中国高校英语专业翻译教学研究
|
摘要
翻译能力(Translation Competence)的培养是一个非常复杂的工程。国内外翻译能力及其相关模式研究的快速发展为深入探讨学生翻译能力的培养创造了良好契机。另外,教育心理学领域的最新研究成果业已表明,知识是由个体主动建构而成,并非得自教师的传授。学习过程是知识的生长,是个体新旧经验的相互作用,而不是简单的知识传递和被动接受。目前,长期占据统治地位的客观主义教学范式已逐渐失去其优势,而新兴的建构主义教学范式日益展现出强大的生命力,其影响不断得到深化和加强。显而易见,客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式的不同性质和特点决定了两者具有不同的功能和作用,对二者加以厘清,合理处理二者关系,不仅是优化教学过程、提高教学效果的需要,也是教学理论发展的需要。值得一提的是,近年来,随着中国改革开放进一步深入,对外交流日益增强,社会对外语专业人才、尤其是翻译人才需求量越来越大。然而,由于国内开设翻译专业的高等院校屈指可数,根本无法满足社会对翻译人才的需求,中国诸多高校的外语专业自然也须承担起翻译人才培养的任务。综观目前国内外相关研究,尤其在借鉴吸收现有翻译能力及其相关模式研究成果,分析整合两大教学范式的合理成分,积极构建培养学生翻译能力的教学新模式方面尚为空白,进行研究很有必要。
本论文的核心内容是结合TEM8考试(目前中国大陆唯一大规模测量英语专业学生高级阶段英语水平的标准参照性教学检查考试),以最新的教学理念以及更加开阔的学术视野重新审视中国高校英语专业翻译教学,把学生无标题语段翻译能力(No-Title Passage Translation Competence)之培养融入中国高校英语专业翻译教学,以适应翻译职业化(翻译产业)和翻译学科研究的需要。具体来说,一方面,本论文借鉴吸收西班牙翻译能力研究小组PACTE的最新成果,从理论上对无标题语段翻译能力的概念和构成要素做出解释和框定；另一方面,本论文受到科学研究的一个新倾向,即包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法的启示和指导,通过分析、整合现有两大教学范式,即,客观主义与建构主义教学范式之合理成分,尝试性构建一个更全面、更有效地培养学生无标题语段翻译能力的中国高校英语专业翻译教学新模式。
本论文的出发点在于：1.篇章由一个或一个以上的无标题语段(No-Title Passage)组成。纵观历年TEM8试题,翻译部分所用材料全部都是篇幅较短(150-200个英文单词或200个汉字左右)的无标题语段。毋庸置疑,作为具体教学内容,与篇幅较长的篇章翻译以及篇幅更短的句子翻译相比,无标题语段翻译更加切合翻译教学需要。而且,由于没有标题,作者意图以及语段主题难以确立,翻译难度大大增加。从这个意义上讲,只要学生具备了无标题语段翻译能力,也就具备了一般意义上的翻译能力,而这在中国高校英语专业翻译课堂上尚未得到有效开发。2.无标题语段翻译能力之培养必须立足于我们对其构成要素的科学认识。现有翻译能力及其相关模式研究成果为此提供了极大的可能性。3.无标题语段翻译能力之培养必须立足于我们对其培养模式的科学认识。科学研究的一个新倾向,即包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法给予本研究以很大的启示和指导。这一方法借助于两个以至多个并列的彼此独立的理论系统使不同的认识结果互相补充。而且,通过对其优势与不足的分析,本论文发现现有客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式具有很大的互补性。显而易见,第一出发点反映了本论文的重要性、必要性,第二、三出发点反映了本论文的可行性、科学性。值得强调的是,第三出发点还反映了科学研究的新倾向,这也是本论文的理论意义所在。
本论文共分6章。第一章为本论文的总体介绍。第二至三章为相关文献综述：分析比对客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式的性质和特点,厘清各自的功能和作用,彰显该整合研究的必要性和可行性,为整篇论文奠定基础。第四章借鉴吸收现有翻译能力及其相关模式研究成果,尝试性探讨无标题语段翻译能力的概念,构成要素及模式,为整篇论文提供保障。第五章以包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法为指导,尝试性构建以学生无标题语段翻译能力培养为基本目标的中国高校英语专业翻译教学新模式,内容主要包括模式总体介绍、具体应用以及通过试验教学进行实证性检验。第六章是结论,以总揽全文。本论文主要采用定性研究方法,理论探讨(模式建立)和实证研究(教学试验)相结合。
如上所述,由于该整合研究的始发理论为客观主义教学范式(the Objectivist Paradigm)和建构主义教学范式(the Constructivist Paradigm),因此,本论文拟建构的翻译教学新模式被命名为Objectivist-Constructivist Theoretic Approach,缩略为OCTA。为了叙述上的便利,本论文依据Richards & Rodgers (1986)的教学方法分析模式,把OCTA教学模式分为三个部分,即,“理论基础”(theoretical foundation)2,“课程设计”(instructional design)和“教学实践”(pedagogic procedures)。在OCTA理论框架内,“理论基础”指的是关于翻译研究和教学的概念和理论；“课程设计”是指建立在“理论基础”之上的翻译课程总体规划；“教学实践”则是指基于“理论基础”和“课程设计”的具体翻译课堂活动,它们相互影响,相互依赖：“理论基础”指导“课程设计”,“课程设计”指导“教学实践”,“教学实践”则可验证并进一步发展“理论基础”。
问卷调查结果显示,几乎所有中国高校英语专业学生在参加本科翻译教学课程之前除了做过少量作为语言学习手段的翻译练习外,既没有系统的翻译知识积累,也没有接受过任何形式的翻译训练。为了能够在如此短暂的翻译教学时间内(大多为108学时)使得这些翻译“新手”中能有更多的人尽可能快地成长为翻译“能手”,本论文认为,·中国高校英语专业翻译教学过程究其实质应为OCTA理论框架下的学生无标题语段翻译能力的培养过程。该教学过程,可以具体分解为两个紧密衔接的子过程：1.无标题语段翻译能力培养相关知识的记忆与积累过程。2.无标题语段翻译能力培养相关知识的综合应用过程。与前者相对应的课程类型为翻译知识讲座(Translation Introductory Lecture),采用客观主义教学范式,教学内容主要包括翻译基本原理、翻译职业、翻译工具,翻译策略,客观主义及建构主义学习策略,属于初级学习阶段。与后者相对应的课程类型为翻译工作坊(Translation Project Workshop),采用建构主义教学范式,属于高级学习阶段,目的在于通过以学习为中心的课堂练习,通过使用真实无标题语段教学材料(如,历年TEM8翻译试题),帮助学生获得真实的无标题语段翻译经验,尽可能快速、有效地将其在初级学习阶段所掌握的相关知识成功转化为无标题语段翻译能力,即,使得学生能够综合应用所掌握的相关知识,顺利解决无标题语段翻译过程中所遇到的问题,为其将来进入职业化工作状态奠定坚实的基础。
针对本论文研究的主要问题,结论如下：
1.什么是无标题语段翻译能力?它由哪些基本要素构成?
本论文的概念性研究表明,从宏观层面上讲,本论文认同西班牙翻译能力研究小组PACTE的最新成果,即无标题语段翻译能力由双语能力,言外能力,翻译工具使用能力,翻译专业知识能力,策略能力,以及生理、心理能力6种次级能力构成,其中,策略能力用于协调其他各次级能力之间的相互转换和运作,居于核心地位。从微观层面上讲,本论文认为,无标题语段翻译能力只有3种次级能力组成：即翻译专业知识能力、翻译工具使用能力以及翻译策略能力。其中,翻译策略能力可以进一步分解为彼此相关、有层次、可转化、动态的5种成分,即：原语语段潜在主题及作者意图的确定能力、原语语段主题及语境关联性认知框架的建构能力、原语语段词句潜在语义的明示能力、目标语语段的选词择义能力和目标语语段的衔接连贯能力。其中,原语语段主题及语境关联性认知框架的建构能力最为重要,居于核心地位。本论文第四章的实证分析和相关讨论对此给予了证实。需要指出的是,在实际培养过程中,各个次级能力的培养是相互交错进行的。
2.从理论上讲,使用OCTA教学模式为何能够更有效地培养中国高校英语专业学生无标题语段翻译能力?
本论文认为主要原因有两个：(1)OCTA教学模式是一个集客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式之优势于一体的二维翻译教学新模式。其中,客观主义教学范式的核心概念“知识传授”成为学生无标题语段翻译能力培养过程的重要前提,以补建构主义教学范式之不足；建构主义教学范式的核心概念“在真实情景中学习”成为学生无标题语段翻译能力培养的必要条件,以补客观主义教学范式之不足。换言之,在OCTA理论框架内,客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式都能够得到丰富与补充.前者强调知识的记忆与积累,适合于初级学习阶段；后者注重知识的综合与应用,更适合于高级学习阶段。本论文认为,任何能力培养过程都可以分为初级学习和高级学习两个阶段,无标题语段翻译能力培养过程概莫能外。(2)OCTA教学模式特别适合目前中国高校英语专业翻译教学语境。首先,客观主义教学范式仍旧占据绝对统治地位,广大教师和学生对其认识和应用已经成为习惯,而对建构主义教学范式的认识及运用能力亟待提高。此外,初级阶段学习内容多为结构良好(well-structured)的问题,客观主义作为此类问题的教学理论基础更为贴切。第二,建构主义教学范式适合于高级学习阶段结构不良(ill-structured)问题的解决。具体到无标题语段翻译能力的培养,建构主义教学范式的有效运用不仅要求教师最好具有职业译者经验并接受过专门的翻译教学培训,学生具有相关的翻译知识积累,而且需要师生必须具有较强的开展和实施建构主义教学的能力,这在一定程度上可以在初级学习阶段得到解决。值得指出的是,与客观主义教学范式相比对,建构主义教学范式教学虽然效果更好(详见第五章),但是教学周期较长,效率较低,硬、软件教学资源要求较高,对目前中国高校英语专业翻译教学语境无疑是一个极大的挑战。本论文认为,在中国高校英语专业翻译教学实践过程中,宜视师生相关经验、知识、能力的实际情况将两者的优势加以合理整合,以有效提高教学效果。
3.从实证角度看,OCTA教学模式能否有效提高学生的无标题语段翻译能力?
通过统计数据分析和相关讨论(详见第五章),本论文得出如下结论：在目前中国高校英语专业翻译教学语境下,OCTA教学模式大大优于客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式。具体体现在第一学年翻译教学课程结束时(Month 8 of Tuition),与客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式的应用结果相比对,OCTA教学模式的应用使得学生的无标题语段翻译能力提升幅度更大。此外,鉴于在任何翻译过程中,所有的次级能力都会相互作用,相互促进,本论文由此可以推论,本实证研究尚未包括在内的双语能力,言外能力,心理-生理能力也可得到提高。中国高校英语专业翻译教学过程究其实质应为OCTA理论框架下的学生无标题语段翻译能力的培养过程。
总而言之,国内外翻译能力研究的快速发展极大地推动着中国的翻译教学研究,使我们对翻译教学关注的重心从机械的知识传授与技巧讲解逐渐转移到学生翻译能力的培养方面,中国翻译教学研究开始进入一个新的发展阶段。本论文借鉴吸收西班牙翻译能力研究小组PACTE的研究成果,对无标题语段翻译能力的概念、构成要素及模式的尝试性探讨,是对现有翻译能力研究成果的有益丰富与补充；本论文以包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法为指导,整合客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式之优势所提出的OCTA模式在一定程度上解决了客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式所面临的问题；与此同时,本论文所采用的整合研究“方法”也证明了包纳简单方法的复杂方法的有效性。值得指出的是,OCTA教学模式在中国高校英语专业翻译教学实践过程中的应用自然也可以扩展到其他翻译教学过程。我们相信,在21世纪,中国高校英语专业翻译教学研究必将会进入一个空前繁荣发展的新时期。
Translation competence (henceforth TC) developing is a challenging task. Very fortunately, the rapid development of TC studies and its correspondent models, one of the frontier areas in translation studies both at home and abroad, provides a tremendous opportunity for this and many other new investigations into students' TC developing. Moreover, nowadays it has become a commonplace in educational psychology that knowledge is constructed by learners, rather than being simply transmitted to them by their teachers. The learning process is the growth of personal knowledge. Learners construct knowledge through the interaction between new information and their preexisting experience. Learners' comprehensive context knowledge represented in different forms will be involved in the process. As a result, the traditional objectivist paradigm which has been occupying the dominant position for many years begins to lose the upper hand, while the newly pervasive constructivist paradigm shows its great vitality.
Undoubtedly, the different nature and characteristics of these two main pedagogic paradigms predetermines their different functions in the process of teaching practice. How to collate and stipulate these two paradigms in a proper way and to deal with them with appropriate stress during the course of teaching translation for English majors in China's universities will greatly influence the optimization of translation teaching process, the improvement of translation teaching effect, and the development of translation teaching theory. It is worthy of note that, in recent years, along with the reform and opening-up policy going one step further, China has increased exchanges with many more foreign countries. More and more talents in foreign languages, especially qualified translators, are in great demand. However,it is really a pity that there are not so many translation schools in China to meet the urgent needs of society. So it is natural for foreign language colleges or departments of non-foreign language universities in China to share the task of potential capable and qualified translator training.
The relevant research review both at home and abroad shows that no previous researches have ever attempted to establish a new method for students'TC developing based on the existing research achievements of TC studies and integrating the useful ingredients of the two main pedagogic paradigms mentioned above as well. The present dissertation, therefore, is of great necessity.
Generally, the present dissertation aims at a tentative exploration into teaching translation for English majors in China's universities. To be more specific, on the one hand, the present dissertation makes a tentative exploration into a workable definition and the components of no-title passage translation competence on the basis of the research findings of the Spanish PACTE's empirical TC study; on the other hand, the present dissertation, greatly enlightened by a new trend in scientific research, namely, understanding com-plicated matters by drawing support from several theoretical systems or adopting a complex approach covering simple methods in the study of human beings and their real and mental world, tentatively establishes a new teaching approach to English majors' no-title passage translation competence developing in China's universities by integrating the merits of the two main pedagogic paradigms, namely, the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm.
The standing point of the present dissertation lies in the following three aspects:(1) A text is made up of one or more than one no-title passages. Very interestingly, the translation part of TEM8 paper only consists of two no-title passage translations, each of which has about 150-200 English words or 200 Chinese characters or so. It is clear that no-title passage translation is, compared with text translation, the right material to be used for teaching translation. After all, the title is very helpful for translators to determine the theme and authorial intention of the text. In this sense, it goes without doubt that no-title passages, of which a text is made up, sound much more difficult to be understood and translated than the text itself.In other words, as long as the students can do no-title passage translation well, they can do text translation well, too. However, this is not developed adequately in the translation class for English majors in China's universities. (2) No-title passage translation competence developing must depend on the scientific understanding of the components of no-title passage translation competence. It is clear that the research achievements of TC studies, one of the frontier areas in translation studies both at home and abroad, make it possible and feasible. (3) No-title passage translation competence developing should be based on the establishment of an applicable and efficient theoretic approach to teaching translation. A new trend in scientific research, namely, understanding complicated matters by drawing support from several theoretical systems or adopting a complex approach covering simple methods in the study of human beings and their real and mental world, provides the present dissertation with enlightenment and guidance in its tentative establishment of a new approach to teaching translation for English majors in China's universities. It should be pointed out here that after analyzing advantages and disadvantages of the two main pedagogic paradigms, i.e. the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm, the present dissertation identifies their mutual complementarities and the necessity and possibility of a synthesis of them. As far as the present dissertation is concerned, it clearly can be seen that the first aspect highlights the importance and necessity and the last two aspects give more attention to its possibility and feasibility. Moreover, the third aspect reflects a new perspective of scientific research, which is the theoretical value of the present dissertation.
This doctoral dissertation branches into six chapters. Chapter 1 presents a general introduction to the present dissertation. Chapters 2 and 3 lay the foundation for the present dissertation with a critical literature review, making an analytical comparison of the nature, characteristics, functions and identifying the necessity and possibility of a synthesis of the two main pervasive pedagogic paradigms, i.e. the objectivist paradigm and the con-structivist paradigm. Chapter 4 provides assistance for the present dissertation, making good use of the existing research achievements of TC studies to explore no-title passage translation competence. Chapter 5, greatly enlightened by the new trend in scientific research, namely, understanding complicated matters by drawing support from several theoretical systems or adopting a complex approach covering simple methods in the study of human beings and their real and mental world, formulates a tentative synthetic new approach to teaching translation for English majors in China's universities. Chapter 6 offers conclusions. Methodologically, the present dissertation is mainly qualitative, synthesizing theoretical speculation (a new teaching method establishment) and empirical study (teaching experiment).
As clearly can be seen from above, one focus of the present dissertation is on the estab-lishment of a more efficient and more comprehensive new approach to teaching translation to develop English majors' no-title passage translation competence in China's universities. Since the two main pervasive paradigms, the merits of which are to be integrated, are the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm, the name of the new teaching approach is Objectivist-Constructivist Theoretic Approach (OCTA for short). For the convenience of expression, the present dissertation, borrowing the theoretical framework proposed by Richards & Rodgers (1986) for analyzing instructional systems in the field of foreign language teaching, divides the OCTA model into the following three aspects: Theoretical Foundation, Instructional Design and Pedagogic Procedures.
To be more specific, "Theoretical Foundation", the most fundamental level, refers to theories of translation studies and theories of learning & teaching that serve as the source of principles and practices implemented in teaching translation for English majors in China's universities. "Instructional Design" is the link between "Theoretical Foundation" and "Pedagogic Procedures". At the level of "Instructional Design", the use of certain types of teaching activities as a consequence of its theoretical assumptions about translation and learning will be seen. "Pedagogic Procedures" is the level at which how the OCTA model realizes its "Theoretical Foundation" and "Instructional Design" in classroom behavior is described. It is worthy of note that, all in all, the interplay among these three aspects in the OCTA model can be seen as follows:"Instructional Design" is a consequence of "Theoretical Foundation",while "Pedagogic Procedures" is a realization and feedback of both "Theoretical Foundation" and "Instructional Design" in the actual pedagogic practice, namely, teaching translation for English majors in China's universities in the present dissertation.
A survey shows that translation, to almost all the fresh English majors in China's universities, is only regarded as an effective way to help them learn English. All of them have very little translation knowledge. They have not received any formal translation training before they begin to have translation class as English majors. In order to make some (certainly not all) of these no-title passage translation "novices" into no-title passage translation "experts" as quickly and effectively as possible in such a very short time (54 weeks in all, but two class hours per week), it is believed in the present dissertation that the whole process for teaching translation for English majors in China's universities should by nature be regarded as one that students develop their no-title passage translation competence within the theoretical framework of the OCTA model, which can be divided into two closely related stages:1. Memorization of the knowledge related to no-title passage translation competence,developing.2. Application of the knowledge related.to no-title passage translation competence developing. The former is conducted in such a translation course type as Translation Introductory Lecture which is very workable at the primary learning stage, in which the objectivist paradigm is employed and knowledge related to no-title passage translation competence developing such as basic translation principles, translation professionalization, translation instruments, translation strategies, learning strategies of objectivism and constructivism, is transmitted to the students. The latter is conducted in such a translation course type as Translation Project Workshop which is very workable at the advanced learning stage. In such a translation classroom, the constructivist paradigm is employed and students are guided to experience the process of no-title passage translation competence developing through doing the real practice materials (such as the translation part of TEM8) in the learning-centered classroom.
Following this, the present dissertation finds it possible for students to develop their no-title passage translation competence as quickly as they can based on the knowledge they have accumulated in the primary learning stage. In this sense, it may be possible for some (certainly not all) to become self-confident autonomous learners with the very sense of responsibility towards their future translation work after graduation.
In response to the research questions, the major conclusions read as follows:
1. What are the workable definition as well as the components of no-title passage translation competence?
Conceptual studies in this doctoral dissertation reveals that (1) In a broad sense, the present dissertation adopts PACTE's TC model, that is, no-title passage translation competence is made up of such 6 sub-competences as bilingual sub-competence, extra-linguistic sub-competence, knowledge about translation sub-competence, instrumental sub-competence, strategic sub-competence and psycho-physiological components, among which strategic sub-competence is essential because it affects all the others and causes inter-relations among them by controlling the translation process (PACTE,2005:03). (2) In a narrow sense, the present dissertation adopts PACTE's TC model but takes only three sub-competences from it, i.e. the strategic, instrumental and knowledge about translation, because of the fact that any bilingual has knowledge of two languages and may have extra-linguistic knowledge, and that teaching time distribution is not suitable for the full development of all the 6 sub-competences in translation classroom.
More importantly, the present dissertation holds that strategic sub-competence, the essential one, can be explicitly further divided into such five sub-sub-competences that are closely interrelated, multi-layered, convertible and dynamic as competence to determine the authorial intention and passage underlying theme, competence to construct a cognitive framework, competence to reveal the implied meaning of the original text, competence to conduct the diction in the target language, competence to make the target text coherent and cohesive. Of these five sub-sub-competences, the second occupies the most important position. This is proved by the results from the empirical study in Chapter 4. It should be pointed out that in the actual course of no-title passage translation competence developing, all the sub-competences and sub-sub-competences are developed hand in hand constantly.
2. Theoretically, why is the OCTA model more efficient for English majors'no-title passage translation competence developing in China's universities?
According to the present research, there are two main reasons as follows:
Firstly, the OCTA model is a two-dimensional new model for translation teaching, which draws upon the rich nutrition from the two main pedagogic paradigms, i.e. the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm. It is worthy of note that in this new model, knowledge transmission, the key notion of the objectivist paradigm, to some extent, can solve the main problems that the constructivist paradigm faces, while learning in real-life or real-life-like situations, the key notion of the objectivist paradigm, to some extent, can solve the main problems that the objectivist paradigm faces. In this sense, within the framework of the OCTA model, both the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm can be enriched and complemented tentatively. As mentioned above, the objectivist paradigm is characterized by knowledge transmission, suitable for the novice students at the primary learning stage, while the constructivist paradigm is characterized by learning in real-life or real-life-like situations, suitable for the students at the advanced learning stage. Since any process of competence developing can be made up of two stages: the primary learning stage and the advanced learning stage, there is no exception for no-title passage translation competence developing.
Secondly, the OCTA model proves to be a workable translation teaching approach in the current Chinese translation teaching context. (1) The objectivist paradigm still occupies the dominant position. Both teachers and students get accustomed to it. In addition, at the primary learning stage, what the students will meet with are predominantly well-structured questions. (2) Compared with the objectivist paradigm, the constructivist paradigm is much more workable for ill-structured questions. As to no-title passage translation competence developing, the usual prerequisites to the effective application of the constructivist paradigm are:(ⅰ) Teachers are participants of formal translation teaching training and have professional translation experiences. (ⅱ) Students have grasped enough knowledge related to no-title passage translation competence developing. (ⅲ) Both teachers and students should be competent enough to make use of the constructivist paradigm, which to some extent can be dealt with in advance at the primary learning stage. What is worth noting is that, as opposed to the objectivist paradigm, the constructivist paradigm does not work well without more teaching time and high quality teaching resources though it proves much better in teaching effect, which sounds a great challenge in the current Chinese translation teaching context. According to the present dissertation, a new approach to teaching translation for English majors in China's universities should be established on the basis of integrating the merits of the two main pedagogic paradigms mentioned above for a more efficient account for no-title passage translation competence developing.
3. From an empirical perspective, to what degree is the OCTA model more efficient for English.majors' no-title passage translation competence developing?
Heavily based on data analyses and accompanying discussions (see Chapter 5 for further information), such a conclusion is drawn in the present dissertation as follows:in the current Chinese translation teaching context, the OCTA model proves much more efficient than both the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm. To be more specific, at the end of their first year translation teaching program (Month 8 of Tuition), English majors taught in the OCTA model have their no-title passage translation competence improved more remarkably than those taught either in the objectivist paradigm or in the constructivist paradigm. Moreover, granting that all the sub-competences interact with each other in any translation and the improvement of any one may lead to the improvement of the others, the present dissertation infers that all the other sub-competences, i.e. bilingual sub-competence, extra-linguistic sub-competence and psycho-physiological components, excluded from this study, can be improved, too. It is believed in the present dissertation that the whole process for teaching translation for English majors in China's universities should by nature be regarded as one that students develop their no-title passage translation competence within the theoretical framework of the OCTA model.
In conclusion, the rapid development of TC studies both at home and abroad provides a fresh impetus for China's translation teaching studies, and translation teaching studies in China begin to step into a new stage, with its focus shifting from related knowledge transmission and translation technique explanation to students'TC developing. In the present dissertation, the tentative exploration into the definition and components of no-title passage translation competence as well can be regarded as the enrichment and supplement to the existing research achievements of TC studies. And the tentative establishment of the new OCTA model, to some extent, can resolve the main problems that the two main pedagogic paradigms, i.e. the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm, have confronted with. Evidently, the attempted integration of the two main existing teaching paradigms can be regarded as a proof of the validity of the complex approach covering simple methods. Furthermore, the OCTA model can be extended further to other translation teaching projects. It is believed that the present dissertation will initiate a dialogue towards innovation for teaching translation for English majors in China's universities.
本论文的核心内容是结合TEM8考试(目前中国大陆唯一大规模测量英语专业学生高级阶段英语水平的标准参照性教学检查考试),以最新的教学理念以及更加开阔的学术视野重新审视中国高校英语专业翻译教学,把学生无标题语段翻译能力(No-Title Passage Translation Competence)之培养融入中国高校英语专业翻译教学,以适应翻译职业化(翻译产业)和翻译学科研究的需要。具体来说,一方面,本论文借鉴吸收西班牙翻译能力研究小组PACTE的最新成果,从理论上对无标题语段翻译能力的概念和构成要素做出解释和框定；另一方面,本论文受到科学研究的一个新倾向,即包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法的启示和指导,通过分析、整合现有两大教学范式,即,客观主义与建构主义教学范式之合理成分,尝试性构建一个更全面、更有效地培养学生无标题语段翻译能力的中国高校英语专业翻译教学新模式。
本论文的出发点在于：1.篇章由一个或一个以上的无标题语段(No-Title Passage)组成。纵观历年TEM8试题,翻译部分所用材料全部都是篇幅较短(150-200个英文单词或200个汉字左右)的无标题语段。毋庸置疑,作为具体教学内容,与篇幅较长的篇章翻译以及篇幅更短的句子翻译相比,无标题语段翻译更加切合翻译教学需要。而且,由于没有标题,作者意图以及语段主题难以确立,翻译难度大大增加。从这个意义上讲,只要学生具备了无标题语段翻译能力,也就具备了一般意义上的翻译能力,而这在中国高校英语专业翻译课堂上尚未得到有效开发。2.无标题语段翻译能力之培养必须立足于我们对其构成要素的科学认识。现有翻译能力及其相关模式研究成果为此提供了极大的可能性。3.无标题语段翻译能力之培养必须立足于我们对其培养模式的科学认识。科学研究的一个新倾向,即包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法给予本研究以很大的启示和指导。这一方法借助于两个以至多个并列的彼此独立的理论系统使不同的认识结果互相补充。而且,通过对其优势与不足的分析,本论文发现现有客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式具有很大的互补性。显而易见,第一出发点反映了本论文的重要性、必要性,第二、三出发点反映了本论文的可行性、科学性。值得强调的是,第三出发点还反映了科学研究的新倾向,这也是本论文的理论意义所在。
本论文共分6章。第一章为本论文的总体介绍。第二至三章为相关文献综述：分析比对客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式的性质和特点,厘清各自的功能和作用,彰显该整合研究的必要性和可行性,为整篇论文奠定基础。第四章借鉴吸收现有翻译能力及其相关模式研究成果,尝试性探讨无标题语段翻译能力的概念,构成要素及模式,为整篇论文提供保障。第五章以包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法为指导,尝试性构建以学生无标题语段翻译能力培养为基本目标的中国高校英语专业翻译教学新模式,内容主要包括模式总体介绍、具体应用以及通过试验教学进行实证性检验。第六章是结论,以总揽全文。本论文主要采用定性研究方法,理论探讨(模式建立)和实证研究(教学试验)相结合。
如上所述,由于该整合研究的始发理论为客观主义教学范式(the Objectivist Paradigm)和建构主义教学范式(the Constructivist Paradigm),因此,本论文拟建构的翻译教学新模式被命名为Objectivist-Constructivist Theoretic Approach,缩略为OCTA。为了叙述上的便利,本论文依据Richards & Rodgers (1986)的教学方法分析模式,把OCTA教学模式分为三个部分,即,“理论基础”(theoretical foundation)2,“课程设计”(instructional design)和“教学实践”(pedagogic procedures)。在OCTA理论框架内,“理论基础”指的是关于翻译研究和教学的概念和理论；“课程设计”是指建立在“理论基础”之上的翻译课程总体规划；“教学实践”则是指基于“理论基础”和“课程设计”的具体翻译课堂活动,它们相互影响,相互依赖：“理论基础”指导“课程设计”,“课程设计”指导“教学实践”,“教学实践”则可验证并进一步发展“理论基础”。
问卷调查结果显示,几乎所有中国高校英语专业学生在参加本科翻译教学课程之前除了做过少量作为语言学习手段的翻译练习外,既没有系统的翻译知识积累,也没有接受过任何形式的翻译训练。为了能够在如此短暂的翻译教学时间内(大多为108学时)使得这些翻译“新手”中能有更多的人尽可能快地成长为翻译“能手”,本论文认为,·中国高校英语专业翻译教学过程究其实质应为OCTA理论框架下的学生无标题语段翻译能力的培养过程。该教学过程,可以具体分解为两个紧密衔接的子过程：1.无标题语段翻译能力培养相关知识的记忆与积累过程。2.无标题语段翻译能力培养相关知识的综合应用过程。与前者相对应的课程类型为翻译知识讲座(Translation Introductory Lecture),采用客观主义教学范式,教学内容主要包括翻译基本原理、翻译职业、翻译工具,翻译策略,客观主义及建构主义学习策略,属于初级学习阶段。与后者相对应的课程类型为翻译工作坊(Translation Project Workshop),采用建构主义教学范式,属于高级学习阶段,目的在于通过以学习为中心的课堂练习,通过使用真实无标题语段教学材料(如,历年TEM8翻译试题),帮助学生获得真实的无标题语段翻译经验,尽可能快速、有效地将其在初级学习阶段所掌握的相关知识成功转化为无标题语段翻译能力,即,使得学生能够综合应用所掌握的相关知识,顺利解决无标题语段翻译过程中所遇到的问题,为其将来进入职业化工作状态奠定坚实的基础。
针对本论文研究的主要问题,结论如下：
1.什么是无标题语段翻译能力?它由哪些基本要素构成?
本论文的概念性研究表明,从宏观层面上讲,本论文认同西班牙翻译能力研究小组PACTE的最新成果,即无标题语段翻译能力由双语能力,言外能力,翻译工具使用能力,翻译专业知识能力,策略能力,以及生理、心理能力6种次级能力构成,其中,策略能力用于协调其他各次级能力之间的相互转换和运作,居于核心地位。从微观层面上讲,本论文认为,无标题语段翻译能力只有3种次级能力组成：即翻译专业知识能力、翻译工具使用能力以及翻译策略能力。其中,翻译策略能力可以进一步分解为彼此相关、有层次、可转化、动态的5种成分,即：原语语段潜在主题及作者意图的确定能力、原语语段主题及语境关联性认知框架的建构能力、原语语段词句潜在语义的明示能力、目标语语段的选词择义能力和目标语语段的衔接连贯能力。其中,原语语段主题及语境关联性认知框架的建构能力最为重要,居于核心地位。本论文第四章的实证分析和相关讨论对此给予了证实。需要指出的是,在实际培养过程中,各个次级能力的培养是相互交错进行的。
2.从理论上讲,使用OCTA教学模式为何能够更有效地培养中国高校英语专业学生无标题语段翻译能力?
本论文认为主要原因有两个：(1)OCTA教学模式是一个集客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式之优势于一体的二维翻译教学新模式。其中,客观主义教学范式的核心概念“知识传授”成为学生无标题语段翻译能力培养过程的重要前提,以补建构主义教学范式之不足；建构主义教学范式的核心概念“在真实情景中学习”成为学生无标题语段翻译能力培养的必要条件,以补客观主义教学范式之不足。换言之,在OCTA理论框架内,客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式都能够得到丰富与补充.前者强调知识的记忆与积累,适合于初级学习阶段；后者注重知识的综合与应用,更适合于高级学习阶段。本论文认为,任何能力培养过程都可以分为初级学习和高级学习两个阶段,无标题语段翻译能力培养过程概莫能外。(2)OCTA教学模式特别适合目前中国高校英语专业翻译教学语境。首先,客观主义教学范式仍旧占据绝对统治地位,广大教师和学生对其认识和应用已经成为习惯,而对建构主义教学范式的认识及运用能力亟待提高。此外,初级阶段学习内容多为结构良好(well-structured)的问题,客观主义作为此类问题的教学理论基础更为贴切。第二,建构主义教学范式适合于高级学习阶段结构不良(ill-structured)问题的解决。具体到无标题语段翻译能力的培养,建构主义教学范式的有效运用不仅要求教师最好具有职业译者经验并接受过专门的翻译教学培训,学生具有相关的翻译知识积累,而且需要师生必须具有较强的开展和实施建构主义教学的能力,这在一定程度上可以在初级学习阶段得到解决。值得指出的是,与客观主义教学范式相比对,建构主义教学范式教学虽然效果更好(详见第五章),但是教学周期较长,效率较低,硬、软件教学资源要求较高,对目前中国高校英语专业翻译教学语境无疑是一个极大的挑战。本论文认为,在中国高校英语专业翻译教学实践过程中,宜视师生相关经验、知识、能力的实际情况将两者的优势加以合理整合,以有效提高教学效果。
3.从实证角度看,OCTA教学模式能否有效提高学生的无标题语段翻译能力?
通过统计数据分析和相关讨论(详见第五章),本论文得出如下结论：在目前中国高校英语专业翻译教学语境下,OCTA教学模式大大优于客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式。具体体现在第一学年翻译教学课程结束时(Month 8 of Tuition),与客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式的应用结果相比对,OCTA教学模式的应用使得学生的无标题语段翻译能力提升幅度更大。此外,鉴于在任何翻译过程中,所有的次级能力都会相互作用,相互促进,本论文由此可以推论,本实证研究尚未包括在内的双语能力,言外能力,心理-生理能力也可得到提高。中国高校英语专业翻译教学过程究其实质应为OCTA理论框架下的学生无标题语段翻译能力的培养过程。
总而言之,国内外翻译能力研究的快速发展极大地推动着中国的翻译教学研究,使我们对翻译教学关注的重心从机械的知识传授与技巧讲解逐渐转移到学生翻译能力的培养方面,中国翻译教学研究开始进入一个新的发展阶段。本论文借鉴吸收西班牙翻译能力研究小组PACTE的研究成果,对无标题语段翻译能力的概念、构成要素及模式的尝试性探讨,是对现有翻译能力研究成果的有益丰富与补充；本论文以包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法为指导,整合客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式之优势所提出的OCTA模式在一定程度上解决了客观主义与建构主义两大教学范式所面临的问题；与此同时,本论文所采用的整合研究“方法”也证明了包纳简单方法的复杂方法的有效性。值得指出的是,OCTA教学模式在中国高校英语专业翻译教学实践过程中的应用自然也可以扩展到其他翻译教学过程。我们相信,在21世纪,中国高校英语专业翻译教学研究必将会进入一个空前繁荣发展的新时期。
Translation competence (henceforth TC) developing is a challenging task. Very fortunately, the rapid development of TC studies and its correspondent models, one of the frontier areas in translation studies both at home and abroad, provides a tremendous opportunity for this and many other new investigations into students' TC developing. Moreover, nowadays it has become a commonplace in educational psychology that knowledge is constructed by learners, rather than being simply transmitted to them by their teachers. The learning process is the growth of personal knowledge. Learners construct knowledge through the interaction between new information and their preexisting experience. Learners' comprehensive context knowledge represented in different forms will be involved in the process. As a result, the traditional objectivist paradigm which has been occupying the dominant position for many years begins to lose the upper hand, while the newly pervasive constructivist paradigm shows its great vitality.
Undoubtedly, the different nature and characteristics of these two main pedagogic paradigms predetermines their different functions in the process of teaching practice. How to collate and stipulate these two paradigms in a proper way and to deal with them with appropriate stress during the course of teaching translation for English majors in China's universities will greatly influence the optimization of translation teaching process, the improvement of translation teaching effect, and the development of translation teaching theory. It is worthy of note that, in recent years, along with the reform and opening-up policy going one step further, China has increased exchanges with many more foreign countries. More and more talents in foreign languages, especially qualified translators, are in great demand. However,it is really a pity that there are not so many translation schools in China to meet the urgent needs of society. So it is natural for foreign language colleges or departments of non-foreign language universities in China to share the task of potential capable and qualified translator training.
The relevant research review both at home and abroad shows that no previous researches have ever attempted to establish a new method for students'TC developing based on the existing research achievements of TC studies and integrating the useful ingredients of the two main pedagogic paradigms mentioned above as well. The present dissertation, therefore, is of great necessity.
Generally, the present dissertation aims at a tentative exploration into teaching translation for English majors in China's universities. To be more specific, on the one hand, the present dissertation makes a tentative exploration into a workable definition and the components of no-title passage translation competence on the basis of the research findings of the Spanish PACTE's empirical TC study; on the other hand, the present dissertation, greatly enlightened by a new trend in scientific research, namely, understanding com-plicated matters by drawing support from several theoretical systems or adopting a complex approach covering simple methods in the study of human beings and their real and mental world, tentatively establishes a new teaching approach to English majors' no-title passage translation competence developing in China's universities by integrating the merits of the two main pedagogic paradigms, namely, the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm.
The standing point of the present dissertation lies in the following three aspects:(1) A text is made up of one or more than one no-title passages. Very interestingly, the translation part of TEM8 paper only consists of two no-title passage translations, each of which has about 150-200 English words or 200 Chinese characters or so. It is clear that no-title passage translation is, compared with text translation, the right material to be used for teaching translation. After all, the title is very helpful for translators to determine the theme and authorial intention of the text. In this sense, it goes without doubt that no-title passages, of which a text is made up, sound much more difficult to be understood and translated than the text itself.In other words, as long as the students can do no-title passage translation well, they can do text translation well, too. However, this is not developed adequately in the translation class for English majors in China's universities. (2) No-title passage translation competence developing must depend on the scientific understanding of the components of no-title passage translation competence. It is clear that the research achievements of TC studies, one of the frontier areas in translation studies both at home and abroad, make it possible and feasible. (3) No-title passage translation competence developing should be based on the establishment of an applicable and efficient theoretic approach to teaching translation. A new trend in scientific research, namely, understanding complicated matters by drawing support from several theoretical systems or adopting a complex approach covering simple methods in the study of human beings and their real and mental world, provides the present dissertation with enlightenment and guidance in its tentative establishment of a new approach to teaching translation for English majors in China's universities. It should be pointed out here that after analyzing advantages and disadvantages of the two main pedagogic paradigms, i.e. the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm, the present dissertation identifies their mutual complementarities and the necessity and possibility of a synthesis of them. As far as the present dissertation is concerned, it clearly can be seen that the first aspect highlights the importance and necessity and the last two aspects give more attention to its possibility and feasibility. Moreover, the third aspect reflects a new perspective of scientific research, which is the theoretical value of the present dissertation.
This doctoral dissertation branches into six chapters. Chapter 1 presents a general introduction to the present dissertation. Chapters 2 and 3 lay the foundation for the present dissertation with a critical literature review, making an analytical comparison of the nature, characteristics, functions and identifying the necessity and possibility of a synthesis of the two main pervasive pedagogic paradigms, i.e. the objectivist paradigm and the con-structivist paradigm. Chapter 4 provides assistance for the present dissertation, making good use of the existing research achievements of TC studies to explore no-title passage translation competence. Chapter 5, greatly enlightened by the new trend in scientific research, namely, understanding complicated matters by drawing support from several theoretical systems or adopting a complex approach covering simple methods in the study of human beings and their real and mental world, formulates a tentative synthetic new approach to teaching translation for English majors in China's universities. Chapter 6 offers conclusions. Methodologically, the present dissertation is mainly qualitative, synthesizing theoretical speculation (a new teaching method establishment) and empirical study (teaching experiment).
As clearly can be seen from above, one focus of the present dissertation is on the estab-lishment of a more efficient and more comprehensive new approach to teaching translation to develop English majors' no-title passage translation competence in China's universities. Since the two main pervasive paradigms, the merits of which are to be integrated, are the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm, the name of the new teaching approach is Objectivist-Constructivist Theoretic Approach (OCTA for short). For the convenience of expression, the present dissertation, borrowing the theoretical framework proposed by Richards & Rodgers (1986) for analyzing instructional systems in the field of foreign language teaching, divides the OCTA model into the following three aspects: Theoretical Foundation, Instructional Design and Pedagogic Procedures.
To be more specific, "Theoretical Foundation", the most fundamental level, refers to theories of translation studies and theories of learning & teaching that serve as the source of principles and practices implemented in teaching translation for English majors in China's universities. "Instructional Design" is the link between "Theoretical Foundation" and "Pedagogic Procedures". At the level of "Instructional Design", the use of certain types of teaching activities as a consequence of its theoretical assumptions about translation and learning will be seen. "Pedagogic Procedures" is the level at which how the OCTA model realizes its "Theoretical Foundation" and "Instructional Design" in classroom behavior is described. It is worthy of note that, all in all, the interplay among these three aspects in the OCTA model can be seen as follows:"Instructional Design" is a consequence of "Theoretical Foundation",while "Pedagogic Procedures" is a realization and feedback of both "Theoretical Foundation" and "Instructional Design" in the actual pedagogic practice, namely, teaching translation for English majors in China's universities in the present dissertation.
A survey shows that translation, to almost all the fresh English majors in China's universities, is only regarded as an effective way to help them learn English. All of them have very little translation knowledge. They have not received any formal translation training before they begin to have translation class as English majors. In order to make some (certainly not all) of these no-title passage translation "novices" into no-title passage translation "experts" as quickly and effectively as possible in such a very short time (54 weeks in all, but two class hours per week), it is believed in the present dissertation that the whole process for teaching translation for English majors in China's universities should by nature be regarded as one that students develop their no-title passage translation competence within the theoretical framework of the OCTA model, which can be divided into two closely related stages:1. Memorization of the knowledge related to no-title passage translation competence,developing.2. Application of the knowledge related.to no-title passage translation competence developing. The former is conducted in such a translation course type as Translation Introductory Lecture which is very workable at the primary learning stage, in which the objectivist paradigm is employed and knowledge related to no-title passage translation competence developing such as basic translation principles, translation professionalization, translation instruments, translation strategies, learning strategies of objectivism and constructivism, is transmitted to the students. The latter is conducted in such a translation course type as Translation Project Workshop which is very workable at the advanced learning stage. In such a translation classroom, the constructivist paradigm is employed and students are guided to experience the process of no-title passage translation competence developing through doing the real practice materials (such as the translation part of TEM8) in the learning-centered classroom.
Following this, the present dissertation finds it possible for students to develop their no-title passage translation competence as quickly as they can based on the knowledge they have accumulated in the primary learning stage. In this sense, it may be possible for some (certainly not all) to become self-confident autonomous learners with the very sense of responsibility towards their future translation work after graduation.
In response to the research questions, the major conclusions read as follows:
1. What are the workable definition as well as the components of no-title passage translation competence?
Conceptual studies in this doctoral dissertation reveals that (1) In a broad sense, the present dissertation adopts PACTE's TC model, that is, no-title passage translation competence is made up of such 6 sub-competences as bilingual sub-competence, extra-linguistic sub-competence, knowledge about translation sub-competence, instrumental sub-competence, strategic sub-competence and psycho-physiological components, among which strategic sub-competence is essential because it affects all the others and causes inter-relations among them by controlling the translation process (PACTE,2005:03). (2) In a narrow sense, the present dissertation adopts PACTE's TC model but takes only three sub-competences from it, i.e. the strategic, instrumental and knowledge about translation, because of the fact that any bilingual has knowledge of two languages and may have extra-linguistic knowledge, and that teaching time distribution is not suitable for the full development of all the 6 sub-competences in translation classroom.
More importantly, the present dissertation holds that strategic sub-competence, the essential one, can be explicitly further divided into such five sub-sub-competences that are closely interrelated, multi-layered, convertible and dynamic as competence to determine the authorial intention and passage underlying theme, competence to construct a cognitive framework, competence to reveal the implied meaning of the original text, competence to conduct the diction in the target language, competence to make the target text coherent and cohesive. Of these five sub-sub-competences, the second occupies the most important position. This is proved by the results from the empirical study in Chapter 4. It should be pointed out that in the actual course of no-title passage translation competence developing, all the sub-competences and sub-sub-competences are developed hand in hand constantly.
2. Theoretically, why is the OCTA model more efficient for English majors'no-title passage translation competence developing in China's universities?
According to the present research, there are two main reasons as follows:
Firstly, the OCTA model is a two-dimensional new model for translation teaching, which draws upon the rich nutrition from the two main pedagogic paradigms, i.e. the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm. It is worthy of note that in this new model, knowledge transmission, the key notion of the objectivist paradigm, to some extent, can solve the main problems that the constructivist paradigm faces, while learning in real-life or real-life-like situations, the key notion of the objectivist paradigm, to some extent, can solve the main problems that the objectivist paradigm faces. In this sense, within the framework of the OCTA model, both the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm can be enriched and complemented tentatively. As mentioned above, the objectivist paradigm is characterized by knowledge transmission, suitable for the novice students at the primary learning stage, while the constructivist paradigm is characterized by learning in real-life or real-life-like situations, suitable for the students at the advanced learning stage. Since any process of competence developing can be made up of two stages: the primary learning stage and the advanced learning stage, there is no exception for no-title passage translation competence developing.
Secondly, the OCTA model proves to be a workable translation teaching approach in the current Chinese translation teaching context. (1) The objectivist paradigm still occupies the dominant position. Both teachers and students get accustomed to it. In addition, at the primary learning stage, what the students will meet with are predominantly well-structured questions. (2) Compared with the objectivist paradigm, the constructivist paradigm is much more workable for ill-structured questions. As to no-title passage translation competence developing, the usual prerequisites to the effective application of the constructivist paradigm are:(ⅰ) Teachers are participants of formal translation teaching training and have professional translation experiences. (ⅱ) Students have grasped enough knowledge related to no-title passage translation competence developing. (ⅲ) Both teachers and students should be competent enough to make use of the constructivist paradigm, which to some extent can be dealt with in advance at the primary learning stage. What is worth noting is that, as opposed to the objectivist paradigm, the constructivist paradigm does not work well without more teaching time and high quality teaching resources though it proves much better in teaching effect, which sounds a great challenge in the current Chinese translation teaching context. According to the present dissertation, a new approach to teaching translation for English majors in China's universities should be established on the basis of integrating the merits of the two main pedagogic paradigms mentioned above for a more efficient account for no-title passage translation competence developing.
3. From an empirical perspective, to what degree is the OCTA model more efficient for English.majors' no-title passage translation competence developing?
Heavily based on data analyses and accompanying discussions (see Chapter 5 for further information), such a conclusion is drawn in the present dissertation as follows:in the current Chinese translation teaching context, the OCTA model proves much more efficient than both the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm. To be more specific, at the end of their first year translation teaching program (Month 8 of Tuition), English majors taught in the OCTA model have their no-title passage translation competence improved more remarkably than those taught either in the objectivist paradigm or in the constructivist paradigm. Moreover, granting that all the sub-competences interact with each other in any translation and the improvement of any one may lead to the improvement of the others, the present dissertation infers that all the other sub-competences, i.e. bilingual sub-competence, extra-linguistic sub-competence and psycho-physiological components, excluded from this study, can be improved, too. It is believed in the present dissertation that the whole process for teaching translation for English majors in China's universities should by nature be regarded as one that students develop their no-title passage translation competence within the theoretical framework of the OCTA model.
In conclusion, the rapid development of TC studies both at home and abroad provides a fresh impetus for China's translation teaching studies, and translation teaching studies in China begin to step into a new stage, with its focus shifting from related knowledge transmission and translation technique explanation to students'TC developing. In the present dissertation, the tentative exploration into the definition and components of no-title passage translation competence as well can be regarded as the enrichment and supplement to the existing research achievements of TC studies. And the tentative establishment of the new OCTA model, to some extent, can resolve the main problems that the two main pedagogic paradigms, i.e. the objectivist paradigm and the constructivist paradigm, have confronted with. Evidently, the attempted integration of the two main existing teaching paradigms can be regarded as a proof of the validity of the complex approach covering simple methods. Furthermore, the OCTA model can be extended further to other translation teaching projects. It is believed that the present dissertation will initiate a dialogue towards innovation for teaching translation for English majors in China's universities.
引文
Adab, B. (2000). Evaluating Translation Competence, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing translation Competence, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Alcina, A. (2008). Translation Technologies:Scope, Tools and Resources, in Target (1):79-102.
Alves, F. (ed.). (2003). Triangulating Translation:Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Anderman, G..& M. Rogers. (2000). Translator Training between Academia and Profession: A European Perspective, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing translation Competence, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Anderson,J. R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition[M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Anderson, R. S.& B. W. Speck. (1998). Oh What a Difference a Team Makes:Why the Teaching Makes a Difference, in Teaching and Teacher Education (7):61-74.
Arrojo, R. (1994). Deconstruction and the Teaching of Translation, in TextContext (9):01-12
Austermuhl, F. (2001). Electronic Tools for Translators[M]. Manchester, UK & Northamp-ton, MA:St. Jerome Publishing.
Bachmann, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Consideration in Language Testing[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baer, B. J.& G. S. Koby (eds.). (2003). Beyond the Ivory Tower:Rethinking Translation Pedagogy, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words [M]. London:Routledge.
Baker, M. (1998). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies[M]. London and New York:Routledge.
Bax, S. (2003). The End of CLT:A Context Approach to Language Teaching, in ELT Journal, (57):278-287.
Beckett,G H.& B. Mohan. (2003). A Functional Approach to Research on Content-Based Language Learning:Recasts in Causal Explanations, in Modern Language Journal, (3):74-86.
Bednar, A. K. et al. (1992). Theory into Practice:How Do We Link? in T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction:A Conversation, Hillsdale, NJ & London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beeby, A. (1996). Teaching Translation from Spanish to English[M]. Ottawa:University of Ottawa Press.
Beeby, A. (2000). Evaluating the Development of Translation Competence, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence, Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Beeby, A. (2004). Language Learning for Translators:Designing a Syllabus, in Malmkjar, K. (ed.), Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programs, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Beeby, A. et al. (eds.). (2000). Investigating Translation. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Belanoff, P.& M. Dixon. (1991). Portfolio Grading:Process and Product[M]. Portsmouth, Boynton/Cook.
Bell, R. T. (1.991). Translation and Translating:Theory and Practice[M]. London and New York:Longman.
Bennett, W. A. (1968). Aspects of Language and Language Teaching[M]. London: Cambridge University Press.
Bereiter, C.& M. Scardamalia. (1993). Surpassing Ourselves —An Inquiry into the Nature and Implications of Expertise[M]. Chicago & LaSalle,Ⅰ11.:Open Court.
Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative Research Methods:For the Social Sciences[M]. Boston, Allyn and Bacon.
Bernardini, S. (2004). The Theory behind Practice:Translator Training or Translation Education?, in Malmkjar, K. (ed.), Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programs, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Beverly, A. (2000). Evaluating Translation Competence, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence, Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Biggs, J. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying[M]. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. (1993). From Theory to Practice:A Cognitive Systems Approach, in Higher Education Research and Development (12):73-86.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University:What the Student Does[M]. Maidenhead:Open University Press.
Biggs, J.& K. F. Collis (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning:The SOLO Taxonomy [M]. New York:Academic Press.
Blasi, P. (1999). The Task of Institutions of Higher Education in the New Europe,in Hirsch, W. Z.& L. E. Weber (eds.), Challenge Facing Higher Education at the Millennium. Arizona, the American Council Education and Oryx Press.
Bligh, D. (1990). Higher Education[M]. London, Cassell Educational Limited.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism:Perspective and Method[M]. Berkeley:Uni-versity of California Press.
Bobbit, F. (1918). How to Make a Curriculum[M]. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.
Bogdan, R.& Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education:An Introduction to Theory and Methods[M]. London:Allyn & Bacon.
Boghossian, P.A. (2006). Fear of Knowledge:Against Relativism and Constructivism[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Booth, J. R. et al. (2002). Functional Anatomy of Intra-and Cross-modal Lexical Tasks, in Neuroimage (16):7-22.
Boucau, F. (2006). The European Translation Markets:Updated Facts and Figures 2006-2010[M]. Brussels:EUATC.
Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and Memory, in American Psychologist (2):129-148.
Bowker, L. (2002). Computer-Aided Translation Technology:A Practical Introduction[M]. Ottawa:University of Ottawa Press.
Bowker, L.& J. Pearson (2002). Working with Specialized Language:A Practical Guide to Using Corpora[M]. London:Routledge.
Brandt, R. (1987). On Cooperation in Schools:A Conversation with David and Roger Johnson, in Educational Leadership (45):14-19.
Bredo, E. (1994). Reconstructing Educational Psychology:Situated Cognition and Dewey-an Pragmatism, in Educational Psychologist (1):23-35.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for Cross-cultural Research, in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (3):187-216.
Broeck, R. van den. (1980). Toward a Text-type-oriented Theory of Translation, in Poulsen, S. O.& Wilss, W. (eds.), Applied Translation Studies. Arhus:Wirtschaftsuniversitat Arhus.
Broeck, R. van den. (1988). Introduction to J. Holmes, in Homles, J. S. (ed.), Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Brooks, J.G.& M.G. Brooks.1993. In Search of Understanding:The Case for Con-structivist Classrooms[M]. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curri-culum Development.
Brooks, N. (1960). Language and Language Learning[M]. New Yrok:Harcourt, Brace.
Brown, G. (1971). Human Teaching for Human Learning. An Introduction to Confluent Education[M]. New York:The Viking Press.
Brown, J. S. et al. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, in Educational Researcher (1):10-16.
Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative Learning:Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Au-thority of Knowle,dge[M]. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University.
Brumfit, C. J.& K. Johnson (eds.) (1979). The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the Cult of Efficiency:A Study of the Social Forces that Have Shaped the Administration of the Public Schools[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Caminade, M.& A. Pym (1998). Translator-training Institutions, in Mona Baker (ed.), Routle-dge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London:Routledge.
Campbell, S. J. (1991). Towards a Model of Translation Competence, in Meta (l):329-343.
Campbell, S. J. (1998). Translation into the Second Language [M]. London and New York: Longman.
Candy, P. C. (1989). Constructivism and the Study of Self-direction in Adult Learning, in Studies in the Education of Adults (2):95-116.
Catford, J. C. (1967). A Linguistic Theory of Translation[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Chau, S. S. (1984). Aspects of Translation Pedagogy:The Grammatical, Cultural and Interpretive Teaching Models[Z]. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Chesterman, A. (1993). From Is to Ought:Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies, in Target (1):124-133.
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Choi, J. I.& M. Hannafm (1995). Situated Cognition and Learning Environments:Roles, Structures and Implications for Design, in Educational Technology Research and Development (2):53-69.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax[M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Cobb, P. (1995). Continue the Conversation:A Response to Smith, in Educational Researcher (7):13-20.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the Mind? Constructivist and Socio-cultural Perspectives on Mathematical Development, in Educational Researcher (7):13-20.
Cole, P. (1992). Constructivism Revisited:A Search for Common Ground, in Educational Tech-nology (2):27-34.
Colina, S. (2003). Teaching Translation:From Research to the Classroom[M]. New York, San Francisco:McGraw Hill.
Collins, A. et al. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship:Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics, in L. B. Resnick (ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction. Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colman, A. M. (2001). A Dictionary of Psychology[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Cook, D. A. (1993). Behaviorism Evolves, in.Educational Technology (10):62-77.
Costa, A. L. (1989). Reassessing Assessment, in Educational Leadship (7):02-09.
CTGV. (1991). Technology and the Design of Generative Learning Environments, in Educational Technology (5):21-30.
Davies, M. G. (2004). Undergraduate and Postgraduate Translation Degrees:Aims and Expectations, in Malmjkaer, K.(ed.), Translation in an Undergraduate Degree Programs. Amsterdam & Philadelpia:John Benjamins.
DeCesaris, J. A. (1995). Computerized Translation Managers as Teaching Aids, in Dollerup C.& V. Appel (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3. Amsterdam/ philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Delisle, J. (1980). L'analyse du discours comme methode de traduction:Initiation a la traduction francaise de textes pragmatiques anglais, theorie et pratique[M]. Ottawa: Presses de l'Universite d'Ottawa. [English translation of Part I by Patricia Hogan and Monica Creery,1988. Translation:An Interpretive Approach. Ottawa:University of Ottawa Press].
Delisle, J. (1992). Les manuels de traduction:essai de classification, in TTRV. (1):17-48.
Derry, S. J. (1999). A Fish called Peer Learning:Searching for Common Themes, in A. M. Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on Peer Learning. Mahwat, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & Education[M]. New York:Simon & Schuster.
Dick, W.& L. Carey. (1996). The Systemic Design of Instruction[M]. New York:Harper Collins College Publishers.
Diehl, W. et al. (1999). Project-based Learning:A Strategy for Teaching and Learning[M]. Boston, MA:Centre for Youth Development and Education, Corporation for Business, Work and Learning.
Dollerup, C. (1995). The Emergence of the Teaching of Translation, in Dollerup, C.& V. Appel (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Dollerup, C.& A. Lingarrd (eds.) (1994). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2, Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Duffy, T. M.& D. H. Jonassen (eds.) (1992):Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction:A Conversation[M]. Hillsdale, NJ & London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dunlap, J. C.& R. S. Grabinger (1996). Rich Environments for Active Learning in the Higher Education Classroom, in Wilson, B. G (ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments. Case Studies in Instructional Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching, in Asian EFL Journal,8-3, Article 2.
Ellis, R.& Hedge. (1993). Talking Shop Second Language Acquisition Research:How Does It Help Teachers? An Interview with Rod Ellis, in ELTjournal (1):3-11.
Engstrom, Yrjo. (1987). Learning by Expanding:An Activity-theoretical Approach to Developmental Research[M]. Helsinki:Orienta-Konsultit oy.
Enns-Conolly, T. (1986). Translation as an Interpretive Act:A Narrative Study of Trans-lation in University Level Foreign Language Teaching[Z]. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto.
Ernest, P. (1995). The One and the Many, in L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education. New Jersey:Lawrence Erldaum Associates, Inc.
Figueroa, E. (1994). Sociolinguistic Metatheory[M]. Oxford & New Yyok:Pergamon.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames Semantics, in A. Zambolli (ed.), Linguistic Structure Processing. Amsterdam:North Holland Publishing Company.
Flannery, J. L. (1992). The Teacher as Co-conspirator:Knowledge and Authority in Collaborative Learning, in Bosworth, K.& S. J. Hamilton (eds.), Collaborative Learning.Underlying Processes and Effective Techniques, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Fosnot, C. (1992). Constructing Constructivism, in T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction:A Conversation. Hillsdale, NJ & London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gabrian, B. (1986). The Aim or Aimlessness of Translation Teaching, in Textcontext (1):48-62.
Gagne, R. M.& L. J. Briggs. (1974). Principles of Instruction Design[M]. New York:Holt, Rinehart,& Winton.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning:The Role of Attitudes and Motivation[M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan Pragmatism and Epistomology of Contemporary Social Constructivism, in American Educational Research Journal (4):716-740.
Garside, R. et al. (eds.). (1997). Corpus Annotation:Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London:Longman.
Gass, S.&. Selinker, L. (Eds.) (1992). Language Transfer in Language Learning[M]. Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary Translation Theories[M]. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters,2nd edition.
Gerard, M. (2000). The Evaluation of Translation into a Foreign Language, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds), Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gergen, K. J. (1995). Social Construction and the Educational Process, in L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education. NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Gonzalez Davies, M. (2004).Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Gouadec, D. (2007). Translation as a Profession[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Gould, J. S. A. (1996). Constructivist Perspective on Teaching and Learning in the Language Arts, in Fosnot C. T. (Ed.), Constructivism:Theory, Perspectives, and Practice.Teacthers College,Columbia University.
Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and Instruction:Theory into Practice[M]. NJ:Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Guba, E & Y. Lincoln (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation[M]. Newbury Park, CA.:Sage Publications.
Guonsooly, B. (1993). Development and Validation of a Translation Test, in Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (4):54-62.
Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What?[M]. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& R. Hasan. (1976). Cohesion in English[M]. London:Longman.
Harris, B. (1997). The Importance of Natural Translation, in Working Papers in Bilingualism (12):96-14.
Harris, B.& B. Sherwood. (1978). Translating as an Innate Skill, in D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (eds.), Language, Interpretation and Communication. New York & London: Plenum.
Harris, D. F. (1969). A Language Testing Handbook[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Hart, D. (1994). Authentic Assessment:A Handbook for Educators[M]. New York, Addison-Wesley.
Hatim, B.& I. Manson. (1997). The Translator as Communicator[M]. London:Routledge.
Hayek, F. A. (1999). The Sensory Order[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Heppner, P. P.& Heppner, M. J. (2009). Writing Your Thesis, Dissertation & Research[M]. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Hipps, J. A. (1993). Trustworthiness and Authenticity:Alternate Ways to Judge Authentic Assessments, Conference Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
Holmes, J. (1972/1988). The Name and Nature of Translation Studies, in Holmes, J. (ed.), Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Holzer, S. M. (1994). From Constructivism to Active Learning, in The Innovator (2):71-84.
Honig, H.G. (1990). Sagen was man nicht weiss—Wissen, was man nicht sagt [Saying what you don't know—Knowing what you don't say], in Ubersetzungs-wissenschaft —Ergebnisse urid Perspektiven [Translation studies—State of the art and prospects for the future], (ed.) R. Arntz and G. Thome,152-161. Tubingen:Gunter Narr.
Honig, H. G. (1998). Positions, Power and Practice:Functionalist Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment, in Schaffner, C. (ed.), Translation and Quality. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
House, J. (1980). Translation in the Foreign Language Classroom, in S.O. Poulsen & W. Wilss (eds.). Applied Translation Studies. Arhus:Wirtschafts universitat Arhus.
House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment:A Model Revisited[M]. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
House, J. (2001). Translation Quality Assessment:Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation, in Meta (2):243-257.
Hung, E. (1995). Translation Curricula Development in Chinese Communities, in Dollerup, C.& V. Appel (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, Amsterdam/ philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Hurtado Albir, A. (1996). La ensenanza de la traduccion directa "general". Objectivos de aprendizaje y metodologia, in A. Hurtado Albir (ed.), La ensenanza de la traduccion, Castellon:Universitat Jaume 1:31-55.
Hurtado Albir, A. (2007). Competence-based Curriculum Design for Training Translators, in The Interpreter and Translator Trainer (ITT) (2):163-195.
Hymes, D. (1971).On Communjicative Competence, in C. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative Approach to Language Teaching. London:Oxford University Press.
Jaaskelainen, R. (1989). Translation Assignment in Professional Versus Non-professional Translation:a Think-aloud Protocol Study, in Candace Seguinot (ed.), The Translation Press, Toronto:H. G. Publications, York University,87-98.
Jaaskelainen, R.& S. Tirkkonen-Condit. (1991). Automatized Processes in Professional vs. Non-professional Translation:A Think-aloud Protocol Study, in Sonia Tirkkonen-Condit (ed.) Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies, Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Johnson, D. W.& R. T. Johnson. (1991). Learning Together and Alone[M]. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism:We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? in Educational Technology Research & Development (3):61-76.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Evaluating constructivistic learning, in T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction:137-148. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking Technology:Towards a Constructivist Design Model, in Educational Technology (4):34-37.
Jones, B. F. et al. (1997). Real-life Problem Solving:A Collaborative Approach to Interdisciplinary Learning[M]. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
Karagiorgi Y.& L. Symeou. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations, in Educational Technology & Society(1):47-59.
Katan, D. (2004). Translating Cultures. An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators[M]. Manchester:St Jerome. [2nd edition].
Kearns, J. (2008). Translator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debates[M]. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Kelly, D. (2002). La competencia traductora:bases para el diseno curicular, in Puentes (1): 9-20.
Kelly, D. (2005). A Handbook for Translator Trainers[M]. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Kenny, D. (1999). CAT Tools in an Academic Environment:What Are They Good For? in Target (1):65-82.
Kilfoil, W. R.& Van der Walr, C. (1997). Learn to Teach:English Language Teaching in a Multilingual Context[M]. Pretoria:J.L.Van Schaik.
Kingscott, G. (1995). The Impact of Technology and the Implications for Teaching, in Dollerup, C.& V. Appel (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, New Horizons, Amsterdam/philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kiraly, D.(1995). Pathways to Translation:Pedagogy and Process[M]. Kent:The Kent State University Press.
Kiraly, D. (2000). A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education:Empower-ment from Theory to Practice[M]. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Kiraly, D. (2005). Project-Based Learning:A Case for Situated Translation, in Meta (4): 1098-1111.
Krings, H.P. (1986). What Goes on in the Minds of Translators[M].Tubingen:Gunter Narr.
Klaudy, K. (1995). Quality Assessment in School vs. Professional Translation, in Dollerup, C.& V. Appel (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3:New Horizons, Amsterdam/philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Kukla, A. (2000). Social Constructivism and the Philosophy Of Science [M]. New York: Routledge.
Kupsch-Losereit, S. (1986). Scheint eine schone Sonne? Oder:Was ist ein Uberset-zungsfehler? in Lebende Sprachen (1):12-16.
Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Ladmiral, J. R. (1977). Translation within the Educational Setting, in Die Neuren Sprachen (76):489-516.
Lado, R. (1961). Language Testing[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago & London:The University of Chicago Press.
Lambert, R. D.& Freed, B. F. (Eds.). (1982). The Loss of Language Skills. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Lantlf, J. P.& G. Appel. (1996). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood [M]. NJ:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Larkin, J. (1989). What Kind of Knowledge Transfers, in L. Resnick. (Ed.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum Associates Pnblishers.
Lave, J.& E. Wenger. (1991). Situated Learning:Legitimate Peripheral Participation[M]. Cambridge University Press.
Lebow, D. (1993).Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design:Five Principles toward a New Mindset, in Educational Technology Research and Development (3): 4-16.
Legutke, M.& H. Thomas. (1991). Process and Experience in the Language Classroom [M]. London:Longman.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Progress of the Development of the Mind[M]. Moscow:Progress Publishers.
Li, Defeng. (1999). The Teaching of Commercial Translation in Hong Kong:Problems and Perspectives, in Babel (3):193-204.
Li, Defeng. (2002). Teaching Information Technology in Translator Training Programs in Hong Kong, in ATA Chronicle:29-33.
Li, Defeng. (2003). Translator Training:What Translation Students Have to Say, in Meta (4):513-531.
Li, Defeng. (2005). Teaching of Specialized Translation Courses in Hong Kong,in Babel (1):1-16.
Li, Defeng. (2006). Making Translation Testing more Teaching-oriented:A Case Study of Translation Testing in China, in Meta (1):72-88.
Li, Zhanxi. (2007). Relevance and Adjustability:A Study of Translating Press in Cultural Image Renderings[M]. Beijing:Science Press.
Liao, Qiaoling. (2005). C-R-A Model:A Tripartite Account of Verbal Communication[M]. Chengdu:Sichuang University Press.
Liu, Jingzhi. et al. (eds.) (2000). Proceedings of Conference on Translation Teaching. Hong Kong, Hong Kong Translators'Association.
Liu, Zonghe. (ed.) (2001). On Translation Teaching. Beijing:The Commercial Press.
Longstreet, W & H. Shane (1993). Curriculum for a New Millennium. Needham MA:Allyn and Bacon.
Lorscher, W. (1991). Thinking-aloud as a Method for Collecting Data On Translation Processes. Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies, in Sonja, Tirkonnen-Condit (ed.), Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tubingen, Narr Verlag:67-78.
Mackenzie,. R. (2004). The Competence Required by the Translators Roles as a Pro-fessional, in Malmjkaer. K. (ed.), Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programes. Amsterdam & Philadephia, John Benjamins.
Mackenzie, R.& E. Nieminen (1997). Motivating Students to Achieve Quality in Trans-lation, in Klaudy, K.& J. Kohn (eds.), Transferre Necesse Est, Scholastica.
Mahoney, M. J. (2003). Constructive Psychotherapy:a Practical Guide[M]. New York: Guilford.
Maksimwicz, M. L. (1993). Focus on Authentic Learning and Assessment in the Middle School[Z]. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED380226.
Malmkjar, K.(ed.) (1998). Translation & Language Teaching. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
Malmkjaer, K. (ed.). (2004). Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mason, I. (1987). A Text Linguistic Approach to Translation Assessment, in Keith, H.& I. Mason (eds.), Translation in the Modern Language Degree, London, Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Martinez Melis, N.& A. Hurtado Albir (2001). Assessment in Translation Studies: Research Needs, in Meta (2):272-287.
Marx, R. W. et al. (1994). Enacting Project-based Science:Experiences of Four Middle Grade Teachers, in Elementary School Journal, (5):499-516.
Mauriello, G. (1999).Training Translators to Face the Challenges of the Future, in Actes du ⅩⅤ Congres Mondial de la Federation Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT):170-175.
Mayer, R. E. et al. (1996). When Less Is More:Meaningful Learning from Visual and Verbal Summaries of Science Textbook Lessons, in Journal of Educational Psychology (88):64-73.
McAlester, G. (2000). The Evaluation of Translation into a Foreign Language, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing translation Competence. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
McMahon, M. (1997). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Wed—Aparadigm for Learning, in Papers Presented at the ASCILITE Conference. Perth, Australia.
Mercer,N. (1994).Neo-Vygotskian Theory and Classroom Education, in Stierer, B.& J. Maybin (eds.), Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Miao,Ju. (2006). On the Development of Translation Competence through Translation Instruction[M]. Tianjin People's Publishing House.
Miller, J.P.& W. Seller. (1985).Transmission Position:Educational Practice, in J.P.Miller & W. Seller (eds.), Curriculum Perspectives and Practice. New York:Longman, 37-61.
Moore, M.G. (1989). Three Types of Interaction, in The American Journal of Distance Education (2):1-6.
Mossop, B. (1983). The Translator as Rapporteur:A Concept for Training and Self-improvement, in Meta (4):244-278.
Mu, Lei. (1999). Translation Training in China, in Meta(1):198-208.
Mu, Lei.2004. A Critical Study of (C-E/E-C) Text-based Translation Testing for Transla-tion Teaching:Towards Constructing a Fuzzy Synthetic Marking Model, Ph.D. Thesis (written in Chinese), Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University.
Munday, J. (2008). Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications[M]. London and New York:Routledge.
Nachmias, C.& D. Nachmias. (1982). Research Methods in the Social Sciences [M].2nd edition. London:Edward Arnold (Hodder and Stoughton).
Neubert, A.(1985). Text and Translation[M]. Leipzig:Enzyklopdie.
Neubert, A. (1994). Competence in Translation:A complex Skill. How to Study and How to Teach it, in Snell-Hornby, et al. (eds.), Translation Studies:An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam, Benjamin.
Neubert, A. (2000). Competence in Language, in Languages, and in Translation, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Neubert, A.& G. Shreve. (1992). Translation as Text[M]. Kent, Ohio:Kent State University Press.
Neunzig, W. (2000). The Computer in Empirical Studies for the Didactics of Translation, in A.Beeby et al. (eds.), Investigating Translation. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Newmark, P. (1982). An Approach to Translation[M]. London:Pergamon Press Limited.
Nisbett, R. E.,& T. D. Wilson. (1977). Telling More Than We Can Know:Verbal Reports on Mental Processes, in Psychological Review(84):231-59.
Nord, C. (1991). Text Analysis in Translation:Theory, Methodology and Didactic Applica-tion of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis[M]. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Nord, C. (1994). Aus Fehlern lernen:Uberlegungen zur Beurteilung von Ubersetzungsleis-tungen, in Snell-Hornby, M. et al. (eds.), Translation Studies:An Interdiscipline, Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity:Functional Approaches Explained [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Oller, J. W. (1997). Language Tests at School[M]. London:London Longman Group Ltd.
Orozco, M. (2000):Building A Measuring Instrument for the Acquisition of Translation Competence in Trainee Translators, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Orozco, M.& A. Hurtado Albir. (2002). Measuring Translation Competence Acquisition, in Meta (3):375-402.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies:What Every Teacher Should Know[M]. New York:Newbury House.
Oxford, R. (1997). Constructivism:Shape-shifting, Substance, and Teacher Education, in Peabody and Journal of Education (1):35-66.
PACTE. (1998). La competencia traductora y su aprendizaje:Objetivos, hipotesis y metodologia de un proyecto de investigation, in Paper presented at IV Congres Internacional sobre Traduccio, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (poster). (translated by PACTE 2003).
PACTE. (2000). Acquiring Translation Competence:Hypotheses and Methodological Prob-lems in a Research Project, in A. Beeby et al. (eds.), Investigating Translation. Amster-dam, John Benjamins.
PACTE. (2001). La competencia traductora y su adquisicion, in Quaderns Revista de Traduccio (6):39-45. (translated by PACTE 2003).
PACTE. (2003). Building a Translation Competence Model, in F. Alves (ed.), Triangu-lating Translation:Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
PACTE. (2005). Investigating Translation Competence:Conceptual and Methodological Issues, in Meta (2):609-619.
PACTE. (2008). First Results of a Translation Competence Experiment:"Knowledge of Translation" and "Efficacy of the Translation Process", in Translator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debates. John Kearns and Contributors.
Perkins, D. (1991). Technology Meets Constructivism:Do they make a marriage? in Educational Technology (5):18-23.
Phillips, D.C. (1995). The Good, the Bad and the Ugly:the Many Faces of Constructivism, in Educational Researcher (7):05-12.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology[M].New York:Columbia University Press.
Pinto, M. (2001). Quality Factors in Documentary Translation, in Meta (1):288-300.
Pozo, J. I. (1996). Cognitive Psychology and Scientific Education, in Investigacoes em Ensino de Ciencias (2):110-131.
Prawat, R. S. (1995). Misleading Dewey:Reform, Projects, and the Language Game, in Educational Research (7):13-27.
Prawat, R. S.& R. E. Floden. (1994). Philosophical Perspectives on Constructivist Views of Learning, in Educational Psychology (1):37-48.
Presas, M. (2000). Bilingual Competence and Translation Competence, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Pym, A. (1992). Translation Error Analysis and the Interface with Language Teaching, in C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent, and Experience. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Pym, A. (2003). Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. In Defence of a Minimalist Approach, in Meta XLVIII-4:481-497.
Qin, X. (2003). Quantitative Analysis in Foreign Language Teaching Research[M].Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press.
Rand, A. (1992). Atlas Shrugged [M]. Signet Books.
Reagan,.S.(1999). Problem-Based Learning in the New Medical Curriculum[M]. Perth: Education Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia.
Reeves, T.C.& S. W. Harmon. (1994). Systematic Evaluation Procedures for Interactive Multimedia for Education and Training, in S. Resman (Ed.), Multimedia Computing: Preparing for the 21st Century, Harrisburg. London:Idea Group Publishing.
Reiss, K.& H. Vermeer. (2000). Translation Criticism-The Potentials and Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment[M]. New York:American Bible Society.
Roberts, R. (1984). Competence du nouveau diplome en traductiori, in Traduction et Qualite de langue. Actes du Colloque Societe des traducteurs du Quebec/Conseil de la langue francaise, Quebec:Editeur officiel du Quebec:172-184.
Robinson, D. (1997). Becoming a Translator:An Accelerated Course[M]. London: Routledge.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosphy and the Mirror of Nature[M]. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
Rowley, J. (1996). Implementing TQM for library services:the Issues, in ASLIB Proceedings (1):17-21.
Savery, J.R.& T.M. Duffy. (1995). Problem Based Learning:An Instructional Model and Its Constructivist Framework, in Educational Technology (5):31-38.
Schaffner, C. (1999).The Concept of Norms in Translation Studies, in Schaffner, C. (ed.), Translational Norms. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Schaffner, C. (2004a). Researching Translation and Interpreting, in C. Schaffner (ed.), Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Schaffner, C. (2004b). Review on Kiraly's A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education:Empowerment from Theory to Practice, in Target (1):157-189.
Schaffner, C.& B. Adab. (eds.). (2000). Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Schaffner, C. and U. Wiesemann. (2001). Annotated Texts for Translation:English-German. Functionalist Approaches Illustrated[M]. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Seliger, H. (1983). The Language Learner as Linguist:Of Metaphors and Realities, in Applied Linguistics (4):179-91.
Shreve, G. M. (1997). Cognition and the Evaluation of Translation Competence, in J. H. Danks, et al (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting.Thousand Oaks:Sage Publications.
Shunk, D. H. (2000). Learning Theories:An Educational Perspective[M] 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ.:Prentice-Hall.
Smith, P. L.& T. J. Ragan. (1993). Instructional Design[M]. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson. (1986). Relevance:Communication and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Svinicki, M. D. (1998). A Theoretical Foundation for Discovery Learning, in The American Jounal in Psychology (6):S4-S7.
Tan, Zaixi. (2008). Towards a Whole-Person Translator Education Approach in Translation Teaching on University Degree Programs, in Meta (3):589-608.
Thorndike, E. L. (1914). The Psychology of Learning[M]. New York:Teacher College.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1990). Professional vs Non-professional Translation:A Think-aloud Pro-tocol Study, in Michael A. K. Halliday, et al. (eds.), Learning, Keeping and Using Language. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1991). Empirical Research in Translation and Inter cultural Studies [M]. Tubingen:Narr.
Toury, G. (1974). The Notion of 'Native Translator'and Translation Teaching, in Wilss, W. & G. Thome (eds.). Translation Theory and Its Relevance for the Teaching of Translation and Interpretation, Tubingen:Gunter Narr.
Toury, G. (1986). Natural Translation and the Making of a Native Translator, in TextconText (1):11-29.
Toury, G. (1992). Everything Has Its Price:An Alternative to Normative Conditioning in Translator Training, in Interface:Journal of Applied Linguistics (2):66-76.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond[M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Trujillo, A. (1999). Translation Engines:Techniques for Machine Translation[M]. London: Springer-Verlag.
Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the Zone of Proximal Development, and Peer Collaboration: Implications for Classroom Practice, in L. C. Moll (ed.), Vygotsky and Education. Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turnbill, J. (1989). Evaluation in a Whole Classroom:The What, the Why, the How, the When, in E. Daly (ed.), Monitoring Children's Language Development:Holistic Assessment in the Classroom, Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann.
Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Vermeer, H. (1987). What Does It Mean to Translate? in Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics (2):25-33.
Viaggio, S. (1994). Theory and Professional Development:Or Admonishing Translators to be Good, in Dollerup, C.& A. Lingarrd (eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Vienne, J. (1994). Towards a Pedagogy of'Translation in Situation', in Perspectives: Studies in Translatology (1):51-59.
Vienne, J. (2000). Which Competence Should We Teach to Future Translators, and How? in C. Schaffner,& B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Constructivism as a Scientific Method[M]. NY:Pregamon.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). The Reluctance to Change a Way of Thinking, in Irish Journal of Psychology (1):83-90.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989a). Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching, in Synthese (80):121-140.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989b). Constructivism in Education, in T. Husen & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International in Encyclopedia of Education. New York:Pergamon Press.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A Constructivist Approach to Teaching, in L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction:Aspects of Constructivism, in C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism:Theory, Perspectives and Practice. NY:Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus Objectivism:Implications for Interaction, Course Design, and Evaluation in Distance Education, in International Journal of Educational Telecommunications (4):339-362.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society[M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Wagner, E. D. (1990). Instructional Design and Development:Contingency Management for Distance Education, in M. G. Moore (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in American Distance Education:298-312. Oxford:Pergamon Press.
Walvoord, B.E.& V. J. Anderson. (1998). Effective Grading:A Tool for Learning and Assessment[M]. Sam Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Wang, Xiangling. (2008). Developing Students Translation Competence:A Constructivist Project-based Approach. Ph.D. Thesis (written in English), Changshai, Hunan Normal University.
Way, C. (2008). Systematic Assessment Of Translator Competence:In Search of Achilles' Heel; in Kearns, J.(ed.), Translator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debates, Continuum International Publishing Group.
Weber, L. E. (1999) Survey of Main Challenges Facing Higher Education at the Millennium, in Hirsch, W. Z.& L. E. Weber (eds.), Challenges Facing Higher Education at the Millennium, Arizona, the American Council Education and the Oryx Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication[M]. Oxford University Press.
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses[M]. London:Oxford University Press.
Williams, J.& A. Chesterman (2002). The Map:A Beginner's Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies[M]. St. Jerome Publishing.
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning[M]. London:Longman.
Williams M.& R.L. Burden. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers[M]. Cambridge University Press.
Wilss, W. (1976). Perspectives and Limitations of a Didactic Framework for the Teaching of'Translation, in Richard W. Brislin (ed.), Translation Applications and Research. New York:Gardner.
Wilss, W. (1982). The Science of Translation:Problems and Methods[M]. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Wilss, W. (1996). Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior[M]. Amsterdam-Philadelphia:John Benjamis.
Wisdom, J.& G. Gibbs (1994). Course Design for Resource Based Learning. Humanities [M]. Oxford:Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Wolfson, L. (2005). The Contact between Text, Mind, and One's Own Word in a Translation Workshop, in Translation Journal (4):34-47.
Xu, M.& Zhang, G (1995). Basics of Educational Measurement Science[M]. Beijing: China Railway Pubkishing House.
Zanettin, F. (1998). Bilingual Comparable Corpora and the Training of Translators, in Meta (4):616-630.
Zhang, Meifang. (1999). A Study of the Development of Translation Textbooks on the Mainland of China (1949-1998). Ph.D. Thesis (written in Chinese), Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University.
安新奎.2001.翻译教学与学生创造性思维能力的培养[J].西安外国语学院学报(2).
鲍川运.2003.关于翻译教学的几点看法[J].中国翻译(2).
曹明伦.2006.从教学视角看翻译理论与实践的关系[J].天津外国语学院学报(2).
曹仕邦.1982.论中国佛教译场之译经方式与程序(1963)[A].佛典翻译史论[c].台北：大乘文化出版社.
陈福康.2000.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海：上海教育出版社.
陈宏薇.1997.新实用汉译英教程[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
陈宏薇.2006.道格拉斯·罗宾逊以人为中心的翻译教学思想评介[J].中国翻译(2).
陈惠芬等.2005.图式理论在翻译教学中的运用[J].南京财经大学学报(4).
陈葵阳.2005.从建构主义观点谈翻译课堂教学[J].中国翻译(3).
陈向阳.2005.京师同文馆组织结构探析[J].华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)(2).
陈小慰.2002从8级翻译测试看学生亟待加强的几个方面[J].中国翻译(1).
陈许.1994.翻译翻学中发展学生智能的探讨[J].外语界(1).
陈燕生.2003.视听手段在翻译教学中的应用一日本外语翻译课教学印象[J].中国电化教育(4).
陈一壮.2004.包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法[J].哲学研究(8).
丁国旗侯艳.2006.文脉在胸,译笔有神[J].中国翻译(1).
邓静穆雷.2005.《象牙塔的逾越：重思翻译教学》介绍[J].外语教学与研究(4).
丁树德.2003.翻译教学中的学生心理障碍与认知框架[J].上海科技翻译(3).
董晓华.2004.提高理论素养,拓宽翻译教学维度[J].中国翻译(5).
杜威.1994.学校与社会·明日之学校[M].赵祥麟等译.北京：人民教育出版社.
方梦之.2004.译学辞典.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
冯庆华.2002.实用翻译教程[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
封一涵.2001.教师网络中的交互式翻译教学[j].中国翻译(1).
高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组.高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲[Z].上海：上海外语教育出版社；北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
龚茜.2004..用新的译论构建翻译教学的综合多元模式[J].中国翻译(1).
顾卫星.2001.京师同文馆外语教学特色简析[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(2).
郭著章.2003.关于翻译教材[J].上海科技翻译(1).
韩哲.2004.论翻译教材中译例的编选原则[J].上海科技翻译(3).
韩子满.2004.翻译职业化与译员培训—罗宾逊《速成翻译教程》评介[J].中国翻译(3).
何刚强.2005.翻译的“学”与“术”—兼谈我国高校翻译系科(专业)面临的问题[J].中国翻译(2).
何刚强.2006.译学无疆,译不才器—翻译(院)系培养人才应有长远的眼光[J].上海翻译(2).
何文安.1996.翻译教学：现状评估、改革与展望[J].中国科技翻译(2).
黄文英.2006.互文性与翻译教学[J].东南大学学报(3).
姜秋霞曹进.2006.翻译专业建设现状：分析与建议[J].中国翻译(5).
江晓梅.2006.以反思学习法促进翻译教学[J].湖北大学学报(2).
金善雅.2004.韩国韩中翻译教学的现状和展望[J].当代韩国(4).
李波.2004.翻译的职业化与职业道德[J].上海科技翻译(3).
李德风胡牧.2006.学习者为中心的翻译课程设置[J].外国语(2).
李德山金敏求.2002.中国古代佛经的来源及翻译[J].古籍整理研究学刊(4).
李淑琴.2001.语境—正确翻译的基础[J].中国翻译(1).
李喜所.2005.中国留学生研究的历史考察[J].文史哲(4).
李欣.2004.翻译测试的“结构效度”及其实现[J].东北大学学报(3).
廖七一.2001.当代英国翻译教学评述[J].四川外语学院学报(1).
林克难.2000.翻译教学在国外[J].中国翻译(2).
刘传珠2004.翻译理论教学的几个认识问题[J].国外外语教学(1).
刘季春.2006.本科翻译教学“观念结构”模式邹议[J].上海翻译(2).
刘靖之等.2000.翻译教学研讨会论文集[C].香港翻译学会.
刘宓庆.2003.翻译教学：理论与实务[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
卢思源吴启金.2000.展望21世纪的翻译教学与研究[J].中国翻译(1).
罗婷婷.2006.计算机网络在翻译教学中的应用[J].文献资料(22).
罗新璋.1984.翻译论集[C].北京：商务印书馆.
罗选民.2002.中国的翻译教学：问题与前景[J].中国翻译(4).
马俊峰.1994.评价活动论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社.
马 萧.2005.翻译模因论与翻译教学[J].山东外语教学(3).
马祖毅.1999.中国翻译史[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
马祖毅.1984.中国翻译简史[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
苗菊.2007.翻译能力研究一构建翻译教学模式的基础[J].外语与外语教学(4).
穆 雷.1999.中国翻译教学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
穆 雷.2004(a).翻译教学发展的途径[J].中国翻译(5).
穆雷.2004(b).翻译教学在国外[J].中国翻译(3).
穆雷.2006.翻译测试及其评分问题[J].外语教学与研究(6).
欧阳康.2001.人文社会科学哲学[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.
任继愈.1951.佛经的翻译[J].现代佛学(3).
任 萍.2007.记我国最早的翻译学校一明四夷馆考察[J].上海翻译(2).
容应萸 周牧.2004.1870年代清朝留美幼童与1900年代清末留日学生之比较[J].徐州师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(6).
邵志宏岳俊.2005.英汉语篇衔接对比与翻译策略[J].中国翻译(1).
施良方.1994.学习论[M].北京：人民教育出版社.
师新民肖维青.2006.信息化翻译翻学的新视野[J].外语界(5).
束定芳.2004.外语教学改革：问题与对策[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
孙海琳杨自俭.2007.关于译场职司的考辨[J].外语学刊(4).
唐韧.2004.翻译质量评估的语言学策略[J].山东外语教学(2).
唐韧.2006.西方译论观照下的翻译教学[J].哈尔滨学院学报(6).
陶友兰.2006.翻译目的论观照下的英汉汉英翻译教材建设[J].外语界(5).
田 艳.2002.现代信息技术与翻译教学及培训[J].中国科技翻译(3).
王斌.2005.翻译评估标准的割裂与统一[J].上海理工大学学报(社会科学版)(3).
王建国.2004.功能翻译理论与我国的翻译教材建设[J].语言与翻译(2).
王东风.2005.小说翻译的语义连贯重构[J].中国翻译(3).
王京平.2004.谈翻译教学的任务与目标[J].语言与翻译(1).
王克非.2004.双语平行语料库在翻译教学上的用途[J].外语电话教学(6).
王琼.2004.谈英汉翻译教学中语篇衔接意识的训练—一次翻译作业的实验报告[J].中国翻译(4).
王树槐.2001.关于本科翻译教学的思考[J].中国翻译(5).
王湘玲.2003.从传统教学观到建构主义教学观[J].外语与外语教学(6).
王湘玲.2008(a).西方翻译能力研究：回眸与前瞻[J].湖南大学学报(社科版)(2).
王湘玲.2008(b).基于真实翻译项目的过程教学法模式[J].上海翻译(2).
王湘玲.2008(c).项目驱动的协作式翻译教学模式构建[J].外语教学(5).
王 宇.2003.关于本科翻译教学的再思考[J].外语界(1).
王占斌.2005.关于英语专业翻译教学的调查与研究[J].上海翻译(1).
王正.2005.翻译中的合作模式研究[D].上海外国语大学.
文军.2004.论以发展翻译能力为中心的课程模式[J].外语与外语教学(8).
文 军.2005.翻译课程模式研究-以发展翻译能力为中心的方法[M].北京：中国文史出版社.
武广军.2006.翻译课程设计的理论体系与范式[J].中国翻译(5).
吴启金.1999.翻译教学与研究前瞻[J].中国科技翻译(1).
伍小君.2004.论形象思维与翻译教学[J].外语与外语教学(11).
伍小君.2007.“交互式”英语翻译教学模式建构[J].外语学刊(4).
武广军.2006.翻译课程设计的理论体系与范式[J].中国翻译(5).
肖 红.2005.“翻译作坊”在翻译教学中的运用[J].四川外语学院学报(1).
肖 辉.2004.语法-翻译教学法研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社.
徐莉娜.1998.关于本科生翻译测试的探讨[J].中国翻译(3).
许渊冲.2005.“体”、“神”、“表”平衡模式是评估文学翻译的科学方法吗?[J].中国翻译(2).
阎佩衡.2005.英汉与汉英翻译教学论[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
杨 柳.2001,翻译研究与翻译教学的新理念—全国暑期英汉翻译高级研讨讲习班带来的思考[J].中国翻译(5).
杨仕章.2005.翻译教学中的误译分析[J].解放军外国语学院学报(6).
杨晓荣.1998.港台的翻译教学[J].上海科技翻译(3).
杨自俭.2006.关于翻译教学的几个问题[J].上海翻译(3).
叶常青.2003.自建语料库在翻译教学的应用-《红楼梦》中英文本用于翻译教学的课堂设计[J].外国语言文学(3).
叶苗.2007.翻译教学的交互式模式研究[J].外语界(3).
尹衍桐袁洪婵.2004.全语言教学法在翻译教学中的应用[J].山东外语教学(6).
赞宁.1987.宋高僧传[M].北京：中华书局.
曾利沙.2002.化理论为方法化理论为知识—翻译专业研究生学科理论教学谈[J].中国翻译(2).
曾利沙.2005.主题关联性社会文化语境与择义的理据性[J].中国翻译(4).
张春柏.1997.还原翻译练习：一种行之有效的翻译教学方法[J].山东外语教学(3).
张光明等.2003.美国翻译教学与研究的新发展-马萨诸塞州立大学埃德温·根兹勒教授访谈录[J].上海科技翻译(1).
张美芳.2001.中国英汉翻译教材研究(1949-1998)[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
赵真郝丽萍.2003.中译外翻译教学现状及对策[J].中国高教研究(5).
郑延国.1995.合译：佛经翻译的一大特色[J].现代外语(4).
中国翻译工作者协会《翻译通讯》编辑部.1984.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948).北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
周维杰.2002.过程教学法在翻译教学中的运用[J].四川外语学院学报(1).
周亚莉.2006.探讨翻译过程中的翻译策略[MA].西南师范大学.
朱慕菊.2002.走进新课程：与课程实施者对话[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社.
朱嫣华.1995.高校英语专业八级考试指南[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生等.英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2001.
庄智象.2007.我国翻译专业建设：问题与对策[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
庄智象.1992.翻译教学及其研究的现状与改革[J].外语界(1).
1 The term "approach" in the framework of Richards & Rodgers (1986) is substituted with "theoretical foundation" in the OCTA model in order to reduce the possible terminological confusion.
2本文将Richards & Rodgers (1986)在其教学方法(method)分析模式中所使用的approach(理论基础)一词改称为theoretical foundation,以避免与文中常用术语theoretic approach中的"approach"(模式)相混淆。
1 Liao Qiaoyun. (2005). C-R-A Model:A Tripartite Account of Verbal Communication[M]. Chengdu:Sichuan University Press, p 10.
2 Schaffner, C.& B. Adab (eds.) (2000). Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, (?).
3 Miao Ju. (2006). On the Development of Translation Competence through Translation Instruction[M]. Tianjin:Tianjin People's Publishing House, P.66.
4 Kiraly, D. (2000). A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education:Empowerment from Theory to Practice[M]. Manchester:St. Jerome, pp.1-4.
House, J. (1980). Translation in the foreign language classroom, in Applied Translation studies.(eds.), S. O. Poulsen & W. Wilss,7-17. Arhus:Wirtschaftsuniversitat Arhus, pp.7-8.
6 Neubert, A.& G. Shreve. (1992). Translation as Text[M]. Kent, Ohio:Kent State University Press, p.19.
7 There are two more Ph.D. dissertations on translation teaching-related topics produced at HKBU in Hong Kong, China: Mu Lei (2004) and Zhang Meifang (1999).
8穆雷.1999.中国翻译教学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
9 The Proceedings of Conference on Translation Teaching (Liu Jingzhi, Lin Wusun and Jin Shenghua,2000) is the first collection of papers on translation teaching published in Hong Kong, China, covering a wide range of topics on the teaching and learning of translation, including translational curricular design, translation theory and its teaching, translation and interpretation practice, and so on.
10 Liao Qiaoyun. (2005). C-R-A Model:A Tripartite Account of Verbal Communication[M]. Chengdu:Sichuan University Press, p10.
11 Wang Xiangling. (2008). Developing Students Translation Competence:A Constructivist Project-based Approach. Ph.D. Thesis (written in English), Changsha, Hunan Normal University, IX.
12 Liao Qiaoyun. (2005). C-R-A Model:A Tripartite Account of Verbal Communication[M]. Chengdu:Sichuan University Press, ⅲ.
13 The well-known example is that of the Russian Pavlov (1849-1936) who demonstrated with dogs that a response (e.g. salivation) generated by one stimulus (e.g. food) could be produced by introducing a second stimulus (e.g. a bell) at the same time. This came to be known as S-R (Stimulus-Response) theory or classical conditioning.
15 Ordinarily, to say that something is constructed is to say that it was not there simply to be found or discovered, but rather that it was built, brought into being by some person's intentional activity at a given point in time. And to say that it was socially constructed is to add that it was built by a society, by a group of people organized in a particular way, with particular values, interests and needs. (Boghossian,2006:16)
16 Social constructivism provides a framework which encompasses the insights provided by humanistic perspective, and to which mainly committed as educationists, that of social interactionism. (Williams & Burden,1997:39)
17 Cobb (1994) argues that the two approaches cannot be separated because both complement each other.
18 The generally-accepted,term is "the transformational approach". For the convenience of expression, the present research uses the constructivist paradigm instead of "the transformational approach"
19 The generally-accepted term is "the transmissionist approach". For the convenience of expression, the present research uses the objectivist paradigm instead of "the transmissionist approach".
20 Lasnier establishes the difference between skills (a simple know how which includes declarative knowledge) and capabilities (a combination of skills, a reasonably complex know how which includes skills and declarative knowledge).
Concerning the characteristics of declarative and operative (or procedural) knowledge, Pozo & Postigo (1993:49) basing their ideas on Wellington (1989) point out a third type of knowledge, explicative knowledge, which is related to know why and which identifies theoretical knowledge. Some scholars (Paris et al.1983,1984) also propose conditional knowledge (which consists of know when and why to use declarative and operative knowledge) which is of great importance for teaching.
22 Orozco (2000) points out that there have only been two partial attempts at operationalizing TC:Lowe (1987) and Stansfield et al. (1992) (Orozco, quoted in Hurtado Albir,2007:169).
23 TAPs (think-aloud protocols) involve participants thinking aloud as they are performing a set of specified tasks. Participants are asked to say whatever they are looking at, thinking, doing, and feeling, as they go about their task. This enables observers to see first-hand the process of task completion rather than only its final product. The theoretical framework for TAP experiments comes from Protocol Analysis—verbal reports as data by Ericsson and Simon (1993) who work with a model of human cognition as information processing.
24 A1-T1 refers to the target text of Text one produced by he first participant of Group A, B15-T2 the target text of Text two by the fifteenth participant of Group B, while C30-T3 the target text of Text three by the last participant of Group C.
25 Since the participants have larger cognitive space in their native language,they often rephrase Chinese segments to have a good comprehension of the source text.
28 Students will more openly express their thoughts, feelings, reactions, opinions, information and ideas, when the trust level is high. When the trust level is low, students will be evasive, dishonest, and inconsiderate in their communications. Johnson & Johnson (1991:154)
30 Hipps, J. A. (1993). Trustworthiness and Authenticity:Alternate Ways to Judge Authentic Assessments, Conference Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia
31 At the present stage in our research, measuring instruments have been piloted with good results and has passed reliability and validity tests. Therefore, they are ready to be used in a research project like the one described in this article or in any other project based on the model proposed. (Orozco,2000:209)
33 It is certain that the results of the first measurement wili never be "0", even though the subjects have not yet any experience of translation. They are "novice" subjects in translation, but they can produce translations of some kind, regardless of their quality, as Lorscher observed (1991:151). learning stage in mainland China's universities. The results of its translation part have considerable impact on translation teaching at the tertiary level in mainland China.
Alcina, A. (2008). Translation Technologies:Scope, Tools and Resources, in Target (1):79-102.
Alves, F. (ed.). (2003). Triangulating Translation:Perspectives in Process Oriented Research, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Anderman, G..& M. Rogers. (2000). Translator Training between Academia and Profession: A European Perspective, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing translation Competence, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Anderson,J. R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition[M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Anderson, R. S.& B. W. Speck. (1998). Oh What a Difference a Team Makes:Why the Teaching Makes a Difference, in Teaching and Teacher Education (7):61-74.
Arrojo, R. (1994). Deconstruction and the Teaching of Translation, in TextContext (9):01-12
Austermuhl, F. (2001). Electronic Tools for Translators[M]. Manchester, UK & Northamp-ton, MA:St. Jerome Publishing.
Bachmann, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Consideration in Language Testing[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baer, B. J.& G. S. Koby (eds.). (2003). Beyond the Ivory Tower:Rethinking Translation Pedagogy, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words [M]. London:Routledge.
Baker, M. (1998). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies[M]. London and New York:Routledge.
Bax, S. (2003). The End of CLT:A Context Approach to Language Teaching, in ELT Journal, (57):278-287.
Beckett,G H.& B. Mohan. (2003). A Functional Approach to Research on Content-Based Language Learning:Recasts in Causal Explanations, in Modern Language Journal, (3):74-86.
Bednar, A. K. et al. (1992). Theory into Practice:How Do We Link? in T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction:A Conversation, Hillsdale, NJ & London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Beeby, A. (1996). Teaching Translation from Spanish to English[M]. Ottawa:University of Ottawa Press.
Beeby, A. (2000). Evaluating the Development of Translation Competence, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence, Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Beeby, A. (2004). Language Learning for Translators:Designing a Syllabus, in Malmkjar, K. (ed.), Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programs, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Beeby, A. et al. (eds.). (2000). Investigating Translation. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Belanoff, P.& M. Dixon. (1991). Portfolio Grading:Process and Product[M]. Portsmouth, Boynton/Cook.
Bell, R. T. (1.991). Translation and Translating:Theory and Practice[M]. London and New York:Longman.
Bennett, W. A. (1968). Aspects of Language and Language Teaching[M]. London: Cambridge University Press.
Bereiter, C.& M. Scardamalia. (1993). Surpassing Ourselves —An Inquiry into the Nature and Implications of Expertise[M]. Chicago & LaSalle,Ⅰ11.:Open Court.
Berg, B. L. (1989). Qualitative Research Methods:For the Social Sciences[M]. Boston, Allyn and Bacon.
Bernardini, S. (2004). The Theory behind Practice:Translator Training or Translation Education?, in Malmkjar, K. (ed.), Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programs, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Beverly, A. (2000). Evaluating Translation Competence, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence, Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Biggs, J. (1987). Student Approaches to Learning and Studying[M]. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. (1993). From Theory to Practice:A Cognitive Systems Approach, in Higher Education Research and Development (12):73-86.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University:What the Student Does[M]. Maidenhead:Open University Press.
Biggs, J.& K. F. Collis (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning:The SOLO Taxonomy [M]. New York:Academic Press.
Blasi, P. (1999). The Task of Institutions of Higher Education in the New Europe,in Hirsch, W. Z.& L. E. Weber (eds.), Challenge Facing Higher Education at the Millennium. Arizona, the American Council Education and Oryx Press.
Bligh, D. (1990). Higher Education[M]. London, Cassell Educational Limited.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism:Perspective and Method[M]. Berkeley:Uni-versity of California Press.
Bobbit, F. (1918). How to Make a Curriculum[M]. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.
Bogdan, R.& Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative Research for Education:An Introduction to Theory and Methods[M]. London:Allyn & Bacon.
Boghossian, P.A. (2006). Fear of Knowledge:Against Relativism and Constructivism[M]. Oxford:Clarendon Press.
Booth, J. R. et al. (2002). Functional Anatomy of Intra-and Cross-modal Lexical Tasks, in Neuroimage (16):7-22.
Boucau, F. (2006). The European Translation Markets:Updated Facts and Figures 2006-2010[M]. Brussels:EUATC.
Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and Memory, in American Psychologist (2):129-148.
Bowker, L. (2002). Computer-Aided Translation Technology:A Practical Introduction[M]. Ottawa:University of Ottawa Press.
Bowker, L.& J. Pearson (2002). Working with Specialized Language:A Practical Guide to Using Corpora[M]. London:Routledge.
Brandt, R. (1987). On Cooperation in Schools:A Conversation with David and Roger Johnson, in Educational Leadership (45):14-19.
Bredo, E. (1994). Reconstructing Educational Psychology:Situated Cognition and Dewey-an Pragmatism, in Educational Psychologist (1):23-35.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for Cross-cultural Research, in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (3):187-216.
Broeck, R. van den. (1980). Toward a Text-type-oriented Theory of Translation, in Poulsen, S. O.& Wilss, W. (eds.), Applied Translation Studies. Arhus:Wirtschaftsuniversitat Arhus.
Broeck, R. van den. (1988). Introduction to J. Holmes, in Homles, J. S. (ed.), Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Brooks, J.G.& M.G. Brooks.1993. In Search of Understanding:The Case for Con-structivist Classrooms[M]. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curri-culum Development.
Brooks, N. (1960). Language and Language Learning[M]. New Yrok:Harcourt, Brace.
Brown, G. (1971). Human Teaching for Human Learning. An Introduction to Confluent Education[M]. New York:The Viking Press.
Brown, J. S. et al. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, in Educational Researcher (1):10-16.
Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative Learning:Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Au-thority of Knowle,dge[M]. Baltimore, MD:Johns Hopkins University.
Brumfit, C. J.& K. Johnson (eds.) (1979). The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Callahan, R. E. (1962). Education and the Cult of Efficiency:A Study of the Social Forces that Have Shaped the Administration of the Public Schools[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Caminade, M.& A. Pym (1998). Translator-training Institutions, in Mona Baker (ed.), Routle-dge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London:Routledge.
Campbell, S. J. (1991). Towards a Model of Translation Competence, in Meta (l):329-343.
Campbell, S. J. (1998). Translation into the Second Language [M]. London and New York: Longman.
Candy, P. C. (1989). Constructivism and the Study of Self-direction in Adult Learning, in Studies in the Education of Adults (2):95-116.
Catford, J. C. (1967). A Linguistic Theory of Translation[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Chau, S. S. (1984). Aspects of Translation Pedagogy:The Grammatical, Cultural and Interpretive Teaching Models[Z]. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Chesterman, A. (1993). From Is to Ought:Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies, in Target (1):124-133.
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Choi, J. I.& M. Hannafm (1995). Situated Cognition and Learning Environments:Roles, Structures and Implications for Design, in Educational Technology Research and Development (2):53-69.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax[M]. Cambridge:MIT Press.
Cobb, P. (1995). Continue the Conversation:A Response to Smith, in Educational Researcher (7):13-20.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the Mind? Constructivist and Socio-cultural Perspectives on Mathematical Development, in Educational Researcher (7):13-20.
Cole, P. (1992). Constructivism Revisited:A Search for Common Ground, in Educational Tech-nology (2):27-34.
Colina, S. (2003). Teaching Translation:From Research to the Classroom[M]. New York, San Francisco:McGraw Hill.
Collins, A. et al. (1989). Cognitive Apprenticeship:Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics, in L. B. Resnick (ed.), Knowing, Learning, and Instruction. Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Colman, A. M. (2001). A Dictionary of Psychology[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Cook, D. A. (1993). Behaviorism Evolves, in.Educational Technology (10):62-77.
Costa, A. L. (1989). Reassessing Assessment, in Educational Leadship (7):02-09.
CTGV. (1991). Technology and the Design of Generative Learning Environments, in Educational Technology (5):21-30.
Davies, M. G. (2004). Undergraduate and Postgraduate Translation Degrees:Aims and Expectations, in Malmjkaer, K.(ed.), Translation in an Undergraduate Degree Programs. Amsterdam & Philadelpia:John Benjamins.
DeCesaris, J. A. (1995). Computerized Translation Managers as Teaching Aids, in Dollerup C.& V. Appel (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3. Amsterdam/ philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Delisle, J. (1980). L'analyse du discours comme methode de traduction:Initiation a la traduction francaise de textes pragmatiques anglais, theorie et pratique[M]. Ottawa: Presses de l'Universite d'Ottawa. [English translation of Part I by Patricia Hogan and Monica Creery,1988. Translation:An Interpretive Approach. Ottawa:University of Ottawa Press].
Delisle, J. (1992). Les manuels de traduction:essai de classification, in TTRV. (1):17-48.
Derry, S. J. (1999). A Fish called Peer Learning:Searching for Common Themes, in A. M. Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on Peer Learning. Mahwat, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & Education[M]. New York:Simon & Schuster.
Dick, W.& L. Carey. (1996). The Systemic Design of Instruction[M]. New York:Harper Collins College Publishers.
Diehl, W. et al. (1999). Project-based Learning:A Strategy for Teaching and Learning[M]. Boston, MA:Centre for Youth Development and Education, Corporation for Business, Work and Learning.
Dollerup, C. (1995). The Emergence of the Teaching of Translation, in Dollerup, C.& V. Appel (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Dollerup, C.& A. Lingarrd (eds.) (1994). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2, Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Duffy, T. M.& D. H. Jonassen (eds.) (1992):Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction:A Conversation[M]. Hillsdale, NJ & London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dunlap, J. C.& R. S. Grabinger (1996). Rich Environments for Active Learning in the Higher Education Classroom, in Wilson, B. G (ed.), Constructivist Learning Environments. Case Studies in Instructional Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching[M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). The Methodology of Task-Based Teaching, in Asian EFL Journal,8-3, Article 2.
Ellis, R.& Hedge. (1993). Talking Shop Second Language Acquisition Research:How Does It Help Teachers? An Interview with Rod Ellis, in ELTjournal (1):3-11.
Engstrom, Yrjo. (1987). Learning by Expanding:An Activity-theoretical Approach to Developmental Research[M]. Helsinki:Orienta-Konsultit oy.
Enns-Conolly, T. (1986). Translation as an Interpretive Act:A Narrative Study of Trans-lation in University Level Foreign Language Teaching[Z]. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Toronto.
Ernest, P. (1995). The One and the Many, in L. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education. New Jersey:Lawrence Erldaum Associates, Inc.
Figueroa, E. (1994). Sociolinguistic Metatheory[M]. Oxford & New Yyok:Pergamon.
Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames Semantics, in A. Zambolli (ed.), Linguistic Structure Processing. Amsterdam:North Holland Publishing Company.
Flannery, J. L. (1992). The Teacher as Co-conspirator:Knowledge and Authority in Collaborative Learning, in Bosworth, K.& S. J. Hamilton (eds.), Collaborative Learning.Underlying Processes and Effective Techniques, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Fosnot, C. (1992). Constructing Constructivism, in T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (eds.), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction:A Conversation. Hillsdale, NJ & London:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gabrian, B. (1986). The Aim or Aimlessness of Translation Teaching, in Textcontext (1):48-62.
Gagne, R. M.& L. J. Briggs. (1974). Principles of Instruction Design[M]. New York:Holt, Rinehart,& Winton.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning:The Role of Attitudes and Motivation[M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan Pragmatism and Epistomology of Contemporary Social Constructivism, in American Educational Research Journal (4):716-740.
Garside, R. et al. (eds.). (1997). Corpus Annotation:Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London:Longman.
Gass, S.&. Selinker, L. (Eds.) (1992). Language Transfer in Language Learning[M]. Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary Translation Theories[M]. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters,2nd edition.
Gerard, M. (2000). The Evaluation of Translation into a Foreign Language, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds), Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Gergen, K. J. (1995). Social Construction and the Educational Process, in L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education. NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gile, D. (1995). Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Gonzalez Davies, M. (2004).Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Gouadec, D. (2007). Translation as a Profession[M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Gould, J. S. A. (1996). Constructivist Perspective on Teaching and Learning in the Language Arts, in Fosnot C. T. (Ed.), Constructivism:Theory, Perspectives, and Practice.Teacthers College,Columbia University.
Gredler, M. E. (1997). Learning and Instruction:Theory into Practice[M]. NJ:Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Guba, E & Y. Lincoln (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation[M]. Newbury Park, CA.:Sage Publications.
Guonsooly, B. (1993). Development and Validation of a Translation Test, in Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (4):54-62.
Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What?[M]. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& R. Hasan. (1976). Cohesion in English[M]. London:Longman.
Harris, B. (1997). The Importance of Natural Translation, in Working Papers in Bilingualism (12):96-14.
Harris, B.& B. Sherwood. (1978). Translating as an Innate Skill, in D. Gerver & H. W. Sinaiko (eds.), Language, Interpretation and Communication. New York & London: Plenum.
Harris, D. F. (1969). A Language Testing Handbook[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill.
Hart, D. (1994). Authentic Assessment:A Handbook for Educators[M]. New York, Addison-Wesley.
Hatim, B.& I. Manson. (1997). The Translator as Communicator[M]. London:Routledge.
Hayek, F. A. (1999). The Sensory Order[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Heppner, P. P.& Heppner, M. J. (2009). Writing Your Thesis, Dissertation & Research[M]. Beijing:Peking University Press.
Hipps, J. A. (1993). Trustworthiness and Authenticity:Alternate Ways to Judge Authentic Assessments, Conference Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
Holmes, J. (1972/1988). The Name and Nature of Translation Studies, in Holmes, J. (ed.), Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Holzer, S. M. (1994). From Constructivism to Active Learning, in The Innovator (2):71-84.
Honig, H.G. (1990). Sagen was man nicht weiss—Wissen, was man nicht sagt [Saying what you don't know—Knowing what you don't say], in Ubersetzungs-wissenschaft —Ergebnisse urid Perspektiven [Translation studies—State of the art and prospects for the future], (ed.) R. Arntz and G. Thome,152-161. Tubingen:Gunter Narr.
Honig, H. G. (1998). Positions, Power and Practice:Functionalist Approaches and Translation Quality Assessment, in Schaffner, C. (ed.), Translation and Quality. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
House, J. (1980). Translation in the Foreign Language Classroom, in S.O. Poulsen & W. Wilss (eds.). Applied Translation Studies. Arhus:Wirtschafts universitat Arhus.
House, J. (1997). Translation Quality Assessment:A Model Revisited[M]. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
House, J. (2001). Translation Quality Assessment:Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation, in Meta (2):243-257.
Hung, E. (1995). Translation Curricula Development in Chinese Communities, in Dollerup, C.& V. Appel (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, Amsterdam/ philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Hurtado Albir, A. (1996). La ensenanza de la traduccion directa "general". Objectivos de aprendizaje y metodologia, in A. Hurtado Albir (ed.), La ensenanza de la traduccion, Castellon:Universitat Jaume 1:31-55.
Hurtado Albir, A. (2007). Competence-based Curriculum Design for Training Translators, in The Interpreter and Translator Trainer (ITT) (2):163-195.
Hymes, D. (1971).On Communjicative Competence, in C. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative Approach to Language Teaching. London:Oxford University Press.
Jaaskelainen, R. (1989). Translation Assignment in Professional Versus Non-professional Translation:a Think-aloud Protocol Study, in Candace Seguinot (ed.), The Translation Press, Toronto:H. G. Publications, York University,87-98.
Jaaskelainen, R.& S. Tirkkonen-Condit. (1991). Automatized Processes in Professional vs. Non-professional Translation:A Think-aloud Protocol Study, in Sonia Tirkkonen-Condit (ed.) Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies, Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
Johnson, D. W.& R. T. Johnson. (1991). Learning Together and Alone[M]. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus Constructivism:We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? in Educational Technology Research & Development (3):61-76.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Evaluating constructivistic learning, in T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction:137-148. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking Technology:Towards a Constructivist Design Model, in Educational Technology (4):34-37.
Jones, B. F. et al. (1997). Real-life Problem Solving:A Collaborative Approach to Interdisciplinary Learning[M]. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
Karagiorgi Y.& L. Symeou. (2005). Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations, in Educational Technology & Society(1):47-59.
Katan, D. (2004). Translating Cultures. An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters and Mediators[M]. Manchester:St Jerome. [2nd edition].
Kearns, J. (2008). Translator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debates[M]. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Kelly, D. (2002). La competencia traductora:bases para el diseno curicular, in Puentes (1): 9-20.
Kelly, D. (2005). A Handbook for Translator Trainers[M]. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Kenny, D. (1999). CAT Tools in an Academic Environment:What Are They Good For? in Target (1):65-82.
Kilfoil, W. R.& Van der Walr, C. (1997). Learn to Teach:English Language Teaching in a Multilingual Context[M]. Pretoria:J.L.Van Schaik.
Kingscott, G. (1995). The Impact of Technology and the Implications for Teaching, in Dollerup, C.& V. Appel (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3, New Horizons, Amsterdam/philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kiraly, D.(1995). Pathways to Translation:Pedagogy and Process[M]. Kent:The Kent State University Press.
Kiraly, D. (2000). A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education:Empower-ment from Theory to Practice[M]. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Kiraly, D. (2005). Project-Based Learning:A Case for Situated Translation, in Meta (4): 1098-1111.
Krings, H.P. (1986). What Goes on in the Minds of Translators[M].Tubingen:Gunter Narr.
Klaudy, K. (1995). Quality Assessment in School vs. Professional Translation, in Dollerup, C.& V. Appel (eds.). Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3:New Horizons, Amsterdam/philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Kukla, A. (2000). Social Constructivism and the Philosophy Of Science [M]. New York: Routledge.
Kupsch-Losereit, S. (1986). Scheint eine schone Sonne? Oder:Was ist ein Uberset-zungsfehler? in Lebende Sprachen (1):12-16.
Kussmaul, P. (1995). Training the Translator[M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Ladmiral, J. R. (1977). Translation within the Educational Setting, in Die Neuren Sprachen (76):489-516.
Lado, R. (1961). Language Testing[M]. New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind[M]. Chicago & London:The University of Chicago Press.
Lambert, R. D.& Freed, B. F. (Eds.). (1982). The Loss of Language Skills. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Lantlf, J. P.& G. Appel. (1996). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood [M]. NJ:Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Larkin, J. (1989). What Kind of Knowledge Transfers, in L. Resnick. (Ed.), Knowing, Learning and Instruction. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum Associates Pnblishers.
Lave, J.& E. Wenger. (1991). Situated Learning:Legitimate Peripheral Participation[M]. Cambridge University Press.
Lebow, D. (1993).Constructivist Values for Instructional Systems Design:Five Principles toward a New Mindset, in Educational Technology Research and Development (3): 4-16.
Legutke, M.& H. Thomas. (1991). Process and Experience in the Language Classroom [M]. London:Longman.
Leont'ev, A. N. (1981). Progress of the Development of the Mind[M]. Moscow:Progress Publishers.
Li, Defeng. (1999). The Teaching of Commercial Translation in Hong Kong:Problems and Perspectives, in Babel (3):193-204.
Li, Defeng. (2002). Teaching Information Technology in Translator Training Programs in Hong Kong, in ATA Chronicle:29-33.
Li, Defeng. (2003). Translator Training:What Translation Students Have to Say, in Meta (4):513-531.
Li, Defeng. (2005). Teaching of Specialized Translation Courses in Hong Kong,in Babel (1):1-16.
Li, Defeng. (2006). Making Translation Testing more Teaching-oriented:A Case Study of Translation Testing in China, in Meta (1):72-88.
Li, Zhanxi. (2007). Relevance and Adjustability:A Study of Translating Press in Cultural Image Renderings[M]. Beijing:Science Press.
Liao, Qiaoling. (2005). C-R-A Model:A Tripartite Account of Verbal Communication[M]. Chengdu:Sichuang University Press.
Liu, Jingzhi. et al. (eds.) (2000). Proceedings of Conference on Translation Teaching. Hong Kong, Hong Kong Translators'Association.
Liu, Zonghe. (ed.) (2001). On Translation Teaching. Beijing:The Commercial Press.
Longstreet, W & H. Shane (1993). Curriculum for a New Millennium. Needham MA:Allyn and Bacon.
Lorscher, W. (1991). Thinking-aloud as a Method for Collecting Data On Translation Processes. Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies, in Sonja, Tirkonnen-Condit (ed.), Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies. Tubingen, Narr Verlag:67-78.
Mackenzie,. R. (2004). The Competence Required by the Translators Roles as a Pro-fessional, in Malmjkaer. K. (ed.), Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programes. Amsterdam & Philadephia, John Benjamins.
Mackenzie, R.& E. Nieminen (1997). Motivating Students to Achieve Quality in Trans-lation, in Klaudy, K.& J. Kohn (eds.), Transferre Necesse Est, Scholastica.
Mahoney, M. J. (2003). Constructive Psychotherapy:a Practical Guide[M]. New York: Guilford.
Maksimwicz, M. L. (1993). Focus on Authentic Learning and Assessment in the Middle School[Z]. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED380226.
Malmkjar, K.(ed.) (1998). Translation & Language Teaching. Manchester:St. Jerome Publishing.
Malmkjaer, K. (ed.). (2004). Translation in Undergraduate Degree Programmes. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mason, I. (1987). A Text Linguistic Approach to Translation Assessment, in Keith, H.& I. Mason (eds.), Translation in the Modern Language Degree, London, Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Martinez Melis, N.& A. Hurtado Albir (2001). Assessment in Translation Studies: Research Needs, in Meta (2):272-287.
Marx, R. W. et al. (1994). Enacting Project-based Science:Experiences of Four Middle Grade Teachers, in Elementary School Journal, (5):499-516.
Mauriello, G. (1999).Training Translators to Face the Challenges of the Future, in Actes du ⅩⅤ Congres Mondial de la Federation Internationale des Traducteurs (FIT):170-175.
Mayer, R. E. et al. (1996). When Less Is More:Meaningful Learning from Visual and Verbal Summaries of Science Textbook Lessons, in Journal of Educational Psychology (88):64-73.
McAlester, G. (2000). The Evaluation of Translation into a Foreign Language, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing translation Competence. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
McMahon, M. (1997). Social Constructivism and the World Wide Wed—Aparadigm for Learning, in Papers Presented at the ASCILITE Conference. Perth, Australia.
Mercer,N. (1994).Neo-Vygotskian Theory and Classroom Education, in Stierer, B.& J. Maybin (eds.), Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Miao,Ju. (2006). On the Development of Translation Competence through Translation Instruction[M]. Tianjin People's Publishing House.
Miller, J.P.& W. Seller. (1985).Transmission Position:Educational Practice, in J.P.Miller & W. Seller (eds.), Curriculum Perspectives and Practice. New York:Longman, 37-61.
Moore, M.G. (1989). Three Types of Interaction, in The American Journal of Distance Education (2):1-6.
Mossop, B. (1983). The Translator as Rapporteur:A Concept for Training and Self-improvement, in Meta (4):244-278.
Mu, Lei. (1999). Translation Training in China, in Meta(1):198-208.
Mu, Lei.2004. A Critical Study of (C-E/E-C) Text-based Translation Testing for Transla-tion Teaching:Towards Constructing a Fuzzy Synthetic Marking Model, Ph.D. Thesis (written in Chinese), Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University.
Munday, J. (2008). Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications[M]. London and New York:Routledge.
Nachmias, C.& D. Nachmias. (1982). Research Methods in the Social Sciences [M].2nd edition. London:Edward Arnold (Hodder and Stoughton).
Neubert, A.(1985). Text and Translation[M]. Leipzig:Enzyklopdie.
Neubert, A. (1994). Competence in Translation:A complex Skill. How to Study and How to Teach it, in Snell-Hornby, et al. (eds.), Translation Studies:An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam, Benjamin.
Neubert, A. (2000). Competence in Language, in Languages, and in Translation, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Neubert, A.& G. Shreve. (1992). Translation as Text[M]. Kent, Ohio:Kent State University Press.
Neunzig, W. (2000). The Computer in Empirical Studies for the Didactics of Translation, in A.Beeby et al. (eds.), Investigating Translation. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Newmark, P. (1982). An Approach to Translation[M]. London:Pergamon Press Limited.
Nisbett, R. E.,& T. D. Wilson. (1977). Telling More Than We Can Know:Verbal Reports on Mental Processes, in Psychological Review(84):231-59.
Nord, C. (1991). Text Analysis in Translation:Theory, Methodology and Didactic Applica-tion of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis[M]. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Nord, C. (1994). Aus Fehlern lernen:Uberlegungen zur Beurteilung von Ubersetzungsleis-tungen, in Snell-Hornby, M. et al. (eds.), Translation Studies:An Interdiscipline, Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a Purposeful Activity:Functional Approaches Explained [M]. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Oller, J. W. (1997). Language Tests at School[M]. London:London Longman Group Ltd.
Orozco, M. (2000):Building A Measuring Instrument for the Acquisition of Translation Competence in Trainee Translators, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Orozco, M.& A. Hurtado Albir. (2002). Measuring Translation Competence Acquisition, in Meta (3):375-402.
Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies:What Every Teacher Should Know[M]. New York:Newbury House.
Oxford, R. (1997). Constructivism:Shape-shifting, Substance, and Teacher Education, in Peabody and Journal of Education (1):35-66.
PACTE. (1998). La competencia traductora y su aprendizaje:Objetivos, hipotesis y metodologia de un proyecto de investigation, in Paper presented at IV Congres Internacional sobre Traduccio, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (poster). (translated by PACTE 2003).
PACTE. (2000). Acquiring Translation Competence:Hypotheses and Methodological Prob-lems in a Research Project, in A. Beeby et al. (eds.), Investigating Translation. Amster-dam, John Benjamins.
PACTE. (2001). La competencia traductora y su adquisicion, in Quaderns Revista de Traduccio (6):39-45. (translated by PACTE 2003).
PACTE. (2003). Building a Translation Competence Model, in F. Alves (ed.), Triangu-lating Translation:Perspectives in Process Oriented Research. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
PACTE. (2005). Investigating Translation Competence:Conceptual and Methodological Issues, in Meta (2):609-619.
PACTE. (2008). First Results of a Translation Competence Experiment:"Knowledge of Translation" and "Efficacy of the Translation Process", in Translator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debates. John Kearns and Contributors.
Perkins, D. (1991). Technology Meets Constructivism:Do they make a marriage? in Educational Technology (5):18-23.
Phillips, D.C. (1995). The Good, the Bad and the Ugly:the Many Faces of Constructivism, in Educational Researcher (7):05-12.
Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology[M].New York:Columbia University Press.
Pinto, M. (2001). Quality Factors in Documentary Translation, in Meta (1):288-300.
Pozo, J. I. (1996). Cognitive Psychology and Scientific Education, in Investigacoes em Ensino de Ciencias (2):110-131.
Prawat, R. S. (1995). Misleading Dewey:Reform, Projects, and the Language Game, in Educational Research (7):13-27.
Prawat, R. S.& R. E. Floden. (1994). Philosophical Perspectives on Constructivist Views of Learning, in Educational Psychology (1):37-48.
Presas, M. (2000). Bilingual Competence and Translation Competence, in C. Schaffner & B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Pym, A. (1992). Translation Error Analysis and the Interface with Language Teaching, in C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent, and Experience. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Pym, A. (2003). Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age. In Defence of a Minimalist Approach, in Meta XLVIII-4:481-497.
Qin, X. (2003). Quantitative Analysis in Foreign Language Teaching Research[M].Wuhan: Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press.
Rand, A. (1992). Atlas Shrugged [M]. Signet Books.
Reagan,.S.(1999). Problem-Based Learning in the New Medical Curriculum[M]. Perth: Education Centre, Faculty of Medicine, University of Western Australia.
Reeves, T.C.& S. W. Harmon. (1994). Systematic Evaluation Procedures for Interactive Multimedia for Education and Training, in S. Resman (Ed.), Multimedia Computing: Preparing for the 21st Century, Harrisburg. London:Idea Group Publishing.
Reiss, K.& H. Vermeer. (2000). Translation Criticism-The Potentials and Limitations: Categories and Criteria for Translation Quality Assessment[M]. New York:American Bible Society.
Roberts, R. (1984). Competence du nouveau diplome en traductiori, in Traduction et Qualite de langue. Actes du Colloque Societe des traducteurs du Quebec/Conseil de la langue francaise, Quebec:Editeur officiel du Quebec:172-184.
Robinson, D. (1997). Becoming a Translator:An Accelerated Course[M]. London: Routledge.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosphy and the Mirror of Nature[M]. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
Rowley, J. (1996). Implementing TQM for library services:the Issues, in ASLIB Proceedings (1):17-21.
Savery, J.R.& T.M. Duffy. (1995). Problem Based Learning:An Instructional Model and Its Constructivist Framework, in Educational Technology (5):31-38.
Schaffner, C. (1999).The Concept of Norms in Translation Studies, in Schaffner, C. (ed.), Translational Norms. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Schaffner, C. (2004a). Researching Translation and Interpreting, in C. Schaffner (ed.), Translation Research and Interpreting Research. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Schaffner, C. (2004b). Review on Kiraly's A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education:Empowerment from Theory to Practice, in Target (1):157-189.
Schaffner, C.& B. Adab. (eds.). (2000). Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Schaffner, C. and U. Wiesemann. (2001). Annotated Texts for Translation:English-German. Functionalist Approaches Illustrated[M]. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Seliger, H. (1983). The Language Learner as Linguist:Of Metaphors and Realities, in Applied Linguistics (4):179-91.
Shreve, G. M. (1997). Cognition and the Evaluation of Translation Competence, in J. H. Danks, et al (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting.Thousand Oaks:Sage Publications.
Shunk, D. H. (2000). Learning Theories:An Educational Perspective[M] 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ.:Prentice-Hall.
Smith, P. L.& T. J. Ragan. (1993). Instructional Design[M]. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson. (1986). Relevance:Communication and Cognition[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Svinicki, M. D. (1998). A Theoretical Foundation for Discovery Learning, in The American Jounal in Psychology (6):S4-S7.
Tan, Zaixi. (2008). Towards a Whole-Person Translator Education Approach in Translation Teaching on University Degree Programs, in Meta (3):589-608.
Thorndike, E. L. (1914). The Psychology of Learning[M]. New York:Teacher College.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1990). Professional vs Non-professional Translation:A Think-aloud Pro-tocol Study, in Michael A. K. Halliday, et al. (eds.), Learning, Keeping and Using Language. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (1991). Empirical Research in Translation and Inter cultural Studies [M]. Tubingen:Narr.
Toury, G. (1974). The Notion of 'Native Translator'and Translation Teaching, in Wilss, W. & G. Thome (eds.). Translation Theory and Its Relevance for the Teaching of Translation and Interpretation, Tubingen:Gunter Narr.
Toury, G. (1986). Natural Translation and the Making of a Native Translator, in TextconText (1):11-29.
Toury, G. (1992). Everything Has Its Price:An Alternative to Normative Conditioning in Translator Training, in Interface:Journal of Applied Linguistics (2):66-76.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond[M]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Trujillo, A. (1999). Translation Engines:Techniques for Machine Translation[M]. London: Springer-Verlag.
Tudge, J. (1990). Vygotsky, the Zone of Proximal Development, and Peer Collaboration: Implications for Classroom Practice, in L. C. Moll (ed.), Vygotsky and Education. Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turnbill, J. (1989). Evaluation in a Whole Classroom:The What, the Why, the How, the When, in E. Daly (ed.), Monitoring Children's Language Development:Holistic Assessment in the Classroom, Portsmouth, NH, Heinemann.
Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction[M]. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
Vermeer, H. (1987). What Does It Mean to Translate? in Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics (2):25-33.
Viaggio, S. (1994). Theory and Professional Development:Or Admonishing Translators to be Good, in Dollerup, C.& A. Lingarrd (eds.), Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Vienne, J. (1994). Towards a Pedagogy of'Translation in Situation', in Perspectives: Studies in Translatology (1):51-59.
Vienne, J. (2000). Which Competence Should We Teach to Future Translators, and How? in C. Schaffner,& B. Adab (eds.), Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1987). Constructivism as a Scientific Method[M]. NY:Pregamon.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1988). The Reluctance to Change a Way of Thinking, in Irish Journal of Psychology (1):83-90.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989a). Cognition, Construction of Knowledge, and Teaching, in Synthese (80):121-140.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989b). Constructivism in Education, in T. Husen & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International in Encyclopedia of Education. New York:Pergamon Press.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A Constructivist Approach to Teaching, in L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Introduction:Aspects of Constructivism, in C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism:Theory, Perspectives and Practice. NY:Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus Objectivism:Implications for Interaction, Course Design, and Evaluation in Distance Education, in International Journal of Educational Telecommunications (4):339-362.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society[M]. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Wagner, E. D. (1990). Instructional Design and Development:Contingency Management for Distance Education, in M. G. Moore (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in American Distance Education:298-312. Oxford:Pergamon Press.
Walvoord, B.E.& V. J. Anderson. (1998). Effective Grading:A Tool for Learning and Assessment[M]. Sam Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Wang, Xiangling. (2008). Developing Students Translation Competence:A Constructivist Project-based Approach. Ph.D. Thesis (written in English), Changshai, Hunan Normal University.
Way, C. (2008). Systematic Assessment Of Translator Competence:In Search of Achilles' Heel; in Kearns, J.(ed.), Translator and Interpreter Training. Issues, Methods and Debates, Continuum International Publishing Group.
Weber, L. E. (1999) Survey of Main Challenges Facing Higher Education at the Millennium, in Hirsch, W. Z.& L. E. Weber (eds.), Challenges Facing Higher Education at the Millennium, Arizona, the American Council Education and the Oryx Press.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication[M]. Oxford University Press.
Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses[M]. London:Oxford University Press.
Williams, J.& A. Chesterman (2002). The Map:A Beginner's Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies[M]. St. Jerome Publishing.
Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning[M]. London:Longman.
Williams M.& R.L. Burden. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers[M]. Cambridge University Press.
Wilss, W. (1976). Perspectives and Limitations of a Didactic Framework for the Teaching of'Translation, in Richard W. Brislin (ed.), Translation Applications and Research. New York:Gardner.
Wilss, W. (1982). The Science of Translation:Problems and Methods[M]. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Wilss, W. (1996). Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior[M]. Amsterdam-Philadelphia:John Benjamis.
Wisdom, J.& G. Gibbs (1994). Course Design for Resource Based Learning. Humanities [M]. Oxford:Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Wolfson, L. (2005). The Contact between Text, Mind, and One's Own Word in a Translation Workshop, in Translation Journal (4):34-47.
Xu, M.& Zhang, G (1995). Basics of Educational Measurement Science[M]. Beijing: China Railway Pubkishing House.
Zanettin, F. (1998). Bilingual Comparable Corpora and the Training of Translators, in Meta (4):616-630.
Zhang, Meifang. (1999). A Study of the Development of Translation Textbooks on the Mainland of China (1949-1998). Ph.D. Thesis (written in Chinese), Hong Kong, Hong Kong Baptist University.
安新奎.2001.翻译教学与学生创造性思维能力的培养[J].西安外国语学院学报(2).
鲍川运.2003.关于翻译教学的几点看法[J].中国翻译(2).
曹明伦.2006.从教学视角看翻译理论与实践的关系[J].天津外国语学院学报(2).
曹仕邦.1982.论中国佛教译场之译经方式与程序(1963)[A].佛典翻译史论[c].台北：大乘文化出版社.
陈福康.2000.中国译学理论史稿[M].上海：上海教育出版社.
陈宏薇.1997.新实用汉译英教程[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
陈宏薇.2006.道格拉斯·罗宾逊以人为中心的翻译教学思想评介[J].中国翻译(2).
陈惠芬等.2005.图式理论在翻译教学中的运用[J].南京财经大学学报(4).
陈葵阳.2005.从建构主义观点谈翻译课堂教学[J].中国翻译(3).
陈向阳.2005.京师同文馆组织结构探析[J].华东师范大学学报(教育科学版)(2).
陈小慰.2002从8级翻译测试看学生亟待加强的几个方面[J].中国翻译(1).
陈许.1994.翻译翻学中发展学生智能的探讨[J].外语界(1).
陈燕生.2003.视听手段在翻译教学中的应用一日本外语翻译课教学印象[J].中国电化教育(4).
陈一壮.2004.包纳简单性方法的复杂性方法[J].哲学研究(8).
丁国旗侯艳.2006.文脉在胸,译笔有神[J].中国翻译(1).
邓静穆雷.2005.《象牙塔的逾越：重思翻译教学》介绍[J].外语教学与研究(4).
丁树德.2003.翻译教学中的学生心理障碍与认知框架[J].上海科技翻译(3).
董晓华.2004.提高理论素养,拓宽翻译教学维度[J].中国翻译(5).
杜威.1994.学校与社会·明日之学校[M].赵祥麟等译.北京：人民教育出版社.
方梦之.2004.译学辞典.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
冯庆华.2002.实用翻译教程[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
封一涵.2001.教师网络中的交互式翻译教学[j].中国翻译(1).
高等学校外语专业教学指导委员会英语组.高等学校英语专业英语教学大纲[Z].上海：上海外语教育出版社；北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
龚茜.2004..用新的译论构建翻译教学的综合多元模式[J].中国翻译(1).
顾卫星.2001.京师同文馆外语教学特色简析[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(2).
郭著章.2003.关于翻译教材[J].上海科技翻译(1).
韩哲.2004.论翻译教材中译例的编选原则[J].上海科技翻译(3).
韩子满.2004.翻译职业化与译员培训—罗宾逊《速成翻译教程》评介[J].中国翻译(3).
何刚强.2005.翻译的“学”与“术”—兼谈我国高校翻译系科(专业)面临的问题[J].中国翻译(2).
何刚强.2006.译学无疆,译不才器—翻译(院)系培养人才应有长远的眼光[J].上海翻译(2).
何文安.1996.翻译教学：现状评估、改革与展望[J].中国科技翻译(2).
黄文英.2006.互文性与翻译教学[J].东南大学学报(3).
姜秋霞曹进.2006.翻译专业建设现状：分析与建议[J].中国翻译(5).
江晓梅.2006.以反思学习法促进翻译教学[J].湖北大学学报(2).
金善雅.2004.韩国韩中翻译教学的现状和展望[J].当代韩国(4).
李波.2004.翻译的职业化与职业道德[J].上海科技翻译(3).
李德风胡牧.2006.学习者为中心的翻译课程设置[J].外国语(2).
李德山金敏求.2002.中国古代佛经的来源及翻译[J].古籍整理研究学刊(4).
李淑琴.2001.语境—正确翻译的基础[J].中国翻译(1).
李喜所.2005.中国留学生研究的历史考察[J].文史哲(4).
李欣.2004.翻译测试的“结构效度”及其实现[J].东北大学学报(3).
廖七一.2001.当代英国翻译教学评述[J].四川外语学院学报(1).
林克难.2000.翻译教学在国外[J].中国翻译(2).
刘传珠2004.翻译理论教学的几个认识问题[J].国外外语教学(1).
刘季春.2006.本科翻译教学“观念结构”模式邹议[J].上海翻译(2).
刘靖之等.2000.翻译教学研讨会论文集[C].香港翻译学会.
刘宓庆.2003.翻译教学：理论与实务[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
卢思源吴启金.2000.展望21世纪的翻译教学与研究[J].中国翻译(1).
罗婷婷.2006.计算机网络在翻译教学中的应用[J].文献资料(22).
罗新璋.1984.翻译论集[C].北京：商务印书馆.
罗选民.2002.中国的翻译教学：问题与前景[J].中国翻译(4).
马俊峰.1994.评价活动论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社.
马 萧.2005.翻译模因论与翻译教学[J].山东外语教学(3).
马祖毅.1999.中国翻译史[M].武汉：湖北教育出版社.
马祖毅.1984.中国翻译简史[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司.
苗菊.2007.翻译能力研究一构建翻译教学模式的基础[J].外语与外语教学(4).
穆 雷.1999.中国翻译教学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
穆 雷.2004(a).翻译教学发展的途径[J].中国翻译(5).
穆雷.2004(b).翻译教学在国外[J].中国翻译(3).
穆雷.2006.翻译测试及其评分问题[J].外语教学与研究(6).
欧阳康.2001.人文社会科学哲学[M].武汉：武汉大学出版社.
任继愈.1951.佛经的翻译[J].现代佛学(3).
任 萍.2007.记我国最早的翻译学校一明四夷馆考察[J].上海翻译(2).
容应萸 周牧.2004.1870年代清朝留美幼童与1900年代清末留日学生之比较[J].徐州师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(6).
邵志宏岳俊.2005.英汉语篇衔接对比与翻译策略[J].中国翻译(1).
施良方.1994.学习论[M].北京：人民教育出版社.
师新民肖维青.2006.信息化翻译翻学的新视野[J].外语界(5).
束定芳.2004.外语教学改革：问题与对策[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
孙海琳杨自俭.2007.关于译场职司的考辨[J].外语学刊(4).
唐韧.2004.翻译质量评估的语言学策略[J].山东外语教学(2).
唐韧.2006.西方译论观照下的翻译教学[J].哈尔滨学院学报(6).
陶友兰.2006.翻译目的论观照下的英汉汉英翻译教材建设[J].外语界(5).
田 艳.2002.现代信息技术与翻译教学及培训[J].中国科技翻译(3).
王斌.2005.翻译评估标准的割裂与统一[J].上海理工大学学报(社会科学版)(3).
王建国.2004.功能翻译理论与我国的翻译教材建设[J].语言与翻译(2).
王东风.2005.小说翻译的语义连贯重构[J].中国翻译(3).
王京平.2004.谈翻译教学的任务与目标[J].语言与翻译(1).
王克非.2004.双语平行语料库在翻译教学上的用途[J].外语电话教学(6).
王琼.2004.谈英汉翻译教学中语篇衔接意识的训练—一次翻译作业的实验报告[J].中国翻译(4).
王树槐.2001.关于本科翻译教学的思考[J].中国翻译(5).
王湘玲.2003.从传统教学观到建构主义教学观[J].外语与外语教学(6).
王湘玲.2008(a).西方翻译能力研究：回眸与前瞻[J].湖南大学学报(社科版)(2).
王湘玲.2008(b).基于真实翻译项目的过程教学法模式[J].上海翻译(2).
王湘玲.2008(c).项目驱动的协作式翻译教学模式构建[J].外语教学(5).
王 宇.2003.关于本科翻译教学的再思考[J].外语界(1).
王占斌.2005.关于英语专业翻译教学的调查与研究[J].上海翻译(1).
王正.2005.翻译中的合作模式研究[D].上海外国语大学.
文军.2004.论以发展翻译能力为中心的课程模式[J].外语与外语教学(8).
文 军.2005.翻译课程模式研究-以发展翻译能力为中心的方法[M].北京：中国文史出版社.
武广军.2006.翻译课程设计的理论体系与范式[J].中国翻译(5).
吴启金.1999.翻译教学与研究前瞻[J].中国科技翻译(1).
伍小君.2004.论形象思维与翻译教学[J].外语与外语教学(11).
伍小君.2007.“交互式”英语翻译教学模式建构[J].外语学刊(4).
武广军.2006.翻译课程设计的理论体系与范式[J].中国翻译(5).
肖 红.2005.“翻译作坊”在翻译教学中的运用[J].四川外语学院学报(1).
肖 辉.2004.语法-翻译教学法研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社.
徐莉娜.1998.关于本科生翻译测试的探讨[J].中国翻译(3).
许渊冲.2005.“体”、“神”、“表”平衡模式是评估文学翻译的科学方法吗?[J].中国翻译(2).
阎佩衡.2005.英汉与汉英翻译教学论[M].北京：高等教育出版社.
杨 柳.2001,翻译研究与翻译教学的新理念—全国暑期英汉翻译高级研讨讲习班带来的思考[J].中国翻译(5).
杨仕章.2005.翻译教学中的误译分析[J].解放军外国语学院学报(6).
杨晓荣.1998.港台的翻译教学[J].上海科技翻译(3).
杨自俭.2006.关于翻译教学的几个问题[J].上海翻译(3).
叶常青.2003.自建语料库在翻译教学的应用-《红楼梦》中英文本用于翻译教学的课堂设计[J].外国语言文学(3).
叶苗.2007.翻译教学的交互式模式研究[J].外语界(3).
尹衍桐袁洪婵.2004.全语言教学法在翻译教学中的应用[J].山东外语教学(6).
赞宁.1987.宋高僧传[M].北京：中华书局.
曾利沙.2002.化理论为方法化理论为知识—翻译专业研究生学科理论教学谈[J].中国翻译(2).
曾利沙.2005.主题关联性社会文化语境与择义的理据性[J].中国翻译(4).
张春柏.1997.还原翻译练习：一种行之有效的翻译教学方法[J].山东外语教学(3).
张光明等.2003.美国翻译教学与研究的新发展-马萨诸塞州立大学埃德温·根兹勒教授访谈录[J].上海科技翻译(1).
张美芳.2001.中国英汉翻译教材研究(1949-1998)[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
赵真郝丽萍.2003.中译外翻译教学现状及对策[J].中国高教研究(5).
郑延国.1995.合译：佛经翻译的一大特色[J].现代外语(4).
中国翻译工作者协会《翻译通讯》编辑部.1984.翻译研究论文集(1894-1948).北京：外语教学与研究出版社.
周维杰.2002.过程教学法在翻译教学中的运用[J].四川外语学院学报(1).
周亚莉.2006.探讨翻译过程中的翻译策略[MA].西南师范大学.
朱慕菊.2002.走进新课程：与课程实施者对话[M].北京：北京师范大学出版社.
朱嫣华.1995.高校英语专业八级考试指南[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
朱永生等.英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2001.
庄智象.2007.我国翻译专业建设：问题与对策[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
庄智象.1992.翻译教学及其研究的现状与改革[J].外语界(1).
1 The term "approach" in the framework of Richards & Rodgers (1986) is substituted with "theoretical foundation" in the OCTA model in order to reduce the possible terminological confusion.
2本文将Richards & Rodgers (1986)在其教学方法(method)分析模式中所使用的approach(理论基础)一词改称为theoretical foundation,以避免与文中常用术语theoretic approach中的"approach"(模式)相混淆。
1 Liao Qiaoyun. (2005). C-R-A Model:A Tripartite Account of Verbal Communication[M]. Chengdu:Sichuan University Press, p 10.
2 Schaffner, C.& B. Adab (eds.) (2000). Developing Translation Competence. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, (?).
3 Miao Ju. (2006). On the Development of Translation Competence through Translation Instruction[M]. Tianjin:Tianjin People's Publishing House, P.66.
4 Kiraly, D. (2000). A Social Constructivist Approach to Translator Education:Empowerment from Theory to Practice[M]. Manchester:St. Jerome, pp.1-4.
House, J. (1980). Translation in the foreign language classroom, in Applied Translation studies.(eds.), S. O. Poulsen & W. Wilss,7-17. Arhus:Wirtschaftsuniversitat Arhus, pp.7-8.
6 Neubert, A.& G. Shreve. (1992). Translation as Text[M]. Kent, Ohio:Kent State University Press, p.19.
7 There are two more Ph.D. dissertations on translation teaching-related topics produced at HKBU in Hong Kong, China: Mu Lei (2004) and Zhang Meifang (1999).
8穆雷.1999.中国翻译教学研究[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社.
9 The Proceedings of Conference on Translation Teaching (Liu Jingzhi, Lin Wusun and Jin Shenghua,2000) is the first collection of papers on translation teaching published in Hong Kong, China, covering a wide range of topics on the teaching and learning of translation, including translational curricular design, translation theory and its teaching, translation and interpretation practice, and so on.
10 Liao Qiaoyun. (2005). C-R-A Model:A Tripartite Account of Verbal Communication[M]. Chengdu:Sichuan University Press, p10.
11 Wang Xiangling. (2008). Developing Students Translation Competence:A Constructivist Project-based Approach. Ph.D. Thesis (written in English), Changsha, Hunan Normal University, IX.
12 Liao Qiaoyun. (2005). C-R-A Model:A Tripartite Account of Verbal Communication[M]. Chengdu:Sichuan University Press, ⅲ.
13 The well-known example is that of the Russian Pavlov (1849-1936) who demonstrated with dogs that a response (e.g. salivation) generated by one stimulus (e.g. food) could be produced by introducing a second stimulus (e.g. a bell) at the same time. This came to be known as S-R (Stimulus-Response) theory or classical conditioning.
15 Ordinarily, to say that something is constructed is to say that it was not there simply to be found or discovered, but rather that it was built, brought into being by some person's intentional activity at a given point in time. And to say that it was socially constructed is to add that it was built by a society, by a group of people organized in a particular way, with particular values, interests and needs. (Boghossian,2006:16)
16 Social constructivism provides a framework which encompasses the insights provided by humanistic perspective, and to which mainly committed as educationists, that of social interactionism. (Williams & Burden,1997:39)
17 Cobb (1994) argues that the two approaches cannot be separated because both complement each other.
18 The generally-accepted,term is "the transformational approach". For the convenience of expression, the present research uses the constructivist paradigm instead of "the transformational approach"
19 The generally-accepted term is "the transmissionist approach". For the convenience of expression, the present research uses the objectivist paradigm instead of "the transmissionist approach".
20 Lasnier establishes the difference between skills (a simple know how which includes declarative knowledge) and capabilities (a combination of skills, a reasonably complex know how which includes skills and declarative knowledge).
Concerning the characteristics of declarative and operative (or procedural) knowledge, Pozo & Postigo (1993:49) basing their ideas on Wellington (1989) point out a third type of knowledge, explicative knowledge, which is related to know why and which identifies theoretical knowledge. Some scholars (Paris et al.1983,1984) also propose conditional knowledge (which consists of know when and why to use declarative and operative knowledge) which is of great importance for teaching.
22 Orozco (2000) points out that there have only been two partial attempts at operationalizing TC:Lowe (1987) and Stansfield et al. (1992) (Orozco, quoted in Hurtado Albir,2007:169).
23 TAPs (think-aloud protocols) involve participants thinking aloud as they are performing a set of specified tasks. Participants are asked to say whatever they are looking at, thinking, doing, and feeling, as they go about their task. This enables observers to see first-hand the process of task completion rather than only its final product. The theoretical framework for TAP experiments comes from Protocol Analysis—verbal reports as data by Ericsson and Simon (1993) who work with a model of human cognition as information processing.
24 A1-T1 refers to the target text of Text one produced by he first participant of Group A, B15-T2 the target text of Text two by the fifteenth participant of Group B, while C30-T3 the target text of Text three by the last participant of Group C.
25 Since the participants have larger cognitive space in their native language,they often rephrase Chinese segments to have a good comprehension of the source text.
28 Students will more openly express their thoughts, feelings, reactions, opinions, information and ideas, when the trust level is high. When the trust level is low, students will be evasive, dishonest, and inconsiderate in their communications. Johnson & Johnson (1991:154)
30 Hipps, J. A. (1993). Trustworthiness and Authenticity:Alternate Ways to Judge Authentic Assessments, Conference Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, Georgia
31 At the present stage in our research, measuring instruments have been piloted with good results and has passed reliability and validity tests. Therefore, they are ready to be used in a research project like the one described in this article or in any other project based on the model proposed. (Orozco,2000:209)
33 It is certain that the results of the first measurement wili never be "0", even though the subjects have not yet any experience of translation. They are "novice" subjects in translation, but they can produce translations of some kind, regardless of their quality, as Lorscher observed (1991:151). learning stage in mainland China's universities. The results of its translation part have considerable impact on translation teaching at the tertiary level in mainland China.