A Study Of Translating Mencius Into English

More than300years ago, the process of translating Chinese classics into Englishbegan. In the very beginning, western missionaries and sinologists played a major rolein translating Chinese classics into English. Nowadays, Chinese translators havebegun to translate Chinese classics systematically, making valuable contributions totransmitting Chinese culture. However, it is an undisputable fact that Chinesetranslators translations are not so well received among the TL readers as those bywestern sinologists. This thesis will probe into the merits and demerits of two Englishtranslations of Mencius, one translated by James Legge and the other by ZhaoZhentao et al., by making a comparison between the two. It then points out intranslating Chinese classics including Mencius, the translator should pay attention tothe handling of annotation, style and culture.Chapter One is Literature Review, introducing previous research on translationof Chinese classics into English, studies of English translation of Mencius, and a briefintroduction to the two English versions of Mencius to be discussed in this thesis.In Chapter Two, the two versions are compared from the perspective ofannotation, aiming to point out the significance of annotation and the inadequacy ofthe annotation of Zhao Zhentao s Mencius, which is part of the Library of ChineseClassics, and the causes behind it.In Chapter Three, two versions are compared as far as the reproduction of style isconcerned. The author examines what translating methods are applied in each versionwith regard to the translation of discourse, including diction, sentence structure andcohesion, and rhetorical devices, and what kind of style each version gets.In Chapter Four, two versions are compared for their translating strategies ofculture and what kind of result has been obtained.The last part of the thesis is Conclusion. The most serious defect of Mencius inthe Library of Chinese Classics is that there are obvious mistakes in its extratextualannotation and its textual annotation is inadequate. As to the style, this version usesmodern English, losing the quaintness of a Chinese classical work. It is suggested that relatively formal diction and sentence structures should be applied properly. Intranslating culture-specific concepts, it adopts liberal translation or domestication,which might result into cultural distortion and mislead readers. The purpose ofdisseminating the Chinese culture is not fully achieved. It is advisable thatforeignization should be applied for significant culture-specific concepts.