自己从网上转帖和编辑了下，总结了包括语言学、语用学、翻译、跨文化交际、二语习得、测试、教学法等方向的参考书籍 社会心理语言学 上海外教 王德春 2000 对比语言学概论 上海外教 许余龙 2000 语义学 上海外教 李瑞华 2000 语义理论与语言教学 上海外教 王 寅 2001 国俗语义研究 上海外教 吴友富 1999 当代西方语法理论 上海外教 俞如珍 2000 英汉修辞比较研究 上海外教 胡曙中 1999 美国新修辞学研究 上海外教 胡曙中 1999 英汉语言文化对比研究 上海外教 李瑞华 2000 英汉对比研究论文集 上海外教 李自俭 1999 现代修辞学 上海外教 王德春 2001 辞格与词汇 上海外教 李国南 2001 中国英汉翻译教材研究(1949-1998) 上海外教 张美芳 2001 语篇分析的理论与实践 上海外教 黄国文 2001 系统功能语言学多维思考 上海外教 朱永生 2001 现代语言学丛书 上海外教 新编心理语言学 上海外教 桂诗春 2000 心理语言学 上海外教 桂诗春 2000 语言问题探索 上海外教 王宗炎 2000 生成语法理论 上海外教 徐烈炯 2000 美国语言学简史 上海外教 赵世开 1999 汉语的语义结构和补语形式 上海外教 缪锦安 2000 应用语言学 上海外教 刘涌泉 2000 语篇的衔接与连贯 上海外教 胡壮麟 2000 神经语言学 上海外教 王德春 2000 自然语言的计算机处理 上海外教 冯志伟 1996 现代语言学的特点和发展趋势 上海外教 戚雨村 2000 语言学和语言的应用 上海外教 王宗炎 2000 语言系统及其运作 上海外教 程雨民 1998 模糊语言学 上海外教 伍铁平 2000 汉英对比语法论集 上海外教 赵世开 2000 语言共性论 上海外教 程 工 2000 语义学教程 上海外教 李福印 2000 教学篇章语言学 上海外教 刘辰诞 2000 英语语言学纲要 上海外教 丁言仁 2001 交际法英语教学和考试评估 上海外教 徐 强 2000 英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究 上海外教 朱永生 2001 认知语言学概论 上海外教 赵艳芳 2001 新编语用学概要 上海外教 何兆熊 2000 语法的多视角研究 上海外教 金立鑫 2000 英语词汇学研究 上海外教 汪榕培 2000 英汉语篇综合对比 上海外教 彭宣维 2000 隐喻学研究 上海外教 束定芳 2000 第二语言习得研究 上海外教 Ellis 2000 第二语言研究方法 上海外教 Selinger 2000 话语与文学 上海外教 Cook 2000 客观语言测试 上海外教 Spolsky 2000 口语语法 上海外教 Brazil 2000 第二语言习得概论 上海外教 Ellis 2000 实用文体学 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 应用语言学的原理与实践 上海外教 Cook 2000 英语教学史 上海外教 Howatt 2000 语言教学交际法 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 语料库、检索与搭配 上海外教 Sindair 2000 语言测试实践 上海外教 Bachman 2000 语言测试要略 上海外教 Bachman 2000 语言教学的基本概念 上海外教 Stern 2000 语言教学面面观 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 语言教学的问题与可选策略 上海外教 Stern 2000 语言教学的环境与文化 上海外教 Kramsch 2000 语言学习认知法 上海外教 Skehan 2000 语言与理解 上海外教 Brown 2000 文学与语言教学 上海外教 Carter 2000 交际法语言教学 上海外教 Johnson 2000 模糊语言 上海外教 Channell 2000 习语与习语特征 上海外教 Fernando 2000 语篇中的词汇模式 上海外教 Hoey 2000 词汇短语与语言教学 上海外教 DeCarrio 2000 语言领域的帝国主义 上海外教 Phillipson 2000 第二语言学习的条件 上海外教 Spolsky 2000 论以语言学习者为中心 上海外教 Yule 2000 英语会话 上海外教 Tzri 2000 语用学 上海外教 Yule 2000 语言与文化 上海外教 Kramsch 2000 语言学 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 第二语言习得 上海外教 Ellis 2000 心理语言学 上海外教 Scovel 2000 社会语言学 上海外教 Spolsky 2000 隐喻的研究与应用 上海外教 Low 2001 对比修辞:第二语言写作的跨文化层面 上海外教 Connor 2001 第二语言教与学的文化因素 上海外教 Hinkel 2001 语言课程评估:理论与实践 上海外教 Lynch 2001 社会语言学与语言教学 上海外教 Hornberger 2001 学习者为中心的课程设置:第二语言教学研究 上海外教 Nunan 2001 语言的迁移:语言学习的语际影响 上海外教 Odlin 2001 第二语言习得的学习策略 上海外教 Chamot 2001 体裁分析:学术与科研英语 上海外教 Swales 2001 第二语言词汇习得 上海外教 Huckin 2001 文化构建——文学翻译论集 上海外教 Lefevere 2001 跨文化交际——翻译理论与对比篇章语言学 上海外教 Hatim 2001 目的性行为——析功能翻译理论 上海外教 Nord 2001 语用学与翻译 上海外教 Hickey 2001 翻译问题探讨 上海外教 Newmark 2001 翻译学——问题与方法 上海外教 Wilss 2001 翻译教程 上海外教 Newmark 2001 通天塔之后——语言与翻译面面观 上海外教 Steiner 2001 语篇与译者 上海外教 Mason 2001 翻译研究:综合法 上海外教 Hornby 2001 描述翻译学及其他 上海外教 Toury 2001 语言与文化:翻译中的语境 上海外教 Nida 2001 翻译的理论建构与文化透视 上海外教 谢天振 2000 翻译文化史论 上海外教 王克非 2000 比较与翻译 上海外教 汪榕培 1997 翻译论丛 上海外教 耿龙明 1998 中国翻译教学研究 上海外教 穆 雷 2000 实用翻译美学 上海外教 傅仲选 2000 语言、文化与翻译 上海外教 奈达 2000 译介学 上海外教 谢天振 2000 语言与文化 上海外教 顾嘉祖 2000 中国译学理论史稿(修订版) 上海外教 陈福康 2000 语法隐喻理论研究 外研社 范文芳 2001 应用语言学研究方法与论文写作 外研社 文秋芳 2001 认知语言学概论——语言的神经认知基础 外研社 程琪龙 2001 语言与语言学：实用手册 外研社 语用与认识--关联理论研究 外研社 2001 第二语言习得研究 外研社 蒋祖康 2000 理论文体学 外研社 胡壮麟 2000 语言文化差异的认识与超越 外研社 高一虹 1999 语言测试和它的方法(修订版) 外研社 刘润清 1991 语言的符号性 外研社 丁尔苏 2000 跨文化非语言交际 外研社 毕继万 2000 跨文化交际学概论 外研社 胡文仲 2000 英语习语与英美文化 外研社 平 洪 2000 跨文化交际面面观 外研社 胡文仲 1999 俄汉语言文化习俗探讨 外研社 刘光准 1999 语言与文化论文集 外研社 二十一世纪大学英语教学改革 外研社 中国辞书学文集 外研社 2000 汉英篇章对比研究 外研社 论新开端:文学与翻译研究集 外研社 文化与交际 外研社 许国璋先生纪念文集 外研社 陶渊明诗歌英译比较研究 外研社 语言与文化 外研社 邓炎昌 2001 中西人际称谓系统 外研社 田惠刚 1998 中国语言学的现状与展望 外研社 许嘉璐 1998 语言要略 外研社 方 立 1999 语言学方法论 外研社 桂诗春 1998 西方语言学流派 外研社 刘润清 1999 文化与语言 外研社 王福祥 2000 许国璋论语言 外研社 功能主义纵横谈 外研社 胡壮麟 2000 洪堡特--人文研究和语言研究 外研社 语言学教程 外研社 2000 当代国外语言学与应用语言学文库： 语言论:言语研究导论 外研社 Sapir 2001 普通语言学教程 外研社 Saussure 2001 语言论 外研社 Bloomfiefd 2001 语言学综览 外研社 Aronoff 2001 语言学理论:对基要原著的语篇研究 外研社 Beaugrande 2001 吉姆林英语语音教程 外研社 Cruttenden 2001 音系学通解 外研社 Gussenhouen 2001 汉语方言的连读变调模式 外研社 Chen 2001 优选论 外研社 kaqer 2001 汉语形态学:语言认知研究法 外研社 Packard 2001 转换生成语法导论:从原则和参数到最简方案 外研社 Ouhalla 2001 当代句法理论通览 外研社 Ballin 2001 乔姆斯基:思想与理想 外研社 Smith 2001 语言知识及其本质、来源和使用 外研社 Chomsky 2001 当代语义理论指南 外研社 Lappin 2001 关联性:交际与认知 外研社 Sperber 2001 语用学引论 外研社 May 2001 语用学 外研社 Leuinsou 2001 言辞用法研究 外研社 Grice 2001 如何以言行事 外研社 Austin 2001 言语行为:语言哲学论 外研社 Searle 2001 表述和意义:言语行为研究 外研社 Searle 2001 言语的萌发:语言起源与进化 外研社 Aitchison 2001 语言学简史 外研社 Robins 2001 英语学习词典史 外研社 Cowie 2001 现代词典学入门 外研社 Bejoint 2001 英诗学习指南:语言学的分析方法 外研社 Leech 2001 小说文体论:英语小说的语言学入门 外研社 Leech 2001 人类语言学入门 外研社 Foley 2001 英语:全球通用语 外研社 Crystal 2001 社会语言学通览 外研社 Coulmas 2001 认知语言学入门 外研社 Schmid 2001 语言的范畴化:语言学理论中的类典型 外研社 Taylor 2001 英语的衔接 外研社 Halliday 2001 作为社会符号的语言:从社会角度诠释语言与意义 外研社 Halliday 2001 英语的功能分析:韩礼德模式 外研社 Bloor 2001 历史语言学导论 外研社 Lehmamm 2001 英语史:从古代英语到标准英语 外研社 Baugh 2001 翻译与翻译过程：理论与实践 外研社 Bell 2001 儿童语言发展引论 外研社 Cohen 2001 语言学习与运用中的错误:错误分析探索 外研社 James 2001 第二语言教与学 外研社 Nunan 2001 第二语言课堂反思性教学 外研社 Richards 2001 ESL/EFL英语课堂上的学习风格 外研社 Reid 2001 语言学习与教学的原则 外研社 Brown 2001 根据原理教学:交互式语言教学 外研社 Broen 2001 词汇、语义学和语言教育 外研社 Hatch 2001 语言教学大纲要素:课程设计系统法 外研社 Brown 2001 外语学习与教学论 外研社 Johnson 2001 语言测试词典 外研社 Dauies 2001 语言测试指南:发展、评估与研究 外研社 Henning 2001 第二语言习得与语言测试研究的接口 外研社 Bachman 2001 评估与测试:研究综述 外研社 Wood 2001 语言学课题:语言研究实用指南 外研社 Wray 2001 用语料库研究语言 外研社 Thomas 2001 语法化学说 外研社 Hopper 2001 剑桥语言百科全书 外研社 Crystal 2001 应用语言学百科辞典:语言教学手册 外研社 Johnson 2001
语言学可以写的内容很多。基本上不外乎以下一些:一，语音类如语音的属性、音韵与语音的关系、强弱、轻浊、音节等二，词汇类如词汇形态学，语义学，构词，词化，语义场等等三，语法类如语法结构，层次，修辞等四，句子类如分析句子的各种成分，语序，基本句型等五，语篇类如连贯性，思维逻辑性，结构修辞，主体与客体意识等这方面的教材很多，就看你的要求了。现在英语与汉语的对比语言学和对比文学比较热，从这方面下手也不错。
转摘More and more scholars are now showing an interest in adopting linguistic approaches to translation studies. Between 1949 and 1989, an incomplete survey by the author revealed that there were only about 30 textbook passages discussing the relationship between linguistics and translation, including aspects of general linguistics, pragmatics, stylistics, text linguistics, rhetoric and machine translation. From 1990 to 1994, there was an incredible increase in the number of passages looking at translation from a linguistic point of view. Almost 160 articles published over these five years concerned translation and general linguistics, stylistics, comparative linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, text linguistics, rhetoric, etc. New terms such as discourse analysis, hermeneutics, dynamic equivalence, deep structure and surface structure, context, theme and rheme, cooperative principles, to mention just a few, appeared in the field of translation studies. We can definitely identify a trend of applying linguistics theories to translation studies in these years. Today, we are at the point of questioning whether linguistics is a necessary part of translation. In recent years, some scholars who are in favour of free translation, have repeatedly raised this question to the public and appealed for an end to the linguistic approach to translation. Some firmly believe that translation is an art and that therefore linguistics is neither useful nor helpful. Such a claim is wrong if we look at translation as a whole, including scientific translation where meanings are rigid and restricted and the degree of freedom is limited. Flexibility, in this case, is neither required nor appreciated. But even in literary translation, linguistics is hardly a burden. Wang Zongyan pointed out that « If one sees linguistics as a body of rules regulating language, translators most probably will yawn with boredom. If it signifies the use of words and locutions to fit an occasion, there is nothing to stop translators from embracing linguistics » (Wang 1991: 38). The controversy over « literal » versus « free » translation has a long history, with convincing supporters on each side. For example, ancient Western scholars like Erasmus, Augustine, and others were in favour of literal translation. Among early Chinese translators, Kumarajiva is considered to be of the free school, while Xuan Zuang appears as literal and inflexible. In modern China, Yan Fu advocated hermeneutic translation, while Lu Xun preferred a clumsy version to one that was free but inexact. There is nothing wrong in any of these stances. When these translators emphasized free translation they never denied the possibility of literal translation, and vice versa. Problems only arise when the discussion turns to equivalent translations. The problem of equivalence has caused much controversy. Some people believed that there could be an equivalence of language elements independent of the setting in which they of occurred. Based on this assumption, some « literal » translators tried to decompose a text into single elements in hopes of finding equivalents in the target language. This is a naive idea. Jakobson (1971: 262) notes that « Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. » He does not refer to « equivalence » but to « equivalence in difference » as the cardinal problem. Nida was also misunderstood by many for his notion of « equivalence, » which he took to mean that « Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style » (1969: 12). He further concluded that « Absolute equivalence in translating is never possible » (1984: 14). De Beaugrande and Dressler believed that the success or failure of either free or literal approaches was uncertain: an unduly « literal » translation might be awkward or even unintelligible, while an unduly « free » one might make the original text disintegrate and disappear altogether. To them, equivalence between a translation and an original can only be realized in the experience of the participants (cf. de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981: 216-217). Catford (1965: 27) expressed the same concern that equivalent translation is only « an empirical phenomenon, discovered by comparing SL and TL texts. » In citing the above examples, I have absolutely no intention of insisting on untranslatability. What I mean is that a translator should incorporate his or her own experience and processing activities into the text: solving the problems, reducing polyvalence, explaining away any discrepancies or discontinuities. Linguistic knowledge can help us treat different genres in different ways, always with an awareness that there are never exact equivalences but only approximations. Therefore, amplification and simplification become acceptable. If we agree that texts can be translated, then, in what way does linguistics contribute to translation? To answer this question, we must look at the acceptance of western linguistics in China and its influence on translation. Systematic and scientific study of the Chinese language came into being only at the end of the last century, when Ma Jianzhong published a grammar book Mashi Wentong «马氏文通» in 1898, which was the first in China and took the grammar of Indo-European languages as its model. The study of language was, in turn, influenced by translation studies in China. In Mashi Wenton, the main emphasis is on the use of morphology, which takes up six-sevenths of the book. Influenced by the dominant trend of morphological studies, a word was regarded as the minimum meaningful unit, and a sentence was therefore the logical combination of words of various specific types. Translation was, then, principally based on the unit of the word. In the West, Biblical translation provided a very good example, just as the translation of Buddhist scriptures did in China. Not until the end of the 19th century did some linguists come to realize that sentences were not just the summary of the sequenced words they contained. The Prague School, founded in the 1920s, made a considerable contribution to the study of syntax. According to the analytic approach of the Functional Perspective of the Prague School, a sentence can be broken down into two parts: theme and rheme. Theme is opposed to rheme in a manner similar to the distinction between topic and comment, and is defined as the part of a sentence which contributes least to advancing the process of communication. Rheme, on the other hand, is the part of a sentence which adds most to advancing the process of communication and has the highest degree of communicative dynamism. These two terms help enlighten the process of translating Chinese into English. In the mid-1950s, the study of syntax peaked with the Chomsky's establishment of transformational-generative grammar. This theory of the deep structure and surface structure of language influenced translation tremendously. Nida relied heavily on this theory in developing his « analyzing-transfering-reconstructing » pattern for translation. Some Chinese linguists, in the meantime, tried to raise language studies to a higher plane. Li Jinxi (1982) enlarged the role of sentence studies in his book A New Chinese Grammar, two thirds of which was devoted to discussing sentence formation or syntax. He writes that « No words can be identified except in the context of a sentence. » The study was then improved by other grammarians, including Lu Shuxiang, Wang Li. With the development of linguistic studies, translation based on the unit of the sentence was put forward by some scholars. It was Lin Yu-Tang who first applied the theory to translation in his article « On Translation. » He claimed that « translation should be done on the basis of the sentence [...] What a translator should be faithful to is not the individual words but the meaning conveyed by them » (Lin 1984: r 3). The importance of context in the understanding of a sentence was therefore emphasized. Chao Yuanren, a Chinese scholar and professor at Harvard University, criticized scholars and translators who tended to forget this point and take language for something independent and self-sufficient. In fact, it is obvious that when we translate a sentence, we depend on its context; when we interpret an utterance we rely on the context of the speech (cf. Chao 1967). When a sentence is removed from the text, it usually becomes ambiguous due to the lack of context. Therefore, translation becomes difficult. In the 1960s, people began to realize that the study of language based on sentences was not even sufficient. A complete study should be made of the whole text. A simple sentence like « George passed » may have different interpretations in different contexts. If the context is that of an examination, it means George did well on a test; in a card game it would indicate that George declined his chance to bid; in sports it would mean the ball reached another player. Without a context, how could we decide on a translation? Linguists therefore shifted their attention to the study of texts and to discourse analysis. Text linguistics have become increasingly popular since that time. Van Dijk was a pioneer in this field, and his four-volume edition of the Handbook of Discourse Analysis is of great value. Halliday's Cohesion in English and Introduction to Functional Grammar help us to better understand the English language on a textual level. It is worth noting that de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) provided an overall and systematic study of text, which is useful to translation studies. De Beaugrande actually wrote a book called Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating in 1978. The book did not become very popular as it confined the discussion to translating poetry. At the same time, books on a linguistic approach to translation were introduced into China, such as the works of Eugene Nida, Peter Newmarks, J.C. Catford, Georges Mounin, and others. These books gave a great push to the application of linguistic theories to translation studies in China. Textual or discoursive approaches to the study of translation could not keep pace with the development of text linguistics. Some studies remained on the syntactic or semantic level, though even there textual devices were employed. In talking about the translation units of word and text, Nida wrote: ... average person naively thinks that language is words, the common tacit assumption results that translation involves replacing a word in language A with a word in language B. And the more « conscientious » this sort of translation is, the more acute. In other words, the traditional focus of attention in translation was on the word. It was recognized that that was not a sufficiently large unit, and therefore the focus shifted to the sentence. But again, expert translators and linguists have been able to demonstrate that individual sentences, in turn, are not enough. The focus should be on the paragraph, and to some extent on the total discourse. (Nida and Tabber 1969: 152) From that statement we can see that Nida regards a discourse as something larger than a paragraph, as an article with a beginning and an ending. Nida himself never applied text linguistics to translation, and there might be some confusion if we use his term in our interpretation of discourse, because discourse analysis is not merely a study based on a larger language structure. Some Chinese scholars did make the effort to apply text linguistics to the theory and practice of translation. Wang Bingqin's article (1987) was the first academic paper of this sort. He stated his aim to study and discover the rules governing the internal structure of a text in light of text linguistics. He analyzed numerous examples using textual analysis, but unfortunately, all the samples he collected were descriptions of scenery or quotations from the books of great scholars--no dialogue, no illocutionary or perlocutionary forces in the language. He failed to provide a variety of examples. For this reason, his research findings are largely restricted to rhetorical texts in ancient China (cf. Wang 1981; Luo 1994). Scholars like He Ziran applied pragamatics to translation. He's article (1992) put forth two new terms, « pragmalinguistics » and « socio-pragmatics » which, in translation, refer respectively to « the study of pragmatic force or language use from the viewpoint of linguistic sources » and to « the pragmatic studies which examine the conditions on language use that derive from the social and cultural situation. » He discusses the possibility of applying the pragmatic approach to translation in order to achieve a pragmatic equivalent effect between source and target texts; that is, to reproduce the message carried by the source language itself, as well as the meaning carried by the source language within its context and culture. In this article he tries to distinguish « pragma-linguistics » from « socio-pragmatics » but finally admits that « Actually, a clear line between pragma-linguistics and socio-pragmatics may sometimes be difficult to draw. » Still he insists that the application of the pragmatic approach to translation is helpful and even necessary. Ke Wenli (1992) argued that semantics, which in a broad sense combines semantics and pragmatics, should be studied to help understand, explain and solve some of the problems encountered in translation. In this article, he examines four semantic terms--« sense and reference, » « hyponomy, » « changes of meaning » and « context »--giving many examples to illusrate the importance of having some general knowledge of semantics and of understanding the relationship between semantics and translation. This article is clearly written and readers can easily draw inspiration from it. These linguistics approaches shed new lights on the criteria of « faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance » defined by Yan Fu. Chinese scholars began to criticize the vagueness of these three criteria and endeavored to give them concrete significance through the theories of western linguistics. The result is that the content of these three traditional criteria has been greatly enriched, especially by the effect equivalence theory, which in a broad sense means that the target language should be equivalent to the source language from a semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic point of view. But we are still unable to evaluate translations in a very scientific way. Therefore, Chinese scholars like Fan Shouyi, Xu Shenghuan and Mu Lei embarked on quantitative analyses of translations and used the fuzzy set theory of mathematics in accomplishing their analysis. Fan published several articles on this field of study. His 1987 and 1990 articles evaluate translations according to a numerical quantity of faithfulness. Xu's article « A Mathematical Model for Evaluating a Translation's Quality » presents a normal mathematical model. He states that it is difficult to produce an absolutely accurate evaluation of translations with this model because of the uncertainty and randomness of man's thought process. Making such analysis more accurate and objective would require further research. The unit in translation is a hard nut to crack. Without solving this problem, no research in translation studies will ever be sufficient. To date, very few people have focused their research on this area. Nida holds that the unit should be the sentence, and in a certain sense, the discourse. Barkhudarov (1993: 40), Soviet linguist and translation theorist, suggests that: translation is the process of transforming a speech product (or text) produced in one language into a speech product (or text) in another language. [...] It follows that the most important task of the translator who carries out the process of transformation, and of the theorist who describes or creates a model for that process, is to establish the minimal unit of translation, as it is generally called, the unit of translation in the source text. Though he notes the importance of the unit of translation in a text and considers that this unit can be a unit on any level of language, he fails to point out what a text is and how it might be measured in translation. Halliday's notion of the clause might be significant in this case. To him, a clause is a basic unit. He distinguishes three functions of a clause: textual, interpersonal and ideational. According to Halliday, these functions are not possessed by word or phrase. But he is not quite successful in analyzing the relationship between clause and text (cf. Halliday 1985). In China, some people have tried to solve this problem. Wang Dechun (1987: 10) more or less shares Bakhudarov's view that the translation unit cannot be confined just to sentences. In some ways, the phoneme, word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or even text can all serve as a unit. At this point, we cannot find anything special in treating text translation except for having text as the highest level among translation units. This is not the aim of text linguistics or discourse analysis. If we want to apply these to the theory and practice of translation, we will require a textual approach.
关于英语语言学的论文，论文题目和主要内容已列出，供参考。链接附后1.题目：语言学英文版论文。主要内容：该论文主要讲词汇是构成语言的基本单位，词汇习得在语言学习中占有重要地位。英国著名语言学家D.A. Wilkins (1972) 说过：“没有语法，人们不能表达很多东西；而没有词汇，人们则无法表达任何东西。”这就说明了词汇在学习中的重要性。本文旨在分析二语词汇习得策略并应用于不同水平的学习者。学习者根据自己的水平选择正确的习得方法和策略学习词汇，从而提高学习效率和习得效果。http://wenku.baidu.com/link?url=SXkEsiMcpfqhM3IdT5ZZ97aNTmwfO_74dvJoNSWoCp2FIyudzpd1uBSgh2ccFJS6RN7xNBPb9WFk_matYEwCRT0EMxynK7D_vYN7D59Og5G2.题目：.英语专业毕业论文(语言学)——谈判英语文化差异。主要内容：该论文主要讲国际商务谈判中文化差异的影响，就是汉语习惯思维和西方语言文化之间表达的准确性对商务谈判带来的影响。http://wenku.baidu.com/view/ef2d20e09b89680203d825be.html4.题目：外国语言学及应用语言学硕士论文：商务英语信函的词汇特点研究，主要内容：商务英语信函词汇的选择和应用多呈现如下7种特点：1)简单词汇的选择。2)具体词汇多于笼统词汇。3)褒义词多于贬义词。4)缩写词的选择。5)确切词汇多于模糊词汇。6)礼貌、客气的词汇多于不礼貌的词汇。7)商业术语的选择。产生的原因多取决于商务活动的和商业伙伴的合作关系。商务活动的双方均为达至双赢的进行合作。这是本文所分析的词汇特点产生的主要原因。
形态学是用来特指一门专门研究生物形式的本质的学科。这门形态学同那种把有机体的生物分解成各个单元的解剖学不同，不是只注重部分的微观分析而忽略了总体上的联系，相反它要求把生命形式当作有机的系统看待形态学的方法，一方面是对接受研究中的历史学方法的补充，另方面是对比较文学的文学性的继续关注。作为生物学的主要分支学科，其目的是描述生物的形态和研究其规律性，且往往是与以机能为研究对象的生理学相对应。广义地来说，它包括研究细胞阶段形态的细胞学的大部分，以及探讨个体发生过程的发生学。狭义的形态学主要是研究生物的成年个体的外形和器官构造（解剖学、组织学和器官学）。从方法论上来讲，它分为重视器官和机能关系的生理形态学，以及重点放在比较研究上的比较形态学以至系统形态学和实验形态学或因果形态学（Causal morphology）。形态学方法被正式命名为“形态文艺学”（morphologisch Literaturwissenschaft ），这是关于文艺学的基础理论研究，其中心观点，认为诗的“构形”（Gestalt）是有机组成的大自然的“现象”（Erscheinung）；诗是“构形的整体”（Gestaltganzes），也即是有生命力的有机体，它通过和自然同等的创造力这样一个构形性的中介组成整体。总体构形中的每一个别要素与层次，组成诗的艺术品，则被视为这一整体构形的“变型”（Metamorphose）。形态学是研究动植物形态（form）的科学。它在生物学的理论框架中究竟占有什么位置一直有争议，而且在一定意义上来说，将来也会如此。值得十分注意的是，从18世纪晚期开始经常有人试图建立一种多少与生物学脱离的“纯粹形态学”（puremorphology），也就是生物学家、数学家和艺术家都同样爱好的一门科学。只有了解了形态学这个词常被人们用来表示一些互相无关甚至十分不同的事态发展后才有可能理解形态学的复杂历史。
越来越多的学者正显示有兴趣在通过语言的方法翻译研究。与1949年和1989年，一个不完整的调查，作者发现，有大约只有30教科书通道的讨论之间的关系，语言学和翻译，包括方面的普通语言学，语用学，文体学，篇章语言学，修辞学和机器翻译。从1990年至1994年，有一个令人难以置信的数目增加了通道，看翻译，从语言学的角度来看。几乎160发表的文章中对这些五年关心的翻译和普通语言学，文体学，比较语言学，语义，语用学，社会语言学，文字语言学，修辞学等新的条款，如话语分析，诠释学，动态等值，深部结构和表面结构，背景，主题和述位，合作的原则，更遑论只是一个数，出现在翻译领域的研究。我们一定可以找出一个趋势，应用语言学理论翻译研究在这些年。 今天，我们在点质疑语言学是一个必要组成部分的翻译。近年来，一些学者，谁是在赞成的免费翻译，曾多次提出这个问题向公众，并呼吁结束了语言的方法翻译。一些坚信，翻译是一种艺术和语言学，因此，既不是有用的，亦无帮助。这种说法是错误的，如果我们看看翻译作为一个整体，包括科学的翻译那里的意思是僵化和限制，自由度是有限的。灵活性，在这种情况下，既不需要也不赞赏。 但是，即使是在文学翻译，语言学，是难以负担。王宗炎指出， «如果一看到语言学作为一个机构的规则，规范的语言，翻译，最可能会哈欠与无聊。如果它标志使用的字和locutions以适合的场合，是没有任何停止译员从概括性的语言学» （王1991年： 38 ） 。争议«字面»银两«免费»翻译有着悠久的历史，与有说服力的支持者，一边一国。举例来说，古代西方学者一样，伊拉斯谟，奥古斯丁，和其他人赞成，直译。其中中国早期翻译，鸠摩罗什是被视为免费的学校，而轩zuang似乎字面和灵活性。在当代中国，严复主张诠释学的翻译，而鲁迅的首选一拙劣的版本，一个是免费的，但不精确。有没有错，在上述任何立场。当这些译员强调，免费翻译，他们从不否认的可能性直译，反之亦然。问题只出现时，讨论，轮流相当于翻译。 问题的等价性已引起很大的争议。有些人认为有可能是一个等价语文元素，独立设置他们在其中的发生。在此基础上假设，一些«字面»翻译试图分解一个文本到单一元素，希望找到等值在目标语言。这是一个天真的想法。 jakobson （ 1971年： 262 ）指出， «等价在不同的是枢机主教的问题，语言和关键的关注语言学。 » ，他并不是指«等价» ，但«的等值的不同之处»为枢机主教的问题。奈达也误解了很多，他的概念«等价， »他走上表示«翻译组成，在复制，在受体的语言最接近自然相当于源语言讯息，首先是在条款的含义和在第二条款作风» （ 1969年： 12 ） 。他进一步得出结论认为， «绝对的等值翻译是绝不可能» （ 1984年： 14 ） 。德beaugrande和德雷斯勒认为，成功或失败，无论是免费或直译的方法是不确定的：一不适当«字面»翻译可能会尴尬，甚至费解的，而过分«免费»之一，可能会使原来的文本，分化和完全消失。对他们来说，等价之间的翻译和原创，只能在实现的经验，与会者（参见德beaugrande和德雷斯勒1981 ： 216-217 ） 。卡特福德（ 1965年： 27 ）表达了同样的关注，相等于翻译只是«实证的现象，通过比较发现， SL和铊的案文。 »在列举上述例子，我有绝对无意坚持对不可译。我的意思是，一个翻译者应该把他或她自己的经验和加工活动，到文本：解决问题，减少polyvalence解释，远离任何不一致或不连续性。语言知识可以帮助我们对待不同类型以不同的方式，始终与意识，有没有确切的等价但只有逼近。因此，功放和简化成为可以接受的。 如果我们同意的文本可以翻译，那么，以何种方式是否语言学的贡献翻译？要回答这个问题，我们必须寻求在接受西方语言学在中国及其对翻译的影响。系统性，科学性的研究，中文应运而生年底才在上个世纪，当马建忠出版了一本书的语法马氏文通«马氏文通»于1898年，这是首次在中国了语法印支欧洲语言作为其模型。研究语言，反过来又影响，翻译研究在中国。在麻石wenton ，主要的重点是使用形态，这占用了6 - sevenths的这本书。影响占主导地位的趋势形态学研究，总之，被视为最低有意义的单位，和刑期，因此，合乎逻辑的组合的话，各种具体的类型。翻译，然后，主要是基于该单位的Word 。在西方，圣经的翻译提供了一个很好的例子，正如翻译佛经并在中国。 直到十九世纪末做了一些语言学家来认识到判刑，不只是总结了测序，换句话说，他们所载的。布拉格学派，创立于20世纪20年代，取得了相当大的贡献的研究语法。根据该分析方法的功能的角度来看，布拉格学派，一个句子可以分解成两部分：主题和述位。主题是反对述位在类似方式之间的区别的话题和评论，并定义为一个组成部分，句，至少这有助于推进的过程中的沟通。述位，另一方面，是一个组成部分，一句是增加最与时俱进的过程中的沟通和具有最高程度的交际动力。这两个名词，帮助启发的过程中中文翻译成英文。 在20世纪50年代中期，研究语法达到高峰，与乔姆斯基的建立转换-生成语法。这一理论的深部结构和表面结构的语言翻译的影响极大。奈达依赖于这一理论在发展中国家的他«分析- transfering -重建»模式的翻译。一些中国语言学家，在此期间，试图以提高语文研究，以更高的飞机。李进喜（ 1982年）扩大的作用句研究在他的书中一个新的汉语语法，其中三分之二是专门讨论句子的形成或语法。他写道， «没有的话，可以发现除语境中的一个句子。 »研究当时的改善，其他grammarians ，包括吕叔湘，王力。 与发展的语言学研究，翻译的基础上，单位的一句是所提出的一些学者。这是林语堂谁首先运用理论对翻译在他的文章«对翻译。 »他声称«翻译应该做的事的基础上一句[...]什么翻译应忠实，是不是个别的话，但意思转达他们» （林1984年为： r 3 ） 。的重要性的背景下，在理解句子，因此强调。超yuanren ，一个中国学者和哈佛大学教授，学者的批评和笔译谁往往忘记这一点，并采取语言为一些独立和自给自足。事实上，这是显而易见的，当我们翻译句子，我们取决于它的背景;当我们解释1话语，我们依赖的背景下的讲话（参见超1967 ） 。当一个句子，是从文字，它通常变得含糊不清，由于缺乏背景。因此，翻译成为困难。 在20世纪60年代，人们开始认识到学习语文的基础上的刑罚甚至没有足够的。完整的研究报告应作出的全文。一个简单的句子一样， «乔治通过»可能有不同的解释不同语境下。如果背景是一个考试，这意味着没有乔治，以及对测试;在一个卡片游戏，它会表明，乔治拒绝他的机会，出价;在体育这将意味着球达成的另一个球员。没有一个背景下，我们怎么能决定一个翻译？语言学家，因此他们的注意力转移到研究文本和话语分析。篇章语言学已成为越来越受欢迎的自那时起。范dijk是一个先驱在这一领域，和他的4卷版的手册，话语分析是具有极大的价值。哈利迪的凝聚力的中，英文介绍功能语法，帮助我们更好地了解英语语言对文字的水平。值得注意的是，德beaugrande和德雷斯勒（ 1981 ）提供了一个整体和系统的研究文本，这是有益的翻译研究。德beaugrande其实写了一本书所谓的因素，在一个理论的诗翻译在1978年。这本书并没有成为很受欢迎，因为它仅限于讨论诗歌的翻译。在同一时间内，书籍，语言学的方法，以翻译介绍到中国，如工程尤金奈达，彼得newmarks ， ， JC卡特福德，乔治mounin ，和其他人。这些书籍了很大的推动，应用语言学理论翻译研究在中国。 文本或discoursive的方式来研究翻译不能跟上发展的篇章语言学。一些研究仍留在句法或语义层面上，虽然甚至有文本装置被聘用。在谈到翻译单位的Word和文字，奈达写道： ...一般人天真地认为，语言是换言之，共同默契的假设，结果翻译涉及更换一个字，语文与一个字，语文乙和更多«认真»这类翻译的是，更为尖锐。在其他换句话说，传统关注的焦点，在翻译上字。人们认识到，这不是一个足够大的单位，因此，重点转移到判刑。不过，专家，翻译和语言学家已能证明个人的句子，在反过来，是不够的。重点应放在该段，并在一定程度上总的话语。 （奈达和tabber 1969 ： 152 ） 从这个声明可以看出，奈达的问候话语，作为大于一个段落，作为一篇文章，与一个开始和结束。奈达自己从未申请篇章语言学翻译，可能会有一些混乱，如果我们用他的任期在我们的解释话语，因为话语分析不仅是研究的基础上，较大的语言结构。 一些中国学者没有作出努力申请文本语言学的理论和实践的翻译。王秉勤的文章（ 1987年）是第一学术论文这一类的。他说，他的目标是研究和发现规则的内部结构，文字在根据篇章语言学。他分析，许多例子使用的词句分析，但不幸的是，所有的样品，他收集到的描述，风景或报价从书籍的伟大学者-没有对话，没有言外或成事部队在该语言。他未能提供了各种例子。基于这个原因，他的研究结果，主要是限于修辞文本在中国古代（参见王1981 ;罗1994年） 。 学者一样，他自然适用于pragamatics翻译。他的文章（ 1992 ）提出了两个新的条款， « pragmalinguistics »和«社会经济语用学» ，其中，在翻译，是指分别以«研究务实的武力或语言使用的观点，语言来源» ，并«务实研究其中，研究条件对语言使用所产生的社会和文化情况。 »他讨论的可能性，运用务实的态度，翻译，以达到一个务实的等效之间的来源和目标文本，即是重现的讯息，进行源语言本身，以及含义进行了由源语言其背景和文化。在这方面的文章，他也试图区分«语用语言学»从«社会经济语用学» ，但最后也承认， «其实，一个清晰的线之间的语用语言学和社会经济语用学有时可能难以得出。 »他仍然坚持认为，应用该务实的态度，翻译是有益的，甚至是必要的。柯莉（ 1992 ）认为，语义，而在广义相结合的语义和语用学的，应加以研究，以帮助理解，解释和解决遇到的一些问题在翻译中。在这篇文章中，他审查了4语义条款-«意义和参考， » « h yponomy， » «变化的意义»和«背景» -让许多例子，i l lusrate的重要性，有一些一般性的知识和语义理解之间的关系和语义的翻译。这篇文章中明确写道，读者可以很容易吸取灵感来自它。 这些语言学的方法，棚灯，对新标准的«信，达，雅»所界定的严复。中国学者开始批评含糊不清，这三个标准和努力给他们具体的意义，通过理论的西方语言学。结果是内容，这三个传统标准已大大丰富了，尤其是影响等值理论，这在广义上是指目标语言应相等于源语言从语义，务实和文体点查看。但我们仍无法评价翻译在一个非常科学的方法。因此，中国学者一样，范守，徐shenghuan和万亩鲤鱼走上了定量分析的翻译，用模糊集理论的数学在完成他们的分析。范发表的几篇文章，对这一领域的研究。他1987年至1990年的文章评价翻译根据的数值数量的忠诚。徐的文章«的数学模型，评价翻译质量的»提出了一种正常的数学模型。他说，是很难产生一个绝对准确的评价翻译与这个模式，因为不确定性和随机性的人的思考过程。作出这样的分析更准确和客观的，需要进一步研究。 该单位在翻译是很难啃的骨头。不解决这个问题，没有研究在翻译研究将以往任何时候都足够了。迄今为止，很少有人都集中在研究这方面的工作。奈达认为，股应判刑，并在一定意义上，话语。巴尔胡达罗夫（ 1993 ： 40 ） ，苏联的语言学家和翻译理论家，建议： 翻译是转变的过程中讲话的产品（或文字）产生的一种语言，成为一个讲话的产品（或文字）在另一种语言。 [ … … ]它如下认为，最重要的任务，译者谁进行的过程中转型，该理论家谁介绍或创建一个模型，这个过程中，是要建立最低限度的翻译单位，因为它是一般所谓，翻译单位，在源文本。 虽然他注意到的重要性，翻译单位在一个文本，并认为这个单位可以是一个单位，任何级别的语言，他没有指出是什么文字，是和它如何可能来衡量翻译。 Halliday的概念，该条文的可能显着在这种情况下。他说，一个条款，是我国的一项基本单位。他区别的三项职能的条款：文本，人际和概念。据哈利迪，这些职能是不具备的词或短语。但他是不太成功的在分析之间的关系，第和文本（参见哈利迪1985年） 。在中国，有些人曾试图解决这个问题。王春（ 1987年： 10 ）更多或更少的股份bakhudarov的看法，认为翻译单位不能局限于只为服刑。在某些方面，音素，词，词组，句，段，或什至文本都可以充当一个单位。在这一点上，我们无法找到任何特殊的治疗文本翻译，除因文本作为最高级别之间的翻译单位。这不是目的，篇章语言学或话语分析。如果我们想申请这些理论和实践的翻译，我们会要求考的做法。
转摘More and more scholars are now showing an interest in adopting linguistic approaches to translation studies. Between 1949 and 1989, an incomplete survey by the author revealed that there were only about 30 textbook passages discussing the relationship between linguistics and translation, including aspects of general linguistics, pragmatics, stylistics, text linguistics, rhetoric and machine translation. From 1990 to 1994, there was an incredible increase in the number of passages looking at translation from a linguistic point of view. Almost 160 articles published over these five years concerned translation and general linguistics, stylistics, comparative linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, text linguistics, rhetoric, etc. New terms such as discourse analysis, hermeneutics, dynamic equivalence, deep structure and surface structure, context, theme and rheme, cooperative principles, to mention just a few, appeared in the field of translation studies. We can definitely identify a trend of applying linguistics theories to translation studies in these years. Today, we are at the point of questioning whether linguistics is a necessary part of translation. In recent years, some scholars who are in favour of free translation, have repeatedly raised this question to the public and appealed for an end to the linguistic approach to translation. Some firmly believe that translation is an art and that therefore linguistics is neither useful nor helpful. Such a claim is wrong if we look at translation as a whole, including scientific translation where meanings are rigid and restricted and the degree of freedom is limited. Flexibility, in this case, is neither required nor appreciated. But even in literary translation, linguistics is hardly a burden. Wang Zongyan pointed out that « If one sees linguistics as a body of rules regulating language, translators most probably will yawn with boredom. If it signifies the use of words and locutions to fit an occasion, there is nothing to stop translators from embracing linguistics » (Wang 1991: 38). The controversy over « literal » versus « free » translation has a long history, with convincing supporters on each side. For example, ancient Western scholars like Erasmus, Augustine, and others were in favour of literal translation. Among early Chinese translators, Kumarajiva is considered to be of the free school, while Xuan Zuang appears as literal and inflexible. In modern China, Yan Fu advocated hermeneutic translation, while Lu Xun preferred a clumsy version to one that was free but inexact. There is nothing wrong in any of these stances. When these translators emphasized free translation they never denied the possibility of literal translation, and vice versa. Problems only arise when the discussion turns to equivalent translations. The problem of equivalence has caused much controversy. Some people believed that there could be an equivalence of language elements independent of the setting in which they of occurred. Based on this assumption, some « literal » translators tried to decompose a text into single elements in hopes of finding equivalents in the target language. This is a naive idea. Jakobson (1971: 262) notes that « Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. » He does not refer to « equivalence » but to « equivalence in difference » as the cardinal problem. Nida was also misunderstood by many for his notion of « equivalence, » which he took to mean that « Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style » (1969: 12). He further concluded that « Absolute equivalence in translating is never possible » (1984: 14). De Beaugrande and Dressler believed that the success or failure of either free or literal approaches was uncertain: an unduly « literal » translation might be awkward or even unintelligible, while an unduly « free » one might make the original text disintegrate and disappear altogether. To them, equivalence between a translation and an original can only be realized in the experience of the participants (cf. de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981: 216-217). Catford (1965: 27) expressed the same concern that equivalent translation is only « an empirical phenomenon, discovered by comparing SL and TL texts. » In citing the above examples, I have absolutely no intention of insisting on untranslatability. What I mean is that a translator should incorporate his or her own experience and processing activities into the text: solving the problems, reducing polyvalence, explaining away any discrepancies or discontinuities. Linguistic knowledge can help us treat different genres in different ways, always with an awareness that there are never exact equivalences but only approximations. Therefore, amplification and simplification become acceptable. If we agree that texts can be translated, then, in what way does linguistics contribute to translation? To answer this question, we must look at the acceptance of western linguistics in China and its influence on translation. Systematic and scientific study of the Chinese language came into being only at the end of the last century, when Ma Jianzhong published a grammar book Mashi Wentong «马氏文通» in 1898, which was the first in China and took the grammar of Indo-European languages as its model. The study of language was, in turn, influenced by translation studies in China. In Mashi Wenton, the main emphasis is on the use of morphology, which takes up six-sevenths of the book. Influenced by the dominant trend of morphological studies, a word was regarded as the minimum meaningful unit, and a sentence was therefore the logical combination of words of various specific types. Translation was, then, principally based on the unit of the word. In the West, Biblical translation provided a very good example, just as the translation of Buddhist scriptures did in China. Not until the end of the 19th century did some linguists come to realize that sentences were not just the summary of the sequenced words they contained. The Prague School, founded in the 1920s, made a considerable contribution to the study of syntax. According to the analytic approach of the Functional Perspective of the Prague School, a sentence can be broken down into two parts: theme and rheme. Theme is opposed to rheme in a manner similar to the distinction between topic and comment, and is defined as the part of a sentence which contributes least to advancing the process of communication. Rheme, on the other hand, is the part of a sentence which adds most to advancing the process of communication and has the highest degree of communicative dynamism. These two terms help enlighten the process of translating Chinese into English. In the mid-1950s, the study of syntax peaked with the Chomsky's establishment of transformational-generative grammar. This theory of the deep structure and surface structure of language influenced translation tremendously. Nida relied heavily on this theory in developing his « analyzing-transfering-reconstructing » pattern for translation. Some Chinese linguists, in the meantime, tried to raise language studies to a higher plane. Li Jinxi (1982) enlarged the role of sentence studies in his book A New Chinese Grammar, two thirds of which was devoted to discussing sentence formation or syntax. He writes that « No words can be identified except in the context of a sentence. » The study was then improved by other grammarians, including Lu Shuxiang, Wang Li. With the development of linguistic studies, translation based on the unit of the sentence was put forward by some scholars. It was Lin Yu-Tang who first applied the theory to translation in his article « On Translation. » He claimed that « translation should be done on the basis of the sentence [...] What a translator should be faithful to is not the individual words but the meaning conveyed by them » (Lin 1984: r 3). The importance of context in the understanding of a sentence was therefore emphasized. Chao Yuanren, a Chinese scholar and professor at Harvard University, criticized scholars and translators who tended to forget this point and take language for something independent and self-sufficient. In fact, it is obvious that when we translate a sentence, we depend on its context; when we interpret an utterance we rely on the context of the speech (cf. Chao 1967). When a sentence is removed from the text, it usually becomes ambiguous due to the lack of context. Therefore, translation becomes difficult. In the 1960s, people began to realize that the study of language based on sentences was not even sufficient. A complete study should be made of the whole text. A simple sentence like « George passed » may have different interpretations in different contexts. If the context is that of an examination, it means George did well on a test; in a card game it would indicate that George declined his chance to bid; in sports it would mean the ball reached another player. Without a context, how could we decide on a translation? Linguists therefore shifted their attention to the study of texts and to discourse analysis. Text linguistics have become increasingly popular since that time. Van Dijk was a pioneer in this field, and his four-volume edition of the Handbook of Discourse Analysis is of great value. Halliday's Cohesion in English and Introduction to Functional Grammar help us to better understand the English language on a textual level. It is worth noting that de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) provided an overall and systematic study of text, which is useful to translation studies. De Beaugrande actually wrote a book called Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating in 1978. The book did not become very popular as it confined the discussion to translating poetry. At the same time, books on a linguistic approach to translation were introduced into China, such as the works of Eugene Nida, Peter Newmarks, J.C. Catford, Georges Mounin, and others. These books gave a great push to the application of linguistic theories to translation studies in China. Textual or discoursive approaches to the study of translation could not keep pace with the development of text linguistics. Some studies remained on the syntactic or semantic level, though even there textual devices were employed. In talking about the translation units of word and text, Nida wrote: ... average person naively thinks that language is words, the common tacit assumption results that translation involves replacing a word in language A with a word in language B. And the more « conscientious » this sort of translation is, the more acute. In other words, the traditional focus of attention in translation was on the word. It was recognized that that was not a sufficiently large unit, and therefore the focus shifted to the sentence. But again, expert translators and linguists have been able to demonstrate that individual sentences, in turn, are not enough. The focus should be on the paragraph, and to some extent on the total discourse. (Nida and Tabber 1969: 152) From that statement we can see that Nida regards a discourse as something larger than a paragraph, as an article with a beginning and an ending. Nida himself never applied text linguistics to translation, and there might be some confusion if we use his term in our interpretation of discourse, because discourse analysis is not merely a study based on a larger language structure. Some Chinese scholars did make the effort to apply text linguistics to the theory and practice of translation. Wang Bingqin's article (1987) was the first academic paper of this sort. He stated his aim to study and discover the rules governing the internal structure of a text in light of text linguistics. He analyzed numerous examples using textual analysis, but unfortunately, all the samples he collected were descriptions of scenery or quotations from the books of great scholars--no dialogue, no illocutionary or perlocutionary forces in the language. He failed to provide a variety of examples. For this reason, his research findings are largely restricted to rhetorical texts in ancient China (cf. Wang 1981; Luo 1994). Scholars like He Ziran applied pragamatics to translation. He's article (1992) put forth two new terms, « pragmalinguistics » and « socio-pragmatics » which, in translation, refer respectively to « the study of pragmatic force or language use from the viewpoint of linguistic sources » and to « the pragmatic studies which examine the conditions on language use that derive from the social and cultural situation. » He discusses the possibility of applying the pragmatic approach to translation in order to achieve a pragmatic equivalent effect between source and target texts; that is, to reproduce the message carried by the source language itself, as well as the meaning carried by the source language within its context and culture. In this article he tries to distinguish « pragma-linguistics » from « socio-pragmatics » but finally admits that « Actually, a clear line between pragma-linguistics and socio-pragmatics may sometimes be difficult to draw. » Still he insists that the application of the pragmatic approach to translation is helpful and even necessary. Ke Wenli (1992) argued that semantics, which in a broad sense combines semantics and pragmatics, should be studied to help understand, explain and solve some of the problems encountered in translation. In this article, he examines four semantic terms--« sense and reference, » « hyponomy, » « changes of meaning » and « context »--giving many examples to illusrate the importance of having some general knowledge of semantics and of understanding the relationship between semantics and translation. This article is clearly written and readers can easily draw inspiration from it. These linguistics approaches shed new lights on the criteria of « faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance » defined by Yan Fu. Chinese scholars began to criticize the vagueness of these three criteria and endeavored to give them concrete significance through the theories of western linguistics. The result is that the content of these three traditional criteria has been greatly enriched, especially by the effect equivalence theory, which in a broad sense means that the target language should be equivalent to the source language from a semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic point of view. But we are still unable to evaluate translations in a very scientific way. Therefore, Chinese scholars like Fan Shouyi, Xu Shenghuan and Mu Lei embarked on quantitative analyses of translations and used the fuzzy set theory of mathematics in accomplishing their analysis. Fan published several articles on this field of study. His 1987 and 1990 articles evaluate translations according to a numerical quantity of faithfulness. Xu's article « A Mathematical Model for Evaluating a Translation's Quality » presents a normal mathematical model. He states that it is difficult to produce an absolutely accurate evaluation of translations with this model because of the uncertainty and randomness of man's thought process. Making such analysis more accurate and objective would require further research. The unit in translation is a hard nut to crack. Without solving this problem, no research in translation studies will ever be sufficient. To date, very few people have focused their research on this area. Nida holds that the unit should be the sentence, and in a certain sense, the discourse. Barkhudarov (1993: 40), Soviet linguist and translation theorist, suggests that: translation is the process of transforming a speech product (or text) produced in one language into a speech product (or text) in another language. [...] It follows that the most important task of the translator who carries out the process of transformation, and of the theorist who describes or creates a model for that process, is to establish the minimal unit of translation, as it is generally called, the unit of translation in the source text. Though he notes the importance of the unit of translation in a text and considers that this unit can be a unit on any level of language, he fails to point out what a text is and how it might be measured in translation. Halliday's notion of the clause might be significant in this case. To him, a clause is a basic unit. He distinguishes three functions of a clause: textual, interpersonal and ideational. According to Halliday, these functions are not possessed by word or phrase. But he is not quite successful in analyzing the relationship between clause and text (cf. Halliday 1985). In China, some people have tried to solve this problem. Wang Dechun (1987: 10) more or less shares Bakhudarov's view that the translation unit cannot be confined just to sentences. In some ways, the phoneme, word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or even text can all serve as a unit. At this point, we cannot find anything special in treating text translation except for having text as the highest level among translation units. This is not the aim of text linguistics or discourse analysis. If we want to apply these to the theory and practice of translation, we will require a textual approach.
自己从网上转帖和编辑了下，总结了包括语言学、语用学、翻译、跨文化交际、二语习得、测试、教学法等方向的参考书籍 社会心理语言学 上海外教 王德春 2000 对比语言学概论 上海外教 许余龙 2000 语义学 上海外教 李瑞华 2000 语义理论与语言教学 上海外教 王 寅 2001 国俗语义研究 上海外教 吴友富 1999 当代西方语法理论 上海外教 俞如珍 2000 英汉修辞比较研究 上海外教 胡曙中 1999 美国新修辞学研究 上海外教 胡曙中 1999 英汉语言文化对比研究 上海外教 李瑞华 2000 英汉对比研究论文集 上海外教 李自俭 1999 现代修辞学 上海外教 王德春 2001 辞格与词汇 上海外教 李国南 2001 中国英汉翻译教材研究(1949-1998) 上海外教 张美芳 2001 语篇分析的理论与实践 上海外教 黄国文 2001 系统功能语言学多维思考 上海外教 朱永生 2001 现代语言学丛书 上海外教 新编心理语言学 上海外教 桂诗春 2000 心理语言学 上海外教 桂诗春 2000 语言问题探索 上海外教 王宗炎 2000 生成语法理论 上海外教 徐烈炯 2000 美国语言学简史 上海外教 赵世开 1999 汉语的语义结构和补语形式 上海外教 缪锦安 2000 应用语言学 上海外教 刘涌泉 2000 语篇的衔接与连贯 上海外教 胡壮麟 2000 神经语言学 上海外教 王德春 2000 自然语言的计算机处理 上海外教 冯志伟 1996 现代语言学的特点和发展趋势 上海外教 戚雨村 2000 语言学和语言的应用 上海外教 王宗炎 2000 语言系统及其运作 上海外教 程雨民 1998 模糊语言学 上海外教 伍铁平 2000 汉英对比语法论集 上海外教 赵世开 2000 语言共性论 上海外教 程 工 2000 语义学教程 上海外教 李福印 2000 教学篇章语言学 上海外教 刘辰诞 2000 英语语言学纲要 上海外教 丁言仁 2001 交际法英语教学和考试评估 上海外教 徐 强 2000 英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究 上海外教 朱永生 2001 认知语言学概论 上海外教 赵艳芳 2001 新编语用学概要 上海外教 何兆熊 2000 语法的多视角研究 上海外教 金立鑫 2000 英语词汇学研究 上海外教 汪榕培 2000 英汉语篇综合对比 上海外教 彭宣维 2000 隐喻学研究 上海外教 束定芳 2000 第二语言习得研究 上海外教 Ellis 2000 第二语言研究方法 上海外教 Selinger 2000 话语与文学 上海外教 Cook 2000 客观语言测试 上海外教 Spolsky 2000 口语语法 上海外教 Brazil 2000 第二语言习得概论 上海外教 Ellis 2000 实用文体学 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 应用语言学的原理与实践 上海外教 Cook 2000 英语教学史 上海外教 Howatt 2000 语言教学交际法 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 语料库、检索与搭配 上海外教 Sindair 2000 语言测试实践 上海外教 Bachman 2000 语言测试要略 上海外教 Bachman 2000 语言教学的基本概念 上海外教 Stern 2000 语言教学面面观 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 语言教学的问题与可选策略 上海外教 Stern 2000 语言教学的环境与文化 上海外教 Kramsch 2000 语言学习认知法 上海外教 Skehan 2000 语言与理解 上海外教 Brown 2000 文学与语言教学 上海外教 Carter 2000 交际法语言教学 上海外教 Johnson 2000 模糊语言 上海外教 Channell 2000 习语与习语特征 上海外教 Fernando 2000 语篇中的词汇模式 上海外教 Hoey 2000 词汇短语与语言教学 上海外教 DeCarrio 2000 语言领域的帝国主义 上海外教 Phillipson 2000 第二语言学习的条件 上海外教 Spolsky 2000 论以语言学习者为中心 上海外教 Yule 2000 英语会话 上海外教 Tzri 2000 语用学 上海外教 Yule 2000 语言与文化 上海外教 Kramsch 2000 语言学 上海外教 Widdowson 2000 第二语言习得 上海外教 Ellis 2000 心理语言学 上海外教 Scovel 2000 社会语言学 上海外教 Spolsky 2000 隐喻的研究与应用 上海外教 Low 2001 对比修辞:第二语言写作的跨文化层面 上海外教 Connor 2001 第二语言教与学的文化因素 上海外教 Hinkel 2001 语言课程评估:理论与实践 上海外教 Lynch 2001 社会语言学与语言教学 上海外教 Hornberger 2001 学习者为中心的课程设置:第二语言教学研究 上海外教 Nunan 2001 语言的迁移:语言学习的语际影响 上海外教 Odlin 2001 第二语言习得的学习策略 上海外教 Chamot 2001 体裁分析:学术与科研英语 上海外教 Swales 2001 第二语言词汇习得 上海外教 Huckin 2001 文化构建——文学翻译论集 上海外教 Lefevere 2001 跨文化交际——翻译理论与对比篇章语言学 上海外教 Hatim 2001 目的性行为——析功能翻译理论 上海外教 Nord 2001 语用学与翻译 上海外教 Hickey 2001 翻译问题探讨 上海外教 Newmark 2001 翻译学——问题与方法 上海外教 Wilss 2001 翻译教程 上海外教 Newmark 2001 通天塔之后——语言与翻译面面观 上海外教 Steiner 2001 语篇与译者 上海外教 Mason 2001 翻译研究:综合法 上海外教 Hornby 2001 描述翻译学及其他 上海外教 Toury 2001 语言与文化:翻译中的语境 上海外教 Nida 2001 翻译的理论建构与文化透视 上海外教 谢天振 2000 翻译文化史论 上海外教 王克非 2000 比较与翻译 上海外教 汪榕培 1997 翻译论丛 上海外教 耿龙明 1998 中国翻译教学研究 上海外教 穆 雷 2000 实用翻译美学 上海外教 傅仲选 2000 语言、文化与翻译 上海外教 奈达 2000 译介学 上海外教 谢天振 2000 语言与文化 上海外教 顾嘉祖 2000 中国译学理论史稿(修订版) 上海外教 陈福康 2000 语法隐喻理论研究 外研社 范文芳 2001 应用语言学研究方法与论文写作 外研社 文秋芳 2001 认知语言学概论——语言的神经认知基础 外研社 程琪龙 2001 语言与语言学：实用手册 外研社 语用与认识--关联理论研究 外研社 2001 第二语言习得研究 外研社 蒋祖康 2000 理论文体学 外研社 胡壮麟 2000 语言文化差异的认识与超越 外研社 高一虹 1999 语言测试和它的方法(修订版) 外研社 刘润清 1991 语言的符号性 外研社 丁尔苏 2000 跨文化非语言交际 外研社 毕继万 2000 跨文化交际学概论 外研社 胡文仲 2000 英语习语与英美文化 外研社 平 洪 2000 跨文化交际面面观 外研社 胡文仲 1999 俄汉语言文化习俗探讨 外研社 刘光准 1999 语言与文化论文集 外研社 二十一世纪大学英语教学改革 外研社 中国辞书学文集 外研社 2000 汉英篇章对比研究 外研社 论新开端:文学与翻译研究集 外研社 文化与交际 外研社 许国璋先生纪念文集 外研社 陶渊明诗歌英译比较研究 外研社 语言与文化 外研社 邓炎昌 2001 中西人际称谓系统 外研社 田惠刚 1998 中国语言学的现状与展望 外研社 许嘉璐 1998 语言要略 外研社 方 立 1999 语言学方法论 外研社 桂诗春 1998 西方语言学流派 外研社 刘润清 1999 文化与语言 外研社 王福祥 2000 许国璋论语言 外研社 功能主义纵横谈 外研社 胡壮麟 2000 洪堡特--人文研究和语言研究 外研社 语言学教程 外研社 2000 当代国外语言学与应用语言学文库： 语言论:言语研究导论 外研社 Sapir 2001 普通语言学教程 外研社 Saussure 2001 语言论 外研社 Bloomfiefd 2001 语言学综览 外研社 Aronoff 2001 语言学理论:对基要原著的语篇研究 外研社 Beaugrande 2001 吉姆林英语语音教程 外研社 Cruttenden 2001 音系学通解 外研社 Gussenhouen 2001 汉语方言的连读变调模式 外研社 Chen 2001 优选论 外研社 kaqer 2001 汉语形态学:语言认知研究法 外研社 Packard 2001 转换生成语法导论:从原则和参数到最简方案 外研社 Ouhalla 2001 当代句法理论通览 外研社 Ballin 2001 乔姆斯基:思想与理想 外研社 Smith 2001 语言知识及其本质、来源和使用 外研社 Chomsky 2001 当代语义理论指南 外研社 Lappin 2001 关联性:交际与认知 外研社 Sperber 2001 语用学引论 外研社 May 2001 语用学 外研社 Leuinsou 2001 言辞用法研究 外研社 Grice 2001 如何以言行事 外研社 Austin 2001 言语行为:语言哲学论 外研社 Searle 2001 表述和意义:言语行为研究 外研社 Searle 2001 言语的萌发:语言起源与进化 外研社 Aitchison 2001 语言学简史 外研社 Robins 2001 英语学习词典史 外研社 Cowie 2001 现代词典学入门 外研社 Bejoint 2001 英诗学习指南:语言学的分析方法 外研社 Leech 2001 小说文体论:英语小说的语言学入门 外研社 Leech 2001 人类语言学入门 外研社 Foley 2001 英语:全球通用语 外研社 Crystal 2001 社会语言学通览 外研社 Coulmas 2001 认知语言学入门 外研社 Schmid 2001 语言的范畴化:语言学理论中的类典型 外研社 Taylor 2001 英语的衔接 外研社 Halliday 2001 作为社会符号的语言:从社会角度诠释语言与意义 外研社 Halliday 2001 英语的功能分析:韩礼德模式 外研社 Bloor 2001 历史语言学导论 外研社 Lehmamm 2001 英语史:从古代英语到标准英语 外研社 Baugh 2001 翻译与翻译过程：理论与实践 外研社 Bell 2001 儿童语言发展引论 外研社 Cohen 2001 语言学习与运用中的错误:错误分析探索 外研社 James 2001 第二语言教与学 外研社 Nunan 2001 第二语言课堂反思性教学 外研社 Richards 2001 ESL/EFL英语课堂上的学习风格 外研社 Reid 2001 语言学习与教学的原则 外研社 Brown 2001 根据原理教学:交互式语言教学 外研社 Broen 2001 词汇、语义学和语言教育 外研社 Hatch 2001 语言教学大纲要素:课程设计系统法 外研社 Brown 2001 外语学习与教学论 外研社 Johnson 2001 语言测试词典 外研社 Dauies 2001 语言测试指南:发展、评估与研究 外研社 Henning 2001 第二语言习得与语言测试研究的接口 外研社 Bachman 2001 评估与测试:研究综述 外研社 Wood 2001 语言学课题:语言研究实用指南 外研社 Wray 2001 用语料库研究语言 外研社 Thomas 2001 语法化学说 外研社 Hopper 2001 剑桥语言百科全书 外研社 Crystal 2001 应用语言学百科辞典:语言教学手册 外研社 Johnson 2001
1、汉语言文学专业的本科论文，按研究内容大致可以分为文学和语言学，其中又细分多个类别，例如古代文学、现当代文学、外国文学、比较文学、编辑出版学、语言学等等，每个学校的具体要求和设置不一样，一般来说是根据老师来设置的，在选择论文方向的时候，一是参考自己喜欢的方向、喜欢的作家，同时也要考虑论文老师可能带来的影响
2、在选择了方向以及确定了论文导师的前提下，要做的就是具体确定自己的论文标题和内容，
3、在确定了大的方向后，就要考虑具体写什么了。
4、构建目录，构建论文体系，是在正式写作前必备的。在这个阶段，你要大致清楚自己的创作动机、自己的研究对象、研究对象的特点、大概的结论以及所需要的论据，论文其实就是一个抛出问题，然后解决问题的过程。
5、一般的论文，大多是从艺术特色、语言、故事设置等方向来设计
6、确定了具体的选题以及大致的内容之后，就要为主体内容做准备了，格式上面按照学员给予的模板，按部就班去完成就行。
7、充实文献材料的话，知网是最好的选择，一般高校的图书馆，都是可以免费使用知网资源的，如果是自己使用，其中的文献也很便宜，2元到10元不等。
8、在论文撰写的过程中会遇到各种各样的问题，所以搭建好框架是很重要的
9、与伙伴、导师建立良好的关系，长期就论文保持密切的交流。由。
10、以认真严谨的态度对待
转摘More and more scholars are now showing an interest in adopting linguistic approaches to translation studies. Between 1949 and 1989, an incomplete survey by the author revealed that there were only about 30 textbook passages discussing the relationship between linguistics and translation, including aspects of general linguistics, pragmatics, stylistics, text linguistics, rhetoric and machine translation. From 1990 to 1994, there was an incredible increase in the number of passages looking at translation from a linguistic point of view. Almost 160 articles published over these five years concerned translation and general linguistics, stylistics, comparative linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, text linguistics, rhetoric, etc. New terms such as discourse analysis, hermeneutics, dynamic equivalence, deep structure and surface structure, context, theme and rheme, cooperative principles, to mention just a few, appeared in the field of translation studies. We can definitely identify a trend of applying linguistics theories to translation studies in these years. Today, we are at the point of questioning whether linguistics is a necessary part of translation. In recent years, some scholars who are in favour of free translation, have repeatedly raised this question to the public and appealed for an end to the linguistic approach to translation. Some firmly believe that translation is an art and that therefore linguistics is neither useful nor helpful. Such a claim is wrong if we look at translation as a whole, including scientific translation where meanings are rigid and restricted and the degree of freedom is limited. Flexibility, in this case, is neither required nor appreciated. But even in literary translation, linguistics is hardly a burden. Wang Zongyan pointed out that « If one sees linguistics as a body of rules regulating language, translators most probably will yawn with boredom. If it signifies the use of words and locutions to fit an occasion, there is nothing to stop translators from embracing linguistics » (Wang 1991: 38). The controversy over « literal » versus « free » translation has a long history, with convincing supporters on each side. For example, ancient Western scholars like Erasmus, Augustine, and others were in favour of literal translation. Among early Chinese translators, Kumarajiva is considered to be of the free school, while Xuan Zuang appears as literal and inflexible. In modern China, Yan Fu advocated hermeneutic translation, while Lu Xun preferred a clumsy version to one that was free but inexact. There is nothing wrong in any of these stances. When these translators emphasized free translation they never denied the possibility of literal translation, and vice versa. Problems only arise when the discussion turns to equivalent translations. The problem of equivalence has caused much controversy. Some people believed that there could be an equivalence of language elements independent of the setting in which they of occurred. Based on this assumption, some « literal » translators tried to decompose a text into single elements in hopes of finding equivalents in the target language. This is a naive idea. Jakobson (1971: 262) notes that « Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. » He does not refer to « equivalence » but to « equivalence in difference » as the cardinal problem. Nida was also misunderstood by many for his notion of « equivalence, » which he took to mean that « Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style » (1969: 12). He further concluded that « Absolute equivalence in translating is never possible » (1984: 14). De Beaugrande and Dressler believed that the success or failure of either free or literal approaches was uncertain: an unduly « literal » translation might be awkward or even unintelligible, while an unduly « free » one might make the original text disintegrate and disappear altogether. To them, equivalence between a translation and an original can only be realized in the experience of the participants (cf. de Beaugrande and Dressler 1981: 216-217). Catford (1965: 27) expressed the same concern that equivalent translation is only « an empirical phenomenon, discovered by comparing SL and TL texts. » In citing the above examples, I have absolutely no intention of insisting on untranslatability. What I mean is that a translator should incorporate his or her own experience and processing activities into the text: solving the problems, reducing polyvalence, explaining away any discrepancies or discontinuities. Linguistic knowledge can help us treat different genres in different ways, always with an awareness that there are never exact equivalences but only approximations. Therefore, amplification and simplification become acceptable. If we agree that texts can be translated, then, in what way does linguistics contribute to translation? To answer this question, we must look at the acceptance of western linguistics in China and its influence on translation. Systematic and scientific study of the Chinese language came into being only at the end of the last century, when Ma Jianzhong published a grammar book Mashi Wentong «马氏文通» in 1898, which was the first in China and took the grammar of Indo-European languages as its model. The study of language was, in turn, influenced by translation studies in China. In Mashi Wenton, the main emphasis is on the use of morphology, which takes up six-sevenths of the book. Influenced by the dominant trend of morphological studies, a word was regarded as the minimum meaningful unit, and a sentence was therefore the logical combination of words of various specific types. Translation was, then, principally based on the unit of the word. In the West, Biblical translation provided a very good example, just as the translation of Buddhist scriptures did in China. Not until the end of the 19th century did some linguists come to realize that sentences were not just the summary of the sequenced words they contained. The Prague School, founded in the 1920s, made a considerable contribution to the study of syntax. According to the analytic approach of the Functional Perspective of the Prague School, a sentence can be broken down into two parts: theme and rheme. Theme is opposed to rheme in a manner similar to the distinction between topic and comment, and is defined as the part of a sentence which contributes least to advancing the process of communication. Rheme, on the other hand, is the part of a sentence which adds most to advancing the process of communication and has the highest degree of communicative dynamism. These two terms help enlighten the process of translating Chinese into English. In the mid-1950s, the study of syntax peaked with the Chomsky's establishment of transformational-generative grammar. This theory of the deep structure and surface structure of language influenced translation tremendously. Nida relied heavily on this theory in developing his « analyzing-transfering-reconstructing » pattern for translation. Some Chinese linguists, in the meantime, tried to raise language studies to a higher plane. Li Jinxi (1982) enlarged the role of sentence studies in his book A New Chinese Grammar, two thirds of which was devoted to discussing sentence formation or syntax. He writes that « No words can be identified except in the context of a sentence. » The study was then improved by other grammarians, including Lu Shuxiang, Wang Li. With the development of linguistic studies, translation based on the unit of the sentence was put forward by some scholars. It was Lin Yu-Tang who first applied the theory to translation in his article « On Translation. » He claimed that « translation should be done on the basis of the sentence [...] What a translator should be faithful to is not the individual words but the meaning conveyed by them » (Lin 1984: r 3). The importance of context in the understanding of a sentence was therefore emphasized. Chao Yuanren, a Chinese scholar and professor at Harvard University, criticized scholars and translators who tended to forget this point and take language for something independent and self-sufficient. In fact, it is obvious that when we translate a sentence, we depend on its context; when we interpret an utterance we rely on the context of the speech (cf. Chao 1967). When a sentence is removed from the text, it usually becomes ambiguous due to the lack of context. Therefore, translation becomes difficult. In the 1960s, people began to realize that the study of language based on sentences was not even sufficient. A complete study should be made of the whole text. A simple sentence like « George passed » may have different interpretations in different contexts. If the context is that of an examination, it means George did well on a test; in a card game it would indicate that George declined his chance to bid; in sports it would mean the ball reached another player. Without a context, how could we decide on a translation? Linguists therefore shifted their attention to the study of texts and to discourse analysis. Text linguistics have become increasingly popular since that time. Van Dijk was a pioneer in this field, and his four-volume edition of the Handbook of Discourse Analysis is of great value. Halliday's Cohesion in English and Introduction to Functional Grammar help us to better understand the English language on a textual level. It is worth noting that de Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) provided an overall and systematic study of text, which is useful to translation studies. De Beaugrande actually wrote a book called Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating in 1978. The book did not become very popular as it confined the discussion to translating poetry. At the same time, books on a linguistic approach to translation were introduced into China, such as the works of Eugene Nida, Peter Newmarks, J.C. Catford, Georges Mounin, and others. These books gave a great push to the application of linguistic theories to translation studies in China. Textual or discoursive approaches to the study of translation could not keep pace with the development of text linguistics. Some studies remained on the syntactic or semantic level, though even there textual devices were employed. In talking about the translation units of word and text, Nida wrote: ... average person naively thinks that language is words, the common tacit assumption results that translation involves replacing a word in language A with a word in language B. And the more « conscientious » this sort of translation is, the more acute. In other words, the traditional focus of attention in translation was on the word. It was recognized that that was not a sufficiently large unit, and therefore the focus shifted to the sentence. But again, expert translators and linguists have been able to demonstrate that individual sentences, in turn, are not enough. The focus should be on the paragraph, and to some extent on the total discourse. (Nida and Tabber 1969: 152) From that statement we can see that Nida regards a discourse as something larger than a paragraph, as an article with a beginning and an ending. Nida himself never applied text linguistics to translation, and there might be some confusion if we use his term in our interpretation of discourse, because discourse analysis is not merely a study based on a larger language structure. Some Chinese scholars did make the effort to apply text linguistics to the theory and practice of translation. Wang Bingqin's article (1987) was the first academic paper of this sort. He stated his aim to study and discover the rules governing the internal structure of a text in light of text linguistics. He analyzed numerous examples using textual analysis, but unfortunately, all the samples he collected were descriptions of scenery or quotations from the books of great scholars--no dialogue, no illocutionary or perlocutionary forces in the language. He failed to provide a variety of examples. For this reason, his research findings are largely restricted to rhetorical texts in ancient China (cf. Wang 1981; Luo 1994). Scholars like He Ziran applied pragamatics to translation. He's article (1992) put forth two new terms, « pragmalinguistics » and « socio-pragmatics » which, in translation, refer respectively to « the study of pragmatic force or language use from the viewpoint of linguistic sources » and to « the pragmatic studies which examine the conditions on language use that derive from the social and cultural situation. » He discusses the possibility of applying the pragmatic approach to translation in order to achieve a pragmatic equivalent effect between source and target texts; that is, to reproduce the message carried by the source language itself, as well as the meaning carried by the source language within its context and culture. In this article he tries to distinguish « pragma-linguistics » from « socio-pragmatics » but finally admits that « Actually, a clear line between pragma-linguistics and socio-pragmatics may sometimes be difficult to draw. » Still he insists that the application of the pragmatic approach to translation is helpful and even necessary. Ke Wenli (1992) argued that semantics, which in a broad sense combines semantics and pragmatics, should be studied to help understand, explain and solve some of the problems encountered in translation. In this article, he examines four semantic terms--« sense and reference, » « hyponomy, » « changes of meaning » and « context »--giving many examples to illusrate the importance of having some general knowledge of semantics and of understanding the relationship between semantics and translation. This article is clearly written and readers can easily draw inspiration from it. These linguistics approaches shed new lights on the criteria of « faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance » defined by Yan Fu. Chinese scholars began to criticize the vagueness of these three criteria and endeavored to give them concrete significance through the theories of western linguistics. The result is that the content of these three traditional criteria has been greatly enriched, especially by the effect equivalence theory, which in a broad sense means that the target language should be equivalent to the source language from a semantic, pragmatic, and stylistic point of view. But we are still unable to evaluate translations in a very scientific way. Therefore, Chinese scholars like Fan Shouyi, Xu Shenghuan and Mu Lei embarked on quantitative analyses of translations and used the fuzzy set theory of mathematics in accomplishing their analysis. Fan published several articles on this field of study. His 1987 and 1990 articles evaluate translations according to a numerical quantity of faithfulness. Xu's article « A Mathematical Model for Evaluating a Translation's Quality » presents a normal mathematical model. He states that it is difficult to produce an absolutely accurate evaluation of translations with this model because of the uncertainty and randomness of man's thought process. Making such analysis more accurate and objective would require further research. The unit in translation is a hard nut to crack. Without solving this problem, no research in translation studies will ever be sufficient. To date, very few people have focused their research on this area. Nida holds that the unit should be the sentence, and in a certain sense, the discourse. Barkhudarov (1993: 40), Soviet linguist and translation theorist, suggests that: translation is the process of transforming a speech product (or text) produced in one language into a speech product (or text) in another language. [...] It follows that the most important task of the translator who carries out the process of transformation, and of the theorist who describes or creates a model for that process, is to establish the minimal unit of translation, as it is generally called, the unit of translation in the source text. Though he notes the importance of the unit of translation in a text and considers that this unit can be a unit on any level of language, he fails to point out what a text is and how it might be measured in translation. Halliday's notion of the clause might be significant in this case. To him, a clause is a basic unit. He distinguishes three functions of a clause: textual, interpersonal and ideational. According to Halliday, these functions are not possessed by word or phrase. But he is not quite successful in analyzing the relationship between clause and text (cf. Halliday 1985). In China, some people have tried to solve this problem. Wang Dechun (1987: 10) more or less shares Bakhudarov's view that the translation unit cannot be confined just to sentences. In some ways, the phoneme, word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, or even text can all serve as a unit. At this point, we cannot find anything special in treating text translation except for having text as the highest level among translation units. This is not the aim of text linguistics or discourse analysis. If we want to apply these to the theory and practice of translation, we will require a textual approach.
语言学可以写的内容很多。基本上不外乎以下一些：一，语音类如语音的属性、音韵与语音的关系、强弱、轻浊、音节等二，词汇类如词汇形态学，语义学，构词，词化，语义场等等三，语法类如语法结构，层次，修辞等四，句子类如分析句子的各种成分，语序，基本句型等五，语篇类如连贯性，思维逻辑性，结构修辞，主体与客体意识等这方面的教材很多，就看你的要求了。现在英语与汉语的对比语言学和对比文学比较热，从这方面下手也不错。
Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition Strategies 二语词汇习得策略 [摘 要] 词汇是构成语言的基本单位，词汇习得在语言学习中占有重要地位。英国著名语言学家D.A. Wilkins (1972) 说过：“没有语法，人们不能表达很多东西；而没有词汇，人们则无法表达任何东西。”这就说明了词汇在学习中的重要性。本文旨在分析二语词汇习得策略并应用于不同水平的学习者。学习者根据自己的水平选择正确的习得方法和策略学习词汇，从而提高学习效率和习得效果。 关键字： 二语词汇习得 词汇习得策略 元认知策略 认知策略 Abstract Vocabulary is the basic unit of a language. Language acquisition plays an important role in language learning. Famous linguistics D. A. Wilkins said, “Without grammar, very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary, nothing can be conveyed (Lewis, 1993:16).” It speaks volumes for the importance of vocabulary in language learning. This paper aims to analysis the second language acquisition strategies and applies to different levels of learners. According to the different levels, the learners should choose the proper methods and strategies to promote learning efficiency and acquisition effect. Key words: Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition； Vocabulary Acquisition Strategies； Metacognitive strategy； Cognitive strategy Introduction With economic globalization and multi-polarization of the world, especially the population of the internet, English becomes more and more important, because it is considered as the tool for absorbing and communicating information. As we all known, vocabulary acquisition is one of the most noticed-question of the second language learners. “Vocabulary” appears in the area of linguists’ study. Nowadays, researchers still can not give a complete and reasonable definition of vocabulary. Since 1970s, the second language vocabulary acquisition research has gradually become the hot point and important subject in the second language vocabulary acquisition research area. These researches aim to discuss the efficiency vocabulary memory strategies to promote the memory skills and vocabulary levels. Then how to acquire vocabulary become popular among the researchers. Wenden &Rubin (1987), O’Malley& Chamot (1990) refer to the content of vocabulary acquisition strategies; Rubin (1987) and Oxford (1990) classify the memory strategy to the direct cognitive strategies. Especially, CohenAphek (1981), Porte (1988), O’Malley (1990), Vann (90), Cohen (1990), etc made a basic searching of vocabulary acquisition. In a word, there are various opinions in how to acquire vocabulary. Firstly, it talks about the importance of vocabulary. Secondly, what does it mean to “acquire” a word? This paper mainly aims to the detail analysis of the vocabulary acquisition from three aspects：Meta-cognitive Strategy; Cognitive Strategy and Social or Affective Strategy. Especially, it highlights the effect of the context and rending to vocabulary acquisition. This paper talks about the applications of the vocabulary acquisition strategies. And it puts forward some problems and difficulties of vocabulary acquisition. This paper also discusses the influencing factors to the acquisition. It includes the mother tongue, age, language contact, logical thinking ability, identity degree, and academic motivation . The purpose of this paper is to rise the awareness of English learners that the importance of vocabulary in language learning and the vocabulary acquisition strategies can not be neglected, and each strategies is deeply rooted in its language. Through the analysis of the theory of study, the paper tries to draw the learner’s attention to the strategies of the second language vocabulary acquisition and using the vocabulary in communication. In order to improve the acquisition efficiency, some strategies put into practice are introduced. The first presents the importance of vocabulary, some basic concepts of vocabulary and vocabulary learning, the second part tells what does it mean to know a word, the third part deals with the theory of vocabulary acquisition and presents the factors and differences influencing the vocabulary acquisition. The fourth part is detailed discussion of vocabulary acquisition strategies in different levels of learners. The last part is conclusion. Literature review 1. The importance of vocabulary As the first time, when we go to school and our English teacher will tell us that vocabulary is of great importance in learning English. After several years, we understand words gradually, especially when we study in high school. If we know a little about vocabulary, we may have poor English. That is because the listening, speaking, reading and writing show the necessary of learning vocabulary. Many researchers agree that lexis is at least as important as structure, because it is using wrong words and not wrong grammar that usually breaks down communication. Mistakes in lexis much more often lead to misunderstanding and may be less generously tolerated outside classroom than mistakes in syntax. (Carter, 1987). As Stephen Krashen remarked, “When students travel, they don’t carry grammar books, they carry dictionaries. A significant role of vocabulary in both teaching and learning processes was first stated by Stephen Krashen in The Natural Approach (1985): “Vocabulary is basic for communication. If acquirers do not recognize the meaning of the key words used by those who address them they will be unable to participate in the conversation.” Words are basic tools in human communication; therefore they determine the main part of people’s life-relationships between people and associations with the surrounding world that people live in. The larger one’s vocabulary, the easier it is to express one’s thoughts and feelings. In real communication, correctly and idiomatically used vocabulary can even decrease some structural inaccuracy and grammar errors. (Zhang Jiying, 2002). So learners should enrich and expand their knowledge of words as much as possible in order to communicate effectively in a foreign language. 2. What does it mean to “know” a word? Knowing a word is not a simple phenomenon. In fact, it is quite complex and goes far beyond the word’s meaning and pronunciation. (Zhang Jiying, 2002). Richards (1976) think knowing a word means also knowing the frequency of words and their likely collocates; being aware of the functional and situation limitations that apply; knowledge of the “syntactic behavior”; derivational forms and word class; associative and connotative knowledge; semantic value-breaking down words into minimal units as with componential analysis (see Katz&Fodor1963or Leech1974); knowing the other (possible) meaning associated. Nagy and Scott (2000) identify several dimensions that describe the complexity of what it means to know a word. First, word knowledge is incremental, which means that readers need to have many exposures to a word in different contexts before they “know” it. Second, word knowledge is multidimensional. This is because many words have multiple meanings and serve different functions in different function in different sentences, texts, and even conversations. Third, word knowledge is interrelated in that knowledge of one word connects knowledge of other words. What all of this means is that “knowing” a word is a matter of degree rather than an all-or-nothing proposition (Beck&Mckeown, 1991; Nagy&Scott, 2000). The degree of knowing a word are reflected in the precision with which we use a word, how quickly we understand a word, and how well we understand and use words in different modes and different purpose. The memory strategy, cognitive strategy, social strategy and metacognitve strategy are used more frequently than the affective strategy and compensative strategy. Conclusion This paper has attempted to provide some theories of second language vocabulary acquisition and some strategies. Such as metacognitive strategy, cognitive strategy, and social strategy. However, this paper also put forward some microcosmic strategy. As a matter of fact, vocabulary acquisition should combine the context. In addition, this paper hasn’t mentioned that culture is also an important factor in vocabulary acquisition. In the study of second language vocabulary acquisition, we should pay attention to the process and the acquiring results. This paper focuses on the study of the second language vocabulary acquisition strategies. Bibliography [1] A.U. Chamot. The Learning Strategies of ESL Students. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin, (eds), Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 1987. [2] Cater. R. and M. McCarthy. Vocabulary and Language Teaching. New York: Longman, 1987. [3] Nation, L. S. P. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New Newbury House Publishers, 1990. [4] O’Malley, J. & Chamot, A. U.. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition [J]. Cambridge University Press, 1990:12-15. [5] 陈桦，张益芳.中国儿童英语词汇记忆策略探究[J].外语学刊,2001(4). [11] 戴曼纯. 论第二语言词汇习得研究[J]. 外语教学与研究，2002(2). [12] 徐德凯.大学英语词汇教学理论与实践[M].长春：吉林出版集团有限责任公司，2009. [6] 王文宇.观念、策略与英语词汇记忆[J].外语教学与研究，1998(1). [13] 文秋芳. 英语学习策略论.上海：上海外语教育出版社，1996. [7] 吴霞，王蔷.非英语专业本科生词汇水平研究. 外语教学与研究，1998(1). [15] 张纪英.英语词汇学教学与研究[M]. 武汉：华中科技大学出版社,2007. [16] 朱厚敏. 英语词汇学习策略研究[M] 长春：吉林大学出版社，2009.
语言学教案 - Chapter 1 Invitations to Linguistics (2)What is linguistics?1.6 What is linguistics?Linguistics is the branch of learning which studies the languages of any and all human societies. It can be defined as the scientific study of language. In a word, linguistics studies the general principles upon which all languages are constructed and operate as systems of communication in the societies in which they are used.The guiding principles for linguistic studies:Exhaustiveness---the aim is to specify totally the linguistic contrasts in a set of data, and ultimately in the language as a whole.Consistency---total statements should be logically self-consistent.Economy---a criterion requires that, other things being equal, an analysis should aim to be as short and use as few terms as possible. It is a measure which permits one to quantify the number of formal constructs used in arriving at a solution to problem, and has been used, explicitly or implicitly, in most areas of linguistic investigation.Objectivity---linguistic analyses should be as objective as possible. Truth should come from facts1.7 Some basic distinctions in linguistics1.7.1 speech and writingthe primacy of speech:1) Speech is prior to writing historically2) genetically, children always learn to speak before they learn to write.The importance of writing:1) space displacement2) time displacement3) a visual recording of a speech
自然科学是涉及各行各业的研究领域的大学科,掌握自然科学的发展规律是研究自然科学人员所必须切身认知的内容。这是我为大家整理的大学生自然科学论文，仅供参考! 大学生自然科学论文篇一 浅析自然科学与宗教的关系 【摘 要】事实上，科学与宗教并不是背道而驰的，二者之间有着密切的关系。科学与宗教的关系也越来越受到关注。但是要承认科学与宗教是有着本质的区别的。我们要在看到科学与宗教的区别的基础上分析科学与宗教之间的联系。宗教与科学既对立又统一，宗教离不开科学，科学也需要宗教。在科学发展取得巨大进步的今天，我们更不能摒弃宗教信仰，要发挥其有利一面，发展科学的同时也发展宗教。 【关键词】自然科学;宗教;科学家;宗教信仰 1 理解科学与宗教的定义 1.1 什么是科学 科学即分科之学，是关于自然、社会、思维等的客观规律的分科学说。在《辞海》(1979年版)中这样界定“科学”：“科学是关于自然界、社会和思维的知识体系，它是适应人们生产斗争和阶级斗争的需要而产生和发展的，它是人们实践 经验 的结晶。”英国学者贝尔纳在《历史上的科学》一书中说：“科学可作为一种建制;一种 方法 ;一种积累的知识传统;一种维持或发展生产的主要因素;以及构成我们的诸信仰和对宇宙和人类的诸态度的最强大势力之一。”[1] 1.2 什么是宗教 宗教是人类社会成长到一定历史阶段而产生的一种 文化 现象，属于社会意识形态范畴，是对神明的尊奉与崇拜。一般而言，宗教就是一种信仰体系，是对客观存在的解释，一般包括仪式的遵从与信仰两个方面。宗教主要特点是，相信有一种神通的神秘力量或实体存在于现实世界之外，这种神秘力量不仅统摄万物而且主宰自然进化、决定人世命运、拥有绝对权威，从而使人类对这种神秘力量产生敬畏和崇拜之感，并经过不断的发展变化引申出信仰认知和仪式活动等内容。恩格斯在《反杜林论》中这样解说宗教“一切宗教都不过是支配着人们日常生活的外部力量在人们头脑中的幻想的反映，在这种反映中，人间的力量采取了超人间的力量的形式。” 2 科学与宗教的关系 2.1 科学与宗教共同生长 科学是一种认识活动，科学知识起源于人类的 社会实践 活动，古代文明为近代科学的发展创造了条件。由于受人类社会实践水平和认识水平的局限，在一段很长的历史进程中，古代的科学知识一直依赖于充满想象和猜测的自然哲学，甚至依附于宗教神明。到了中世纪，科学逐渐发展成为神学的一个分支，随着人类实践和认识的发展，科学与宗教从混合状态走向解体，科学最终从自然哲学和宗教神话中分离出来，演变成为实证科学。1543年，哥白尼的《天体运行》第一次宣布了近代科学与宗教神话的终极决裂。从此，科学的发展取得巨大的进步，自然科学也从宗教神学中获得解脱，科学与宗教走上了冲突对立的道路。 在人类文明刚刚开始之时，科学与宗教就各自的萌生起来。只不过当时科学认识与宗教思想都处于初始时期，相互存在于人类的原始思维形式之中，二者相互融合，相互渗透，很难找到二者的差别。随着生产力的不断发展，文化形式出现分化现象，不同的文化形式开始分离。在原始社会走向完结前，不同文化的分化正处于低级阶段，科学知识与宗教神明仍然共同存在，界限不分明，互相包含。正因如此，我们在最初的科学中能够看到神秘的虚幻认识的影子，而在最初的宗教中也能够发现人类经过实践积累的经验知识。 2.2 科学与宗教在本质上是对立的 科学与宗教在本质上是对立的。科学不认可超自然的力量，反对采用超自然的因素和力量去解释任何自然客观现象和自然现象的发展过程。然而，从本质上说宗教就是对超自然力量的敬仰与信封，认为世界是被超自然的上帝和神明创造的。宗教由于对超自然力量的敬仰与崇拜导致它否认客观存在的必然性和客观事物发展的规律。这种科学对超自然力量的否定与宗教对超自然力量的肯定之间的对立，决定了科学与宗教在本质上是对立的，而且这种对立是不可调和的。 科学与宗教的认识方法也是完全不同的。自然科学从客观实在的各种具体形式出发，从而发现客观实在之间的联系并用经验的方法证明。而宗教认识所采用的方法是“信仰主义”，借助的是非经验、非理性的神秘主义直觉。 科学与宗教的社会作用也有很大的不同。科学技术突飞猛进的发展推动了社会生产力的发展，并以此推动了社会的不断发展与进步，科学被马克思主义看作是最有意义的革命力量。虽然在特殊的历史背景下宗教曾经对社会发展起到积极的作用，但在整个历史进程中宗教是一种含蓄的成分，因为宗教常常把客观的社会制度作为神意的展现，因而对社会的发展起到阻碍的作用。 2.3 科学与宗教的冲突 恩格斯在《自然辩证法》导言中说：“自然科学……本身就是彻底革命的，它还得为争取自己的生存权利而斗争。”并举例说：“自然科学把它的殉道者送上了火刑场和宗教裁判所的牢狱。值得注意的是，新教徒在迫害自然科学的自由研究上超过了天主教徒。塞尔维特正要发现血液循环过程的时候，加尔文便烧死了他，而且还活活地把他烤了两个钟头;而宗教裁判所只是把乔尔丹诺?布鲁诺简单地烧死便心满意足了。”[3] 宗教和科学是一直存在着冲突的，但二者的关系并没有发展到你死我活的地步。爱因斯坦曾经说过：宗教领域同科学领域之间冲突的主要来源在于人格化了的上帝这个概念。这种象征性的内容，可能会同科学发生冲突。只要宗教的这套观念包含着它对那些原来属于科学领域的论题所作的一成不变的教条式陈述，这种冲突就一定会发生。[2]在整个历史进程中，科学与宗教的对立并不罕见，依此可以看出宗教对科学发展的干涉，比如，教会严厉反对伽利略和达尔文的革命斗争并对其进行残酷的迫害就是这样。 无论历史还是现实都向我们证明，宗教永远不会摒弃对威胁其地位的科学理论发起挑战的，不仅这样，宗教还要打击科学的 教育 。最典型的例子是，众所周知____一直没有停止对“进化论”的攻击，因为“进化论”击中了基督____的根基，这也就上演了宗教对科学的迫害。由此看来，科学与宗教的冲突由来已久并且也很难调和。 3 科学家与宗教信仰的关系 虽然科学与宗教在历史进程中始终是对立冲突的关系，但是许多西方自然科学家都有宗教信仰，例如天文物理学的奠基人开普勒曾说过：“既然天文学家是自然之书最高上帝的牧师，适合我们思考的不是我们智慧的光荣，而是居于一切之上的上帝的光荣。”;还有经典力学体系的建立者牛顿，他信仰耶稣基督和救世主，而且牛顿在晚年写了大量关于宗教方法的手稿，手稿内容涉及年代学和圣经研究又延伸到神学阐释;更有发展了电学和磁学基础概念的法拉第，他也是一个虔诚的____信徒，积极参与教堂活动;被称为是原子理论之父的道尔顿，也是一个传统的 __ 恩格斯说过：“上帝在信仰上帝的自然科学家那里的遭遇，比在任何地方都要糟糕。唯物主义者只去说明事物，是不理睬这套废话的。只有当那些纠缠不休的教徒们把上帝强加给他们的时候，他们才会考虑这件事，并且作出简单的回答，或者像拉普拉斯那样说：‘陛下，我不’，或者更粗鲁一些，以荷兰商人经常用来打发硬把次货塞给他们的德国行商们的方式说：‘我用不着那路货色’，并且这样就把问题了结了。而上帝在他的保卫者那里竟要忍受何等遭遇啊!在现代自然科学的历史中，上帝在他的保卫者那里的遭遇，就像耶拿会战中弗里德里希?威廉三世在他的文官武将那里的遭遇一样。在科学的推进下，一支又一支部队放下武器，一座又一座堡垒投降，直到最后，自然界无穷无尽的领域全都被科学征服，不再给造物主留下一点立足之地。牛顿还把‘第一推动’留给上帝，但是不允许他对自己的太阳系进行别的任何干预。神父赛奇虽然履行教规中的全部礼仪来恭维上帝，但是并不因此就变得手软些，他把上帝完全逐出了太阳系，而只允许后者在原始星云上还能作出某种‘创造行动’。在一切领域中，情况都是如此。”[3] 恩格斯的这段话引发了我们的深思，一个有宗教信仰的科学家能否进行科学研究呢?那么如果他从事了科学研究，他所取得的科学成果是宗教信仰的原因还是他自己的思维的结果呢? 笔者认为要坚持一个适度的原则，可以有信仰，要防止过犹不及。例如伽利略，可以说他一直是一位忠实的天主教徒，但是必须承认他有很高的科学素养。伽利略科因追求真理而取得了科学成就，当他的科学研究与宗教信仰产生矛盾时，他选择真理，具有崇高的科学精神，尊重科学事实，因此才能在科学领域取得成就。 如果科学家迷信过度，那么他们的科学之路将会充满崎岖，宗教信条有可能引导他们走上与科学相反的道路，得出一些违背科学的结论。这里我们以牛顿为典型来考察一下。牛顿是近代以来最伟大的科学家之一，他所著的《自然哲学的数学原理》被公认为是科学史上最伟大的自然科学著作，无论是在天文学还是在数学等领域他都做出了非凡的贡献。这些成就都归功于他崇高的科学精神和科学素养，因为他能够正确面对科学事实，敢于破除宗教信仰的束缚。但是在晚年，他的科学观逐渐屈服于神学观，他从唯物主义的经验论进入了唯心主义的先验论，在那之后牛顿就没有多少的科学成就了。可见，科学家可以有信仰，但是要适度。 4 结论 科学与宗教并不是背道而驰的，二者之间有着密切的关系。科学与宗教的关系也越来越受到关注。但是要承认科学与宗教是有着本质的区别的。历史上科学与宗教始终存在冲突对立的关系，宗教对科学进行迫害，导致科学的发展受到阻碍。同时，我们要在看到科学与宗教的区别的基础上分析科学与宗教之间的联系，宗教与科学既对立又统一，宗教离不开科学，科学也需要宗教。在科学发展取得巨大进步的今天，我们更不能摒弃宗教信仰，要发挥其有力一面，发展科学的同时也发展宗教。 【参考文献】 [1]贝尔纳.历史上的科学[M].伍况甫，等，译.科学出版社，195. [2]爱因斯坦文集：第一卷[M]. [3]恩格斯.自然辩证法[M]//马克思恩格斯文集：第9卷.人民出版社，2009. 大学生自然科学论文篇二 自然科学的发展特点及展望 摘 要 自然科学是涉及各行各业的研究领域的大学科,掌握自然科学的发展规律是研究自然科学人员所必须切身认知的内容。本文通过辩证的观点去看待自然科学,整理自然科学的认知模式,探索其发展规律。 关键词 自然科学 逻辑思维 非逻辑思维 批判性思维 自然科学是一门范围广博的知识范畴,是针对事物客观规律的认知、归纳所形成的科学体系。其涉及的知识层次、知识面基本上涵盖了人类社会的方方面面,通晓其发展规律和特点是从事自然科学研究人员所必需掌握的基本知识。 一、自然科学的特点 (一)自然科学的获得方式 中世纪末期是近代自然科学的孕育期,当时最杰出的人物,13世纪的英国哲学家罗吉尔•培根对经验和事实给予了特殊的关注。他指出:“大家公认,我们通过三条途径获得知识,即权威、理性和经验;然而,当权威不知道事物的理由;理性也不能分辨是诡辩还是论证时,除非结论为经验所证实。”正是由于罗吉尔•培根的提出和倡导“实验科学”,强调只有实验方法才能给科学以可靠性。 近代英国唯物主义学家弗兰西斯•培根进一步指出,实验科学最重要特性之一就是利用实验来增加积累事实知识,并提出:“从感觉和特殊出发构造公理,然后是连续不断地、逐渐地上升,直至最后达致最普通的公理。”正是这种思想和思维模式指导和推动了科学理论发展,对近代科学的兴起和发展做了开创性的工作。 由此可见,自然科学作为大科学的重要组成部分,在其获取方式上依然是由科学观察和科学实验作为其获取的主要途径。 (二)自然科学的归类和整理 当我们在通过科学观察和实验获得的知识并不是科学规律。一般而言,从科学知识向科学规律和科学理论过渡要经过知性认识和理性认识两个阶段。 知性认识:只要是对科学知识进行分类、系统化并加以分析和概括,使之上升为科学规律。 理性认识:主要是在科学概括的基础上形成理论体系,以便反映客观世界普遍而不然的联系。 在科学的归类和整理过程中相应发展出各种科学方法,可大致分为:广义归纳法(本能归纳、常识思考归纳和批判性科学研究归纳)、演绎法(亚里斯多德的形式逻辑三段论为基础,符号化过程,数理逻辑,公理化方法)和类比法(两类对象之间在某些方面的类似或统一,推论其可能在其他方面也具有相类似性;虽然类比法逻辑根据不充分,但是它提供科学发现的重要线索)。 这三种方法都体现出科学在推理上的所透露出思维模式――逻辑思维,特别是演绎法,可以说是将人类运用自然语言进行思维的经验提升到基本思维规律和基本思维方法的高度。 (三)自然科学的合理性和可错性 哲学家布朗指出,“合理性”概念的古典模型具有三个特征:普遍性、必然性和规则性。科学的合理性首先表现在经验规律和理论规律的逻辑关联中;其次经验和理论规律间存在相互支持的逻辑关系;另外就是理论规律的合理性突出地表现对某些经验规律的矫正;科学规律的合理性可以通过科学实践的有效性来说明。 针对科学的可错性,我们通过20世纪初,科学哲学家卡尔•波普尔在《科学发现的逻辑》中所指出来说明:在真实和错误之间存在着不对称性,没有理论可以被证明是对的,但有些理论可以被证明是错,科学和非科学由此可以界定。在科学领域,至关重要的观念是要“证错”或“证伪”,而不是“证对”。 二、逻辑与非逻辑问题 由上面的自然科学的特点,我们可以看出在自然科学的认识过程中,始终贯彻着观察、实验和推理的过程。 在推理过程中,人们一般把归纳法作为科学假设或科学理论的基本方法。借助这一方法,通过大量实验进行概括,构建解释所观察的或现象之间的关系的新体系,其可靠程度虽然不够,但却富于创造性,它是作出理论发现的重要方法,然而其不是万能的,并不是所有的科学理论都可以通过归纳法来获得。爱因斯坦就曾说过,决不能用归纳法来发现物理学上的基本概念。 而与归纳法相对应的演绎法,即从一般到个别,用一般理论来分析解释具体事物的方法。运用这一方法,人们需要借助某一普遍法则或原理,也就是说,演绎法应用的结论受初始条件的制约,前提正确,才能确保演绎正确。但是由于演绎法是将一般原理推广应用现象的过程,很难导出新的概念或经验。达尔文曾结合自己的科研经验 总结 :我必须从大量事实出发,而不是从原理出发,我怀疑原理中有谬误(在他看来,用演绎法在生物学领域是不可信赖的)。因此我们不难发现演绎法的纯逻辑也存在着严重的缺陷。 就如同科学社会学家巴伯在《科学与社会秩序》中分析说,强调科学发现过程中逻辑的作用这样一个惯例漏掉了科学中大量最重要的东西,漏掉了所有可能的错误,漏掉了科学发现者的所有丰富的 想象力 ,也漏掉了所有对已有发现成果的思考,漏掉了所有对周围世界认真探索的思路和方法。生物学家莱恩•杜波斯曾在《路易•巴斯德》中写道:“构成科学的原材料不仅是科学家的观察、实验、计算,而且还有他们的冲动、梦想和愚蠢。” 三、从辩证的观点和 思维方式 去看待自然科学的发展 从创造性角度来看,科学发现的过程是一个意识和潜意识、逻辑和非逻辑交互作用的过程。当出现问题,研究者就会出现一个“主观模拟”过程,他们会去主观想象周围事物,并集中注意到某些特定现象,运用主观的臆测获取表达形式,然后运用科学的语言把心中的发现和想法描述出来,形成真正的科学假说,然后通过严格的科学方法论证检验。 不仅如此,科学发现的过程还是革命性和渐进性相互统一。即我们所常说的:“破而后立。”爱因斯坦也指出:“提出一个问题往往比解决一个问题更重要。因为解决问题也许仅仅是一个数学上或试验上的技能而已,而提出新问题,新的可能性,从新的角度去看待旧的问题,却需要有创造性的想象力,而且标志着科学的真正进步。”科学家廷德尔说,知识一经获得,便给自己的周围投射上微弱的光亮。重大的科学新发现一旦作出,成功的科学家立刻会从可能的角度予以观察,并将它与其他知识体系相联系,以发现科学研究的新途径。 四、几种常见的自然科学思维方式 归根结底,自然科学研究是对先前思想和行动所依据的学所及原理不断进行检验的一种思想活动,有条理的批判性思维是科学的基本特点。 “大胆的想法,难以证明的预期,以及推测性的思想,是我们解释自然的唯一手段,也是我们把握自然的唯一法则和唯一工具。” ――科学哲学家 波普尔 参考文献: [1]黄顺基,苏越,黄展骥.逻辑与知识创新.中国人民大学出版社.2002. [2]刘大椿.自然辩证法概论(第2版).中国人民大学出版社.2008. [3]武宏志,周建武,唐坚.非形式逻辑导论.人民出版社.2009.
参考文献是论文的一个重要组成部分，不管学历高低，论文长短都存在。为了让论文有据可依，论文正文部分都会引用参考文献来增强说服力，在引用参考文献时，通常会用中括号或者其他符号标注引用序号，然后将引用的文献信息统一放到论文最后。
一、论文参考文献
1、论文中的参考文献是对某一论文或著作的合理借鉴和参考，对于毕业论文作者来说保持论文和参考文献的统一性是很重要的，正确使用参考文献可以提升我们的论文质量，让论文的观点有理有据，内容更加详实。
2、在引用参考文献时需要注意，参考文献的格式如果不正确，在进行论文查重时，会影响论文的重复率，导致论文高于实际的重复率，造成不利影响。所以我们在注重参考文献统一性的同时，还应当注意学校对论文格式的要求和参考文献的引用规则。
3、参考文献是论文科学选题的前提，是论文论述的支撑点，能够充实论文内容，给予表述论文主题内容有力的支撑。参考文献是一篇完整的高质量的毕业论文中必不可少的一部分，读者可以通过参考文献有效的找到和论文相关的资料，更加快速有效的理解参考文献内容以及毕业论文观点。
4、毕业论文参考文献引用不当一般可以分成两个方面：第一个方面就是作者随意引用，没有做到择优引用;另一个方面就是参考文献引用过量，涉嫌学术不端。这都是大家在引用参考文献时需要着重注意的。
二、写论文一般去什么网站找资料?？
1、中国知网
知网是国内最为权威的学术交流平台，包含有期刊、报纸和硕博士毕业论文等多种资源，是一个资源综合丰富并且检索体验也很好的网站，也是很适合大学生日常学习和毕业论文查资料的好去处。
2、万方数据
万方是跟知网齐名的学术数据库，涵盖有期刊、会议纪要、论文、学术成果和学术会议论文等资料数据，现刊收录较好，核心期刊比例高，收录文献质量高且类型丰富，几乎每个专业的学生几乎都能在这里找到想要的论文写作资料。
3、维普网
维普也是一种综合性数据库，收录资源主要是侧重于地方性期刊和研究方面的论文，内容大多是自然科学、工程技术、医药卫生、农林牧渔以及人文社科等方面，随着多年发展，收录资源的方面和数量也在不断更新，也是大家获取论文写作资料的重要来源。
4、读秀
读秀是由海量全文数据及资料基本信息组成的超大型数据库，有着庞大的中文书籍数据库，在读秀中可以搜到很多其他平台没有收录的书籍，并且也在不断更新期刊、文档和报纸等资源，也是一个比较全面的数据库。
5、全国图书馆参考咨询联盟
全国图书馆参考咨询联盟顾名思义，是全国图书馆资源的线上整合平台，各种公共图书馆、高校图书馆和科技图书馆等的资源都可以搜到，有着大规模的中文数字化资源库群，能够搜集到很多资料。