Translation Approaches in Rendering Names of Tourist Sites

This article identifies the translation approaches adopted in the translation of names of tourist sites in China and examines how ‘fame’ and ‘popularity’ may influence these approaches. Upon analyzing a corpus of scenic site names, it is found that ‘pure phonetic’, ‘phonetic (name) + semantic (class)’, ‘pure semantic’, and ‘phonetic (location) + semantic (name) are the four major patterns in the translations of site names. On the whole, the data shows that phonetic translation is dominant over semantic translation. Meanwhile, ‘fame’ and ‘popularity’ have great impact on the translated names of scenic sites. The findings also suggest that a phonetic translation approach is preferred in rendering names of world-famous sites whereas a semantic translation approach is more frequently used for the name translation of sites located in places with higher popularity. The conflicting results reflect China’s struggle between preserving its cultural flavor for the sake of national identity and catering to foreign visitors for the benefit of the country’s tourism development.


INTRODUCTION
As China receives more foreign visitors, the English translation of tourist information plays an increasingly crucial role in the development of the tourism industry. Among a range of tourist information, the translation of the names of tourist sites is one of the most fundamental and significant elements in the sector. Despite a composition of only a few words, an improper translation of tourist site names can project a wrong impression of the sites among tourists who have not yet visited the place in person, or result in travellers' misunderstanding and confusion (Dann, 1996). Although increasing attention has been paid to the English translation of Chinese attraction names following the growth of China's tourism industry, the translation approaches adopted vary greatly. There are comparatively reader-friendly translated names such as 'Summer Palace' and 'West Lake'. There are semi-foreign translated names like 'Mount Taishan' and 'Huangguoshu Falls' that are fairly understandable, but there are also translated names such as 'Jiuzhaigou' and 'Shanhaiguan' that appear completely alien to most target readers.
To date there has been no guidance on how tourist site names could be or should be translated. There is also a lack of studies on decisive factors that may contribute to preferences for different translation. Unlike common nouns, proper nouns often create special problems for translators as they cannot be easily omitted, especially in the case of Published by Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD. Copyright (c) the author(s). This is an open access article under CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijclts.v.9n.1p.31 place names. This article seeks to identify specific translation approaches adopted in the English translation of tourist site names in China through scrutinizing a corpus of translated tourist site names and examine whether and to what extent fame and popularity may influence the preference of translation approaches. The specific research questions are as follows: 1. What are the approaches adopted in the English translation of tourist site names in China? How frequently are these translation strategies adopted in China? 2. To what extent do fame and popularity influence the translation of tourist site names in China?

LITERATURE REVIEW The Function and Importance of Place Names
A geographical name, as defined by Aurosseau (1957, p. 8), is 'the proper name, or geographical expression, by which a particular geographical entity is known'. It can be simple like 'York' or compound like 'Isle of Wight' (p. 8). Compound names can be comprised of a generic part and a specific part. The general part of a geographical name, usually a common noun like 'Cape', indicates 'what class of thing a geographical feature is', whereas the specific part, which can be a proper noun, an adjective, or a phrase, usually intends to tell 'which of the indicated class is meant' (p. 8).

IJCLTS 9(1):31-47
Despite sharing the same features as ordinary geographical names, names of scenic sites carry significant missions aside from simply an identification of location (Ecker, 1940;Kaups, 1966;McCulloch, 1989;Sofield and Li, 1998;Steward, 1945). Clark (2009) conducted a case study on the relationship between the names of indigenous tourism sites in Australia and tourists' behaviour to demonstrate the significance of site names as tourism markers. The study found that visitors were often confused or disappointed by misleading or inappropriate site names and some even took extreme measures such as scratching words or drawings on the rock or public area nearby. For instance, tourists who visited 'Cave of Fishes' and found no fishes were annoyed by the name and scratched drawings of fish into the rock or sarcastically rename the site as 'Cave of Jaws ' (p. 111). In view of constant troubles caused by inappropriate names, the Victorian Tourism Commission decided to replace aboriginal place names in and around the Grampians National Park with more suitable names on the public art sites in March 1989. Such acts, according to Clark (2009), demonstrate that naming, which presents an image to tourists and is likely to affect tourists' attitude, function as a crucial management tool in protecting and promoting tourism.
Correspondently, Leiper (1990) points out that name connotation serves as a vital marker, a promotional or operational device which is often used in tourism marketing to provide tourists with information about the sites, and names of the sites can entail connotations that influence tourists' views of the place. Leiper (1990, p. 379) claims that 'positive connotation can contribute to the satisfaction of places, which is why organizations trying to promote a place often coin new names for it with tourist markets in mind'.

Translation of Place Names
In his book, The Rendering of Geographical Names, Aurousseau (1957) provides the following suggestions for the rendering of geographical names: We may take it directly, if it be written in the Roman alphabet; we may render it letter-for-letter from a foreign Roman alphabet or from any non-Roman alphabet; we may render it sound-for-sound, either by ear from any language, or by transcription from any alphabet or non-alphabetical script; we may translate it, if it has meaning; or, if it is a compound name containing a geographical term and a proper noun or adjective, we may turn it into an English name by partial translation. (Aurousseau 1957, p. 87) However, Aurousseau (1957) acknowledges that the hardship in translating geographical names is not in the simple conversion from the source text (ST) to the target text (TT), but in how to preserve their identity after the transcription process. The resolution to the rendering of geographical names, according to Aurousseau (1957, p. 51), 'depends partly upon the kind of name under consideration, but mainly upon the purpose for which transcription is required'.
In a broad sense, the concept of 'purpose' being the determiner of the application of translation strategies corresponds to the famous Text-type Functional Theory, proposed by Katharina Reiss in 1976, which argues that texts can be classified according to informative, expressive and operative functions, and the selection of translation approaches should be determined by text type. According to Reiss (1976), in translating informative texts, one should transmit the full referential and conceptual content of the source text (ST) and translation should be in plain language. For expressive texts, such as literature, novels, and poems, the translation should follow closely the standpoint of the author and transmit the aesthetic and artistic form of the ST. As for operative texts, Reiss (1976) states that the translation should attempt to create equivalent effects among target readers. Despite Reiss's attempt to provide a guide to the choice of translation strategies based on the classification of text-types, her instructions in the translation of tourist texts, not to mention the specific concern of place names, are limited and ambiguous. In her famous text-type classification, Reiss classifies tourist brochures somewhere between informative, expressive, and operative types. Suppose this multi-purpose nature holds true in the case of names of tourist sites, which belongs to the genre of tourism texts, the solution as to how to render names according to their purpose still lacks clear guidance.
The answer to whether one should adopt the translation approach that caters to an informative text, an expressive text, or an operative text is still unclear. Confronted by the differences in the language system and cultural background of the two languages (Cronin, 2003(Cronin, , 2006Liu, 1999), some elements of the place names may inevitably be sacrificed in the translation. Often, either the name loses its original flavor to be reader-friendly or it sacrifices the smoothness of the translation to preserve its own taste.

Translation of Proper Names
One of the challenges with translation of proper names lies in identifying how it differentiates from common names. Proper names can be names of people, things, places and animals and they refer to extralinguistic, unique and specific objects with distinct meanings. In the past, proper names were often naturalized, but there have gradually been more concerns as to whether proper names should be translated. Despite often known as rigid designators, proper names can convey complex meaning through their connotations and etymology. In dealing with proper names translators may sometimes resort to solutions such as making the target text less clear or less obvious than the source text in order to maintain their cultural identity and foreign flavor, while in some cases they may have to prioritize the law of usage (Ballard, 1993). Compared to other categories of proper names (Hollis & Valentine, 2001;Zabeeh, 2012), place name translation has received relatively limited attention in the field of translation studies (Smith, 1876;Zhong & Lin, 2007). Hermans (1988) provides similar suggestions as Aurousseau's (1957) and proposes that there are four major strategies to translate proper names, including (1) reproduction (such as retaining the English words 'Charles' in the Chinese translation); (2) transliteration (such as the translation of the name 'Charles' into its phonetic correspondence '查理斯'); (3) substitution 1 (which allows words unrelated to the source text to be used in the target text; and (4) translation (such as rendering '西 湖' into 'West Lake' -a literal translation of the Chinese '西' west and '湖' lake).
Among various subordinates of proper names, brand name translation is also worth noting as it involves marketing and promotional functions (Francis et al., 2002;Huang & Chan, 2005;Keller, 1998), and therefore likely to offer special insights into the translation of names of tourist sites, which also struggles between the preservation of local identity and the use of promotional language that accommodates target audiences. In light of this, I turn to exploring strategies in brand name translation.
The three major strategies for rendering brand names, according to Zhang and Schmitt (2001), are phonetic translation (translating by sound), semantic translation (translating by meaning), and phono-semantic translation (translating by sound plus meaning). Phonetic translation seeks to maintain the sound of the original by translating the ST phonetically, such as Disney '迪士尼' (Di-shi-ni) and Pepsi '百事' (Baishi), whereas semantic translation seeks to retain the meaning of the name even at the cost of its sound, such as Microsoft '微软' (Wei-ruan) and Apple '苹果' (Ping-guo). 'Wei-ruan' literally means 'micro' (wei) and 'soft' (ruan), while Ping-guo is semantically known as apple in Chinese. Phono-semantic translation aims to maintain both the sound and the meaning of the ST by selecting linguistic symbols that are both phonetically and semantically related to the original brand name. For instance, Coca-Cola is translated as '可口可乐' (Ke-kouke-le), which on one hand, achieves a match of sound, and on the other hand, entails a favorable meaning 'taste good and make you happy'. However, the three strategies all have their respective constraints. Although phonetic translation contributes to the preservation of the original sound, the combination of meaningless or irrelevant syllables cannot conjure up relevant meaning and therefore will unlikely provide target readers with any clue about the meaning or association of the name. Semantic translation, on the other hand, is often not applicable when the name is not semantically comprehensible or is not lexicalized in the dictionary. Phono-semantic translation apparently suffers from the hardship of selecting a name that contains both the phonetic and semantic essence of the ST (Zhang & Schmitt, 2001).
Pragmatically, the concept of phonetic translation and semantic translation proposed by Zhang and Schmitt (2001) for brand name translation is similar to the two approaches, transliteration and translation, introduced by Herman (1988). In addition, some existing place names in China are translated in favor of both their sound supplemented by relevant semantic meaning, which is similar to the concept of phono-semantic translation introduced for brand name translation. For instance, '龙门石窟' (龙 'long' literally means 'dragon', 门 'men' literally means 'door', and 石窟 'shi-ku' literally means 'grottoes') is translated as 'Longmen Grottoes'.'Longmen' retains the original sound, while 'Grottoes' provides the semantic meaning of the original to target readers. It is, therefore, considered that the three strategies for brand name translation may also be well practiced in place name translation.

Theoretical Notions: Meaning Translation and Sound Translation
On the whole, literature on translation of names suggests that phonetic translation and semantic translation, also known as 'sound translation' and 'meaning translation' respectively, are the two major strategies for name translation (Li, 2007, p. 3). These two opposing approaches are allied with the two Chinese translation theories, 'Yinyi'(音译) and 'Yiyi'(意 译). The former refers to the transfer of sound and the latter refers to the transfer of meaning. Meanwhile, the concept of sound translation is sometimes referred to as 'transliteration', while the notion of meaning translation can be divided into word-for-word or sense-for-sense translation. In this study, the concept of 'translating by sound' and 'translating by meaning' will be referred to as 'phonetic translation' and 'semantic translation' respectively.

Data Collection
One of the major obstacles in collecting corpus data for the present study is the existence of unstandardized English translations of tourist site names in China. Even the translated names of some major tourist sites lack uniformity and vary from time to time, not to mention those located in remote or less developed areas which receive less attention from the tourism authorities. To ensure a fair selection and analysis, the corpus study of this article draws on the Chinese names and English translations of 66 tourist sites which have been approved to be national AAAAA-rated (a grading system of site qualities in the Chinese tourism industry, in which every 'A' represents a higher rank) tourist attractions and released on the official website of the China National Tourism Administration (CNTA, 2008). It was assumed that the translations of these 5A tourist sites are officially established and standardized. The location of the sites (city or province) were included in a corpus table for the convenience of further analysis. Sourced between 2009 and 2019, this corpus of names (Table 1) was primarily utilized to identify the translation strategies adopted in Chinese-English translation of tourist site names. Two variables, including a list of attractions in this corpus that are also titled as World Heritage sites (see Table 2) and statistical data that shows the number of foreign visitors in different areas in China (see Table 3 and Appendix 2), were later examined to explore factors that may affect the adoption of translation strategies translating place names from Chinese to English.

The Study
Translated names in the corpus were scrutinized to identify the common translation strategies used to render these names, say, whether they were translated by meaning, by sound or by other specific patterns such as the 'phono-semantic' method identified in brand name translation. Items such as articles and numbers in the names were excluded in the analysis as they were universally rendered in the same way, i.e. semantically. Their frequency of use was then examined, followed by investigation into the impact of fame and popularity on the translation of tourist site names. To examine whether and how fame influences the preference of translation strategies in rendering Chinese site names into English, the tourist sites that were both included in this corpus and inscribed on the World Heritage were examined. The information was sourced from the official site of UNESCO World Heritage between 2009 and 2019 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2019). The rationale was that China would place great importance on sites submitted to strive for the title and name of 'World Heritage' and hence special attention and supervision must have been given to the English translations of the names of these tourist sites. These findings were then compared with the general findings for the translation strategies adopted in the corpus to investigate whether and to what extent fame influences the preference for translation strategies. Meanwhile, the impact of popularity on the translation of tourist site names in China was examined by analyzing the statistics of 'international tourists by Chinese locality (city)'. The information was sourced from the China National Tourism Administration and consists of two volumes of data (see Appendix 2). For simplicity the total number of foreign visitors received in different cities were taken into consideration. Cities that received more foreign visitors in total were sorted in descending order. Finally, the English translations in the corpus were analyzed to see whether popularity affects the choice of translation approaches.

A Study of Chinese-English Translation Strategies for Names of Tourist sites
In dissecting the translated names in the corpus, it is found that the two translation strategies, phonetic and semantic translation, distinguished in prior studies hold true in the Chinese-English translation of tourist site names. Some names are translated phonetically according to their Pinyin pronunciation, such as 'Panshan' ('盘山', literally around a mountain) and 'Shanhaiguan' ('山海关', literally 'mountain, sea and pass). Some are rendered semantically, such as the translation of '天坛公园' into 'The Temple of Heaven' and ' 拙政园' into 'Humble Administrator's Garden'.
However, as shown in Table 4, aside from these two common strategies evident in ordinary proper name translation, two additional distinct patterns are discovered in the translation of tourist site names, i.e. phonetic (name) + semantic (class) and phonetic (location) + semantic (name).
'Phonetic (name) + semantic (class)' refers to the pattern in which the core element of the name is translated phonetically with semantic explanation of the class of the site. For instance, '五台山' is translated as 'Mount Wutai', in which the central subject name '五台' is rendered phonetically as 'Wutai', while the descriptive noun '山' which explicates the category of the subject is translated as 'Mount'. Likewise, the translations 'Mount Yandang', 'Mount Putuo', 'Mount Jiuhua', and 'Mount Lushan' seek to maintain the phonetic sound of the original name but offer readers with information of the attraction by rendering a meaningful unit semantically. Sometimes, the class type information is supplemented in addition to the phonetic translation, such as the case in the translation '白洋淀' into 'Lake Baiyandian'.
On the contrary, in the pattern 'phonetic (location) + semantic (name), the core elements of the name are translated semantically while the location of the site is maintained phonetically. For example, in the translation '大连老虎滩海 洋公园.老虎滩极地馆' ('Dalian Polar Aquarium of Tiger Beach Ocean Park'), the foundation of the name '老虎滩海 洋公园.老虎滩极地馆' is translated meaningfully as 'Polar Aquarium of Tiger Beach Ocean Park', whereas '大连', the unit which indicates the location of the attraction, is retained phonetically. More examples can be found in Appendix 1.
Despite the prevalence of the above specific patterns in the Chinese-English translations of tourist site names, in a broad sense, the two patterns 'phonetic (name) + semantic (class)' and 'phonetic (location) + semantic (name)', is an application of a phonetic translation approach and a semantic translation approach respectively. Even though the 'class' of the site is translated semantically, the former pattern seeks to maintain the sound of the core elements of the name rather than converting them into their semantic meaning. Based on this reason, such a pattern can be considered as a phonetic translation, though differing from a pure phonetic translation. Conversely, though retaining the sound of the location label, the latter pattern 'phonetic (location) + semantic (name)' seeks to render the core elements of the name into semantic understandable units. It is hence practically an implementation of a semantic translation approach, though departing from a pure semantic translation.

Frequency of Use
In addition to the translation approaches found in the English translations in the corpus, the frequency of use of the four specific translation patterns identified above was examined.
It is found that among the 66 site names in the corpus of this article, 51.51% of the names are translated through the pattern 'phonetic (name) + semantic (class)', and 28.8% of the names are rendered through 'pure semantic' approach, as shown in Table 5. In contrast to the frequent use of the above two strategies, the other two patterns, 'pure phonetic' and 'phonetic (location) + semantic (name)', are adopted relatively less frequently. Only 10.6% of the site names are rendered through a 'pure phonetic' pattern. Similarly, merely 9.09% of the translated names are of the pattern 'phonetic (location) + semantic (name)'.
In general, the use of phonetic translation overrides that of semantic translation. Overall speaking, the former approach accounts for 62.11% of the translations in the corpus, while the latter only makes up 37.89% in total. Table 2 presents the 14 tourist sites in the corpus of this paper which are granted as 'World Heritage' and thus reflect a certain level of fame. It is found that the pattern 'phonetic (name) + semantic (class)' is mostly adopted. Among the 14 translated names, 10 of them followed such a pattern. 'Pure semantic' and 'pure phonetic' translation strategies are equally adopted, with 2 of the 14 names rendered semantically and the other 2 translated phonetically. Such results reflect a relatively high preference for a phonetic translation approach, with 71.4% of the examined names translated through the pattern 'phonetic (name) + semantic (class)' and 14.3% through 'pure phonetic' means.

Translation of Names of 'World Heritage' Tourist Attractions
This result shows a similar tendency as that discovered in Section 4.2, i.e. phonetic translation is applied more  frequently in the translation of site names. However, compared to the proportion of the use of phonetic translation versus semantic translation found in Section 4.2, which is approximately 5:3 (62.11:37.89), the results calculated in this section reflect a more extreme dichotomy between the applications of the two strategies. The ratio of phonetic translation to semantic translation discovered in this section is 18:3 (85.7:14.3). Obviously, compared to regular site names, the names of sites that enjoy more reputation have a stronger preference of phonetic translation over semantic translation.

The Impact of Popularity on Translation of Tourist Site Names
In this study, the number of foreign visitors recorded in different city locations in China was used as a variable to study the impact of popularity on the translation of the tourist site names in the corpus (see Appendix 2). In Table 3, city locations with the largest number of foreign visitors in total were listed in descending order (according to the total sum). Among all, Shanghai, Guangdong, Jiangsu, Beijing, and Zhejiang were the five places that enjoyed the highest popularity, receiving over 10 million foreign visitors on average in 2008, followed by Liaoning, Shandong, Heilongjiang, Fujian, Tianjin, Inner Mongolia, Yunnan, Shaanxi, Guangxi, Hunan, Chongqing, Hubei, Anhui, Hebei, Henan, Hainan, Shanxi, Jilin, Sichuan, and Xinjiang. These latter 20 places also enjoyed a relatively high popularity, on average receiving over 1 million foreign visitors during the year. Compared to the above 25 places, Jiangxi, Guizhou, Tibet, Gansu, Qinhai, and Ningxia enjoy far less popularity.
The corpus of names were re-arranged based on the order in Table 3, and the translations of tourist site names in these three groups of places were evaluated separately to examine how translations vary in places that enjoy different popularity. As none of the sites in the corpus paper are situated in Inner Mongolia, Yunan, Tibet, and Qinghai, which are included in Table 3, these four places were excluded in Table 6.
In examining the translated names in group 1, which consists of 15 sites situated at the top five cities with the highest popularity, it is found that among the 15 names, 11 are translated based on a 'pure semantic' approach, accounting for    73.33% of the total. Three of the 15 site names are rendered through the pattern 'phonetic (name) + semantic (class)', making up 20% in total. Only 1 of the 15 site names (6.66%) applied the translation pattern 'phonetic (location) + semantic (name)'. The data here indicates that the translations of the 5 areas that enjoy the highest popularity have a stronger preference for a semantic translation approach, including the pattern 'pure semantic' and the pattern 'phonetic (location) + semantic (name)', as compared to a phonetic translation approach, including the pattern 'pure phonetic' and 'phonetic (name) + semantic (class). On the whole, 80% of the site names are translated semantically and 20% are rendered phonetically. However, in studying the translations in group 2, which includes the 41 sites located in the 20 places that also enjoy a great number of foreign visitors but rank behind the top 5, it is found that 29 of the names are translated through a phonetic translation approach, with 26 of the translations realizing the pattern 'phonetic (name) + semantic (class)' and the remaining 4 following the 'pure phonetic' pattern (63.41% and 9.76% respectively). On the contrary, only 12 of the translations in total are rendered through a semantic approach, with 5 (12.19%) of the translated names following the pattern of 'phonetic (location) + semantic (name)' and the other 6 (14.93%) applying a 'pure semantic' pattern. Unlike the results found in the analysis of the translation of names of the top 5 places, the figure here indicates a partiality for phonetic translation rather than semantic translation.
Similarly, in investigating the names in group 3, which refers to the remaining 10 sites located in the four places that have the less popularity, it is found that the use of phonetic translation dominates that of semantic translation. Among the 10 names, 7 are translated through phonetic means, with 5 translated through the pattern 'phonetic (name) + semantic (class)', and 2 through 'pure phonetic'. Only 3 of the names are rendered through the 'pure semantic' pattern.
The different results found in the three groups, which represent a different degree of popularity, imply the influence of popularity on the translation of tourist site names. Concretely, places that enjoy higher popularity tend to adopt a semantic translation approach whereas places that enjoy less popularity show a stronger preference for phonetic translation.

DISCUSSION
One of the most obvious queries that one may raise regarding the above findings is the conflicting preferences for different translation strategies found in the same corpus. The  Moreover, compared to Section 4.2, which reflects the overall frequency of use of regular site names in China, the findings in Section 4.3, a section which specifically studied a list of extraordinarily famous attractions which are rated as World Heritage sites, show an even stronger partiality for such tendency. However, inconsistently, the data in Section 4.4 shows that semantic translation, particularly the pattern 'pure semantic', is more frequently adopted in rendering site names located in places with higher popularity. These inconsistencies give rise to the question: In rendering tourist site names, why is phonetic translation more preferred for world famous sites but less desired in places that enjoy higher popularity? A possible explanation is that China is struggling between preserving its own cultural essence by retaining the name's original flavor and catering to foreign visitors by adapting their language customs. On the one hand, China attempts to utilize the English translation of the site names to preserve its own national identity and present its cultural quintessence including the Chinese language and underlying values to the outside world. This notion supports the reasoning behind the decision to translate with strict devotion to the original taste and imbue foreign audience with as many Chinese flavors as possible. The more famous the sites are, the more important they are in serving as windows to spread Chinese culture. Therefore, compared to the regular 5A-rated tourist sites, a stronger preference for a phonetic translation approach is found in the translated names of the 5A-rated tourist attractions that are additionally crowned as World Heritage sites; on the other hand, the findings in 4.4 can be deemed as an indication of China's endeavor to make its attractions more appealing to foreign visitors by using translations with better readability, and ultimately achieve more desirable outcomes in its tourism development. Compared to sound translation, a translation with meaningful units may be more attentive to foreign visitors. Given such reason, places with more foreign visitors tend to adopt semantic translation in rendering the names of tourist sites.
Though apparently similar, there is a subtle difference between 'fame' and 'popularity'. Tourist sites indexed as World Heritage sites may automatically attract visitors around the world even if little efforts are engaged in the marketing of the places, because the global reputation labeled on the sites is already a strong advertising tool. However, the same effect may not be generated in regular tourist sites. Although tourist brochures serve as effective tools in marketing attractions, visitors' first impression of the sites may be their 'names', which are after all the subject of all descriptions. In this sense, English translations of site names are significant marketing tools.
However, merely the findings in Section 4.4 adhere to this course of thought, i.e. names of regular sites located in places with higher popularity are more likely to be rendered through a semantic translation approach to achieve a stronger marketing effect, whereas the translation of names of regular sites shown in Section 4.2 still have a high preference for phonetic translation. A possible explanation is that China considers that site marketing in places with higher popularity is predominantly important for the growth of its tourism development. Insisting to preserve its cultural flavor in areas with a mass of visitors may be a serious barrier to the country's tourism development. Therefore, China is unwilling to take risk in areas that enjoy a high popularity. In contrast, the tension derived from the employment of different translation strategies is comparatively less in regular sites that are situated in places that are not confronted with a great number of visitors. Hence, as an outcome of China's struggle for preservation of its cultural flavor, phonetic translation is more frequently adopted when rendering the names of these sites.

CONCLUDING REMARKS
In sum, the four common strategies for translation of tourist site names are 'pure phonetic', 'phonetic (name) + semantic (class)', 'pure semantic', and 'phonetic (location) + semantic (name)'The findings of this study suggest that phonetic translation is generally used more frequently than semantic translation. Specifically, the pattern 'phonetic (name) + semantic (class)' ranks the highest frequency of use, followed by 'pure semantic', 'pure phonetic' and 'phonetic (location) + semantic (name)' respectively. The findings suggest that the pattern 'phonetic (name) + semantic (class) dominates over semantic translation, but the pattern 'pure semantic' remains a more desirable approach in rendering names of tourist sites located in places with more foreign visitors.
However, this paper only covers aspects of tourist site name translation from Chinese to English, so the findings may be limited to such context. Moreover, the focus was on examining the impact of 'fame' and 'popularity' on the translation of site names. Future studies may investigate the impact of other factors, such as economic or political factors, linguistic factors, or human factors. The findings of this article shall help translators and practitioners in the field of tourism marketing to gain insights into the potential translation approaches for the rendering of tourist attraction names and potential rationales for preferences for certain translation approaches. Meanwhile, the findings of the article shall also serve as a basis for further research on other different factors that may influence the translation approaches adopted in rendering other kinds of proper names. The methodology and findings of this present study hopefully provide aspirations to researchers in onomastics, translation studies and tourism marketing and contribute to the investigation of relevant studies.

END NOTE
1. For instance, Fernandes (2006, p. 52) conducted a study on the Portuguese-English Parallel Corpus of Children's Fantasy Literature and it was found in the translation that the name of the historical figure 'Richard of York' is replaced with 'Aquenaton', a character whom target-text readers are more familiar with within their culture.