基于语篇衔接视角下的《老人与海》及其中译本
|
摘要
1976年，韩礼德和哈桑出版了《英语的衔接》一书，认为当一个语言项目的意义依赖于另一语言项目时就产生了衔接。他们对英语的衔接现象进行了分析，并将英语衔接手段分为五类：照应、替代、省略、连接、词汇衔接。此后，这本书引起了国内外越来越多学者的关注，而他们注意力也从句子研究转移到语篇研究中来。学者们从不同的角度研究了衔接理论，大大完善了衔接理论的发展，但仍然还是存在一些问题，比如衔接与连贯的关系不明确，对语篇与语境的关系研究不足，对不同衔接机制的衔接程度研究不足等等。
本论文以韩礼德和哈桑的语篇衔接理论为指导，以海明威的《老人与海》和海观的中译文为研究语料，采用定性分析、定量分析，以及数量统计法和实例法相结合的方法对比研究两个语料。文中第一章主要介绍语篇衔接理论研究历史，语料选择的原因，本文的研究方法和研究目的。第二章主要介绍五种衔接手段，并阐述了五种衔接手段的差异和联系。第三章采用定性分析对比研究了五种衔接手，并以《老人与海》及其中译文中的例句作为分析基础。第四章采用了定量分析的方法，统计并汇总各种衔接手段在所选语料中使用的数量以及使用率，发现两个所选语料在照应、省略、词汇衔接三个方面差异最大。相对于英语，汉语倾向于省略物主代词、主语和宾语，零式前指在汉语语篇中被大量使用。第五章在第四章定量分析的基础上，进一步阐释不同衔接手段在汉英语所选语料中的衔接力度，分析了中英文语料在语篇衔接上各自的特点，以及差异产生的原因。作者从以下几方面探析了差异产生的原因：（1）英语从古英语发展过来，经历了很大变化，相反汉语从古文到现代文的过渡，变化很小；（2）汉语是以意合为主要特点的语言，而英语是以形合为主要特征的语言；（3）中西方思维方式不同。第六章为结论。
In1976, Halliday and Hasan published a book named Cohesion in English, inwhich they think cohesion will come into being where the meaning of one languageitem relies on that of another. Halliday and Hasan analyzed the cohesion in Englishlanguage in this book, and they divided the cohesive devices into five groups:reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. This book drew alot of scholars’ interest at home and abroad and they shifted their attention fromsentences study to textual study. Although the Cohesion Theory has been improvedstep by step, when many scholars studied on Cohesion Theory from differentperspectives, there are still some aspects needed to be further explained. For example,the relationship between “cohesion” and “coherence” is vague, the study on therelationship between “textual” and “context” is limited, and the effect of the differentcohesive devices in the textual cohesion is unclear.
Based on Cohesion Theory, the author will choose Hemingway’s most popularwork The Old Man and the Sea and Hai Guan’s Chinese translation as the studymaterial. And qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis, as well as statistics andcase study, will be used to the comparative study of these two texts.
In this thesis, there are five Chapters. ChapterⅠintroduces the literary review,the reasons for choosing the materials, study methods, and study purposes. Chapter Ⅱgives a brief introduction to the five cohesive devices, and explores the relationshipand differences among them. Chapter Ⅲ adopts qualitative analysis and case study tomake a comparative study of The Old Man and the Sea and Hai Guan’s Chinesetranslation. In Chapter Ⅳ, quantitative analysis is used to account the number,frequency and usage ratio of these five cohesive devices in the chosen texts, and theauthor finds that Chinese text and English text have obvious differences on personalreference, ellipsis and lexical cohesion. Chinese is inclines to omit the subjects,possessive pronouns and objects, and zero anaphora as well as reiteration, has beenwidely used in Chinese. On the basis of this, Chapter V explains the characteristics of the textual cohesion in The Old Man and the Sea and its Chinese translation. Andauthor also pays attention to the reasons of the differences between the English textand Chinese text from the following aspects:(1) English undergoes a long time ofchanging from the Old English or Anglo-Saxon, while Chinese experiences a relativedevelopment, and has a few changes;(2) English is hypotactic and Chinese isparatactic.(3) The thinking patterns between the China and the Westerners aredifferent. The last Chapter is the conclusion.
本论文以韩礼德和哈桑的语篇衔接理论为指导，以海明威的《老人与海》和海观的中译文为研究语料，采用定性分析、定量分析，以及数量统计法和实例法相结合的方法对比研究两个语料。文中第一章主要介绍语篇衔接理论研究历史，语料选择的原因，本文的研究方法和研究目的。第二章主要介绍五种衔接手段，并阐述了五种衔接手段的差异和联系。第三章采用定性分析对比研究了五种衔接手，并以《老人与海》及其中译文中的例句作为分析基础。第四章采用了定量分析的方法，统计并汇总各种衔接手段在所选语料中使用的数量以及使用率，发现两个所选语料在照应、省略、词汇衔接三个方面差异最大。相对于英语，汉语倾向于省略物主代词、主语和宾语，零式前指在汉语语篇中被大量使用。第五章在第四章定量分析的基础上，进一步阐释不同衔接手段在汉英语所选语料中的衔接力度，分析了中英文语料在语篇衔接上各自的特点，以及差异产生的原因。作者从以下几方面探析了差异产生的原因：（1）英语从古英语发展过来，经历了很大变化，相反汉语从古文到现代文的过渡，变化很小；（2）汉语是以意合为主要特点的语言，而英语是以形合为主要特征的语言；（3）中西方思维方式不同。第六章为结论。
In1976, Halliday and Hasan published a book named Cohesion in English, inwhich they think cohesion will come into being where the meaning of one languageitem relies on that of another. Halliday and Hasan analyzed the cohesion in Englishlanguage in this book, and they divided the cohesive devices into five groups:reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. This book drew alot of scholars’ interest at home and abroad and they shifted their attention fromsentences study to textual study. Although the Cohesion Theory has been improvedstep by step, when many scholars studied on Cohesion Theory from differentperspectives, there are still some aspects needed to be further explained. For example,the relationship between “cohesion” and “coherence” is vague, the study on therelationship between “textual” and “context” is limited, and the effect of the differentcohesive devices in the textual cohesion is unclear.
Based on Cohesion Theory, the author will choose Hemingway’s most popularwork The Old Man and the Sea and Hai Guan’s Chinese translation as the studymaterial. And qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis, as well as statistics andcase study, will be used to the comparative study of these two texts.
In this thesis, there are five Chapters. ChapterⅠintroduces the literary review,the reasons for choosing the materials, study methods, and study purposes. Chapter Ⅱgives a brief introduction to the five cohesive devices, and explores the relationshipand differences among them. Chapter Ⅲ adopts qualitative analysis and case study tomake a comparative study of The Old Man and the Sea and Hai Guan’s Chinesetranslation. In Chapter Ⅳ, quantitative analysis is used to account the number,frequency and usage ratio of these five cohesive devices in the chosen texts, and theauthor finds that Chinese text and English text have obvious differences on personalreference, ellipsis and lexical cohesion. Chinese is inclines to omit the subjects,possessive pronouns and objects, and zero anaphora as well as reiteration, has beenwidely used in Chinese. On the basis of this, Chapter V explains the characteristics of the textual cohesion in The Old Man and the Sea and its Chinese translation. Andauthor also pays attention to the reasons of the differences between the English textand Chinese text from the following aspects:(1) English undergoes a long time ofchanging from the Old English or Anglo-Saxon, while Chinese experiences a relativedevelopment, and has a few changes;(2) English is hypotactic and Chinese isparatactic.(3) The thinking patterns between the China and the Westerners aredifferent. The last Chapter is the conclusion.
引文
Brown, G&Yule, G.1983. Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Chao Yuen Ren.1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkley: University ofCalifornia Press.
Cole,&Scribner, S.1974. Culture and Thought: A Psychological Introduction. NewYork: John Wiley&Sons, Inc.
Eugene A. Nida.1993. Language, Culture and Translation. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Languages Education Press.
Haliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan.1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Haliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan.1985a. Language, Context and Text. Victoria: DeakinUniversity Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Second Edition). London:Edward Arnold,1994.
Li, C. N,&S. A. Thompson. Third-person Pronouns and Zero Anaphora in ChineseDiscourse. In T. Givon (ed.). Syntax and Semantics12: Discourse and Syntax.New York: Academic Press,1979. Volume12.311-335.
Newmark, Peter.2001. Approaches to Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press.
Nida, E. A.2001. Language and Culture-contexts in Translation. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Language Education Press.
Parsons, G.1990. Cohesion and Coherence: Scientific Texts: A Comparative Study.Department of English Studies, University of Nottingham.
Qian,Yuan.1983. A Comparison of Some Cohesive Devices in English and Chinese.Shang Hai: Foreign Languages. Volume1.19-26.
Yule, G.2000. The Study of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press.
高明凯，1986，《汉语语法论》，北京：商务印书馆。
胡壮麟，1993，语音系统在英语语篇中的衔接功能，《外语教学与研究》第2期，1-8页。
胡壮麟，1994，《语篇的衔接与连贯》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟，1996，有关语篇衔接理论多层次模式的思考，《外国语》，第1期，1-8页。
连淑能，1993，《英汉对比研究》，北京：高等教育出版社。
刘宓庆，1991，汉英对比研究的理论问题（上），《外国语》，第4期。45页。
刘宓庆,1998,《文体与翻译》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘宓庆,1999,《当代翻译理论》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
潘国文，1997，《汉英语对比纲要》，北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
邵志洪，2005，《汉英对比翻译导论》，上海：华东理工大学出版社。
申小龙，2004，《汉语与中国文化》，上海：复旦大学出版社。
宋静，2006，论《老人与海》中桑提亚哥的英雄主义形象，《晋中学院学报》，第6期，30-35页。
向荣，2011，基于语料库辅助的《老人与海》两汉译本的译者风格研究，《湖北师范学院学报》，第3期，57-60页。
熊学良，1999，《英汉前指现象对比研究》，上海：复旦大学出版社。
朱永生，1995，衔接理论的发展和完善，《外国语》，第3期，36-41页。
朱永生，1996，论语篇连贯的内部条件，《外国语》，第4期，17-19页。
朱永生，1997，论语篇连贯的内部条件，《外国语》，第1期，11-14页。
朱永兴郑立兴苗兴伟,2001,《英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
张德禄，1992，语篇连贯与语篇的信息结构，《外语研究》，第3期，7-11页。
张德禄，1993，语篇连贯与语篇的非结构性组织形式——论语篇连贯的条件，《外国语》，第3期，1-6页。
张德禄，1999，语篇连贯研究丛横谈，《外国语》，第6期，24-31页。
张德禄，2000，论语篇连贯，《外语教学与研究》，第2期，103-109页。
张岱年成中英，1991，《中国思维偏向》，北京：中国社会科学出版社。
张昀，2010，《红楼梦》的篇章衔接手段，《湖北师范学院学报》，第5期，9-11,37页。
Chao Yuen Ren.1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkley: University ofCalifornia Press.
Cole,&Scribner, S.1974. Culture and Thought: A Psychological Introduction. NewYork: John Wiley&Sons, Inc.
Eugene A. Nida.1993. Language, Culture and Translation. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Languages Education Press.
Haliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan.1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Haliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan.1985a. Language, Context and Text. Victoria: DeakinUniversity Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Second Edition). London:Edward Arnold,1994.
Li, C. N,&S. A. Thompson. Third-person Pronouns and Zero Anaphora in ChineseDiscourse. In T. Givon (ed.). Syntax and Semantics12: Discourse and Syntax.New York: Academic Press,1979. Volume12.311-335.
Newmark, Peter.2001. Approaches to Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai ForeignLanguage Education Press.
Nida, E. A.2001. Language and Culture-contexts in Translation. Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Language Education Press.
Parsons, G.1990. Cohesion and Coherence: Scientific Texts: A Comparative Study.Department of English Studies, University of Nottingham.
Qian,Yuan.1983. A Comparison of Some Cohesive Devices in English and Chinese.Shang Hai: Foreign Languages. Volume1.19-26.
Yule, G.2000. The Study of Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching andResearch Press.
高明凯，1986，《汉语语法论》，北京：商务印书馆。
胡壮麟，1993，语音系统在英语语篇中的衔接功能，《外语教学与研究》第2期，1-8页。
胡壮麟，1994，《语篇的衔接与连贯》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟，1996，有关语篇衔接理论多层次模式的思考，《外国语》，第1期，1-8页。
连淑能，1993，《英汉对比研究》，北京：高等教育出版社。
刘宓庆，1991，汉英对比研究的理论问题（上），《外国语》，第4期。45页。
刘宓庆,1998,《文体与翻译》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘宓庆,1999,《当代翻译理论》，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
潘国文，1997，《汉英语对比纲要》，北京：北京语言文化大学出版社。
邵志洪，2005，《汉英对比翻译导论》，上海：华东理工大学出版社。
申小龙，2004，《汉语与中国文化》，上海：复旦大学出版社。
宋静，2006，论《老人与海》中桑提亚哥的英雄主义形象，《晋中学院学报》，第6期，30-35页。
向荣，2011，基于语料库辅助的《老人与海》两汉译本的译者风格研究，《湖北师范学院学报》，第3期，57-60页。
熊学良，1999，《英汉前指现象对比研究》，上海：复旦大学出版社。
朱永生，1995，衔接理论的发展和完善，《外国语》，第3期，36-41页。
朱永生，1996，论语篇连贯的内部条件，《外国语》，第4期，17-19页。
朱永生，1997，论语篇连贯的内部条件，《外国语》，第1期，11-14页。
朱永兴郑立兴苗兴伟,2001,《英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究》，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
张德禄，1992，语篇连贯与语篇的信息结构，《外语研究》，第3期，7-11页。
张德禄，1993，语篇连贯与语篇的非结构性组织形式——论语篇连贯的条件，《外国语》，第3期，1-6页。
张德禄，1999，语篇连贯研究丛横谈，《外国语》，第6期，24-31页。
张德禄，2000，论语篇连贯，《外语教学与研究》，第2期，103-109页。
张岱年成中英，1991，《中国思维偏向》，北京：中国社会科学出版社。
张昀，2010，《红楼梦》的篇章衔接手段，《湖北师范学院学报》，第5期，9-11,37页。