对《尤利西斯》两版译文的对比鉴赏

Constract: Before comparing the two translated versions of Ulysses, we should have a thorough understanding of this essay. The reason why people feel differently because they stand in different standpoints that comes from different cultural background and personal experience. So firstly we have to know exactly what reasons make this work readable and acceptable.

Facing the same essay, the translators may not have the same understanding of it. On the basis of understanding the authentic meaning of the original text the translators always have different thinking about the additional meaning shown by obscure expressions. As non-native speakers, without completely knowing the factors that have various influence on the author, such as social context and cultural background, translators will easily misunderstand the meaning expressed ambiguously.

Ulysses, a great work of stream-consciousness, was written by James Joyce in

the early 20th century. This essay, in the beginning, mainly shows readers three independent stories that turn out to be one story in the end. The author showed readers the figures by describing their talks and inner thoughts. All these writing techniques make the translation more diversified.

Under a complex background and influenced by Greek mythology, the writer has experienced a lot during his miserable childhood. For instance, James Joyce worshiped the hero Odysseus, also called Ulysses in Latin, when he was a child. At

the same time, James was suffered from the wars and Irish nationality. Maybe these experience had inspired James Joyce to create the figures who similarly lead a miserable life. Therefore, in this way, we have to take consideration the writer’s thinking into translating and think as the author did to make the translated version more accurate.

Undoubtedly, the translated version will not be same because of these reasons. However, the two versions we are about to compare are basically comfort to the meaning of the original text. I will compare this two from several perspectives in order to figure out what lead translators translate differently.

Comparison&analysis Word-choosing 1. Grammatically, for the limit of the original text, the translated version have to largely comfort to the syntactic structure of the original one. However, translators are allowed to choose different words that shows their lexical diversity and writing styles.

Eg. It must be a movement then, an actuality of the possible as possible. Aristotle’s phrase formed itself within the gabbled verses and ...... (Jin’ version)那么，一定是一种运动了，可能性因为有可能而成为现实。在急促而含糊的朗诵中，亚里士多德的论断形成了...

(Xiao’s version) 说来那肯定是一种运动了，可能性由于有可能而变为现实。在急促而咬字不清的朗诵中，亚里士多德的名字浮现出来....

From the two versions, limited by the original text, the two translated version are similar in sentence structure and even in punctuation. But the Jin and Xiao choose the words differently for their writing habits and their understanding on the original language. There are two different translations: gabbled and phrase. Jin translated gabble as ‘急促而含糊的’ while Xiao translated as ‘急促而咬字不清’. For me, I prefer the Jin’s version for the balance of the sentence structure of translated version, namely the ‘急促’ and ‘含糊’. Actually there’s no fixed definition on that which words should be chosen for the same original text. But according to many translation principles that translators should give more priority to the readers we are supposed to comply with the language habits of Chinese in order to better deliver the meaning of the author. However, the translation of ‘phrase’ differs in the two versions. Jin translated it as ‘论断’ and Xiao regarded it as the ‘名字’. Unlike choosing different words, these two words have completely meanings for the their different understanding on the ‘phrase’. So which one is better? I think it should be translated as ‘名言’ according to the context.

Linguistic style 1.The translator’s own style will become a part of the target text. There is also a big difference between the two versions’ style. The Jin’s writing style is more oral while the Xiao’s more formal. That’s why readers may have different

attitude and opinion toward the same essay. Which style is better largely depends on the readers’ appetite. At the same time, the style of the original text can’t be neglected. Through reading this narrative fiction, the authors described this story by depicting the talks and inner thoughts.

By comparing the two translated versions, the Jin’s version is undoubtedly more easy to understand by using conciseness, but Xiao’s version is more like a literary work and more readable for its formal expression that is closer to the style of the original text. The two versions both have their merits, we can’t merely give a judge through excerpts. The two translators are proficient in understanding the author then expressing in their own words.

In general, Jin’s version is more acceptable but somewhere he didn’t consistently follow his translation principles.

Eg. --First, our little financial settlement, he said.

(Jin’s version) “首先，咱们先来小小的财务结算”，他说。

(Xiao’s version) “头一桩，把咱们那一小笔账结了吧，”他说。

According to the context, this is a conversation between Stephen and Mr. Deasy who is a positive and talkative figure. Unlike the style mentioned above, Jin’s version is more formal this time. Instead, Xiao’s version is more oral and closer to the readers.

2. From the two translated versions, we can easily find out that the Jin’s version is more acceptable in many cases. But sometimes Xiao’s version is better than Jin’s in rearranging the sentences.

Eg. Sargent who alone had lingered came forward slowly, showing an open copybook. His thick hair and scraggy neck gave witness of unreadiness and through his misty glasses weak eyes looked up pleading. On his cheek, dull and bloodless, a soft stain of inky lay, date-shaped, recent and damp as a snail’s bed.

(Jin’s version) 只有萨金特没有走，他捧着一本打开的抄本，慢慢地走上前来。厚厚的头发，瘦骨嶙峋的脖子，都证明他的迟钝；模糊的镜片后面是两只无神的眼睛，仰望着，乞求着。他的脸灰暗而无血色，面颊上有一块新抹上去的墨水，枣子形，还湿漉漉的呢，象蜗牛的窝似的。

(Xiao’s version)萨金特独自留了下来。他慢慢腾腾地走过来，拿出一本摊开的练习本。他那浓密的头发和消瘦的脖颈都说明了他的笨拙。透过过含糊不清的镜片，他翻起一双迟钝的眼睛，央求着。他那灰暗而毫无血色的脸蛋儿上，沾了块淡淡的枣子形的墨水渍。刚刚摸上去，还湿润的像蜗牛窝似的。

This paragraph mainly describes what Sargent looks like. As a Chinese, the Jin’s version makes me more easily form up the Sargent’s looking in my mind. Jin separates the long sentence into several short ones. For example, ‘...两只无神的眼睛，仰望着，乞求着...’ and ‘...一块新抹上去的墨水，枣子形，还湿漉漉的呢...’ Such short sentences gives us a plain description which comforts to the reading habits of Chinese readers. Chinese is a language that parataxis can be found almost

everywhere in Chinese literature. Therefore, the complicated combination of sentence structure is unnecessary in Chinese. Such a sentence structure arranged concisely gives readers a brief but not simple feeling of the figure.

However, it doesn’t mean that the second one is worse. Xiao’s version gives us more details and makes us think more. The long sentence Xiao uses is much more literary and readable than Jin’s translation. Xiao choose more appropriate words as the description of the figure, such as ‘他那浓密的头发和消瘦的脖颈’, ‘含糊不清的镜片’ and ‘灰暗而毫无血色的脸蛋儿上’. Such an expression is more coherent and logical. Although the sentence is little bit longer than the first version, it gives readers a chance to repeat and rethink what meaning that the author wanted to show us behind the figure’s looking.

All in all, each of the two versions has its advantages and disadvantages, however, which can be combined together as a better one. Here’s my version that excerpted from these two versions.

(my version) 人都走光了，只剩下了萨金特一个人。他慢慢腾腾地走过来，拿出一本摊开的练习本。他那浓密的头发和消瘦的脖颈都显示了他动作的笨拙，模糊的镜片后面是两只无神的眼睛，仰望着，乞求着，他那灰暗而毫无血色的脸蛋儿上有一块新抹上去的墨水，枣子形，还湿漉漉的呢，象蜗牛的窝似的。

3.—I forgot the place，sir. 279 B.C.

—Asculum，Stephen said，glancing at the name and date in the gorescarred

book.

(Jin’s version)“我忘了地点，老师。公元前279年。“阿斯库伦，”斯蒂汾说着，朝血污斑驳的书上的名字和年代瞥了一眼。

(Xiao’s version)“地点我忘记啦，老师。公元前二七九年。”“阿斯库拉姆，”斯蒂芬朝着沾满血迹的书上那地名和年代望了一眼，说。

Obviously, Jin focus more on the equivalence of linguistic style of the two languages. He directly translated gorescarred into ‘血污斑驳’. ‘Gorescarred’ originally refers to the fierceness of the battle but Jin didn’t take the background knowledge into consideration. In addition, Jin didn’t change the sentence order while Xiao rearrange the order in a way that is more acceptable by target readers. Xiao’s version seems more understandable. Besides, Xiao add ‘沾满’ in the end of the sentence, which makes the readers impressive.

4. A hasty step over the stone porch and in the corridor. Blowing out his rare moustache Mr Deasy halted at the table.

(Jin’s version) 门外传来一阵急促的脚步声，走过门廊的石板地，进了走廊。戴汐先生吹着稀疏的八字胡子，走到大桌子边才站住。

(Xiao’s version) 沿着门廊的石板地走廊传来一阵急促的脚步声。迪希先生吹着他那稀疏的口髭，在桌前站住了。

Under the different translation strategies, the two translators differs in their versions. There’s no verbs in the first sentence of the original text. The act of Mr. Deasy is shown by the preposition over and in. Therefore, The translators have to verbalize the prepositions. Jin translated over into ’走过’ and in into ‘进了’, which vividly described the acts of Mr. Deasy ‘s walking. On the other side, it is can be seen that Xiao wants to combine the acts but he failed to express it in a clear way.

Conclusion Whatever the lexical features or syntax structures, they are all influenced by the translation strategy and personal habits of the translators. The factors that affect translators are complicated and need further discussion. By comparing the two translated version, we can know that the Jin holds a translation strategy that try to close to the original text and retain the features of the original text. On the contrary, Xiao insist on that translator should comfort to the target readers’ appetite. This divergence makes the translated version similar but not same.

To better translate a work, especially a work renowned by the world, the preparation seems more necessary and indispensable. Before starting to translate, we must find out the details as much as we can, because one subtle difference of the original text may lead to a entirely different meaning.