正文
1 Introduction
1.1 The Necessity Of Study
In Systemic Functional Grammar, cohesion is one of the text-forming devices. Since Chinese is a paratactic language and English is a hypotactic one, they have different preferences in cohesive devices. This is also reflected on Chinese classical poetry translation. Chinese classical poetry is a very special discourse. Between one linguistic unit and another, there is always no distinct mark. While translating it into English, it always needs distinct marks on forms to connect the linguistic units because of the English’s specialty as a hypostasis language. Besides, due to the generic characteristics of Chinese classical poetry, the rendition of cohesive devices is also restricted by a great many factors. Then how do translators handle the cohesive relations in the Chinese source text of classical poetry to achieve textual equivalence? With this question in mind, this paper attempts to carry out a contrastive study on cohesion in Chinese-English parallel texts of Chinese classical poetry. On the level of textual comparison, those about the phenomenon of cohesion take vital position and scholars all over the world make their efforts in this aspect. Take Huang Guowen as an example, he had made a completely research on Dum u’s Qing Ming from the perspective of functional grammar. However, comparing one Chinese classical poetry and its various English versions in detail from the perspective of five basic cohesive devices is still very new.
1.2 The Research Corpuses
The Chinese poetry Su Jiande Jiang which is written by Meng Haoran, and its five English versions translated by Herbert A. Giles (1898),Witter Bynner (1920), Soame Jenyns (1944), Zhang tingchen & Bruce,M.wilson (1991) and Xu Yuanchong (2000) compose the corpuses for this study..
1.3 The Theory And Research Methods
1.3.1 The Theory
Halliday and Hansan's theory of cohesion is the guiding theory for this research. In Cohesion in English, they divide the cohesive devices in English into five categories, which include reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, lexical cohesion, and provide detailed explanation. 1.3.2 The Research Methods
Devices
In this thesis, demonstrative research and documentation are carried out. Then, comparison and contrast are adopted in the analysis of the different versions.
1.4 The Purpose Of Study:
The thesis aims to analyze the Chinese classical poetry Su Jiande Jiang and its five English versions from the perspective of cohesive devices, and find out the similarities and differences among them. Furthermore, the author hopes to reveal the guidance function of cohesion while translating, and guiding the translator or the reader to look closely at the problems of poetry translating from a new angle of parallax, thus, helping them to understand the textual re-organization better in Chinese-English translating and enhance the translating quality and the Chinese classical poetry appreciation.
2 Literature Review
2.1 The Relevant Studies Abroad
The concept of cohesion appears when the linguists are not satisfied with the analysis of single sentences. Among the various linguistic schools, M. A. K. Halliday makes the greatest contribution to the construction of cohesion theory. He holds that cohesion appears when the explanation of meaning of one lingui stic item is dependent on another in the text. “Cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another.”(Halliday and Hasan, 1976:4) Also, Halliday and Hasan (1976) establish two ways of creating cohesion in a text: grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion. Grammatical cohesion consists of reference, ellipsis, substitution and conjunction. Lexical cohesion or “the cohesive effect achieved by the selection of vocabulary” refers to reiteration and collocatio n. These all sum up to the five basic cohesive devices. Besides, some (such as Crystal, 1985) think that cohesion realizes the relation between meaning and its super forms. Some (such as Brown & Yule, 1983) think that when people interpret a discourse they do not need textual markers (cohesive ties), and they assume that the discourse is coherent and make the interpretation under this assumption. Still some (such as Widdowson, 1978) think that cohesion is the explicit relationship between propositions of sentences.
2.2 The Relevant Studies Home
In China, cohesion study is applied by scholars in researches of Chinese and they make some contributions to it. In On the Principles of Internal Cohesion of Text, Zhang Delu said: “The pre text and the post text need cohesive devices to set up semantic relations, and these cohesive devices will take certain forms. In the literature concerning cohesion, only which cohesive devices can occur is discussed, but not why they should take the forms that they take，and not other forms.”（Zhang Delu,2001:1）In Cohesive Devices and Chinese-English Translation,LiuHua pointed that differences can be observed between Chinese and English in using cohesive devices to create cohesion in the text. English pays attention to the formal links between the linguistic elements in the text and thus tends to use distinct cohesive devices, whereas Chinese gives more strength to the semantic links within its texts and tends to use covert means to create cohesion.In The Function of Cohesive Devices in English Writing, Wang Laixi concerned that the application of cohesive devices does not exclusively mean the use of conjunctions, and in fact, pronouns and adverbs are often used as linking words in the context. And he also mentioned that appropriate usage of transitional expressions and repetition of key words can also produce the effect of cohesion. In addition, he divided the cohesive devices mainly into three categories: devices indicating logic relationships, grammatical devices and lexical devices.
2.3The Comments On The Relevant Studies At Home And Broad
Since Cohesion in English was published, Halliday's cohesion theory has arrested extensive attention of linguistic circles. It must be admitted that cohesion theory is far from invulnerability. Gillian Brown, in Discourse Analysis (1983), clearly point out that there does not exist corresponding relation between the formal marker of cohesion and certain cohesive meaning. Furthermore, Halliday and Hasan fail to make clear definition for the vague conception of “collocation” while making discourse analysis. Therefore, they exclude “collocation” when they re-expounded lexical cohesion in 1985. Zhu Yongsheng, in Reflections on Systemic-Functional Linguistics (2002), makes supplements and partial additions to several cohesive devices described by Halliday and Hasan, confirming their achievements in static analysis of cohesive devices of English.
Devices
3 The Understandings Of Cohesion
3.1The Definition Of Cohesion
Halliday and Hasan are concerned with co hesion that “occurs where the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:4). Cohesion refers to the relations among surface linguistic forms. And the dependency relation is the key to cohesion. When one element of a discourse presupposes another element, then a cohesive relation has been established. Another way to think about cohesion is as a tie between two linguistic forms that assists a text with its sense of wholeness. A text becomes a structural unit when its elements cohere with each other. It means that cohesion in a text has reliance on a system of relationships that promote cohesion. These relationships are obvious because they are properties of the text. They can always be seen on the structural level of language use. Cohesion creates the continuity between one part of a text and another. This continuity is not, however, the whole of a text because general themes, patterns, topics and implications of coherence are also responsible for texture. But this continuity is essential for the reader or hearer of a text to supply all the necessary information and assumptions that are required for interpretation. And Halliday and Hasan identify five types of cohesion ---- reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion.
3.2The Five Cohesive Devices
3.2.1 Reference
Reference can be divided into two sub-categories: Exophoric reference and Endophoric reference. An exophoric reference instructs the listener or the reader to go to the context of the environment for interpretation and not to some place in the text, thus it is the reference of situation. Endophoric reference is when a cohesion tie relies on some element within the text for interpretation, thus it is reference within a text. And there are still two types of endophoric reference: anaphoric reference and cataphoric reference. When a tie must go to something previously mentioned in the text it is called an anaphoric reference, and when a tie must wait for something to come in the text it is called a cataphoric reference. An anaphoric relationship tells the reader or listener to look backward in the text for an interpretation, while a cataphoric relationship tells the reader or listener to look forward. The pronominal system in a language does
much of the work of cohesive reference. The most prevalent types of referential ties are personal pronouns and demonstratives. Personal pronouns are like he, she, it, they, him, her, theirs and so on, and demonstratives are like this, that, those, these, there and so on. Another type of reference is comparative where a likeness is expressed between two things. Likeness is referential because a thing must be “like something”. Expressions such as same, identical, similar, different, and a variety of adjectives and superlatives all express comparative relations of some sort. All of these types of cohesive references are endophoric in that they refer to internal semantic relations within the text.
3.2.2Substitution
Substitution is a differe nce in “wording rather than in meaning” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:88). In terms of the linguistic system, substitution is a relation on the lexical grammatical level, the level of grammar and vocabulary, or linguistic “form”. There are three types of substitution: nominal, clausal and verbal. The nominal substitution is often realized by pronouns one and ones and a nominal phrase the same. And the clausal substitution is often realized by the pronoun so and the adverb not. The third type of substitution, the verbal substitution, is often realized by the verb do.
3.2.3 Ellipsis
Ellipsis expresses “something unsaid”. There is no implication here that what is unsaid is not understood; on the contrary, “unsaid” implies understood. The reference that is necessary to make a text cohesive is missing but can be understood by the reader or listener. Rather, ellipsis is when there is a structural place that presupposes some items that provide necessary information. There are also main contexts for ellipsis. Rather, ellipsis is when there is a structural place that presupposes some it: the clause, the verbal group and the nominal group. Ellipsis in the clause is related to mood. Specifically, it is related to the question and answer process in dialogue. There are still two types of ellipsis in the clause: yes/no ellipsis and wh-ellipsis.
3.2.4 Conjunction
Conjunction is rather different in nature from the other cohesive relations. It is very different from both reference, on the one hand, and substitution and ellipsis on the other. It is not simply an anaphoric relation. Conjunctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but indirectly because of their specific meanings; they are not primarily devices for reaching out into the preceding or
Devices
following text, but they express certain meanings which presuppose the presence of other components in the discourse. There are a number of common conjunctive elements, the simplest of which is “and”. Others are but, yet, so and then.These are simple adverbs or coordinating conjunctions. There are other compound adverbs such as furthermore, nevertheless, consequently and so on, and prepositional phrases such as on the contrary, as a result, in spite of that, in addition and so on, all of which are common conjunctives in the language system. These various conjunctive elements in the language system can be used to establish particular types of conjunctive relationships. Halliday and Hasan (1976) described four particular types of conjunctives and called them additive, adversative, causal, and temporal respectively. An additive conjunctive relationship adds information to the propositional content of a sentence. Such a conjunction typically links information along a series of points in an effort to contribute to a main proposition. Adversative conjunctions communicate information that is contrary to expectations established by a previous piece of text. The expectations can result from the content of the text or from something in the speaker-hearer relationship. The causal conjunction communicates that some information or state is the result of the condition just prior to it. These too can be links along a series of points that support a main proposition. Temporal conjunctions express a subsequent occurrence that is not necessarily causal, additional, or counter to expectations.
3.2.5 Lexical Cohesion
Lexical cohesion is achieved by the selection of vocabulary. There exists the class of “general noun” which is a small set of nouns having generalized reference within the major noun classes, those such as “human noun”, “place noun”, “fact noun”, and the like (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:274). The use of general nouns as cohesive agents depends either on their occurring in the context of reference —— having the same referent as the item which they presuppose (reiteration), or on the association of lexical items that regularly co-occur (collocation). And there are still two types of reiteration: repetition and synonymy. Repetition is the most direct form of lexical cohesion. And refer to the synonymy, it is useful to distinguish whether the reference is identical or not. If the reference is identical, the range of potentially cohesive items includes synonyms of the same or some higher level of generality: synonyms in the narrower sense, and superordinate. If the reference is without necessary identity, there are still two types: hyponymy (specific-general) and meronymy (part-whole). In fact, there is no very clear line between hyponymy and meronymy
but there are co-hyponyms and co-meronyms of terms. For example, chair, table and bed are hyponyms of furniture, but meronyms of furnishings. In addition, antonymy is also special case of synonymy. At the same time there are other instances of lexical cohesion which do not depend on any general semantic relationship of the types of repetition and synonymy, it is collocation. Collocation is a tendency to co-occur. It is one of the factors on which we build our expectations of what is to come next. For example, between cold and ice, there is a strong collocation bond. It is noticeable that collations are often fairly specifically associated with one or another particular register, or functional variety of the language. (Hu Zhuanglin, 2001:333) And in the poetry, matching of two lines in both tonal patterns and the arrangement of functional and notional words is also a kind of lexical cohesion. It is called “对仗” in Chinese. Especially in Chinese poetry, this kind of lexical cohesion appears frequently. During the analysis of the Chinese version, the author also put “对仗”into lexical cohesion.
4 Detailed Analysis
4.1 The Analysis Of The Chinese Poetry Su Jiande Jiang From Cohesive Devices
4.1.1 The Text (Written By Meng Haoran, Tang Dynasty)
移舟泊烟渚，日暮客愁新。野旷天低树，江清月近人。
4.1.2 Analysis
Reference: There is no obvious cohesive device of reference in it.
Substitution: There is no obvious cohesive device of substitution in it.
Ellipsis: In the first line移舟泊烟渚, the subject is omitted.
Conjunction: There is no obvious cohesive device of conjunction in it.
Lexical cohesion:移and舟,泊and舟,泊and烟渚are collocations;野旷天低树and江清月近人is antithesis.Matching these two line, every pair of single word (such as野and江, 旷and清) share the same syntactical functions and similar or opposite meanings; 舟，渚，日，客，野，天，树，江，月and人share the same lexical environment, is co-meronyms of the landscape. They are all lexical cohesions.
In sub-conclusion, there is zero reference, zero substitution, zero conjunction, one ellipsis and
Devices
five lexical cohesions in the Chinese poetry Su Jiande Jiang.
4.2The Analysis Of The English Version 1
4.2.1 The Text (Translated By Herbert A. Giles, 1898)
I steer my boat to anchor by the mist-clad river eyot,
And mourn the dying day that brings me nearer to my fate.
Across the woodland wild I see the sky lean on the trees,
while close to hand the mirror moon floats on the shining streams.
4.2.2 Analysis
Reference: My in the first line, me in the second line and I in the third line all refer back to the subject I in the first line. They are endophoric references. Rather, they are anaphoric references.
Substitution: Here is no obvious cohesive device of substitution in it.
Ellipsis: There is no obvious cohesive device of ellipsis in it.
Conjunction: And in the second line and while in the fourth line are the conjunctions. And is the additive conjunction and while is adversative conjunction.
Lexical cohesion: Steer and boat, anchor and boat are collocations; across the woodland and close to hand, on the trees and on the shining streams are parallel structures; boat, eyot, the dying day, woodland, sky, trees, streams and moon is co-meronyms of the landscape. All of them are lexical cohesions.
In sub-conclusion, there is zero substitution, zero ellipsis, there references, two conjunctions and four lexical cohesions in the English version 1.
4.3The Analysis Of The English Version 2
4.3.1 The Text (Translated By Witter Bynner, 1920)
While my little boat moves on its mooring mist,
and daylight wanes, old memories begin. . .
How wide the world was, how close the trees to heaven!
And how clear in the water the nearness of the moon
4.3.2 Analysis
Reference: Its in the first line refers back to my little boat, showing the cohesive device of anaphoric reference. Rather, it is anaphoric reference.
Substitution: There is no obvious cohesive device of substitution in it.
Ellipsis: After how close the trees the predicate verb were is omitted, and was is omitted in the last line, they both showing the cohesive devices of ellipsis.
Conjunction: While in line one, and in line two, still and in line four are the conjunctions. While is temporal conjunction. The first and is additive conjunction. So is the second and.
Lexical cohesion: Move and boat, mooring and boat are collocations; wanes and begin, wide and close are antonymys; how wide, how close and how clear is parallel structure; boat, mist, daylight, memories, world, trees, heaven, water and moon is co-meronyms of the landscape. They are all lexical cohesions.
In sub-conclusion, there is zero substitution, one reference, two ellipsis, three conjunctions and six lexical cohesions on the English version 2.
4.4The Analysis Of The English Version 3
4.4.1 The Text (Translated By Somma Jenyns, 1944)
I move my boat and anchor in the mists off an islet;
with the setting sun the traveler’s heart grows mel ancholy once more.
On every side is a desolate expanse of water;
somewhere the sky comes down to the trees
and the clear water reflects a neighboring moon.
4.4.2 Analysis
Reference: My refers back to I, is anaphoric reference.
Substitution: There is no obvious cohesive device of substitution in it.
Ellipsis: There is no obvious cohesive device of ellipsis in it.
Conjunction: And in the fifth line is additive conjunction.
Lexical cohesion: Move and boat,anchor and boat are collocations; boat, islet, sun, heart, sky, trees, water and moon is co-meronyms of the poetry image. They all belong to the lexical cohesions.
In sub-conclusion, there is zero substitution, zero ellipsis, one reference, one conjunction and three lexical cohesions in the English version 3.
4.5The Analysis Of The English Version 4
4.5.1 The Text (Translated By Zhang Tingchen And Bruce, M.Wilson, 1991)
Devices
Mooring the boat among the mists——
Day wanes
A wanderer’s ache persists
In the vast wilds the sky descends to touch the trees
As brightening waters bear the moon to me
4.5.2 Analysis
Reference: Me is reference. It may be categorized into exophoric reference if understanding it as the poet. However, if understanding it as the wanderer in the third line, it is endophric reference.
Substitution: There is no obvious cohesive device of substitution in it.
Ellipsis: the structure of the first line is simply left unfilled. Before the first sentence, it is omit the subject I was. The complete sentence should be I was mooring the boat among the mists. That is ellipsis.
Conjunction: As is temporal conjunction.
Lexical cohesion: mooring and boat, ache and persists, day and wanes are collocations; wanes and persists is antonymy; boat, mists, day, wilds, sky, trees, waters and moon is co-meronyms of the landscape. They all have cohesive relationships in the text, and they are the lexical cohesions.
In sub-conclusion, there is zero substitution, one reference, one conjunction, one ellipsis and five lexical cohesions in the English version 4.
4.6The Analysis Of the English Version 5
4.6.1 The Text (Translated By Xu Yuanchong, 2000)
My boat is moored near an isle in mist gray,
I’m grieved anew to see the parting day
On boundless plain trees seem to touch the sky,
In water clear the moon appears so high.
4.6.2 Analysis
Reference: my refers forward to I, showing the anaphoric reference as the cohesive device.
Substitution: there is no obvious cohesive device of substitution in it.
Ellipsis: there is no obvious cohesive device of ellipsis in it.
Conjunction: there is no obvious cohesive device of conjunction in it.
Lexical cohesion: moor and boat is collocation; on boundless plain and i n water clear is parallel structure; boat, isle, day, trees, sky, water and moon is so-meronyms of the poetry image. They are lexical cohesions.
In sub-conclusion, there is zero substitution, zero ellipsis, zero conjunction, one reference and three lexical cohesions.
5 Data Analysis And Comparisons
5.1 The Data Analysis:
5.2 The Explanation:
In the Chinese poetry Su Jiande Jiang, lexical cohesion is most frequently used, and ellipsis is used in the first sentence, the subject is omitted. However, reference, substitution and conjunction do not appear in the Chinese version at all.
In the five English versions, the most common used cohesive device is lexical cohesion, and the most uncommon used cohesive device is substitution.
In all the Chinese and English versions, the most common used cohesive device is lexical cohesion, and the most uncommon used cohesive device is substitution.
In the Chinese version, the cohesive devices are used for totally five times, while the English version 1 nine times, English version 2 twelve times, English version 3 five times, English
Devices
version 4 eight times and English version 5 four times.
5.3 The Comparisons
5.3.1 The Comparisons Of The Chinese And Its Five English Versions
The similarities:They all use the lexical cohesion as their most common cohesive devices. However, substitution is never used in any of them. Poetry (both in English and Chinese) is a very special discourse, and the sentences of it are always very short and concise. However, substitution is often used in the long sentences with which more than two words or phrases have the same meaning. In other words, substitution is used to take the place of the repeated item being discussed. However, poetry is always concise and comprehensive. So the cohesive device of substitution is rarely used. While lexical cohesion, has no distinct marks and is frequently used in the discourse.
The differences:In the Chinese version, there is no conjunction. However, the English versions all have conjunctions except the English version 5 which is in fact translated by a Chinese, who will inevitably be influenced by his native language during the translation. In hypotactic sentences conjunctions of reason are one of the necessary means to indicate the relation between the main clause and the subordinate clause in English. Without conjunctions or with different conjunctions, the meaning of a sentence might be difficult to understand or will be understood in a totally different way. However, as a paratactic language Chinese sentence structures are often arranged chronologically in a fixed logical order, and thus few conjunctions are needed to illustrate the relationship between different syntactical components. So the cohesive device of conjunction always appears in the English versions while less in the Chinese classical poetry.
Ellipsis is used in the Chinese version, but only the English versions 2 and 4 have ellipsis. And the other three English versions use no ellipsis at all. The paratactic feature makes Chinese apply more implicit cohesive devices such as ellipsis. So in the first sentence of the Chinese version, the subject I is omitted. According to the context, Chinese readers are used to fill in the proper subject. While in English, the omitting of subject rarely appears because of the requirement of structure completing.
In the Chinese version, obviously there is no reference. However, reference appears in all the five English versions. And the references in them all belong to the anaphoric references. In the Chinese classical poetry Su Jiande Jiang, there is no referential category of person at all. Every
sentence is made up of several single images because of Chinese’s p aratactic characteristic. So reference is not necessary. However, the hypotactic English needs to make the sentence structure complete. In the five English versions, the first and third person forms I, it appear frequently to keep the completion of the sentence elements. Thus, reference is unavoidable. It evolves as a means of linking backwards to the person or thing in the text. So, reference is used in the English versions but not in the Chinese one.
5.3.2. The Comparisons Among The Five English Versions
The similarities:The lexical cohesion is used in all the five English versions. And substitution is never used in all the five English versions. Lexical cohesion comes out in various ways. Almost in every discourse, lexical cohesion exists. And because of the Chinese poetry’s image entities, it need to unfold them while translating it into English. So it appears in all the five English versions at a high frequency. However, because of the short and concise characteristic of the poetry, substitution is rarely used.
The differences:The first four English versions have all used conjunctions, but the English version 5 used no conjunction at all. The reason may be that the first four English versions are all translated by foreigners, while the English version5 is translated by a Chinese scholar whose name is Xu Yuanchong. Mr. Xu is a famous translator, and he has very profound research on both Chinese and English. So in his translating, he had considered the characteristic of the language of Chinese classical poetry and avoided the usage of conjunction.
6 Conclusions
6.1 Main Findings
Through researching, the author finds that the usage of lexical cohesion appears commonly in both the Chinese poetry and its five English versions. And substitution is used neither in the Chinese version nor in the English versions. However, there is little conjunction or reference in the Chinese poetry, while many in the five English versions. More often, the cohesion in Chinese can basically be analyzed according to Halliday and Hasan’s theory, but its unique characteristics also lead to more flexible cohesive ways. The language of Chinese poetry is always concise and
Devices
beautiful. And it uses a lot of images. So the cohesive ties are always overt in the poetry. Readers appreciate Chinese poetry from the situation. But as a hypotactic language, more cohesive devices tend to appear in English, especially explicit devices such as reference, while the paratactic feature makes Chinese apply more implicit cohesive devices such as ellipsis. Thus, the basic cohesive devices are being used in the Chinese classical poetry rarely except lexical cohesion. However, in the English discourse, the five basic cohesive devices are frequently used, especially conjunction. English pays attention to the formal links between the linguistic elements in the text and thus tends to use overt cohesive devices, whereas Chinese gives more strength to the semantic links within its texts and tends to use covert means to create cohesion. So while translating the Chinese classical poetry into English, one should consider the characteristics of the Chinese and English and pay much attention to the textual re-organization.
6.2 Main problems
The cohesive devices discussed here are central to the organization of discourse. They are some of the basic machinery of the text. But some important questions remain. First, is cohesion as explicated by Halliday and Hasan a sufficient determinate of text? And second, are the features of cohesion necessary to achieve texture or that sense of semantic unity with the environment that characterizes texts? Halliday and Hasan suggest that cohesion is “necessary … but not the whole story” (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:324). It is important to draw a distinction more clearly than Halliday and Hasan have, and that is the distinction between semantic relations and the textual expression of those semantic relations. Halliday and Hasan overemphasized the textual constituents of cohesion when, in fact, few would deny that cohesion is the result of semantic relations within the text. Cohesion depends more on underlying meaning relations than on the elements of the verbal record. Thus, comparing the Chinese poetry and its English versions from the five basic cohesive devices may have its limitations. Bes ides, the author’s understanding of the five cohesive devices may be not very precise. And the analysis of the corpuses comes from the author’s own understandings, so it may also have limitations. But just because of those defecations, the author hopes it can stimulate more and more scholars to push the development of the theory though further researching, thus enhancing the Chinese classical poetry translating.
References
[1] Gillian Brown, Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Cambridge university press, 1983.
[2]Halliday, M.A.K & Hasan, R. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman Group Ltd,
1976.
[3] Tr.Bynner. A Night-Mooring On The Jiande River[Z]转引自陈宏薇《翻译批评讲义》，
2003.
[4] Tr.Zhang Tingchen & Bruce,M.Wilson.100 Tang Poems[M].Beijing: China
Translation & Publishing Corporation, Commercial Press (Hong Kong) Ltd
Corporation,1991.
[5]胡壮麟.导读:功能语法导论/(澳)韩礼德著[M].北京:外国语教学与研究出版
社,2008.
[6]胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,1994.
[7]胡壮麟.有关语篇衔接理论多层次模式的思考[J].外国语,1996(1).
[8]黄国文.导读:关于语篇与翻译[J].外语与外语教学,2002.
[9]黄国文. 语篇分析概要[M]. 长沙: 湖南教育出版社, 1988.
[10]黄国文.从语篇功能的角度看《清明》的几种英译文[A].语言学:中国与世界同
步———祝贺胡壮麟教授70诞辰学术论文集[C].钱军编.北京:外语教学与研究
出版社,2002.
[11]刘华.语篇衔接手段与汉译英[J].中国地质大学学报，2003（3）.
[12]彭家玉.语篇衔接研究新探[J].郧阳师范高等专科学校学报,2002.
[13]王建平.汉诗英译中的语篇衔接与连贯[J].外国语言文学,2003(1).
[14]王来喜.英语写作中的语篇衔接功能[J].江苏教育学院学报，2003（3）.
[16]许渊冲译.唐诗三百首[M].北京：高等教育出版社.2000
[17]张德禄.论衔接[J].外国语,2001,(2).
[18]张德禄.语篇内部衔接的原则[J].解放军外国语学院学报，2001（6）.
[20]朱永生，严世清.系统功能语言学多维思考[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002 [19]https://www.wendangku.net/doc/d53188118.html,/reader/index. php? type=article & id=63
Devices
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to all the teachers and friends who have offered me all kinds of help in accomplishing this thesis.
First of all, I owe great gratitude to my supervisor, Ms. Wu Yanfei, whose constant encouragement has motivated me throughout the completion of this thesis. It is under her patient guidance, incisive criticism and detailed revision that I can have the opportunity to present my thesis here. I benefit a lot from her constructive comments and she has also given me much encouragement for my research.
Likewise, I would like to extend my thanks to all the respectable teachers for their continuous and industrious work in my four-year studies in College of Science and Technology, Ningbo University. Their instruction has enlightened me in every aspect. Hereby, I want to express my sincere thanks to staff who are serving in this college.
Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my parents for their sincere concern and constant support.