The problem of whether classical Chinese poem is translatable has long been a controversial topic. Some people believe that poetry is untranslatable. Robert Frost  defined, “Poetry is what gets lost in translation(cited in Zhang Jin, 1994: 11),” while Eugene Nida (2004:4) said, “Anything that can be said in one language can be said in another, unless the form is an essential element of the language.” Therefore, he thought poem translation very demanding. On the contrary, the famous Chinese translator Xu Yuanchong (2003) held that “poem is translatable but reproducing the original beauty in sense, sound and form is rather difficult.” His translation theories of “Three Beauty” and “Creation for Loss” set up standard and provide approaches for classical Chinese poem translation. From the perspective of professor Xu’s theory, untranslatability does exist in poem translation, which is concretely shown as varied untranslatable factors in sound, form and sense. Some knowledge of those untranslatable factors certainly helps a lot in poem translation practices. Besides, professor Xu’s “Three Beauty” Theory, as a criterion for classical Chinese poem translation has been much studied till now with voices both for and against it, so that one may easily get lost among the pided opinions. As for professor Xu’s theory of “Creation for Loss”, especially its application in translation practices, the problem of whether it functions well is also worth studying. In order to study the above three problems and probe their inner relations, this paper is pided into four chapters to study the untranslatability and creative reproduction of classical Chinese poem from the perspective of Xu Yuanchong’s “Three Beauty” Theory .

Chapter one is a general introduction of the focus and the structure of this paper. Chapter two presents a literature review on the concept of untranslatability and the current studies on Xu Yuanchong’s “Three Beauty” Theory. The value of this paper is also given out in this chapter. Chapter three studies the untranslatability of classical Chinese poem. A general comment on the “Three Beauty” Theory is given out first to provide a solid basis for further studies. Secondly, while generally admitting the translatability of poem, a detailed study on several untranslatable factors in sound, form and sense of classical Chinese poem is depicted. Chapter four deals with Xu Yuanchong’s theory of “Creation for Loss”, which provides a solution for poem untranslatability. Several examples are demonstrated to discuss how the theory is applied in classical Chinese poem translation practice and whether it functions well in reproducing the original beauty in sound, form and sense. Finally, chapter five is the conclusion part that presents the findings, implications and limitations of this paper.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Previous Studies on Poem Untranslatability

As is defined by Eugene Nida(2004: 12), “translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalence of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.” Therefore, the phenomenon of untranslatability occurs when the equivalence can’t be reproduced in the translating process. Tian Qingfang (2007) defines untranslatability as “a failure in translating the source language into the target language, thus causing the loss of original meaning and the obstacle in communication and understanding.” He also points out that “in translation, translatability and untranslatability are not diametrically opposed and unrelated to each other, rather, something untranslatable can be transformed into translatable things in certain conditions (ibid.).” In terms of poem translation, the question of whether poem is translatable has long been a contending issue among translation theorists. Some firmly believe that poem is by no means translatable, while others do not. As to the untranslatability of poem, Robert Frost remarked, “Poetry is what gets lost in translation(cited in Zhang Jin, 1994: 11).” “Chinese translation theorist Mao Dun, Lu Xun and Ling Yu Tang also denied the translatability of poem(Chen Han, 2009).”