Discourse Power and Translator’s Style

張 俊

1 Introduction

Translation critics usually expound their view on the stylistic feature of a certain translated work from the perspective of literary aesthetics. From Kumurajivas ‘elegance based on the original(依實(shí)出華), to Yan Fus ‘elegance(雅), to Fu Leis ‘expression resemblance(神似),and to Qian Zhongshus ‘transfiguration(化境), traditionally, scholars are devout believers of the artistry of transferring the spirit of the source text(ST) writer. Contemporary scholars, such as Zhang Jin (2005), Zhou Yi & Luo Ping (2005), are still fond of setting standards for the ideal translation of style and they discuss about how to achieve the ideal with examples.

Anyone who ever studied the two versions of Hong Lou Meng —A Dream of Red Mansion (by Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang) and The Story of the Stone (by David Hawks), must find the striking difference between the Yangs style and that of Hawks. Therefore, many critics cite examples from the two versions when they discuss the translation of style. Taking the translation of the cultural items as example, Feng Qinghua(2003) finds that the Yangs translation is literal in style and the cultural features of the source text is maintained while Hawks is free and refined in style because his translation is reader-based and adapted to the target culture.

Nevertheless, Zhang Nanfeng(2004), in his article Norms behind the two English versions of Hong Lou Meng, discussing the ideological reasons for the different strategies adopted in the two versions, gives examples where Hawks as well as the Yangs deviate from Cao Xueqins spirit. He finds that the Yangs version isnt always literal and Hawks version is ever literal.

Why literal and why free? The answer for this question means to explore reasons underlying the formation of the style. Following Zhang Nanfeng, we try to locate an answer in the context of translating. We find that the translators action is governed by the powers over him and how much power of discourse he enjoys, how free he can be and how much his translation can be diverged from the source text. Therefore, to check the reasons shaping the translators style, we need first to examine the power network made up by the source text writer, the patronage and the target reader.

2 Interpreting Power of Discourse in Translating

In the history of translation, translators have long been subjected to the source text writer. As the writer creates the text, he enjoys the initial power to interpret and has the final say in handling it. He wont expect the translator misread his work and misunderstand his meaning. He regards deviation and violation of his intention by the translator as unacceptable. By this tradition, there exists the serious power unbalance between the writer and the translator. The translator has to follow suit and struggle his existence under the shadow of the source text writer.

Any translation has to be brought into and endure the examination of the target culture. In order to have his translation accepted, a translator must consider the readers expectation. According to the reception theory, the reader plays a vital role in the reception of a translated text. That is to say, the target text (TT) reader has super power over the reception of translation. No wonder Wang Zuoliang ever said, ‘to attract the would-be reader is an important mission any translator can never ignore. (cited from Zhou & Luo)

Although Michel Foucault doesnt directly discuss translation, when talking about power, we can not left him out. In his works, ‘power takes the central position. Foucault interprets power as the network consisting of all the elements controlling and governing the production of discourse. Powers in this network is either visible, such as the political mechanism and law clauses, or invisible but perceptible, such as ideology, moral and ethics, religious and cultural traditions. When a translated text is introduced to the target culture, it has to be made to speak in the way the “dominant discourse” (主文本) in the target culture does. The ideological factors, the literary and linguistic norms from the target culture all cast their power over translation. Foucaults points further the readers power from the reception theory.

André Lefevere(1992) writes, translation is not done in a vacuum, but rather influenced by the patronage, ideological and poetic factors. This patronage is the embodiment of power, and to a certain extent the reflection of the ideological and poetic factors in the target language. In his book Translation / History/ Culture, André Lefevere give examples where patronage has the final say on how the translator works. Jean Delisle and Judith Woodsworth, in their book Translators through History also specifies how the translator was oppressed and has to yield to the power of patronage.

Challenges keep coming from the source text writer, the patronage and the reader and translators have to cope with them so as to gain the existence for their translated work.

3 Discourse Power Over Translators Style

In this part, as we make comparative studies on the two English version of Hong Lou Meng, we are to examine how the power of discourse influences the translators, which serves our point that to some extent the stylistic differences between the two versions are due to the unequal power of discourse they enjoy in their respective context of translating.

3.1 ST Writer VS Translator

As Foucault says, ‘discourses themselves are the bearers of various subject positions. What position the translator occupies is manifested in his work. Competitions within the subjects of translation never cease. When the source text writer wins the contest, the translator keeps close to the source text.

For instance, in the translation of this couplet, the Yangs version is more close to the source text:

Example 1: 嫩寒鎖夢(mèng)因春冷,芳?xì)饣\人是酒香。(第五回)

Coolness wraps her dream, for spring is chill; A fragrance assails men, the aroma of wine. (By Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang)

The coldness of spring has imprisoned the soft buds in a wintry dream; The

fragrance of wine has intoxicated the beholder with imagined lower-scents. (By David Hawks)

The meaning of the poem is: it is not easy to fall asleep because it is still a little cold in the spring; the fragrance coming is from the aroma of the wine. The source text is in a flashback manner, that is, the result comes before the reason. The syntactic arrangement of the source text is meaningful to the readers interpretation. Why it is not easy to fall asleep? It is because of the coldness of the spring. Where comes the fragrance? From the wine. The deviation from the normal syntax serves to arouse the readers interest. The Yangs translation keeps the original word order and maintains the aesthetic style while Hawks version is in the English syntax—reason comes before result, but loses the connotative meaning of the source text.

Cao Xueqin enjoys a highest fame in Chinese literary history. His influence in the English cultures cannot rival what he has in Chinese. This means that Hawks has more power than the Yangs do in the writer-translator competition. A journalist ever interviewed Yang Xianyi about his literal style in translating Hong Lou Meng. Yang said that a translator shouldnt have his own style, if he has, it is rewriting, not translating. The Yangs observe the writers authority over their translating while Hawks manipulates the source text according to the English norms.

The Yangs faithfulness towards Cao Xueqin is shown also in the translation of the verbs in the table of contents.

Example 2: 甄士隱夢(mèng)幻識(shí)通靈 賈雨村風(fēng)塵懷閨秀

Zhen Shiyin in a Dream Sees the Jade of Spiritual Understanding (by Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang)

Zhen Shiyin Makes the Stones Acquaintance in a Dream (by David Hawks)

Example 3:賈夫人仙逝揚(yáng)州城

Lady Jia Dies in the City of Yangzhou (by Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang)

A Daughter of the Jias Ends Her Days in Yangzhou City (by David Hawks)

Example 4: 接外孫賈母惜孤女

The Lady dowager Sends for Her Motherless Grand-Daughter (by Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang)

And Old Lady Jias Extends a Compassionate Welcome to the Motherless Child (by David Hawks)

Verbs in ancient Chinese are usually single words. In the Yangs version “識(shí),仙逝,惜” are transferred by the Yangs into “ sees, dies and sends for”, which in style closely follow the Chinese words. In comparison, Hawks translated all the verbs into phrases. Although Hawks version is more colorful than the Yangs and conveys the writers feeling embedded in the verbs, we arent justifiable to say that the Yangs arent qualified for finding more adequate version. Why they use ordinary English words to venture losing connotation of the original words? An explanation is that they want their translation to be formally close to the source text.

3.2 Patronage VS Translator

Patronage, is defined as “something like the powers (persons, institutions) that can further or hinder the reading, writing, and rewiring of literature”(Lefevere:1992) As Zhang Nanfeng analyzes in his article, patronage has an important role in shaping the styles of both versions. Yang & Yangs version was published in 1978 by Foreign Languages Press and Hawks in 1973 by Penguin Books Ltd. Publishers always have great power in deciding how the translator works. At their respective time of tranlsting, the Yangs were more strictly governed while the patronage might less influenced Hawks.

Yang Xianyi once said, ‘I dont enjoy reading Hong Lou Meng. When I was young, I didnt finish even half of the novel. Later, I worked for Foreign Languages Press. I translated whatever I was asked to. Nevertheless, human need to earn their living. Translators usually choose what they are interested in to work on, however, from what Mr. Yang said, we can see that he dont have the power to choose what to translate. Otherwise, it is possible that there would never exist such a version by the Yangs. At that time, Hawks publisher, Penguin Books Ltd., had little restriction on him because the translator is one of the authoritative Sinologists. He chose Hong Lou Meng to work on out of personal interest, not as requested by the patronage. So he has more power in manipulating the source text.

Taking the translation of the ‘sexual issue as example, Zhang (2004) says, the Yangs seem to oppose their usual literal and faithful style, weaken and even omit some ‘dirty words, so their translation is less vulgar and crude than the source text. In contrast, although Hawks also makes slight changes, he keeps more ‘dirty elements. The power of the patronage makes the Yangs have to deviate although they believed in faithfulness to the writer and despised rewriting. In this case, Hawks translation may be more faithful to the feature of the source text and more artistic, dramatic and recreational (Zhang, 2004).

3.3 TT reader VS Translator

As we have mentioned in part one, the reader have a final say in whether a translator is well accepted or not. Hawks writes in the preface of The Story of the Stone, “My one abiding principle has been to translate everything—even puns. For although this is, in the sense I have already indicated, an ‘unfinished novel, it was written (and rewritten) by a great artist with his very lifeblood. I have therefore assumed that whatever I find in it is there for a purpose and must be dealt with somehow or other. I cannot pretend always to have done so successfully, but if I can convey to the reader even a fraction of the pleasure this Chinese novel given me, I shall not have lived in vain.”From his words, we can see that his final purpose is to let his readers have the same pleasure as he has. This purpose is clearly visible in his highly domesticating style. His translation of proverbs are good examples:

Example 5:巧媳婦做不出沒(méi)有米的飯來(lái)。

Even the cleverest housewife cant cook a meal without

rice. (By Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang)

And Even the cleverest housewife cant make bread

without flour. (By David Hawks)

Example 6: 吃著碗里的看著鍋里的。

One eye on the bowl and the other on the pan. (By Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang)

One eye on the dish and the other on the saucepan. (By David Hawks)

To the English readers, the Yangs reserve more Chinese image but their version reads more foreign while Hawks translation more familiar but they may wonder why the Chinese eat the same food and use the same cooking utensils with them. To the Chinese readers, however, the Yangs translation is more familiar. It is hard to imagine that Chinese readers will enjoy a version in which all the Chinese things become what the foreigners use.

When Hawks worked on The Story of the Stone, he refused a position in Oxford University and did the work for his personal interest. He didnt have to try hard to please his patronage. The source text writer also has less power on his translating. Therefore, he has more freedom in expressing his own style than the Yangs do. He put more attention on the acceptability, as he said he aimed to please the reader. However, as Yang Xianyi said, he did the work more for the cause of living and had to please the dominant power of discourse. In short, comparatively speaking, Hawks power in manipulating the source text is more confined by factors from his reader and the Yangs power more by the patronage and the source text writer.

4 Conclusion:

Traditionally, a translators style is considered to depend much on his literary talent. Nevertheless, as for the obviously different styles of the two English versions of Hong Lou Meng, both by translators enjoying high prestige, it is improper to simply resort to the translators individual talent to explain such remarkable differences. Making a comparative study on the two English versions of Hong Lou Meng, we analyze the relation between power of discourse and translation, and how power plays a vital role in shaping the style of translation. Although it is not a thorough account of reasons the differences, it not only reminds us of a new perspective for the shaping of translators style, but also is justifiable to explain why translators differ largely in translating the same work.

References:

[1]André Lefevere.Translation/History/Culture[J].Shanghai: Shanghai foreign Language Education Press,1992.

[2]André Lefevere. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame[J].Shanghai: Shanghai foreign Language Education Press,1992.

[3]馮慶華.論譯者的風(fēng)格[A]. 翻譯的理論構(gòu)建與文化透視[C].ed謝天振.上海:上海外語(yǔ)教育出版社,2003.

[4]李明.操縱與翻譯策略之選擇[J].廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào),

2006(2):9-14.

[5]張南峰.中西譯學(xué)批評(píng)[M].北京:清華大學(xué)出版社,2004.

[6]周儀,羅平.翻譯與批評(píng)[M].武漢:湖北教育出版社,2005.

作者簡(jiǎn)介:張俊,陜西理工學(xué)院外語(yǔ)系助教,碩士學(xué)歷,研究方向?yàn)榉g研究。