Post-colonial Translation Theoires Revisited Based On A Contrastive Study Of Two Translations Of Joan Haste

This thesis revisits post-colonial translation theories based on a contrastive studyof two translated versions of Joan Haste.As a movement of counter-hegemonic culture, postcolonial translation theoriesplay important roles in translation studies at present. They are integrated bypostcolonial studies and translation studies. They mainly probe into the question ofhow political, economic and many other factors have brought about the unequaldialogue between the dominant culture and the subculture. The major representativesinclude Edward Said, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Ho mi Bhabha, Lawrence Venutiand so on. Spivak makes a deep study on "subaltern" theories and argues that the true"subaltern" cannot speak. Said criticizes the cultural hegemony of the West andproposes resistance against it by literature works. Venuti states in further thatforeignization strategy is an effective resisting method. Homi Bhabha goes beyond thetraditional binary opposition. He comes up with the idea of “hybridizing” the twocultures thus make the West feel uncertain and unfamiliar with themselves and ifnallyoverthrow the authority. All in all, post-colonial translation theories suggest thesubculture to resist the cultural hegemony by translation, which bring in fresh culturalnotions in translation studies. However, because of their wide and complex researchifeld，there are inevitably many limitations in postcolonial translation theories. JoanHaste by English writer Haggard was translated and spread in China in the early1900s，which serves as a good illustration.Since its publication in England in1895，Joan Haste spread quickly into China.There were successively Bao Tianxiao’s translated version in1901and Lin Sh’ustranslated version in1905. The two versions share both similarities and differences.They are similar as follows: Firstly, the translators were under the impact of the sameideology. Secondly，both of them adopted Chinese classical language as the translatinglanguage. Thirdly，similar strategy of abridgement and adaptation of the original wasapplied in them. Compared with the similarities, the distinctions are even moreobvious. Firstly, the contents of these two versions are extremely different. Secondly，the writing techniques also make a difference. Thirdly，they are in different languagestyles.The contrastive study of the two translated versions of Joan Haste shows thatthere are apparently many shortcomings in postcolonial translation theories: Firstly, with the practical translations of the two translated versions and the enlightenment ofChina’s developing progress, we can overthro’w Spivaks notion and prove in furtherthat the "subaltern" can speak. Secondly，the two translated versions show the positiveeffect of resisting. However, Said limits his resisting in literature works and neglectsthe importance of resisting in translation studies. Though Venuti probes into theresisting in translating, he pays too much stress on foreignization strategy and ignoresthat democratic strategy would also serve as an effective resisting method. Besides，nativism should also be aware of in resisting. Thirdly, the great distinctions betweenthe two translations show that the e“xtent of hybridit”y by Homi Bhabha is toodifficult to keep.In a word, despite being widely applied in translation studies, postcolonialtranslation theories should be considered more careifilly. Over-depending may disturban objective cognition. With a deep analysis, this paper aims to prove the crucialmeaning of revisiting postcolonial translation theories and tries to warn the translatorsto be more careful in using postcolonial translation theories.