| 摘要 | 第1-5页 |
| Abstract | 第5-7页 |
| Acknowledgements | 第7-10页 |
| Introduction | 第10-14页 |
| ·A Brief Introduction to Ceramic Translation | 第10-12页 |
| ·The Research Object | 第12页 |
| ·The Research Method | 第12-13页 |
| ·The Structure of this Paper | 第13-14页 |
| Chapter One: Literature Review | 第14-21页 |
| ·A Brief Introduction to the Two Books and the Reasons Why They Are Chosen | 第14-18页 |
| ·Previous Study on Ceramic Translation and Their Inadequacies | 第18-19页 |
| ·Features that Distinguish this Paper from the Previous Studies | 第19-21页 |
| Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework | 第21-31页 |
| ·A Brief Introduction to Equivalence Theory | 第21页 |
| ·The Representative Figures of Equivalence Theory and Their Opinions | 第21-26页 |
| ·Equivalence in Meaning, by Roman Jakobson | 第21-23页 |
| ·Formal Equivalence, Dynamic Equivalence and Equivalent Effect, by EugeneNida | 第23-24页 |
| ·Semantic Translation and Communication Translation, by Peter Newmark | 第24-25页 |
| ·Korrespomdemz amd ?quivalenz by Koller | 第25-26页 |
| ·Recent Development of Equivalence Theory | 第26-28页 |
| ·Cultural Equivalence | 第28-31页 |
| ·Three Features of Cultural Equivalence Theory | 第29-31页 |
| Chapter Three: Comparison of Ceramic Descriptions and Cultural Equivalence in CeramicTranslation | 第31-56页 |
| ·Classification of Different Descriptions of the Same Decorative Designs in the Two Books: MCBM and MC. | 第31-53页 |
| ·False descriptions vs. Right Descriptions | 第31-39页 |
| ·Obfuscation vs. Explication | 第39-47页 |
| ·Descriptiveness vs. Definition | 第47-52页 |
| ·Transliteration | 第52-53页 |
| ·The Significance Indicated by these Differences | 第53-56页 |
| Chapter Five: Conclusions | 第56-59页 |
| Bibliography | 第59页 |
