Vol.14(2), pp.

27-32, April-June 2023

DOI: 10.5897/IJEL2023.1569
Article Number: 783903770647
ISSN 2141-2626
Copyright © 2023 International Journal of English and
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/IJEL Literature

Review

Translation style: A systemic functional perspective

De-quan ZHAO and Qian CHEN*
College of Foreign Languages, Zhengzhou University of Science and Technology, China.
Received 24 February, 2023; Accepted 11 April, 2023

Translation serves as an effective bridge connecting multiple cultures and provides convenience for
people from different countries to understand foreign cultures. This article aims to analyze the essence
of literal translation and free translation from the perspective of systemic functional linguistics. It
argues that translation activities need to start from the characteristics of the source language and the
requirements of the target language, and select different translation methods based on different text
styles. This approach can improve the efficiency of translation work, provide strong guidance for
translation practice, promote the dissemination of various cultures, and make certain contributions to
the development of foreign language specialties.

Key words: Free translation, literal translation, functional perspective.

INTRODUCTION

Literal translation and free translation have been of the free school of Chinese interpreters, whereas
discussed hundreds of years all over the world. Even till Dao'an looks to be literal and rigid. Yan Fu supported
today the dispute on this issue has not come to an end. hermeneutic translation in contemporary China, whereas
Those who are in favor of literal translation argue that Lu Xun preferred a clumsy version to one that was open
some original rhetoric and exotic style may be preserved but inexact.
through literal translation. They maintain that free This paper, regardless of historical dispute between the
translation expresses only the basic concept of the literal and free translation, will first reveal the nature of
original, while the vibrant rhetoric of the original is lost. these two translation methods from functional linguistic
On the contrary, those who advocate free translation point of view, and then put forward some suggestions for
think that free translation is the only feasible translation translation practice. Based on the characteristics of this
method. They firmly believe that translation is an art. article, linguistic methods, pragmatic methods, and
This debate has a lengthy history, with passionate empirical research methods were used for the study.
advocates on both sides. For example, early Western Through the investigation of linguistic knowledge, the
academics such as Erasmus, Augustine, and others language phenomena and rules in translation were
advocated exact translation. Kumarajiva is regarded to be explored. Meanwhile, by combining the analysis of

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: 13253311122.

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
28 Int. J. English Lit.

context and pragmatic rules, the meaning and expression leads to a question: what is the difference embodied in
methods to be conveyed in translation were studied, that translation when translation environment varies from the
is, the selection of translation methods. Finally, this article largest to smallest?
will choose translation examples for analysis, in order to For a long time, translation techniques have been
study the translator's choices of translation strategies and characterized as falling somewhere between the
methods during the translation process. extremes of literal and free. It is relatively simple to
characterize these translation techniques, or strategies,
for a stratified linguistic theory, such as Systemic
NATURE OF LITERAL AND FREE TRANSLATION Functional Linguistics, as the retention of characteristics
and patterns on various language levels (Catford, 1965).
Matthiessen (2001:74) states a general guideline for the There are three clear levels at which characteristics and
relationship between sensitivity and translation: the more patterns can be preserved: lexicogrammar, semantic
information accessible to direct the translation, the more grammar, and register. Preservation on the first would
delicate the translation. He also claims that there is a stipulate a relatively precise translation, while
typological principle at work: the larger the environment. preservation on the last would define a relatively free
Environment here alludes to the size and breadth to translation. The exact interpretations are based on high
which the translator decides to encompass in his delicacy (specific groups of units), whereas the free
translation. The wider the environment, the more versions are based on low delicacy. In terms of the rank
consistent the languages are likely to be; the smaller the scale within lexicogrammar, preserving characteristics
environment, the more incongruent the languages are and structures on lower ranks, such as the morpheme,
likely to be (Matthiessen, 2001:75). results in relatively exact translations, whereas
According to Halliday (1994:15), a language is a preserving them on higher ranks results in relatively free
complicated semiotic system made of numerous layers, translations. Consider the following translations:
or strata, and the rank scale in the English lexicogrammar
is: clause-group/phrase-word-morpheme. Thus, the
1. 中国是个社会主义国家，也是个发展中国家。
sentence, the most comprehensive element of grammar,
(Translated by Wang Fuxiang)
has the broadest rank environment, while the morpheme
China is a socialist country, and a developing country,
has the narrowest rank environment. As a result, the
too.
sentence has the broadest rank context of translation
2. I‘m getting chilled to the bone. What can Freddy be
rather than the morpheme or the word.
doing all this time?
And, technically speaking, the broadest translation
environment is that of system rather than structure; for 冻死我了。弗莱蒂这半天是干什么去了？(Translated by
example, there are likely to be fewer translation Yang Xianyi)
disparities between two languages' clause systems than 3. The days are in the yellow leaf,
between their clause structures. The most general The flowers and fruits of love are gone,
environment is the broadest, while the most sensitive The worm, the canker, and the grief
environment is the smallest. As a result, the most delicate Are mine alone.
translation setting is that of the most broad language 年华黄叶秋, 花实落悠悠。
systems-such as the general mood systems of 多情徒自苦, 残泪带愁流。(By an anonymous translator)
‗indicate/imperative‘, ‗declarative/interrogative‘. It is to be
anticipated that as the level of delicacy rises, so will the The literal degree decreases from 1 to 3. Translation 1
translation variations. preserves the features of words of the source language.
With the principle mentioned above, Matthiessen is Translation 2 pursues equivalence on the level of clause.
commenting on the relationship from macroscopical point It adapts to Chinese in lexicogrammar scale so as to get
of view. He points out the ideal state of translation angle: an interpersonal equivalence. Translation 3 only
from the maximal environment. Theoretically, it is preserves the image of the original poem. It abandons
reasonable because the larger the environment is, the the corresponding elements and pursues equivalence
more information the translation will cover. But this neither in level of lexicogrammar or in the semantic, but
arouses another question: the more information for in environment of register.
translation, the more difficult the task will be. So in Table 1 illustrates the nature of free and literal
practice, translators do not necessarily choose the largest translation in a systemic point of view:
environment for their translation. On the contrary,
translators usually unconsciously choose the possible
smallest environment. That is to say, they will Environment and nature of literal and free translation
automatically consider their task from the possibly
highest delicacy of language. The translators usually The conventional distinction between "free" and "literal"
intend to focus their attention on lexicogrammar, if not translation is defined by levels of stratification, position,
morpheme, for the first step for consideration. This again and axis. The more "literal" the translation—for example,
 Chen and Zhao 29

Table 1. Illustrates the nature of free and literal translation.

Stratification Rank Axis

Context clause system System system Free
Semantics group/phrase
Lexicogrammar word
Phonology morpheme structureStructure
structure
Literal
Source: Author

word for word translation (rather than clause-based the meanings of the work can be projected.
translation)—the smaller the environment; the bigger the
environment, the more "free" the translation. The meaning produced by de-automatization must be
In theory, "free" translation is arguably the most brought out in translation. The bind to the wordings must
efficient type of translation. However, independence be "liberated" to some degree, and particular attention
varies in degree. As a result, we must consider how must be given to a broader environment in order to carry
liberated we are in our rendering. out some more meaning potential. The more the
translator's focus shifts from a smaller to a broader world,
the more free the translation may be. This is most likely
AUTOMATIZATION AND DE-AUTOMATIZATION to occur in literary translation; even the level of sound
may be de-automatized in poem translation. That is,
If the translation is "free," the translation environment is poetry translation sometimes contains more ‗free‘
as broad as possible, such as semantics within context or elements (Qinghua, 2002:421):
even just context, as when the source material to be
translated instantiates a register not found in the target 登鹳雀楼
language and it becomes necessary to try to find the
王焕之
nearest culturally equivalent context. This is not to say
that there is no translation in smaller areas. Rather, it 白日依山尽，黄河入海流。
implies that translation within more limited contexts is 欲穷千里目，更上一层楼。
automated. Halliday (1982:135) describes automatization
as follows in relation to his study of dramatic dialogue:
―language is likely to be fully automatized, with the words An ascent to stork hall
and structures and sounds being there in their automatic
function of realizing the semantic selections in an The setting sun behind the mountains glows,
unmarked way –getting on with expressing meanings The muddy Yellow River seawards flows.
without parading themselves in pattern of their own‖. If more distant views are what you desire,
Thus, words are translated as realizations of meanings, You simply climb up a story higher.
and sounds are translated as interpretations of words. In (Translated by Yu Zhongjie)
other words, the unmarked method of choices typically
occur among the greater sensitivity or lower rank in the
language system---within relatively marrow environment, On the stork tower
which results in relatively literal translation.
The sun beyond the mountains glows;
However, there are some translation situations where the The Yellow River seawards flows.
translation must be de-autamatized. Halliday (1982: 135) You can enjoy a grander sight
adopts the term: By climbing to a greater height.
(Translated by Xu Yuanchong)
The term ―de-automatization‖, though cumbersome,
is more apt than ―foregrounding‖, since what is
question is not simply prominence but rather the Upward!
partial freeing of the lower level systems from the
control of semantics so that they become domains of Westward the sun, ending the day‘s journey in a slow
choice in their own right. The de-automatization of descent behind the mountains.
the grammar means that grammatical choices are Eastward the Yellow River, emptying into the sea.
not simply determined from above: there is selection To look beyond, unto the farthest horizon, upward! up
as well as pre-selection. Hence the wording becomes another storey!
a quasi-independent semiotic mode through which (Translated by Weng Xianliang)
30 Int. J. English Lit.

Obviously, the three editions of the same poem‘s As stated in Section 2 and 3, literal translation closely
translation have different environments for their related to higher delicacy of linguistic items. And since
translation. And strictly speaking, none of them can be ideational elements contain the most delicate ones from
labeled as ―literal translation‖, because all of them have morphemes and wordings to phrases and clauses, literal
built their own poetic features by de-automatization. But translation is essentially realized through the preservation
the extents to which they ―de-automatized‖ are not same. of ideational elements, namely: Process, Participants and
Compared with the other two, translation (1) bases more Circumstances. For example:
on the original lexical and clausal structures and thus is
the most ‗literal‘ one of the three( though it still cannot be The mantle of your high office has been placed on your
entitled as a ‗literal translation‘); translation (3) adopts the shoulder at a time when the world at large and this
largest environment and bases more on the image itself, organization are going through an exceptionally critical
so it is the ‗freest‘ translation; and translation (2) is in phase.
between (1) and (3) in terms of the ‗freeness‘ in its de-
automatization. (1) 全世界和本组织正处于一个异常危急的时期，这个崇高
In general, we can concentrate on the original material 职务的重担落到了你的肩上。
as phrasing and particularly attempt to interpret wording (2) 整个世界和本组织处于一个异常危急的时期。在这样一
patterns at the lexical grammar level. The more 'literal'
个时期中这个崇高的任务就落到了你的肩上。
the lexicogrammatical rendering, the lower its position.
(Taken from Qinghua, 2002:38)
Translation in relation to the stratification order is thus
primarily a question of what we strive to maintain
Both translations have preserved the main ideational
consistent and what we allow to change. The higher the
elements of the source sentence, and in some sense
rank goes upward, the ‗freer‘ the translation will be.
both could be titled as literal translation. But strictly
speaking, (1) holds more functional components of the
source language than (2) does, for (1) is consistent with
TRANSFERRING META FUNCTIONS VS LITERAL the original sentence at levels of wording, phrases and
TRANSLATION AND FREE TRANSLATION clauses. It has retained all the functional elements of the
source sentence, as well as the logical relations among
The following definitions of literal translation and free the functional components. On the other hand, (2)
translation may be derived from the preceding consists of two independents clauses. The Circumstance
discussion: In terms of Systemic Functional Linguistics, component of original sentence---when the world at large
literal translation is one that maintains lexicogrammatical and this organization are going through an exceptionally
qualities and structure to the greatest extent feasible critical phrase is turned into an independent clause,
within the limits of the target language system. The term which makes translation structurally a little looser than
"free translation" refers to translation that is not the original sentence. In other word, translation (1) has
constrained by lexicogrammatical elements and transferred all the three mate functions of the original
structures. It retains certain characteristics of the original while translation (2) is not satisfying in perspective of
texts in the greater context. Both free translation and transferring textual function. Hence, if we are asked to
literal translation, in particular, are dynamic notions that differentiate the two translations in terms of literal or free
should not be approached in a static manner. degree, we can get a conclusion that translation (1) is
Translation, from a systemic standpoint, is the more literal than translation (2). And this shows a fact that
preservation of the source texts' ideational, interpersonal, literal translation and free translation are viable concepts
and textual meanings. An ideal translation is the one that and there is not an absolute criterion to define them. In
holds all of the three metafuntions of the source texts. normal conditions, a more literal translation preserves
However, in translation practice, we usually automatically more structural features of the source language and thus
set out from the ideational function for consideration. This a formal equivalence may be expected. In some sense,
is coincident with the ‗automatization principle‘ discussed formal equivalence tends to holds functional equivalence,
above. Ideational function is mainly realized by the which is the very aim of the translation. That is why we
concrete lexical items, from which we often unconsciously put literal translation in priority. However, this does not
initiate our translation. The formal equivalence of lexical mean that literal translation should always be adopted in
items in translation leads to the extreme form of literal translation. On the contrary, we sometimes have to
translation which is always labeled as ‗word for word abandon the original ideational components so as to get
translation‘. Theoretically, it is impossible to get an an interpersonal or textual equivalence in the translation.
absolute ‗word for word‘ translation because there do not For example, due to different cultures, greetings in
exist two languages that have exactly same typological different languages may differ a lot from each other. In
structure. Thus, the expression of ‗word for word translation, we have to first of all consider the most
translation‘ is usually used as a name of ‗awkward important function the greeting plays---interpersonal
translation‘. function, and we‘d better take this function in priority in
 Chen and Zhao 31

Table 2. The middle way between literal translation and free translation.

Source Transferring Target Literal or Free

Ideational function Ideational equivalence Literal
system

Interpersonal function Interpersonal equivalence

structure
Textual function Textual equivalence Free
Source: Author

translation. If it is literally translated, that is, based on see, ① translation produces a lexically and grammatically
ideational components, it will be probably misunderstood valid text, but it breaches several register and genre
by the target language readers. In this condition, the requirements of its target language. The text's lexical
translation should be target culture oriented so as to be grammatical choices are often noted and read "foreign" in
comprehensible in target cultural background. Compare the target culture. As its translational environment, it
the following translation: chooses the clausal level. Though it has transferred all
the constituents ideationally, it hasn‘t successfully
(Background: Two Chinese friends meet each other at transferred the coherent relationship contained in the
the sidewalk in the afternoon. They are exchanging source text form a point of view of textual function.
greetings.) Because Chinese tends to take covert cohesive devices
A: 老张，吃了吗？ to realize the coherence while English employs overt
B: 还没有。你吃了吗？ ones, we have to take use of English cohesive devices in
A: 吃了。你上哪儿去？ order to transfer the textual function of the source text.
B: 去超市买点东西。 The prepositional phrase and participle phrase in ② have
not only carried the ideational meanings of the source
A: 那你去吧。
texts but also expressed the logical relationships among
① the original clauses. That is to say, translation ② is a
A: Hi, Lao Zhang, have you had your dinner? more appropriate than translation ①.
B: Not yet. Have you had your dinner? To summarize, literal translation and free translation
A: Yes. Where are you going? are two dynamic concepts. Theoretically, literal translation
A: To supermarket to buy something. requires formal correspondence of ideational components;
B: Then you can go now. free translation usually aims for contextual equivalence;
② and transferring interpersonal function often needs the
A: Hello, Mr. Zhang, how are you? middle way between literal translation and free translation.
B: Fine. And you? It can be illustrated by Table 2:
A: Fine, too. You look very busy.
B: I‘m hurrying to the supermarket.
A: See you later, then. Meta functions and extent of literal or free translation
B: See you.
Neither the extreme of literal translation nor the extreme
Clearly, translation ① is more literal than translation ②, of free one is advisable in practice, for they will go too far
but in a certain context, ② is more acceptable than ① to from the main line in above figure. The following
the target language readers. examples illustrate the two kinds of extremes in practice:
Furthermore, a freer translation sometimes cannot only
successfully transfer the ideational and interpersonal 1. To kill two birds with one stone.
function, but also maximally preserve the original style: 杀死两只鸟用一个石头。（Compare: 一石二鸟）
2. It may be safely assumed that, two thousand years
天色渐昏，大雨欲来，车夫加紧赶路，说天要变了(Qian, ago, before Caesar (100 B.C.--44B.C.) set foot in
1991:153) southern Britain, the whole countryside visible from the
1. The sky was becoming darker and darker. The storm windows of the room in which I write, was in what is
was coming. The carriage puller ran faster, and said that called ―the state of nature.‖
the weather was going to change. 赫胥黎独处一室之中，在英伦之南，背山而面野，槛外
2. The sky gradually darkened at the approach of a 诸境，历历如在几下。乃悬想两千年前，当罗马大将恺撒
storm. The rickshaw pullers quickened their pace, saying 来到时，此间有何景物。计惟有天造草味，人功未施。（
the weather was about to get worse. Translated by Yan Fu）
The original language is coherent in the absence of any
cohesive links. This is a distinct Chinese trait. As we can This article provides a detailed study and analysis of the
32 Int. J. English Lit.

translation methods of literal translation and free CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

translation using the perspective of systemic functional
grammar. By exploring the origins of these two methods, The authors have not declared any conflicts of interests.
their universality in translation work is revealed. Through
explanations of automation and de-automation, it is
shown that language is to some extent "free", and REFERENCES
translation work liberates words from their constraints Catford JG (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Boston. Oxford
while conveying the meaning of the source language, University Press.
especially in poetry translation, where translators have Halliday MAK (1982). The de-automatization of grammar: from
more freedom of expression. From the perspective of Priestley‘s ―An Inspector Calls‖. In: J. Anderson (ed.), Language form
and linguistic variation: papers dedicated to Angus McIntosh.
systemic function analysis, the appropriate translation
Amsterdam, Benjamins pp.129-159.
method is chosen by combining the ―explicit‖ and Halliday MAK (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London,
―implicit‖ translation characteristics and based on the Edward Arnold Limited.
three elements and three ―meta functions‖ of systemic Li J (2000). Future and Future Tense. Foreign Languages 2000(4):24-
28.
function.
Matthiessen CMIM (2001).The Environment of Translation. In: Erich
Steiner & Colin Yallop (eds.), Exploring Translation and Multilingual
Text Production beyond Content. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin pp. 41-
SUMMARY 127.
Qian Z (1991). A Surrounded City. Beijing, The People Press.
Qinghua F (2002). A Practical Course of Translation. Shanghai,
Literal translation and free translation are two translation Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
methodologies or tactics. They are the expressive forms
of language. Simply speaking, language is the form that
people take and meaning is the content that people want
to convey. As for the relationship between form and
content, Li (2000:24) states that one form can convey
numerous contents while one content can be expressed
with numerous forms. The translator's goal in translating
is to express the meaning of the source language in the
target language. That is, we may translate one meaning
into several forms.
Both literal translation and free translation can convey
the same meaning from different angles. Without
adequate context, it is often difficult for us to decide
which form is better. Thus a good translator can never
label him/herself as a literalist or freeist. Translation in
fact is an encoding process with target language,
swaying between literal translation and free translation.
The essence of the literal or free translation lies in the
delicacy of the translation basis. The higher delicacy the
translation bases on, the more literal the translation will
become, and vice versa. Technically, a translator should
always first of all consider literal translation---to focus his
attention on transferring ideational function, for the same
form is likely to convey the similar meaning. If literal
translation fails to successfully convey the other two
functions simultaneously, the translator should try to shift
his focus to the other meta functions and take a freer
translation. An excellent translation of a text is always the
proper mingling of literal translation and free translation.
Literal translation and free translation also have some
shortcomings, if literal translation transition will cause the
target language readers difficult to understand; a free
translation transition leads away from the original text.
Therefore, we should consider carefully when analyzing
the original text, and strive to translate a translation that
is both faithful and suitable for readers.