Part 2 Part 3

抹茶圆子

Reader:董佳宜

Reading Time: Two Weeks

Reading Task: Pages 26-62

Chapter 2: Unnecessary Modifiers

This chapter explores how unnecessary modifiers, often used in Chinglish, can hinder clarity and conciseness in English translations. In Chinese, repetition and overuse of modifiers are common stylistic devices used for emphasis or rhetorical effect. However, these techniques often create redundancy in English, where precision and brevity are valued.

Key Points:

Redundant Modifiers: These are words or phrases that provide no new information and are therefore unnecessary. For example, the phrase "absolutely necessary" is redundant because "necessary" already implies an essential requirement. Similarly, "completely finished" can be simplified to "finished" since the word "finished" already conveys completeness.

Self-Evident Modifiers: These modifiers restate information that the context already implies. For instance, "basic essentials" is redundant because "essentials" alone conveys the idea of something fundamental. Similarly, "precise measurements" might be unnecessary since "measurements" inherently suggests a level of precision.

-Intensifiers: Words like "very" or "extremely" are often used to intensify the meaning of another word but may weaken the overall sentence. For example, "extremely beautiful" could be simplified to just "beautiful," as the word "beautiful" is already strong enough without needing to be intensified.

Qualifiers: Terms such as "somewhat" or "a little" introduce uncertainty and ambiguity. For example, "somewhat difficult" could be simplified to just "difficult" unless the qualifier is absolutely necessary to convey the intended nuance.

-Clichés: Phrases like "make an effort" or "take into account" can become formulaic and overly familiar in translations. These expressions, while common in Chinese, can sound redundant in English. For example, "make an effort" can simply be "try," which is more direct and precise.

The chapter emphasizes the importance of context when deciding whether to retain or remove modifiers. In political or formal documents, some redundancy may be culturally necessary to maintain formality, while in academic writing, avoiding redundancy ensures clarity and conciseness.

Chapter 3: Redundant Twins

Chapter 3 examines the phenomenon of "Redundant Twins," which refers to the unnecessary pairing of near-synonymous words. These redundant pairs often result in wordiness and can make the translation sound awkward.

Types of Redundant Twins:

1. Obvious Repetitions: This occurs when two words mean the same thing. For example, the phrase "shiny and glossy" is redundant because both "shiny" and "glossy" convey the same idea of a reflective surface. Either "shiny" or "glossy" alone would suffice.
   
2. Implicit Overlaps: Some pairs of words overlap in meaning, but their distinction is often subtle and unnecessary. An example is "imagine and envision," where both words imply the act of creating a mental image. A more concise translation could simply use "imagine."

3. Vague or Overly Broad Terms: This category includes terms that are so broad that they add little value. For instance, the phrase "progress and improvement" can be simplified by using "progress" alone, as "improvement" is inherently implied in the concept of progress.

The solution to these redundancies is to remove one of the redundant terms or to replace them with more specific language. For example, the phrase "joint cooperation" could be simplified to "cooperation," as the word "cooperation" inherently implies working together.

While redundancy is generally to be avoided, the chapter notes that there are exceptions. In legal or formal contexts, phrases like "null and void" may be used for clarity, while in poetry or rhetorical writing, expressions like "first and foremost" can add rhythm and emphasis.

Evaluation

Theoretical Strength:
The author’s approach shifts the focus from merely asking whether two words are synonyms to asking whether their distinction serves a specific function in the context. This shift provides a more practical, context-driven perspective on redundancy. For instance, in the case of "end and conclude," both words imply the same idea, but the distinction between them is rarely necessary for the overall message.

Practical Value:
- This approach offers practical advice for translators by helping them decide when redundancy is unnecessary. For example, the phrase "working conditions and environment" could be simplified to "working conditions," as the concept of "environment" is often implied. By removing redundancy, translators can create more fluent and natural English.

Reflection

These chapters prompted me to reflect on how cultural and linguistic differences shape the way we use language. For example, in Chinese, repetition often serves an emphatic or rhetorical function. The phrase "细心认真" (careful and diligent) in Chinese conveys emphasis and care in a way that a direct English translation like "careful and diligent work" might sound redundant.

This illustrates the need for translators to understand both the source and target languages deeply. Chinese often uses repetition for emphasis, while English favors conciseness and precision. As translators, we must navigate this difference, ensuring that the translation maintains the meaning without overloading the sentence with redundant or unnecessary terms.

The methods provided in the book have equipped me with practical tools for identifying and eliminating redundant modifiers and redundant twins. By following these guidelines, translators can ensure their work is clear, concise, and culturally appropriate for an English-speaking audience.

In conclusion, mastering the elimination of unnecessary modifiers and redundant twins is essential for producing high-quality translations. By prioritizing clarity, precision, and cultural sensitivity, translators can avoid the pitfalls of Chinglish and produce English texts that are both accurate and natural.