Individual ideology is another important factor that has an impact on the quality of translation. The translator’s subjectivity manifests their active role in concreting the blanks and spots of indeterminacy due to their own horizons of expectation.(Peng Xueli, 2012) Therefore, Shi Xianrong preferred foreignization-oriented strategy, while Sun Zhongxu adopted domestication-oriented strategy.(Wang Xiaolei, 2008) However, their choices of translation strategy has their own advantages and shortcomings. Shi Xianrong’s version is sometimes hard for Chinese readers to understand due to the cultural differences, although it was faithful to the original. Sun Zhongxu’s version lost some implied meanings and special style of the original due to reinterpretation, although it was close to Chinese expression.
1.2.1.3 Specific Aspects of Language
Language in the novel is a feature of the novel. Holden Caulfield, the sixteen-year-old protagonist, is special in his language, due to his age, his personality and his living surroundings. His words were full of slang, profanity, pet phrases and affixing language. Besides, he used his own rules of grammar in narration, whichwas improper. And he preferred exaggeration and other rhetorical devices in daily talks. Holden’s language is so special that it is hard for translators to translate his words. Therefore, many researches have been on the contrastive analysis on different versions of the novel. Three translators in Iran,Gholam Abbas Zavari, Maryam Pourgalavi and Habibollah Mashhady(2013), focused on slang translation of the novel. However, it was not from English to Chinese, but from English to Persian. They chose Mohammad Najafi’s version(2010) and Ahmad Najafi’s version(2010) for a contrastive study and took Venuti’s model as a theoretical basis. They wanted to find how slang words and phrases were translated in idiolects and they reached a conclusion that “ slang words are expressions cannot be translated word by word because they are culture-specific and should be translated in such a way to be accepted to the target readers.(Gholam Abbas Zavari, Maryam Pourgalavi and Habibollah Mashhady, 2013)
Some researches drew their attention on the vulgar language translation. Zheng Na(2014) analyzed Sun Zhongxu’s translation of the novel from the perspective of “Faithfulness, Expressiveness, Closeness”. She found that his version obeyed these three principles. Zhang Xiaolin and Wang Aihua(2009) were also interested in the profanity translation. They adopted Shi Xianrong’s and Sun zhongxu’s versions for a contrastive study and counted how many times classical Chinese profanities were used in these two versions on the basis of the corpus base. They summarized that classical Chinese profanities were used more times in Sun Zhongxu’s version than in Shi xianrong’s version. And they analyzed that the reasons for the phenomenon was that the translator’s ideology and the main social ideology influenced with each other. However, the above researches focused on the analysis of the reasons for such translation differences. None of them had systematic studies on the differences of different versions of the vulgar language. As we all know, vulgar language translation is different from the word level, the phrase level to the sentence level. A vulgar word has a meaning, but the meaning may change in a sentence. Therefore, vulgar language is context-related and culture-related. Vulgar language translation is worth deep and systematic research.
1.2.1.4 Theoretical Basis
When analyzing the translation of the novel, different researchers have adopted different theories. Many preferred Andre Lefevere’s Manipulating theory. In Andre Lefevere’s mind, translation was a process of reinterpretation. (Gegensubuda, 2012) The effect of translation was up to the translator’s ability of reinterpretation, which was influenced by national ideology, patronage ideology and individual ideology.(Zhao Xiangbo, 2006) Foreignization and Domestication is another theory often seen in researches. Foreignization requires faithfulness to the original, while Domestication needs closeness to the target readers. Many previous readers concluded that Shi’s version obeyed Foreignization, while Sun’s version belonged to Domestication. Nida’s Functional Equivalence is also a commonly used theory. Nida(2004) believed translation was mainly to translate meaning, including semantic meaning and communication meaning. Dynamic equivalence required that the target readers’ reaction to the translation was equal to the original readers’ reaction to the original.(Nida, 2004) He Qiang(2008), according to Nida’s Functional Equivalence, made a research into the translation of the novel, from four aspects, including literal equivalence, stylish equivalence, passage equivalence and rhetorical equivalence. Bai Zhongxi(2010) devoted to finding out a proper translation strategy. He analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of Grisafulli’s eclectic methodology, Lambert and Van Grop’s procedure theory, from original statistics to systematic context, as well as Andre Lefevere’s Manipulating Theory and put forward his own translation theory. And he used the two Chinese versions of The catcher in the Rye to prove the effectiveness and feasibility of his translation theory. 《麦田里的守望者》粗俗语翻译比较(4):http://www.751com.cn/yingyu/lunwen_589.html