發(fā)布時(shí)間：2025-01-17 14:09

　　在法律翻譯中,語(yǔ)篇銜接理論很少被應(yīng)用于對(duì)法律文本對(duì)等的檢測(cè)。并且,由于立法語(yǔ)篇作為特殊的文體,具有自己的特點(diǎn),像分析普通翻譯文本一樣用銜接理論去分析立法文本是不夠的,因而本文結(jié)合立法文本的特點(diǎn)運(yùn)用了兩個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)確保銜接理論測(cè)試立法語(yǔ)篇翻譯的質(zhì)量。 基于以上理論,本文使用銜接理論結(jié)合兩條標(biāo)準(zhǔn)對(duì)中英立法文本的翻譯對(duì)等進(jìn)行測(cè)試。本文利用描述和對(duì)比分析的方法對(duì)中國(guó)一些立法文本的英文翻譯對(duì)等進(jìn)行測(cè)試。通過(guò)本文提出的理論框架對(duì)大量立法文本的翻譯對(duì)等進(jìn)行詳細(xì)的分析統(tǒng)計(jì),發(fā)現(xiàn)在使用銜接手段的各種情況下,存在著不同程度的不對(duì)等,包括主觀錯(cuò)誤,違反譯名同一律,濫用指稱(chēng),忽視邏輯連接詞,錯(cuò)誤理解代替和省略等。結(jié)果表明使用銜接手段結(jié)合兩個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)測(cè)試翻譯對(duì)等是一個(gè)有效的手段。法律文本的翻譯質(zhì)量還有待進(jìn)一步提高。 有鑒于此,本文進(jìn)一步提出可以借此理論來(lái)研究其他法律文本如司法文本的翻譯質(zhì)量。

【文章頁(yè)數(shù)】：68 頁(yè)

【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士

【文章目錄】：
ACKOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
摘要
CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
    1.1 General introduction to the topic
    1.2 Rationale and significance of the present study
    1.3 Research objective
    1.4 Research questions
    1.5 Research methodology and data collection
    1.6 Outline of the study
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW
    2.1 Introduction
    2.2 Studies on cohesion
    2.3 Studies on cohesive devices
    2.4 Studies on equivalence
CHAPTER THREE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
    3.1 Introduction
    3.2 The theory of cohesion
    3.3 The two criteria of equivalence
        3.3.1 Formal equivalence and its principles
        3.3.2 Dynamic equivalence and its principles
        3.3.3 The two criteria
    3.4 The analytical framework of the present study
CHAPTER FOUR EQUIVALENCE OF COHESIVE DEVICES
    4.1 Introduction
    4.2 Equivalence of cohesive devices in legislative texts
        4.2.1 Equivalence of reference
        4.2.2 Equivalence of substitution
        4.2.3 Equivalence of Ellipsis
        4.2.4 Equivalence of conjunction
        4.2.5 Equivalence of lexical cohesion
    4.3 Comparison of cohesive device equivalence
CHAPTER FIVE ANALYSIS OF UNEQUIVALENCE BY COHESIVE DEVICES
    5.1 Introduction
    5.2 The Analysis
        5.2.1 Unidentification of the same words
        5.2.2 Subjective mistakes
        5.2.3 Abuse of reference
        5.2.4 Neglect of logical connectors
        5.2.5 Misunderstanding of substitution and ellipsis
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION
    6.1 An overview of the present study
    6.2 Major findings
    6.3 Implication
    6.4 Limitations and suggestions for further study
REFERENCES



本文編號(hào)：4028166