论文部分内容阅读
Abstract: The present paper draws mainly on cohesion theory initiated by M. A. Halliday and developed by his followers, and tries to explore the possible implication that theory may have on translation. Through a contrastive analysis of two translated versions, the author goes a great length solely for the purpose of bringing forward the point that cohesion in translation is a criterion of no small significance in appraising a translated text of whatever kind.
Key words: cohesion, translation, text
1. The theory of cohesion
The theory of cohesion was first put forward in the book Cohesion in English (1976) co-authored by M. A. Halliday and his wife Hasan. Halliday, in his two major books (1976 & 1994), gave us a detailed introduction of non-structural cohesive devices. These include reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. Such a framework of cohesive devices, together with register analysis, effectively defines a text. And he further pointed out that transitivity can also be analysis, for the transitivity feature of text also helps to make it coherent, and transitivity system of a text contributes a lot to mapping out the overall meaning of the text as a semantic whole.
Many translation theorists gained some enlightenment from such a perspective. They, with a keen insight into the potential that the theory of cohesion may have translation studies, have made many useful attempt to apply that theory of Halliday’s to translation. Among them, Basil Hatim & Ian Mason (1994), Mona Baker (1992) and Roger Bell (1991) are the most famous ones. However, most of the work done by them is theoretically oriented. They have not proved its validity with specific cases in translation practice. In the rest of the paper, the writer will try to apply the theory of cohesion to the contrastive analysis of two translated versions of a single text. With this, the writer hopes to convince the reader those in which cohesion is fairly well presented are better translations than those which fail to pay due attention to it.
2. A contrastive analysis
In this part detailed contrastive analysis of two translated versions will be unfolded. The original text is an extract from Hong Loumeng, the most famous classical work in china. Among the two translated versions, one is done by Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang, the other by David Hawks. It should be pointed out that most readers prefer the latter. They unanimously agreed that the latter is much much better than the former. The part to follow will unveil one of the many reasons why the latter, that is, the version translated by David Hawks, is so widely favored.
The original text reads as follows:
林黛玉见宝玉出了一天门，就觉闷闷的，没个可说话的人。至晚打发人来问了两三遍回来不曾，这遍方才回来，又偏生烫了。林黛玉便赶着来瞧，只见宝玉正拿镜子照呢，左边脸上满满的敷了一脸的药。林黛玉只当烫的十分利害，忙上来问怎么烫了，要瞧瞧。宝玉见他来了，忙把脸遮着，摇手叫他出去，不肯叫他看──知道他的癖性喜洁，见不得这些东西。林黛玉自己也知道自己也有这件癖性，知道宝玉的心内怕他嫌脏，因笑道：“我瞧瞧烫了那里了，有什么遮着藏着的。”一面说，一面就凑上来，强搬着脖子瞧了一瞧，问他疼的怎么样。宝玉道：“也不很疼，养一两日就好了。”林黛玉坐了一回，闷闷的回房去了。一宿无话。（Italics my own. There are many different versions of Hong Loumeng. The original version chosen by the Yangs is obviously different from that chosen by David Hawks. In this text, the original versions chosen by the two translators in the italicized part are not the same. And the writer will exclude the translations of this part from his contrastive analysis）（曹雪芹，高鹗，《红楼梦》）
The Yangs’ version：
Daiyu had been lonely all day in Baoyu’s absence, and sent several times that evening to ask whether he was back. When she learned of his accident she hurried over to find him in front of the mirror, his left cheek daubed with ointment. Imaging that the burn was serious, she approached to have a look; but Baoyu, knowing how fastidious she was, covered his cheek with one hand and waved her away.（Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang，A Dream of Red Mansions）
Hawks’ version：
Dai-yu had had a dull time of it with Bao-yu away all day, and in the course of the evening sent several times round to his room to inquire whether he was back yet. It was in this way that she heard about his scalding. She hurried round immediately to see for herself how he was.
She found him with a mirror in his hand, examining the extent of the damage. The entire left side of his face was thickly plastered with ointment, from which she deduced that the injury must be a serious one. But when she approached him to look closer, he averted his head and waved her away. He knew how squeamish she was, and feared that the sight of it would upset her. （David Hawks，The Story of the Stone）
(Notes: the italicized parts in the two versions are added by the writer to show some of the cohesive ties.)
2.1 Referential cohesion
As far as reference is concerned, three subtypes can be identified: comparative, demonstrative, and personal. In analyzing the two translated versions, as well as the original text, the writer finds it necessary to point out that cohesive devices between languages may overlap, but in most cases different language, with its own characterization, prefers different kinds of cohesive devices. The result is that one type of cohesion stressed and frequently used in one language may not seem to be so important in another. Therefore, the present paper will focus on the contrastive analysis of the two translated versions.
Table 1: Referential cohesive ties
From this table, we can figure out at least one reason among many why Hawks’ version is much more widely preferred than the Yangs’ version. Cohesion, in Halliday’s eyes, as is agreed and accepted by many, is not just a form that combine pieces of writings into a whole. It is rather a network of cohesive devices through which semantic relations among the different part organically organized in the whole text can be shown. This table tells us that there are much more referential cohesive ties in Hawks’s version. The Yangs, probably deeply influenced by the characterization of the Chinese language known as parataxis, failed to pay enough attention to referential cohesions in their translation. And that is one reason why their translation usually gives the reader the impression of being odd and unnatural.
2.2 Conjunctions
The previous part has given a detailed contrastive study of referential cohesion in the two translated versions. And the writer, in presenting a table of hard data, has proved to the reader that Hawks’s version is much better for the rich referential devices. In this part conjunctions in the two versions will be compared.
Table 2: conjunctions in the two versions
Table 2 gives us a clear view of the differences in conjunctions in the two versions. Even a hasty glimpse can tell us that the conjunctions used by Hawks are almost three times as much as those used by the Yangs. It is true that conjunctions can not ensure the coherence of a text, as is pointed out and proved by many. But it is also true that a text can not go without conjunctions. And their contribution to the semantic whole of a text can never be underestimated. The contrastive analysis in conjunctions in the two versions shows us another reason why Hawks’ version receives a wider popularity. The conjunctions give his version the kind of ease and naturalness in reading.
3. Conclusion
This paper, by drawing on the Halliday’s theory of cohesion, gives a rough framework of how cohesion contributes to the success of a translation. In the course of the time, the writer gives a detailed contrastive study of two translated version of the same text to demonstrate the validity of such a theory in translation study. Of course, this is just a rough sketch. And more detailed work needs to be done. In the days to come, the writer will explore systematically the implications the theory of cohesion has on translation. And he hopes sincerely that Professor Ge could give guide him through that course.
References:
曹雪芹，高鹗（2001）红楼梦岳麓书社
杨宪益， 戴乃迭（2004）A DREAM OF RED MAMSIONS外文出版社
David Hawks (1973) The Story of The StoneLondon: Penguin
胡壮麟，1994，语篇的衔接与连贯，上海外语教育出版社
张徳禄，2002，语篇连贯与衔接理论的发展及应用，上海外语教育出版社
朱永生，2001，系统功能语言学多维思考，上海外语教育出版社
黄国文，2001，语篇分析的理论与实践，上海外语教育出版社
Hatim & Mason, 1994, Discourse and Translator,
Mona Baker, 1992, In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation
Roger Bell, 1991, Translation and translating: Theory and Practice
Brown and Yule, 1982，discourse analysis，Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Halliday & Hasan, 1976，cohesion in English, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Halliday, 1994，an introduction to functional grammar, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Thompson, 1996，introducing functional grammar, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Key words: cohesion, translation, text
1. The theory of cohesion
The theory of cohesion was first put forward in the book Cohesion in English (1976) co-authored by M. A. Halliday and his wife Hasan. Halliday, in his two major books (1976 & 1994), gave us a detailed introduction of non-structural cohesive devices. These include reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical cohesion. Such a framework of cohesive devices, together with register analysis, effectively defines a text. And he further pointed out that transitivity can also be analysis, for the transitivity feature of text also helps to make it coherent, and transitivity system of a text contributes a lot to mapping out the overall meaning of the text as a semantic whole.
Many translation theorists gained some enlightenment from such a perspective. They, with a keen insight into the potential that the theory of cohesion may have translation studies, have made many useful attempt to apply that theory of Halliday’s to translation. Among them, Basil Hatim & Ian Mason (1994), Mona Baker (1992) and Roger Bell (1991) are the most famous ones. However, most of the work done by them is theoretically oriented. They have not proved its validity with specific cases in translation practice. In the rest of the paper, the writer will try to apply the theory of cohesion to the contrastive analysis of two translated versions of a single text. With this, the writer hopes to convince the reader those in which cohesion is fairly well presented are better translations than those which fail to pay due attention to it.
2. A contrastive analysis
In this part detailed contrastive analysis of two translated versions will be unfolded. The original text is an extract from Hong Loumeng, the most famous classical work in china. Among the two translated versions, one is done by Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang, the other by David Hawks. It should be pointed out that most readers prefer the latter. They unanimously agreed that the latter is much much better than the former. The part to follow will unveil one of the many reasons why the latter, that is, the version translated by David Hawks, is so widely favored.
The original text reads as follows:
林黛玉见宝玉出了一天门，就觉闷闷的，没个可说话的人。至晚打发人来问了两三遍回来不曾，这遍方才回来，又偏生烫了。林黛玉便赶着来瞧，只见宝玉正拿镜子照呢，左边脸上满满的敷了一脸的药。林黛玉只当烫的十分利害，忙上来问怎么烫了，要瞧瞧。宝玉见他来了，忙把脸遮着，摇手叫他出去，不肯叫他看──知道他的癖性喜洁，见不得这些东西。林黛玉自己也知道自己也有这件癖性，知道宝玉的心内怕他嫌脏，因笑道：“我瞧瞧烫了那里了，有什么遮着藏着的。”一面说，一面就凑上来，强搬着脖子瞧了一瞧，问他疼的怎么样。宝玉道：“也不很疼，养一两日就好了。”林黛玉坐了一回，闷闷的回房去了。一宿无话。（Italics my own. There are many different versions of Hong Loumeng. The original version chosen by the Yangs is obviously different from that chosen by David Hawks. In this text, the original versions chosen by the two translators in the italicized part are not the same. And the writer will exclude the translations of this part from his contrastive analysis）（曹雪芹，高鹗，《红楼梦》）
The Yangs’ version：
Daiyu had been lonely all day in Baoyu’s absence, and sent several times that evening to ask whether he was back. When she learned of his accident she hurried over to find him in front of the mirror, his left cheek daubed with ointment. Imaging that the burn was serious, she approached to have a look; but Baoyu, knowing how fastidious she was, covered his cheek with one hand and waved her away.（Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang，A Dream of Red Mansions）
Hawks’ version：
Dai-yu had had a dull time of it with Bao-yu away all day, and in the course of the evening sent several times round to his room to inquire whether he was back yet. It was in this way that she heard about his scalding. She hurried round immediately to see for herself how he was.
She found him with a mirror in his hand, examining the extent of the damage. The entire left side of his face was thickly plastered with ointment, from which she deduced that the injury must be a serious one. But when she approached him to look closer, he averted his head and waved her away. He knew how squeamish she was, and feared that the sight of it would upset her. （David Hawks，The Story of the Stone）
(Notes: the italicized parts in the two versions are added by the writer to show some of the cohesive ties.)
2.1 Referential cohesion
As far as reference is concerned, three subtypes can be identified: comparative, demonstrative, and personal. In analyzing the two translated versions, as well as the original text, the writer finds it necessary to point out that cohesive devices between languages may overlap, but in most cases different language, with its own characterization, prefers different kinds of cohesive devices. The result is that one type of cohesion stressed and frequently used in one language may not seem to be so important in another. Therefore, the present paper will focus on the contrastive analysis of the two translated versions.
Table 1: Referential cohesive ties
From this table, we can figure out at least one reason among many why Hawks’ version is much more widely preferred than the Yangs’ version. Cohesion, in Halliday’s eyes, as is agreed and accepted by many, is not just a form that combine pieces of writings into a whole. It is rather a network of cohesive devices through which semantic relations among the different part organically organized in the whole text can be shown. This table tells us that there are much more referential cohesive ties in Hawks’s version. The Yangs, probably deeply influenced by the characterization of the Chinese language known as parataxis, failed to pay enough attention to referential cohesions in their translation. And that is one reason why their translation usually gives the reader the impression of being odd and unnatural.
2.2 Conjunctions
The previous part has given a detailed contrastive study of referential cohesion in the two translated versions. And the writer, in presenting a table of hard data, has proved to the reader that Hawks’s version is much better for the rich referential devices. In this part conjunctions in the two versions will be compared.
Table 2: conjunctions in the two versions
Table 2 gives us a clear view of the differences in conjunctions in the two versions. Even a hasty glimpse can tell us that the conjunctions used by Hawks are almost three times as much as those used by the Yangs. It is true that conjunctions can not ensure the coherence of a text, as is pointed out and proved by many. But it is also true that a text can not go without conjunctions. And their contribution to the semantic whole of a text can never be underestimated. The contrastive analysis in conjunctions in the two versions shows us another reason why Hawks’ version receives a wider popularity. The conjunctions give his version the kind of ease and naturalness in reading.
3. Conclusion
This paper, by drawing on the Halliday’s theory of cohesion, gives a rough framework of how cohesion contributes to the success of a translation. In the course of the time, the writer gives a detailed contrastive study of two translated version of the same text to demonstrate the validity of such a theory in translation study. Of course, this is just a rough sketch. And more detailed work needs to be done. In the days to come, the writer will explore systematically the implications the theory of cohesion has on translation. And he hopes sincerely that Professor Ge could give guide him through that course.
References:
曹雪芹，高鹗（2001）红楼梦岳麓书社
杨宪益， 戴乃迭（2004）A DREAM OF RED MAMSIONS外文出版社
David Hawks (1973) The Story of The StoneLondon: Penguin
胡壮麟，1994，语篇的衔接与连贯，上海外语教育出版社
张徳禄，2002，语篇连贯与衔接理论的发展及应用，上海外语教育出版社
朱永生，2001，系统功能语言学多维思考，上海外语教育出版社
黄国文，2001，语篇分析的理论与实践，上海外语教育出版社
Hatim & Mason, 1994, Discourse and Translator,
Mona Baker, 1992, In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation
Roger Bell, 1991, Translation and translating: Theory and Practice
Brown and Yule, 1982，discourse analysis，Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Halliday & Hasan, 1976，cohesion in English, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Halliday, 1994，an introduction to functional grammar, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Thompson, 1996，introducing functional grammar, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press