论翻译等值的篇章途径
|
摘要
翻译等值概念历来是翻译理论界论争的焦点之一。人们对其褒贬不一，莫衷一是。采用跨学科的途径，对其定义进行客观的界定并将其应用到翻译实践中是本文的宗旨。
文章的第一部分对翻译等值问题的研究进行回顾，分析问题所在，并在此基础上阐明对翻译等值概念客观的理解。翻译等值概念的提出是以两派为代表的，一派是以卡特福德为代表的语言学派，他的“文本等值”试图将翻译研究纳入语言学的领域，对翻译研究的规范化，科学化产生了深远的影响，一派则是以奈达为代表的交际学派，他提出的“动态对等”概念视角新颖，以“读者反应论”来判断译文成功与否，对两千年来西方翻译家们相持不下的直译与自由译之争，提供了一个令人信服的答案。毫无疑问，他们对翻译等值问题的研究做出了巨大的贡献，但他们理论中的种种缺陷使其未能提出令人信服的翻译等值理论，反而使人们对翻译等值问题的论争愈演愈烈。文章认为，翻译等值并不意味着完全对等，其本质只是一种相对的对等，是译者奋斗的目标。但如何理解这种相对对等的真正内涵，并将其应用到翻译实践，是问题的关键所在。这就需要探索一种新的途径。
翻译学是一门崭新的学科，需要利用其它一些相关学科的研究成果建立自己的研究方法，拓宽发展空间，这已为翻译理论界达成共识。文章的第二部分引入篇章语言学的概念，并阐述其和翻译等值论研究的相关性。翻译涉及语言之间的转换，因此翻译理论研究和语言学有着密切的关系，合理的借鉴语言学的研究成果对翻译理论研究的发展有着巨大的作用。但传统语言学仅局限于语言结构本身的研究，重静态描写，对翻译理论研究的贡献不大。而篇章语言学冲破了过去以句子为中心研究语言的最高层次的局限，而将其扩展到整个篇章，对实际运用中的语言组织特征和使用特征进行了动态的研究。以篇章为视角，译者可以从整体着眼，以语篇分析和语篇生成为指导思想，以争取最大限度的篇章对等。
翻译理论的特点在于它不仅来源于实践，而且能指导翻译实践。文章的第三部分旨在说明，以篇章为视角，如何才能实现原文语篇和译文语篇的对等。由于语篇被看作在一定的语境中行使一定功能的语言单位，因此在翻译过程中，译者应对原文的篇章意图和语言使用特点进行综合分析，然后将这些特征在目的语语
篇中再现出来，以达到源语语篇和译语语篇各自所行使的功能对等。本文借鉴传
统翻译理论和方法的合理成分，认为这种功能对等是通过三方面体现出来的，即
语用对等，文体对等和修辞对等。①只有在三方面都达到了对等，源语语篇和译
语语篇之间的功能对等才有可能最大限度的建立起来。由于翻译是和原文要表达
的意义有关，因此语言学中的语义学和语用学和翻译有着一定的联系，因为二者
都是研究语言的意义的。但在篇章语言学的指导下，我们可以看出，语用学和翻
译的关系更为密切，即译者更多的是为了传达语言使用中的意义，从而达到语用
对等。文体对等是翻译中不容忽视的一个环节，因为一个译者只有充分考虑源
语语篇语言使用特点，包括言语交际双方，内容体裁，交流方式等，并尽量使它
们在译语语篇中得以再现，以达到文体对等，而篇章语言学研究中的语域理论为
如何实现文体对等提供了有力的理论依据。同时，语篇不是一连串句子和段落的
任意堆砌，而是一个结构完整、功能明确的语义统一体。语篇要求词句之间在语
言形式上具有衔接性，在语义上具备连贯性，才能达到一定的修辞目的。由于不
同语言间的衔接形式有同有异，因此在翻译中针对源语和译语的表达习惯做相应
的调整是达到修辞对等的前提条件。
通过以上分析，本文得出这样的结论：翻译等值论是翻译中的重要理论，是
衡量翻译质量高低的重要准则，译者的奋斗目标是最大程度的在语篇间建立对
等。
The concept of translation equivalence has long been a controversial problem in translation theories. Different opinions have arisen and no agreement has been reached yet. By taking an interdisciplinary approach, the paper aims to seek the objective definition of translation equivalence and then apply it to translation practice.
The first part of the paper reviews translation equivalence proposed previously and makes an analysis on the existing problems involved in the issue, from which the objective definition has been derived. The question of defining translation equivalence has been mainly pursued by two approaches. Linguistic approach, represented by Catford, is known for his "textual equivalence". The theory plays a very important part in building a more scientific and systematic translation theory. Communicative approach, put forward by Nida, has opened up a new perspective in the sense of "readers' response" to achieve "dynamic equivalence". Their theories, no doubt, have made great contributions to the study of translation equivalence, but owning to various defects, their theories fail to offer a satisfactory and persuasive solution to the question, only to cause more confusion. The paper makes a claim that translation equivalence shouldn't be viewed as absolute. The nature of the concept lies in its relativity. It is the goal a translator sets his mind to achieve. But the most important thing is how people should understand the nature of the concept in order to put it into practice. A new approach is called for.
Being a new discipline, translation needs to draw on the findings of other related fields to develop its own methodology and broaden its horizon, which has been already accepted as a fact in translation studies. The second part of the paper makes a brief introduction to text linguistics and discusses the relationship between text linguistics and the study of translation equivalence. Translation involves the transference between
two languages, so that it has a close relationship with linguistics. It is of great help for the development of translation if the achievements of linguistics are applied to translation studies appropriately. But traditional linguistics, which restricted itself to the study of linguistic structure, is of little value to translation. Text linguistics, which extends itself to the study of language beyond sentence level and language in use, has offered a much broader view for translation studies. Taking a textual approach, translators are guided by the principle of text analysis and text production in order to achieve equivalence in translation to its maximum.
Translation theories are based on translation practice, and translation theories in turn serve as the guidance to translation practice. Part three of the paper centers on the achievements of translation equivalence from the perspective of text linguistics. As a text is termed as a linguistic unit serving certain function in certain context, in the process of translating, translators should embark to make a comprehensive analysis of the intention and the features of language use in the source text, and then attempt to present them in the target text in the hope of achieving functional equivalence. The paper claims that in translation practice, the functional equivalence mainly covers three aspects: pragmatic equivalence, stylistic equivalence and rhetorical equivalence. The overall functional equivalence will be achieved on the basis of the above three types of equivalence. It is universally agreed that translation should convey the meanings of the source text. Semantics and pragmatics, which are both concerned with the study of meaning, should have certain relationship with translation studies. In the light of text linguistics, one may say pragmatics is of more help to translation, for a translator always gives utmost prominence to the meaning in use, so that pragmatic equivalence can be achieved. Stylistic equivalence is of great significance in translation. A translator has to analyze the features of language
文章的第一部分对翻译等值问题的研究进行回顾，分析问题所在，并在此基础上阐明对翻译等值概念客观的理解。翻译等值概念的提出是以两派为代表的，一派是以卡特福德为代表的语言学派，他的“文本等值”试图将翻译研究纳入语言学的领域，对翻译研究的规范化，科学化产生了深远的影响，一派则是以奈达为代表的交际学派，他提出的“动态对等”概念视角新颖，以“读者反应论”来判断译文成功与否，对两千年来西方翻译家们相持不下的直译与自由译之争，提供了一个令人信服的答案。毫无疑问，他们对翻译等值问题的研究做出了巨大的贡献，但他们理论中的种种缺陷使其未能提出令人信服的翻译等值理论，反而使人们对翻译等值问题的论争愈演愈烈。文章认为，翻译等值并不意味着完全对等，其本质只是一种相对的对等，是译者奋斗的目标。但如何理解这种相对对等的真正内涵，并将其应用到翻译实践，是问题的关键所在。这就需要探索一种新的途径。
翻译学是一门崭新的学科，需要利用其它一些相关学科的研究成果建立自己的研究方法，拓宽发展空间，这已为翻译理论界达成共识。文章的第二部分引入篇章语言学的概念，并阐述其和翻译等值论研究的相关性。翻译涉及语言之间的转换，因此翻译理论研究和语言学有着密切的关系，合理的借鉴语言学的研究成果对翻译理论研究的发展有着巨大的作用。但传统语言学仅局限于语言结构本身的研究，重静态描写，对翻译理论研究的贡献不大。而篇章语言学冲破了过去以句子为中心研究语言的最高层次的局限，而将其扩展到整个篇章，对实际运用中的语言组织特征和使用特征进行了动态的研究。以篇章为视角，译者可以从整体着眼，以语篇分析和语篇生成为指导思想，以争取最大限度的篇章对等。
翻译理论的特点在于它不仅来源于实践，而且能指导翻译实践。文章的第三部分旨在说明，以篇章为视角，如何才能实现原文语篇和译文语篇的对等。由于语篇被看作在一定的语境中行使一定功能的语言单位，因此在翻译过程中，译者应对原文的篇章意图和语言使用特点进行综合分析，然后将这些特征在目的语语
篇中再现出来，以达到源语语篇和译语语篇各自所行使的功能对等。本文借鉴传
统翻译理论和方法的合理成分，认为这种功能对等是通过三方面体现出来的，即
语用对等，文体对等和修辞对等。①只有在三方面都达到了对等，源语语篇和译
语语篇之间的功能对等才有可能最大限度的建立起来。由于翻译是和原文要表达
的意义有关，因此语言学中的语义学和语用学和翻译有着一定的联系，因为二者
都是研究语言的意义的。但在篇章语言学的指导下，我们可以看出，语用学和翻
译的关系更为密切，即译者更多的是为了传达语言使用中的意义，从而达到语用
对等。文体对等是翻译中不容忽视的一个环节，因为一个译者只有充分考虑源
语语篇语言使用特点，包括言语交际双方，内容体裁，交流方式等，并尽量使它
们在译语语篇中得以再现，以达到文体对等，而篇章语言学研究中的语域理论为
如何实现文体对等提供了有力的理论依据。同时，语篇不是一连串句子和段落的
任意堆砌，而是一个结构完整、功能明确的语义统一体。语篇要求词句之间在语
言形式上具有衔接性，在语义上具备连贯性，才能达到一定的修辞目的。由于不
同语言间的衔接形式有同有异，因此在翻译中针对源语和译语的表达习惯做相应
的调整是达到修辞对等的前提条件。
通过以上分析，本文得出这样的结论：翻译等值论是翻译中的重要理论，是
衡量翻译质量高低的重要准则，译者的奋斗目标是最大程度的在语篇间建立对
等。
The concept of translation equivalence has long been a controversial problem in translation theories. Different opinions have arisen and no agreement has been reached yet. By taking an interdisciplinary approach, the paper aims to seek the objective definition of translation equivalence and then apply it to translation practice.
The first part of the paper reviews translation equivalence proposed previously and makes an analysis on the existing problems involved in the issue, from which the objective definition has been derived. The question of defining translation equivalence has been mainly pursued by two approaches. Linguistic approach, represented by Catford, is known for his "textual equivalence". The theory plays a very important part in building a more scientific and systematic translation theory. Communicative approach, put forward by Nida, has opened up a new perspective in the sense of "readers' response" to achieve "dynamic equivalence". Their theories, no doubt, have made great contributions to the study of translation equivalence, but owning to various defects, their theories fail to offer a satisfactory and persuasive solution to the question, only to cause more confusion. The paper makes a claim that translation equivalence shouldn't be viewed as absolute. The nature of the concept lies in its relativity. It is the goal a translator sets his mind to achieve. But the most important thing is how people should understand the nature of the concept in order to put it into practice. A new approach is called for.
Being a new discipline, translation needs to draw on the findings of other related fields to develop its own methodology and broaden its horizon, which has been already accepted as a fact in translation studies. The second part of the paper makes a brief introduction to text linguistics and discusses the relationship between text linguistics and the study of translation equivalence. Translation involves the transference between
two languages, so that it has a close relationship with linguistics. It is of great help for the development of translation if the achievements of linguistics are applied to translation studies appropriately. But traditional linguistics, which restricted itself to the study of linguistic structure, is of little value to translation. Text linguistics, which extends itself to the study of language beyond sentence level and language in use, has offered a much broader view for translation studies. Taking a textual approach, translators are guided by the principle of text analysis and text production in order to achieve equivalence in translation to its maximum.
Translation theories are based on translation practice, and translation theories in turn serve as the guidance to translation practice. Part three of the paper centers on the achievements of translation equivalence from the perspective of text linguistics. As a text is termed as a linguistic unit serving certain function in certain context, in the process of translating, translators should embark to make a comprehensive analysis of the intention and the features of language use in the source text, and then attempt to present them in the target text in the hope of achieving functional equivalence. The paper claims that in translation practice, the functional equivalence mainly covers three aspects: pragmatic equivalence, stylistic equivalence and rhetorical equivalence. The overall functional equivalence will be achieved on the basis of the above three types of equivalence. It is universally agreed that translation should convey the meanings of the source text. Semantics and pragmatics, which are both concerned with the study of meaning, should have certain relationship with translation studies. In the light of text linguistics, one may say pragmatics is of more help to translation, for a translator always gives utmost prominence to the meaning in use, so that pragmatic equivalence can be achieved. Stylistic equivalence is of great significance in translation. A translator has to analyze the features of language
引文
[1] Bell Roger, Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice [M], Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001
[2] Bassnett-McGuire Susan, Translation Studies[M], London: Methuen & Co. Ltd,1997
[3] Baker Mona, In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation [M], Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001
[4] Beaugrande & Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics [M], New York: Longman Inc, 1981
[5] Hatim Basil, Communication Across Cultures-Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001
[6] Hatim Basil & Ian Mason, Discourse and The translation [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001
[7] Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M], Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000
[8] Halliday & Hasan, Cohesion in English [M], Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000
[9] Jin Di & Eugene A. Nida, On Translation [M], 北京：中国对外翻译出版社公司，1984
[10] Ke Wenli, Semantics and Translation [J], Foreign Languages, 1992(3)
[11] Leech Geoffrey N, Principles of Pragmatics [M], New York: Longman Inc, 1983
[12] Neubert Albrecht, Translation as Text [M], Kent: The Kent State University Press, 1992
[13] Nord Charistiane, Translation as A Purposeful Activity [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001
[14] Nida Eugene A, Language And Culture-Contexts in Translating [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education press, 2001
[15] Newmark Peter, A Text Book of Translation [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001
[16] Qiu Maoru, Equivalence vs. Translation Equivalence as Translation Theory and Its Application to English-Chinese Translation [J], Foreign languages, 1989(4-6)
[17] Snell-Hornby Mary, Translation Studies-An Integrated Approach[M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001
[18] Saussure, Course in General Linguistics [M], Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001
[19] Wilss Wolfram, The Science of Translation [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001
[20] 巴尔胡达罗夫[苏] 著 蔡毅等译，语言与翻译[M]，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1985
[21]陈治安，英汉对比语用学与英语教学[M]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2002
[22]陈望道，修辞学发凡[M]，上海：上海教育出版社：2001
[23]J，C，卡特福德[英] 著 穆雷译，翻译的语言学理论[M]，北京：旅游教育出版社，1991
[24]蔡毅，关于国外翻译理论的三大核心概念[J]，中国翻译，1985(6)
[25]邓炎昌，刘润清，语言与文化[M]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1997
[26]冯国华，吴群，英译汉别裁[M]，北京：外文出版社，2001
[27]桂乾元，论翻译等值[J]，外国语，1991(3)
[28]郭建中，论西方的翻译对等概念[J]，中国翻译，1986(5)
[29]韩子满，翻译等值论探幽[J]，解放军外国语学院学报，1999(3)
[30]胡壮麟，语篇的衔接与连贯[M]，上海：上海餐语教育出版社，2001
[31]何自然，语用学与英语学习[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999
[32]黄国文，语篇分析概要[M]，长沙：湖南教育出版社，1997
[33]居祖纯，高级汉英语篇翻译[M]，北京：清华大学出版社，2000
[34]蒋里松，蒋洪新，三湘译论[C]，长沙：湖南人民出版社，2001
[35]金隄，等效翻译探索[M]，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2001
[36]柯平，对比语言学[M]，南京：南京师范大学出版社，1999
[37]刘宓庆，文体与翻译[M]，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1998
[38]刘重德，文学翻译十讲[M]，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2000
[39]李运兴，语篇翻译引论[M]，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2001
[40]李运兴，英汉语篇翻译[M]，北京：清华大学出版社，1998
[41]连淑能，英汉对比研究[M]，北京：高等教育出版社，1994
[42]束定芳，现代语义学[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000
[43]罗选民，话语层翻译标准初探[J]，中国翻译，1991(5)
[44]廖七一，也谈西方翻译理论中的等值论[J]，中国翻译，1994(5)
[45]秦秀白，文体学概论[M]，长沙：湖南教育出版社，1997
[46]沈伟栋，话语分析与翻译[J]，中国翻译，2000(6)
[47]谭载喜，西方翻译简史[M]，北京：商务印书馆，2000
[481谭载喜，翻译学[M]，武汉：湖北教育出版社，2000
[49]萧立明，英汉比较研究与翻译[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002
[50]许余龙，对比语言学[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002
[51]袁锦翔，略谈篇翻译与英汉篇章结构对比[J]，中国翻译，1994(6)
[52]姚暨荣，论篇章翻译的实质[J]，中国翻译，2000(5)
[53]杨自俭，翻译新论[C]，武汉：湖北教育出版社，1991
[54]杨自俭，译学新探[C]，青岛：青岛出版社，2002
[55]杨莉藜，英汉互译教程[M]，郑州：河南大学出版社，1999
[56]叶子南，高级英汉翻译-理论与实践[M]，北京：清华大学出版社，200l
[57]吴新祥，李宏安，等值翻译初探[J]，外语教学与研究，1983(3)
[58]王东风，语义类型与翻译[J]，外语教学研究，2000(2)
[59]王文斌，从信息论和符号学看翻译对等[J]，上海科技翻译，2000(2)
[60]王云桥，谈段落作为语篇翻译的操作单位[J]，中国翻译，1998(5)
[61]张美芳，从语篇分析的角度看翻译中的对等[J]，现代外语，2001(1)
[62]张琦，英汉衔接手段对比及其翻译[J]，中国翻译，1999(1)
[63]张英进，从现代文体学看文学风格与翻译[J]，外国语，1986(1)
[64]庄恩平，翻译中的语用和语义关系[J]，上海科技翻译，1999(1)
[65]章和升，王云桥，英汉翻译技巧[M]，北京：当代世界出版社，1997
[2] Bassnett-McGuire Susan, Translation Studies[M], London: Methuen & Co. Ltd,1997
[3] Baker Mona, In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation [M], Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001
[4] Beaugrande & Dressler, Introduction to Text Linguistics [M], New York: Longman Inc, 1981
[5] Hatim Basil, Communication Across Cultures-Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001
[6] Hatim Basil & Ian Mason, Discourse and The translation [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001
[7] Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M], Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000
[8] Halliday & Hasan, Cohesion in English [M], Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000
[9] Jin Di & Eugene A. Nida, On Translation [M], 北京：中国对外翻译出版社公司，1984
[10] Ke Wenli, Semantics and Translation [J], Foreign Languages, 1992(3)
[11] Leech Geoffrey N, Principles of Pragmatics [M], New York: Longman Inc, 1983
[12] Neubert Albrecht, Translation as Text [M], Kent: The Kent State University Press, 1992
[13] Nord Charistiane, Translation as A Purposeful Activity [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001
[14] Nida Eugene A, Language And Culture-Contexts in Translating [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education press, 2001
[15] Newmark Peter, A Text Book of Translation [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001
[16] Qiu Maoru, Equivalence vs. Translation Equivalence as Translation Theory and Its Application to English-Chinese Translation [J], Foreign languages, 1989(4-6)
[17] Snell-Hornby Mary, Translation Studies-An Integrated Approach[M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001
[18] Saussure, Course in General Linguistics [M], Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001
[19] Wilss Wolfram, The Science of Translation [M], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001
[20] 巴尔胡达罗夫[苏] 著 蔡毅等译，语言与翻译[M]，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1985
[21]陈治安，英汉对比语用学与英语教学[M]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2002
[22]陈望道，修辞学发凡[M]，上海：上海教育出版社：2001
[23]J，C，卡特福德[英] 著 穆雷译，翻译的语言学理论[M]，北京：旅游教育出版社，1991
[24]蔡毅，关于国外翻译理论的三大核心概念[J]，中国翻译，1985(6)
[25]邓炎昌，刘润清，语言与文化[M]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1997
[26]冯国华，吴群，英译汉别裁[M]，北京：外文出版社，2001
[27]桂乾元，论翻译等值[J]，外国语，1991(3)
[28]郭建中，论西方的翻译对等概念[J]，中国翻译，1986(5)
[29]韩子满，翻译等值论探幽[J]，解放军外国语学院学报，1999(3)
[30]胡壮麟，语篇的衔接与连贯[M]，上海：上海餐语教育出版社，2001
[31]何自然，语用学与英语学习[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999
[32]黄国文，语篇分析概要[M]，长沙：湖南教育出版社，1997
[33]居祖纯，高级汉英语篇翻译[M]，北京：清华大学出版社，2000
[34]蒋里松，蒋洪新，三湘译论[C]，长沙：湖南人民出版社，2001
[35]金隄，等效翻译探索[M]，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2001
[36]柯平，对比语言学[M]，南京：南京师范大学出版社，1999
[37]刘宓庆，文体与翻译[M]，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1998
[38]刘重德，文学翻译十讲[M]，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2000
[39]李运兴，语篇翻译引论[M]，北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2001
[40]李运兴，英汉语篇翻译[M]，北京：清华大学出版社，1998
[41]连淑能，英汉对比研究[M]，北京：高等教育出版社，1994
[42]束定芳，现代语义学[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000
[43]罗选民，话语层翻译标准初探[J]，中国翻译，1991(5)
[44]廖七一，也谈西方翻译理论中的等值论[J]，中国翻译，1994(5)
[45]秦秀白，文体学概论[M]，长沙：湖南教育出版社，1997
[46]沈伟栋，话语分析与翻译[J]，中国翻译，2000(6)
[47]谭载喜，西方翻译简史[M]，北京：商务印书馆，2000
[481谭载喜，翻译学[M]，武汉：湖北教育出版社，2000
[49]萧立明，英汉比较研究与翻译[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002
[50]许余龙，对比语言学[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002
[51]袁锦翔，略谈篇翻译与英汉篇章结构对比[J]，中国翻译，1994(6)
[52]姚暨荣，论篇章翻译的实质[J]，中国翻译，2000(5)
[53]杨自俭，翻译新论[C]，武汉：湖北教育出版社，1991
[54]杨自俭，译学新探[C]，青岛：青岛出版社，2002
[55]杨莉藜，英汉互译教程[M]，郑州：河南大学出版社，1999
[56]叶子南，高级英汉翻译-理论与实践[M]，北京：清华大学出版社，200l
[57]吴新祥，李宏安，等值翻译初探[J]，外语教学与研究，1983(3)
[58]王东风，语义类型与翻译[J]，外语教学研究，2000(2)
[59]王文斌，从信息论和符号学看翻译对等[J]，上海科技翻译，2000(2)
[60]王云桥，谈段落作为语篇翻译的操作单位[J]，中国翻译，1998(5)
[61]张美芳，从语篇分析的角度看翻译中的对等[J]，现代外语，2001(1)
[62]张琦，英汉衔接手段对比及其翻译[J]，中国翻译，1999(1)
[63]张英进，从现代文体学看文学风格与翻译[J]，外国语，1986(1)
[64]庄恩平，翻译中的语用和语义关系[J]，上海科技翻译，1999(1)
[65]章和升，王云桥，英汉翻译技巧[M]，北京：当代世界出版社，1997