论文化融合与跨文化交际中的语言翻译

语言是文化的载体和交流的工具.文化的融合必然会反映在语言的融合上,而语言的融合又必然记录着文化融合的趋势.语言翻译,尤其是词汇翻译最能体现文化融合过程中语言融合的现象.从文化融合大环境的角度看,语言翻译不可避免地会出现一些问题,处理好这些问题对吸收异域文化和丰富本民族文化具有重要的意义.     

语言:一种人的存在方式——哲学解释学的视阈

语言问题不仅存在于语言学领域,也一直被哲学家们所重视,他们从不同的维度,对语言进行分析、研究和评判。从伽达默尔哲学解释学的视阈可以了解到:语言不仅仅只是人们利用的工具或手段,它是人的一种活动,一种与人的其他活动编织在一起的活动;人只有在语言中才有了理性、思想、观念,语言是人的生活经验的形式,即存在方式。     

中西方文化视角下的语言策略

习语是语言的重要组成部分,也是社会历史文化积淀下来的精华。它能够反映出一个民族在地理、宗教以及风俗习惯等方面的风貌,由此,习语所传递的文化信息也就各不相同。这就要求习语的翻译不仅要求在语言层面上进行转换,更要求在文化层面上进行转换。从文化差异入手,针对不同形式的习语提出了相应的翻译策略。     

跨文化交际下的翻译研究

翻译是一种跨文化的交际行为,它不但是不同语言符号之间的转换,而且也是一种文化转换的模式.在翻译的过程中,译者所选取的翻译策略永远受到文化因素的制约和影响.从文化和翻译的关系入手,探讨了翻译中遇到的一些问题.     

双语语言转换代价理论研究

语言转换代价是认知心理学研究的热点和焦点问题。以特定语言选择模型和非特定语言选择模型为出发点,阐述心理学家在行为研究、脑的电生理技术、脑成像技术和脑的病理研究方面所取得的进展,对研究成果进行评价,指出探索双语者语言转换奥秘是一个复杂的过程,需要在进一步提高研究方法的信度和效度上下功夫。     

从主体间性视角谈伽达默尔的效果历史理论

效果历史理论是伽达默尔哲学诠释学的理论轴心,它实际上是由效果历史、视域融合和时间距离这三个基本概念构成的。它们三者之间相互联系,为效果历史理论搭建了逻辑演绎的框架。效果历史理论阐明了主体在诠释过程中的积极姿态,不仅使读者取得了主体的资格,而且使文本也获得了主体的资格,伽达默尔认为"理解"就是文本、读者、作者之间的效果历史事件。效果历史理论展示了读者与文本之间的主体间性关系,这是对理解问题思考视角的转化,理解问题在主体间性这一理论基石上达到了更高层面的解读。     

浅析文化差异与翻译策略

翻译是人类交流思想的工具,在人类历史上扮演者重要的角色.翻译不仅是语言层面上的转换,更体现了不同文化之间的交流与沟通.由于政治、经济等原因,文化往往处于不平等的地位,强势文化对弱势文化形成的文化霸权,导致译者在翻译的过程中采用不同的策略:归化或异化.但事实上,人类文化是平等的,不存在文化优劣之分.所以翻译过程中要尊重文化的差异,进行文化之间的平等交流和对话,实现翻译的最高境界,促成翻译的顺利进行.     

马克思主义语言大众化探析——以马克思主义中国化为中心

马克思主义理论实现中国化、大众化是由其本质特征决定的,而大众化的实现更有赖于语言形式的转换.马克思主义在中国实现语言大众化,这是一个发展的过程,还存有许多问题有待解决,展望马克思主义在中国语言大众化的发展,前景光明.     

文化视域中的英汉习语翻译

习语是社会历史文化积淀下来的智慧结晶,是语言中不可缺少的一部分.习语传递着各种各样的文化信息,它能够反映出不同民族在宗教、地理以及风俗习惯等方面的不同风貌.这就要求在翻译习语的时候,在语言层面进行转换的基础上,更进一步地在文化层面上进行转换.文章提出针对不同形式的、以文化差异为入手点的相应的翻译策略.     

汉英互译中的文化差异

语言是人类思想感情的表达交流工具,也是文化的组成部分。随着国际交往和文化交流的扩大,不同语言之间互译的增多,不同文化的差异、交流及相互影响也必然会在语言上体现出来。翻译不仅仅是语言的转换过程,也是文化移植的过程,文化差异的存在,对两种文化信息间的转换即翻译的过程必将产生很大的影响。     

论我国西方哲学课程双语教学难题的破解

双语教学是教学语言形式的"双语"与教学内容目标"双语"的统一。但是,我国西方哲学课程双语教学却面临着教会学生让西方哲学"说外语"还是"说汉语"的两难选择。该难题的破解,不能单独从强调教学语言媒介的双语性质或教学目标的双语性质入手,而是必须从二者的内在统一关系入手,教会学生把让西方哲学"说外语"与"说汉语"之间的关系理解为手段与目的内在统一关系。     

跨越文化的沟壑

操着不同的语言,受着不同文化熏陶的人们,在进行交往的时候,不但要跨越语言障碍,还要跨越由于文化差异所造成的种种障碍,才能使交际得以顺利进行。否则,就会产生误解,使交际受阻。这主要是因为语言不是孤立存在的,而是深深地扎根于民族文化中,并反映本民族的价值观、信仰和民族情感。只有跨越文化沟壑,才能掌握这门语言。     

Policy Narratives across Two Languages: A Comparative Study using the Narrative Policy Framework

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) focuses on the role of narratives, drawing from a rich scholarship in narrative, language, and culture. Despite the understanding that narratives are constructions of language and that narrative construction differs across languages, NPF studies have not focused on policy narratives in languages other than English. Language characteristics of narratives are important to assess the stability of policy narratives when there are multiple dominant languages in a political system. This study investigates the use of narrative elements in policy narratives in agricultural biotechnology policy in India across Hindi and English media coverage to examine the NPF assumption that narratives have generalizable narrative elements irrespective of variation in linguistic context and, specifically, tests the transportability of narrative elements. Findings validate the transportability of narrative elements in Hindi narratives, indicate variation in the use of narrative elements over time, and have implications for applying NPF across languages.     

Politics and enlightenment: Kant and Derrida on cosmopolitan responsibility

Walter Benjamin once remarked of the enterprise of translation ‘that it is nowhere’: that the labour of transcribing the sense, inflection and difference of any particular language and text must always situate the translator in a space which is neither ‘of the original, nor ‘of the language into which it is to be transcribed. This ‘non‐position’ of the translator—between the original and its analogue, between the ‘spirit’ and the ‘letter’, the difference and the acceptability of the text—marks the labour of translation as an ethical responsibility: that of communicating the significance of something—a gesture, a story, a custom, a tradition—which has appeared to this/our socio‐linguistic culture as strange and unfathomably alien; and to achieve this communication without annulling its strangeness, its alterity. The purpose of my comparison of Kant and Derrida's remarks on cosmopolitical responsibility therefore, is fourfold. First, I want to suggest that it is this ‘stricture’ of translation—this difficult responsibility of both judging and respecting the difference of foreign’ cultures—which marks the (non‐Kantian, non‐situated) ‘territory’ of cosmopolitical responsibility. Second, by using Kant's remarks on the relationship between the political evolution of European Enlightenment culture and a possible world confederation of sovereign states, I want to point up the hierarchies and secondarizations involved in the determination of universal standards of moral, ethical and political conduct (even if these standards are originally prosecuted as the legislative conditions of a ‘radical democracy'). Third, I want to look at the ways in which the stricture of translation has been articulated as a theory of ‘global’ responsibility—particularly in the divergent ethical and political approaches of Jurgen Habermas and Jean‐Francois Lyotard. Fourth, I want to suggest that it is Derrida's idea of a ‘dual responsibility’ of critical thought to the political and philosophical resources of European Enlightenment and to the difference of non‐European nations and cultures, that marks the difficulty (the stricture) of acting responsibly within the global economics of power, identity and legislation. I want, in other words, to show that the ‘nowhere’ of Benjamin's translator, is a ‘place’ whose possibility demands a certain ‘Kantian’ right of reflection; that is, the right to pursue the ‘transcendent’ principle of respect for the other.     

Meet the bridgebloggers

As the blogosphere has expanded outside its original US context, it has changed from an extended community in which everyone shares a roughly similar set of suppositions and languages to a set of separate blogospheres characterized by different cultures and languages. Bridgebloggers—bloggers who seek to mediate between these cultures and languages—play an increasingly crucial role in connecting these disparate spheres of conversation and argument together. In this paper, I discuss the difficulties of quantifying the extent to which the blogosphere is characterized by different language communities and national communities. I employ qualitative evidence to examine blogospheres emerging in Asia, Southern Africa, the Arab-speaking world and elsewhere, and to assess the importance of bridgebloggers in drawing connections between them.     

从文化缺失看语义空缺的翻译

语言用来传递文化,是文化的载体.在Dagot看来是文化和语言的差异造成了语义的空缺.列举语义空缺的类型,针对不同的语义空缺提出不同的翻译策略.通过翻译语义空缺不仅能达到语言的交流,更能达到文化层次上的交流.正是这样的沟通交流,推动各民族文化的交流和融合.     

论古文字书体的简化过程

在文字的早期,图形为它的基本形态。远古时期人类的象形记事性原始图形便是文字的雏形。但这种记事性图形与绘画图形之间有着本质的区别。首先,象形文字是以记录语言为目的对物象进行简约的概括,有较强的概括性与抽象性。其次,象形字中大量的线条及辅助性点画只是直观性的象征,以纯粹的符号去标识或象征物象的全部或局部式样、状态等特点。这些特征不能确切具体地指出像什么,只是一种符号标记。正是基于这种象形的似与不似之间才使文字从一开始就具有了独立于物象之外的自身形体的体系性价值。     

浅谈语境对二语阅读理解的作用

为了更好地传递信息,人类必须把握住原语言的意义。然而,脱离语境的词义具有歧义性、多义性和模糊性,会导致整个信息传达不准确。语境指真实的语言环境。它是限制语言使用的不同因素的总和。意义理解指正确理解特定材料给出的一定环境下的原语言。它不仅涵盖了对词的理解,还包括对文章的理解。脱离了语境,没有人可以理解任何对象的真义。语境在意义理解中起到束缚和限制的作用。为了得到某个词、句、段的确切意义,就要在语境中研究意义,即"语境中的意义",这对学习二语的人们而言是十分必要的。     

试论英汉思维的互相影响

随着全球化的发展,英语学习已成为热潮。汉语对英语学习的影响也越来越受到关注。迁移理论、中介语理论以及中式英语的出现都说明母语对外语学习的重要影响,其本质则为思维的影响,而外语学习对母语的影响则很少被人关注。熟知英汉思维的相互影响,有助于学习者更好地交替使用这两种语言。     

The problem with English(es) and linguistic (in)justice. Addressing the limits of liberal egalitarian accounts of language

Van Parijs’s Linguistic Justice for Europe and the World furthers a nascent examination of multilingualism within political philosophy, drawing on continental European contexts where multilingualism is the norm. Van Parijs argues, in effect for linguistic cosmopolitanism via English as the current world language, and this seems ostensibly to be a considerable improvement on ‘the untrammeled public monolingualism’ of Anglo-American political theory. However, Van Parijs’s account is flawed in four key respects. First, there is the fundamental problem of his reductionist account of language – by which language is viewed only in terms of its communicative uses and reach and not in relation to its symbolic and identity functions. Second is his simplistic advocacy of English as a global lingua franca, which ignores issues of power and inequality, along with related delimited access to high-status English language varieties. Third are the inherent limitations associated with his advocacy of linguistic territoriality, which recognizes state-sanctioned languages but little else, thus failing to mitigate existing linguistic hierarchies. Finally, the wider argument for English as a global lingua franca is inevitably underpinned by a monolithic/hegemonic view of English itself. This monolithic conception of English stands in contradistinction, not only to the actual plethora of Englishes in the world today, but also, more importantly, to their widely varying status and use in furthering cross-communication and related notions of social and economic mobility. The latter thus fatally undermines Van Parijs’s central argument linking social and economic mobility ineluctably to access to English.