伴隨世界各國(guó)日益頻繁的經(jīng)貿(mào)往來(lái),法律糾紛層出不窮。由于英美國(guó)家是判例法國(guó)家,所以英美判決書(shū)不僅是對(duì)特定爭(zhēng)議的處理結(jié)果,而且包含甚至創(chuàng)設(shè)了具體的法律規(guī)則。因此,英美國(guó)家判決書(shū)的漢譯是了解英美法的重要窗口。本報(bào)告基于美國(guó)音樂(lè)版權(quán)侵權(quán)案件判決書(shū)的漢譯實(shí)踐,在語(yǔ)篇連貫理論的指導(dǎo)下,針對(duì)翻譯過(guò)程中發(fā)現(xiàn)的典型問(wèn)題提出解決辦法。英美國(guó)家判決書(shū)的各組成要素之間密切相關(guān),其內(nèi)容結(jié)構(gòu)之間具有極強(qiáng)的連貫性,從而自然而然地得出令當(dāng)事人、法律從業(yè)人員及法學(xué)研究人員信服的結(jié)論。但在判決書(shū)漢譯過(guò)程中,常出現(xiàn)譯文的語(yǔ)篇連貫性斷裂現(xiàn)象,問(wèn)題主要涉及語(yǔ)法連貫,具體包括代詞指代不清和連接關(guān)系處理不當(dāng);語(yǔ)用連貫,具體包括未能傳達(dá)隱含意義、未能提供判決書(shū)中被自動(dòng)省略的必要信息;文體連貫,包括專(zhuān)業(yè)詞匯翻譯不準(zhǔn)確以及未能充分意識(shí)到判決書(shū)的文學(xué)性。在語(yǔ)篇連貫理論的指導(dǎo)下,通過(guò)以下對(duì)策,可以重塑譯文的語(yǔ)篇連貫性:（1）通過(guò)使用名詞代替代詞及添加連詞的方法實(shí)現(xiàn)語(yǔ)法連貫;（2）通過(guò)明確表達(dá)隱含意義和補(bǔ)償原文中被自動(dòng)省略的必要信息（包括增譯以及對(duì)判例名稱(chēng)進(jìn)行信息補(bǔ)充）的手段確保語(yǔ)用連貫;（3）通過(guò)使用符合法律行業(yè)規(guī)范的措辭以及合理使用修辭手... 

【文章來(lái)源】：西安外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)陜西省

【文章頁(yè)數(shù)】：82 頁(yè)

【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士

【文章目錄】：
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
摘要
CHAPTER Ⅰ INTRODUCTION
    1.1 Background of the Report
    1.2 Task Description
        1.2.1 Content of the Translation Task
        1.2.2 Translation Procedure
    1.3 Significance of the Report
    1.4 Structure of the Report
CHAPTER Ⅱ LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL SUPPORT
    2.1 Literature Review
        2.1.1 Content and Features of Judgements in Anglo-American Countries
        2.1.2 Studies on Translation of Judgement in Anglo-American Countries
    2.2 Theoretical Support
        2.2.1 Development of Text Coherence
        2.2.2 Application of Text Coherence to the Translation of Judgements
CHAPTER Ⅲ PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE TRANSLATION PROCESS
    3.1 Failure to Achieve Grammatical Coherence
        3.1.1 Ambiguous Reference of Pronouns
        3.1.2 Improper Treatment of Conjunction Relationship
    3.2 Lack of Pragmatic Coherence
        3.2.1 Failure to Convey Implied Meanings
        3.2.2 Absence of Required Information Omitted Intentionally
    3.3 Difficulties in Achieving Stylistic Coherence
        3.3.1 Inaccurate Translation of Specialized Words
        3.3.2 Insufficient Awareness about Literariness in Judgements
CHAPTER Ⅳ SOLUTIONS ADOPTED UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF TEXT COHERENCE
    4.1 Solutions to Guarantee of Grammatical Coherence
        4.1.1 Substitution of Nouns for Pronouns
        4.1.2 Addition of Conjunctions
    4.2 Solutions to Guarantee of Pragmatic Coherence
        4.2.1 Explicitation of the Implied Meaning
        4.2.2 Compensation for the Required Information Omitted Intentionally
    4.3 Solutions to Guarantee of Stylistic Coherence
        4.3.1 Diction Complying with the Legal Field
        4.3.2 Reasonable Usage of Rhetoric Devices
CHAPTER Ⅴ CONCLUSION
    5.1 Major Findings
    5.2 Limitations
    5.3 Suggestions for Future Studies
REFERENCES
APPENDIX


【參考文獻(xiàn)】：
期刊論文
[1]談?wù)Z用充實(shí)視角下的刑事判決書(shū)翻譯[J]. 張法連,張魯平.  中國(guó)翻譯. 2014(03)
[2]語(yǔ)篇連貫的元語(yǔ)用探析[J]. 魏在江.  外語(yǔ)教學(xué). 2005(06)
[3]形合與意合的辯證法及翻譯策略[J]. 郭富強(qiáng).  中國(guó)科技翻譯. 2004(02)
[4]論語(yǔ)篇連貫[J]. 張德祿.  外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究. 2000(02)

碩士論文
[1]美國(guó)普通法法官判決書(shū)中異議部分的制度理念、法律修辭學(xué)及其對(duì)于司法公正的意義[D]. 佘曦晨.蘇州大學(xué) 2018
[2]《拜倫·大衛(wèi)·史密斯判決書(shū)》翻譯報(bào)告[D]. 杜仕玲.暨南大學(xué) 2017
[3]美國(guó)聯(lián)邦最高法院就霍爾訴佛羅里達(dá)州案判決書(shū)翻譯報(bào)告[D]. 范舒陽(yáng).中國(guó)政法大學(xué) 2017
[4]《美國(guó)聯(lián)邦巡回上訴法院對(duì)蘋(píng)果訴三星案的判決書(shū)》的翻譯報(bào)告[D]. 李邱.廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué) 2017
[5]《整體女性健康組織等訴德克薩斯州衛(wèi)生服務(wù)部部長(zhǎng)赫勒斯泰特等判決書(shū)》翻譯報(bào)告[D]. 楊情.廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué) 2017
[6]The Dow Case上訴法院判決書(shū)翻譯實(shí)踐報(bào)告[D]. 曹璐.上海師范大學(xué) 2016
[7]功能對(duì)等理論視角下《奧博格非爾案判決書(shū)》的翻譯[D]. 李瑞娜.蘭州大學(xué) 2016
[8]“刑事判決書(shū)”翻譯實(shí)踐報(bào)告[D]. 張瑜.天津大學(xué) 2015



本文編號(hào)：3420131