摘要
考古学术语是中华文明对外话语体系建设的基础构件，但其语言特征与英译规律尚缺乏系统的实证考察。本文以《中国考古学（英文版）》2020—2025年77篇文章的双语标题、摘要和关键词为语料，建成含680条术语、13个语义类别的汉英考古术语库并作全量回扫。考察发现：（1）考古术语以四字格为优势形式（33.8%），平均词长3.87字，偏正复合为构词主体，命名实体类占21.9%，含20条鬲、簋等生僻器物字文化专词，概念体系呈“文化—期—段”层级结构；（2）英译以语义翻译为主体（63.5%），音译（24.7%）集中于专名，括注（13.5%）投资于高频词，期刊内变异仅1.3%。据此提出四条操作性建议。
关键词： 考古学术语；语言特征；术语翻译；语料库
Abstract
Archaeological terms are fundamental building blocks in the construction of an international discourse system for Chinese civilization, yet their linguistic features and the regularities governing their English translation remain insufficiently investigated through systematic empirical research. Drawing on the bilingual titles, abstracts, and keywords of 77 articles published in Chinese Archaeology from 2020 to 2025, this study compiles a Chinese-English archaeological terminology database containing 680 terms across 13 semantic categories, followed by a full-coverage rescan of the source texts. The investigation reveals that: (1) four-character forms constitute the dominant pattern of archaeological terms (33.8%), with an average term length of 3.87 characters; modifier-head compounding serves as the principal word-formation device; naming entities account for 21.9%, including 20 culture-specific terms containing rare artifact characters such as li (鬲) and gui (簋); and the conceptual system displays a “culture—phase—stage” hierarchical structure; (2) semantic translation predominates in the English renderings (63.5%), transliteration (24.7%) concentrates on proper names, parenthetical annotation (13.5%) is invested in high-frequency terms, and intra-journal translation variation is as low as 1.3%. Based on these findings, four operational suggestions are proposed.
Key words： Archaeological terminology; Linguistic features; Terminology translation; Corpus
参考文献 References
[1] 朱安博, 杨艺. 国家博物馆文物翻译实证研究[J]. 中国科技翻译, 2017, 30(3): 45-48.
[2] 苏艳飞, 刘彦仕. 文化"走出去"背景下川东巴文化外译研究[J]. 长春大学学报, 2020, 30(3): 41-46.
[3] Cabré, M. Teresa. Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999.
[4] Sager, Juan C. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1990.
[5] 冯志伟. 现代术语学引论（增订本）[M]. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2011.
[6] ISO 704. Terminology Work — Principles and Methods. Geneva: ISO.
[7] ISO 1087. Terminology Work and Terminology Science — Vocabulary. Geneva: ISO, 2019.
[8] Temmerman, Rita. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000.
[9] Freixa, Judit. “Causes of Denominative Variation in Terminology: A Typology Proposal.” Terminology 12(1), 2006: 51-77.
[10] 郑述谱. 术语翻译及其对策[J]. 外语学刊, 2012, (5): 102-105.
[11] 王金波. 谈国内翻译研究中的译名问题[J]. 中国翻译, 2003, (3): 62-64.
[12] Koskinen, Kaisa. Translating Institutions: An Ethnographic Study of EU Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2008.
[13] 郑德虎. 中国文化走出去与文化负载词的翻译[J]. 上海翻译, 2016, (2): 53-56.
[14] Baker, Mona. “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications.” In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993: 233-250.
[15] 王克非, 黄立波. 语料库翻译学十五年[J]. 中国外语, 2008, (6): 9-14.
[16] 胡开宝, 田绪军. 基于多语语料库的翻译研究：议题与意义[J]. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 2023, 45(2): 3-17+101.
[17] Bowker, Lynne & Jennifer Pearson. Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora. London/New York: Routledge, 2002.
[18] 张春芳. 功能翻译理论视阈下的学术论文摘要英译研究[D]. 上海: 上海外国语大学, 2012.
[19] 沈凌波, 焦丹. 英汉翻译中跨文化视角转换及翻译技巧[J]. 漯河职业技术学院学报, 2021, 20(3): 106-108.
[20] 任东升. 国家翻译实践史书写的初步探索——国家翻译实践中的“外来译家”研究综述[J]. 上海翻译, 2016, (5): 1-5+94.