汉语立法文本中的回指及其英译
发布时间：2018-07-26 11:07
【摘要】： 回指是语篇衔接的重要手段之一。近几十年来,中外学者从语言学、哲学、翻译学等角度对回指现象做了很多理论或者实证性的工作。然而,我们发现甚少学者涉足回指在特定文体中的运用,而专门对立法语篇中的回指现象进行的研究更是凤毛麟角。因此,本文作者在前人研究的基础上,拟对回指性语言形式在汉语立法语篇中的运用及其英译原则、策略进行研究。 立法语篇是一种特殊的书面法律语言形式,其特点是逻辑严密、结构紧凑、高度程式化。为准确传达立法信息,实现立法意图,立法者不得不使用各种衔接手段来实现立法语篇的连贯。回指便是其中最重要的衔接手段之一。 立法语篇中的回指可分为名词回指、代词回指和零形回指三种主要形式。这三种回指形式在汉语立法语篇和英语立法语篇中均有不同程度的体现。立法语篇中,名词回指的回指语与其先行词保持形式上的一致,保证了立法信息的统一性和立法语篇的严谨性；代词回指使用代词作为回指语,既避免了拖沓冗余的表达,也使上下文联系更加紧凑和连贯；零形回指在避免导致歧义的前提下不使用任何词汇形式作为其回指语,正是这种零形式使立法语篇高度衔接,读者在理解零形回指的同时也将相关的语言成分自然联系起来,实现了语篇的统一。 在翻译汉语立法语篇中的名词回指、代词回指和零形回指时,必须遵循相应的原则。作者结合立法语篇的特殊性和回指的衔接功能,提出了四条翻译原则：准确、通顺、规范、对等。准确是翻译的最基本要求。译者在翻译各种回指形式时,必须保证准确传达源语信息,充分体现回指的衔接功能。通顺原则要求译文符合英语的表达习惯和普通法国家的立法实践,而不是把各种汉语回指形式机械地翻译成相应的英语表达。规范原则是由立法语篇的规范性特征决定的。由于汉英立法语篇在不同情况下使用不同的回指形式实现语篇的连贯,因此译者在译文中选用的先行词及回指语都必须符合立法语篇的正式性和规范性的要求。对等原则要求译者在翻译汉语立法语篇中的上述三种回指形式时,必须时刻考虑到该译文在英语国家中所产生的效力。好的译文在目的语受众中产生的效力与原文在源语受众中产生的效力应能达到最大程度上的一致。 在翻译汉语立法语篇的各种回指形式之前,译者首先应将语篇作为翻译的基本单位,无论是理解汉语立法语篇中的回指形式还是将其翻译成英语,译者都应从语篇的角度上进行考虑。在此基础上,本文作者提出了回指的三种翻译策略：保留原回指形式、三种回指形式之间相互转换、不使用任何回指语。这三种策略在使用的语境尽管有差异,但最终目的都是为了实现译文的紧密衔接和行文连贯。
[Abstract]:Anaphora is one of the important means of textual cohesion. In recent decades, Chinese and foreign scholars have done a lot of theoretical and empirical work on anaphora from the perspectives of linguistics, philosophy and translation. However, we find that very few scholars are involved in the use of anaphora in a particular style, and the research on anaphora phenomenon in legislative discourse is even rarer. Therefore, on the basis of previous studies, the author intends to study the application of anaphoric language in Chinese legislative discourse and its translation principles and strategies. Legislative discourse is a special form of written legal language, which is characterized by tight logic, compact structure and highly stylized structure. In order to convey legislative information accurately and realize legislative intention, legislators have to use various cohesive devices to achieve the coherence of legislative texts. Anaphora is one of the most important cohesive devices. Anaphora in legislative texts can be divided into three main forms: noun anaphora, pronoun anaphora and zero anaphora. These three anaphora forms are reflected in both Chinese legislative discourse and English legislative discourse to varying degrees. In legislative discourse, the anaphora of noun anaphora keeps formal consistency with its anaphora, which ensures the unity of legislative information and the preciseness of legislative discourses, while pronoun anaphora uses pronoun as anaphora, which avoids redundant expressions. Zero anaphora does not use any form of lexical anaphora as its anaphora, which leads to a high degree of cohesion in legislative texts. Readers understand zero anaphora and combine the relevant linguistic elements naturally, thus realizing the unity of discourse. In translating Chinese legislative texts, the principles of noun anaphora, pronoun anaphora and zero anaphora must be followed. Combined with the particularity of legislative texts and the cohesive function of anaphora, the author puts forward four translation principles: accuracy, smoothness, standardization and equivalence. Accuracy is the most basic requirement of translation. In translating all kinds of anaphora, the translator must ensure that the information of the source language is conveyed accurately and the cohesive function of anaphora is fully embodied. The principle of smoothness requires that the translation be in accordance with English expression habits and the legislative practice of common law countries, rather than mechanically translating all kinds of Chinese anaphora forms into corresponding English expressions. Normative principles are determined by the normative characteristics of legislative texts. Since Chinese and English legislative texts use different anaphora forms to achieve coherence in different situations, both anaphora and anaphora used by the translator in the target text must meet the formal and normative requirements of the legislative text. The principle of equivalence requires that the translator must always take into account the effectiveness of the translation in English-speaking countries when translating the three anaphora forms mentioned above in Chinese legislative texts. The effect of a good translation in the target language audience and the original text in the source language audience should be consistent to the greatest extent. Before translating various anaphora forms of Chinese legislative discourse, the translator should first regard the text as the basic unit of translation, whether it is to understand the anaphora form in Chinese legislative discourse or to translate it into English. Translators should consider the text from the perspective of the text. On this basis, the author proposes three strategies for the translation of anaphora: preserving the anaphora form, converting the three anaphora forms to each other, and not using any anaphora. Although the three strategies are used in different contexts, their ultimate purpose is to achieve close cohesion and coherence.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D90-055;H315.9
本文编号：2145810
[Abstract]:Anaphora is one of the important means of textual cohesion. In recent decades, Chinese and foreign scholars have done a lot of theoretical and empirical work on anaphora from the perspectives of linguistics, philosophy and translation. However, we find that very few scholars are involved in the use of anaphora in a particular style, and the research on anaphora phenomenon in legislative discourse is even rarer. Therefore, on the basis of previous studies, the author intends to study the application of anaphoric language in Chinese legislative discourse and its translation principles and strategies. Legislative discourse is a special form of written legal language, which is characterized by tight logic, compact structure and highly stylized structure. In order to convey legislative information accurately and realize legislative intention, legislators have to use various cohesive devices to achieve the coherence of legislative texts. Anaphora is one of the most important cohesive devices. Anaphora in legislative texts can be divided into three main forms: noun anaphora, pronoun anaphora and zero anaphora. These three anaphora forms are reflected in both Chinese legislative discourse and English legislative discourse to varying degrees. In legislative discourse, the anaphora of noun anaphora keeps formal consistency with its anaphora, which ensures the unity of legislative information and the preciseness of legislative discourses, while pronoun anaphora uses pronoun as anaphora, which avoids redundant expressions. Zero anaphora does not use any form of lexical anaphora as its anaphora, which leads to a high degree of cohesion in legislative texts. Readers understand zero anaphora and combine the relevant linguistic elements naturally, thus realizing the unity of discourse. In translating Chinese legislative texts, the principles of noun anaphora, pronoun anaphora and zero anaphora must be followed. Combined with the particularity of legislative texts and the cohesive function of anaphora, the author puts forward four translation principles: accuracy, smoothness, standardization and equivalence. Accuracy is the most basic requirement of translation. In translating all kinds of anaphora, the translator must ensure that the information of the source language is conveyed accurately and the cohesive function of anaphora is fully embodied. The principle of smoothness requires that the translation be in accordance with English expression habits and the legislative practice of common law countries, rather than mechanically translating all kinds of Chinese anaphora forms into corresponding English expressions. Normative principles are determined by the normative characteristics of legislative texts. Since Chinese and English legislative texts use different anaphora forms to achieve coherence in different situations, both anaphora and anaphora used by the translator in the target text must meet the formal and normative requirements of the legislative text. The principle of equivalence requires that the translator must always take into account the effectiveness of the translation in English-speaking countries when translating the three anaphora forms mentioned above in Chinese legislative texts. The effect of a good translation in the target language audience and the original text in the source language audience should be consistent to the greatest extent. Before translating various anaphora forms of Chinese legislative discourse, the translator should first regard the text as the basic unit of translation, whether it is to understand the anaphora form in Chinese legislative discourse or to translate it into English. Translators should consider the text from the perspective of the text. On this basis, the author proposes three strategies for the translation of anaphora: preserving the anaphora form, converting the three anaphora forms to each other, and not using any anaphora. Although the three strategies are used in different contexts, their ultimate purpose is to achieve close cohesion and coherence.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D90-055;H315.9
【引证文献】
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 郝爽;基于衔接理论的汉语立法语篇英译研究[D];东北师范大学;2011年
，本文编号：2145810
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/fashilw/2145810.html
