Traditional Chinese Ritual Culture Transformed?: A TBC Approach to Joly’s and Hawkes’ Behaviour in Translating the Honorifics in Hong Lou Meng

Ying Luo
{"title":"Traditional Chinese Ritual Culture Transformed?: A TBC Approach to Joly’s and Hawkes’ Behaviour in Translating the Honorifics in Hong Lou Meng","authors":"Ying Luo","doi":"10.5209/clac.78862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article compares the treatment of honorifics in English translations of Hong Lou Meng by Henry Bencraft Joly, a British diplomat and David Hawkes, a British sinologist, in light of Translator Behaviour Criticism (TBC). The research adopts an integral method that starts with a textual analysis of the translator’s construal choices, then examines the identification of the translator’s behaviour pattern and finally his social motivations. The analysis has led to five major findings: 1) Joly’s version intended to preserve the traditional Chinese ritual culture contained in the honorifics and attached great importance to restoring the honorific function of the original address terms. 2) Joly tended to subscribe to the “truth-seeking” principle even at the cost of readability to maintain the original honorifics’ function. Nonetheless, in effect, he did it to translate and annotate a teaching material for British diplomatic interns, which led to the alignment of his “truth-seeking” behaviour with his “utility-attaining” pursuit. 3) Hawkes’ version, upholding the “utility-attaining” principle, established an addressing system adapted to the target language readers’ cognitive habits with the social norms and family relations of the modern English world taken as background domain. He also made use of some creative translation strategies that had enhanced expressivity and influenced the characterization. 4) Hawkes’ “utility-attaining” behaviour is sustained by a “truth-seeking” basis because he aspired to reconstruct in modern English the literariness of the classic Chinese novel. 5) The different behaviours of the two translators demonstrated through construal choices in translating the honorifics in the novel conform to their respective social identities and professional habitus.","PeriodicalId":119020,"journal":{"name":"Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación","volume":"389 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5209/clac.78862","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article compares the treatment of honorifics in English translations of Hong Lou Meng by Henry Bencraft Joly, a British diplomat and David Hawkes, a British sinologist, in light of Translator Behaviour Criticism (TBC). The research adopts an integral method that starts with a textual analysis of the translator’s construal choices, then examines the identification of the translator’s behaviour pattern and finally his social motivations. The analysis has led to five major findings: 1) Joly’s version intended to preserve the traditional Chinese ritual culture contained in the honorifics and attached great importance to restoring the honorific function of the original address terms. 2) Joly tended to subscribe to the “truth-seeking” principle even at the cost of readability to maintain the original honorifics’ function. Nonetheless, in effect, he did it to translate and annotate a teaching material for British diplomatic interns, which led to the alignment of his “truth-seeking” behaviour with his “utility-attaining” pursuit. 3) Hawkes’ version, upholding the “utility-attaining” principle, established an addressing system adapted to the target language readers’ cognitive habits with the social norms and family relations of the modern English world taken as background domain. He also made use of some creative translation strategies that had enhanced expressivity and influenced the characterization. 4) Hawkes’ “utility-attaining” behaviour is sustained by a “truth-seeking” basis because he aspired to reconstruct in modern English the literariness of the classic Chinese novel. 5) The different behaviours of the two translators demonstrated through construal choices in translating the honorifics in the novel conform to their respective social identities and professional habitus.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国传统礼仪文化的变革?从 TBC 角度看乔利和霍克斯翻译《红楼梦》中尊称的行为
本文从译者行为批评(TBC)的角度出发,比较了英国外交官亨利-本克拉夫特-乔利(Henry Bencraft Joly)和英国汉学家戴维-霍克斯(David Hawkes)在英译《红楼梦》中对敬语的处理。研究采用了一种整体方法,首先对译者的理解选择进行文本分析,然后对译者的行为模式进行识别,最后对其社会动机进行研究。分析得出了五大发现:1)乔利的版本意在保留敬语中蕴含的中国传统礼仪文化,重视恢复原称呼语的敬语功能。2)乔利倾向于 "求真 "原则,甚至不惜牺牲可读性来保持原有敬语的功能。但实际上,他这样做是为了给英国外交实习生翻译和注释教材,这导致他的 "求真 "行为与 "实用 "追求相一致。3)霍克斯的版本秉持 "功利性 "原则,以现代英语世界的社会规范和家庭关系为背景域,建立了适应目的语读者认知习惯的称呼体系。他还运用了一些创造性的翻译策略,增强了表现力,影响了人物形象的塑造。4) 霍克斯的 "实用性 "行为是以 "求真 "为基础的,因为他希望用现代英语重构中国古典小说的文学性。5) 两位译者在翻译小说中的敬语时通过解释选择表现出的不同行为符合他们各自的社会身份和职业习惯。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Influencias e intertextualidades discursivas en rasgos lingüísticos de noticias de prensa malagueña del siglo XIX: el Diario Mercantil (1869-1888) Innovación en entornos educativos sinohablantes: una investigación-acción en un aula de Composición Escrita en Taiwán Análisis variacionista de la /s/ implosiva en el nivel sociocultural bajo de la ciudad de Sevilla Interdiscursividad, intertextualidad y plagio en la primera “guía turística” española: La Guía del viajero en España de Francisco de Paula Mellado La publicidad de medicamentos, remedios secretos y específicos en la prensa malagueña del s. XIX: caracterización y claves lingüísticas de su configuración textual
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1