中式英语之鉴part one(3)

人生不过三万天

Content:1. Redundant twins: the use of two words so close in meaning that one would do.
2. Recognizing redundancies: when we translate, we should think about does the second word add anything significant to the first  and is a second word necessary to express some element in the Chinese that one alone does not convey.
3. Eliminating redundancies: i. Delete one of them ii. Replace both members of the pair iii. Add a word or two to clarify the intended meaning (under the condition that the original text contains too much meaning into two words that cannot convey it and has unwittingly produced redundant twins instead)
4. Categories of redundant twins: i. Meaning of one is virtually the same as that of the other ii. Meaning of one is contained in or implied by the other iii. Meaning of one is so vague and general tat cannot be differentiated from the other
5. Proliferation of redundancies
6. Judgement: not every two-word combination is objectionable, the same two words may be need in one context and not in another, if it’s hard to judge, it’s probably advisable to retain both, especially if you are dealing with a government document or an official statement that will be closely examined by foreign readers.
7. Redundant twins in native English: gain a kind of respectability and for a jaunty alliteration or rhyme

Evaluation:
Chapter 3 in part one provides a structured and practical approach to identifying and resolving redundancy in translation, particularly for Chinese-to-English translators. The chapter’s strength lies in its clear categorization of redundancies—synonymous pairs, inclusive terms, and vague combinations—which allows translators to quickly assess whether a two-word phrase is truly necessary or merely repetitive. The suggested solutions—deletion, replacement, or clarification—are flexible enough to accommodate different contexts, acknowledging that some redundancies are deliberate in the source text. However, one limitation is that the focus on word pairs may overlook larger-scale redundancies, such as entire sentences or paragraphs that reiterate the same idea in different words. Additionally, while Pinkham warns against over-editing in formal or diplomatic texts, the criteria for determining when redundancy is justified remain somewhat subjective.

Reflection:
Reading Pinkham’s analysis of redundant twins made me reflect on my own translation practices, particularly how often I unconsciously carry over Chinese rhetorical habits into English. For example, phrases like "careful and cautious" or "discuss and deliberate" frequently appear in my drafts, and Pinkham’s framework has given me a clearer lens to evaluate whether such pairs are truly needed or merely habitual. I’ve also realized that redundancy isn’t always a flaw—sometimes, repetition serves a stylistic or persuasive function, especially in speeches or formal documents where emphasis is key. However, in most cases, English favors conciseness, and blindly preserving Chinese parallelism can lead to awkward or wordy translations. Moving forward, I plan to apply Pinkham’s three-step approach—assessing whether a second word adds meaning, considering deletion or replacement, and only keeping redundancy when it serves a clear purpose. At the same time, I’ll remain mindful of context, recognizing that some "redundancies" are intentional and should be preserved rather than mechanically eliminated. This chapter has reinforced the importance of critical thinking in translation—rather than just transferring words, we must weigh clarity, efficiency, and fidelity to the source.