Fusion Of Horizons: Comparative Analysis Of Three Chinese Translations Of Hamlet

This thesis examines three translations of Hamlet—Gu Zhengkun's,Bian Zhiling's and Zhu Shenghao's,adopting methods of text comparison and description based on Hans-Georg Gadamer's fusion of horizons principle in Hermeneutics.This paper explores three horizons and two fusions by diachronically analyzing three translations of Hamlet.Horizons have great influences on fusions,this thesis studied fusions in these three translations and also the impacts of prejudice on translation.It also illustrates why a text has so many translations and why there are adaptions,insufficient translations and misinterpretations in translations.Three horizons were studied including horizons of the original text,horizons of translators and that of readers of TT.Hamlet is much related to Christianity,and its language in blank verse employed many rhetoric devices.Additionally,three translators living in different periods have their distinctive prejudice.It's the same case of readers of TT,whose horizons include different degrees of tolerance for obscenities,knowledge about western culture as well as expectations of the play.After two fusions,translations show their distinctive features,the conclusions are as the followings.Historical understanding determined their choice of literary forms,bawdy language,details in translations and horizons of readers of target text.Bian successfully found an equal verse form in Chinese,Gu suggested to borrow a form from ancient Song lyrics and Yuan drama to translate blank verse,but Zhu translated it in prose.Bian and Zhu purified bawdy and sexual language in Hamlet,while Gu kept most of the contents.In addition,Zhu did not have as many detailed annotations as Bian and Gu had.Three translators adopted different methods to translate culture-bearing words after making prejudgments of horizons of their readers,and Bian gave more detailed information.Prejudice affects the effects of fusions,in the translation of rhetorical devices such as puns,repetition and metaphors,Bian and Gu did much better than Zhu on the whole,but Gu ignored many repetitions.In translations of allusions,Bian advocated foreignization,but Zhu and Gu maintained domestication.When horizons of a text are in conflict with horizons of readers,adaptions and misunderstandings could happen,which can be found in translation of religious words.In translations of titles of characters,Gu's language could cause conflicts in image shaping among his readers.