Onheranslaionofhenameofourisaracions_开题报告

Literature Review

1.1Related Studies Aboard

Graham M.S Dann (1996) is considered as the first person to study tourism from the Social linguistic perspective. He wrote a book to analyze the features of tourism language and told that tourism had its own discourse. He pointed out that language of tourism in various forms attempts to invite, persuade, lure and seduce thousands of millions of people into becoming tourists and finally to conduct their attitudes and behaviors.

The Functional Equivalence theory, put forward of Nida Eugene (2001) can be applied in translation of names of tourist attractions as a basic theory. Nida proposed that translation should mainly reflect the functional equivalence in the deep structure rather than formal correspondence in the surface structure. Nida also underlined the relationship between culture and language. Then functional equivalence is adopted in his study to illustrate such phenomenon. However, Gutt (2004) admitted that this theory could be suitable to almost all kinds of differences in translation. But he still found some special occasion where Functional Equivalence theory did not apply. Adaptation Theory can be applied in translation of language choices which were continuously made in language use. The Adaptation Theory emphasized on the analysis from the perspectives of the linguistic objects and contexts correlates of adaptability. Carolyn Sumberg (2004) emphasized on the effectiveness and the promotion function of those translated tourist attractions by analyzing the brochures. He found in his research that people paid attention to realize the function of names of translation text.

The Skopos theory is well supported by researchers in translation field. It is proposed by German Schoolar Vermeer (2000). The theory is the core translation theory of German functionalism. Vermeer supposes that as a general rule it must be the intended purpose of the target text that determines translation methods and strategies. Skopos theory has been increasingly used in the tourism translation study by many Chinese scholars and researchers. 

1.2Related Studies Home

There are a number of quantitative researches to demonstrate the translation of names of tourist attractions and translation strategies. Li Jianhong (2001) applied the Functional Equivalence in her translation researches. She pointed that translations should consider target reader’s reactions. Liu Jinglong (2007) takes tourist attraction publicity materials as a case study. Mei Lian from Shanghai University makes the analysis of the cultural connotation of zero translation from the cultural perspective. Yang Guoming (2007) provides several translating theories and strategies based on foreignization and demostication theory. He took Guangzhou Baiyun Mountain as an example for his study. Liang Xuexia (2010) has studied on cross-cultural translation of the tourist attraction based on a case study of Lingnan. Niu Xinsheng (2011) fouces on the cultural difference in translating tourist attractions. His opinion resembles Meilian’s thoughts on translation of names of tourist attractions.

二、^范文提纲

Outline

Chapter One Introduction

1.1Research Background 

1.2 Significance

Chapter Two Literature Review

2.1 Previous Studies home

2.2 Previous Studies aboard

2.3 Skopos Theory

Chapter Three Translation Principle

3.1Compactness

3.2Standardization

3.3Cross cultural awareness

Chapter Four Translation Strategy

4.1Transliteration

4.2Literal Translation

4.3Free Translation

4.4Phonosemantic translation

4.5Complementary Translation

4.6Annotion

Chapter Five Conclusion

三、参考文献

[1]Dai L H, Luo J. Analysis of Translation of Tourist Attractions in Chengdu[J]. Journal of Chengdu Textile College, 2007.

[2]Gutt, Ernest-August. Translation and Relevance: Cognation and Context[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2004:114-120.

[3]Liang Xuexia. Cross-Cultural Translation of the Tourist Attraction——A Case Study of Lingnan Shuixiang[J]. Language and Culture Study, 2010(2).

[4] Nida.A. Eugene. Language Culture and Translating [M]. Shanghai:Shanghai

    Foreign Education Press, 2001

[5] Sanz, Rosa. Lores. The Translation of Tourist Texts: The Case of Connectors [J].

Multilingual 2003

[6]Vermeer, Hans J. Skopos and Commission in Translational Action. Lawrence Venuti. The Translation Studies Readers [C]. London and New York: Routledge, 2000

[7]Xiao-hu. The Feature in Translation Names of Tourist Attraction in Xinjiang and the Problem[J]. 海外英语, 2015(6):105-106.

[8]Guo W M. Survey and analysis of public signs translation of key tourist attractions in Henan Province[J]. Journal of Henan University of Urban Construction, 2013, 14(1):80-88.

[9]Yuan S L. The Change of Cultural Significance in Chinese-English Translation of the Notices on the Tourist Attractions[J]. Journal of Heilongjiang College of Education, 2007.

[10]胡壮麟、刘润清、李延福.语言学教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1999

[11]纪世昌.中国旅游指南[M].长沙:湖南地图出版社，2001

[12]金惠康.跨文化旅游翻译[M].北京:中国对外翻译出版公司，2006

[13]刘金龙.文本类型翻译策略与应用翻译研究-以旅游宣传资料为例[J].长江大学学报,2007(4):109-112

[14]李建红.奈达理论和旅游资料英语翻译[D]广西:广西大学,2001

[15]陈雯.桂林旅游材料翻译的文化分析[D]广西:广西师范大学,2005.

[16]郭武备，罗亚平．中国的世界遗产全程导游词[M]．北京: 中国建筑工业出版社， 2012

[17]牛新生. 关于旅游景点名称翻译的文化反思——兼论旅游景点翻译的规范化研究[J]. 中国翻译, 2013(3):99-104.

[18]汪宝荣.旅游文化的英译:归化与异化[J].中国科技翻译,2005:156-158

[19]杨红英. 旅游景点翻译的规范化研究——陕西省地方标准《公共场所公示语英文译写规范:旅游》的编写启示[J]. 中国翻译, 2011(4):64-68.

[20]杨国民. "异化"、"归化"与旅游景点翻译规范化策略——从广州白云山风景区公示语英译说起[J]. 北京理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2007, 9(4):109-113.