Cohesive Difference between Chinese and English1.doc

Cohesive Difference between Chinese and English Texts张燕琴（中山大学外语学院，广州 510275） As we all know, due to the differences of thinking and culture, the syntaxes of English and Chinese are quite different. In the following paper, I would like to analyze a sample translation from Chinese to English in the perspective of functional syntax, with the emphasis on its textual cohesion and coherence, and to try finding out some cohesive differences between Chinese and English concerning this aspect and the reasons behind. The sample text comes from Zhufu（the New Year Sacrifice）written by Luxun and translated by Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang.(1) “Of all the people I had seen during this visit to Luzhen, none had changed so much as she had. (2) Her hair, streaked with gray five years before, was now completely white, making her appear much older than one around forty. (3) Her sallow, dark-tinged face that looked as if it had been carved out of wood was fearfully wasted and had lost the grief-stricken expression it had borne before. (4) The only sign of life about her was the occasional flicker of her eyes. (5) In one hand she had a bamboo basket containing a clipped, empty bowl; in the other, a bamboo pole, taller than herself, that was split at the bottom. (6) She had clearly become a beggar pure and simple.”This selected text is the description of “her”(Xiang lins Wifes) appearance. The first clause, a declarative one, plays a key role in organizing the text, for it is the topic sentence of this paragraph. Clauses (2),(3), (4), (5) elaborate on this sentence from different aspects by describing Xiang Lins Wifes hair, face, eyes and things in her hand. The main clauses of (2), (3), (4) are all in the neat relational process. The first sentence begins with an adjunct as the theme“of all the people”, which lists out the choice scope to the following pronoun-“none”. Here, “she” is an endophoric reference (anaphoric). According to the context, “she” refers to Xiang Lins Wife. (2) and (3) are both attributive relational process. In (2), an attributive clause is used to describe Xianglins wifes hair 5 years before, and the adjective “gray” constitutes a contrast with the predicative “white” on the main clause. The following adverbial tells about what the white hair has caused to her appearance. In my opinion, there is a contextually-determined ellipsis (which is) before the word “streaking”, and the subject of “making” is the clause-“her hair was completely white.” What is controversial here is the process of the clause led by “making”. According to Hallidays opinion (1985,1994), “make” plus complement is a material process; but Fawcett (1995) takes it as a relational process. (Huang Guowen, 1999). For me, I tend to support Hallidays view, because in my opinion, here “make” should be understood as a physical action that leads to a visible result instead of an abstract one. But the complement “appear much older” is surely a relational process, “much older” attributes “her”, the carrier. (3), which describes Xianglins Wifes face, is also a sentence with complex structure. It contains a main clause and two subordinate clauses. The long subject of its main clause is made up of a noun phrase and an attributive clause to modify the subject face”. The comparative conjunctive adjunct “as if ” links together the subjectface and the simile-“been carved out of wood”. Similarly, the attributive conjunction “and” connects the two parallel predicators of the main clause together. In the second attributive clause, the reference “it” refers to “her face”. As to (4), obviously, the phrase “the only sign” is what the translator thinks should be emphasized, so it is put in the beginning of the sentence. (4) also uses the relational metaphor, but its function is slightly different-its an identifying relational process. In my view, “in onein the other” of (5) are a pair of addictive conjunctions, which leads two parallel clauses in material process. And with this conjunction, the author describes vividly what is held in the hands of Xianglins Wife. An ellipsis is used at the end of the phrase, i.e. “in the other hand, she had”. Sentence (6) is the finishing touch of the whole text: it is not only a summarization of the above, but the further description of the image of Xianglins Wife; meanwhile, it is an echo to the first sentence. According to Thompson (2000:117), “when we look at language from the point of view of the textual metafunction, we are trying to see how speakers construct their messages in a way which makes them fit smoothly into the unfolding language event.” From the above analysis, we come to find that although there is not a single conjunction between sentences in this paragraph, they still connect with each other closely and naturally. One reason is due to the parallel relational process of (2), (3) and (4), which altogether contributes to a sentence group with meticulous logic; the other reason lies in the contextual coherence -the mental cohesion of the whole text. That is the shared knowledge between readers and the author on describing a persons appearance from various angles, such as describing his/her features, his/her wearing etc. Whats more, sentence (1) and (6) fulfill the function of starting and concluding this paragraph, and thus give it enough texture to be a unified whole text. The following is the original Chinese text. (1)“我这回在鲁镇所见的人们中，变化之大，可以说无过于她了：(2)( 她的)五年前花白的头发，即今已经全白，(使她)全不象四十上下的人；(3) (她的)脸上瘦削不堪，黄中带黑，而且消尽了先前悲哀的神色，仿佛是木刻似的；(4)只有那眼珠间或一轮，还可以表示她是个活物。(5)她一手提着竹篮，内中一个破碗，（破碗是）空的；(6)一手拄着一支比她更长的竹竿，（竹竿）下端开了裂：(7)她分明已经纯乎是一个乞丐了。”If we say the English translation seems to be written by an author with compact thinking, the Chinese source text looks like to be drawn by a painter at freehand brushwork. In other words, compared with the translation, the original Chinese text is in a more flexible form. This can be seen from three aspects. Firstly, if judged according to functional grammar, there are more ellipses proper in this text(they are listed in the brackets.).Secondly, there is no conjunctional words between the sentences in this text neither, nor parallel relational processes in sentence 2),3) and 4). Thirdly, the part of speech of some word is constantly transformed, which makes the sentence structure more variable. For instance, the “白” in “花白” is an adjective, but in “已经全白, it becomes a verb. Similar situation occurs with the two four-word proverbs-“瘦削不堪 “and “黄中带黑 ”. The whole test is organized in loose structure; however, the Chinese readers wont feel that it is an incohesive text. Yet if it were translated into English in complete equivalence, English readers may find it too loose to be a text. Then, why there is such a difference?Now we come to the reasons for these differences between the two languages. Halliday ever says that “a text is best regarded as a semantic unit: a unit not of form but of meaning.”(1976:2) From the above analysis, weve known that the English translation is cohesive in form because of the strict hierarchy and close logical relationship between sentences; while the coherence of the Chinese text depends in the concrete thinking process of the author himself. In a word, the fundamental reason lies in the different thinking method-the Chinese tend to pay high attention to impression while the English to form. When this difference is applied to writing, just as Pro. Chen Hongwei ever suggested that in Chinese, it often depends on the authors visual thinking and inspirational thinking to connect messages into a text, while what is regarded critical in English, the function and hierarchy of sentence components come the second(Chen Hongwei,1997:28). Therefore, although the same text is organized in different way, they are both cohesive in their own way.To translators of the two languages, they must “do as the Romans do”, i.e. complying with the linguistic characteristics of each language, so as to ensure the translations fluence and cohesion. Referencel Geoff Thompson, 2000, Introducing Functional Grammar, Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Edward Arnold (Publishers )Ltd.l M. A.K.Halliday & Ruqaiya Hasan, 1976, Cohesion in English, Singapore: Print House (Pte) Ltd.l M. A.K.Halliday, 2000, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press & Edward Arnold (Publishers )Ltd.l 黄国文，1999，英语语言问题研究，广州：中山大学出版社l 陈宏薇，1997，汉英翻译基础， 上海：上海外语教育出版社l 杨宪益，戴乃迭（翻译），2000，彷徨，北京：外文出版社