Comparative translation analysis of ecological culturemes in hong lou meng (a multilingual approach to the translation study of classical chinese literature)

Resumen

Hong Lou Meng (HLM), as one of the Four Great Classical Novels in China, has been translated into 21 European languages with over 70 versions. Among them, English versions of the book occupy a dominant position with 32 translations. In contrast, the number of its Spanish translation ranks only fifth with four versions, despite Spanish being the second largest language globally. Additionally, research on the Spanish translation of HLM is also rather limited in quantity, scope and study objects. Extant research mainly focuses on the linguistic and rhetorical aspects via bilingual comparisons between Chinese and Spanish, thus neglecting the role of English translation as a mediating text in the Spanish translation of HLM. In an attempt to address the fore-mentioned gap in research, the present doctoral study proposes a multilingual approach by bringing into comparison the English version of Yang Xianyi & Gladys Yang (TT1), the Spanish version of Mirko Láuer (TT2), and the Spanish version of Zhao Zhenjiang & José Antonio García Sánchez (TT3). It focuses on the translation of ecological culturemes in HLM poetry with the objective to verify and explain the inter-version relationships between the target texts (TTs), and identify laws of cultureme translation in classical Chinese poetry. The research contains eight parts that are listed as follows: Chapter one provides an introduction to HLM and its translation. Chapter two introduces classical Chinese poetry with a specific focus on HLM poetry. Chapter three presents the theoretical framework used for translation analysis or explanation. The research draws inspiration from both Chinese and Western translation theories. Chapter four explains the methodology for the analysis. The research adopts a mixed approach of quantitative and qualitative methods. Chapter five covers the quantitative analysis. A trilingual corpus of HLM poetry is established to identify and classify ecological culturemes in the source text (ST) and the TTs, while collecting materials for the qualitative analysis. Chapter six covers the qualitative analysis. The translation process is reconstructed by comparing ST and TT textual segments from environmental, floral, faunal and human cultureme categories. Chapter seven carries out a general discussion on the analytical results obtained from the previous chapters. In this section, the inter-version relationships between the TTs are verified, the laws of translation methods and techniques are summarised, and the translation results are explained by exploring reasons from both inside and outside the literary system. Chapter eight concludes major findings by replying to the research questions outlined in the introduction part. The research has demonstrated that TT1 served as the major mediating text in the indirect translation of TT2, and exerted considerable influence in moulding the final result of TT2 in selecting the initial and operational norms. TT3 has been justified to be identified as a direct translation from the Chinese original based on its evident deflection from TT2. Furthermore, the research has shown that the similarities and discrepancies between the TTs have resulted from a complex interaction of multiple constraints both inside and outside the literary systems. Patronages, translation modes and policies, and translators’ subjectivity are the most influential factors. The diachronic analysis of the translations from TT1 to TT3 has revealed an increasing impact of translators in negotiating and formulating translation methods and techniques, creating a compromising paradigm that grants more value to the translation’s acceptability while preserving the cultural otherness.