0 E N And The Singular Form example essay topic

Literary fuzziness is one of the characteristics of literature. It leads to what is called in Reception Theory! ^0 indeterminacies! +/- and! ^0 gaps! +/- in literary works. According to Reception Theory, a literary work is full of! ^0 indeterminacies! +/- or!

^0 gaps! +/-, depending for their effect on the reader!'s interpretation. Thus a kind of interaction between the writer and the reader is achieved. Moreover, since each individual reader, during the process of reading, resorts to imagination and one!'s unique! ^0 expectation horizon! +/- which is based on social background, knowledge and aesthetics needs, the interpretation of the same text might vary from one to another. Reception Theory can be applied to the field of translation to understand why the translation of the same literary work can be so different.

As the reader of the original text, the translators would interpret the! ^0 gaps! +/- or! ^0 blanks! +/- caused by literary fuzziness in the text according to each one!'s! ^0 expectation horizon! +/- and imagination, and then give divergent translation versions. The paper is going to discuss the translation of the Chinese poem Ma Zhiyuan!'s! P 3/4 ^2'O^1"E 1/4! from the perspective of Reception Theory.

Literary fuzziness can be categorized into 5 kinds: semantic fuzziness, image fuzziness, syntactic fuzziness, pragmatic fuzziness, and rhetoric fuzziness. In this poem, semantic fuzziness, image fuzziness, syntactic fuzziness are clearly reflected. Firstly, there is semantic fuzziness in the poem. So we see that in the six versions, the translators all add their own understand and imagination in the translation of the three nouns: in two versions, ! ^0?' Y'I'U!

+/-, ! ^0'A"I^E: ! +/-, ! ^0 'e~N ! +/- are all in the plural form; another two versions use the plural form of! ^0?' Y'I'U! +/-!

^0 'e~N ! +/- and the singular form of! ^0'A"I^E: ! +/-; one uses the plural form of! ^0'A"I^E: ! +/-! ^0 'e~N ! +/-, while! ^0?' Y'I'U! +/-is in the singular; and still one uses the plural form of!

^0?' Y'I'U! +/-! ^0'A"I^E: ! +/- and the singular form of! ^0 'e~N !

+/-. It!'s hard to decide which translation is right and which is wrong. Besides, ! ^0'E"E 1/4 'O! +/- and! ^0 P"I^3|'E"E! +/- are vague in meaning. Does!

^0'E"E 1/4 'O! +/- mean houses, cottages or a village? How to understand! ^0 P"I^3|'E"E! +/-? And what causes the man!'s! ^0 P"I^3|! +/-? a love failure, homesickness or some other distress?

The exact meaning of the two words cannot be settled. Image fuzziness is shown in the poem. What! ^0 D! CA! +/- is like is for the reader to imagine. In the six versions, several translate it into narrow or low bridge, stressing the width or height of the bridge, while the rest translate it into tiny or small bridge, emphasizing the small size of the bridge.

Such is the case with! ^0^1 Au'A! +/- and! ^0^E'Y^A'i! +/-. What kind of road can be called! ^0^1 Au'A!

+/-? Should it be a! ^0 worn path! +/- concerning its shabby condition or an! ^0 ancient road! +/- implying its old age? And the degree of the thinness of the horse cannot be determined, too. All these image fuzziness provides!

^0 gaps! +/- or! ^0 blanks! +/- for the reader to fill in, and the reader!'s different interpretations get expressed in the six different translation versions. Syntactic fuzziness in the poem cannot be ignored. The poem is mostly made up of noun phrases. These noun phrases along with other two subject-predicate phrases constitute a picture in the reader!'s mind.

However, the lack of linking words between the six nouns in the first two lines leads to the vague relationship between them. Is! ^0?' Y'I'U! +/- hanging on! ^0'A"I^E: ! +/- or twisting round! ^0'A"I^E: !

+/-? Is! ^0 'e~N ! +/- hovering over! ^0?' Y'I'U! +/- and! ^0'A"I^E: ! +/- or resting on them? And the spatial relationship between!

^0 D! CA! +/-, ! ^0'A:" E (R)!

+/-, ! ^0'E"E 1/4 'O! +/- is unknown. The! ^0 gaps! +/- caused by these syntactic fuzziness evoke the reader!'s imagination. The fidelity to the original text is always an important criterion of the success in translation. As far as literary fuzziness is concerned, the translators are responsible for maintaining!

^0 gaps! +/- in the original text apart from the duty of conveying surface meaning, cultural connotation, and etc. Therefore, when serving as the writer of the target language, the translators must remember that any attempt to fill in the! ^0 gaps! +/- would cause failure in translation. Take version 1. as an example, the translator adds too much of his own understanding of the! ^0 indeterminacies! +/- in the original poem. The images are so concrete and exact that there is no need for further imagination on the part of the reader of the target language: withered vines are hanging on old branches; crows are croaking; houses are hidden past the bridge; the creek is quietly running.

And even the cause of the man!'s sadness is explained? he is upset because of the failure in a love affair. Therefore, as far as the preservation of literary fuzziness in the poem is concerned, the translation is a failure. It is agreed that poem is the most difficult literary genre to be translated. To achieve total fidelity to the original poem in all aspects such as formal correspondence, cultural connotation, literary fuzziness, rhythm, rime, etc. is hardly possible. If one version must be chosen as the best, I personally prefer version 6., because this version, to the greatest extent, remains faithful to the original one concerning semantic, image, syntactic fuzziness in the original poem. Firstly, in dealing with semantic and image fuzziness, the translator chooses words according to the context of the poem.

Ma Zhiyuan!'s poem conveys decadent and melancholy sentiments to the reader. And the translator!'s diction is in accordance with this kind of feeling and atmosphere: the adjectives used to modify! ^0'I'U! +/-, !

^0^E: ! +/-, ! ^0~N ! +/- are! ^0 withered!

+/-, ! ^0 olden! +/-, and! ^0 evening! +/-, all associated with death; ! ^0 hamlet house! +/- conveys a sense of desolation and alienation; !

^0 ancient road! +/- connotes old age while! ^0 bony horse! +/- shows a kind of physical weak; the verb! ^0 roam! +/- used at the end the poem shows the aimlessness of the man, implying decadent sentiments. And the translation of! ^0'I'i~N"A! +/- into! ^0 far from home! +/- worth's mentioning here.

This translation is more close to the original word, for what is emphasized here is not the exact place of the man, but a kind of feeling in his heart? sadness caused by the long distance from home and family. All these words help build up the gloomy atmosphere and decadent sentiments in this translation version. Secondly, this version achieves fidelity at syntactic level. The vagueness in the relationship between the images is preserved, offering enough imagination space to the reader of the target language.

To draw a conclusion, in translating literary works especially poems, the translator, when as the reader of the source language, might have different interpretation of the! ^0 gaps! +/- in the text which is caused by literary fuzziness, as they are different in their! ^0 expectation horizons! +/- and the power of imagination; nevertheless, the translator as the writer of the target language must preserve literary fuzziness reflected in the text so that the faithfulness to the original text can be achieved.