Representations of Late Ming Culture in English Translations of Jinpingmei

《金瓶梅》中的晚明文化表徵及其英譯策略之探析

10.29912/CTR.202303_16(1).0005

Shuang-jin Xiao(蕭雙金)

cultural references ； Jinpingmei ； translator choices and strategies ； domestication and foreignization ； cultural reception ； 文化元素 ； 《金瓶梅》 ； 翻譯策略與趨向 ； 歸化與異化 ； 文化接受

編譯論叢

16卷1期（2023 / 03 / 01）

133 - 172

英文;繁體中文

The Ming novel Jinpingmei 金瓶梅 contains numerous references to late Ming culture and society, which can be extremely challenging when the novel undergoes interlingual translation. The present paper presents a descriptive study of the treatment of cultural references in two English translations of Jinpingmei, with a particular focus on the translators' choices and employed strategies for rendering the aforementioned references. Based on Toury's paradigm of descriptive translation studies, the present study employs a mixed-methods design, combining qualitative and quantitative data analysis. The study mainly addresses three topics: How cultural references are treated in the two English translations of Jinpingmei; translator tendencies in rendering cultural references; and the possible reasons underlying these tendencies. The findings indicate that the two translators employed numerous strategies ranging from omission to complete retention of cultural references. Egerton demonstrated a tendency to use more domesticating strategies, whereas Roy demonstrated a tendency to employ more foreignizing strategies. The tendencies of the two translators related to rendering cultural references were largely influenced by differing translation philosophies, expectations regarding targeted readerships, and sociohistorical contexts in which the translations emerged. Egerton's tendency toward domestication diluted the late-Ming cultural atmosphere of the original work, improved the fluency and readability of the translation, and improved the accessibility of the translation for target-language readers. Roy's tendency toward foreignization led the translation to have an exotic feel and caused the cultural heterogeneity to be observable, which can enable target readers to learn more about the cultural knowledge and history of the Ming dynasty.

明代小說《金瓶梅》蘊含豐富的晚明文化元素，這些歷史文化資訊給語際翻譯帶來了極大挑戰。本論文旨在對《金瓶梅》中的文化資訊之英譯進行描述性研究，特別關注兩位譯者在翻譯文化內容時所採取的翻譯策略。依據圖裡（Gideon Toury）所提出的描述性翻譯研究範式，本篇論文採用定性和定量分析的研究方法以解決三個問題：《金瓶梅》中不同類型的文化元素是如何翻譯的，譯者主要採取了哪些翻譯方法和策略；兩位譯者所採用的翻譯策略呈現出什麼樣的傾向，是趨向於異化還是歸化；如若有這樣的不同傾向，那麼產生這些傾向的可能原因是什麼，會給譯作和譯文讀者帶來怎樣的影響。研究表明，艾格頓（Clement Egerton）表現出使用更多歸化策略的趨勢，而羅伊（David Tod Roy）表現出使用更多異化策略的趨勢。兩位譯者選擇翻譯策略的不同傾向在很大程度上受到他們所秉持的不同的翻譯理念和各自不同的翻譯目的影響，其次，還受不同譯文讀者的期待規範以及他們翻譯《金瓶梅》時所處的不同社會歷史語境的影響。艾格頓的歸化傾向淡化了原作濃厚的晚明文化氣息，提升了譯文的流暢度和可讀性，使得譯作更容易被目的語讀者所接受。羅伊的異化傾向讓譯文充滿了異域風情，使得文化異質性變得非常明顯，這有利於他的目標讀者了解到更多的明代文化知識以及歷史。

1. Aixelà, J. F. (1996). Culture-specific items in translation. In Á. Román & M. C. A. Vidal (Eds.), Translation, power, subversion (pp. 52-78). Multilingual Papers.
2. Barringer, T., & Flynn, T. (1998). Colonialism and the object: Empire, material culture and the museum. Taylor & Francis Group.
3. Bensimon, P. (1990). Présentation [Presentation]. Palimpsestes, 4, iv-xiii. https://doi.org/10.4000/palimpsestes.426
4. Berman, A. (1990). La retraduction comme espace de traduction [Retranslation as a space of translation]. Palimpsestes, 13(4), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.4000/palimpsestes. 596
5. Berman, A. (1992). The experience of the foreign: Culture and translation in Romantic Germany. State University of New York.
6. Cao, S. (2010). Chinese and Western comparative poetics. Renmin University of China.
7. Casanova, P. (2004). The world republic of letters. Harvard University.
8. Chan, S. W., & Pollard, D. E. (1995). An encyclopaedia of translation. The Chinese Univeristy.
9. Chen, H. (1999). Cultural differences and translation. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs, 44(1), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.7202/002224ar
10. Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. John Benjamins.
11. Cintas, J. D., & Remael, A. (2007). Audiovisual translation: Subtitling. St. Jerome. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759678
12. Damrosch, D. (2018). What is world literature? Princeton University.
13. Dimitriu, R. (2015). The many contexts of translation (studies). Linguaculture, 1, 5-23. https://doi.org/10.1515/lincu-2015-0033
14. Ditze, S. A. (2006). America and the Americans in postwar British fiction: An imagological study of selected novels. Universitaetsverlag Winter.
15. Egerton, C. (1939). The golden lotus - Volume II. George Routledge.
16. Egerton, C. (2011a). The golden lotus (Vol. I). Tuttle.
17. Egerton, C. (2011b). The golden lotus (Vol. II). Tuttle.
18. Eliot, T. S. (1928). Selected poems of Ezra Pound. Faber & Gwyer.
19. Garzone, G. (2017). Food, culture, language and translation. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 12(3), 214-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2017.1364255
20. He, M. (1990). A dictionary for appreciating Jinpingmei. Shanghai Guji Chubanshe.
21. Hightower, J. R. (1953). Chinese literature in the context of world literature. Comparative Literature, 5(2), 117-124. https://doi.org/10.2307/1769184
22. Johns, F. A. (1982). Arthur Waley and Amy Lowell: A note. The Journal of the Rutgers University Libraries, 44(1), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.14713/jrul.v44i1.1614
23. Katan, D. (1999). Translating cultures: An introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators. St Jerome.
24. Komissarov, V. N. (1991). Language and culture in translation: Competitors or collaborators? TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 4(1), 33-47. https://doi.org/10.7202/037080ar
25. Kowallis, J. (1996). Interpreting Lu Xun. Chinese Literature: Essays, Articles, Reviews, 18, 153-164. https://doi.org/10.2307/495630
26. Kwong, C. (2011). Problems in translating culture: The translated titles of Fusheng Liuji. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 24(2), 177-206. https://doi.org/10.7202/1013399ar
27. Lefevere, A. (1982). Mother courage’s cucumbers: Text, system and refraction in a theory of literature. Modern Language Studies, 12(4), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.2307/3194526
28. Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, rewriting and the manipulation of literary fame. Routledge.
29. Lefevere, A. (1999). Composing the other. In B. Susan & H. Trivedi (Eds.), Postcolonial translation: Theory and practice (pp. 75-94). Psychology.
30. Leppihalme, R. (1997). Culture bumps: An empirical approach to the translation of allusions. Multilingual Matters.
31. Liu, T., Wong, L. K., & Chan, S. (2012). Style, wit and word-play: Essays in translation studies in memory of David Hawkes. Cambridge Scholars.
32. Lörscher, W. (1991). Translation performance, translation process, and translation strategies: A psycholinguistic investigation. Gunter Narr.
33. Luo, J. (2014). Translating Jin Ping Mei: A preliminary comparison of The Golden Lotus and The Plum in the Golden Vase. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 22(1), 56-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.712145
34. Ma, H., & Guan, X. (2017). On the transcultural rewriting of the Chinese play Wang Baochuan. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 25(4), 556-570. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2016.1192208
35. Mailhac, J. (1996). The formulation of translation strategies for cultural references. In C. Hoffmann (Ed.), Language, culture and communication in contemporary Europe (pp. 132-151). Multilingual Matters.
36. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Prentice Hall.
37. Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Brill Archive.
38. Nord, C. (1997). Translation as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Routledge.
39. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs.
40. Olk, H. M. (2013). Cultural references in translation: A framework for quantitative translation analysis. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 21(3), 344-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2011.646279
41. Pedersen, J. (2007). Cultural interchangeability: The effects of substituting cultural references in subtitling. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 15(1), 30-48. https://doi.org/10.2167/pst003.0
42. Pesaro, N. (2021). Retranslation and culturemes: Searching for a ‘dialogic translation’ of a modern Chinese classic. In M. M. Riccardo & M. Woesler (Eds.), Diverse voices in Chinese translation and interpreting (pp. 65-91). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4283-5_4
43. Qi, L. (2016). Agents of Latin: An archival research on Clement Egerton’s English translation of Jin Ping Mei. Target, 28(1), 42-60. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.28.1.02qi
44. Qi, L. (2018). Jin Ping Mei English translations: Texts, paratexts and contexts. Routledge.
45. Ranzato, I. (2015). Translating culture specific references on television: The case of dubbing. Routledge.
46. Roy, D. T. (1993). The plum in the golden vase or, chin p’ing mei, volume one: The gathering. Princeton University.
47. Roy, D. T. (2001). The plum in the golden vase or, chin p’ing mei, volume two: The rivals. Princeton University.
48. Roy, D. T. (2006). The plum in the golden vase or, chin p’ing mei, volume three: The aphrodisiac. Princeton University.
49. Rura, L. (2015). Translating cultural content in poetry: Cultural references in the English and Dutch translations of the Russian poet Alexander Galich. In B. Francesca & M. Sonzogni (Eds.), Translation, transnationalism, world literature (pp. 255-274). Edizioni Joker.
50. Schleiermacher, F. (1992). On the different methods of translating. In R. Schulte & J. Biguenet (Eds.), Theories of translation: An anthology of essays from Dryden to Derrida (pp. 36-54). University of Chicago. (Original work published 1813)
51. Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(6), 711-728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107308992
52. Shang, W. (2005). The making of the everyday world: Jin Ping Mei cihua and encyclopedias for daily use. In D. D. Wang & W. Shang (Eds.), Dynastic crisis and cultural innovation (pp. 63-92). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9781684174140_004
53. Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The turns of translation studies: New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? John Benjamins.
54. Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. John Benjamins.
55. Van Poucke, P. (2012). Measuring foreignization in literary translation. In K. Hannu, T. M. Jänis, & A. Belikova (Eds.), Domestication and foreignization in translation studies (Vol. 46, pp. 139-157). Frank & Timme.
56. Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge.
57. Venuti, L. (1998). The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of difference. Routledge.
58. Xiao, X. (2012). Jinpingmei. South Ocean.
59. Yeh, D. (2008). Contested belongings: The politics and poetics of making a home in Britain. In A. R. Lee (Ed.), China fictions/English language (pp. 299-325). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401205481_016
60. Yeh, D. (2014). The happy Hsiungs: Performing China and the struggle for modernity. Hong Kong University