1.3 Overview of research conducted on the translations of Sanguo Yanyi

According to investigations carried out by the researcher, numerous articles and papers on the English translations of Sanguo Yanyi have been published in Chinese language journals over the past two decades. Luo (2009), for instance, collected nine papers on the topic in question and briefly comments on them. Most of these articles are only a few pages long and focus on one (small) aspect relating to the translation(s). More research has been done on Roberts's latest translation than on Brewitt-Taylor's. In this section, some of the available articles will be examined in order to provide an overview of research on translations of Sanguo Yanyi.

Zhou&Zhou's paper(1988)“On the English Translations of Sanguo Yanyi”compares and discusses Brewitt-Taylor's translation and Zhang Yiwen's abridged translation (Chapters 43-50). Judged against Yan Fu's three criteria xin (faithfulness), da (expressiveness) and ya (elegance), Zhou & Zhou (1988) consider Brewitt-Taylor's translation as an excellent work in general and they mention that, in regard to the style and rhetoric, his translation also excels. They do refer to problems found in Brewitt-Taylor's translation, including errors caused by misreading Chinese characters; misunderstanding words, idioms and poems in the original text; and being too exuberant or flashy from time to time which leads to inaccuracy (Zhou & Zhou 1988). They also mention omissions caused by the translator's failure to understand the original; and failure to translate the implied intentions in the original text. Sometimes the translator's lack of knowledge of Chinese historical background also causes mistranslation (cf. Zhou & Zhou 1988).

Zhang (2001) comments on Moss Roberts's translation of Sanguo Yanyi and gives a brief analysis of the English version. This version, according to Zhang, shows the following striking features: (1) a good choice of words as it relies on the context; (2) the images and personalities of the characters have been fully reproduced and the style remains close to the original (Zhang 2001). The examples below illustrate Zhang's point of view.

The following example, discussed by Zhang (2001), compares Roberts's translation with another translated version of Sanguo Yanyi and Zhang argues that Roberts's version better transfers the style of the original text.

ST (Chapter 43):

肃接檄文观看。其略曰：“孤近承帝命，奉词伐罪。旄麾南指，刘琮束手；荆襄之民，望风归顺。今统雄兵百，上将千员，欲与将军会猎于江夏，共伐刘备，同份土地，永结盟好。幸勿观望，速赐回音。”

Roberts's translation:

Cao's note said: Under a recent imperial mandate, I have authority to act against state criminals. Our banners tilted southward; Liu Zong bound his hands in submission. The populace of Jingzhou, sensing the direction of events (extra space), has transferred its allegiance to us. We have one million hardy warriors and a thousand able generals. We propose that you join us, General, in a hunting expedition to Jiangxia in order to strike the decisive blow against Liu. Then, sharing the territory between us, we may seal an everlasting amity. Please do not hesitate but favour us with a speedy reply.

Another version:

Lu Su read the letter, the gist of which was as follows: “At the emperor's command, I have led my army south to punish the guilty. Liu Cong has been captured, his people have surrendered, and I now command a force of a million picked men and a thousand able generals. I hope, you will join me, general, in a hunting expedition at Jiangxia to attack Liu Bei, so that we can divide his territory between us and pledge everlasting friendship. Do not hesitate, but give me an early reply! ”

The original text is part of an official call to arms. Admitting that both translations are fluent, Zhang (2001) argues that the second translation does not seem formal enough to transfer the style, while Roberts's translation is both fluent and faithful.

Zhang (2001) also points out some minor problems existing in Roberts's translation. These problems were caused mainly by the translator's failure to understand some culture-specific references correctly. The following is one of the examples given:

ST (Chapter 45, emphasis added):

瑜曰：“子翼良苦：远涉江湖，为曹氏作说客耶？”干愕然曰：“吾久别足下，特来叙旧，奈何疑我作说客也？”

Roberts's translation (Chapter 45, emphasis added):

“My friend, you have taken great trouble, coming so far to serve as Cao Cao's spokesman, ”Zhou Yu responded.Taken aback,Jiang Gan said, “We have been apart so long, I came especially to reminisce. How could you suspect me of such a thing? ”

According to Zhang (2001), “说客” should be translated as “emissary” instead of “spokesman”, which simply refers to someone who speaks on behalf of another. But in the novel, it is Jiang Gan's mission to persuade his old school-mate Zhou Yu to surrender to Cao Cao. Jiang Gan's character should be an “emissary” or “envoy”, “a person sent as a diplomatic representative on a special mission” (OED).

The seven examples provided in Zhang's paper are all taken from Chapters 43-50. These examples are representative enough in scope and typicality and the research is based on the traditional prescriptive and evaluative approach.

Zhang & Zhang (2002) discuss the strategies used by Roberts to translate realia (culture-specific elements). They identify and examine four major strategies, namely literal or word-for-word translation, free or sense-for-sense translation, contextual amplification and annotation (Zhang & Zhang 2002). Literal translation seems to be Roberts's preferred translation strategy and he employed it frequently as long as the translated text was understandable and expected to be accepted by the intended readers. Free translation was used when translating metaphors and when translating figurative meanings of some culture-specific terms. Roberts used contextual amplification, which in this context mostly incorporates addition, to clarify and to elaborate on hidden meanings or background knowledge that the modern Western reader might not be familiar with. Annotation was used to explain historical background or allusions, and to correct errors in the original text.

Xianbin He (2003) uses the polysystem theory to analyze Roberts's translation. He argues that the often-quoted polysystem theory runs counter to the free-translation practice in Late Qing (around AD 1900) in China. He's (2003) analysis of Roberts's complete source-oriented version of Sanguo Yanyi demonstrates that the polysystem theory cannot predict the strategies of an individual translator, and that English translations of Chinese works do not always have to be domesticated in order to gain acceptance among Western readers (cf. He 2003). He (2003) further argues that when discussing the choice of translation strategies, it is necessary to differentiate the translational orientations of a socio-cultural group and its individuals, and to interpret their translational actions with different theories and methods.

In Zhang&Tian's(2007)article A Translator's Creativity as Exemplified in the Translated Version of“Three Kingdoms”they focus on translation as a creative process. They also discuss Roberts's translation, which they consider a success: “[the] translator's creative approach plays an important role in order to produce a successful translation in which Western readers can fully appreciate the quality of the original Chinese text” (Zhang & Tian 2007). The article aims to study how to make translations fluent and natural when translating classical Chinese literary works for native English readers whose language and cultural background are totally different to those of the Chinese. The challenge faced by the translator is to translate ancient classical literary language, especially culture-specific elements, into popular modern English in a creative way.

Most of the examples provided in Zhang & Tian's article refer to the translations of Chinese idioms, allusions and metaphors. Roberts's translation is creative, flexible and loyal—loyal to both the original text and to the Western readership (cf. Zhang & Tian 2007). An example is the idiom “愿效犬马之劳”, which literally means “serve like a dog or a horse”. The idiom was rendered as “let me do my best” in one instance and as “I would toil unsparingly, like a dog or a horse, entirely at your service”, in another.

One problem with Zhang & Tian's paper is that there are no clear indications of the chapters or pages all their examples were taken from.

Zeng (2008) examines how words measuring volume were translated by Roberts. These words have distinctive Chinese characteristics. Four such measuring words were selected: “斗” (“dou”), “石” (“shi”), “斛”(“hu”) and “升” (“sheng”). Roberts used different English “equivalents” to translate each of these words, showing the inaccuracy and inconsistency of the translation. “斗” (“dou”) was translated as “peck”, “bushel”, “gallon”,“bowl”, “ladle”, “dipper” and “measure”; “斛” (“hu”) as “bushel”, “ration”,“vat”, “jar” and “peck”; “升” (“sheng”) as “peck”, “jar” and “pint”. According to Zeng (2008), the translator adopted a domesticating approach to translate these words to make them understandable for English readers. However, confusion is created in various instances, such as the use of American units of measurement that causes problems for British readers. Furthermore, as shown in the above-mentioned equivalents, “peck” was used as a translation equivalent for three different words in the ST, namely“斗”, “斛” and “升”. The use of ambiguous or vague words such as“bowl”, “ladle”, “dipper”, “measure”, “vat”, “jar”, “quantities” in the TT as translation equivalents of words which depict a clear indication of the volume in the ST, is also problematic, as is the omission of these words portraying units of measurement in the translation.

Zeng (2008) suggests the use of transliteration (direct translation) and footnotes to render these problematic units of measurement. For instance,“斗” could be rendered as “dou” in the TT and further explanation or clarification could be provided in a footnote.

In another article, Zeng (2007) examines how “数合” (“shu he”) was translated by Roberts. “数” (“shu”) means “a certain number of”. “合”(“he”) in the ST means “a fighting clash (bout) on horseback”. “数合”refers to a virtual number of these back-and-forth encounters in horse-back fighting. “数合” is extended to “十数合” (“shishuhe”—more than ten or a dozen) or “数十合” (“shushihe”—dozens of, a few dozen). According to Zeng (2007), there are sixty-two instances of “数合” in the ST (in all 120 chapters), which were translated literally twenty-three times and freely thirty-nine times. “数” was translated as “a few”, “several” and “before many”; “合” was translated as “exchange”, “encounter”, “passage”, “pass”,“clash”, “bout”, “round”, “pass-at-arms” and “fight with”. Omissions of either “数” or “合” were identified in the free translation. Zeng (2007) concludes that Roberts's translation is not completely faithful to the original when translating these fighting encounters.