A Report on the Translation of “alternatives to Uniformity”

...

Appendix 2: The Translation 26

---------------------------------------------------------------

A Translation Project Report of “Alternatives to Uniformity”

Introduction

The source text of this translation project, Chapter II of Run School Run, is written by Roland S. Barth, a senior expert in primary education, who has years of experience as a primary school principal and as a consultant to state departments of education and businesses in the United States. The book illustrates the central problems in American education and then puts forward analyses and personal suggestions from multi angles. In Chapter II, the author first introduces, with quite a few examples, three major approaches adopted by American education system to achieve diversity in elementary education. Then he spots the shortcomings of each form and summarizes their shared problems. At last, he puts forward his own opinion about what schools should do to attain the goal, and delineates in detail how to do.

The following two points will demonstrate the significance of this translation project of Run School Run. Firstly, the translation of this book can throw light on the system of American primary education for Chinese readers and facilitate the comparative studies between Chinese and American educational systems. Primary education is the first stage of compulsory education. Elementary education satisfies the special needs of children during the first few years of their schooling life. “Primary education has specific goals that make it a critical component of an educational system as a whole.”1 As America has the most advanced elementary education system, an insight into it and the comparative studies between the both sides’ systems will provide Chinese readers great reference value. Secondly, this translation project will hopefully enlighten Chinese educators by offering the examples and experience of American school system. Chapter two of the book introduces the major approaches adopted by American schools to achieve diversity in education and then spots the problems of each form. Having noticed the mistakes they have made, our educators may examine our way of running schools to see if we have similar faults. Also, for Chinese practitioners, “the text should translate into a deepened sense of pride in their profession and a renewed vigor in carrying out their work.”2

This translation project, completed in Sichuan International Studies University, lasts for more than five weeks, during which the translator has gone through several steps to bring about a satisfactory translation, including the selection and reading of the source text, search of background information, translation and text modification with the assistance of the supervisor.

Apart from introduction and conclusion, this report mainly consists of two chapters. The first chapter is the analysis of the original text, including background of authors and lexical, syntactic and textual styles of the original text. The second chapter illustrates difficulties in translation and discusses with abundant examples the principles and strategies applied to the translation.

I. Analysis of the Original Text

A. About the Author

Roland Barth is a writer, consultant, school principal, former HGSE (Harvard Graduate School of Education) faculty member, but foremost he is a highly experienced educator. Apart from a former teacher and principal, Barth is also the founder of The Principals' Center, a professional development program based at HGSE for school principals, assistant principals, and other school leaders. 3

Over the last four decades, Barth's work has exerted considerable impact on educators from around the world. He continues to do so through the many books he has authored including Open Education and the American School, Improving Schools from Within, Run School Run, Lessons Learned, and Learning by Heart.

B. About the Style of the Source Text

The original text belongs to argumentative essays, or simply argumentation. In most cases, the argumentative essay is one that objectively states an argument that it then backs up with facts, statistics, and expert evidence.4

1. Lexical Features

On the lexical level, a significant feature of the text is the abundant use of logical connectives. It’s necessary for an argumentative essay to be cohesive and logically rigorous, so the author applies a large number of logical connectives to his writing. For example:

Alternative schools have serious limitations, however: people are drawn to alternative schools because they share an educational philosophy. But as soon as a decision has to be made---about a chewing-gum policy or a reporting system---the assumed compatibility vanishes, and the conflicts so typical of most schools reappear, to the astonishment and dismay of the participants.5

In the example above, a lot of logical connectives are adopted, such as “however”, “because”, “but” and “as soon as”, making the expressions grammatically and logically correct.

2. Textual Features

On the lexical level, the thesis is developed progressively, as propositions lead to a logical conclusion at the end of the text. Here are some examples: “Some systems are providing alternative schools within a district.”6, “A second response to pressures for diversity… within a school.”7 and “I should like to suggest a third way… but by alternative people.”8

As the topic sentences of the three parts of the essay, these three sentences show the train of the author’s thoughts as well as a gradual process of the essay’s development.

II. Analysis of the Translation Practice

A. Difficulties in Translations

For this argumentative writing, the first obstacle lying ahead of me is the understanding of the source text. Metaphors and esoteric words are frequently applied by the author, which brings difficulties to the interpreting of the text. Thus the translator must seek help from online electronic dictionary. Besides, it requires repeated reading and analysis to attain an accurate comprehension.

Another challenge is the lack of relative background knowledge. American elementary education, the key words of the original text, is alien to the translator. In this case, it becomes necessary