中譯英「說服性標記」的翻譯規範－中文母語與英文母語譯者社論型文章翻譯之比較

Norms in the Use of Persuasive Markers in the Translation of Chinese Editorials into English

10.29912/CTR.200809.0004

董大暉 (Da-Hui Dong)；藍月素(Yu-Su Lan)；黃俐璇(Li-Xiung Huang)

中譯英 ； 中譯英語料庫 ； 翻譯規範 ； 翻譯教學 ； 說服性標記語 ； Chinese into English Translation ； corpus ； translation norms ； persuasive markers ； editorials

編譯論叢

1卷1期（2008 / 09 / 01）

93 - 112

繁體中文

中文母語譯者在從中文譯入英文的過程中，往往會出現譯文不夠自然的問題。原因之一是譯者未掌握好英語中「語篇的規範約定」（textual norm and convention）。本研究針對社論型文章的中譯英譯文進行研究，以Biber（1988）對英文書面語與口語各種文類變化（genre variation）的「多面向方法」（Multidimensional Approach）研究為基礎，採用其第四「面向」之「說服性標記語」（markers of persuasion），作為中譯英社論型文章譯文的語篇規範。本研究旨在探討中文母語專業與非專業譯者及英文母語專業譯者，在中譯英社論型文章時，遵守該文類說服性標記的規範的狀況為何，並比較3類譯者之間是否存在差異。研究方法採用語料庫量化分析，譯者共35位（母語是英語和中文的專業譯者分別有10和11位、中文母語非專業譯者14位），每位譯者對10篇中文原文為政治經濟相關之社論型文章進行翻譯，共取得譯文350篇。本研究發現中文母語與英文母語兩類譯者總體而言，譯文皆與英語社論型文章使用說服性標記的規範存在差異。另外，本研究引入中文母語非專業譯者（第三類譯者）作為參照，發現3類譯者之間在遵守說服性標記的規範上並無顯著差異。這說明譯文中說服性標記的規範同時也是一種翻譯普遍性（translation universal）。本研究的發現有助於翻譯教學，以及在實務中提升譯文的品質及可讀性。

When translating from Chinese into English, native Chinese-speaking translators often produce translations that don't read naturally. One possible reason is that they fail to follow textual norms and conventions of the English speaking community. This study is aimed at exploring whether there are norms followed by professional translators in the use of persuasive markers when translating Chinese editorials into English.This study compared the use of persuasive markers in translations of Chinese editorials and authentic English editorials. The translations were produced by 35 translators, among whom 10 were native English-speaking and experienced, 11, native Chinese-speaking and experienced, and 14, native Chinese-speaking but inexperienced. The study built a translation corpus of 350 translations first. The frequency counts of six persuasive markers were extracted from the corpus based on algorithms specified in Biber's (1988) multidimensional study of linguistic variations across speech and writing. The six markers chosen were those that constitute the fourth dimension in Biber's study.The study has found that there seems to be a norm of using persuasive markers in the translations of experienced translators, native English and native Chinese alike. The study also finds that the inexperienced native Chinese speaking translators, as research subjects, follow the norm. As a result, the study discusses a number of possible factors which may account for such a result. It particularly argues that the norm, under certain circumstances, could represent a translation universal and calls for further research into translation norms in a hope to help native Chinese-speaking translators improve the naturalness of their translations.

1. 沈安德(2000)。翻譯理論與翻譯實踐：以《好逑傳》的英譯為例。中外文學，29(5)，105-129。
   連結：
2. 董大暉、藍月素(2007)。譯文不夠自然與謂語動詞情狀、時態、體式的選擇。2007應用外語國際研討會論文集，高雄:
   連結：
3. Baker, M.(1992).In other words: A coursebook on translation.London:Routledge.
4. Biber, D.(1988).Variation across speech and writing.New York:Cambridge University Press.
5. Blankenship, K. l.,Holtgraves, T.(2005).The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion.Journal of Language and Social Psychology,24(1),3-24.
6. Brennan, S. E.,Williams, M.(1995).The feeling of another's knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states o f speakers.Journal of Memory and Language,34,383-398.
7. Carli, L. L.(1990).Gender, language, and influence.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,59,941-951.
8. Chesterman, A.(1993).From "is" to "ought": Laws, norms and strategies in translation studies.Target,5(1),1-20.
9. Frawley, W.(Ed.)(1984).Translation, literary, linguistic and philosophical perspectives.Newark:University of Delaware Press.
10. Gibbons, P.,Busch, J.,Bradac, J. J.(1991).Powerful versus powerless language: Consequences for persuasion, impression formation, and cognitive response.Journal of Language and Social Psychology,10,115-133.
11. Hatim, B.(1997).Communication across cultures.Exeter, Deevon:University of Exeter Press.
12. Hatim, B.(2002).Textual, discursive and Genre-Related Norms in and of translation.Logos and Language: Journal of General Linguistics and Language Theory,3(2),35-44.
13. Hatim, B.,Mason, I.(1990).Discourse and the translator.London:Longman.
14. Hermans, T.(1998).Translation and normativity.Current Issues in Language and Society,5,51-72.
15. Holtgraves, T. M.(2001).Language as social action.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Holtgraves, T. M.(1997).Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73,624-637.
17. Holtgraves, T. M.,Lasky, B.(1999).Linguistic power and persuasion.Journal of Language and Social Psychology,17,506-516.
18. House, E.(1977).The logic of evaluative argument.Los Angeles:California University, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
19. Mauranen, A.(2005).Contrasting languages and varieties with translational corpora.Languages in Contrast,5(1),73-92.
20. Neuman, Y.,Bekerman, Z.,Kaplan, A.(2002).Rhetoric as the contextual manipulation of self and nonself.Research on Language and Social Interaction,35(1),93-112.
21. Schaffner, C.(Ed.)(1999).Translation and norms.Clevedon:Multi-lingual Matters.
22. Toury, G.(1979).Interlanguage and its manifestations in translation.Meta,24(2),223-231.
23. Trosborg, A.(1997).Text typology and translation.Amsterdam:J. Benjamins.
24. Zimbardo, P. G.,Leippe, M. R.(1991).The psychology of attitudes change and social influence.New York:McGraw-Hill.
25. 史宗玲,蔡佩珊(2006).Autonomy of translation language: The "explicitation" feature in journalistic translation.第十一屆臺灣口筆譯教學國際研討會論文集,臺北:
26. 車歡歡、羅天(2006)。從辜鴻銘《論語》的英譯看翻譯規範的運作方式。西華大學學報（哲學社會科學版），2006(4)，103-105。
27. 張春艾(2007)。從《哀希臘》六譯本看翻譯規範的變化。鄭州航空工業管理學院學報（社會科學版），26(5)，86-88。
28. 董大暉、藍月素(2007)。提昇學生中譯英篇內文字能力的語料庫研究。第十二屆口筆譯教學研討會論文集，臺南:
29. 董大暉、藍月素。母語與非母語譯者中譯英語言特徵差異探討。臺灣翻譯學研究集刊，第11輯
30. 廖七一(2006)。梁啟超與拜倫《哀希臘》的本土化。外語研究，3(97)，48-51。