A Descriptive Study: A Comparison Between Two Chinese Versions Of Uncle Tom's Cabin

As long as there exist translation activities, there are translations. In other words, translation activities and versions co-exist with each other. Everything in the world are developing and changing, and translation is not an exception of it. During different times, different translations of the same original work were and will be produced. They have their own characteristics. Different versions, especially produced before or after great social changes, have greater differences between each other. Uncle Tom's Cabin is a milestone work in American Slave Abolition literature. It was the first foreign novel translated into classical Chinese by Lin Shu (named Hei Nu Yu Han Lu) and played an important part in evoking and stimulating Chinese people to recognize upcoming pressure and fight against it. Several decades later, Shanghai Translation Publishing House published the first vernacular version by Huang Jizhong (named Tang Mu Da Bo De Xiao Wu). It was a full translation and the literary value was presented. Both versions were produced in special historical periods, namely, cultural transition periods. Lin Shu's version was produced in a contemporary cultural transition period from the Opium War to the New Culture Movement, while Huang Jizhong's version was produced in a modern cultural transition period from the year of 1978 till now. It would be unlikely to interpret the translation phenomena in these two versions in the light of traditional translation studies theories, by which comparisons and evaluations would be always performed in the linguistic aspect between the source text and target text, or only be performed in the linguistic aspect between the two translations. Applying Toury's descriptive translation studies theory, his target-oriented theory and Lefevere's culture-oriented theory, the author of this thesis gives a diachronic description by comparing the two translations from the linguistic and cultural perspectives, analyzing the causes of the differences and demonstrating an important role that socio-cultural factors can play in the translating process.My study will begin with the elaboration of the theoretical basis. According to Toury's descriptive translation studies, this theory accepts any translation products, probes into social, cultural and historical constraints which can influence the translating process and socio-cultural functions of the products, and gives a comprehensivediachionic description. It is suitable for studies of translations produced years ago or of different translations of the same original works under different social and historical conditions. Describing, explaining and predicting translation phenomena is the main goal of such a discipline. His target-oriented theory believes that translator's main goal is to achieve acceptable translations in the target culture and that in different periods translators will produce different (more or less) translations owing to different strategies adopted which were largely affected by target cultural conditions. Lefevere states that translators always adapt the original to make it acceptable to the receiving culture, i.e. translation is a rewriting of an original text. He also lays stress on impact of translation on the receptive culture. This interaction can promote cultural exchanges and social development.Next is an introduction to the original author and the two concerned translators and a comprehensive analysis of the comparison between the two translations from the linguistic and cultural perspectives. In the linguistic perspective reproductions of words, syntax, text, characters and themes will be concerned, while in the cultural perspective, reproductions of religious materials, some cultural and artistic conceptions and viewpoints on aesthetics and marriage will be dealt with. Lin Shu employed the language of classical Chinese and frequently used additions, omissions, adaptations, while Huang Jizhong employed vernacular and literal translation and always made efforts to retain all the content and style. No matter what strategies they adopted, both translators translated the original text by taking into consideration of the target readers and culture at that time.The fourth chapter deals with an analysis of the reasons for differences of the two translations through four aspects, social and historical background, attitudes towards foreign culture, functions of the versions in different times and intervention of the translator. The analysis shows how the translation is influenced by the society and culture at different times, and vice versa.In the last chapter, based on the study above, the writer of the thesis draws a conclusion. From the above discussions, we can observe that a comparison between two or more different translations produced years ago should not be only discussed in the linguistic aspect, the cultural aspect should be taken into consideration as well;different translations of the same source text under different socio-cultural conditions can be influenced by different social, historical, and cultural background;translators adopteddifferent strategies to adapt their translations to the requirements of the target readers and culture at that time and thus different styles and characteristics were presented. We can also observe how target culture and translations interact with each other.Through the case study, the effectiveness of applying descriptive translation studies theory and target/culture-oriented theories to the translation studies and translation criticism is verified: the descriptive translation theories developed on the basis of polysystem can effectively interpret and explain some translation phenomena influenced and determined by social, historical and cultural context, particularly suitable for the studies of different translations produced many years ago or under different social, historical and cultural conditions. This method can compensate some limitations of prescriptive translation studies. It sheds a new light on translation criticism. Therefore, these versions can enjoy not only perceptual appreciation but also theoretical understanding. Thus, translation criticism becomes polysystemic and lenient. Due to some defects and uncovered issues in this thesis, we expect more discussions and explorations in this area so as to promote the development of translated literature.