MONA BAKER 基于语料库的翻译研究

翻译定量研究的多维思考与探索内容摘要：Michael P.Oakes和纪萌（Meng Ji）联袂编辑的《语料库翻译学中的定量方法》一书以丰富的例证集中展示了如何利用语料库语言学中的统计分析方法开展翻译研究，内容翔实，论述充分。

本文通过《方法》一书内容的简要介绍，分析了此书的特色和存在的不足。

同时也指出《方法》一书对从事语料库翻译学探索的研究者有很大的启示和参考价值。

《方法》一书给我们最大的启示莫过于翻译量化研究手段多维应用的必要性，同时研究者对各类体裁的译文分析也值得我们关注。

关键词：方法定量翻译一.引言自Mona Baker撰文首开先河以来，语料库与翻译研究相结合已走过整整二十年的历史。

这一研究范式熔文本描写和统计分析于一炉，以大规模的语言事实为对象，深入挖掘翻译文本的特征，带有鲜明的实证主义倾向，成为当前译学领域的一大特色。

不过毋庸置疑的是，除了在语料库开发和翻译理论验证等方面拥趸甚众以外，现今基于语料库的翻译研究在广泛汲取跨学科知识（如社会、认知、文化等各学科）对研究发现进行理论阐释和系统运用语料库技术（尤其是定量统计检验）透视翻译活动的规律和本质等方面仍有明显的不足。

从这个意义上讲，2021年由Michael P. Oakes和纪萌（Meng Ji）联袂编辑并由荷兰John Benjamins 公司出版的《语料库翻译学中的定量方法》（Quantitative Methods in Corpus-based Translation Studies，以下简称《方法》）一书无疑是当之无愧的扛鼎之作。

该书以丰富的例证集中展示了如何利用语料库语言学中的统计分析方法开展翻译研究，内容翔实，论述充分，对从事语料库翻译学探索的研究者有很大的参考价值。

二.内容简介《方法》一书由序言、13篇论文、附录和术语索引等四部分组成。

在前言中，两位编者指出该文集的目的在于奉献一本全面解析语料库翻译学中基本定量分析方法的参考书，并寄望书中描述的相关技术方法能够为研究者们“开展该领域内各自的探索提供一个出发点”（Oakes Ji： viii）。

《麦田里的守望者》两译本对比研究——基于语料库视角牛桂玲;田晓芳【摘要】《麦田里的守望者》是塞林格唯一的长篇小说,以20世纪50年代初期美国在二战后大发横财、物质富足为时代背景,用第一人称叙述形式描绘了一个十六岁少年霍尔顿在离开学校和家庭后,独自闯荡成人世界的心路历程.语料库研究方法兴起于20世纪80年代,是一种自上而下的,以真实文本为素材,以概率统计为方法的实证性研究.文章利用Wordsmith以及Antconc语料库检索软件对自建语料库从词汇和句法上进行量化分析,进而对译文与源语之间的差异以及翻译文本与非翻译文本之间的差异和这些差异产生的原因进行定量分析.研究发现,两种译本在某些方面表现出较高一致性,但是各自又表现出独特的风格.【期刊名称】《郑州航空工业管理学院学报（社会科学版）》【年(卷),期】2016(035)002【总页数】5页(P131-135)【关键词】语料库;麦田里的守望者;塞林格;量化【作者】牛桂玲;田晓芳【作者单位】郑州大学外国语学院,河南郑州 450001;郑州大学外国语学院,河南郑州 450001【正文语种】中文【中图分类】I046美国文艺评论家大卫·盖洛威说“霍尔顿是西方现代社会的代表，同时也是现代社会的批评者，他所表现出的强烈的反抗情绪更是一个不折不扣的反英雄”。

他是一个反英雄代表，同时也是“垮掉的一代”的代表。

他逃避学校，不肯努力读书是对美国教育的一种反抗；他自我麻痹和撒谎是对成人世界的丑陋和虚伪的嘲弄；霍尔顿是一个具有强烈的反抗意识的青年代表，他的一切被人认为的离经叛道的行为是对那个物欲横流、麻木不仁、虚伪道德的时代的极端反抗。

尽管霍尔顿厌恶周围的人，讨厌他们的价值观念和虚假的道德生活，但从根本上说，他内心仍然渴望美好的生活。

语料库的出现得益于描述翻译学的兴起和计算机软硬件的进步，语料库翻译研究探讨译文与源文之间的关系，翻译作品与非翻译作品之间的差异。

王克非(2011)指出，语料库翻译学研究即“在研究方法上以语言学和翻译理论为指导，以概率和统计为手段，以双语真实语料为对象，采用语内对比和语际对比相结合的方法，对翻译进行历时或共时的研究，探索翻译的本质”。

Corpus Linguistics and Translation StudiesImplications and ApplicationsMona BakerCobuild, BirminghamAbstractThe rise of corpus linguistics has serious implications for any discipline in which language plays a major role. This paper explores the impact that the availability of corpora is likely to have on the study of translation as an empirical phenomenon. It argues that the techniques and methodology developed in the field of corpus linguistics will have a direct impact on the emerging discipline of translation studies, particularly with respect to its theoretical and descriptive branches. The nature of this impact is discussed in some detail and brief reference is made to some of the applications of corpus techniques in the applied branch of the discipline.0.IntroductionA great deal of our experience of and knowledge about other cultures is mediated through various forms of translation, including written translations, sub-titling, dubbing, and various types of interpreting activities. The most obvious case in point is perhaps literature. Most of us know writers such as Ibsen, Dostoyevsky and Borges only through translated versions of their works. But our reliance on translation does not stop here. Our understanding of political issues, of art, and of various other areas which are central to our lives is no less dependent on translation than our understanding of world literature.Given that translated texts play such an important role in shaping our experience of life and our view of the world, it is difficult to understand why translation has traditionally been viewed as a second-rate activity, not worthy of serious academic enquiry, and why translated texts have been regarded as no more than second-hand and distorted versions of …real‟ text s. If they are to be studied at all, these second-hand texts are traditionally analysed with the (233) sole purpose of proving that they inevitably fall short of reproducing all the glory of the original. A striking proof of the low status accorded to translated texts comes from the young but by now well-established field of corpus linguistics. A recent survey commissioned by the Network of European Reference Corpora, an EEC-funded project, shows that many corpus builders in Europe specifically exclude translated text from their corpora.1 Thisis presumably done on the grounds that translated texts are not representative and that they might distort our view of the …real‟ language under investigation. It is perhaps justifiable to exclude translated texts which are produced by non-native speakers of the language in question, but what justification can there be for excluding translations produced by native speakers, other than that translated texts per se are thought to be somehow inferior or contrived? Biased as it may be, this traditional view of translation implies, in itself, an acknowledgement of the fact that translational behavior is different from other types of linguistic behavior, quite irrespective of the translator‟s mastery of the target language.The starting point of this paper is that translated texts record genuine communicative events and as such are neither inferior nor superior to other communicative events in any language. They are however different, and the nature of this difference needs to be explored and recorded. Moreover, translation should be taken seriously by related disciplines such as linguistics, literary theory and cultural and communication studies, not least because these disciplines can benefit from the results of research carried out in the field of translation. At the same time, as a phenomenon which pervades almost every aspect of our lives and shapes our understanding of the world, the study of translation can hardly be relegated to the periphery of other disciplines and sub-disciplines, those listed above being no exception. What is needed is an academic discipline which takes the phenomenon of translation as its main object of study. For many scholars, this discipline now exists. Some refer to it as the …science of translation‟, other as …translatology‟, but the most common term used today is …translation studies‟.Eco (1976:7) distinguishes between a discipline and a field of study. The first has “its own method and a precise object” (my emphasis). The second has “a repertoi re of interests that is not as yet completely unified”. It could be argued that translation studies is still largely a “field of study” in Eco‟s terms. The vast majority of research carried out in this, shall we say emerging discipline, is still concerned exclusively with the relationship between specific source and target texts, rather than with the nature of translated text as such. This relationship is generally investigated using notions such as equivalence, (234) correspondence, and shifts of translation, which betray a preoccupation with practical issues such as the training of translators. More important, the central role that these notions assume in the literature points to a general failure on the part of the theoretical branch of the discipline to define its object of study and to account for it. Instead of exploring features of translated texts as our object of study, we are still trying either to justify them or dismiss them by reference to their originals.It is my belief that the time is now ripe for a major redefinition of the scope and aims of translation studies, and that we are about to witness a turning point in the history of the discipline. I would like to argue that this turning point will come as a direct consequence of access to large corpora of both original and translated texts, and of the development of specific methods and tools for interrogating such corpora inways which are appropriate to the needs of translation scholars. Large corpora will provide theorists of translation with a unique opportunity to observe the object of their study and to explore what it is that makes it different from other objects of study, such as language in general or indeed any other kind of cultural interaction. It will also allow us to explore, on a larger scale than was ever possible before, the principles that govern translational behavior and the constraints under which it operates. Therein lie the two goals of any theoretical enquiry: to define its object of study and to account for it.Section 1 below offers an overview of the emerging discipline of translation studies and explains why translation scholars are now in a position to use the insights gained from corpus linguistics, and some of the techniques developed by it, to take translation across t he threshold of …field of study‟ and into the realm of fully-fledged disciplines.1.Translation studies: the state of the art1.1Central issues: the status of the source text and the notion of equivalenceUntil very recently, two assumptions dominated all discussions of translation and were never questioned in the literature. The first is that of the primacy of the source text, entailing a requirement for accuracy and faithfulness on the part of the translator. The second is a consequence of the first and is embodied in the notion of equivalence which has been the central concern of all discourse on translation since time immemorial. Translations should strive to be as equivalent to their originals as possible, with equivalence being understood, (235) mainly as a semantic or formal category. The implied aim of all studies on translation was never to establish what translation itself is, as a phenomenon, but rather to determine what an ideal translation, as an instance, should strive to be in order to minimise its inevitable distortion of the message, the spirit, and the elegance of the original.The essentialist question of how equivalence per se might be established in the course of translation has gradually been tempered by experience and by an explosion in the amount and range of texts which have come to be translated in a variety of ways on a regular basis. Hence, we now have a massive amount of literature which attempts to classify the notion of equivalence in a multitude of ways, and the question is no longer how equivalence might be achieved but, increasingly, what kind of equivalence can be achieved and in what contexts. This in itself is a noticeable improvement on the traditionally static view of equivalence, but it still assumes theprimacy of the source text and it still implies that a translation is merely a text striving to meet the standards of another text.1.2Developments which support a move towards corpus-based researchThe attempt to extend and classify the notion of equivalence has brought with it a need to explore not only the source text as the modal to be adhered to but also the target language, and the specific target language text type, in order to give meaning to such categories as stylistic equivalence and functional equivalence. If the idea is not simply to reproduce the formal structures of the source text but also to give some thought, and sometimes priority, to how similar meanings and functions are typically expressed in the target language, then the need to study authentic instances of similar discourse in the two languages becomes obvious.There have been other developments which have played a more direct role in preparing the ground for corpus work. One such development is the decline of what we might call the semantic view of the relationship between source and target texts. For a long time, discourse on translation was dominated by the idea that meaning, or messages, exist as such and can, indeed should, be transferred from source to target texts in much the same way as one might transfer wine from one glass to another. The traditional dichotomy of translating word-for-word or sense-for-sense is a product of this view of meaning. At about the same time that the notion of equivalence began to be reassessed, or perhaps a little earlier, new ideas began to develop about the nature of meaning in translation. Firth (1968:91) was among the first to sug(236)gest that, difficult though as it may appear, an approach which connects structures and systems of language to structures and systems in the context of situation (as opposed to structures and systems of thought) is more manageable and “more easily related to problems of translation”. Similarly, Haas (1986:104) stresses that, in practice, correspondence in meaning amounts to co rrespondence in use and asserts that “unless we can succeed in thus explaining translation, the mystery of bare and neutral fact will continue to haunt us”. Two expressions are equivalent in meaning if and only if “there is a correspondence between their uses” (ibid). The importance of this change in orientation, from a conceptual to a situational perspective and from meaning to usage, is that it supports the push towards descriptive studies in general and corpus-based studies in particular. Conceptual and semantic studies (in the traditional sense) can be based on introspection. Studies which take the context into consideration, and even more so, studies which attempt to investigate usage, are, by definition, only feasible if access is available to real data, and, in the case of usage, to substantial amounts of it.Apart from the decline of the semantic view of translation, another, and very exciting, development has been the emergence of approaches which undermine both the status of the source text vis-à-vis the translated text and the value of the very notion of equivalence, particularly if seen as a static relationship between the source and target texts. The move away from source texts and equivalence is instrumental in preparing the ground for corpus work because it enables the discipline to shed its longstanding obsession with the idea of studying individual instances in isolation (one translation compared to one source text at a time) and creates a requirement which can find fulfillment in corpus work, namely the study of large numbers of texts of the same type. This is precisely where corpus work comes into its own.1.2.1 New perspectives: polysystem theoryIn the late seventies, Even-Zohar, a Tel-Aviv scholar, began to develop a theory of literature as a polyststem, that is as a hierarchical and dynamic conglomerate of system rather than a disparate and static collection of texts. A given literary polysystem is seen as part of a larger cultural polysystem, itself consisting of various polysystems besides literature, for example politics and religion. These polysystems are structured differently in different cultures.Polysystem theory has far-reaching implications for the status of translated literature in general and for the status of the source text vis-à-vis the target text in particular. First, the theory assumes a high level of inter-dependence among the various systems and sub-systems which underlie a (237) given polysystem, as well as among the polysystems of literature in various cultures. This means that, for instance, “literature for children would not be considered a phenomenon sui generis, but related to literature for adults” and, similarly, “translated literature would not be disconnected from original literature” (Even-Zohar 1979:13). As a consequence, the status of translated literature is elevated to the point where it becomes worthy of investigation as a system in its own right, interacting with its co-systems and with the literary polysystems of other cultures. By recognising translated literature as a system in its own right, polysystemists shifted the attention away from individual literary translations as the object of literary studies to the study of a large body of translated literature in order to establish its systemic features.Second, one of the main properties of the polysystem is that there is constant struggle among its various strata, with individual elements and systems either being driven from the centre to the periphery or pushing their way towards the centre and possibly occupying it for a period of time (ibid:14). This constant state of flux suggests that no literary system or sub-system is restricted to the periphery by virtue of any inherent limitations on its value. Thus, the approach stresses that translated literature may, and sometimes does, occupy a central position in the polysystem and is therefore capable of providing canonised models for the whole polysystem. Moreover,given that polysystem theory recognises that intra- and inter-relations exist within both systems and polysystems, leading to various types of interference and transfer of elements, models, canons, and so on, it becomes obvious that “semiliterary texts, translated literature, children‟s literature—all those strata neglected in current literary studies—are indispensable objects of study for an adequate understanding of how and why transfers occur within systems as well as among them” (ibid:25). And finally, polysystemists reject the popular view of translation as a derivative activity and stress ins tead that literary translation is “a creatively controlled process of acculturation in that translators can take an original text and adapt it to a certain dominant poetics or ideology in the receiving culture” (Heylen 1993:21)This view of literature as a conglomerate of systems, as well as the growing interest in transfer and interference across systems, has gradually undermined the status of the source text in translation studies. Since the early eighties, Toury, another Tel-Aviv scholar, has been stressing that a translation belongs to one textual system only, namely the target system, and the source text has gradually been assuming the role of a stimulus or source of information rather than the starting point for analysis. Questions regarding how a translated text came into being or what type of relationship it has with a given (238) source text are becoming secondary to its classification as part of the target textual system. As Toury puts it in a more recent publication (1958:19):It is clear that, from the standpoint of the source text and source system, translations have hardly any significance at all, even if everybody in the source culture …knows‟ of their factual existence… Not only have they left the source system behind, but they are in no position to affect its linguistic and textual rules and norms, its textual history, or the source text as such. On the other hand, they may well influence the recipient culture and language, if only because every translation is initially perceived as a target language utterance.It is worth noting that similar, though not quite so radical, assessments of the status of the source text have also emerged among groups of scholars not specifically concerned with literary translation. For example, Vermeer (1983:90)2suggests that the function of the translated text is determined by the interests and expectations of its recipients and not by the function of the source text. The SL text is a source of information and, like other sources of information, it may be exploited in a variety of ways to meet the expectations of an envisaged audience.1.2.2 From equivalence to normsFrom the late seventies onwards, the source-oriented notion of equivalence has been gradually replaced by notions which clearly take the target system and culture as a starting point. Some of these notions have evolved within theories designed to account for translation within a commercial environment. They include, for example, Vermeer‟s notion of coherence, defined as the agreement of a text wit h its situation (Vermeer 1983), and Sager‟s definition of equivalence as a function of the specifications that accompany a request for translation (Sager 1993). The most important, however, has been the notion of norms, introduced by Toury (1978, 1980).Toury has developed a tripartite model in which norms represent an intermediate level between competence and performance. If we think of competence as an inventory of all the options that are available to translators in a given context, and performance as the subset of options which are actually selected by translators from this inventory, then norms are a further subset of these options. They are options which are regularly taken up by translators at a given time and in a given socio-cultural situation. In this sense, the notion of norms is very similar to that of typicality, a notion which has emerged from recent work on corpus-based lexicography and which contrasts sharply with the standard, absolute dualisms in linguistics; competence and performance, (239) language and parole.Norms, then, are a category of descriptive analysis. They can be identified only by reference to a corpus of source and target texts, the scrutiny of which would allow us to record strategies of translation which are repeatedly opted for, in preference to other available strategies, in a given culture or textual system. The concept of norms tips the balance not only in favour of the target text (as opposed to the traditional obsession with the source text), but, more important, it assumes that the primary object of analysis in translation studies is not an individual translation but a coherent corpus of translated texts. Norms do not emerge from a source text or a body of source texts. Equally, they do not emerge from the target system nor from a general collection of target texts. They are a product of a tradition of translating in specific ways, a tradition which can only be observed and elaborated through the analysis of a representative body of translated texts in a given language or culture. They can therefore be seen not just as a descriptive category but also as providing a functional, socio-historical basis for the structure of the discipline (Lambert 1985:34).1.2.3 The rise of descriptive translation studiesSince the seventies, several scholars have begun to express dissatisfaction with the heavy reliance on introspective methods in translation studies. Holms (1988:101) makes the point most clearly:Many of the weaknesses and naiveties of contemporary translation theories are a result of the fact that the theories were, by and large, developed deductively, without recourse to actual translated texts-in-function, or at best to a very restricted corpus introduced for illustration rather than for verification or falsification.Newman (1980:64) similarly suggests that the way out of the dilemma posed by the notions of equivalence and translatability is to look at actual instances of translation and to determine, on the basis of those instances, “the link of generalities that might from the basis of a theory of competence or systematic description”. It is however Toury who has done more to elaborate the concept of descriptive translation studies than anyone else in the discipline.For Toury, it is vital for translation studies to develop a descriptive branch if it is ever to become an autonomous discipline. Without this, translators will continue to rely on other disciplines such as linguistics to provide them with theoretical frameworks and the means to test their hypotheses. Descriptive Translation Studies, or DTS for short, is not reducible to a collection of case studies or comparative analysis of source and target texts. It is (240) that branch of the discipline which must provide a sound methodology and explicit research procedures to enable the findings of individual descriptive studies to be expressed in terms of generalisations about translational behavior. Its agenda consists, primarily, of investigating what translation is “under any defined set of circumstances … and WHY it is realized the way it is” (Toury 1991a:186). One of its main objectives is to render the findings of individual studies intersubjective and to make the studies themselves “repeatable, either for the same or for another corpus” (Toury 1980:81).It is perhaps worth noting at this point that although the words corpus and corpora are beginning to figure prominently in the literature on translation, they do not refer to the same kind of corpora that we tend to talk about in linguistics. Corpora in translation studies have so far been very modest affairs. Their size is not generally expressed in terms of number of words but of number of texts, and they are searched manually. For example, Vanderauwera (1958) is a study of “50 or so novels” translated from Dutch into English in “roughly the period 1960-1980” (ibid:1-2). This is a very small corpus, and yet the experience of searching it manually leads Vanderauwera to suggest that “serious and systematic research into translated texts is a laborious and tiresome bu siness” (ibid:6). Toury himself seems torn between the need to set an ambitious program for DTS and the recognition that “the larger and/or more heterogeneous the corpus, the greater the difficulties one is likely to encounter while performing the process of extraction and generalization” (1980:66-7). In an earlier publication, Toury (1978:96) argues for a distributional study of norms based on statistical techniques but concludes that… as yet we are in no position to point to strict statistical methods for dealing with translational norms, or even to supply sampling rules for actual research (which, because of human limitations, has nearly always been applied to samples only, and will probably go on being carried out in much the same way).At this stage we must be content with our intuitions … and use them as keys for selecting a corpus and for hitting upon ideas.One of John Sinclair‟s major achievements for linguistics has been his success, through the collection of computerised corpora and the development of a relevant research methodology, in providing ways of overcoming our human limitations and minimizing our reliance on intuition. His work can provide solutions for precisely the kind of problems that translation scholars are still struggling with today. (241)2.Corpus work in translation studies: the potentialThere is no doubt that the availability of corpora and of corpus-driven methodology will soon provide valuable insights in the applied branch of translation studies, and that the impact of corpus-based research will be felt there long before it begins to trickle into the theoretical and descriptive branches of the discipline. Sinclair (1992:395) touches very briefly, and strictly from the point of view of linguist, on one obvious application:The new corpus resources are expected to have a profound effect on the translations of future. Attempts at machine translation have consistently demonstrated to linguists that they do not know enough about the languages concerned to effect an acceptable translation. In principle, the corpora can provide the information.In the above statement, which is one of the very few Sinclair has made on translation, the concern is merely with improving the performance of translators and of machine translation systems in terms of approximating to the structures and natural patterns of a given language or languages. This same concern underlies most of the expressions of interest in corpus studies which are beginning to take shape in the literature.3 It is of course a legitimate concern and one which will be shared widely by scholars within and outside translation studies, theorists and practitioners alike. I would, however, like to think that the …profound effect‟ which Sinclair refers to will not be understood merely in terms of knowing enough about the languages concernedto approximate to their patterns. After all, once we are in a position to describe and account for our object of study, namely translation, we might find that approximating to the patterns of the target language, or any language for that matter, is not necessarily as feasible as we seem to assume, and that it is not the only factor at play in shaping translational behavior. Several scholars, for example Toury (1991b:50) and Even-Zohar (1979:77) have already noted that the very activity of translating, the need to communicate in translated utterances, operates as a major constraint on translational behavior and gives rise to patterns which are specific to translated texts. Thus Even-Zohar (ibid) stre sses that “we can observe in translation patterns w hich are inexplicable in terms of any of the repertoires involved”, that is patterns which are not the result of interference from the source or target language. Examples of these patterns are discussed as universal features of translation in section 2.1 below. The profound effect that corpora will have on translation studies, in my view, (242) will be a consequence of their enabling us to identify features of translated text which will help us understand what translation is and how it works. The practical question of how to improve our translations will find more reliable and realistic answers once the phenomenon of translation itself is explained in its own terms.Practical applications aside, what kind of queries can access to computerised corpora help us resolve in our effort to explicate the phenomenon of translation? Given that this question, to my knowledge, has not been addressed before, what follows has to be seem as a very tentative list of suggestions which can provide a starting-point for corpus-based investigations in the discipline but which do not, by any means, address the full potential of corpora in translation studies.2.1 Universal features of translationThe most important task that awaits the application of corpus techniques in translation studies, it seems to me, is the elucidation of the nature of translated text as a mediated communicative event. In order to do this, it will be necessary to develop tools that will enable us to identify universal features of translation, that is features which typically occur in translated text rather than original utterances and which are not the result of interference from specific linguistic systems.It might be useful at this point to give a few examples of the type of translation universals I have in mind. Based on small-scale studies and casual observation, a number of scholars have noted features which seem, intuitively, to be linked to the nature of the translation process itself rather than to the confrontation of specific linguistic systems. These include:。

基于语料库的《荷塘月色》译者风格研究作者：王红玉来源：《科学导报·学术》2020年第16期摘 ;要：本文以《荷塘月色》的许景城和张培基两个译本作为研究对象，从词汇层面即类符/形符比、词汇密度、高频词汇、特色词汇和句法层面即平均句长进行分析，进而研究两位译者的不同风格。

本文使用語料库方法定量研究，利用Antconc和Trados工具里的对齐客观分析两译文的不同之处。

关键词：《荷塘月色》;语料库;译者风格1.引言本文研究的《荷塘月色》是耳熟能详的抒情散文，它描写的是作者带着伤感的感情在小路闲逛，路过荷花池时看到各种姿态的荷花，通过动静结合让读者感受到荷花的美，最后抒发作者渴望自由的心情。

本文选取张培基和许景城翻译的两个译本作为研究对象。

2.研究对象与研究问题Mona Baker（Baker，2000：245）是利用语料库对译者风格进行研究的先驱。

她以翻译英语语料库为平台，通过对比类符/形符比、词汇密度和平均句长等信息辨别出英国翻译家克拉克和布什不同的译文风格，并进一步分析了导致其风格差异背后的社会文化原因。

本论文研究对象《荷塘月色》是朱自清先生于1927年7月所作，抒发作者渴望自由而又不得的复杂心情。

在翻译界目前有7个不同的译本，本文选取鲜有对比版本张培基译本和许景城译本为例。

3.词汇层面3.1 类符形符比借助语料库研究译者风格时，常需要统计译作的类符形符比。

类符指整篇文章中，总共的不同词形数目;形符指整篇文章的总词数。

比值越大说明译者使用的词汇量越丰富，所承载的信息也就越多。

通过计算得出数据：张译本类符数为512，形符为1108，类符形符比为46.21%;朱译本类符数为503，形符为1026，比值为49.03%。

通常情况下，当类符/形符值在60%～70%时词汇密度较高，比值在40%～50%属于低词汇密度（向璐，2018：183）。

通过数据可以直观发现，两译本都属于低词汇密度范畴。

张译本的类符数和形符数虽然都比朱译本的类符形符数高，但是比值却较低。

基于语料库的译者翻译风格研究——以《傲慢与偏见》孙致礼译本与王科一译本为例作者：俞柯来源：《赢未来》 2019年第10期俞柯南京邮电大学外国语学院，江苏南京 210046摘要：起于上世纪50年代的语料库翻译学正在蓬勃发展，作为其中分支的基于语料库的译者翻译风格研究也引起越来越多的学者关注。

本文选取了《傲慢与偏见》孙致礼译本和王科一译，本自建语料库，从词汇和句法两个方面研究二人的翻译风格，并探讨形成不同翻译风格的原因，以期能推动这一领域的研究向纵深发展。

关键词：语料库；翻译风格；《傲慢与偏见》长期以来，翻译被视为模仿性的活动，在传统译学中译者处于“隐身”的地位，其主体性、创造性一直被低估。

殊不知，“带着镣铐跳舞”的译者也能跳出自己独特的美，译者各自的翻译风格使译作增色不少。

所幸，随着20世纪50年代语料库翻译学的兴起，越来越多的人把目光投向译者风格研究。

张美芳 (2002) 指出, “利用语料库进行研究, 对一些难以捉摸的和不引人注目的语言习惯进行描述、分析、比较和阐释, 能比较令人信服地说明译者的烙印确实存在”。

《傲慢与偏见》以其独特的语言风格和引人入胜的情节而长盛不衰，在中国拥有不下60版译本，前人对于该小说汉译本的研究涉及众多方面，如“文学翻译中的译者主体性”（人民政协报.2018）、“《傲慢与偏见》汉译本的生态适应与选择”（张亚婷.2018），但在译者翻译风格上的研究远没有其他领域多。

一研究问题英国曼彻斯特大学Mona Baker教授最早利用语料库从类符形符比这一词汇应用角度分析译者的翻译风格。

此后，其他学者纷纷效仿，从词汇密度、词长、人称代词、指示代词、句长等方面进行研究。

然而，这些研究对象都略为浅显，且都存在源语与目标语之间的对应关系，很难脱离原文本的影响。

本文旨在脱离原文对译文的影响，从译文本身来分析孙致礼和王科一翻译风格有哪些不同之处，并探讨背后的原因，以此对未来该小说的重译提供些许建议。

Mona Baker对语用对等的解读译文在本论文中，我们将进一步讨论有关语言和翻译的问题，简要介绍特定文本是如何对特定读者“有意义（起作用）”的。

在这一研究中，大胆跨越把句子和段落联系在一起的篇章層面，而去辨别不同类型的篇章特征。

因此，我们将涉及到交际情境中的话语表达方式和语境中的翻译方法，这是一个极其复杂但却很吸引人的语言研究领域——语用学。

标签：语用对等；连贯；衔接语用学指在语境中如何使用语言的一门科学，是对语言意义的研究，然而该意义并不是由语言系统产生的，而是由参与者在交际情境中传达和操纵的。

因为不同的概念对这一特殊语言研究领域至关重要，所以我选出了两个概念——连贯和会话含义，这对探索“有意义”的问题和突出跨文化交际领域中的难点有一定的帮助。

1. 连贯和衔接衔接和连贯都是一种可以组织和创造语篇的关系网络。

衔接属于表层关系，即在语篇中可以把单词和表达与其它的单词和表达联系在一起；而连贯属于概念关系，是表层关系的基础。

但二者都是建立顺畅语流的方法。

对于衔接，语流的顺畅性是通过词汇和语法的相关性实现的；而对于连贯，语流的顺畅性则是通过语言使用者感知其概念和意义的相关性来实现的。

侯仪（1991：12）对于衔接和连贯间的不同总结如下：我们假设衔接是语篇的特性，连贯是读者对文本进行评估的一方面。

换句话说，衔接是客观的，能够自动识别；而连贯却是主观的，所以对文本的评价也是仁者见仁智者见智。

衔接可以简单的表达连贯关系，也可以建立明确地概念关系。

例如：连词“因此”可以为读者传达逻辑上或顺序上的概念关系。

然而，如果读者不能感知到与“因此”有关的潜在逻辑或顺序的语义关系，他们也不可能明白文本的意思，换言之，此文本对于这个特别的读者来说是不’连贯’的，一般而言，仅仅存在衔接标志并不能成就一篇连贯性的语篇，衔接标记必须反应出有意义的概念关系。

恩奎斯特（1978：110-111）虽然给出了具有很多衔接词的文本，但却显得特别紊乱：我买了一辆福特车，威尔逊总统曾乘坐驶入香榭丽舍大道（巴黎著名时尚标志）的就是这款黑色车。

基于语料库的翻译研究方法探析摘要：语料库方法注重实证研究，强调数据统计和理论分析的有机结合，是一种行之有效的语言研究方法。

文章分析了语料库语言学的研究方法，回顾了基于语料库的翻译研究，同时展望了语料库翻译研究的发展前景。

关键词：语料库；研究方法；翻译研究实践是社会存在和发展的基础，是认识发生和发展的基础，也是社会科学研究的方法论基础。

语料库方法以真实存在的语言实践为基础，强调数据统计和理论分析的有机结合，是一种行之有效的语言研究方法。

近年来，利用语料库方法进行的翻译研究成为热点，文章分析了语料库研究方法，回顾了基于语料库法的翻译研究成果，并展望了翻译语料库研究的发展前景。

一、语料库研究方法语言研究历来重视语言材料的充分收集、整理和分析。

根据语言材料的采集和使用途径，现代语言学研究的方法主要有三种，即内省法（introspection approach）、诱导法（elicitation approach）和语料库研究法（corpus-based approach）。

内省法认为人的语言能力是天生的，研究者本人的语感和直觉是语言现象是否合乎语法、有无歧义的权衡尺度。

内省法根据少数的语言事实提出某种规则和原则，强调语言的无限生成能力，研究对象既包括实际使用的句子，也有语言学家虚构的句子。

但内省法脱离了语言使用的社会环境，忽视了语言的社会属性，遭到语言学家的质疑。

诱导法是一种社会调查方法。

通过控制变量的方法，采用实地或问卷调查的方式，诱导受试者对句子或句子中某个成分做出判断。

诱导法把语言看作交际的工具，强调语言的社会属性，研究对象为实际使用的语言。

但这种方法易受调查规模、受试者的水平差异等因素的影响。

语料库研究法也是一种着眼于语言运用的研究方法。

这一方法依靠计算机操作存储系统和相关软件，收录不受外界影响的真实语言材料，基本手段是概率统计。

在广泛收集语料的基础上进行统计分析，得出语言运用的概率信息，之后以概率信息为指导，分析真实的语言材料。

2007年11月第23卷　第6期四川外语学院学报Journal of Sichuan I nternati onal Studies UniversityNov.,2007Vol.23　No.6语料库翻译学的几个术语王克非1　黄立波2(11北京外国语大学中国外语教育研究中心,北京　100089;21西安外国语大学英文学院,陕西西安　710061)提　要:语料库翻译学,即基于语料库的翻译研究,关注翻译共性问题。

主要阐述语料库翻译学关于翻译共性研究的几个术语,并评介相关论点。

关键词:语料库翻译学;共性;简化;显化;隐化;范化;整齐化中图分类号:H31519 文献标识码:A 文章编号:1003-3831(2007)06-0101-05Ter m s i n Corpus2Ba sed Tran sl a ti on Stud i esWANG Ke2fei　HUANG L i2boAbstract:Issues of translati on universals have recently been discussed in cor pus2based translati on studies.The paper ex2 pounds s o me ter m s in this disci p line including translati on universals,si m p lificati on,ex p licitati on,i m p licitati on,nor maliza2 ti on and leveling out,and makes brief co mments on the vie wpoints inv olved.Key words:cor pus2based translati on studies;translati on universals;si m p lificati on;ex p licitati on;i m p licitati on;nor malizati on; levelling out 语料库翻译学,又称基于语料库的翻译研究,是近十多年随语料库语言学发展起来的新学科分支,包括方法论或工具层面上的应用研究、描写性研究和关于翻译特征的抽象性理论研究。

基于语料库的翻译文体学应用研究——以《荷塘月色》的三个英译本为例霍跃红【摘要】文章选取朱自清散文名篇《荷塘月色》分别来自中国译者、西方译者和中西合作译者的三个译本为语料,利用语料库分析软件Simple Concordance Program 4.0和Textanz,从译本中的词汇变化量、句子长度、可读性,以及情感表现、比喻修辞翻译等方面入手,对三个译本的文体特征进行对比分析.研究发现:三个译本在词汇层面都是低密度文本,句子都在中句范围内,与原文质朴的语言风格吻合；但在情感词汇使用、比喻修辞翻译及可读性指数上,存在着一些区别.【期刊名称】《大连理工大学学报（社会科学版）》【年(卷),期】2011(032)004【总页数】5页(P69-73)【关键词】翻译文体学;语料库;应用;翻译【作者】霍跃红【作者单位】大连外国语学院外国语言学及应用语言学研究基地,辽宁大连116044【正文语种】中文【中图分类】H315.920世纪90年代语料库被应用于翻译研究领域后，人们不再局限于对译文的感性认识，而是开始运用计算机的强大计算功能来计算译文的相关数据，分析译文的特征。

如Hermans指出在译文的叙事结构中总存在译者的声音（the translator’s voice）［1］，认为“译者的声音或隐或显，有时隐藏在叙事者背后不易觉察，而有时译者会冲出文本层面以自己的名义为自己说话”。

Mona Baker提出了译者文体（the translato r’s style）这一概念，指出译者文体风格“如同人的指纹一样，是语言的或非语言的个性特征”［2］。

Baker认为研究译者文体应该聚焦译者典型的、偏爱的语言表达方式，把握某个译者不同于其他译者的独特语言习惯，而不仅局限于译者介入文本所增加的那些副文本。

Malmkjaer提出了翻译文体学（translational stylistics）的概念，主要关注在原语文本既定的条件下，译者为什么会以特定的方式来塑造译文，进一步认同了Hermans关于译者声音的观点［3］。

国内语料库翻译研究综述【摘要】语料库辅助（corpus-assisted）翻译研究始于英国学者mona baker，近些年我国相关学者应用这一新范式对翻译理论及实践进行了多方面的探讨，本文基于近十年《中国翻译》期刊上发表的全部共16篇有关语料库翻译研究的学术论文进行归纳总结，得出其研究的内容主要可分为六个方面：翻译普遍性、翻译实践与教学研究、翻译语料库创建与应用、译者风格、书评、综合概述。

启发当代语料库翻译的实体建设及理论深化研究。

【关键词】语料库翻译；《中国翻译》；研究综述1.引言1993年，英国学者mona baker 发表了“语料库语言学与翻译研究：启示和应用”一文，将语料库研究方法引入翻译研究，此文标志着语料库翻译研究的开端。

国内的语料库翻译研究始于杨惠中教授1993年发表的“语料库语言学与机器翻译”一文，几乎与国外同时起步。

如今，国内的研究已经走过了20个春秋，也有了长足的发展。

本文就《中国翻译》这一cssci核心期刊进行人工检索，获得近十年全部有关语料库翻译研究的学术论文共16篇，文献表明：近些年国内相关学者应用这一新范式对翻译理论及实践进行的探讨，主要包括以下六个方面：翻译普遍性、翻译实践与教学研究、翻译语料库创建与应用、译者风格、书评、综合概述等。

2.语料库辅助翻译理论与实践的主要研究方向不可否认，语料库就像一个显微镜，它能使我们更客观，更具体地去探究翻译这一复杂人类交际活动。

当然，我们也应该看到，尽管语料库翻译研究为我们提供了对大量真实翻译文本的客观描述，但方法本身并不提供对翻译现象的解释。

对语料库翻译理论与实践的研究需要在更广泛、更细致的基础上不断地加深。

2.1翻译普遍性（translation universals）“翻译普遍性，是指翻译语言作为一种客观存在的语言变体，相对于原语语言或目标语原创语言从整体上表现出来的一些规律性语言特征。

”（baker，1993：243） baker和oolhan等人先后揭示的翻译共性主要是：简化、显化、范化。

基于语料库的《岳阳楼记》英译本译者风格分析作者：高思文来源：《现代语文(学术综合)》2017年第01期摘要：基于自建的《岳阳楼记》译文语料库，应用语料库检索软件Wordsmith，对《岳阳楼记》三种代表性英译本的译者风格，进行基于语料库的定性和定量分析。

从词汇、句子、篇章三个层面的分析发现，三个版本的译者风格迥异。

杨译多使用复杂的长句，阅读难度较大；戴译与原文相近，较易阅读；罗译用词丰富，句式简洁，词汇简短，阅读容易。

关键词：语料库译者风格《岳阳楼记》一、引言自从Mona Baker在1993年将语料库引入到翻译研究中以来，基于语料库的翻译研究取得了长足的发展，有关译者风格的研究也成为语料库翻译学的重要课题。

2000年，Baker （2000）首次将语料库应用于译者风格的研究，其论文Towards a Methodology for Investigating the Style of a Literary Translator开创了译者风格新的研究视角和范式。

该研究主要是关注文学翻译译者或译者群体独有的翻译语言特征（黄立波、王克非，2011：916）。

Baker（2000）认为译者风格是译者翻译过程中的语言和非语言特征所表现出的一种“thumbprint”。

张美芳（2000：57）指出，“利用语料库进行研究，对一些难以捉摸的和不引人注目的语言习惯进行描述、分析、比较和阐释，能比较令人信服地说明译者的烙印确实存在”。

国内对《岳阳楼记》英译本的翻译研究不多，尤其是对其译者风格的研究尚未开始。

鉴于此，本文选取《岳阳楼记》三个代表性译本为研究对象，基于语料库的方法，自建小型译语语料库，运用语料库检索软件对其译本进行数据处理，从词汇、句法、语篇三个层面对其译者风格进行探讨。

希望通过本研究，能够对《岳阳楼记》及其他的中国典籍翻译研究有所帮助。

二、研究对象与方法本文的考察语料为《岳阳楼记》三英译本，分别为1996年中国对外翻译公司出版的戴抗迭、谢百魁译本，1998中国文学出版社编的杨宪益译本和2005年外语教学与研究出版社出版的罗经国译本，均有较高的翻译质量。

基于双语平行语料库的翻译文体学探讨以《骆驼祥子》两个英译本中人称代词主语和叙事视角转换为例一、概述翻译作为跨语言、跨文化的交际活动，一直是语言学、文学、文化学等多个学科的研究热点。

在全球化的大背景下，翻译的重要性愈发凸显，它不仅是语言间的桥梁，更是文化交流的纽带。

翻译文体学作为翻译学与文体学的交叉学科，旨在探讨翻译过程中原文文体如何在目标语中得以再现，以及如何保持原文的文体风格和韵味。

近年来，随着语料库语言学的发展，基于双语平行语料库的翻译研究逐渐成为新的研究趋势，为翻译文体学的研究提供了新的视角和方法。

《骆驼祥子》作为中国现代文学的经典之作，其独特的叙事风格和深刻的社会意义使其在国内外享有广泛的影响。

自其问世以来，已有多个英译本问世，这些译本在翻译过程中如何处理原文的文体特征，特别是人称代词主语和叙事视角的转换问题，成为翻译研究关注的焦点。

本研究旨在通过对比分析《骆驼祥子》两个英译本中人称代词主语和叙事视角的转换情况，探讨翻译文体学在翻译实践中的应用，以期为翻译实践提供有益的启示和借鉴。

本研究将采用双语平行语料库的研究方法，通过对比分析两个英译本与原文在人称代词主语和叙事视角方面的差异，揭示翻译过程中文体特征的传递与变异。

同时，结合翻译文体学的相关理论，分析造成这些差异的原因，探讨如何在保持原文风格的基础上实现翻译的可接受性和准确性。

本研究的成果将不仅有助于深化对翻译文体学的理解，也将为翻译实践提供有益的指导和参考。

1. 简述翻译文体学的研究意义及其在翻译实践中的应用。

翻译文体学是一门综合性边缘学科，旨在研究文本体裁的特征、本质及其规律，它结合了语言学、文艺学、美学、心理学等多个学科的知识。

在翻译实践中，翻译文体学具有重要的研究意义和应用价值。

翻译文体学的研究意义在于它能够帮助译者更深入地理解源语文本的风格和特点，从而更加准确地传达原文的意图和韵味。

通过文体分析，译者可以把握原文的语言形式、叙事视角、修辞手法等，进而在译文中再现这些元素，保持原文的风格和美感。

語料庫在翻譯研究的應用：理論與實務長榮大學翻譯系李恭蔚教授摘要本文主旨在於：從理論和實務兩方面，探討語料庫在翻譯研究的運用。

除前言、結語外，筆者將本文分成五個部份：一、語料庫的定義及其在翻譯研究的運用；二、多語語料庫對翻譯研究可能作出的貢獻；三、比較語料庫與翻譯研究的互動關係；四、平行語料庫對翻譯研究可能產生的功用；最後，筆者指出語料庫在翻譯研究所面臨的挑戰。

本文研究方法有二：一是文獻評述；二是語料庫的種類分析。

筆者先就翻譯學者蒙娜‧貝克 (Mona Baker) 及其他語料庫專家的著作作評介，再將語料庫分成四種類型加以分析：第一種是單語語料庫 (monolingual corpora)：單語語料庫是翻譯研究的一個詞彙，是指供譯者研究的一組文本，主要是讓譯者能在這些文件的文本中找到一些共同的特徵，作為學術研究的例證。

在機械翻譯當中，語料庫被定義為「用來作為語言描述的分析基礎的一組文法句子」。

換言之，語料庫是指軟體在作比較分析和翻譯時，使用的一些範例。

在描述翻譯研究當中，語料庫則是指「一組文本以機器解讀的形式，可以用各種方法自動或半自動地加以分析」。

第二種是多語言語料庫 (multilingual corpora)：根據蒙娜‧貝克的定義，所謂多語言語料庫是指「二組或多組以多種語言呈現的單語語料庫…此種語料庫係以相似的設計標準為基礎建立起來」。

此詞在語言呈現上來說，是指本國語之文本，而不是指譯文文本。

多語言語料庫在翻譯人員培訓、教材編寫和機器翻譯軟體的設計等方面頗具良好的應用效果，因為此一語料庫可以使讀者或譯者對多語言間的同義語詞或同義句的形成方法和過程有更清楚的瞭解。

第三種是比較語料庫 (comparable corpora)：比較語料庫是蒙娜‧貝克用來指「同一種語言中的兩組分開的文本」；「其中一組文本是當事語言的原文，而另一組文本則是由某譯出文或其他各種譯出文譯成的‘當事語言的’譯文」。

比較語料庫使用的是單一語言，而機械翻譯的語料庫使用的是多種語言，這一點不同必須加以區別和注意。