课堂焦虑调控[J].四川外语学院报,2005(3):136.
冯广艺.汉语语境概论[M].银川:宁夏人民出版社,1998.
冯广义.语境适应论[M].湖北:湖北教育出版,1999.
冯建忠.口译教材的统编及指导原则[J].外语研究,1999,(2):29-32.
冯建忠.实用英语口译教程[M].南京:译林出版社,2002.
冯岚.口译特点与教学[J].江西行政学院学报,2005(1):66-69.
冯树鉴.实用英汉翻译技巧[M].同济大学出版社,1997.
傅春晖、杨芳.语用失误及其对英语教学的启示[J].湖南科技学院报,2005(10):31-34..
高航、严辰松.语用学在中国20年综述[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(4):12-19.
戈玲玲.语境关系顺应论对词义选择的制约[J].中国科技翻译,2001(4):68-71.
戈玲玲.顺应论对翻译的启示—兼论语用翻译标准[J].外语学刊,2002(3):22-26.
桂诗春.应用语言学[M].湖南教育出版社,1988.
桂诗春、宁春岩.语言学方法论[M].北京外语教学与研究出版社,1997.
郭建中.翻译中的文化因素:异化与归化[J].外国语,1998,(2):56-62..
郭著章、李庆生.英汉互译实用教程[M].武汉大学出版社,2003.
郭鸿.外交英语[M].北京:科技出版社,1991.
韩振宇.笔记在口译中的作用[J].中国科技翻译,2002,(1):42-46.
贺文丽.从顺应论看‘吃食堂'动宾结构的成因[J].湘潭师范学院学报,2003(4):36-39.
何兆熊.语用、意义和语境[J].外国语,1987,(6):52-55.
何兆熊.语用—语言研究的一个视角[A].载张后尘,论文选萃[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1997:5-6.
何兆熊.新编语用学概要[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
何兆熊.语用学文献选读[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003.
何自然.语用学概论[M].湖南教育出版,1988.
何自然.语用学与英语学习[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
何自然、于国栋.语用学的理解—Verschueren的新作评介[J].现代外语,1999,(4):428-435.
何自然.语用学探索[M].北京:世界图书版社,2000a.
何自然.语用学新解[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2000b.
何自然、再永平.语用学概论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,2002.
何自然、陈新仁.当代语用学[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
何自然、张淑玲.非真实话作为语用策略的顺应性研究[J].外国语,2004(6):52-55.
侯国金.元语用意识与策划[J].四川外语学院学报,2003(4):33-36.
胡德清.试论体态语的功能[J].外语与外语教学,2002,(12):8-11.
胡庚申.初探科技口译中的“简译”[J].上海科技翻译,1986,(3):89-93.
胡庚申.再谈科技口译的“简译”[J].上海科技翻译,1987,(5):35-38.
胡庚申.量体裁衣,言简意达一关于科技口译中的简译问题[J].上海科技翻译,1988,(3):28-31.
胡庚申.从发表文章的状况谈加强我国的口译研究[J].中国科技翻译,1989a,(3):3-6.
胡庚申.重复词的口译方法—“变译”与“简译”[J].上海科技翻译,1989b,(4):37-41.
胡庚申.重复词的口译方法二“省译”与“对译”[J].上海翻译,1990,(1):78-81.
胡庚申.怎样进行国际交流[M].北京:北京工业大学出版社,1992.
胡庚申.关于科技口译中的“补译”问题的探讨(上)[J].上海科技翻译,1998a,(5):52-55.
胡庚申.关于科技口译中的“补译”问题的探讨(下)[J].上海科技翻译,1998b,(7):36-39..
胡庚申、盛茜.中国口译研究又十年[J].中国翻译,2002,(2):39-41.
胡庚申.国际交流语用学—从实践到理论[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004.
胡凌鹊.谈Daniel Gile的《会议口译研究中的观察法和实验法》[J].职教论坛,2003,(12):60.
胡敏、Paul White.英语报刊佳句赏析[M].北京:世界知识出版社,1999.
胡启海、贾德江.从顺应理论角度看英语被动句的选择[J].南华大学学报(社会科学版),2004,55(1):98-100.
胡清平.音意兼译—外来语中译之首选[J].中国翻译,2001,(6):37-40.
胡文仲.文化与交际[M].外语教学与研究出版社,1994.
胡雅晴.英语新词新义集锦[J].中国翻译,2001,(3):41-44.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994/2000.
胡壮麟.语言学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
华先发.新实用英译汉教程[M].武汉:湖北教育出版社,1999.
黄金琪.什么是外交[M].北京:世界知识出版社,2003.
黄敏.语境与英汉翻译中词义的确定[J].湖南大学学报,2001,(2):52-55.
黄任.英语修辞与写作[M].上海外语教育出版社,1996.
黄宜思.简论英汉翻译中的“视差”现象[J].中国翻译,1999,(5):36-39.
黄衍.Reflections on Theoretical Pragmatics[J].2001,(1):18-23.
黄忠廉.变译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2002.
纪康丽.口译与信息处理[J].外语研究,1996,(4):55-57.
纪康丽.功能语法口译教学[J].福建外语,1997,(1):33-37.
纪康丽.论口译教学[J].外语教学,1997,(4):63-67.
季绍斌.再谈口译教学及其改革[J].温州职业技术院学报,2004,(3):49-51.
贾一诚.高年级口译课教学刍议[J].外语教学,1994,(3):29-32.
贾文波.汉英时文翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000.
蒋勇、苏晓军.从Thornburg & Panther的言语行为借代理论看言语的借代功能[J].外国语,2000,(4):12-17.
金月,郝永辉.跨文化实际中语用失误的原因及语用策略[J].哈尔滨商业大学学报,2005,(4):16-19.
鞠红,戴曼纯.低调陈述作为语用策略的顺应性研究[J].外语教学与研究,2006,(1):32-35.
柯克尔.从口译实践到口译学[J].中国翻译,2003,(3):69-73.
赖恒静.商务口译的跨文化差异[J].商业时代,2004,(33):76.
黎难秋.中国口译史[M].青岛:青岛出版社,2002.
勒代雷.LA THEORIE INTERPRETATIVE DE LA TRADUCTION:UN RESME[J].LE FRANCAIS DANSLE MONDE,1987,8-9.
勒代雷.释意学派口笔译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2002.
李德渊.口语与口译[J].上海科技翻译,1998,(1):88-91.
李长栓.汉英同声传译中应注意用词简洁[J].中国翻译,1996,(1):55-58.
李芳琴.从口译的特点看口译教学[J].四川外国语学院学报,1999,(5):66-69.
李芳琴.新世纪口译—理论、技艺与实践[M]、四川人民出版社,2002.
李芳琴.口译交际的基本特点与口译教学[J].四川外语学院学报,2004,(3):57-59.
李国南.辞格与词汇[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
李锦.浅析语境在口译中的适应性[J].语言与翻译,2002,(4):33-35.
李文丹.汉语四字结构的运用及其他[J].翻译通讯,1984,(3):51-54.
李文革.西方翻译理论流派研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
李向东.对中国口译研究主题发展趋势的分析报告[J].新西部,2007,(2):62-66.
李勇忠.转喻的认知语用阐释[J].外国语言文学,2003a,(4):14-17.
李勇忠、方新柱.理想化认知模型与转喻的语用功能[J].山东外语教学,2003b,(3):53-57.
李勇忠.言语行为转喻与话语的深层连贯[J].外语教学,2004,(5):14-18.
李郁,张泳.商务英语专业口译课程教学与考试改革新探[J].外语界,2005,(3):32-35.
李元胜.顺应论在中国的研究综述[J].成都大学学报,2007a,(3):56-59.
李元胜.“冗余信息”作为语用策略的顺应性研究[J].北京第二外国语学院学报,2007b,(4):21-24.
李越然.口译方法和技巧[J].翻译通讯,1983,(6),1983
李越然.充分发挥口译的社会功能[J].中国翻译,1987,(2):36-39.
李钊.谈谈口译者应具备的素质和修养[J].上海科技翻译,1993,(3):42-46.
李占喜.语用综观论——文学翻译的一个新视角[A].英汉语比较与翻译[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
廖开洪.浅谈即席口译过程中理解的障碍[J].中国翻译,1997,(04):51-54.
廖开洪.谈'合作原则'在口译中的作用[J].中国翻译,1999,(1):38-41.
廖七一.当代英国翻译理论[M].湖北:湖北教育出版社,2001.
廖巧云.C-R-A模式:言语交际的三位阐释[M].成都:四川大学出版社,2005.
林超伦.实战口译[M].外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
林大津.跨文化交际研究[M].福州:福州人民出版社,1996.
林耐尔(Linell Davis).中西文化之鉴:跨文化交际教程[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
林海.口译词语选择与语境制约[J].衡阳师范学院学报,2005(2):33-35.
刘宓庆.当代翻译理论[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,1999.
刘宓庆.文体与翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2003.
刘宓庆.口笔译理论研究[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版社,2004.
刘和平、鲍刚.技能化口译教学法原则一兼论高校口译教学的问题[J].中国翻译,1999(6):28-32.
刘和平.职业口译新形式与口译教学[J].中国翻译,2000,(3):28-32.
刘和平.口译技巧——思维科学与口译推理教学法[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2001.
刘和平.口译理论与教学研究现状及展望[J].中国翻译,2001a,(2):17-18.
刘和平.释意学派理论对翻译的主要贡献[J].中国翻译,2001b,(4):21-24.
刘和平.对口译教学统一纲要的理论思考[J].中国翻译,2002a,(5):56-58.
刘和平.科技口译与质量评估[J].上海科技翻译,2002b,(1):32-35.
刘和平.口译理论研究成果与趋势浅析[J].中国翻译,2005,(4):48-52.
刘和平.口译理论与教学[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2005.
刘件福.从图式理论看背景知识在口译中的作用[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001,(6):29-33.
刘绍忠.语境与语用能力[J].外国语,1997,(3):26-28.
刘绍忠、钟国仕.Thomas语用失误“二分法”的质疑[J].广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003,(4):47-48.
刘绍忠、欧洁.跨文化交际中的语用失误:表现、成因及教学对策[J].玉林师范学院学报,2004,(6):43-46..
刘润清.西方语言学流派[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1995.
刘廷立.口译课教学与实践[J].外语界,1992,(1):27-31..
刘天伦.从简单的统一到繁多的统一[J].外语界,1999,(2):23-25.
刘正光.选择—顺应:评Verschueren《理解语用学》的理论基础[J].外语学刊,2000,(4).39-43.
刘正光.论转喻与隐喻的连续体关系[J].现代外语,2002,(1):61-70.
刘正光、崔刚.非范畴化与“副词+名词”结构[J].外国语,2005,(2):37-44.
罗伯特.L.索尔索.认知心理学[M].教育科学出版社,1990.
吕国军.口译技能训练需要一个科学可行的大纲[J].中国翻译,2001,(6):17-18.
马桦.口译中的非言语交际[J].乌鲁木齐成人教育学院学报,2002,(1):18-22.
马英迈,孙长彦.口译中的记忆与理解[J].宁夏大学学报,2004:(4):79-81.
梅德明.英语中级口译资格证书考试口译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1998.
梅德明.《中级口译教程》(第二版),上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003.
梅德明.英语口译实务.三级[M].北京:外交出版社,2004a.
梅德明.商务口译教程[M].人民教育出版社,2004b.
梅德明.高级口译教程[M].上海外语教育出版社,2006.
莫爱屏.语用翻译与语境关联[J].衡阳师范学院学报(社会科学),2002(4):28-02.
穆丹、雷润宁.试论口译笔记训练中的理解和记忆[J].外语教学,1998(3):128-132.
穆丹、雷润宁.语境与口译造词[J].外语教学,2000(3):53-56.
穆雷.中国翻译教学研究[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
皮亚杰.王宪译.发生认识论原理[M].北京:商务印书馆,1996.
庞好农.浅谈跨文化交际中的语言顺应[J].重庆教育学报,2000(1):34-37.
蒲艳春.从释意理论的发展看我国的口译研究[J].莱阳农学院(社会科学版)2004,16(4),94-98.
齐宗华.略论口译[J].翻译研究论文集.北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1984.
钱冠连.论维尔索伦的元语用选择[J].外国语,1990(4):22-25.
钱冠连.语用学:语言适应理论——Verschueren语用学新论评述[J].外语教学与研究,1991(1):47-51.
钱冠连.汉语文化语用[M].北京清华大学出版社,1997.
钱冠连.语用学:统一连贯的理论框架—《理解语用学》(1999)述评[J].外语教学与研究,2000(3).230-232.
钱冠连.语用学的大格局[J].外国语言文学,2003,(1):1-2,32.,70.
钱冠连、霍永寿译.语用学诠释[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2003.
秦红、杨秀芬.中国加入世贸组织后商务谈判面临的挑战—中美商务谈判口译语用失误分析[J]. 上海科技翻译,2003,(4):37-39.
冉永平.苦语交际的顺应—关联性分析[J].外语学刊,2004,(2):28-33.
任小平.外交口译的灵活度[J].中国翻译,2000,(3):48-52.
塞莱丝科维奇、勒代雷.口译理论实践和教学[M].北京:旅游教育出版社,1990.
塞莱丝科维奇、勒代雷.口译概论[M].北京:北京语言学院出版社,1992.
沈家煊.转指与转喻[J].当代语言,1999,(1):3-15.
申智奇、李悦娥.论围城中的语码转换[M].外语与外语教学,2001,(4):18-22.
石毓智.语法的认知义基础[M].南昌:江西教育出版社,2000.
宋德生.老调新弹——“望子成龙”英译的新思考[J].中国翻译,2004,(4):51-54.
宋志平.翻译:选择与顺应—语用顺应视角下的翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2004,(3):53-56.
谭载喜.新编奈达论翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
谭学纯、唐跃、朱玲.接受修辞学[M].安徽大学出版社,2000.
唐俭、白纯、李蓝玉.英语口译教程[M].长春:吉林大民出版社,2001.
裘克安.古诗文英译问题[J].2006,(11)http://finance.sina.com/roll/20031109/170705111136.shtml
王宝童.关于大学英语口译教学之我见[J].上海科技翻译,1994,(3):55-58.
王秉钦.文化翻译学[M].南开大学出版社,1995.
王大伟.现场汉英口译技巧与评介[M].世界图书出版公司,2000.
王大伟.现场汉英口译技巧与译析[M].上海:世界图书出版社,2002.
王德春.大学修辞学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版,2001.
王德春、张辉.认知语言学研究现状[J].外语研究,2001,(3):1-10.
王东风.谈当代翻译理论[J].中国翻译,1999,(3):43-46.
王东风.变异还是差异——文学翻译中文体转换失误分析[J].外国语,2004,(1):2-8.
王福祥、吴汉樱.文化与语苦[M].外语教学与研究出版社,1994.
王建国.从语用顺应论的角度看翻译策略与方法[J].外语研究,2005,(4):38-42.
王建华.关于语境的定义和性质[J].渐江社会科学,2002,(2):56-59.
王建华、周明强、盛爱萍.现代汉语语境研究[M].杭州:渐江大学出版社,2002.
王建平.语言交际中的艺术—语境的逻辑功能[M].北京:求实出版社,1989.
王俊华.面向市场的口译教学[J].西安外国语学院学报,2003,(4):27-30.
王力.中国语言学史[M].山西人民出版社,1981.
王璐.空间语言与跨文化交际[J].山东外语教学,2004,4(4):34-37.
王弄笙.近年来汉英翻译中出现的一些新问题[J].中国翻译,2002,(1):23-28.
王瑞昀.口译的认知与口译教材的编写一跨学科口译理论《英语口译教程》编写中的应用[J].中国翻译,2004,(7):39-43.
王绍祥.口译应变策略[J].中国科技翻译,2004,(1):19-22
王祥.论《时代》周刊中国报道文章对汉语文化词语的翻译[J].上海科技翻译,2002,(2):53-55.
王永秋.口译听说技能训练[J].中国科技翻译,2001,(4):49-53.
王学文.新编经贸口译教程[M].北京:中国对外经贸出版社,2001.
王元.行动与效果:美国实用主义研究[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
王玉霓.从误译看语境在翻译中的作用[J].中国翻译,1999,(1):38-41.
王佐良.翻译中的文化比较[A].郭建中,文化与翻译[C].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,2000.
汪家荣、李胥森、史美珍译.口译理论实践与教学[M].旅游教育出版社,1990.
汪滔.论口译的跨文化语用失误[J].中国科技翻译,2002,(1):20-23.
韦美玉.口译的超语言因素[J].上海科技翻译,1993,(1):51-54.
魏永红.任务型外语教学研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2004.
文军、杨梅.外事口译标准初探及对外事口译标准的问卷调查与分析[J].外语学刊,2003,(2):37-39.
温家宝.会见两会中外记者.Nov 11,2006 http://www.fane.cn/article view.aspid=1314
吴冰.汉译英口译教程[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,1995.
吴冰.关于口译教材编写的思考一兼评国内出版的六种教材[J].外语教学与研究,1999,(2):33-36.
吴冰.现代汉译英口译教程[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
吴启金.从“翻译人员须知”看口译工作译员素质[J].上海科技翻译,2001,(1):51-54.
吴琼.口译中的精力分配[J].集美大学报,2002,(4):81-83.
吴守谦.英语口译教程[M].哈尔滨工程大学出版社,1999.
吴义诚.口/笔译的认知过程评介[J].现代外语,2001,(3):44-47.
吴增生.语言顺应论与二语习得研究[J].四川外语学院学报,2004(1):22-25.
夏翠.从顺应理论看语境在口译中的作用[J].理工高教研究,2005,24(6):119-120.
夏纪梅、孔宪辉.外语课程设计的科学性初探[J].外语界,1999,(1):30-31.
夏丽娜、李梅.文化视角对释意派口译理论的积极作用[J].同济大学学报(社会科学版),2005,(1):101-104.
厦门大学外文系 中英英语合作项目小组编著.新编英语口译教程[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000.
肖晓燕.同声传译的多任务处理模式[J].中国翻译,2001(2):33-36.
肖晓燕.西方口译研究:历史与现状[J].外国语,2002,(4):71-76.
熊学亮.认知语用学概论[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999.
谢少万.顺应理论与外语教学[J].外语与外语教学,2003a,(4):25-27.
谢少万.也评“顺应理论”[J].西安外国语学院学报,2003b,11(3):9-11.
谢天振.国内翻译界在翻译研究和翻译理论认识上的误区[J].中国翻译,2001(4):10-13.
徐盛桓.论常规关系[J].外国语,1993,(6):26-28.
徐亚男、李建英.外事翻译口译和笔译技巧[M].北京:世界知识出版,1998.
许冬平.英语新词新义集锦[J].中国翻译,2001,(2):51-54.
许芳梅.上海市高职高专英语教学现状分析[J].教育发展研究,2004,(12):101-103.
许钧、袁筱一.当代法国翻译理论[M].南京:南京大学出版社,1998.
许钧、袁筱一.释意理论辨[J].中国翻译,2005,(1):63-67.
许余龙.对比语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003.
薛新东.民办高校非英语专业大学生英语学习现状调查[J].平原大学学报,2005,(1):79-84.
杨俊峰.口译与听力[M].辽宁出版社,2001.
杨俊峰.语言顺应与语用翻译[J].外语与外语教学,2005(11):85-89.
杨蒙 语境顺应与文化翻译[J].外语教学,2006(3):68-71.
杨平.关联—顺应模式[J].外国语,2001,(6):21-28
颜学金.非言语行为的跨文化交际研究[J].西南民族学院学报(哲学社会科学版),2002,23(9):53-56..
严辰松、高航.语用学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2005.
姚志永.英汉互译中语境的适切性[J].南通师范学院学报,2003(4):277-283.
易宏根.浅谈口译员的若干基本素质[J].上海科技翻译,2000a,(3):62-65.
易宏根.从朱镕基总理的中外记者招待会谈口译员的若干基木素质,上海科技翻译,2000b,(4):75-79.
叶小广.口译教学的改革思路与实践[J].广西师院学报(哲学社会科学版),2002,(1):1018-110.
叶子南.高级英汉翻译理论与实践[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2001.
叶子南.英汉翻译对话[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
耶夫.维索尔伦.语用学诠释[M].清华大学版社,2003.
于国栋.显性施为句的顺应性解释——理解Verschueren的顺应性研究[J].外语学刊,2001(1):58-63.
于海江.谈谈英汉词典中新词的译名[J].中国翻译,1999,(4):34-37..
余东涛、邓嵘.从汉语连动句的英译看英汉语句子结构的差异[J].长沙电力学院学报,2004, (2):67-69.
余则明.浅谈如何克服英语口译的障碍[J].上海科技翻译,1999,(3):38-42.
袁斌业.语言顺应论对翻译的启示[J].四川外语学院学报,2002,(5):65-68.
袁榕.谈翻译中汉语成语的运用[J].中国翻译,1997,(4):33-35.
阮黎明.注重口译中的文化差异现象[J].江汉石油学院学报,2001,(5):29-32.
张国.语用失误与顺应理论[J].山东外语教学,2004,(4):60-63.
张海涛.英汉思维差异对翻译的影响[J].中国翻译,1999,(1):54-57.
张辉、承华.试论汉英语法形式的转喻理据与制约[J].外语研究,2002a,(6):15-19,32.
张辉、周平.转喻与语用推理图式[J].外国语,2002b,(4).46-52.
张巨文.语用失误与外语教学[J].郑州大学学报,2000,(7):28-32.
张基珮.外宣英语的原文要适当删减[J].上海科技翻译,2001,(3),21-24.
张吉良.论译员的口译准备工作[J].中国科技翻译,2003,(3):46-49.
张吉良.论听众因素对译员口译策略的影响[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004,(4):21-24.
张健.新闻英语文体与范文主板[M].上海:上海外语教育出版,1994.
张健.报刊新词英译纵横[M].上海:上海科技教育出版社,2001.
张经浩.译论[M].长沙:湖南教育出版社,1996
张克定.语用句法学论纠[J].外语与外语教学,2000,(10):25-28.
张克定.Verschueren语用理论对语用句法研究的启示[J].外语教学,2002,(5):1-5.
张莉、孙来麟.口译中常见的变体形式[J].中国科技翻译,2000,(3):51-54.
张美芳.语篇语言学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译网,2000.
张宁.英汉习语的文化差异及翻译[J].中国翻译,1999,(3):38-41.
张培基.英汉翻译教程[M].上海:外语出版社,1983.
张维为.英语同声传译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1999.
张文.论口译面对的文化差异问题[J].北京第二外语学院学报,1998,(2):85-87.
张文忠.第二语言口语流利性发展的理论模式[J].现代外语,1999,(2):202-217.
张新红.社会用语英译中的语用失误:调查与分析[J].外语教学,2003,(3):15-18.
赵丹.顺应理论在英汉翻译中的应用[J].安阳工学院学报,2005,(1):42-44.
赵军峰.论口译的翻译单位[J].中国科技翻译,2005,(2):30-33.
赵军峰.论口译语体的识别与对等转换[J],中国科技翻译,1997,(3):35-38.
赵彦春.关联理论对翻译的解释力[J].现代外语,1999,(3):273-295.
赵彦春.关联理论与翻译的翻译的木质[M].广东外语外贸大学,2001.
赵耀.跨文化交际中语境的顺应[J].长春理工大学学报,2006,19(2):108-110.
赵万长.Verschueren顺应性理论与元语用指示语的认知分析[J].哈尔滨学院学报,2004.(4):78-81.
郑菊秀.试论跨文化交际中英语语境的顺应[J].辽宁行政学院学报,2006,.8(1):111-112.
曾剑平、陈安如.空间语与文化[J].南昌航空工业学院学报(社会科学版),2002,2(2):56-58.
曾文雄.论语用学在翻译中的应用[J].西南师大学报,2000,(3):85-88.
曾文雄.口译的语用流利性[J].中国科技翻译,2002a,(4):22-24/65.
曾文雄.顺应理论对口译的解释力[J].贵阳师范高等专科学校学报(社会科学版),2002b,(69):75-78.
曾文雄.口译过和的语言运用[J].长春师范学院学报,2003a,22(1):106-107.
曾文雄.口译的语言使用[J].长春师院学报,2003b,(1):76-78.
曾文雄.现代电化教育环境下的口译教学[J].外语电化教学,2003c,(4):31-34.
曾文雄.语用学对口译的解释力[J].宜宾学院学报,2004,(2):65-68.
曾文雄.从顺应理论看口译语体的本质[J].四川外语学院学报,2005a,21(5):133-137.
曾文雄.顺应理论与口译的修辞传真[J].语文学刊(高教版),2005b,(5):58-62.
仲伟合.口译理论概谈[J].语言与翻译,1993,(4):20-32.
仲伟合.口译教学刍议[J].中国翻译,1998,(5):34-37.
仲伟合.口译训练:模式、内容、方法[J].中国翻译,2001a,(3):78-81.
仲伟合.语用能力与口译[J].中国科技翻译,2001b,(2):30-32.
仲伟合.英语口译教程[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2006.
钟述孔.实用口译手册[M].北京,中国对外翻译出版社,1984.
邹姗姗.吉尔的口译理解公式对译员的启示[J].郑州航空丁业管理学院学报(社会科学版),2005,24(1):82-84.
邹振环.影响中国近代社会的一百种译作[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司,1996.
周靖.语言交际的艺术[M].北京:华文出版社,1998.
周青.口译教学探究[J].山东外语教学,2003,(5):79-81.
周丕炎.口译和口译的特点[J].中国翻译,1986(4):19-23.
周红民.语用能力与口译[J].中国科技翻译,1999,(2):29-31.
朱鹤鸣.叹口译中的怯场[J].上海科技翻译,1993,(4):78-81.
朱彤.朱彤口译:口译技巧与实践[M].疯狂英语出版社,1999.
朱伊革.翻译法在大学英语教学中的媒价作用[J].四川外语学院学报,2004,(1):157-159.
朱永生、严世清.系统功能语言多维思考[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
朱永生、严世清.世纪之交论功能[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002.
庄恩平. 东西方思维差异与口译[J]. 上海科技翻译,1998, (2):62-64.