臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本論文旨在以系統功能語言學角度分析國立故宮博物院(簡稱：故宮)展覽簡介之英文翻譯。故宮，作為一座收藏無數無價中國歷代珍寶的寶庫，近年來一直致力於提升國際知名度。由於大部分的外國遊客皆須仰賴故宮之英文簡介來了解其展覽，故宮展覽簡介之英譯文本便吸引外國遊客觀賞展覽與傳達展覽意涵的重要媒介。有鑑於此，本研究企圖通過系統語言學的觀點探討故宮展覽簡介英譯本之特點。本研究不只呈現中文原文與英文譯文之語言學結構，通過系統語言學的理論譯探討語言結構背後可能的語言功能。本研究採用江承志針對博物館翻譯的翻譯評估模式(2010)，以便分析故宮展覽簡介英譯文本之特性以及文本之語言功能。本研究期望以語言學的角度提出較客觀的建議，以期能協助故宮提升其英譯文本之品質並因此提升其國際知名度。

This study aims to analyze English translation texts of National Palace Museum (NPM)’s exhibitions from a systemic functional linguistic (SFL) perspective.
NPM, a treasure vault of valuable ancient Chinese cultural artifacts, has endeavored to enter the global arena in recent years. Due to the fact that the vast majority of international visitors rely on its English texts to access knowledge of NPM’s exhibitions, NPM’s English translation texts play a critical role in making their exhibitions understandable and attractive to international visitors. As a result, this study attempts to investigate the characteristics of NPM’s English translations of exhibition introduction through a systemic functional linguistics-based (SFL) viewpoint. This study demonstrates not only the linguistics structures of both the source text (ST) and the target text (TT) but also the functions of both ST and TT, and therefore, provides NPM a more objective analysis results for future improvement. A translation quality assessment model for museum texts proposed by Jiang (2010) is adopted to analyze the features of the NPM’s translations and to depict how the translation texts function. The ultimate goal of this study is to provide the NPM a more objective suggestions from linguistics field for enhancinge quality of its translations and thereby raise its international popularity.

Contents

English Abstract i
Acknowledgement iii
Glossary iv
Contents vi
Lists of Tables viii
Lists of Figures and Charts xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Museum Texts: English Translations of the NPM’s exhibitions 1
1.2 Museum Text Translation 2
1.3 The NPM: A Treasure Trove of Ancient Chinese Culture 3
1.4 Purpose: Research Questions and Motivation
5
1.5 Structure of the Research 7
1.5.1 Theoretical Framework of this Study: Jiang’s Model 7
1.5.2 Outline of this Study 9
Chapter 2 Literature Review 12
2.1 SFL-based TQA models and Studies 12
2.1.1 An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) 12
2.1.2 House’s Functional-Pragmatic Model of Translation Evaluation 14
2.1.3 Jiang’s Model: a SFL-based TQA Model for Museum Text Translations 16
Chapter 3 Methodology 19
3.1 Methodological Approach 19
3.2 Data Collection 21
3.3 Data Analysis 24
Chapter 4 Data and Analysis 30
4.1 Phase 1: Generic Structure and Register Analysis 30
4.1.1 Generic Structure and Register Description 30
4.1.2 Results Discussion of the Phase 1 Analysis 34
4.2 Phase 2: Lexico-grammar Analysis and Results Discussion
4.2.1 Lexico-grammar Analysis 38
4.2.2 Results Discussion of the Phase 2 Analysis 61
4.3 Phase 3: Analysis of Circumstances 68
4.3.1 Circumstance Analysis 68
4.3.2 Results Discussion of the Phase 3 Analysis 68
4.4 Suggestions for the NPM 74
Chapter 5 Conclusion 76
5.1 Aims and Research Questions 76
5.2 Summary of Findings 77
5.3 Summary 80
References 81
Appendix: Data 87

References:
Bensoussan, M., &; Rosenhouse, J. (1990). Evaluating student translations by discourse analysis. Babel, 36(2), 65-84. p. 71
Berry, M. (1975/1977). An introduction to systemic linguistics. London: B.T. Batsford. p. 30
Bitgood, S. (1991). The ABCs of Label Design. Visitor Studies: Theory, Research and Practice, 8, 115-129.
Bitgood, S. (1996). Practical Guidelines for Developing Interpretive Labels. Visitor Behaviour, Fall, 4-15.
Colina, S. (2008). Translation quality evaluation: Empirical evidence for a functionalist approach. The Translator, 14(1), 97-134. p. 102
DePoy, E., &; Gilson, S. (2003). Evaluation practice: Thinking and action principles for social work practice. Toronto: Brooks/Cole. p. 15
Fan, S. (1990). A statistical method for translation quality assessment. Target, 2(1), 43-67. p. 43
Ferguson, L., MacLulich, C. &; Ravelli, L. (1995). Meanings and messages: language guidelines for museum exhibitions. Sydney: Australian Museum.
Gutt, E. (2000). Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Manchester: St. Jerome. p. 13
Hajmohammadi, A. (2005). Translation evaluation in a news agency. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 13(3), 215-223. p. 216
Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Syntax and the consumer (1964). In J. Webster (Ed.), On language and linguistics. Beijing: Peking University Press. p.39
Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). A brief sketch of systemic grammar (1969). In J. Webster (Ed.), On language and linguistics. Beijing: Peking University Press. p. 180-181
Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Modes of meaning and modes of expression: types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions (1979). In J. Webster (Ed.), On grammar. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Hatim, B., &; Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.
Hatim, B. (1998). Translation quality assessment: Setting and maintaining a trend. The Translator, 4(1), 91-100. p. 95
Hein, G. (1998). Learning in the Museum. London: Routledge.
Hood, M. (1995). Audience Research Tell Us Why Visitors Come to Museums - and why they don&;#39;t. in Scott, C. (Ed.) Evaluation and Visitor Research in Museums: Towards 2000. Sydney: Powerhouse Publishing, 3-10.
House, J. (1977/1997). Translation quality assessment: a model revisited. Tu ¨bingen: Narr. (1997) p. 1, p.43-45
House, J. (2001). Translation quality assessment: Linguistic description versus social evaluation. Meta, 46(2), 243-257. p. 247
House, J. (2006). Rethinking the relationship between text and context in translation. Journal of Translation Studies, 9(1), 77-103. p. 88-89
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jiang, C (2010) Quality assessment for the translation of museum texts: application of a systemic functional model, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 18:2, 109-126.
Kandler, G. (1963). On the problem of quality in translation: Basic considerations. In E. Cary, &; R.W. Jumpelt (Eds.), Quality in translation. New York: Pergamon. p. 295
Kelly, L. (1996). Jumping in Head First! - Implementing a New Approach to Public Program Evaluation. in Scott, C. (Ed.), Evaluation and Visitor Research in Museums: Towards 2000. Sydney: Powerhouse Publishing, 161-168.
Kelly, L. (1999a). Developing access to collections: assessing user needs. Paper presented at the Museums Australia Conference, Albury. Available online at http://www.amonline.net.au/amarc
Kelly, L. (1999b). Finding Evidence of Visitor Learning. Paper presented at Musing on Learning seminar, Australian Museum, April. Available online at http://www.amonline.net.au/amarc
Litwak, J. M. (1996). Using Questions as Titles on Museum Exhibit Labels to Direct Visitor Attention and Increase Learning. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
Longhenry, S. (199?). Labels for Contemporary Art. Museum Practice, 18-21.
MacLulich, C. (1995). Off the wall: new perspectives on the language of exhibition texts. in Scott, C. (Ed.), Evaluation and Visitor Research in Museums: Towards 2000. Sydney: Powerhouse Publishing, 105-115.
Maier, C. (2000). Introduction. The Translator, 6(2), 137-148. p. 140, p. 173
McLean, K. (1993) Planning For People in Exhibitions. Washington: Association of Science Centres-Technology Centres.
McManus, P. (1989). Oh, Yes, They Do: How Museum Visitors Read Labels and Interact with Exhibit Texts. Curator, 32(3), 174-189.
Melis, N.M., &; Albir, A.H. (2001). Assessment in translation studies: Research needs. Meta, 46(2), 272-287. p. 273, p. 275
Munday, J. (2001). Introducing translation studies. London: Routledge. p. 99
Oakland, J.S. (2004). Oakland on quality management. Oxford: Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann. p. 5
Sager, J.C. (1996). Quality and standards: The evaluation of translation. In R. Owens (Ed.), The translator’s handbook. London: Aslib. p. 121
Samson, D. (1995). Reading Strategies Used by Exhibition Visitors. in Blais, A. (Ed.) Text in the Exhibition Medium. Quebec City: Musee de la civilisation.
Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Serrell, B. (1997). Paying Attention: The Duration and Allocation of Visitors&;#39; Time in Museum Exhibitions. Curator, 40(2), 108-125.
van Leuven-Zwart, K. (1990). Shifts in meaning in translation: Do’s and don’t’s? In M. Thelen, &; B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Translation and meaning 1. Maastricht: Rijkshogeschool. p.228-229
Weil, S. (1994). Creampuffs and Hardball: Are You Really Worth What You Cost? Museum News, September/October, 73(5), 42-44, 62.
Williams, M. (2004). Translation quality assessment: An argumentation-centred approach. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. p. 17-18
Zilahy, S.P. (1963). Quality in translation. In E. Cary, &; R.W. Jumpelt (Eds.), Quality in translation. New York: Pergamon. p. 285
Zhu, C. (1996). From functional grammar and speech-act theory to structure of meaning: A three-dimensional perspective on translating. Meta, 41(3), 338-355. p. 339