Application of House’s Translation Quality Assessment model in comparing two English versions of “The Sight of Father’s Back”

【Abstract】Based on the theory of Translation Quality Assessment model of Juliane House and its procedure of operation， this paper applies this process in analyzing and contrasting Zhang Peiji’s and Pollard’s English versions of The Sight of Father’s Back to make up for the lack of research on Pollard’s version in recent years.

【Key words】House； Translation Quality Assessment； The Sight of Father’s Back

【作者簡(jiǎn)介】鄭艷彤（1994- ），女，漢族，河北邢臺(tái)人，現(xiàn)就讀于西安外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)英文學(xué)院2016級(jí)翻譯學(xué)專業(yè)碩士研究生，主要研究方向：翻譯理論與實(shí)踐。

1. Introduction

Translation Quality Assessment， an important branch of translation studies， is of great theoretical and practical significance for the development of translation studies. The Sight of Father’s Back， a masterpiece of Chinese proses， the English version of which have been studied increasingly. But there is little research on David E. Pollard’s version based on Translation Quality Assessment. This paper intends to analyze English versions of Zhang Peiji and Pollard， in order to make up for the lack of research of Pollard’s version and enrich the empirical study of this model.

2. Brief introduction of House’s TQA model and its procedures

House argues that the essence of translation is transferring of meaning between different languages and the key question to TQA is what translation exactly is. The meaning here contains three aspects， namely semantic meaning， pragmatic meaning and textual meaning （House， 1977， p.25）. Translation is the replacement of a text in the source language by a semantically and pragmatically equivalent text in the target language （House， 1977， p30）. Therefore， with such definition of translation， the judge of TQA is to see whether the translation is equivalent in the above three meanings with the original. The textual meaning is organization of information within language whose function is to contribute to achievement of semantic and pragmatic meaning （Halliday， 1994， p33-36）. Therefore to judge TQA only needs to see whether the semantic and pragmatic meanings of the discourse are equal to that of the original （House， 1977， p37）. Later， he adopts terms of Halliday’s systemic-functional linguistics and replaces semantic meaning and pragmatic meaning with ideational meaning and interpersonal meaning.

3. Analysis and comparison of the two English versions

3.1 Field

By analyzing and comparing Zhang Peiji’s version and Pollard’s version， it finds that choices of words in these two versions are appropriate. Only a few differences are discovered and there are also distinctions in matching degree.

Example 1

那年冬天，祖母死了，父親的差使也交卸了，正是禍不單行的日子，我從北京到徐州，打算跟著父親回家（Zhang，2007， p47）。

In the winter of more than two years ago， grandma died and father lost his job （Zhang， 2007， p.50）.

That winter my grandmother had died， and my father’s job had come to an end， our troubles truly did not come singly then（Pollard， 1999， p248）.

In the original text， “差使交卸”is an euphemistic expression. In Zhang’s version， “l(fā)ost his job” manifests the situation at that time that father is fired and match the ideational meaning with the original. However， it damages interpersonal meaning in the original. While “come to an end” in Pollard’s version roundabout explains father’s unemployment and attains both interpersonal and ideational meaning.

3.2.1.2 Syntactic level

On syntactic level， there are both long sentences and short sentences. The two versions don’t break original sentence structure as a whole.

Example 2

“進(jìn)去吧，里面沒(méi)人（Zhang， 2007， p49）?！?/p>

Go back to your seat. Don’t leave your things alone （Zhang， 2007， p52）.”

“You’d better go in， there’s no one looking after your things （Pollard， 1999， p249）.”

Here， both of the two versions are equivalent with that of the original. But Zhang’s version misinterprets the ideational meaning in original text. Pollard is more appropriate.

3.1.3 Textual level

Example 3

喪事完畢，父親要到南京謀事，我也要回到北京念書(shū)，我們便同行（Zhang， 2007， p47）。

After the funeral was over， father was to go to Nanjing to look for a job and I was to return to Beijing to study， so we started out together （Zhang， 2007， p50）.

Once the funeral was over， father decided to go to Nanjing to look for work， and as I was returning to Peking to study； we travelled together （Pollard， 1999， p248）.

In the original text， the logic is very clear. Once the funeral was over， “father” and “I” would leave. Because “I” would go through Nanjing where he went to， so “we” started off together. In Zhang’s version， he adopts “after” “and” and “so” which is less accurate and cohesive than that of Pollard’s version.

3.2 Tenor

Example 4

我與父親不相見(jiàn)已二年余了，我最不能忘記的是他的背影（Zhang， 2007， p47）。

It is more than two years since I last saw father， and what I can never forget is the sight of his back （Zhang， 2007， p50）.

It has been two years and more since I saw my father. My most vivid memory of him ia a view of him from the rear （Pollard， 1999， p247）.

“最”in English means superlative. It stresses the deep impression that father’s back gives “me” and implicates “my” love for father. In Zhang’s version， this kind of stress is transformed into mood. The “最不能忘記”is changed into “永不能忘記”。

In Pollard’s version， it remains meaning of “最”and the word “vivid” explores that the author’s memory of father is so clear that he can recall it in details. Both two versions meets interpersonal function while only the second version attains ideational function in the original.

3.3 Mode

The author uses the first person to describe moving stories between the father and son without expectation of readers’ respond. The greatest difference between the two translations is the degree of participation of readers.

Example 13

走到那邊月臺(tái)，須穿過(guò)鐵道，須跳下去又爬上去（Zhang， 2007， p48）。

But to reach that platform would require crossing the railway track and doing some climbing up and down （Zhang， 2007， p51）.

To get that platform you had to jump down， cross the tracks， and climb up the other side （Pollard， 1999， p249）.

In this example， Zhang takes infinitive phrase as the subject and states the fact objectively. Pollard uses second-person subject to narrow the distance between readers and the author. Based on TQA， the first one is of higher mactching degree.

3.4 Genre

From the perspective of genre， both two versions are in line with characteristics and style of the original short prose. What makes it different is that Zhang Peiji’s version is based on literal translation and Pollard’s is on the other side.

4. Conclusion

First， both two versions can be considered as overt translations. The overt translation requires that translation must be consistent with original function and look like products in original culture. Second， two versions have good correspondence with the original text at four levels， which embody the original language style and content. Third， although both two versions are of high matching degree with the original， there is still difference in the degree. In general， Pollard’s version is of higher matching degree than Zhang Peiji’s version.

References：

[1]Halliday（1994）.An introduction to Functional Grammar（2nd ed.）.London：Arnold.

[2]House，Juliane（1977）.A model for Translation Quality Assessment.Germany：Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen.

[3]David E.Pollard.古今散文英譯集[M].香港：香港中文大學(xué)出版社， 1999.

[4]張培基.英譯中國(guó)現(xiàn)代散文選1[M].上海：上海外語(yǔ)教育出版社，2007.