A Comparative Study Of Two English Versions Of Zhongyong From The Perspective Of Functional Context

The study makes a comparative analysis of two translations of Zhongyong by Wing-tsit Chan and E.R.Hughes from the perspective of functional context.The purpose of the study is to explore the features of the two translations in terms of their realization of experiential meaning,interpersonal meaning and textual meaning,and to explain the differences between them from the perspective of functional context.It is expected that this will shed light on translation theory and practice in Chinese classical works represented by Zhongyong.Functional context is an essential concept of systemic functional linguistics(henceforth,SFL)which is applied widely in discourse analysis and translation studies due to its strong explanatory power and operability.However,there still remain some issues that need further exploration in both context theory itself and in its combination with translation studies.Up to now,most discussions of context theory have been focused on the context-metafunction hook-up hypothesis which refers to the correlation between the metafunctions and contextual parameters,but little attention has been paid to the context of culture.And the main issue in the discussion of context in translation studies has been the correspondence and transformation of the components of different levels of context between the source text(henceforth,ST)and the target text(henceforth,TT),but little attention has been paid to the working mechanism of contextual elements that cause the differences between the ST and the TT.Therefore,for the convenience of better analysis of the two translations of Zhongyong,the author of the present study firstly reflects on and expands context theory itself and then discusses the working mechanism of the context in ST and TT.Based on the theoretical framework of functional context discussed above,the study makes a comparative analysis of Zhongyong and its two English versions in terms of experiential meaning,interpersonal meaning and textual meaning and finds that both translations are relatively faithful in rendering the ST but differ in some degree in their realization of the three meanings.Firstly,in realizing ideational meaning,Chan's translation is closer to the ST in process types while Hughes' diverges from the original to some extent.The percentage of relational process is higher and the percentage of mental process is lower in Hughes' than in the ST and Chan's version.In addition,there are more passive structures in Hughes' version.With regard to logical-semantic relations,there are more embedded clauses in Hughes' version,and it also involves more parameters and levels,which are a mark of its complexity.Secondly,in terms of realization of interpersonal meaning,Chan's version is more faithful to the ST in mood while Hughes' version attaches much importance to readers' reactions by adopting more imperatives and fewer exclamations.In modality,there are more obligations and fewer inclinations in Hughes' than in Chan's.In evaluation,negative expressions cover a greater percentage in Hughes' version,reflecting the influence of religion on the translator.Finally,in terms of realization of textual meaning,on the macro level,there is less annotation in Chan's.In contrast,Hughes'version covers many pages with background information and the comments of the translator.Meanwhile it divides the ST into more sections and adds specific titles to each section.On the micro level,there are more special themes and cohesive devices in Hughes' version,reflecting the adaptations and changes Hughes has made to parts of the original for the better comprehension of TT readers.On the basis of linguistic analysis,we further interpret the causes of the differences between the two translations in realization of meaning from the perspective of context of situation and context of culture.Chan's version is faithful to the situational configuration of the ST in that it forms a related and interactive unity between Heaven,earth and human beings.Human beings endeavour to form a unity with nature by relating their way to the way of Heaven through social practice,introspection,family life and political activities.Overall,Chan's version represents the situation of the original to the greatest extent,and is simple in structure and concise in language.Compared to Chan,Hughes adapts the configuration of the situation of the ST to varying degrees for the better comprehension of the TT readers.He strenthens the description of the objective situation and enhances the interaction between the participants and the TT readers.In general,Hughes' version features by lengthy annotations and complex syntax.The differences between the two translations lie in the underlying cultural positions and cognitive inclinations of of the two translators.Chan is an American Chinese and a well-known scholar of Chu Hsi who has a keen appreciation of Chinese classical works and a deep understanding of the period and the Confucian thinking from which the ST originate.Thus his translation is ST-oriented and holds firmly traditional Chinese thought about the unity of Heaven and human beings.While Hughes is a native British scholar of Chinese and deeply influenced by western binary subject-object philosophical thought and logical thinking,which is reflected in his frequent depiction of the objective participants and less use of the subjective participants.Meanwhile,there is less evaluation and judgement of the subjective participants and more interaction with the TT readers in Hughes' version which results in a more objective narrative.Moreover,to meet the assumptions of the TT readers,Hughes adapts and changes the original to some degree by adding a large amount of background information and comments and evaluation.The significance and main contribution of the study is as follows.Firstly,the study makes a systematic and comprehensive comparison of the two English translations of Zhongyong in terms of experiential,interpersonal and textual meaning,and interprets their differences from the perspective of context of situation,context of culture and the translator's active role in the translation process.It eschews the bias of the subjective evaluation and comments of particular case studies and can thus further enrich and develop the theory and practice of translation studies.Secondly,the present study constructs a model of functional context in translation by combining micro linguistic analysis and macro cultural interpretation and an understanding of the translator's active role,thereby making a comprehensive study of the contextual elements and their influence upon the translation.Lastly,the study enriches and clarifies relevant aspects of the context of culture which can further enhance discourse analysis and translation studies.