Three Versions of "Dream of the Red Chamber</I>
Previous studies have explored the relevance of the cultural and linguistic positioning of different translators, but thus far no corpus-based study of nominalization has been undertaken in relation to translator style. This book uses quantitative and qualitative analyses of the nominalized transform of finite verbal forms in three Chinese-to-English translations to distinguish between translator styles, concluding that nominalization is a key identifier in translations.
This book provides a comprehensive picture of the use of nominalization in English translations of Chinese literary prose and, more generally, encourages further study into nominalization in translation.
Chapter 6: Findings and discussion
Findings and discussion
This chapter starts with the findings of main characteristics of the NOMs used in the three versions of HLM, followed by a general evaluation of the translators’ styles in HLM translation, and ends by a summary of factors triggering the use of NOMs in HLM translation.
6.1 Main characteristics of NOMs used in the three versions of HLM
In this section, the main characteristics of the NOMs used in the three versions of HLM are presented in terms of their differences and similarities. As shown in Table 12, Joly made most use of the NOMs in terms of total number (1, 311 NOMs) and average coverage (1/337). The Yangs made slightly more use of NOMs than Hawkes in total number (809 NOMs vs. 746 NOMs). However, since there are more words in Hawkes’ version than in the Yangs’ version, the average NOM coverages in both versions are quite different (1/347 vs. 1/516).
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.