《英语毕业论文Cohesion in technical English Translation.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英语毕业论文Cohesion in technical English Translation.doc（46页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、Cohesion in technical English Translation 学校学号姓名等目 录1 introduction32. Cohesion73. Classification of cohesion124. Concepts Related to Cohesion335 The Relation of Cohesion and Translation366 Translation Strategies Applicable to Cohesive Devices in EST Translation407 Conclusions42Bibliography431. intro
2、ductionWith the rapid development of the science and technology, we are situated in an information explosion age, and the scientific texts conspicuously increase conveying more and more information. A text is a unit of language in use. It is not a grammatical unit, like a clause or a sentence; and i
3、t is not defined by its size. A text is sometimes envisaged to be some kind of super-sentence, a grammatical unit that is larger than a sentence but is related to a group and so on: by CONSTITUENCY, the composition of larger units out of smaller ones. But this is misleading. A text is not something
4、that is like a sentence, only bigger; it is something that differs from a sentence in kind. A text is best regarded as a SEMANTIC unit: a unit not of form but of meaning. Thus it is related to a clause or sentence not by size but by REALIZATION, the coding of one symbolic system in another. A text d
5、oes not CONSIST of sentence; it is REALIZED BY, or encoded in sentences. If we understand it in this way, we shall not expect to find the same kind of STRUCTURAL integration among the parts of a text as we find among the parts of a sentence or clause. The unity of a text is a unity of a different ki
6、nd.The concept of a tie makes it possible to analyze a text in terms of its cohesive properties, and gives a systematic account of its patterns of texture. Various types of question can be investigated in this way, for example concerning the difference between speech and writing, the relationship be
7、tween cohesion and the organization of written texts into sentences and paragraphs, and the possible differences among different genres and different authors in the numbers and kinds of tie they typically employ. Like other semantic relations, cohesion is expressed through the stratal organization o
8、f language. Language can be explained as a multiple coding system comprising three levels of coding, or strata: the semantic (meanings), the lexicogrammatical (forms) and the phonological and orthographic (expressions). Meanings are realized as forms, and forms are realized in turn (recorded) as exp
9、ressions. Within this stratum, there is no hard-and-fast division between vocabulary and grammar; the guiding principle in language is that the more general meanings are expressed through the grammar, and the more specific meanings through the vocabulary. Cohesive relations fit into the same overall
10、 pattern. Cohesion is expressed partly through the grammar and partly through the vocabulary. We can refer therefore to GRAMMATICAL COHESION and LEXICAL COHESION. Rigor, accuracy and objectivity are the striking characteristics of the scientific text. And the scientific text produced by translating
11、aims to convey, in essentially, the information as the source one, the translator tries to achieve the equivalence between the two texts. Equivalence, however, is not to mechanically transform the information of the source text into the target one. Every language, as Nida and Tiber (1969) once said,
12、 had its own feature, which must be followed to achieve effective communication. As to cohesive devices, different languages have their own sets of devices for creating links between textual elements. In usual case, what is required is to work out the methods of establishing links to suit the textua
13、l norms of the target language. The textual norms of each genre will further suggest certain options and rule out others that are grammatically acceptable and may, in other genres, be textually acceptable as well.1.1 Background to the StudyIn 1962, Halliday initiated the notion of cohesion and coher
14、ence, and with the publication of Cohesion in English in 1976, the theory of cohesion was founded. In this book, Halliday and Hasan pointed out that cohesion refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it a text.(Halliday & Hasan, 1976:4)Halliday and Hasan classified c
15、ohesion into five categories: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. The first three categories are expressed through grammar and the last two are manifested through vocabulary. When the interpretation of a certain element in the text depends on another item, cohesive r
16、elationship occurs. In other words, cohesion helps create texts. It represents the continuity that exists in the text, which enables the reader or the hearer to supply all the missing pieces. This semantic relation may exist within clauses of a sentence, or between sentences, or even in a paragraph
17、or paragraphs. Thus cohesion is generally regarded as a visible network of a text. Cohesion is the key term in discourse research. Cohesion is part of the system of a language. The potential for cohesion lies in the systematic resources of reference, ellipsis and son on that are builtinto the langua
18、ge itself. Because of individual characteristics in the design, cohesion in English and Chinese discourse，translators should adopt flexible ways of cohesion in the target language to make the translate version cohesive on the basis of thorough understanding the source language.As the English and Chi
19、nese texts ar different in the field of layout and connection, so the process of translation, the translator should be a thorough understanding of the original, based on the flexible use of the interface means of translation into the language, so as to be compact, Also to achieve semantic logical co
20、nsistency. English and Chinese in the use of a variety of means to create a convergence of the continuity of the relationship between discourses has quite different. English emphasis on form s preference for dominant interface means; while Chinese focus on consensual, greater use of implicit interfa
21、ce mode. Therefore, the translator from Chinese to English when it should be noted in the two different, appropriate adjustments can be translated fluently and smoothly articles. The thesis, therefore, is none other than an attempt to make a comparison on the cohesive devices between the English for
22、 Science and Technology (hereafter EST) and the Chinese for Science and Technology (CST) at the textual level, to work out the regularities and the function of those cohesive devices in constructing a scientific text. It is an empirical study; the author will take the book Subject -Based English as
23、a case, randomly select 10 English texts together with 10 Chinese equivalents, and analyze them in a quantitative way. Finally, the author will explore some possible reasons for the similarities and dissimilarities on the management of cohesive devices in the EST and the CST, and propose some applic
24、able translation strategies.1.2 Research purposeIt is known that contrastive linguistics as a relatively new discipline has been studied from different perspectives by many scholars or linguists home and abroad. What they have done really provides us with the theory and framework for the further stu
25、dy. Most contrastive studies of cohesive devices in English and Chinese, however, are carried on in a macro sense. As we all know, different languages have different preferences for using specific devices more frequently than others, or in specific combinations, which may not correspond to English p
26、atterns of cohesion, and the cohesive devices are employed differently from one style to another within one language. Herein, it provides the author with some inspiration to investigate cohesive devices into one specific style- texts of science and technology.Being based herself on the new developme
27、nts in systemic functional grammar, contrastive linguistics and stylistics, the author attempts to reveal the similarities and dissimilarities of the cohesive devices in the EST and the CST. What distinguishes it from others studies of cohesion is that the attention is not generally on itemizing coh
28、esive features but on carrying on a statistical contrastive study of cohesive devices in one specific style. Then the analysis allows us to have a clear view on the different employment of cohesive devices in the EST and the CST, suggests ways in which patterns of cohesion in the translated texts ma
29、y be adjusted to reflect target language preferences, and offers some reference that could be applied in language learning and translating, as well as facilitate intercultural communication.Each language has its own characteristics in using cohesive devices to create texts. According to Newmark (198
30、1:69), the most useful constituent of text linguistics applicable to translation is cohesion. Thus, to a translator, a heightened awareness of cohesion is necessary in addition to a good command of grammar and vocabulary. Since the thesis is a comparative study on cohesion in the EST and the CST, it
31、 targets at not only working out the similarities and dissimilarities between two languages, but proposing some possible reasons. 1.3 Research MethodsCohesion is the grammatical and lexical relationship within a text or sentence. Cohesion can be defined as the links that hold a text together and giv
32、e it meaning. There are two main types of cohesion: grammatical, referring to the structural content, and lexical, referring to the language content of the piece. A cohesive ext is created in many different ways, in Cohesion in English, Halliday and Hasan identify five general categories of cohesive
33、 devices that create coherence in text: reference, ellipsis, substitution, lexical cohesion, and conjunction. Coherence in linguistics is what makes a text semantically meaningful. It is especially dealt with in text linguistics, a very general principle of interpretation of language in context. Lin
34、guists tend to focus on cohesion marker. Cohesion and coherence are concepts of different level. Cohesion is closely related with the “surface” of a text, and it combined the components of the text by grammatical and lexical means. Coherence concerns the “deep-level” of a text. It makes sure the tex
35、t is logically or semantically acceptable. So cohesion is tangible and explicit while coherence is intangible and implicit.The thesis is composed of six chapters. The first chapter is of introduction part, with the content of general description, motivation and aims of the study. Then the second cha
36、pter is the literature review, in which cohesion theory, concept related to cohesion and the specific classification of cohesive devices is introduced. Furthermore, the author explains the applicability of cohesion to Chinese. In the third chapter, a contrastive study on cohesion in the EST and the
37、CST is made on the basis of the statistical data, with the authors scrutiny of the similarities and dissimilarities on the cohesive uses between two texts. The following chapter four is of the authors illustration on the findings and implications of the study. Then in chapter five, the author propos
38、es some applicable translation strategies for the translation from the EST to the CST. Finally, we come to the conclusion part, limitations and suggestions for further study will be accounted as well.2. Cohesion2.1 The concept of cohesionThe concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relati
39、ons of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text. Cohesion occurs where the INTERPRETATION of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another. The one PRESUPPOSES the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it. When this ha
40、ppens, a relation of coherence is set up, and the two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, are thereby at least potentially integrated into a text. The presupposition, and the fact that it is resolved, provide cohesion between the two sentences, and in so doing create text. Cohesion is pa
41、rt of the system of a language. The potential for cohesion lies in the systematic resources of reference, ellipsis and so on that is built into the language itself. The actualization of cohesion in any given instance, however, depends not merely on the selection of some option from within these reso
42、urces, but also on the presence of some other element which resolves the presupposition that this sets up. Cohesion is a semantic relation between an element in the text and some other element that is crucial to the interpretation of it. This other element is also to be found in the text; but its lo
43、cation in the text is in no way determined by the grammatical structure. The two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, may be structurally related to each other, or they may not; it makes no difference to the meaning of the cohesive relation. Cohesion is a general text-forming relation, or
44、 set of such relations, certain restrictions-no doubt because the grammatical condition of being a sentence ensures that the parts go together to form a text anyway. But the cohesive relations themselves are the same sentence or not. Cohesive ties between sentences stand out more clearly because the
45、y are the ONLY source of texture, whereas within the sentence there are the structural relations as well. In the description of a text, it is the intersentence cohesion that is significant, because that represents the variable aspect of cohesion, distinguishing one text from another. The concept of
46、cohesion is set up to account for relations in discourse, but in rather a different way, without the implication that there is some structural unit that is above the sentence. Cohesion refers to the range of possibilities that exist for linking something with what has gone before. The concept of coh
47、esion accounts for the essential semantic relations whereby any passage of speech or writing is enabled to function as text. We can systematize this concept by classifying it into a small number of distinct categories-reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion.The thesis dr
48、aws heavily on the best known and most detailed model of Halliday. One point of view emphasized in Halliday and Hasans (1976) See R. Quirks foreword to Halliday & Hasans book Cohesion in English book is that cohesion is a semantic relation. The concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to rel
49、ations of meaning that exist within the text (p.4). It is not a structural relation. This is just in line with Hallidayan systemic functional grammar, which is pushed in the direction of semantics and also coincident with their assertion that a text is best regarded as a SEMANTIC unit. Since text is not a structural unit, cohesion is not a structural relation. Cohesion expresses the semantic continuity the text and another, it m
