Transitivity Shifts of Chinese Ascriptive Clauses in Translation

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2015.02.003

Abstract

Abstract: In systemic functional linguistics, Chinese ascriptive clause refers to a kind of relational clause without a verbal phrase. It could be further divided into three types: the one with nominal as predicate, with adjective as predicate, and with subject-predicate phrase as predicate. This paper is mainly concerned with the features of Chinese ascriptive clauses and the transitivity shifts caused during the process of translation, including process type shifts, process deletion, transitivity scale moderation and the employment of metaphorical transitivity expressions. Those shifts are caused by either language structure, or distinctive status of nominals and adjectives in Chinese and English, or the need to optimize discourse. Languages have different ways of construing experience. The transference of experiential function does not guarantee the matching of transitivity types. Translation should conform to the features of construing experience in the target language.

CLC Number:

H059

ZHAO Jing. Transitivity Shifts of Chinese Ascriptive Clauses in Translation[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(02): 8-12.

References

Bell, R. T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice [M]. London & New York:Caffarel, A., J.R. Martin & C.M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.). 2004. Language Typology: A Functional Perspective [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Calzada Pérez, M. 2007. Transitivity in Translating. The Interdependence of Texture and Context [M]. Bern: Peter Lang.
Guerrero-Medina, P. 2003. Cardinal transitivity in foregrounded discourse [A]. In C. S. Butler, M. A. Gómez-González & S. M. Doval-Suárez (eds.). The Dynamics of Language Use: Functional and Contrastive Perspectives [C]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 349-69.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.) [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. & C.M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.) [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. & E. McDonald. 2004. Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Chinese [A]. In A. Caffarel et al. (eds.). Language Typology: A Functional Perspective [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 305-96.
Hopper, P.J. & S.A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse [J]. Language 56(2) : 251-99.
Li, Eden Sum-hung. 2007. A Systemic Functional Grammar of Chinese—A Text-Based Analysis [M]. London & New York: Continuum.
Long, Rijin. 1981. Transitivity in Chinese [D]. University of Sydney: M.A. Hons.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 2001. The environments of translation [A]. In E. Steiner & C. Yallop (eds.). Exploring Translation and Multilingual Text Production: Beyond Content [C]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 41-126.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., K. Teruya & M. Lam. 2010. Key Terms in Systemic Functional Linguistics [M]. London New York: Continuum.
程晓堂.2002.关于及物性系统中关系过程的两点存疑[J].现代外语(3):311-17.
陆俭明.2005.现代汉语语法研究教程[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
周晓康.1999.现代汉语物质过程小句的及物性系统[J].当代语言学(3):36-50.

[1]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 42-49.
[2]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 50-61.
[3]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 62-72.
[4]	REN Dongsheng, JI Xiumei. On Strategies for Interpreting Metaphors in Diplomatic Discourse for Political Equivalence: A Case Study of Chinese Foreign Ministry's 2019 Regular Press Conferences [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 84-95.
[5]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 64-74.
[6]	WENG Yiming, WANG Jinping. A Corpus-based Contrastive Study of Human and Machine English Translation of Chinese paratactic Sentences [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 450(6): 128-137.
[7]	TAN Lianxiang, XIN Hongjuan. On Foreign Co-translators of Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2017, 17(04): 75-80.
[8]	LI Xiaoqian. A Corpus-based Study of Delexical Verbs in the Chinese Translations of Shakespeare’s Plays: A Case Study of “做” and “作” [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(03): 26-30.
[9]	LIU Huidan, HU Kaibao. A Corpus-based Study of Chinese Translation of Modality Metaphors in Shakespeare’s Plays [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(03): 20-25.
[10]	LI Yingyuan, WU Yuyu. The Construal of Translatability of Chinese Ancient Poems into English on the Basis of Gestalt Theory [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(03): 52-56.
[11]	HU Kaibao, MA Xiuqi. A Study of the Representation of the Appraisal Meaning of “good” in the Chinese Translations of Shakespeare’s Plays [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(03): 7-13.
[12]	WANG Hongyin, LI Shaoqing. Translating Chinese Classics, Popularizing Chinese Charm: An Interview with Prof. Wang Hongyin [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(03): 1-6.
[13]	TAO Youlan. Seeking the True Meaning of Chinese Classics by Fusing Different Horizons: A Hermeneutic Study of D. C. Lau’s Three English Versions of The Analects [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015, 15(03): 44-51.
[14]	SHAO Lu. Foregrounding in the English Translation of Mo Yan [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(02): 48-52.
[15]	BAO Tongfa. A Philosophical Structure of “One Noumenon and Three Rings Translatology” Hierarchy [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014, 14(02): 17-20.