Cohesion in Technical English Translation技术英语翻译中的衔接.docx

《Cohesion in Technical English Translation技术英语翻译中的衔接.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Cohesion in Technical English Translation技术英语翻译中的衔接.docx（47页珍藏版）》请在淘文阁 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、Cohesion in Technical English Translation技术英语翻译中的衔接Contents1 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

2、. introductionWith 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

3、; and it 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 som

4、ething 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

5、 text does 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 diffe

6、rent kind.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 relation

7、ship between 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 organiz

8、ation of 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)

9、 as expressions. 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

10、overall 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 trans

11、lating 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) onc

12、e said, 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

13、 textual 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 an

14、d coherence, 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 class

15、ified cohesion 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, coh

16、esive relationship 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 par

17、agraph 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

18、 language 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

19、and Chinese 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 log

20、ical consistency. 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

21、interface 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 Engl

22、ish for 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 Engl

23、ish as 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

24、 applicable 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 furt

25、her study. 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 En

26、glish patterns 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 de

27、velopments 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 itemiz

28、ing cohesive 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 t

29、exts may 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 Newma

30、rk (1981:69), 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

31、CST, it 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

32、and give 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 c

33、ohesive 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 conte

34、xt. Linguists 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

35、the text 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 sec

36、ond chapter 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 a

37、nd the 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

38、 proposes 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

39、 relations 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

40、this happens, 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. Cohesio

41、n is part 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 the

42、se resources, 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

43、 its location 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 relat

44、ion, or 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 beca

45、use they 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 conc

46、ept of 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

47、 of cohesion 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 th

48、esis draws 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

49、 to relations 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 may be found just that exists between one part of as we