Translation Equivalence in Two Chinese Versions of a Letter to Lord Chesterfield

梁媛

【Abstract】A Letter to Lord Chesterfield， by Samuel Johnson， was written for an attack to Lord Chesterfields recommendation of Johnsons “Dictionary of the English Language”. Johnson wrote this famous Letter to achieve a satirical purpose. Two Chinese versions of this letter are compared in terms of Translation Equivalence.

【Key words】stylistic equivalence； social-cultural equivalence； linguistic equivalence

A Letter to Lord Chesterfield， by Samuel Johnson， was written for an attack to Lord Chesterfield. At first， Chesterfield indicated that he could be Johnsons patron. While Johnson needed concrete help， what he received was neglect and insults. When the Dictionary was about to publish after seven years， Chesterfield openly recommended it， hoping to get some credit for it. Johnson wrote this Letter to achieve a satirical purpose. This article， in terms of Translation Equivalence， aims to compare two Chinese versions by Gu Zhengkun（辜正坤） in classical Chinese and Luo Luojia（羅珞珈） in vernacular.

1. Translation Equivalence

Equivalence is the theoretical base on which the act of translation can be performed. Translation equivalence between source text （ST） and target text （TT） is the concrete equivalence a translator intends to establish in his translation. As the criterion for judging the quality of translation， Translation Equivalence is composed of stylistic equivalence， socio-cultural equivalence and linguistic equivalence.

2. Comparison of Two Versions

2.1 Difference in Stylistic Equivalence

Whenever a text is produced， it bears the marks of style， both the style of its genre and the style of its producer. It is obvious that the Letters stylistic feature results from the fashionable use of classical language in 1750s as well as Johnsons habitual use of Latin writing style. The Latin writing style to English is what the Classic Chinese to Mandarin.

Example：

“…being very little accustomed to favours from the great， I know not well how to receive， or in what terms to acknowledge.”

Gus：奈何在下不慣貴人垂青，茫然不知何以領受、何辭遜謝。

Luos：本人素乏偉人提攜獎勵，驟得恩寵，惶恐萬分，不知該如何承受，如何致謝，始得其當也。

Lous version mainly adopts vernacular with several Classical Chinese words which are permeated in Gus Classic Chinese version. Gus words chosen are terse and concise. The phrase of “favours from the great” is transfer into a four-character phrase in Gus（貴人垂青）， but ten characters in Luos（偉人提攜獎勵，驟得恩寵）.endprint

2.2 Difference in Social-cultural Equivalence

In John Lyons view， “the language of a particular society is an integral part of its culture， and that the lexical distinctions drawn by each language will tend to reflect the culturally-important features of objects， institutions and activities in the society in which the language operates.” In Johnsons Letter， an allusion is quoted to show the writers disappointment.

Example：

“The shepherd in Virgil grew at last acquainted with Love， and found him a native of the rocks.”

Gus：維吉爾筆下牧童終與愛神相識，方知愛神原只是草野之夫.

Luos：維吉爾詩中之牧羊童子，最后雖有幸結識愛神，但早已奄奄一息，僵臥于野，為時晚矣！

Luos translation indicates that the Love is dead， which appears an obvious misunderstanding of the original meaning. By contrast， Gus version catches the original intention.

2.3 Difference in Linguistic Equivalence

Linguistic equivalence includes grammatical， semantic and pragmatic equivalence. The semantic equivalence serves as the fundamental one in the process of translating and starts from lexical equivalence and ends at textual equivalence.

Example：

“Is not a Patron， my Lord， one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water， and， when he has reached ground， encumbers him with help？ ”

Gus：設有人于溺水者奮命中流之際，漠然相對，視若無睹，伺其安全抵岸，方忽急伸援手，反增累贅，所謂贊助人也者，莫非即此輩耶？

Luos：閣下，世之所謂恩主者，豈見溺不救，任其浮沉，不加理睬，及其登岸，又伸以援手，示以關切者之流耶？

Compared Gus and Luos version， the phrase “encumber （him） with help” in the Letter is handled in totally different ways. In Luos translation， this part is abandoned while in Gus version it is conveyed properly in a four-character phrase.

3. Conclusion

Judging by the criterion mentioned， though Gus version was in archaism and Luos in vernacular， their translations attain as much translation equivalence as possible between source text and target text.

References：

[1]邵志洪.翻譯與理論[D].華東理工大學，2007.endprint