| Charles Dickens’David Copperfield is a classical English novel that has long been appreciated by English readers;Zhang Guruo’s Dawei Kaopofei(《大卫·考坡菲》)is a successful translation of it that has been cherished by Chinese readers.In the fields of translation practice and studies,however,translators and scholars pay much attention to only a few aspects(planes or levels)of Zhang Guruo’s translation of the novel but seldom make systemic analyses of the relationship between it and Dickens’original work in terms of all the main planes on all the chief levels.In the light of Jia Zhengchuan’s systemic views of English-Chinese comparison and translation,on the basis of M.A.K.Halliday’s systemic linguistics and relevant theories of language comparison and translation,and through a methodology involving qualitative and sometimes quantitative analysis,therefore,the present study attempts to make a systemic comparison of Dickens’David Copperfield and Zhang Guruo’s Dawei Kaopofei in terms of the planes of function,meaning,and form on the levels of text,sentence,word,and phoneme or grapheme so as to find out the similarities and differences between the two texts in terms of all these main planes on all these chief levels and reveal the general patterns of correspondence or translation methods involved.Results generated from this study demonstrate the following:(1)On the level of text,Zhang Guruo’s Dawei Kaopofei and Charles Dickens’ David Copperfield are very similar: They are very much alike in such text functions as interpersonal and ideational functions though not so similar in textual functions,as the thematic progression pattern of the former is spiral while that of the latter is linear.They are very similar in text meaning,as both achieve coherence through contextual factors and internal logics,though the former depends more on insight,integrity,and subjects and the latter relies more on reasoning,analysis,and objects.They are largely similar in text form,as both realize cohesion through reference,substitution,and ellipsis,though the former uses more ellipsis whereas the latter applies more substitution and reference.(2)On the level of sentence,the two texts are fairly similar: They are quite similar in such sentence functions as ideational and interpersonal functions though different in textual function,as the former is more characterized by temporal and spatial iconicity than the latter.They are quite similar in sentence meaning,as both follow the order of “known-new information” and are similarly characterized by existential sentences with certain components in certain positions,though the former is often topic-prominent while the latter is mainly subject-prominent.They are seldom similar in sentence form,as the former is often composed of loosely constructed sentences with modifiers put before main structures while the latter consists of tightly organized sentences with subordinate components positioned after or before chief ones.(3)On the level of word,the two texts are rather different: They are fairly different in most word functions including ideational,interpersonal and textual functions,as the former often transmits subjective information with subjective words which tend to change people’s emotions and promote social interaction while the latter often transmits objective information with objective words which tend to change people’s cognition and promote cultural construction.The two texts are often different in word meaning,as the former emphasizes perception or insight,unified meaning,dynamic change,and non-linear integration of word meanings while the latter emphasizes rational logic,multiple meanings,static meanings,linear separability and aggregation of word meanings.The two texts are often different in word form,as there are differences between their ways of word formation such as affixation and compounding.(4)Below the level of word,the two texts are very different: They are very dissimilar in phoneme or grapheme functions,meanings and forms,as the former is better at representing meaning by visual form while the latter is better at representing meaning by sound.(5)Viewed from the findings stated in(1)to(4)above,therefore,the Chinese and English texts of Dickens’ novel tend to be more similar in terms of more external planes on higher levels and to be more different in terms of more internal planes on lower levels.This means that Zhang’s translation tends to retain or slightly modify the functions,meanings and even forms of Dickens’ original on text and sentence levels through the method of “source language oriented translation” or “foreignization” supplemented by the method of “target language oriented translation” or “domestication”,and to adjust or sometimes retain the function,meaning,and especially form of the source text on word and phoneme or grapheme levels through the method of “target language oriented translation” or “domestication”supplemented by the method of “source language oriented translation” or“foreignization”.This study may be significant both practically and academically.It may help to promote the translation of literary and other texts by providing insights regarding successful translations.It may also help to improve the study of literary and other translation by providing a systemic analysis of a successful translation in terms of different planes on different levels of language. |
