Seminar in Linguistics
Translations
Jiang ping Fan ----- Englisn 560 ------ Dr. Steffensen- --- March 10, 1999
It is commonly acknowledged that the translation from one language into another is never a simple word for word conversion. Nor is it merely a sentence-for-sentence renderings. It involves a very complicated procedure--a procedure which requires the consideration of linguistic surface of a text and semantic rendering (implicit meaning), plus the preservation of the internal truth--consistency of the text. In other words, the exploration of the original version on both denotative and connotative levels is a must in order to make the translated version acceptable. Yet there is something more. A good translator need to consider the social, cultural, historical backgrounds and the language habit of the source text as well as these of the target text in order to “make the translation product L2 text acceptable to an audience that does not know the conventions, which govern the L1” (Neubert 74). This does not mean that for every translation, all these elements have to be given priority. What it means is that these elements are available sources for consideration, and the translator has to give priority to certain elements while paying attention to the other elements. The elements that are combined to create textuality are defined by De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) as cohesion, coherence intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality, and intertextuality. According to De Beaugrande and Dressler, Cohesion refers to the external relations of a text--the grammatical dependencies between and within the sentences. Coherence refers to the conceptual relations of a text. It stresses the internal logical linkage of the meaning within a text. Intionality and acceptability refer to the reciprocal effects of communication between the writer and reader. The writer pursues a certain goal in writing by producing a cohesive and coherent text so that the reader can accept it as a readable, message-carrying text. But whether a text is acceptable or not also depends on situationality. If a produced text does not fit into the context, say, an instruction manual is written in a verse form, then the text is not acceptable. The degree of acceptability of a text is also related to its informativity. A text can have a low informativity if it has too commonsensical and redundant information; whereas a text can have a high informativity if it provides a certain amount of the unforseen information within the text. Informativity is somehow connected to intertextuality. Intertextuality refers to the combination of one’s previous or background knowledge and new knowledge in writing and reading a text. The high or low informativity of a text sometimes also depends on how much intertextual knowledge one has in producing or processing the text. So these seven textual elements or the seven principles intertwine each other. Combined together, they make a text readable, acceptable, and plausible. In this paper, I would like to adopt these seven principles in my analysis of the two translations of Mao Tse-tung’s poem, “Kunlun Mountain.”
Mao Tse-tung’s “Kunlun Mountain” was written in 1935. Kunlun is a mountain on the upper reaches of the Khotan River in Sinkiang province. The name is also used for the Karakoram range, which runs from Tibert and Sinkiang into central China and includes mountains such as the Minshan in Chinghai. According to an ancient Tang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.) book that “the shape of the earth had its origin in Kunlun, which runs out in all four directions” (Engls 71).
Kunlun, as a famous mountain in China, has been eulogized by many Chinese poets since the days of Chu Yuan (340?-278 B.C.), the first great Chinese poet, for it is regarded as the home of immolates and land of celestial bliss. But Mao takes it “in a quite different vein” in this poem. Kunlun in this poem is not eulogized, instead it is endowed with an image of a giant monster lavishing its power in the human world. It is to be controlled and tamed so as to let it serve the people all over the world. Behind this symbolic image is the anti-imperialism theme. As it is explained by the poet himself regarding the interpretation of the poem that “anti-imperialism is the theme and no other. Mao made this remark in 1958 in an effort to clarify the various conjectures over the meanings of this poem” (Lin 38). Mao Tze-tung uses Kunlun here to symbolize the colossal but irrational economic and social systems of imperialist countries “that must give way to a new order of universal equity and peace” (38).
According to Nancy Lin, one of the translators of Mao Tze-tung’s poems, the poem is said to “have been written while Mao was viewing Kunlun in the distance from the top of Minshan in a moment of respire that afforded him to utter his deepest thought and dream.” (38)
My reading and interpretation of the poem.
The poem “Kunlun is written in the form of Nian Nu Jiao, which is a Chinese verse form developed at the end of the Tang and during the Five Dynasties (907-960). The verse in this form is normally composed of lines of irregular length and written as lyrics to musical tunes. “Kunlun” consists of twenty lines of different length and has two stanzas.
The first stanza centers on the description of Kunlun Mountain, a giant mountain capable of various misdeeds, and the second stanza expresses the poet’s desire to curb its misconduct and use it in the service of the world harmony. The poem starts by talking about Kunlun’s overwhelming enormity, its exuberant indulgence of the pleasant scenes in the human world, its volitional and unscrupulous influence on weather, which leads to disastrous sufferings of human beings. Then the poet turns to address Kunlun directly, giving it suggestions and expressing his (the poet’s) wishes to Kunlun.
The poet takes Kunlun as his symbolic subject and addressee, but focuses on its power in affecting the weather, for it is Kunlun’ s very act of volitional intervening of the weather that greatly affects the seasonal warmth and coldness of the nature world, hence disturbing and jeopardizing humans’ normal life. After putting Kunlun’s enormous power in the spotlight, the poet proceeds to utter his desire to make use of Kunlun Mountain for the world peace. His ambition and his strong desire to turn the powerful “giant” into a useful service for the world peace is achieved by putting side by side the enormous power of Kunlun and the projected outcome of the “tamed” Kunlun.
The poet’s goal in this poem is to use a symbolic figure--Kunlun--to convey the message of anti-imperialism and of his desire to curb the imperialist power in the world.
Two Translations of the Poem
The two translators of this poem I am going to compare produce somewhat different products. Many reasons may account for these differences in the translations. But I would like to compare these two translated versions in terms of the seven principles defined by De Beaugrande and Dressler to show their strength and weakness and to demonstrate which linguistic elements adopted play effective or less effective roles in the translations, and how they help render the translation both faithful to the source text and meaningful to the reader of the target text. I would like to stress that in comparing the two versions, what matters is not the differences in translation between the two, rather, what matters is which one better conveys the meaning both on the surface and deep levels with regard to both the source text and target text.The first translation presented here was done by Willis Barnstone in collaboration with Ko Ching-po. As Barnstone claims in the appendixes regarding his principles of the translation of Mao’s poems from Chinese into English: “The present version may be called a close translation. My colleague Ko Ching-po and I have studied each character and then sought an English equivalent. Nothing has been omitted. In a few cases I have thought it necessary to add a word when the original suggested something recognizable to a Chinese but not to a Western reader” (141). As I understand that Barnstone’s close translation focuses mostly on the interpretation of the surface meaning by using “equivalents” of words. This kind of translation is intended to reproduce the original as truthfully as possible by following a rigid word for word translation. But due to its over-emphasis on the surface meaning, it tends to see only the trees without having a bird’s eye view of the forest, or it is inclined to stay on the surface without being able to go into depth.
The second translation is done by Nancy Lin. In the Preface to her translation of Mao Tse-tung’s poems, Nancy Lin states her principle regarding translation: “In the following attempt with the late Chairman Mao’s poems, my guide has been to capture the best I can the central theme and ethos of each piece and transplant the essential images and dominant rhythm-waves involved” (1). It is noticeable that Lin’s main concern in translation is the conveyance of the central theme and ethos of the original piece. Her principle decides that she can not merely rely on the close translation for the central theme and ethos. She must, first of all, study the whole picture before she gets down to the details involved. In other words, she has to give priority to the central concept of the poem, while considering how to make use of the linguistic surface level to convey the central concept in the original.
Naturally the different principles guide them to adopt different perspectives and methods in translation and to produce different translated versions.
As I have mentioned above that this twenty-line poem is composed of the two stanzas. But each stanza can be further divided into three groups according to the meaning.
The first three lines is the first meaning group. It describes Kunlun Mountain as an enormous and wild creature, suddenly soaring out into the earth. Its literal meaning is like this: “Soar out into the world and span the sky,/ Giant and wild Kunlun, / Standing high above to see world’s spring color.” At the beginning of each of the original line there is one key Chinese word or a phrase to describe and reinforce the impression of Kunlun’s enormity: “Heng-kong” means “spanning the sky,” “mang” means “giant,” and “wild”; and “yue-jin” means “standing high above to see all.” These three words and phrases are thoughtfully selected by the poet to depict the “largeness,” “suddenness,” and “wildness” of Kunlun. So in reading the original version, a Chinese reader can immediately visualize a picture of Kunlun which looms large in front of the eyes. Do the two translated versions create the same impression? Barnstone’s translation goes like this:
1. Over the earth
2. the greenblue monster Kunlun who has seen
3. all spring color and passion of men.
Barnstone’s translation does not seem to have reproduced that same impression. To start with, these three lines are not as informative as the original lines intended. This can be examined from four points. First, the word “over” being an adverb, is no counterpart to the Chinese phrasal verb “heng kun” either in meaning or in tone. “Heng kun” stresses the power and strength of something soaring out from somewhere all of sudden. The English word “over” does not entail these implications at all. Because of this word, I would say that the line “Over the earth” is only an approximate translation of the original meaning, but a rather week one. Second, the word “greenblue” is an inaccurate interpretation of the Chinese word “meng” here. Literally, the Chinese word “mang” does have the meaning of “greenblue,” and “greenblue” is sometimes used to describe mountains in Chinese literature. But the word “mang” also means “giganticity,” and it has the implication of “uncontrollableness” in a metaphorical way. In this context, to translate the Chinese word, “mang” into “greenblue” does not at all contribute to the impression of “largeness” implied by the word “Heng kong” (span the sky) and “uncontrolableness” implied by the word “meng” itself, thus the intended coherence is not maintained. The word “monster” may somewhat compensate for the loss, still the word “greenblue” is too literal to have any poetic effect here. Third, the translation of the third line into “who has seen all spring color . . .” is too literal and too plain to convey the intended implications and poetic force. The original line implies the “wantonness” and “self-indulgence” of giant Kunlun, whereas no such implication can be found in “who has seen all spring color.” Upon reading this line, the reader might almost ask “so what ?” Fourth, the added part “the passion of men is irrelevant to the original version. The Chinese phrase “chun-se” under a certain context may bear the meaning of “sensual attraction,” but it does not mean “the passion of men.” To add the phrase here not only upsets the coherence of the poem, but also violates the poet’s intention. For the poet at this time only works on the symbolic level by touching on the relationships between Kunlun Mountain and the natural phenomena. Therefore, the added phrase is unacceptable in terms of the poet’s intention and of the contextual requirement. To an English reader, he/she might feel puzzled as to how and why the “spring color” and the “passion of men” are related to each other here since no other clues are given in the whole context regarding the “passion of men.”
In comparison, Nancy Lin’s version better conveys the poet’s intention. She renders the first meaning group in this way:
1. Rearing out of the earth,
2. A portent across the sky
3. Wanton Kunlun,
4. You that have drained your cupful
5. Of this world’s radiant spring,
There are six strong points and one weak point in Lin’s translation. First, the phrase “rearing out” meaning “raising upward” is a good choice for two reasons: a. this actional phrasal verb vividly produces the intended impression that Kunlun looms large all of sudden; b. it is closer in meaning to the Chinese phrasal verb in the original. Second, the next two lines “A portent across the sky / Wanton Kunlun,” help reinforce the impression created in the first line. The words “portent,” “ across,” and “wanton,” all contribute to the image of a vast monster coming into the world and committing various misdeeds. The defect is that the word “portent” meaning “prodigy” or “marvel” tends to give more positive meaning than the original intended. It might slightly affect the coherence of the text when we consider the overall tone and internal consistency of the poem. Third, the word “wanton” in the next line better stresses the mischieviousness of Kunlun. It effectively brings out the main characteristic of Kunlun and paves the way for the next meaning group. Fourth, the word “drained” is an adequate translation of the Chinese phrase “yue jin,” particularly on the symbolic level, for it poetically indicates the insatiableness and probably even the greediness of Kunlun while reinforcing the meaning of “wantonness,” thus contributing to the textual coherence. Fifth, the lines “You that have drained your cupful / Of this world’s radiant spring,” is particularly impressive. To compare it with Barnstone’s “who has seen all spring color and passion of men.” we see the strength of Lin’s version. While Barnestone’s close translation fails to create the intended impression of the original version, it also fails to provide a link between this meaning group and the next one, which talks about the consequential act after Kunlun “drained” “radiant spring.” Whereas, Lin’s version uses a metaphor, comparing the “radiant spring” to “a cupful of sweet wine” so as to implicitly explain why Kunlun “drained it.” In addition, “radiant spring” is more specific than the “spring color” in meaning, and it bears more symbolic meaning than the phrase “the passion of men.” It can be said that Lin resorts to a metaphor and a concrete image to reinforce Kunlun’s wantonness. Sixth, in terms of syntactic level, Barnstone’s is a single long complex sentence with the subject in the middle. This might not be a bad choice, for the translator might intend to use the icon of the sentence length to stress the length and vastness of Kunlun. But when it is compared with Lin’s version, its weakness is detectable. Lin uses a participle phrase to start the poem, which is followed by an absolute construction, then an exclamation remark, which is followed by another exclamation remark with a long clause as a modifier. There are two advantages in Lin’s arrangement of the sentence structure. First, the “fragments” of the sentence symbolically help reinforce the impression of the wantonness of Kunlun. Second, within these “fragments” of the sentence, the logic subject--Kunlun--appears three times, though in different forms: “A portent,” “wanton Kunlun,” and “you that have drained.” Each one gives out one side of Kunlun’s nature, thus the informativity is high. Added together, they reveal the complete feature of Kunlun intended in the original version. Such decision shows that the translator must have been aware that there is few cases in which one English word is equivalent in meaning to one Chinese word. Sometimes more than one English word or phrase are needed to convey one Chinese meaning carried in one Chinese word or phrase. In addition, the repetition of the same subject attributes to the cohesiveness of the poem and gives a sufficient emphasis on the subject, which is exactly the poet’s intention.
The second meaning group consists of the next five lines in the original. Its literary meaning is like this: “flying up into the sky, dragons of jade in three million,/ Stirring up the coldness of the earth thorough./ Summer days [snow] melt and thaw,/ Rivers and seas flood,/ Men become fish or turtles.”
Barnstone puts the second meaning group like this:
4. Three million dragons of white jade
5. soar
6. and freeze the whole sky with snow.
7. When a summer sun heats the globe.
8. rivers flood
9. and men turn into fish and turtles.I perceive that there is gab between the first and second meaning groups in Barnstone’s version. This is shown in the fact that the subject of the first sentence is “Kunlun,” and the subject of the second sentence is “Three million dragons of white jade.” Barnstone’s version might mislead the English reader to the understanding that the poet is talking about two things at once: “Kunlun,” and the “dragons” and that “freeze the whole sky with snow” is the deed conducted by “dragons.” But in the original version, it is very clear that Kunlun is the only subject, “dragons of white jade” is a part of Kunlun, referring to the range of Kunlun. The second gap appears between the sentences “Three million of. . . .” and “When a summer. . . .” Line 7,8,9 give one the impression that “men turn into fish and turtles” because “a summer sun heats the globe.” In other words, these three lines do not seem to have a direct relation in meaning with the previous lines. They fail to set up the causality relationship between the first and second meaning groups. In the original version, the causality relationship that Kunlun “drained cupful of radiant spring, so it flies up high stirring up snow to frozen the world thoroughly” is clearly implied. In Barnstone’s version, he does not establish this causality relationship in these lines. In the original the agent (Kunlun) of the action is understood due to its previous appearance in the second line of the poem. In fact, this omission of the subject due to its previous appearance is a common Chinese syntactic phenomenon in poetry. While the original version will not create any misleading problem for a Chinese reader, the literal word for word translation of it might create a problem for an English speaking reader. Barnstone’s version definitely produces an ambiguity or misunderstanding of the meaning for an English speaking reader.
Lin’s translation of the second meaning group is like this:
6. You blow up wild
7. With your three million dragons of alabaster,
8. Plunging the universe in a convulsion of cold;
9. Then you let all melt and thaw in summer.
10. Flooding rivers pell-mell
11. So that men become fish and turtles.
In Lin’s version, the meaning gab and misleading problems are erased by using anaphora “you” in line 6, 7, 9. Also the sentence “You blow up wild” is consequent upon Kunlun’s previous act: “drained your cupful of . . . .” So there establishes a proper causality relationship between the first and second meaning groups. The phrase “blow up” has the meaning “explode,” “filled with air.” Literally, it is not an exact equivalent to the Chinese verb “fei qi” (“soar” or “fly up”), but it bears partitive literal meaning of the word “fei qi” and has the complete connotative meaning the context requires. It helps reinforce the image of that giant dragon-like figure filled with “air” after having “drained a cupful of radiant spring” and blows up the snow to “plunge the world in a convulsion of cold.” In fact, this rendering ideally meets the need of “maxim of quality” which requires that the translator to preserve the internal truth --consistency of the text” ( Neubert 78). In addition, the use of anaphora “you” and “your” in line 6, 7, 9 helps specify the agent of actions, thus eliminating any ambiguity which might have arisen without using them. And the use of two parallel participle phrases, “plunging . . . ,” and “flooding . . . ,” explains the accompanying results of the actions shown in the verbs “blow up” and “let all melt and thaw.” Besides, Lin also uses a connective “so that” in line 11, to stress again the causality relationship between what Kunlun has done and its consequence. In other words, because Lin follows a causality schema in her translation, she reveals the kind of relationship implied in the poem, which can be easily perceived by Chinese readers, but it is hardly recognizable to English readers. What’s more, Lin creates different images by using such words as “blow-up,” “wild,” “plunge,” “convulsion,” and “pell-mell” to emphasize Kunlun’s rather knavish misconduct. They not only help reinforce the coherence of the text, but also express the poet’s monitoring intention—to let the reader see what terrible deeds Kunlun has committed. Within these lines, what Lin does is not only to adopt certain words whose semantic meaning creates lexical cohesion but also use the grammatical structure to serve semantic functions by indicating important relations.
The translations of the Chinese phrase “yu long san bai wan” into “three million dragons of white jade” by Barnstone and “three million dragons of alabaster” by Lin need further discussion here. Each translator provides a footnote for his/her way of translating it. Barnstone quotes from the Note on Poem by Mao Tse-tung: “An ancient poet said, ‘Three million dragons of white jade are fighting, their broken scales fly all over the sky.’ In this way he described the flying snow, but here I have used it to describe snowy mountains. . . ” (124). Lin’s note is like this: “A poet of the old once conceived the snow scene as ‘a battle among three million dragons of alabaster, filling the sky with torn nails and tattered scales.’ I am borrowing the image here to describe snow-covered mountains. For from the top of Minshan, one can see in the distance range after range sweeping away in a whirl of white even on summer days” (38). With the background knowledge, each translator provides the intertextual information regarding the origin of the phrase and why he/she puts it the way it is. To provide the necessary intertextual information through notes is an ideal way to help the reader understand the cultural or social backgrounds of the original text. With regard to this phrase, the problem is which one is culturally more acceptable. The phrase “dragons of jade” is a commonsensical phrase to Chinese readers. The Chinese “yu” equals “jade” in English. And “yu-lung” (dragons of jade) is often used to refer to the snowy mountain range in Chinese literature. In comparison, “dragons of alabaster” is rare to the Chinese readers. “Alabaster” seems to stress something “white” and “translucent” but “inert” because of its ornamental function normally projected onto it. But in the first stanza, the whole context seems to stress the motion, and activeness of the giant monster. So “alabaster” does not fit the situation here. In my knowledge, the Chinese word “yu” seldom evokes the sense of “alabaster.”
The third meaning group consists of the next two lines. Its literary meaning is like this: “Of the achievements and crimes of thousands of years,/ Who has made judgment and evaluation?” Barnstone translated it this way:
10. Who can judge
11. a thousand years of accomplishments or failures?
Lin’s translation goes like this:
12. Of your deeds or misdeeds these millenniums,
13. Who’s been the appraiser and judge?”
To start with, in Barnstone’s version, the words “accomplishments,” “failure” sound too bookish here. A careful reader might have noticed that as far as the content of the poem is concerned, it does not talk about the grand work achieved or not achieved by Kunlun. Instead, its conduct is described and commented. Therefore, the choice of “accomplishment or failure” here is too “big” to be proper for the situation. Second, reading Barnstone’s translation, the reader might raise the question: whose accomplishment or failure it is talking about?
Lin’s translation avoids the problems raised above. She uses a summarizing phrase “Of your deeds or misdeeds” to link line 12 to line 13, and to specify the object of the acts of “judge” and “appraiser” so no ambiguity arises here. The phrase “deeds or misdeeds” is more concrete than the words “ achievement” and “failure”and does not sound too formal. Therefore it is an appropriate choice for the intended meaning. In addition, her deliberate use of the seemingly redundant words “appraiser and judge” is in fact a word for word translation. This meets the need of the poet’s intention. The poet after enumerating what Kunlun has done, turns to ask “who has ever appraised and judged your deeds?” An emphatic tone is clearly inbeded in this line. Also the Chinese phrase “ping shuo” not only means “to judge” but also means “to estimate the value of something.” To translate it into one single English word, “judge” is incomplete in meaning and insufficient in tone. In comparison, Lin’s translation is more accurate.
The second stanza of the poem expresses the poet’s desire to make Kunlun useful and have it serve the peace of the whole world. Again there are three meaning groups in this part. The first three lines, which is the poet’s direct address to Kunlun, form the first meaning group. Here a special attention should be paid to the syntactic structure. The poet uses one nominative sentence saying “Now I have a say to Kunlun” and two imperative sentences, meaning: “Not such height / not so much snow.”
Barnstone’s version is like this:
12. Kunlun,
13. you don't need all that height or snow.
This is a very brief translation, but it sounds more like giving out an order. Considering the fact that Barnstone’s translation of the whole poem observes the principle of brevity, to combine three original lines into a one and half line in English shows his consistency. But some insufficiency arises in terms of situational monitoring. The poet intends to express his wish in a firm tone so he adopts two imperative sentences, but he does not want to sound like giving an order. Judging from the Chinese syntax of the first line, it is obvious that the poet intends to express something quite firm in a mild form--a gentleness in disguise. Therefore, to translate “Now I have a say to Kunlun” into a simple direct name address, “Kunlun” fails to show the monitoring effect intended by the poet.
Lin’s translation goes like this:
14. “I should put in a word now, Kunlun:
15. You don’t need that height,
16. Nor so much snow.
In comparison, Lin’s version seems wordy, but close analysis reveals that her translation better conveys the subtle monitoring motivation of the original, while still keeping its strong tone in putting forward suggestions to Kunlun. The sentence “I should put in a word now, Kunlun” instead of the mere direct name address somehow softens the harsh tone. The use of anaphora in the imperative sentence also contributes to this intended “gentleness.” And at the same time, the two-line form, “You don’t need that height,/ Nor so much snow.” instead of one line: “you don’t need all that height or snow” is closer to the original in format. Besides, the two-line version maintains the emphatic tone imbedded in the original. The structure “you don’t need. . . nor. . .” sounds more like giving out a patient but reiterated advice by the poet. Whereas, “you don’t need all that height or snow” gives one the impression of abruptness and insolence, which is not intended in the original.
The second meaning group of the second stanza consisting of the next five lines expresses the poet’s wish to turn this giant monster into a useful thing so that it can serve the world’s peace. The literal meaning goes like this: “ Could I lean on heaven, draw the sword,/ and cut you into three parts/I would send as a gift,/ one part for Europe,/ one for America,/ one to be kept for Asia.”
Barnstone’ s translation goes like this:
14. If I could lean on heaven, grab my sword,
15. and cut you in three parts,
16. I would send one to Europe, one to America,
17. and keep one part here
18. in China.
There are three places to be improved in Barnstone’s version. First, the word “grab the sword” meaning “to take or seize the sword by a sudden motion” does not comply with the Chinese word “chou jian” meaning “to pull the sword out of the sheath. Second, the Chinese verbs “yi” and “zeng” used together with the name of continent “Europe” and “America” have a very clear indication of “sending something as a gift to.” Therefore, the translation should embody this meaning. This is an important message, for it paves the way for the next meaning group, which stresses the world peace and harmony. To express the wish of giving something as a gift to the other continent--a token of friendliness in Chinese culture--is clearly indicated in the poem. It helps to bring out the poet’s goal for world peace, and achieve the managing effect of the poem. Third, to translate “dong guo” into “China” is not at all accurate. To put the Chinese phrase “dong guo” as “China” is a narrow interpretation. Chinese phrase “dong guo” does mean “China” sometimes. But it also means Asian countries, the Orient. In the context of this poem it is obvious that “Europe,” “America,” and “China” do not belong to the same concept level: “Europe” and “America” refer to the continent, “China” refers to a country. If the translator had resorted to his intertextual knowledge for interpretation, he would have guessed that “dong gou” here should mean “Asian countries.”
Let’s look at Lin’s version:
17. If only I could lean on the sky
18. And, sword drawn, split you in three--
19. One part as gift to Europe,
20. One part to the Americas,
21. One for the Eastern Lands to keep--
There are five merits and one demerit in Lin’s translation. To begin with, “sword drawn” is an accurate translation of Chinese word “chou bao-jian.” Second, the meaning “gift” is expressed by adding a phrase “as a gift.” Third, the plural form “Americas” is used to express the meaning of “American Continent,” hence avoiding any ambiguity if there is any in the reader’s mind. Fourth, the Chinese word “dong guo” translated into “the Easter Lands” is a precise interpretation of the original context. Put in this way, it attributes to the textual coherence, and better expresses the poet’s intention. For the poet’s main concern here is to achieve the world peace. He is not confined to the thinking of maintaining peace between only China and the other two continents. Fifth, to put this meaning group in five lines and start last three lines with the word “one” ideally conform to the original version. This decision probably comes from the translator’s knowledge about Chinese verse form. In general it is advocated that the verse form be parallel in structure and tidy in form as long as the content allows. One of the syntactic feature in this poem is the parallel structure adopted in the second part of the poem. Lin’s version embodies partial parallels in sentence structure. Whereas, there is no trace of parallels in Barnestone’s version. The demerit in Lin’s translation of this meaning group is the use of the word “split” in “split you in three.” “Split” has the meaning of “dividing something into fractions with forcefulness and abruptness.” Its synonymy is “tear.” It seems to me that the word “cut” is a better choice for the Chinese word “jie,” for it does not sound that harsh and rough. And with regard to the whole context of the poem in which the poet seems to prefer a less severe tone in addressing Kunlun, I think the word “cut” should be preferred here because it does not evoke the kind of forcefulness implied by the word “split.”
The last meaning group consists of the last two lines. Here the poet’s good will is uttered in an exclamation remark. Its literary meaning is “Wish the world have peace and harmony./ May the entire globe live in the same coldness and heat.” These two lines stress the idea of peace, equality, and common welfare of the whole world.
Barnstone’s translation of these two lines is like this:
19. that the world have peace
20. and the globe share the same heat and ice.
Lin’s translation goes like this:
22. That Great Peace might reign on earth,
23. A common heat and cold for the globe entire!
An interesting point in comparing these two versions of the same meaning group is that the subjects of the two sentences are put quite differently by each translator. Barnstone’s subjects are “the world” and “the globe,” while Lin’s subjects are “great peace” and “common heat and cold.” This difference shows the different emphasis. The question is which one should be emphasized, and which one fits the situation better? As I have explained above that these two original lines stress the idea of peace and common welfare, it follows that Lin’s translation seems a better decision. Lin also uses the word “reign” in “That Great Peace might reign on earth” to create the image of king, or God reigning the whole world peacefully. This image elevates the world peace to such a height that it effectively shows poet’s strong wish for the world peace. While Lin translates Chinese “tong ci liang re” into “a common heat and cold,” Barnstone puts it this way: “the same heat and ice.” Between “heat and cold” and “heat and ice,” which one is better? Barnstone chooses “ice” instead of “cold” probably because he takes into account the fact that “cold” is an adjective, “ice” is a noun, “heat” and “ice” are both nouns. But talking about the common welfare symbolically, “heat and cold” seems a better representation of generality, for the word “cold” has a larger connotative meaning, whereas “ice” is more specific, and it does not have as a large connotation as the word “cold” does. So “common heat and cold” is preferable here. In addition, Lin uses an exclamation mark at the end of the last line to bring out the tone assumed in the original version. Barnstone fails to pay attention to the tone here without adding an exclamation mark or using other devices to express the tone. But on the other hand, Barnstone’s version uses the words “share” “same” to stress the common welfare and equality of the world co-existence. The words “share” and “same” echo each other in meaning and their alliteration also helps to stress the meaning of mutual sharing. So it is a good choice.
I have compared these two translated versions in specific details with the help of De Beaugrande and Dressler’s principles. Now I would like to apply their seven principles to the two translations in general in order to summarize their features—both merits and demerits.
In terms of cohesiveness, it is obvious that Lin’s version is superior, for she resorts to such devices as anaphora, conjunctions, participle phrases, and partial parallels on the surface level. Barnstone also uses anaphora and conjunction in his version, but his linkage is not strong. This might be explained by Neubert that “individual words can only be decoded by examining their relations to words that come before or after them” ( 105). In other words, the relations between the words and among the lines are not as well co-ordinated in Barnstone’s translation as those in Lin’s.
With respect to coherence, again Lin’s version stands out in comparison. As I have discussed above, one of the major features in Lin’s translation is the use of words and phrases closely related to each other in meaning. As a result, they contribute to the overall conceptual linkage of the text. Besides, Lin takes care of such details as the use of some partial recurrences such as “the appraiser and judge” and the summary phrase like “of your deeds and misdeeds,” the use of figurative language to create images and metaphors, and building up the causality relations between the sentences. So she produces a more accurate and clear translation. One may argue that the original does not state the causality relations directly, whereas, Lin’s version gives too obvious clue to the causality relations. Again I would like to use Neubert’s theory to justify Lin’s version: “Coherence is not imported from the L1 text; coherence is constructed anew in the L2 text, using L1 sense as a template” (100). In other words, Lin uses the L1 sense as a template to create the textual coherence in the L2 text . In comparison, Barnstone’s version can be called “under-translation” to some extent, because he adopts the close translation which leads to a failure to deal properly with some lexical cohesion and to preserve some important grammatical dependencies. As Neubert states, “a translator can not usually re-establish coherence using literal sentence-for-sentence renderings. L2 coherence must be recreated using the translator’s understanding of the coherence structure of the original to direct modifications in the L2 textual surface” (93).
With regard to intentionality and acceptability, Lin seems to be more aware of the poet’s intention of using Kunlun as a wanton monster to symbolize imperialist system. Therefore, she takes care of such things as managing details, careful choices of words and phrase, and the arrangement of the syntactic structure so as to make them convey effectively the poet’ intention. Barnstone’s rigid adherence to the surface meaning, particularly his close translation somehow cripples him in conveying the poet’ intention thoroughly. Lin’s version reads more smoothly and easily due to the higher cohesiveness and coherence of the text, so it is more acceptable to the English speaking readers. Barnstone’s version is also acceptable for its brevity and simplicity of the general text. But the occasional gaps created between the lines require the English speaking readers to use more inference for interpretation. In that sense, Barnstone’s version might be more demanding in understanding.
In light of informativity, Lin’s version is high because she uses a wide range of words and phrases, her syntax is more diversified, and her figurative language such as metaphors and images are rich. But she also takes care to downgrade the information by adding a certain necessary phrases like “of your deeds and misdeeds,” when it (the information) is too dense. Barnstone’s informativity is also high in a sense that there appear a few meaning gaps between the meaning groups, but he does not downgrade the “dense” information when the necessity arises. As a result, the reader needs to probe around as he reads the poem.
With regard to situationality, the poet is both monitoring and managing in his poem to convey his meaning and intention. In translating it into English, I think the translator has to resort to the details of the information and the careful conveyance of the original tone assumed by the poet to achieve the monitoring and managing effects. In this aspect, Lin has done a better job. In her translation, the detailed information and the tone are meticulously provided, and attention is given to both quantity (informativity) and quality (truthfulness) of the information. In comparison, Barnstone’s version has some managing effect but lacks monitoring effect because he provides fewer and less sequential information. His managing effect remains on the surface level, for his version can only make the reader see roughly what the original poem’s central concept is, but it is doubtful if the reader can rely on the details his version provides to understand all the implications imbedded in it.
In terms of the intertextuality, both are doing good job. As I have discussed above that certain phrases or even the name of the place require the notes from the translator. In many cases, notes are the key to the correct understanding of a translated text. In the case of this poem, the Chinese phrase “yu Long” needs the background knowledge for the reader to see why it is put in the way as it is. Besides both translators give the similar background information as to why these mountains are white. Both notes provided the same information, but I will quote one of them here to show the usefulness of it: “according to the Chinese folktale, they used to be a mass of volcanic fire until Monkey King came along and put it out with the Banana-leaf Fan borrowed from a fairy. Since then they have been white” (Lin 38). I perceive that in translation the notes given by translators can serve as intertextual information and can greatly facilitate the accurate interpretation and understanding of the original version.
Works Cited
Barnstone, Willis. The Poem of Mao Tse-tung. New York: happer & Row Publishers, 1972. P.66-69, 123-4, 141-3.
Beaugrands, Robert-Alain & Wolfgong Ulrich Dressler. Introduction to Text Linguistics. New York: Longman, 1981.
Engle, Hua-ling & Paul Engle. Poems of Mao Tze-tung. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972. P. 71-74.
Lin, Nancy T. Reverberations. Hongkong: Joint Publisjing Co., 1980. P. 37-8, 93-118.
Neubert, Albrecht. Translations as text. Kent, Ohio: Kent State Unicersity Press, 1992. P149-181.
Top