基于语料库的英汉翻译小说常规化研究：历时的视角
|
摘要
本论文是基于语料库方法对英汉翻译小说常规化特征的历时研究。常规化在语料库翻译研究领域通常作为翻译的共性特征提出并得到验证,但翻译作为一种特殊的社会交往行为,社会-文化以及历史的因素不可避免地会在不同语种或历史时期的翻译过程中留下烙印。鉴于此,对常规化特征的历时研究将有助于进一步挖掘其内涵所在,加深对翻译行为本质的认识。本文的主要研究目的是：通过建立英汉历时语料库,描写翻译常规化特征的历时变化,并试图将研究结果放在社会-文化语境中进行讨论,彰显翻译行为的社会文化意义。研究基于以下假设：1)常规化体现为译者倾向于采取目的语常规和典型的表达方式,从而间接导致翻译语言特征的保守性和重复性；2)常规化是一个相对的概念,受翻译规范制约,在不同历史时期,受社会文化语境变化的影响,常规化应有不同的体现方式及程度。翻译语言的常规化可以从语言的表层机制获得外在的体现,而借助语料库手段对翻译文本库进行分析,有助于识别特定时期的常规化或反常规化趋势。
历时类比语料库的建设是本研究的起点和基础(第三章)。研究所建语料库包括对应语料部分(DPCECF)和单语类比语料部分(即非翻译汉语文本)。对应语料由14本英语原文取样和两个时期(1930、1940年代与最近20年)的对应汉译文本构成。本文提出了基于语料库的历时研究模式,并从词汇、搭配和句法等层面对不同时期翻译文本的常规化特征进行了多维度的实证分析(第四至六章)。
词汇层面的分析主要采用了词性分布、高频词分析、词汇长度以及五个高频词缀的构词能力等方面作为研究的变量。研究结果表明,两个时期的翻译文本在词性总体分布上趋同,并与非翻译文本的词性分布相似,总体上体现了常规化的趋势。译文与非译文的显著差异主要在于名词和代词的使用,名词在两个时期的译文中都趋向于少用,这很可能是由于汉语缺乏形态标记,而用行为动词和描述性形容词来处理原语中大量存在的派生名词的结果,体现了强制性的常规化。代词的冗余则显示了原语的影响。对高频词的分析表明,早期译本相比近20年译本而言,其保守性较强。就词汇长度而言,前期译本的单音节词更为常见,而后期的多音节词有增多趋势。对常用汉语词缀(或准词缀)的构词能力的分析发现,后期译本呈现了较高程度的常规化,而前期译本受原语的影响较大。总而言之,词汇层面的翻译体现了常规化与非常规化特征共存的趋势。
对搭配特征的分析表明,前期译本中特定节点词的搭配词较为丰富,“a(的／底)n”搭配模式相比非译本重复率较低,变化性较大,体现了前期翻译的保守性较低。基于对应语料的分析进一步显示,前期译本含有更多的非常规搭配,其原因主要在于对直译手段的偏好,而后期翻译中更常见的处理方法是通过添加修饰语或中心词将原文中的搭配显化,或进行结构上的调整,使其顺应汉语的典型用法。总体而言,前期译本体现了原语较强的影响,常规化趋势弱于后期译本。
句法层面的常规化分析主要采用了三个维度：翻译汉语的形合趋势,被动语态的使用,以及句子／句段长度。总体上,翻译汉语的句法特征相比词汇和搭配特征而言,受原语影响更明显,这种影响对于早期译本更为突出,显示了较强的非常规趋势。具体来讲,对形合特征的研究显示,两个时期的翻译文本与非译本相比,都表现出对连接词和介词的高频使用,形合趋势明显。历时比较分析表明,前期译本比后期译本的形合趋势更明显,主要体现为前期译本连词与介词使用更频繁,词形与非译本的重合度较低。
此外,前期译本的被动语态频率超出同期的非译本语料,而后期译本被动语态的使用较少于同期的类比语料,表明后期译本更加符合汉语的常规。就被动语态的长度而言,两个时期呈现类似的非常规趋势：受原语影响,长被动的使用少于短被动的比例。而对长被动的施事主语进行检索发现,前期译本受原语较大影响,长度超过三个词的施事主语偏多。两个时期在被动语态的语义韵方面呈现类似的常规化趋势：表示否定语义韵的被动结构占多数比例。句长／句段长的分析表明,两个时期的翻译文本具有共同的反常规化特征,即句子／句段偏长。从历时的角度看,这种反常规化趋势似乎在前期翻译中更为明显,句长／句段长显著高于同期非译本,且趋近于原文本的句长／句段长。进一步分析发现,前置修饰语的频繁使用是句长增加的主要因素,前期译本受原文影响,比后期译本较多使用偏长的前置定语。再者,前期译本与同期非译本相比,定语结构的中心词频繁使用动词和形容词,在一定程度上显示是采用直译手段处理原文中的行为动词和描述性名词所致。
针对实证分析的结果,研究认为,不同时期译本的共同特征是译本的杂合性,导致常规化与反常规化特征同时存在于不同时期的译本中。相比而言,早期译本在多数维度上表现出较强的反常规化趋势,造成这种差异的社会文化因素主要包括原语-译语语言文化之间的权力关系,以及由此而引起的语言态度和对翻译策略的观点的变化。20世纪现代汉语白话文的日趋成熟,翻译理论的发展,以及日益增长的语言自信使得翻译过程中对欧化成分的吸收变得日趋理性。
“结论”总结了研究的主要结果及其理论与方法论的意义。研究发现,不同时期的翻译特征既有相似又有不同之处,对大多数维度的分析表明,后期译本的常规化趋势强于1930-40年代的译本。其次,不同时期译本都显示,常规化特征与受原语影响而导致的反常规特征并存,体现了翻译的杂合性。再者,句法层面相对于词汇与搭配特征而言,受原语影响较大,非常规趋势较明显。此外,对翻译常规化的研究从侧面表明了原创汉语的“欧化”趋势,这主要是受翻译这一间接语言接触手段影响的结果。总体而言,研究结果与最初的假设大致相符：常规化是一个相对的概念,受社会-文化和历史的因素制约,常规化趋势的变迁体现了翻译行为的社会性本质。
本研究所得结论在理论和方法上都对翻译研究有所贡献。理论上,本研究通过对常规化定义、常规化与反常规化、以及常规化与规范／共性的关系等方面的理论探讨,以及多层面的实证研究,有助于揭示翻译常规化的本质,彰显翻译行为的社会性。方法上,本研究提出了常规化研究的历时模式,该模式融合了共时与历时的分析,以及单语类比与双语对应两种语料,有助于扩展翻译语言的研究方法。此外,研究能够帮助我们进一步了解原语、译语与目的语原创语言之间的互动关系,对于研究汉语的发展变迁也有重要启示。但正如其他基于语料库的研究,本研究也存在一些不足之处,包括语料库规模较小,语料标注需要进一步加深等。后续的深入研究中,应注意方法的完善,语料库结构的合理化,标注程度的加深等,以便提高研究结果的可靠性。
The dissertation is a corpus-based diachronic research on the phenomenon of normalization in English-Chinese fictional translation. In the field of corpus-based translation studies, normalization has been proposed as a universal feature of translation, however, the notion of "universals" is debatable since translation as a social communicative act will be unavoidably affected by contextual factors in different cultures and historical periods. Therefore, a diachronic study of normalization could shed light on the nature of the notion as well as the nature of translation behaviors. The primary objective of the present research is to systematically explore the variation of normalization across times, and to highlight the social significance of translation activities by contextualizing the research results. Such work is based on the following assumptions:1) Normalization generally refers to the tendency of translators to conform to the conventionally established and standard practices typical of the target language, which would in turn result in a relatively higher conservativeness and repetitiveness, and a lower diversity of language use in translations;2) Normalization is a relative notion, a norm-induced feature that is subject to changes in socio-cultural and historical contexts. Normalization (or de-normalization) is manifest in repeatedly observed patterns in the linguistic make-up of translations as products, and could be discerned using corpus-analysis tools.
The construction of a diachronic corpus is where the whole empirical research begins (Chapter Three). The corpus consists of a parallel part (DPCECF) and monolingual comparable part (the corresponding non-translated Chinese texts). DPCECF contains extracts of 14 English source texts with two sets of translations from two time spans: 1930s-40s and the last 20 years. A corpus-based research model is developed for the diachronic study of normalization in translation and a multi-level investigation is conducted on different linguistic levels (Chapter Four to Six).
Investigation of normalization on the lexical level uses measures like POS distribution, high-frequency words, word-length, and compositionality of five quasi-affixes. The findings reveal a general tendency toward normalization as regards the general POS distribution of the two translated subcorpora. The translated and non-translated texts differ most evidently in the use of nouns and pronouns. While the lower use of nouns in translations most probably reflects the "conventionalization" tendency in the translation process, the redundant use of pronouns should be due to a major influence from the source English language. Analysis of high-frequency words reveals a stronger conservativeness in TCT1 (translations of 1930s and 1940s) than TCT2 (translations of the last 20 years). TCT1 shows a heavier use of mono-syllabic words, whereas a stronger polysyllabic tendency could be found in TCT2. Study of the compositionality of five quasi-affixes shows a higher degree of translation normalization on the morphological level in TCT2, whereas TCT1 seem to display a stronger influence from the source text language. In sum, analysis on the lexical level finds a mixture of normalization and de-normalization tendencies in the translated subcorpora of different periods.
Collocation analyses have found a slightly higher number of collocates in relation to certain node words as well as a lower repetition rate of the "a (的/底) n" lexical patterns in TCT1 in comparison with OCT1 (earlier non-translations). Similarly, parallel concordance data further reveal more frequent de-normalized collocations in TCT1 than in TCT2, displaying a stronger preference for direct translation in TCT1. TCT2 tends to make the original collocations explicit or structurally adapted to typical Chinese usages. Overall, the findings seem to indicate a heavier influence from the source language and a weaker normalization tendency in TCT1 in comparison with TCT2.
Analyses on the syntactic level mainly use three dimensions:hypotacticalization of translated Chinese, use of passive constructions, and sentence/sentence segment length. Generally speaking, the syntactic features show more influence from the source language than features on other levels, and earlier translations seem to display a stronger deviance from the normal features of their comparable non-translations. Specifically, as regards the hypotactic features of translated texts, both translated collections seem to show a higher frequency of connectives and prepositions than their comparable counterparts, indicating a stronger hypotactic tendency in translational Chinese. A diachronic analysis shows a stronger hypotactic tendency in TCT1 than in TCT2, as reflected either in the significantly higher frequency of connectives and prepositions in TCT1, or in the lower overlapping rate of word forms between earlier translated and native texts.
There is a relative overuse of passive constructions in TCT1 than in the comparable non-translations, whereas TCT2 shows a slight underuse of passives as compared with their counterparts, suggesting a stronger normalization tendency in TCT2. Both TCT1 and TCT2 show a'deviation'from the normal length of Chinese passive constructions, as reflected by a lower frequency percentage of long passives than short passives under the source text influence in the translation process. Within long passives, TCT1 contains a higher proportion of agents over 3 words in length than OCT1 as well as TCT2, exhibiting a stronger influence from English. With respect to semantic prosody, TCT1 and TCT2 tend to be normalized with a major proportion of negative passives in the total cases. The greater length of sentences(S) and sentence segments (SS) suggests a de-normalized feature in translated texts of both periods, and diachronically speaking, this tendency seems stronger in TCT1 with significantly higher S and SS lengths than the corresponding earlier non-translations, and similar mean S and SS lengths to their counterparts in the English source texts. Frequent use of premodifiers is found to be a major factor that contributes to the increase in S length, and further analysis shows a heavier use of long attributives in TCT1 than in TCT2, indicating a stronger influence from the source language on TCT1. Furthermore, the significantly higher number of head verbs and head adjectives in TCT1 than in OCT1 suggests a preference of TCT1 for direct translation of the source text action nouns and descriptive nouns.
The empirical research results indicate that hybridity is a common feature in translations of different time spans, and several socio-cultural factors are found crucial in bringing about the different degrees of normalization in translations of different time spans. Generally speaking, change of power relations between source and target languages and cultures leads to the changes in language attitude and views on translation strategies. The gradual development of vernacular Chinese and translation theory, together with the growing linguistic confidence in late 20th century, has made the incorporation of Europeanized language elements more rational.
In "Conclusion", the major findings of the entire study are summarized, and the theoretical and methodological implications of these findings are presented. The major findings are as follows:1) Translations of different periods show both commonalities and diversity in the linguistic manifestations of normalization. For most dimensions examined, a stronger normalization tendency could be discerned in translations of recent 20 years than those of 1930s-40s.2) Co-existence of normalization and de-normalization are found in translations of both periods, showing the hybrid nature of translated texts.3) The syntactic features in both translated subcorpora have undergone greater influence from the source language than features on other levels have.4) A Europeanization tendency could be discerned in non-translated Chinese, mainly as result of source language influence in the process of indirect language contact. In sum, the findings confirm our hypotheses that normalization is a relative notion, a norm-induced feature that is subject to changes in socio-cultural and historical context. Change in normalization tendency reflects the social nature of translational behavior.
The present research contributes theoretically and methodologically to the fields of translation studies. Theoretically, the study yields insight into the nature of normalization not only with theoretical discussions concerning its definition, its relation with de-normalization, and its norm-induced nature, but, more importantly, with empirical studies on different linguistic levels. This, in turn, will help to unveil the social nature of translation behaviors. Methodologically, the present study proposes a model for the study of normalization in translation, which integrates the synchronic and diachronic perspectives, and combines mono-lingual comparable and bilingual parallel corpus resources. Thus, it expands the research methods for the study of translational language. In addition, the present study helps to offer new insight into the complex, reciprocal relationships between the source language, translational Chinese, and non-translated native Chinese, which has important implications for the study of Chinese language variation. As with all corpus-based research, this research suffers from a number of limitations in corpus size, corpus annotation, etc. Suggestions for further research are proposed concerning more refined methodology, better corpus composition, and in-depth corpus annotation in order to facilitate the reliability the research.
历时类比语料库的建设是本研究的起点和基础(第三章)。研究所建语料库包括对应语料部分(DPCECF)和单语类比语料部分(即非翻译汉语文本)。对应语料由14本英语原文取样和两个时期(1930、1940年代与最近20年)的对应汉译文本构成。本文提出了基于语料库的历时研究模式,并从词汇、搭配和句法等层面对不同时期翻译文本的常规化特征进行了多维度的实证分析(第四至六章)。
词汇层面的分析主要采用了词性分布、高频词分析、词汇长度以及五个高频词缀的构词能力等方面作为研究的变量。研究结果表明,两个时期的翻译文本在词性总体分布上趋同,并与非翻译文本的词性分布相似,总体上体现了常规化的趋势。译文与非译文的显著差异主要在于名词和代词的使用,名词在两个时期的译文中都趋向于少用,这很可能是由于汉语缺乏形态标记,而用行为动词和描述性形容词来处理原语中大量存在的派生名词的结果,体现了强制性的常规化。代词的冗余则显示了原语的影响。对高频词的分析表明,早期译本相比近20年译本而言,其保守性较强。就词汇长度而言,前期译本的单音节词更为常见,而后期的多音节词有增多趋势。对常用汉语词缀(或准词缀)的构词能力的分析发现,后期译本呈现了较高程度的常规化,而前期译本受原语的影响较大。总而言之,词汇层面的翻译体现了常规化与非常规化特征共存的趋势。
对搭配特征的分析表明,前期译本中特定节点词的搭配词较为丰富,“a(的／底)n”搭配模式相比非译本重复率较低,变化性较大,体现了前期翻译的保守性较低。基于对应语料的分析进一步显示,前期译本含有更多的非常规搭配,其原因主要在于对直译手段的偏好,而后期翻译中更常见的处理方法是通过添加修饰语或中心词将原文中的搭配显化,或进行结构上的调整,使其顺应汉语的典型用法。总体而言,前期译本体现了原语较强的影响,常规化趋势弱于后期译本。
句法层面的常规化分析主要采用了三个维度：翻译汉语的形合趋势,被动语态的使用,以及句子／句段长度。总体上,翻译汉语的句法特征相比词汇和搭配特征而言,受原语影响更明显,这种影响对于早期译本更为突出,显示了较强的非常规趋势。具体来讲,对形合特征的研究显示,两个时期的翻译文本与非译本相比,都表现出对连接词和介词的高频使用,形合趋势明显。历时比较分析表明,前期译本比后期译本的形合趋势更明显,主要体现为前期译本连词与介词使用更频繁,词形与非译本的重合度较低。
此外,前期译本的被动语态频率超出同期的非译本语料,而后期译本被动语态的使用较少于同期的类比语料,表明后期译本更加符合汉语的常规。就被动语态的长度而言,两个时期呈现类似的非常规趋势：受原语影响,长被动的使用少于短被动的比例。而对长被动的施事主语进行检索发现,前期译本受原语较大影响,长度超过三个词的施事主语偏多。两个时期在被动语态的语义韵方面呈现类似的常规化趋势：表示否定语义韵的被动结构占多数比例。句长／句段长的分析表明,两个时期的翻译文本具有共同的反常规化特征,即句子／句段偏长。从历时的角度看,这种反常规化趋势似乎在前期翻译中更为明显,句长／句段长显著高于同期非译本,且趋近于原文本的句长／句段长。进一步分析发现,前置修饰语的频繁使用是句长增加的主要因素,前期译本受原文影响,比后期译本较多使用偏长的前置定语。再者,前期译本与同期非译本相比,定语结构的中心词频繁使用动词和形容词,在一定程度上显示是采用直译手段处理原文中的行为动词和描述性名词所致。
针对实证分析的结果,研究认为,不同时期译本的共同特征是译本的杂合性,导致常规化与反常规化特征同时存在于不同时期的译本中。相比而言,早期译本在多数维度上表现出较强的反常规化趋势,造成这种差异的社会文化因素主要包括原语-译语语言文化之间的权力关系,以及由此而引起的语言态度和对翻译策略的观点的变化。20世纪现代汉语白话文的日趋成熟,翻译理论的发展,以及日益增长的语言自信使得翻译过程中对欧化成分的吸收变得日趋理性。
“结论”总结了研究的主要结果及其理论与方法论的意义。研究发现,不同时期的翻译特征既有相似又有不同之处,对大多数维度的分析表明,后期译本的常规化趋势强于1930-40年代的译本。其次,不同时期译本都显示,常规化特征与受原语影响而导致的反常规特征并存,体现了翻译的杂合性。再者,句法层面相对于词汇与搭配特征而言,受原语影响较大,非常规趋势较明显。此外,对翻译常规化的研究从侧面表明了原创汉语的“欧化”趋势,这主要是受翻译这一间接语言接触手段影响的结果。总体而言,研究结果与最初的假设大致相符：常规化是一个相对的概念,受社会-文化和历史的因素制约,常规化趋势的变迁体现了翻译行为的社会性本质。
本研究所得结论在理论和方法上都对翻译研究有所贡献。理论上,本研究通过对常规化定义、常规化与反常规化、以及常规化与规范／共性的关系等方面的理论探讨,以及多层面的实证研究,有助于揭示翻译常规化的本质,彰显翻译行为的社会性。方法上,本研究提出了常规化研究的历时模式,该模式融合了共时与历时的分析,以及单语类比与双语对应两种语料,有助于扩展翻译语言的研究方法。此外,研究能够帮助我们进一步了解原语、译语与目的语原创语言之间的互动关系,对于研究汉语的发展变迁也有重要启示。但正如其他基于语料库的研究,本研究也存在一些不足之处,包括语料库规模较小,语料标注需要进一步加深等。后续的深入研究中,应注意方法的完善,语料库结构的合理化,标注程度的加深等,以便提高研究结果的可靠性。
The dissertation is a corpus-based diachronic research on the phenomenon of normalization in English-Chinese fictional translation. In the field of corpus-based translation studies, normalization has been proposed as a universal feature of translation, however, the notion of "universals" is debatable since translation as a social communicative act will be unavoidably affected by contextual factors in different cultures and historical periods. Therefore, a diachronic study of normalization could shed light on the nature of the notion as well as the nature of translation behaviors. The primary objective of the present research is to systematically explore the variation of normalization across times, and to highlight the social significance of translation activities by contextualizing the research results. Such work is based on the following assumptions:1) Normalization generally refers to the tendency of translators to conform to the conventionally established and standard practices typical of the target language, which would in turn result in a relatively higher conservativeness and repetitiveness, and a lower diversity of language use in translations;2) Normalization is a relative notion, a norm-induced feature that is subject to changes in socio-cultural and historical contexts. Normalization (or de-normalization) is manifest in repeatedly observed patterns in the linguistic make-up of translations as products, and could be discerned using corpus-analysis tools.
The construction of a diachronic corpus is where the whole empirical research begins (Chapter Three). The corpus consists of a parallel part (DPCECF) and monolingual comparable part (the corresponding non-translated Chinese texts). DPCECF contains extracts of 14 English source texts with two sets of translations from two time spans: 1930s-40s and the last 20 years. A corpus-based research model is developed for the diachronic study of normalization in translation and a multi-level investigation is conducted on different linguistic levels (Chapter Four to Six).
Investigation of normalization on the lexical level uses measures like POS distribution, high-frequency words, word-length, and compositionality of five quasi-affixes. The findings reveal a general tendency toward normalization as regards the general POS distribution of the two translated subcorpora. The translated and non-translated texts differ most evidently in the use of nouns and pronouns. While the lower use of nouns in translations most probably reflects the "conventionalization" tendency in the translation process, the redundant use of pronouns should be due to a major influence from the source English language. Analysis of high-frequency words reveals a stronger conservativeness in TCT1 (translations of 1930s and 1940s) than TCT2 (translations of the last 20 years). TCT1 shows a heavier use of mono-syllabic words, whereas a stronger polysyllabic tendency could be found in TCT2. Study of the compositionality of five quasi-affixes shows a higher degree of translation normalization on the morphological level in TCT2, whereas TCT1 seem to display a stronger influence from the source text language. In sum, analysis on the lexical level finds a mixture of normalization and de-normalization tendencies in the translated subcorpora of different periods.
Collocation analyses have found a slightly higher number of collocates in relation to certain node words as well as a lower repetition rate of the "a (的/底) n" lexical patterns in TCT1 in comparison with OCT1 (earlier non-translations). Similarly, parallel concordance data further reveal more frequent de-normalized collocations in TCT1 than in TCT2, displaying a stronger preference for direct translation in TCT1. TCT2 tends to make the original collocations explicit or structurally adapted to typical Chinese usages. Overall, the findings seem to indicate a heavier influence from the source language and a weaker normalization tendency in TCT1 in comparison with TCT2.
Analyses on the syntactic level mainly use three dimensions:hypotacticalization of translated Chinese, use of passive constructions, and sentence/sentence segment length. Generally speaking, the syntactic features show more influence from the source language than features on other levels, and earlier translations seem to display a stronger deviance from the normal features of their comparable non-translations. Specifically, as regards the hypotactic features of translated texts, both translated collections seem to show a higher frequency of connectives and prepositions than their comparable counterparts, indicating a stronger hypotactic tendency in translational Chinese. A diachronic analysis shows a stronger hypotactic tendency in TCT1 than in TCT2, as reflected either in the significantly higher frequency of connectives and prepositions in TCT1, or in the lower overlapping rate of word forms between earlier translated and native texts.
There is a relative overuse of passive constructions in TCT1 than in the comparable non-translations, whereas TCT2 shows a slight underuse of passives as compared with their counterparts, suggesting a stronger normalization tendency in TCT2. Both TCT1 and TCT2 show a'deviation'from the normal length of Chinese passive constructions, as reflected by a lower frequency percentage of long passives than short passives under the source text influence in the translation process. Within long passives, TCT1 contains a higher proportion of agents over 3 words in length than OCT1 as well as TCT2, exhibiting a stronger influence from English. With respect to semantic prosody, TCT1 and TCT2 tend to be normalized with a major proportion of negative passives in the total cases. The greater length of sentences(S) and sentence segments (SS) suggests a de-normalized feature in translated texts of both periods, and diachronically speaking, this tendency seems stronger in TCT1 with significantly higher S and SS lengths than the corresponding earlier non-translations, and similar mean S and SS lengths to their counterparts in the English source texts. Frequent use of premodifiers is found to be a major factor that contributes to the increase in S length, and further analysis shows a heavier use of long attributives in TCT1 than in TCT2, indicating a stronger influence from the source language on TCT1. Furthermore, the significantly higher number of head verbs and head adjectives in TCT1 than in OCT1 suggests a preference of TCT1 for direct translation of the source text action nouns and descriptive nouns.
The empirical research results indicate that hybridity is a common feature in translations of different time spans, and several socio-cultural factors are found crucial in bringing about the different degrees of normalization in translations of different time spans. Generally speaking, change of power relations between source and target languages and cultures leads to the changes in language attitude and views on translation strategies. The gradual development of vernacular Chinese and translation theory, together with the growing linguistic confidence in late 20th century, has made the incorporation of Europeanized language elements more rational.
In "Conclusion", the major findings of the entire study are summarized, and the theoretical and methodological implications of these findings are presented. The major findings are as follows:1) Translations of different periods show both commonalities and diversity in the linguistic manifestations of normalization. For most dimensions examined, a stronger normalization tendency could be discerned in translations of recent 20 years than those of 1930s-40s.2) Co-existence of normalization and de-normalization are found in translations of both periods, showing the hybrid nature of translated texts.3) The syntactic features in both translated subcorpora have undergone greater influence from the source language than features on other levels have.4) A Europeanization tendency could be discerned in non-translated Chinese, mainly as result of source language influence in the process of indirect language contact. In sum, the findings confirm our hypotheses that normalization is a relative notion, a norm-induced feature that is subject to changes in socio-cultural and historical context. Change in normalization tendency reflects the social nature of translational behavior.
The present research contributes theoretically and methodologically to the fields of translation studies. Theoretically, the study yields insight into the nature of normalization not only with theoretical discussions concerning its definition, its relation with de-normalization, and its norm-induced nature, but, more importantly, with empirical studies on different linguistic levels. This, in turn, will help to unveil the social nature of translation behaviors. Methodologically, the present study proposes a model for the study of normalization in translation, which integrates the synchronic and diachronic perspectives, and combines mono-lingual comparable and bilingual parallel corpus resources. Thus, it expands the research methods for the study of translational language. In addition, the present study helps to offer new insight into the complex, reciprocal relationships between the source language, translational Chinese, and non-translated native Chinese, which has important implications for the study of Chinese language variation. As with all corpus-based research, this research suffers from a number of limitations in corpus size, corpus annotation, etc. Suggestions for further research are proposed concerning more refined methodology, better corpus composition, and in-depth corpus annotation in order to facilitate the reliability the research.
引文
Alvarez, R. and Vidal, M. C. (2007). Translation, power, subversion. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words:A Coursebook on Translation. London:Routledge.
Baker, M. (1993). Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies:implication and application. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology:In honour of John Sinclair (pp.233-250). Amsterdam:John Benjamin.
Baker, M. (1995). Corpora in Translation Studies:an overview and some suggestions for future research. Target,7 (2),223-243.
Baker, M. (1996). Corpus-based Translation studies:the challenges that lie ahead. In Somer, H. L. (Ed.), LSP, Terminology and Translation, studies in language engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager (pp 175-186). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Baker, M. (1998). Norms, In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp.163-165). London:Routledge.
Baker, M. (2000). Towards a Methodology for Investigation the Style of a Literary Translator. Target,12 (2),241-266.
Baker, M. (2004). A Corpus-based View of Similarity and Difference in Translation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,9 (2),167-193.
Baker, M. (2007). Corpus-based Translation Studies in the Academy. Journal of Foreign Languages, (5),50-55.
Baroni, M. & Bernardini, S. (2003). A Preliminary Analysis of Collocational Differences in Monolingual Comparable Corpora. In D. Archer, P. Rayson, A. Wilson & A. McEnery (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2003 (pp.82-91). Lancaster: UCREL.
Baroni, M. & Bernardini, S. (2006). A New Approach to the Study of Translationese: Machine-learning the Difference between Original and Translated Text. Literary and Linguistic Computing,21 (3),259-274.
Bassnett, S. (2004). Translation Studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (2001). Constructing Cultures, Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bernardini, S. & Zanettin, F. (2004). When is a universal not a universal? Some limits of current corpus-based methodologies for the investigation of translation universals. In A. Mauranen and P. Kuyamaki (Eds.), Translation Universals, Do they exist? (pp. 51-62). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Bernardini, S. (2005). Reviving old ideas, Parallel and comparable analysis in translation studies-With an example from translation stylistics. In K. Aijmer & C. Alvstad (Eds.), New Tendencies in Translation Studies. Selected Papers from a Workshop. Goteborg:University of Goteborg.
Bernardini, S. (2007). Collocations in Translated Language:Combining Parallel, Comparable and Reference Corpora. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2007. http.//ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2007/paper/15 Paper.pdf.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Levenston, E. A. (1983). Universal of Lexical Simplification, In Faerch, et al. (Eds.), Strategies in IL Communication (pp.119-139). London:Longman.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House & S. Blum- Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp.17-37). Tubingen:Narr Verlag.
Chan, S. & Poland, D. E. (2001). An Encyclopedia of Translation:Chinese-English, English-Chinese. Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press.
Chan, T. L. (2000). "Colonization," Resistance and the Uses of Postcolonial Translation Theory in 20th-Century China.In S. Simon & P. St-Pierre (Eds.), Changing the Terms: Translating in the Postcolonial Era. Ottawa:University of Ottawa Press.
Chan, T. L. (2004). Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory:modes, issues and debates. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Chen, H. (1994). The Contextual Analysis of Chinese Sentences with Puntuation Marks. Literary and Linguistic Computing,9 (4),281-289.
Cheng, C. (1992). Chinese Varieties of English. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue: English across cultures (pp.162-177). Illinois:University of Illinois.
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation:the spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Chesterman, A. (2000). Memetics and Translation Strategies. Synapse, (5),1-17.
Chesterman, A. (2004). Hypotheses about Translation Universals. In G. Hansen, K. Malmkjaer and D. Gile (Eds.), Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies (pp.1-13). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Chesterman, A. (2006). Interpreting the meaning of translation. In M. Suominen et al. (Eds.), A man of measure. Festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th Birthday (pp.3-11). Turku:Linguistic Association of Finland.
Conrad, S. (2002). Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, (22),75-95.
Danielsson, P. (2001). The Automatic Identification of Meaningful Units in Language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Goteborg:Goteborg University.
Dayrell, C. (2007). A Quantitative Approach to Compare Collocational Patterns in Translated and Non-translated Texts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,12 (3),375-414.
Dayrell, C. (2008). Investigating the Preference of Translators for Recurrent Lexical Patterns:A Corpus-based Study, trans-kom, (1),36-57.
Even-Zohar, I. (2000). The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp.199-204). London:Routledge.
Evert, S. (2007). Corpora and Collocations. In A. Ludeling and M. Kyto (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook (article 58). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Erlich, V. (1969). Russian Formalism, History-Doctrine. The Hague:Mouton.
Firth, J. R. (1956/1968). Descriptive linguistics and the study of English. In F.R. Palmer (Ed.), Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952-1959 (pp.96-113). London and Harlow: Longman.
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-55. Studies in linguistic analysis (pp.168-205). Oxford:The Philological Society.
Frawley, W. (1984). Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In W. Frawley (Ed.), Translation:Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives (pp.159-175). London:Associated University Press.
Gentzler, E. (2004). Contemporary Translation Theories. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Granger, S., Lerot, J. & Petch-Tyson, S. (2007). Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halverson, S. (1998). Translation Studies and Representative Corpora. Meta,43 (4), 494-514.
Hansen, G., Malmkjaer, K. & Gile, D. (2004). Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,
Hatim, B. (2001). Communication across Cultures:Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (2001). Discourse and the Translator. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
He Xianbin (2004). Translation as Manipulated by Power Relation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Xiamen:Xiamen University.
Hermans, T. (1985). The Manipulation of literature:studies in Literary Translation. London:Routledge.
Hermans, T. (1995). Revisiting the Classics:Toury's empiricism version one. The Translator,1 (2),215-223.
Hermans, T. (1996). Norms and the Determination of Translation. In Alvarez & Vidal (Eds.), Translation, Power, Subversion (pp.25-51). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Hermans, T. (1999a). Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Hermans, T. (1999b) Translation and normativity. In C. Schaffner (Ed.), Translation and norms (pp.50-71). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Hermans, T. (2000). Norms of translation. In P. France (Ed.), The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation (pp.10-15). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Holmes, J. (2000). The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp.180-192). London:Routledge.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. and Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar:A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Jameson, F. (1972). The Prison-House of Language:A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism. New Jersey:Princeton UP.
Jantunen, J. (2001). Synonymity and lexical simplification in translations:A corpus-based approach. Across Languages and Cultures,2(1),97-112.
Jantunen, J. (2004). Untypical Patterns in Translations:Issues on Corpus Methodology and Synonymity. In A. Mauranen and P. Kujamaki (Eds.), Translation Universals:Do They Exist? (pp.101-126). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Jones, S. and Sinclair, J. M. (1974). English Lexical Collocations. Cahiers de Lexicologie, (24),15-61.
Kamenicka, R. (2008). Explicitation Profile and Translator Style. In Anthony Pym & Alexander Perekrestenko (Eds.), Translation Research Projects 1 (pp.117-130). Tarragona:Intercultural Studies Group.
Kanter, I., Kfir, H., Malkiel, B. & Shlesinger, M. (2006). Identifying Universals of Text Translation. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics,13 (1),35-43.
Kennedy, G. (2000). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Kenny, D. (1998). Creatures of Habit? What Translators Usually Do with Words. Meta,43 (4),515-523.
Kenny, D. (2000a). Lexical Hide-and-Seek:Looking for Creativity in a Parallel Corpus. In M. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I: Textual and Cognitive Aspects (pp.93-104). Manchester:St. Jerome.
Kenny, D. (2000b). Translators at Play:Exploitations of Collocational Norms in German-English Translation. In B. Dodd (Ed.), Working with German Corpora (pp. 143-160). Birmingham:University of Birmingham Press.
Kenny, D. (2001). Lexis and Creativity in Translation. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Kenny, D. (2005). Parallel Corpora and Translation Studies:Old questions, new perspectives? Reporting that in Gepcolt:A case study. In G. Barnbrook, P. Danielsson & M. Mahlberg (Eds.), Meaningful Texts:The Extraction of Semantic Information from Monolingual and Multilingual Corpora. London & New York: Continuum.
Kjellmer, G. (1990). Patterns of Collocability. In J. Aarts & Meijs (Eds.), Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics (pp.163-178). Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Kjellmer, G. (1987). Aspects of English Collocations. In W. Meijs (Ed.), Corpus Linguistics and Beyond. Proceedings of the seventh international conference on English language research on computerised corpora (pp.133-140). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (1995). Comparable corpora:Towards a corpus linguistic methodology for the empirical study of translation. In M. Thelen & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Translation and Meaning. Part 3 (pp.153-163). Maastricht:Rijkshogeschool Maastricht.
Laviosa, S. (1998a). Core Patterns of Lexical use in a Comparable Corpus of English Narrative Prose. Meta,43 (4),557-570.
Laviosa, S. (1998b). The Corpus-based Approach:A New Paradigm in Translation Studies. Meta,43 (4),474-479.
Laviosa, S. (1998c). Universals of Translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp.288-291). London:Routledge.
Laviosa, S. (1998d). The English comparable corpus:A resource and a methodology. In L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J. Pearson (Eds.), Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester:St Jerome.
Laviosa, S. (2001). Corpus and Simplificaiton in Translation. In Petrilli, (Ed.), Lo Stesso AltroXII(pp.78-86). Athanor.
Laviosa, S. (2002). Corpus-based Translation Studies:Theory, Findings, Applications. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Laviosa, S. (2003). Corpus-based Translation Studies. In S. Granger, J. Lerot, and S. Tyson (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies (pp.45-54). Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Laviosa, S. (2004). Corpus-based Translation Studies:Where Does it Come from? Where is it Going? Language Matters,35 (1),6-27.
Leuwen-Zvart. (1989). Translation and Original:Similarities and Dissimilarities Ⅰ. Target, 1(2),151-181.
Leuwen-Zvart. (1990). Translation and Original:Similarities and Dissimilarities Ⅱ. Target, 2(1),69-95.
Li Defeng & Zhang Chunling. (2010). Sense-Making in Corpus-Assisted Translation Research:A Review of Corpus-Assisted Translation Research in China. In Richard Xiao (Ed.). Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (pp.235-255). Newcastle:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lind, S. (2007). Translation Universals. TIC Talk,63:1-10.
Malmkjaer, K. (1997). Punctuation in Hans Christian Andersen's Stories and in their Translations into English. In F. Poyatos (Ed.), Nonverbal Communication and Translation:New Perspective and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media (pp.151-162). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Manini, L. (1996). Meaningful Literary Names:Their Forms and Functions and their Translation. The Translator,2(2),161-78.
Mauranen, A. (2000). Strange Strings in Translated Language. A Study on Corpora. In M. Olohan (Ed.). Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies 1: Textual and Cognitive Aspects (pp.119-141). Manchester:St. Jerome.
Mauranen, A. (2007). Universal tendencies in translation. In M. Rogers and G. Anderman (Eds.), Incorporating Corpora. The Linguist and the Translator (pp.32-48). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Mauranen, A. and Pekka, K. (2004). Translation Universals:Do They exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
May, R. (1997). Sensible Elocution:How Translation Works in and upon Punctuation. The Translator,3 (1),1-20.
McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
McEnery, A., Xiao, Z. & Tono, Y. (2005). Corpus-based Language Studies. London: Routledge.
McEnery, A. & Xiao, Z. (2006). Passive Constructions in English and Chinese:A Corpus-based Contrastive Study. Languages in Contrast,6 (1),109-149.
Merkle, D. (2008). Translation Constraints and the Sociological Turn in Literary Translation Studies. In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger & D. Simeoni (Eds.), Beyond descriptive translation studies (pp.175-186). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Munday, J. (1998). A Computer-assisted Approach to the Analysis of Translation Shifts. Meta,43 (4),542-556.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications. London and New York:Routledge.
Munday, J. (2006). Translation Studies. The Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory, (14),195-208.
Newmark, P. (2001). Approaches to Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, E. A. (2001). Language and Culture-Contexts in Translating. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, E. (1982). Translating meaning. San Dimas, Cal.:English Language Institute.
Nilsson, P. (2003). Investigating Characteristic Lexical Distributions and Grammatical Patterning in Swedish Texts Translated from English. In Wilson, et al. (Eds.), A Rainbow of corpora:Corpus linguistics and the Language of the World (pp.99-107). Munchen:Lincom-Euroa.
Nilsson, P. (2006). A Multidimensional Perspective on Collocational Patterning in Swedish Fiction Texts Translated from English. Literary and Linguistic Computing, (21),113-126.
Nord, C. (1991). Scopos, Loyalty, and Translational Conventions. Target,3 (1),91-109.
Olohan, M. & Baker, M. (2000). Reporting that in Translated English:Evidence for Subliminal Processes of Explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures,1 (2), 141-158.
Olohan, M. (2001). Spelling out the Optionals in Translation:A Corpus Study. UCREL Technical Papers, (13),423-432.
Olohan, M. (2002). Leave it Out! Using a Comparable Corpus to Investigate Aspects of Explicitation in Translation. Cadernos de Traducao,9,153-169.
Olohan, M. (2003). How Frequent are the Contractions? A Study of Contracted Forms in the Translational English Corpus. Target,15(1),59-89.
Olohan, M. (2004). Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge.
Olohan, M. (2006). Intercultural faultlines. Research models in translation studies I: textual and cognitive aspects. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
(?)veras, L. (1998). In Search of the Third Code:An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation. Meta,43 (4),571-588.
Paloposki, O. (2001). Enriching translations, simplified language? An alternative viewpoint to lexical simplification. Target,13 (2),265-288.
Po-Ching, Y. and Rimmington, D. (2004). Chinese:A Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York:Routledge.
Puurtinen, T. (1994). Dynamic style as a parameter of acceptability in translated children's books. In Snell-Hornby, et al. (Eds.), Translation studies:an interdiscipline (pp. 83-90). Amsterdam, Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Puurtinen, T. (1995). Linguistic Acceptability in Translated Children's Literature. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
Puurtinen, T. (1997). Syntactic Norms in Finnish children's literature. Target,9 (2), 321-334.
Puurtinen, T. (1998). Syntax, Readability and Ideology in Children's Literature. Meta,43 (4),557-570.
Puurtinen, T. (2003a). Genre-specific Features of Translationese? Linguistic Differences between Translated and Non-translated Finnish Children's Literature. Literary and Linguistic Computing,18 (4),389-406.
Puurtinen, T. (2003b). Nonfinite constructions in Finnish children's literature:Features of translationese contradicting translation universals? In S. Granger, J. Lerot & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Robinson, D. (2006). Western Translation Theory:from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Scott, M. N. (1998). Normalisation and Readers'Expectation:A Study of Literary Translation with reference to Lispector s A Hora da Estrela. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Liverpool:AAELSU University of Liverpool.
Schaffner, C. (1999). The Concept of Norms in Translation Studies. In C. Schaffner (Ed.), Translation and Norms (pp.1-8). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Schaffner, C. (1999). Translation and Norms. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Shavit, Z. (1981). Translation of Children's Literature as a Function of its Position in the Literary Polysystem. Poetics Today,2 (4),171-179.
Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M. (2004). Dictionary of Translation Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1995). Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach. Revised. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis:Computer-assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford and Cambridge MA:Blackwell.
Tang, J. (2004). Politics of Translation in Contemporary China. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Shanghai:Shanghai International Studies University.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2004). Unique items-Over-or under-represented in translated language? In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamaki (Eds.), Translation Universals:Do They exist? Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Toury, G.(1980). In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv:The Porter Institute for Poetics and semiotics.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Toury, G. (1999). A Handful of Paragraphs of'Translation'and'Norms'. In Schaffner, C. (Ed.). Translation and Norms (pp.9-31). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Tsai, F. (1995). Europeanized Structure in English-Chinese Translation. In Sin-wai Chan & David E. Pollard (Eds.), An Encyclopedia of Translation (pp.242). Hongkong:The Chinese University Press.
Tymoczko, M. (1998). Computerized Corpora and the Future of Translation Studies. Meta, 43 (4),652-660.
Vanderauwera, R. (1985). Dutch Novels Translated into English:The Transformation of a Minority Literature. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation. London and New York:Routledge.
Venuti, L. (2000). The Translation Studies Reader. London:Routledge.
Vinay, J. P. & J. Darbelnet. (1958/1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and English-A Methodology for Translation. (Translated and edited by J. C. Sager & M. J.Hamel). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Wang Kefei & Qin Hongwu (2010). A Parallel Corpus-based Study of Translational Chinese. In R. Xiao (Ed.), Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (pp. 164-181). Newcastle:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Weissbrod, R. (1992). Explicitation in Translations of prose-fiction from English to Hebrew as a function of norms. Multilingua,11(2),153-171.
Williams, D. A. (2005). Recurrent Features of Translation in Canada:A Corpus-based Study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Ottawa:University of Ottawa.
Xiao, R. & Yue, M. (2009). Using corpora in Translation Studies:The state of the art. In P. Baker (Ed.), Contemporary Corpus Linguistics. London:Continuum.
Xiao, R., He, L. & Yue, M. (2010). In Pursuit of the'Third Code':Using the ZJU Corpus of Translational Chinese in Translation Studies. In Richard Xiao (Ed.), Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (pp.182-214). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Yau Wai-ping. (2007). Norms, Polysystems and Ideology. The Translator,13 (2),321-339.
陈福康(2000),《中国译学理论史稿》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
陈瑞清(2007),A Corpus-based Approach to the Modelling of the Explicitation Process in English-Chinese Translation.《翻译学研究集刊》,(10),31-83。
陈瑞清(2005),汉译文本的形合趋势：以语料库为本的翻译学研究。《翻译学研究集刊》,(9),161-196。
陈伟(2007),翻译英语语料库与基于翻译英语语料库的描述性翻译研究。《外国语》,(1),67-73。
陈霞(2007),从当代中国人的精神需求看外译中翻译规范的重建。 《上海翻译》,(4),68-72。
陈玉刚(1989),《中国翻译文学史稿》。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
程工(2005),汉语“者”字合成复合词及其对普遍语法的启示。 《现代外语》,(3),232-238。
戴玉群(2003),欧化有限度：英汉定语对比与翻译。 《四川外语学院学报》,(9),133-136。
邓耀臣、王同顺(2005),词语搭配抽取的统计方法及计算机实现。《外语电化教学》,(5),25-28。
丁声树等(1961), 《现代汉语语法讲话》。北京：商务印书馆。
范祥涛(2006),从卡特福德到翻译规律的探讨——兼论语料库翻译研究的意义。《外语研究》,(2),50-53。
方华文(2005),《20世纪中国翻译史》。西安：西北大学出版社。
方锡德(1992),《中国现代小说与文学传统》。北京：北京大学出版社。
冯跃进、陈伟(1999),汉语副职英译的语料库调查研究。《外国语》,(2),43-49。
郭建中(2000),翻译中的文化因素：异化与归化。载郭建中(主编),《文化与翻译》(pp.276-290)。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
辜正坤(2006),《译学津原》。郑州：郑州文心出版社。
韩江洪、张柏然(2004),国外翻译规范研究述评。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(2),53-57。
韩庆果(2006),翻译规范与文本性。 《中国翻译》,(2),14-20。
韩子满(2002), 《文学翻译中的杂合现象》。博士学位论文,解放军外国语学院。
何三宁(2008),《翻译多元论实证分析研究》。北京：科学出版社。
贺阳(2004),从现代汉语介词中的欧化现象看间接语言接触。《语言文字应用》,(4),82-89。
贺阳(2006),现代汉语DV结构的兴起及发展与印欧语言的影响。《中国人民大学学报》,(2),136-142。
贺阳(2008),现代汉语欧化语法现象研究。 《世界汉语教学》,(4),16-31。
胡开宝(2006),汉外语言接触研究近百年：回顾与展望。《外语与外语教学》,(5),56-60。
胡开宝、吴勇、陶庆(2007),语料库与译学研究趋势与问题—语料库与译学研究国际学术研讨会综述。 《外国语》,(5),64-69。
胡开宝、朱一凡(2008),基于语料库的莎剧《哈姆雷特》汉译文本中显化现象及其动因研究。 《外语研究》,(2),72-81。
胡牧(2006),翻译研究：一个社会学视角。 《外语与外语教学》,(9),48-52。
胡显耀(2005),用语料库研究翻译普遍性。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(3),45-81。
胡显耀(2006),当代汉语翻译小说规范的语料库研究。博士学位论文,华东师范大学。
胡显耀(2007),基于语料库的汉语翻译小说词语特征研究。《外语教学与研究》(3),214-221。
胡显耀、曾佳(2009),用语料库考察汉语翻译小说定语的容量和结构。 《解放军外国语学院学报》,(3),61-66。
华南师范学院中文系《现代汉语虚词》编写组编.现代汉语虚词.广州：广东人民出版社,1981。
黄立波、王克非(2006),翻译普遍性研究反思。 《中国翻译》,(5),36-40。
黄立波(2007),《基于汉英／英汉平行语料库的翻译共性研究》。上海：复旦大学出版社。
蒋林、金兵(2007),语料库翻译研究的代表性问题。《中国科技翻译》,(1),28-30。
姜秋霞、刘全国(2005),翻译文学与社会文化的关系：20世纪初与20世纪末我国翻译文学主题和来源的调查与分析。 《外语教学与研究》,(1),67-72。
江天(1980),《现代汉语语法通解》。沈阳：辽宁人民出版社。
姜义华(1993), 《胡适学术文集·新文学运动》。北京：中华书局。
柯飞(2003),汉语把字句特点、分布及英译研究。《外语与外语教学》,(12)。
柯飞(2002),双语库：翻译研究新途径。《外语与外语教学》,(9),35-39。
孔慧怡(1999),《翻译文学文化》。北京：北京大学出版社。
黎锦熙(1951), 《新著国文法》。北京：商务印书馆。
李德超、邓静(2004),传统翻译观念的逾越：彻斯特曼的翻译规范论。《外国语》,(4),68-75。
李丽明(1997),近代汉语的“欧化”现象及其文化成因。 《攀枝花大学学报》(2),60-65。
连淑能(1993),《英汉对比研究》。北京：高等教育出版社。
廖七一(2001),研究范式与中国译学。 《中国翻译》,(9),14-18。
廖七一(2000),语料库与翻译研究。《外语教学与研究》,(5),380-384。
廖七一(2000),《当代西方翻译理论探索》。南京：译林出版社。
刘敬国、陶友兰(2006),语料库翻译研究的历史与进展。《外国语》,(2),66-71。
刘康龙、穆雷(2006),语料库语言学与翻译研究。 《中国翻译》,(1),59-63。
刘宓庆(2005),《中西翻译思想比较研究》。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘宓庆(2005),《新编当代翻译理论》。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘全福(2000),鲁迅、梁实秋翻译论战焦点透析。《中国翻译》,(3),56-60。
刘月华、潘文娱、故(?)(2001),《实用现代汉语语法》。北京：商务印书馆。
罗新璋(1984),《翻译论集》。北京：商务印书馆。
罗选民、董娜、黎土旺(2005),语料库与翻译研究——兼评MaeveOlohan的《翻译研究语料库入门》。 《外语与外语教学》,(12),52-56。
连淑能(1993), 《英汉对比研究》。北京：高等教育出版社。
鲁迅(1981), “硬译”与文学的阶级性。 《鲁迅全集》。北京：人民文学出版社。
吕俊(2007),《吕俊翻译学选论》。上海：复旦大学出版社。
吕叔湘(1979), 《汉语语法分析问题》。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘等(1999),《语法研究入门》。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘、朱德熙(1979),《语法修辞讲话》。北京：中国青年出版社。
马祖毅(2001),《中国翻译简史：“五四”以前部分》。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
孟昭毅、李载道(2005),《中国翻译文学史》。北京：北京大学出版社。
苗菊(2001),翻译准则——图瑞翻译理论的核心。《外语与外语教学》,(11),29-32。
潘文国、叶步清、韩洋(2004),《汉语的构词法研究》。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
秦洪武、王克非(2004),基于语料库的翻译语言分析——以”so…that"的汉语对应结构为例。《现代外语》,(1),40-48。
秦洪武、王克非(2009),基于对应语料库的英译汉语言特征分析。《外语教学与研究》,(2),131-136。
邵璐(2004),政治文化与20世纪中国翻译文学之三种模式。《重庆交通学院学报(社科版)》,(3),63-66。
思果(2002), 《译道探微》。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
宋炳辉、吕灿(2007),20世纪下半期弱势民族文学在中国的译介及其影响。《中国比较文学》,(3),55-75。
宋志平(2003),英汉语形合与意合对比研究综观。 《东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(2),92-98。
孙艺风(2003),翻译规范与主体意识。《中国翻译》,(3),3-9。
孙艺风、仲伟合(2004),《翻译研究关键词》。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
孙迎春(2008),《第二次大水——归、异翻译策略辩证》。天津：天津教育出版社。
孙致礼(1996),《1949—1966：中国英美文学翻译概论》。南京：译林出版社。
孙致礼(1999),《翻译：理论与实践探索》。南京：译林出版社。
谭载喜(2000),《翻译学》。武汉：湖北教育出版社。
王秉钦(2004), 《20世纪中国翻译思想史》。天津：南开大学出版社。
王宏印(2003),《中国传统译论经典诠释——从道安到傅雷》。武汉：湖北教育出版社。
王建开(2003),《五四以来我国英美文学作品译介史：1919-1949》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王克非(1998),《翻译文化史论》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王克非(2002),近代翻译对汉语的影响。 《外语教学与研究》,(6),458-463。
王克非(2003),英汉／汉英语句对应的语料考察。《外语教学与研究》,(6),410-416。
王克非等(2004),《双语对应语料库：研制与应用》。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
王克非(2006),语料库翻译学——新研究范式。 《中国外语》,(3),8-9。
王克非、胡显耀(2008),基于语料库的翻译汉语词汇特征研究。《中国翻译》,(6),16-21。
王克非、秦洪武(2009),英译汉语言特征探讨—二基于对应语料库的宏观分析。《外 语学刊》,(1),102-105。
王力(1943), 《中国现代语法》。上海：商务印书馆。
王力(1945), 《中国语法理论》。上海：商务印书馆。
王力(1957), 《语言学论丛(第1辑)》。北京：商务印书馆。
王力(1980), 《汉语史稿(上、中、下)》。北京：中华书局。
王立非,梁茂成(2007),WordSmith方法在外语教学研究中的应用。《外语电化教学》,(3),3-7。
王友贵(2003),意识形态与20世纪中国翻译文学史(1899-1979)。《中国翻译》,(9),11-15。
卫乃兴(2002),基于语料库和语料库驱动的词语搭配研究。《当代语言学》,(2),101-114。
文军、高晓鹰(2003),归化异化各具一格——从功能翻译理论角度评价《飘》的两种译本。《中国翻译》,(5),40-43。
吴昂、黄立波(2006),关于翻译共性的研究。《外语教学与研究》,(5),296-302。
吴南松(2008), 《“第三类语言”面面观——文学翻译中的译作语言探索》。上海：译文出版社。
吴义诚(2001),论翻译研究的科学范式。 《外国语》,(5),55-60。
武光军(2008),翻译社会学研究的现状与问题。 《外国语》,(1),75-82。
肖维青(2005),自建语料库与翻译批评。《外语研究》,(4),60-65。
谢天振(2007),《译介学导论》。北京：北京大学出版社。
谢耀基(1989),《现代汉语欧化语法概论》。香港：光明图书公司。
谢耀基(2001),汉语语法欧化综述。 《语文研究》,(1),17-22。
许伟(2006),平行语料库在翻译批评中的应用。 《外语研究》,(2),54-59。
严辰松(2000),,《定量型社会科学研究方法》。 西安：西安交通大学出版社。
叶蜚声、徐通锵(1981), 《语言学纲要》。北京：北京大学出版社。
查明建、谢天振(2007), 《中国20世纪外国文学翻译史》。武汉：湖北教育出版社。
张斌、胡裕树(1989), 《汉语语法研究》。北京：商务印书馆。
张明林、尹德翔(2000),汉语的欧化——历史与现状。《宁波大学学报人文科学版》,(1),43-46。
张卫中(2006),汉语文学语言欧化的可能与限度。 《兰州学刊》,(7),77-79。
张谊生(2000),《现代汉语虚词》。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
赵黎明(2007),欧化·现代化·民族化。《内蒙古社会科学(汉文版)》,(2),139-144。
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室(2005),《现代汉语词典(第5版)》。北京：商务印书馆。
周扬(1940),对旧形式利用在文学上的一个看法。 《中国文化》,2-15。
朱德熙(1982),《语法讲义》。北京：商务印书馆。
朱德熙(1983),自指和转指。《方言》,(1),173-189。
朱光潜(1961),文学与语文[下]——文言、白话与欧化。《谈文学》。文艺出版社。
Baker, M. (1992). In Other Words:A Coursebook on Translation. London:Routledge.
Baker, M. (1993). Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies:implication and application. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology:In honour of John Sinclair (pp.233-250). Amsterdam:John Benjamin.
Baker, M. (1995). Corpora in Translation Studies:an overview and some suggestions for future research. Target,7 (2),223-243.
Baker, M. (1996). Corpus-based Translation studies:the challenges that lie ahead. In Somer, H. L. (Ed.), LSP, Terminology and Translation, studies in language engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager (pp 175-186). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Baker, M. (1998). Norms, In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp.163-165). London:Routledge.
Baker, M. (2000). Towards a Methodology for Investigation the Style of a Literary Translator. Target,12 (2),241-266.
Baker, M. (2004). A Corpus-based View of Similarity and Difference in Translation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,9 (2),167-193.
Baker, M. (2007). Corpus-based Translation Studies in the Academy. Journal of Foreign Languages, (5),50-55.
Baroni, M. & Bernardini, S. (2003). A Preliminary Analysis of Collocational Differences in Monolingual Comparable Corpora. In D. Archer, P. Rayson, A. Wilson & A. McEnery (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2003 (pp.82-91). Lancaster: UCREL.
Baroni, M. & Bernardini, S. (2006). A New Approach to the Study of Translationese: Machine-learning the Difference between Original and Translated Text. Literary and Linguistic Computing,21 (3),259-274.
Bassnett, S. (2004). Translation Studies. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (2001). Constructing Cultures, Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Bernardini, S. & Zanettin, F. (2004). When is a universal not a universal? Some limits of current corpus-based methodologies for the investigation of translation universals. In A. Mauranen and P. Kuyamaki (Eds.), Translation Universals, Do they exist? (pp. 51-62). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Bernardini, S. (2005). Reviving old ideas, Parallel and comparable analysis in translation studies-With an example from translation stylistics. In K. Aijmer & C. Alvstad (Eds.), New Tendencies in Translation Studies. Selected Papers from a Workshop. Goteborg:University of Goteborg.
Bernardini, S. (2007). Collocations in Translated Language:Combining Parallel, Comparable and Reference Corpora. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2007. http.//ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2007/paper/15 Paper.pdf.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Levenston, E. A. (1983). Universal of Lexical Simplification, In Faerch, et al. (Eds.), Strategies in IL Communication (pp.119-139). London:Longman.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House & S. Blum- Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication (pp.17-37). Tubingen:Narr Verlag.
Chan, S. & Poland, D. E. (2001). An Encyclopedia of Translation:Chinese-English, English-Chinese. Hong Kong:The Chinese University Press.
Chan, T. L. (2000). "Colonization," Resistance and the Uses of Postcolonial Translation Theory in 20th-Century China.In S. Simon & P. St-Pierre (Eds.), Changing the Terms: Translating in the Postcolonial Era. Ottawa:University of Ottawa Press.
Chan, T. L. (2004). Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory:modes, issues and debates. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Chen, H. (1994). The Contextual Analysis of Chinese Sentences with Puntuation Marks. Literary and Linguistic Computing,9 (4),281-289.
Cheng, C. (1992). Chinese Varieties of English. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other Tongue: English across cultures (pp.162-177). Illinois:University of Illinois.
Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation:the spread of ideas in translation theory. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Chesterman, A. (2000). Memetics and Translation Strategies. Synapse, (5),1-17.
Chesterman, A. (2004). Hypotheses about Translation Universals. In G. Hansen, K. Malmkjaer and D. Gile (Eds.), Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies (pp.1-13). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Chesterman, A. (2006). Interpreting the meaning of translation. In M. Suominen et al. (Eds.), A man of measure. Festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th Birthday (pp.3-11). Turku:Linguistic Association of Finland.
Conrad, S. (2002). Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, (22),75-95.
Danielsson, P. (2001). The Automatic Identification of Meaningful Units in Language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Goteborg:Goteborg University.
Dayrell, C. (2007). A Quantitative Approach to Compare Collocational Patterns in Translated and Non-translated Texts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics,12 (3),375-414.
Dayrell, C. (2008). Investigating the Preference of Translators for Recurrent Lexical Patterns:A Corpus-based Study, trans-kom, (1),36-57.
Even-Zohar, I. (2000). The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp.199-204). London:Routledge.
Evert, S. (2007). Corpora and Collocations. In A. Ludeling and M. Kyto (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook (article 58). Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
Erlich, V. (1969). Russian Formalism, History-Doctrine. The Hague:Mouton.
Firth, J. R. (1956/1968). Descriptive linguistics and the study of English. In F.R. Palmer (Ed.), Selected papers of J.R. Firth 1952-1959 (pp.96-113). London and Harlow: Longman.
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930-55. Studies in linguistic analysis (pp.168-205). Oxford:The Philological Society.
Frawley, W. (1984). Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In W. Frawley (Ed.), Translation:Literary, Linguistic and Philosophical Perspectives (pp.159-175). London:Associated University Press.
Gentzler, E. (2004). Contemporary Translation Theories. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Granger, S., Lerot, J. & Petch-Tyson, S. (2007). Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halverson, S. (1998). Translation Studies and Representative Corpora. Meta,43 (4), 494-514.
Hansen, G., Malmkjaer, K. & Gile, D. (2004). Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,
Hatim, B. (2001). Communication across Cultures:Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Hatim, B. & Mason, I. (2001). Discourse and the Translator. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
He Xianbin (2004). Translation as Manipulated by Power Relation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Xiamen:Xiamen University.
Hermans, T. (1985). The Manipulation of literature:studies in Literary Translation. London:Routledge.
Hermans, T. (1995). Revisiting the Classics:Toury's empiricism version one. The Translator,1 (2),215-223.
Hermans, T. (1996). Norms and the Determination of Translation. In Alvarez & Vidal (Eds.), Translation, Power, Subversion (pp.25-51). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Hermans, T. (1999a). Translation in Systems:Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Hermans, T. (1999b) Translation and normativity. In C. Schaffner (Ed.), Translation and norms (pp.50-71). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Hermans, T. (2000). Norms of translation. In P. France (Ed.), The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation (pp.10-15). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Holmes, J. (2000). The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp.180-192). London:Routledge.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S. and Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar:A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Jameson, F. (1972). The Prison-House of Language:A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism. New Jersey:Princeton UP.
Jantunen, J. (2001). Synonymity and lexical simplification in translations:A corpus-based approach. Across Languages and Cultures,2(1),97-112.
Jantunen, J. (2004). Untypical Patterns in Translations:Issues on Corpus Methodology and Synonymity. In A. Mauranen and P. Kujamaki (Eds.), Translation Universals:Do They Exist? (pp.101-126). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:Benjamins.
Jones, S. and Sinclair, J. M. (1974). English Lexical Collocations. Cahiers de Lexicologie, (24),15-61.
Kamenicka, R. (2008). Explicitation Profile and Translator Style. In Anthony Pym & Alexander Perekrestenko (Eds.), Translation Research Projects 1 (pp.117-130). Tarragona:Intercultural Studies Group.
Kanter, I., Kfir, H., Malkiel, B. & Shlesinger, M. (2006). Identifying Universals of Text Translation. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics,13 (1),35-43.
Kennedy, G. (2000). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Kenny, D. (1998). Creatures of Habit? What Translators Usually Do with Words. Meta,43 (4),515-523.
Kenny, D. (2000a). Lexical Hide-and-Seek:Looking for Creativity in a Parallel Corpus. In M. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies I: Textual and Cognitive Aspects (pp.93-104). Manchester:St. Jerome.
Kenny, D. (2000b). Translators at Play:Exploitations of Collocational Norms in German-English Translation. In B. Dodd (Ed.), Working with German Corpora (pp. 143-160). Birmingham:University of Birmingham Press.
Kenny, D. (2001). Lexis and Creativity in Translation. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Kenny, D. (2005). Parallel Corpora and Translation Studies:Old questions, new perspectives? Reporting that in Gepcolt:A case study. In G. Barnbrook, P. Danielsson & M. Mahlberg (Eds.), Meaningful Texts:The Extraction of Semantic Information from Monolingual and Multilingual Corpora. London & New York: Continuum.
Kjellmer, G. (1990). Patterns of Collocability. In J. Aarts & Meijs (Eds.), Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics (pp.163-178). Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Kjellmer, G. (1987). Aspects of English Collocations. In W. Meijs (Ed.), Corpus Linguistics and Beyond. Proceedings of the seventh international conference on English language research on computerised corpora (pp.133-140). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Laviosa-Braithwaite, S. (1995). Comparable corpora:Towards a corpus linguistic methodology for the empirical study of translation. In M. Thelen & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Translation and Meaning. Part 3 (pp.153-163). Maastricht:Rijkshogeschool Maastricht.
Laviosa, S. (1998a). Core Patterns of Lexical use in a Comparable Corpus of English Narrative Prose. Meta,43 (4),557-570.
Laviosa, S. (1998b). The Corpus-based Approach:A New Paradigm in Translation Studies. Meta,43 (4),474-479.
Laviosa, S. (1998c). Universals of Translation. In M. Baker (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (pp.288-291). London:Routledge.
Laviosa, S. (1998d). The English comparable corpus:A resource and a methodology. In L. Bowker, M. Cronin, D. Kenny & J. Pearson (Eds.), Unity in Diversity? Current Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester:St Jerome.
Laviosa, S. (2001). Corpus and Simplificaiton in Translation. In Petrilli, (Ed.), Lo Stesso AltroXII(pp.78-86). Athanor.
Laviosa, S. (2002). Corpus-based Translation Studies:Theory, Findings, Applications. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Laviosa, S. (2003). Corpus-based Translation Studies. In S. Granger, J. Lerot, and S. Tyson (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies (pp.45-54). Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Laviosa, S. (2004). Corpus-based Translation Studies:Where Does it Come from? Where is it Going? Language Matters,35 (1),6-27.
Leuwen-Zvart. (1989). Translation and Original:Similarities and Dissimilarities Ⅰ. Target, 1(2),151-181.
Leuwen-Zvart. (1990). Translation and Original:Similarities and Dissimilarities Ⅱ. Target, 2(1),69-95.
Li Defeng & Zhang Chunling. (2010). Sense-Making in Corpus-Assisted Translation Research:A Review of Corpus-Assisted Translation Research in China. In Richard Xiao (Ed.). Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (pp.235-255). Newcastle:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lind, S. (2007). Translation Universals. TIC Talk,63:1-10.
Malmkjaer, K. (1997). Punctuation in Hans Christian Andersen's Stories and in their Translations into English. In F. Poyatos (Ed.), Nonverbal Communication and Translation:New Perspective and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media (pp.151-162). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Manini, L. (1996). Meaningful Literary Names:Their Forms and Functions and their Translation. The Translator,2(2),161-78.
Mauranen, A. (2000). Strange Strings in Translated Language. A Study on Corpora. In M. Olohan (Ed.). Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies 1: Textual and Cognitive Aspects (pp.119-141). Manchester:St. Jerome.
Mauranen, A. (2007). Universal tendencies in translation. In M. Rogers and G. Anderman (Eds.), Incorporating Corpora. The Linguist and the Translator (pp.32-48). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Mauranen, A. and Pekka, K. (2004). Translation Universals:Do They exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
May, R. (1997). Sensible Elocution:How Translation Works in and upon Punctuation. The Translator,3 (1),1-20.
McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
McEnery, A., Xiao, Z. & Tono, Y. (2005). Corpus-based Language Studies. London: Routledge.
McEnery, A. & Xiao, Z. (2006). Passive Constructions in English and Chinese:A Corpus-based Contrastive Study. Languages in Contrast,6 (1),109-149.
Merkle, D. (2008). Translation Constraints and the Sociological Turn in Literary Translation Studies. In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger & D. Simeoni (Eds.), Beyond descriptive translation studies (pp.175-186). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Munday, J. (1998). A Computer-assisted Approach to the Analysis of Translation Shifts. Meta,43 (4),542-556.
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies:Theories and Applications. London and New York:Routledge.
Munday, J. (2006). Translation Studies. The Year's Work in Critical and Cultural Theory, (14),195-208.
Newmark, P. (2001). Approaches to Translation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, E. A. (2001). Language and Culture-Contexts in Translating. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Nida, E. (1982). Translating meaning. San Dimas, Cal.:English Language Institute.
Nilsson, P. (2003). Investigating Characteristic Lexical Distributions and Grammatical Patterning in Swedish Texts Translated from English. In Wilson, et al. (Eds.), A Rainbow of corpora:Corpus linguistics and the Language of the World (pp.99-107). Munchen:Lincom-Euroa.
Nilsson, P. (2006). A Multidimensional Perspective on Collocational Patterning in Swedish Fiction Texts Translated from English. Literary and Linguistic Computing, (21),113-126.
Nord, C. (1991). Scopos, Loyalty, and Translational Conventions. Target,3 (1),91-109.
Olohan, M. & Baker, M. (2000). Reporting that in Translated English:Evidence for Subliminal Processes of Explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures,1 (2), 141-158.
Olohan, M. (2001). Spelling out the Optionals in Translation:A Corpus Study. UCREL Technical Papers, (13),423-432.
Olohan, M. (2002). Leave it Out! Using a Comparable Corpus to Investigate Aspects of Explicitation in Translation. Cadernos de Traducao,9,153-169.
Olohan, M. (2003). How Frequent are the Contractions? A Study of Contracted Forms in the Translational English Corpus. Target,15(1),59-89.
Olohan, M. (2004). Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge.
Olohan, M. (2006). Intercultural faultlines. Research models in translation studies I: textual and cognitive aspects. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
(?)veras, L. (1998). In Search of the Third Code:An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation. Meta,43 (4),571-588.
Paloposki, O. (2001). Enriching translations, simplified language? An alternative viewpoint to lexical simplification. Target,13 (2),265-288.
Po-Ching, Y. and Rimmington, D. (2004). Chinese:A Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York:Routledge.
Puurtinen, T. (1994). Dynamic style as a parameter of acceptability in translated children's books. In Snell-Hornby, et al. (Eds.), Translation studies:an interdiscipline (pp. 83-90). Amsterdam, Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Puurtinen, T. (1995). Linguistic Acceptability in Translated Children's Literature. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
Puurtinen, T. (1997). Syntactic Norms in Finnish children's literature. Target,9 (2), 321-334.
Puurtinen, T. (1998). Syntax, Readability and Ideology in Children's Literature. Meta,43 (4),557-570.
Puurtinen, T. (2003a). Genre-specific Features of Translationese? Linguistic Differences between Translated and Non-translated Finnish Children's Literature. Literary and Linguistic Computing,18 (4),389-406.
Puurtinen, T. (2003b). Nonfinite constructions in Finnish children's literature:Features of translationese contradicting translation universals? In S. Granger, J. Lerot & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Corpus-based Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics and Translation Studies. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Robinson, D. (2006). Western Translation Theory:from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Scott, M. N. (1998). Normalisation and Readers'Expectation:A Study of Literary Translation with reference to Lispector s A Hora da Estrela. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Liverpool:AAELSU University of Liverpool.
Schaffner, C. (1999). The Concept of Norms in Translation Studies. In C. Schaffner (Ed.), Translation and Norms (pp.1-8). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Schaffner, C. (1999). Translation and Norms. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Shavit, Z. (1981). Translation of Children's Literature as a Function of its Position in the Literary Polysystem. Poetics Today,2 (4),171-179.
Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M. (2004). Dictionary of Translation Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1995). Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach. Revised. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis:Computer-assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford and Cambridge MA:Blackwell.
Tang, J. (2004). Politics of Translation in Contemporary China. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Shanghai:Shanghai International Studies University.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. (2004). Unique items-Over-or under-represented in translated language? In A. Mauranen & P. Kujamaki (Eds.), Translation Universals:Do They exist? Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Toury, G.(1980). In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv:The Porter Institute for Poetics and semiotics.
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Toury, G. (1999). A Handful of Paragraphs of'Translation'and'Norms'. In Schaffner, C. (Ed.). Translation and Norms (pp.9-31). Clevedon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Tsai, F. (1995). Europeanized Structure in English-Chinese Translation. In Sin-wai Chan & David E. Pollard (Eds.), An Encyclopedia of Translation (pp.242). Hongkong:The Chinese University Press.
Tymoczko, M. (1998). Computerized Corpora and the Future of Translation Studies. Meta, 43 (4),652-660.
Vanderauwera, R. (1985). Dutch Novels Translated into English:The Transformation of a Minority Literature. Amsterdam:Rodopi.
Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator's Invisibility:A History of Translation. London and New York:Routledge.
Venuti, L. (2000). The Translation Studies Reader. London:Routledge.
Vinay, J. P. & J. Darbelnet. (1958/1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and English-A Methodology for Translation. (Translated and edited by J. C. Sager & M. J.Hamel). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Wang Kefei & Qin Hongwu (2010). A Parallel Corpus-based Study of Translational Chinese. In R. Xiao (Ed.), Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (pp. 164-181). Newcastle:Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Weissbrod, R. (1992). Explicitation in Translations of prose-fiction from English to Hebrew as a function of norms. Multilingua,11(2),153-171.
Williams, D. A. (2005). Recurrent Features of Translation in Canada:A Corpus-based Study. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Ottawa:University of Ottawa.
Xiao, R. & Yue, M. (2009). Using corpora in Translation Studies:The state of the art. In P. Baker (Ed.), Contemporary Corpus Linguistics. London:Continuum.
Xiao, R., He, L. & Yue, M. (2010). In Pursuit of the'Third Code':Using the ZJU Corpus of Translational Chinese in Translation Studies. In Richard Xiao (Ed.), Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (pp.182-214). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Yau Wai-ping. (2007). Norms, Polysystems and Ideology. The Translator,13 (2),321-339.
陈福康(2000),《中国译学理论史稿》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
陈瑞清(2007),A Corpus-based Approach to the Modelling of the Explicitation Process in English-Chinese Translation.《翻译学研究集刊》,(10),31-83。
陈瑞清(2005),汉译文本的形合趋势：以语料库为本的翻译学研究。《翻译学研究集刊》,(9),161-196。
陈伟(2007),翻译英语语料库与基于翻译英语语料库的描述性翻译研究。《外国语》,(1),67-73。
陈霞(2007),从当代中国人的精神需求看外译中翻译规范的重建。 《上海翻译》,(4),68-72。
陈玉刚(1989),《中国翻译文学史稿》。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
程工(2005),汉语“者”字合成复合词及其对普遍语法的启示。 《现代外语》,(3),232-238。
戴玉群(2003),欧化有限度：英汉定语对比与翻译。 《四川外语学院学报》,(9),133-136。
邓耀臣、王同顺(2005),词语搭配抽取的统计方法及计算机实现。《外语电化教学》,(5),25-28。
丁声树等(1961), 《现代汉语语法讲话》。北京：商务印书馆。
范祥涛(2006),从卡特福德到翻译规律的探讨——兼论语料库翻译研究的意义。《外语研究》,(2),50-53。
方华文(2005),《20世纪中国翻译史》。西安：西北大学出版社。
方锡德(1992),《中国现代小说与文学传统》。北京：北京大学出版社。
冯跃进、陈伟(1999),汉语副职英译的语料库调查研究。《外国语》,(2),43-49。
郭建中(2000),翻译中的文化因素：异化与归化。载郭建中(主编),《文化与翻译》(pp.276-290)。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
辜正坤(2006),《译学津原》。郑州：郑州文心出版社。
韩江洪、张柏然(2004),国外翻译规范研究述评。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(2),53-57。
韩庆果(2006),翻译规范与文本性。 《中国翻译》,(2),14-20。
韩子满(2002), 《文学翻译中的杂合现象》。博士学位论文,解放军外国语学院。
何三宁(2008),《翻译多元论实证分析研究》。北京：科学出版社。
贺阳(2004),从现代汉语介词中的欧化现象看间接语言接触。《语言文字应用》,(4),82-89。
贺阳(2006),现代汉语DV结构的兴起及发展与印欧语言的影响。《中国人民大学学报》,(2),136-142。
贺阳(2008),现代汉语欧化语法现象研究。 《世界汉语教学》,(4),16-31。
胡开宝(2006),汉外语言接触研究近百年：回顾与展望。《外语与外语教学》,(5),56-60。
胡开宝、吴勇、陶庆(2007),语料库与译学研究趋势与问题—语料库与译学研究国际学术研讨会综述。 《外国语》,(5),64-69。
胡开宝、朱一凡(2008),基于语料库的莎剧《哈姆雷特》汉译文本中显化现象及其动因研究。 《外语研究》,(2),72-81。
胡牧(2006),翻译研究：一个社会学视角。 《外语与外语教学》,(9),48-52。
胡显耀(2005),用语料库研究翻译普遍性。《解放军外国语学院学报》,(3),45-81。
胡显耀(2006),当代汉语翻译小说规范的语料库研究。博士学位论文,华东师范大学。
胡显耀(2007),基于语料库的汉语翻译小说词语特征研究。《外语教学与研究》(3),214-221。
胡显耀、曾佳(2009),用语料库考察汉语翻译小说定语的容量和结构。 《解放军外国语学院学报》,(3),61-66。
华南师范学院中文系《现代汉语虚词》编写组编.现代汉语虚词.广州：广东人民出版社,1981。
黄立波、王克非(2006),翻译普遍性研究反思。 《中国翻译》,(5),36-40。
黄立波(2007),《基于汉英／英汉平行语料库的翻译共性研究》。上海：复旦大学出版社。
蒋林、金兵(2007),语料库翻译研究的代表性问题。《中国科技翻译》,(1),28-30。
姜秋霞、刘全国(2005),翻译文学与社会文化的关系：20世纪初与20世纪末我国翻译文学主题和来源的调查与分析。 《外语教学与研究》,(1),67-72。
江天(1980),《现代汉语语法通解》。沈阳：辽宁人民出版社。
姜义华(1993), 《胡适学术文集·新文学运动》。北京：中华书局。
柯飞(2003),汉语把字句特点、分布及英译研究。《外语与外语教学》,(12)。
柯飞(2002),双语库：翻译研究新途径。《外语与外语教学》,(9),35-39。
孔慧怡(1999),《翻译文学文化》。北京：北京大学出版社。
黎锦熙(1951), 《新著国文法》。北京：商务印书馆。
李德超、邓静(2004),传统翻译观念的逾越：彻斯特曼的翻译规范论。《外国语》,(4),68-75。
李丽明(1997),近代汉语的“欧化”现象及其文化成因。 《攀枝花大学学报》(2),60-65。
连淑能(1993),《英汉对比研究》。北京：高等教育出版社。
廖七一(2001),研究范式与中国译学。 《中国翻译》,(9),14-18。
廖七一(2000),语料库与翻译研究。《外语教学与研究》,(5),380-384。
廖七一(2000),《当代西方翻译理论探索》。南京：译林出版社。
刘敬国、陶友兰(2006),语料库翻译研究的历史与进展。《外国语》,(2),66-71。
刘康龙、穆雷(2006),语料库语言学与翻译研究。 《中国翻译》,(1),59-63。
刘宓庆(2005),《中西翻译思想比较研究》。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘宓庆(2005),《新编当代翻译理论》。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
刘全福(2000),鲁迅、梁实秋翻译论战焦点透析。《中国翻译》,(3),56-60。
刘月华、潘文娱、故(?)(2001),《实用现代汉语语法》。北京：商务印书馆。
罗新璋(1984),《翻译论集》。北京：商务印书馆。
罗选民、董娜、黎土旺(2005),语料库与翻译研究——兼评MaeveOlohan的《翻译研究语料库入门》。 《外语与外语教学》,(12),52-56。
连淑能(1993), 《英汉对比研究》。北京：高等教育出版社。
鲁迅(1981), “硬译”与文学的阶级性。 《鲁迅全集》。北京：人民文学出版社。
吕俊(2007),《吕俊翻译学选论》。上海：复旦大学出版社。
吕叔湘(1979), 《汉语语法分析问题》。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘等(1999),《语法研究入门》。北京：商务印书馆。
吕叔湘、朱德熙(1979),《语法修辞讲话》。北京：中国青年出版社。
马祖毅(2001),《中国翻译简史：“五四”以前部分》。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
孟昭毅、李载道(2005),《中国翻译文学史》。北京：北京大学出版社。
苗菊(2001),翻译准则——图瑞翻译理论的核心。《外语与外语教学》,(11),29-32。
潘文国、叶步清、韩洋(2004),《汉语的构词法研究》。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
秦洪武、王克非(2004),基于语料库的翻译语言分析——以”so…that"的汉语对应结构为例。《现代外语》,(1),40-48。
秦洪武、王克非(2009),基于对应语料库的英译汉语言特征分析。《外语教学与研究》,(2),131-136。
邵璐(2004),政治文化与20世纪中国翻译文学之三种模式。《重庆交通学院学报(社科版)》,(3),63-66。
思果(2002), 《译道探微》。北京：中国对外翻译出版公司。
宋炳辉、吕灿(2007),20世纪下半期弱势民族文学在中国的译介及其影响。《中国比较文学》,(3),55-75。
宋志平(2003),英汉语形合与意合对比研究综观。 《东北师大学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(2),92-98。
孙艺风(2003),翻译规范与主体意识。《中国翻译》,(3),3-9。
孙艺风、仲伟合(2004),《翻译研究关键词》。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
孙迎春(2008),《第二次大水——归、异翻译策略辩证》。天津：天津教育出版社。
孙致礼(1996),《1949—1966：中国英美文学翻译概论》。南京：译林出版社。
孙致礼(1999),《翻译：理论与实践探索》。南京：译林出版社。
谭载喜(2000),《翻译学》。武汉：湖北教育出版社。
王秉钦(2004), 《20世纪中国翻译思想史》。天津：南开大学出版社。
王宏印(2003),《中国传统译论经典诠释——从道安到傅雷》。武汉：湖北教育出版社。
王建开(2003),《五四以来我国英美文学作品译介史：1919-1949》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王克非(1998),《翻译文化史论》。上海：上海外语教育出版社。
王克非(2002),近代翻译对汉语的影响。 《外语教学与研究》,(6),458-463。
王克非(2003),英汉／汉英语句对应的语料考察。《外语教学与研究》,(6),410-416。
王克非等(2004),《双语对应语料库：研制与应用》。北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
王克非(2006),语料库翻译学——新研究范式。 《中国外语》,(3),8-9。
王克非、胡显耀(2008),基于语料库的翻译汉语词汇特征研究。《中国翻译》,(6),16-21。
王克非、秦洪武(2009),英译汉语言特征探讨—二基于对应语料库的宏观分析。《外 语学刊》,(1),102-105。
王力(1943), 《中国现代语法》。上海：商务印书馆。
王力(1945), 《中国语法理论》。上海：商务印书馆。
王力(1957), 《语言学论丛(第1辑)》。北京：商务印书馆。
王力(1980), 《汉语史稿(上、中、下)》。北京：中华书局。
王立非,梁茂成(2007),WordSmith方法在外语教学研究中的应用。《外语电化教学》,(3),3-7。
王友贵(2003),意识形态与20世纪中国翻译文学史(1899-1979)。《中国翻译》,(9),11-15。
卫乃兴(2002),基于语料库和语料库驱动的词语搭配研究。《当代语言学》,(2),101-114。
文军、高晓鹰(2003),归化异化各具一格——从功能翻译理论角度评价《飘》的两种译本。《中国翻译》,(5),40-43。
吴昂、黄立波(2006),关于翻译共性的研究。《外语教学与研究》,(5),296-302。
吴南松(2008), 《“第三类语言”面面观——文学翻译中的译作语言探索》。上海：译文出版社。
吴义诚(2001),论翻译研究的科学范式。 《外国语》,(5),55-60。
武光军(2008),翻译社会学研究的现状与问题。 《外国语》,(1),75-82。
肖维青(2005),自建语料库与翻译批评。《外语研究》,(4),60-65。
谢天振(2007),《译介学导论》。北京：北京大学出版社。
谢耀基(1989),《现代汉语欧化语法概论》。香港：光明图书公司。
谢耀基(2001),汉语语法欧化综述。 《语文研究》,(1),17-22。
许伟(2006),平行语料库在翻译批评中的应用。 《外语研究》,(2),54-59。
严辰松(2000),,《定量型社会科学研究方法》。 西安：西安交通大学出版社。
叶蜚声、徐通锵(1981), 《语言学纲要》。北京：北京大学出版社。
查明建、谢天振(2007), 《中国20世纪外国文学翻译史》。武汉：湖北教育出版社。
张斌、胡裕树(1989), 《汉语语法研究》。北京：商务印书馆。
张明林、尹德翔(2000),汉语的欧化——历史与现状。《宁波大学学报人文科学版》,(1),43-46。
张卫中(2006),汉语文学语言欧化的可能与限度。 《兰州学刊》,(7),77-79。
张谊生(2000),《现代汉语虚词》。上海：华东师范大学出版社。
赵黎明(2007),欧化·现代化·民族化。《内蒙古社会科学(汉文版)》,(2),139-144。
中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室(2005),《现代汉语词典(第5版)》。北京：商务印书馆。
周扬(1940),对旧形式利用在文学上的一个看法。 《中国文化》,2-15。
朱德熙(1982),《语法讲义》。北京：商务印书馆。
朱德熙(1983),自指和转指。《方言》,(1),173-189。
朱光潜(1961),文学与语文[下]——文言、白话与欧化。《谈文学》。文艺出版社。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |