基于语料库的莎士比亚戏剧汉译本逻辑关系显化研究

上海交通大学硕士学位论文基于语料库的莎士比亚戏剧汉译本逻辑关系显化研究姓名：邹颂兵申请学位级别：硕士专业：英语语言文学指导教师：胡开宝20081201 摘要上世纪90年代以来，平行翻译语料库所拥有的大规模原文与译文文本语料和相关计算机分析技术结合所产生的数据为翻译研究提供了新视角。相反地，基于语料库的翻译研究方法应运而生，经过十多年的理论阐述与实证研究已经发展成为一种新的研究范式。语料库的应用和对比语言学的结合也方兴未艾，并产生了非常可靠和丰富的研究成果。同时，语料库的开发和利用也为描述性翻译研究的进一步深化奠定了坚实的基础。译学界学者基于语料库对翻译文本展开研究，提出翻译中的显化现象（Explicitation）。在四份翻译百科文献中都可以找到显化这一词条(Baker;Delisle,Lee-Jahnke,&Cormier;Shuttleworth&Cowie)，然而显化现象的研究目前仍然局限于印欧语系，如英语和德语，英语与挪威语等等。作为翻译共性（TranslationUniversal）的一种体现，显化现象是否也存在于汉译本中呢？对显化问题进行系统的研究始于Blum-Kulka。她分析了部分英、法语互译的译文实例，探讨了话语层的显化问题,即与翻译过程中衔接和连贯手段的转换相关的显化。这也是翻译文本区别于原语文本的一个非常重要的特征。衔接手段显化的一个主要手段就是通过增加连接词，增强译本的逻辑关联和可读性。一般而言，英语注重形合，语篇逻辑关系较多依赖连接词，而汉语则偏重意合，语句间较少用关联词。然而如果显化现象是翻译文本中不可避免的一种共性，那么我们是否可以推断汉译文本也存在同样的现象？译者是否也倾向于使用更多的连接词使译本的语篇逻辑关系明朗化？Halliday和Hasan把文本的逻辑关系归结为：附加、因果、转折、时间。根据现代汉语语法学的相关理论，现代汉语的语篇逻辑关系可分为十类：因果、转折、假设、条件、并列、比拟、让步、比兴、诠释和目的，其中前五类出现频率为最高。本研究利用上海交通大学翻译与词典学中心自主开发的莎士比亚戏剧英汉平行语料库，着重观察了梁实秋和朱生豪两位大师的译本，通过ParaConc汉英平行检索软件和CorpusWorker’sToolkit等软件，检索译本中关联词的使用，特别是因果,条件和转折三类关系连接词，进行定量和定性分析，并和原文语句进行比较，从而证明汉译文本中确实采用了更多的关联词来明示语句之间 的逻辑关系，并阐释其本质和动因。与此同时，利用平行语料库的特点，我们也对梁实秋和朱生豪的译本的显化程度进行细致的比较，从而分析了莎士比亚戏剧汉译本中逻辑关系显化的原因。本研究将为翻译中的显化假说，特别是使用连接词明显逻辑关系提出了新的例证支持，并使得该领域的研究扩展到汉语语料的范围内。本研究还以描述性翻译理论为指导，通过对翻译文本的分析，挖掘了翻译过程中译者的不同选择的内在原因。此外，本研究还从戏剧语言的角度，探究了戏剧翻译的特点，这些都为相关的翻译实践提供了切实可行的参照和范例。关键词：翻译关系连词显化平行语料库 AbstractBlum-Kulka(1986)formulatesthehypothesisthatexplicitationisacharacteristicphenomenonoftranslatedversusoriginaltexts.Asonerepresentationofthetranslationuniversal(Baker1993,Blum-Kulka,1986,Klaudy1993),explicitationisconsideredasatechniquetoresolveambiguity,improvereadabilitybyaddingextralinguisticorextra-linguisticinformationinthetranslatedtextaswellasaproductinthetranslation.Oneevidentaspectofthisphenomenonisreflectedbytheuseofhighernumberofconnectivesinthetranslatedtexttorevealthepotentiallogicalconnectioninthesourcetext.ThispaperexaminestheexplicitationofconnectivesintwoChinesetranslationsofeightShakespeare’splays(byZhuShenghaoandLiangShiqiurespectively)fromthedatagainedfromaparallel-corpusdevelopedbyCenterforTranslationStudiesandLexicographyofShanghaiJiaotongUniversity.MonaBakerandsomeotherscholarspointedoutthattheapplicationoflargescalecorpora,especiallycomparableandparallelcorpora,wouldprovidesubstantialinsightsintostudyofexplicitationintranslation.Thisresearch,withthehelpofcorpustoollikeParaConc,collectsreliableandsufficientdataandexamplesoftheexplicitationinbothtwotranslationsinacomparableandparallelway.BycloseinvestigationoftheseexplicitatedconnectivesintheChinesetranslatedtexts,thispapergivesnewevidencetotheExplicitationHypothesisandshedsnewlightonexplicitationacrossChineseandEnglishlanguagepairs.Effortsarealsomadetopushforwardthecomparativeandparallelanalysisofinstancesofexplicitnessofthelogicalrelationsintwotranslationsinordertofindthemotivationforthisphenomenon.Withamixoftheoriesconstructedbypreviousscholars,liketherelevancetheoryandriskmanagementframework,etc,thepapercomesupwithtwomotivationsforexplicitationintranslation:1)linguisticmotivationand2)meta-situationalmotivation.Theformeroneincludesgrammaticalconstraintoftargettext(TT)andthesemanticnecessityofthecontext.Thelatteroneismoremultifaceted,includingindividualpreferencesorhabits,translators’conceptionofthereadersandreader’sacceptance,translationpurposes,translationconventionsaswell asthesituationinwhichthetranslatorscarryouttheirworks.Inshort,thepresentstudynotonlypresentsnewsupportfortheexplicitationhypothesiswithexamplesfromChinesetranslatedtext,butalsoprobesintothedeepercauseofexplicitation,providingsomenewperspectivesforfuturestudiesandpractice.Keywords:translationlogicalconnectivesexplicitationparallel-corpus 学位论文原创性声明本人郑重声明:所呈交的学位论文，是本人在导师的指导下，独立进行研究工作所取得的成果。除文中已经注明引用的内容外，本论文不包含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写过的作品成果。对本文的研究做出重要贡献的个人和集体，均已在文中以明确方式标明。本人完全意识到本声明的法律结果由本人承担。学位论文作者签名:邹颂兵日期:2009年2月2日 上海交通大学学位论文版权使用授权书本学位论文作者完全了解学校有关保留、使用学位论文的规定，同意学校保留井向国家有关部门或机构送交论文的复印件和电子版，允许论文被查阅和借阅。本人授权上海交通大学可以将本学位论文的全部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索，可以采用影印、缩印或扫描等复制手段保存和汇编本学位论文。学位论文作者签名:邹颂兵指导教师签名:胡开宝日期:2009年2月2日日期:2009年2月2日 AcknowledgementsIwouldliketotakethisopportunitytopaytributetoallwhohavegivenmealotofhelpandencouragementinmypreparationofthispaperaswellasinmyentireMAprogram.Firstofall,myheartfeltthanksandappreciationgotoProfessorHuKaibao,mytutor,whosteeredtothecompletionofthisthesis.Withgreatpatience,hetookquitesometimeoffhisbusyscheduletoreviewmythesisandprovidedinvaluablesuggestionsforimprovement.Iwasgreatlyenlightenedbyhisguidanceandcameupwiththeideatoworkonthetopictowhichthisthesisisdevoted.Ithasbeenagreatprivilegeandjoytoworkunderhisguidanceandwithhisencouragement.Hegavememanytremendousopportunitiestogrowanddevelopmyself.IalsooweagreatdebttoalltheprofessorsandteachersinSchoolofForeignLanguagesofShanghaiJiaoTongUniversity,fortheirlecturesfromwhichIlearnedalot.Inaddition,myheartfeltgratitudegoestomyclassmatesandfriendsfortheirconstantsupportandgenuinefriendship.Itisbeenoneofmostenjoyableandmemorabletimeofmylifetobewiththem.Finallyyetimportantly,Iwishtothankmyfamily,themostimportantpeopleinmylife.Theirloveandsolicitudearealwaysthesupportofmystudyandmylife,andIknowthatmydebttothemisbeyondmeasure. M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008ChapterOne:Introduction1.1Rationale1.1.1ExplicitationandTranslationUniversalsTheideathattranslation,regardlessofthelanguagetype,tendstobemoreexplicitthantheoriginaltexthasbeentestedbyagreatnumberofscholarsandprovedtobeonerepresentationoftranslationuniversals(Baker1993,Blum-Kulka1986,Klaudy1993).AccordingtoAntonyPym(Pym2005),itisalsooneofthefewdiscoveriesmadebytranslationstudies.TheconceptofexplicitationwasfirstputforwardbyVinayandDarbelnetin1958as“theprocessofintroducinginformationintothetargetlanguagewhichispresentonlyimplicitlyinthesourcelanguage,butwhichcanbederivedfromthecontextorthesituation”(VinayandDarbelnet1995).Lateron,studiesandresearchtotestthishypothesishavebeencarriedoutonthecomparisonbetweenvariousIndo-Europeanlanguagetranslationpairs,suchasEnglish-Norwegian(Øverås1998),English-German(SchmiedandSchaller1997)orEnglish-Finnish(Puurtinen2003).Muchofthiscorpus-basedwork,whichhasbeenfocusedonlexicalorsyntheticfeaturesofthetranslation,doesprovideevidencetotheprocessofexplicitation(Olohan2003).Oneoftheevidenceisthatageneraltendencytowardssyntacticexplicitationwasidentifiedinthestudyofoptionalsyntacticelements(suchas“that-construction”)inTEC1byBakerandOlohan(OlohanandBaker,2000).Morestudieswillbediscussedlateroninthisthesis.Manyofthesestudieswereaccomplishedwiththehelpofparallelcorporaorcomparablecorpora.Theintroductionofthesecomputer-basedmethodsconsiderablymakeslarge-scale(uptomillionsofwordsofdata)observationpossibleandtheresultsmorereliable.Thisalsosuggeststhattheuseofcorporaisandcontinuestobeaproductivewaytoconducttranslationstudiesacrossdifferentlanguagepairs.1FulltextsofworksoffictionandbiographytranslatedintoEnglishfromarangeoflanguages.1 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,20081.1.2DescriptiveTranslationStudyMariaTymoczkosaid‘descriptivetranslationstudies—whentheyattendtoprocess,product,andfunction—settranslationpracticeintimeand,thusbyextension,inpolitics,ideology,economics,culture.’(ibid)Descriptivetranslationstudiesnotonlycaninstructtranslationpracticeandenrichtranslationapproach,butalsoexplaintheorientationofallkindsoftranslationsandhelpustodealwithsomeknottyproblemsintranslations.‘Thedescriptiveresearch,whichrevealswhattranslation“doesinvlove”undervariousconditionsandwhy,willalwayshaveabearingonthetheoreticalbranchintheformofverification,revisionorexpensionofexsitingassumptionsaboutwhattranslation“can,inprinciple,involve”.Onthebasisofthisempiricalfoundationthetheorywillthenbeinapositiontopredictwhattranslationis“likelytoinvolve”undervariouscircumstances.’(Laviosa2002)GideonToury,therepresentativeofdescriptiveschool,pointedout“whatisactuallyavailableforobservationisnotsomuchthenormsthemselves,butrathernorm-governedinstancesofbehavior.Tobeevenmoreprecise,moreoftenthannot,itistheproductsofsuchbehavior.”(Toury1995)Therefore,examiningthetranslationprocessencountersgreatdifficulty.Theinvetigationoftheend-productofthetranslation,however,canprovideacloserlookattheresultingtextual-linguisticsmake-upinordertotracebacktothestrategiesatranslatorresortsto.Toexaminetheproduct,weneedtofocusononetextualphenonemonlikeexplicitation.Translatingmeansproducingatext.AccordingtoEnglundDimitrova,“Thetranslatedtextistangibleevidenceofthetranslationprocessthatprecedesitandleadstoit,andthetexthaslongbeenthemainobjectofstudyintranslationstudies.Astudywithafocusonthetranslationprocessandhowthetaskisperformedwillhavemorevalidityifitalsotakesintoaccounttheproductoftheprocess,thetranslatedtext.”(EnglundDimitrova2005)Hefurtherproposedthat“Theprocessleadstoatextandthestudywilllinktheprocesswiththeproductbyalsostudyingoneconcretetextualaspect,anditsrealizationintheprocess.Thiswillbedonebyfocusingona2 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008phenomenonwhichisintranslationstudiesusuallylabelledexplicitation”(EnglundDimitrova2005).Itisconsideredasatechniquetoresolveambiguity,improvereadabilitybyaddingextralinguisticorextra-linguisticinformationinthetranslatedtextaswellasaproductinthetranslation.Therefore,itisobviousthattheinstancesofexplicitationprovideconvincingexamplestoconductresearchthatwillfinallyleadsustofurtherrefineourtranslationuniversalstheory,whichisalignedwiththeframeworkofdescriptivetranslationstudies.Onereasonisthatexplicitionisconsideredasbothaprocessandaend-productoftranslation.Thisfeatureopensatunnelforustolookbackintotheprocessofthetranslationbyexaminingtheproducts,thatis,theexamplesofexplicitationsuchastheuseofconnetivestounveilthelogicalrelationshipinoriginaltexts.Theinvestigationisbelievedtoyieldsubstaintialexplainationforthemotivationsandinfluencersofsuchfeature.ThisthesisexaminestwoversionsofChinesetranslationofShakespeare’splayswhichareincorporatedintoaparallelcorpuswithsentence-levelalignment.Theinquiryistheexplicitationoflogicalrelationshipmanifestedbytheexplicituseofconnetivesinthetranslationtexts.Thefactthatconnectivesaretakenasthesubjectisbasedonthegroundthattheyhavebeenwidelystudiedasameansandaproductofexplicitationintranslationinwesternlanguages.Yet,fewsuchstudieswerecenteredonChinesetranslationsandthisresearchwillbuildastrongerargumentfortheexplicitationhypothesis.Moreimportantly,sincethefocusofthisthesisistheexplicitationanditsrealizationinliguisticformsintransaltedtext,wearegoingtoconcentrateonoptionalsyntacticfeatures,suchastheuseoflogicalconnectives.Ifexplicitationistruelyaninherentfeatureoftranslation,wecansafelyassumeahigherfrequencyoftheuseofoptionalsyntacticelementsmightbewitnessedintargettextthaninsourcetext.Inaddition,withtheconceptsupposedlybeingatranslationuniversal,wecansurelyassumesuchphenomenonwouldalsobefoundinChinesetranslations.Furthermore,asaSino-Tibetanlanguage,Chineseisknownforitssystematicimplicitnessinrelationtoagreatnumberofliguisticfeatures(Li2001,Lyn1980,Si1972),theobservationofthephenomenonwouldprovideexplaination3 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008forthecause.1.1.3Corpus-basedStudiesTheriseofcorporahasalsobroughtcontrastiveliguisiticsandtranslationstudiesmorecloselytogetherintermsoftheircommonground.Theconvergenceofthetwodiciplineshaspromisedveryusefultheorecticalandpraticalinsightsintobothyieldswiththeuseofcorpus-basedresearch(Granger2003).Tourypointsout“thecumulativefindingsofdescriptivestudiesshouldmakeitpossibletoformulateaseriesofcoherentlawswhichwouldstatetheinherentrelationsbetweenallthevaviablesfoundtoberelevanttotranslation.”(Toury1995)The“cumulativefindings”canbeachievedmoreeffetivelyandrepresentationallybytheuseofcorpus.Corpus-basedtranslationstudymakesqualitativeandquantitativeresearchpossibleandhasbeenproventobeveryeffectivetoexaminethegeneraloruniversalphenomenaintranslatedtexts.Furthermore,itcanserveasapowerfultoolfordescriptivetranslationstudy.Corpus-basedtranslationstudy(CTS)waspioneeredbyMonaBakerin1993.Sincethen,manyresearchershavebeeninspiredbythecorpus-basedtranslationtotestthosetranslationhypothesisandtheoriesthathavelongbeenestablishedinthehistoryoftranslationstudies,orinvestigatewidespreadlinguisticfeaturesintranslatedtexts(TT)thatarelikelytodistinguishthemsystematicallyfromtheirsourcetexts(ST)andfromnon-translations(NT)insimilardomainsinthetargetlanguage(TL).TheCTS,facilitatedbymoderncomputertechnology,allowsresearcherstoconductmorequantitativeandqualitativeresearch,forthelarge-scaledatabaseitprovidesandtheobservabilityandthereplicability.Itgivesanimpetustotheresearchoftranslationuniversals.Althoughcorpus-basedtranslationstudiesaregainingpopularityinrecentyears,severalproblemsareacknowledgedbyanumberofscholars:thefirstistheover-representationofIndo-Europeanlanguages(Laviosa2002)inmanyCTS.ThedevelopmentofCTSinChina,inparticular,haslaggedbehindthoseinthewestern4 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008countriesandlarge-scale,well-constructedcorporatargetingtranslationarestillbeingdeveloped,manyofwhicharenotreadytobeusedinthedomesticstudycircle.Thesecondissueistheconsiderationofonlyonetranslationinmostcases(Malmkjaer1998).Thepresentstudydrawsoncomparisonoftwotranslationsinaparallelformat,whichgivesgreatvisualitytoprocessandanalysisofthedata.Furthermore,bycomparingdifferettranslationsofthesameSTwouldmakeitpossibletocatchglimpesoffactorsthatinfluencetranslationdecisionmaking.ThelastprobleminmanyCTSisprioritizingTT-NTcomparisonoverthetraditionalST-TTroute(Stewart2000).Thisstudy,however,ismainlybasedonthecomparisonofST-TT,withtheaimtofindandexplaintheexplicitationoflogicalrelationshipintranslationtextsthroughtheadditionofconnectives.WearguethatthecomparisonofST-TTismorepreferableforfindingthemotivationforthetranslationdecisionmakingsincechangescanbeobservedinthecomparisonbetweenSTandTT.1.2TheAimsoftheThesisFirst,itinvestigatestheexplicitationoflogicalrelationshipasrealizedbytheuseofahighernumberofconnectivesinChinesetranslationsofShakespeareplaysbytwofamoustranslators,ZhuandLiang.Asoneofthehypothesizedcandidatesforwhatwasinitiallytermedastranslationuniversals(Baker1993,Blum-Kulka1986,Chesterman2004,Klaudy1993),explicitationcanbelooselydefinedasatechniqueorstrategythatrendersatranslationmoreexplicitthanitsSToranNTfromasimilardomain.ThepresentthesisalsoextendstheCTSresearchtoChinesetranslatedtexts.Ifitisauniversalonethatexistsineveryprocessoftranslation,explicitationmusthavesimilarrepresentationintheChinesetranslations.Second,thethesistriestotracethemotivationsforexplicitation.Motivationsfortheexplicitationstrategyhavebeenofferedbyanumbersofscholars,suchastheriskaversionbyPym(2005),preferenceofindividualtranslatorsbyBaker(2004)andKlaudy(2005),andthenatureoftranslationaslanguagemediationbyChesterman(2004),etc.Thisthesisattemptstoprovidefurtherexplanationsforthephenomenon5 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008basedontheanalysisofthedatadrawnfromthecorpusandtocomeupwithacomprehensiveandworkableframeworkofthecausesofexplicitation.WealsopayspecialattentiontothecharacteristicsoftheChineselanguageintheanalysisofexplicitationmotivations.Third,italsoaimstoprovidecertainpracticalandusefultranslationmethodologiesalongthewayofinvestigatingtwotranslationswiththespecialfocusonlogicalrelationships.Theinvestigationnotonlyunravelstheregularitiesofthetranslators’behavior,butalsoclarifiesthegeneralprinciplesthatseemtodeterminehowcertainthingsgettranslatedundercertainconditions.1.3ResearchDesign1.Objectofenquiry:explicitationrealizedthroughtheuseofconnectives(e.g.because,so,but...…);2.Sourceofcorpusdata:theEnglish-ChineseParallelCorpusofofShakespeare’sPlays(ItwillbereferredtotheCorpusinlaterchapters.)3.Numberoftranslations:tworespectivelytranslatedbyZhuShenghaoandLiangShiqiu;and4.Methodofcomparison:parallelapproaches.InadditiontotheparallelcorpusofShakespeare’splaysandtheirtwoversionsoftranslation,specificfocuswillalsopaidtothecomparisonbetweenthetwotranslationsbyZhuShenghaoandLiangShiqiu.1.4IntroductionoftheEnglish-ChineseParallelCorpusofShakespeare’sPlaysTheEnglish-ChineseParallelCorpusofShakespeare’sPlaysisastateprojectinitiatedbytheCenterforTranslationStudyandLexicographyofSJTUanditisstillunderconstructionwithmoreplaysaddedin.Alltogether,itisdesignedtocompriseof20Shakespeare’splaysandittranslationsfromthreemasters,LiangShiqiu,ZhuShenghaoandFangPing.Withproposedeighthundredthousandwordsinsize,thecorpuswillserveasausefuldatabasefortranslationstudies,especiallythoserequireintrospectivedatafrominvestigationsofthetranslationprocess.6 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Currently,thecorpushasseventextsofShakespeare’splaysandtwoversionsoftranslation,with(SeeTable1)OriginalTextChineseTranslationsShakespeare’splaysLiangShiqiu’sZhuShenghao’s(1919Oxfordversion)170,993WordsTokens2Content203,653222,818SevenfulltextsofShakespeare’smostpopularplaysinEnglish,namelyRomeoandJuliet,Hamlet,AMid-summerNight’sDream,Love’sLaborLost,TheTamingoftheShrew,KingLear,Macbeth,andtheirtwoversionsofChinesetranslationbytwodistinguishedscholars,LiangShiqiuandZhuShenghaorespectivelyTable1Overviewoftheparallelcorpus1.5ResearchQuestionsDoesexplicitation,asahypothesizedtranslationuniversal,existinChinese1.translationsofliterarytextsproducedbyChinesetranslators?Dothetranslatorstendtodrawmoreheavilyonconnectivestoestablishinter-clausalorinter-sententialrelationships,whichcouldbesignofexplicitationforChineselanguage,asaSino-Tibetanlanguageknownforitssystemicimplicitnessinrelationtomanylinguisticfeatures?2.IfconnectivesarefoundtofeaturemoreextensivelyintheChinesetranslations,whatcausethisphenomenon?CanwefindthemotivationfortheexplicitnessbycomparingandcontrastingthesyntacticpatternsofthetwogreattranslationsofShakespeare’splays?Todoso,weneedtoinvestigatehowthepatternsproximateordepartfromonetoanother.2ThewordtokenfortheChinesetranslationsisgeneratedbyACWT(ACorpusWorker'sToolkit).GiventhegreatlanguagedisparitybetweenEnglishandChinese,tokenfortheChineseiscalculatedbysinglecharacters.Forcorpusparallelprocessing,theChinesetranslationsaresegmentedbyICTCLAS,alexicalanalysistool.Bothofthesoftwarewillbeintroducedinchaptertwo.7 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,20081.6OrganizationoftheThesisTheorganizationofthethesisisasfollows.Chapter1givesageneralintroductionofthewholethesis,includingitsrationaleandorganization.Chapter2providesacomprehensiveintroductiontocorpus-basedtranslationstudies,particularlytheparallelcorpusanditsstrengthintranslationstudies.ThissectionalsoelaboratesonthedomesticapplicationofChinese-Englishtranslationparallelcorpusandthecorrespondingresearchoutcome.AnintroductionoftheparallelcorpusoftranslationsofShakespeare’sPlaysisincluded.Toolsandtheprocessofretrievingdatafromitarealsointroduced.Chapter3isdevotedtothediscussionofexplicitationintranslationasatextualfeatureandahypothesisinlargerscope.Varioustypologiesofexplicitationarereviewedandthejustificationofeachtypologybyitsscholarisexamined.Ideasonexplicitationoflogicalconnectionwiththeuseofahighernumberofconnectivesarepresented.Chapter4showsthepatternofexplicitationofthreemainkindsoflogicalrelationshipsbyaddingconnectivesinthetwotranslations.ThischapterstartsbyillustratingthelogicalrelationshipinChinesetextanditsconnectionswithconnectives.Itthenprovidesacomparableanalysisofthewell-specifieddatagainedfromtheparallelcorpusofShakespeare’splaystranslationstodemonstratethetokensandpatternsoftheexplicitness.Chapter5givesanin-depthanalysisofthemotivationsforexplicitationinLiang’sandZhu’stranslationswithdetailedsamplesfromthecorpusofShakespeare’sPlays.Thecomparableanalysisisfocusedonaspectsofquantitativeandqualitativedifferenceassociatedwithconnectiveexplicitation,andtheparallelstudyconcentratedontheST-TTcomparisonofexplicitation.Chapter6summariesthefindingofthepreviouschapters,andprobesintothelimitationsofthecurrentthesis.Italsoprovidessuggestionsforfurtherstudies.8 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008ChapterTwo:MethodsandToolsforDataRetrievalandAnalysis2.1MethodsinCorpus-basedStudiesofExplicitation2.1.1HowCorpus-basedMethodCanBenefittheStudiesofExplicitation?Corpus-basedtranslationstudieshavebeenontherisesincethe90swhencomputersciencehasbeenbecomingincreasinglydominantinalmosteverysubjectofacademicstudies.Itisderivedfromthecorpuslinguistics,which,accordingtoMichaelStubbs(quotedinOlohan,2004),dealswith‘whatfrequentlyandtypicallyoccurs.’Olohan(2004)putsforwardthatcorpus-basedtranslationstudiesis‘theapplicationofcorpusanalysistechniques,bothquantitativeandqualitative,tothestudyofaspectsoftheproductandprocessoftranslation.’Empiricalinnature,CTSisanewlyemergingparadigmtotracetheproductionpatternofthetranslationortranslationalfeaturesonlypresentedwhenlargesizeoftranslatedtextsisscrutinized.Inaddition,sinceitiseitherimpossibleorverydifficulttotapintothesubconsciousorconsciousthinkingsystemofmanytranslators,corpus-basedtranslationstudiesprovidesanalternativewaytolookbackintothetranslationprocessandfindtheindicationofthethinkingpatterns.Bell’s(1991)suggestiontoobservetranslatorperformancebyanalyzingtranslationproductalsosupportstheuseofcorporaintranslationstudies.Sofar,CTSscholarsusinglarge-scalecorporahaveidentifiedsomeofthekeyfeaturesoftranslatedtexts,suchassimplification,standardization,andexplicitation.Moreevidenceisstillneededeithertofurtherconfirmtheidentificationortofindthemotivationsbehindthesephenomena.Thepresentstudyistotestthevalidityoftheexplicitationhypothesis,andfindthemotivationforit.Whentalkingabouttestingthevalidityoftheexplicitationhypothesis,MonaBakerproposedthatcrucialqualitativeevidencecanbeexpectedfromtheuseofcomputerizedcorpora,especiallyparallelandcomparablecorpora.Thisstudyisbased9 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008onacorpusthatisaparalleloneinbasiccomposition,butalsoallowscomparisonbetweendifferenttranslations.2.1.2UsingParallelCorpustoStudyExplicitationInparallelcorpora,originaltextsandtranslationsareputtogetherwithsentencesalignedwitheachother.Itmakesitpossibletopairthecitationofawordinthesourcelanguageandtheirmatchesinthetargetlanguage.Thecomparisonbetweenlargenumbersoftextsandtheirtranslationscanshowhowequivalencehasbeenestablishedbytranslatorsandprovideexamplesoftranslationstrategies.Ifsuchcorporaaresufficientlylargeandvaried,byobservingrecurringchoicesmadebytranslators,generalpatternscanbeperceived.Wecanthusnoticethetranslationpatternandgeneralizefromtheaggregationofsetsofindividualinstances.Inthisparticularstudy,parallelcorpusseemstobetheperfecttoolsincewearelookingfortheextrawords(connectives)inthetranslations.Theinstancesobservedwillbeconsideredastheevidenceforexplicitation,whichisconsideredasageneralexistingfeatureoftranslatedtexts.Althoughthepotentialoftheparallelcorpusinretrievingdataispromising,theconstructionofsuchcorpushasnotbeeneasy.Giventhefactthatinmanycases,therearenoperfectmatchesbetweenlexicalandevensyntacticunitsindifferentlanguages,especiallybetweenEnglishandChinese,thebuildingofaparallelcorpusisbothtimeandlaborconsuming.Wespentalotofefforts,laborandtimeintheparallelcorpusofShakespeare’splaysandyieldsubstantialresults.Inordertoretrievedatafromthecorpus,asetoftoolsareindispensible.Inthenextsection,wearegoingtolookatthepowerfultoolstofacilitatetheretrievalofusefuldata.10 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,20082.2ToolsforDataRetrievalandAnalysis:ParaConc,ACorpusWorker’sToolkit2.2.1ParaConcParaConc,amultilingualconcordancerdevelopedbyMichaelBarlow(1995),isanimportanttoolinthepresentstudytoinvestigatetheexplicitationinstancesinChinesetranslationsbycomparingtheuseofconnectivesinthesourceandtargettexts.ParaConciscapableofconcordancinguptofourparalleltexts,whichmightbeinfourdifferentlanguagesormightconsistofonesourcetextplusthreealternativetranslationsinthesamelanguage.Thisspecialfeatureofthesoftwareisidealforthepresentresearch,whichrequiresaccesstoasourcetextandtwotranslationsinparalleldisplay.Figure1showshowthreeparalleltextsareconcordanceanddisplayedinonewindow.Figure1KWICDisplayofthreeparalleltextsinParaConcParaConcoffersanumberofsearchoptions,includingsimpletext,regularexpression,tagsearchandparallelsearch.Onceasearchqueryisentered,ParaConcstartstoworkthroughtheloadedfileslookingforthesearchstring.Forexample,theupperpaneof11 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Figure1showstheresultofasimplesearchfortheword‘but’inKWIC3layout;themiddleandlowerpanescontainsthetwoversionsofChinesesentences(segments)thatarealignedwiththehitsaboveinnon-KWICformat.Sincethealignmentbetweenthethreesubcorporaisnotdoneatthewordlevel,performingasimplesearchinParaConcdoesnotimmediatelyidentifyanypotentialChinesetranslationsof‘but’anddisplaytheminKWICmode.Atthispoint,itisdifficultforuserstolocatethepositionofpossibleChinesetranslationsof‘but’withineachChinesesegment.Thisinconvenience,however,iscompensatedbytheHotWordssearchutilityofferedbyParaConc.AhotwordisessentiallyasuggestedtranslationorSTcollocateinthelowerpanethatisassociatedwiththesearchtermintheupperpane,andanysuchitemsidentifiedbyParaConccanbetransformedintoaKWIClayout.ThisisshowninFigure2,wheretheprogramhascorrectlyidentified‘danshi’(但是)and‘dan’（但）inthelowerpane(thesourcetext)astwopotentialChineseconnectivesthatmightbetranslatedastheEnglishconnective‘but’intheupperpane(thetargettext).Figure2ParallelKWICdisplayof'but'anditsChinesetranslations'danshi'and'dan'automaticallyidentifiedbyParaConc3KWICmeanskeywordincontext.ItismodeofdisplayofthesearchresultsinParaConc.12 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Normally,therearealwayssomehotwordswhichParaConcfailstopickup,suchas‘keshi’(可是)and‘raner’（然而）inthiscase.ThesemaybespottedafterwardsbyusingSearchQueryutility,whichgivesaccesstousualsearchcommandsandhenceallowsustoenterapossibletranslationof‘but’suchas‘keshi’.Theprogramthensimplyhighlightsallinstancesof‘keshi’inlowerpaneofresults.Thesefunctionshighlightedherearevitaltothisresearchintermsofdatacollectionandcomparisonaswellasthecorrectnessofthedata.ByusingtheHotWordsandSearchQueryutility,weincludedasmanyaspossiblepotentialconcordancewordpairs,fortherearemanypossibleChinesetranslationsofasingleconnectiveinEnglishduetogreatdisparityofthetwolanguagesystems.Forexample,‘because’intheSTmightprobablyberenderedas‘suoyi’inChinesetranslationwiththeinternalcausallogicrelationunchangedinthecontext.42.2.2ACorpusWorker'sToolkit(ACWT)CorpusWorker’sToolkitisatextprocessorNoteTabbundledwithvariousopen-sourcedclips,Perlcodesandothertoolsthatcandocorpus/discourselinguisticanalysis.Mostofthesetoolsfunctionlikemacrosinwordprocessingprograms,buttheycandomuchmoreandworkinarelativelysimpletextprocessingenvironment.SupportingvariouslanguagesincludingChinese,itincludesconcordancesearch,fulleditingsupportandtestingactivities,andwordfrequencytext-analysis.AWCTcanprocessmultipletxtfilesatatime.Fortextanalysisofeachfile,wecanaccessthecontrolsontheleftpane,whichincludeswordfrequencyanalysis,type-tokenratiocalculation,ChineseandEnglishconcordancesearch,etc.4Thereasonforsuchrenditionofthetranslationisnotwithinthescopeoftheresearch,andwewouldnotelaborateonthathere.However,althoughoriginalconnectivesinSTaresimplyreplacedbyotherconnectivesinTTinsuchcase,thelogicalconnectionisnotcompromised,whichalsomeansthattheexplicitationdoesnotexisteventhoughtheexactcorrespondingconnectivesdonotmatch.13 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Figure3BasicwordfrequencyandtokenproducedbyAWCTInthepresentstudy,weuseAWCTtogetthegeneralinformationaboutthetext,inparticularlytogeneratewordfrequencyprofile,totalwordcounts,andtocrosscheckwiththetokensoflogicalconnectivesbyconcordancesearchwiththatproducedbyParaConcinordertoensureaccuracy.14 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Figure4TextanalysisforChinesesegmentedtext15 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008ChapterThree:Explicitation3.1RepresentationandTypologyofExplicitationinTranslationsThenwhatexactlyisexplicitationandwhatareitsrepresentationsintranslatedtext?Inthischapter,attentionwillbefocusedonthereviewoftheexplicitationhypothesisintranslationstudyandcomparisonofconceptsorsystemsdevelopedbyvariousscholarswhotriedtoexhaustthepossibleexplanationsforthisphenomenon.Effortsarealsomadeinthischaptertolandonamodifiedunderstandingofexplicitationanditsrepresentations,especiallytheexplicitationthroughtheuseofconnectives.3.1.1HypothesisofExplicitationExplicitation,ingeneral,referstothephenomenonwhichoftenleadstoTTrevealingSTinformationinamoreexplicitwaythantheST.VinayandDarbeknet(1995)firstintroducedtheconceptofexplicitation.Theydefineditas‘theprocessofintroducinginformationintothetargetlanguagewhichispresentimplicitlyinthesourcelanguage,butwhichcanbederivedfromthecontextorsituation’(quotedinBaker,RoutledgeEncyclopediaofTranslationStudies1998)BakeralsostatesinherRoutledgeEncyclopediaofTranslationthatNidafurtherdevelopedtheconceptsofexplicitationdespitethefactthathedidnotactuallyusetheterm‘explicitation’.Nidaputforwardtheconceptofadditionintranslationprocess,whichincludesamplificationfromimplicittoexplicitstatus(quotedinBaker1998).ExplicitationwasconsideredbyNidaasoneofthemethodsforadditionintranslation.ThefirstsystematicstudyofexplicitationwasmadebyBlum-Kulkawhoformulatedtheexplicitationhypothesis.ByinvestigatingthecohesivedevicesinHebrewtranslationthatwereabsentinEnglishsourcetext,shefoundthattranslatedtext(TT)ismoreredundantthanthesourcetext(ST),whichisexpressedby‘ariseinthelevelofcohesiveexplicitness’intheTT.Shearticulatedthatthehypothesisisvalidregardlessofdifferencesbetweenthetwolinguisticandtextualsystemsinvolved.16 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Therefore,explicitationisviewedhereasinherentintheprocessoftranslation.(ibid.)Séguinot(1988),ontheotherhand,thoughtthedefinitionprovidedbyBlum-Kulkawastoonarrow:AccordingtoSéguinot,explicitationtakesplacenotonlywhen‘somethingisexpressedinthetranslation,whichwasnotintheoriginal’,butalsoinplaceswhere‘somethingwhichwasimpliedorunderstoodthroughpresuppositioninthesourcetextisovertlyexpressedinthetranslation,oranelementinthesourcetextisgivenagreaterimportanceinthetranslationthroughfocus,emphasis,orlexicalchoice’.Agenerallyacceptedassumptionofexplicitationstudyisthattherehastobesomethingimplicitinthesourcetextthatrealizesthepotentialtoexplicitate.WecanfindechoofthisassumptioninSéguinot(1988:106)descriptionofthethreeformsofexplicitation:Somethingisexpressedinthetranslationwhichwasnotintheoriginal,somethingwhichwasimpliedorunderstoodthroughpresuppositioninthesourcetextisovertlyexpressedinthetranslation,oranelementinthesourcetextisgivengreaterimportanceinthetranslationthroughfocus,emphasis,orlexicalchoice.Itcanbeinferredfromtheabovestatementthatthetargettextismoreinformativethanthesourcetext.Inotherwords,eitherimplicitinformationismadeexplicitorextrainformationisintroduced.Enteringthe90s,facilitatedbyquantitative,corpus-basedmethodology,variousscholarshadidentifiedevidenceofexplicitation.Øverås(1998)examinedexplicitationandimplicitationshiftsintheEnglish-NorwegianParallelCorpus,andfoundastrongertendencyofexplicitationthanimplicitationinbothNorwegiantranslationsfromEnglishandEnglishtranslationfromNorwegian.Usingtwocomparablecorpora,OlohanandBaker(2000)analyzedtheinsertionoftheoptional‘that’followingthereportingverbs‘say’and‘tell’indatafromtheTranslationalEnglishCorpus(TEC)andtheBritishNationalCorpus(BNC),andfoundthattheexplicitationof‘that’ismorefrequentintheEnglishtranslationsofTECthanintheEnglishoriginalsinBNC.17 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008AsSéguinot(1988)pointedoutthatliterarytranslationisnotproducedunderinstitutionalandtimeconstraints,andprobablyinvolvesacreativeprocessmuchlikethedifferencebetweencreativeandbusinessandtechnicalwriting,theinvestigationofthepurposeofacertaintranslationfeaturecanbemoresubtleandmultifacetedgiventranslators’‘creativeprocess’.Thisisalsotruetothecauseofexplicitationinthecurrentstudy.Yet,thestructuralorrhetoricaldisparitybetweentwolanguageshasalwaysbeengivensignificanceinmanyotherscholars’explanationofexplicitation.House(2004)articulatesherhypothesisthatexplicitationreflectsdifferencesinlinguistic-textualconventionsbetweensourceandtargettexts.However,Séguinotadvocatesthat‘explicitation’shouldbereservedintranslationstudiesforadditionsinatranslatedtext,whichcannotbeexplainedbystructural,stylistic,orrhetoricaldifferencesbetweentwolanguages.HeXianbin(2003)byanalyzingtheChinesetranslationofO.Henry’sTheLastLeaf,foundthereferenceandmeaningsofsomewordsareeasiertoidentify,thelogicalrelationsofsomesentencesareclearer,andthetranslationasawholeislessdifficulttoread,andobviouslymoreexplicit.KeFei(2005)alsoprovidedevidencetotheexplicitationhypothesisfromthedataofthelargescaleofcorporaheconstructed.HefoundthattranslationfromEnglishtoChinesecontainsmore‘imitativeexplicitation’,includingaddingnewwordsorfootnotes,ormakingrevisionofmeaningthatcanbeunderstoodbytargetreaders.HuKaibao(2008)analizesdatafromtheEnglish-Chineseparallelcorpusofconferenceinterpretationandfindsaprevailingtendencyofexplicitationinreporting“that”,nonfiniteconstruction“to”,discourselogicalrelationshipaswellas“this+noun”construction.Heattributesthesediscourse-levelexplicitationtotwomainmotivations:thedisparitybetweenlanguagesandtheinterpreters’perceptionoftheiraudience.3.2TheTypesandMotivationsforExplicitationThissectionisdevotedtothediscussionofthetypesofexplicitation.Scholars,such18 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008asKlaudyandHouse,haveidentifiedvariousaspectsthatexplicitationismade.3.2.1KlaudyKlaudy(1993,1998)providesacause-basedclassificationoftheexplicitationstrategy.AccordingtoKlaudy,explicitationisdividedintofourcategories:Obligatory:theexplicitationmotivatedbythedifferencesinthesyntacticandsemanticstructureoflanguages,withoutwhichthetargettextwillbeungrammatical.Forinstance,whentheEnglishterm‘threecars’istranslatedintoChinese,theequivalentshouldbe‘三辆车’.Noticethat‘辆liang’asaclassifierisinsertedtomaketheChinesetranslationgrammaticallycorrect,whilethiswordbelongstoaspecialsetofclassifiersthathasnoequivalentinEnglish.Optional:explicitationdictatedbydifferencesintext-buildingstrategiesandstylisticpreferencesbetweenlanguages.Examplesofthistypeincludethereplacementofthepronounwiththereferenceperson,theuseofrelativeclausesinsteadoflongnominalconstructions,etc.Pragmatic:thiscategoryistheclarificationofculturalinformation,bridgingtheculturalgapthatpreventsthetargetreaderstounderstandthesourceculture.Thiskindofexplicitationcanbeusuallyfoundinatranslation’sfootnotes,whereatranslatorprovidesextrainformationorexplanationofaspecificculturaltermthatmaydiscourageunderstandingofthetext.Translation-inherent:thistypeofexplicitationiscausedbythenatureofthetranslationprocessitself.However,wefindthistypeisvagueintermsofitsrepresentationintranslatedtext.Theinstanceshouldbeanylanguage-independenttranslationalactivitywhichislanguage-independent.Yet,fewofsuchexampleshavebeenindentifiedsofar.3.2.2HouseBasedonHalliday’smetafunction’stheory,Housedistinguishedthethreecategories19 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008oftranslationuniversalsinthediscourse:ideational,interpersonalandtextual.Shethusclaimed‘insystemicfunctionaltheorizing,itisatthis“deep”metafunctionalleveloflanguagethatwecansayuniversalityexists.Therefore,itisjustifiabletolookfortheinstancesofexplicitationinthe‘deepmetafunctionallevel’ofthetargettext.Sheviewsexplicitationasarepresentationofideationalmetafunctionundertheumbrellaof“optionallinguisticchoices”(showninFigure5).Figure5Houseframeworkofuniversalsintranslation20 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008ChapterFour:ExplicitationofLogicalRelationsbyAddingConnectives4.1TheUseofConnectivesintheChineseLanguageTheChineselanguageisconsideredasaparatacticlanguage,whichreliesoninformationwithinsentencestodevelopthoughts.ThelogicalrelationshipintheChinesecontexttendstobeconveyedinaparatacticway.Connectiveswillbeusedonlywhenitisnecessary.ThemarkerssignifyingthelogicalrelationsinChinesearenotasdefiniteasthoseinEnglish.‘InChinese,themarkersareonlythesurfacerepresentationofthelogicalrelations.Thissurfacerepresentation…canappearinthetextornot.’(Shen2001)‘Thelogicandcausalrelationshipbetweensentencescanbeinferredfromthecontextandthereforemanyconnectivescanbeomitted.ThisisthecharacteristicofChineselanguageandalsothecommonconsensusofmanyChineselanguagescholars.’(Liu1997,Si1996,Lu1980,citedfromChen2003)WillexplicitationexistgivenChinesebynaturetendstoexpressideasinamoreimplicitway?Ifnot,explicitationisnotatranslationuniversal.However,ifinstancesarefound,itwouldbeastrongcasetoarguethatexplicitationisahypothesizedtranslationuniversal.4.2ConnectivesAddedtoExplicitateLogicalRelationsThelogicalrelationhasbeenasubjectinmanystudiestotesttheexplicitationhypothesis(Hansen-Schirra,NeumannandSteiner2007,Shih2008.)Therealizationofthelogicalrelationsismainlythroughtheuseofconnectivesinthecontext,asBakernoted‘thetendencytomakethingsexplicitmaybeexpressedthroughtheuseoroveruseofexplanatoryvocabularyandconjunctions’(Baker1996).Therefore,ifinstancesofconnectiveswhicharenottranslateddirectlyfromthesourcetextare21 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008observedinthetargettext,itislikelythattheyareaddedtoexplicatetheimplicitlogicalrelationsinthesourcetext.Connectivesthatrefertoconjunctionsandtranslationalwordsarenormallyusedtosignifylogicalrelationsbetweentwoclauseswithinonesentenceorbetweentwosentences.Theresearchexaminesthreecommonclassesoflogicalconnectives,whicharecontrastive,causalandconditional.Webelieveinvestigationofthethreetypesofconnectivesismanageableinamountofdata,andcanprovidesufficientevidencefortheresearchgiventhelargeamountofdatawecollectedintheprocess.ClassesofConnectiveContrastiveEnglishChinesebut,yetDanshi(但是),dan(但),keshi(可是),ran’er(然而),que(却)Causalbecause,therefore,so,for,yinwei(因为),suoyi(所since,thus,argal,asif,an以),yinci(因此)ConditionalRuguo(如果),yaoshi(要是),ruo(若)Table2ConnectivesasresearchsubjectsWeuseACWTtoidentifyallthepossibleChineseconnectivesforitsEnglishequivalentsandcomeupwithmanyvariationsforeachclass(showninTable2).NowweknowwhatkindofconnectivesusedinbothSTandTT,butwedonotknowwhetherallChineseconnectivescanfindtheirequivalentsinST.SinceACWTdoesnothavetheparallelfunction,wehavetoresorttoParaConctoexamineinaparallelwaysothatwecangettoknowthecorrespondencebetweenChineseconnectivesandtheirEnglishcounterpartsinthecontext.Ifnocorrespondenceisfound,thenitisprobablyaninstanceofexplicitation.4.3AnalysisoftheDatafromtheParallelCorpusofShakespeare’sPlays4.3.1UsingParaConctoIdentifyExplicitatedConnectivesInthepreviouschapter,wehaveintroducedthepowerfulcorpussoftwareParaConcanditsapplication.HerewewouldtakeafurtheranddeeperlookintohowdataisgeneratedspecificallyfromtheEnglish-ChineseParallelCorpusofShakespeare’s22 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Playsfortheuseofthisresearch.SincethepurposeoftheresearchistoidentifytheexplicitatedconnectivesintheChinesetranslationsandprobeintothecauseforthephenomenon,thesearchsubjectisconnectivesinZhu’sandLiang’stranslations.Tofindoutwhichconnectivesaretheproductsofexplicitationandwhicharethedirecttranslationsfromtheoriginaltext,thereareanumberofwaystofollow.Wearegoingtotake‘yinwei’(因为)asanexampletodemonstratehowthedataiscollected.Sincetherearetwoversionsoftranslation,wewillseparatelysearchqueriesineachversionandthencombinetheresultstoconductcomparativeanalysis.First,afterloadingthesourcetextandLiang’stranslationintoParaConc,wesearch‘因为’inLiang’stextandobtaintheresultshowninfigure6.Thetotaltokenindicatedbythesoftware5is40.Figure6ConcordanceddisplayofsearchedkeywordsinParaConcNoticethatthecorrespondingkeywordsfor‘因为’inthelowpaneofKWICwindow5Bydisplayingthelinenumbersofthetext,wecaneasilytracethetokenofthewordswesearch.AndthisnumberisnotthefinaltokenbecausepossiblecombinationofthesameChinesecharacterscanformthesamewordformationasthesearchquerywearelookingfor,buthasadifferentmeaningandfunction.23 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008arenothighlighted,wehavetousethe‘HotWords’function6inordertobringupthepotentialcollocates.Rightclickinthelowpaneandthenpopupthedialogueboxlikefigure7:Figure7“HotWord”functioninParaConcThehotwordroughlyshowsthepossiblecorrespondingmatchfor‘因为’basedonwordcounts.Inaddition,itcorrectlyprovidesthematch-‘because’and‘for’.Byclicking‘ok’,weautomaticallyhaveallthecollocates-‘because’and‘for’-highlightedasshowninfigure8:6Asitisnotedinchapter2,thisfunctionisnotcompletelyreliable.Sometimesthehotwordutilitycannotpickupthedesiredkeywordsasexpected.Inthiscase,wehavetoresorttosearchqueryutilityandmanualsorting.24 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Figure8ParalleldisplayofsearchedkeywordanditscolocateshighlightedinlowerpaneTheresults,however,arenotthecompletepictureofthepossibletranslationof‘因为’whichcouldhavemorecorrespondingwordslike‘since’.Inordertoexhaustotherpossiblealternativetranslations,wecanuse‘SearchQuery’utilitytokeyinthewordsthatmightbethepotentialcandidatefor‘因为’.Thuswesimplyrightclickonthelowerpaneandselect‘searchquery’andenterthewordswewanttolocate.Inthiscase,wearetryingtofind‘yet’,‘however’,‘nevertheless’.Afterallthealternativecollocatesareidentified,wecanselecttheKWICdisplayformatinthelowerpanesoastohaveabetterviewofthem,shownasfigure9.25 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Figure9ConcrodanceddisplayofkeywordcolocatesinlowerpaneAfteralltheefforts,manualcountingisstillindispensibleinordertocompensateforthelimitationsofthesoftwareandyieldthemostprecisedata.Ifacorrespondingconcordanceof‘因为’doesnothaveanywordshighlighted,theuseof‘因为’isthenconsideredtobethetranslator’sexplicitationstrategy,asshowninFigure10.Figure10Thesentencewithsearchedworkkeyanditshighlightedequivalent4.3.2StatisticsfromtheParallelCorpusThefollowingtablesarethedataofconnectivesinthetwotranslationsandtheirSTcollocatesretrievedfromtheparallelcorpusbyusingthefunctionalityofHotWordandSearchQueryinParaConc.26 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,20084.3.2.1CausalConnectivesCausalEquivalentsTotalExplicitationBECAUSEFOR2694SINCETHEREFORESO1ARGAL7THUSToken因为所以因此251820012014137123017661023952200011Table3CasualConnectivesinLiang'sTranslationandtheircorrespondingequivalentsinthesourcetextCausalEquivalentsTotalToken461ExplicitationBECAUSEFOR27222SINCETHEREFORESO5ARGALTHUS因为所以因此291183237960308311065766174030016Table4CasualConnectivesinZhu'sTranslationandtheircorrespondingmatchesinthesourcetextInChinese,‘yinwei’and‘suoyi’areusuallyusedinpairstoindicatethecasualrelationship.Suchconnectivesarecorrelativeconjunctions.‘Suoyi’,however,itselfcanalsobeusedindependentlymeaning‘therefore’and‘so’inEnglish.Asaresult,allthe‘suoyi’thatcomeinpairwith‘yinwei’mustbeeliminatedmanuallyfromtheParaConcresultinordertoreflecttheaccuratecountsofexplicitatedcausalrelationshipintheChinesetranslations.Alltheconnectivesinthesetablesarestand-aloneconnectives,beitindicativesofinter-sententialorintra-sententialrelationships.Wecannowusethetotaltokentosubtractthesumoftheequivalents,andtheresultisthenumberofinstancesofexplicitation,sincetheydonothaveanyequivalentinthesourcetext.Fromthetable3,weseethat66[379-(25+269+8+1+1+1+8)]of“yinwei”donothaveequivalentsinsourcetext,whichis17.4%oftotaltoken.Thenumbersfor7Argal:therefore;usedfacetiouslytoindicatethatthereasoningthathadgonebeforeortheconclusionthatfollowsisspeciousorabsurd.BasedontheRandomHouseUnabridgedDictionary,©RandomHouse,Inc.2006.27 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008“suoyi”and“yinci”are102and3respectively.Aninterestingfactisthatthepercentageof“suoyi”issignificantlylargerthanthatof“yinwei”evenwhenthelatteronehasalargertoken.ItindicatesthattheexplicitationofcasualrelationshipinLiang’sismoreextensivelyachievedbyaddingconnective“suoyi”.Zhu’stranslation,ontheotherhand,hasverydifferentpattern.Intable4,wefoundthatZhutendstouse“yinwei”morefrequentlythanLiang.106instancesof“yinwei”asresultsofexplicitationarefoundinZhu’s.TheexplicitationofthecasualrelationshipinZhu’sislargelyrealizedbytheuseofconnective“yinwei”.MoreinterestingisthatinZhu’stranslation,“yinwei”,beinganindicatortothecause,canbetracedbackto“therefore”,“so”andeven“thus”intheST,whichnormallyintroducestheend-resultofthecauseinacasualrelationship.ThisrenditionisrarelyfoundinLiang’stranslation.Bycomparison,Zhu’streatmentseemstobemoreflexiblethanLiang’sis.4.3.2.2ContrastiveConnectivesContrastiveEquivalentsTotalTokenExplicitationBUT26885YET35634但是可是然而却3171617141312462113972Table5ContrastiveconnectivesinLiang'stranslationandtheirequivalentsinthesourcetextContrastiveEquivalentsTotalTokenExplicitationBUT67YET9但是可是然而却859374489154177825320209136Table6ContrastiveconnectivesinZhu'stranslationandtheirequivalentsinthesourcetext28 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Table5and6showstheEnglishequivalentsofChinesecontrastiveconnectivesinLiang’sandZhu’srespectively.‘Danshi’and‘keshi’canbeliterallyunderstoodas‘but’or‘yet’inEnglish.‘ran’er’ismorefrequentlytranslatedinto‘however’or‘nevertheless’.However,wefailtolocateanyinstanceof‘however’and‘nevertheless’inShakespeare’splays.InChinese,though,thesewordsareusuallyinterchangeablyusedtoexpresstheadversativerelationshipincontext.Therefore,itisthewriterortranslator’spreferencestouseanyoneofthemtoconveyanadversativetransition.BycomparingTable5and6,wenoticethatthetwotranslatorshaveverydistinctiveindividualpreferencetousecontrastiveconnectives.Lianguses317“danshi”comparedtoZhu’s85,whileZhuemploysatotalof541“keshi”comparedtoLiang’s161.Zhualsoprefers“que”withatotalof209,almosttwiceasmuchasLiangdoes.4.3.2.3ConditionalConnectivesConditionalEquivalentsTotalTokeninLiang’sExplicitationtokenIFAN395WHEN如果假如要是若15752482840272296529868125633101Table7ConditionalconnectivesinLiang'stranslationandtheirequivalentsinthesourcetextConditionalConnectivesinZhu'sTranslationandtheircorrespondingmatchesinthesourcetext29 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008ConditionalEquivalentsTotalTokeninZhu’sExplicitationtokenIFWHENAN6如果假如要是若841731940107231751022023052081564Table8ConditionalconnectivesinZhu'stranslationandtheirequivalentsinthesourcetextInShakespeare’sworks,‘an’isconstantlyusedasavariationto‘if’.AccordingtotheRandomHouseUnabridgedDictionary8,thearchaicmeaningof‘an’isalsoconfirmedas‘if’.Fromtable7and8,wecanobservethatLiangtendstouse“ruguo”withatokenof229and“ruo”withanamountof101,whileZhuhighlyprefers“yaoshi”withatokenof520toexpresstheconditionalrelationship.Theoccurrencesofexplicitationof“yaoshi”alsoaccountsforalargeproportionwith156withouthavinganyequivalentsinST.ThemostsignificantsamplesofexplicitationoftheconditionalrelationinLiang’saretheinstancesof“ruo”withanexplicitationtokenof63comparedtotheonly4inZhu’s.4.4ComparisonInordertobetterreflecttheresultsfromthepreviousfigures,weputtheexplicitationfrequencyofeachconnectiveinZhu’sandlaing’stranslationsidebysideforcomparison:8©RandomHouse,Inc.2006.30 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008ConnectivesParallelCorpusofShakespeare’sPlaysCasualVersionsOveralltokenOccurrencesofPercentageExplicitationYinwei因为Suoyi所以Yinci因此Liang’sZhu’s379461232174176610610257317.4%23.0%44.0%32.8%17.6%37.5%Liang’sZhu’sLiang’sZhu’s166Table9ExplicitatedcasualconnectivesinbothtranslationsTable9showsthedifferentpatternofchoicesmadebytwotranslatorstoachievetheexplicitationofcasualrelation.Liangtendstorevealtheresultofacasualrelationshipwithaheavieruseof“suoyi”(44%againstZhu’s32.8%),whileZhupreferstointroducethecausewithamorefrequentuseof“yinwei”(23%vs.Liang’s17.4%)“Yinci”,beinganothermarkertointroducetheresult,seesalargerpercentageofexplicitationinstancesinZhu’sthaninLiang’s.However,givenitsrelativelysmalltoken,itshigherexplicitationpercentageinZhu’scannotcompensateforthefactthatZhuismoreinclinedtoemphasizethecauseincasualrelationshipwhenhetranslates.31 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008ConnectivesParallelCorpusofShakespeare’sPlaysConditionalversionsOveralltokenOccurrencesofPercentageExplicitationRuguo如果Yaoshi要是Jiaru假如Ruo若Liang’sZhu’s22910781291725156812.7%15.9%30.9%30.0%12.3%21.7%62.4%50.0%Liang’sZhu’s52065Liang’sZhu’s235Liang’sZhu’s1018634Table10ExplicitatedconditionalconnectivesinbothtranslationsFromtable10,wealsoseegreatdisparityinthechoiceofconditionalconnectives.Liangtendstouse“ruoguo”and“ruo”muchmoreoftenthanZhu,whileZhuprefers“yaoshi”,whichhasagrossof520intotal.Thislargeamountof“yaoshi”alsocontainsrelativelyabignumberofexplicitness,about156instancesfoundtobetheresultofexplicitation.ConnectivesParallelCorpusofShakespeare’sPlaysContrastiveversionsOveralltokenOccurrencesofPercentageExplicitationDanshi但是Keshi可是Raner然而Que却Liang’sZhu’s317851494.4%10.6%8.1%Liang’sZhu’s16154171378114.4%14.3%28.6%51.8%55.7%Liang’sZhu’s72Liang’sZhu’s13926472147Table11Explicitatedcontrastiveconnectivesinbothtranslations32 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Asforthecontrastiveconnectives,thereareonemajordifferenceintheexplicitationratebetweenthetwotranslatorsshowninTable11:percentagesofexplicitationforconnectives“danshi”,“keshi”and“ran’er”inZhu’sareoveroralmosttwicehigherthanthoseinLiang’s.Insum,ZhuhasamuchstrongertendencytoexplicitationthanLiangintermsofrecoveringthecontrastiverelationsintheST.Theaveragepercentageofexplicitnessoflogicalconnections:Liang:26.3%29.6%19.6%Zhu:Casual:31.1%29.4%27.4%Conditional:Contrastive:Table12Wefurtherconsolidatedallthedatawegetandmadeasimplecomparisontableabove.Table12showstheexplicitationpercentageofthreekindsoflogicalrelationsinLiang’sandZhu’s.Despitetheconditionalrelation,ofwhichtwoexplicitationratesareveryclosetoeachotherwithonlyadisparityof0.2%,explicitationtendencyinZhu’stranslationishigherthanLiang’sintermsoftheothertwocategoriesofconnectives.Thefollowingtableexhibitstheoverallpercentageofconnectivesthataretheresultsofexplicitation:OveralloccurrencesLiang’stranslationZhu’stranslationTotalnumberofconnectives917283961738587NumbersofconnectivesofexplicitnessPercentage22.8%33.8%Table13Thetotalnumberofthethreetypesofconnectivesisaround1730inbothLiang’sandZhu’stranslations.ThefiguresinTable13testifytotheobservationofthestrongertendencyofexplicitationinZhu’swith11%moreconnectivesresultedfrom9Herethefigurereferstothesumofallthethreetypesofconnectivesexaminedinpresentthesis.33 M.A.Thesisexplicitation.4.5SummaryShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Thefollowingconclusioncanbedrawnfromtheobservationandthedatapresentedabove:Explicitationdoesexist,regardlessoftranslators.WeselectthemostcommonChineseconnectivesineachcategoryoflogicalrelationshipsinbothtranslationsandeveryconnectivecontainsinstanceswithoutanyequivalentintheST.Thismeansthattheyaretheproductsofexplicitation.Table13illustratesthetendencyofexplicitationinbothofLiang’sandZhu’stranslations,despitethefactthatthedegreeofthetendencyineachtranslationisdifferent.Thedegreeofexplicitationoflogicalrelationsbytheuseofconnectivesvariedamongdifferenttypesofrelations.Table9,10and11exemplifythatpercentageofexplicitationvariedbetweendifferentconnectives.Theexplicitationofthesametypeoflogicalrelationscanberealizedbyaddingdifferentconnectives.Totakecasualrelationasanexample,.manyofthisimplicitrelationinLiang’stranslationisexplicitatedbyadding“suoyi”,aconnectivetorevealcasualresult.Zhu’stranslation,meanwhile,explicitatedmanyoftheimplicitcasualrelationsthroughadding“yinwei”,amarkerindicatingthecause.Thedegreeofexplicitationoflogicalrelationsbytheuseofconnectivesalsovariedbetweenthetwodifferenttranslators.FromTable12,wecanconcludethatLiangandZhumakedifferentdecisionsonwhereitisappropriatetoapplytheexplicitationstrategytoimplicitlogicalrelationshipintheSTcontext.Bycomparison,ZhutendstoleverageexplicitationmoreoftenthanLiangdoesintermsofcasualandcontrastiverelations.Asforconditionalrelations,bothtranslatorsseemstobeatthesamelevelofabout29%,butfromtable10,westillseedifferencesbetweentheconnectivesthattwotranslatorsemploytoexplicitatetheimplicitness.34 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008ChapterFive:TheMotivationsforExplicitationAfteryearsofstudyofexplicitation,scholarsandtranslationtheoristsarestillstrugglingtojustifyitscause,whichmaysupportoroverthrowthehypothesisthatexplicitationisarepresentationoftranslationuniversals.CurrentscholarssuchasGabySaldanhahaveacknowledgedthepossibilityofsubconsciousprocessofexplicitation,buttheexplanationmayhavetoengagepsycholinguistics,whichisafieldthatnotmanytranslationtheoristsexplore.Employingpsycho-analysisapproachesintheinvestigationmightbeawayouttobetterunderstandthedeepstructureofsubconsciouslevelofprocessing,yetareweexhaustedbyusingthecurrentmeansavailabletoseebeyondexplicitation?Probablynotso.Infact,thiscomparableresearchbydiggingdeepintothedatageneratedbytheuseofthecorpuscanbeagoodstartingpointtofindthepossiblecauseofexplicitation.Asitisstatedinchapter3,theChineselanguageasaparatacticlanguageisbynaturemoreimplicitandsubtlethanEnglishinmanyaspectsincludingexpressionoflogicalrelations.Thisempiricalstudycanleadustouncoverthemotivationofexplicitationinthetranslationprocess.DatawecollectfromthecorpusshowthattheexplicitationoflogicalrelationsisofdifferentpatternsintwotranslationsofShakespeare’splays.Insomeplaces,bothofthemresorttotheexplicitationstrategybyaddingconnectivestorevealtheimplicitrelations.Inothercases,explicitationisobservedinonetranslationbutnotanother.Weindentifythevariablesthatcaninfluencethetranslationprocess.Weproposethattheinfluencecomesfromtwosources:oneisfromthelinguisticdisparityandtheotherderivedfrommeta-situationalfactors.Fromthedatageneratedfromthecorpus,wecanputthesamplesofexplicitnessintotwogroups:ExplicitationbyaddingconnectivesbybothtranslatorsforthesameplaceintheST;Explicitationbyaddingconnectivesinoneoftranslators’workbutnotintheother.Thetwogroupsrespectivelycorrespondtotwosourcesofmotivationspresentedas35 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008follow:5.1LinguisticMotivation5.1.1ExplicitationTriggeredbySemanticRequirementTranslators,inthefirstplacearethereadersoftheST.Therefore,readerswithasamemother-tonguelanguagewillhaveasimilarexpectationorperceptionoftheST.Theexpectationorperceptionisgovernedbytheculture,conventionofthelanguageandsocialenvironment.TheseconventionsornormswillbereflectedinthetranslationsproducedbythetranslatorsgiventheirroleasreadersoftheST.Morespecifically,theseconventionsareverylikelyreflectedinthesemanticlevelofthetranslatedtexts.Logicalcohesionisasemanticrelationshipbetweentwoormoresentencesinatext.Theselogicalrelationshipsarerealizedbydifferentconnectivesthatlink,forinstance,asentencetowhathasbeenmentionedbeforeinthetext.Insum,explicitationbyaddingconnectivesmayoccurwhenlogicalrelationsintheSTdonotconformtothesemanticconventionsoftheTT.[1]AndereItakethischarmofffromhersight,AsIcantakeitwithanotherherb,I’llmakeherrenderupherpagetome.(fromAMidsummerNight'sDream)Liang:我另有一种药草可以解除她的魔崇,但是我要让她先把小童给我.Zhu:我可以用另一种草解去这种魔力，但第一我先要叫她把那个孩子让给我.[2]Lear.Whenweareborn,wecrythatwearecomeTothisgreatstageoffools.This'agoodblock!Liang:李我们一生出来，我们便哭，因为我们来到了这个群丑的台上。这是一顶样式很好的毡帽。(fromKingLear)Zhu:李尔当我们生下地来的时候，我们因为来到了这个全是些傻瓜的广大的舞台之上，所以禁不住放声大哭。这顶帽子的式样很不错！36 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008[3]ThejuiceofitonsleepingeyelidslaidWillmakeormanorwomanmadlydoteUponthenextlivecreaturethatitsees.(fromAMidsummerNight'sDream)Liang:从那花里提出的汁浆,若是点在睡着的人的眼皮上,无论是男是女,睁开眼就会疯狂的爱上它所看见的第一个人。Zhu:它的汁液如果滴在睡着的人的眼皮上，无论男女，醒来一眼看见什么生物，都会发疯似的对它恋爱。TheaboveexamplesdemonstratetheexplicitnessintheChinesetranslationsbyaddingconnectives.SincethetwotranslatorsresorttothesamestrategyforthesameplaceintheST,wecansafelyassumethatthiskindofexplicitnessisnecessaryinthetargettextduetotheimplicitnessobservedintheSTandthemotivationishighlyrelatedtosemanticnecessity.Inexample[1],thelogicalrelationsinthecontextismainlyrevealedbytwodistinguishedconnectives‘ere’(meaning‘before’or‘priorto’)and‘as’(meaning‘since’).Thedecipheringofthisrelation,however,isnotentirelyunproblematic.IfwetranslatedthesentenceliterallyintoChinese,itmaylooklikethefollowing(mytranslation):因为[as]我可以用另外一种药草，（所以）在我解除她的魔崇之前[ere],我要让她先把小童给我。Inthisversion,Ireservedbothconnectives‘as’and‘ere’tocompletelyalignwiththesourcetext,respectivelyrepresentingcasualandtemporalrelationsinthecontext.Butwhywouldthetwotranslatorsapplythesamestrategyofadditionofaadversativeconnectiveof‘但(是)’,thusalteringthelogicalrelationstocontrastive?Thisrenditionisinfactaninstanceofenhancementofexplicitness(House2004)whichembellishesorqualifiestheclausebyusinglogicalrelationshipelement.Bearingthisinmind,wecannowcometoonejustificationthatthepurposeofaddingthecontrastiveconnectiveistostreamlineandspecifythelogicalconnectionbetweentheclauses.ThisstrategygreatlyconformstothenormofChineselinguisticstylewhichvalues‘simplicity’aswellastheparatacticnatureofthelanguage.37 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Example[2]showcasestheconstraintsonsyntacticstructureofthetwolanguages.Thesourcetextcovertlycontainsthecasualrelationbetween‘cry’and‘cometothegreatstageoffools’byusingtheword‘that’.‘That’constructionisaspeciallanguagefeaturethatcannotfindcorrespondenceinChineselanguage.Inmostcases,‘that’isfollowingverbalprocessestointroducethereportedclauseinEnglish.This‘that’constructioncannotbetranslatedsinceitismoreofagrammaticalindicatorinthesyntacticstructureratherthananactualmeaningfulconnective.‘That’heresignifiesacasualrelationinthediscoursewhichcannotbeoverlooked,foritstrictlylinkthetwoactions‘cry’and‘cometothestage’together.Translatorisobligedtorevealthisrelationshipinordertobettermaintainthecohesionofthesentence.Therenditionhere,asaresult,isalsoacaseofenhancementtoclarifythehiddenmeaninginthesourcecontext.ThesemanticmeaningrecoveryinTTisrelatedtoatranslator’sconceptionofthetextanditsmeaning.Yet,incertainwaysitalsodealswithatranslator’sperceptionofthereadersandhis/herpersonalpreferences(Baker2004)andhis/herhabitualfeelingforthenecessityofdoingitforthesakeofreaders.HereIwouldnotgofurtherintothediscussionaboutthis,sinceitisexploredlaterinthemeta-situationalsource.5.1.2ExplicitationTriggeredbyGrammaticalConstraintsInChapter3,weintroducethetypologyofexplicitationformulatedbyvariousscholars,amongwhomKlaudy’sobligatorycategorycanalsobeviewedasacauseofthiskindofexplicitationitself.Obligatoryexplicitationislargelydictatedbygrammaticaldisparitiesoflanguagestructure.[4]Weretheworldmine,Demetriusbeingbated,TherestI’dgivetobetoyoutranslated.O!(fromAMidsummerNight'sDream)Liang:如果世界属于我,地美特利阿斯出外,我愿完全放弃,只要能变成你的姿态。啊!Zhu:你那柔美的旋律.要是除了狄米特律斯之外，整个世界都是属于38 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008我所有，我愿意把一切捐弃，但求化身为你。[5]Cor.Hadyounotbeentheirfather,thesewhiteflakesHadchalleng'dpityofthem.(fromKingLear)Liang:考纵然你不是她们的父亲，这一片须发斑白也该引出她们的怜悯。Zhu:考狄利娅假如你不是她们的父亲，这满头的白雪也该引起她们的怜悯。ThetwoexamplesaboveshowcasehowgrammaticalconstructionleadstoexplicitationinTT.Adistinctfeatureoftheabovesourcetextistheuseofsubjunctivemood,agrammaticalformofverbsimplyinghypotheticalactionorcondition.Innormalcases,thesubjunctiveisusedafter“if”inacounterfactualcondition.Thetwosentencespresentedhere,however,achievethesameeffectbyomitting“if”andinvertingtheverbandsubject.Chineselanguagedoesnothavesuchkindofinversionconstruction,soaddingconnectivesistheonlywaytoretrievethesamelogicalmeaningintranslation.IfconnectivesareaddedintheTT,thetranslationwouldcauseconfusionandthelogicalrelationshipbetweentheclausesseemsunintelligible.Theexplicitationoftheseconnectivesfallsintothecategoryofobligatoryexplicitation,whichistriggeredbythedifferencesinthesyntacticandsemanticstructureoflanguages.5.2Meta-situationalMotivationBycomparison,Zhu’sandLiang’stranslationsdepartinmanyareas,includingtranslationpurposes,translationstrategies,etc.AccordingtoLefevere(2004),“Differencesintranslationscangenerallybeaccountedforbythreebasicfactorsintranslating:(1)natureofthemessage,(2)thepurposeorpurposesoftheauthorandbyproxy,ofthetranslator,and(3)thetypeofaudience.”Toidentifyfactorsinfluencingexplicitationacrossdiscourse,non-linguisticfactorsshouldbetakenintoaccount.Thesefactorsincludetranslatorvariables,situationalvariablesandtranslation-task39 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008variables(House2004:203).Saldanha(2008)arguesthat,inordertohaveacomprehensiveunderstandingofexplicitationintranslation,onehasto‘digdeeperintotranslators’motivations’forusingitasastrategy.Shefurtherproposesthatweneedtolookat‘thediverseapproachestakenbythetranslatorsworkinginsimilarconditionsandwiththesamelanguagetounderstandtherationalebehindtheirdecision.Inthepresentstudy,a‘similarcondition’isactuallycreatedbycomparingthetwotranslationsofthesamesourcetext.Herewegroupallthefactors,whichhavelittletodowiththetranslationprocessandlinguisticconventionsintoacategorycalledmeta-situationalfactors.Thesefactorsmeanthateverythingrelatedtothetranslatorandthesituationinwhichhe/shecarriedouthis/herwork,suchashis/herpurposeoftranslating,his/herconceptionofthereadership,his/herskill-set,eventhepaymenthe/shereceives.Theinstancesofexplicitationwearelookingataretheuseofconnectivestoexplicitatelogicalrelationshipinthesourcetext.Therefore,atranslator’sunderstandingofthesourcetextplaysaprimaryroleindetermininghis/herchoiceofstrategy.However,theirthinkingprocesshasbeenconsolidatedintothetranslationproductandcannotberetrievedunlessbyconductinginterviewinpersonorreviewingoftheirdiary,biographyetc.Wearecertainlygoingtolookatsomedocumentswhichwemayfindtracestotheirmotivationofusingdifferentstrategies,butinfact,whatisparticularlyinterestingisthatthisstudyempowersustoseehowdifferenttranslatorshandlethesamesourcetextbyoptingfordifferentstrategies.Bycomparison,wecanseethedifferencesbetweenthetwotranslators’behavior,whichthusenablesustoanalyzeandfindthecausebehindthem.Thestudyfocusesonconnectivesinusetoexpresslogicalrelationships.Eitherauthorortranslatortousethemtoachievecohesionandcreatetextualunity(Bell1991).Toornottoexplicatethepotentialcohesiverelationshipisadecisionmadebythetranslatorhavebettercohesionfortheirintendedreadership.Standingfromthispoint,weseetherelevancetheoryisfittoexplorethemotivationstriggeringtranslators’choices.40 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,20085.2.1Translator’sAimatOptimalRelevanceRelevancetheorypointsoutthathumancommunicationcreatesanexpectationofoptimalrelevance:‘anassumptionisrelevantinacontextifandonlyifithassomecontextualeffectsinthatcontext’(SperberandWilson1986:122).However,relevanceisamatterofdegree,andhavingcontextualeffectsisnotsufficientforoptimalrelevance.AccordingtoSperberandWilson,twoconditionshavetobefulfilled:thecontextualeffectshavetobelargeandtheprocessingeffortrequiredsmall(SperberandWilson1986:125).Theprincipletheyproposeisasfollow:Inaimingatrelevance,thespeakermustmakesomeassumptionsaboutthehearer’scognitiveabilitiesandcontextualresources,whichwillnecessarilybereflectedinthewayshecommunicates,andinparticularinwhatshechoosestomakeexplicitandwhatshechoosestoleaveimplicit.(SperberandWilson1986:218)Thefindingthatthedegreeofexplicitationoflogicalrelationsbytheuseofconnectivesalsovariedbetweenthetwodifferenttranslatorscanbeattributedtothesubjectivityofthetranslatorsaimingattherelevance.[6]Guil.Happyinthatwearenotoverhappy;OnFortune'scapwearenottheverybutton.(FromHamlet)Liang:吉我们倒还快乐，可是也不太快乐；我们不是幸运之神的帽上的顶结。Zhu:吉尔登斯吞无荣无辱便是我们的幸福；我们高不到命运女神帽子上的钮扣。Intheaboveexample,Liangchoosestorecovertheadversativerelationinthesentence.Clearly,thewords‘happy’and‘notoverhappy’indicateacertainkindofcontrasthere,andnaturally,therelationcanbeconsideredimplicit.Zhu,ontheotherhand,rendersthesentencewithoutaddinganymarker,thusnotreconstructinganylogicalrelationshipandgoingfarfromtheoriginalmeaninghere.[7]ItisnotmadnessThatIhaveutter'd:bringmetothetest,AndIthematterwillre-word,whichmadnessWouldgambolfrom.41 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Liang:我所说的并不是疯话;你不妨试验我,我能再重复的说一遍,疯子怕就说不出了。Zhu:我所说的并不是疯话;要是您不信,不妨试试,我可以把话一字不漏地复述一遍,一个疯人是不会记忆得那样清楚的。Inexample[7],Zhudecidedtoadd‘要是您不信’tolinkthetwoclausesforbettercohesion,whileLiangstrictlyfollowsthesourcetextandleavesthemessageimplicit.Thepremiseof‘bringmetothetest’isthatthehearerdoesnotbelievethespeaker,forhiswordssoundlike‘madness’.Thereisclearlyahiddenconditionalrelationshipinthecontext.Yet,basedonrelevancetheory,itisthespeaker’s(hereisthetranslators’)choicetomakethedecisioninordertoachievetheoptimalconditioninconveyingthemeaningtoreaders.[8]Lion.You,ladies,you,whosegentleheartsdofearThesmallestmonstrousmousethatcreepsonfloor,Maynowperchancebothquakeandtremblehere,Whenlionroughinwildestragedothroar.(fromAMidsummer-Night'sDream)Liang:狮走，现在也许要吓得发抖打战,因为我这粗野的狮子要放声狂吼。Zhu:狮子夫人们，你们的嫩的心灵怕看一只顶小的老鼠在地板上爬各位太太小姐们，你们那柔弱的心一见了地板上爬着的一头顶小的老鼠就会害怕，现在看见一头凶暴的狮子发狂地怒吼，多少要发起抖来吧。[9]Allforyourdelight,Wearenothere.(fromAMidsummerNight'sDream)Liang:使你们开心，我们不到这里来。Zhu:到这儿来，如果咱们惹动列位气恼。[10]Ithinkscorntosigh:methinksIshouldoutswearCupid.(FromLove'sLaboursLost)Liang:我不屑于唉声叹气：我想我应该弃绝邱彼德。Zhu:我不屑于叹气，但是在骂誓这点上，丘匹德见了我也得甘拜下风。Example[8][9]and[10]alsodemonstratesthatthetwotranslatormayhavedifferent42 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008opinionsonthelogicalrelationsoftheoriginaltext.Therefore,oneofthemmayuseexplicitationstrategywhiletheotheronestickstotheoriginaltext.Thehiddenlogicalrelationofthesourcetextinexample[8]isnotstrongenough,soaddingaconnectiveornotiseitherfineinthetargettextanditwillnotimpacttheunderstandingofit.In[9]and[10],itismorecontroversialtoaddaconnectivesincetheclear-cutlogicalconnectionissoweakthattheactualimplicationmaynotevenexist.Thisislargelydependentontranslators’ownpreferenceorperceptionaboutwhetherthereexistsimplicitnessandthenecessitytoexplicitateit.Thisperceptionishighlylinkedtoatranslator’spersonalthinking,whichwehardlyhaveaccessto.Hereweencountertheceilingofmovingforwardtoexplaintheexplicitationtendency.Nonetheless,whenweassociatethepatternsofexplicitationwiththetranslators’ownpurposesandconceptionofreadership,itisplausibletoexplainexplicitnessasaproductfromtheaudiencedesign(Mason2000).5.2.2Translator’sConceptionofReadershipItisofdifficultytoexplaintherationalewithoutcomingtothedirectcontactwiththetranslator.Bylookingattranslator’sownwritingabouttranslationandinterviewswithhertargettranslators,Saldanhacarriedoutdetailedanalysisofthetranslators’position,andthenconcludedthatexplicitnesscanbeexplainedbytheconceptofaudiencedesign.Thebasictenetofaudiencedesignisthatstyleisorientedtopeople(aresponsetoanaudience)ratherthanfunctions(Bell1991).ApplyingBell’snotiontotranslationasanextensionofskopostheory,Masonpostulatesthat:…inmanycases,accordingtotheirskopos10,translatorswillwishtheiroutputtoconformtotheexpectationsofusersandtobeacceptedasviableinstancesoftheestablishedpracticesofthetargetculture.Inothers…itistheelementofsourcelanguageculturalandsocio-textualpracticeswhichthetranslationskoposseekstopreserve.(Mason2000:18)10Theskoposcanbesaidtovaryaccordingtotherecipient(Reiss&Vermeer,1984.quotedfromBell)43 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008WeacknowledgethatbothLiangandZhupayattentiontotheacceptanceandunderstandingoftheirtranslationbythereaders.Onmentioningthebasicprinciplesheadheredtoduringthetranslation,Liangsaid‘Ialwayswantedtoraisereader’sinterestinShakespeare’soriginalplays.’11（Liang1981：18）ZhumentionedinhisforewordoftheShakespeare’splayscollectionthat‘ifthiscollectioncanbepublished,thegreatnessofthispoet(Shakespeare)willbeappreciatedbyChinesereaders.Thenmyeffortoftranslatingisworthwhile.’12（quotedfromWuMinjie1990：263）ZhualsowantedtobringShakespeare’splaystotheChinesestageinthattime.ZhuSenghao’sbrotherZhuWenzhengsuggestedthatthetranslationshouldconformtotheformoftheoriginaltextasmuchaspossibletopreservetheoriginalflavor(QuotedfromWuMinjie:1990).ZhuShenghaoagreed,buthealsomadeitclearthathistranslationwillbeeasytounderstandandcanbeadaptedforstageperformance.Hethoughtthathistimerarelysawanyhigh-qualityChineseplaysonstage,andtheoneaspectofthegreatnessofShakespeare’splayswasthatitcanbeplayedonthestage.(Wu1990)Fromtheirquotes,wecanincludethatthegeneralpurposeofbothtranslatorsistointroduceShakespeare’splaystoChinesereaders.Theirspecificreaderships,however,aredifferent.LiangwasmoreinclinedtotranslatingforaneducatedreadershipthatmayalsobepreparedtoreadtheEnglishoriginal.Beforeconcreteexamplesarepresentedtoillustratethepointhere,Iwouldliketodrawyourattentiontoanimportantfindingthatthefollowinganalysiswillbebasedon.Sincethisresearchfocusesonlogicalconnectives,amongallthedifferenttypesofconnectiveswehaveexaminedsofar,notallconnectivescanreallyboosttheunderstandingoftext,orsomeconnectivesmayserveasornamentinthesentencestoachievestylisticorrhythmicaleffects.Intheexperimentofinvestigatingwhetherconnectivescanfacilitatethereadingprocess,LorchandO’Brien(1995)examinedtheextenttowhichthethreeclassesofconnectives(casual,adversative,andadditive)affectlocalcoherence.Theyfoundthatconnectivesonlydecreasethetimespentinreadingwhenthatsentenceisadversativelyrelatedtothefirstsentence;when11Itisauthor’stranslation,theoriginaltextisasfollow:“我翻译莎士比亚，旨在引起读者对原文的兴趣。”12Itisauthor’stranslation,theoriginaltextisasfollow:“倘因此集之出版，使此大诗人之作品，得以普及中国读者之间，则译者之劳力，庶几不为虚掷矣。”44 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008sentencerelationswereadditiveorcasualinnature,‘thepresenceofconnectivesoffersnoreadingtimeadvantageandperhapsaslightprocessingliability.’(LorchandO’Brien:1995)Fromthedatageneratedfromtheparallelcorpus,wefindaninterestingfactthattheexplicitationofcasualandconditionalrelationshipsbyaddingcorrespondentconnectivesarerelativelyonthesamelevelbetweentheLiangandZhu,whileadversative/contrastiverelationshipexplicitnesswitnessesamuchhigherpercentageinZhu’stranslationthaninLiang’s,with27.4%against19%.[11]Butofthatto-morrow,WhentherewithalweshallhavecauseofstateCravingusjointly.(fromMacbeth)Liang:这事且等明天再说，因为明天有不少的国事需要我们一起来处理.Zhu:可是我们明天再谈吧，有许多重要的国事要等候我们两人共同处理呢。[12]Rom.AndI'llstillstay,tohavetheestillforget,Forgettinganyotherhomebutthis.(fromRomeoandJuliet)Liang:罗那么我就永久的等着,好让你永久的想不起,因为除了这个地方我也不记得还有什么家。Zhu:罗密欧那么我就永远等在这儿，让你永远记不起来，忘记除了这里以外还有什么家。Inbothoftheaboveexamples,Liangchoosestoexplicitatethecasualrelationshipbyaddingtheconnective‘因为’.Aswediscussedbefore,addingtheconnectiveofcasualrelationmaynotnecessarilyfacilitatethereadingprocess,soweconsideredthenatureofLiang’srenditionasignalforrecallandanenhancementofsolidaritystyleinthecontext.Thistreatmentisalignedwithhisconceptionofthereadership-theeducatedgroupofreaders.Hisforeignizationstrategyisalsoalignedwiththispurposetoletreaderstoexperiencethealienflavor.Zhu,nevertheless,wantshistranslationstobeacceptedbyalargergroupofreadersandhegoesfurthertorenderhistranslationtobeadaptedbytheatricaluse,inhopesofreachinganevenbroaderaudienceincludingthosewithlittleeducation.Zhu’srenditionishencemore45 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008colloquial,straight-forward,andeasytounderstand.AndthatisalsothereasonwhywefoundgreatertendencyofexplicitationofalmosteverycategoryofconnectivesinhistranslationthanthoseinLiang’s.ThefollowingexamplerightlydemonstratesZhu’sconceptionabouthisintendedreadershipofamorecommongroupofreadersaswellasspectatorsinthetheaterwhomayneedadditionalassistanceingettingthecontrastivelogicalrelations.[13]Ifitliveinyourmemory,beginatthisline:letmesee,letmesee:-TheruggedPyrrhus,liketheHyrcanianbeast,-'tisnotso,itbeginswithPyrrhus-(fromHamlet)Liang:假如你还记得,由这一行说起;我想想看,我想想看;“狰狞的皮鲁斯,像是希卡尼亚的猛虎,”---不是这样;是从“皮鲁斯”说起的.Zhu:要是你们还没有把它忘记,请从这一行念起;让我想想,让我想想:---野蛮的皮洛斯像猛虎一样---不,不是这样;但是的确是从皮洛斯开始的;[14]Omostsmallfault,HowuglydidstthouinCordeliashow!(fromKingLear)Liang:啊最微细的疵谬，你在考地利亚身上显着是何等的丑陋！Zhu:...错误，怎么在我的眼睛里却会变得这样丑恶！[15]Prince.Come,Montague:forthouartearlyup,heirmoreearlydown.(fromRomeoandJuliet)ToseethysonandLiang:公来,蒙特鸠;你是很早的起来,看你的儿子更早的倒下去。Zhu:...蒙太古,你起来虽然很早,可是你的儿子倒下得更早。Inallthethreeexamplesabove,explcitationofcontrastiverelationisnotobservedinLiang’stranslation,whileconnectives“但是”,“却”,“可是”areaddedinZhu’stranslation.Thesemarkersgreatlyreinforcetheinter-sententialcontrastivelogicandmakethesentenceeasiertofollow.46 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,20085.3TheTheatricalFeaturesofPlaysAsMarySnell-Hornby(2006)pointsout,theatreandoperatranslationisa‘neglectedfieldintranslationstudies.’Notlikenormalliterarytexts,theatricalplaysordramashaveaverydistinctivefeatureintheirtext,whichconsistsoftwoseparatedcomponents:thestagedirectionsandthedialogue.Weshouldacknowledgethatthedialogueisintendedforstageactingtobespokenorsunginthefirstplace.Shakespeare’splaysarenoexception.Asaresult,theremaylaypotentialproblemsforthetranslationifthepurposeoftranslatingaimsatstageperforming.Intendedforstageperformance,thetranslationshouldalsobegrantedthefeaturesofperformabilityjustasthatoftheoriginaltext.Therearetwospecificareasconcerningthisperformabilityweneedtopayattentionto:1)Thelinesofthecharactersareprimarilyameansofexpressingemotionbytheactors,throughtheirvoice,facialexpression,gesturesandmovements.Hence,thetranslationisexpectedtobespeakable,expressive,andperformable.2)Thelanguageofplayspaysspecialattentiontothetempoandflowofrhythmaswellasstresspatternwithinsentences.Thisisreflectedinthestructureofdialogue,exchangebetweenutterancesandthecohesionoflogicalconnectivity.Inthepreviousdiscussion,wepointedoutoneofZhuShenghao’sprimarypurposesistoletChineseaudienceappreciateShakespeare’splaysonstage.Zhuoncesaid:“(totranslatetheplays,)onehastothinkfromtheperspectiveofanactor,testingthelinesforfluencyandharmonyoftones.”13（quotedfromWuMinjie，1990：264）Therefore,theperformabilityisafactorhehastoconsiderduringtranslationprocess.AlthoughthereisfewliteratureaboutLiang’spointofviewabouttranslatingtheplaysfortheatricaluse,theperformingnatureoftheoriginalplaysitselfmayexertinfluenceonthetranslation.Fortheresearchsubjecthere,theexplicitationoflogicalrelationshipthroughaddingconnectivesinthetranslation,theperformabilityoftheatricaltextsalsoofferspossibleperspectivesintoexplainingitsmotivation.First,thetranslatedtextshouldbe13Mytranslationfrom“又必自拟为舞台上之演员，审辨语调之是否顺口，音节之是否调和。”47 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008expressiveandperformableaccordingtotherequirementoftheatricalusageandtheexpectationofthespectators.Itenablestheexplicitationofcertainlogicalrelationsinthesourcetext,whichisaimedatachievingbetterspeakability,expressivenessandclearerlogicalcohesionforeasyunderstanding.Usually,audiencesonlyhaveasplitofsecondtotakeinwhathasjustbeenspokenorperformedonthestage.Complexorvaguelogicalrelationshipmaynotbecomprehensiblebyaudience’slogicalsense(whichofcourseisdependentondifferentaudience,cultures,etc.).Addedconnectivesassistinaudience/spectators’understandingofthecontextualrelations.Second,addingconnectivestorevealcertainlogicalrelationshipsinthesourcetextalsoallowsbetterrhythmicaleffect,whichmaybecompromisedbydisparitybetweentwolanguageswhennothingisdone.Itis,however,importanttopointoutthatthereisstillshortofconcreteanduniversallyapplicablerulesforthetermslikeperformabilityorspeakabilitydiscussedhere.Suchaperspectiveoflookingattheexplicitationprovidedhereistoopennewdoorsforfurtherstudyandvariousvariablesweshouldkeepaneyeoninthequestforthemotivationforthehypothesizedtranslationuniversal.Thepossibilityisthattheinstancesofexplicitnessvaryalotbetweentextsofdifferentgenres,whichinnodoubtshouldbeanimportantaspecttoconsiderwhenexaminingthephenomenon.48 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008ChapterSix:ConclusionThisdissertationhasanalyzedexplicitationbyaddingconnectivesinthetwoChinesetranslationsofsevenShakespeare’splaysLiangShiqiuandZhuShenghao.ThedataarefromTheEnglish-ChineseParallelCorpusofShakespeare’sPlaysdevelopedbytheCenterforTranslationStudiesandLexicographyinShanghaiJiaoTongUniversity.Theinclusionoftwotranslationsofthesamesourcetextmadeitpossibletoconductbothparallelandcomparablestudiesofexplicitationandexplorethecauseofit.Onthebasisofthedataanalysisofthepreviouschapters,thisconcludingchapterwillsummarizethefindingsandimplications,identifythelimitationsofthecurrentstudies,aswellasoffersuggestionsforfutureresearch.6.1ConclusionInthissection,thediscussionfollowsthetworesearchquestionsraisedinChapterOne.ThedatafromChapter4givestrongevidencefortheexplicitationhypothesis.InstancesofexplicitnessbytheuseofconnectivesintheChinesetranslationareobservable,andthetendencyisfoundtoexistregardlessoftranslators.ThisresearchalsoprovidesevidenceofChinese-Tibetanlanguageforthehypothesis,thusreinforcingthesupportofthetheorythatisdominatedbyIndo-Europeanlanguages.Withregardtotheexplicitnessconnectivesinthetranslations,weindentifiedthefollowingpatterns:Thedegreeofexplicitationoflogicalrelationsbytheuseofconnectivesvariedamongdifferenttypesofrelations.Somelogicalmarkerslikethecasualconnectivesastheresultofexplicitationenjoyhigherpercentage.Thedegreeorplacesofexplicitationoflogicalrelationsbytheuseofconnectivesalsovariedbetweenthetwodifferenttranslators.Chapter5enumeratesmanyexamplestodemonstratethedifferentplaceswhereoneofthetwotranslatorsadoptsexplicitationwhiletheotheronedoesnot.49 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Thecauseoftheexplicitationismulti-faceted.Byextensiveandprofoundanalysisofexamplesfromthecorpus,thepresentstudyexploresandincorporatesdozensofstudiesaccountingforthephenomenonfromavarietyofperspectives,andcomesupwithtwomainsourcesforthemotivationoftheexplicitness:1)LinguisticSourceGrammaticalconstraints:duetothedisparityofgrammaticalsystembetweentheChineseandEnglishlanguage,someconstructionshavetoberecoveredinthetranslationbyapplyingexplicitation.Thiskindofexplicitationisgroupedintotheobligatorycategory,withoutwhichtheoriginalmeaningoftheSTcannotbeunderstoodbyTTreaders.Semanticnecessity:thismotivationiscomingfromtranslators’perceptionofthetextanditsmeaning.IftheyfeeltheneedtobefullyfaithfultotheST,explicitnessmaybeobservedintheTTtorevealanypotentialimplicitmessage(itistheinter-clausalandinter-sententialrelationsinthecurrentstudy)intheST.Inaddition,weshouldalsoacknowledgethatrevealingthehiddensemanticmeaningmayalsobemotivatedbythequesttopresentorrecovertheimplicitmeaningtothetargetreader,whichisnotwithinthescopeofthelinguisticsource.2)Meta-situationalSourceThissourcecomprisesofavarietyoffactors,includingindividualpreferencesor50 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008habits,translators’conceptionofthereadersandreader’sacceptance,translationpurposes,translationconventionsaswellasthesituationinwhichthetranslatorcarriesouthis/herworks.AllthesevariablesarediscussedinChapter5withthesupportbyasetofwell-establishedtheoriesandframeworksuchasrelevancetheoryandaudiencedesign:6.2LimitationsoftheCurrentStudyThemostpressinglimitationofthisthesisistechnical.TheavailablesoftwaresuchasParaConccanonlyprovideautomationofparallelandalignmentfunctiononthesentencelevel.Thereisnosatisfyingandaccuratesoftwarethatprocessesword-levelalignmentforcorpora,especiallythosewithlanguagepairsthataresodistantfromeachotherlikeEnglishandChinese.Therefore,wecanonlysearchintheChinesetranslatedtextforconnectivesthatmayberesultsofexplicitation,andthenlookbackonthesourcetexttocheckwhethertheyaretheinstancesofexplicitation.Theprocessistime-consuming,givenalargeamountofdata.Furthermore,becauseoftechnicalconstraintintheautomationandintelligenceoftheconcordancetools,wecanonlylimitourresearchsubjecttoamanageablenumberofconnectives,sothatenoughtimeandlaborcouldbeutilizedtoensurethequalityandaccuracyoftheresearchdata.As51 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008aresult,onlythreetypesofconnectivesareexaminedinthepresentthesis.However,thepresentthesisdoesfindtherecurringinstancesofexplicitationinthesethreecommontypesofconnectives.Itcanbesafelygeneralizedthatpossibleexplicitationbyaddingothercategoriesoftheconnectivesareverylikely.6.3SuggestionsforFutureStudiesFuturestudiescaninvolvemoreconnectivesasresearchsubjecttoyieldmoregeneralevidence.Typesofconnectivescanbeexpendedtoincludeadditionalrelations,temporalrelationsetc.Inaddition,Chinesehasmanyvariationsofconnectivesintoexpressasinglediscourselogicalrelation,suchas“yaoshi(要是)”,“ruguo(如果)”,“tangruo(倘若)”,“ruo(若)”inconditionalrelation.Toexhaustandincludeallthesevariationsinthesearchandanalysisofthedatawouldprovideawiderperspectiveonexaminingtranslator’sdecision-makingprocessandindividualpreferences.Consequently,explanationofthemotivationofexplicitationcanalsobenefitfromawiderobservationofdataavailable.Infuturestudies,wordalignmentorsemantictaggercanbeusedtoannotateparallelcorpus,sothattheconcordancetoolscanidentifyautomaticallyandmoreefficientlyinstancesofexplicitation.IfboththeSTandTTareannotatedortagged,identifyinginstancesofexplicitationofthelogicalrelationshipcanbemoreeasilyandefficiently,sincemanualworkcanbesignificantlyreduced.Forexample,thefollowingsentencesaretagged14:And/csight/nherb/npage/n我/rere/cI/rtake/vthis/rcharm/noff/nxfrom/nxher/r,As/cI/rcan/vtake/vit/rwith/nxanother/rher/r,I/r’ll/nxmake/vher/rrender/vup/nxto/nxme/r.另/r有/v一种/q药草/n要/v让/v可以/v她/r解除/v先/d她/r的/u小/a魔崇/nr,但是/c我/r童/nr给/p我/r.把/p14TheChinesetaggersaregeneratedbyICTCLAS,aChineselexicalanalysissystem,whichisabletomakeChinesewordsegmentation,Part-Of-Speechtagging.ThetaggersfortheEnglisharecreatedbytheauthortoalignwiththoseintheChineseforcomparisonpurpose.52 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008我/r/r可以/v用/p另/r一/m种/q草/n解/v去/v这种叫/v她/r把魔力/n，但/c第一/m我/r先/d要/v/p那个/r孩子/n让给/v我/r.Let’spayattentiontothewordsinbold.Wecanseethattheyareconnectivesasthetaggers“/c”suggests.Butsearchingthetaggersinconcordanceorcorpustoolsinsteadofexhaustingeverypossibleconnectives,wecaneasilylocateallconnectivesandcomparethoseintheSTtoseeifanyinstancesaretheresultofexplicitation.Fromtheaboveexample,wecanseethatthecontrastiveconnectives“但是”and“但”areinstancesofexplicitation,sincenocontrastiveequivalents(herewillbecorrespondingtags)arefoundintheST.Theonlyproblemisthatcurrently,taggingsystemsfordifferentlanguagesfollowdifferentstandards,whichmakesitdifficulttocompareacrossdifferentlanguages,eventhoughbothofthemaretagged.Furthermore,afewtaggingsystemorstandardsforChineseareavailableforlexicalanalysis,butthedoubtaboutwhichoneismorestandardized,advanced,oraccuratestillprevails.Currently,thereisatoolinthemarketforChinesesegmentationandtagging,whichisgainingincreasinglyextensiveattentionfromcorpusresearchers.ThetooliscalledICTCLAS,developedbytheInstituteofComputingTechnologyoftheChineseAcademyofScience.ItisaChineselexicalanalysissystem,providingChinesewordsegmentation,Part-Of-Speechtagging,wordsensedisambiguationandnamedentityrecognition.Accordingtotheinstitute,ICTCLASparticipatedinofficialopencontestsandranktopbothinChinanationalevaluationandininternationalbake-off15.Wearestillexaminingitsqualityforfutureadoption,andwehopetheresultcanbesatisfactoryenoughtofurtherdevelopthecurrentcorpusintoataggedone.Futurestudiescanconsideraddingtaggingthecorpusforbetterandmorereliablesearchresult.15Theinstitutedidnotdiscloseanyinformationinthesoftware’smanualaboutthecontestorevaluationitparticipatedin.53 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008BibliographyBaker,Mona."CorpusLinguisticsandTranslationStudies:ImpliciationsandApplications."InTextandTechnology:InHonorofJohnSinclair,byG.Francis&E.Tognini-BonellliM.Baker.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamin,1993,pp.233-250.—."Corpus-basedTranslationStudies:TheChallengesthatLieAhead."InTerminology,LSPandTranslation,byH.Somers(Ed.).Armsterdam:JohnBenjamins,1996,pp.175-186.—."ACorpus-basedViewofSimilarityandDifferenceinTranslation."InternationalJournalOfCorpusLinguistics,No.2,2004,pp.167-193.—.RoutledgeEncyclopediaofTranslationStudies.London:Routledge,1998.Bell,Roger.TranslationandTranslating:TheoryandPractice.London:Longman,1991.Blum-Kulka,Shoshana."ShitsandCohesionandCoherenceinTranslation."InInterlingualandInterculturalCommunication:DiscourseandCognitioninTranslationandSecondLanguageAcquisitionStudies,byJ.House&S.Blum-Kulka(Eds.).Tubingen:GunterNarr,1986,pp.17-35.Chen,Wallace."InvestigatingExplicitationofConjunctionsinTranslatedChinese:ACorpus-basedStudy."Corpus-basedTranslationStudiesConference:ResearchandApplication.Pretoria,SouthAfrica,2003.Chesterman,Andrew."BeyondtheParticular."InTranslationUniversals:DoTheyExist?,byA.Mauranen&P.Kujamaki(Eds.).Armsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,2004,pp.33-49.EnglundDimitrovaBirgitta.ExpertiseandExplicitationintheTranslationProcess.Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany,2005.Granger,Sylviane.Corpus-basedApproachestoContrastiveLinguisticsandTranslationStudies.Belgium:Rodopi,2003."CohesiveexplicitnessandexplicitationinanEnglish-Germantranslationcorpus."InLanguagesinContrast,bySilviaHansen-Schirra,StellaNeumannandErich54 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008Steiner.Armsterdam:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany,2007,pp.241-266.House,Juliane.“ExplicitnessinDiscourseAcrossLanguages.”InNeuePerspektiveninderÜbersetzungs-undDolmetschwissenschaft,byHouseKoller.W.&Schubert,K.(eds.)J..Bochum:AKS,2004,pp.185-208.Klaudy,Kinga."Explicitation."InRoutledgeEncyclopediaofTranslationStudies,byM.Baker(Ed.).London&NewYork:Routledge,1998,pp.80-84.Klaudy,Kinga."OnExplicitationHypothesis."InTransferreNecesseEst...CurrentIssuesofTranslationTheory,byK.Klaudy&J.Kohn(Eds.).Szombathely:DanielBerzsenyiCollege,1993,pp.69-77.Klaudy,Kinga,andKrisztinaKaroly."ImplicationinTranslation:EmpiricalEvidenceforOperationalAsymmetryinTranslation."AcrossLanguagesandCultures,No.1,2005,pp.13-28.Laviosa,Sara.Corpus-basedTranslationStudies.Theory,Findings,Applications.Amsterdam&NewYork:Rodopi,2002.Lefevere,André,Edi.Translation/History/CultureASourcebook.Shanghai:ShanghaiForeignLanguageEducationPress,2004.Li,Jinxi.ContemporaryChineseGrammar.Beijing:CommercailPress,2001.Lorch,RobertFrederick,andEdwardJ.O'Brien.InSourcesofCoherenceinReading,byEdwardJ.O'BrienRobertFrederickLorch.LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,1995,pp.110-124.LynShuxiang.EightHundredWordsinContemporaryChinese.Beijing:CommercialPress,1980.Malmkjaer,Kirsten."LoveThyNeighbour:WillParallelCorporaEndearLinguiststoTranslators?"Meta,41998,pp.151-162.Mason,Ian."AudienceDesigninTranslating."TheTranslator,No.1,2000,pp.1-22.Olohan,Maeve.IntroducingCorporainTranslationStudies.London&NewYork:Routledge,2004.Olohan,Maeve,andMonaBaker."Reporting"that"inTranslatedEnglish:EvidenceforSubliminalProcessesofExplicitation?"AcrossLanguageandCultures,No.2,2000,pp.141-158.55 M.A.ThesisShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityDec,2008OlohanMaeve.“HowFrequentaretheConstractions?”Target,No.1,2003:59-89.Øverås,Linn."InSearchoftheThirdCode:anInvestigtionofNormsinLiteraryTranslation."Meta,No.4,1998,pp.571-588.Puurtinen,Tiina."Explicitatingandimplicitatingsourcetextideology."AcrossLanguagesandCultures,No.4,2003,pp.53-62.Pym,Anthony."ExplainingExplicitation."NewTrendsinTranslationStudies,edi.KrisztinaKároly.Budapest,2005.Saldanha,Gaby."ExplicitationRevisited:BringtheReaderintothePicture."Trans-kom,No.1,2008,pp.20-35.Schmied,Josef,andHildegardSchaller."Explicitationasauniversalfeatureoftranslation."Corpus-basedStudiesinEnglish.PapersfromtheSeventeenthInternationalConferenceonEnglishLanguageResearchonComputerizedCorpora.Armsterdam&Atlanta:Rodopi,1997,pp.21-34.Séguinot,Candace."PragmaticsandtheExplicitationHypothesis."Traduction,Terminologie,Redaction,No.2,1988,pp.106-114.Shih,Chung-ling."Corpus-basedStudyofDifferencesinExplicitationbetweenLiteratureTranslationsforChildrenandforAldults."TJInteractive:TranslationJournalBlog,No.7,2008.Si,Guo.TranslationStudies.Taipei:Dadi,1972.Snell-Homby,Mary.TheTurnsofTranslationStudies:NewParadigmsorShiftingViewpoints?Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,2006.Sperber,D.,andD.Wilson.Relevnce:CommunicationsandCognition.Oxford:Blackwells,1986.Stewart,Domonic."PoorRelationsandBlackSheepintranslationStudies."Target,No.2,2000,pp.205-228.Toury,Gideon.DescriptiveTranslationStudiesandBeyond.Amsterdam:BenjaminsTranslationLibrary,1995.Vinay,jean-Paul,andJeanDarbelnet.ComparativeStylisticsofFrenchandEnglish:AMethodologyforTranslation.Amsterdam&Philadelphia:JohnBejamin,1995.56