A Comparative Study Of Two Translations Of Mengzi From The Perspective Of Tenor Of Discourse

The current study makes a comparative analysis of translations of Mengzi by Legge and Hinton from the perspective of tenor of discourse. The purpose of the study is to explore the features of the two versions in terms of the realization of interpersonal meanings and to clarify the motivations that lead to differences between them. It also seeks to outline the implications for translation studies and practice.Tenor of discourse is an important concept of the contextual theory of systemic functional linguistics (SFL, hereafter). However, it has been controversial in both the field of SFL and translation studies. Therefore, in order to improve the analysis of the two translations considered here, the study first proposes some improvements to the tenor theory itself. It is argued that tenor involves social tenor and interactional tenor, each of which can be further divided into smaller dimensions. The study then focuses on the types of tenor in translation, on the basis of which the study then establishes an analytical model of tenor for translation. Specifically, tenor in translation can be classified into macro tenor and micro tenor. Macro tenor focuses on all of the participants involved in the creation of a work, including the author, the source reader (SR, hereafter), the translator, and the target reader (TR, hereafter). Micro tenor relates to the relationships between the characters involved in a text. Thus a text can be analyzed at two levels:the level of macro tenor and the level of micro tenor, each of which involves the analyses of social tenor and interactional tenor.At the linguistic level, tenor is realized by interpersonal meanings which are realized by lexicogrammatical systems such as mood, modality and other evaluative resources. It is therefore from these three perspectives that the study makes an analysis of Mengzi and its two versions. It is found that there are similarities and differences between the two translations in the realization of interpersonal meanings. The similarities are as follows:first, both versions highly correspond to the original in terms of the declarative, so that the interpersonal meanings realized by the declarative are well represented in the translations; second, additions and pretermissions of modalities are common in both versions, which results in the loss or reconstruction of the original interpersonal meanings; finally, the interpersonal meanings of evaluative resources are mostly realized in the two versions, whereas their experiential meanings diverge from the original to varying degrees. The two translations differ from each other in five aspects:to begin with, in contrast to Legge’s version, Hinton’s deviates significantly from the original in syntax despite its faithfulness to the original in the treatment of most moods; second, in comparison with Hinton, Legge is more inclined to make the implied modal senses in the original text explicit; third, in Legge’s version, there are fewer variations in the values of modalities, while in Hinton’s some modalities undergo changes in value, which therefore causes the reconstruction of interpersonal meanings; fourth, the two versions treat the vocatives in different manners:in Legge’s version, the interpersonal meanings of the vocatives are well represented to the TR, while in Hinton’s, the vocatives are mostly rendered into pronouns, resulting in the loss or weakening of interpersonal meanings; finally, in Legge’s translation, the realization of micro tenor is primarily under the impact of the author, while in Hinton’s it is more related to the TR.Considering the research perspective, the study suggests that the participants involved in macro tenor can serve as a starting point from which to investigate the factors that result in the differences between the two versions. In view of the social and historical nature of the participants, the study therefore examines the social and historical factors that motivated each of the translations. Legge translated Confucian classics for the purpose of spreading Christianity. Disappointed with previous versions, he came up with the idea of producing a more accurate and comprehensive translation. Hinton’s version was produced against the background of China’s rising international status and an increase in interest in China and Chinese culture among foreigners. In common with Legge, Hinton believed existing translations to be inadequate, because he felt that they failed to satisfy the aesthetic needs of contemporary readers. These different backgrounds lead the two translators to make different choices with regard to translation methods and strategies. Legge respects the original and its authorship by adopting literal translation, and therefore shows great loyalty to the original in both forms and meanings; in contrast, Hinton tends to be closer to the TR and to reduce the authority of the original by employing the approach of free translation, so as to appeal to the language customs and aesthetic demands of the TR. Therefore, with respect to the realization of the interpersonal meanings of Mengzi, Legge’s version is more faithful to the original, while Hinton’s deviates from the original to some degree; in terms of syntax, Legge rigidly sticks to the syntactic structures of the original, while Hinton makes significant syntactic adjustments in order to make his version more readable and to enable it to conform to the existing language habits of the TR. The results of this study lead the author to make two recommendations:first, both translators and translation researchers should recognize the cultural features involved in the interpersonal meanings of the Chinese classics, and pay more attention to the interpersonal meanings in translation studies and practice; second, human factors, namely, the participants involved in macro tenor, should be given due attention.The contributions that this study makes are as follows:first, the research focus of the study on interpersonal meanings in Mengzi opens up a framework for future research that is no longer confined merely to studies of experiential meanings; second, based on tenor of discourse, the study is focused on both the linguistic and the cultural levels, which paves a new path for translation studies; finally, the improvements on tenor of discourse outlined here contribute to both the contextual theory of SFL and linguistics-oriented translation studies.