Two Chinese Versions Of Gone With The Wind: A Comparison Based On Postcolonial Translation Theory

English-Chinese literary translation is often conditioned by its context of powerrelations between English and Chinese cultures. In a postcolonial age of American andChinese cultures, therefore, the translation of American novelist Margaret Mitchell’sGone with the Wind from English into Chinese may have been more or less influencedby the power relations between cultures. There have been a number of studies on thetranslation of Gone with the Wind from various perspectives including culturalviewpoints. There have also been many studies of English-Chinese literary translationon the basis of postcolonial translation theory. So far, however, few studies on thetranslation of Gone with the Wind have been carried out from a postcolonial perspective.Based on some postcolonial translation theories especially Homi Bhabha’s theory andBrazilian cannibalism, therefore, this study carries out a comparison between twoChinese versions of Gone with the Wind, i.e., Piao by Fu Donghua and Luan Shi Jia Renby Huang Huairen and Zhu Youruo, in terms of the translation strategies adopted andthe cultural backgrounds behind the strategies.Firstly, in the light of postcolonial translation strategies especially Homi Bhabha’shybridization and mimicry and Brazilian cannibalistic translation, the study conducts acomparative description of the two Chinese translations of Gone with the Wind inrelation to the source text on different linguistic levels to find out what translationstrategies they respectively involve. Results generated from the comparison demonstratethat (1) Piao, a hybrid entity of fewer source language and culture elements and moretarget language and culture elements, was produced through the application of morehybridization and cannibalistic strategies than mimicry strategies, and conversely (2)Luan Shi Jia Ren, a hybrid entity of more source language and culture elements andfewer target culture and language elements, is produced through the use of moremimicry strategies than cannibalistic translation strategies.Secondly, in the light of Bhabha’s postcolonial theory and Brazilian cannibalism, the study provides a comparative explanation of the two Chinese translations of Gonewith the Wind in relation to their respective cultural contexts to justify the translationstrategies they respectively involve. Results generated from the comparison reveal that(1) Piao, a translation produced in the1940s when the culture of China was in greatdanger of Japanese aggression and was very weak in contrast with the great culturalpower of the United States of America, mainly adopted the hybridization strategy inorder to spiritually decolonize and strengthen the Chinese nation through digesting andassimilating the American culture, and (2) Luan Shi Jia Ren, a translation produced inthe1990s when China was already a rapidly rising power in the world, chiefly adoptedthe mimicry strategy in order to counteract and menace the American culture.The findings of this study may be meaningful to both literary translation practiceand theory. Practically, the findings of the study imply that literary translators in apostcolonial context need to choose appropriate translation strategies according to thepower relations between the source and target cultures. Theoretically, this study maycompensate for the inadequacy or lack of postcolonial studies of the English-Chinesetranslation of Gone with the Wind.