| Nominalization is a very common phenomenon in English and it indicates a fact that the cognition of human beings is evolving towards considering the function of Process or Attribute as that of Thing (Halliday, Functional Grammar 352). Mr. Liu Miqing (97) and Mr. Lian Shu'neng (182), experts in English-Chinese contrastive study, have mentioned for many times in their works that there is a predominance of nouns in the English language. Indeed, predominance of nouns is a conspicuous feature of the English language. "There is a tendency to use nouns and prepositions in the English language, while in the Chinese language there is tendency to use verbs." "Nominalization often results in abstract expression." There are a great number of abstract nouns and many meaning-weakening devices in English, so nominalization prevails, especially in legal English. Nominalization is one of the most important characteristics of legal language, which deserves paying much attention by translators in their Chinese-English or English-Chinese legal translation process (though the present endeavor centers on C-E legal translation). From the angle of grammatical metaphor theory, a branch of systemic functional linguistics that offers a satisfactory explanation of the phenomenon of nominalization in ordinary language, this dissertation tries to examine the employment of nominalization in legal language. Moreover, it observes the various functions of nominalization, based on the tripartition of metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal and textual. The main purpose of the present endeavor is to help translators to recognize the unique status of nominalization in legal language and thus to tackle it with consciousness while they are doing their legal translation.The dissertation comprises six chapters altogether. The first one examines something about nominalization and legal English. It presents a briefly review of the accomplished work in these fields so as to help readers to get preparation for a comprehensive understanding of the following chapters.Chapter Two begins with some definitions and tries hard to illustrate the differences between verbal nouns and deverbal nouns. Then it goes down to the classifications of the processes of transference in nominalization.Nominalization involves all the six types of processes and the variable components of, below, around or above the clause.Chapter Three probes the various functions of nominalization based on the tripartition of metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal and textual. Ideationally, nominalization can add another semantic dimension to what already exists in the congruent form. It can create partial ambiguity, offer the expression a greater potential for description, and reshape human experience. Interpersonally, nominalization can obscure the time, the space, the participant and the modality to make the expression more objective. Familiarity with and employment of conventional nominal words or phrases used in certain circles may be deemed a symbol of identity or membership in the circles. Textually, nominalization can shift the focus of information, and through Theme-Rheme progression and anaphoric reference, it can make the discourse more cohesive.Chapter Four focuses on a contrastive study of the nominalization employed in English and Chinese, attempting to explain, based on the recent accomplishments of the contrastive study on English and Chinese linguistics, why in English nominalization is more preferable than in Chinese.The discovery and consequences of the study are presented and dwelled upon in Chapter Five, which can be held the central part of this dissertation. It tries to illustrate English nominalization and its revelation and inspiration toward legal C-E translation. This author also sets lots of examples, which may, as she expects, elucidate the functions and purposes of nominalizing Chinese verbs or adjectives in the process of legal Chinese-English translation. In the end, the author sums up six typical nominalization patterns as her proposal of translation strategies: (A) n + Nn, (B) Nn + Prep + n, (C) Possessive Prons + Nn, (D) adj + Nn, (E) Prep + Nn and (F) V + Nn.The dissertation ends with a brief, but by no mean unimportant conclusion, which attempts, at least to a certain extent, to sum up the argument and help the readers understand better what this author has advocated.It cannot be expected that this thesis will contribute much to the systematic study of legal language and legal translation both in logic and in practice. This author, however, has taken pains to finish her tentative research work and has exhausted her energy and spirit. She sincerely hope that the dissertation will serve as a modest spur to induce someone to come with his/her valuable contributions in the field of legal English-Chinese contrastive study and legal translation.
|
PDF Full Text Request