中文可說是個篇章導向的語言(discourse-oriented language)，以篇章為其基本單位，數個中文子句不藉連接詞即可連結成主題串(topic chain)。當如此龐大的篇章單位翻譯成主語顯著的英文時，譯者會面臨的困難是，如何將主題串切割成數個英文句子。然而，此議題卻鮮少前人研究。因此，本論文試圖探討中文主題串英譯時的翻譯策略，並著重於斷句的影響因素。分析的語料來自漢英對照版的台灣光華雜誌以及翻譯教科書。為了瞭解翻譯策略，本研究分析中文的語意分段標記與資訊順序，並與譯文比較。分析結果顯示譯者在翻譯時會採用三種策略：反映段落標記(Reflecting the Markers)、建立語句關係(Establishing Textuality)、重整資訊(Rearranging Information)。第一個策略是將中文段落標記作為英譯斷句的依據。段落標記包括三類：主題的形式、連接詞、標點符號。第二個策略，建立語句關係，表示英譯斷句依據中文主題串各句子之間的篇章關係。第三個策略，重整資訊，表示透過增加、刪除、調換順序等方式調整原文的資訊。 / Chinese is considered a discourse-oriented language. The basic unit of the Chinese language is discourse-based. Several Chinese clauses can be linked together without any connectives to form a topic chain. When such a large discourse is translated into English, a subject-prominent language, translators may have difficulty deciding how to segment a Chinese topic chain into English sentences. However, little research has been done on this topic. The present study aims to explore translation strategies used in translating Chinese topic chains into English. In particular, the demarcation mechanism will be the focus. Chinese-to-English translation data from Taiwan Panorama, a Chinese-English bilingual magazine, and from translation textbooks are collected for analysis. The demarcation markers and information flow in Chinese are analyzed and compared to understand how they are treated in the English translation. Three strategies have been found: Reflecting the Markers, Establishing Textuality, and Rearranging Information. Reflecting the Markers is to reflect the Chinese boundary markers as English demarcation points. Boundary markers contain nominal references of topic, connectives, and punctuation marks. Establishing Textuality is to organize the Chinese topic chain based on the internal textual relationships. Rearranging Information is to add, delete, or reorder the information.

本研究旨於調查四個轉折連詞包括on the other hand、in/by contrast、 on the contrary 以及 nevertheless 在美國當代語料庫 (COCA) 以及學習者語料庫(ICNALE) 使用之不同情形及第二語學習者的使用錯誤分析。 本研究從美國當代語料庫 (COCA) 蒐集了四百篇文本(每個轉折連詞各一百篇)以及從學習者語料庫料庫 (ICNALE) 蒐集了一千八百篇學生的寫作，學生的文章分別來自台灣、香港、新加坡、菲律賓的大學生以及母語人士。本研究假設為:雖然四個轉折連詞被歸類為同一類轉折連詞 (adversative type)，各個轉折連詞的語義及用法應有所不同。本研究語料分析主要分為兩部分，第一部分分析各個轉折連詞中的篇章關係 (discourse relation)，調查四個轉折連詞上下文的不同反義的語義情況。第二部分聚焦於轉折連詞上下文中的主題分布 (topic categorization)，旨於發現是否特定轉折連詞出現於特定主題之內。 研究結果經由語料分析發現，四個轉折連詞有特定傾向的篇章關係和主題分布。在學習者語料庫中，本研究發現第二語言學習者比起母語人士，使用更多轉折連詞於寫作中，特別是on the other hand 以及nevertheless。台灣學生以及英語為第二外語學生在上下中，常將on the other hand的篇章關係使用為in addition 之用法。在連詞nevertheless方面，雖然學生使用頻率較高，但多為誤用情況，顯示出學生對於該轉折連詞的不熟悉情況。而in/by contrast 和on the contrary 皆不常出現於第二語言學習者和母語人士的寫作中。本研究最後提出在英語教學上的建議：在課堂上教導轉折連接詞時，應需加強語意以及上下文方面的探討，並訓練學生正確文句之間的邏輯關係。 / The present study adopts corpus analysis to investigate four adversative connectives (ACs), including on the other hand, in/by contrast, on the contrary, and nevertheless in the native corpus, the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), and in the leaner corpus, the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English, (ICNALE). The comparison of the two corpora and the common misuse by L2 learners are also presented. The data comprise of 400 texts in COCA (100 texts for each AC) and 1800 essays written by students in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Philippines, and by native speakers in ICNALE. The research hypothesis is that although the four ACs are classified in the same ‘adversative’ type, their meanings and uses are different from one another. The adoption of corpus helps to find the patterns of each AC. The data are analyzed from two perspectives: one is the discourse relation while the other is topic categorization. The discourse relation refers to the relations of the preceding and following co-texts of the AC. The topic categorization, on the other hand, aims at finding if there are specific topics that are frequently occurred with certain ACs and if these topics are consistent before or after the occurrences of the Cs. The findings confirm the prediction that by analyzing the data in COCA, each AC exists in certain discourse relations and topics. The present study finds that different from native speakers, L2 learners often use on the other hand as ‘addition’ yet a great number of uses of nevertheless are viewed as misuse. As for on the contrary and in/by contrast, both native speakers and L2 learners seldom apply the ACs in their writing. The present study also provides the common misuse patterns in ESL/EFL students’ writing. It is hoped that the findings have implications for teachers and learners to be aware of the differences of ACs.