An Investigation of 30 English-Chinese
Translation Texts in Their Degree of
Anglicization: A Case Study of Linguistic
Borrowing
Chuo Chih-cheng*
Abstract
Over the past few decades English-Chinese translation texts have been severely
discredited with containing varied and many Anglicized features. Anglicization of
translation texts has aroused the general public’s concern that Chinese may be
contaminated by translation texts to some extent. It is therefore of academic
significance to investigate such a phenomenon. Based on 30 texts and 4 degrees of
Anglicization, namely very Anglicized, moderately Anglicized, fluent and very fluent,
this study aims to investigate to what extent English-Chinese translation texts contain
English features. This study finds the average degree of Anglicization of the 30 texts
is 2.07, meaning the average text is fluent. Of the 30 texts, 5(16.7%) are found to be
very Anglicized; 7(23.3%), moderately Anglicized; 12(40%) fluent; 6(20%), very
fluent. Overall, 18, or 60%, of them are found to be fluent or very fluent, being
completely free from any borrowed feature. This indeed points to the fact that
translators have over the past few years endeavored to turn out satisfactory translation
works. Only 12(40%) of the texts are found to be either moderately Anglicized or
very Anglicized. The five “very Anglicized” texts are found to be characterized
mostly by overuses of particles and qualifiers and unnecessary uses of certain words,
unclear or awkward Chinese phrases or sentences resulting from translators’ lack of a
solid understanding of the English syntax, or adoption of word-for-word translation.
The very Anglicized texts all need rewriting to make them readable or fluent.
Key words: English-Chinese translation, Degree of Anglicization. Linguistic
borrowing
*
Assistant Professor, Department of Applied Foreign Language, Chung Chou Institute of Technology
1
英中譯文順暢度之探討：語言引借個案研究
卓志誠*
摘要
過去數十年來，有些英中譯文因為含有各種英文成分，而飽受有識之士抨擊與詬
病。他們憂慮中文會因此而受到污染。有鑑於此，探討中譯文英化程度為何有其
學術之意義及價值。本研究以 30 個英中譯文段落為素材，研究者所釐訂之四個
英化程度，即非常英化、稍微英化、順暢、非常順暢，並分別給於 4, 3, 2.及 1
為判斷指標，來探討中譯文英化程度。研究顯示 30 個英中譯文段落之平均英化
程度程度 2.07，表示整體中譯文尚屬順暢。其中 5(16.7%)段落非常英化，7(23.3%)
段落稍微英化，12 段落(40%)為順暢，6(20%)則為非常順暢。就整體而言，60%
中譯文段落有順暢或非常順暢之水準，此表示大多數譯者之訓練是足夠的。40%
中譯文段落有英化現象。研究發現非常英化之 5 段落，其特點為過度使用語助
詞，或因譯者未能掌握英文語法，或依字面翻譯，而導致譯文語詞意義不清楚。
這五段譯文都應加以修正。
關鍵詞：英譯中、英化程度、外來成份
Introduction
Background of the study
Translation texts have over the past few centuries found their way into general
readers, thus contributing to the spread of the world’s common cultural treasure. In
some European countries, Italy, Sweden and Netherland for instance, translation texts
make up an average 20 percent of total yearly title production. It is found that the total
number of translated books sold soars as a function of the total numbers of books sold
(Abel, 1993). Small wonder translation is regarded as a heavy industry.
Despite their contribution to the spread of the world’s culture and enrichment
of native languages (Abel, 1993; Chen, 1996), translation texts have nevertheless
aroused purist and academic concern and worry. On the one hand, they are concerned
that over exposure to foreign culture might undermine the general public’s perception
of their own tradition. On the other hand, they are worried that the purity of their
native language has to some degree been contaminated by the donor language, which
seems to be culturally superior (McLaughlin, 1970).
At issue is the case of English-Chinese translation texts, which have over the
past few decades been discredited with too much Anglicization, thus rendering them
unreadable or influent on the one hand and failing to convey the intended message or
awkward to read. Good translation, according to Lin (1972), should conform to the
constructions and usages of the target language while still convey the intended
2
message of the source language. Low-quality translation texts, on the contrary, not
only fail to transmit the intended message but also make readers take inappropriate
constructions or usages in the translation texts for granted.
English-Chinese translation texts have over the past few decades frequently
been found to contain many and varied syntactic features from English. Notable
among them are (1) overuse of the passive voice particle bei「被」(Tsao, 1978), (2)
increasing applications of the preposition tsai「在」and overuse of possessive like
wode「我的」 or nide「你的」(Chao, 1968), (3) high occurrence frequency of the
particle de「的」(Chuo, 1979; Chuo et al, 2007), and (4) overuse of the subject wo「我」
and the demonstratives zhe「這」and nei「那」, the lengthening of sentences, the
increased use of the connectives such as dang「當」, han「和」, and jiaru「假如」
(Wang, 1947).
It is small wonder that occurrences of English features in translation texts such
as those mentioned above are likely to exert influence on translation texts as to their
fluency or readability. It is plausible to infer that translation texts containing more
English features are more likely to be less fluent. Fluency of translation texts is
therefore closely related to the number and kinds of English features in translation
texts.
Purpose of the study
English-Chinese translation texts are found to occur in newspapers, movies,
television, pamphlets, instructions, books, textbooks, magazines, and so on. They
have almost penetrated every aspect of our daily life. The general public almost
inevitably comes into contact with any form of translation. It is therefore of academic
significance to investigate to what extent translation texts are Anglicized. Such an
investigation will provide an in-depth understanding of how English features and
Chinese syntactic structures and usages are interwoven to form a very unique writing
genre. The investigation will enable those concerned about the linguistic purity or
clarity of Chinese to see what Anglicized texts look like and why they lack
Chineseness in terms of usages and syntactic constructions. In addition, the
investigation will also highlight the communication grey areas resulting from direct
linguistic borrowing, thus creating culturally or linguistically unacceptable usages.
Two research questions are thus proposed:
1. To what extent are translation texts Anglicized?
2. What are the characteristics of the texts judged to be “very Anglicized”?
Related Literature
Translation involves two languages which utilize different syntactic devices.
3
According to Huang (1978), it is empirically impossible for a translator to find an
identical counterpart in a target language which is completely identical to a specific
syntactic feature in a source language. When faced with a source language syntactic
feature which has no counterpart in the target language, translators may adopt one of
the following four situations:
1. Being unable to fully understand the meaning of the whole sentence and being
afraid of translating inappropriately, translators may simply decide not to translate
the sentence.
2. Despite having partial understanding of the sentence, translators knowingly turn out
something inappropriate.
3. Because translators are unable to find a counterpart grammatical feature in Chinese,
they are forced to translate English sentence into Chinese literally
4. Translators fully understand the meaning of the sentence and are also able to find
counterpart syntactic features in Chinese (Chen, 2006, p.140)
It is the researchers’ belief that a majority of translators are unlikely to be
faced with situation 1 and 2, considering the professional training they have received
and the standards required of them either by publishing companies or themselves. It is
situation 3 that a majority of translators are faced with from time to time. Under
situation 3, translators are very likely to borrow linguistic features from the source
language, thus resulting in constructions or usages different from those of Chinese
writing.
Linguistic Borrowing
Linguistic borrowing is just what its name implies—the copying of a linguistic
form from speakers of another speech form (Gleason, 1961). It is a process whereby a
feature of a donor (source) language is introduced into a recipient (target) language.
Two types of borrowing are generally identified: lexical borrowing and grammatical
(syntactical) borrowing. According to Chuo (1979), when a foreign feature, lexical or
grammatical, is introduced, it usually undergoes three stages:
1. The incipient stage, wherein it is one of innumerable variations confined to the use
of a few people
2. The propagation stage, wherein it is adopted by such large number of speakers that
it stands in contrast to the older form along a broad front of social interaction
3. The completion stage, wherein it attains regularity by the elimination of a
competing variant (p. 1)
Characteristics of Linguistic Borrowing
Linguistic borrowing, according to previous studies, has the following
4
characteristics:
1. Linguistic borrowing usually occurs where two forms of speech are quite different
(Gleason, 1961). Typically the flow is greater in one direction than in the other. The
speaker of a language regarded for any reason socially or culturally superior does
not feel under any compulsion to learn a language regarded as inferior, though he
may condescend to pick up an occasional word that serves him in the trouble of
inventing one himself (Bolinger, 1975).
2. When two languages are in contact, words are affected first, grammar last. The
commonest form of borrowing is that of direct borrowing of words, which are call
loanwords (Bolinger, 1975; Webster’s College Dictionary, 2000). More than 75% of
the words in English, for example, are technically loanwords (Zeiger, 1977).
Lexical borrowings are concentrated in the areas where contact is most intense. So
it is not surprising that science and technology lead the field nowadays, with sports
and tourism close behind (Bolinger, 1975).
3. Linguistic borrowing is sometimes equated with literal translation and is
discredited with laziness. The reason that the so-called literal translation is often
considered basic and somehow more faithful is that a dictionary equivalent apart
from context of use, even allowing for multiple glosses under each single entry, is
more constant than if accrual context is taken into account. A literal translation is
therefore simply a lazy man’s translation (Chao, 1969).
4. With respect to syntactic borrowing, Wang (1947) suggested the influence of a
language on another is limited, especially in the level of syntax. According to him,
the borrowed feature must be inherent in the recipient language. The feature must
be already there. It is contact that propagates the usage of the feature. Chao (1969)
also pointed out that grammatical borrowing, or structural borrowing is less
common than borrowings of words or translation borrowings. Borrowing of other
grammatical forms such as word order is a much less common linguistic borrowing.
5. The introduction of a new syntactic form may delimit the constructions of a native
form. By this is meant that both the source language and the target language have
the same construction (or transformational rules) but there are different selection
features for the construction. However, the introduction of the new form in the
source language may consequently delimit the construction held for the native form.
This is best exemplified in the present Chinese passive voice. Modern Chinese
speakers feel comparatively free in applying passivization as a result of
Anglicization (Tsao, 1978). One question arises now: What status does a new
syntactic feature (or construction) have? In some cases, it has completely replaced
the native construction; in others, the borrowed construction stands shoulder to
shoulder with the native construction. In still, the new construction adds to the
5
grammar of the recipient language as a new transformational rule (Bynon, 1977).
Rationale of Linguistic Borrowing
Carroll (1973, p.180) pointed out that the formulation of sentences take place
in two levels or stages: (a) grammatical selection, in which the speaker selects the
overall grammatical fame for the sentence or a part of it (is it to be a declarative, or a
question?), and (b) word selection, in which particular words are fitted into particular
“slots” in the sentence. Chomsky’s generative-transformational grammar also pointed
to the fact that (a) a base structure may derive several different surface structures, and
(b) different base structures may derive one and the same surface structure (1964).
Based on their assumptions, it is plausible to say that language users may have a
variety of structures or usages at their bidding either purely for the purpose of
linguistic diversity or personal preference. For instance, some are used in informal
situations, while others may only be used in informal situations. Some structures have
been existent for a long time, while others may only begin to come into acceptance.
Speakers or writers of a language may prefer a specific variant (structure) to another
or others.
Take syntax for example. In the process of linguistic development, there may
be two or more than two syntactical constructions being adopted by its users to
express the same meaning. These coexisting constructions are regarded to be
competing variants, which compete with one another for users’ acceptance. At a given
time, one of the competing variants may be more frequently used than others. English
has such a characteristics; the same is true of Chinese. No doubt, the preference for
one competing variant over others may result in complex problems in
English-Chinese translation. To translate a certain English feature into Chinese, a
translator may be faced with the following four situations:
1. English feature A
Chinese featureα
Chinese featureα
2. English feature A
Chinese featureβ
Chinese featureα
3. English feature A
Chinese featureβ
Chinese featureγ
4. English feature A
no corresponding Chinese feature
6
Of the four situations, situation 1 is the least likely to cause translation problem,
because the English feature A has only one corresponding feature in Chinese, namely
α. As regards situation 2 and 3, the English feature A has more than two
corresponding Chinese features, namelyα,β, andγ. Of the three corresponding
Chinese features, α is closer to English feature A, so translators tend to apply α, being
unaware that β and γ are regarded to be more Chinese. The translation of English
passive voice is a good example:
The English phrase “was ambushed by the enemy” may be translated into one of the
following three Chinese counterparts:
a. 被敵軍襲擊
b. 遭敵軍襲襲
c. 受到敵軍襲襲
Of the three translations, “被敵人襲擊”is a direct borrowing of the English feature.
A majority of translators may prefer to adopt such a feature to ignorance of the other
two features, which are regarded to be more Chinese. This is the one of the reasons
why there are so many 「被」’s in Chinese translation texts.
Concerning situation 4, English feature A does not have any corresponding
Chinese feature. To avoid direct borrowing or literal translation, Chen (1996)
provided the following techniques to avoid awkward or influent translations:
1. Meaning translation
2. Change of the grammatical case
3. Borrowing of meaning-similar expressions
4. Meaning extension
5. Addition of expressions
6. Combined use of literal and literary translation (pp.146-58)
Lin (2005) also suggested that translators may adopt the following techniques:
1. Transformation of syntactic feature:
2. Addition of a word or phrase
3. Deletion of a certain word or phrase
4. Meaning translation
5. Alternative way of saying
6. Delayed translation
7. Translating in an opposite way
8. Voice transfer
9. Parsing of the sentence
10. Tone transfer
11. Complementary feature (pp. 148-53)
According to them, failure to adopt any of the techniques is likely to result in
7
texts containing English features, thus making texts or passages unreadable or influent.
On top of the situations mentioned above, translators may also encounter more
complex situations. For instance, there is a situation where an English featureαmay
derive from two features, namely A and B:
English feature A
English featureα
English feature B
A participle phrase, for example, may derive either from a relative clause or an
adverbial clause. Translators should first identify the origin of a participle phrase.
There are also situations where a feature may come from three different features:
English feature A
English feature B
English featureα
English feature C
The following three sentences all contain one appositive noun clause. According to
Chuo & Chen (2006, p. 67), an appositive noun clause may have three different
underlying constructions:
1. NP-dominated S
a. He had expressed opinions that SDI was unworkable.
The appositive noun clause contained in this sentence derives from an underlying
noun clause serving as a complement:
b. He had expressed opinions, which were that SDI was unworkable.
2. VP-dominated S
a. We are aware of the possibility that the reemergence of SARS could happen.
The appositive noun clause contained in this sentence derives from an underlying
noun clause serving as a subject:
b. We are aware it is possible that the reemergence of SARS could happen.
3. NP-dominated S
a. The belief that there is a personal core gives rise to a “rhetoric of naturalness.”
The appositive noun clause contained in this sentence derives from an underlying
noun clause serving as an object
b. That people believe there is a personal core gives rise to a “rhetoric of
naturalness.”
In the example provided below, translators need to know whether English featureα
8
comes from English feature A, B, or C. Feature A has two Chinese counterparts
namely X and Y; feature B has only one corresponding feature namely X; feature Z
has three counterparts namely X, Y and Z:
.
Chinese feature X
English feature A
English featureα
English feature B
English feature C
Chinese feature Y
Chinese feature X
Chinese feature X
Chinese feature Y
Chinese feature Z
Methodology
Sampling of translation texts
1. To attain representative samples, the researchers selected 30 English-Chinese
translation books as the sources for analysis (Gay, 1992). All the 30 books were
randomly selected from the researchers’ book shelves, school libraries and book
stores. The publishing dates of these books range from 1998 to 2003 (See
References for details). The topics of the 30 translation texts are classified into
four categories, namely literature, business, society and science. Table 1 shows
how the selected books are distributed among the four categories:
Table 1: Classified categories of the 30 translation texts
Text
Translation
Non-translation
Literature
5
9
Business
10
12
Society
8
6
Science
7
3
Total
30
30
Category
Table 1 shows that the topics of the 30 translation texts are not restricted to a
specific category. Heterogeneity of topics may hopefully lead to better validity.
2. From each selected book, one page was randomly selected by the researcher. From
each page, a paragraph was selected for analysis. In total, 30 paragraphs constitute
the source for data analysis. Each of the 30 texts was given a serial number,
starting from 1 and ending with 30 (See Appendix for details).
Definitions of Degrees of Anglicization
The present research aims to investigate the Anglicization degree of translation
9
texts. To attain the intended result, the researchers went through three steps: (1) define
four degrees of Anglicization, namely very Anglicized, moderately Anglicized, fluent,
and very fluent, (2) provide an example for each degree of Anglicization, and (3)
analyze each text on the basis of the definition and rank its degree of Anglicization
accordingly. The details are provided as below:
1. Very Anglicized: Very Anglicized translation texts are those which contain lengthy
sentences, sentences with many clauses, a high occurrence frequencies of「你
的」、「我的」
、「被」
、「當」、「如果」
、「假如」
、「個」
、and/or「種」, and those
which contain too many Chinese words or phrases whose meanings are hard to
identify. Such texts, which are mostly based on word-for-word approach to neglect
of Chinese usages, are either very influent to read or totally meaningless. A large
portion of such a text needs syntactic reconstructions to make it readable or fluent
(Chen, 1996, p.142). The translation text provided below is a good example:
「該棟建築物與原先準備在執行方案時將形成許多好問題的構想，有頗大的距離。一再來回
衝向我的爭論之聲是：她們將再次投入未準備妥善、或說未來為她們準備的情境中。搬遷到
一處具體化的自然情境，去執行該種方案是件美好且令人愉悅的事。」
(王文科, 1994, p.156)
Ranking: translation texts regarded to be very Anglicized are ranked “4”.
2. Moderately Anglicized: Translation texts containing one or two English Syntactic
features or words or usages with vague meaning. Readers, however, are still able
to decode their meaning from the context. The translation text provided below is a
good example:
「當七歲兒童展露出對世界有更多的興趣時，科學和社會科就有了新的意義。這種興趣將
會繼續擴大及分化，一直到他們八、九、十歲。在使用教科書查看國外的沙漠或山城之前，
應該要對兒童自己所居住的城市或鄉鎮先加以研究和了解。」
(林合懋, 2004, p. 95)
Ranking: translation texts regarded to be moderately Anglicized are ranked “3”. Some
parts of such a text need rewriting to make it readable or fluent.
3. Fluent Chinese：Translation texts contain such syntactic constructions and usages
as are found to in non-translation texts. Scarcely any English feature can be
identified in the text. Readers in general can read them through without any
deliberation. See the example provided below:
「這個全球化的挑戰-----無論是對國家或個人----就是要在保存一種身分、家和社群的感覺，
與在全球化體系之內盡其所能地求生存，兩者之間取得一種健全的均衡。任何想在今天獲得
經濟蓬勃發展成就社會，就必須不斷地試圖造出更好的凌志汽車，然後把它們駛到世界各
地。」
(蔡繼光, 2000, p. 59)
Ranking: translation texts regarded to be fluent are ranked “2”. On the whole, such a
10
text needs no rewriting.
4. Very fluent: No English feature can be located in the text. Translation texts not
only use Chinese constructions and usages but also place emphasis on rhetoric and
applications of Chinese proverbs or sayings. The translation text provided below
is a good example:
「這座城市(紐約)裡，有心靈最空虛的百萬富翁，人格最渺小的偉人，最目空一切的草包，
最使人瞧不上眼的美女，最低矮的摩天大樓，和最令人乏味的娛樂，比我所見到的任何城市
都有過之而無不及。」
(陳定安, 1996, p.52)
Ranking: translation texts regarded to be very fluent are ranked “1”. Figure 1 show
the four degrees of Anglicization in continuum:
1
2
very fluent
3
4
fluent
moderately Anglicized
Continuum of Anglicization degree
very Anglicized
Figure 1: Anglicization degree in continuum
Data analysis
This study aims to judge the degree of Anglicization of each of the 30 translated
texts. Based on his professional training in linguistics and expertise in translation, the
researchers read through each text in detail and identified its degree of Anglicization.
Each text is ranked either “4”, “3”, ”2”, or “1” depending on the researchers’
judgment of its degree of Anglicization. The value of each of the 30 texts will be
attained first and then the mean value of the 30 texts will be generated.
Results
Research Question One
To what extent are translation texts Anglicized?
The degree of Anglicization of each text and the mean value of all the 30 texts are
provided in Table 2 and 3 respectively:
Table 2: degree of Anglicization of each text
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Judgment
2
4
3
1
2
1
3
2
1
3
Number
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Judgment
2
4
4
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
Number
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Judgment
2
2
4
2
3
2
2
1
4
3
11
Table 3: mean value of the 30 texts
1-30 各題平均值
2
1
2
3
2
2
4
3
4
2
2
2
S =62
3
2
4
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
2
3
2
1
3
3
M =2.07
Table 3 shows the fluency degree of each passage and the mean value.
Facts derived from Table 3：
1. The mean value of the 30 texts is 2.07, being only a little higher than 2. This
means that translation texts are, in the average, fluent.
2. Of the 30 texts, 5(16.7%) are graded 4, meaning they are very Anglicized.
3. Of the 30 texts, 7(23.3%) are graded 3, meaning they are moderately Anglicized.
4. Of the 30 texts, 12(40%) are graded 2, meaning they are fluent
5. Of the 30 texts, 6(20%) are graded 1, meaning they are very fluent.
Research Question Two
What are the characteristics of the texts judged to be “very Anglicized”?
Facts derived from the five texts:
Table 2 and 3 shows 5 texts, namely 2, 12, 13, 23, and 29 are judged to be very
Anglicized. Based on the researchers’ definitions of Anglicization, the five texts (2, 12,
13, 23, and 29) identified as very Anglicized are found to respectively contain various
direct borrowings, either syntactic or lexical, from English. The underlined Chinese
words or phrases in each of the following five passages are either difficult to
understand or awkward to read:
Text 2
「主要探索者的目標有兩層。他想見到『真正的世界』，且以仔細而詳細方式予
以描述。 接著他想退回。並以較廣義的、更抽象名詞來概化『真正的世界』
，
俾能應用於任何的班級。後面的這種處裡即是藉著發展教室模式完成之。研究
者的興趣在於學習的方面，勝於關注中層階級教師處理一群低階層兒童的方
式。」
1. Overuse of “的”,
2. Many terms such as “兩層”、“退回”、“概化”、“後面的”、“這種處裡”、“中層階”、
“低階層” are literal translations of English words or phrases,
12
3. Words need deleting: “方式”、“方面”、“之”、“的”, and
4. Unclear or awkward Chinese phrases or sentences because the translator (a) does
not possess a solid understanding of the English syntax, (b) adopt word-for-word
translation: “主要探索者的目標有兩層”、“接著他想退回”、“後面的這種處裡即
是藉著發展教室模式完成之”、“研究者的興趣在於學習的方面，勝於關注中層
階級教師處理一群低階層兒童的方式。”
Text 12
「在歷史上，無政府狀態都發生於革命和混亂的時代，而且都是由於反政府、
反體制的偏執狂所導致的結果。但是我們在這裡所討論的『健康的無政府主義
現象』，指的是正在街頭上發生的邏輯革命。 之所以具有無政府的色彩，乃是
因為該現象是一種叛逆形式，是一種常態的扭曲。」
1. Overuse of “的”,
2. Overuse of qualifier”一種”, and
3. Unclear or awkward Chinese phrases or sentences because the translator (a) does
not possess a solid understanding of the English syntax, or (b) adopt word-for-word
translation: “邏輯革命”、“常態的扭曲”、“叛逆形式”、“之所以具有無政府的色
彩，乃是因為該現象是一種叛逆形式，是一種常態的扭曲。”
Text 13
「我們要討論的最後一個近因，就是文字。大多數歐亞國家都有識字的官僚系
統，平民中也有很高的比例能讀書識字。文字方便政治管理與經濟交換，激勵與
指引探險、征服的雄心，使資訊與經驗得以累積、傳佈，不受時空控制。」
1. Unclear or awkward Chinese phrases or sentences because the translator (a) does
not possess a solid understanding of the English syntax, or (b) adopt word-for-word
translation: “識字的官僚系統”、“讀書識字”、“文字方便政治管理”、“經濟交換” and
“很高的比例。”
Text 23
「這個全球化的挑戰-----無論是對國家或個人----就是要在保存一種身分、家和
社群的感覺，與在全球化體系之內盡其所能地求生存，兩者之間取得一種健全
的均衡。任何想在今天獲得經濟蓬勃發展成就社會，就必須不斷地試圖造出更
好的凌志汽車，然後把它們駛到世界各地。」
1. Overuse or misuse of qualifier “這個”、“一種”, and
2. Unclear or awkward Chinese phrases or sentences because the translator (a) does
not possess a solid understanding of the English syntax, or (b) adopt word-for-word
translation: “就是要在保存一種身分、家和社群的感覺，與在全球化體系之內
盡其所能地求生存”、“任何想在今天獲得經濟蓬勃發展成就社會”、“然後把它
們駛到世界各地。”
Text 29
「從早到晚，遊客就不斷地把手探到褲兜裡往外掏銅板。整天淅淅瀝瀝到處撒
13
銅板，撒成一條沒有盡頭的河流。你走進ㄧ家法國劇院，買一份說明書，五十
個生丁-----另外賞售貨員十個生丁。你把大衣和手仗交給一個上年紀的女貪鬼。
她主持一個叫作衣帽間的地方，付給他二十五個生丁，外賞十個生丁。」
1. Overuse of particle “的”,
2. Overuse of causative“把”,
3. Overuse of qualifier “個”and
4. Unclear or awkward Chinese phrases or sentences because the translator (a) does
not possess a solid understanding of the English syntax, or (b) adopt word-for-word
translation:“生丁”、“把手探到褲兜裡往外掏銅板”、“整天淅淅瀝瀝到處撒銅
板”、“買一份說明書，五十個生丁-----另外賞售貨員十個生丁”、“你把大衣和手
仗交給一個上年紀的女貪鬼”、“她主持一個叫作衣帽間的地方，付給他二十五個
生丁，外賞十個生丁。”
Limitations of the Study
1. The definitions of the four degrees of Anglicization lack quantitative support.
2. The postulation of the degree of fluency, which is based on the researchers’
trainings and experiences, may be biased to a certain extent.
Conclusions and Suggestions
Based on 4 degrees of Anglicization, namely “very Anglicized” (ranking 4);
“moderately Anglicized”(ranking 3), “fluent”(ranking 2) and “very fluent”(ranking 1),
the researchers judged the Anglicization degree. The average Anglicization degree of
the 30 randomly selected texts is 2.07. This means that the average translation text is
close to fluent (=2). Of the 30 texts, 5 (16.7%) are found to be very Anglicized;
7(23.3%), moderately Anglicized; 12 (40%) fluent; 6 (20%), very fluent. Overall, 12
(40%) of the texts are found to be Anglicized, while 60% are found to contain no
Anglicized features. The five “very Anglicized” texts are found to be characterized
mostly by overuse of particles such as ”的”, causative particles such as “把”, and
qualifiers such as “個”and “種”,and unnecessary use of certain words. They are found
to contain various unclear or awkward Chinese phrases or sentences resulting from
translators’ lack of a solid understanding of the English syntax or adoption of
word-for-word translation. They all need rewriting to make them readable or fluent.
The findings of this study contradict to some extent the stereotypical
conception that most translation texts are Anglicized. This study finds, however, that
except for 5 very Anglicized and 7 moderately Anglicized, 18, or 60%, of them are
found to be fluent or very fluent, being completely free from any borrowed feature.
This indeed points to the fact that translators have over the past few years endeavored
to turn out satisfactory translation works. Underlying such accomplishments are the
14
professional training they have received and their self-awareness to keep Chinese
from being Anglicized. They are praiseworthy for their contribution to helping spread
knowledge while still maintaining linguistic purity.
As for eliminating influent passages, the researchers suggest that (1)
translators in general should receive more professional training in Chinese writing, (2)
translators may invite friends or colleagues to read the versions to pinpoint unclear or
awkward passages before publishing translation texts, and (3) non-professional
translators are advised not to assume the tasks of translation to avoid turning out
unreadable passages.
References
Abel, R. (1993). Some Aspects of Book Translations. In Publishing Research
Quarterly. Fall 93, Vol. 9, Issue 3, pp. 70-82.
Bolinger, D. (1975). Aspects of Language. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Bynon, T. (1977). Historical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1973). Language and Psychology. In Linguistics. Archibald, H. ed.
Washington, D. C. Voice of America Forum Lectures. pp. 185-95.
Chao, Yen-ren. 趙元任 (1968). Language and Symbolic Systems. London: The
University of Cambridge Press.
Chen, Chin-yin 陳瑾瑛 (Feb, 2006). An Investigation of Applied Foreign Language
Students’ Mastery Levels at the Three Steps of the English-Chinese Translation
Process: A Study of the English Appositive Noun clause Approach. In Journal of
Mei Ho College of Technology. Vol. 25-1, pp. 121-142.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T.
Chuo, Chih-cheng. 卓志誠 (1979). The Development of the Chinese Noun Phrases
in the Past Two Hundred Years: A Case Study of Anglicization. Unpublished
Master’s thesis. Taipei: Fu Jen Catholic University.
Chuo, Chih-cheng; Kuan, Chiou-hsiung; & Wu, Jenn-rong. 卓志誠；管秋雄；&.吳振榮 (2007).
An Investigation of the Occurrence Frequency of the Chinese Particle 的 in Translation
and Non-translation Texts: A Case Study of Syntactic Borrowing in English-Chinese
Translation. In Jopurnal of chungchou. Vol. 25. pp. 75-94.
Chuo, Chih-cheng; & Chen, Hsiao Ching. 卓志誠；&陳曉靚 (2006). An
Investigation of Appositive Noun Clauses Used in English Textbooks and News
Reports. In Journal of Chienkuo Technology University. Vol. 26, No. 2. pp.67-86.
Corder, J. W. (1981). Handbook of Current English. Blenview, IL: Scott, Foresman
and Company. 6th ed.
Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational Research Competencies for Analysis and Application.
New York: Macmillan.
Gleason, H.A. (1961). An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. New York: NY:
15
Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc.
Maclaughlin, J.C. (1970). Aspects of the History of English. New York: NY: Holt,
Reinhart and Winston.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 曹逢甫 (1978). Anglicization of Chinese Morphology and Syntax in
the Past Two Hundred Years. In Studies in English Literature and Linguistics.
April 1978, pp. 44-54.
Random House Webster’s College Dictionary. (2000). New York, NY: Random House
Inc.
Zeiger, A. (1973). Encyclopedia of English. New York, NY: Arco Publishing Co., Inc.
4th ed.
中文書目
王力. Wang Li (1947). 漢語語法理論. 上海：商務書局.
陳安定. Chen An Ding (1996). 英漢修辭與翻譯 English and Rhetoric and
Translation. 台北：書林出版社.
林語堂. Lin Yu Tang (1972). 當代漢英詞典. 香港中文大學辭典部.
林峻民. Lin Chun Min (2005). 從順譯觀點看英中同步口譯：以演說稿為例. 長榮
大學學報. 第九卷第二期, pp. 145-71.
黃宣範. Huang, Hsien-fan. (1978). 中英翻譯理論與實踐. 台北：文鶴書局.
樣本來源(依姓名筆劃)
1. 尹萍譯 (1999). 高科技高思維. 台北：時報文化. pp. 106-107.
2. 王文科編譯 (1994). 質的教育研究方法. 師大書苑有限公司. pp. 135-6.
3. 王麗娟譯 (January 16, 2006). 雪國：碎瓊亂玉中的微笑. The New York Times in
聯合報. p. 4.
4. 田思怡譯 (January 16, 2006). 喜劇演員為穆斯林觀眾拍喜劇片. The New York
Times in 聯合報. p. 6.
5. 阮大宏譯 (1999). 花錢有理—新時代消費行為大預測. 台北：時報文化.
pp.274-275.
6. 呂錦珍、洪毓瑛譯 (1999). Webonomics 一個新名詞背後的無限商機. 台北：天
下遠見. pp. 122-123.
7. 林合懋譯 (2004). 兒童發展指標. 遠流出版社. pp. 174-175.
8. 林添貴譯 (1999). 品牌塑造-----德國 500 大優良品牌的成功經驗. 台北：智庫.
pp. 10-11.
9. 吳東傑、李芸玫、李靜瑶譯 (1999). 失竊的未來-----生命的隱形浩劫. 台北：
先覺. pp. 140-141.
10. 徐子超譯 (2001). BOBO 族—新社會菁英的堀起. 台北：遠流. pp. 298-299.
11. 席玉蘋譯 (1999). 奢華狂潮—為何瘋狂消費買不到你的滿足？. 台北：智庫.
16
12.
13.
14.
15.
pp.40-41.
陳文玲、田若雯譯 (1998). 來自法國的創意主張與經營策略. 台北：大塊文
化. pp. 160-161.
陳正國譯 (2001). 人類的主人：歐洲帝國時期對其他文化的態度. 台北：麥
田. pp. 336-337.
陳琇玲譯 (2002). 速食共和國-----速食的黑暗面. 台北：天下雜誌. pp. 20-221.
陳重仁、陳逸君譯 (2002). 企業人的新語言：21 世紀企業人的四種全球通識.
pp.198-199
16. 梁彩玲、林永基譯 (1998). 漢堡王-----比超值更比品質. 台北：美商麥格羅．
希爾. pp. 50-51.
17. 陳振東譯 (2001). 大腦變奏曲：神經演化故事 13 章. 台北：究竟出版社.
pp.156-157.
18. 張篤群譯 (1999). 新疆大探險-----絲路敦煌尋寶. 台北：絲路. pp. 296-297.
19. 曾文亮 (2000). 打不起的官司. 台北：商周出版. pp. 216-217.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
彭倩文譯
楊月蓀譯
楊幼蘭譯
蔡繼光譯
董更生譯
(2001) 哈利波特-----火盃的考驗. 皇冠文化出版社. pp. ii-iii
(1998). 金錢簡史. 台北：商業週刊. pp. 184-185.
(1999). 病菌與人類的戰爭. 台中：晨星. pp. 268-269.
(2000). 了解全球化：凌志汽車與橄欖樹. 台北：聯經. pp. 58-59.
(1999). 聖嬰與文明興衰：洪水、饑饉與帝王. 台北：聯經.
pp.112-113.
25. 鄭佳美譯 (2000). 英語帝國 English as a Global Language. 台北：貓頭鷹.
pp.192-193.
26. 齊思賢譯 (2000). 知識經濟時代. 台北：時報文化. pp. 280-281.
27. 劉會梁譯 (1996). 美國頂尖企業的致勝秘訣. 台北：遠流. pp. 22-23.
28. 羅漢等譯 (2002). 科特勒深探大亞洲-----人潮、金潮與地方再造. 台北：pp.
208-209.
29. 蕭乾譯 (1999). 我為什麼殺我的房東. 台北：業強. pp. 120-121.
30. 蔣繼光譯 (2000). 了解全球化：凌志汽車與橄欖樹. 聯經出版事業公司
pp.58-59.
Appendix
譯文(1-30)
1. 尹萍譯
我們生活在暴力文化之中，否認其為真實，相信只是娛樂。電子遊戲被認為
只是無害的遊樂場，而其實是暴力的訓練所。我們身陷入暴力文化之中，連
在感嘆其影響時，都不自覺地使用了暴戾的詞彙與形象。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
2. 王文科編譯
主要探索者的目標有兩層。他想見到「真正的世界」
，且以仔細而詳細方式予
17
以描述。接著他想退回。並以較廣義的、更抽象名詞來概化「真正的世界」，
俾能應用於任何的班級。後面的這種處裡即是藉著發展教室模式完成之。研
究者的興趣在於學習的方面，勝於關注中層階級教師處理一群低階層兒童的
方式。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
3. 王麗娟譯
最近一個週六，日本津男 80 歲的桑元仁惠爬出二樓窗戶，站在環繞房屋四周、
高三公尺的一堵雪牆上。她望向稱為雪國的這片地區，背後遠山白茫茫綿延起
伏。她社區除了三角形屋頂，全蓋在創紀錄的大雪。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
4. 田思怡譯
剛從中東返國的艾伯特布魯克斯說話像累壞了，卻也一派春風得意，又如釋重
負。他的新片「尋找幕司林世界的喜劇」在第二屆杜拜國際電影節全球首映。
其實布魯克斯的電影不是第一個試圖在 911 之後的政治環境擠出幽默的努力。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
5. 阮大宏譯
有時候我用這樣的方法將我們的客戶變成業餘的科學家：我會逼迫他們跟我ㄧ
起站在商店內的某個定點半個鐘頭左右，只是觀察而已。這會成為一項饒富
禪意的經驗。因為你只是觀察而不移動，你將會發現許多不這麼做就無法見
到的事物。五分鐘後，你將會觀察到只看一分鐘時所遺漏的事物。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
6. 呂錦珍等譯
在全球資訊網上，資訊是決定產品能否暢銷的重要因素。網路之所以讓人驚
艷，就是因為它能吸納資訊之眾流成為無垠的瀚海，使人們盡情的馳帆於其
中，享受披沙揀金的樂趣。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
7. 林合懋譯
因此，對十三歲兒童而言，學校以外的活動就顯得特別重要。面對十三歲兒童
的退縮、迴避、自以為是、關在房間裡一直拿著電話講話的傾向，我們要以提
供機會讓他們走入學校運動、活動舞會、和其他結構化的活動，以及提供審慎
觀察的非結構化同儕團體時間來加以應對。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
8. 林添貴譯
我之所以決定調查研究優質企業，源自於一九八 O 年代末期討論國際競爭力
時激起的興趣。經過進一步分析之後，我發現德國長期出口的優異成績大體上
是以中型企業的實力為基礎呈現的。這個發現導引我有系統地蒐集規模雖不
大、卻在世界市場領導地位的公司加以研究。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
18
9. 吳東傑等譯
隔天早上，煉解廠的修繕工程主管打開變壓器的蓋子，檢視受損的情形。發現
已經扭曲、幾乎粉碎的線圈，他當場研判，受損已達不可修復的程度，要求工
作人員清理乾淨，丟進垃圾堆。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
10. 徐子超譯
正當她感受到ㄧ股寧靜飄來時，她注意到在通往廚房的通道上，站著ㄧ位專司
波布職的死亡天使。他披著一件老舊上衣，散發著明亮耀眼的光芒。他必定等
候她ㄧ段時間了，因為他發現了去年春天，她在聖塔菲的手工藝展上所買的ㄧ
個瓷製馬克杯。死亡天使對於他們去年所做的裝修充滿疑問。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
11. 席玉蘋譯
不過，即使這些人口因素的變遷與近年奢華風潮的高漲有關，也只代表ㄧ小部
分的原因。更重要的是，所有人口階層的頂尖收入者，所得正不斷在以異常的
速度增長。這些收入上焉者賺得愈多，花費也愈凶，而且額外的花費鮮少是歸
於必需品之用，因為這些人早已擁有了他們合理範圍內所謂的必需品，ㄧ樣也
不缺。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
12. 陳文玲
在歷史上，無政府狀態都發生於革命和混亂的時代，而且都是由於反政府、反
體制的偏執狂所導致的結果。但是我們在這裡所討論的「健康的無政府主義現
象」，指的是正在街頭上發生的邏輯革命。之所以具有無政府的色彩，乃是因
為該現象是一種叛逆形式，是一種常態的扭曲。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
13. 陳正國譯
我們要討論的最後一個近因，就是文字。大多數歐亞國家都有識字的官僚系
統，平民中也有很高的比例能讀書識字。文字方便政治管理與經濟交換，激勵
與指引探險、征服的雄心，使資訊與經驗得以累積、傳佈，不受時空控制。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
14. 陳琇玲譯
實際上，大型肉品加工業和全美肉品加工社群都要為僱用移民工人付出代
價。由於這類貧窮工人沒有健保，當地的醫療成本因而提高。此外為數眾多
的幽靈人口，只會引起更多犯罪事件。肉品加工業者大膽假設，公有基金能
弭補這些企業引發的成本。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
15. 陳重仁譯
陸元熙集團的成功，是網路化與資訊流通的結果：「我們建立了一種有力的人
員與公司的關係，尋求新的商業契機，不時學習市場動態。我們網路的價值取
19
決於資訊流動的容易程度。」
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
16. 陳振東譯
我不認為那些學生會暸解，其實這一段有關於棒球的對話竟是神經學測試；然
而我還是很滿意，因為見到山米並沒有因一氧化碳中毒而引發柏金森似的跡
象。如果你用他知道而且感興趣的主題來做測試，他則是應答如流，過去和最
近的事件、人物等，他全都記得，而且清楚明地很。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
17. 梁彩玲等譯
我們說服兩位投資者在邁阿密蓋兩家新店。新的餐廳開幕了，ㄧ家開在西南八
街六 O 九一號，另ㄧ家開在西北第七大道八九九五號。 但這兩家店的開張均
沒有引起人潮，使我們很難過。兩家店同樣有露天的天井供客人用餐，但大部
分的客人還是喜歡在車上吃。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
18. 張篤群譯
如果同意把古物留在中國就能重返新疆的話，斯坦因是願意妥協的。原則上
他不會拒絕把古物運往西方進行記錄和檢查，然後再運回北京的安排。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
19. 曾文亮譯
這封信的主要用意在於對珍妮佛所承受的那種副作用提出警告。信中提到一
篇刊在於醫生們「通常不會訂閱」的期刊上文章。該篇文章的研究報告指出，
原本對於茶鹼藥劑不會有不良反應的氣喘兒童，一但受到病毒感染，茶鹼中
的毒素便可能對其生命造成威脅。」
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
20. 彭倩文譯
依然保持前幾集那種令人敬畏的獨創性、冷面笑匠式的幽默感，以及高潮迭起
的緊湊節奏，籮琳就像以往一般，將所有情節天衣無縫地交織為ㄧ，而先前那
些外表看似不經意的細節，在最後看來卻都蘊藏著ㄧ股意味深長的動力。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
21. 楊月蓀譯
歐洲與北美的激進主義者以及民主政治人士均認為，打擊，甚或消滅資產階
級是唯一的解決問題之道。或許為了反擊這股針對他們的敵意，有一些富豪開
始大舉推行並賣力宣傳慈善工作。服務成為致富的重大步驟，這在美國尤為顯
著。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
22. 楊幼蘭譯.
醫學進步、生態變化、以及行為改變，都推波助瀾，造就了三種新病中規模最
大也最致命的傳染性愛滋病。事實上，它的出現，幾乎跟任何可能的新傳染疾
20
病原有關。一九八 0 年代初，愛滋病已在開發國家中緩慢且神不知鬼不覺地流
行。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
23. 蔡繼光譯.
這個全球化的挑戰-----無論是對國家或個人----就是要在保存一種身分、家和社
群的感覺，與在全球化體系之內盡其所能地求生存，兩者之間取得一種健全的
均衡。任何想在今天獲得經濟蓬勃發展成就社會，就必須不斷地試圖造出更好
的凌志汽車，然後把它們駛到世界各地。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
24. 董更生譯
尼羅河及其支流有效和無效的防波堤把整個的沖積平原變成自然的洪氾區。
防波堤比最低的沖積層高出約三公尺，造成約一百平方公里的低淺平原。農
民加高並且維護防波堤，這些南北向的防波堤發揮圍堵河水的功用。
(
) Very Anglicized (
)Moderately Anglicized (
)Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
25. 鄭佳美譯
到了一九九六年終，對「官方語言」未來的方向仍沒定案。語言的爭辯變得
愈來愈兩極化，這項爭辯的情緒層次也逐步拉大，似乎與語言、想法、個體、
社會識別間的親密關係有關，而產生更強烈的情緒。官方英語的支持者，無
論多溫和，總會被貼上「種族主義」的標籤。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
26. 齊思賢譯
雖然官方興學的風氣很盛，政府主導教育活動總已經逐漸不合潮流。政府教
育預算減少，民間的教育支出卻增加，九十年代教育總支出佔國內生產毛額
比率約六.五％，在聯邦政府預算中，教育支出受到社會福利及老年醫療保險
等項目的排擠。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
27. 劉會梁譯
雞球與雞塊成了泰森食品品牌延伸最早且極為成功的例子。泰森認為對速食
業能起作用的事物，也可能對消費者起作用。他開始將行銷手法運用到超級
市場雞球與雞塊的銷售，結果超級市場馬上生意興隆。他說：
「速食業者已經
為我們做好上市及對市場進行產品廣告的工作。」
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
28. 羅漢等譯
阿德萊德在國際地方行銷中推出「完美教育組合」，「阿德萊德是一座寧靜的
城市，適合學習；是一個安全的都市，適合居住；是來自一百多個國家和地
方人們共同的家，在這裡人們可以過得富足而安定。」在阿德萊德，大學、
學院及其他學校保證將各國學生的安全、快樂和利益置於首位，教職員致力
於偽學生提供全澳洲最好的服務。」
21
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
29. 蕭乾譯
從早到晚，遊客就不斷地把手探到褲兜裡往外掏銅板。整天淅淅瀝瀝到處撒
銅板，撒成一條沒有盡頭的河流。你走進ㄧ家法國劇院，買一份說明書，五
十個生丁-----另外賞售貨員十個生丁。你把大衣和手仗交給一個上年紀的女貪
鬼。她主持一個叫作衣帽間的地方，付給他二十五個生丁，外賞十個生丁。
(
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
) Very Fluent.
30. 蔣繼光譯
也許那正是你在本書中所得到的許多我最鍾愛的故事，都來自我大學時代維
克特佛德曼經(Victor Friedman)的緣故。維克特目前在以色列魯平(Ruppin
Institute) 研究所擔任企管教授。我有一天打電話給他，向他問好。他告訴我，
(
他很高興我打電話給他。因為他手上已經沒有我的電話了。
) Very Anglicized (
) Moderately Anglicized (
) Fluent (
22
) Very Fluent.