接受美学角度下儿童文学翻译的对比研究-以《秘密花园》为例（英语论文）

ComparativeStudyontheTranslationofChildren’sLiteraturefromtheReceptionAestheticsACaseStudyofTheSecretGardenABSTRACTAsaspecialliterarygenre,children’sliteraturehasitsowncharacteristics.Duetotheparticularityandimportanceofitstargetaudience,itstextsrequirespecialattention.Thisthesisisbasedonthereceptionaesthetictheory,thisthesisconductsacomparativeanalysisoftheChinesetranslationsofTheSecretGardenbyZhangJianpingandLiWenjunfromtheperspectivesoflexical,syntactic,rhetoric.ItexplorestheapplicationofreceptionaestheticstheoryinthetranslationofthetwoChineseversionsofTheSecretGarden,examineswhichtranslationismoreinlinewithreaders’cognitionandaestheticsandunderstandhowtousethistheorytoeffectivelyconveytheessenceoftheoriginalworkofTheSecretGarden,sothatthetranslationcanbetterretainchildlikefunandconformtoreaders’cognition.TheresultsshowthatLiWenjunhasuniqueadvantagesintheuseofreduplicatedwords,onomatopoeiaandotherwords,withaccurateandeleganttranslation,faithfultotheoriginalstyleandrelativelyslowrhythm.ZhangJianping’stranslationwordsaresimplerandtendtousebasicwords,includingsimplesentences,shortsentencesandliteraltranslation.Thesignificanceandvalueofthispaperlieinusingthereceptionaesthetictheorytobetterunderstandchildrenreaders’horizonsofexpectation,aestheticneeds,andacceptancecapabilities,analyzingtheapplicationofthereceptionaesthetictheoryinthetranslationofchildren’sliterature,andprovidingatheoreticalbasisandpracticalguidanceforimprovingthequalityofchildren’sliteraturetranslation.Keywords:receptionaesthetics;children’sliterature;TheSecretGarden接受美学角度下儿童文学翻译的对比研究——以《秘密花园》为例摘要作为一种特殊的文学体裁，儿童文学有其自身的特点。由于其目标受众的特性和重要性，其文本需要特别关注。本文以接受美学理论为基础，从词汇，句子，修辞的角度，对张建平和李文俊分别翻译的《秘密花园》的中文译本进行了比较分析，探讨了接受美学理论在《秘密花园》两个中译本翻译中的应用，并研究哪个翻译译本更符合读者的认知和审美，了解如何利用这一理论有效地传达《秘密花园》原作的精髓，从而更好地使翻译保留童趣符合读者认知。研究结果表明，李文俊在叠词，拟声词和儿化词等词汇运用方面独具优势，译笔精准典雅，忠实原作风格，节奏相对舒缓；而张建平的翻译用词更为简单，更倾向于使用基础，常见的词汇，多使用简单句，短句和直译。本文的意义和价值在于利用接受美学理论更好地理解儿童读者的期待视野、审美需求和接受能力，分析接受美学理论在儿童文学翻译中的应用，为提高儿童文学翻译质量提供理论依据和实践指导。关键词：接受美学；儿童文学；《秘密花园》ContentsTOC\o"1-3"\h\u110717.Introduction 1182382.LiteratureReview 3257443.TheoreticalFrameworkofReceptionAesthetics 5285193.1TheOriginandDevelopmentofReceptionAesthetics 574083.2MainConceptsinReceptionAesthetics 517513.2.1StatusandRoleofReaders 570533.2.2HorizonofExpectation 6103323.2.3IndeterminacyoftheText 767994.AComparativeStudyontheTwoChineseVersionsofTheSecretGarden 8234724.1ComparisonStudyattheLexicalLevel 8140474.1.1OnomatopoeicWords 8267884.1.2ReduplicatedWords 9263854.1.3Culture-LoadedWords 11292924.2ComparisonStudyattheSyntacticLevel 1239604.2.1InterrogativeSentences 122254.2.2LongSentences 1468534.2.3ExclamatorySentences 1536564.3ComparisonStudyofRhetoric 1774514.3.1Personification 17263354.3.2Metaphor 18314734.3.3Hyperbole 19282085.Conclusion 2132390Bibliography 227462Acknowledgments 24IntroductionTheSecretGardenisaclassicchildren’sliteratureworkcreatedbytheBritishwriterFrancesHodgsonBurnett.Ittellsastoryaboutgrowth,friendship,andthehealingpowerofnature,presentingreaderswithaharmoniousrelationshipbetweenhumanityandnature.Throughpicturesquelandscapedescriptionsandprofoundcharacterportrayals,theauthorhighlightstheinfinitemagicofnatureandalsoshowcasestheinnocenceofchildhood(Yuan,2017).FromthedatapublishedinvariousjournalsonCNKIoverthepastdecade,thereareveryfewthesisonthetranslationofchildren’sliterature.Althoughchildren’sliteraturetranslationhasgraduallyreceivedmoreattentioninrecentyears,therearerelativelyfewtranslationarticlesfocusingonchildren’sreadability.“Theclassicalprosestyleanddisloyaltytotheoriginalworksmadetranslatedversionsunsuitableforchildren”(Zhu,2000:114).Specifically,translatorsshouldpayattentiontothereadabilityofthetextandadoptacomparativeanalysismethodtoexaminetheoptimizationoftheoriginaltextandthetranslatedtextfrommultipleperspectives.ThepurposeofthisthesisistoanalyzetwoChinesetranslationsofTheSecretGardenundertheguidanceofthereceptionaesthetictheory,verifytheapplicabilityofthistheoryinthetranslationofchildren’sliterature,conductanin-depthstudyofchildren’sliteratureworks,andunderstandhowtomakethetranslationofchildren’sliteraturemoreinlinewithchildren’scognition,facilitatingtheirreadingandcomprehension.Ultimately,thereceptionaesthetictheoryprovidesacomprehensiveapproachtoensuremoreaccurateandculturally-adaptabletranslations,betterretainingtheliterarystyleandemotionsoftheoriginalworkwhileguaranteeingthereadabilityofchildren’sliterature.However,mostscholarsanalyzethelanguageandcontentofchildren’sliteraturefromtheperspectivesoftranslationtechniquesandliteraltranslation,andonlyafewscholarsanalyzechildren’sliteraturefromthereaders’perspective.Therefore,itisnecessarytoconductanin-depthstudyofthetranslationofchildren’sliteraturefromtheperspectiveofthereceptionaesthetictheory.ThisthesisinnovativelyappliesthereceptionaesthetictheorytoconductacomparativeanalysisofthetwoChinesetranslationsofTheSecretGarden.Illustrateshowtousethereceptionaesthetictheorytobetterunderstandthehorizonsofexpectation,aestheticneeds,andacceptancecapabilitiesofchildreaders,ensurethatchildreadershaveabetterunderstandingofChineseandforeigncultures,thusrealizingtheexchangeanddisseminationofchildren’scultureandpromotingtheunderstandingandintegrationofdifferentcultures.Thisthesisisstructuredasfollows.Chapter1analyzesthebackground,methodsandresearchsignificanceofthisthesis.Chapter2introducestheresearchstatusofchildren’sliterature.Chapter3willprovideacomprehensiveoverviewofreceptionaesthetics,includingitskeyconcepts,development,anditsapplicationintranslationstudies.Chapter4willbethecoreofthisstudy,wheredifferenttranslationsofTheSecretGardenwillbeanalyzedandcomparedfromtheaspectsofvocabulary,sentencestructure,culturalelements,andstyle,allinthelightofreceptionaesthetics.Finally,Chapter5willsummarizethemainfindingsofthisresearch,discusstheimplicationsforchildren’sliteraturetranslation.2.LiteratureReviewThetranslationofchildren’sliteraturehasgainedincreasingattentioninrecentyears.Thisliteraturereviewfocusesonthecomparativestudyofchildren’sliteraturetranslationfromtheperspectiveofreceptionaesthetics,takingTheSecretGardenasanexample.Itaimstosummarizepreviousresearch,identifyresearchgaps,andproposedirectionsforfuturestudy.Intheearlydays,foreignresearchonchildren’sliteraturetranslationwasmainlygroundedindiscourse,ideologyandprinciplesinchildren’stranslation.Nikolajeva’sTranslatingChildren’sLiterature(Nikolajeva,2016)startingfromcognitivecriticism,investigatereaders’cognitiveandemotionalengagementwithliterature.JanVanCoillie,JackMcMartin’sChildren’sLiteratureinTranslation:TextsandContexts(Jan&Jack,2020)challengesthecommonusageofthenotionofculturaltranslation.Itisarguedthateverytranslationstemsfromanongoingdialoguebetweenatleasttwoculturalsystemsandresultsfromcontinuoustensionsbetweentherequirementsofthesourceandtargetsystems.Incomparisonwiththeircounterpartinthewest,thestudiesmadebyChinesescholarstakeonitsownfeatures.Scholarsanalyzedthetranslationqualityfromaspectssuchasfaithfulnesstotheoriginaltextandtheuseoftranslationtechniques.LiuFang’sTranslationofChildren’sLiteratureGuidedbyReceptionAestheticTheory(Liu,2014)discussestheguidingsignificanceofreceptionaesthetictheoryforthetranslationofchildren’sliteratureworks.Itholdsthatdomesticationandforeignization,astwotranslationmethods,caneffectivelyimplementtheessenceofreceptionaesthetictheoryinaspectssuchasthelanguageandculturalimagesofchildren’sliterature.LiWenna’sRe-presentationofChildishInterest:ReflectionsontheEssenceofChildren’sLiteratureTranslation(Li,2022)pointsoutthattheaestheticandphilosophicalmeaningsarethebasisforunderstandingtheconceptofchildishinterestinchildren’sliteraturebysortingouttheconnotationsofthere-presentationofchildishinterestindifferentdiscussioncategories.LiJialuandZhaoYan’sAPracticalStudyontheTranslationofEnglishandAmericanChildren’sLiteraturefromthePerspectiveofDomesticationandForeignization-ACaseStudyofLuBinSun’sFloatingLife(Li&Zhao,2025),basedonthetwotranslationmodesofdomesticationandforeignization,thisthesisexploresthetranslationpracticeofEnglishandAmericanchildren’sliteraturebytakingLuBinandSunPiaoliuasanexample.Tosumup,therearefewstudiesonchildren’sliteraturetranslationandtheuseofreceptionaestheticstheoryofTheSecretGardenindomesticresearch,andthereisalackofrelevantliteraturetoanalyzeandstudythiswork.Foreignresearchcontinuestopayattentiontothetranslationofchildren’sliterature,butstayinthetranslationofitstextanddiscourse.Therefore,thisthesiswillconductacomparativestudyandanalysisofthetwoChinesetranslationsofTheSecretGardenfromtheperspectiveofreceptionaestheticstheory,withtheaimtoexploretheinfluenceofreceptionaestheticstheoryonthetranslationofchildren’sliterature.3.TheoreticalFrameworkofReceptionAestheticsReceptionaestheticsrepresentsapivotalshiftinliterarytheory,emerginginthelate20thcentury.Departingfromtraditionaltext-and-author-enteredapproaches,itplacesthereaderattheforefrontofliteraryanalysis,positingthatthemeaningofaliteraryworkisco-createdduringtheactofreading.3.1TheOriginandDevelopmentofReceptionAestheticsReceptionaestheticsemergedinthe1960sinGermany.Itwasareactionagainstthetraditionalformalismandstructuralisminliterarystudies.ThemainrepresentativesofreceptionaestheticsincludeHans-RobertJaussandWolfgangIser.Jaussproposedtheconceptof“horizonofexpectation”inhisessay“LiteraryHistoryasaChallengetoLiteraryTheory,”whichemphasizedthatreaders’pre-understandingandexpectationsplayacrucialroleintheirinterpretationofliteraryworks.Iser,ontheotherhand,focusedonthe“indeterminacyofthetext”andthe“impliedreader,”arguingthatthegapsandblanksinthetextallowreaderstoactivelyparticipateinthemeaning-makingprocess.Sinceitsemergence,receptionaestheticshashadaprofoundimpactonvariousfields.Inthefieldoftranslation,ithaschangedthetraditionalviewthattranslationissimplyaprocessoftransferringmeaningfromonelanguagetoanother.Instead,itemphasizesthattranslationshouldtakeintoaccounttheexpectationsandreactionsofthetarget-audience.3.2MainConceptsinReceptionAesthetics3.2.1StatusandRoleofReadersThecharacteristicofreceptionaestheticstheoryisthecorepositionofreadersinreading.Scholarsofthistheoryattachgreatimportancetotheparticipationofreadersinthereadingprocess,andshiftthefocusofliteraryresearchfromtheauthortothereader(Yang,1986).Receptionaestheticsshifteditsfocustoreadersandtheirreadingpractices,therebysignificantlytransformingtraditionalresearchmethodologiesandopeningupnewconceptualframeworksandintellectualfrontiersinthefieldsofliteratureandaesthetics.Receptionaccordingtoaesthetics,readingtransformsliterarytextsintoliteraryworks;theycouldn’texistwithoutreaders.Thestudyofliteratureincludeswriters,works,andreadersratherthanbeingmerelyawriter’screativeendeavor(Cao,2009).Inreceptionaesthetics,readersarenotpassiverecipientsofliteraryworksbutactiveparticipantsinthemeaning-constructionprocess.Thereadingexperienceofdifferentreadersmayvarygreatlyduetotheirdifferentbackgrounds,knowledge,andexpectations.Forchildreaders,theirlimitedlanguageandcognitiveabilities,aswellastheirvividimaginationandstrongcuriosity,makethemaspecialgroup.Whentranslatingchildren’sliterature,translatorsneedtoconsiderthesecharacteristics.3.2.2HorizonofExpectationThe“HorizonofExpectation”theoryisthefoundationandkeyofthetheory.Jaussintroducedakeyideaknownasthe“horizonofexpectations”(HoE),althoughhedoesnotprovideaprecisedefinitionofit.Bresslerclaimsthatthephrase“horizonofexpectations”referstobothanypotentialissueswiththereadingprocessaswellasthereaders’sappreciationandstandardfortheliteratureasdecidedbytheirpriorexperiences,interests,andaspirations.Readersareunabletointerpretnewreadingswithoutpriorinformationandcomprehension,oftenknownasthe“horizonofexpectations”(Klitgrd,2009).Also,the“horizonofexpectations”isnotfixed;itshiftsfromtimetotimeandfrompersontoperson.ChinesescholarZhuLiyuan,however,putsforwardbasedonJauss’sideathattherearefoursignificantperspectivesthatneedtobetakenintoconsiderationwhileanalyzinghorizonofexpectation:thefirstoneisthereader’sworldviewandoutlookonlife;thesecondoneisthereader’sgeneralculturalbackground;thethirdoneistheaestheticandartisticattainmentsandthefourthoneisthereader’sliterarycompetence.Inshort,thehorizonofexpectationisrelatedtoareader’spsychology,moralsentiment,aesthetictasteandreceptivecompetencethatarebasedonhispastreadingandsocialexperience3.2.3IndeterminacyoftheTextIseremphasizedtheinteractionbetweenthereaderandthetext.Iser(1980)proposedthattherearetwopolesinliteraryworks,thatis,theartisticpoleandtheaestheticpole.Thetextisconsideredastheartisticpolewhichcontainsindeterminacythatneedstobedeterminedbytheaestheticpole-thereader.RomanIngardendefinesindeterminacyinadifferentway.He(1973)maintainedthattheuncertainpartoftheobjectthatisnotentirelydeterminedbythetextistheplaceofindeterminacy.Inanotherword,partofthemeaningofatextisnotdeterminedbythetextitselfbutbythereader.Indeterminacyreferstothepartthatisnotactuallywrittenornotclearlywritteninthetext.Thosepartsarewhatthewrittenpartsofthetextpromptorsuggesttothereader(Zhu,1989).Therearemainlyfivekindsofindeterminacyinliterarytexts:semanticindeterminacy,syntacticindeterminacy,structuralindeterminacy,readingmotivationindeterminacyandartisticconceptionindeterminacy(Jing,1991).Theindeterminaciesofthetextcomposeits“appealingstructure”,whichmobilizesreaderstofillupthegapsandblanksinthetextsoastoconstantlyexciteandmodifytheirhorizonofexpectations.Thisprocessisconsideredastherealizationorconcretizationofthetext.AccordingtoIser(1980),itishardtoexhaustivelyestablishtheplacesofindeterminacyoftheobjectsdepictedinworkwithlimitedwords,phrasesorsentences.Therefore,itisfairtosaythatthemeaningsofaliteraryworkaretosomeextentinfinite.Thelifeofaliteraryworkcanberenewedbydifferentreadersduetotheexistenceofindeterminacy.ComparativeStudyontheTwoChineseVersionsofTheSecretGardenThischapteristhemainpartofthewholetext.ThemainpurposeofthischapteristomakeacomparativeanalysisofthetwoChineseversionsfromtheperspectiveofthetheoryofacceptanceaesthetics:vocabulary,sentences,rhetoricalstyleandculture.Thisthesisaimstoverifytheapplicabilityofthetheoryofreceptiveaestheticsinthetranslationofchildren’sliterature.4.1ComparisonStudyattheLexicalLevelChildrenandadultsareinstatesofexistencewithgreatdifferencesinlife,andtheyhavecompletelydifferentculturalforms(Xu,2014).Therefore,whentranslatingchildren’sliterature,itisnecessarytoadheretoachild-centeredapproach,whichisalsorelatedtothereader-centeredperspectiveinreceptionaesthetics.1Theresponseofchildreadersdependstoalargeextentonthechoiceofvocabulary.Ifthetranslationchoicesareappropriate,theycanappreciatethetext.Thispartwillcomparethetranslationsofculture-loadedwords,onomatopoeia,andreduplicatedwords,andevaluatewhethertheirtranslationsconformtotheprinciplesofreceptionaestheticstheory.4.1.1OnomatopoeicWordsOnomatopoeiaisexpressiverhetoricaldevicesinChinesethatcanenhancethelanguage’simagery,rhythm,andinfectiousness.Onomatopoeicwordsusevocabularythatimitatesthesoundsofnatureorhumanactivitiestorecreaterealscenes,createatmospheres,andmakearticlesmoreinteresting.IntheChinesetranslationofTheSecretGarden,onomatopoeiaiscommonlyused.However,sinceonomatopoeicwordsinChineseandEnglisharenotalwaysidentical,itcanposeachallengingtaskfortranslatorstodealwiththem.Example1:ST:“……thereweredelicateslicesofsizzling……”(Burnett,2018:179)TT:“……一片片煎得发出咝咝声的……”(Li,2015:803)TT:“……滚烫的银罩子下飘出滋滋作响的……”(Zhang,2015:895)Analysis:LiWenjun’s“咝咝声”usesastandardonomatopoeicword,whichpreciselycorrespondstothephysicalsoundeffectoftheEnglishoriginal“sizzling”,constructinganobjectiveandneutralauditoryframework.Thistranslationstrategyreservesalargespaceforimaginationforreaders,whichisinlinewiththe“blankpoint”theoryemphasizedbyreceptionaesthetics,requiringreaderstofillintheauditoryimagesthroughtheirpersonalexperiences.However,ZhangJianping’s“滋滋作响”strengthensthetextureofthesoundeffectthroughthereduplicatedword“滋滋”,andthetwocharacters“作响”formadynamicextension,enablingtheauditoryimagestopenetrateintothefieldsoftasteandvision,activelyfillinginthetextualblanksandformingamulti-sensorysynestheticexperience.Example2:ST:……thewindwas“wuthering”……(Burnett,2018:88)TT:……风在……“咆哮”不已。(Li,2015:386)TT:……狂风在……呼啸。(Zhang,2015:440)Analysis:LiWenjun’stranslationusestheonomatopoeia“咆哮”,whichbreaksthroughchildrenreaders’conventionalexpectationsofwindsoundsandformsanewhorizonofexpectations.ZhangJianping’stranslationadoptstheconventionalonomatopoeia“呼啸”,whichaccuratelycorrespondstochildrenreaders’establishedcognitiveschemasofstrongwinds.Thischoicecaterstoreaders’pre-understandingbutreducesthetext’sinterpretivespace.Whiledemonstratingdistinctlexicalpreferencesintheirrenditions,bothtranslatorssuccessfullycapturenotmerelytheacousticvolumebutalsothekineticenergyandprimalintensityembeddedinthewind’smovement.Bothuseonomatopoeia,makingthearticleeasierforchildreaderstounderstandandinlinewiththeircognitivelevel.4.1.2ReduplicatedWordsSincechildrenhaveasmallvocabulary,theymayshrinkfromcomplexandpolysemyexpressions.Therefore,considerthereader’sexpectationsandidentifythefamiliarwords.Inthisway,thetranslationcanmakethechildrenunderstandmoreeasilyandclearly,andimprovetheirinterest.Thispartstartswithreduplicatedwords,andmorespokenwordsareusedinthetranslation,whichareoftenusedinchildren’sdailylife.Example3:ST:Sheheardsomethingrustlingonthematting(Burnett,2018:7)TT:她听见有样东西在地席上发出沙沙声(Li,2015:19)TT:她听见地席上有窸窸窣窣的声音(Zhang,2015:30)Analysis:InZhangJianping’stranslationversion,thereduplicatedword“窸窸窣窣”canbettersimulatethesubtleandcontinuoussound,whichisinlinewithchildren’simaginationofmysteriousandnovelscenesandquiteconformstotheirhorizonofexpectation.Incontrast,theexpression“发出沙沙声”inLiWenjun’stranslationversionisrelativelyordinary.However,itiseasierforchildrentounderstand.Throughthevividreduplicatedword“窸窸窣窣”,ZhangJianping’stranslationversionshortenstheaestheticdistancebetweenreadersandthetext.Readerscanmoreeasilyimmersethemselvesintheatmospherecreatedbythetextandseemtohearthesoundofthelittlesnakecrawlingasiftheywereonthescene.WhileduetotherelativelyplainwordchoiceinLiWenjun’stranslationversion,itincreasestheaestheticdistancebetweenreadersandthetexttoacertainextent,thusexpandingthespaceforreaders’associationandimagination.Example4:ST:Sowhenshewasasickly……littlebaby……(Burnett,2018:4)TT:因此，当玛丽是襁褓中一个病病歪歪……的小毛头时(Li,2015:7)TT:所以，当玛丽是个爱生病……婴儿时(Zhang,2015:16)Analysis:InLiWenjun’stranslation,theuseofthebisyllabicreduplication“病病歪歪”generatesadynamicrhythm,simulatingthecontinuityofasickandweakstate.Thereduplicationleavesblanks.InZhangJianping’stranslation,“爱生病”:Thebehavioralcharacteristicsareemphasizedthroughtheparallelismofmodalverbs,butitlacksphoneticimagery.LiWenjun’stranslationconstructsamulti-levelcallstructurethroughtheartofreduplication,invitingreaderstocarryoutaestheticrecreationinthephoneticgamesandsemanticblanks.Ontheotherhand,ZhangJianping’stranslationisguidedbyclarity.Bymakingthesemanticstransparent,itreducesthedifficultyofacceptance.4.1.3Culture-LoadedWordsCulture-loadedwordsrefertothosewordsorexpressionsthatcarryspecificculturalconnotationsandhaveuniquemeaningswithinoneculture,butmayhavenodirectequivalentsorbedifficulttounderstandinanotherculture.Inthetranslationofchildren’sliterature,thehandlingofculture-loadedwordsisparticularlycrucial.Thisisbecausechildrenreadershaverelativelylimitedknowledgereservesandculturalcomprehensionabilities.Therefore,whendealingwithculture-loadedwordsinthetranslationofchildren’sliterature,itisnecessarytoadoptsimpleandeasy-to-understandmethodsasmuchaspossible,enablingchildrentoacceptandunderstandthemeffortlessly,andavoidusingoverlycomplexexplanationsorannotations.Example5:ST:……ifyouarefulltothebrimwith……andoatcakesandbunsandheatherhoneyandclottedcream.(Burnett,2018:182)TT:在肚子里塞满了……燕麦饼﹑小圆面包﹑石楠花蜜和凝结奶油的情况下……(Li,2015:815)TT:要是你吃饱了……燕麦饼和面包以及蜂蜜和浓缩奶油……(Zhang,2015:907)Analysis:Intheoriginaltext,theauthorlists“buns”,“oatcakes”,“heatherhoney”and“clottedcream”alltypicalanddistinctivetoBritishorAmericancultures.ThesearenotonlytraditionalwesternfoodsbutalsohouseholdnamesinChinesecuisinetoday.Intheirtranslations,bothLiandZhangoptfordirectdescriptions,ensuringclaritywhilepreservingtheoriginaltext’selegance.Literaltranslationofthesefoodnamescanbringwesternfoodculturetothereaders.Atthesametime,itisbeneficialforchildreaderstounderstandtheoriginaltextandpromotesculturalexchangesbetweenChinaandforeigncountries.Example6:ST:“Amoremarred-looking……”……(MarredisaYorkshirewordandmeansspoiledandpettish.)(Burnett,2018:12)TT:“……更显得没治……。”……她说的“没治”是约克郡方言，意思是“惯坏了的、脾气乖戾的”。(Li,2015:44)TT:“……更marred[1]的……，”……(Zhang,2015:57)脚注：[1]marred是约克郡话，意思是被宠坏的和任性的。Analysis:Theuseofdialectsintheoriginaltexttrulyinjectsnewvitalityintotheentirenovel.SincethesedialectsarealreadychallengingforordinaryEnglishreaderstograsp,theyareaccompaniedbyEnglishannotationsinbrackets.Forchildreaders,understandingthesedialectswouldbeevenmoredifficultwithoutsuchbracketedexplanations.Therefore,itisessentialtoclarifytheoriginandmeaningofthesewordsforyoungreadersunfamiliarwiththem.Intranslation,eitherdetailedexplanationsareprovidedinfootnotesorthemeaningsaredirectlyincorporatedintothetext.Asaresult,theculturalessenceofthesedialectsiswell-preservedinbothversions.4.2ComparisonStudyattheSyntacticLevelAccordingtotheprincipleofreceptionaestheticsappliedtochildren’sliterature,translatorsshouldpayattentiontotheuseoflongsentences,interrogativesentencesandexclamatorysentencesatthesyntacticlevel.WhentranslatingEnglishsentencescomposedofpresentparticiple,attributiveclausesandtemporaladverbialclauses,thetranslatorshouldpayattentiontothesyntacticdifferencesbetweenEnglishandChinese.DividinglongsentencesintoseveralappropriateshortsentencesinChinesewillsolvereadingdisordersforyoungreadersandenhancetheirinterestinreading.4.2.1InterrogativeSentencesChildrenhaveastrongsenseofcuriosity.Interrogativesentencesintheoriginaltextcanarouseyoungreaders’thinkingandpromptthemtoactivelyengageinthestory.Whentranslating,itisnecessarytopreservethisinterrogativetonesothatyoungreaderswillbemotivatedtofindtheanswers.Throughtheinterrogativesentencesusedbythecharacters,theirpersonalitytraitscanberevealed,enablingreadersofthetranslatedversiontofeeltheindividualityofthecharacters.Example7:ST:Isitsoverybad?Oh,isit?(Burnett,2018:5)TT:真的是这么糟糕吗？哦，真的是吗？(Li,2015:13)TT:情况真的这么糟吗？哦，是真的吗？(Zhang,2015:22)Analysis:ThetranslationofthequestionsinLiWenjun’sversion,whichisconciseandclear,maymeettheexpectationsofchildrenwithacertainlevelofliteraryaccomplishmentoradultreadersregardingthelanguageconcisenessandlogicalityofliteraryworks.However,formostchildreaders,thiskindofexpressionmayseemratherplainandlackfun.InZhangJianping’stranslation,theuseoftheword“情况”makesthesentencemorecontextual.Theword“糟”isalsomorecolloquial,makingiteasierforchildrentounderstand.Thisreflectstheconcernforthestatusofchildreadersandtakesintoaccountchildren’slanguagehabitsandcomprehensionabilities.Sincetheword“情况”ismentioned,itwillleadchildreaderstothinkaboutwhatthespecificsituationislike,thusformingtheirownimaginationandunderstandingintheirminds,andleavingacertainamountoftextualblankforchildreaderstofill.Example8:ST:“WhywasIforgotten?”Marysaid,stampingherfoot.“Whydoesnobodycome?”(Burnett,2018:7)TT:“为什么把我给忘了？”玛丽说，一边跺着脚，“为什么谁都不来找我？”(Li,2015:25)TT:“我为什么被忘掉呢？”玛丽跺着脚说。“为什么一个人也不来呀？”(Zhang,2015:34)Analysis:TheexpressionofthequestionsinLiWenjun’stranslationismoreinline