Reflections on Chapter 3 of The Translator's Guide to Chinglish

Livia

Chapter 2 of The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish by Joan Pinkham delves into sentence structure, focusing on how to transform cluttered, ambiguous sentences into clear and logically coherent expressions. This chapter builds on the foundation of eliminating redundancy (discussed in Part One) but shifts the emphasis to the deeper structural issues rooted in the influence of Chinese linguistic habits on English writing. Through detailed analysis and practical examples, Pinkham highlights the "plague" of abstract nouns, the misuse of pronouns and antecedents, and the importance of logical connectives in English—issues that are often overlooked by Chinese learners but critical for achieving natural fluency.
In this chapter, the author talks about the Abuse of Abstract Nouns.Pinkham criticizes the overuse of abstract nouns (e.g., "prolongation," "existence," "solidity"), which she likens to a "plague" that obscures meaning and weakens sentences. She argues that Chinese writers tend to nominalize actions or concepts, resulting in convoluted phrases like "the prolongation of the existence of this temple is due to the solidity of its construction"—a sentence she simplifies to "This temple has endured because it was solidly built." By replacing abstract nouns with verbs or gerunds (e.g., "revitalizing the economy" instead of "economic revitalization"), sentences become more dynamic and direct18.
Also the Pronouns and Antecedents.The chapter emphasizes the importance of clarity in pronoun-antecedent relationships. Chinese writers often omit or misplace antecedents, leading to confusion. For instance, vague references like "this issue requires further discussion" lack specificity, whereas English demands explicit connections (e.g., "this issue, raised in the report, requires further discussion")38.
Logical Connectives.Pinkham stresses that English relies heavily on logical connectors (e.g., "however," "therefore") to clarify relationships between ideas—a feature less prominent in Chinese. She warns against either omitting these connectors or using them ambiguously, as seen in sentences like "We must work hard, we will succeed" versus the clearer "If we work hard, we will succeed"28.
Parallel Structure and Modifiers.The chapter also addresses syntactic coherence, advocating for parallel structures (e.g., "reading books, writing essays, and discussing ideas") and avoiding misplaced modifiers (e.g., dangling participles like "Walking to school, the rain started")39.
Reading this chapter resonated deeply with my own struggles as a Chinese learner of English. For years, I unknowingly replicated Chinese sentence patterns, such as stacking abstract nouns ("the enhancement of educational quality") instead of using active verbs ("improving education"). Pinkham’s examples, drawn from real translations and publications, made me realize how deeply ingrained these habits are—often reinforced by academic or bureaucratic writing styles that prioritize formality over clarity110.
One striking revelation was the cultural dimension of language. Chinese tends to favor indirectness and implicitness, whereas English values precision and explicit logic. For instance, the Chinese preference for nominalizations (e.g., "the realization of goals") reflects a collective, process-oriented mindset, while English’s verb-centric style aligns with its action-driven culture78. This dichotomy explains why literal translations often feel "stiff" to native English speakers.
However, I also questioned whether some of Pinkham’s critiques might oversimplify the nuances of translation. For example, in official Chinese texts, phrases like "accelerate the pace of reform" are politically charged and context-specific. Simplifying them to "accelerate reform" risks losing rhetorical emphasis, even if it adheres to English brevity10. This tension between linguistic purity and contextual necessity underscores the complexity of translation as both an art and a science.