Trans Type EN 6
Chapter 6: An analysis and comparison of the translation styles of two Chinese translations of Le Spleen de Paris
浅析对比《巴黎的忧郁》两个汉译本的翻译风格
彭瑞雪 Peng Ruixue, Hunan University, China
Abstract
Since the early twentieth century, there has been a steady stream of translations of Baudelaire’s work, the ‘demon poet’, and Le Spleen de Paris is another of Baudelaire’s classics, in addition to Les Fleurs du mal. The Ya Ding’s(亚丁) and Huai Yu’s(怀宇) translations consider Le Spleen de Paris to be prose, while Qian Chunqi(钱春绮), Xing Pengju(邢鹏举) and Guo Hong’an(郭宏安) translate it as prose poems. The difference in the grounding of the translation will inevitably lead to differences in the translations. In this paper, we will select the Ya Ding’s and Guo Hong’an’s translations of Le Spleen de Paris and analyse and compare the two translations from the perspective of translation style in the light of Liu Miqing’s(刘宓庆) theory of translation style, so as to further understand and appreciate the main idea and thoughts of Le Spleen de Paris, further grasp the literary translation concepts of Guo Hong’an and Ya Ding, and further consider the applicability of Liu Miqing’s theory of translation style.
摘要
从20世纪初以来，对波德莱尔这位“恶魔诗人”的作品的译介就源源不断，《巴黎的忧郁》是波德莱尔除了《恶之花》之外的另一部经典作品。亚丁译本与怀宇译本认为《巴黎的忧郁》是散文，钱春绮、邢鹏举和郭宏安则译之为散文诗。翻译立足点的不同必然会导致译本的差异。本文将选取《巴黎的忧郁》的亚丁译本和郭宏安译本，结合刘宓庆的翻译风格论，从翻译风格的角度对两个译本进行分析对比，从而对《巴黎的忧郁》的主旨和思想有进一步了解和体会，对郭宏安、亚丁两位译者的文学翻译观有进一步把握, 并对刘宓庆的翻译风格理论的适用性有进一步思考。
Key Words
Translation Styles, Le Spleen de Paris, Guo Hong'an, Ya Ding
关键词
翻译风格，巴黎的忧郁，郭宏安，亚丁
Introduction
The chapters in Le Spleen de Paris can be as short as a few lines or as long as a dozen paragraphs, some in the form of dialogue, some narrative, and some descriptive, depicting modern life around everyday things, inner activities, philosophical reflections and urban landscapes. In this work, Baudelaire’s satire and sarcasm on the sordid, deformed reality of society are unrelentingly scathing and fierce in their attack on corrupt worldly habits. The Ya Ding’s(亚丁) and Huai Yu’s(怀宇) translations consider Le Spleen de Paris to be prose, while Qian Chunqi(钱春绮), Xing Pengju(邢鹏举) and Guo Hong’an(郭宏安) translate it as prose poems. Different views towards translation determine the differences in translation strategies and methods, which in turn lead to different translation styles. In this paper, we will select Ya Ding’s translation and Guo Hong’an’s translation and analyse and compare the translation styles of the two translations in the light of Liu Miqing’s（刘宓庆） translation style theory.
Firstly, the first part of this paper will provide a brief introduction to Liu Miqing's theory of translation style. Next, in the second part, we will analyse and compare the register markers and lexical markers of the two translations from the perspective of formal markers by selecting a number of prose or prose poems from Le Spleen de Paris according to the form and content of the text, discussing the two translators' grasp of the style of the original text, Guo Hong'an and Yadin, and then be able to grasp the differences between the translation styles of the two translations. Finally, in the third part, we start from the perspective of the non-formal markers and analyse the translators' approach and techniques in handling the translation, as well as the ideological and emotional aspects of the translation, in order to grasp the translation styles of the two translations in general. Thereby, we expect to gain a further appreciation of the main idea and thought of Melancholy in Paris, a better understanding of Ya Ding's and Guo Hong'an's views on literary translation, and further reflection on the applicability of Liu Miqing's theory of translation style.
Liu Miqing’s theory of translation style
Literary style often gives the impression of being elusive and difficult to grasp. But in Liu Miqing’s view, literary style is both graspable and translatable, and the key to stylistic translation lies in the adaptability of the style of the original work. A grasp of the style of the original is the groundwork for a stylistic translation, “only when the translator analyses the structure of the original text and combines it with the aesthetic activity of a vague collection of non-formal markers can the style of the text become visible, thus making the meaning of style knowable” (Liu Miqing 2005:240)#. In order to comprehend the style of the original text, the translator must grasp the system of stylistic markers, which includes the Form Markers and the Non-Formal Markers. The Formal markers are intuitive and capture style from a linguistic perspective, including six types of markers: Phonological Markers, Register Markers, Lexical Markers, Lexical Markers, Textual Markers, Lexical Markers, Textual Markers and Markers of Figures of Speech. Non-formal markers are non-intuitive and capture style from an aesthetic point of view, which means that in the process of translation the translator also has to take into account “elements that are imaginative or psychological and affective” (Liu 2005:249)#. The non-formal marker style symbol system consists of three aspects: the writer’s choice and treatment of the subject matter, the inner thoughts and feelings of the work and the writer’s spirituality, and the integration of the recipient’s vision.(Liu 2005:239-251)#
Liu Miqing states that there are three means of translation of style. The first is Corresponding, which is a correspondence to the original language’s style marker system, namely, to grasp the formal and non-formal markers of the original language and imitate it. The second is Recasting, which is the re-creation of style. This re-creation is usually based on four main grounds: the lack of a style marker system in the target language corresponding to the original; the fact that the style of the target language imitating and copying the original is hardly acceptable to contemporary readers as the chronology changes; the need to make communicative function and utility; and the inevitability of cultural differences. Thirdly, Decoloring or Generalizing, where a linguistic and cultural barrier that cannot be crossed compels the abandonment or partial abandonment of stylistic meaning in order to ensure the communicative function of the language.In addition, Liu Miqing proposes five principles of style translation: the principle of adaptability, the principle of recipient, the principle of hierarchy, the principle of synthesis and the principle of the limits of translatability. The principle of adaptability means that the aim is to adapt to the style of the original language, “the translator must carefully analyse the formal and non-formal markers of the original text, pay attention to the degree of adaptation of the correspondence in a comparative bilingual study, and try to find the appropriate bilingual counterpart ‘value’” (Liu 2005:261)#. The principle of synthesis refers to the fact that style is a multi-layered synthesis, and that translations will reflect a variety of stylistic translation devices at the same time.(Liu 2005:257-261)#
Form Markers
According to the form and content of the chapters, two proses or prose poems are selected from Le Spleen de Paris as a foundation for a specific analysis and comparison of the translation styles of the two texts. L’Étranger, a novel and unusual form for poetry or prose, consists of 15 lines and is a dialogue based on the question “Who do you love most?” Chacun sa chimère, a highly symbolic piece of six short paragraphs, in which Baudelaire poignantly captures the existential and spiritual plight of the 19th century in general.
Register Markers
“Register (or domain of use) refers to the range of words use, and words circulating in a particular range of use often have common features” (Liu 2005:242)#. From a genre point of view, Le Spleen de Paris is a literary work in which the language should belong to the written language. However, the two translators differ in their judgment on this point of written language for two reasons. On the one hand, some of the texts are in the form of dialogues, and since they are printed texts, it is logical to choose to translate them into written language, but as they are dialogues, it is also reasonable to decide to translate them into spoken language. On the other hand, the two translators position the work differently in terms of genre, with Guo Hong’an considering the book to be a collection of prose poems and Ya Ding considering it to be a collection of prose. The different genres naturally have different registers; prose poetry is more poetic than prose, and poetic means that the use of words is relatively more concise and ‘elegant’; in prose the use of words is relatively freer and more ‘vulgar’. It should be noted that the terms ‘elegant’ and ‘vulgar’ here refer to the dignity and simplicity of the diction, respectively. The former means that the diction is closer to the written word, while the later means that the diction is closer to the spoken word. There is a clear difference between Guo Hong’an’s translation and Ya Ding’s translation in terms of the “elegance” and “vulgarity” of the words used, which we will then illustrate with examples.
The title L’Étranger is translated by Guo Hong’an as “异乡人” and by Aden as “陌生人”. In English, there is no distinguishing between these two words, both meaning “stranger”, but in Chinese they are not the same. The term “异乡人” has a long history, and has been used in ancient Chinese poetry, for example in the poem The night of the New Year’s Eve (《岁除夜有怀（一题作除夜）》) by the Tang poet Meng Haoran(孟浩然), in which he says, “乱山残雪夜，孤烛异乡人”, and in Xu Hun(许浑)’s Inscription of the Monastery of the Huqiu Temple in Suzhou (《题苏州虎丘寺僧院》), in which he says, “暂引寒泉濯远尘，此生多是异乡人”, and in Wei Zhuang(韦庄)’s Farewell to Xucai Li on the River (《江上别李秀才》), he says, “莫向尊前惜沈醉，与君俱是异乡人”. However, in ancient Chinese, the use of“陌生人” is less common and occurs mainly in more secular and colloquial works, such as in the Ming dynasty novel The Case of Pao Gong (《包公案》), in which there is “王氏对陌生人，未知好歹”, and in the Qing dynasty novel The Mirror and the Flower (《镜花缘》), in which there is “连我们自己的丫鬟都认不清楚；到了陌生人眼里那里还看得出”. In contrast, the former is closer to the written word, more poetic and “elegant”, while the latter is closer to the spoken word and more “vulgar”.
Original text： « Qui aimes-tu le mieux, homme énigmatique, dis ? ton père, ta mère, ta sœur ou ton frère ?
Guo’s translation：“你最爱谁，谜一样的人，你说？父亲，母亲，姐妹，还是兄弟?”
Ya’s translation：——喂！你这位不可猜测的人，你说说你最爱谁呢？你父亲还是你母亲？姐妹还是兄弟？
Original text： –Je n’ai ni père, ni mère, ni sœur, ni frère.
Guo’s translation：“我没有父亲，没有母亲，没有姐妹，没有兄弟。”
Ya’s translation：——哦……我没有父亲也没有母亲，没有姐妹也没有兄弟。
Original text： –Vous vous servez là d’une parole dont le sens m’est resté jusqu’à ce jour inconnu.
Guo’s translation：“您用了一个词，我至今还不知道它的含义。”
Ya’s translation：——这……您说出了一个我至今还一无所知的词儿。
Original text：– Je le hais comme vous haïssez Dieu.
Guo’s translation：“我恨它，一如您恨上帝。”
Ya’s translation：——我恨它，就像您恨上帝一样。
Original text：–Eh ! qu’aimes-tu donc, extraordinaire étranger ?
Guo’s translation：“唉！那你爱谁，不寻常的异乡人？”
Ya’s translation：——啊呀！你究竟爱什么呀？你这不同寻常的陌生人！
This text is rather distinctive because it is both a text and a dialogue, a dialogue recorded in text. In this regard, the two translations reflect different styles. Guo’s translation is more dignified, more in keeping with the conventions of written expression, and more faithful to the form and content of the original. Ya Ding, on the other hand, prefaces the first three sentences with intonation words such as “喂！”, “哦……”, “这……”. The use of intonation reflects the state of the speaker, demonstrating the questioner’s persistence and the respondent’s hesitancy. In the fourth sentence, for the word “comme”, Guo Hong’an translates it as “一如”, while Aden chooses “就像……一样”. The former is obviously more commonly used in printed language, while the latter is often used in speech. In the fifth sentence, Aden translates “Eh!” as “啊呀!”, translates “donc” as “究竟” and adds the colloquial “你这” in his translation of “extraordinaire étranger”. In contrast, the translations of Guo “唉” and“那” are more written and less emphatic. It is obvious that the Ya Ding’s translation is more colloquial, closer to the spoken word, and plainer and more straightforward.
Lexical Markers
Lexical markers indicate the author’s idiolect (Liu 2005:243)#. First, we need to distinguish between lexical markers and register markers. On the surface, these two perspectives seem similar, as they both relate to “words”. But in fact “idiolect” and “register” are not the same. The former is personal and refers mainly to one's habits of using words, for example, to use words more easily or more elegantly, to use certain adjectives or adverbs, or to use participles. The latter, however, is “social in a different way” (Liu 2005:243)#. The difference between Guo Hong’an’s more “elegant” and Aden’s more “vulgar” diction, as we have just mentioned, is in fact based on the positioning of the text. In a general sense, what kind of words should be used in written language? What kind of words should be used in oral language? They are not based on subjective conventions, but on the rules of the language, the conventions of social usage, and the use of words in a broader sense. But in addition, it is important to note that “idiolect is also highly related to the style and subject matter of the work (Liu 2005:245)#”, and on this level, lexical markers and register markers are again connected. For example, Guo Hong’an translates Le Spleen de Paris as a prose poem, while Ya Ding translates it as a prose text, and thus there is a difference in the diction of the two translators. In conclusion, after analysing the register markers, through the lexical marker analysis and comparing Guo Hong’an’s and Ya Ding’s translations, we can know the diction habits of the two translators and thus further understand their respective translation styles and the differences between them.(Liu 2005:241-249)#
Original text：Je questionnai l’un de ces hommes, et je lui demandai où ils allaient ainsi.
Guo’s translation：我问其中一个人，他们这是往哪里去。
Ya’s translation：我向其中一个人询问，他们这样匆忙是向哪里去。
The first half of the original French sentence “Je questionnai l’un de ces hommes” is a subject-predicate object construction, and both Guo’s translation and Ya’s translation are verb-predicate statements, but Ya’s translation changes the structure by placing the object between the subject and the predicate, as “向其中一个人”. Guo simply translates “ainsi” as “这”, while Ya adds an adverb and tranlates it as “这样匆忙” , which makes the picture of the text more concrete.
Original text：Il me répondit qu’il n’en savait rien, ni lui, ni les autres ;
Guo’s translation：他回答我说，他一无所知，他，别人，都一无所知；
Ya’s translation：他回答我说，他也一无所知；不但他，别人也不知道。
In this sentence, for “il n’en savait rien”, Guo translates it straightforwardly as “他一无所知”, while Yah adds the adverb “也”: “他也一无所知”. In the original French, “ni lui, ni les autres” is a negative parallelism, which Guo translates as a parallelism “他，别人”, while Ya adds a correlative to indicate a progressive relationship “不但……也……”.
Original text：Tous ces visages fatigués et sérieux ne témoignaient d’aucun désespoir ; sous la coupole spleenétique du ciel, les pieds plongés dans la poussière d’un sol aussi désolé que ce ciel, ils cheminaient avec la physionomie résignée de ceux qui sont condamnés à espérer toujours.
Guo’s translation：这些疲惫而严肃的面孔没有表现出任何的绝望；在这阴郁的苍穹下， 他们的脚陷入和天空一样愁惨的大地的尘土中，带着注定要永远希望的人的无可如何的神情，走着。
Ya’s translation：在这些疲惫而严肃的面孔上，没有一张表现出绝望的神情。在这阴郁的苍穹下，大地也像天空一样令人忧伤，他们行走着，脚步陷入尘土中，脸上呈现着无可奈何的，被注定要永远地希望下去的神情。
The first third of the original French sentence “Tous ces visages fatigués et sérieux ne témoignaient d'aucun désespoir" is a common subject-verb-object construction, with the subject and object being "visages, témoignaient, désespoir". Guo's translation is similar, with "faces, expressions, despair" and he translates "tous...ne" as "没有". The Ya’s translation, however, splits the entire sentence in two, changing the sentence type to a gerund followed by a subject-verb-object, translating "tous...ne" as "没有一张".
In the second third of the sentence, Ya Dang's translation is clearly more fragmented and has more clauses than Guo's, showing the loose structure of prose sentences, while Guo's translation has more whole sentences and a more compact sentence structure, using more determiners before nouns. For example, for "les pieds plongés dans la poussière d'un sol aussi désolé que ce ciel", Guo adds two definite articles before "尘土", Guo adds the definite article "和天空一样惨淡的" and "大地的". For "ils cheminaient avec la physionomie résignée de ceux qui sont condamnés à espérer toujours", Guo translates the noun “神情” which is preceded by three "的", "带着注定要永远希望的" modifies "人", "带着注定要永远希望的人的" and "无可如何的" modifying “神情”; and "cheminaient" is singled out and placed at the end of the sentence, translated as "走着". This is a very subtle way of structuring the sentence. "The word "走" is the central action of the sentence, and all the other components are describing the environment and scene of this "走". The "走着，" alone at the end not only serves to reinforce the central content of the sentence, but also reinforces the atmosphere of the setting it presents. In a miserable, grey and heavy atmosphere, the people do nothing else but walk, however, this monotonous and repetitive action does not cause them to feel helpless and irritated, instead they all look with an eternal hope. The two characters “走着” alone give the reader a great sense of contrast and impact. The Ya’s translation, however, disrupts the order of the entire sentence and cuts it into many small phrases, putting "cheminaient" ahead-- "大地也像天空一样令人忧伤，他们行走着，脚步陷入尘土中". There are two "的" before "神情", but he separates the two determiners with a comma, "可奈何的，被注定要永远地希望下去的".
Original text：Et le cortège passa à côté de moi et s’enfonça dans l’atmosphère de l’horizon, à l’endroit où la surface arrondie de la planète se dérobe à la curiosité du regard humain.
Guo’s translation：行者的队伍从我身边走过，没入天际，地球圆形的表面遮住了人们好奇的目光。
Ya’s translation：旅行者的队伍从我身边走过，没入遥远的天际。由于行星圆形的表面，人类好奇的目光消失在那里。
For "s'enfonça dans l'atmosphère de l'horizon", Guo translates it as "没入天际" and in the Ya’s translation the word “遥远的” is used to describe the sky “天际”. Guo Hong'an divides a whole sentence in the original French into three sub-clauses, while Ya Ding divides a whole sentence into two. For the translation of “à l'endroit où la surface arrondie de la planète se dérobe à la curiosité du regard humain”, Ya Ding uses a logical correlate “由于” to indicate the cause, and the subject and predicate of sentence are respectively “好奇的目光” and “消失”; in Guo's translation, the causal relationship is not emphasized, and the subject and predicate being “表面” “遮住” “好奇的目光”. The similarity between the two translators is the conversion of the word “la curiosité”, which is translated word-for-word as “目光的好奇”. Both translators switch the modifier and the central phrase and translate it as “好奇的目光”. The difference, though, is that Guo uses it as an object and Yah brings this element to the front of the sentence as the subject.
Original text：Et pendant quelques instants je m’obstinai à vouloir comprendre ce mystère ; mais bientôt l’irrésistible Indifférence s’abattit sur moi, et j’en fus plus lourdement accablé qu’ils ne l’étaient eux-mêmes par leurs écrasantes Chimères.
Guo’s translation：有一段时间我一直想理解这奥秘：可是很快不可抗拒的冷漠控制了我，我被沉重地压倒了，那些背着过重的怪兽的人也没有这样。
Ya’s translation：好长时间，我一直力图解开这个谜；可是不久，不可抗拒的冷漠控制了我，于是，我也显得比被怪兽压迫的人们更加疲劳了。
Similarly, Ya Ding uses four commas and a semicolon in this sentence to loosen up the sentence structure. For example, the phrase "pendant quelques instants" "mais bientôt" is translated as "好长时间，""可是不久，". And the Ya Ding the conjunction "于是" to the sentence, indicating the continuation of the context. In contrast, Guo's translation of the phrase is longer and more compact. In the translation of "ils ne l'étaient eux-mêmes par leurs écrasantes Chimères", Guo's translation remains closer to the subject-verb-object order of the original sentence, with the subject “背着怪兽的人”. There is still, on the other hand, is still a change of subject in the Ya Ding’s translation, using "我" as the subject. Guo translates "j'en fus plus lourdement accablé" as "被沉重地压倒", while the Asian translation uses "more fatigued ". Obviously, the former passive form is more in line with the heavy and depressing atmosphere of the original, as the monster in people is already heavy, and the indifference that controls “我” is even heavier and more suffocating than the monster, while the power and emotion conveyed by the word "疲劳" are slightly inadequate.
As a result, we can recognise the difference in translation style between Guo Hong'an and Aden by analysing their idiolect. Guo Hong'an's diction is simpler and more concise, conveying a more straightforward, serious and sharp emotional atmosphere. He tends to use longer endocentric phrases, with several "的" in a single clause; he uses fewer conjunctions and associative words, and does not add adjectives that are not found in the original; as a result, the clauses in Guo's translation are longer, and the whole sentence is more compact and closer to the structure of the original. In contrast, Ya Ding's diction is more varied. He prefers to use adjectives in order to express in an obvious way the mood and atmosphere hidden beneath the original text; he tends to use short, endocentric phrases and does not like to add too many modifiers before a central noun; he tends to use linking, logical correlatives to show the logical relationships hidden beneath the sentences, according to his own understanding; thus the sentences in Ya's translation are more dispersed and more lyrical, with a softer tone and atmosphere than in Guo's translation which conveys more strong and heavy emotions.
Non-formal Markers
The register markers and the lexical markers which belong to the category of formal markers are intuitive style symbols. But with these visual markers alone, it is not possible to get as comprehensive a picture as possible of the overall translation style of a work of translation. Therefore, when analysing translation style, it is necessary to consider not only formal markers but also non-formal markers. "Although style is not a ‘nebulous’ existence, it does have so-called 'non-formal elements' such as charm, style, momentum, mood, etc., which we call the non-formal signs of style " (Liu 2005:249)#.
Non-formal markers are holistic, open, compatible and unique. The holistic nature means that the "non-formal marker style symbol system does not rely on the formal markers itself (see the six types of formal markers above), but on the general linguistic structure and features of the aesthetic object (textual patterns and features), the context, the communicative function of the work (intended to describe the scene, intended to stimulate emotion, intended to expound, etc.) to construct the unstable structure of aesthetic object, which evoke the psychological factors of image, experience and perception in the aesthetic consciousness of the aesthetic subject (the recipient, i.e. the reader). perception) , in order to adapt to the unstable structure of the aesthetic object, forming an ambiguous aesthetic activity"(Liu 2005:250)#. In ordinary parlance, the holistic is the overall feeling that the reader has about the text. This feeling is ambiguous, integrated and aesthetic. The openness refers to the openness of the aesthetic object, and the non-formal mark of style "fundamentally dependent on imagination and creativity". Aesthetic criticism of the work itself is therefore flexible and unrestricted, and readers in different times and spaces can have their own interpretations of the same literary work. Compatibility refers to the fact that stylistic symbols carry a variety of information, not a single one; "the style of a great work of art is often a combination of rigidity and softness, light and darkness, inhibition and ebb and flow" (Liu 2005:250)#. Uniqueness means that identical non-formal symbol systems do not exist; each symbol and each system has its own characteristics.(Liu 2005:250)#
According to Liu Miqing, we can appreciate the specific significance of the non-formal symbolic system of style from four perspectives: the writer's choice of subject matter, his treatment and technique, the inner thoughts and emotions of the work, the writer's spirituality and the recipient factor. In the same way, when we apply this way of thinking to the analysis of translations, turning the "writer" into the "translator" and further analysing the translation style from two perspectives: the translator's approach and technique, and the inner thoughts and emotions of the work. In this way, the translation style can be analysed and interpreted in a more systematic and comprehensive way.(Liu 2005:251-253)#
Both translators, Guo Hong'an and Ya Ding, chose the book Le Spleen de Paris, but the former considered it a collection of prose poems while the latter considered it a collection of essays, so the two translators adopted different approaches and techniques to the language and text in the process of translation. From the above analysis of the register markers and lexical markers of the two translations, which belong to the category of symbolist literature, we can see that the similarity between the two translations is that they both capture the most important feature of the original text - its symbolic meanings. The difference lies in the fact that Guo Hong'an's diction is closer to the Chinese elegant language and more concise, leaving more room for the reader's imagination. His translation has fewer sub-clauses, a more compact sentence structure and the punctuation is more similar to that of the original French. The translator's personal creation is less reflected in the translation and the translator is more invisible. In contrast, Ya Ding's idiolect is more colloquial and tends to use inflections, adjectives, correlatives, etc. that express emotion and logic. He often brings out the emotions and logic hidden in the original text in the translation, giving the text a more graphic feel, which facilitates the reader's understanding of the emotional content of the original text, but at the same time reduces the reader's scope for imagination. His translations contain many short sentences with a loose sentence structure, which is closer to the form of a prose text. Both in terms of form and content, we can see in the translation that Ya Ding as a translator has played a more creative role.
The content of both translations is based on the original text and is therefore largely the same. In terms of the form of the translation, such as phrase structure, sentence structure, paragraph structure, etc., the two translations differ considerably. As a result of this difference in form, there is also a division in the ideas and emotions conveyed by the two translations. In the analysis of the text Chacun a sa chimère above, we have been able to gain a comprehensive understanding of the two translations from a general perspective. The Guo's translation is rawer and low-emotion in its depiction of the setting and characters, and the oppressive and dreary atmosphere is well shaped by the compact sentence structure and condensed diction. The overall feeling of the Ya Ding's translation is softer. Although the scene is also one of a man being oppressed by a monster, there is a sense of compassion and sadness in the words of the Ya Ding's translation, and his words are emotional, whereas the words in Guo's translation are clearly more emotionless.
Conclusion
The overall language of Le Spleen de Paris is sharp, raw and pitiless, and the atmosphere created is heavy, grey and depressing. Through his depiction of the urban environment and his portrayal of urban characters, Baudelaire satirises and criticises nineteenth-century capitalist society in a direct or indirect way. In such a money-over-money society, everyone pursues pleasure and utilitarianism. The lower classes, alienated by the big machine and mass production, lived a miserable life, exploited by the big capitalists and financiers, deprived of the freedom they were entitled to as human beings, losing their individuality and becoming numb, losing their sense of subjectivity and no longer being able to control their own lives. And the "awakened men" like Baudelaire, the artists and literary scholars, who saw the ills of society but were unable to change them, were forced to submit to the filthy capital. As a result, they are miserable. Like Les Fleurs du mal, Le Spleen de Paris was born in this context.
Guo Hong'an translates Le Spleen de Paris as a prose poem, so his sentence construction is more compact; Adam treats it as prose, so his sentence construction is looser. Combined with the different diction habits of the two authors, Guo's more elegant diction and Adam's more colloquial diction, a clear difference in style emerges between the two translations. The style of Guo's translation is more sombre, unfeeling and sharp, while that of Adam's is relatively softer, emotive and more human.
Liu Miqing's theory of translation style provides an effective and relatively comprehensive way of thinking and perspective for analysing the style of a text from different perspectives, such as content and form, visible and invisible, internal and external, etc. This is undoubtedly very valuable for comparing and analysing the translation styles of the two translations. However, we can see that some of the definitions in this theory are very vague or too detailed, for example, the difference between "lexical symbols" and "register symbols" is not very big, both are related to the use of words, but Liu Miqing insists on dividing them into two kinds of symbols, which makes it impossible to clearly determine the types of formal symbols when using the theory for analysis. This leads to the analysis of different texts that always feels like it is saying the same thing. It is clear that the analysis is done from two different perspectives of words and phrases, but in reality, the analysis yields roughly the same result.
References
[1] 北京大学中国语言学研究中心 Center for Chinese Linguistics of Peking University. 异乡人（古代汉语）［DB/OL］. http://ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_corpus/search?q=%E5%BC%82%E4%B9%A1%E4%BA%BA&start=0&num=50&index=FullIndex&outputFormat=HTML&encoding=UTF-8&maxLeftLength=30&maxRightLength=30&orderStyle=score&LastQuery=&dir=gudai&scopestr=, [2021-11-17]
[2] 北京大学中国语言学研究中心 Center for Chinese Linguistics of Peking University. 陌生人（古代汉语）［DB/OL］. http://ccl.pku.edu.cn:8080/ccl_corpus/search?q=%E9%99%8C%E7%94%9F%E4%BA%BA&start=0&num=50&index=FullIndex&outputFormat=HTML&encoding=UTF-8&maxLeftLength=30&maxRightLength=30&orderStyle=score&LastQuery=&dir=gudai&scopestr=, [2021-11-17]
[3] Liu Mingqing 刘宓庆. 新编当代翻译理论[M] New Contemporary Translation Theory. 北京: 中国对外翻译出版公司 Beijing, China Translation & Publishing Corporation, 2005.
[4] Baudelaire 波德莱尔. 巴黎的忧郁[M] The Melancholy of Paris. Guo Hong'an 郭宏安, 北京: 商务印书馆 Beijing, The Commercial Press, 2018.
[5] Baudelaire 波德莱尔. 巴黎的忧郁[M] The Melancholy of Paris. Ya Ding 亚丁, 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店 Beijing, Sanlian Bookstore, 2004.