语言学论文英文题目格式

题目：①实物大写（如apple ……），虚物小写（如a，an……）但是若虚物大于5个字母，则大写（如before……） ②第一个单词首字母，末单词首字母大写！ ③专有词汇大写（地名，名字，城市，宗教，书名……）

英语语言学论文题目 13论国际商务谈判中的语言交际技巧 33成人世界的童话——从文体学角度解析现今童话再度流行的现象 49论文化差异与英汉商标互译 55浅谈英汉句子结构差异 59诗意的美和喜剧性幽默 62试论广告英语的语言特点 65统觉团对英语初学者词汇学习的影响 67外语学习中应该重视中介语的作用 69新闻报道中的转述动词研究 73英汉禁忌语、委婉语的对比研究 74英汉数字习语的对比研究 76英译汉中词序的变动 78英语广告的语言特征 80英语双关语汉译的可译性限度 101词义演变的原因与方式 137从汉语中英语借词的翻译看文化交流 138从价值观转换看斯佳丽的角色特征 142从礼貌准则看中英文化的异同 146从习语看英汉民族的文化差异 149从英语人名中看性别歧视 157动词过程类型的选择和话语隐性态度的表达 161对母语在英语写作中词汇负迁移现象的思考 162对严复译作中“信”的质疑 167法律英语用词特征分析 168法律语言翻译与法律文体 177副词EVER的句法环境和语义特征 180功能语法视角下的英语报纸新闻标题的功能 183广告口号语的语言特点 189国际商务文化之对比研究 204汉语中双关语的翻译 213基于概念隐喻的诗歌解读 228论广告英语中的幽 默 265论广告英语的语言特点 268论汉英谚语的语言特征 280论清教理念与美国西进运动 282论莎士比亚十四行诗中的时间 300论英语广告中几种常用修辞格及其汉译 310论尤金?奥尼尔的表现主义手法 324名词化的语篇功能 330诺曼时期法语对英语词汇的影响 339浅谈英语虚拟语气的语用功能 340浅谈英语虚拟语气及其语用功能 345浅析二十世纪计算机英语词汇的构成特点

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.

1. 英语毕业论文论文组成部分 ※ 封面（Cover） ※ 标题页（Title Page） ※ 中文摘要 ※ 英文摘要（Abstract） ※ 目录（Contents） ※ 论文正文（Body） ※ 注释（Notes） ※ 参考文献（Bibliography） ※ 致谢（Acknowledgements） 2. 封面 封面从湖南文理学院统一格式。 3. 标题页 单独起页。本页的内容全部居中，从上至下分别为：（1）英文标题（字母全部大写，三号黑体，其余用四号）,（2）by＋作者姓名汉语拼音,（3）导师姓名汉语拼音,（4）论文答辩年月4. 中文摘要 即英文摘要之汉译。中文摘要应说明工作目的，研究方法、成果和结论。要突出学位论文中的创造性成果和新见解，语言力求精练。 居中打印“摘要”二字（三号黑体），字间空一格。“摘要”二字下空一行打印摘要内容（四号宋体），每段开头空二格。摘要内容后下换行打印“关键词”三字（四号黑体）,空一格后为关键词（四号宋体）。关键词数量为3-5个，每一关键词之间用逗号分开，最后一个关键词后不打标点符号。 5. 英文摘要 单独起页。在起始页第二行居中位置注明Abstract字样，往下至行文第一行之间空一个double space。摘要内容须能反映论文的主题思想。摘要内容书写完毕以后，往下空出一个double space的位置标注Key words：字样，随后给出能反映全文主要内容的关键词3-5个。各个关键词之间用逗号分开。居中打印Abstract（三号Times New Roman字体加粗），空一行打印英文摘要内容及关键词（四号Times New Roman字体），摘要内容每段开头留四个字符空格。摘要内容后下换行打印Key words，空二个字符后关键词小写，每一关键词之间用逗号分开，最后一个关键词后不打标点符号。 6. 目录 单独起页。在启始页第二行居中位置注Contents字样，往下空一个double space。靠左位置分条目（依照其出现的先后顺序）列出论文的如下各个部分：论文的各个章节标题、Notes、Bibliography、Acknowledgements，靠右注明相应的起始页码数。所有条目的措辞、大小写、以及标点符号与其在文章中的严格一致。列出论文的大标题、一级和二级节标题，逐项标明页码，标题应该简明扼要、点出各部分主要内容。7. 论文正文 ● 大章 每章（含Introduction、Conclusion）须另起页。在起始页第二行居中的位置注明Chapter字样，空一格后用阿拉伯数字标明本章序数，如Chapter 1；Chapter 5。该章标题位于下一行居中位置，第一个单词和所有实意词的首字母大写。标题往下到节标题或行文之间空一个double space。 ● 节（小节） 节（小节）标题单独占一行，用1.1、1.2、1.3……的格式编码层次，左顶格。节与节之间空一个double space。 ● 例句 例句较多时，须统一使用（1）、（2）（3）……编号。 标题：每章标题以三号Times New Roman居中打印：“章”下空两行为“节”以四号Times New Roman左起打印；“节”下空一行为“小节”，以四号Times New Roman左起打印。换行后空二格打印论文正文。正文采用四号Times New Roman。 8. 注释 ● 尾注 详细注释使用尾注形式。作为一个独立部分，尾注须单独起页，在起始页第二行居中位置注明Notes字样。所有尾注统一用1、2、3……格式编号。 ● 夹注 行文中无需特别说明的引文或文献指引使用夹注形式。常用格式为： 直接引文：“作者姓（著作年代：原文页码）”，如：Chomsky (1981:7) explains that “universal grammar may be thought of as some system of principles, common to the species and available to each individual prior to experience.” 转述：“作者姓（著作年代）”，如：In Chomsky (1981)，the feature composition of PRO is argued to be [＋anaphor，＋pronominal]. 提及：“作者姓（著作年代）”，如：For discussion of the classification of verbs in the traditional literature see Aarts ＆ Aarts(1982),Huddleston (1984)and Quirk et al (1985). 如果文献原文为中文，则用“作者姓的拼音（汉语姓名、著作年代：原文页码）”格式，如Wang（王力1985：67）holds that “…”。应该注意文献目录中必须有该中文条目，即：王力，1985，《中国语言学史》，太原：山西人民出版社。 总之，要使“行文”-“夹注”-“文献”能有机地相互照应。 9. 参考文献 单独起页。在起始页第二行居中位置注明Bibliography字样，往下至第一个文献条目之间空一个double space。所列各条目必须是论文写作过程中参考过，并且与论文内容相关的论著。 各条目按作者的姓氏（last name）(中文姓氏按其汉语拼音)的字母顺序，外文文献排前，中文文献排后。 同一作者的不同文献按时间先后排列，同一作者同一年代的不同论著则在出版年代后用a、b、c……加以区别，如1998a，1998b。 每条文献顶格写，回行时外文空5个字符、中文空2个汉字。 ● 外文文献格式 外文书名、博士论文名及期刊名用斜体书写，其中所有的实义词首字母大写；论文篇名用正体书写，仅篇名第一个单词的首字母大写、其余（除专有的名词以外）一律小写。各类型的具体格式如下： （1）期刊式一：作者姓，作者名.出版年代.论文题目.期刊名.期刊期号：论文页码范围。 例：Chomsky,Noam.1980.On Binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11：1-44. （2）期刊式二：第一作者姓，第一作者名.＆第二作者名 第二作者姓（以此类推）.出版年代.论文题目.期刊名.期刊期号：论文页码范围. 例：Chomsky, Noam. ＆ Howrad Lasnik.1997. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425-504. （3）专著式：作者姓，作者名.出版年代.专著名.出版社所在城市名：出版社. 例：Chomsky，Noam.1986a. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass：MIT Press. Chomsky，Noam. 1986b. Knowledge of Language: It’s Nature, Origin and Use. New York : Praeger. (4)编著论文式：作者姓，作者名.出版年代.论文题目.In编者姓名（ed.）（两人以上用eds.）文集名，论文页码范围，出版社所在城市名：出版社. 例：Chomsky, Noam.1993.A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Kenneth Hale ＆ Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.) The View from Building 20:Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger,1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.10. 致谢 单独起页。在起始页第二行居中位置注明Acknowledgements（三号Times New Roman）字样，往下至行文第一行之间空一个double space。本部分内容为对自己在论文写作中提供过实质性帮助的人表达谢意。内容要简明、得体。 11. 页面标示 封面与标题页不计页面数；中文摘要、英文摘要、目录用小写罗马数字（i 、ii、 iii、 iv、 v、 vi…… ）标示页面数，居于页面底部中间位置；从正文开始一直到附录部分的最后一页一律用阿拉伯数字（1、2、3……）标示，居于页面底部中间位置。致谢不标示页面数。12.打印和装订要求：装订次序： ● 封面 ● 标题页 ● 毕业论文任务书 ● 毕业论文成绩评定表 ● 毕业论文开题报告 ● 中文摘要 ● 英文摘要（Abstract） ● 目录（Contents） ● 论文正文（Body） ● 注释（Notes） ● 参考文献（Bibliography） ● 致谢（Acknowledgements）● 封底 (附：标题页) THE SYNTAX OF NOUN PHRASES THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for The degree of Bachelor of Arts In Hunan University of Arts and Science By Supervisor: May 2008 Hunan University of Arts and Science

论文的结构应该包括以下几部分：介绍页封面标题页论文审查委员对论文做出贡献的（可选）知识范畴（可选）摘要题词（可选）目录表格列表（可选）符号和缩略语（可选）词汇表（可选）内容