With the rapid development of computer technology,corpus tools have become a useful aid in translation research and practices.More and more translation scholars begin to carry out computer-aided research on some popular academic issues where little progress was made,including the translator’s style.Mona Baker,a leader in corpus translation studies,is also the first scholar who uses corpus to study the translator’s style.As early as the beginning of 2000,she proposed a corpus-based research model on translator’s style.The model provided a new means of research for the majority of translation researchers.In 2014,however,HUANG Libo and ZHU Zhiyu conducted experiments and confirmed that Baker’s theory was flawed,and they sketched an improved version of the theoretical model,which was the multi-complex model of comparison.This paper begins with a brief review of the origin of the multi-complex model of comparison,followed by the main content which is divided into three parts,namely the author’s comparison between the original model and the newer model,the value of the multi-complex model of comparison and the author’s detailed study of the newer model.The model proposed by HUANG and ZHU was only a preliminary idea,in that it had only a research direction and a rough framework.The author finds it necessary to refine and supplement their model,and has independently completed the research work.At the end of this paper,a group of easy-to-replicate empirical studies are carried out to explore the feasibility as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the improved theoretical model.This paper is the product of an original research,whose subject is a new theoretical model based on Mona Baker’s methodology,making it a meaningful exploration.In addition,this paper innovatively uses the "stylistic meaning" as the parameter rather than the traditional STTR,mean sentence length,and carries out big data research with tools including Wordsmith 7.0,ABBYY FineReader 12,etc.,which ensures the originality of the experimental process and the objectivity of its results. |