JAIS

修士論文要旨THEMATIC CHALLENGES IN TRANSLATION BETWEENJAPANESE AND ENGLISH
A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts inTranslation and Interpreting, Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University
Mikako Naganuma
March 2000
ABSTRACTThe history of translation can be traced back to the time before any of the different
languages were first encountered. Broadly speaking, interlingual translation is a part of thewhole translatable objects in semiotics. In the semiotic world, one can translate between
different modes, for instance the score of a piece of music is translated into performance.
Therefore, human beings have long been involved in various types of translation, but intoday’s global society interlingual translation is becoming increasingly important. The
study of translation, however, is relatively new and somehow stagnant because of a gap
between theory and practice. I think that a well-balanced combination of theory andpractice is essential for both translation studies and translators. If either side is missing, wecannot expect the full development of this discipline and profession.
Baker (1992) encourages formal academic training of translators through which they makea conscious effort to understand various aspects of their work. She claims “throughout its
long history, translation has never really enjoyed the kind of recogni tion and respect that
other professions such as medicine and engineering enjoy” and suggests “translators need

NAGANUMA Mikako, “Thematic Challenges in Translation between Japanese and English.”Interpretation Studies (Special Issue), December 2000, pages 101-105.
© 2000 by the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies.

101to develop an ability to stand back and reflect on what they do and how they do it” (ibid.:2-4). This is the starting point of what I am going to try to establish in this research.
Research questions
It is relatively recent that translation studies have realized the thematic problems, so I think
it useful to start with Ventola’s fundamental question (1995:85): “What happens to thetext’s Theme-Rheme structures and their thematic patterns and developments when thetext goes through a translation process?” More specifically, I try to answer the following
questions in this research.
1. What are similarities and differences between Japanese and English with regard toTheme-Rheme structures at a clause level and thematic developments at a discourse
level when comparing the source language text and the target language text?
2. What are the thematic challenges the translator encounters when translating between
Japanese and English?
These basic questions may not necessarily find simple answers. However, this is my very
first exploration into the world of translation potentiality, so I do not intend to hurry
towards a definite conclusion immediately but rather to make these research questions astarting point of more extensive text analyses in the future.
Thematic equivalence
In the systemic functional model of the lexicogrammar, language has three metafunctions –ideational, interpersonal and textual. These three are simultaneous strands of meaning, but“while translation should give equal weight to all three metafunctional contributions, there
has been a strong tendency to give more weight to the ideational metafunction”(Matthiessen 1999:47). It is unfortunate that the traditional translation studies have paid
little attention to the textual equivalence.
The thematic analysis with functional grammar helps translators become aware of how thetext guides readers as it unfolds. Halliday uses a clause as a unit for analysis and textuallydivides it into two parts; Theme and Rheme. He defines the Theme as “the point ofdeparture of the message” and the Rheme as “the remainder of the message,” so “as amessage structure, a clause consists of a Theme accompanied by a Rheme” (1994:37). Baker
clearly points out two functions of the Theme (1992:121).

102

1.

It acts as a point of orientation by connecting back to previous stretches of discourse
and thereby maintaining a coherent point of view.

2.

It acts as a point of departure by connecting forward and contributing to thedevelopment of later stretches.

Baker’s discussion focus of the Theme-Rheme distinction related to translation is text-based
rather than the structure of individual clauses. She explains that methods of organizationand development in different types of text are reflected in the overall choice of Themes.
Having noted the significance of the thematic progression, we must still first shed light on
individual clauses for the purpose of investigating how the Theme is realized in the source
language text and the target language text.
Summary and future direction
In Chapters 3 and 4 of the dissertation, I examine various authentic examples to findpossible answers to the research questions raised in Chapter 1. The authentic examples
reveal a complexity of thematic equivalence in translation. However, it can be said thatthematic equivalence is not less important than ideational equivalence.

To be honest,

before becoming aware of the thematic equivalence, I myself had mainly depended on myown intuition and experience in dealing with thematic issues. It seems to me that a majorityof translators still tend to pay little attention to the text’s Theme-Rheme structure. In thissense, being sensitive to thematic problems is the fundamental first step for translators totackle various thematic challenges.
The first research question with regard to similarities and differences is partly answered inChapters 3 and 4 by comparing Themes realized in English and Japanese clauses and theirdevelopments. In both English and Japanese, multiple Themes could be basically realizedclause-initially. It cannot be ignored that, however, in Japanese the clause final position isalso important textually and interpersonally in order to realize structural andmood-making elements.
The second research question is the one I am most tempted to explore further in future.
Translators need to be very careful when rendering marked Themes because the degree ofmarkedness varies depending on languages. For instance, thematic circumstances orparticipants are less marked and more frequent in Japanese than in English because oftheme markers, typically -wa. In particular, translation of a thematic circumstance of Matter103

and absolute Theme in Japanese is challenging for translators who are working from orinto English in which frequent use of them is clumsy and unnatural.
Throughout the process of text analyses in this research, I have often been puzzled becauseeven when in the case thematic equivalence can be literally preserved, it is not uncommon
to find an instantiated target language text which doesn’t reflect lexicogrammatical featuresof its source language text. Translation is likely to be target reader oriented, and in actual
examples, which are products of the complex translation process, dynamic equivalence ismore prevalent than formal equivalence.

Nida’s concept of “the closest naturalequivalence” (1964) must be also taken into consideration in order to achieve thematicequivalence.
I have focused mainly on written translation in this research, but the thematic issues are
not limited to written work. We can investigate oral translation or interpreting as well.
When considering time restrictions especially in simultaneous interpreting, we will surely
encounter quite different thematic challenges. The training of translators and interpreters
in how to organize a message between two different languages is another area which Iwould like to develop and apply this research in the near future.

Contact the author at: mikakon@d9.dion.ne.jp
The full text of Ms. Nagayama’s paper is available online at the following website (as ofNovember 11, 2000): http://ux01.so-net.ne.jp/%7Ea-mizuno/naganuma. html

REFERENCES
Baker, M. (1992). In other words: a coursebook on translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Bell, R. (1991). Translation and translating: theory and practice. London and New York: Longman.
Fries, P.H. (1995). “A personal view of Theme.” In Ghadessy, M. (ed.) Thematic development inEnglish text. London and New York: Pinter.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. London and New York: Longman.
Matthiessen,C.M.I.M.

(1995).

Lexicogrammatical

cartography:

Englishsystems.

Tokyo:

Inter-national Language Sciences Publishers.
-------- (1999). “The environments of translation.” In Steiner, E. and Yallop, C. (eds.) Exploringtranslation and multilingual text production: beyond content. Berlin and New York: Mouton de104

Gruyter.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. and Halliday, M.A.K. (1997). Systemic functional grammar: a first step into
the theory.
Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon.
-------- (1988). A textbook of translation. London: Prentice Hall.
Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: Brill.
Nida, E. and Taber, C.R. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: Brill.
Teruya, K. (1998). An exploration into the world of experience: a systemic-functional interpretation of
the grammar of Japanese. Ph.D. thesis, Macquarie University.
-------- (1999). “Metafunctional profile of the grammar of modern Japanese.” In Caffarel A. andMartin, J.R. (eds.) Language typology: a functional perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ventola, E. (1995). “Thematic development and translation.” In Ghadessy, M. (ed.) Thematicdevelopment in English texts. London and New York: Pinter.
Wilss, W. (1982a). The science of translation: problems and methods. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
-------- (1982b). “Translation equivalence.“ In Noss, R.B. (ed.) Ten papers on translation. Singapore:Seameo.

105