A Comparative Study Of Ideational Function Between Jude The Obscure And Its Zhang’s Translation

Since the publication of An Introduction to Functional Grammar in 1985,functional grammar develops into a mature stage.The text analyzing model Halliday constructed has been widely used by translators.Ideational function is applied to analyze Zhang’s translation of Jude the Obscure by this thesis,researching the differences of ideational function between Chinese and English.Ideational function,one of the three meta-functions proposed by Halliday,including experiential function and logical function,refers to that language is the expression of people’s experiences in the real world.Experiential function is mainly reflected in transitivity and voice system.Logical function includes interdependency and logical-semantic relation.At first,through the comparison of transitivity,this thesis analyzes the similarities and differences of transitivity between Jude the Obscure and Zhang’s translation.And this thesis analyzes the factors that influence these differences.In Zhang’s translation,there are two situations in terms of the translation of transitivity.One is that transitivity in Chinese remains the same as the original.The other is that transitivity in Chinese differs from the original.There are two factors that lead to the differences in some degree.The shifts from mental process to behavioral process and material process,from relational process to behavioral process and material process,from existential process to material process are influenced by English static tendency and Chinese dynamic tendency.The shifts from material process,relational process and existential process to mental process are influenced by English impersonal tendency and Chinese personal tendency.Secondly,through the comparison of voice system between Chinese and English,the using frequency of voice in two languagescan be known.At last,by the comparison of logical function between English and Chinese,the differences in form between two languages are revealed.Chinese highlights semantic cohesion.Cohesion devices are seldom used or even omitted in Chinese.English highlights formal cohesion.Formal cohesion devices are necessary in English.