On Criticism Of The Translator's Style

It is a tentative study made of criticism of the translator's style. Criticism of the translator's style is nothing new, but something that has been practiced since the beginning of the translation history, yet the criticism is neither in-depth nor theoretically adequate. In the ancient times, criticism on the translator's style was no more than an impression lacking in analytical depth and philosophical insight; while in the modern times, the criticism mainly centered on the style of the translated text, especially on the typical mistakes picked out and criticized. The criticism was so hot that sometimes a tongue war was waged among the translators, the reason of which, now as we understand, is the negative use of the term"criticism". The practice of criticism at present times also centers on the style of the translated text, with only an occasional mention of the translator's style, or it is a combined one both on the style of the translated text and the translator's style. What is different from before is that the present criticism turns to a wide range of newly advanced disciplines in linguistics or translation studies or such fields as literary criticism, psychology and aesthetics, etc. for its theoretical ground. The critics are more theoretically aware, and besides, the means applied is more scientific and sound than before. However, the criticism of the translator's style should have its own special way of being dealt with, so it badly requires that a framework be formulated to provide principles and criteria for an objective evaluation. And finally, a guiding framework for the criticism of the translator's style is all the more necessarily proposed in this dissertation.Criticism of the translator's style is within the scope of translation criticism. Lu Xun was the first at home to propose translation criticism in the 1930s, when he simply suggested the criticism on the quality of translations from both positive and negative perspectives. Though he followed it up by giving further explanations in his later papers, yet his design left much room for improvement. Dong Qiusi later in 1950 not only added to the content but also suggested something new in terms of criticism criteria and criticism domains. Jiao Juyin, another Chinese noted translation theorist, later in the same year conceived an idea of formulating a framework for translation criticism, and for the first time, he included such factors as the translator, the heterogeneity of language, the influence of the translated work and the critic's attitude in his framework. It is a pity that he did not follow it up. However, the three well-known translators and translation theorists'pioneering contributions to translation criticism prospered the practice of translation criticism ever since in China. The theoretical framework of translation criticism began to take shape in the early 1990s, when a series of works were published with appropriate categories and objective criteria formulated for translation criticism, especially the one Translation Criticism ---- from Theory to Practice by Wen Xiuying at the very beginning of the year 2007, which is the landmark in the translation criticism studies in China. It is noted that how the framework of translation criticism came into being found its expression in the natural law, which is applied to any advancement.The establishment of the framework of translation criticism serves as the theoretical basis for that of the framework of criticism of the translator's style. In the past few years, the worldwide practice of criticism on the translator's style, the studies of translation subjectivity and intersubjectivity, the advancement of other related disciplines, as well as the advanced and scientific means for conducting the criticism on style, all jointly is essential for a general framework that will accommodate the range of standards relevant to specific individual translation criticism of the translator's style. It's high time, it seems, for such a framework, the formulating of which is urgent both theoretically and practically. And that is what it is here before you a tentative one.This dissertation can be outlined briefly as follows: first, it is an overview of the actual practice of criticism on the translator's style both at home and abroad drawing on the instances in the translation history, and it is then concluded that the criticism on the translator's style has always been inadequate; second, modeled on the framework of translation criticism, the framework for the criticism of the translator's style is proposed, which includes such categories as the nature of the translator's style, the constraints on the translator's style, the recognization of the translator's style, the principles and criteria of the criticism of the translator's style, and the methodology of the criticism of the translator's style. Finally, it states that the research still leaves much room for improvement.It is repeated several times in this dissertation that the formulation of this framework does not mean to advocate the prominence of the translator's style, nor to exaggerate the translator's status and function in translating, nor to provide excuses for translators to go far beyond the original work, but by such a framework based on the fact of the inevitability of the translator's style and the practice of the criticism on the translator's style, it means to investigate the various constraints on the translator's style and the value it brings to the target culture so as to give a sound evaluation of the translator's decisive function for translating, to give the translator his deserved respect, to guide the criticism on the translator's style on the way of a theoretical and scientific approach, and finally, to enhance the quality of translation. Meanwhile, translators may also take it as a reminder while translating to be aware of bringing all the interfering factors under control and reduce the loss to a minimum.Chapter One introduces the status quo, the inevitability of the translator's style, and proposes the aim, method, scope and literature of this research.The term"the translator's style"was first put forward by Zhi Liang in"The World Literature"in 1991. Then in 1992, Huang Yuanshen, in one of his publications, suggested that the translator should have his own style. However, Professor Feng Qinghua is the first one to give a comparatively profound study on this issue. Besides, the issue of the translator's style is also talked about in the publications on the translator and the translation subjectivity. What is also worth mentioning is Zhao Wei and Sun Yingchun, who give an investigation of the unavoidability of the translator's style from the perspective of socio- linguistics in terms of idiolect.The practice of criticism on the translator's style can date back to as early as the Buddhist translation in China and the Bible translation in the West. In Zhi Qian's The Preface to Chinese Version of Dharmapade he thought that Zhu Jiangyan's translation was a combination of transliteration and sense-translation with plain expressions, while St. Jerome thought Symmachus gave the sense of the Scripture, not in literal language, as Aquila did. The traditional approach to criticism on the translator's style is an impressionistic one lacking in analytical depth and philosophical insight. It is not until the advancement of the modern linguistic approach since the 1960s that a more systematic, and less subjective, analysis of the translator's style is made possible. However, the criticism lays emphasis on the adaptability of the translator's style to the original one neglecting the aesthetic value of the translator's style itself and its positive influence on the target language, literature and culture. Chapter Two"Nature of Criticism on the Translator's Style"is the working framework including all the categories to be studied for this research, beginning with an investigation of the notion of the word"style"since the word"style", whether in the west or in the east, has been used in a much confusing way. Then the notion of"the translator's style"and that of"the style of the translated work"are further distinguished. It goes on to explore further the properties of the translator's style, and the scope, the domains and the functions of criticism of the translator's style and finally, it states the necessity of this research.The translator's style is the translator's linguistic habits which somehow betray him in all that he translates, while the style of the translated work is the linguistic characteristics of a particular translated text. The traditional view on translation in terms of style is that the translator must reproduce in the target language the original style, however, various models of translation process, the studies of the translation subjectivity, hermeneutics, reception theory and linguistics all show that while translating by interpreting the original style the translator must have something of his own style melted with the original one in the final work. It has also been found that different styles are revealed from different versions by different translators from the single original work, which is the translator's style; while different styles are also revealed from different versions by the single translator from different original works by different authors, which are the different author's different styles, however, these different styles also have something in common, which is the translator's style.The translator's style is a combination of the original style and the translator's writing style, which is relatively consistent during a long period of time, with some changes at long intervals. The translator's style is unique of himself.Criticism of the translator's style is within the scope of translation criticism, the functions of which are to help construct the evaluating framework coordinating theories and practice, to provide an objective evaluation of the translator's style and to guide different sides concerned such as the theorists, the critics, the translators and the readers, ect. to be beneficial from it.What the readers accept of the original work is actually the translated work by the translator, and what the readers are appealed to is actually the translator's style instead of the original one. It is necessary to formulate such a framework not only to widen the scope of the translation studies but also to give an objective evaluation of the translator's style.In Chapter Three"The Constraints on the Translator's Style", five constraints are proposed and examined as the major constraints on the translator's style. They are the translational ideology, the translator's translation principle, the translation purpose, heterogeneity of language, and the translator's aesthetic bent. Besides, such minor constraints as the translator's writing style, the translator's age and the translator's gender are also proposed and examined briefly.Translational ideology has something to do with ideology, which means the ideology within the translation circle. Three elements of translational ideology are discussed, which are the main constraints on the translator's style, and they are the dominating cultural identity, aesthetic bent and literary trend.The translator's translation principle determines the translation strategies, and hence the translation techniques which directly determine the translator's style. Chinese well-known translators Yan Fu, Fu Lei, Zhu Shenghao and Lu Xun are cited as examples to demonstrate this relationship.The translation purpose has a big power on the translator's style. Various representative views are examined and various purposes involved in translation are investigated to demonstrate the constraints of these on the translator's style. Furthermore, the translation purposes are classified and the power of each on the translator's style is further examined and testified. The investigation shows that the translator has to balance the purposes at each level and successfully handle them in his translation.The heterogeneity of language is generally acknowledged as the biggest hamper in language transfer. How language acts on the translator's style is investigated through exploring the heterogeneity between the source language and the target language at different levels. Besides, the translator's language competence in both languages is also closely connected with the translator's style.The translator's aesthetic bent as one of the constraints is also discussed in this chapter. It is found that the translator's style has much to do with his aesthetic bent. Literary works can be called an art which is rich with the aesthetic value expressed both through the form and the content. The translator's preferences in dealing with the form and the content lead to a special way of expressing.In addition to the above discussions, a small section of space is also left to the discussion of the constraint of the translator's writing style, the translator's age, the translator's gender and the writer's style on the translator in translating. Anyway, the discussion of the constraints on the translator's style is open-ended.Chapter Four investigates the approaches of recognizing the translator's style, which serves as the basis for criticism of the translator's style. Traditional, modern and contemporary approaches and means applied in the recognization of style are investigated and evaluated. Representative models are cited. Finally, two methods for the recognization of the translator's style are proposed, which are monolevel approach and multilevel approach. The reliability of these two methods is yet to be applied and testified.In Chapter Five, the criteria and methodology are proposed and discussed. Criticism on the translator's style should be comprehensive, objective and just in considering the various constraints on the translator's style. The criticism should be value-oriented, and the criteria are as follows: the capability of the translator's style expressing the original theme, the appealing power of the translator's style to the readers, the contributions the translator's style makes to the target language and literature and the influence the translator's style brings to the target culture. Aesthetic decoding is suggested as the evaluating method. Style is something aesthetic in literary criticism and decoding is an effective way of judging the value of the literary work. Only by decoding the details can it be found that how the text is composed, only by decoding the details can the translator's linguistic habits be exposed and constraints on the translator's style be discovered, and only by decoding the details of the influence can the contributions of the translation to the target language, literature and culture be evaluated, and as a result, a sound evaluation of the translator's style can be at last made.Chapter Six rounds off the discussion by showing that it is a long history since criticism of the translator's style has been practiced and that it is high time that a workable framework to guide the criticism be formulated. Meanwhile, it is pointed out that the framework is the first of this kind and a tentative one, so it needs improving with further investigation and observation. Moreover, the further advancement of the related disciplines will provide more proof for the theoretical basis of the reasoning, so this framework is open-ended. Finally, it is expected that more exercise be done to testify its feasibility.