在聶華苓長達數十年的跨國寫作生涯中，《桑青與桃紅》無疑是最具代表性的作品之一。這本小說雖以中國現代史為故事背景，但如同白先勇所說，卻是以「印象式」（impressionistic）的手法寫成，充滿西方現代主義實驗精神的作品，反映出她早年翻譯亨利．詹姆斯（Henry James）與威廉．福克納（William Faulkner）等美國作家時受到的影響。一九八○年代以後，《桑青與桃紅》逐漸超越中國文學的脈絡，被詮釋成亞美離散文學的經典，除了讓這本小說自然而然成為她所有作品中最常被研究的一部，也反映出英譯本對於這種跨國與跨界經典化（canonization）過程所扮演的推手角色。由於《桑青與桃紅》的內容具有高度政治性，在臺灣《聯合報》上連載曾因國民黨政府的審查制度而遭腰斬，後來在中國大陸也是經過大幅刪減後才得以出版，本論文想要探究的是：因為這本小說第一個英譯本Two Women of China: Mulberry and Peach同時在紐約與北京出版，是否也遭逢同樣命運，有些地方因為政治因素而無法譯出？還有，從書名看來，“Two Women of China”喧賓奪主，取代了「桑青與桃紅」的地位，這是否意味著譯本將作品的文學義涵進行了重新詮釋？與後來在英美出版，書名改為Mulberry and Peach: Two Women of China的幾個版本又有何不同？透過夢娜．貝克（Mona Baker）的「論述」（narrative）觀點，本論文希望能對上述幾個問題提出嘗試性的解答。

In Nieh Hualing’s decades-long transnational writing career, Sangqing yu Taohong undoubtedly stands out as one of her most representative works. Although the novel is set against the backdrop of modern Chinese history, it is written in an “impressionistic” style, as noted by Bai Xianyong. This work is infused with the experimental spirit of Western modernism, reflecting the influence Nieh received during her early career in Taiwan (1949-1964) as a translator of American authors such as Henry James and William Faulkner. Since the 1980s, Sangqing yu Taohong has gradually transcended the context of Chinese literature and has been interpreted as a classic in Asian American diasporic literature. Not only has it become one of the most frequently studied works among Nieh’s writings, but its journey also highlights the role of the novel’s English translations in the process of both cross-border and cross-genre canonization. Due to its highly political content, Taiwan’s United Daily News used to serialize Sangqing yu Taohong but the serialization came to an end abruptly, due to the Kuomintang government’s ideological censorship. Later, in mainland China, the novel underwent significant cuts before being published. This raises an intriguing question: Did the first English translation, titled Two Women of China: Mulberry and Peach, encounter similar obstacles due to political factors, since it was published in both New York and Beijing, where the Communist government also censored heavily? Furthermore, did the change in title—replacing “Mulberry and Peach” with “Two Women of China” as the main title—suggest a reinterpretation of the literary significance in the first translated version? How do subsequent English editions, now retitled as Mulberry and Peach: Two Women of China, differ from the first one? Through Mona Baker’s theoretical perspective of narrative, this paper aims to explore these questions in a tentative manner.