| Lu Xun, as one of the most famous contemporary literature writers, plays a veryimportant role in Chinese literature history. His short story Kong Yiji has been translatedinto English by many translators and presented to western countries due to its deepreflection on social reality of old China and more importantly as a mirror ofanti-feudalism.This research conducts a survey on30native English speakers to explore westernreaders·translation preference on Yang·s and Lyell·s versions. The survey selects the most26representative sentences in the two translations and categorize them into five differentdimensions, i.e. rebuilding the language style of Lu Xun; conciseness vs. vividness;formality gap; appropriateness and tension in diction and translation of unique culture.The detailed categorization allows an objective demonstration on readers· preference fromdifferent perspectives and aspects.Based on a comparative analysis on the overall translated texts and26representativesentences, this paper finds out the readers prefer Lyell·s version slightly more than Yang·s.From the perspectives of acceptance and understanding on the text, the richness andvividness of narrative details and the characterization, the accuracy of diction and thetranslation of unique culture, Lyell·s version wins more supporters than the Yangs·. ButYangs·version achieves better effects on the directness and concision of the language.It is concluded from the analysis and data that among30readers,14prefer Lyell·stranslation while11deem Yangs· version better. The rest5readers remain neutralbelieving no significant difference between the two versions. Compared to Yangs, Lyell·ssupporters think his language is more native, with lots of descriptive details andexplanation which enable the readers who are unfamiliar with the Chinese culture tounderstand and accept the translation better. However, Yangs·supporters argue that Yangs·translation is very concise and clear and their plain wording without too muchembellishment can best present the emotion and thoughts of the text. |