A Comparative Study Of Shijing’s Two English Versions From The Perspective Of Hybridity Theory

Hybridity, a concept used in multiple disciplines, is a hot topic in translation studiesnowadays. Generally speaking, a hybrid refers to a new product originating from two differentspecies. This product embodies new features different from its “parents” besides inheritingsome characteristics from them. In translation studies, the concept of hybridity is used todescribe the hybrid property of the translated text in which foreign and accessible linguistic,cultural and literary components to the target reader are mixed. The hybridity of translatedtexts makes them a unique type of texts distinct from those originally produced in the targetlanguage and culture. As for translation methods, a hybrid translation is the product resultingfrom employing translation methods of foreignization and domestication within the sametranslated text. This thesis is the study of Shijing’s English translations from the perspective ofthe theory of hybridity. Its two complete translations, James Legge’s1871version and WangRongpei’s version are selected in this thesis. With a view to an in-depth study on the hybridityof Shijing’s English translations, the methodology of case study and comparative study areemployed. Important aspects of hybridity, such as its manifestations, contributing factors andfunctions are comprehensively studied in this thesis.The manifestations of hybridity in the two English translations are studied from theperspective of language, culture and literature. Compared with Wang Rongpei’s version,James Legge’s translation preserves the original forms of Chinese idioms. Sound translation isadopted in the translation of the titles of poems. While translating the names of person andgeographical locations, both the two translators adopt sound translation, through which theheterogeneous ingredients are conveyed in their translations. On the syntactic level, JamesLegge’s version preserves the syntactic structures of the original text. Thus sentences in his version frequently violate the grammatical rules of English, such as the absence of subjectsand conjunctions, preposistion of adverbial components, etc. Wang Rongpei’s versionemphasizes the fluency of language and the compliance of grammatical rules. On the culturallevel, the two English versions are analyzed from the aspects of ecological culture, materialculture, religious culture and social culture. The author finds that by adopting the strategy offoreignization, James Legge’s version preserves the heterogeneous ingredients of the originaltext. However, he translates “帝” and “上帝” into “God” for religious purposes. WangRongpei adopts the strategy of domestication and his translation highlights the fluency andreadability of the translated text. On the literary level, both the two versions reproduce theliterary technique of Xing. However, James Legge’s prosy version does not convey the formof this literary technique. Wang Rongpei’s metrical version reproduces both the form and theartistic effects of Xing. Generally speaking, James Legge’s version has a relative higherdegree of hybridity than Wang Rongpei’s version because of the different translationstrategies they adopts.The contributing factors of hybridity are analyzed from the translator’s perspective, thereader’s perspective and the perspective of translation theories. As a missionary and a serioussinologist, James Legge adopts the strategy of foreignization. His translation is absolutelyfaithful to the forms of the original text. With a view to disseminating Chinese culture, WangRongpei’s translation adopts the strategy of domestication and emphasizes fluency andreadability of the translated text. In spite of the different strategies they adopts, both the twoversions exhibit the phenomena of hybridity of the original text and English, through whichthe heterogeneous ingredients in language, culture and literature are conveyed in English. Asfor the target readers’ factor, the two versions target at different readers. James Legge’sversion targets at missionaries, sinologists, scholars of Chinese affairs, and merchants doingbusiness in China. Wang Rongpei’s translation is intended for the ordinary readers who want to know Shijing and Chinese culture. In terms of the translation theory, James Legge’s versionis influenced by the Victorian spirit marked by rigidity and preciseness and emphasizes thefaithfulness of the translated text. Guided by the translation standard of “conveyance of theideas of the original in full aesthetic values”, Wang Rongpei’s translation emphasizes theapprehension of the underlying meanings and the integrative perception of the spirit of theoriginal text. All these factors contribute to the different degrees of hybridity of the twoversions. However, in spite of this, the two translations exert significant influences on Shijingand English language and culture.The comparative study of Shijing’s English translations leads us to the conclusion thathybridity is a universal phenomenon in translation. It exists in not only the translation ofnovels and political texts, but also the poetry translation. The heterogeneous ingredients oflanguage, culture and literature in the original text are hybridized with the translated text. Thehybridized translation can not only be accepted by the target readers, but also impose activeinfluences upon the original text and the target language. The degree of hybridity is ameasurement of the heterogeneous ingredients of language, culture and literature in atranslation. Translations of higher degree of hybridity are suitable for the study of scholarsand sinologists. And those of lower hybridity are suitable for the ordinary readers.