读书笔记

_17_

Chapters VII through IX of The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish extend the critical examination of redundancy into nuanced linguistic structures, dissecting how cultural, syntactic, and stylistic habits from Chinese infiltrate English prose. These chapters reveal that redundancy is not merely a matter of duplicated ideas but often stems from deeply ingrained cognitive frameworks.

Chapter VII: Prepositional Overload
A hallmark of bureaucratic and academic Chinglish is the proliferation of prepositional phrases that obscure agency. For instance, the Chinese sentence “关于经济发展领域的合作问题” might be mechanically rendered as “With regard to the issue of cooperation in the field of economic development,” layering four prepositions (with regard to, of, in, of). The revised version, “Regarding economic cooperation,” eliminates 75% of the prepositions while preserving meaning. This phenomenon aligns with linguist Joseph Williams’ observation that “prepositional phrases are the cholesterol of English prose”—excessive use clogs the sentence’s arteries. By replacing prepositional frameworks with strong verbs or nominalizations (e.g., “strengthen cooperation”), writers restore clarity and momentum.

Chapter VIII: Passive Voice as a Mask for Agency
The passive voice, while grammatically valid, becomes problematic when overused to anonymize responsibility—a tendency rooted in Chinese political discourse. Consider the sentence “Environmental pollution must be addressed” (环境污染问题必须被解决). While this construction mirrors the Chinese preference for impersonal authority, English favors direct accountability. The active revision, “We must address environmental pollution,” not only specifies the actor but also intensifies the call to action. This distinction reflects a cultural divergence: Chinese often employs passive structures to emphasize collective responsibility, whereas English associates the passive with evasion or obfuscation. Data cited in the text indicate that 68% of passive constructions in government translations could be converted to active voice without semantic loss.

Chapter IX: Cultural Redundancy and the Burden of ‘Four-Character Idioms’
Chinese rhetoric thrives on parallelism and four-character idioms (成语), such as “因地制宜，因时制宜” (adapt to local and temporal conditions). Directly translated as “adaptation to local conditions and adaptation to temporal conditions,” the phrase becomes a tautology in English. The revised “context-specific adjustments” condenses the dual dimensions of space and time into a single concept, respecting the target language’s preference for lexical economy. The chapter argues that idioms, while culturally rich, often impose “semantic overkill” in translation. For example, “群策群力” (pool collective wisdom and efforts) loses its rhythmic elegance when rendered verbatim but gains precision as “collaborative problem-solving.” This requires translators to prioritize functional equivalence over literal fidelity—a principle articulated by Eugene Nida but rarely applied consistently in practice.

Implications for Cross-Cultural Writing
These chapters collectively underscore a paradox: redundancy, often intentional in Chinese to convey formality or emphasis, becomes a liability in English. The text advocates a “surgical approach” to editing: identifying and excising redundant prepositions, converting passive constructions to active voice, and reconfiguring culturally specific idioms into contextually apt equivalents. For instance, replacing “carry out the work of publicity” with “publicize” not only shortens the sentence but also shifts the focus from process (carrying out) to outcome (publicizing).

Personal Application
Implementing these principles in my own work, I revised a sentence from “It has been recognized by the committee that improvements need to be made in the area of policy implementation” to “The committee acknowledges the need to improve policy enforcement.” This edit reduced word count by 30%, eliminated two passive verbs, and sharpened the focus on the committee’s agency—a trifecta of concision, clarity, and authority.

Conclusion
Chapters VII–IX dismantle the illusion that direct translation ensures accuracy. They reveal that effective English writing demands not just linguistic competence but also a willingness to dismantle source-text structures and rebuild them within the target language’s logic. As the text concludes, “A translator’s highest duty is not to replicate words but to mediate between worldviews”—a mandate that requires both ruthlessness and creativity in equal measure.