A Comparative Study On English Versions Of Three-Character Classic From The Perspective Of Translation Aesthetics

Recent years, the translation of literary classic is becoming a hot topic. As a primer bookas well as an encyclopedia for children, people are still familiar with the contents of this bookafter hundreds of years. The significant role of Three-Character Classic is determined by itsthoughts and its form as a whole. Confucius Institutes are ardently welcomed among theworld, and Three-Character Classic gets to be the textbook in Primary School. All these factsare revealing this phenomenon that Confucianism is gaining more and more emphasis andrespect all over the world. As a result, how to promote the translation of Three-CharacterClassic is an academically significant issue.Translation is a subject that bears the characteristics of both being scientific and artistic,which has a close relationship with aesthetics. When people integrate these two subjectstogether, a new subject is born, namely, translation aesthetics. Translation aesthetics revealsthe relationship between translation and aesthetics, and the specific meaning of aesthetics intranslation. It is the subject that realizes the artistic and scientific characteristics of translationfrom the aspect of aesthetics, puts forward different aesthetic criteria by using aestheticprinciples, and analyzes and solves the aesthetic problems in the process of languageconversion. As a result, for the sake of aesthetic connotations and aesthetic reproduction,researching this book from the perspective of translation aesthetics would provide a newangle of view for researching the English versions of Three-Character Classic, and lay thefoundation of better spreading and exchanging China’s traditional culture.This thesis aims at comparatively studying the three English versions ofThree-Character Classic, discussing the reproduction of aesthetic connotations and emotionsin thoughts, form, rhyme, and rhythm in the original text. The three English versions chosenare academically influential versions, and the translators are in the same age while of differentbackground, which, to a certain degree, enhance the feasibility, comparability, andscientificity in studying. It is found that the three versions are splendid with differenttranslation styles. Since different translators have different understandings on some aestheticconnotations, they may translate differently. In general, Wang’s translation is better than theother two in terms of thoughts, rhyme and rhythm, reproducing aesthetic factors as well asbringing readers an aesthetic feast. The other two versions are both faithful to the original textbut they still need some polish and improvement.