A Comparative Study On Two English Versions Of Su Shi’s Prose From The Approach To Translation As Adaptation And Selection

The great literary master Su Shi has left enormous excellent poems, ci-poetry and prose works to us. Some of them were translated into English as early as19th century and since then, his works have been translated by both Chinese and western translators. Relatively speaking, study on the English versions of his prose are scarce. According to the literature collected by the author of this thesis, current studies either mainly focus on the English version of the First Ode to the Red Cliff (《前赤壁赋》) or mention some sentences of Su Shi’s prose in the study of translation of many classical prose from cultural or aesthetic angle. This thesis is a comparative study of Giles’and Luo Jingguo’s English versions of five popular essays by Su Shi from the perspective of the approach to Translation as Adaptation and Selection. Giles translated many classical Chinese prose in his Gems of Chinese Literature in late19th century.11of Su Shi’s prose are included in this book. This book by Giles has a pioneering significance and it is still under publication today in western world. Professor Luo Jingguo from Peking University selected some excellent essays from Guwenguanzhi(古文观止) and translated them into English, with five of Su Shi’s prose included.This thesis mainly discusses how the two translators conduct transformation in linguistic, cultural and communicative dimensions. Analysis in linguistic dimension mainly focuses on the simplicity of language, sentences of symmetrical and parallel structure and vivid descriptions and expressions. Analysis in cultural dimension is conducted from translation of culture-loaded words related to names of places, persons, time, religion and allusion. In communicative dimension, the author discusses whether the author’s ideas or feelings have been conveyed in the English versions. Based on this analysis, the author explores the two translators’adaptation and selection in their own translational eco-environment.The study finds that the two English versions reflect Giles and Luo Jingguo’s adaptation to and selection in the translational eco-environment of their times. From linguistic dimension, Giles’choice of words and grammar form adapts to the simplicity of the SL. Luo explicated much omitted information of the ST, so his versions are longer but very clear. Both of them can generally reproduce the vividness of the SL and they tried to keep to symmetrical and parallel sentences structure of the ST. From cultural dimension, Giles tended to omit or generalize culture-loaded expressions related to place names, person names and time which are not so important in the ST. For those that are important in the ST or familiar to target readers, he translated them in Wade-Giles system or Gregarian calendar. This shows his consideration for and adaptation to the target reader and ST. Luo Jingguo generally translated these terms with the method of pinyin plus annotation, which helps disseminating Chinese culture in the translational eco-environment of his day.In addition, based on the comparative analysis, the author suggests that for travel note prose, translator can affix a picture and map of the places to it so as to enable readers to have a direct perception of the names of places. And for classical prose, especially those whose communicative intention is rather implicit, the translator had better provide a brief introduction to the writing background so that the texts can get across to readers more easily.