中美政府年度工作报告语法衔接手段对比研究开题报告

 2023-07-07 08:24:17

1. 研究目的与意义（文献综述包含参考文献）

1.Introduction1.1 Research backgroundReport on the work of Government (RWG, in short), emphasizing the need to maintain economic stability, growth, and social stability, is delivered by the premier in China during the Chinese Peoples Political Consultative Conference, which plays an essential role for the world to learn about China. In the counterpart, State of the Union Address (SUA, in short) is presented by the president of the United States to a joint session of the United States Congress, which not only reports on the condition of the nation but also outline the legislative agenda and national priorities. RWG and SUA are all delivered annually, playing the similar role for the government as well. So those two political documents are often compared together to study the translation of RWGs (e.g. Chao, 2019), the use of language to serve the presidents deliveries (e.g. Li, 2012; Song, 2018; Ni, 2018). However, few have been done from the perspective of grammatical cohesion, especially comparative study on grammatical cohesion of the RWG and SUA. What is more, qualitative research methodology is used by most studies while quantitative research methodology is less frequently adopted.Grammatical cohesion is essential in text analysis. Therefor, cohesion theory, developed by Halliday and Hasan (1976), is usually adopted to analyze the grammatical cohesion of RWGs and SUAs in order to know the differences between those two types of political documents and search some ways for improving RWGs translation.1.2 Need of the studyBased on cohesion theory, this study aims at comparing translated RWGs and SUAs, finding out the similarities and differences between them in grammatical cohesive devices, analyzing the possible reasons why the differences occur and then explaining its meanings for further study in this area.Both theoretical and practical implications can be achieved from the results of this research. The significance are following. Firstly, different from previous studies, it views cohesion theory from a new perspective: comparison between RWGs between SUAs, rather that texts in literature. Secondly, both qualitative research and quantitative research are used during the process. What is more, empirical data is provided for more reliance. Last but bot least, it evolves four grammatical cohesive devices which are listed in by Halliday, including reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction. Comparative study between those four devices also is made instead of focusing on just one device.Excluding those are mentioned, it can also provide suggestions for both second foreign languages learners, teachers and translators. By reading this paper, they can have a better understanding about grammatical cohesion of political reports and learn it more effectively. The study may help teachers make out how grammatical cohesive devices exist and what role does they play respectively. It also may aid translators to know how to chose, add or delete cohesive devices in the process of political texts translations. 1.3 Research purposesThe present study aims to investigate the similarities and differences between RWGs and SUAs in the aspects of grammatical cohesive theory. That is to say, by collecting RWGs and SUAs from 2015 to 2020, based on Halliday and Hasans cohesion theory, the present study tries to make some questions clear. For instance, Is there significant difference in the occurrences of grammatical cohesion and its types between RWGs and SUAs? Is there any difference in the distribution of grammatical cohesion and its types? If the differences occur, what are the possible causes for it?2.Literature reviewAfter the brief introduction, this part introduce the previous related theory and research foundation which have been done. In other words, cohesion theory is explained in detail, including the development of cohesion theories, four grammatical cohesive devices and cohesion studies at home and abroad. Furthermore, previous studies on RWGs and SUAs also are presented in this chapter.2.1Hallidays Cohesion TheoryIn the early seventies, there were lots of scholars committing themselves to explore the text analysis. But before Halliday and Hasans cohesion theory, the former developments in the area of text analysis was still in the preliminary stage (Zou, 2014), although it lay the most basic foundation for the further steps. In 1076, Halliday and Hasan jointly published their book, Cohesion in English, which makes great contribution towards the cohesion theory, also provides a more comprehensive framework for researches to analyse texts.In the Cohesion in English (Halliday any passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a unified whole(Halliday relations of meaning that exist within a text and that define it a text(Halliday instead of being interpreted semantically in theor own right, they make reference to something else for their interpretation(Halliday me mine my you yours your We; us ours our He; him his his She; her hers her They; them theirs their it its its one Ones2.2.1.2 Demonstrative ReferenceDemonstrative reference is reference by means of location, on a scale of PROXIMITY (Halliday these; that; those Here; (now); there; then the2.2.1.3 Comparative ReferenceComparative reference is indirect reference by means of IDENTITY or SIMILARITY (Halliday identical; equal; similar; additional; other; different; else Identically; similarly; likewise; so; much; differently;otherwise Particular comparison Better; more; etc.(comparative adjectives and quantifiers) So; more; less; equally2.2.2 SubstitutionDifferent from reference, substitution is in connection with the wording rather than with the meaning. Substitution can be defined as the replacement of one item with another within the text(Zou, 2014). According to Halliday and Hasan, substitution can be divided into nominal substitution, verbal substitution and clausal substitution. 2.2.2.1Nominal SubstitutionNominal substitution is the substitution word which can fulfill the function of the head of a nominal phrase to replace the nominal phrase. Nominal substitution includes one, ones and same.2.2.2.2 Verbal Substitution Verbal substitution means that use a verbal substitute word to replace a verb or a verbalphrase, which is achieved by do.2.2.2.3 Clausal SubstitutionClausal substitution is used to work as a clause, which are so and not.2.2.3 EllipsisEllipsis is very similar with substitution as ellipsis can be understood as a form of substitution in which the item is replaced by nothing. Likewise, the difference between these two is that substitution is a replacement of one item by another and ellipsis is the omission of one item. Ellipsis which is same with substitution also have three types: nominal ellipsis, verbal ellipsis and clausal ellipsis.2.2.4 ConjunctionIn four grammatical cohesion, conjunction is extremely different from the three kinds we have mentioned before because conjunctive elements are not cohesive by nature. However, it plays cohesive role indirectly by its specific meanings. They presuppose certain elements in the text by expressing certain meanings (Halliday proper (in spite of ) (external and internal) Simple:yet, though, onlyContaining and:butEmphatic:however, nevertheless, despite this, all the sameContrastive relations (as against) (external) Simple:but, andEmphatic:however, on the other hand, at the same time, as against thatContrastive relations (as against) (internal) Avowal:in fact, as a matter of fact, to tell the truth, actually, in point of fact Corrective relations (not...but) (internal) Correction of meaning: instead, rather,on the contraryCorrection of wording: at least, rather, I meanDismissive (generalized adversative) relations (no matter...,still) (external and internal) Dismissal, closed:in any/either case/event,any/either way, whicheverDismissal, open-ended:anyhow, at any rate, In any case,however that may be2.2.4.3 Causal ConjunctionCausal conjunction contains the specific result, reason and purpose.Causal relations, general (because..., so) (external and internal) Simple:so, thus, hence, thereforeEmphatic:consequently, accordingly, because of this Causal relations, specific Reason:(mainly external) for this reason, on account of this(internal ) it follows (from this),on this basisResult:(mainly external) as a result (of this),In consequent (of this)(internal) arising out of thisPurpose: (mainly external) for this purpose, with this in mind/view, with this intention(internal) to this endReversed causal relations, general Simple:for, becauseConditional relations (if..., then) (external and internal) Simple:thenEmphatic:in that case, that being the case, in such an event, under those circumstancesGeneralized:under the circumstancesReversed polarity:otherwise,under the circumstancesRespective relations (with respect to) (internal) Direct: in this respect/connection,With regard to this, hereReversed polarity: otherwise, in other respects, aside/apart from this2.2.4.4 Temporal ConjunctionTemporal conjunction is a relation between two successive sentences which means the one is subsequent to the other.Simple temporal relation (external) Sequential: (and) then, next, afterwards,after that, subsequentlySimultaneous: (just) then, at the same time, simultaneously Preceding: earlier, before then/that, previouslyComplex temporal relations (external) Immediate: at once, thereupon, on which,just beforeInterrupted: soon, presently, later, after a time,some time earlier, formerlyRepetitive:next time, on another occasion,this time, on this occasion,the last time, on a previous occasionSpecific:next day, five minutes later, five minutes earlierDurative: meanwhile, all this timeTerminal: by this time, up till that time, until thenPunctiliar: next moment, at this point/moment,the previous momentConclusive relations (external) Simple: finally, at last, in the end, eventuallySequential and conclusive relations (external): correlative forms Sequential:first...then, first...next, first...second...Conclusive: at first...finally, at first...in the endTemporal relations (internal) Sequential: then, next, secondlyConclusive: finally, as a final point, in conclusionTemporal relations (internal): correlative forms Sequential: first...next, first...then, first...secondly..., in the first place..., to begin with...Conclusive: ...finally, ...to conclude withHere and now relations (internal) Past: up to now, up to this point, hitherto,heretofore,Present: at this point, hereFuture: from now on, henceforwardSummary relations (internal) Culminative:to sum up, in short, brieflyResumptive:to resume, to get back to the point, anywayTo sum up, reference is the interpretation of one element depend on some other elements within the text. Substitution and ellipsis belong to a group of replacement by nature. Conjunction is a kind of semantic relation which indicates the function of cohesion.References[1]Baker, M. (2000). In other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.[2]Bloor, M. A Case Study of the 2010 Government Work Report. Foreign Language Research, 2, 89-91.[9]Hu, Zhuanglin.(1994). Discourse Cohesion and Coherence. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.[10]Liu Huan (2016). A Contrastive Study of the Grammatical Cohesion in English Abstracts of MA Theses Written by the Chinese and the American Postgraduates. Sanxi: Changan University.[11]Liang Rui (2014). A Comparative Study of the Grammatical Cohesion in Translated Reports on the Work of the Government and the State of Union Address. BeiJing: BeiJing Foreign Language University.[12]Li Yijuan (2012). On the Explicitness and Implicitness of Cohesion in Political Speeches. Shandong: Shandong Normal University.[13]Ni Meiyan (2015). A Comparative Study of the Grammatical Cohesive Devices in MORPOL Convention. LiaoNing: Dalian Maritime University.[14]Peng Mingming (2016). The Contrastive Analysis of Cohesive Devices in English and Chinese Oratorical Texts A Case Study of Chinese and American Leaders Oratorical Texts. Shandong: Shandong Normal University. [15]Ren Meina (2019). A Study of Explicitation in Chinese-English Consecutive interpretation from the Perspective of Cohesion Theory. Jilin: Changchun University of Science and Technology.[16]Zou Yajie (2014). A Corpus-based Comparative Study of Grammatical Cohesion between State of Union Address and Report on the Work of the Government. LiaoNing: Dalian University of Foreign Language.[17]冯艳.2011.《傲慢与偏见》及其汉译本语法衔接手段对比研究.文学教育(9):58-59[18]刘晓萌. 语篇分析中的衔接与连贯. 文化视点:87-88[19]马立杰. 奥巴马连任就职演讲的衔接手段分析. 科技信息:160[20]毛永冰.2011.语篇翻译中的英汉衔接手段对比以奥巴马获诺贝尔和平奖后的演讲个案研究.文学语言学研究(69):28-29[21]彭德晶,王嘉平.2016.政治文献中汉英语法衔接手段的对比与翻译以《2015年政府工作报告》及其英译本为例.现代语文(24):151-154[22]张易男,李燕鸿.2019.汉英照应衔接对比与翻译研究以《2018年政府工作报告》及其英译本为例.英语教师(9):134-138,141

2. 研究的基本内容、问题解决措施及方案

The present paper makes research on differences between Report on Work of theGovernment and State of the Union Address from the perspective of grammatical cohesion. The specific research question is: Is there significant difference in the occurrences of grammatical cohesion and its types between RWGs and SUAs? Is there any difference in the distribution of grammatical cohesion and its types? If the differences occur, what are the possible causes for it?Corpus-based approach is the principle methodology used in this research. Based on the self-compiled corpus, this current study aims to better analyze the differences between this two significant political texts. The corpus comprises Report on the Work of Government and the State of the Union Address from 2015-2020.

剩余内容已隐藏，您需要先支付 10元 才能查看该篇文章全部内容！立即支付

以上是毕业论文开题报告，课题毕业论文、任务书、外文翻译、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。

您可能感兴趣的文章