AbstractCurrent translation studies do not present a clear distinction between ‘translationese’ and ‘interlanguage’, giving rise to conceptual and terminology confusion. To disentangle these two concepts, we start with a relatively conservative working definition of translationese, then find it necessary to first differentiate between direct and inverse translations, according to whether the translator's L1 equals to TL or not. Taking Zhuangzi (a Daoist classic) as a case, we made both inter- and intra-speaker comparisons among Lin Yu-tang's inverse translation, James Legge's direct translation, and the two translators' creative works in English, with well-established language complexity metrics and quantitative methods. Results show that: (1) Inverse and direct translations are remarkably different in terms of complexity; (2) Inverse translation demonstrates both features of interlanguage and translationese, with the former mostly at lexical level and the latter at syntactic level; (3) Similar patterns are also discovered in Lin's other inverse translated works, suggesting our quantitative comparative method proposed may be reliable to some extent. Such results support our proposal that translationese and interlanguage should and can be differentiated for both theoretical and practical purposes.

中文翻译：

---

反向翻译中的翻译和中介语：案例研究

摘要当前的翻译研究并没有明确区分“translationese”和“interlanguage”，导致概念和术语混淆。为了解开这两个概念，我们从一个相对保守的翻译工作定义开始，然后发现有必要首先根据翻译者的L1是否等于TL来区分直接翻译和反向翻译。以《庄子》（道家经典）为例，我们对林语堂的逆译、理格的直译和两位译者的英文创作进行了语间和语内比较，语言复杂性已经确立。指标和定量方法。结果表明：（1）逆翻译和直译在复杂度上存在显着差异；(2) 逆翻译兼具中介语和翻译语的特点，前者多在词汇层面，后者多在句法层面；(3)在林的其他逆译作品中也发现了类似的模式，这表明我们提出的定量比较方法在一定程度上可能是可靠的。这些结果支持我们的建议，即翻译语和中介语应该并且可以从理论和实践目的上加以区分。