Translation has played a very important part in history. The great influence it exerts on the formation or transformation and development of every culture is undeniable. Therefore, translation studies has been given more and more attention. It has passed through several periods, from philological period, structuralist period, to postmodern de-constructional period.

Chapter One Introdution

 1.1 The motive and objectives of the dissertation

 1.2 What are semiotics and sociosemiotics?

 1.3 The advantages of a sociosemiotic approach to translation

 1.4 Methodology

 1.5 Outline of the dissertation

Chapter Two Sociosemiotics and Translation Studies

 2.1 Research by Western scholars

 2.2 Research by Chinese scholars

 2.3 Conclusion

Chapter Three Sociosemiotic Concepts Related to Translation

 3.1 Key concepts in Saussure's semiotic theory

3.1.1 Signs: signifier and signified

3.1.2 First principle: arbitrariness

3.1.3 Second principle: linearity

3.1.4 Syntagmatic and associative relations

 3.2 Key concepts in Charles Peirce's semiotic theory

3.2.1 Sign, object, interpretant and ground

3.2.2 Divisions of triadic relations and distinction between the first, second and third

3.2.3 A trichotomy of signs: icon, index, and symbol

 3.3 Key concepts in Charles Morris' semiotic theory

3.3.1 Sign, sign-vehicle, and sign-family

3.3.2 Signal and symbol

3.3.3 Interpretant, interpreter, and interpreter-family

3.3.4 Definitions of semiotics and semiosis

3.3.5 Language as a sign phenomenon

3.3.6 Three sign relations and corresponding sign meanings

 3.4 Key concepts in Halliday's sociosemiotic theory

3.4.1 Text as the linguistic form of social interaction

3.4.2 Situation type

3.4.3 Register and dialect

3.4.4 Code

3.4.5 Functions of language

3.4.6 Social structure

 3.5 Conclusion

Chapter Four An Intersemiotic Interaction Model of Translation

 4.1 Translation as intercultural communication

 4.2 Translation as a network of sociosemiotic relationships

4.2.1 Sociosemiotic relationship between the writer and the translator

4.2.2 Sociosemiotic relationship between ST and TT

4.2.3 Sociosemiotic relationship between ST and SL culture

4.2.4 Sociosemiotic relationship between TT and SL culture

4.2.5 Soclosemlotic relationship between TT and TL culture

4.2.6 Sociosemlotic relationship between the writer and SL culture

4.2.7 Sociosemlotic relationship between the translator and TL culture

4.2.8 Sociosemlotic relationship between the target reader and TL culture

4.3 Translation as sociosemiotic interaction between cultures

4.3.1 Influences of SL culture on translation

4.3.2 Influences of TL culture on translation

4.3.3 Influences of translation on TL culture

4.3.4 Influences of translation on SL culture

 4.4 The process of translation

4.4.1 Translating is a process of sign interpretation and sign production

4.4.2 Sign relation as unit of translation

 4.4.2.1 Definition of unit of translation

 4.4.2.2 Traditionally claimed units of translation

 4.4.2.3 Is culture a unit of translation?

 4.4.2.4 Sign relation is a unit of translation

4.4.3 Loss and gain of meaning in translation

 4.5 The translator

4.5.1 Different roles of the translator

4.5.2 Translator's decisive position in terms of what, why and how to translate

4.5.3 Style of the translator

 4.6 Conclusion

Chapter Five Soeiosemiotie Equivalence of Translation

 5.1 The invariant core of translation

5.1.1 Meanings of language signs

 5.1.1.1 Designative meaning

 5.1.1.2 Linguistic meaning

 5.1.1.3 Pragmatic meaning

5.1.2 Functions of language signs

 5.1.2.1 The expressive function

 5.1.2.2 The informative function

 5.1.2.3 The vocative function

 5.1.2.4 The aesthetic function

 5.1.2.5 The phatic function

 5.1.2.6 The metalingual function

5.1.3 Invariant core is genre-specific

 5.2 Equivalence is still a central issue of translation theory

5.2.1 Why is Nida criticized?

5.2.2 Can cultural functions be equivalent?

5.2.3 Equivalence is reflected in Chinese traditional translation theories

 4.4 The process of translation

4.4.1 Translating is a process of sign interpretation and sign production

4.4.2 Sign relation as unit of translation

 4.4.2.1 Definition of unit of translation

 4.4.2.2 Traditionally claimed units of translation

 4.4.2.3 Is culture a unit of translation?

 4.4.2.4 Sign relation is a unit of translation

4.4.3 Loss and gain of meaning in translation

 4.5 The translator

4.5.1 Different roles of the translator

4.5.2 Translator's decisive position in terms of what, why and how to translate

4.5.3 Style of the translator

 4.6 Conclusion

Chapter Five Soeiosemiotic Equivalence of Translation

 5.1 The invariant core of translation

5.1.1 Meanings of language signs

 5.1.1.1 Designative meaning

 5.1.1.2 Linguistic meaning

 5.1.1.3 Pragmatic meaning

5.1.2 Functions of language signs

 5.1.2.1 The expressive function

 5.1.2.2 The informative function

 5.1.2.3 The vocative function

 5.1.2.4 The aesthetic function

 5.1.2.5 The phatic function

 5.1.2.6 The metalingual function

5.1.3 Invariant core is genre-specific

 5.2 Equivalence is still a central issue of translation theory

5.2.1 Why is Nida criticized?

5.2.2 Can cultural functions be equivalent?

5.2.3 Equivalence is reflected in Chinese traditional translation theories

 5.2.3.1 “Xin, Da, Ya” (“faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance”)

 5.2.3.2 “Shen Si” (“closeness in spirit”)

 5.2.3.3 “Hua Jing”(“the transmigration of souls”)

5.2.4 Equivalence is still a central issue of translation theory

 5.3 Philosophical and semiotic foundation for translation equivalence

5.3.1 Philosophical foundation

5.3.2 Semiotic foundation

 5.4 Sociosemiotic equivalence

5.4.1 Linguistic equivalence

 5.4.1.1 Linguistic equivalence at phonetic level

 5.4.1.2 Linguistic equivalence at lexical level

 5.4.1.3 Linguistic equivalence at syntactic level

 5.4.1.4 Linguistic equivalence at discourse level

5.4.2 Designative equivalence

5.4.3 Pragmatic equivalence

 5.4.3.1 Pragmatic equivalence at symbolic level

 5.4.3.2 Pragmatic equivalence at expressive level

 5.4.3.3 Pragmatic equivalence at associative level

 5.4.3.4 Pragmatic equivalence at vocative level

 5.4.3.5 Pragmatic equivalence at phatic level

 5.5 Conclusion

Chapter Six Conclusion

Bibliography