本文以知识翻译学的“地方性与世界性”为核心范畴,对2016~2025年间国内外7本翻译期刊的应用翻译研究论文进行文献计量与内容分析,旨在揭示中外学界在知识生产上的结构性分野,并探讨中国应用翻译研究的自主知识体系建构路径。研究发现:近十年国内外研究的知识生态位分工具有根本性差异。国内研究遵循译出逻辑,聚焦科技翻译、外宣翻译、典籍翻译和应用翻译史研究,致力于将中国地方性知识加工、重构为可参与世界竞争的世界知识,这是一种知识的世界化输出;国外研究遵循译入逻辑,聚焦视听翻译、外宣翻译、行业口译、翻译管理,致力于将普遍性知识或强势地方知识进行本土化适配与话语权维持,这是一种知识的地方化服务。这一分野并非研究水平高下之分,而是由知识生产位置(先发/后发)与知识辩护路径(世界化/地方化)的结构性差异所决定。基于此,本文提出应用翻译研究的三个核心命题,并针对国内研究在知识概念化、辩护场域、论证范式、转化机制上的短板,提出四维优化路径。研究认为,中国应用翻译研究的根本使命,是推动中国知识从“被翻译的地方经验”升维为“参与全球对话的世界知识”。

Taking the relationship between the locality and globality of knowledge as its central analytical category, this study conducts a bibliometric and content analysis of papers on pragmatic translation studies published in seven Chinese and international translation journals between 2016 and 2025. The aim is to reveal the epistemological division between domestic and international research and to explore possible pathways for constructing an autonomous knowledge system in Chinese pragmatic translation studies. The findings show that Chinese and international pragmatic translation studies have shown a fundamental epistemological divergence within the knowledge ecology over the past decade. Chinese research is largely guided by a source-culture-oriented strategy, focusing on scientific and technical translation, external publicity translation, translation of classical texts, and historical studies of pragmatic translation, thereby reflecting a conscious effort to process and reconstruct China’s local knowledge into globally competitive knowledge. By contrast, international research tends to follow a target-culture-oriented strategy, concentrating on audiovisual translation, external publicity translation, professional interpreting, and translation management, which aims to localize and adapt universal knowledge or dominant knowledge and thereby sustain discursive authority. This divergence does not primarily reflect differences in research quality; rather, it stems from structural differences in the position of knowledge production (frontrunner/latecomer) and the modes of knowledge legitimation (globalization/localization). On this basis, the paper proposes three core propositions for pragmatic translation studies and a four-dimensional optimization pathway in response to four major weaknesses in current domestic research, namely knowledge conceptualization, arenas of knowledge legitimation, paradigms of knowledge argumentation, and mechanisms of knowledge transformation. The study ultimately argues that the fundamental mission of Chinese pragmatic translation studies is to elevate Chinese knowledge from translated local knowledge to world knowledge capable of participating in global knowledge competition.