语篇意义在英汉互译中的传达
摘要
本论文应用系统功能语言学的元功能理论研究英汉语篇的谋篇方式，行文结构，以及由此产生的不同的修辞意义，语篇风格和文体特点，进而研究相应的翻译策略。
语言系统中的意义成分都是功能成分。所有语言的意义系统都可以说是有三类意义组成。这三类意义分别是概念意义，人际意义和语篇意义，亦称为语言的三大纯理功能。在语言的运用过程中，说话者根据情景语境在由这三类意义组成的语言系统中进行选择。因此，语篇直接受情景语境的制约；而情景语境只是文化语境的具体体现，最终由文化语境决定。因此，语境决定意义，在翻译研究中要坚持语境的思想，从情景语境(体现为不同的语域)和文化语境的角度分析。
在语义系统中，语篇意义是语篇的组织方式，是使概念意义和人际意义在语境中得以实施的语言意义。语篇是一个语义单位，而不是一个仅高于句子的语法单位，是由互相关联和制约的词语和句子，为一定的交际目的，按一定格式有机地结合在一起的。这些话语单位的组织机制就是语篇意义的研究范围。因此语篇意义在翻译研究中具有重要意义。只有尽可能正确全面的传达语篇意义，才能在译文中体现原文作者意图，原文风格，文体特点等。
语篇意义在词汇语法层由主位结构，信息结构和衔接体现。本文只讨论翻译中主位结构和衔接方式的处理。即如何通过对原文主位结构，衔接方式等表层语言特征的适当处理达到深层语义的对等。
首先对英汉主位结构和衔接方式作系统概括的对比性描述，然后通过分析大量翻译实例总结出不同情况下翻译策略的制定，并从不同语言系统，民族文化，思维模式等方面解释其原因，证明其合理性。
主位是篇章生产者对信息进行“线性化处理”时选择的开始点，主位结构的选择直接体现了文本的语言特征，作者的风格和文体特点。翻译时要根据不同的文体，不同的目的酌情处理，灵活安排，如果原文的主位结构可以保留而又不损伤译文的准确性及流畅性的话，译者应尽量予以保留。但由于英语和汉语两种语言系统本身的差异，——如：英语是主语显著性语言，汉语是主题显著性语言；英语中被动语态比汉语中使用更广泛，汉语比英语更注重事物本身的逻辑顺序等，
—翻译时往往要调整原文的主位结构，以形成译语环境中更通顺的可接受的译
文。
衔接是语篇谋篇机制中另一个重要组成部分，它们不是孤立使用的，而是与
语域或语篇类型等因素密切相关的。同主位结构类似，衔接不仅使文本各部分有
机结合，推进语篇发展，而且还具有一定的修辞作用，能够增加功效，体现作者
意图。衔接现象出现在高于句子层级之上，翻译中应给予足够的重视，不能只译
句不谋篇。英汉衔接方式有较大不同:汉语重意合，英语重形合，因而英语更倾
向于使用各种人称指代，省略，替代和显性连接，而汉语更经常使用重复和隐性
衔接。译者英充分认识源语和译语衔接方式上的不同，尊重和顺应译语语篇衔接
规范，将源语语篇的深层语义关系正确传达出来。
This thesis attempts to study the conveyance of rhetoric meaning and stylistic
characteristics manifested by the surface text organizing and developing method in
translation between English and Chinese.
Following their principle of function, the school of systemic functional
linguistics proposes that the meaning systems of all languages comprises three types
of meaning: ideational meaning, interpersonal meaning and textual meaning. Meaning
is determined by context. In actual process of communication, the information sender
makes choices from the language system made up of these three types of meanings
according to context of situation. The text is directly restricted by context of situation,
which in turn is only embodiment of context of culture. Translation study should give
enough attention to context, analyzing translation phenomena from the aspect of
context.
In the meaning system, textual meaning is the most important one, since it shows
how the author edits his /her text, which renders the ideational meaning and
interpersonal meaning, as well as the internal relationships of the message. Text is a
semantic unit rather than a grammatical one with all its comprising linguistics
elements (words, sentences) closely interrelated. By making choices on how to
organize all his ideas in a linear manifestation, the author fulfils certain intention,
creates certain effect or makes certain information outstanding. So in order to convey
the author's intention faithfully, and create similar effects on target readers, the
translator has to make decisions on how to deal with textual meaning.
Textual meaning is realized by thematic structure, information structure and
cohesion from the lexicogrammatical level. This thesis mainly studies the handling of
thematic structure and cohesion. A contrastive discription of them between English
and Chinese is firstly made. Based on this discription, different translation strategies
under different circumstances concerning this are summarized by means of analyzing
a great deal of translation data. After that, reasons are explored from aspects of
language systems, cultures and mode of thinking so as to justify them.
The theme is the point of orientation in the linear arrangement of information.
The choice of certain thematic structure shows the authors intention and style, and at
the same time it is restricted by language system itself. In translation, different ways
of handling should be adopted according to different text type and different translation
purpose. If the original thematic structure can be preserved without affecting fluency
or distorting meaning, it should be kept unchanged in the process of translation.
However, because of the difference between culture and language systems, some
adaptation might be employed to produce acceptable translation for target readers.
Cohesion is another embodiment of textual meaning. Similar with thematic
structure, cohesion not only makes different parts of text hang together and facilitates
text development, but it also has rhetorical function: the function of promoting
efficiency and reflecting the author's intention. The translator should have a full
knowledge of the similarities and differences in organizing text between source
language and target language, giving due respect to the norms of the target language
and conveying the cohesive flexibly to achieve the utmost equivalence of underlying
meaning.
语言系统中的意义成分都是功能成分。所有语言的意义系统都可以说是有三类意义组成。这三类意义分别是概念意义，人际意义和语篇意义，亦称为语言的三大纯理功能。在语言的运用过程中，说话者根据情景语境在由这三类意义组成的语言系统中进行选择。因此，语篇直接受情景语境的制约；而情景语境只是文化语境的具体体现，最终由文化语境决定。因此，语境决定意义，在翻译研究中要坚持语境的思想，从情景语境(体现为不同的语域)和文化语境的角度分析。
在语义系统中，语篇意义是语篇的组织方式，是使概念意义和人际意义在语境中得以实施的语言意义。语篇是一个语义单位，而不是一个仅高于句子的语法单位，是由互相关联和制约的词语和句子，为一定的交际目的，按一定格式有机地结合在一起的。这些话语单位的组织机制就是语篇意义的研究范围。因此语篇意义在翻译研究中具有重要意义。只有尽可能正确全面的传达语篇意义，才能在译文中体现原文作者意图，原文风格，文体特点等。
语篇意义在词汇语法层由主位结构，信息结构和衔接体现。本文只讨论翻译中主位结构和衔接方式的处理。即如何通过对原文主位结构，衔接方式等表层语言特征的适当处理达到深层语义的对等。
首先对英汉主位结构和衔接方式作系统概括的对比性描述，然后通过分析大量翻译实例总结出不同情况下翻译策略的制定，并从不同语言系统，民族文化，思维模式等方面解释其原因，证明其合理性。
主位是篇章生产者对信息进行“线性化处理”时选择的开始点，主位结构的选择直接体现了文本的语言特征，作者的风格和文体特点。翻译时要根据不同的文体，不同的目的酌情处理，灵活安排，如果原文的主位结构可以保留而又不损伤译文的准确性及流畅性的话，译者应尽量予以保留。但由于英语和汉语两种语言系统本身的差异，——如：英语是主语显著性语言，汉语是主题显著性语言；英语中被动语态比汉语中使用更广泛，汉语比英语更注重事物本身的逻辑顺序等，
—翻译时往往要调整原文的主位结构，以形成译语环境中更通顺的可接受的译
文。
衔接是语篇谋篇机制中另一个重要组成部分，它们不是孤立使用的，而是与
语域或语篇类型等因素密切相关的。同主位结构类似，衔接不仅使文本各部分有
机结合，推进语篇发展，而且还具有一定的修辞作用，能够增加功效，体现作者
意图。衔接现象出现在高于句子层级之上，翻译中应给予足够的重视，不能只译
句不谋篇。英汉衔接方式有较大不同:汉语重意合，英语重形合，因而英语更倾
向于使用各种人称指代，省略，替代和显性连接，而汉语更经常使用重复和隐性
衔接。译者英充分认识源语和译语衔接方式上的不同，尊重和顺应译语语篇衔接
规范，将源语语篇的深层语义关系正确传达出来。
This thesis attempts to study the conveyance of rhetoric meaning and stylistic
characteristics manifested by the surface text organizing and developing method in
translation between English and Chinese.
Following their principle of function, the school of systemic functional
linguistics proposes that the meaning systems of all languages comprises three types
of meaning: ideational meaning, interpersonal meaning and textual meaning. Meaning
is determined by context. In actual process of communication, the information sender
makes choices from the language system made up of these three types of meanings
according to context of situation. The text is directly restricted by context of situation,
which in turn is only embodiment of context of culture. Translation study should give
enough attention to context, analyzing translation phenomena from the aspect of
context.
In the meaning system, textual meaning is the most important one, since it shows
how the author edits his /her text, which renders the ideational meaning and
interpersonal meaning, as well as the internal relationships of the message. Text is a
semantic unit rather than a grammatical one with all its comprising linguistics
elements (words, sentences) closely interrelated. By making choices on how to
organize all his ideas in a linear manifestation, the author fulfils certain intention,
creates certain effect or makes certain information outstanding. So in order to convey
the author's intention faithfully, and create similar effects on target readers, the
translator has to make decisions on how to deal with textual meaning.
Textual meaning is realized by thematic structure, information structure and
cohesion from the lexicogrammatical level. This thesis mainly studies the handling of
thematic structure and cohesion. A contrastive discription of them between English
and Chinese is firstly made. Based on this discription, different translation strategies
under different circumstances concerning this are summarized by means of analyzing
a great deal of translation data. After that, reasons are explored from aspects of
language systems, cultures and mode of thinking so as to justify them.
The theme is the point of orientation in the linear arrangement of information.
The choice of certain thematic structure shows the authors intention and style, and at
the same time it is restricted by language system itself. In translation, different ways
of handling should be adopted according to different text type and different translation
purpose. If the original thematic structure can be preserved without affecting fluency
or distorting meaning, it should be kept unchanged in the process of translation.
However, because of the difference between culture and language systems, some
adaptation might be employed to produce acceptable translation for target readers.
Cohesion is another embodiment of textual meaning. Similar with thematic
structure, cohesion not only makes different parts of text hang together and facilitates
text development, but it also has rhetorical function: the function of promoting
efficiency and reflecting the author's intention. The translator should have a full
knowledge of the similarities and differences in organizing text between source
language and target language, giving due respect to the norms of the target language
and conveying the cohesive flexibly to achieve the utmost equivalence of underlying
meaning.
引文
[1] Baker, M. In Other Words---a Course Book on Translation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000．
[2] Bell, R. T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. Harlow: Longman, 1991．
[3] Bloor, T. & BIoor,M. The Functional Analysis of English.北京：外语教学与研究出版社， 2001．
[4] Brown, G. & Yule, G. Discourse Analysis, London: Canbridge University Press, 1985．
[5] Catford, J. C. A Linguistic theory of Translation, Oxford University Press, 1965．
[6] De Beaugrande, R. & Dressier, W. Introduction to Text Linguistics, Harlow: Longman, 1981．
[7] Gentzler, E. Contemporary Translation Theories, London: Routledge, 1993．
[8] Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction of Functional Grammar, London: Edward Arnold, 1985．
[9] Halliday, M.A.K. & Hason, R. Cohesion in English, London: Longman, 1976．
[10] Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasom,R. Language, Context and Text, Victoria: Deakin University Press, 1985．
[11] Hatim, B. & Mason, I. Discourse and the Translator, London: Longman, 1990．
[12] Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991．
[13] Newmark, P. About Translation, Multilingual Matters ltd., 1991．
[14] Neubert, A. & Gregory M. S. Translation as Text, the Kent State University Press, 1992．
[15] Nida, E.A. Language, Culture and Translating, Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1997．
[16] Nida, E.A. Translating and Meaning, San Dimes: English Language Institute, 1983．
[17] Nida, E, A. Language, Culture and Translating, Inner Mongolia University Press, 1998．
[18] Nord，C．Translating as a Purposeful Activity---Functionalist Approach Explained,上海：上 海外语教育出版社，2001．
[19] Qian Yuan．A comparison of some cohesive devices in English and Chinese．英汉对比研究 论文集，杨自俭、李瑞华编．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1990．
[20] Quirk, R. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985．
[21] Trosborg, A. Text Typology and Translation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 1997.
[22]卞正东．论衔接与翻译．无锡教育学院学报．2000，(6)
[23]陈定安．英汉比较与翻译．北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1998．
[24]陈琳．翻译中语篇指示语语语篇衔接重构．外语与外语教学，2000，(7)
[25]陈晓湘，禹琴．英汉语篇中照应、替代衔接手段对比与翻译．湖南大学学报(社会科学版)，2002，(3)
[26]但汉源．意合、形合与翻译中的逻辑关联映现．外国语，1996，(3)．
[27]丁任．谈谈英汉主语的差别，英汉语言文化对比研究．上海：上海外语教育出版社，李瑞华，1996
[28]范祥涛．英汉科技翻译中的连接重构，中国科技翻译，2001，(4)
[29]封金城．英汉翻译中句际衔接手段方面的变通，宁波大学学报(人文科学版)，1998，(6)
[30]高健．浅谈散文风格的可译性．翻译新论．武汉：湖北教育出版社，1994
[31]郭著章．语域与翻译，中国翻译，1989，(6)
[32]胡壮麟，朱永生，张德禄．系统功能语法概论．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1989
[33]胡壮麟．语篇的衔接与连贯．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1994
[34]胡壮麟．系统功能语言学近况．外国语，1998，(1)
[35]黄国文．语篇分析概要．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1988
[36]黄国文．韩礼德系统功能语言学40年发展述评．外语教学与研究，2000，(1)
[37]黄龙．翻译艺术教程．南京：南京大学出版社，1988
[38]李运兴．语篇翻译引论．北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2001
[39]连淑能．英汉对比研究．北京：高等教育出版社，1993
[40]廖七一．当代英国翻译理论．武汉：湖北教育出版社，2001
[41]刘宓庆．汉英句子扩展机制研究．英汉语言文化对比研究．上海：上海外语教育出版社李瑞华 1996
[42]刘辰诞．教学篇章语言学．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999
[43]刘宓庆．当代翻译理论．北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1999
[44]刘文捷，王苹．语篇翻译中的衔接意识——《老人与海》三译本对比心得．福建外语2001，(3)
[45]刘士聪，余东．试论主述位作为翻译单位．外国语，2000．3
[46]彭宣维．汉英语篇综合对比．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000
[47]潘文国．汉英语对比纲要．北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，1997
[48]潘锡清．信息结构、主位结构与英汉翻译．华侨大学学报，1997，(2)
[49]秦秀白．文体学概论．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1988
[50]申小龙．中国句型文化．东北师范大学出版社，1988
[51]孙会军，郑庆珠．系统功能理论与翻译研究．外语与外语教学，2000，(10)
[52]孙述宇，金圣华．英译中——英汉翻译概论．香港：香港中文大学校外进修部，1975
[53]谭载喜．翻译学．武汉：湖北教育出版社，2000
[54]谭载喜．新编奈达论翻译．北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1999
[55]王东风．语篇连贯与翻译．外语与外语教学，1998，(6)
[56]王东风．英汉语序的比较与翻译．应汉语言文化对比研究．上海：上海外语教育出版社李瑞华 1996
[57]王小凤．论英语篇章的衔接与翻译．娄底师专学报，2002，(3)
[58]吴义城．英汉语篇的词汇衔接手段与翻译．外语与外语教学，1998，(5)
[59]萧立明．系统功能观与辩证论译．中国翻译，1999，(1)
[60]许余龙．对比语言学概论．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1992
[61]徐盛桓．关于英汉语篇比较研究．外语与外语教学，2001，(4)
[62]杨信彰．从主位看英汉翻译中的意义等值问题．解放军外语学院学报，1996，(1)
[63]杨莉藜．系统功能翻译理论引论．外语与外语教学，1998，(3)
[64]姚暨荣．论篇章翻译的实质．中国翻译，2000，(5)
[65]张德禄．韩礼德功能文体学理论述评．外语教学与研究．1999，(1)
[66]张德禄．功能文体学．济南：山东教育出版社，1997
[67]张德禄．论衔接．外国语．2001，(2)
[68]张美芳．从语篇分析的角度看翻译中的对等．现代外语，2001，(1)
[69]张崎．英汉衔接手段对比及其翻译．中国翻译，1999，(1)
[70]朱永生，严世清．系统功能语言学多维思考．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001
[71]朱永生，郑立信，苗兴伟．英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究．2001
[2] Bell, R. T. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. Harlow: Longman, 1991．
[3] Bloor, T. & BIoor,M. The Functional Analysis of English.北京：外语教学与研究出版社， 2001．
[4] Brown, G. & Yule, G. Discourse Analysis, London: Canbridge University Press, 1985．
[5] Catford, J. C. A Linguistic theory of Translation, Oxford University Press, 1965．
[6] De Beaugrande, R. & Dressier, W. Introduction to Text Linguistics, Harlow: Longman, 1981．
[7] Gentzler, E. Contemporary Translation Theories, London: Routledge, 1993．
[8] Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction of Functional Grammar, London: Edward Arnold, 1985．
[9] Halliday, M.A.K. & Hason, R. Cohesion in English, London: Longman, 1976．
[10] Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasom,R. Language, Context and Text, Victoria: Deakin University Press, 1985．
[11] Hatim, B. & Mason, I. Discourse and the Translator, London: Longman, 1990．
[12] Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991．
[13] Newmark, P. About Translation, Multilingual Matters ltd., 1991．
[14] Neubert, A. & Gregory M. S. Translation as Text, the Kent State University Press, 1992．
[15] Nida, E.A. Language, Culture and Translating, Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1997．
[16] Nida, E.A. Translating and Meaning, San Dimes: English Language Institute, 1983．
[17] Nida, E, A. Language, Culture and Translating, Inner Mongolia University Press, 1998．
[18] Nord，C．Translating as a Purposeful Activity---Functionalist Approach Explained,上海：上 海外语教育出版社，2001．
[19] Qian Yuan．A comparison of some cohesive devices in English and Chinese．英汉对比研究 论文集，杨自俭、李瑞华编．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1990．
[20] Quirk, R. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985．
[21] Trosborg, A. Text Typology and Translation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, 1997.
[22]卞正东．论衔接与翻译．无锡教育学院学报．2000，(6)
[23]陈定安．英汉比较与翻译．北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1998．
[24]陈琳．翻译中语篇指示语语语篇衔接重构．外语与外语教学，2000，(7)
[25]陈晓湘，禹琴．英汉语篇中照应、替代衔接手段对比与翻译．湖南大学学报(社会科学版)，2002，(3)
[26]但汉源．意合、形合与翻译中的逻辑关联映现．外国语，1996，(3)．
[27]丁任．谈谈英汉主语的差别，英汉语言文化对比研究．上海：上海外语教育出版社，李瑞华，1996
[28]范祥涛．英汉科技翻译中的连接重构，中国科技翻译，2001，(4)
[29]封金城．英汉翻译中句际衔接手段方面的变通，宁波大学学报(人文科学版)，1998，(6)
[30]高健．浅谈散文风格的可译性．翻译新论．武汉：湖北教育出版社，1994
[31]郭著章．语域与翻译，中国翻译，1989，(6)
[32]胡壮麟，朱永生，张德禄．系统功能语法概论．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1989
[33]胡壮麟．语篇的衔接与连贯．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1994
[34]胡壮麟．系统功能语言学近况．外国语，1998，(1)
[35]黄国文．语篇分析概要．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1988
[36]黄国文．韩礼德系统功能语言学40年发展述评．外语教学与研究，2000，(1)
[37]黄龙．翻译艺术教程．南京：南京大学出版社，1988
[38]李运兴．语篇翻译引论．北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2001
[39]连淑能．英汉对比研究．北京：高等教育出版社，1993
[40]廖七一．当代英国翻译理论．武汉：湖北教育出版社，2001
[41]刘宓庆．汉英句子扩展机制研究．英汉语言文化对比研究．上海：上海外语教育出版社李瑞华 1996
[42]刘辰诞．教学篇章语言学．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1999
[43]刘宓庆．当代翻译理论．北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1999
[44]刘文捷，王苹．语篇翻译中的衔接意识——《老人与海》三译本对比心得．福建外语2001，(3)
[45]刘士聪，余东．试论主述位作为翻译单位．外国语，2000．3
[46]彭宣维．汉英语篇综合对比．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2000
[47]潘文国．汉英语对比纲要．北京：北京语言文化大学出版社，1997
[48]潘锡清．信息结构、主位结构与英汉翻译．华侨大学学报，1997，(2)
[49]秦秀白．文体学概论．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1988
[50]申小龙．中国句型文化．东北师范大学出版社，1988
[51]孙会军，郑庆珠．系统功能理论与翻译研究．外语与外语教学，2000，(10)
[52]孙述宇，金圣华．英译中——英汉翻译概论．香港：香港中文大学校外进修部，1975
[53]谭载喜．翻译学．武汉：湖北教育出版社，2000
[54]谭载喜．新编奈达论翻译．北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，1999
[55]王东风．语篇连贯与翻译．外语与外语教学，1998，(6)
[56]王东风．英汉语序的比较与翻译．应汉语言文化对比研究．上海：上海外语教育出版社李瑞华 1996
[57]王小凤．论英语篇章的衔接与翻译．娄底师专学报，2002，(3)
[58]吴义城．英汉语篇的词汇衔接手段与翻译．外语与外语教学，1998，(5)
[59]萧立明．系统功能观与辩证论译．中国翻译，1999，(1)
[60]许余龙．对比语言学概论．上海：上海外语教育出版社，1992
[61]徐盛桓．关于英汉语篇比较研究．外语与外语教学，2001，(4)
[62]杨信彰．从主位看英汉翻译中的意义等值问题．解放军外语学院学报，1996，(1)
[63]杨莉藜．系统功能翻译理论引论．外语与外语教学，1998，(3)
[64]姚暨荣．论篇章翻译的实质．中国翻译，2000，(5)
[65]张德禄．韩礼德功能文体学理论述评．外语教学与研究．1999，(1)
[66]张德禄．功能文体学．济南：山东教育出版社，1997
[67]张德禄．论衔接．外国语．2001，(2)
[68]张美芳．从语篇分析的角度看翻译中的对等．现代外语，2001，(1)
[69]张崎．英汉衔接手段对比及其翻译．中国翻译，1999，(1)
[70]朱永生，严世清．系统功能语言学多维思考．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001
[71]朱永生，郑立信，苗兴伟．英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究．2001
© 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 |