基于语料库的欧化翻译研究
|
摘要
在语言接触过程中,一个自然而又重要的结果就是接触双方的语言发生词汇、句法甚至语音和语用等层面的变化。英汉语言接触中“受西洋语法影响而产生的中国新语法”就被称为“欧化的语法”(王力,1985：460)
近年来,英语作为当今世界的一种强势语言,使现代汉语发生了较为显著的“欧化”。客观地说,这些“欧化”一方面给汉语的健康和发展带来一定的不良影响,另一方面也为汉语的丰富和完善带来了新鲜的血液。然而,“欧化”这个原本自然的现象从被认识的那一刻起便被赋予了太多的消极含义。英汉翻译作为英汉语言接触的重要手段之一,必然与汉语的欧化产生有着千丝万缕的联系,因此也就成了欧化现象的“出气筒”,而欧化的译文更是毫无怨言地成为了众矢之的。那些“蹩脚的”、“估屈聱牙”的欧化译文固然应该批评,但是正如“批评”这个词本身一样,人们更多地注意了缺点和错误,而严重忽视了“评论判断”和“优点长处”这两层涵义。事实上,欧化的翻译除了“蹩脚”,还可以有良好的经济性和特殊的表现力；而那些的确“估屈聱牙”又无任何价值的译文也不是仅靠批判就能改善。因此在当前形势下,正视欧化翻译问题、积极深入地研究欧化翻译现象是件十分重要而有意义的事情——对翻译事业本身如此,对更好地理解现代汉语正在发生的种种变化也是如此。
本研究以翻译学为核心,从语言接触的视角出发,充分利用语料库方法的优势,对当前英汉翻译中出现的欧化翻译现象进行实证研究；在定量研究、定性研究和实验研究的基础上对欧化翻译进行较为系统全面的描写和挖掘。新兴的接触语言学和语料库语言学给本研究提供了十分有价值的思路和方法。此外,研究中还借鉴了历史语言学、社会语言学、应用语言学、对比语言学以及汉语研究等领域的相关成果。
本研究的主要内容分为九章,可以分为四个部分,即基础铺垫、研究主体、拓展研究及研究结论。
基础铺垫,包括前两章。第1章首先介绍了研究背景,然后对相关概念和术语作了较为深入的讨论,接着对研究的价值、创新、目标及方法等方面作了详细的评估和介绍。第2章主要从与本研究关系最为密切的几个领域入手,介绍并评述了接触语言学、语料库语言学、翻译学及汉语研究等研究中的主要研究文献,还特别对语言学研究中从静态的规定性“标准”走向动态的描写性“规范”作了回顾和评析。
研究主体,包括第3-6四章内容。第3章对欧化翻译现象进行了较为全面的分析,不仅从内部机制和外部影响两方面论述了欧化翻译的必然性及合理性,还列举了常见的表现形式。在此基础上,研究提出了积极欧化和消极欧化的概念,并进一步讨论了区分积极欧化和消极欧化的必要性及其一般原则。第4章详细介绍了研究所使用的语料库及检索、统计和分析工具,重点讲述了英汉翻译译文语料库的建设方案与过程。第5章是本研究的核心内容之一,主要从词汇和句法两个方面对译文中出现的典型欧化案例进行了大量的语料库统计和语言学分析,总结和评估了汉语译文受英语语言词汇及句法结构影响所产生的变化。研究发现,英汉语言接触的确能够导致汉语译文出现欧化,但是以往的研究对欧化具体表现认识尚存不足,人们的主观感受也不完全正确；定性分析的结论虽有很多可借鉴之处,但也有不少需要纠正的看法。第6章就语料库研究的结论进行了问卷调查和统计分析,重点考察了公众对欧化译文的喜好和敏感程度。它不仅是语料库研究的重要补充,也是区分积极欧化与消极欧化的重要标准。
拓展研究,包括第7、8两章。第7章和第8章分别从积极欧化和消极欧化的角度出发,结合以往的理论与实践研究结果和本研究的语料库与调查分析结论,对译文中出现的欧化现象进行分析和整理,并分别研究了积极欧化对翻译理论与实践的价值和启示以及消极欧化译文的优化策略。
研究结论。第9章简要地总结了研究成果,提出我们不仅应该正确对待英汉接触和汉语欧化,还应该正确认识翻译中的规范和创新,从而促使英汉翻译真正走上健康发展的道路。本章最后还指出了研究存在的局限性,并对相关问题的进一步深化研究提出思路。
本研究的创新之处(详见1.4)有以下几点：
首先是研究观念发生了重要转变,从静态转为动态,从消极转为消极与积极并重。这样一来,对欧化翻译现象的研究空间得到了很大的拓展,研究问题的结论也就更加全面而客观。
第二是研究方法的改善。本研究充分利用了标注语料库的价值,结合了定量分析与定性研究的优势,用大量真实的译文语料对欧化翻译进行了较为系统的实证研究,用更为丰富、可靠的结果对现有定性研究结论进行了必要的检验和修正。
第三是研究视角从单一的语法研究扩展到语法、语义、语用三个平面的研究,使欧化翻译的分析、积极欧化的价值认定及消极欧化翻译的优化策略都成为立体的宏观与微观相结合的研究。
第四是研究对象明显扩大,从自建译文语料库到参考语料库再到最新的电视节目语言案例,研究中不仅包括了书面语,还有口语和研究过程中不断发现的新案例。种种努力对于更加全面、真实地了解欧化翻译现状起到了很好的保障和补充作用。
本研究的理论价值(详见1.3.1)在于将语言接触因素引入翻译研究,分析和评估英语对英汉翻译造成的影响及其在中国社会文化中的地位和作用,为翻译学和接触语言学理论研究进行了相互补充；通过大量的实验数据和调查结果纠正和补充了欧化翻译研究中存在的理论偏见,筛选和确定了欧化翻译研究中需要关注的主要对象和重点；纠正对欧化翻译的片面看法,大胆提出“积极欧化”和“消极欧化”的理论模型、分类原则及动态规范；
本研究的实践价值(详见1.3.2)主要体现在翻译研究及翻译实践与教学领域、现代汉语研究及政策制定、对外汉语教学、辞典编纂和语料库建设等领域,对帮助普通的语言学爱好者及广大公众了解欧化翻译、自觉使用规范汉语也有一定的积极意义。其主要价值可以简要概括为以下几点：对翻译研究而言,本研究初步摸清了欧化翻译的基本情况,进行了必要的分类及规范制定,为今后的研究作了一定的基础性工作；同时研究的思路、方法和结论对直译及异化研究的深入能够起到重要的提示作用。对翻译实践与教学而言,本研究不仅有助于树立正确的翻译观、有助于翻译工作者了解新时期翻译工作的新要求,还为翻译实践提供了具体的理论指导和案例资料,拓展了翻译批评的思维空间和参考规范。对现代汉语研究及政策制定而言,语料库调查结果有助于了解现代汉语的发展现状,预测其演变趋势,在研究和管理工作中做好准备工作；而问卷调查结果则提示,在语言研究和语言政策制订方面需要充分尊重和考虑公众意愿。此外,本研究还可以帮助汉语教师和外国学习者(特别是来自英语国家的)了解英汉语言接触及影响,正确把握正、负迁移及其动态规范；研究使用的语料库除了可以为类似研究直接提供资源之外,还为汉语语料库的建设积累了一定的经验和教训；新外来词语的译介原则还可为相关辞典的编纂提供参考。
One of the natural and significant outcomes of language contact is the contact-induced language change in both sides, which mainly covers vocabulary and syntax, but sometimes they may also be spread to morpheme, phoneme, semantics, pragmatics, etc. When the changes happen in the Chinese language under the influence of English, they are usually called the "Europeanized Grammar", as the great Chinese grammarian Wang Li(王力,1985:460) has named it.
In the past dozens of years, the English language, as one of the most powerful language in the present world, has caused series of prominent changes in the Modern Chinese. In other words, it has pushed the Chinese language into the stage of Europeanization. Actually, it helps to enrich and perfect the Chinese language as well as to enforce a deleterious effect on it. Unfortunately, the term "Europeanization", ever since its birth, seems to have always been bearing an unjustifiable negative color among academic opinions as well as public perceptions. Since the translation from English to Chinese is one of the most important means of indirect language contact in between and therefore is inevitably having a very close relationship to this fact, the English-Chinese translation has long been the target of criticism. Thus, a penetration to the research of the English-Chinese translation is of great importance and significance, not only for the cause of translation but also for a better understanding of the current Chinese language and its changes.
The newly developed contact linguistics and corpus linguistics shed great light on translation studies these years, and they offer quite valuable clue and method to this research. With translatology at the core, this research looks into the problem through the perspective of language contact, makes full use of corpus linguistics, and carries out an empirical study on the so-called "Europeanized translation" appearing in the process of English-Chinese translation, so that systematic description and exploration can be given on the basis of these qualitative and quantitative studies. In addition, related fruits in the academic fields like historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, comparative linguistics, and Chinese studies all contribute to the present research.
RESEARCH GOALS
This research intends to reach the following four goals:
Firstly, with the help of corpora and questionnaires, this research tries to carry out a systematic investigation, statistical test, contrastive study and comprehensive analysis to the problem of Europeanized translation, so as to offer a full-scale quantitative evaluation and summarization to the status quo of this phenomenon, and help to form an all-round and reasonable understanding to it.
Secondly, based on the above findings and theoretical analysis, this research offers a series of tentative norms to distinguish the acceptable and unacceptable Europeanization. Naturally, those that are in line with the norms are positive, whereas those that are not fall into the negative. Thus, Europeanized translation would no longer be regarded as solely negative and harmful. Instead, an objective and overall evaluation would be given, and that will serve for a rational attitude towards the practice of English-Chinese translation and the existing or future changes of the Chinese language.
Thirdly, this research struggles to prove the existence of positive Europeanized translation and further explores their value and contribution to the development of the Chinese language as well as translation itself. In this way, it justifies the long-wronged Europeanized translation.
Fourthly, it is also designed to summarize and explore the macroscopic and microscopic strategies to avoid or reduce negative Europeanization, so that the rules of their appearance and the optimizing approaches can be sought, the unacceptable parts of translation can be effectively improved, and in the long run, the abnormal development of the Chinese language will be avoided.
OUTLINE
The whole research is composed of nine chapters, which falls into four basic parts, namely, research base, main body, extended research, and conclusion. The brief introduction is as follows:
I. Research Base. It includes the first two chapters.
Chapter 1 as the beginning of this research serves as a necessary preparation for the following work. It starts with the introduction of the research background, indicating that the research proposal is very meaningful, not only because the topic is fairly hot, but because the attitude towards the subject determines the future of the Chinese language as well as English-Chinese translation. Then, it gives a detailed discussion on related concepts and academic terms so that the author's ideas in the following chapters can be understood more thoroughly. It has also cultivated the theoretical and practical value of the research, pointed out the innovations from various angles, showed the research purpose, sketched the research process, and introduced the methods employed.
Chapter 2 brings about a general and comprehensive review of the related literature resources, which falls into five categories, namely contact linguistics, standards and norms, corpus linguistics, the Chinese language, and English-Chinese translation studies. However, the last two fields overlap with each other so much that they have to be put together in order to have a clear clue of the academic contributions.
Contact linguistics is put in the very beginning because the translation is one of the most important means of language contact, direct for translators and indirect for its receivers. The history of language contact is almost as old as languages, but the research on it comes rather late, and its application in translation studies is even as late as about one hundred years ago. The birth of Contact Linguistics both contributes to and challenges the related academic researches, including translation, especially Europeanized translation-at least it tells people that language may and will change with translation. According to Thomason and Kaufman (1991:74-76), the English-Chinese contact is somewhere near "more intense contact", although some of which may be just "covert" (Myers-Scotton,2002:10). What's more, numerous Chinese scholars today firmly believe that Europeanized translation is very much related with the influence of English and English-Chinese translation. Thus, theories of contact linguistics shall be of much value to the present research.
The discussion of "standards" and "norms" are especially valuable as the concept of "norm" brings linguistics research from static to dynamic and from prescriptive to descriptive. It is this major change of perspective that makes the linguistic and the related research rational and reasonable. For translation, norms allow creativity and change, and they help people understand the idea of "equivalence" more deeply, which further corrects and improves the understanding of literal translation and foreignization apart from Europeanized translation.
Corpus linguistics is developing so fast that it does not only offer an efficient tool for translation studies, but also helps to form an objective and serious attitude towards language study. Reviewing the literature in this field is like the process of setting up a framework of research methodology and proves it little by little. With their help, I have finally found a way that best match the aim of this research-the use of POS-tagged comparative corpora supplies abundant data and opens a door to quantitative outlook of Europeanized translation.
Translatology and Chinese studies of course are the most important and direct part of my reference. It covers three major subtopics:attitude classification, lexical and syntactical research, and translation strategies. As for attitudes towards Europeanized translation, just like many other matters, scholars may support it, fight against it, or stay neutral. For those who stay neutral, some are fairly active and keep doing research on all kinds of questions while others are rather passive and just take the wait-and-see attitude. Nevertheless, the academia is generally changing from close to open, from strict to tolerant, and they go from subjective perception to rational analysis. In the field of lexical and syntactical research, systematic ones are rarely seen. After Wang Li, there are only a few books published on Europeanization and Europeanized translation, like those from Xie Yaoji, Guo Hongjie, He Yang, etc. Although we still find plenty of valuable papers from big names like Shi Dingxu, Zhu Zhiyu, Hu Kaibao, Benjamin T'sou, You Rujie, etc., research on this topic is still far from enough comparing with the speed of translation and the change of Chinese. Finally, we can clearly see that most people attribute the Europeanization to unhappy translation, and further attribute those contact-induced unhappy translations to the influence of English and the lack of translation techniques. Since the influence from English is unavoidable, we have to find the way out from translation. Unfortunately, we are relatively poor in papers that concentrate on English-Chinese translation techniques, and to make it worse, most conclusions are too vague and general to be put into practice.
The brief review in this chapter shows that there is still a lot to be done in the research of Europeanized translation. For instance, more international research fruits shall be learnt and absorbed, the research methods shall be improved and enriched, more explanation shall be given, spoken language shall be included, etc.
II. Main Body. It includes chapters 3 to 6.
Chapter 3 can be regarded as the basic framework of theory in this research, which intends to give a qualitative analysis on Europeanized translation. It starts with the confirmation of inevitability of its existence from both the internal mechanism and the external factors. Then it lists some typical examples to show the scope of Europeanization, from which we see that this phenomenon has been spread to at least lexical and syntactical level, and they are widely existed in all works of life. Facing the overwhelming situation, we should not be too hasty to put all of the Europeanization into negative catalog. Instead, there should be a relatively clear and reasonable line between positive and negative Europeanization, and telling them from each other are not only necessary but significant as well. Based on this fact, some basic principles are proposed from multiple aspects.
Chapter 4 concentrates on the detailed information of the English-Chinese Translation Corpus and its building history. In this chapter, the building procedure is explained step by step, with plenty of figures showing the processing tools, concordancer, statistical software and analytical tools. Besides, it also mentions the six large comparing corpora. This complete introduction helps to prove the data and their analysis in the following chapter convincing enough.
Chapter 5, as the core of this research, processes a great amount of typical cases of Europeanized translation via data from the seven corpora. It endeavors to fish out the rules and regulations through quantitative comparison between translated texts and non-translated texts. At the lexical level, it carries out some experiments on parts of speech (including the general proportion and the amount of specific part of speech), foreign-originated words (especially lettered words), and some collocations. At the syntactical level, it calculates the sentence length, observes the attributive and its indicator "de"(的),and compares the usage of "ba" and "bei" structures(把字句和被字句).
Statistics show all kinds of foreign-originated words, though not balanced enough, are very widely and frequently used in the Chinese written and spoken language, including those seemingly-not-promising ones like the lettered words and transliterations, and this trend keeps growing rapidly. Many of these words are even readily accepted as indigenous to the Chinese! However, for those that are recognized as foreign originated, people tend to use them much more cautiously.
Investigation is also done on the distribution and frequency of different parts of speech. The results show that in translations substantives grow while empty words drops, which indicates an eminent tendency towards hypotaxis.Later, more detailed studies show that, concerning the use of words and phrases, monotony, inverted order, and high frequency are three most common problems, among which monotony is the key factor in producing Europeanized translation.
The average length of sentences show translated texts tend to have shorter sentences but longer sentence segments, which proves that translation is actually a contradictory process that unconsciously combines the simplification and complication together in an awkward way.
In the research of attributives, the indicator "de" IS used widely and has brought very notorious effects to translation, but in fact, their frequency varied evidently between different genres and resources. Therefore, it might be more reasonable to say that the degree of attributive Europeanization is in proportion with the original text and the translator.
The research compares two typical traditional Chinese structures, and find that while "ba" structure do not change a lot, the "bei" structure in translation is used twice as much as non-translation, and a more serious problem is that the Chinese diversity in expressing passive connotations have been terribly destroyed. And it is the destruction of diversity that brings the negative Europeanization in translation.
Finally, this chapter mentions about two collocations, one is brand new and the other is not completely new but is used much more often today. The former, "you+verb"(有+动词),is now considered as the baby form of past perfect tense under the influence of English "have done", and is still under the a process grammaticalization. This idea can be partly proved by the samples from our translation corpus, but the problem here is that most of them are used just to make the sentence awkward and redundant. The latter, "ruci...yizhiyu"(如此……以至于),a perfect equivalence of the English "so...that" structure, is also criticized for too frequent use in translation. However, there is nothing wrong to use it for proper emphasizing; the root of this problem lies in its abuse, i.e., the wrong use under unnecessary circumstances. In spite of that, the intensive usage of a single collocation will again cause the ignorance of other expressions.
In this chapter, an objective and relatively comprehensive outlook of Europeanized translation is displayed, within which, some previous perceptions are proved whereas some others are corrected, modified or added.
Chapter 6 reports the result of a couple of questionnaires on Europeanized translation, which shows the public attitude and their recognizing ability. The questionnaires are designed respectively with all kinds of collected foreign-originated words and examples of Europeanized sentences. Statistics show that the public is not sensitive enough to Europeanized translation, and does not hold unified ideas on different cases. People do realize the existence of foreign-originated words, but still use them, cautiously though. However, the ways of translation means very much in the frequency and density. As for the Europeanized syntax, statistics show that the degree of recognition and acceptability varies with age, English level, degree of education, but not with sex, yet even those whose have enough language knowledge cannot fully recognize or refuse the influence of Europeanization. Although people are different in attitude, especially towards different types of Europeanization, they generally accept the Europeanized syntax.
It is a very important supplement to the corpus-based study in the previous chapter, because it is necessary to know what people think and show respect to it. In addition to that, the public attitude shall be considered as one of the key factors when it comes to the differentiation of positive and negative Europeanized translation.
III. Extended Research. It includes chapters 7 and 8.
Based on the previous studies from both myself and other scholars, these two parallel chapters attempt to give a comprehensive analysis, objective evaluation and systematic summary of Europeanized translation, together with the appropriate ways to deal with them. They are supplementary to each other as they discuss the problem respectively from positive and negative aspects.
Chapter 7 focuses on the positive side of Europeanized translation and makes great efforts to explore their contributions. In this chapter, the author lists the principal norms in distinguishing the positive ones from negative ones, which is enlightened by the Theory of Three-Dimensional Grammar under the Chinese studies. The three dimensions in this theory refer to syntax, semantics, and pragmatics; and the most meaningful contribution of this theory lies in its emphasis on the general consideration from all the three dimensions instead of syntax alone. As for English-Chinese translation, concerning words and sentences, or even discourse level, they can be briefly decoded as norms like whether a certain translation is so necessary or vivid that there is no better equivalence in Chinese, whether it is correct in accordance with the common practice of Chinese word-building or the SVO syntactical structure or the corresponding writing style, whether it properly conveys the original meaning while successfully avoids unnecessary or even wrong imagination, whether it is appropriate within its context according to the Chinese understanding, whether it is more economical than other versions, or whether it serves the intended rhetorical functions. Those that live up to these norms shall be considered as positive-undoubtedly, the more norms a translation conforms to, the more valuable it is, and quite probably, the easier it is accepted and the longer life it is expected to have. Seeing the positive side of Europeanized translation is not only constructive for English-Chinese translation, but also opens the door wider for the future development of the Chinese language.
Chapter 8, however, fixates on the negative side and probes into lexical and syntactical manifestations of negative Europeanized translation. In the first part, the author points out that when translating new words, priority should be given to liberal translation, but factors like clearness, economy, vividness, pronunciation, psychology, and even aesthetic values shall be taken into consideration; while for existing words, enough respect shall be paid to the accepted conventional translation, and at the same time, emphasis shall be laid upon consistency, not only within but also between translation works. Then it suggests that a dynamic system be set up for the research of foreign-originated words translation, in which normalization, filtration and optimization shall be the major work. In the second part, the author centered on improving sentence translation, where adjusting the length, word order, attributive, and "bei" structure are typical cases. Finally in the third part, the author mentions about the importance of efficient use of dictionaries.
IV. Conclusion
Chapter 9 concludes the whole research by summarizing the status quo of Europeanized translation; showing the appropriate way of observing the trend of Europeanization; stating that translation needs a balance between norms and innovations for a healthy way of development; and pointing out the future directions of the present research on the basis of a good understanding of its limitations.
INNOVATIONS
This research is innovative in the following four aspects:attitude, method, depth and scope.
Attitude:It changes from static to dynamic, and from over-emphasis on the negative side to lay equal emphasis on both negative and positive sides. This research, based on sufficient corpus investigation and questionnaire, puts forward a balanced idea on Europeanized translation and offers a series of dynamic descriptive norms, where the value and contributions of positive Europeanized translation is recognized at the same time when the optimizing approaches for negative ones are supplied. Thus it moves a little forward on the way of seeking the truth on this issue.
Method:It tries to make the research more convincing by combining qualitative research together with quantitative analysis and melting scattered case studies into the organic POS-tagged corpus study, which guarantees more reliable and much richer outcomes. As a matter of fact, this empirical study does disclose a number of uncovered differences between English-Chinese translation and the Chinese original works, thus has made some additions and modifications to the previous conclusions.
Scope:The word "scope" here has two meanings. The first one indicates that this research has borrowed the Theory of Three-Dimensional Grammar from Chinese studies so that the ideas are freed from pure syntactical correctness and the scope of horizon is broadened. Now, semantics and pragmatics are clearly two indispensable factors to be taken into account. The second refers to the material used in corpus, which pays special attention to the latest material and the oral speeches. Considering all the seven corpora used in this research, the style and the genre are really rich. These efforts obviously make for more persuasive data and more convincing conclusions.
SIGNIFICANCE AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Theoretically, this research is significant because:
Firstly, this study makes full use of empirical studies to investigate the degree and the scope of influence from English on the English-Chinese translation, and the large amount of data do not only replenish the study of the field, but also rectify some misconceptions on this issue. Also, it makes the direction and the focus of future study clearer
Secondly, this research, based on powerful data from investigation and experiments, puts forward a pair of concepts of "positive Europeanization" and "negative Europeanization" and the dynamic norms for classification. Surely, this theory framework moves one step forward towards the cognition of Europeanization and the Europeanized translation. It helps to correct the partial understanding, which encourages the exploration on the positive side and makes the criticism on the negative side more persuasive.
Thirdly, this research is significant as it introduces the study of contact linguistics into translatology. It observes the degree and the scope of Chinese language change through the uniqueness of Chinese translation, and evaluates the role that English has played in the Chinese language and culture. Therefore it contributes to both translatology and contact linguistics.
Practically, this research contributes to the following fields:
Translatology:The sketch of the framework for Europeanized translation, the initial verification of the English influence on it, together with the dynamic norms and classification principles, form the foundation for future research work, especially for the researches on foreignization and literal translation as Europeanized translation is a typical example for both of them.
Translation practice and translation teaching:the ideas in this research help to form a rational attitude towards translation, to realize the fact of language change and its relationship with translation, and to be capable of observing and evaluating Europeanized translation in a scientific and reasonable way. What is more, it implies that there are new requirements for translators today, among which improving the bilingual level (especially the Chinese level) and enhancing the conscious of comparison shall still be given more priority than ever. The optimization strategies are of course useful in guiding translation practice, yet the translation corpus built during the research process may offer genuine samples, with which, the strategies will work better. Finally, this research further broadens the horizon for translation criticism as it formally puts forward the positive function of Europeanization thus offers one more perspective.
Teaching Chinese to foreigners:this research benefits teachers in updating their knowledge about positive and negative transfer, and is useful for make appropriate decisions in error analysis.
The result of this research can also be referred to in other related fields, including dictionary compiling because it offers the principles of introducing new words, and Chinese corpus building because it accumulates certain amount of experiences and lessons especially in Chinese materials.
For the general public, this research may be valuable too, in that it leads people to feel the charm of the Chinese language and reminds them to love, to understand and to use the standard Chinese consciously.
LIMITATIONS
As a very tiny part of translation study, this dissertation is hopefully making some progresses and contributions, but admittedly, there are some limitations and problems existing, and any criticism and improvement on it would be highly appreciated.
The first limitation stems from the corpus methodology. Just like Sylviane Granger (2007:22-23) has pointed out, corpus-based study is applicable for translatology, but it needs attention that the scale of corpora is limited, and the results of concordance might be seriously affected by the way it is done. When these problems cannot be overcome effectively enough in this research, there may still be some distance between the conclusions here and the facts. Thus, it is very safe to say that once the corpus is semantically and pragmatically tagged, the results will surely become more comprehensive and more persuasive.
The next limitation is caused by the confusion in dealing with Chinese materials. As it is well known, Chinese materials need to be cut into words before they can be tagged, however, there is still no completely unified stand for word segment yet, and to make it worse, the norms of POS tag are also under discussion. Therefore, the statistical errors will inevitably appear in the research. Even when we endeavor to reduce the margin of error, they are still there, so the conclusions will have to be waiting for further tests and modifications.
Finally, this discussion concerns with only one factor in the process of language change. As a matter of fact, the style of original texts, the ability of translators, time allowed for translation, the condition and means of translation, and even the requirement from customers all contribute the quality of translation. A full understanding of Europeanized translation comes only after a full consideration of all functioning factors.
近年来,英语作为当今世界的一种强势语言,使现代汉语发生了较为显著的“欧化”。客观地说,这些“欧化”一方面给汉语的健康和发展带来一定的不良影响,另一方面也为汉语的丰富和完善带来了新鲜的血液。然而,“欧化”这个原本自然的现象从被认识的那一刻起便被赋予了太多的消极含义。英汉翻译作为英汉语言接触的重要手段之一,必然与汉语的欧化产生有着千丝万缕的联系,因此也就成了欧化现象的“出气筒”,而欧化的译文更是毫无怨言地成为了众矢之的。那些“蹩脚的”、“估屈聱牙”的欧化译文固然应该批评,但是正如“批评”这个词本身一样,人们更多地注意了缺点和错误,而严重忽视了“评论判断”和“优点长处”这两层涵义。事实上,欧化的翻译除了“蹩脚”,还可以有良好的经济性和特殊的表现力；而那些的确“估屈聱牙”又无任何价值的译文也不是仅靠批判就能改善。因此在当前形势下,正视欧化翻译问题、积极深入地研究欧化翻译现象是件十分重要而有意义的事情——对翻译事业本身如此,对更好地理解现代汉语正在发生的种种变化也是如此。
本研究以翻译学为核心,从语言接触的视角出发,充分利用语料库方法的优势,对当前英汉翻译中出现的欧化翻译现象进行实证研究；在定量研究、定性研究和实验研究的基础上对欧化翻译进行较为系统全面的描写和挖掘。新兴的接触语言学和语料库语言学给本研究提供了十分有价值的思路和方法。此外,研究中还借鉴了历史语言学、社会语言学、应用语言学、对比语言学以及汉语研究等领域的相关成果。
本研究的主要内容分为九章,可以分为四个部分,即基础铺垫、研究主体、拓展研究及研究结论。
基础铺垫,包括前两章。第1章首先介绍了研究背景,然后对相关概念和术语作了较为深入的讨论,接着对研究的价值、创新、目标及方法等方面作了详细的评估和介绍。第2章主要从与本研究关系最为密切的几个领域入手,介绍并评述了接触语言学、语料库语言学、翻译学及汉语研究等研究中的主要研究文献,还特别对语言学研究中从静态的规定性“标准”走向动态的描写性“规范”作了回顾和评析。
研究主体,包括第3-6四章内容。第3章对欧化翻译现象进行了较为全面的分析,不仅从内部机制和外部影响两方面论述了欧化翻译的必然性及合理性,还列举了常见的表现形式。在此基础上,研究提出了积极欧化和消极欧化的概念,并进一步讨论了区分积极欧化和消极欧化的必要性及其一般原则。第4章详细介绍了研究所使用的语料库及检索、统计和分析工具,重点讲述了英汉翻译译文语料库的建设方案与过程。第5章是本研究的核心内容之一,主要从词汇和句法两个方面对译文中出现的典型欧化案例进行了大量的语料库统计和语言学分析,总结和评估了汉语译文受英语语言词汇及句法结构影响所产生的变化。研究发现,英汉语言接触的确能够导致汉语译文出现欧化,但是以往的研究对欧化具体表现认识尚存不足,人们的主观感受也不完全正确；定性分析的结论虽有很多可借鉴之处,但也有不少需要纠正的看法。第6章就语料库研究的结论进行了问卷调查和统计分析,重点考察了公众对欧化译文的喜好和敏感程度。它不仅是语料库研究的重要补充,也是区分积极欧化与消极欧化的重要标准。
拓展研究,包括第7、8两章。第7章和第8章分别从积极欧化和消极欧化的角度出发,结合以往的理论与实践研究结果和本研究的语料库与调查分析结论,对译文中出现的欧化现象进行分析和整理,并分别研究了积极欧化对翻译理论与实践的价值和启示以及消极欧化译文的优化策略。
研究结论。第9章简要地总结了研究成果,提出我们不仅应该正确对待英汉接触和汉语欧化,还应该正确认识翻译中的规范和创新,从而促使英汉翻译真正走上健康发展的道路。本章最后还指出了研究存在的局限性,并对相关问题的进一步深化研究提出思路。
本研究的创新之处(详见1.4)有以下几点：
首先是研究观念发生了重要转变,从静态转为动态,从消极转为消极与积极并重。这样一来,对欧化翻译现象的研究空间得到了很大的拓展,研究问题的结论也就更加全面而客观。
第二是研究方法的改善。本研究充分利用了标注语料库的价值,结合了定量分析与定性研究的优势,用大量真实的译文语料对欧化翻译进行了较为系统的实证研究,用更为丰富、可靠的结果对现有定性研究结论进行了必要的检验和修正。
第三是研究视角从单一的语法研究扩展到语法、语义、语用三个平面的研究,使欧化翻译的分析、积极欧化的价值认定及消极欧化翻译的优化策略都成为立体的宏观与微观相结合的研究。
第四是研究对象明显扩大,从自建译文语料库到参考语料库再到最新的电视节目语言案例,研究中不仅包括了书面语,还有口语和研究过程中不断发现的新案例。种种努力对于更加全面、真实地了解欧化翻译现状起到了很好的保障和补充作用。
本研究的理论价值(详见1.3.1)在于将语言接触因素引入翻译研究,分析和评估英语对英汉翻译造成的影响及其在中国社会文化中的地位和作用,为翻译学和接触语言学理论研究进行了相互补充；通过大量的实验数据和调查结果纠正和补充了欧化翻译研究中存在的理论偏见,筛选和确定了欧化翻译研究中需要关注的主要对象和重点；纠正对欧化翻译的片面看法,大胆提出“积极欧化”和“消极欧化”的理论模型、分类原则及动态规范；
本研究的实践价值(详见1.3.2)主要体现在翻译研究及翻译实践与教学领域、现代汉语研究及政策制定、对外汉语教学、辞典编纂和语料库建设等领域,对帮助普通的语言学爱好者及广大公众了解欧化翻译、自觉使用规范汉语也有一定的积极意义。其主要价值可以简要概括为以下几点：对翻译研究而言,本研究初步摸清了欧化翻译的基本情况,进行了必要的分类及规范制定,为今后的研究作了一定的基础性工作；同时研究的思路、方法和结论对直译及异化研究的深入能够起到重要的提示作用。对翻译实践与教学而言,本研究不仅有助于树立正确的翻译观、有助于翻译工作者了解新时期翻译工作的新要求,还为翻译实践提供了具体的理论指导和案例资料,拓展了翻译批评的思维空间和参考规范。对现代汉语研究及政策制定而言,语料库调查结果有助于了解现代汉语的发展现状,预测其演变趋势,在研究和管理工作中做好准备工作；而问卷调查结果则提示,在语言研究和语言政策制订方面需要充分尊重和考虑公众意愿。此外,本研究还可以帮助汉语教师和外国学习者(特别是来自英语国家的)了解英汉语言接触及影响,正确把握正、负迁移及其动态规范；研究使用的语料库除了可以为类似研究直接提供资源之外,还为汉语语料库的建设积累了一定的经验和教训；新外来词语的译介原则还可为相关辞典的编纂提供参考。
One of the natural and significant outcomes of language contact is the contact-induced language change in both sides, which mainly covers vocabulary and syntax, but sometimes they may also be spread to morpheme, phoneme, semantics, pragmatics, etc. When the changes happen in the Chinese language under the influence of English, they are usually called the "Europeanized Grammar", as the great Chinese grammarian Wang Li(王力,1985:460) has named it.
In the past dozens of years, the English language, as one of the most powerful language in the present world, has caused series of prominent changes in the Modern Chinese. In other words, it has pushed the Chinese language into the stage of Europeanization. Actually, it helps to enrich and perfect the Chinese language as well as to enforce a deleterious effect on it. Unfortunately, the term "Europeanization", ever since its birth, seems to have always been bearing an unjustifiable negative color among academic opinions as well as public perceptions. Since the translation from English to Chinese is one of the most important means of indirect language contact in between and therefore is inevitably having a very close relationship to this fact, the English-Chinese translation has long been the target of criticism. Thus, a penetration to the research of the English-Chinese translation is of great importance and significance, not only for the cause of translation but also for a better understanding of the current Chinese language and its changes.
The newly developed contact linguistics and corpus linguistics shed great light on translation studies these years, and they offer quite valuable clue and method to this research. With translatology at the core, this research looks into the problem through the perspective of language contact, makes full use of corpus linguistics, and carries out an empirical study on the so-called "Europeanized translation" appearing in the process of English-Chinese translation, so that systematic description and exploration can be given on the basis of these qualitative and quantitative studies. In addition, related fruits in the academic fields like historical linguistics, sociolinguistics, applied linguistics, comparative linguistics, and Chinese studies all contribute to the present research.
RESEARCH GOALS
This research intends to reach the following four goals:
Firstly, with the help of corpora and questionnaires, this research tries to carry out a systematic investigation, statistical test, contrastive study and comprehensive analysis to the problem of Europeanized translation, so as to offer a full-scale quantitative evaluation and summarization to the status quo of this phenomenon, and help to form an all-round and reasonable understanding to it.
Secondly, based on the above findings and theoretical analysis, this research offers a series of tentative norms to distinguish the acceptable and unacceptable Europeanization. Naturally, those that are in line with the norms are positive, whereas those that are not fall into the negative. Thus, Europeanized translation would no longer be regarded as solely negative and harmful. Instead, an objective and overall evaluation would be given, and that will serve for a rational attitude towards the practice of English-Chinese translation and the existing or future changes of the Chinese language.
Thirdly, this research struggles to prove the existence of positive Europeanized translation and further explores their value and contribution to the development of the Chinese language as well as translation itself. In this way, it justifies the long-wronged Europeanized translation.
Fourthly, it is also designed to summarize and explore the macroscopic and microscopic strategies to avoid or reduce negative Europeanization, so that the rules of their appearance and the optimizing approaches can be sought, the unacceptable parts of translation can be effectively improved, and in the long run, the abnormal development of the Chinese language will be avoided.
OUTLINE
The whole research is composed of nine chapters, which falls into four basic parts, namely, research base, main body, extended research, and conclusion. The brief introduction is as follows:
I. Research Base. It includes the first two chapters.
Chapter 1 as the beginning of this research serves as a necessary preparation for the following work. It starts with the introduction of the research background, indicating that the research proposal is very meaningful, not only because the topic is fairly hot, but because the attitude towards the subject determines the future of the Chinese language as well as English-Chinese translation. Then, it gives a detailed discussion on related concepts and academic terms so that the author's ideas in the following chapters can be understood more thoroughly. It has also cultivated the theoretical and practical value of the research, pointed out the innovations from various angles, showed the research purpose, sketched the research process, and introduced the methods employed.
Chapter 2 brings about a general and comprehensive review of the related literature resources, which falls into five categories, namely contact linguistics, standards and norms, corpus linguistics, the Chinese language, and English-Chinese translation studies. However, the last two fields overlap with each other so much that they have to be put together in order to have a clear clue of the academic contributions.
Contact linguistics is put in the very beginning because the translation is one of the most important means of language contact, direct for translators and indirect for its receivers. The history of language contact is almost as old as languages, but the research on it comes rather late, and its application in translation studies is even as late as about one hundred years ago. The birth of Contact Linguistics both contributes to and challenges the related academic researches, including translation, especially Europeanized translation-at least it tells people that language may and will change with translation. According to Thomason and Kaufman (1991:74-76), the English-Chinese contact is somewhere near "more intense contact", although some of which may be just "covert" (Myers-Scotton,2002:10). What's more, numerous Chinese scholars today firmly believe that Europeanized translation is very much related with the influence of English and English-Chinese translation. Thus, theories of contact linguistics shall be of much value to the present research.
The discussion of "standards" and "norms" are especially valuable as the concept of "norm" brings linguistics research from static to dynamic and from prescriptive to descriptive. It is this major change of perspective that makes the linguistic and the related research rational and reasonable. For translation, norms allow creativity and change, and they help people understand the idea of "equivalence" more deeply, which further corrects and improves the understanding of literal translation and foreignization apart from Europeanized translation.
Corpus linguistics is developing so fast that it does not only offer an efficient tool for translation studies, but also helps to form an objective and serious attitude towards language study. Reviewing the literature in this field is like the process of setting up a framework of research methodology and proves it little by little. With their help, I have finally found a way that best match the aim of this research-the use of POS-tagged comparative corpora supplies abundant data and opens a door to quantitative outlook of Europeanized translation.
Translatology and Chinese studies of course are the most important and direct part of my reference. It covers three major subtopics:attitude classification, lexical and syntactical research, and translation strategies. As for attitudes towards Europeanized translation, just like many other matters, scholars may support it, fight against it, or stay neutral. For those who stay neutral, some are fairly active and keep doing research on all kinds of questions while others are rather passive and just take the wait-and-see attitude. Nevertheless, the academia is generally changing from close to open, from strict to tolerant, and they go from subjective perception to rational analysis. In the field of lexical and syntactical research, systematic ones are rarely seen. After Wang Li, there are only a few books published on Europeanization and Europeanized translation, like those from Xie Yaoji, Guo Hongjie, He Yang, etc. Although we still find plenty of valuable papers from big names like Shi Dingxu, Zhu Zhiyu, Hu Kaibao, Benjamin T'sou, You Rujie, etc., research on this topic is still far from enough comparing with the speed of translation and the change of Chinese. Finally, we can clearly see that most people attribute the Europeanization to unhappy translation, and further attribute those contact-induced unhappy translations to the influence of English and the lack of translation techniques. Since the influence from English is unavoidable, we have to find the way out from translation. Unfortunately, we are relatively poor in papers that concentrate on English-Chinese translation techniques, and to make it worse, most conclusions are too vague and general to be put into practice.
The brief review in this chapter shows that there is still a lot to be done in the research of Europeanized translation. For instance, more international research fruits shall be learnt and absorbed, the research methods shall be improved and enriched, more explanation shall be given, spoken language shall be included, etc.
II. Main Body. It includes chapters 3 to 6.
Chapter 3 can be regarded as the basic framework of theory in this research, which intends to give a qualitative analysis on Europeanized translation. It starts with the confirmation of inevitability of its existence from both the internal mechanism and the external factors. Then it lists some typical examples to show the scope of Europeanization, from which we see that this phenomenon has been spread to at least lexical and syntactical level, and they are widely existed in all works of life. Facing the overwhelming situation, we should not be too hasty to put all of the Europeanization into negative catalog. Instead, there should be a relatively clear and reasonable line between positive and negative Europeanization, and telling them from each other are not only necessary but significant as well. Based on this fact, some basic principles are proposed from multiple aspects.
Chapter 4 concentrates on the detailed information of the English-Chinese Translation Corpus and its building history. In this chapter, the building procedure is explained step by step, with plenty of figures showing the processing tools, concordancer, statistical software and analytical tools. Besides, it also mentions the six large comparing corpora. This complete introduction helps to prove the data and their analysis in the following chapter convincing enough.
Chapter 5, as the core of this research, processes a great amount of typical cases of Europeanized translation via data from the seven corpora. It endeavors to fish out the rules and regulations through quantitative comparison between translated texts and non-translated texts. At the lexical level, it carries out some experiments on parts of speech (including the general proportion and the amount of specific part of speech), foreign-originated words (especially lettered words), and some collocations. At the syntactical level, it calculates the sentence length, observes the attributive and its indicator "de"(的),and compares the usage of "ba" and "bei" structures(把字句和被字句).
Statistics show all kinds of foreign-originated words, though not balanced enough, are very widely and frequently used in the Chinese written and spoken language, including those seemingly-not-promising ones like the lettered words and transliterations, and this trend keeps growing rapidly. Many of these words are even readily accepted as indigenous to the Chinese! However, for those that are recognized as foreign originated, people tend to use them much more cautiously.
Investigation is also done on the distribution and frequency of different parts of speech. The results show that in translations substantives grow while empty words drops, which indicates an eminent tendency towards hypotaxis.Later, more detailed studies show that, concerning the use of words and phrases, monotony, inverted order, and high frequency are three most common problems, among which monotony is the key factor in producing Europeanized translation.
The average length of sentences show translated texts tend to have shorter sentences but longer sentence segments, which proves that translation is actually a contradictory process that unconsciously combines the simplification and complication together in an awkward way.
In the research of attributives, the indicator "de" IS used widely and has brought very notorious effects to translation, but in fact, their frequency varied evidently between different genres and resources. Therefore, it might be more reasonable to say that the degree of attributive Europeanization is in proportion with the original text and the translator.
The research compares two typical traditional Chinese structures, and find that while "ba" structure do not change a lot, the "bei" structure in translation is used twice as much as non-translation, and a more serious problem is that the Chinese diversity in expressing passive connotations have been terribly destroyed. And it is the destruction of diversity that brings the negative Europeanization in translation.
Finally, this chapter mentions about two collocations, one is brand new and the other is not completely new but is used much more often today. The former, "you+verb"(有+动词),is now considered as the baby form of past perfect tense under the influence of English "have done", and is still under the a process grammaticalization. This idea can be partly proved by the samples from our translation corpus, but the problem here is that most of them are used just to make the sentence awkward and redundant. The latter, "ruci...yizhiyu"(如此……以至于),a perfect equivalence of the English "so...that" structure, is also criticized for too frequent use in translation. However, there is nothing wrong to use it for proper emphasizing; the root of this problem lies in its abuse, i.e., the wrong use under unnecessary circumstances. In spite of that, the intensive usage of a single collocation will again cause the ignorance of other expressions.
In this chapter, an objective and relatively comprehensive outlook of Europeanized translation is displayed, within which, some previous perceptions are proved whereas some others are corrected, modified or added.
Chapter 6 reports the result of a couple of questionnaires on Europeanized translation, which shows the public attitude and their recognizing ability. The questionnaires are designed respectively with all kinds of collected foreign-originated words and examples of Europeanized sentences. Statistics show that the public is not sensitive enough to Europeanized translation, and does not hold unified ideas on different cases. People do realize the existence of foreign-originated words, but still use them, cautiously though. However, the ways of translation means very much in the frequency and density. As for the Europeanized syntax, statistics show that the degree of recognition and acceptability varies with age, English level, degree of education, but not with sex, yet even those whose have enough language knowledge cannot fully recognize or refuse the influence of Europeanization. Although people are different in attitude, especially towards different types of Europeanization, they generally accept the Europeanized syntax.
It is a very important supplement to the corpus-based study in the previous chapter, because it is necessary to know what people think and show respect to it. In addition to that, the public attitude shall be considered as one of the key factors when it comes to the differentiation of positive and negative Europeanized translation.
III. Extended Research. It includes chapters 7 and 8.
Based on the previous studies from both myself and other scholars, these two parallel chapters attempt to give a comprehensive analysis, objective evaluation and systematic summary of Europeanized translation, together with the appropriate ways to deal with them. They are supplementary to each other as they discuss the problem respectively from positive and negative aspects.
Chapter 7 focuses on the positive side of Europeanized translation and makes great efforts to explore their contributions. In this chapter, the author lists the principal norms in distinguishing the positive ones from negative ones, which is enlightened by the Theory of Three-Dimensional Grammar under the Chinese studies. The three dimensions in this theory refer to syntax, semantics, and pragmatics; and the most meaningful contribution of this theory lies in its emphasis on the general consideration from all the three dimensions instead of syntax alone. As for English-Chinese translation, concerning words and sentences, or even discourse level, they can be briefly decoded as norms like whether a certain translation is so necessary or vivid that there is no better equivalence in Chinese, whether it is correct in accordance with the common practice of Chinese word-building or the SVO syntactical structure or the corresponding writing style, whether it properly conveys the original meaning while successfully avoids unnecessary or even wrong imagination, whether it is appropriate within its context according to the Chinese understanding, whether it is more economical than other versions, or whether it serves the intended rhetorical functions. Those that live up to these norms shall be considered as positive-undoubtedly, the more norms a translation conforms to, the more valuable it is, and quite probably, the easier it is accepted and the longer life it is expected to have. Seeing the positive side of Europeanized translation is not only constructive for English-Chinese translation, but also opens the door wider for the future development of the Chinese language.
Chapter 8, however, fixates on the negative side and probes into lexical and syntactical manifestations of negative Europeanized translation. In the first part, the author points out that when translating new words, priority should be given to liberal translation, but factors like clearness, economy, vividness, pronunciation, psychology, and even aesthetic values shall be taken into consideration; while for existing words, enough respect shall be paid to the accepted conventional translation, and at the same time, emphasis shall be laid upon consistency, not only within but also between translation works. Then it suggests that a dynamic system be set up for the research of foreign-originated words translation, in which normalization, filtration and optimization shall be the major work. In the second part, the author centered on improving sentence translation, where adjusting the length, word order, attributive, and "bei" structure are typical cases. Finally in the third part, the author mentions about the importance of efficient use of dictionaries.
IV. Conclusion
Chapter 9 concludes the whole research by summarizing the status quo of Europeanized translation; showing the appropriate way of observing the trend of Europeanization; stating that translation needs a balance between norms and innovations for a healthy way of development; and pointing out the future directions of the present research on the basis of a good understanding of its limitations.
INNOVATIONS
This research is innovative in the following four aspects:attitude, method, depth and scope.
Attitude:It changes from static to dynamic, and from over-emphasis on the negative side to lay equal emphasis on both negative and positive sides. This research, based on sufficient corpus investigation and questionnaire, puts forward a balanced idea on Europeanized translation and offers a series of dynamic descriptive norms, where the value and contributions of positive Europeanized translation is recognized at the same time when the optimizing approaches for negative ones are supplied. Thus it moves a little forward on the way of seeking the truth on this issue.
Method:It tries to make the research more convincing by combining qualitative research together with quantitative analysis and melting scattered case studies into the organic POS-tagged corpus study, which guarantees more reliable and much richer outcomes. As a matter of fact, this empirical study does disclose a number of uncovered differences between English-Chinese translation and the Chinese original works, thus has made some additions and modifications to the previous conclusions.
Scope:The word "scope" here has two meanings. The first one indicates that this research has borrowed the Theory of Three-Dimensional Grammar from Chinese studies so that the ideas are freed from pure syntactical correctness and the scope of horizon is broadened. Now, semantics and pragmatics are clearly two indispensable factors to be taken into account. The second refers to the material used in corpus, which pays special attention to the latest material and the oral speeches. Considering all the seven corpora used in this research, the style and the genre are really rich. These efforts obviously make for more persuasive data and more convincing conclusions.
SIGNIFICANCE AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Theoretically, this research is significant because:
Firstly, this study makes full use of empirical studies to investigate the degree and the scope of influence from English on the English-Chinese translation, and the large amount of data do not only replenish the study of the field, but also rectify some misconceptions on this issue. Also, it makes the direction and the focus of future study clearer
Secondly, this research, based on powerful data from investigation and experiments, puts forward a pair of concepts of "positive Europeanization" and "negative Europeanization" and the dynamic norms for classification. Surely, this theory framework moves one step forward towards the cognition of Europeanization and the Europeanized translation. It helps to correct the partial understanding, which encourages the exploration on the positive side and makes the criticism on the negative side more persuasive.
Thirdly, this research is significant as it introduces the study of contact linguistics into translatology. It observes the degree and the scope of Chinese language change through the uniqueness of Chinese translation, and evaluates the role that English has played in the Chinese language and culture. Therefore it contributes to both translatology and contact linguistics.
Practically, this research contributes to the following fields:
Translatology:The sketch of the framework for Europeanized translation, the initial verification of the English influence on it, together with the dynamic norms and classification principles, form the foundation for future research work, especially for the researches on foreignization and literal translation as Europeanized translation is a typical example for both of them.
Translation practice and translation teaching:the ideas in this research help to form a rational attitude towards translation, to realize the fact of language change and its relationship with translation, and to be capable of observing and evaluating Europeanized translation in a scientific and reasonable way. What is more, it implies that there are new requirements for translators today, among which improving the bilingual level (especially the Chinese level) and enhancing the conscious of comparison shall still be given more priority than ever. The optimization strategies are of course useful in guiding translation practice, yet the translation corpus built during the research process may offer genuine samples, with which, the strategies will work better. Finally, this research further broadens the horizon for translation criticism as it formally puts forward the positive function of Europeanization thus offers one more perspective.
Teaching Chinese to foreigners:this research benefits teachers in updating their knowledge about positive and negative transfer, and is useful for make appropriate decisions in error analysis.
The result of this research can also be referred to in other related fields, including dictionary compiling because it offers the principles of introducing new words, and Chinese corpus building because it accumulates certain amount of experiences and lessons especially in Chinese materials.
For the general public, this research may be valuable too, in that it leads people to feel the charm of the Chinese language and reminds them to love, to understand and to use the standard Chinese consciously.
LIMITATIONS
As a very tiny part of translation study, this dissertation is hopefully making some progresses and contributions, but admittedly, there are some limitations and problems existing, and any criticism and improvement on it would be highly appreciated.
The first limitation stems from the corpus methodology. Just like Sylviane Granger (2007:22-23) has pointed out, corpus-based study is applicable for translatology, but it needs attention that the scale of corpora is limited, and the results of concordance might be seriously affected by the way it is done. When these problems cannot be overcome effectively enough in this research, there may still be some distance between the conclusions here and the facts. Thus, it is very safe to say that once the corpus is semantically and pragmatically tagged, the results will surely become more comprehensive and more persuasive.
The next limitation is caused by the confusion in dealing with Chinese materials. As it is well known, Chinese materials need to be cut into words before they can be tagged, however, there is still no completely unified stand for word segment yet, and to make it worse, the norms of POS tag are also under discussion. Therefore, the statistical errors will inevitably appear in the research. Even when we endeavor to reduce the margin of error, they are still there, so the conclusions will have to be waiting for further tests and modifications.
Finally, this discussion concerns with only one factor in the process of language change. As a matter of fact, the style of original texts, the ability of translators, time allowed for translation, the condition and means of translation, and even the requirement from customers all contribute the quality of translation. A full understanding of Europeanized translation comes only after a full consideration of all functioning factors.
引文
1该句见2002年第1期《世界汉语教学》“汉英对比研究一百年”,第64页。
[1]Aitchison, Jean. Language Change:Progress or Decay [M]. Cambridge University Press,2001.
[2]Aitchison, Jean. The seeds of speech:language origin and evolution [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2002.
[3]Antoine Meillet, Klincksieck. Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Generale [M]. Paris:Champion,1926.
[4]Appel, Rene, Pieter Muysken. Language contact and bilingualism [M].London:E. Arnold,1987.
[5]Baker, Mona. Corpora in Translation Studies:An Overview and Some Suggestions for Future Research [J].Target,1995, Vol.7(2).
[6]Baker, Mona. Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies:Implications and Applications [A]. Baker, Mona, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli, ed. Text and Technology:In Honour of John Sinclair [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins,1993.
[7]Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies [M]. London and New York:Routledge,1998.
[8]Bloomfield, Leonard. Language [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2004.
[9]Campbell, Lyle. Historical Linguistics:An Introduction (2nd Edition) [M]. Edinburgh University Press,2008.
[10]Chambers, J. K.,Peter Trudgill, Natalie Schilling-Estes. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change [M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,2004.
[11]Chao, Yuan Ren. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese [M]. Berkeley:University of California University Press,1968.
[12]Clyne, Michael G. Dynamics of Language Contact:English and Immigrant Languages [M]. Cambridge University Press,2003.
[13]Crystal, David. Language and the Internet [M].郭贵春,刘全明译.语言与因特网.上海：上海科技教育出版社,2006年.
[14]Davies,Mark.(2004-)BYU-BNC:The British National Corpus. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc.
[15]Davies, Mark. (2004-) BYU-COCA:The Corpus of Contemporary American English. Available online at http://www.americancorpus.org/
[16]Fawcett, Petter. Translation and Language [M].Manchester:St. Jerome,1997.
[17]Fennel, Barbara A. A history of English [M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2001.
[18]Granger, Sylviane. The Corpus Approach:A Common Way Forward for Contrastive Linguistics and Trabslation Studies? [A] Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot, and Stephanie Petch-Tyson, ed.Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies [C].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2007.
[19]Hatim, Basil & Munday, Jeremy. Translation:An Advanced Resource Book [M]. Landon & New York:Routledge,2004.
[20]Hawkins, John A. Implicational Universals as Predictors of Word Order Change[J]. language,1979, Vol.55(3).
[21]Heine, Bernd, Tania Kuteva. Language Contact and Grammatical Change [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[22]Hickey, Raymond, ed. Motives for Language Change [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[23]Hoenigswald, Henry M. Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction [M]. University of Chicago Press,1960.
[24]House, Juliane. Covert Translation, language Contact and Language Change[J]. Chinese Translators'Journal,2007(3).
[25]Hsu, Jia-Ling. Englishization and Language Change in Modern Chinese in Taiwan [J]. World Englishes,1994,13(2).
[26]Kratochvil, Paul. The Chinese Language Today [M]. London:Hutchinsion University Library,1968.
[27]Kubler, C. A Study of Europeanized Grammar in Modem Written Chinese [M]. Taipei:Student Book Co.,Ltd,1985.
[28]Labov, William. Principles of Linguistic Change:Social Factors [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,2001.
[29]Lass, Roger. Historical Linguistics and Language Change [M]. Cambridge University Press,1997.
[30]Laviosa, Sara. Corpora and Translation Studies [A]. Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot, and Stephanie Petch-Tyson, ed. Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies [C]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2007.
[31]Laviosa, Sara. Corpus-based Translation Studies:Theory, Findings, Applications [M]. Rodipi,2002.
[32]Laviosa, Sara. The Corpus-based Approach:A New Paradigm in Translation Studies [J].Meta,1998(4)
[33]Lefevere, Andre. Chapter Introduction. Komissarov, Vilen. Norms in Translation [A]. Zlateva, Palma, ed. Translation as Social Action [C]. London:Routledge, 1993.
[34]Li, Charles N(李讷).Synchrony vs. Diachrony in Language Structure [J]. Language,1975, Vol.51(4).
[35]Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. Authority in Language:Investigating Language Prescription and Standardization [M]. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul,1985.
[36]Myers-Scotton, Carol. Contact Linguistics:Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes [M]. Oxford University Press,2002.
[37]Peyraube, Alain. Westernization of Chinese Grammar in the 20th Century:Myth or Reality [J]. Journal of Chinese Linguistics,2000, Vol.28(1).
[38]Pfaff, Carol W. Constraints on Language Mixing:Intrasentential Code-Switching and Borrowing in Spanish/English [J]. Language,1979, Vol.55(2).
[39]Quirk, Randolph, et al, Ed. A Grammar of Contemporary English [M]. Oxford University Press, Longman Group Ltd, Longman House, Essex,1972.
[40]Rafferty, Ellen. Languages of the Chinese of Java-A Historical Review [J].The Journal of Asian Studies,1984, Vol.43(2).
[41]Rizzo, Alessandra. Translation and language contact in multicultural settings [J]. European Journal of English Studies,2008, Vol.12(1).
[42]Sapir, Edward. Language:An Introduction to the Study of Speech [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2002.
[43]Saussure, F. de. Course in General Linguistics [M]. R. Harris, trans. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2003.
[44]Schaffner, Christina. The Concept of Norms in Translation Studies [A]. Christina Schaffner, ed. Translation and Norms [C]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2007.
[45]Shi, Dingxu.Hong Kong Written Chinese:Language Change Induced by Language Contact [J].Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, John Benjamins Publishing Company,2006 Vol.16(2).
[46]Silva-Corvalan, Carmen. Bilingualism and Language Change:The Extension of Estar in Los Angeles Spanish [J]. Language,1986, Vol.62(3).
[47]Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[48]T'sou, Benjamin K(邹嘉彦).On the Linguistic Covariants of Cultural Assimilation [J].Anthropological Linguistics,1975(17).
[49]Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence.Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1991.
[50]Thomason, Sarah Grey. Language Contact [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press Ltd,2001.
[51]Thomason, Sarah Grey. On the unpredictability of contact effects(1997). Available online at http://www-personal.umich.edu/～thomason/papers/unpred.pdf
[52]Toury, Gideon. A handful of Paragraphs on "Translation" and "Norms"[A].Christina Schaffner, ed. Translation and Norms [C]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2007.
[53]Toury, Gideon. A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies [A].Theo Hermans, ed. The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation [C].Croom Helm,1985.
[54]Tsao, Fengfu(曹逢甫).Anglicization of Chinese Morphology and Syntax in the Past Teo Hundred Years[J]. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics,1978.
[55]Tymoczko, Maria. Conputerized Corpora and the Future Translation Studies [J]. Meta,1998.
[56]Vicentini, A. The economy principle in language [J]. Mots Palabras Words,2003 (3).
[57]Weinreich, Uriel. Language in Contact:Findings and Problems [M]. Mouton:The Hague,1953.
[58]《语文建设》记者.如何看待“洋文”冲击[J].语文建设,1997年第5期.
[59]薄冰.英语语法[M].北京：开明出版社,2001年.
[60]北京邮电大学.“句酷”双语例句搜索引擎.http://www.jukuu.com
[61]北京语言学院语言教学研究所.现代汉语频率词典[Z].北京：北京语言学院出版杜,1986年.
[62]曹明伦.英语定语从句译法补遗[J].中国翻译,2001年第5期.
[63]陈望道,修辞学发凡[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2006年.
[64]陈原.语言和人[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1994年.
[65]崔山佳.近代汉语语法历史考察[M].武汉：崇文书局,2004年.
[66]戴玉群.欧化有限度：英汉定语对比与翻译[J].四川外语学院学报,2003年第5期.
[67]范晓,胡裕树.有关语法研究三个平面的几个问题[A].袁晖主编.三个平面：汉语语法研究的多维视野[C].北京：语文出版社,1998年.
[68]方若(吕叔湘).关于“您们”[J].中国语文,1982年第4期.
[69]高燕.外来词与汉民族语言心理[J].松辽学刊(人文社会科学版),2001年第2期.
[70]郭鸿杰,周国强.20年来英语对中国大陆现代汉语词法和句法的影响[J].外语教学,2003年第5期.
[71]郭鸿杰.从形态学的角度论汉语中的英语借词对汉语构词法的影响[J].上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002年第4期.
[72]郭鸿杰.二十年来现代汉语中的英语借词及其对汉语语法的影响[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2002年第5期.
[73]郭鸿杰.现代汉语欧化研究综述[J].西安外国语大学学报,2007年第1期.
[74]郭鸿杰.英语对现代汉语的影响——语言认知研究法[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2005年.
[75]国家语委新词新语规范基本原则课题组.于根元,王铁琨,孙述学执笔.新词新语规范基本原则[J].语言文字应用,2003年第1期.
[76]何烨.改革开放以来英语对汉语句法的影响[J].四川外语学院学报,2004年第3期.
[77]何自然,吴东英.内地与香港的语言变异和发展[J].语言文字应用,1999年第4期.
[78]贺阳.从现代汉语介词中的欧化现象看间接语言接触[J].语言文字应用,2004年第4期.
[79]贺阳.现代汉语DV结构的兴起及发展与印欧语言的影响——现代汉语欧化语法现象研究之一[J].中国人民大学学报,2006年第2期.
[80]贺阳.现代汉语欧化语法现象研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2008年.
[81]胡开宝,王彬.外来词翻译与汉语词义的扩大[J].西安外国语大学学报,2008年第1期.
[82]胡开宝,吴勇,陶庆.语料库与译学研究：趋势与问题——2007语料库与译学研究国际学术研讨会综述[J].外国语,2007年第5期.
[83]胡开宝.汉外语言接触研究近百年：回顾与展望[J].外语与外语教学,2006年第5期.
[84]胡开宝.基于语料库的莎剧《哈姆雷特》汉译文本中“把”字句应用及其动因研究[J].外语学刊,2009年第1期.
[85]胡开宝.英汉词典历史文本与汉语现代化进程[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2005年.
[86]胡开宝等.语料库与译学研究：趋势与问题[J].外国语.2007年第5期.
[87]胡明扬.语法例证的规范性和可接受性[A].胡明扬著.语言学论文选[C].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1991年.
[88]胡适.大众语在哪儿[A].胡适学术文语言[C].北京：中华书局,1993年.
[89]胡兆云.语言接触与英汉借词研究[M].济南：山东大学出版社,2001年.
[90]胡壮麟、刘润清、李延福.语言学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1988年.
[91]黄伯荣、廖序东.《现代汉语》(下册)(增订版)[Z].北京：高等教育出版社,1994年.
[92]黄河燕,陈肇雄.基于多策略分析的复杂长句翻译处理算法[J].中文信息学报,2002年第3期.
[93]黄洪志.汉语中英语外来词的可接受性及对汉语的影响福建医科大学学报(社会科学版)[J],2007年第1期.
[94]黄家修,赵彦春.论语言变异及其语用效果[J].现代外语,1996年第4期.
[95]晃继周,单耀海,韩敬体.关于规范型词典的收词问题[A].《现代汉语词典》学术研讨会论文集[C].北京：商务印书馆,1996年.
[96]贾伟.翻译与现代汉语中的欧化语法[D].曲阜师范大学,2004年.
[97]姜恩庆.现代汉语新外来词探究[J].天津商学院学报,1999年第4期
[98]姜明磊.汉语外来词多译并存问题研究[D].武汉大学,2004年.
[99]姜秋霞,杨平.翻译研究实证方法评析——翻译学方法论之二[J].中国翻译,2005年第1期.
[100]姜义华主编.适学术文集·新文学运动[C],北京：中华书局,1993年.
[101]江震龙.论“冰心体”与现代白话文学[J].新乡师范高等专科学校学报,2007年第6期.
[102]教育部语言文字应用研究所.国家语委语料库检索系统.http://219.238.40.213:8080/CpsQrySv.srf.
[103]柯飞.汉语“把”字句特点、分布及英译研究[J].外语与外语教学,2003年第12期.
[104]黎锦熙.新著国语文法[M].北京：商务印书馆,1951年.
[105]黎运汉.语言变异研究的深入与开拓——读陈松岑《语言变异研究》[J].语文研究,2001年第1期.
[106]李楚成.“怀疑”及“有人”：试论香港粤语新闻语篇中语法和语用之间的两种冲突[J].现代外语,1999年第1期.
[107]李荣宝.跨语言句法启动及其机制[J].现代外语,2006年第3期.
[108]李珊.现代汉语被字句研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1994年.
[109]李文中,濮建忠,卫乃兴.2003上海语料库语言学国际会议述评[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004年第1期.
[110]李颖玉.外来词的语料库考察[J].西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008年第2期.
[111]李颖玉.英语对汉语的影响与英汉翻译[D].西北大学,2001年.
[112]廖七一.语料库与翻译研究[J].外语教学与研究,2000年第5期.
[113]刘春卉.“有+属性名词”的语义语法特点——兼谈与名词性状化无关的一类“很+名”结构[J].山东师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007年第1期.
[114]刘敬国,陶友兰.语料库翻译研究的历史与进展[J].外国语,2006年第2期.
[115]刘康龙,穆雷.语料库语言学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2006年第1期.
[116]刘宓庆.文体与翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1998年.
[117]刘晓梅.当代新词语对汉语语素系统的影响[J].暨南学报(人文科学与社会科学版),2005年第1期.
[118]刘兴策.语言规范精要[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社,1999年
[119]刘英凯.汉语与英语的共有词缀化趋势：文化顺涵化的镜像[J].深圳大学学报(人文社科版),2000年第1期.
[120]刘涌泉.字母词词典[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社,2001年.
[121]卢伟.英汉双语平行语料库.http://www.luweixmu.com/ec-corpus/index.htm
[122]卢伟.中文语料库.http://www.luweixmu.com/ccorpus/index.htm
[123]鲁迅.花边文学(第二版)[M].鲁迅全集出版社,1948年.
[124]鲁迅.鲁迅全集(四)[M].北京：人民文学出版社,1956年.
[125]陆俭明.新中国语言学50年[J].当代语言学,1999年第4期.
[126]罗常培.从借字看文化的接触[A].罗常培著.罗常培语言学论文集[C].北京：商务印书馆,2004年.
[127]吕冀平主编.当前我国语言文字的规范化问题[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2000年.
[128]吕叔湘,朱德熙.语法修辞讲话[M].北京：中国青年出版社,1979年.
[129]吕叔湘.大家来关心新词新义[J].辞书研究,1984年第1期.
[130]吕叔湘.早日把规范词典编出来[J].语文建设,1995年第9期.
[131]马乐梅.翻译腔和翻译体[A].陕西省翻译工作者协会编.长安译论[C].西安：陕西旅游出版社,2000年.
[132]潘文国,叶步青,韩洋.汉语的构词法研究[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2004年.
[133]潘文国.危机下的中文[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,2008年.
[134]彭炫.“欧化”与翻译——读王力先生《欧化的语法》有感[J].广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003年第2期.
[135]齐耕.著名中年语言学家自选集——徐通锵自选集[M].郑州：大象出版社,1993年.
[136]齐宛基.论翻译对汉语文学语言中长句发展的影响[D].对外经济贸易大学,2006年.
[137]秦洪武,王克非.基于语料库的翻译语言分析——以"so...that"的汉语对应结构为例[J].现代外语,2004年第1期.
[138]邱懋如.可译性及零翻译[J].中国翻译,2001年第1期.
[139]任晔.汉语词汇发展的语言内部因素与途径[J].语言与翻译,2004年第2期.
[140]邵敬敏,石定栩.“港式中文”与语言变体[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006年第2期.
[141]沈孟璎.实用字母词词典[Z].上海：汉语大词典出版社,2002年.
[142]石定栩,苏金智,朱志瑜.香港书面语的句法特点[J].中国语文,2001年第6期.
[143]石定栩,朱志瑜,王灿龙.香港书面汉语中的英语句法迁移[J].外语教学与研究,2003年第3期.
[144]石定栩,朱志瑜.英语对香港书面汉语词汇的影响——香港书面汉语和标准汉语中的同形异义词[J].外国语,2005年第5期.
[145]石定栩,朱志瑜.英语对香港书面汉语句法的影响——语言接触引起的语言变化[J].外国语,1999年第4期.
[146]石定栩,朱志瑜.英语与香港书面汉语[J].外语教学与研究,2000年第3期.
[147]石定栩,王冬梅.香港汉语书面语的语法特点[J].中国语文,2006年第2期.
[148]石定栩.“的”和“的”字结构[J].当代语言学,2008年第4期.
[149]石定栩.汉语句法的灵活性和句法理论[J].当代语言学,2000年第1期.
[150]石毓智.汉语的领有动词与完成体的表达[J].语言研究,2004年第2期.
[151]史有为.汉语外来词[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000年.
[152]史有为.论当代语言接触与外来词.2009年10月7日.http://www.huayuqiao.org/articles/shiyouwei/shiyw09.htm
[153]史有为.外来语——异文化的使者[M].上海：上海辞书出版社,2004年.
[154]苏新春,顾江萍.“人”“机”分词差异及规范词典的收词依据——对645条常用词未见于《现汉》的思考[J].辞书研究.2001年第2期.
[155]苏新春,黄启庆.新词语的成熟与规范词典的选录标准[J].辞书研究.2003年第3期.
[156]孙欣."VS"VS"PK"[J]修辞学习,2008年第1期.
[157]万华,孟宪慧.论新闻语言变异的修辞效果[J].上海大学学报(社会科学版),2004年第5期.
[158]汪懋祖.文言、白话、大众话论战集[C].民国丛书第一编第52册,上海：上海文联出版公司,1980年.
[159]王金铨.英语定语从句汉译过程的个案研究[J].外语教学与研究2002年第6期.
[160]王瑾,黄国文.接触语言学视角中的翻译——广州报章翻译现象分析[J].中国翻译,2006年第5期.
[161]王克非.近代翻译对汉语的影响[J].外语教学与研究.2002年第6期.
[162]王克非.英汉／汉英语句对应的语料库考察[J].外语教学与研究,2003年第6期.
[163]王力.汉语史稿(中册)[M].北京：中华书局,1980年
[164]王力.中国现代语法——王力文集(第二卷)[M].济南：山东教育出版社,1985年.
[165]王铁昆.汉语新外来语的文化心理透视[J].汉语学习,1993年第1期.
[166]王伟.现代汉语欧化与翻译策略之综合研究[D].上海交通大学,2008年.
[167]王希杰.修辞学导论[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,2000年.
[168]王晓春.从“书店有售”说起——论现代汉语完成体新格式“有+V”的语法化[J].现代语文(语言研究版),2008年第10期.
[169]王奕君.英语语言变异的视觉修辞效果论析[J].甘肃联合大学学报(社会科学版),2008年第2期.
[170]王宗炎.对比分析与语言教学[A].李瑞华主编.英汉语言文化对比研究[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1996年.
[171]文苹.语言的规范与变异——以现代汉语“很+N”类组合为例[J].思想战线,2008年第5期.
[172]吴安其.语言接触对语言演变的影响[J].民族语文,2004年第1期.
[173]吴东英.再论英语借词对现代汉语词法的影响[J]_当代语言学,2001年第2期.
[174]吴洁.英汉翻译与汉语欧化现象[D].外交学院,2001年.
[175]吴蒙(吕叔湘).“您们”、“妳”、“二”和“两”[J].中国语文,1982年第2期.
[176]吴文棋主编.语言文字研究专辑(上)[C].上海：上海古籍出版社,1982年.
[177]武国斌.语言变异及其文体效果[J].山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2000年第1期.
[178]谢耀基.汉语语法欧化综述[J].语文研究,2001年第1期.
[179]谢耀基.香港的多文化现象与港式中文[J].方言,1997年第3期.
[180]邢福义.说“您们”[J].方言,1996年第2期.
[181]徐桂梅.修辞视界的“把字结构”[J].学术交流,2002年第4期.
[182]徐小婷,张威.汉语借形词的历时发展与社会文化功用[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008年第1期.
[183]许光烈.维纳斯句型——近代汉语中一种特殊的“把”字句[J].语言教学与研究，2005年第4期.
[184]许嘉璐.开拓语言文字工作新局面,为把社会主义现代化建设事业全面推向21世纪服务——在全国语言文字工作会议上的报告[J].语言与翻译,1998年第1期.
[185]杨守森.陆沉的钟声早已响起——读陈占敏的长篇小说处女作《沉钟》[J].山东文学,2001年第9期.
[186]叶向阳.近代中英语言接触[N].中华读书报,2002年8月7日.
[187]叶子南.论西化翻译[J].中国翻译,1991年第2期.
[188]游汝杰,邹嘉彦.社会语言学教程[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2004年.
[189]游汝杰.台湾与大陆话语书面语的差异[J].语文建设,1992年第11期.
[190]游汝杰.中国文化语言学引论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1993年.
[191]于根元.世纪之交的应用语言学[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,2000年.
[192]余光中.余光中谈翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,2007年.
[193]于全有.关于“您们”用法的规范性研究述评[J].语文建设1999年第4期.
[194]张德鑫.“水至清则无鱼”——我的新生词语规范观[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2000年第5期.
[195]张德鑫.第三次浪潮——外来词引进和规范刍议[J].语言文字应用,1993年第3期.
[196]张德鑫.字母词语是汉语词汇吗?[J].天津外国语学院学报,2001年第1期.
[197]张良军,王庆华,王蕾.实用英汉语言对比教程[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2006年.
[198]张梅岗.限制性定语从句传统译法的探讨[J].中国翻译,2000年第5期.
[199]张明林,尹德翔.汉语的欧化——历史与现状[J].宁波大学学报(人文科学版),2000年第1期.
[200]张清源.现代汉语知识辞典[Z].成都：四川人民出版社,1990年.
[201]张志毅,张庆云.新时期新词语的趋势与选择[J].语文建设,1997年第3期.
[202]赵蓉晖.最近十年的中国社会语言学[J].新疆大学学报(哲学·人文社会科学版),2005年第3期.
[203]赵一凡.半个世纪中两岸三地语法的发展与变异及其规范化对策[D].黑龙江大学,2005年.
[204]郑敏惠.福州方言与普通话“有+V”格式之差异[J].福建教育学院学报,2008年第7期.
[205]中国传媒大学应用语言学系.传媒语言语料库.http://ing.cuc.edu.cn/rawpub/index.asp
[206]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室.现代汉语词典(第5版)[Z].北京：商务印书馆,2006年.
[207]中英双语在线(Chinese-English Online, CEO).北京外国语大学中国外语教育研究中心.http://www.fleric.org.cn/ceo/indexl.html.
[208]周荐.拟外来词——文化交流中的怪胎[J].语文建设,1996年第1期.
[209]周磊.汉语和非亲属语言接触研究[A].戴昭铭,陆镜光主编.语言学问题论丛[C]北京：三联书店,2006年.
[210]周士宏.从类词缀“门”的产生看语言接触中外来语素的汉化[J].黑龙江社会科学,2008年第5期.
[211]朱志瑜,傅勇林.英汉翻译的影响与香港书面汉语的语义结构变异——以“机会”一词为例[J].外语与外语教学,2002年第10期.
[212]朱自清.中国现代语法(朱序).王力.中国现代语法[M].北京：商务印书馆,1985年.
[213]邹嘉彦,游汝杰.语言接触论集[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2004年.
[214]邹玉华.汉语外来词规范(草案)[J].术语标准化与信息技术,2009年第1期.
[215]左江江.关于汉语生态的理性探析[J].江西教育,2008年第12期.
[1]Aitchison, Jean. Language Change:Progress or Decay [M]. Cambridge University Press,2001.
[2]Aitchison, Jean. The seeds of speech:language origin and evolution [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2002.
[3]Antoine Meillet, Klincksieck. Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Generale [M]. Paris:Champion,1926.
[4]Appel, Rene, Pieter Muysken. Language contact and bilingualism [M].London:E. Arnold,1987.
[5]Baker, Mona. Corpora in Translation Studies:An Overview and Some Suggestions for Future Research [J].Target,1995, Vol.7(2).
[6]Baker, Mona. Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies:Implications and Applications [A]. Baker, Mona, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli, ed. Text and Technology:In Honour of John Sinclair [C]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins,1993.
[7]Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies [M]. London and New York:Routledge,1998.
[8]Bloomfield, Leonard. Language [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2004.
[9]Campbell, Lyle. Historical Linguistics:An Introduction (2nd Edition) [M]. Edinburgh University Press,2008.
[10]Chambers, J. K.,Peter Trudgill, Natalie Schilling-Estes. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change [M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishing,2004.
[11]Chao, Yuan Ren. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese [M]. Berkeley:University of California University Press,1968.
[12]Clyne, Michael G. Dynamics of Language Contact:English and Immigrant Languages [M]. Cambridge University Press,2003.
[13]Crystal, David. Language and the Internet [M].郭贵春,刘全明译.语言与因特网.上海：上海科技教育出版社,2006年.
[14]Davies,Mark.(2004-)BYU-BNC:The British National Corpus. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc.
[15]Davies, Mark. (2004-) BYU-COCA:The Corpus of Contemporary American English. Available online at http://www.americancorpus.org/
[16]Fawcett, Petter. Translation and Language [M].Manchester:St. Jerome,1997.
[17]Fennel, Barbara A. A history of English [M].Oxford:Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2001.
[18]Granger, Sylviane. The Corpus Approach:A Common Way Forward for Contrastive Linguistics and Trabslation Studies? [A] Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot, and Stephanie Petch-Tyson, ed.Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies [C].Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2007.
[19]Hatim, Basil & Munday, Jeremy. Translation:An Advanced Resource Book [M]. Landon & New York:Routledge,2004.
[20]Hawkins, John A. Implicational Universals as Predictors of Word Order Change[J]. language,1979, Vol.55(3).
[21]Heine, Bernd, Tania Kuteva. Language Contact and Grammatical Change [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,2005.
[22]Hickey, Raymond, ed. Motives for Language Change [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[23]Hoenigswald, Henry M. Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction [M]. University of Chicago Press,1960.
[24]House, Juliane. Covert Translation, language Contact and Language Change[J]. Chinese Translators'Journal,2007(3).
[25]Hsu, Jia-Ling. Englishization and Language Change in Modern Chinese in Taiwan [J]. World Englishes,1994,13(2).
[26]Kratochvil, Paul. The Chinese Language Today [M]. London:Hutchinsion University Library,1968.
[27]Kubler, C. A Study of Europeanized Grammar in Modem Written Chinese [M]. Taipei:Student Book Co.,Ltd,1985.
[28]Labov, William. Principles of Linguistic Change:Social Factors [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,2001.
[29]Lass, Roger. Historical Linguistics and Language Change [M]. Cambridge University Press,1997.
[30]Laviosa, Sara. Corpora and Translation Studies [A]. Sylviane Granger, Jacques Lerot, and Stephanie Petch-Tyson, ed. Corpus-based approaches to contrastive linguistics and translation studies [C]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2007.
[31]Laviosa, Sara. Corpus-based Translation Studies:Theory, Findings, Applications [M]. Rodipi,2002.
[32]Laviosa, Sara. The Corpus-based Approach:A New Paradigm in Translation Studies [J].Meta,1998(4)
[33]Lefevere, Andre. Chapter Introduction. Komissarov, Vilen. Norms in Translation [A]. Zlateva, Palma, ed. Translation as Social Action [C]. London:Routledge, 1993.
[34]Li, Charles N(李讷).Synchrony vs. Diachrony in Language Structure [J]. Language,1975, Vol.51(4).
[35]Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. Authority in Language:Investigating Language Prescription and Standardization [M]. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul,1985.
[36]Myers-Scotton, Carol. Contact Linguistics:Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes [M]. Oxford University Press,2002.
[37]Peyraube, Alain. Westernization of Chinese Grammar in the 20th Century:Myth or Reality [J]. Journal of Chinese Linguistics,2000, Vol.28(1).
[38]Pfaff, Carol W. Constraints on Language Mixing:Intrasentential Code-Switching and Borrowing in Spanish/English [J]. Language,1979, Vol.55(2).
[39]Quirk, Randolph, et al, Ed. A Grammar of Contemporary English [M]. Oxford University Press, Longman Group Ltd, Longman House, Essex,1972.
[40]Rafferty, Ellen. Languages of the Chinese of Java-A Historical Review [J].The Journal of Asian Studies,1984, Vol.43(2).
[41]Rizzo, Alessandra. Translation and language contact in multicultural settings [J]. European Journal of English Studies,2008, Vol.12(1).
[42]Sapir, Edward. Language:An Introduction to the Study of Speech [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2002.
[43]Saussure, F. de. Course in General Linguistics [M]. R. Harris, trans. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2003.
[44]Schaffner, Christina. The Concept of Norms in Translation Studies [A]. Christina Schaffner, ed. Translation and Norms [C]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2007.
[45]Shi, Dingxu.Hong Kong Written Chinese:Language Change Induced by Language Contact [J].Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, John Benjamins Publishing Company,2006 Vol.16(2).
[46]Silva-Corvalan, Carmen. Bilingualism and Language Change:The Extension of Estar in Los Angeles Spanish [J]. Language,1986, Vol.62(3).
[47]Snell-Hornby, Mary. Translation Studies:An Integrated Approach [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2001.
[48]T'sou, Benjamin K(邹嘉彦).On the Linguistic Covariants of Cultural Assimilation [J].Anthropological Linguistics,1975(17).
[49]Thomason, Sarah Grey & Kaufman, Terrence.Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics [M]. Berkeley:University of California Press,1991.
[50]Thomason, Sarah Grey. Language Contact [M]. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press Ltd,2001.
[51]Thomason, Sarah Grey. On the unpredictability of contact effects(1997). Available online at http://www-personal.umich.edu/～thomason/papers/unpred.pdf
[52]Toury, Gideon. A handful of Paragraphs on "Translation" and "Norms"[A].Christina Schaffner, ed. Translation and Norms [C]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2007.
[53]Toury, Gideon. A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies [A].Theo Hermans, ed. The Manipulation of Literature:Studies in Literary Translation [C].Croom Helm,1985.
[54]Tsao, Fengfu(曹逢甫).Anglicization of Chinese Morphology and Syntax in the Past Teo Hundred Years[J]. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics,1978.
[55]Tymoczko, Maria. Conputerized Corpora and the Future Translation Studies [J]. Meta,1998.
[56]Vicentini, A. The economy principle in language [J]. Mots Palabras Words,2003 (3).
[57]Weinreich, Uriel. Language in Contact:Findings and Problems [M]. Mouton:The Hague,1953.
[58]《语文建设》记者.如何看待“洋文”冲击[J].语文建设,1997年第5期.
[59]薄冰.英语语法[M].北京：开明出版社,2001年.
[60]北京邮电大学.“句酷”双语例句搜索引擎.http://www.jukuu.com
[61]北京语言学院语言教学研究所.现代汉语频率词典[Z].北京：北京语言学院出版杜,1986年.
[62]曹明伦.英语定语从句译法补遗[J].中国翻译,2001年第5期.
[63]陈望道,修辞学发凡[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2006年.
[64]陈原.语言和人[M].上海：上海教育出版社,1994年.
[65]崔山佳.近代汉语语法历史考察[M].武汉：崇文书局,2004年.
[66]戴玉群.欧化有限度：英汉定语对比与翻译[J].四川外语学院学报,2003年第5期.
[67]范晓,胡裕树.有关语法研究三个平面的几个问题[A].袁晖主编.三个平面：汉语语法研究的多维视野[C].北京：语文出版社,1998年.
[68]方若(吕叔湘).关于“您们”[J].中国语文,1982年第4期.
[69]高燕.外来词与汉民族语言心理[J].松辽学刊(人文社会科学版),2001年第2期.
[70]郭鸿杰,周国强.20年来英语对中国大陆现代汉语词法和句法的影响[J].外语教学,2003年第5期.
[71]郭鸿杰.从形态学的角度论汉语中的英语借词对汉语构词法的影响[J].上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2002年第4期.
[72]郭鸿杰.二十年来现代汉语中的英语借词及其对汉语语法的影响[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2002年第5期.
[73]郭鸿杰.现代汉语欧化研究综述[J].西安外国语大学学报,2007年第1期.
[74]郭鸿杰.英语对现代汉语的影响——语言认知研究法[M].上海：上海交通大学出版社,2005年.
[75]国家语委新词新语规范基本原则课题组.于根元,王铁琨,孙述学执笔.新词新语规范基本原则[J].语言文字应用,2003年第1期.
[76]何烨.改革开放以来英语对汉语句法的影响[J].四川外语学院学报,2004年第3期.
[77]何自然,吴东英.内地与香港的语言变异和发展[J].语言文字应用,1999年第4期.
[78]贺阳.从现代汉语介词中的欧化现象看间接语言接触[J].语言文字应用,2004年第4期.
[79]贺阳.现代汉语DV结构的兴起及发展与印欧语言的影响——现代汉语欧化语法现象研究之一[J].中国人民大学学报,2006年第2期.
[80]贺阳.现代汉语欧化语法现象研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,2008年.
[81]胡开宝,王彬.外来词翻译与汉语词义的扩大[J].西安外国语大学学报,2008年第1期.
[82]胡开宝,吴勇,陶庆.语料库与译学研究：趋势与问题——2007语料库与译学研究国际学术研讨会综述[J].外国语,2007年第5期.
[83]胡开宝.汉外语言接触研究近百年：回顾与展望[J].外语与外语教学,2006年第5期.
[84]胡开宝.基于语料库的莎剧《哈姆雷特》汉译文本中“把”字句应用及其动因研究[J].外语学刊,2009年第1期.
[85]胡开宝.英汉词典历史文本与汉语现代化进程[M].上海：上海译文出版社,2005年.
[86]胡开宝等.语料库与译学研究：趋势与问题[J].外国语.2007年第5期.
[87]胡明扬.语法例证的规范性和可接受性[A].胡明扬著.语言学论文选[C].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1991年.
[88]胡适.大众语在哪儿[A].胡适学术文语言[C].北京：中华书局,1993年.
[89]胡兆云.语言接触与英汉借词研究[M].济南：山东大学出版社,2001年.
[90]胡壮麟、刘润清、李延福.语言学教程[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1988年.
[91]黄伯荣、廖序东.《现代汉语》(下册)(增订版)[Z].北京：高等教育出版社,1994年.
[92]黄河燕,陈肇雄.基于多策略分析的复杂长句翻译处理算法[J].中文信息学报,2002年第3期.
[93]黄洪志.汉语中英语外来词的可接受性及对汉语的影响福建医科大学学报(社会科学版)[J],2007年第1期.
[94]黄家修,赵彦春.论语言变异及其语用效果[J].现代外语,1996年第4期.
[95]晃继周,单耀海,韩敬体.关于规范型词典的收词问题[A].《现代汉语词典》学术研讨会论文集[C].北京：商务印书馆,1996年.
[96]贾伟.翻译与现代汉语中的欧化语法[D].曲阜师范大学,2004年.
[97]姜恩庆.现代汉语新外来词探究[J].天津商学院学报,1999年第4期
[98]姜明磊.汉语外来词多译并存问题研究[D].武汉大学,2004年.
[99]姜秋霞,杨平.翻译研究实证方法评析——翻译学方法论之二[J].中国翻译,2005年第1期.
[100]姜义华主编.适学术文集·新文学运动[C],北京：中华书局,1993年.
[101]江震龙.论“冰心体”与现代白话文学[J].新乡师范高等专科学校学报,2007年第6期.
[102]教育部语言文字应用研究所.国家语委语料库检索系统.http://219.238.40.213:8080/CpsQrySv.srf.
[103]柯飞.汉语“把”字句特点、分布及英译研究[J].外语与外语教学,2003年第12期.
[104]黎锦熙.新著国语文法[M].北京：商务印书馆,1951年.
[105]黎运汉.语言变异研究的深入与开拓——读陈松岑《语言变异研究》[J].语文研究,2001年第1期.
[106]李楚成.“怀疑”及“有人”：试论香港粤语新闻语篇中语法和语用之间的两种冲突[J].现代外语,1999年第1期.
[107]李荣宝.跨语言句法启动及其机制[J].现代外语,2006年第3期.
[108]李珊.现代汉语被字句研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社,1994年.
[109]李文中,濮建忠,卫乃兴.2003上海语料库语言学国际会议述评[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2004年第1期.
[110]李颖玉.外来词的语料库考察[J].西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2008年第2期.
[111]李颖玉.英语对汉语的影响与英汉翻译[D].西北大学,2001年.
[112]廖七一.语料库与翻译研究[J].外语教学与研究,2000年第5期.
[113]刘春卉.“有+属性名词”的语义语法特点——兼谈与名词性状化无关的一类“很+名”结构[J].山东师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2007年第1期.
[114]刘敬国,陶友兰.语料库翻译研究的历史与进展[J].外国语,2006年第2期.
[115]刘康龙,穆雷.语料库语言学与翻译研究[J].中国翻译,2006年第1期.
[116]刘宓庆.文体与翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,1998年.
[117]刘晓梅.当代新词语对汉语语素系统的影响[J].暨南学报(人文科学与社会科学版),2005年第1期.
[118]刘兴策.语言规范精要[M].武汉：华中师范大学出版社,1999年
[119]刘英凯.汉语与英语的共有词缀化趋势：文化顺涵化的镜像[J].深圳大学学报(人文社科版),2000年第1期.
[120]刘涌泉.字母词词典[Z].上海：上海辞书出版社,2001年.
[121]卢伟.英汉双语平行语料库.http://www.luweixmu.com/ec-corpus/index.htm
[122]卢伟.中文语料库.http://www.luweixmu.com/ccorpus/index.htm
[123]鲁迅.花边文学(第二版)[M].鲁迅全集出版社,1948年.
[124]鲁迅.鲁迅全集(四)[M].北京：人民文学出版社,1956年.
[125]陆俭明.新中国语言学50年[J].当代语言学,1999年第4期.
[126]罗常培.从借字看文化的接触[A].罗常培著.罗常培语言学论文集[C].北京：商务印书馆,2004年.
[127]吕冀平主编.当前我国语言文字的规范化问题[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2000年.
[128]吕叔湘,朱德熙.语法修辞讲话[M].北京：中国青年出版社,1979年.
[129]吕叔湘.大家来关心新词新义[J].辞书研究,1984年第1期.
[130]吕叔湘.早日把规范词典编出来[J].语文建设,1995年第9期.
[131]马乐梅.翻译腔和翻译体[A].陕西省翻译工作者协会编.长安译论[C].西安：陕西旅游出版社,2000年.
[132]潘文国,叶步青,韩洋.汉语的构词法研究[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2004年.
[133]潘文国.危机下的中文[M].沈阳：辽宁人民出版社,2008年.
[134]彭炫.“欧化”与翻译——读王力先生《欧化的语法》有感[J].广西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003年第2期.
[135]齐耕.著名中年语言学家自选集——徐通锵自选集[M].郑州：大象出版社,1993年.
[136]齐宛基.论翻译对汉语文学语言中长句发展的影响[D].对外经济贸易大学,2006年.
[137]秦洪武,王克非.基于语料库的翻译语言分析——以"so...that"的汉语对应结构为例[J].现代外语,2004年第1期.
[138]邱懋如.可译性及零翻译[J].中国翻译,2001年第1期.
[139]任晔.汉语词汇发展的语言内部因素与途径[J].语言与翻译,2004年第2期.
[140]邵敬敏,石定栩.“港式中文”与语言变体[J].华东师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006年第2期.
[141]沈孟璎.实用字母词词典[Z].上海：汉语大词典出版社,2002年.
[142]石定栩,苏金智,朱志瑜.香港书面语的句法特点[J].中国语文,2001年第6期.
[143]石定栩,朱志瑜,王灿龙.香港书面汉语中的英语句法迁移[J].外语教学与研究,2003年第3期.
[144]石定栩,朱志瑜.英语对香港书面汉语词汇的影响——香港书面汉语和标准汉语中的同形异义词[J].外国语,2005年第5期.
[145]石定栩,朱志瑜.英语对香港书面汉语句法的影响——语言接触引起的语言变化[J].外国语,1999年第4期.
[146]石定栩,朱志瑜.英语与香港书面汉语[J].外语教学与研究,2000年第3期.
[147]石定栩,王冬梅.香港汉语书面语的语法特点[J].中国语文,2006年第2期.
[148]石定栩.“的”和“的”字结构[J].当代语言学,2008年第4期.
[149]石定栩.汉语句法的灵活性和句法理论[J].当代语言学,2000年第1期.
[150]石毓智.汉语的领有动词与完成体的表达[J].语言研究,2004年第2期.
[151]史有为.汉语外来词[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000年.
[152]史有为.论当代语言接触与外来词.2009年10月7日.http://www.huayuqiao.org/articles/shiyouwei/shiyw09.htm
[153]史有为.外来语——异文化的使者[M].上海：上海辞书出版社,2004年.
[154]苏新春,顾江萍.“人”“机”分词差异及规范词典的收词依据——对645条常用词未见于《现汉》的思考[J].辞书研究.2001年第2期.
[155]苏新春,黄启庆.新词语的成熟与规范词典的选录标准[J].辞书研究.2003年第3期.
[156]孙欣."VS"VS"PK"[J]修辞学习,2008年第1期.
[157]万华,孟宪慧.论新闻语言变异的修辞效果[J].上海大学学报(社会科学版),2004年第5期.
[158]汪懋祖.文言、白话、大众话论战集[C].民国丛书第一编第52册,上海：上海文联出版公司,1980年.
[159]王金铨.英语定语从句汉译过程的个案研究[J].外语教学与研究2002年第6期.
[160]王瑾,黄国文.接触语言学视角中的翻译——广州报章翻译现象分析[J].中国翻译,2006年第5期.
[161]王克非.近代翻译对汉语的影响[J].外语教学与研究.2002年第6期.
[162]王克非.英汉／汉英语句对应的语料库考察[J].外语教学与研究,2003年第6期.
[163]王力.汉语史稿(中册)[M].北京：中华书局,1980年
[164]王力.中国现代语法——王力文集(第二卷)[M].济南：山东教育出版社,1985年.
[165]王铁昆.汉语新外来语的文化心理透视[J].汉语学习,1993年第1期.
[166]王伟.现代汉语欧化与翻译策略之综合研究[D].上海交通大学,2008年.
[167]王希杰.修辞学导论[M].杭州：浙江教育出版社,2000年.
[168]王晓春.从“书店有售”说起——论现代汉语完成体新格式“有+V”的语法化[J].现代语文(语言研究版),2008年第10期.
[169]王奕君.英语语言变异的视觉修辞效果论析[J].甘肃联合大学学报(社会科学版),2008年第2期.
[170]王宗炎.对比分析与语言教学[A].李瑞华主编.英汉语言文化对比研究[C].上海：上海外语教育出版社,1996年.
[171]文苹.语言的规范与变异——以现代汉语“很+N”类组合为例[J].思想战线,2008年第5期.
[172]吴安其.语言接触对语言演变的影响[J].民族语文,2004年第1期.
[173]吴东英.再论英语借词对现代汉语词法的影响[J]_当代语言学,2001年第2期.
[174]吴洁.英汉翻译与汉语欧化现象[D].外交学院,2001年.
[175]吴蒙(吕叔湘).“您们”、“妳”、“二”和“两”[J].中国语文,1982年第2期.
[176]吴文棋主编.语言文字研究专辑(上)[C].上海：上海古籍出版社,1982年.
[177]武国斌.语言变异及其文体效果[J].山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2000年第1期.
[178]谢耀基.汉语语法欧化综述[J].语文研究,2001年第1期.
[179]谢耀基.香港的多文化现象与港式中文[J].方言,1997年第3期.
[180]邢福义.说“您们”[J].方言,1996年第2期.
[181]徐桂梅.修辞视界的“把字结构”[J].学术交流,2002年第4期.
[182]徐小婷,张威.汉语借形词的历时发展与社会文化功用[J].宁夏大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008年第1期.
[183]许光烈.维纳斯句型——近代汉语中一种特殊的“把”字句[J].语言教学与研究，2005年第4期.
[184]许嘉璐.开拓语言文字工作新局面,为把社会主义现代化建设事业全面推向21世纪服务——在全国语言文字工作会议上的报告[J].语言与翻译,1998年第1期.
[185]杨守森.陆沉的钟声早已响起——读陈占敏的长篇小说处女作《沉钟》[J].山东文学,2001年第9期.
[186]叶向阳.近代中英语言接触[N].中华读书报,2002年8月7日.
[187]叶子南.论西化翻译[J].中国翻译,1991年第2期.
[188]游汝杰,邹嘉彦.社会语言学教程[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2004年.
[189]游汝杰.台湾与大陆话语书面语的差异[J].语文建设,1992年第11期.
[190]游汝杰.中国文化语言学引论[M].北京：高等教育出版社,1993年.
[191]于根元.世纪之交的应用语言学[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,2000年.
[192]余光中.余光中谈翻译[M].北京：中国对外翻译出版公司,2007年.
[193]于全有.关于“您们”用法的规范性研究述评[J].语文建设1999年第4期.
[194]张德鑫.“水至清则无鱼”——我的新生词语规范观[J].北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2000年第5期.
[195]张德鑫.第三次浪潮——外来词引进和规范刍议[J].语言文字应用,1993年第3期.
[196]张德鑫.字母词语是汉语词汇吗?[J].天津外国语学院学报,2001年第1期.
[197]张良军,王庆华,王蕾.实用英汉语言对比教程[M].哈尔滨：黑龙江人民出版社,2006年.
[198]张梅岗.限制性定语从句传统译法的探讨[J].中国翻译,2000年第5期.
[199]张明林,尹德翔.汉语的欧化——历史与现状[J].宁波大学学报(人文科学版),2000年第1期.
[200]张清源.现代汉语知识辞典[Z].成都：四川人民出版社,1990年.
[201]张志毅,张庆云.新时期新词语的趋势与选择[J].语文建设,1997年第3期.
[202]赵蓉晖.最近十年的中国社会语言学[J].新疆大学学报(哲学·人文社会科学版),2005年第3期.
[203]赵一凡.半个世纪中两岸三地语法的发展与变异及其规范化对策[D].黑龙江大学,2005年.
[204]郑敏惠.福州方言与普通话“有+V”格式之差异[J].福建教育学院学报,2008年第7期.
[205]中国传媒大学应用语言学系.传媒语言语料库.http://ing.cuc.edu.cn/rawpub/index.asp
[206]中国社会科学院语言研究所词典编辑室.现代汉语词典(第5版)[Z].北京：商务印书馆,2006年.
[207]中英双语在线(Chinese-English Online, CEO).北京外国语大学中国外语教育研究中心.http://www.fleric.org.cn/ceo/indexl.html.
[208]周荐.拟外来词——文化交流中的怪胎[J].语文建设,1996年第1期.
[209]周磊.汉语和非亲属语言接触研究[A].戴昭铭,陆镜光主编.语言学问题论丛[C]北京：三联书店,2006年.
[210]周士宏.从类词缀“门”的产生看语言接触中外来语素的汉化[J].黑龙江社会科学,2008年第5期.
[211]朱志瑜,傅勇林.英汉翻译的影响与香港书面汉语的语义结构变异——以“机会”一词为例[J].外语与外语教学,2002年第10期.
[212]朱自清.中国现代语法(朱序).王力.中国现代语法[M].北京：商务印书馆,1985年.
[213]邹嘉彦,游汝杰.语言接触论集[M].上海：上海教育出版社,2004年.
[214]邹玉华.汉语外来词规范(草案)[J].术语标准化与信息技术,2009年第1期.
[215]左江江.关于汉语生态的理性探析[J].江西教育,2008年第12期.
© 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 |