English translation of traditional Chinese Medical classic Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen: a corpus-based pragmatic study

Chen, Yaru ORCID: 0000-0003-2368-3951 (2023). English translation of traditional Chinese Medical classic Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen: a corpus-based pragmatic study. University of Birmingham. Ph.D.

Preview

Chen2023PhD.pdf
Text - Accepted Version
Available under License All rights reserved.
Download (4MB) | Preview

Abstract

Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen, the earliest existing traditional Chinese medical classic in China, has led the development of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for thousands of years. In the long course of transmission from generation to generation, it has been claimed to have undergone some small or large-scaled revisions and compilations (Bertschinger, 2015). As a result, some of its 81 chapters are considered to have undergone more substantial revisions (i.e. compiled chapters) than others which are considered to be the original ones (Unschuld & Tessenow, 2011).

This thesis attempts to conduct a corpus-based comparative study, from the perspective of pragmatics, to explore the use of message relationship discourse markers (DMs) in the original chapters and compiled chapters in the ST of Su Wen and its two English translations by Li (2005) and Unschuld & Tessenow (2011) and to evaluate the similarities and differences between the two translations as well as their pragmatic effects on the intended TL readers. This involves collecting the authentic data of Su Wen and its two well-received English translations, carrying out POS tagging, DM annotation and translation relation markup, and conducting an integrated analysis of qualitative and quantitative analysis of DMs based on Fraser’s (1993) classification.

With one Chinese DM list and two English DM lists extracted from the Chinese-English parallel corpus, the findings suggest that DMs are used with different forms and functions in original and compiled chapters in the ST, and that these differences are also largely observed in the two translations. They also suggest differences in terms of how DMs have been treated in the two English translations and different translation strategies being preferred with Li’s (2005) version relying more on amplification and omission and less on correspondence, while Unschuld & Tessenow’s (2011) version favouring correspondence and amplification, but less omission. Finally, the results indicate that a better pragmatic effect can be achieved in Unschuld & Tessenow’s (2011) version.

In spite of the difficulties in the evaluation of translation effects in the previous literature, it is hoped that this research can build up a feasible paradigm for the measurement of the pragmatic effects of any translated texts, and comparison of two comparable TTs from the same ST.

Type of Work:

Thesis (Doctorates > Ph.D.)

Award Type:

Doctorates > Ph.D.

Supervisor(s):