Perspectives

Studies in Translation Theory and Practice

ISSN: 0907-676X (Print) 1747-6623 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20

Intertextuality in retranslation

Huanyao Zhang & Huijuan Ma

To cite this article: Huanyao Zhang & Huijuan Ma (2018): Intertextuality in retranslation,
Perspectives, DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2018.1448875

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1448875

Published online: 02 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmps20
PERSPECTIVES, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1448875

Intertextuality in retranslation
Huanyao Zhang and Huijuan Ma
School of English and International Studies, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A retranslation of a given text can be produced with an awareness of a Received 1 April 2017
pre-existing translation in the same target language. The results are Accepted 1 March 2018
textual similarities and/or differences between the retranslation
KEYWORDS
and its predecessor. These similarities and/or differences attest to a intertextuality in
textual relationship between the two (re)translations. This paper retranslation; retranslation;
refers to this relationship as ‘the intertextual relationship between literary classics; English
(re)translations’ and these textual similarities and differences as translations of ‘Kong yiji’
‘intertextuality in retranslation’ (IR). By comparing three English
versions of a Chinese short story, ‘Kong Yiji’, this paper intends to
shed light via a practical analysis of the intertextual relationship
between (re)translations and display how to identify two types
of IR, i.e. ‘filiation’ and ‘dissidence’, in real texts, particularly
(re)translations of literary classics. The study finds that, despite the
absence of paratexts indicating their extratextual ties, the identified
instances of IR between the three versions of ‘Kong Yiji’ suggest
that the earliest version played an important role in the production
of the later two.

1. Introduction
Studies on intertextuality and translation generally fall into two categories. The first type
includes theoretical approaches that explore how the concept of intertextuality can help to
challenge the notion of equivalence between the source text and its translation (Sakellar-
iou, 2015). The second consists of empirical examinations of how a particular source text is
intertextually related to other texts, and how these intertextual relations are preserved in
the translation. These studies primarily focus on the intertextual relations between the
source text and other texts, as well as on those between the source text and its translation.
The intertextual relations between the translation and other texts, however, have rarely
been studied individually, even though each translation process involves deconstructing
the network of intertextual relations of the source text and reconstructing a new one in
a different environment (Farahzad, 2008; Roux-Faucard, 2006; Sakellariou, 2015). Retran-
slation refers to the ‘situation where there is more than one translation, in the same target
language, of a given source text’ (Chesterman, 2000, p. 22), and one of the most distinctive
features of a retranslated text is its intertextual relations with previous translations.
Intertextual relations between (re)translations in the same target language of a given
text arise due to many circumstances. Apart from being texts of the same genre and

CONTACT Huanyao Zhang francesl_2008@126.com

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 H. ZHANG AND H. MA

originating from the same original, some (re)translations may be more textually related
than others because they are produced in the same time-frame or geographical location,
thereby following similar translation norms. Moreover, two translations can be intimately
related at a textual level when the later version is produced with an awareness of the earlier
one. This phenomenon was first brought to the fore by Hermans in his discussion of
‘translation-specific intertextuality’ (2003, p. 41). Dorothea Martens (2009) further speci-
fied two scenarios: (1) the retranslator consults and draws upon the earlier translation; and
(2) the retranslator reads the earlier version and chooses to work independently from it,
yet is still unconsciously influenced by it. In reality, the situation can be more complicated.
First, there are other agents who can influence the translated text, including the editor and
proofreader. Second, some retranslations have more than one edition available. The
retranslator (or other agent) may respond to previous translations differently in different
editions of his/her retranslation.
Such a phenomenon is likely to occur during the retranslation of canonical works, such
as literary classics. Retranslations are typically commissioned for literary classics (Koski-
nen & Paloposki, 2015). The cultural authority of literary classics also increases pressure
on retranslators (or other agents), who may draw upon established translations to sustain
and strengthen the institutionalized interpretation of the source text (Venuti, 2004), or
review them to avoid similarities (Koskinen & Paloposki, 2010; Taivalkoski-Shilov, 2015).
Regardless of the above, when a retranslation is produced and its retranslator (or other
agent) is aware of any pre-existing translation in the same target language, this results in
textual similarities and/or differences between the retranslation and its predecessor.
Unless proven otherwise, these similarities and/or differences attest to a textual relation-
ship between the two (re)translations. This paper refers to this particular relationship as
‘the intertextual relationship between (re)translations’, and these textual similarities
and/or differences that set them in such a relationship as ‘intertextuality in retranslation’
(hereafter, IR).
Past studies (See Gürçağlar, 2011; Hermans, 2007) have classified this intertextual
relationship into two types: a retranslation that is filial to its predecessor, or one that is
competitive against it. This binary classification fails to accommodate the complexity
and diversity of the phenomenon of retranslation, for the forms of this particular intertex-
tual relationship vary with the number, degree and consistency of instances of IR ident-
ified between the retranslation and its predecessor. Moreover, few empirical studies
have investigated specific examples of this intertextual relationship. This paper attempts
to address these issues by shifting the emphasis from a theoretical taxonomy of this inter-
textual relationship to a study of instances of IR in real cases. In this paper, I refer to the
textual similarities and differences that testify to this relationship as ‘filiation’ and ‘dissi-
dence’, respectively. I then examine them in a textual analysis of three English versions of
‘Kong Yiji’, one of the most renowned short stories by Lu Xun, the founding father of
modern Chinese literature. The three versions include two editions of the English trans-
lation by Yang Xianyi and his wife, Gladys Yang, and one earlier translation by Edgar
Snow and Yao Ke. By revealing instances of IR between the Yangs’ two versions and
that by Snow and Yao, this study aims to shed light on the feasibility of examining the
intertextual relationship between (re)translations in empirical research. It also offers a
fresh perspective on how textual decisions are made for both the retranslations of literary
classics and their re-editions.
 PERSPECTIVES 3

2. Two types of IR: filiation and dissidence

2.1. Earlier notions
As shown below, there is a lack of consistency in terms of the use of concepts in studies on
the textual relationship between (re)translations. In addition to ‘intertextuality’, scholars
use ‘challenge/competition’, ‘haunt’, ‘voice’, and ‘influence’.
The notion of ‘challenge’ was introduced by Deane-Cox (2011, 2014). She used the term
‘retranslation as challenge’ to describe the competition between (re)translations of a given
text, be it the linguistic or hermeneutic differences playing out on the textual level (Deane-
Cox, 2011, 2014). In her analysis of seven English translations of La Mare au Diable,
Deane-Cox discovered a ‘consistent pattern of dissimilarity across the choices made by
the individual (re)translators’ (2014, p. 188); however, she warned that it is unclear
whether this resulted from the (re)translators’ calculated attempts to differentiate them-
selves from each other.
Brownlie (2006) examined another type of textual relationship between (re)transla-
tions. Her study showed that retranslations may resemble earlier ones, with translations
that are counter to the retranslators’ regular styles. She argued that these choices are evi-
dence that later translations refer to previous ones, describing them as ‘past translations
“haunting” present ones’ (p. 165). Taivalkoski-Shilov (2015) compared six Finnish retran-
slations of Robinson Crusoe and referred to similar examples as ‘recirculated voices in
retranslation’ (p. 66). She posited that the voices of previous translators can recirculate
in retranslation, as textual similarities may indicate the literal or effective presence of pre-
vious translations in the new ones.
Neither the notion of challenge (or competition), nor that of recirculated voices reflects
the diversity of textual relationships between (re)translations. When compared with the
aforementioned notions, the notion of ‘influence’ appears to be more inclusive, as influ-
ence can take many forms. Indeed, this textual relationship has also been addressed in
studies of previous translators’ influence on their successors. For instance, Koskinen
and Paloposki (2015) argued that, unless proven otherwise, it is safest to assume that a
retranslator must take a critical position towards his/her predecessor’s work, and that
this would consequently affect his/her work. However, there is a potential problem
lurking behind their study. Koskinen and Paloposki’s research centred on human subjects,
and their conclusion that first translators have an influence on retranslators is based on
both a textual comparison of different (re)translations and an examination of retransla-
tors’ comments on their attitudes towards the first translator. However, paratexts concern-
ing retranslators’ opinions on earlier versions are rarely available. Even when they are
accessible, these paratexts, as Valdeón (2014) observed, can be biased. The claims made
by the retranslators may run counter to the evidence found in textual comparisons.
Intertextuality, in contrast, better lends itself to studies on the textual relationships
between retranslations. Genette defined intertextuality or, as he put it, transtextuality,
as ‘all that sets the text in a relationship, whether obvious or concealed, with other
texts’ (1997, p. 1).1 In this paper, I have defined IR in a similar way. Compared with
the above notions, including ‘challenge’, ‘haunt’, and ‘recirculated voices’, ‘intertextuality’
can better fit the complexity and diversity of the phenomenon of retranslation. The use
of ‘intertextuality’ shifts the study object from these relationships to textual cues that
attest to their presence. These cues are more easily classified at a theoretical level and
4 H. ZHANG AND H. MA

identified in practical analyses. Moreover, when compared with influence studies, studies
on intertextuality ‘evade human subjects in favour of ( … ) text and textuality’ (Allen,
2011, p. 34). In other words, the latter largely depends on evidence from textual analyses,
while the former relies on investigations into the direct links between human agents (i.e.
retranslators, publishers, editors, and so on in the case of retranslation). The focus on
human agents can lead to issues because human beings draw their inspiration from
different sources, consciously or unconsciously, with some acknowledged and some
vehemently denied (Bassnett, 2007).

2.2. Defining two types of IR

Gürçağlar observed two types of intertextual relationships between different translations
of a given text: (1) ‘some translations are based on earlier ones’, and (2) ‘some translations
resist against and challenge the norms of previous translations’ (2011, p. 57). The former
conforms to the ‘recirculated voices in retranslation’ (Taivalkoski-Shilov, 2015, p.66), or
‘past translations haunting present ones’ (Brownlie, 2006, p.165). The latter is consistent
with ‘retranslation as challenge’ as proposed by Deane-Cox (2011, 2014). Hermans pro-
posed a similar taxonomy, ‘friendly filiations’ and ‘hostile stand-offs’, when describing
the ‘intertextual relation that ties one translation to another’ (2007, p. 35). The former
refers to previous translations forming a part of the new translation, while the latter con-
cerns the differences and rivalry between two translations (Hermans, 2007, p. 35).
However, real cases are not confined to the above binary classification. The intertextual
relationships between (re)translations are diverse, as they depend on the number, degree
and consistency of identified instances of IR. The relationship can even be heterogeneous
at specific points. This heterogeneity has been partially addressed by Koskinen and Palo-
poski (2015). Their findings show that Leevi Lehto, a Finnish retranslator of Ulysses, devel-
oped a mixed attitude towards the translator of its first Finnish translation, Pentti
Saarikoski, and this mixed attitude has a textual manifestation. Lehto openly criticized
Saarikoski’s translation and responded to its fallacies via expanded footnotes and under-
scoring of stylistic shifts neglected by Saarikoski’s translation in Lehto’s retranslation.
Despite his harsh criticism, however, Lehto also implicitly inherited bits and pieces of
Saarikoski’s translation.
In sum, the intertextual relationship between (re)translations rejects any prescriptive
taxonomy. Hence, in this paper I focus on instances of IR – i.e. textual similarities and/
or differences attesting to this intertextual relationship – instead of the relationship
itself. I call these textual similarities and differences ‘filiation’ and ‘dissidence’, respectively.
With this shift in emphasis, I facilitate a practical analysis of the intertextual relationship
between (re)translations.
‘Filiation’ refers to textual similarities that reflect a filial stance of one translation
towards another. This can take place in the various layers of the text, for example, at
the lexical, syntactic, semantic, stylistic, narrative level or at the level of the overall trans-
lation strategy. Filiation occurs when the renderings in two translations resemble each
other despite available alternatives and stands out when they are not merely similar,
but differ from renderings of other translations of the same source text. Specifically,
instances of filiation can be found when two translations make the same additions or del-
etions, choose identical words or expressions in translating culture-loaded terms, make
 PERSPECTIVES 5

similar translation errors, handle narrative or stylistic features in the same manner, or
adopt parallel translation strategies.
Conversely, ‘dissidence’ embodies textual differences that indicate one translation is
made to distinguish from or even compete against another. As with filiation, dissidence
can also be identified in the various layers of the text. It occurs when the renderings of
two versions are different from each other in places where similar or identical solutions
are more likely to have been adopted. Specifically, instances of dissidence can be found
when a retranslation avoids solutions adopted by its predecessor, deviates from renderings
that sustain previous versions, deletes the additions by its predecessor or adopts opposing
translation strategies.
The two types of IR can also be identified between a re-edition of the retranslation and
previous translations. The re-edition may contain revisions when compared with the
earlier one. Some of these revisions may result from the reviser’s response to previous
translations. A special scenario in which textual differences make compelling cases of dis-
sidence is when a new edition of a retranslation differs from an earlier translation in places
where the old one resembles it.
IR, as defined here, does not exist in every pair of (re)translations of a given text. Even
when it does exist, it may only concern a small portion of the translated texts, such as a
passage or several sentences. It would be difficult to justify single or occasional instance
(s) of IR, as they can easily be due to coincidence. Therefore, in the textual analysis it is
reasonable for us to focus on frequent instances of IR, or on those that appear in critical
parts of the translations. These renderings are easily noticeable and may have posed par-
ticular challenges for translators.

3. ‘Kong Yiji’ and three English versions for comparison

‘Kong Yiji’ is a short story of less than 2700 words. It is set against the backdrop of a small
town in the early twentieth century, when China was undergoing a transition from feud-
alism to modernity. Its protagonist, Kong Yiji, is a well-educated scholar who resorts to
petty theft after repeatedly failing the civil service exams. This occurs because most of
his knowledge is irrelevant to the modern world. Although it is public knowledge in the
town that he is a thief, Kong pretends that nobody knows he steals. The whole story
takes place in a tavern, Xian Heng, where Kong is mercilessly ridiculed by other customers
and the tavern owner for his pedantic language, theft and self-deception.
The reason I chose ‘Kong Yiji’ is twofold. First, the story is considered a literary classic
both at home and abroad, recognized by Patrick Hanan as ‘one of Lu Xun’s best stories’
(2005, p. 233). Second, of the 34 short stories published by Lu Xun, ‘Kong Yiji’ is one of
those with the largest number of published English translations. It had been translated into
English by at least eight groups of translators from 1930 to 2009 (as shown in Table 1).
The three English versions of ‘Kong Yiji’ used for comparison are an earlier translation
by Snow and Yao and two editions of the translation by the Yangs. These were compara-
tively popular and influential versions among translations published before the 1990s.
Moreover, when viewing these versions side by side, one can identify many remarkable
instances of IR between them that are not found among other English translations of
‘Kong Yiji’.
6 H. ZHANG AND H. MA

Table 1. Published English translations of ‘Kong Yiji’.

Year of first
English Title publication Publisher Publication Translator(s)
‘Con Y Ki’ 1930 George Routledge & The Tragedy of Ah Qui and Other E. H. F. Mills
Sons, Ltd. Modern Chinese Stories
‘Kung I-chi’ 1932 The China Forum China Forum George
Publishing Co. A. Kennedya
‘The Tragedy of 1936 China United Press The People’s Tribune Lin Yijinb
Kung I-chi’
‘K’ung I-chi’ 1936 George G. Harrap & Living China: Modern Chinese short Snow and Yao
Co. Ltd stories
‘K’ung What- for’ 1953 Ranjit Printers & Modern Chinese Stories Huang K’un
Publishers
‘Kung I-chi’ 1954 FLP Selected Stories of Lu Hsun The Yangs
‘Kong Yiji’ 1990 University of Hawaii Diary of a Madman and Other William A. Lyell
Press Stories
‘Kong Yiji’ 2009 Penguin Classics The Real Story of Ah Q and Other Julia Lovell
Tales of China
a
This translation was published under Kennedy’s pen name, Sze Ming-Ting.
b
This translation was published anonymously, but has been ascribed to Lin Yijin. He translated several Lu Xun’s stories into
English, and published them on People’s Tribune from 1935 to 1936.
Note: Only information about their first publications is listed.

Snow and Yao’s translation originally appeared in Living China, ‘the first published
English translation anthology of modern Chinese short stories’ (Xu & Chu, 2015,
p. 179). The translation project was initiated by Snow around 1932. At that time, negative
images of China and Chinese culture, such as opium pipes, prevailed in the West. The
Western public had little interest in contemporary Chinese literature. Snow, an American
journalist, wanted to change the situation by introducing an Anglophone readership to
‘the creative mind of modern China’ (Snow, 1937, p. II). ‘Kong Yiji’, along with several
other stories by Lu Xun, were chosen for their great native influence. Since he knew
‘little Chinese’ (Snow, 1937, p. 14), Snow found some Chinese collaborators to assist
him in the translation. The eight translations of Lu Xun’s works in the book were com-
pleted in cooperation with Yao Ke, who finished the first draft of each text for Snow to
polish and finalize (Snow, 1937).
The translations in Living China are primarily target-oriented, as Snow upholds the
principle of conveying ‘the spirit’, instead of the form, of the source texts (1937, p. 15).
In Snow and Yao’s translation of ‘Kong Yiji’, traces of the translators’ manipulations
can be frequently located at a local level. Repeated phrases are dismissed, and the order
of sentences is occasionally altered. Furthermore, exotic elements in the Chinese original
are emphasized. For instance, some culture-loaded terms are rendered literally, whereas
certain modal particles are not replaced by their English equivalents, but rather their spel-
lings based on the Wade-Giles Romanisation. These solutions reveal Snow’s intention to
highlight the foreign origin of the story, which is in line with his translation purpose.
Snow and Yao’s translation was among the best-known English translations of ‘Kong
Yiji’ prior to the Yangs’. This owes to the pervasive and long-standing positive reputation
of Living China. In addition to being the first English anthology of modern Chinese stories,
the book’s fame can be attributed to Snow’s personal prestige and wide social connections in
both Chinese and Western societies. Its influence in China was so enduring that more than
50 years later, in 1983, a Chinese version of it was published with its peritexts rendered into
Chinese by Xiao Qian, one of China’s most renowned twentieth-century translators.
 PERSPECTIVES 7

Whereas Snow and Yao’s translation emerged from their personal concerns, the Yangs’
translation of Lu Xun’s works was an institutional act arranged by the Foreign Language
Press (FLP). FLP is an official Chinese body founded in 1952, with the mission of translat-
ing a wide range of excellent Chinese books, including Chinese literary classics, into
foreign languages and publishing them overseas. The Yangs were among FLP’s ‘most
famous, long-lasting, and productive translators’ (McDougall, 2011, p. 152). Since
joining FLP in 1953, they had been assigned some of its most prestigious translation pro-
jects. Their translation of Lu Xun’s oeuvre, including his 33 stories, is a typical example.
During this project, Yang Xianyi and a Chinese official, Feng Xuefeng, selected the source
texts, whereas the Yangs finished the translations (Qian & Almberg, 2001).
The Yangs’ translation principle differed dramatically from that held by Snow. While
Snow advocated a target-oriented approach, the Yangs contended that translators
should not tamper with the source texts (Qian & Almberg, 2001). During their collabor-
ation, Yang Xianyi was usually the person to make the final decisions, as he had a better
understanding of Chinese (Qian & Almberg, 2001). In line with their principles, the Yangs’
translations of Lu Xun’s stories are most often noted for their faithfulness to the source
texts among scholars of Chinese studies and translation critics.
There are two different editions of the Yangs’ translation of ‘Kong Yiji’. The first made
its debut in the Selected Stories of Lu Hsun published by FLP in 1954. It was a relatively
crude translation characterized by its unpolished language. This edition had been
reprinted with several minor changes until 1970, when a re-edition was released in
Modern Chinese Stories,2 published by Oxford University Press. The new edition con-
tained so many revisions that it was sometimes referred to as a ‘retranslated’ version
(Gibbs & Li, 1975, p. 108). Indeed, more than 90% of its sentences featured changes,
such as the addition of conjunctions, lexical shifts and adjustments of syntactic structures.
One of the most prominent changes in the new edition was the replacement of the old
Wade-Giles Romanisation with the latest Pinyin Romanisation. As a result, the original
title ‘Kung I-Chi’ became ‘Kong Yiji’. Overall, the second edition distinguishes itself
from the first by its enhanced fluency, refined language and up-to-datedness.
Modern Chinese Stories also contains two other revised versions of Lu Xun’s stories by the
Yangs. These, together with the re-edition of the translation of ‘Kong Yiji’, are credited to
Gladys Yang. However, it is unlikely that Gladys Yang unilaterally initiated these amend-
ments, because many of the Yangs’ translations of Lu Xun’s stories experienced similar revi-
sions after their first publication. Most of these revised editions are scattered in various FLP
publications, with translation credited to both Yangs. A few can be found in two books pub-
lished by the Oxford University Press, Modern Chinese Stories and Silent China: Selected
writings of Lu Xun, both crediting Gladys Yang as the translator. Due to the lack of relevant
paratexts, it is difficult to determine whether the exclusion of Yang Xianyi in the two books
was a strategy used to promote the books overseas, or whether Gladys Yang indeed revised
certain pieces independently. Nevertheless, it is evident from FLP publications that the
Yangs had been systematically amending their early translations.
When translating canonical works such as Lu Xun’s stories, it is natural for retran-
slators to read or refer to previous translations, as two later retranslators, William
A. Lyell (1990) and Julia Lovell (2009), have acknowledged. However, there is no para-
text, to my knowledge, indicating that the Yangs’ translations had any connection with
pre-existing renderings, particularly those of their best-known predecessors, Snow and
8 H. ZHANG AND H. MA

Yao. Details about the Yangs’ retranslation and their subsequent revision are rarely
accessible. The aforementioned publications mention almost nothing about the trans-
lators except for their names. In addition, available interviews with the Yangs provide
little insight into this particular translation project, which is merely one of the hun-
dreds they completed.

4. Textual analysis
In this section, I compare each of the Yangs’ two editions (hereafter, Y1 and Y2) with Snow
and Yao’s translation (hereafter, SY) to show that, despite the absence of paratexts proving
their extratextual ties, they display compelling cases of IR that either appear frequently or
in critical parts of the translations. Y1 and SY are examined for their handling of verbal
indicators of the narrative structure of the first passage, and Y2 and SY for their renderings
of specific words, phrases and sentences. These are places where their instances of IR are
most conspicuous. The other five English translations in Table 13 are used as references for
identifying cases of filiation between Y1 and SY.

4.1. Filiation at the narrative level: Y1 and SY

The content of the story ‘Kong Yiji’ falls into two parts: its first paragraph, which describes
the Xian Heng tavern, and then the ensuing passages, where an I-figure, a former waiter,
begins to tell stories about his many encounters with Kong in the tavern. Unquestionably,
from the second paragraph onwards the story adopts a first-person retrospective narrative.
This is unanimously presented in all seven translations. However, these translations show
clear discrepancies in handling the narrative structure of the first paragraph.
These discrepancies are partly due to the fact that the content of the first paragraph is
set apart from that of the ensuing ones. More importantly, the I-figure in ‘Kong Yiji’, does
not render himself visible until the beginning sentence of the second paragraph: ‘我从十
二岁起，便在镇口的咸亨酒店里当伙计’ (I, from 12 years old on, started to be a waiter
in the Xian Heng Tavern at the edge of town).4 The separation of the content and the
absence of the first-person pronoun, plus the subtlety of other verbal indicators, render
the identities of the narrator and focalizer of the first passage ambivalent between a
first-person narrator-focalizer and an extradiegetic narrator-focalizer.5 In other words,
the story may feature a consistent first-person narrative. Or it may contain two narrative
levels, and its beginning passage is the first narrative with an omniscient third-person nar-
rator-focalizer. Consequently, translators of ‘Kong Yiji’ must decide not only who the nar-
rator and focalizer are, but whether to keep this ambivalence in their translations. The
differences in their interpretation of the first paragraph’s narrative structure are reflected
in their handling of related verbal indicators in the source text. Here, following Genette
(1980),6 Bal (2009) and Rimmon-Kenan (2005), I adopt a distinction between the ques-
tions of who sees and who speaks, and separate my analysis of Y1 and SY’s handling of
these verbal indicators into two parts, narration and focalization.

4.1.1. Narration
As discussed above, one can argue that either the I-narrator is the only narrator through-
out the story, or that the first passage is a preamble, separated from the rest of the story by
 PERSPECTIVES 9

an extradiegetic narrator. There are few clues in the source text to help translators dis-
tinguish between the two choices. One exception is the personal tone in the first para-
graph. It is manifested in the evaluative language in the original, including modal verbs
and adverbs of frequency (bold in the following passages), such as ‘每每’ (always),
‘可以’ (could/might) and ‘大抵’ (generally). The personal tone suggests that this para-
graph is more likely to have been voiced by an I-narrator than an omniscient third-
person narrator, whose language is usually objective and impersonal.
ST:
鲁镇的酒店的格局，是和别处不同的：都是当街一个曲尺形的大柜台，柜里面预备
着热水，可以随时温酒。做工的人，傍午傍晚散了工，每每花四文铜钱，买一碗
酒，——这是二十多年前的事，现在每碗要涨到十文，——靠柜外站着，热热的喝了
休息；倘肯多花一文，便可以买一碟盐煮笋，或者茴香豆，做下酒物了，如果出到
十几文，那就能买一样荤菜，但这些顾客，多是短衣帮，大抵没有这样阔绰。只有
穿长衫的，才踱进店面隔壁的房子里，要酒要菜，慢慢地坐喝。 (Lu, 2003, p. 35)

(The layout of Lu Zhen’s taverns was different from that in other places: invariably there was
a huge bend-ruler shaped counter facing the street, inside the counter hot water was kept
ready, wine could be warmed any time. Working people, when coming off work at
midday and in the evening, always spent four coppers, on a bowl of wine, ——This was
things more than twenty years ago; now each bowl would cost up to ten coppers, ——standing
by the counter, drunk it warm and took a rest. If willing to spend one more copper, might buy
a saucer of salted bamboo shoots, or aniseed-flavoured beans, as wine-escorts, if spent up to a
dozen coppers, then can buy a meat dish, but these customers, most of which belonging to the
short-jacket crowd, generally weren’t so extravagant. Only those wearing long gowns would go
into the adjacent room, order wine and dishes, sit and drink at leisure.)

SY:
The wineshops in Lo Ching differ from those of other districts in China. There is, for
example, invariably a right-angled counter within which hot water is prepared for
warming wine at any time. When released at noon or sunset workers go to these shops for
a bowl of wine – the price twenty years ago was but four cash, though now each bowl
costs ten – and, standing beside the counter, drink the stuff hot, and relax themselves.
One cash will buy a dish of salted bamboo-shoots or spiced beans, for ‘wine-escorts’, and
a little more than ten cash buys a meat dish of some kind; but most of the customers are
of the short-coat class, and seldom have more than few cash. Only the few long-gown
men, who stride past the counter and into the small room adjacent, indulge in both wine
and meat, and sit down to feast at leisure. (Snow, 1937, p. 44)

Y1:
The wine shops in Luchen are not like those in other parts of China. They all have a right-
angled counter facing the street, where hot water is kept on tap for warming wine. When men
come off work at midday and in the evening, they buy a bowl of wine; it cost four cash twenty
years ago, but now it costs ten. Standing beside the counter, they drink it warm, and relax.
Another cash will buy a plate of salted bamboo shoots or spiced beans, to accompany the
wine; while for a dozen cash you can buy a meat dish. But most of these customers
belong to the short-coated class, few of whom can have much money to spare. Only those
in long gowns enter the adjacent room to order wine and dishes, and sit and drink at
leisure. (Yang & Gladys, 1954, p. 31)

Here, Y1 and SY both greatly reduce the evaluative language in the original paragraph,
including ‘每每’ (always), ‘要’(would), ‘肯’ (willing to), ‘才’ (would), and two instances of
‘可以’ (could/might). Consequently, they transform this passage from subjective
10 H. ZHANG AND H. MA

speculation into an objective statement and thereby strengthen the possibility of an extra-
diegetic narrator.
What makes this similarity between Y1 and SY striking is that it is not found in the
other five translations. Most of them not only retain most of the evaluative language in
the original, but also add modal verbs or adverbs of frequency.7 For example, this
occurs in Kennedy’s translation (the added evaluative language is italicized and bold).
Kennedy’s version:
The wine-shops of Lucheng are arranged rather differently from those in other places. They
all consist of a huge L-shaped bar facing on the street, inside of which hot water is kept ready
for warming up the wine. At noon and at night, the laborers coming from work would
invariably stop to spend four cash for a bowl of wine, – that was twenty years ago, and
the price has now risen to ten cash, – and standing up against the bar would imbibe its com-
forting warmth. If one were willing to expend an extra cash, one might have a dish of salted
bamboo shoots or of spiced beans to accompany the wine. If one could afford ten or more
cash, one might have a meat dish. But these customers were all of the short-coated class,
and were very rarely so extravagant. It was only the long-gowned gentlemen who would
step through to the inner adjoining room, order wine and meats and sit down for a leisurely
drink. (Sze, 1932, p. 7)

In comparison with Y1 and SY, Kennedy’s translation stands out in its strong subjec-
tivity created by intermittent evaluative language. For instance, there is a sentence in the
middle of the original passage ‘倘肯多花一文 ( … )’ (both the sentence in the original and
its renderings in each translation are underlined). Its renderings in Y1 and SY read like
formal introductions to the food’s price, but in Kennedy’s version the reader is given a per-
sonal perception of the tavern customers’ behaviours.

4.1.2. Focalization
The focalization in this paragraph is a more complicated matter than its narration. In
addition to determining whether the focalizer is the I-figure or an extradiegetic narra-
tor-focalizer, translators must specify whether it is the vision of the narrating-I who is
an adult outside the story or the experiencing-I (the I as the waiter) who is a child
within it, or a mix of both, when deciding that the focalizer is the I-figure. In accordance
with Rimmon-Kenan’s (2005) taxonomy of the different facets of focalization, I classify the
verbal indicators of focalization in this paragraph into two groups: perceptual and psycho-
logical. The perceptual group indicates the focalizer’s ‘sensory range’, and the psychologi-
cal group reflects the focalizer’s ‘mind and emotion’ (Rimmon-Kenan, 2005, p. 81). It is
through analysing how the two groups of indicators are dealt with in Y1 and SY that
one can uncover the identity of the focalizer in their renderings of this passage.
Tense is a perceptual verbal indicator, as it reveals the temporal perception of the foca-
lizer. In English, a first-person retrospective narrative is characterized by the past tense, for
the focalizer is normally the narrating-I, an older self who witnessed events in the past.
However, Chinese, as a language, lacks tense inflection.
In the middle of the original passage, there is a sentence between the dashes indicative
of its tense: ‘这是二十多年前的事，现在每碗要涨到十文’ (This was things more than
twenty years ago; now each bowl would cost up to ten coppers). The sentence tells us
that, from the angle of the focalizer, what is being discussed in this passage are people
and things from twenty years ago. Hence, the focalizer is more likely to be either the
 PERSPECTIVES 11

narrating-I or an extradiegetic narrator-focalizer, rather than the experiencing-I, the

tavern waiter who is still a child. If one deems that the narrating-I is the focalizer,
and accordingly this paragraph is a first-person retrospective narrative, it is natural to
use the past tense in the translation. However, Y1 and SY, as shown above, both
render the entire passage in the present simple tense. This further disconnects this
passage from the rest of the story, which is rendered in past tense in all seven trans-
lations. The adoption of the present tense indicates that the focalizer in Y1 and SY’s
first passages is most likely to be an extradiegetic narrator-focalizer.
Y1 and SY’s use of the present tense is rather unusual, as none of the other five trans-
lations do likewise. Both Huang and Lovell use the past tense for the entire paragraph in
their translations, highlighting a consistent first-person retrospective narrative throughout
the story. Similarly, in Kennedy’s and Lin’s versions, the past tense is adopted beyond the
opening sentence, ‘鲁镇的酒店的格局，是和别处不同的 ( … )’ (The layout of taverns
in Lu Zhen was different from that in other places). The focalized in this sentence is
the tavern layout in the town, which remains the same in both past and present. Thus,
their use of present simple tense in this sentence is most likely meant to emphasize the
permanence of the tavern layout. Lyell’s version, similar to Y1 and SY, features the
present simple tense throughout the first paragraph. However, it adds a first-person
pronoun in the sentence between the dashes and renders it as ‘I’m talking about the
way it was twenty-odd years ago ( … )’. This addition dispels the ambivalence of the orig-
inal and confirms the narrating-I as the focalizer in the first passage. This is different from
the narrative structure presented in Y1 and SY.
The special kinship between Y1 and SY can also be identified in their renderings of
verbal indicators reflecting the psychological make-up of the focalizer. Usually there are
limits on what a character-focalizer, such as the I-figure in this story, knows, but the
knowledge of an extradiegetic focalizer can be unrestricted.
In this paragraph, the beginning sentence, ‘鲁镇的酒店的格局，是和别处不同的’
(The layout of taverns in Lu Zhen was different from that in other places), reveals that
the focalizer is a person who has travelled to many places and is thereby unlikely to be
the experiencing-I, who is a child. Again, in Y1 and SY, this sentence is rendered in a
similar manner, which differs from that used by the rest (as shown in Table 2). They
add ‘of China’ and ‘in China’, respectively, to modify ‘别处’ (other places). For English
readers, these additions imply that the focalizer is particularly aware that his/her audience
extends beyond Chinese readership, and thereby the focalizer’s cognition is not restricted
to people and things in China. Thus, English readers would easily assume that the focalizer
is an omniscient extradiegetic focalizer. In comparison, in other versions of ‘Kong Yiji’,
three render the sentence literally, whereas the other two replace ‘was different from

Table 2. Renderings of the opening sentence in seven versions.

Kennedy’s The wine-shops of Lucheng are arranged rather differently from those in other places. (Sze, 1932, p.7)
version
Lin’s version In the town of Lu Chen the wine-shops have a peculiar feature all their own. (Lin, 1936, p.119)
SY The wineshops in Lo Ching differ from those of other districts in China. (Snow, 1937, p.44)
Huang’s version The lay-out of the wine-shops in Lu Village was different from that of other places. (Huang, 1953, p.22)
Y1 The wine shops in Luchen are not like those in other parts of China. (Yang & Gladys, 1954, p.31)
Lyell’s version The layout of wineshops in Lu Town is different from that in other places. (Lyell, 1990, p.42)
Lovell’s version The taverns in Luzhen were rather particular in their layout. (Lovell, 2009, p.32)
12 H. ZHANG AND H. MA

that in other places’ with ‘has a peculiar feature all their own’ and ‘was rather particular’,
respectively.
In the rendering of the first paragraph, Y1 and SY resemble each other in reducing the
evaluative language, adopting the present tense and making the same addition to the
opening sentence. None of these similarities are shared by other translations. More impor-
tantly, they consistently confirm two narrative levels in Y1 and SY, with an extradiegetic
third-person narrator-focalizer in their first passages and a first-person narrator-focalizer
in the remaining paragraphs. In contrast, the possibility of two narrative levels is either
ruled out or vaguely retained in the other five translations, as they present the I-narrator
as the sole narrator throughout the story. Based on my earlier definition, these similarities
can be identified as cases of filiation. They testify to a distinctive filial intertextual relation-
ship between Y1 and SY in their rendering of the first paragraph, whose narrative structure
is the most ambiguous in the story.

4.2. Dissidence at the linguistic level: Y2 and SY

Though the revisions in Y2 appear mainly aimed at refining its language, and enhancing
its fluency and up-to-datedness, a close consideration of these changes uncovers an inter-
esting pattern. Most of the similar lexical choices, expressions and sentences shared by Y1
and SY were either removed or minimized in Y2.
In terms of words and expressions, the pattern can be traced in their renderings of some
culture-loaded terms in the source text (as shown in Table 3). These terms concern either
people or objects specific to Chinese culture. They are rendered into similar or identical
words and expressions in Y1 and SY, but have been revised for Y2.
Similar situations can be found in translations of relatively common expressions. Two
examples are the following:

(1) ST: 热热的喝了休息 (drunk it warm and took a rest) (Lu, 2003, p.35)
SY: drink the stuff hot, and relax themselves. (Snow, 1937, p.44)
Y1: they drink it warm, and relax. (Yang & Gladys, 1954, p.31)
Y2: and drink this warm ( … ), taking it easy. (Jenner, 1972, p.14)

(2) ST: 孔乙己睁大眼睛说 (Kong Yiji widened eyes, saying) (Lu, 2003, p.37)
SY: he asked, opening his eyes very wide. (Snow, 1937, p.45)
Y1: he would ask, opening his eyes wide. (Yang & Gladys, 1954, p.32)
Y2: Kong Yiji would ask, raising his eyebrows. (Jenner, 1972, p.16)

Table 3. Renderings of culture-loaded terms in three versions.

SY Y1 Y2
曲尺形的大柜台 (a huge bend-ruler a right-angled a right-angled a bar in the shape of a
shaped counter) counter counter carpenter’s square
茴香豆 (aniseed-flavoured beans) spiced beans spiced beans peas-flavoured with aniseed
铜钱 (copper money) cash cash copper
隔壁的房子 (the adjacent room) the small room the adjacent room the inner room
adjacent
伙计 (waiter) waiter waiter pot-boy
掌柜 (shop owner) shopkeeper tavern keeper boss
温酒 (warm wine) warm wine warm wine warm rice wine
 PERSPECTIVES 13

Perhaps this phenomenon is most evident at the sentence level; it can be traced in the
following examples:

(3) ST: 教人活泼不得 (making people impossible to be cheerful) (Lu, 2003, p.37)
SY: and ordinarily it was impossible to be gay. (Snow, 1937, p.45)
Y1: so that it was impossible to be gay. (Yang & Gladys, 1954, p.32)
Y2: which made the atmosphere a gloomy one. (Jenner, 1972, p.15)

(4) ST: 到中秋可是没有说 (Until Mid-Autumn Festival, did not mention it)
(Lu, 2003, p.47)
SY: In the autumn he did not mention it. (Snow, 1937, p.50)
Y1: But when the Mid-Autumn Festival came, he did not mention it.
(Yang & Gladys, 1954, p.37)
Y2: But when the Mid-Autumn Festival arrived he was silent on the subject,
(Jenner, 1972, p.19)

(5) ST: 只有穿长衫的, 才踱进 … (Only those wearing long gowns, would go into …)
(Lu, 2003, p.35)
SY: Only the few long-gown men, who stride past the counter and into ( … )
(Snow, 1937, p.44)
Y1: Only those in long gowns enter ( … ) (Yang & Gladys, 1954, p.31)
Y2: As for those in long gowns, they go into ( … ) (Jenner, 1972, p.14)

In the five examples above, many of the correspondences between Y1 and SY are close
to the original. This supports the argument that the revisions in Y2 are made to reduce the
literalness found in Y1. In other words, these revisions are not targeted at SY, but rather at
the source text. However, there are contradictory instances in Y1, in which the renderings
that resemble those in SY and are not close to the original are revised in Y2. Please see the
following examples:

(6) ST: 品行却比别人都好 (Behaviour, though, was always better than others)
(Lu, 2003, p.39)
SY: his behaviour was always exemplary. (Snow, 1937, p.46)
Y1: his behaviour was exemplary. (Yang & Gladys, 1954, p.33)
Y2: though, he was a model customer. (Jenner, 1972, p.16)

(7) ST: 君子固穷 （Jun zi is steadfast in poverty) (Lu, 2003, p.39)

SY: The perfect man is content with poverty. (Snow, 1937, p.46)
Y1: The perfect man is content with poverty. (Yang & Gladys, 1954, p.33)
Y2: A gentleman keeps his integrity even in poverty. (Jenner, 1972, p.16)

(8) ST: 鲁镇的酒店的格局，是和别处不同的 (The layout of Lu Zhen’s taverns was

different from that in other places) (Lu, 2003, p.35)
SY: The wineshops in Lo Ching differ from those of other districts in China.
(Snow, 1937, p.44)
14 H. ZHANG AND H. MA

Y1: The wine shops in Luchen are not like those in other parts of China.
(Yang & Gladys, 1954, p.31)
Y2: The layout of Luzhen’s taverns is unique. (Jenner, 1972, p.14)

(9) ST: 因为他姓孔，别人便从描红纸上的‘上大人孔乙己’这半懂不懂的话里，替他

取下一个绰号，叫作孔乙己。(Because his surname was Kong, other people from
the characters ‘Shang Da Ren Kong Yi Ji’, which were half intelligible and half not,
in the copybook, helped him pick a nickname, called him Kong Yiji.)
(Lu, 2003, p.37)
SY: Omission (Snow, 1937, p.45)
Y1: Omission (Yang & Gladys, 1954, p.32)
Y2: And as his surname was Kong, he was given the nickname Kong Yiji from Kong,
yi, ji, the first three characters in the old-fashioned children’s copybook.
(Jenner, 1972, p.15)

The original sentence in example (7) is a quotation in classical Chinese from Confu-
cius’s Analects. It appears in Kong’s speech, indicating his pedantry. Equally noticeable
are the last two examples in which Y2 reverses the same addition and deletion shared
by Y1 and SY.
Altogether there are 41 cases where the similarities between Y1 and SY are removed in
Y2. The number is not large when one considers that more than 90% of the sentences in
Y1 have been revised in Y2. However, it becomes meaningful when compared with the
limited amount of similarities between Y1 and SY. These 41 examples are consistent in
proving that Y2 had been made to distinguish from SY, with their shared lexical
choices, expressions and sentences removed. According to my earlier definition, they
can be deemed as instances of dissidence, although the dissidence they manifest is mild,
in which distinction, rather than antagonism, has been expressed.
It would be over-ambitious to conclude that Gladys Yang revised Y1 in order to differ-
entiate it from SY, as there are revisions in Y2 that appear to come from other consider-
ations. However, these cases of dissidence, given their frequency and consistency, show a
high likelihood that in her revision, for whatever reasons, Gladys Yang desired to deliber-
ately depart from SY.
It is notable that some of the above examples, similar to identified cases of filiation in
the previous section, attest to an unusual kinship between SY and Y1. For instance, the
identification between Y1 and SY in example (7) is quite striking. The original quotation
in this example can easily lead to different readings and renderings. The rendering shared
by the two differs from both those in the other five translations and those in existing trans-
lations of the Analects. In example (9), Y1, despite being a translation best-known for its
faithfulness, resembles SY by cutting an important sentence in the source text that tells
readers the story behind the protagonist’s nickname. This is not done in other translations.
These two examples and a few more can be identified as cases of filiation between Y1 and
SY at the linguistic level. They further confirm the extratextual ties between Y1 and SY.
However, considering that instances of filiation only appear in certain prominent pos-
itions in these two versions, one reasonable explanation is that the Yangs had read SY
before their translation, with some parts of it subconsciously influencing their interpret-
ation and translation of the original text.
 PERSPECTIVES 15

5. Conclusion
This study finds that: (1) there are salient instances of filiation between Y1 and SY in
their handling of both verbal indicators of the narrative structure in the opening para-
graph and certain sentences in the ensuing passages; and (2) between Y2 and SY, there
are frequent instances of dissidence, in which the similar or identical words, expressions
and sentences shared by Y1 and SY were retranslated in Y2. Despite the absence of para-
texts proving that the Yangs had referred to SY before or during their retranslation, these
identified cases of IR, given their consistency, prominence and/or abundance, attest to
distinctive intertextual relationships between Y1 and Y2 vis-à-vis SY. They strongly
suggest that SY, the most notable predecessor, played an important role in both the
Yangs’ retranslation of ‘Kong Yiji’ and their subsequent revision. Meanwhile, they
also reveal that the Yangs responded to SY differently in the two editions of their
retranslation.
It is worth noting that the extratextual ties between retranslations and their predeces-
sors – i.e. a retranslator’s (or other agent’s) reading of, borrowing from or competitiveness
towards earlier versions – may be connected to larger contextual factors, such as sociocul-
tural norms, readership and publisher, among other things. This is because the retransla-
tors (or other agents) are often working under multiple forces. For instance, in order to
avoid copyright conflicts, publishers may require their commissioned retranslators to
differentiate their own works from pre-existing translations of the same source texts. As
far as the retranslation of literary classics is concerned, these extratextual ties are particu-
larly important. They can facilitate the retranslation processes of these literary works and
diversify their end products. The inheritance and imitation of past translations ensures the
continuation of good practices, while the competitive reaction against them helps to
inspire retranslators’ creativity and release the source texts’ boundless potential.
This paper only addresses instances of IR identified at a narrative and linguistic level. IR
can also be identified in the rendering of stylistic features of the source text, as well as the
translation strategies adopted by different translators. Moreover, dissidence and filiation
may coexist between two translations of a given text. It is hoped that this study will
attract further academic efforts in these unexplored areas.

Notes
1. The original work, Palimpsestes. La littérature au second degré, was published by Seuil in
1982.
2. Its book editor, W. J. F. Jenner (who was an FLP-employed translator in the 1960s), claims
that the English translations of three stories of Lu Xun in this book are printed from FLP
publications. However, I failed to find the re-edition in any FLP publication before the
1980 edition of Lu Xun Selected Works.
3. The ‘Con Y Ki’ by E. H. F. Mills is not used for comparison, as it is a relay translation.
4. In this paper, all English translations in the parentheses are my own literal translations pro-
vided to give readers first-hand access to the originals.
5. This term was coined by Genette (1980).
6. The original work, Discours du récit, was published by Seuil in 1972.
7. The number of modal verbs and adverbs of frequency in other translations ranges from six
to 10.
16 H. ZHANG AND H. MA

Acknowledgments
We are indebted to Prof. Theo Hermans for his valuable suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.
Sincere thanks also goes to the journal's editors and anonymous referees, whose insightful com-
ments helped to improve this paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research is supported by Chinese National Social Sciences Fund Project [grant number
13BYY041], Fundamental Research Fund for the Central Universities [grant number
2013XG002], the Young Faculty Research Fund of Beijing Foreign Studies University [grant
number 2016JT004], and the Science Foundation of Beijing Language and Culture University
[grant number 15YBB20].

Notes on contributors
Huanyao Zhang is a Ph.D. candidate in translation studies at the School of English and Inter-
national Studies, Beijing Foreign Studies University. Her research interests include literary trans-
lation and translation theory.
Huijuan Ma is a professor in translation studies at the School of English and International Studies,
Beijing Foreign Studies University. Her areas of research are translation history, translation teach-
ing, and literary translation.

References
Allen, G. (2011). Intertextuality. London: Routledge.
Bal, M. (2009). Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
Bassnett, S. (2007). Influence and intertextuality: A reappraisal. Forum for Modern Language
Studies, 43(2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/fmls/cqm004
Brownlie, S. (2006). Narrative theory and retranslation theory. Across Languages and Cultures, 7(2),
145–170. doi:10.1556/Acr.7.2006.2.1
Chesterman, A. (2000). A causal model for translation studies. In M. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural
faultlines: Research models in translation studies I: Textual and cognitive aspects (pp. 15–27).
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Deane-Cox, S. (2011). Confronting the retranslation hypothesis: Flaubert and Sand in the British lit-
erary system (PhD). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
Deane-Cox, S. (2014). Retranslation: Translation, literature and reinterpretation. London, New
Delhi, New York, and Sydney: Bloomsbury.
Farahzad, F. (2008). Translation as an intertextual practice. Perspective: Studies in Translation
Theory and Practice, 16(3), 125–131. doi:10.1080/090767608025 47462
Genette, G. (1980). Narrative discourse: An essay in method. (J. E. Lewin & J. Culler, Trans.). Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University.
Genette, G. (1997). Palimpsests: Literature in the second degree. (C. Newman & C. Doubinsky,
Trans.). Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.
Gibbs, D. A., & Li, Y. C. (1975). A bibliography of studies and translations of modern Chinese lit-
erature 1918–1942 中國現代文學目錄. Cambridge, MA: East Asian Research Center,
Harvard University.
 PERSPECTIVES 17

Gürçağlar, Ş. T. (2011). Gulliver travels in Turkey: Retranslation and intertextuality. In L. Weldy

(Ed.), Crossing textual boundaries in international children’s literature (pp. 44–58). Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hanan, P. (2005). Chinese fiction of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Hermans, T. (2003). Translation, equivalence and intertextuality. Wasafiri, 18(40), 39–41. doi:10.
1080/02690050308589868
Hermans, T. (2007). The conference of the tongues. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Huang, K. (1953). Kung what-for. In K. M. Panikkar (Ed.), Modern Chinese stories (pp. 22–31).
Delhi: Ranjit Printers & Publishers.
Jenner, W. J. F. (1972). Modern Chinese stories selected and edited by W. J. F. Jenner. London,
Oxford, and New York: Oxford University Press.
Koskinen, K., & Paloposki, O. (2010). Retranslation. In Y. Gambier & L. V. Doorslaer (Eds.),
Handbook of translation studies (pp. 294–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Koskinen, K., & Paloposki, O. (2015). Anxieties of influence: The voice of the first translator in
retranslation. Target, 27(1), 25–39. doi:10.1075/target.27.1.01kos
Lin, Y. J. (1936). The tragedy of K’ung I-chi. The People’s Tribune, XIII(2), 119–124.
Lovell, J. (2009). The real story of Ah-Q and other tales of China: The complete fiction of Lu Xun.
London: Penguin Classics.
Lu, X. (2003). The new-year sacrifice and other stories 祝福及其他. Hong Kong: The Chinese
University Press.
Lyell, W. A. (1990). Diary of a madman and other stories. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Martens, D. (2009). Intertextuality in translation: Modelling the textual relationships in translation
(PhD). University College London, London.
McDougall, B. S. (2011). Translation zones in modern China: Authoritarian command versus gift
exchanges. Amherst: Cambria Press.
Qian, D. X., & Almberg, E. S-P. (2001). Interview with Yang Xianyi. Translation Review, 62(1), 17–
25. doi:10.1080/07374836.2001.10523795
Rimmon-Kenan, S. (2005). Narrative fiction: Contemporary poetics (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Roux-Faucard, G. (2006). Intertextualité et traduction. Meta: Journal des Traducteurs, 51(1), 98–
118. doi:10.7202/012996.
Sakellariou, P. (2015). The appropriation of the concept of intertextuality for translation-theoretic
purposes. Translation Studies, 8(1), 35–47. doi:10.1080/14781700.2014.943677
Snow, E. (Eds.). (1937). Living China: Modern Chinese short stories. London, Bombay, and Sydney:
George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd.
Sze, M. T. (1932, May 21). Kung I-chi. The China Forum, p. 7.
Taivalkoski-Shilov, K. (2015). Friday in Finnish: A character’s and (re)translators’ voices in six
Finnish retranslations of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. Target, 27(1), 58–74. doi:10.1075/
target.27.1.03tai
Valdeón, R. A. (2014). The 1992 English retranslation of Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las
Indias. Translation Studies, 7(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/14781700.2013.788904
Venuti, L. (2004). Retranslations: The creation of value. Bucknell Review, 47(1), 25–38.
Xu, M. H., & Chu, C. Y. (2015). Translators’ professional habitus and the adjacent discipline: The
case of Edgar Snow. Target, 27(2), 173–191. doi:10.1075/target.27.2.01xu
Yang, X. Y., & Gladys, Y. (1954). Selected stories of Lu Hsun. Peking: Foreign Language Press.