Text Linguistics and Translation: an Empirical Perspective to UN English-Chinese Translation
� �
Sometimes, having had a surfeit of human society and gossip, and worn out all my village friends, I rambled still farther westward than I habitually dwell, into yet more unfrequented parts of the town,” to fresh woods and pastures new,” or, while the sun was setting, made my supper of huckleberries and blueberries on Fair Haven Hill, and laid up a store for several days. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
H. D. Thoreau: Walden �
�
Introduction
In this paper, a contrastive study is attempted on some selected aspects language between English and Chinese, and the applicability of text analysis to the translation of UN documents is explored. Here, two entirely different language systems are presented: English as source language (SL)，Chinese as target language (TL). The texts cited below are all taken from documents dealt with at the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG).
�
�
Text Linguistics
�
Text linguistics is a branch of linguistics that deals with text as a communication system. Generally, this concerns the organization of language above sentences, clauses and phrases, therefore focusing on the larger linguistic units such as written texts. Yunxing Li （2000）quotes Beaugrande (1980) as saying, “text linguistics would constitute the verbal domain of semiotics, dealing with the entire range from one-word texts (e.g., ‘Fire!’) to texts as vast as The Divine Comedy.”
�
�
Text and Discourse
�
According to Robert de Beaugrande and Wolfgang Dressler, text is “a communicative occurrence which meets seven standards of textuality”, namely: cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and inter-textuality (1981). Basil Hatim further defines it as “Text or the set of mutually relevant intentions that serve an overall rhetorical purpose (e.g. to counter-argue)”. He also points out: “each element enters into a discourse relation with other elements which ultimately make up the unit text” (1997). In general, when a reader starts to read a text, he first of all captures a series of individual elements, such as words, phrases or clauses, etc. According to Hatim, these elements are grouped in sentences in the order in which they appear on the page. These sentences singly or collectively serve some overall rhetorical purpose. Each element is active in fulfilling a rhetorical function in relation to other elements. It is these discourse relations that enable us to identify sequences of elements which ultimately make up the unit of text. In terms of differences between discourse and text, Hatim defines the discourse as “modes of speaking and writing which involve participants in adopting a particular attitude towards areas of socio-cultural activity (e.g. racist discourse, bureaucratese, etc.)”(1997). Roughly speaking, discourse focuses on the ideological dimension of a speech, written or spoken, while text in turn is the final configuration of the discourse in a continuous whole. This is the distinction that he adopts in his theory. However, he also admits that “a different distinction is sometimes made between discourse analysis as the study of spoken interaction and text linguistics as the study of written interaction” (Baker, 1998). For the sake of simplification, this paper does not try to make either of the above distinctions.
�
Text analysis, by going beyond words, phrases and sentences as points of reference, provides a theoretical framework for deciphering the intended meaning a text as a whole manages to bring out. And the translator’s task is “to bring entire systems of mother-tongue linguistic as well rhetorical conventions to bear on the act of textual transfer and to match them to with those of another language” (Hatim, 1997).
�
The present paper doesn’t pretend to provide a panacea to all the problems in the UN document translation, but it does endeavour to reveal some of the questions in English to Chinese translation of UN by trying, tentatively, to apply to them some of the principles of text linguistics, in the hope of shedding some light on their solutions. My analysis will focus on the differences between the two languages and the attempted suggestions of appropriate translations in accordance with the above principles.
�
�
Text Structure and Text Types
�
The ability to identify the structure of a text is vital to the understanding of a particular ST and thus helps the translator to decide upon the corresponding structure in the TL. Text structure relates to the semantic and syntactic arrangements of a text, which uses different text types to serve different rhetorical purposes. Some of the text types of UN documents are formulaic. For example, in the structure of resolutions or decisions: X…, recalling…, noting with satisfaction…, reaffirming…, in the preamble; 1. encourages…, 2. urges…, 3. decides…, in the operational. Also in the views, opinions or decisions concerning communications: X…, meeting on…, having concluded…, adopts the following decision or views, followed by the texts which are also formulaic in macro-structure. Most of them are less formulaic and more predictable. Moreover, texts have a variety of structures; i.e. different text types exhibit different structure formats. According to Hatim’s classification (1997), there are three basic types (each with their sub-types): exposition, argumentation and instruction. Texts constructed according to text structure conventions and translated according to the corresponding text structure formats in the TL are easier to read, understand, and remember. Let’s see the following example.
�
Text 1
�
Responding to a concrete, reasonable and most of all doable proposal by permanently asking questions and waiting for instructions hardly seems consistent with the classical pledge that reads “President, rest assured of the entire flexibility and the full cooperation of my delegation”. //Let us not complain about a lack of political will. There is certainly a very strong political will in all corners of the Council chamber, no matter whether delegations support the P 6 Presidential draft decision or not.
�
Then again, let us look around. We deplored at length the 2005 NPT Review Conference, the outcome of the United Nations Summit and the 2006 Small Arms and Light Weapons Review Conference, but we applauded the positive results at the 2006 CCW and BWC review conferences.
�
Chinese translation:
�
通过没完没了地提问题和等待指示的态度对一项具体、合理和最重要的是可行的提案作出反应，几乎同如下典型保证南辕北辙：“主席，请确信我国代表团的高度灵活性和充分的合作”。// 让我们不要抱怨缺乏政治意愿。无论代表团支持六主席的决定草案与否，在国联议事厅的每一个角落都有很强烈的政治意愿。
�
那么让我们再环视一下，我们对2005年《不扩散条约》审查会议、联合国首脑会议和2006年小武器和轻武器审查会议的结果确感遗憾，但我们对2006年特定常规武器和生物毒素武器审查会议的积极成果则鼓掌喝彩…。
�
This is an argumentative text. According to Hatim (1990), there are two methods of argument, one is, through-argument, which involves citing a thesis and arguing it through, and the other is counter-argument, which involves citing a thesis to be opposed, then presenting an opposition, before finally substantiating.
�
The first sentence of the above example is a thesis to be argued against, which the second sentence opposes; this implies the lack of political will. The second paragraph is the substantiation, or rather I would say, a through-argument of the second part of the first paragraph.
�
Texture
營n the production of text, the text producer has in his mind an imaginary targeted reader and has to employ all kinds of linguistic devices to make it operational. In this context, an important notion is texture. By definition, texture refers to the various devices used in making a sequence of sentences in text operational, the most noteworthy devices being cohesion and coherence. Cohesion ensures that the various elements of a text are bound together by virtue of both lexical and grammatical relationships. Coherence is the logical or conceptual dimension of the text. It is realized through effective manipulation of surface cohesive devices. The translator should not only be able to identify the coherence of the text by way of its grammatical organization of cohesion, but also be well versed in tapping all the linguistic resources in the TL to make the target text (TT) a cohesive and coherent whole. �
�
The example cited above involves two types of argument: counter-argument, thesis cited to oppose, and through-argument, thesis cited to argue through. The Chinese version fails to reproduce the structure of a counter-argument in the first paragraph. While there is no lexical marker for the opposition in the English version, there has to be a sort of device to mark the transition in Chinese to achieve coherence. Therefore in the place of “//”, there should be a conjunction which indicates contrast. In this case, it is ＂但是＂(but) that should be added. However, the Chinese version succeeds in identifying the structure of the remaining text through to the end, which is apparently a through-argument. It provides substantiation to the thesis of the existence of political will by way of a concessive structure (“We deplored…, but we applauded…”). Here, “then again” is rightly identified in the Chinese version as an element denoting addition, rather than contrast. However, in order to bring the communicative purpose to the fore, this kind of concessive structure is expressed in Chinese using the conjunctions “虽然…, 但是”(although…, but). While ungrammatical in English, this kind of structure is grammatically required in expressing concession in the Chinese language. The above Chinese translation of this sentence fails to identify this relationship because it only follows closely the source text (ST) structure and does nothing to make it cohesive and coherent in the TT. The addition of “虽然…”(Although) at the beginning of the Chinese sentence is absolutely necessary. Therefore, as far as my understanding of the structure of the ST and mastery of the TL goes, the above-mentioned text would be better translated as follows: 牎爸飨胂嘈盼业拇硗沤骶×榛睿浞趾献鳌保馐俏颐锹偶凰氖难裕扌葜沟靥岢鑫侍猓戎噶睿杂Χ圆唤鼍咛搴侠恚易钪匾氖强尚械奶岚福坪鹾苣阉凳茄孕幸恢隆５牵颐遣荒芩嫡馐侨狈φ我庠浮？梢钥隙ǖ厮担还芨鞔硗攀侵С只故欠炊粤飨木龆ú莅福硎绿镂蘼勰母鼋锹涠疾环η苛业恼我庠浮�
�
再则，看看我们周围发生的一切吧。对2005年《不扩散条约》审查会议的失败，联合国首脑会议以及2006年小武器和轻武器审查会议结果的不尽人意，我们久久不能释怀，但我们欢呼2006年《常规武器公约》和《生物武器公约》审查会议取得积极成果。
�
�
The Challenges to the Translator
�
Different cultures and the language systems that bear them have different ways of realizing a text（textual conventions）. The challenge for a translator, in his capacity as a mediator between source text (ST) and target text (TT), is not only to identify how a text hangs together by way of textual conventions, including lexical and syntactic norms, but also to reveal the intended meaning and transfer the information into TL in such a way as to achieve the basic quality of hanging together. The task is all the more difficult and problematic when it comes to English and Chinese languages, being diametrically distant with each other, sharing few similarities and in structure, form and logical relationships. For they belong to two entirely different language families with their own ways of saying things. On the surface there is morphology, syntax, text structure etc; digging deeper, there is logic, culture, world outlook, ways of mapping the world, etc., to name but a few.
�
�
Anaphora and Coherence
�
Text 2
�
In formulating strategies, programs and projects for financing the agreed incremental costs of activities concerning desertification under its focal area of land degradation or through activities that combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought in other focal areas, the GEF, through its Secretariat and Implementing and Executing Agencies, will duly take into account the provisions of the UNCCD and the relevant decisions of its Conference of the Parties relating to policies, strategies and program priorities.
�
Chinese Translation
�
在全环基金土地退化中心领域下，或通过其他中心领域防治荒漠化和减轻干旱影响活动，就荒漠化问题所开展的活动方面，全环基金在拟订Ф议定增加费用的供资战略、方案和项目时，将通过Ф秘书处以及执行机构和行政机构，适当考虑《荒漠化公约》的规定及其缔约方会议有关政策、战略和方案重点的决定。
�
Back translation
�
(Concerning,) under CEF land degradation focal area, or through other focal areas’ combating desertification and mitigating effects of drought activities, CEF in formulating Ф agreed incremental costs financing strategies, programs and projects，will through Ф Secretariat and Implementing and Executing Agencies, duly take into account UNCCD’s provisions and its Parties Conference’s relevant policies, strategies and program priorities’ decisions.
�
The back translation is only a rough one, as is impossible to reveal all the details in the structure. Apart from the absence of definite articles and possessive “of” structure in Chinese, one of the issues at stake in the above TL translation relates to the question of anaphora, which in linguistics is often understood as the grammatical function of referring back to the antecedent, as in “the GEF, through its Secretariat and Implementing and Executing Agencies…”. Here “its” is an anaphoric expression of “GEF”. But in the second line of the English text, we found another “its”, which is a cataphora (referring forward), a common grammatical function in English. However, unlike English, which is subject-prominent, Chinese is mainly topic-prominent, i.e. the most important elements of a text should be strutting out conspicuously at the onset and followed by comments thereof. So it is impossible for the Chinese translation to follow this kind of English structure. In the case of the first “its”, the Chinese translator has to read on to find out exactly which element in the text it refers to and then bring it to the fore, hence the forwarded“全环基金” (GEF) in the translation. Another related issue is zero anaphora, ellipsis vis-à-vis English syntactic structure. It can be seen from the back translation that the two underlined “its” are omitted in the Chinese. As Chinese is parataxis-centered, and English is hypotaxis-centered, the former, therefore, has a lot less pronouns than the latter, especially possessive pronouns. Although there are possessive forms in Chinese such as 他的(his), 她的(her), 它的(its) and他们的(their)，they are used sparingly and are often implicit in the context. Repetition is another means to achieve coherence, as pronouns are less used in Chinese, so “全环基金” (GEF) is repeated in the main clause.
�
�
Inductive vs. Deductive Discourse
�
According to R. Scollon and S. Scollon (1995), in inductive discourse, the line of argument examines firstly the minor points of the argument before deriving the main point as a conclusion from those arguments; whereas in deductive discourse, a topic is introduced at the beginning of a discourse and then the minor or supporting arguments are presented afterwards. Generally, English tends to be deductive, whereas Chinese adheres to the inductive pattern. Take text 3 as an example. The numbers in the boxes in the original text reflect the natural sequence of the SL; in the Chinese translation, they represent the corresponding elements in the original text as is shown in the back translation. This is to reveal the different sequences that the two languages respectively follow in forming a text.
�
Text 3 �
�
1The Advisory Committee requested UNHCR to comply with the Board of Auditors recommendations concerning the practice of retaining staff members 2who have completed a standard assignment in one duty station and 3being considered for appointment to another, 4on special leave with pay, 5in view of the high costs to the Organization.
�
Chinese Translation
�
2工作人员在一个工作地点结束了标准任期，3而调任到另一工作地点的问题正考虑中，4因此在休带薪特假。5但鉴于这些工作人员对难民署的费用太高，1咨询委员会请难民署遵守审计委员会关于工作人员留任做法的建议。
�
Back translation
�
2Staff members have completed a standard assignment in one duty station 3and the question of appointment to another is being considered, 4so they are on special leave with pay. 5But, in view of the high costs to the Organization, 1The Advisory Committee requested UNHCR to comply with the Board of Auditors recommendations concerning the practice of retaining.
�
The above back translation is done focusing on the structure of the Chinese without changing the word order in some phrases or omitting those elements as “the”and possessive “of”, which are non-existent in Chinese. Its purpose is to show the sequence of constituent elements of the text.
�
The Chinese translation regroups the text into two sentences; the first corresponds to 2, 3 and 4 in the original text, the second to 5 and 1. The background information, the less important part of the text, is provided in the first sentence. Being the more important part of the text cluster, the second sentence follows as a conclusion. Then in between, we have to usher in a conjunction “但”（but）to bring out the intended meaning and mark the logic flow in the Chinese text. And also at sentence level, it is obvious from the back translation that the causal relation is reversed (5 “in view of…” comes before 1 “The Advisory Committee requested UNHCR to…”), since the basic schema to express this kind of relationship differs between the two languages: it is “Y, because X” in English, whereas in Chinese it is “because X, Y”.
�
It is important to indicate that, in view of the above reversal of the line of thinking and reasoning, this proves to be all the more complicated with citations in quotation marks, proposed texts for an agreement under negotiation and revisions of the wording in an agreement; where the text of reference has been translated into Chinese. In this respect, the Chinese translator has to rack his brains to fit the different components into a coherent whole. An English text, such as follows, would be a tough test to the conjuring power of the Chinese translator. The numerals in square brackets are added by the author and the words therein are those proposed text for negotiation:
�
Text 4
�
[1Ensure] that appropriate risk reduction measures are [2mainstreamed into] alt. [3considered 4in formulating] [5relevant] multilateral and bilateral development programmes, [6in disaster prone countries] including those related to poverty reduction, natural resource management, urban development [7and climate change adaptation].
Chinese Translation
［1确保］［6易受灾害的国家］［4在拟订］［5有关的］多边和双边发展方案［4时］，［2将］适当的减少风险措施［2纳入主流］备选案文：［3考虑适当的减少风险措施］，其中包括与减轻贫困、自然资源管理、城市发展［7和气候变化适应］有关的方案。
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
It can be seen from the Chinese version that the numbers have been shuffled. Since lexical combinations differ between English and Chinese, some brackets have to be broken up, e.g. the second [2mainstreamed into] and third brackets [3considered 4in formulating]. While the former relates to passivity, the latter concerns both passivity and adverbial phrase (background information). To make things even more complicated, the two passive forms (to be “mainstreamed into” and to be “considered”) are translated in different ways. A special construction is used to translate “to be mainstreamed into” (将……纳入主流) to passive form in Chinese, whereas “to be considered” has to become active in Chinese.
�
In another example, the discussion of a draft instrument, the translation reveals the complicated procedures in which the Chinese translator not only has to match the reading of the original text (of discussion) with the Chinese textual conventions, but is also obliged to 1) translate the suggested amendments into Chinese, 2) consult the Chinese text of the draft, of which the English version is under consideration, 3) identify the right position of the translated amendments in the Chinese text of the draft, and 4) return to translation, keeping in mind the above points. This then often entails lexical reordering and re-choosing, and syntactic reconstruction, even if it merely involves a pronoun or a preposition. For example:
�
Text 5
�
One governmental representative suggested replacing “their” in the first sentence of the article before the word “original”, with “the” and adding “of the parties” after “intent”.
�
Chinese Translation
�
一位政府代表建议将该条第1句中“原来”一词之前的“其”字改为“各方的”。
�
Back Translation
�
One governmental representative suggested replacing “their” in the first sentence of the article before the word “original” with “parties’”.
�
�
Reprise Texts
�
From all the above-cited texts, we may also deduce that reprise texts, one of the important features of UN documentation, do not necessarily make a translator’s work easier. The translation of reprises is not as simple as cutting and pasting. Rather, it comprises all 4 of the above-mentioned steps, at least on syntactic and lexical levels. Amongst other things, on the latter level, it also involves, in view of consistency, necessary adjustment of different choices of terms and diction. In this context, Hatim and Mason (1990) also talk about mediation and intertextuality. They argue, “It would be wrong to consider intertextuality simply as a mechanical process. A text is not merely an amalgamation of ‘bits and pieces’ culled from other texts. Nor should intertextuality be understood as the mere inclusion of the occasional reference to another text. Rather, citations, references, etc., will be brought into a text for some reason. The motivated nature of this intertextual relationship may be explained in terms of such matters as text function or overall communicative purpose. ” What is more, “the reference might involve minimal mediation by those who share, say, a western culture, but maximal mediation for those readers from other cultural background”（Hatim and Mason, 1990）. In the present case, it also involves a mediating process in which a translator manages to link the reprises with the related TT he/she is translating into.As Beaugrande points out, “Cohesion is affected when surface structures are shared or borrowed among separate texts. Coherence of a single text may be evident only in view of the overall discourse” (1981).
�
�
Subject vs. Topic Prominence
�
Another salient difference between English and Chinese is that generally speaking, the former is subject-prominent (SP) while the latter is topic-prominent (TP). Jigang Cai (2003) quotes Jack Richards (Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, 1985) as saying, “A subject prominent language is a language in which the grammatical units of subject and predicate are basic to the structure of sentences and in which sentences usually have subject-predicate structure. A topic prominent language is one in which the information units of topic and comment are basic to the structure of sentences.” � The late Chinese linguist Zhao Yuanren points out that “The grammatical meaning of subject and predicate in a Chinese sentence is topic and comment, rather that actor and action (1965)”. 燜or instance,
�
The meeting rose at 1 p.m.
�
下午1时休会。(1 pm rose the meeting.)
�
The English sentence is obviously an SP construction, while the Chinese translation is manifestly a TP structure with “1 p.m.” as the topic and the rest of the sentence as the comment.
�
Here are more examples in which an SP pattern is transformed into a TP schema in Chinese:
�
Text 6
�
One of the main constraints in the assessment of vulnerability and adaptation in non Annex I Parties was the lack of data to meet the demands of the methodologies for these assessments, as well as Parties’ inability to conduct the type of vulnerability and adaptation assessments that would generate results reliable enough to be incorporated into national planning processes.
�
Chinese Translation
�
评估非附件一缔约方的脆弱性和适应性，一大制约是缺乏数据，无法达到开展这种评估的方法所提出的要求; 而且，缔约方缺乏能力，开展不了能产生可靠结果， 从而能纳入国家规划进程的那种脆弱性和适应性评估。
Back Translation
To assess the vulnerability and adaptation in non Annex I Parties, one of the main constraints was the lack of data, unable to meet the demands of the methodologies for these assessments, and the Parties are lack of ability, unable to conduct generating reliable results, (which) therefore can to be incorporated into national planning processes for the type of vulnerability and adaptation assessments.
�
In tackling the above texts at syntactic level, the strategy a Chinese translator adopts will be no other than to transform the SP construction into TP one. Otherwise coherence will necessarily suffer. Therefore, it is essential for a Chinese translator to identify the topic that is talked about in the sentence and transpose it to the initial position in the Chinese text, and then follow it with comments. In the case of text 6, “the assessment of vulnerability and adaptation in non Annex I Parties” is considered as the topic (a verbalized phrase in Chinese) and the rest of the text comment. Again, let’s look at the second juxtaposition, the noun phrase of “Parties’ inability…” is broken into various syntactic components and “Parties’ inability” is identified as the topic and clausified following the relevant requirements of Chinese textuality. The remaining part is the comment, which in turn is expressed using the inductive thought pattern (see the section: Inductive vs. Deductive). The element “(to be) unable to…” should not be regarded as the predicate of the subject “the Parties”, because subject and predicate functions are only semantically but not syntactically required. In topic-prominent constructions, coherence is achieved through means of semantic and sense relations as well as the lexical and syntactic order by following the natural sequence of lines of thought. In English on the contrary，the same ideas are organized in terms of sequence and logic, using clauses to form a complex sentence by means of function words and inflections. As a Chinese scholar once pointed out that an English sentence resembles a tree, from the trunk (main clause) of which many branches (subordinate clause) grow, whereas a Chinese sentence resembles a bunch of bamboo with many shoots coming out independently.
�
Another characteristic of Chinese as a topic prominent language is that: “the passive voice appears as a marginal construction, rarely used in speech. The relative insignificance of the passive… [can be explained by] the topic, not the subject, that plays a more significant role in sentence construction. Any noun phrase can be the topic of a sentence without registering anything on the verb. It is, therefore, natural that the passive construction is not as widespread in [topic prominent] languages as it is in [subject prominent] languages ” (Li and Thompson, 1975). Let’s refer back to text 4 above. To translate such passive structures as “…measures are [mainstreamed into] alt. [considered in formulating]… development programmes”, the Chinese translator has to resort to various means to circumvent passive structures in the Chinese text (cf. explanation for the translation of text 4).
�
�
Conclusion
�
Chinese and English are two languages which are a world apart in all respects—morphology, phraseology, syntax, textuality, rhetorical conventions and so on; this inevitably reflects the thought patterns and specific cultures of different peoples and societies. This paper is my first attempt to explore the possible impact of certain principles of text linguistics on the work of the Chinese translators in the UN and to look for areas where the contrastive study of linguistics can bring insights to our work. The points I have raised here are only the tip of an iceberg vis-à-vis those we are encountering in our work.
�
In fact, as soon as we begin to consider UN translation, we are aware of the multifarious nature of the text subject-matters on one hand—human rights, international law, environment, trade and development, etc.—, as well as genres, on the other,—thematic reports, summary reports, legal instruments (binding and non-binding), communications to a human rights organ and opinions or views thereon—, just to name but a few. Moreover, in a multilingual and multicultural setting such as the UN, the so-called original English texts are often hybrids, written by non-native English speakers or simply translated into English from the other UN official languages and sometimes from non-official languages. This is an added dimension for text analysis in the context of UN translation, which remains a domain thus far inadequately explored. However, since text linguistics as applied to translation studies examines various micro textual constituents from the perspective of a macro text structure, the structure of the original text does provide a crucial framework for guiding the decision-making process in translation. As far as English-Chinese translation is concerned (this may also apply to other language combinations), text analysis is valuable in 1) providing useful clues for the comprehension of a difficult or hybrid ST; 2) helping us in determining strategies from both macro and micro point of views; 3) guiding us to abide by the textual conventions of the Chinese language and thus avoiding translationese; 4) providing us with a possible theoretical benchmark to judge whether or not a translated text works and the reasons why（Bill Fraser，1998）. In conclusion, as far as my studies go, text analysis is a promising tool for realizing translations that are both coherent and cohesive.
�
�
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 燝eneva, 4 February 2008
References
�
Baker, Mona. (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Routledge
�
Beaugrande, Robert de & Dressler, Wolfgang. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
�
Fraser, Bill. (1998) “The New Rhetoric:How discourse analysis can help translators”，http://ec.europa.eu.
燙ai, Jigang (蔡基刚)，（2003）A Contrastive Study of Writing and Rhetoric in English and Chinese(英汉写作修辞对比). Fudan University, Shanghai (上海复旦大学)
�
Hatim, Basil & Mason, Ian. (1990) Discourse and the Translator. New York: Longman.
�
Hatim, Basil. (1997) Communication Across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. UK: Exeter
�
Li & Thompson(1975). Cited by Andrew Methven in Voice Changes in Translation - A Comparative Study of Active and Passive Voice in Chinese and English.
�
Li, Yunxing (李运兴), (2000) Text Approach to Translation: an Introduction (语篇翻译引论). China Translation and Publishing Corporation(中国对外翻译出版公司 )
�
Newmark, Peter. (1991) A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall.
�
Nord, Christiane, (2006) Text Analysis in Translation. Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. Second Edition. Amsterdam/New York, NY.
�
Scollon，Ron & Scollon, Suzanne Wang, (1995) Intercultural Communication: a Discourse Approach. Blackwell Publishers.
�
Widdowson, H.G. (2004) Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
�
Zhao, Yuanren. （1968）A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
