Student's Works
翻譯作品評論
| 原文 |
The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
He was and old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish. In the first forty days a boy had been with him. But after forty days without a fish the boy’s parents had told him that the old man was now definitely and finally salao, which is the worst form of unlucky, and the boy had gone at their orders in another boat which caught three good fish the first week. It made the boy sad to see the old man come in each day with his skiff empty and he always went down to help him carry either the coiled lines or the gaff and harpoon and the sail that was furled around the mast. The sail was patched with flour sacks and, furled, it looked like the flag of permanent defeat. |
譯文
他是個老人，獨自划著 小船，在墨西哥灣流中捕魚。已經過了八十四天，他一條魚也沒有捕到。在頭四十天裡，有個男孩跟著他，可是四十天都沒有捕到魚，男孩的父母對孩子說，這老人 根本就是個「撒拉歐」，意思是運氣衰到了極點。男孩因此聽從父母的吩咐，上了另一艘船，結果出海頭一星期就捕到了三條大魚。男孩看到老人每天空著船回來都 很難過，總是會下去岸邊幫他扛卷卷的釣索和魚鉤，魚叉，或是從桅杆上卸下來的船帆。船帆佈滿了用麵粉袋打的補釘，捲起來時就像一面象徵永遠敗北的旗幟。
譯文
他是一個老人，獨自划 著小船在黑西哥灣大海流中打魚，至今己經過了八十四天，卻連一條魚也沒有捕著。最初四十天，有一個小男孩和他在一起。但是四十天還捕不到一條魚，孩子的父 母親可說話了；他說那老人毫無疑問的，根本就是個晦氣星，是個倒楣得不能再倒楣的傢伙，孩子只好遵奉雙親的命令，上了另外一攸船，那條船出海頭一星期就捕獲了三條大魚。老人每天划著空空的小船回來，使得孩子感到萬分難過，他總跑下去幫老人搬運一卷卷的釣絲、魚釣和魚叉，要不然就幫忙抬運捲在桅杆上的風帆。老人的帆上打著麵粉袋的補釘，捲縮起來，看上去就像一面標明失敗到底的旗幟。
下列文章是學生針對譯文一與譯文二所做的比較與評論
紅色字代表建議修改處
灰色框代表刪除
學生評論文章(1)
| In our opinion, version two is a better one or better than version one in that it successfully transmits the original messages accurately. Second, it domesticates the translation to make it read naturally. Third, the translator presents the message smoothly so that the target language readers can easily comprehend it. |
| The translation accurately presents the meaning of the original text. For example, in version two, the sentence “the boy had gone at their orders in another boat which caught three good fish the first week.” is translated as “孩子只好遵奉雙親的命令，上了另外一條船，那條船出海頭一星期就捕獲了三條大魚。”; compared with version one “…上了另一艘船，結果出海頭一星期就捕到了三條大魚” which shows some misunderstanding of the original meaning. Version two given(gives)precision (a precise) translation to the target readers. |
| The translator appropriately domesticates the terminology into the target language. For example, in version two, the sentence “after forty days…and finally salao, which form of unlucky” is translated as “…孩子的父母親可說話了；他們說那老人毫無疑問的，根本就是晦氣星，是個倒楣得不能再倒楣的傢伙，”; compared to version one is translated the term “salao” into “撒拉歐” (In version one, the term“salao” was translated into “撒拉歐”) , this translation is better because it is more comprehensible to the target readers (not quite convincing). |
| The translation fluently presents the original text sentence by sentence instead of word by word. In version two, the translator combines the sentences and adds some conjunctions to cohere (create coherence) so that readers can easily compose (understand) the whole story. However, in version one, it translates sentences word by word; therefore, there are too many punctuations and chunks in the translated version which would hinder the fluency while reading (readers read) the version one. For example, in the beginning of the original text, the sentence is translated as “他是一個老人，獨自划著小船在墨西哥灣大海流中打魚…卻連一條魚也沒有捕著。”; compared with version one “他是個老人，獨自划著小船，在墨西哥灣流中捕魚。已經過了八十四天，他一條魚也沒有捕到。” which separate the sentence into too many chunks, this translation is easily to read (contradictory to the aforementioned ). In our conclusion, the translator of version two not only accurately transmits the original massages, but also considers reading fluency (the effect of fluency). In addition, we appreciate and admire version two to make (for making)us enjoy reading the translation. |
學生評論文章(2)
| In my point of view, basically the translation of both versions reflects (presents) the meaning contained in the original text appropriately. But however, I consider the translation in (of) version two is more adequate than version one in some ways. |
| First of all, the (fluent) translation of version two flows naturally and makes the reader read it like an original text written in the target language. For instance, “… and he had gone eight-four days now without taking a fish….”In version one, it’s was translated into “…已經過了八十四天，他一條魚也沒有捕到...”And otherwise, In the version two, it is translated as “…至今已經過了八十四天，卻連一條魚也沒捕著..”The second translator used “至今” and “卻”to convey the tongue of language (??) of “…had gone.. now without…” Hence, though the translation is divided into two sentences, the reader still can be inspired to perceive the idea of cause and effect by the translation in version two. |
| Secondly, I’d like to talk about the translation of “salao.” In the Eastern culture, the translation of“沙拉歐”means nothing to us. As a result, when the first translator used word-by-word translation on (of) the noun, the reader will be confused by that. (Though there is a backward (subsequent)explanation, it’s more appropriate to mention about the origin of the language, that is, where is the word “salao”from.) On the other hand, the Eastern people are more familiar with the noun “晦氣星” because it do (does) exist in the eastern culture. |
| Thirdly, the two translators translated the following sentence with different voices. “It made the boy sad to see the old man come in each day with his skiff empty and …”has been translated as A.男孩看到老人每天空著船回來都很難過。B老人每天划著空空的小船回來,使得孩子感到萬分難過。The version one is(uses) an active voice and then the version two is a passive voice. Even if the translations of the two versions are pretty close to the original (message), the second version is closer to our target language.(closer to the way the target language is presented) Therefore, it helps the reader to read it more reasonable (understandably).(or it enhances its readability) |
| Now let’s move to the end of the translation. Both of the translations in (of)“ ..the flag of permanent defeat.” do not fit to the style of the story so much. Personally, I changed (revised)the translation into“屢戰屢敗”and in my opinion, that would be more fitting. In Chinese words (the Chinese language), when we talk about someone “屢戰屢敗”, it reveals (implies, suggests) not only defeat but a desire wants to do or conquer something as well. But however, “永遠敗北” and ”失敗到底”only transmitted the outcome when dealing with something in a single situation. In this way, I said the version of mine is more suitable to (for) the story. |
| In conclusion, I consider the translation of version two is better than version one. Since it’s a story, the discursion should be avoided too. When I read the translation of version two, it is much more coherent. Thus, the reader can read it smoothly and easily catch the idea that the author wants to present. Furthermore, the use of vocabulary in version two is more accurate. It’s very easy for me to feel and imagine the processes that the story goes(to follow the discourse along which the plot of the story develops) . |
學生評論文章(3)
| “The Old Man and the Sea” is one of Ernest Hemingway’s most famous works. Here, we got two Chinese versions to compare with (for a comparison). After reading both versions, both of us thought the first version is better than the second one. The former version accurately transmits the original meaning. In addition, it uses the words more appropriately than the latter version. Moreover (Finally), it presents the tone successfully so that readers can read it smoothly. |
| First, the translation accurately presents the original message. The sentence is translated as “撒拉歐，意思是運氣衰到了極點” in the first version. The translator uses the technique of Translation for formal equivalence. On the contrary, the translator uses the technique of Translation for semantic equivalence to translate the sentence as “晦氣星，是個倒楣得不能再倒楣的傢伙” in the second version. Although the second technique is usually considered to be able to produce a better translation, we think the first version is better in that the second version seems a little over translated. Besides, the first one has fully transmitted the message of the original text, so it is unnecessary to change Hemingway’s original text (????) and use the translator’s own word. |
| Second, the translator uses better (more appropriate) words to transmit the original text. The first version versus the second version, “捕魚vs.打魚”, “一艘船vs.一條船”, “釣索vs.釣絲”, and “象徵永遠敗北的旗幟vs.標明失敗到底的旗幟”, all these above show the words that the translator of the first version uses are more naturally and appropriately (more natural and more appropriate) We seldom say “打魚” or “標明失敗到底的旗幟” in Chinese. What is more, the second version translated as “老人的帆上…，捲縮起來，看上去…” (in the second version, the translation“老人的帆上…，捲縮起來，看上去…”) seems not clear enough for readers to understand it at once (??? Not very clear) ; however, the first version translated as “船帆佈滿…，捲起來…” reads more naturally and smoothly. Therefore, we think (In short)the translator of the second version uses those words a little awkwardly. |
| Third, the translation uses the concise words to present the original message. It is not only redundant to add some colloquial words to help readers understand, but also inappropriate to use colloquial style to transmit the original text, since “The Old Man and the Sea” is a novel. Furthermore, the second version repeats the word “搬運” in the translation“他總跑下去幫老人『搬運』…，要不然就是幫忙『抬運』捲在…”. In our opinion, we think the translation of the first version such as “總是會下岸邊…，或是從桅杆…” is more clear enough and concise. |
| To sump up, version one is clear and concise to transmit a novel. Also, the words that the translator uses are more likely to approach literary works. Therefore, we make the conclusion to consider version one as the better translation of “The Old Man and the Sea.” |
學生評論文章(4)
| In our opinion, version one is the best (better than version two)in that it presents the tone of the speaker’s voice appropriately. Second, it successfully transmits the original massages accurately. Third, the style is generally adequate and is closed to that of the original text. |
| The translator used the calm and object (objective) tone to narrate the story. For example, in version one, the sentence “…the boy’s parents had told him that the old man…”is translated into “男孩的父母對孩子說，這老人…。”. In version two, the sentence is translated into “孩子的父母親可說話了；他們說那老人…。”. From (In)the original text, we can see the writer also uses the point of view of the third-person (the third person’s viewpoint)to describe the story. Therefore, we can see the version one presents the tone of the original appropriately. |
| The translation accurately reflects the meaning contained in the original text. For instance, in version one, the sentence “…the old man was now definitely and finally salao, which is the worst form of unlucky” is translated into “這老人根本就是個「撒拉歐」，意思是運氣衰到了極點” compared with version two “他們說那老人毫無疑問的，根本就是個晦氣星，是個倒楣得不能再倒楣的傢伙”. In version one, the translation uses appropriate words to translate the sentence and we think version two used too many addition (redundant words) to explain the sentence. |
The translation reads like an (the) original text written in the target language and the length is suitable(appropriate). For example, in version one, the sentence “It made the boy sad to see the old man come in each day with his skiff empty…” is translated into “男孩看到老人每天空著船回來都很難過…” and in version two, it is translated into “老人每天划著空空的小船回來，使得孩子感到萬分難過…”From the original text, we can see (By comparison)the translator of version one uses precise and concise sentences to express the original meaning. |
| In conclusion, we think the original story is (written) for adults to read and the author’s writing has deep meaning under(behind) the sentence. So, version one shows the specialty of the original text and appropriately transmits the message (Version one has successfully presents the profound implications of the original message) . Version two seems for children to read because the translator used vivid words to get children’s attention. Finally, (Based on the above factors) we believe that version one is better. |
學生評論文章(5)
| Comparing the first and second translation versions, we think that the second one is a better translation (We think that compared with the first Chinese version, the second one is a better translation) . Firstly, it seems that the first Chinese version was directly translated into Chinese (the first Chinese version is the result of directly translating the source text into Chinese) and trying (attemtps) to use simpler words to transmit the meaning. Generally speaking, it is not hard for us to understand the overall meaning of the source text. (Doing so makes us easily understand the overall meaning of the source text) However, from our point of view, the second version is being beautified (uses beautiful rhetoric) and arranged words in a proper way, which make it successfully present the setting, the image, even the deeper meaning that the author was trying to convey. For instance, from the second Chinese version, we do sense the old man’s awkward situation as well as his solitude, or his being looked as a symbol of bad luck in the story. Also, the boy’s is reluctant to obey his parents, and his care about the old man. We find it hard to feel this kind of pity or sympathy in the first version. These following sentences can prove what we mention above. |
「…至今已經過了四十八天，卻連一條魚也沒有補著。」 「…但是四十天還捕不到一條魚，孩子的父母可說話了； 他們說那老人毫無疑問的，根本就是個晦氣星，是個倒楣得不能再倒楣的傢伙，孩子只好遵奉雙親的命令，上了另一條船...」 |
The original text is as below: |
| 「…the boy’s parents had told him that the old man was now definitely and finally salao, which is the worst form of unlucky, and the boy had gone at their orders in...」 |
| We consider the second version a better arrangement and translation in ‘salao’ part, which make the old man vividly symbolize the bad luck, while the first version seems to be translated just from word to word. However, there’s still something imperfect in the second version. |
「…看上去就像一面標明失敗到底的旗幟。」 |
| We find it more natural to use the first Chinese version. |
| 「…就像一面象徵永遠敗北的旗幟。」 |
| We agree that both versions are good samples of textual equivalence. However, speaking of the functional equivalence, we think the second version has done a better job. For us, the first one is just like a piece of news. We can learn what is happening yet we cannot learn what the author really wants to tell us. (we cannot feel a pity for the old man in the way the author wants readers to feel) But from the tone of the second version, we discover the cruel part of humanity and a sense of hopeless from the phrase “the flag of permanent defeat.” We believe that readers can feel sympathy with the old man in the second version and get some inspiration from it. |
「…但是四十天還捕不到一條魚，孩子的父母可說話了； 他們說那老人毫無疑問的，根本就是個晦氣星，是個倒楣得不能再倒楣的傢伙，孩子只好遵奉雙親的命令，上了另一條船...」 |
| 「…看上去就像一面標明失敗到底的旗幟。」 |
| General speaking, there are no big differences between the first and second versions. There are no big problems in translation, either. However, there are some parts a little different. For example, in the original text, it is said: It made the boy sad to see…. In the first version, it is translated: 男孩看到….. 都很難過, but in the second version, it is only translated: 使得男孩萬分難過. The second version does not translate the verb “see.” Furthermore, the word ::”salao, ” is translated ” 薩拉歐” in first version by it’s pronunciation. The second one is translated “ 晦氣星” by it’s meaning. That is the difference between the first and second version. |
| Both these two versions are written in oral Chinese and are not hard and confused to understand. However, we think the second version is better because of the disjunctives. In Chinese, the disjunctives are very important because the disjunctives can emphasize the tone of the speaker. The every sentence in the second version is connected in proper disjunctive. As a result, we think the second version is better. For example, there is one sentence in the original text: …and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish. |
| In the first version: 已經過了八十四天 |
| In the second version:至今已經過了八十四天 |
You can see that there is a disjunctive in the second version. For another example, there is one sentence in the original text: …the boy’s parents had told him that…. |
In the first version: 男孩的父母對孩子說 |
In the second version: 孩子的父母可說話了 |
You can know that the second version emphasizes the tone of the boy’s parents’ tone and feeling about the old man. That can makes readers feel what the speakers’ feeling in the book. |
學生評論文章(6)
In our viewpoint, version 1 is better than version 2. There are 3 reasons as follows. First of all, version 1 not only transmits original text accurately but also conveys the thorough message to the readers. Second, its translation is clear and concise, so that readers do not have to make efforts to understand the whole text. Third, it successfully expresses an old man’s struggle against the life. |
| Version 1 presents the original meaning appropriately and completely. By comparing these two versions, we found that version 2 omits some information, and version 1 doesn’t. For example, the translator of version 1 translated the term, Salao, into Chinese by its pronunciation, and explained it in followed to make readers understand what its meaning is, so that readers can know a new word, Salao, that means “a man of bad luck.” Because version 1 gives all information from original text to readers, we think it is more appropriate and complete. |
| Second, version 1 is more concise and clear. For example, the sentence, “the old man was now definitely and finally salao, which is the worst form of unlucky, …” is translated into ”這老人根本是個「撒拉歐」，意思是運氣衰到了極點” in version 1, and “他們說那老人毫無疑問的，根本就是個晦氣星，是個倒楣得不能再倒楣的傢伙” in version 2. We think version 1 is better than version 2, because its translation transmits clear message from original text in shorter sentence. On the contrary, version 2 is wordy and repeats explaining one thing. In version 2, 晦氣星 is the same with 倒楣得不能再倒楣的傢伙, so it may delete one of them to make its translation more precise. |
| Finally, version 1 successfully demonstrates the image of lonely old man and tragedy hero that original text created to readers. Let us take the last sentence for example. The sentence, “…, it looked like the flag of permanent defeat.” is translated into “就像一面象徵永遠敗北的旗幟” in version 1, and “就像一面標明失敗到底的旗幟 in version 2. We think 永遠敗北 is better than 失敗到底, because the old man struggle in his cruel life alone like a hero who always fails wars. As a result, we think version 1 successfully expresses the image of the old man that original text created to readers. In conclusion, the translation of version 1 is more correct, complete and pertinent to original text, so readers can read it naturally and smoothly without fewer problems. |
學生評論文章(7)
| In my opinion, version 2 is better in that it successfully transmits the original massages accurately. Second, the translation flows naturally and reads like an original text written in the target language. |
| The first sentence “他是個老人，獨自划著小船，” in version 1 and “他是一個老人，獨自划著小船…” in version 2 present different meaning to readers, because in version 1, the translation just conveys the age and appearance of the character. But, in version 2, the translator appropriately transmits the original message and deepens the readers’ imagination of the character: He is a lonely old man who fished alone (????). |
| In version 2 the translator use the lexical addition to make translation easier be understood. “孩子的父母親可說話了；” is fluent of linking pervious sentence (??), the reason. Because of “after forty days without a fish”, the parents have words to complain. Compare (Comapred)with version 2, the translation “男孩的父母對孩子說，” in version 1 is (presents) the less displeasing emotion of the parents than the simple description of the parents’ reaction in version 2. |
| In version 2 the translator use the lexical addition to make translation easier be understood. “孩子的父母親可說話了；” is fluent of linking pervious sentence (??), the reason. Because of “after forty days without a fish”, the parents have words to complain. Compare (Comapred)with version 2, the translation “男孩的父母對孩子說，” in version 1 is (presents) the less displeasing emotion of the parents than the simple description of the parents’ reaction in version 2. |
| Although version 2 is mostly better than version 1, I find that the translator of version 2 made a mistake. The term “永遠敗北” in version 1 correctly transmits that catching fish is much like making a vigorous fight in a war or a contest, and this kind of result, “defeat”, will be continue. However, in version 2, the phrase “permanent defeat” of original text was translated into “失敗到底”. I think it is inaccurate, because “失敗到底” means this time of catching fish is an entire defeat, not an endless defeat. |
|
