The Raiment Translation Of Hong Lou Meng Under The Perspective Of Deconstruction

There are two whole authoritive translation versions about Hong Lou Meng atpresent—Yang Hsien-Yi and his wife Gladys Yang’s translation version published byChinese Foreign Language Press and David Hawkes and his son-in-law JohnMinford’s translation version published by Britain Penguin Books. These two Englishversions have their own traits, the translation methods they used are not only havedifferences but also have something in common. Through comparative studying onthe two translation versions, especially the raiment translation in them, andunscrambling the western theory of deconstruction, we can see that deconstructionpays much attention to the question of reconstruction issue, it can be used to studytranslation, and through deconstruction people can gain much more reconstruction.Although these two English translation versions adopt different translation strategies,they all transfer the cultural connotation of Hong Lou Meng correctly. There are threeparts in this paper. It introduces the historical position of Hong Lou Meng and givesthe brief introduction about the author—Cao Xueqin and lists some research resultsabout the raiment translation of Hong Lou Meng, then elaborates the definition, thebackground, the representatives and their main points of deconstruction in the firstpart. There are three chapters in the second part, chapter one introduces the firsttranslation view deconstruction holds—delay (in time). Under this point, translationcan only indicate one meaning of the original or gain parts of the meanings, since theauthor is absent; therefore there are many understandings of the translators about theoriginal. Through studying the raiment translation in Hong Lou Meng, it proves thattranslators have enough creative space to bring their subjective initiative in theprocess of translation, deconstructing parts of the original meaning, so there are manyversions to one original. Chapter two introduces the second translation method thatdeconstruction advocates—differ (in space). The meaning of language is changingwith the change of space, thus translators would use their imagination during theprocess of translation; it states that the change of space and the imagination oftranslators can lead to differences by comparing the two versions about raiment translation. Next is chapter three, it talks about the other translation pointdeconstruction claims—reconstruction. Translation is a kind of reconstruction insteadof the repetition of the original by introducing intertextuality; it is the second life ofthe original and a way to last the original life. There may be differences between theunderstanding of the translators and the original during the translation process, whichdeclares the multiple identities of the translators and the equal and complementaryrelation between translation and the original, translators and the author and theretranslating the original is necessary. In the end is the conclusion part. Under theviewpoint of deconstruction, the study of translation would present a different look;we should pay attention to the subjectivity of the translators, the equal andcomplementary relation between translators and the author, translation and original.Referring to deconstruction translation can broaden our vision; it is helpful for us todiscuss the essence, principle and method issues of translation from a new point.This paper is only a primary research and many problems need to be furtherdiscussed.