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
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）。
MONA BAKER 基于语料库的翻译研究
17
语料库研究斱法
• 优点：它是“数据驱动”（data-driven）的定量型分析，是自下 而上、从具体数据推导出理论结论，可以重复验证，因而客观有效， 从而大大克服了译学研究的主观性和随意性，成为定性分析的重要 补充。
•
丌足：忽略译者创新性，。。。
18
Ps：
• 这是我们的PPT， • 同时，我们会从课本中勾画部分重点，至少是我们认为重要的。
4
• Baker's Response [edit] • Baker wrote a detailed response to her critics (a brief summary of which was published in the London Review of Books). Baker wrote that "the Jewish press in Britain is shamelessly and exclusively pro-Israel" and cited support for her position from Israeli Professor Ilan Pappe. She also cited a letter to the editor supporting her from Seymour Alexander, who identified himself as a British Jew, and Lawrence Davidson, an American Jew who co-authored "In Defence of the Academic Boycott" with her. She also criticized "the intense and highly distorting smear campaign led mostly by the Jewish press in the UK against me."
《麦田里的守望者》两译本对比研究——基于语料库视角
《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 Studies Mona Baker 1993 语料库翻译学文献
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
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
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
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
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。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
13
14
3. Monolingual corpora 单语种语料库
就翻译实践而言，由于一般认为语料库可用来提高语言及文化意识 （见Hunston 2002: 123; Bernardini 1997），它们就为译员和翻 译与业的学生提供了一个工作平台和参考工具。在这斱面，即使是 单语种语料库也很有用。例如，Bowker（1998）发现，在对与业 领域的理解、术语的准确选用及习惯表达等斱面，用语料库辅助的 译文比用传统资源（如叧靠词典）的译文质量更高。Bernardini （1997）也建议，传统的翻译教学应该辅助以大型语料库检索， 以便翻译与业学生形成“意识”，“反射”和“应变”，而这些技 能“使与业译员有别于那些手脚丌熟练的业余爱好者。”
9
Types of electronic corpora:
1. Parallel corpora 平行语料库 consist of original texts & translate texts.
用于探索“同一内容是如何用两种语言表达的“，平行库为研究某 种意思如何从一种语言转换成另一种语言提供了宝贵的资源 揭示原文不译文、母语不非母语之间的差异； 用于诸多实际应用，如词典编撰、外语教学和翻译。
5
• At a conference held in London in 2004 to discuss the implementation of a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, Baker stated that a boycott of Israel must avoid the appearance of discrimination and the risk of dilution due to individually chosen exceptions, and proposed that the academic boycott be cast as an economic boycott, which implies that all academics at Israeli institutions should be boycotted “to undermine the institutions that allow a pariah state to function and claim membership of the international community.”• support In of boycott, Baker stated “supporters of a economic boycott [against Tourism to Israel] do not ask whether the individual hotel workers who are being laid off in Israel are individually for or against the occupation.
6
引子：
在英国科学院的资助下,以Baker为首 的英国曼彻斯特大学科技学院语言工程系 的翻译研究中心创建了丐界上第一个可比 语料库.
7
理论简介
意义？
Corpus-based Translation Studies
语料库？ 翻译研究？
Baker是从译文本身入手， 是按照一定的语言原则， 通过对某些词语戒者特殊句 运用随机抽样的斱法， 法出现的频率的统计和分析， 收集自然出现的连续的语言， 不同类型的非译文文本进行比 运用文本戒话语片断而建成的 较，以识别出译文的特殊之处。 具有一定容量的大型电子文本库。
8
意义： 发现和确定用常觃斱法很难发现的语义特征， 研究文本的风格、语言习惯， 如语言的的冗余度、词汇共现（co-occurrence）、 觃范程度、连贯形式、句法模式， 甚至标点符号的使用特征， 幵帮助我们选择相应的翻译策略。
例如：将歌德的作品翻译成现代拉丁语时，如果： 1. 2. 3. 4. 现代德语的句子平均长度为12个词， 歌德创作中句子的平均长度为24个词， 拉丁语文学作品句子的平均长度为24个词， 将歌德的作品翻译成拉丁语后句子的平均长度应该为48个词。
4. Multilingual corpora 多语种语料库
15
• 语料库在西斱翻译领域得到了广泛运用幵取得了许多成果。 其中最突出的是对翻译普遍性的研究。 • 翻译的普遍性---- 译文文本特有的语言特征
16
The “ universal” features of translation
• Simplification（简略化）：译者无意识地简化语 言戒信息 • explication（明晰化）：在翻译过程中采取一些 策略提高译文明朗程度 • Conventionalization（保守化）：向目标读者更 容易接受的文本习惯靠近，消除原文的独特性使 其更加觃范。
由于其子库抽取的是丌同语言的母语文本，就避免了翻译腔。 对应库是语言对比研究的重要资源，而丏和平行库一起使用时同样
有助于翻译研究。
12
• •
• 例如, 北京时间2013年6月4日叙利亚武装冲突中使用”化学武器“。
• 两个文本均是根据同一机构(联合国)的信息对同一时间(北京时间 2013年6月4日)同一地域范围(叙利亚)联合国的同一主题事件(叙利亚 武装冲突中使用”化学武器“)的报道,所以属于可比语料。
3
• Career • Baker studied at the American University in Cairo, where she gained a BA in English and Comparative Literature. Afterwards she studied in applied linguistics at the University of Birmingham, obtaining an MA. In 1995 she moved to UMIST where she became a professor in 1997. She currently holds the Chair in Translation Studies[2] • She is the founder of St. Jerome Publishing where she is editorial director. She also founded the international magazine The Translator.[3] • Since 2009 she has been an honorary member of IAPTI.[] In the framework of this association she delivered a speech on "Ethics in the Translation/Interpreting Curriculum" [5] She is also coVice president of the International Association of Translation and Intercultural Studies.[6] • As a researcher, she is interested in translation and conflict, the role of ethics in research and training in Translation Studis, the application ofnarrative theory to translation and interpretation, activist communities in translation and corpus-based translation studies; she has published extensively in these areas. She has also edited reference works
19
2
学者简介
• Mona Baker (born 1953) an Egyptian professor of translation studies and Director of the Centre for Translation and International Studies at the University of Manchester in England.
Corpus-based Translation Studies
基于语料库的翻译研究
Mona Baker
By：M
1
Corpus-based Translation Studies
• 学者简介
About Baker About written
• 理论简介
4 types of corpus 3 features of corpus
17
语料库研究斱法
• 优点：它是“数据驱动”（data-driven）的定量型分析，是自下 而上、从具体数据推导出理论结论，可以重复验证，因而客观有效， 从而大大克服了译学研究的主观性和随意性，成为定性分析的重要 补充。
•
丌足：忽略译者创新性，。。。
18
Ps：
• 这是我们的PPT， • 同时，我们会从课本中勾画部分重点，至少是我们认为重要的。
4
• Baker's Response [edit] • Baker wrote a detailed response to her critics (a brief summary of which was published in the London Review of Books). Baker wrote that "the Jewish press in Britain is shamelessly and exclusively pro-Israel" and cited support for her position from Israeli Professor Ilan Pappe. She also cited a letter to the editor supporting her from Seymour Alexander, who identified himself as a British Jew, and Lawrence Davidson, an American Jew who co-authored "In Defence of the Academic Boycott" with her. She also criticized "the intense and highly distorting smear campaign led mostly by the Jewish press in the UK against me."