Twentieth-century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, Issues and Debates

Benjamins Translation Library The Benjamins Translation Library aims to stimulate research and training in translation and interpreting studies. The Library provides a forum for a variety of approaches (which may sometimes be conflicting) in a socio-cultural, historical, theoretical, applied and pedagogical context. The Library includes scholarly works, reference works, post-graduate text books and readers in the English language.

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory Modes, issues and debates OUCENG

General editor

Associate editor

Gideon Toury Tel Aviv University

Miriam Shlesinger Bar Ilan University

Advisory board Marilyn Gaddis Rose

Franz Pbchhacker

Binghamton University

University of Vienna

Yves Gambier

Rosa Rabadan

Turku University

University ofLe6n

Daniel Gile

Roda Roberts

Universite Lumiere Lyon 2 and ISIT Paris

University of Ottawa

Ulrich Heid

Juan

University of Stuttgart

UMIST Manchester

Eva Hung

Mary Snell-Hornby

Chinese University of Hong Kong

University of Vienna

W. John Hutchins

Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit

University of East Anglia

University of Joensuu

Zuzana Jettmarova

Lawrence Venuti

Charles University of Prague

Temple University

Werner Koller

Wolfram Wilss

Bergen University

University of Saarbriicken

Alet Kruger

Judith Woodsworth

UNISA

Mt. Saint Vincent University Halifax

Jose Lambert

Sue Ellcn Wright

Catholic University of Leuven

Kent State University

Leo Tak-hung Chan Lingnan University,

c. Sager

Hong Kong

OUCENG

2007.03.29 ENG2005BOYSENG2005BOYS

Volume 51 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, issues and debates

John Benjamins Publishing Company

by Leo Tak-hung Chan

Amsterdam/ Philadelphia

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI z39.48-1984.

Table of contents

List of contributors Preface

IX XIII

PART

1

1. 2. 3. 4.

3

I The traditional approach: Impressionistic theories "Modern" theories of the 1920s and 30s Theories from a postcolonial perspective End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

References for Chapters 1-4 II A. Responses to Yan Fu 1. Yan Fu: "Preface to Tianyanlun (Evolution and ethics)" (1901)

15 29 43 60

PART

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Leo Tak-hung Chan Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, issues and debates / Leo Tak-hung Chan. p. cm. (Benjamins Translation Library, ISSN 0929-7316; v. 51) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Translating and interpreting--China--History--20th century. I. Title. n. Series. P306.8.C6C49 2004 418'.02'095104-dc22 ISRN 90 272 16576 (Eur.) / 1 58811 511 9 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2004041142

2004 - John Benjamins B.v. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. ©

11 ,

I

John Benjamins Publishing Co.. EO. Box 36224· 1020 ME Amsterdam· The Netherlands John Benjamins North America· p.a. Box 27519· Philadelphia PA 19118-0519· USA

67

Tr. C. Y. Hsu 2. Zheng Zhenduo: "How to translate literary texts" (1921) hLeaChan 3. Bian Zhilin: "Literary translation and sensitivity to language" (1983) Tr. Gilbert Fang 4. Ye Weilian: "Debunking claims of Xin, Da and Ya" (1994) Tr. Ye Weilian Notes to Articles 1-4

69

B. Spiritual resonance 5. Chen Xiying: "On translation" (1929)

91

Tr. Chapman Chen 6. Zeng Xubai: "Spirit and fluency in translation" (1929) Tr. Chapman Chen 7. Fu Lei: "Preface to the retranslation of PCre Gariat" (1951) Tr. May Wang

93

72 74 77 89

102

VI

Table of contents

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

8.

Qian Zhongshu: "The translations of Lin Shu" (1963) ~Geo~~o

Notes to Articles 5-8

C. Art vs. science 9. Zhu Guangqian: "On translation" (1944) Tr. Leo Chan 10. Fu Lei: "Fragments of my translation experience" (1957) Tr. Leo Chan 11. Huang Xuanfan: "Review of Si Guo's Studies of Translation" (1974) Tr. Matthew Leung 12. Huang Xuanfan: "Translation and linguistic knowledge" (1974) Tr. Matthew Leung 13. Jin Di: "The debate of art vs. science" (1987) Tr. Priscilla Yip Notes to Articles 9-13 D. The language of translation 14. Qu Qiubai: "On translation - A letter to Lu Xun" (1931)

Tr. Yau Wai Ping

23. Ai Siqi: "On translation" (1937) 104 115 121 123 126

129 134 141

Notes to Articles 14-18 E. Literal translation vs. sense-translation 19. Liang Shiqiu: "On Mr. Lu Xun's 'Stiff translation'" (1929)

Tr. Evangeline Almberg

153 158

, I

Tr. Leo Chan

Tr. Julie Chiu

Tr. Tan Zaixi

162 168

173 175

179 181

184

211

21 4 220 223 225

23°

30. Liu Miqing: "The basic paradigm of Chinese translation theory" (1990)

Tr. Han Yang

236

31. Sun Zhili: "Some thoughts on building our nation's translation theory" (1998)

Tr. Han Yang

24°

32. Lin Zhang: "On theories in translation studies" (1998)

Tr. Leo Chan Notes to Articles 28-32 H. Creativity and translation 33. Zheng Zhenduo: "Virgins and matchmakers" (1921)

Tr. Rachel Lung 188

208

29. Luo Xinzhang: "Chinese translation theory, a system of its own" (1984)

Tr. Tan Zaixi

22. Mao Dun: "Literal translation, smooth translation, and distorted translation" (1934) •• ,

2°3

27. Gu Zhengkun: "On multiple complementary norms and the translation of poetry" (1990)

G. Translation theory for China 28. Dong Qiusi: "On building our translation theories" (1951)

21. Ye Gongchao, "On translation and language reform" (1931)

Tr. Rachel Lung

201

26. Bian Zhilin: "Translation and its positive/negative impact on modern Chinese poetry" (1987)

151

20. Lu Xun: "'Stiff translation' and the class nature ofliterature" (1930)

Tr. Leo Chan

Tr. May Wong

Notes to Articles 24-27

18. Yu Guangzhong: "Translation and creative writing" (1969)

Tr. Leo Chan

Tr. Brian Holton

147

17. Fu Lei: "Letter to Lin Yiliang on translation" (1951)

Tr. Sara Ho

F. The untranslatability of poetry 24. Mao Dun: "Some thoughts on translating poetry" (1922)

Tr. Kelly Chan

16. Qu Qiubai: "Again on translation - A reply to Lu Xun" (1932)

Tr. Yau Wai Ping

Notes to Articles 19-23

25. Cheng Fangwu: "On translating poetry" (1923)

15. Lu Xun: "A reply to Qu Qiubai" (1931) ~LeoQan

Tr. John Lai

244 246 249 25 1

34. Guo Momo: "Letter to Zheng Zhenduo" (1921)

Tr. Rachel Lung

252

35. Mao Dun: "The 'matchmaker' and the 'virgin'" (1934) 192

Tr. Laurence Wong

254

VII

VIII

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

36. Fang Ping: "Miscellaneous thoughts on translation" (1995)

Tr. Orlando Ho

257

37. Xu Yuanchong: "Verbal translation and literary translation" (1995)

Tr. Orlando Ho

261

List of contributors

38. Xu Jun and Yuan Xiaoyi: "For the sake of our common cause" (1995)

Tr. Orlando Ho

26 4

Notes to Articles 33-38

268

Index

271

Evangeline Almberg has a B. A. (Hons) from the University of Hong Kong and a Ph.D. from the University of Stockholm. She is currently a full professor at the University of Macao. Kelly Kar-yue Chan is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Edinburgh and currently teaches at the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong. Leo Tak-hung Chan is Head of the Department of Translation, Lingnan University, Hong Kong. His articles have appeared in TTR, Babel, Across Languages and Cultures and The Translator. His most recent publication is

One into Many: Translation and the Dissemination of Classical Chinese Literature (Rodopi, 2003). Chapman Chen currently teaches translation as Assistant Professor at the Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies at Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

,I

, ,

,

Julie Chiu is Assistant Professor of Translation at Lingnan University. She has published two books of translation and articles on the translation of fantasy novels and modern Chinese free verse. She is presently engaged in research on contemporary "short-short" stories and time in translation. Gilbert C. F. Fong is Reader/Professor at the Department of Translation, Chinese University of Hong Kong. He translated many plays by Gao Xingjian, published in The Other Shore and Snow in August. He also edited Studies on Hong Kong Drama and Plays from Hong Kong, and is Editor of two journals.

,

I'

,

Han Yang has a B. A. (Hons.) and a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of York, UK. She is currently an Assistant Professor in Language and Translation at the Open University of Hong Kong. Orlando Nang-kwok Ho has a B. A. (Hons.) from the Chinese University of Hong Kong and a Master's degree from the University of New South Wales. Currently, he is doing part-time teaching at the Open University of Hong Kong.

x

List of contributors

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Yau Wai Ping obtained his B. A. and M.Phil. from the University of Hong Kong, and his Ph.D. from the Hong Kong Baptist University. He taught translation at Lingnan University and is currently Co-ordinator of the translation program at the School of Professional and Continuing Education, University of Hong Kong.

Sara Ho has a B. A. (Hons) from the City University of Hong Kong and a Master's degree from the Hong Kong Baptist University. Currently, she is doing HRD work in the Hong Kong Housing Authority. Brian Holton, currently teaching translation at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, has translated many texts into both English and Scots. He is currently translating another book by the contemporary poet Yang Lian, and has recently finished a Scots translation of "The Nine Songs" ("Chu Ci").

Priscilla Yip, a court interpreter with the Hong Kong Government, is currently studying for her M. A. at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Wai-lim Yip, intercultural poet, translator, critic, theorist, and East/West comparatist, has published more than 40 books in English and Chinese. He has been Professor of Chinese/ Comparative Literature at the University of California at San Diego since 1967.

George Kao has published a number ofChinese translations under the penname ofQiao Zhigao; most notable among these is that ofSeott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. John Tsz-pang Lai has a B. A. (First Class Hons.) and an M.Phil. degree from the University of Hong Kong. Currently, he is a D.Phil. candidate at the University of Oxford.

,

Matthew W. K. Leung obtained his B. A. (Hons.) (English and Comparative Literature), M. Phil. (Comparative Literature) and M. A. (Language Studies) from the University of Hong Kong. Currently, he is Associate Professor in the Department of Chinese, Translation and Linguistics, City University of Hong Kong.

1

1

Rachel Lung W ai-chu obtained a Ph.D. in English Language and Linguistics at the University of Essex, and is now Assistant Professor in the Department of Translation at Lingnan University. 1

I,

Tan Zaixi has aB. A. degree from Hunan Normal University (People's Republic of China), and a Master's and a Doctorate degree from the University of Exeter (United Kingdom). He teaches translation as a Scholar-in-Residence in the English Department of the Hong Kong Baptist University. Laurence Wong is Professor and former Head of the Department of Translation at Lingnan University, Hong Kong. His latest publication is a Chinese verse translation of Dante's Divine Comedy.

I I

I, 1

I '

MayWong has a B. A. (Hons.) from the Chinese University of Hong Kong and a Master's degree from the City University of Hong Kong. Currently, she is a Public Relations Officer at a commercial firm and teaching part-time at the Open University of Hong Kong.

.

Xl

Preface

,,

i,I I' 1

,

11

,

I

! I I

,I

1

I , 1

,

,I, '

,

, ,I

I

Initially, this book grew out of an interest in systematically analyzing the history of translation theory in modern China. The study of metatextual material (like theory and criticism) helps us understand the norms upheld by a certain society at given points in time, and in recent years it has attracted the attention of translation scholars and teachers. The importance of knowing more about the history of translation theory is that it allows us to see through the surface features of translated texts, providing information that will support, or compel us to revise, our hypotheses. There are different concerns in different periods, as witnessed, for instance, by the perennial debate on the proper way to translate poetry, especially with regard to formal matters like rhymes and metrical patterns. In different periods different answers have been posed, and actual translations must be seen as responding to the multiplicity of positions advanced by the theorists. This fact is borne out nowhere else more clearly than in the various methods used by Chinese translator-poets to render meter through the course of the twentieth century. Theoretical debates, of course, also reveal broader political concerns and are not necessarily concerned only with the practicalities of translation. For one obvious example: the fierce disputes between Lu Xu and Liang Shiqiu need to be viewed against the backdrop of rivalries between the Left-league Writers and the Crescent Moon Society in the 1930s. It could be said, in fact, that what happened behind the theories is more fascinating than the theories themselves. Indeed, the controversy over whether translation is as much an act of creation as original writing reflects the struggle on the part of translators to gain respectability, first in the 1930s and then again in the 1990s. Judging by the fact that the arguments, vehemently presented by both sides, are still heard even today, evidently the battle has not yet been won. One thing highlighted by the present anthology of translated essays is that translation theories seldom exist independently. Most have to confront oppositions of one kind or another, so that a fruitful way of studying the history of translation theory to see how ideas are dialectically juxtaposed, as well as how this affects practicing translators who constantly have to choose between

XIV

I I

, 1 1

1

1

I,

1

I,

,I

I ,

, ,

,, :

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

alternatives. Anthony Pym has put this succinctly in Method of Translation History: "In principle, since no one theorizes just to state the obvious, each individual theory or act of theorization should find at least one counterpart somewhere" (p.129). For translation scholars, one might add, the translation theories propounded through the centuries revolve around possible choices more than likely solutions. Naturally, in contrast to elements of contention and disagreement, we should also notice some attempts at reconciliation or resolution. For instance, Lin Yutang sought to bypass the distinction between literal and sense-translation with his theory of sentence-for-sentence translation. However, in the poststructuralist and postmodernist times that we happen to inhabit, a universally agreed theory of translation may not be possible, or even desirable. but thrive Consequently, the chances are that we will continue to live between the polar opposites of translation and creation; literalism and liberalism; foreignization and domestication; translation as art and as science; formal and spiritual resonance; and so on and so forth. Two caveats. Some readers going through Part II of this book might think that certain articles ought to be included in a different debate than the one they are presently allotted to. For instance, in the final part of Sun Zhili's article on "Some Thoughts on Building Our Nation's Translation Theory" (included in "Translation Theory for China"), the author expounds at some length on the "Science vs. Art" debate. Several articles, too, are at least partially concerned with the controversy over literal and sense-translation, though they do not belong to Section E. In allotting the 38 articles to the eight different sections, however, the primary concern has been to show how each debate has evolved through a number of articles that were historically connected, in the sense that some were actually written in response to others that preceded them. Other readers might think that certain articles have been inadvertently left out. The truth of the matter, however, is that while a more comprehensive selection could have been made, one wonders if that is at all advisable at this stage of the game. The four essays that constitute Part I of this book are revised from the following articles I previously published: "What's 'Modern' in Chinese Translation Theory? Lu Xun and the Debates on Literalism and Foreignization in the May Fourth Period," TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction 14.2 (2001), pp.195-223; "Translation Studies in Hong Kong-China and the Impact of 'New Translation Theories,'" in Translation in Hong Kong: Past, Present and Future, edited by Chan Sin-wai (Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong

Preface

Kong Press, 2001), pp.157-74; '''Colonization,' Resistance, and the Uses of Postcolonial Theories for Translation in Twentieth-Century China," in Changing the Terms: Translating in the Postcolonial Era, edited by Paul St. Pierre and Sherry Simon (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2000), pp. 53-70; and "The Impressionistic Approach to Translation Theorizing; or, Twentieth-Century Chinese Ideas of Translation through the Western Looking-Glass," in Translation as Intercultural Communication, edited by Mary Snell-Hornby, Zuzana Jettmarova and Klaus Kaindl (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1995), pp.57-66. Two translations originally appeared elsewhere: Yen Fu's "General Remarks on Translation," Renditions I (autumn 1973): 4-6 (tr. C. Y. Hsu); and Ch'ien Chung-shu's "Lin Ch'in-nan Revisited," Renditions 3 (autumn 1975): 8-21 (tr. George Kao). I wish to thank the publishers concerned for permission to use or reprint them. Offering indispensable help in the preparatory stage of the book is a longtime friend and colleague, Paul Levine, without whom this project might not have taken off at all. 1 hope the final product has not fallen far too short of his expectations. I am especially indebted to the twenty translators, all of whom exercised the utmost patience during the three years in which the book was looking for a publisher. Among those to whom I am grateful for timely help and expert advice are: Chu Chi-yu, Eugene Eoyang, Luo Xuanmin, Sherry Simon, Mary Snell-Hornby and Xu Jun. I am glad this book has finally found a niche where it can feel truly comfortable. For this I have to thank Professor Gideon Toury, Editor of the Benjamins Translation Library; the two anonymous reviewers, who spotted many an omission or repetition; and Isja Conen, who ensured smooth sailing for the manuscript after it was accepted for publication.

xv

PART

I

I

I

1

i' I : I, , ,

, 1

I,

, 1 ,

1

i

1

1

,

,, , ,

,

I, I, , ,

I! , ,

I

, ,I

,

I

CHAPTER

1

The traditional approach: Impressionistic theories

1

I, ,

I: I

I, 1

, ,

, ,

1 1

,

,

I 1

I ,

I I

,

, '

,I

,I 1

1

,

,

1

,

,

, : i!

"

1

'

Much of the current evaluation of Chinese translation theory has tended toward one of two extremes: either it has been valorized as belonging to a distinctive, separate tradition, so that any attempt to seek Western equivalents can only be futile, or it has been denigrated as lacking in analytical depth and philosophical insight as compared with Western translation theory. There is some truth in both of these views, though difference does not need to be equated with inferiority or, for that matter, superiority. Speaking of the distinctiveness of Chinese views of translation, it is a well-known fact that in China, translation has for centuries been regarded as a marginal, if not trivial, activity. St. Jerome's (346?-420) belief that translations can be used to expropriate ideas from another culture to enrich one's own would have found little favor with the Chinese. Chinese thinking on translation remained for some time strongly influenced by an attitude which saw the target culture as infinitely superior, and hence not quite the "recipient" - until the tables were turned at the beginning of the twentieth century. As for the criticism that Chinese translation is deficient in analytical rigor, it must be admitted that many Chinese translation theorists are prone to vague, impressionistic assertions concerning translations. That is the case with the early Buddhist translator-theorists working in the second to the tenth centuries, with the seventeenth and eighteenth-century Christian converts who translated religious and scientific writings from the West, and even with the early twentieth-century theorist Yan Fu (1854-1921), whose "three principles of translation" practically set the perimeters for present-day discussions on translation in China. This impressionistic bent is evidenced in the direct borrowing of terminology from the discourse of traditional literary criticism, presumably in the absence of existing terms for the description of translated works. It is not until the extensive importation of Western linguistic parlance since the 1960s that a more systematic, and less subjective, analysis of the translational process is made possible.

4

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

What this scenario reveals in effect is that, up until recently, intuitive judgements concerning translations often formed the basis for theory. This showed itself in a proclivity to theorize with reference to "good" translations as opposed to "bad" ones. Before the linguistic approaches of theorists like J. c. Catford and Eugene Nida came to China, there was in Chinese translation on what happens in interlintheory less emphasis on the translation process than on the quality of the product itself, and on what constigual transfer tuted a good translation. For James Holmes, translation theory is distinct from criticism in that theory is concerned with evolving principles and models, not "in describing existing translations, observed translation functions" (Holmes 1988: 73), whereas criticism always focuses on translated texts and inevitably entails an element of subjectivity. I If that is the case, was much of the discussion that passed for translation theory in China actually translation criticism? Or was this a theory that focused more on description and evaluation of the product than on analysis of processes? I propose to address these issues below, through a study of the key ideas propounded by noted translation theorists of the first half of the twentieth century, among them Yan Fu, Fu Lei (19081966), and Qian Zhongshu (1910-).

, 1

11

,i i

I:1

Yan Fu's "three principles"

i I

1 1

,,

1

11

1:,

1

'I'

',

Yan Fu's three principles - fidelity (xin), fluency (da) and elegance (ya)2_ were widely accepted as essential criteria for understanding translations ever since their appearance almost a century ago in Yan's preface to his own translation of T. H. Huxley's Evolution and Ethics (1898). They have also become the fundamental tenets of twentieth-century Chinese translation theory. Though there have been attempts to remove "elegance" from the list or replace it with other principles, the importance of fidelity and fluency has gone pretty much unchallenged. Perhaps these three principles are best defined by Yan himself, rather than by the multitude of translation theorists in his wake who sought to extract other meanings from them: Translation involves three requirements difficult to fulfill: fidelity (xinJ, fluency (da) and elegance (ya). Fidelity is difficult enough to attain but a translation that is faithful but not fluent is no translation at all. Fluency is therefore of prime importance. Since China's opening to foreign trade by sea, there has been no lack of interpreters and translators. But if you assign them any book to translate and tell them to meet these two requirements, few can do so."

The traditional approach

It is easy to see the degree to which fidelity, elegance, and especially fluency are terms of an evaluative nature, and indeed Yan Fu proceeded in his treatise to critique his own translation of Huxley. He noted how much he had tampered with the original text in the interest of fluency: he freely added to or deleted from it, since to him the translation should not be unnecessarily constrained by the linguistic structures of the source text. For a brief while it appears that he was privileging fluency over and above the other two terms of reference, though a little later on he observed that, while there should be room for the translator to re-create, this was nevertheless "not the right way of doing a translation." Hence, to cut short the ongoing debate on whether Yan Fu regarded fidelity or fluency as the more central criterion, we need to note that, in principle (as against even his own actual practice), he stood on the side of fidelity to the original. In so doing, Yan Fu falls squarely within the tradition of the majority of Bible translator-theorists in the West, for whom faithfulness, or respect for the source text, was to be defended as a virtue. For some years there have been rather harsh criticisms ofYan Fu's theory of translation, most of them directed against his principle of elegance, and some against that of fidelity. Several scholars underlined the uselessness of "elegance" as an analytical term, and asserted that Yan Fu had included it in his tripartite model simply because he wanted to suggest that the ornate classical prose style of the Tongcheng school, in which Evolution and Ethics was translated, was the best language for translations. 4 Now that such period tastes have become outmoded (and plainer styles preferred), so should the criterion of elegance. Others, eager to elevate the criterion of fluency, argued that the pursuit of embellishment in translations can be subsumed under "fluency," since whatever style is chosen, the main goal is still to attract readers to the translation. A fluent style could serve the purpose even better than an elegant one. In fact, one problem with both terms, elegance as much as fidelity or even fluency - is their lack of specificity, which weakens considerably their use as analytical tools; there are as many interpretations of them as there are theorists who choose to talk about them. As will be made apparent below, such vagueness of reference can be seen in several other recurrent terms in Chinese translation theory. While Yan Fu's ideas have by and large provided the framework for Chinese thinking about translation in the twentieth century, a little observed fact is that there was an alternative approach to translation theory at the end of the nineteenth century, expounded by the leading philologist of the time and Yan's contemporary, Ma Jianzhong (1845-1900). While spending the greater part of

5

6

I, , "

I I' ,

11

11

I I

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

his time writing a voluminous grammar of the Chinese language based on borrowed Western grammatical categories,s Ma presented "A Proposal for the Establishment of a Translation Bureau" in 1894. In this treatise he adumbrates an approach to translation drawing on the insights of what must be termed (in hindsight) contrastive linguistics. For Ma, in order to succeed at his task, the translator needs to analyze with the minutest care the source and target languages. By placing together for comparison individual words and sentences from the two languages, he seeks to identify the causes for similarities and differences in expression. He stresses that only after thoroughly understanding the original should one proceed to translate. Ma Jianzhong differs markedly from Yan Fu in his emphasis on close textual analysis and his valorization of the literal method in translation. Set in contrast to Ma, Yan Fu appears more of a proponent of latitude in translation - although he does, as we noted above, concede that fidelity is something not to be disregarded. Of course, Ma's attention to the language of the original (and that of the translation) did at times go to exaggerated lengths. With philological enthusiasm he encouraged the translator to pay special heed to the etymologies of words, as well as semantic changes over time. Nevertheless, one will not have been amiss in viewing Ma Jianzhong as the first of a line of Chinese linguists who actively enlisted the aid of Western linguistics to explicate Chinese grammar and syntax. He is virtually the pioneer of Chinese translation theorists who adopt a language-oriented approach to translation, focusing on equivalence in translation. Unfortunately, however, the rise to prominence ofYan Fu's three principles was paralleled by the neglect paid to Ma's ideas through the twentieth century. The linguistic turn was one that Chinese translation theory was slow to take; it did not occur until after midcentury, when theorists like Liu Miqing and Jin Di appeared on the scene. 6

Fu Lei's "spiritual resonance" I'

Meanwhile, the stock of impressionistic terminology with an evaluative coloring continued to expand. Another widely used term in twentieth-century Chinese translation theory is Fu Lei's "spiritual resonance" (shensi). To many, Fu Lei had released the discussion of translation from the constraints imposed by Yan Fu's three principles with his introduction of this principle in 1951, in his preface to his second rendition ofHonore de Balzac's Le Pere Goriot. Fu left no doubt that his was a term appropriated from traditional Chinese aesthetics,

The traditional approach

a term associated in particular with painting criticism. According to him, "In terms of effect, translation, like imitation in painting, should be in search of resemblance in spirit rather than in form."7 "Formal resonance" (xingsi) is, for translation scholars brought up on Western linguistics, much the same as "formal equivalence." But it is clear that Fu Lei's use of the term was more vague, and he merely intended it to refer to whatever is not "spiritual resonance," the paired but opposed term. The two terms only set up a continuum of sorts with an evaluative prejudice, since the rendering of the spirit is adjudged to be infinitely superior to that of, if we may, the "body." Other than the evaluative bent, Fu Lei's terms suffer also from a looseness of reference. In fact, "spiritual resonance" has remained perennially enigmatic. Like Yan's three terms, it has kept theorists busy hunting for exact connotations for decades, without coming any closer even today (as fifty years ago) to a grasp of its precise implications. Innovative as it may seem at first sight, when understood in context, this concept has an ancestry traceable back to discussions of "spiritual assonance" (shenyun or fengyun) in the 1920s and 30s. At the time these terms were most often bandied about by poetry translators like Guo Moruo (1892-1978), translator of Shelley and Goethe, and Zhu Shenghao (1912-1944), translator of Shakespeare. Guo Moruo's discussion of "the achievement of spiritual assonance in translation" in an article he published in 1922 is especially pertinent to the present discussion. For him: The translator of poetry does not exercise his skill through checking up the dictionary for others, nor does he act as if he is deciphering telegrams at the telegraph office. The life of poetry resides in an inherent musical spirit.... If we simply translate poems literally, then we turn out translations not of an artist, but of a linguist (Chen 1992: 268). 8

Two telling points are conveyed by this passage. First, in spite of the fact that Guo Moruo shows a keen concern for translating the essential spirit of a work of art, he still offers little help in clarifying the meaning of the term "spirit" which for him seems largely a matter of rhyme and metre. Second, Guo appears again to be mounting an assault on the linguistic approach, this time through a disparagement of the linguist's concern for capturing the literal meaning, or "semantic equivalence" in contemporary translation terminology. The painter/translator comparison, as well as the dichotomy stipulated between the outward "form" and the inward "soul" of a literary work, reminds us how closely this school of Chinese translation thinking resembles that of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Western translation theorists like John

7

8

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Dryden (1630-1700) and Alexander Frazer Tytler (1747-1814). For example, Tytler - whose theories were introduced to the Chinese through Zheng Zhenduo (1898-1958) in an article, "How to Translate Literary Texts" (1921) - has said that, even without using the same colors, the translator has to give his picture the same force and effect of the source text, to re-capture the "soul" of the author. Yet this is not to suggest any direct Western influence on Chinese translation theory; quite on the contrary, a term like "conveying the spirit" has occurred in as ancient a Chinese text as the Book of Changes, and terms like "spiritual assonance" have for centuries figured prominently in the poetry-talk (or poetry criticism) tradition. 9 Hence one would be missing the mark if one attempted to re-cast Fu Lei's ideas in modern Western linguistic discourse. To re-interpret "spiritual resonance" as equivalent to Eugene Nida's theory of "dynamic equivalence," for instance, serves little more than delimit the field of reference of Fu's term. As is typical of critical terminology used in twentiethcentury Chinese translation theory, their vagueness is also partly the cause of their continued relevance. to

I

I I

I

I

, ,

, I'

,I

1

I I

I

,I i I,

,I

,I

Qian Zhongshu's "realm of transformation"

,

"I

I' I

I ,

,

III , I

I

I', ' ,

In common with Yan Fu's three principles and Fu Lei's all important aesthetic criterion, Qian Zhongshu's "realm of transformation" (huajing) describes what an ideal translation is like, differentiates the good translation from the bad, and contains hidden echoes ofsimilar terminology from traditional Chinese poetics and art criticism. Qian's critical term is marked by even greater imprecision in that it simply posits a state that the successful translation is supposed to have reached, and which is out ofbounds to poorer translations. Unlike his predecessors, however, Qian does not define the "realm of transformation" through a critical discussion of his own work. In his seminal article on Lin Shu (18521924), renowned translator of Charles Dickens, Waiter Scott and Rider Haggard, Qian began by talking briefly about the etymological and semantic associations of the Chinese character yi ("to translate"), to which I shall return in a moment. ll Then he explained what he meant by "transformation": The highest standard in literary translation is hua, transforming a work from the language of one country into that of another. If this could be done without betraying any evidence of artifice by virtue of divergences in language and speech habits, while at the same time preserving intact the flavor of the original, then we say that such a performance has attained huajillg, "the ultimate of transmutation." (Luo 1984: 696)

The traditional approach

Lest the sources of Qian Zhongshu's theory be thought of as completely Chinese, especially given the Buddhist and Daoist overtones carried by the term "transformation," one needs to be reminded that Qian's immediate sources were in fact Western. In a footnote, he said that a similar criterion was posited in the seventeenth century by the French scholar George Savile, First Marquess of Halifax, and then in the twentieth century by the German scholar Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, as well as the French poet Paul Valery. In this way Qian's ideas become clothed in a cross-cultural guise. The metaphor that Qian proposed for this kind of perfect translation is the transmigration of souls (again a phrase with Buddhist associations), wherein the body undergoes a transformation, but the "soul" is retained. This may sound oddly similar to Fu Lei's "spiritual resonance," yet Qian's theory of transformation is hardly a variant version of Fu's. As Qian's detailed analysis of Lin Shu's translations later on in the essay shows, this transformation can take sundry forms, producing translations that are immensely successful while differing on the surface from the original. Hence, to say that Qian Zhongshu's "realm of transformation" remains very much an impressionistic jargon and not of much analytic utility is not to belittle Qian's contribution as a translation theorist. At the very least the idea of transformation implies that the translator can have great laxity as well as latitude as he carries out his task. Qian, too, defines the function of a "good" translation differently from theorists before him, in a way that renders his theory of transformation relevant and usable. For him, "a good translation annihilates itself' (qtd. in Luo 1984: 698); by enhancing readers' interest in the original, it encourages them to seek out the source text, leaving the translation behind. By contrast, a bad translation "annihilates the original"; the reader will not want to read either. In his role as mediator between the original and the translation, the translator uses all the energies and skills at his disposal to effect a successful transformation. By thus re-orienting the perspective of the translator, Qian opens the door to the possibility that the translated text can be an improvement on the original, and the translator can exercise judgements as to how his source text can best be translated. With Qian Zhongshu's notion of total transformation, of the original text being "reborn" as a translation, we also come very close to a contemporary Western conception of the autonomy of the translated text which lives a life of its own, and which may even bring the original work to completion. Jacques Derrida, the West's leading deconstructionist, has incidentally remarked that "transformation" is a term that he believes should replace "translation":

9

10

In the limits to which it is possible or at least appears possible, translation practices the difference between signified and signifier. But if this difference is never pure, no more so is translation, and for the notion of translation we would have to substitute a notion of transformation: a regulated transformation of one language by another, of one text by another. (Derrida 1981: 240) , I

,I ,

I, I

I

, ,I

1

I 1 1

, I :

1

I 1

,

I

I :

1

I

I ' "

The traditional approach

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

For his part, Qian Zhongshu sought to rationalize the connection between "translating" and "transforming" by recourse to some verbal antics. German readers are already familiar with the semantic links between Obersetzungon the one hand, and transfer/ transport on the other, while Italians can ponder with bemusement the maxim, Traduttore, traditore. For Qian, the Chinese character for "translation" (yi) has etymological and associative connections with the characters for "seduction" (you), "error" (e), "mediator" (mei), and "transformation" (hua). These express precisely for him the manifold aspects oftranslation: the translator seeks to seduce the reader, to lure him to the original; the translator is always liable to errors in crossing from one language to another, from one culture to another; and of course the translator "transforms." And so, like his Western counterparts, Qian forges linkages between terms, which he then uses to build his theoryY (One thinks in this context of how Eugenio Donato has taken advantage of the fact that Obersetzung has as one of its senses "leaping over an abyss" to make his point on "specular translation" [see McDonald 1985: 127]). The purpose ofthe foregoing discussion, however, has not been to argue for convergences between Chinese and Western thinking about translation as a process of cultural and linguistic transfer, but to define the impressionistic elements in twentieth-century Chinese translation theory with greater precision. This I have done by looking at five central concepts, and on the whole it appears that, while comparisons at every point can be made with Western theories, Chinese theorists have very much gone their own way in that they have manipulated terms derived from traditional Chinese poetics in general and painting criticism in particular, to describe a realm of activity that suffered initially through its marginal status. The choice of terminology, however, reflects a special Chinese emphasis on evaluating (rather than describing or analyzing) the translated product impressionistically; discussions oftranslation almost invariably begin by proposing ways of "telling the good translations from the bad ones." The preference for evaluation, together with the overall deemphasis of the linguistic approach, and the blurring of the lines of demarcation between theory and criticism, are perhaps the distinguishing hallmarks of a body of translation theory propounded in China in the twentieth century.

Postscript As the century turns, a new phase in the discussion of the impressionistic jargon in Chinese translation theory seems to be emerging, almost as a reaction against decades of Western-dominated translation thinking - or perhaps as a rebound from the decades-long disparagement of traditional theories. On the one hand, there is a deep feeling that the concepts of "faithfulness," "fluency," "elegance," etc., have been misrepresented, and that a return to origins particularly what was involved in the translation of Buddhist sutras may help eliminate the obfuscation. Indeed, readers not acquainted with the Chinese situation may view the whole debate about terminology as muddled and unnecessary. It is in this context that the work ofZhu Zhiyu (see Zhu 2001: 38), especially his re-examination of the core meanings of terms like "spiritual resemblance" and "realm of transformation," assumes significance. Debates at conferences and symposia between traditionalists and Western-trained theoreticians are still fierce and appear to admit of no easy resolution, reflecting a growing recognition that a more accurate presentation of impressionistic theories is in order. On the other hand, a younger generation of scholars are making brave attempts to reinvigorate the hackneyed scholarly discussion of translation by resorting to the full range of impressionistic terms available, and by exploring the possibility of utilizing them in the exegesis of translated texts. Of special note is the work ofLiu Huawen, who, by bringing in an array of aesthetic terms centering around shen (spirit), qi (ether) and xing (form), exemplifies the power of "impressionistic" terms in explicating the relationship between the translator and his Other (Liu 2002: 95-112). She does this through a detailed analysis of several translations of a famous poem from the Tang dynasty. What she says at the conclusion ofher article is tantamount to a defense of traditional Chinese translation theories and their applicability to a twenty-first-century environment: In reflecting on the issue of aesthetic response in translation, I came to realize that, although traditional Chinese translation theory can be subsumed under anben (basing on the original), qiuxin (searching for fidelity), shenhua (aiming to be imbued with the spirit) and huajing (attaining the realm of transformation), it is not adequately covered by these broad terms. We see only the tip of an iceberg, since traditional Chinese translation theory is grounded on traditional theorizing about literary writing developed through the centuries. Even though Chinese translation theory puts a premium on intuitive experience rather than abstract

11

12

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

reasoning, empathetic response rather than logical thinking, it nonetheless is based on a rich crop of critical literary theory, and should therefore not be slighted. (Liu 2002: 110)

,I ,

translations -like fenggu (forceful style), xianqing (leisurely sentiments), wenrou (gentleness), qu (oblique style) and yijing (poetic state) - see Deeney (1994, esp. 87-98, 107-14). On the merging of "formal resonance" with "spiritual resonance," see Deeney (1994: 59). Among those who have registered their dissatisfaction with "spiritual resonance" is Huang Yushi (Huang 1995: 285).

10.

,, i

Notes

I',

The traditional approach

n. See Qian's "The Translations of Lin Shu" in Part II of this anthology. There are other semantic links mentioned by Qian that may be of some interest: yi has been defined by traditional Chinese philologists as referring to the "transmission of the language of the barbarians, of birds and beasts"; fan refers to "the turning-around of a piece of embroidered silk," so that everything faces the opposite direction. One may add that one of the homophones for yi also means "to change." 12.

, ,

These can be considered hallmarks of Descriptive Translation Studies, an approach that has garnered increasing interest among translation scholars since the 1970s. The demarcation of criticism as belonging to the "applied" branch of research, as an enterprise separate from theory, is a central concern for this School. For a comprehensive discussion, see Toury (1995, esp. Part 2). In such terms, much of twentieth-century Chinese translation theory can be designated as "traditional."

1.

, "

,ij

, ,, , ,,

,I

2.

I[

3. See the first paragraph of Yan's "Preface to Tianyanlun" as translated in Part II of this book.

Yan's three principles have been variously translated; readers are referred to Part II of this anthology. The three translations adopted here are chosen because they can be readily understood by those familiar with the current Western discourse on translation theory. "Fluency" is used in the sense that Lawrence Venuti intends it to mean in Venuti (1995). For him it is the dominant strategy in translation in the West since the seventeenth century.

I'

11 1

I'1

I'

I

,

I ;,

i ,I ,

4. Among those who suggested doing without "elegance" is Qu Qiubai, for whom this criterion is counter-productive and undermines the effectiveness of the other two criteria. For Frederick Tsai, another prominent twentieth-century translation theorist, it can be replaced with "adequacy" (tie) (see Tsai 1972: 18-19). 5. For an extended discussion of Ma's Grammar, see Shen (1992: 180--218).

i

I I1

1

,I

,

I '

,I'1'1

,

I1

'I' , '

1

'

I'

I' ;

I ,,

6. There is a significant Western influence on both Uu and Jin. Liu's Present-Day Translation Studies (Liu 1993) is one of the more influential books on translation theory written for a Chinese readership. In 11 chapters it deals with "translation as a discipline," "a model for Chinese translation theory," "translatability and untranslatability," "the aesthetics of translation," "the translation of style," and so forth. The contrastive linguistics background that informs Uu's discussion throughout is made evident in his detailed references to the ideas of Western linguists like Saussure, Humboldt and Martinet, among others. Ji Di collaborates with Eugene Nida in writing On Translation (Jin and Nida \984), a popular text usedin university courses on translation theory. 7. For Fu Lei's ideas on translation, see Fu (1981). For a recent study of the various aspects of his life and work, see Serena Jin, ed. Fu Lei yu tade shijie (Hong Kong: Joint Publishing Co., 1994).

"

,

8. For a discussion ofGuo Moruo's views, see Chen (1992: 262-72). ,I' ,

I,,

9. Wong Wai-Ieung has traced the use of impressionistic critical terms in discussions of traditional Chinese poetry. For him, many of the terms are used descriptively and evaluatively, and analytical terms are scarce (see Wang 1976, esp. Chap.3). For a more extensive consideration of similar aesthetic terms as well as their recommended English

13

, ,

CHAPTER

2

,

,

,

"Modern" theories of the 1920s and 30s ,' "

" 1 '

j, '

I, , I' ,1

I ,, ,, 1 1

1I

r , I

I i ,

,, ""

i I I I I ~ ,

1

11

,I, , ,'

,

i I

I

',1

,

,I

, ,

,

The period beginning with the May Fourth Movement in 1919 and ending with the outbreak of World War II can be viewed as the decisive period in modern Chinese translation history. In terms of translation output, especially in the field of literary translation, and of the amount of theoretical discussion on translation, it rivals two other high points of modern Chinese translation history, namely, the late Qing period and the late 1980s-early 90s. Historical conditions in those periods have prompted developments in the translation theory and practice. When the last of the Chinese dynasties Qing followed its downward trend toward disintegration by the end of the nineteenth century, the eagerness to absorb things Western as a way of "saving" the country led to a flurry of translation activity unmatched by any since the great epoch of medieval Buddhist translations. As the twentieth century drew to a close, there was also an incentive to rapidly import ideas from the West. The re-opening of China, which came with the resumption of power by Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s, spurred translation activity on the part of "Fifth Generation Translators," in particular of works from America and Europe (in contrast to translations from the Soviet Union in the preceding era). In both periods (the late Qing and the Reform or "Post-Mao" Era), theories of translation were propounded with fervor by practitioners, scholars and academics. l Nevertheless, it is in the 1920s and 30s that one sees translation theory entering a distinctly modern phase, when translations assumed a key role in ushering in what has been termed Chinese modernity. "Modernity" is not an easy concept to define, and one can even conceive of it broadly as a kind of space in which one's place in the world is variously imagined. In the Chinese case, one can see it as an ever-changing project developed in unequal crosscultural dialogue and interaction. As such, it began as early as the mid-nineteenth century; it continued in a series of distinct moments in which the foreign as "Other" was contested and/or contained; it might not even have concluded even by today. In fields as diverse as politics, economics and philosophy, the confrontation with the West was carried on. But a fact less often noted is that translation also became implicated in the modernity debate,

16

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

"Modern" theories of the 1920s and 30s

, , , ,

I I

"

, , , , I

i ' !, ,

,'1

, ,,

iI, "

I ,I 11 ' 1

1

I

,I11 ', ,, , 1

'

,

I , , ,

I: ' ,

,

I; , ,

, ~ I ,

perhaps directly so. While understandable, it is perhaps unfortunate that translations of the late Qing have been allowed to overshadow those of the 1920s and 30s in Chinese translation histories. The latter greatly outnumber the former, and current research has established that they reached a much wider readership, creating an influence well outside the elite circle of readers. The theories that accompanied translation production in the 1920s and 30s, too, are simply fascinating. Such theories simply set the stage for much of the theorizing to follow in the century. Scholars and translators were then engaged in intense debates about the nature and function of translation in the "new" China. Most notably, there were fierce disagreements about issues of "foreignization" (the method of allowing cultural and linguistic differences to stay intact), the use of Europeanized structures and expressions in translation, and the criterion of fidelity. All these issues then got embroiled in yet a more general debate about the influence of translation on original writing. Finally, looming in the background was a deeply-felt need to modernize the nation on the political, cultural and linguistic fronts to, in other words, realize the grand "Modernity Project."

,,

,

, I I

I

,11

I

1

1

, I'

'

Literalism versus liberalism

'11

"

,

I,

I •

, 'I

11' I'

11

i 1,1

1'1 ;

I ' 11

11

, ,

I I

I'

!.

I

'"I

,I

1

",

There is little doubt that the May Fourth literary giant Lu Xun (1881-1936) stood at the center of the debates on translation in the late 1920s and early 1930s; in more ways than one he can also be considered the first modern translation theorist in China. Among historians of translation, Yan Fu has long been eulogized as the "founder of modern Chinese translation theory," while Lin Shu has been acclaimed as the most influential twentieth-century Chinese translator presumably because he had translated more than anybody else, with 184 translations to his credit. The time has come, however, for a re-evaluation of such widely accepted platitudes. To begin with, Lin Shu's translations, albeit influential for a while, were essentially cast in the late Qing mode of "free translation" or rewriting. The objection raised then was not that they paid no heed to the requirement of "fidelity," but whether they could be considered translations as such. Before one is prepared to stretch considerably the concept of translation to include a large corpus of "second copies" of pre-existent works, as Andre Lefevere has attempted to do, the place of Lin Shu in Chinese translation history ought to be problematized rather than accepted as fact.

On the other hand, Yan Fu has apparently done little to deserve the almost overblown position granted him in the history of translation theory. He simply wrote one short treatise, where he advanced his three principles of "fidelity, fluency and elegance" terms first used in the Six Dynasties by the Buddhist monk-translator Zhi Qian (ca. 2nd century).2 What should not escape notice from our modern-day standpoint, in fact, is that Yan is more traditionalist than modern. That he has been incessantly cited by his successors is an indisputable fact, yet uncompromising critics have also suggested giving up his three principles as a necessary step to making further progress. Furthermore, his bestknown translation, the Tianyanlun, has been repeatedly charged with having taken liberties with the original text, hence falling short of being a truthful Chinese "rendition." As with Lin Shu, one sees conflicting views expressed about Yan. Indeed, Lu Xun reacted strongly against the translation method favored by both of them, though one adopted it only occasionally and the other, ubiquitously. Ironically, as far as the principle of translation is concerned, Lu Xun might be said to have adhered to "fidelity," which was Yan Fu's first principle, one that preceded fluency and elegance. In not practicing what he taught, Yan participated in the general trend in translation since the late nineteenth century, one in which liberalism took precedence over literalism, and free translation rather than close adherence to the original was the order of the day. Lu Xun was obviously not the first theorist to suggest pursuing an alternative in the face of the infelicitous translations prevalent in his time. As early as 1919, in an essay titled "Thoughts on Translation," Fu Sinian already expressed his dissatisfaction with Yan Fu's abandonment of the method of "straightforward translation" or "direct translation" (zhiyi), 3 which connotes in contemporary translation studies parlance close formal correspondence to the original text. This method is supposed to be conducive to a "faithful" translation, though one need to be cautioned against equating the method with the desired result as expressed in a principle. It could be carried to an extreme (as Lu Xun did), resulting in "word-to-word translation" or "stiff translation" (yingyi) (which characterizes the effect produced).4 Over the centuries, in Chinese translation theory the central antithesis was between "straightforward translation" and "sense-translation" (yiyi). But "sense-translation" not only implies semantic correspondence between the source and target texts; it also refers to the free method of translation (more closely denoted by ziyouyi) favored by the likes of Yan Fu and Lin Shu. The terminological confusion, which is the single most important factor leading to interminable debates in

17

,1

",

18

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theorv,

"Modern" theories of the 1920s and 30s

[,

, , '

the course of the twentieth century because it kept debaters talking at cross purposes, can be somewhat clarified with reference to the following schema:

, ,

Zhiyi

Yiyi

Straightforward translation/ Direct translation Approach: Literal - Formal correspondence Extreme form: Word-for-word translation (zuziyi) Effect: Stiff translation/ Hard translation (yingyi) (Lu Xun)

= Sense-translation

, ,

=

"

I, 1

I,I.

I'

1

,,

,

' : j'

I,

, , I

,,

, ,'

,, ,

Approach: Liberal -Semantic correspondence Extreme form: Free translation (ziyouyi)

Effect: Distorted translation ( waiyi) (Un Shu) (see below)

, ,

1" III

'I "

1

, 1

I, ", ,I, ,

"

1

I'

,

, ,

,

1

'

1 ",

'

,

, , ,

1

,

1

"

,

'! ,

I' :,i

,

I'

I ,

, '

, ,

"

, , 1

'

, '"

11

,

I, i , 1

"

I:, '

I

Existing documents reveal that, among intellectuals of the 1920s and 30s with an interest in translation, there was a tendency to revile the liberal method. For instance, Mao Dun (1896-1981), one of the most prominent novelists of the 1930s, spoke openly against Lin Shu's translations (Mao 1934). For him, Lin Shu's translations do not even qualify as "sense-translations," which is, in any case, a neutral term describing one of two preferred methods of translation handed down from antiquity. Mao Dun flatly denounces them as "distorted translations," censuring Lin's inexcusable departures from the source text. Such derogatory labeling of Lin Shu's translations, in sharp contrast to the praise showered on them a decade ago, was followed up later by others who simply said that Lin was rewriting and not even translating. This bespeaks a concerted movement away from the sort of translation associated with Lin Shu, a movement in favor of greater accuracy and presenting the original as it is. Against this background it can be seen that Lu Xun was deliberately pursuing a path diametrically opposed to Lin Shu's, and as if to counteract Lin's extreme liberalism, he practiced an extreme literalism in translation. s His translations, especially of Russian literary works and Marxist literary criticism during the late 1920s, were exemplary in this regard. In reaction against them was Liang Shiqiu (1902-1987), translator of the complete works of Shakespeare. In his "On Lu Xun's 'Stiff Translation" (1929)," Liang began by quoting sentences from Lu Xun's recent translation of Lunacharsky, which hardly made sense. To him Lu Xun had followed the original text too closely and ended up with syntax much too convoluted to be understood. Reading Lu's translations was, consequently, like "reading a map and trying to locate places with one's fingers." Liang averred that they were more than just "stiff translations"; they were "dead translations" (siyi).

Today, with the benefit of almost a century's advancement in comparative linguistic research, it is not difficult to see what "went wrong" with Lu Xun's translations. His literal method resulted in sentences that were downright incomprehensible. Structurally, as a language, Chinese differs drastically from Western languages. In translating word for word from English, for instance, the Chinese translator invariably produces sentences in which the normal word order is seriously violated. More specifically, whereas in many Western languages premodifiers can be placed before, and post-modifiers after, the headword in a noun phrase (as in "the pretty woman in red standing over there"), Chinese permits premodifiers only. Hence in extremely literal translations, several premodifiers have to be strung together by a series of (the possessive) de placed before the headword. This not only makes a sentence look "heavy" at the beginning, but also frustrates the reader as he tries to locate the headword in question. To add to these, the Chinese language, because of the way its verbs are used, is also notorious for its inability to indicate time (past, present, future), modality, aspect, voice and mood (like the subjunctive). Some of the sentences Lu Xun translated could not but leave his readers baffled and outraged (see Lundburg 1989). Liang was justified in his accusations, and he was presenting nothing more than the commonsensical reader's argument. However, in Lu Xun's response to Liang in his essay '''StiffTranslation' and the 'Class Nature of Literature'" (1930), Lu Xun put forth an explanation for his preference for extreme literalism; he went beyond the choice of a translation method and gave a "political" explanation. After saying that his translations did convey the tone oftheir originals (a doubtful point, in fact), Lu Xun stressed that it was a special class of readers that his translations were intended for the proletariat literary critics who had special class interests to champion. Extreme faithfulness to the original was a way of ensuring that "true" Marxist literary thought be presented to those who wanted the facts as they were. Critics, naturally, have not been taken in by Lu's rationale. David Pollard, for one, has argued that "there is something not quite right in the head of a translator who would say that his translations were not intended to please the reader, but to make him uncomfortable" (Pollard 1991: 10). In any case, the asserted link between accuracy and literalism is extremely tenuous one can be inaccurate even though one stays very close to the original. The fact that Lu Xun resorts to a variety of arguments (political, aesthetic, linguistic) to justify his method only shows an irrational obsession with literalism on his part.

19

20

"Modern" theories of the 1920s and 30s

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Europeanization versus Sinicization For Lu Xun, extreme literalism, or "word-for-word translation," is preferred to sense-translation not merely because fidelity to the original is of unquestioned importance, a standard that he will defend at any cost. There is a linguistic dimension as well, since these two methods of translation imply handling the language ofthe source text at two different levels, that is, translating with respect to larger or smaller units. Given the syntactical difference, between Chinese and European languages, an extreme literalism would mean the grafting of unfamiliar linguistic structures onto the target language, while liberalism, even not of the extreme variety as seen in Lin Shu and in Yan Fu, would allow the translator to domesticate his text. Thus the choice between word-for-word translation and sense-translation is linked to incompatibilities that can be theorized on two other dimensions: (a) between Europeanization and Sinicization, and (b) between fidelity and fluency. These dimensions became inextricably meshed in the discourse on translation in the 1920s and 30s:

·i I I

, •

1

1

•

1 ••

1

I1 '! I 1

1 1

,.

iI·l

, •

1

1

I

1

Method: Language use: Principle:

..

•

Word-for-word (literalism) Europeanization Fidelity

Sense-for-sense (liberalism) Sinicization Fluency

I '.

1

:

, •

I i l l, ,I

iI

,I

"

II I, 1

1

I1

il ,I .,

•

,I. I, "' , I:,I ,

.

I

.

!I

1

"

.'

1 1

'1 1 1 •

,, I, ,il

Lu Xun's preference for Europeanization in translation was expressed most succinctly in his correspondence with Qu Qiubai (1899-1935), a younger colleague and a leftist writer, in 1931-1932.7 Despite differences in opinion concerning the preferred language oftranslation, there were clear indications of shared goals. The exchange (ofthree letters) was carried on only in the "spirit of debate" characteristic of the era; more precisely, though, it was a friendly interchange of ideas. Subsequent events actually prove that the tie between the two became closer as a result ofthe correspondence: they met eventually in 1932 through the introduction of a common friend, Feng Xuefeng (1903-1976).8 In his letter dated 5 December 1931, after congratulating Lu Xun on the publication of his translation of Alexander Fadeyev's (1901-1956) Razgrom, Qu Qiubai stressed his concurrence with Lu's program for inventing a new Chinese language: Translation - in addition to introducing the content of the original to Chinese readers - has another important function, that is, helping us create a new modern Chinese language. The Chinese language (as well as its writing system) is so deficient that it lacks names for many everyday objects. Indeed it has not

developed completely beyond the stage of "sign language" - everyday conversation almost can't do without the help of "gestures." Of course, there is almost a complete absence of all those adjectives, verbs and prepositions that express subtle differences and complex relationships (Luo 1984: 266).~

This is comparable to Lu Xun's view, expressed in his letter of December 28, 1931, that" [The Chinese language] is justtoo imprecise" and that "To cure this ailment, I believe we have to suffer some more pain and embody our thought in wayward syntactical structures - ancient, dialectal, as well as foreign - so that one day these structures can become our own" (Luo 1984: 276). For a proper perspective on the argument, influential at the time, that foreign (Europeanized) structures can be imported to replenish the Chinese language, one needs to trace the history of discussion on the strengths and failures of the vernacular language movement. The advocacy of the vernacular (baihua, literally, "plain speech") as a replacement for the classical language (wenyan, literally, "embellished words"), initiated in the late Qing, had gathered a following within a few years of the New Literature Movement of 1917. 10 With the rapid success gained by ardent proponents and daring practitioners, the question soon became not one of whether the vernacular should be used in writing at all, but how it could be honed into a means of expressing the thoughts and sentiments of the new generation of writers who used it as a tool. In other words, after the initial optimism, the inadequacy, rather than the viability, ofthis Chinese language of the future turned out to be a matter of serious concern. Even before Lu Xun, many had stood on the side of Europeanization, believing it to be beneficial to the development of the vernacular, though many were against it too. Fu Sinian (1896-1950), an early enthusiast of the vernacular, was in favor of Europeanization. He practically opened the century-long debate on Europeanization in his "Thoughts on Translation" (1919), in which he boldly asserted that Europeanization of the Chinese language was "all but inevitable" (Fu 1919: 367). When the debate in newspapers and journals reached a feverish pitch, most intellectuals got involved, with a diversity of positions being taken. Mao Dun and Zheng Zhenduo (1898-1958), purveyors of the New Literature Movement, contributed one essay each to the Xiaoshuo yuebao (Fiction Monthly) to discussing the topic (Mao 1921a; Zheng 1921). Mao Dun was in favor of limited Europeanization: one should not go all the way and end up with expressions unfamiliar to ordinary folk. Zheng Zhenduo adopted a similar stance. For him reforming the classical language is necessary because it is lifeless, too cliched and unfit for modern expression, but there should be some limit to Europeanization.

21

22

,, , , ,

, I

I,, ,

,I

,

I,

I

I ,

,

, 1

I

'j: "

I,

, 11

I

1 1

1

,

,,

11

jl

",

I

I

'

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

In the broad spectrum of views expressed, there were some skeptical positions. Hu Shi painstakingly promoted the vernacular, but for him the best written language is one that is spoken by, or understandable to, the masses (qud. in Liu 1999: 77-78). His was a pro-vernacular but anti-Europeanization stance very similar to Qu Quibai's, as I shall explain shortly. For him, the vernacular is best enriched through the importation of dialectal, not foreign, features. Another participant in the early 1920s debate was Fu Donghua (18931971), acclaimed Chinese translator of Gone with the Wind and for some time a colleague of Mao Dun and Zheng Zhenduo at the Commercial Press. Writing with a pseudonym, in 30 June 1921, he railed against Europeanization as a kind of "imitation," noting that imitation of things foreign was as deplorable as imitation of things ancient (Fu 1921). His opinion was that only "what is imagined and what is created is beautiful."ll Even from such a brief synopsis as is given here, it should be evident that in the early 1920s debate on Europeanization, there was a four-way entangled relationship between the vernacular, the classical language, the spoken language (dialects) and foreign languages. Against the backdrop of such a fervent debate, Lu Xun's position must be seen as extremely delicate. He was poised between two opposed parties one favoring, and the other resisting, Europeanization. Through his own combination of translation theory with practice, however, he brought the discussion down to concrete terms. He not only theorized, but also experimented with, the idea of absorbing foreign "nutrients" to expand the repertoire of linguistic resources available to the Chinese language, so as to impel it toward becoming accepted as a medium of modern expression. The result was translations that Liang Shiqiu found incomprehensible in an oddly Europeanized vernacular Chinese. Interestingly enough, Lu Xun and Qu Qiubai utilized similar polemical strategies. Zhao Jingshen (1902-1985), another outspoken translation theorist at the time, was targeted for attack by both of them. It was through disparaging Zhao that both put their views across.1 2 Calling him "Venerable Master," Lu Xun derided the over-emphasis he placed on "fluency," the second of the cardinal principles laid down by Yan Fu. Already noted above is Lu Xun's obsession with closely adhering to the original, even to the extent of introducing unnatural expressions into the translation. When Europeanization was advocated as an acceptable feature in translations, awkwardness became compounded with awkwardness. In his letter to Qu, Lu Xun rationalized his use of wayward expressions by differentiating among three types of readers the

"Modern" theories of the 1920s and 30s

well-educated, the semi-literate, and the illiterate translation method was directed at the first group:

and by saying that his

As far as the art of translation is concerned, if the first group of readers is to be the target, I would advocate "literal translation." In my own translation, even if [a phrase] is unnatural, I will not replace it with a more straightforward expression that shifts the emphasis unnecessarily. Even in creative writing, I think the distinction [among different sorts of readers] has to be made by the author. We import as much as we can, and then digest and absorb as much as we can. What is usable is retained, and what is not is abandoned to the past. So if we tolerate "a certain degree of awkwardness" at present, it does not mean that we are simply on the defensive. (Luo 1984: 276)

Here Lu Xun made clear that his preference for extreme literalism, his deployment of Europeanized structures, and his choice of a rather stilted language of translation were all inter-related, but understandable with reference to the readership he targeted (a very different group than Qu Qiubai's). His optimism about such a practice can be seen in his belief that the less acceptable Europeanized expressions he introduced into the Chinese language would eventually be discarded through a Darwinian natural selection process and "what is usable [will be] retained." Qu Qiubai would obviously have concurred with Lu Xun in so far as the priority of "fidelity" over "fluency" was concerned; in any case, both inveighed against Yan Fu's translation method. In his letter of 5 December, after noting that Yan had secretly upheld "elegance" at the expense of fidelity and fluency, Qu reproached Zhao Jingshen (a representative of the "fluency" school) for making a serious mistake: What Zhao calls "fluency" - since it is to be achieved even if this entails a little "inaccuracy" - is of course a way of obliterating the original meaning so as to accommodate the primitive state of the Chinese language. This is not creating a new language. Just the opposite, this is striving to preserve the barbaric state of the Chinese language, to stunt its development. (Luo 1984: 267)

Today, this can be seen as an attack on "fluency" or deomestication strategies like that carried out by Venuti; interestingly, these were associated by Qu with "backwardness." Furthermore, just like Lu Xun, Qu viewed "fidelity versus fluency" as a language issue. These were not just two translation methods or principles; they reflected the decision of the translator concerning the kind of Chinese language to be used in translation. However, Qu Qiubai departed radically from Lu Xun in his conception of the best language for translation. Qu is famous for his advocacy of an "absolute

23

24

,

I I

,

':

I

I I

1

,

,~II 1

,

,

I,

,I I

1I "

I I,

"Modern" theories of the 1920s and 305

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

vernacular" based on the speech of the commonfolk: to him, because such a language "copied" the spoken language, it was preferable to Europeanized Chinese. He argued for the enrichment of the Chinese language though the utilization of indigenous resources (dialects) rather than through the importation of foreign words, structures and expressions. The dialects of different regions could be used and incorporated, for him, into the vernacular used in translations. This was part of Qu's program for developing a proletarian literature for the masses, and for him Zhao Jingshen failed precisely not because his position was linguistically indefensible, but because it was ideologically unsound. For that reason Qu pronounced Zhao an "enemy of proletarian literature." Lu Xun, on the other hand, while recognizing the existence of an illiterate readership, did not specify in concrete terms how the needs of this readership could be catered to; his view was more elitist. In that sense, Qu exhibited greater "evangelistic" zeal than Lu Xun in promoting a different language for translation, though he never put it into practice. An absolute vernacular fashioned on dialects, for Lu Xun, was a future possibility only. He sharply differentiated between the spoken and the written languages in terms of their suitability as a medium for translation: "Our written language cannot yet be blended with the crude dialects of the different regions, and it will be either a special vernacular language, or the dialect of one special region. In the latter case, readers outside the region will not understand it" (Luo 1984: 277). As a practical measure, Lu Xun prefered a "special" vernacular to Qu's absolute vernacular. The debate on the language of translation was thus a crucial part of the discussion on language reform in early twentieth-century China, and it surfaced with the discrediting of the classical language and the emergence of a farfrom-perfect vernacular. In his letter of 3 December, Qu Qiubai made an apt comparison ofthe former to Latin, and the latter to French. For Qu, in medieval Europe, with the help of translations, vernacular languages like French and German gained an advantage over the Latin idiom and managed eventually to establish themselves as "official" languages. Based largely on the spoken Northern dialect, and used for centuries in popular literature (like novels and folk drama), the Chinese vernacular had been propounded very early as a form of writing by language reformers like Qian Xuantong (1887-1939). Many translators of the 1920s and 30s participated in this linguistic revolution by actively deploying the vernacular, rightly perceiving how translations could assist in the modernization of the Chinese language. Lu Xun's hope was that in Europeanizing Chinese, "new modes of thinking" would become expressible. Qu Qiubai

was equally interested in language reform, but he was more oriented toward the masses, and more inclined towards utilizing native linguistic resources (provided by Chinese dialects) and resisting Europeanizations. Lu Xun might have been right in pointing out the limitations of Qu's project, but the deeper implications of Qu's ideas had yet to be fully explicated.

Translation and modernity When, in the1920s and 30s, China entered her "modern" phase in translation theorizing, she also saw an upsurge in translation production, as evidenced by the thousands ofliterary translations appearing in print. Theorists like Lu Xun, Qu Qiubai, Liang Shiqiu and Zhao Jingshen, therefore, did not emerge in a vacuum. The cultural conditions were ripe, and the peculiar linguistic situation that had evolved since the late Qing compelled theorists to cope with changing realities. Most significantly, the polemics surrounding how to translate resounded with the discourses on modernity carried on in other spheres of Chinese society at the time. Lu Xun as well as Qu Qiubai simply desired release from the backwardness that had characterized Chinese life at every level. Promotion of a new vernacular or, simply, vernacularization was part of a project for national rejuvenation. More research needs to be done on how the Chinese perception of the importance of translation changed as China entered her "modern" era. In our skeletal history of the century that began with the Opium War (1840) here, only shifts of emphasis can be highlighted; it must not be assumed that abrupt changes marked one period from another. From the mid-nineteenth century on, technical translations were undertaken with the goal of tapping Western sources of military strength. During the final years of the Qing dynasty, foreign novels were translated in the effort to transmit Western models of government and Western political thought. Both approaches testify to the instrumentality of translation: it was supposed to help China acquire the power of the Western "Other" and to impel it along the path to modernity, both technologically and politically. Translations in the 1920s and 30s must be understood as a continuation of this project, though more attention began to be placed squarely on linguistic issues. If anything, the theorization about translation on the part of intellectuals (like Lu Xun), in so far as it concerned the "proper" language of translation, displayed an active engagement with questions of linguistic modernity. (As far as literary modernity is concerned, one notes that very few of the

25

26

,

I'

I · ,

I , I ,

, I! "

! ' ! 1

.

.

,

1

1

" , , 1

·

!

,

11

, 11 .,

1

,

I

!

1

, 1

: .1 i

1

"

I ·· , " . I 1

,

,

"

•

, ~ I

1

.

,

I "

11

I .1

, 1 ! I

1

,

,

·, I·.

1

I,

!, 1

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

literary translations of the period in question were of the modernist masterpieces by authors like T. S. Eliot, James Joyce and Marcel Proust. For intellectuals at the time, literary modernity not literary modernism was partly realized through translations of nineteenth-century works, be they in the realist, romantic, or naturalistic modes.) Even by the yardstick ofcontemporary Western translation theory, we need have no qualms about calling Lu Xun a "modern" translation theorist. For one thing, he advocated retaining the foreignness ofthe original text - especially the foreign linguistic structures in a way reminiscent of the entire tradition of German Romantic translation theory from Schleiermacher to von H umboldt to Goethe. 13 He also explored, in one translation after another, possibilities for enriching the Chinese language through the importation of Europeanized terms, structures and expressions. Of course, few of his translations had lasting impact; they never were popular or widely known. His theories, too, never created a great impact, not least because ofthe opposition they encountered and the scant reference to them in subsequent discussions as compared with, say, Yan Fu's three principles oftranslation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it was in the 1920s and 30s that the foreignizing impulse, evincing a desire for the linguistic Other, first reared its head. As demonstrated above, Lu Xun's Europeanizing impulse was coupled with a preference for extreme literalism, for fidelity to the original text. This puts him in the company of such Western theorists like Vladimir Nabokov and Walter Benjamin, both of whom valorize the literal method in translation. All three dare to go to the extreme of word-for-word interlinear translation. Furthermore, Lu Xun's ideas can be partly understood with reference to contemporary translation studies scholars like Lawrence Venuti and Douglas Robinson, who have theorized about the cultural and linguistic processes of foreignization in translation. But if Lu Xun's ideas happen to correspond to those of present-day translation scholars, the fact is of significance only as a measure of the extent to which Lu Xun had moved bravely ahead of his own contemporaries. However, in saying that Chinese translation theory became "modern" with Lu Xun and not Yan Fu, and in contrasting Lu Xun's views on translation with those of his contemporaries, I only wish to draw attention to the Chinese cultural context from which Lu Xun's ideas emerged, rather than focus on his individual contribution. It is more appropriate to say that, with Lu Xun, Chinese translation theorizing entered its modern phase. One thing readily observable from the series of polemical debates discussed above is that, while

"Modern" theories of the 1920s and 30s

Lu Xun appeared most radical, the others were also positioned on various places along the axis of attraction and repulsion as far as the issue of the incorporation of foreign linguistic elements was concerned. All were evincing the "spirit of the times": not only translation, but also the Chinese language, began to be viewed differently. The translation theories of the 1920s and 30s must therefore be related to the general concern with the attainment of Chinese linguistic modernity, as prefigured already in the 1919-1921 debate on Europeanization. Issues of how to translate became a platform for further exploring this concern. 14 The opposition to Europeanized and foreignized translations in Lu Xun's time, given the overwhelming popularity of the domesticated/ Sinicized/ free translations ofLin Shu and others, must have been tremendous. This is seen in Lu Xun's failure to find a large following for the method he advocated. In fact, throughout the entire twentieth century, the opponents of Europeanization and extreme literalism in translation consistently gained the upperhand. But while Europeanization and literalism, as methods of translation, have not been very popular, their effect has been pervasive. Many a translator have testified to their own experience of failing to avoid Europeanizations, much as they wish to. Many a Chinese person, too, will say that Europeanized Chinese is "modern Chinese." What Yin Jicheng said in 1927, in response to Hu Shi's denouncement of Europeanization that "[the Europeanized vernacular] will, after one, two, three, perhaps four years, not appear stilted to readers" and that "several years later, non-Europeanized expressions will probably become unreadable" (qtd. in Liu 1999: 78) has turned out to be prophetically fulfilled. Europeanizations have prevailed. Lu Xun's theory of foreignized/ faithful! Europeanized/ literalist translation is thus, unwittingly, a tribute to the way in which translation can advance the Chinese modernity project, though initially many critics had serious doubts about its viability.ls

Notes Especially in the last twenty years or so, the institutionalization, as well as internationalization, of translation studies has substantially altered the theoretical scene in China, and it would not be inaccurate to say that a revolution of sorts is underway even today. 1.

Zhi Qian already mentioned xin, da and ya in his "Preface to the Faju jini' published in 224. 2.

3· "Direct translation" is the term coined by David Pollard (Pollard 1991: 9). "Literal translation" is a looser rendition.

27

28

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

4. Perez-Barreiro Nolla suggests "hard translation." He notes, insightfully, that "hardness... points towards the target language" while literalism points to the source language (Perez-Barreiro Nolla 1992: 85). I would add that it describes the effect of a translation as well as the method used.

CHAPTER

3

Theories from a postcolonial perspective

5. For a penetrating analysis of literalism as a mode of translation, especially of why it has persisted, see Shen (1995: 568-79). While citing exam pies of extreme literalism, Shen does not treat it as an independent category, as I do in the present article. ,

6. The articles discussed here are all translated in the section on "Literal Translation vs. Sense-Translation" in Part II of this anthology.

'

7. Lydia Liu gave an extensive listing of Europeanizations in the appendixes to her study of what she called "translingual practice" in the years 1900-1937 (Liu 1995: 259-378).

'I

,

"

8. In 1929 Feng Xuefeng published six translations of Marxist works. The signs of bonding among Lu Xun, Feng and Qu, or their forming something like a leftist clique, seem quite obvious. 9. For this and subsequent quotations from the correspondence between Lu and Qu, the reader is refrred to the section on "The Language of Translation" in Part II of this anthology. Yet another term for the vernacular is yutiwen, literally meaning "written language based on speech."

10.

Mao Dun later exposed the fallacy ofFu's argument by noting that Europeanization is a linguistic phenomenon, not a literary one, and so talking about originality and inventiveness is simply confusing one with the other (Mao 1921b). As a matter of fact, the term Ouhua (Europeanization) is deployed only in the Chinese discourse on language, not literature. 11.

,

"

,

, ,,I I,

'

I I

,I ,

,

'

i

I'

For the enmity between Lu Xun and Zhao Jingshen, see Wang (1999: 259). Zhao became at the time almost a representative of the "fluency" school. Zhao, however, was ridicled for his notoriously literal translation of the phrase "Milky Way," which made him the butt of many sarcastic attacks.

12.

13. Necessary reference must be made here to the works of Antoine Berman and Susan

I : ' ' I

1

,I !I

Bernofsky (see Berman 1992; Bernofsky 1998). For Berman, there exists in Germany "a tradition of translation that regards translation as the creation, transmission and expansion of the language" - the same can be said of twentieth-century Chinese translation theory. But the two cases are still different. While in Romantic Germany, translation forges a link between language and national identity - national differences are revealed linguisticallyearly twentieth-century China's "modern" identity is to be constructed through a reconstruction of the Chinese language through the absorption of non-Chinese elements. 14. Belief that new ideas emerged through discussion, debate and dialectical confrontation

is perhaps another oft-noted aspect of the "May Fourth spirit" (see Tagore 1967; Liu 1999). III III ,

I

il l

,, '

,I

ii

'I, I

15. One should note, when all is said, that the various dichotomies treated seriously throughout the period in question (Europeanization vs. Sinicization, fidelity vs. fluency, literalism vs. liberalism) might also be construed as "false dichotomies," in that most translators actually tried to find a comfort zone somewhere along the continuum that extended from "alienation" to "domestication."

Discussions of postcolonial translation have come into vogue in recent years. Originally a term used extensively in literary theory, "postcoloniality" seems suddenly to have been given a prominent part to play in research on translation in Third World countries, particularly India. Undoubtedly, postcolonial theory should have some relevance to all countries that were colonized in one way or another. That being the case, much thought ought to be given to the relevance of postcolonial translation to China. To be sure, China has not been formally occupied by a foreign power in the twentieth century, so she has not experienced a "colonial" period as did her Southeast Asian neighbors, India and most African countries. Indeed, extraterritorial rights over certain parts of the country, like Shanghai and the Yangtse River, were claimed at certain times by foreign powers; Hong Kong was ceded to Britain (though she entered her postcolonial period with the 1997 Chinese takeover); and Taiwan was colonized by the Dutch, and then by the Japanese from the end of the nineteenth century to the end of World War n. However, for Mainland China, where the majority of translations are still carried out and published, the term "postcoloniality" may not mean much. What use do we have for postcolonial theories of translation in the Chinese context? In hindsight, the influx of contemporary Western critical theory into China is among the most phenomenal intellectual events of the 1980s and 90s. In quick succession, deconstructionism, feminism, and postcolonialism (not postcolonial translation theory, though) were introduced into China. That postcolonial theory has become a reality in both the fields of literature and linguistics is evidenced by the spate of articles and books on the subject by Chinese scholars in the 1990s (Wang Ning 1995: 54-62). It appears that Chinese translation theory will have to face the postcolonial challenge; the question is how the new critical discourse on postcoloniality can become significant and meaningful. Below, I will consider the two "positions" that Chinese translation/ cultural theorists have taken as a response to "colonization." Interestingly, though the concepts of postcoloniality impact on Chinese translation theorizing, the uniqueness of the Chinese case forces us to revise the parameters within which postcolonial theorizing functions.

30

,

1

i , , ,

1

"

, I

, 'I ,

,

1

~', I I 'I ' ,

'I

1

"

I,

I,

,

"

1

1I

!

1

1

,

'

, I, I

I'

'i

'I,

1

I,

:' ~ " I

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

It must be noted that the terms "postcolonial" and "colonization" are used here in their broader sense, being restricted neither geographically nor temporally. This qualification is important since there has never been any form of territorial colonialism to speak of in the Chinese context; rather, the Chinese have experienced, since the beginning of the century, a partly self-imposed kind of cultural and linguistic colonization. The difference between the Chinese situation and the Indian model, on which most recent postcolonial translation theorizing has been based (see Niranjana 1992), is probably as wide as can be imagined. To explicate the Chinese case, I will utilize the elements that are the focus of analysis by postcolonial critics: the production of (Western) forms of discourse during periods of colonial expansion, the use of universalist discourses to subjugate colonized and marginalized peoples, and the resistance to the apparently well-meaning imperialist projects. Among these, the idea of native (or nativist) resistance is crucial, especially as many texts, when examined from a postcolonial perspective, reveal the degree to which the "colonized" can re-act, and are not simply acted upon. Different forms of resistance occur over a wide historical span, from the 1920s to the end of the twentieth century. Arguments were made, prior to the 1990s, against translators contaminating the Chinese language through the introduction of Europeanized structures and expressions. Then a reversal occurred in the 1990s, with the counter-argument that the language itself, carrying a unique "cultural cargo," simply cannot be contaminated.It can be said that the resistance before the 1990s was very much an unconscious one. Subsequent to the work of those translation theorists, a conscious effort was made to combat "colonization" by European languages, but the still-ongoing resistance was forged in the main by cultural critics.

,I I,,,

,

,

: "

,

The thirties and sixties: Keeping the language "pure"

1

, '

11

I

' •, 'I, ' 1

:

,

! ,

':

11

I, I;

11

J'

," , ~,

I

A clear contribution of postcolonial theory to our understanding of Chinese translations is the new light it sheds on existing translated texts. This comes about in an act of re-reading: the theory is retroactively applied to a colonial, or even a pre-colonial, period. The body of ideas associated with postcolonial translation theory, when shorn of its temporal-historical dimension, becomes applicable to earlier eras in which postcolonial translation practices, as we know them now, were only nascent. In this context, the first "position" of resistance taken by translation theorists in an earlier period the call for using

Theories from a postcolonial perspective

a "pure" Chinese language in translating becomes understandable. A dominant trend in translation since 1919 (the year the May Fourth Movement broke out) was to adhere closely to the formal features of source texts and to import, on a huge scale, foreign terms and expressions. As I have noted in the last chapter and elsewhere (Chan 1996), this was a means whereby the sterile Chinese language could be rejuvenated. The opponents oflinguistic Europeanization were, in fact, fighting against a form of colonization; they were attacking a new language emerging primarily out of translations into Chinese, with the following features: the insertion of subjects where none was needed; the increased use of conjunctions and other linking devices; the proliferation of passive structures; the appearance of affix-like morphemes like hua ("ize") and fei ("non-"); and 5. the widespread use oflengthy modifiers.

1. 2. 3. 4.

From our present-day perspective, it seems clear that the linguistic purists were fighting a losing battle: Lydia Liu has proved, with ample documentary evidence, that modern Chinese is a heteroglossic construction, incorporating though predominantly, we must say, resultelements from many languages ing from the aggressive cultural influence ofJapanese, English and Russian. l Nevertheless, the resistance efforts merit closer examination, especially the two phases of the 1930s and the 1960s. In the "Language of the Masses Movement" (dazhongyu yundong) of the 1930s, spoken Chinese as it was used in people's daily lives was considered the best language because, crude as it was, it was at least more "alive." Apparently the target of attack was Europeanized Chinese. There were, however, deeper implications to the debate, for the question of the kind of language fit for use also engaged issues of ethnic and national identity. The leaders of the movement, like Chen Wangdao (1890-1977) and Ye Shengtao (1894-1988), held that "language, being the supreme symbol of ethnic character," would be defiled if foreign elements were admitted into it (Fang 1992: 343-48). Like them, Zhao Shuli (1906-1970), a writer of "peasant" literature at the time, advocated using a new language with Chinese characteristics. He was most adamant about avoiding Europeanizations; for him, every nation and every race has its own special linguistic habits, and these distinguish one language from another and by analogy, one national or ethnic group from another. Zhao believed that Chinese is as fully capable of fulfilling its mission as other

31

-""','i:' . ",J i i

32

I

I

I

, , ,'

I I, ,

,, '

'I, '

,'

I ,

, I

, 'I

, 1

I

, ,

1

I, '

1

I, ,I

I I

1

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

languages are of theirs. In fact, he was of the opinion that, of the two archrivals, Europeanized Chinese and classical Chinese (a language which the vernacular has been trying to replace), the former is much more to be feared. Translators and translation theorists resisted Europeanizations as strongly as creative authors (like Zhao and Ye) did, and they sought to launch an attack from another front. In a way, Frederick Tsai (1918-1996) and Yu Guangzhong (1928- ) were representatives of this group. Their call to "purify" Chinese in the 1960s must also be understood as a continuation of the fight against "linguistic colonization" by the West (and Japan). But this time the alternative suggested was not the spoken language or the language of the masses; rather, it was the traditional vernacular used before the twentieth century. This vernacular was a written language first developed near the end of the ninth century. Unlike classical Chinese, which remained the standard written language through the centuries, the traditional vernacular more nearly resembled the spoken language of the past and was used to serve "low-culture functions"; it was used in popular writings like plays and novels of the late imperial era.2 Although the modern vernacular, having matured slowly since the beginning of the twentieth century, has been developed in part from the traditional vernacular, they remain different in significant ways. Primarily, the modern vernacular has incorporated to a substantial degree European structures and expressions. In their publications of over a decade, Tsai and Yu issued repeated calls to free the Chinese language from the superimposed foreign influences. Their preference, put simply, was for the modern vernacular to be replaced with the traditional vernacular. By so doing, they opened a new chapter in the history of resistance against Europeanizations. In his book Studies ofTranslation, Frederick Tsai listed infelicities committed by Chinese translators when they allowed themselves to be led (misled, to be accurate) by the English language. Most prominent of these included the excessive use of nominals, the insertion of definite and indefinite articles where they were unneeded, the direct transposition of the passive, and the misuse of suffixes of plurality. The book may appear now to the informed reader as constituting an essay on contrastive Chinese-English linguistics, yet the real significance of Tsai's approach is that he placed the two languages on an equal footing, as they had seldom been, and asserted by implication that the same ideas could be expressed by each, albeit in different form. To a large extent, Tsai's stance needs to be seen against what James Holmes has called "the tendency towards naturalization of the linguistic context" (Holmes 1988: 47-48) among translators since mid-century. The favoring of

I

J

Theories from a postcolonial perspective

naturalized translation (culturally and linguistically), as well as the targeting of translationese as a malaise in translation, is seen just as clearly in Yu Guangzhong. Yu addressed the issue from the perspective of what Europeanizations do to the Chinese language, and his argument is tantamount to a point-by-point refutation of Lu Xun's arguments that we have already seen. This is how he critiqued translationese: Even good translations cannot adequately reflect the original. Bad translations, other than distorting the sense of the original, often serve to defile and contaminate our literary language. Writers beneath the third rate ... produce works on a par with such translations. This kind of translationese has exerted a widespread, pernicious influence on our culture. 3

The diametrically opposed views of Lu Xun and Yu Guangzhong are perhaps nowhere else more clearly revealed than in this quotation. The deleterious effects of Europeanizations are, for Yu, felt in writing styles in general. Creativity in translation is not predicated upon the ingenious imitation of foreign languages, and the tendency toward Europeanization needs to be curbed. In comparing the creative writer and the translator, Yu noted in the essay where the above quote appears that the creativity of translation is of a different order, in that it is practiced within constraints. One obvious constraint is arguably the content of the original text, which the translator seeks to reproduce faithfully; another - one that Yu, nevertheless, did not expound on is simply the target language itself. Tsai and Yu followed nearly parallel careers: both lived in Hong Kong and Taiwan for extended periods oftime; both achieved fame as creative writers (the former an essayist, the latter a poet) and translators; and both not only translated prodigiously but also - as translation teachers raised an entire generation oftranslators in Hong Kong and Taiwan. Most significantly, both sought to resurrect classic vernacular Chinese novels, such as the eighteenth-century novel The Dream ofthe Red Chamber, as models oflanguage used in traditional times that ought to be emulated by translators (see Tsai 1972: 94-95). Though their views did have a lasting impact, they were not without their detractors. For instance, Frederick Tsai's stand was criticized as impossible to maintain consistently by an influential linguist from Taiwan - Huang Xuanfan (Huang 1974).4 Citing copious examples from Tsai, he showed why the use of a plural form for "it" (tamen) is indispensable, and denounced as impracticable all of Tsai's suggested alternatives (like repeating the antecedent or not making a distinction between the singular and plural forms of pronouns). For him, all efforts to counter Europeanizations can be half-hearted at best. s

33

34

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

The nineties: Foregrounding Chineseness

1

, ,,

Ii

II

,

'

,

1

1

1

'I,

' I

1

: I

,

',. 11

, ,

,, ,

I,

'

11

,

11 "

I

I

,

1

,

I

While efforts at defending the Chinese language against the onslaught of Europeanized translations have continued into the present, since the 1980s the signs of an alternative mode of resistance have become more and more conspicuous. This second "position" came into existence as a consequence of the recent introduction into Chinese critical and academic circles of new critical theories. If Chinese culture in the May Fourth period (from 1919 to roughly the end of the 1920s) can be said to have been "colonized" for the first time, then Deng Xiaoping's era from the late 1970s to 1997 has witnessed a "second colonization." Wang Jing has called this period China's "second renaissance"; the similarities that it bears to the late 1910s and 20s are unmistakable, for both of these eras saw a massive importation of Western ideas. 6 The second "position" in the reaction against Western linguistic imperialism was taken primarily by linguists and cultural theorists, and secondarily by translation scholars and theorists. It is apparent that, the current situation in China being what it is, theorizing about the cultural role that translation is to play will originate with those who grapple with Western theory. In what follows, I will discuss at some length the views of a linguist, a cultural critic, and then a translation theorist. All three provide perspectives on translation (indirectly, in the case of the first two) that can be appropriately termed "postcolonialist." Shen Xiaolong (1952-), currently Professor of Chinese in Fudan University, Shanghai, is a staunch exponent of a new approach to analyzing the Chinese language that discards Western linguistic models (see Shen 1992; 1995a),7 He sets out to tackle the failure of Western linguistic theory to explain adequately the peculiarities of the Chinese language in his epoch-making study, Interpreting Language (1992). For him, the time has come to revamp the entire Chinese linguistic tradition of the twentieth century, which began with the misguided attempt by Ma Jianzhong in the late nineteenth century to borrow wholesale the Western model, and impose it on the Chinese language. The experience of the last ninety years especially the insuperable difficulties in analyzing Chinese syntax has shown that it is futile to try to account for features in the Chinese language simply by theories that were developed in the West with reference to Indo-European languages. The reception of Shen Xiaolong's ideas, however, has been extremely mixed. Considered currently as the leader of one of the three main schools of "cultural linguistics," a new field of study born of the mid-1980s, Shen is sharply differentiated from those cultural linguists whose focus is on the

Theories from a postcolonial perspective

synchronic and diachronic study of how culture influences language and vice versa, and from those who seek to unravel the "cultural content" of a language (Chinese in this case) through an examination of how language adapts to social and communicative needs. Best known for the way in which he highlights language as a system of signs peculiar only to the culture in which it finds itself, a system understandable only by those using the language, Shen has been praised as the "hope of Chinese linguistics." Yet at the same time, others have openly derided him, saying that he is not worthy of serious attention. The debate on Shen's true significance (or lack thereof) reflects, in fact, an atmosphere where linguists are eager to revoke Western linguistic methods that have been applied indiscriminately, and to establish cultural linguistics as the avenue for "rejuvenating" linguistic study in China. Whether they choose to agree or disagree with Shen, there is little doubt that Shen's system has arisen out of a unique historical shall we say, postcolonial situation. 8 Nevertheless, in stressing the need to sinicize the study of Chinese grammar, Shen is in fact furthering the cause of linguists of the 1930s, like Fu Donghua (1893-1971) and Chen Wangdao, though he gives a new twist to the model they constructed (see Shen 1992: 416-17). Freely adopting terms from traditional Chinese aesthetics,9 Shen notes the following peculiarities of the Chinese language: 1. 2. 3.

4.

the preference for economy of expression (jian); the aspiration toward achieving phonological harmony; the close attention to balance between empty (xu) and concrete (shi) words; and the tendency to use the various parts ofspeech freely, so long as what is said makes sense.

Shen concludes in Interpreting Language that such peculiarities reveal the extent to which Chinese can be said to favor "associative thinking," allow the speaker's intentions to shape the language, and privilege content (or "spirit") over form. This partly explains why the language does not fare well when Western linguistic models, with their strength in formal analysis, are applied. Elsewhere he argues that the model of "subject-verb-object" ought to be abandoned in the analysis of Chinese sentences, since the clue to understanding Chinese syntax lies in explicating the use of "phrases" (jududuan) , the fundamental unit of the Chinese sentence (see Shen 1995b: 37-39).10 The essence ofShen's argument is that a language is inseparable from the culture in which it is nourished, and "when [Chinese] linguistics is severed from Chinese culture, the maternal

35

--.';.

36

I

I.

I

I :

,.I, , •

1

"

,

.'

I

( ,

"

,•

1

,I , , "

, 1

I

.

,

•

,

,I

1

i

,

I'

,'I I' I , ,

.

I ' · I •

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Theories from a postcolonial perspective

source of its being, it becomes stale and lifeless" (Shen 1990: 75). At one point in his Interpreting Language, Shen does talk about Europeanizations imported through translations, but he does not elaborate (Shen 1992: 451-52). While only tangentially interested in translation, he nevertheless has put forth a theory with serious implications for translation studies. A similar remark could be made about Zhang Yiwu (1962-), presently Associate Professor of Chinese at Beijing University, and foremost among scholars who have applied a postcolonialist approach to literary studies in China. Zhang was one of the most powerful voices in the early 1990s against the Western presence in Chinese intellectual life. In contrast to the earlier opponents of Europeanizations, he fights as much against cultural as against linguistic "colonization." In the first two chapters of his book, Exploring the Margins (1993), he describes his resistance strategy: to fight back against Western ideological encroachment on its own terms. He points out that while Derrida advocates breaking down binary oppositions, the opposition between the First World and the Third World is one that has yet to be broken down. Furthermore, for him, China can be a test-case of how a new kind of cultural discourse, one pertinent to a Third World country, can be fruitfully developed (Zhang 1993: 14). In Chapter 3, in many ways the central chapter of the whole book, Zhang Yiwu elaborates on a key point that Shen has already made: a language must not be seen as a mere sign system, divorced from the culture. He reiterates time and again the idea ofthe mother-tongue (note the maternal metaphor, used also by Shen Xiaolong) and the ever-present, ever-powerful "collective memory" that it invokes for every Chinese. For the Chinese language carries a cultural residue, accumulated over a historical span of 5,000 years, that can never be erased in spite ofviolence done to the language through the importation offoreign words, structures, and modes of expression. Like his predecessors who opposed Europeanizations in translation, Zhang sourly notes the irreparable damage done to the native tongue. For him, the impact is seen clearly in the realm ofliterature, for the language of literature is after all "the distilled essence of the mothertongue, the agent for the spread of culture" (Zhang 1993: 66). Unlike his anti-Europeanization predecessors, however, Zhang does not propose ways of further molding the vernacular into a medium of expression that is as effective as Europeanized Chinese. The attempt to enrich the Chinese language through the incorporation of elements from "real" spoken language is for him as ill-advised as the belief that this same language can be improved through the incorporation of translated foreign models. As a method of resis-

tance, Zhang advocates a new kind of written Chinese, for which he coins the term "post-vernacular" (houbaihua). Drawing upon examples from literature by major authors on the Mainland and in Taiwan since the 1980s, he discusses the possibility of re-introducing elements of the classical language, denigrated since the 1910s, into contemporary written Chinese. It is his opinion that the classical language, the more refined, terse, and compact language of the traditionalliterati that served "high-culture functions" for two millennia (from the second century B. C. to the end of the nineteenth), should be given a greater role to play. With a Derridan touch, Zhang Yiwu sums up the postmodern view of language embodied by the postvernacular thus: [It] recognizes the fissure, the cleavage between the signifier and the signified, between language and reality. Language is no longer subordinate to the object of signification; it does not connect with reality; it is simply a moving and freefloating signifying system. (Zhang 1993: 71)

Zhang takes pains to point out that his advocacy of the postvernacular does not amount to a rediscovery of (or a return to) the classical language, or the defeat of the vernacular language in the competition for ascendancy. What he stresses is the potency of the classical language as a carrier of cultural residue and its possible contribution to the emergence of a new mode of expression. Furthermore, Europeanizations are accepted, because it is no longer possible to completely purge them from the Chinese language. But Zhang is far from arguing for Europeanizations, like Lu Xun did in the 1920s and 30s. Lu did not think that the Chinese language was adequate for its purposes, whereas Zhang holds the opposite view and revalorizes the classical language, saying that it is more than adequate. Zhang's position is also different from those who propose that the Chinese language should be completely romanized (see Qu 1989: 3.298309) or replaced with Esperanto, the "World-Ianguage."l] He restores dignity to the Chinese language while recognizing the difficulty of keeping it pure. Zhang's postvernacular is a hybrid language that admits elements of diverse sorts. It is reminiscent of the "in-between" language that Samia Mehrez describes in her study of Francophone North African texts in the postcolonial period - a "newly forged language" that is capable of "exploding and confounding different symbolic worlds and separate systems of signification in order to create a mutual interdependence and intersignification" (1992: 12122). Seen from this perspective, a postcolonial critic (or a "nativist semiotician," as he has been called in China) such as Zhang Yiwu can be said to have moved to the other end of the spectrum on the issue of the proper language for

I I ,

_.'.".:, ,

I

37

' f.'"

I1

;

38

,

I' 1,1 1

11

1

, "

'

I' 'I ,

I I

, ,

I 1

',I ,

I 11

I •, , ,

. '

I

I , I , , ,"

,

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

translations. As opposed to linguistic purity, he favors hybridity. In fact, the position that Zhang assumes is postcolonial in two senses: his recognition of hybridityl2 and his refusal to accept the modern vernacular very much a "colonial product" as a replacement language for classical Chinese. The views of Shen Xiaolong and Zhang Yiwu furnish a context for better understanding the recent work ofLiu Miqing (1939-). A graduate of Beijing University who taught at his alma mater and at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Liu has written prodigiously on Chinese-English translation and to date has authored six books. Taken together, these present a systematic and coherent body of ideas on translation unmatched by few other theorists in the twentieth century. His earlier full-length studies, most of which were published in the 1980s, deal variously with the translation of different genres, skills in translating from English into Chinese, and contrastive study of the two languages. 13 However, Present-Day Translation Studies (1993) (a Taiwan reprint of a Mainland version published in 1990) is by common consent his representative work; as a comprehensive re-examination of issues pertinent to translation theory, it summarizes Liu's views on aspects oftranslation theory like the basic operating mechanisms in translating, translation as a mode of thinking, the stages in the translation process, translatability and untranslatability, and the translation of style. This study was followed in 1995 by Introduction to the Aesthetics of Translation, in which the subject of aesthetics (already touched upon in one chapter in Present-Day Translation Studies) is singled out for separate and detailed treatment. As Liu Miqing himself has noted, his complete oeuvre forms a closely-knit system that attempts to formulate a translation theory for modern China. 14 As early as 1987, at the first Conference on Translation Theory on China, he called for the establishment of "Chinese translation theory," and this issue is brought up again in his Present-Day Translation Studies. Stating at the outset that there are no global translation theories and that all theorizing can only proceed from oflanguages, Liu advocates knowledge of a pair or a very limited number developing translation theory from the actual experience of translating from or into the Chinese language: Undoubtedly, the basic paradigm of Chinese translation theory should begin and end with our mother-tongue. ... we cannot disregard the distribution of lexical meanings and functions in the Chinese language either. Accordingly, we may summarize the basic paradigm as one which emphasizes semantic and functional description (my emphasis) (Liu 1993: 30)

Theories from a postcolonial perspective

The maternal metaphor mayor may not have been intended, but its shared use by all three theorists shows how crucial it is to the counter-discourse. To be sure, Liu proceeds to expatiate on the specificity of the Chinese experience of translation by discussing the special features of the Chinese language in terms similar to those used by Shen Xiaolong. He stresses how the Chinese language, unlike Indo-European languages, is composed of "sentence sections," which are the primary building blocks (bankuai) for clauses, sentences, and even paragraphs. These sections are strung together rather loosely, as aggregates or conglomerates, and cohere around the "topic" or the thought to be expressed. It is in this sense that "spirit controls form" (yi shen yu xing). By contrast, in Indo-European languages formal features play a significant role in sentence making, and instead of building blocks, a language like English is structured by means of "chain connections" (Liu 1993: 33-35). While clearly an over-simplification, this mode of describing the difference of the "language of the colonized" from the "colonizer's language" is gaining popularity. Basil Hatim has noted how the Arabs like the Chinese, perhaps have been described as tending "to fit the thought to the word... rather than the word to the thought"; for them, "the words become the substitutes of thought, and not their representative" (Hatim 1997: 16). One may add that, besides this, the vagueness of thought that linguists have identified in Arabic is almost comparable to the so-called "expressive" nature of the Chinese language, which is prone to present ideas in a cinematographic manner. Elsewhere in his book, Liu also opposes the form-oriented and analytical features typical of the English language against the thought-oriented and synthetic power of Chinese. Such over-generalizations about languages are, of course, quite dangerous, but one notices readily the "strategic" function they can serve in postcolonial discourse. Indeed, Liu's presentation of the Chinese language as different, but distinct, from other languages contrasts remarkably with the denigration of the language as inferior and inadequate by men of letters in the 1920s and 30s, such as Lu Xun. Seen in a broader context, Liu Miqing's desire to theorize about translation on the basis of an assumed "equality" between Chinese and Western languages can be understood as the cumulative result of decades of thinking positively about their mother-tongue on the part of translators. On the question of the perniciousness of Europeanizations also, Liu stands closer to his postcolonial contemporaries (such as Zhang Yiwu) than to the harsh critics of Europeanized Chinese (such as Tsai and Vu) of earlier decades.

39

.....,

I 1

40

Theories from a postcolonial perspective

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

I, "

I

I

1 1

',I, 11'

I,

"

, II

I"

,I,

"

1

I ,, ,

:1: I

I' I

,I:

'I

,

,I

I ,

In Introduction to the Aesthetics of Translation, his most recent book, Liu initiates a completely new view of translation as an activity, developing a discourse on translation that can be seen as almost counter-hegemonic. In striking contrast to his earlier works, which testify to his familiarity with Western translation theory, this book is sprinkled everywhere with references to seminal texts by Chinese aestheticians, from Laozi, Liu Xie (c.465-522), Zhong Rong (c.465-518), Sikong Tu (837-809) to Wang Guowei (1877-1927). Among these figures, Laozi is raised to a position of utmost prominence. His dictum, from Daode jing (Classic of the Dao), that "beautiful words are not truthful; truthful words are not beautiful" is cited to clarify the debate between fidelity to the original and artistry in translating. Concepts corresponding to modern Western reception/semiotic theory are sought from Liu Xie and Liji (Book of Rites) the latter, it is said, addressed two millennia ago the methods by which the translator "decodes the feelings" expressed in a literary text (Liu Miqing 1995: 200). In a lengthy section on the rendition of the source text style, ten different styles of writing reserved, bold, refined, natural, adorned, diluted, light-hearted, forceful, solid, humorous are expounded with reference to at least one example of Chinese- English translation in each case (see Liu Miqing 1995: 213-38). In line with the sinicizing approach adopted throughout the book, the "Chinese" origins of each style are documented with quotations from traditional Chinese aesthetics texts.

Translation and resistance

,

I',

If we understand postcolonial discourse broadly and see it as essentially a question of positionality, then the basic strategy of resistance deployed by all three theorists considered in this chapter is obviously to foreground Chineseness. By pointing out alternative (read "nativist") modes of understanding and contesting prevailing (read "Western") paradigms, they have effectively intervened into and altered perceptions of what the language of translation should be. Insofar as they have voiced similar oppositions to the epistemic violence done to the Chinese language, the earlier theorists can also be regarded as postcolonialist, though they may have worked in the "colonial" period. One phenomenon worth pondering is that the resistance efforts were very strong at precisely those times when "colonization" proceeded most ferociously - a fact all too obvious in the 1990s. Indeed, the history of cultural resistance in China shows not only that feelings for sinicization are most

intense where Westernization poses the greatest threat, but also that the impact of postcolonial thought is most powerful not in the place of its origin, but in its place of destination, at which it arrives with all its colonial appendages. One wonders if there might even be a paradoxical love-hate relationship between the colonizers and the colonized, rendering it necessary to rethink the myth of the inevitable confrontation or opposition between the two.

Notes For examples of Japanese, English, French, German and Russian terms that have become very much a part of the Chinese language, see Uu (1995: 284-301, 343-378).

1.

For a description in English of the differences between classical Chinese, the traditional vernacular, and the modern vernacular, see Chen (1993). 2.

3. See Yu's "Translation and Creative Writing" as translated in Section D of the second part of this anthology. 4. See the translation ofHuang's "Review of Si Guo's Studies of Translation" in Section C of the second part of this anthology. 5. When all is said, however, there is little doubt (as Edward Gunn has proved with documented evidence) that instances of new Europeanized structures have declined since the thirties (see Gunn 1991: 31-61 and Appendix). For Europeanized structures and expressions in twentieth-century Chinese prose, see Wang (1959: 299-383). 6. Wang Jing depicts at some length the intellectual atmosphere of the 1980s, calling it a "culture fever." The proliferation of academic journals, the holding of conferences and the inauguration of related publication ventures are aspects of this "second colonization" (see Wang Jing 1996: 48-52). 7. Many of the essays by Shen have been translated into English (Shen 1997). 8. This is an aspect of the "culture fever" that Wang Jing (1996) has not considered; her emphasis is on the literary scene. In the main, the reaction against Western linguistics takes the form of a refusal to continue using the analytical methods of the structuralists and an attempt to highlight the "humanistic" study of the Chinese language. 9. Shen makes abundant reference to the seminal text of classical Chinese aesthetics, Uu Xie's Wenxin diaolong (The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons), in addition to noting various Chinese aestheticians of traditional times: the ancient philosopher Laozi and the Song dynasty poetry critic Yan Yu (f1.1180-1235). Shen ends this article by stressing the need "to develop a linguistic theory with Chinese characteristics" (1995b: 41).

10.

The promotion of Esperanto was most fervent during the early twentieth century; among the better known advocates were Ba Jin and Cai Yuanpei. For some time there was a craze for learning Esperanto among Chinese intellectuals in Shanghai. An abundance of

11.

41

I

\'

42

,

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

literary works were translated from Esperanto by Zhou Zuoren and others, and an exchange of views concerning the use of this "World-language" that lasted for two years was documented in the 1917-1919 issues of the journal Xin Qingnian (New Youth).

I

,

,

CHAPTER

End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

The leading spokesman for the link between postcoloniality and hybridity is Homi Bhabha (see Bhabha 1994: 212-35).

12. I~

13. These are Wenti yu fanyi (Genre and Translation) (1985), Ying Han fanyi jineng xunlian shouce (Training Handbook for English-Chinese Translation) (1987), and Han Ying duibi yanjiu yu fanyi (CE-EC Contrastive Studies and Translation) (1991), respectively. References will be made in the rest of this article to Liu (1993; 1995). Uu's most recent publication is Fanyi jiaoxue: shiwu yu lilun (Translation Teaching: Practice and Theory) (2003).

,I

,

i,,

,, ,

1 '

,

,

In the West, the incursion of "new translation theories" into academia was begun decades ago. Evolving out of European and Anglo-American contexts, such theories have made, on their first appearance, a decisive break with the socalled linguistic approaches which found their earliest exponents in theorists like Catford and Newmark, whose works on translation, appearing as early as the 1960s, can be said to have set the directions for the development of the entire discipline. The difference between the "old" and the new has been articulated in a variety of ways. For some, it was the evolution from a normative approach to a speculative one; for others, a shift from a micro-level to a macro-level of study; for still others, it signaled a "cultural turn" in the field, with translation theorists turning increasingly to non-linguistic disciplines (like anthropology) for insights relevant to translation. Given such a state of affairs, those brought up on the older theories have no other alternative than learn to make adjustments, though these are by no means easy. For, after all, coming under fire in the new context are the age-old and sanctified notions of linguistic equivalence and fidelity to the source text, now replaced with new-fangled terms like "Otherness," "hegemony," and "differance." Some responded by noting how the meaning of the term "translation" has been broadened beyond recognition even becoming almost synonymous with what the anthropologist Talal Asad calls "cultural translation" and consequently lost its specificity (Asad 1988: 141-64). Among the theorists of the 1990s, two have played a significant role fueling the move in the new direction. In Siting Translation (1992), Tejaswini Niranjana advanced the thesis that British civil servants during the Indian colonial era were engaged in translating Indian sacred texts with the intention of imposing a definitive interpretation on them. Their act was grounded on the belief that English was a "purer" language and that the time was ripe for such texts to be reinterpreted. To this, Niranjana averred, the Indians in the post-Independence period have responded by re-translating the same works

1

14. Liu Miqing also stresses the importance of building a Chinese translation theory (1989: 12-15). Another theorist making the same point is Luo Xinzhang (see Luo 1984: 119). For a recent discussion ofLiu Miqing's research, see Lei (1993).

,

"

1

i

I 1

, , ,

1

,

1

11

, ,

4

1

1

" 1

'I,

,i~,

...1,

·-',..,.r,:;: ,

I

,

44

,

!1

"

End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

, ,

!! 11'

I! "

,

!

1!' 11

,

!I! 1

I,1

"

I!,

,

1995), scholars like Terry Eagleton and Ralph Cohen were invited to give lectures; at the International Conference on Cultural Dialogue and Cultural Misreading (October 1995), which took place in Beijing, Douwe Fokkema, Gerald Gillespie, and Mario Valdes were the principal speakers. Yet another international conference that served as a forum for debating the applicability of Western critical theories, including postcolonial theories, was the Conference on Critical Theories: China and the West, sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and held in the summer of 1997 in Changsha, Hunan. Fredric Jameson was again one of the keynote speakers at this conference. Thus, before the century drew to a close, recent literary and critical theory from the West was already well-planted in Chinese intellectual soil; this is not dissimilar to the way in which sundry kinds of commodities have successfully found a place (at roughly the same time) in the Chinese market. The importation of ideas was also continued through a succession of efforts to translate seminal Western works in the field: Zhang Xudong translated Walter Benjamin; Zhou Ning translated Jauss and Holub; Xu Wenbo translated Harold Bloom; Tan Darning and Gong Jianming translated Robert Scholes; and Wang Fengzhen translated Terry Eagleton. Alongside these translations, anthologies of translated essays by Western theorists have appeared as well, including Zhang Jingyuan's Contemporary Feminist Literary Criticism (Zhang 1992) and Wang Fengzhen, Sheng Ning and Li Zixiu's A Selection ofthe Most Recent Critical Essays in the West (Wang et al. 1991). Several series of translations of works in critical theory further fueled the craze, and these include those by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (since 1986), the Liaoning People's Press (edited by Li Zehou, one of the most eminent ofliving Chinese philosophers), and the Joint Publishing Company. The speed with which New Theory from the West was introduced is astounding. In fact, within the span of a decade or so, hundreds of works relating to Western theories on feminism, new historicism, deconstructionism, etc., were translated. The most remarkable thing about what happened is that, although these "new" concepts originated in various places in the West over the course of decades, in China they all appeared at roughly the same time. In 1991-92 alone, Toril Moi, HansGeorg Gadamer, I. A. Richards, Jonathan Culler, E. D. Hirsch and Wolfgang Iser were introduced to the Chinese reader simultaneously. While the poststructuralist impact on China in the fields of literary and cultural studies, as given above, is undeniable, the influence of new translation theories is still rather murky. It may help to talk of their impact in two different areas, first in teaching and then as an object of intellectual inquiry.

in question themselves. In his introduction to Rethinking Translation (also published in 1992), Lawrence Venuti denounced the translator who covers up the violence often done to a translated text through the much sanctified method of translating "invisibly." While his arguments had been expounded elsewhere earlier (Venuti 1986: 179-212), it is in Rethinking Translation that they were made widely known for the first time. It is also this anthology which made available the views of some of the leading deconstructionist theorists of translation of our era. In its wake, it can fairly be said that an entire school of theorists of this persuasion have moved on stage, making themselves known through radicalizing translation studies. One can cite, for instance, the feminist approach of Sherry Simon and Louise von Flotow, the postcolonial approach of Douglas Robinson, and the deconstructive approach of Rosemary Arrojo, among others.

,

!

, ,

!

!!

Imports from the West

!

I

Viewed from a wider perspective, new translation theories are part and parcel of the body of ideas referred to in the West as "poststructuralist." In the Chinese context these have been dubbed "New Theory," a term much bandied about in Chinese academic circles in the 1990s. Among the first to introduce the term to Chinese readers is Zhao Yiheng, currently a professor of Chinese at the University of London. At the beginning of his article, '''Post-isms' and Chinese New Conservatism" (1995; translated into English for New Literary History in 1997), Zhao discusses poststructuralism, postcolonialism and postmodernism as three strands of thought imported into China in the 1980s, although he notes that a host of other "isms" popular in academic discourse at the time can be subsumed under poststructuralism (Zhao 1995: 4-15). It must be emphasized, of course, that the focus of his discussion was literary and cultural theories; new translation theories were much slower to enter China. Some even date the entrance of New Theory into China to 1985, when Fredric Jameson toured the country's major universities, giving a series of lectures which were later translated and published in an anthology. For some, this initiated the period of China's "culture fever" which ended with the government's crackdown on student protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989. On the heels of Jameson, other Western scholars also paid their visits. Two conferences at which postcolonialism became a hot subject were held in 1995. At the International Conference on Cultural Studies held in Dalian (August

, .1:

, ,

45

..

_

~

"

! 1

46

,,;

End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

I1

1

1

I

•

"•

I

• •

1

I

,i" ' ,.

i:

'I'·

1

1

,

",

, ,.

11'

ij

I

i . , I

I

, I

1

I

",II .' , .•

1

I ,"

11

1

1 1

, I"

I 1, 1

I, I

'I', "

·1

I' ,i

,, , 1 '

•

titles published by 2000), each accompanied by a brief description of the content taken from the blurb:

As regards the former, it seems that it is the translation teachers in Hong Kong, themselves witnesses to a flourishing of the discipline in the last two decades, who have taken up the challenge in introducing poststructuralist ideas of translation to their students. In the past decade, translation programs in Hong Kong (as in the West) have borne witness to a massive invasion of poststructuralist ideas, and the teaching of translation theory has undergone drastic changes. Courses on theory offered at tertiary institutions there used to be dominated by the "fathers of translation theory" Newmark and Nida, but today, included in the syllabuses are such names as Derrida, de Man and Venuti. Venuti's Rethinking Translation has almost become a must-read for translation students of today, and that is the case in Hong Kong as elsewhere. A look at the reading list ofthe M. A. course on translation theory at Dublin City University (Kenny and Cronin 1995: 254) is perhaps most revealing: Venuti is to be read alongside representatives of the linguistic and non-linguistic schools Catford, Baker, Mounin, Reiss, Vermeer, Holmes, Bassnett and Snell-Hornby. With the exception of Mounin, all these names figure prominently in the syllabuses of the six translation programs in Hong Kong those of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Lingnan University, the University of Hong Kong, the City University of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the Hong Kong Baptist University. This state of affairs testifies to the way in which more traditional theorists have lost ground to an entirely new generation of theorists from continental Europe. One is indeed very far from the days when a course on translation theory was no more than a course on Chinese-English comparative linguistics and one did not need to bother with Waiter Benjamin. (As is well known, his essay "The Task of the Translator" was written as early as 1923, though he remained largely in limbo till his rediscovery by the deconstructionists in the 1980s.) The advocates of "new translation theories" are simply a force to be reckoned with. As for the "intellectual" reception of new translation theories, a convenient starting point for our discussion is the Bookman Translation Library Series, which is a sampling of representative texts in translation theory published in the Mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong in the last thirty years or so. The series was begun in the late 1980s. Not only does it publish new translation scholarship; it also reissues significant Chinese works on translation which have gone out of print. For that reason it becomes, for present purposes, one useful indicator of the "state of the art" in translation theorizing in China. Below is a list of ten books on translation theory in the series (out of some twenty-six

1. Xiao Liming (C = China). New Explorations in Translation. 1992. Discusses both Western and Chinese translation theories, illustrating them with ample examples. 2. Huang Bangjie (T = Taiwan). On the Art of Translation. 1988 [1985]. Explicates translation theories and techniques through the contrastive analysis of the two languages involved. Proceeds from the easy to the difficult. 3. Liu Tingzhi (H = Hong Kong). Spiritual Resonance and Formal Resonance. 1996. Considers spiritual resonance to be of paramount importance in literary translations. 4. He Weijie (H). Translating Revisited. 1989. Touches on various aspects of translation, including how to raise the standards of translation theorizing. 5. Liu Miqing (C). Present-Day Translation Studies. 1993 [1990]. Attempts to develop a theory of translation based on a linguistic analysis of Chinese-English translations. 6. Hu Gongze (T). Changes and Development in Translation Theory. 1994. Views translation as an act of communication, and seeks to theorize translation from a "communicative" perspective. 7. Ke Ping (C). Chinese-English and English-Chinese Translation. 1994. Introduces Western translation theories and discusses central issues in Chinese-English translation from a "semiotic" perspective. 8. Tin Shenghua and Wang Guobin (H). Artistry in Encountering Difficulty. 1996. Collects essays by leading translators in the Mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong on their personal experience in translating Western classics and what they learn in the process. 9. Tin Di (C). An Investigation into Equivalence-in-Effect. 1998. Continues the work begun by Nida and discusses the many facets of the theory of equivalent effect, illustrating with examples from translations of works like Ulysses. 10. Peng Tingxi(T). Touching the Elephant. 1997. Comments critically on some literary translations and offers some personal views of translation. ("Touching the elephant" is a Buddhist allusion,

,

· , I

,

,

·,c ,..:w.I'

47

,1

48

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

I

,

1 '

:1

referring to how a blind man mistook the part of the elephant that he touched to be the whole elephant.)

I

,,

"

,

,I

I' ,

; i

,I

,

I,;,

';1 '1

,1

,I ' I I,: ,

,

.;

, I ,I ' 1

,

1I :

"

I'1 !

1

I 11

,

I ',' I

, ,,

I, ,1 , 1

i

1

I,'

I'

I

!

I 1

'I:

I!

,

'I '

,I 1

1

,

I:I 11

I,

I 11 '

,

, 1

Even from the most cursory purview, one can see that the majority of these "key" Chinese texts on translation theory are written in a traditional (impressionistic, or experience-based) vein. Only Liu's Present-Day Translation Theories and Huang Bangjie's On the Art of Translation show some linguistic background, while Tin's An Investigation into Equivalence-in-Effect and Ke's Chinese-English and English-Chinese Translation evince some awareness of linguistic and semiotic trends in the West. Given this strong overall tendency, it is no wonder that Chinese translation theory often co-exists with criticism, and theoretical insights are thought to derive, ultimately, from practice. In practically all the texts listed, equivalence is upheld as the golden rule; artistry, particularly in literary translations, is valorized above everything else; a good command of the source and target languages is considered an essential prerequisite for success. Concern for the cultural underpinnings of translation, and for the ideological maneuvering to which translations can be subject, is very much absent from these very recent examples of Chinese theorizing. In contrast to this assemblage of Chinese translation theory in a traditional mode, new translation theories have made their presence felt in a small way, in particular through scholars affiliated with the universities. As in many areas of investigation in the humanities, then, the revolution begins silently in academia. For some years, A Short History of Western Translation Theories by Tan Zaixi (Tan 1991), Professor of Foreign Languages at Shenzhen University, has been instrumental in bringing Chinese scholars into contact with translation theories from the West, from St. Jerome and the Bible translators to Nida and Steiner of the twentieth century. Building on Tan's description of Western translation theories, Mainland Chinese authors have written short introductions to descriptive translation theories and deconstructionist theories of translation in academic journals like Chinese Translators Journal (Beijingbased, founded in 1950 under a different name), Foreign Language Teaching and Research (also Beijing-based, founded in 1977), Language and Translation (Urumqi-based, founded in 1985), Foreign Languages and Translation (Changsha-based, founded in 1994) and Foreign Languages (Shanghai-based, founded in 1978) in the past few years (see Liu 1997: 51-54; Jiang 1995: 64-67; Zhao 1996: 46-47, 50).1 The appearance of these introductions may well be a phenomenon which parallels the introduction of New Theory into literary circles; they might also have been connected with the "culture fever" that was

in full swing in the mid-1980s. They signal, too, the possibility that China is taking her own "cultural turn" in translation studies. Whatever the reason, the handful of essays do reveal an interest in the cultural contexts of translation. Hopefully, such an interest will increase to a point where concrete research along poststructuralist lines can be stimulated in Mainland China. Several books complement these introductory articles. While not directly applying new translation theories, they must still be viewed as symptomatic of where the wind is blowing. One can begin by looking at the translation of Western translation theories first. A publication appearing at the turn of the present century in Hong Kong is Masterpieces in Western Translation Theory by Chan Tak-hung and Chang Nam-fung (Chan and Chang 2000), both professors of translation at Lingnan University, Hong Kong. In this anthology many of the seminal pieces on translation theory by Benjamin, Derrida, de Man and Venuti key texts for the poststructuralist theorists are themselves translated for the first time into Chinese. This anthology of translations needs to be placed in context. Since as early as the 1950s, Western translation theories have been imported into Mainland China through a series of translations, though most of these theories are in the traditional vein, with a predominance of works by linguists. As can be expected, there is a greater percentage of works by Russians at first, superseded later by works from Western Europe and the United States. Quite a few also pertain to the teaching of interpreting, spiced with only a smattering of theory. Roughly speaking, judging from the publication dates of the translations in Mainland China, Western translation theorists were presented to Chinese readers in the following order: 1955 1959 1959 1972 1982 1984 1985 1987 1988 1988 1991

Andrei Fedorov (Soviet Union) Mikhail Morozov (Soviet Union) Pavel Toper (Soviet Union) Danica Seleskovitch (France) (translated also in 1990 and 1992) Herbert Jean (Switzerland) Eugene Nida (D. S.) Leonid Barkhudarov (Russian) George Steiner (Switzerland) Wilfram Wilss (Germany) Jean Delisle (Canada) J. c. Catford (England)

While Masterpieces of Western Translation Theory does not deal exclusively

49

50

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

[

End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

1

with new theories in translation, it aims at playing a role in disseminating poststructuralist approaches to translation through highlighting their differences from the traditional and the linguistic approaches. Since most "theory" translators figured in the anthology are professors at universities in Hong Kong, there is reason to expect the tertiary institutions there to continue to be responsible for promoting "new translation theory" in the twenty-first century. "

,

I,

Using the new tools I,I

,

,I I

,

11

1I I , , ,,

'1'

, 11

I 1'1 , 1

,

'11

,

I' I

I

,'

"

II

1

, I I, I

, 1

, 11, i' I

, , , ,

I I ' ,

But has there been no application of new translation theories in China at all? Were there not even traces of these theories being used? Deserving special mention in this context are two monographs which study translations in the context of their target culture, paying special attention to the distortions (leading to a lack of "transparency") that texts undergo when crossing linguistic borders. The authors in both cases are Mainlanders. Zou Zhenhuan's One Hundred Translations That Had an Impact on Modern Chinese Society (Zou 1996) reviews, in separate sections, translations undertaken in almost every area of human activity (of works by Freud, Goethe, Edgar Snow, etc.) which have influenced the way the Chinese looked at the world in the twentieth century. Of special interest is the fact that for a Chinese study of translation, it focuses on the target cultural context rather than the linguistic elements involved in translation. The Chinese Language and the Modern Chinese Cultural Enlightenment (Zhou and Liu 1996) was authored by two professors from Central China Normal University Zhou Guangqing and Liu Wei. It is also a sign of the germination of the new approach in which historical and cultural concerns run alongside those of a linguistic nature. In roughly a third of the monograph, the authors deal microscopically with language change in the first two decades of the twentieth century, in the context of the translation of terms signifying new concepts and objects imported from the West. It can be argued that these two monographs embody nothing more than a new awareness of the cultural implications of translation, or that they reflect a historical awareness of the background against which translations were carried out (it must be remembered that Liu Wei is after all a professor of history). But there is no doubt about the conscious use ofdeconstructionist theory in what is to be discussed below an article and an M. A. thesis. In these an attempt is made to confront head-on the "lie" often expressed about using translation as a means of building bridges and enhancing understanding between nations.

In 1994, there appeared an article in the Taiwanese journal Chung- Wai Literary Monthly by the Hong Kong-born scholar-translator Wai-lim Yip, Professor of Chinese at the University of California, San Diego. This article, entitled "Debunking Claims of Xin, Da and Ya: The Afterlife of Translations," antedates all the works discussed above which contain a modicum of information about "new translation theories," though it appears after the first introductions of (literary and critical) New Theory into China in the mid-1980s. Yip starts off with a quotation from Walter Benjamin's "The Task of the Translator," the essay generally believed to contain the "seeds" of the deconstructionist translation theory later adumbrated by de Man, Venuti and others (Yip 1994: 74-84).2 By way of Bejamin, Yip discusses at length the impossibility of achieving the two supreme Chinese principles of translation enunciated by Yan Fu (1854-1921) "fidelity" and "fluency" (the third principle, "elegance," he subsumes under the latter). For him, Translation is a linguistic event, a voice from another time and another space being played out before us; through it we are allowed to enter into dialogue. It is the dialectical interaction between two histories and two cultures. The "realm" displayed by this voice is often similar to (i.e. showing points of intersection), and yet also different from, that imagined by the translator (who is simultaneously the reader, critic and creative artist) due to historical, cultural and educational constraints. There is absolutely no possibility of equivalence. (Yip 1994: 76)'

Yip discusses at length the recent debunking of the illusion of a "common humanity," which provides the basis for the search for equivalence, by Western scholars of comparative literature and cultural studies, as well as deconstructionists and feminists. For these people, in our time and age, neither the belief in truly objective interpretations (by hermeneuticians like Schleiermacher, Dilthey and E. D. Hirsch), nor the Kantian faith in scientific and instrumental reason, has any validity. That being the case, Yip says, it is pure folly to expect the translator to be able to reconstruct the original author's "world" in translation. He succeeds better, in fact, in "demythologizing and dehistoricizing" the original through his manipulation of language, in the process allowing the original to fit comfortably in the new context. Unlike his Mainland counterparts noted above, Yip does not stop short at a descriptive account of these theories. He elaborates the concept of"difference" with examples of Pound's translation of Chinese poems ("jeweled staircase" is more appropriate than "jade staircase," though the latter is more "faithful") and Chinese translations of Andrew Marvell and William Wordsworth (in which elements of intertextuality create insurmountable obstacles for translation).

51

r 52

,I

I

I,

I,

I , I

'

-.,

. ",

'. ,.!

End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Nevertheless, Yip reiterates that his is only a preliminary attempt at using deconstructionist ideas to understand the impact of translation on Chinese literary expression. At the end ofhis article, quoting a line from a poem by Shang Qin, which contains some Europeanized structures showing the influence of Chinese translations of English works (but which, paradoxically, are not translatable back into English), he illustrates Walter Benjamin's idea ofthe"afterlife" oftranslations. However, Yip's intention is simply to say a few words about this phenomenon he calls the "fertilization of the flower from abroad" and the "reproduction of seeds from abroad," and on this note he ends the first discussion of Benjamin in Chinese. 4 The last example of a Chinese translation scholar's active deployment of Western deconstructionist ideas in analyzing a body of translated texts is Siu Pui-fei's "Orientalism and Self-Orientalizing: The Translation of Western Sinological Works in China in the 1980s and 90s." This Master's thesis focuses on the "third peak" of translation activity in the 1980s and 90s (the first peak occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century, the second in the 1920s). Translations were undertaken with feverish intensity in these two decades: counting non-literary works alone, at least 1,500 were published in the tenyear period after 1979.5 Among these an interesting category consists of works by Western sinologists, especially those that deal with China's history, politics and culture in the pre-modern and modern periods, by noted scholars like Jacques Gernet, Max Weber, Benjamin Schwartz and Thomas Metzger. Specimens of Orientalizing by scholars in the West, these works were avidly translated into Chinese and published in several well-known series, most notably the "Overseas Research on China" series from the Nanjing-based Jiangsu People's Press. Apparently innocuous and transparent translations, for Siu they were underlined by the ideological maneuvering of a generation of intellectuals in China. 6 In contrast to what, according to Niranjana, was an oppositional strategy adopted by the post-Independence Indian translators to retranslate much of what was previously translated by the British colonizers, for Siu the Chinese translators in the decades in question were, deliberately or otherwise, perpetuating images of China fabricated by Western scholars through their translations of sinological works (mostly carried out in the United States). This Siu calls a "self-Orientalizing" strategy, in which Chinese intellectuals work in complicity with Western sinologists. Through the close analysis of a translation of Benjamin Schwartz's In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West (and the Chinese readers' response to it), Siu reveals that Orientalizing and

self-Orientalizing are mutual reinforcing strategies. Complicity takes place on two levels: Firstly, there is theoretical complicity, or complicity on the level of image-building. Self-Orientalizing discourse directly appropriates the China image constructed by Orientalism and duplicates it. In other words, the Chinese readers and critics endorse Schwartz's Orientalist discourse, which is taken over and used to construct China versus the West: the latter is governed by democracy, liberty and legal rule, and also "wealthy and strong," while the former is a society that suppresses potentials, one which is "poor and weak." Secondly, there is methodological complicity. Whether they accept or reject the image of China projected by Western sinologists, Chinese scholars aim at using the binary opposition of China and the West to construct an ontologically unified and unvarying discourse on China. (Siu 1999: 205)7

In this way, the translations transmitted back to China a message urging the need for change (or "modernization"). In fact, Siu might have even gone even further speculating on the possible connection that these translations had with the championing of political reforms at the time. Many reasons have been adduced for the outbreak of demonstrations leading to the Tiananmen Square Incident, but perhaps it ought to be mentioned that the proliferation of translations of Western scholarship in general, and of Western sinological works in particular, added fuel to the fire of discontent. To conclude, in view of the paucity of research in this area as a whole, Siu's thesis can be said to have broken new ground, exemplifying some of the possibilities opened up by the deployment of new translation theories for research in China. s

Problems in reception In contrast to the relative ease with which new translation theories become incorporated as part oftranslation studies in the West, it must be said that their introduction into China has met with more than a little resistance. Charges of impracticality have often been made against these theories, especially by students of translation. Some even have doubts whether they are really theories of translation, and not theories about translation in other words, whether they are extrinsic, and not intrinsic to translation as a human activity. The essential question, then, becomes how it is possible to "translate" translation theories of a poststructuralist bent for a Chinese audience. In what follows, I will seek to explore the issue of reception from the multiple perspectives of the translator,

53

54

1

1

,

1

I

,

1

1

I

, I

I I

,

i

1

I,i

I 1

"

I I ,

,

, I

I ,

, ,

, I'

, I

i

, I'

,I

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

the scholar, and the theorist, and conclude with suggestions about ways in which new translation theories can be made meaningful and therefore acceptable in a Chinese context. Indeed, after over a decade since they were first introduced, the intellectual reaction to "New Theory," at least as far as Mainland China is concerned, must be characterized as rather "mixed." Voices of repudiation were still heard years after Jameson made his epoch-making trip. Recently Xin Xiaozheng and Guo Yinxing concluded their critique of New Theory by wryly noting that its influence is "weak," its future "foggy and unclear" (Xin and Guo 1998: 10; see also Meng 1990; 36-39). In the case of new translation theories, as the above discussion shows, the reception is certainly lukewarm. Given the differences in cultural climate, it is conceivable that ideas like postmodernism and postcolonialism, whether applied to translation or not, could be viewed in China with some suspicion (Lu 1996: 139-64; Wang 1993: 278-300; Zhang 1993). That raises hopes that new translation theories could find a congenial home in Hong Kong, whose readiness to accept things Western is often noted, and whose receptivity to postcolonialist theories in particular might be enhanced by the fact that it has entered a unique post-colonial phase upon China's takeover in 1997. That, unfortunately, does not seem to be the case; there is a dearth of research utilizing the insights of the new theories, whether translation-related or non-translated-related, and this in spite of the fact that poststructuralist theories like those mentioned in the present article are usually taught in translation programs in Hong Kong. Whether the efforts of someone like Siu Pui-fei will be followed up still remains to be seen. As for the situation of universities in the Mainland, by the end of the twentieth century none of them runs a full-fledged program on translation, not even at the B. A. levelthough a couple have been started since the new century began. This means that it will be premature to speak of the immediate contribution of a younger generation of scholars from the Mainland. The best that one can say is that some breakthrough may be in sight. With the growing influence of new translation theories, spread via an abundance of translations and introductory articles,9 one can reasonably expect to see eventually a total "immersion" in postructuralism in translation theorizing. The importation of poststructuralist translation theories to China is bedeviled primarily by two related problems: first, Chinese cultural attitudes towards the meaning and significance of translation theorizing; and second, the divorce of these theories from the reality of translation in the Chinese context.

End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

Probably even more than in the West, translation theory has always served in China to provide norms that can assist the translator in translating. (Here you have the eternal bone of contention between the translation teacher and the translation scholar, as well as between the practitioner and the theorist.) The prescriptive nature of Yan Fu's three principles of translation has been pointed out time and again by scholars in the field. Through the lens of these principles, faults in translation are invariably seen as deviations, since the principles have become incontestable and true for all time. Put simply, Chinese translation theory has long been viewed as indistinguishable from principles, which are decidedly normative. Another prevalent belief in the Chinese case is the inseparability of translation theory from criticism; for that reason evaluative statements almost always pass for "theory" in China. The privileging of practice over theory, and the virtual non-existence of a tradition of philosophical reflection on the processes and products of translation, means that when new translation theories are introduced, they need a great deal of adjusting to. It would be worth remarking, at this point, that the issue of the accountability of the translation theorist to the practitioner of translation is a perennial one that even Western theorists have had to confront in the first place, and it does not seem that die-hard habits of thinking can be easily eradicated. In China, however, the tendency to denounce theorizing that is not relevant to practice as empty talk has been particularly strong. Furthermore, the merits of poststructuralist translation theories notwithstanding, it still cannot be denied that they need to pass the test of immediate applicability when transplanted to foreign soil. Even granting that, in principle, they allow us to understand translation as a means whereby cultures are reinterpreted, as an exemplary case of how language can be manipulated as a significative system, the true worth ofsuch theories needs to be verified through detailed textual study. Apparently, however, new translation theories, by some curious freak in their nature, have always had a tendency to move ahead of practice, and hence not verifiable. Borrowing terms from disciplines outside of translation studies, Western theorists have evolved within a short time-span an elaborate framework for a poststructuralist discourse on translation. It is only after the theories had been established that translation scholars began re-examining translated texts already published one the one hand, while translators started experimenting with new strategies (one thinks here of Philip Lewis's "abusive translation" [Lewis 1985: 31-62]) for rendering their source texts on the other. An example of the

55

I

,. ,.' '

~',"

'T'

'v'

," '

56

I,

,

i I I I

I I I

I I1

1

,

I,

I ,'

,

,

I

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

former is Andre Lefevere's re-reading of the translations of Aristophanes's Lysistrata by Wheelwright (1837), Hickie (1902) and Housman (1911). As examples of the latter, there are Suzanne Jill Levine's rendition of Guillermo Cabrera Infante's Infante's Inferno using what she calls her own subversive translation methods (see Levine 1991), and the Canadian (English) translators' inventive translations of contemporary Quebecois texts, as examined by Sherry Simon (Simon 1994). In the Chinese context, however, few translation studies in the new, poststructuralist mode and perhaps not even one translation purposely deploying the new strategies seem to have made their appearance as yet. We can only look forward to mature translation research in the future applying the new theories to existing translations. After all, an entire generation of translation scholars have emerged since translation courses were first introduced into tertiary institutions in Hong Kong in the 1980s, and with the launching of M. A. and Ph.D. programs in several Hong Kong universities at the end of the century, we can fairly assume that "new" readings of translated texts will be forthcoming. However, it may be a while before retroactive translation research ("retroactive" because it deals with translated texts already in existence) ceases to be the only kind of activity that the translation scholars can engage in, and new translation theories become directly relevant and "operative" for practicing translators and their translations. At the same time, from the difficulty new translation theories had in establishing themselves in China, one can easily see the shortcomings of a rather narrow approach to theorizing that does more harm than good. A look at the reaction on the part of linguists to the challenge of poststructuralist translation theories in recent years is highly instructive. In fact, the response of several translation theorists with a strong background in linguistics shows some of our artificial demarcations to be more limiting than real. And the gap between what we have almost characterized as two opposed camps in translation theorizing, if it does exist, is not as wide as it seems. Cultural elements in translation have obviously engaged the attention of trained linguists: Mary Snell-Hornby is a case in point. Breaking through the narrow theoretical confines of her predecessors of a previous generation, she advocates the view that translation is more a case of cross-cultural transfer than interlingual transfer, and she hopes to enhance understanding of translation by incorporating knowledge from fields as diverse as psychology, philosophy and ethnography; yet she applies the most rigorous linguistic analyses to translated texts. The

End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

word "integrated" in the title of what is her best known book to date is most telling here (Snell-Hornby 1988: 31-62). Other linguists, perhaps reacting unconsciously to the "new" theories, have sought to make up for the deficiencies of traditional linguistic approaches, especially the much criticized, fragmentary study of small linguistic units like the sentence, by proposing ever-expanding units for analysis from de Beaugrande's "text" to Hatim and Mason's "discourse" (Hatim and Mason 1989). They have continued the exploration of the possibilities inherent in the new linguistic science called "text linguistics," championed as early as 1972 by none other than Wolfgang DressIer and de Beaugrande, who were among the first proponents of "beyond~the-sentence"analyses of translations. The German functionalist school (represented by Vermeer, Reiss, Nord and HolzManttari), convinced that translation theories should not only be linguistically based, have drawn on a general theory of action to explicate the multiple facets of translation as an act of human communication. For one with a strong sense of history, in particular of the relatedness of ideas in time, two features would be obvious if one were to sum up what has been happening to linguistics-based translation theory in the West in the past three decades, since the forefathers of the 1960s began writing about translation as an independent field of inquiry: there has been decline and there has been rejuvenation. Furthermore, considering the fact that the reshaping of linguistic theories of translation occurred at roughly the same time as rereadings of Benjamin's essay were undertaken by Derrida and de Man (these were later followed by re-readings of Derrida's and de Man's essays by Venuti and Niranjana), one may be tempted to think ofboth camps, the linguistic and the non-linguistic, as vying with each other and yet playing complementary roles. Of course one explanation for what has transpired is that all were responding to either some "crisis in consciousness" experienced by the Western world at large (or the oft-repeated "cultural turn"), or to disciplinary/ institutional re-configurations in Western academia in the last few decades of the twentieth century. It seems inevitable, when all is said, that in translation theorizing one has to persistently struggle with the micro-level of the text and the macro-level of culture (which includes ideology, history, philosophy, law, customs, and so on). The two are related "metonymically" (Tymoczko 1999: 41-62), though translation theories have always had a tendency to emphasize either one of the two. For some time now, the school which focuses on the latter has been on the

57

58

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

ascendancy, although their theories do not translate well, as in the case of their transplantation to Chinese soil. Yet should we give up hope? Granting the apparent difference between the new theories and the old, it remains true that poststructuralist theories of translation do open up opportunities for novel reflections on translation, as well as usher in a new set of tools for methodological analysis. To theorize on the basis of untranslatability, to view translation as being inscribed within the power contests between cultures, to debunk translation as mimesis these have given new life to translation studies in the West. For that reason, one would like to see new translation theories reinvigorating the theoretical (if not yet the practical) study of translation in China. In the meantime, one needs to keep an eye open for these theories to demonstrate their practical utility by encouraging bold and daring Chinese translators to indulge in translation experimentation of a kind yet unseen. I "

Notes The former is the official publication of the Translators' Association of China and the latter is published by the Foreign Languages University of Shanghai. 1.

I

See the translation of this article by Yip himself in Section A of the second part of this anthology.

I

3. The translation here is mine.

2.

'I I

I

I

I

4. Brilliant use of Benjamin's "deconstructionist" ideas of translation also appeared elsewhere, but since much of it was published in English, it falls outside the scope of the present discussion (e.g., Chow 1995: 173-202). 5. This figure is obtained from a rough count of the translations listed in Siu's Appendices (Siu 1999: 111-227). 6. Edward Gu provides an illuminating study of the cultural scene of the 1980s, when "intellectuals engaged in great eagerness in searching for an alternative intellectual framework, derived from Western theories in social sciences and humanities, to replace the official ideology" (Gu 1999: 89).

i,,

7. My translation.

I,

8. Like materials in English not immediately available to a Chinese readership, work done in a similar vein in Taiwan is not included in the present discussion. The author wishes to thank Liao Ping-hui for pointing out that scholars like Liao Chaoyang have, prior to the present century, explored the possibilities of deconstructionist theorizing on translation in articles published in the Chung-wai Literary Monthly.

,

1

,

I,

9. In the Mainland, the trend ofintroducing contemporary Western translation theories has continued apace in the past few years. A five-volume series from the Hubei Educational Press, which systematically discusses American, Russian, British, French and German theories,

End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

appeared at the turn of the new millennium. These volumes are not devoted exclusively to new translation theories; individual chapters, however, describe them at some length (e.g., Guo 2000: Chapters 7 and 8). To the author's knowledge, book projects in Mainland China dealing with the new theories in translation are already underway.

59

60

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

References for Chapters 1--4 Asad, Talal. 1986. "The Concept of Cultural Translation in British Social Anthropology." In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, James Clifford and George E. Marcus (eds), 141-64. Berkeley: University of California Press. Beijing Library, ed. 1987. Minguo shiqi zhong shumu 1911-1949 (A Complete Bibliography of the Republican Era 1911-1949). Beijing: Bibliographical Documents Press. Berman, Antoine. 1992. The Experience of the Foreign: Culture and Translation in Romantic Germany. Translated by S. Heyvaert. New York: CUNY Press. Bernofsky, Susan. 1998. "Writing the Foreign: Studies in German Romantic Translation." Ph.D. thesis. Princeton University. Bhabha, Homi. 1994. "How Newness Enters the World: Postmodern Space, Postcolonial Times and the Trials of Cultural Translation." In The Location of Culture, 212-35. London and New York: Routledge. Chan, Leo Tak-hung. 1996. "Europeanizations Reconsidered: The Deconstructionist Turn in Chinese Translation Theory." In Translation and Meaning: Volume Four, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and MatTel Thelen (eds), 13-18. Maastricht: Rijkshogeschool. Chan, Leo Tak-hung and Chang, Nam-fung, eds. 2000. Xifangfanyi lilun jingxuan (Masterpieces in Western Translation Theory). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press. Chan, Sin-wai and Pollard, David, eds. 1995. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. Chen, Fukang. 1992. Zhongguo yixue lilun shigao (A Draft History of Chinese Translation Theory). Shanghai: Foreign Languages Educational Press. Chen, Ping. 1993. "Modern Written Chinese in Development." Language in Society 22: 50537. Chow, Rey. 1995. Primitive Passions: Visuality, Sexuality, Ethnography, and Contemporary Chinese Cinema. New York: Columbia University Press. Deeney, John, ed. "A Prolegomenon to an Encyclopedic Dictionary of Classical Chinese Literary Terms in English." Tamkang Review 24.3-4: 1-125. Derrida, Jacques. 1981. Positions. Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago

, 1

I, \1 1

I !

1

, , ,'

,

'I

I,I

Press. Fang, Xide. 1992. Zhongguo xiandai xiaoshuo yu wenxue chuantong (The Modern Chinese Novel and Literary Tradition). Beijing: Beijing University Press. Fu, Donghua. 1921. "Yutiwen Ouhua" (Europeanization of the Vernacular). Jingbao June 30. Fu, Lei. 1981. "Preface to a Retranslation of Le Pere Goriot." In Fu Lei lunwenji (Essays by Fu Lei). Hefei: Anhui People's Press. Fu, Sinian. 1919. "Yishu ganyan" (Thoughts on Translation). In Luo (1984): 366-68. Gu, Edward X. 1999. "Cultural Intellectuals and the Politics of the Culture Public Space in Communist China (1979-1989): A Case Study of Three Intellectual Groups." Journal of Asian Studies 58.2: 389-431. Gunn, Edward. 1991. Rewriting Chinese: Style and Innovation in Twentieth-Century Chinese Prose. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

Guo, Jianzhong. 2000. Dangdai Meiguo fanyi lilun (Contemporary American Translation Theories). Wuhan: Hubei Educational Press. Hatim, Basil. 1997. Communication Across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. He, Gongze. 1994. Fanyi lilun zhi yanbian yu fazhan (Changes and Development in Translation Theory). Taibei: Bookman Publishers. He, Weijie. 1989. Fanyi xinlun (Translating Revisited). Taibei: Bookman Publishers. Holmes, James. 1988. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hou, Jue. 1926. Shijieyu gailun (A General Introduction to Esperanto). Shanghai: The Commercial Press. Huang, Bangjie. 1988. Yiyi tan (On the Art of Translation). Taibei: Bookman Publishers. Huang, Xuanfan. 1974. "Ping Xiguo zhu Fanyi yanjiu (A Critique of Frederick Tsai's Studies of Translation). Chung-wai Literary Monthly 2.2: 43-55. Huang, Yushi. 1995. "Form and Spirit." In Chan and Pollard (1995): 277-87. Jiang, Xiaohua. 1995. "Jiegou zhuyi fanyi tanxi" (Exploring Deconstructionist Theories on Translation). Waiyu jiaoxue yu yanjiu noA: 64-67. Jin, Di. 1988. Dengxiao fanyi tansuo (An Investigation into Equivalence-in-Effect). Taibei: Bookman Publishers. Jin, Di and Nida, Eugene A. 1984. On Translation: With Special Reference to Chinese and English. Beijing: Chinese Translation Publishing Co. Jin, Shenghua, ed. 1994. Fu Lei yu tade shijie (Fu Lei and His World). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing Co. Jin, Shenghua and Huang, Guobin. 1996. Yin nan jian qiao (Artistry in Encountering Difficulty). Taibei: Bookman Publishers. Ke, Ping. 1994. Ying-Han Han-Ying fanyi (E-C and C-E Translation). Taibei: Bookman Publishers. Kenny, Dorothy and Cronin, Michael. "M. A. in Translation Studies, Dublin City University." The Translator: Studies in Intercultural Communication 1.2: 241-60. Lei, Wei. 1993. "Kaituo yu chuangshen: Uu Miqing de fanyi lilun yanjiu shuping" (Expanding Boundaries and Creating Newness: A Survey ofUu Miqing's Studies of Translation Theory). Zhongguo fanyi no.3: 46-50. Levine, Suzanne J. The Subversive Scribe: Translating Latin-American Fiction. Saint Paul: Graywolf Press. Lewis, Philip E. "The Measure of Translation Effects." In Difference in Translation, Joseph F. Graham (ed), 31-62. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Uu, Huawen. 2002. "Tazhe yu wo de duihua" [Dialogue between 'The Other' and '1': Two Forms of Aesthetic Stimulus-Response in the Translation of Poems from Chinese to English]. Journal of Translation Studies 7 (July): 95-112. Liu, Jingzhi [Liu Ching-chih]. 1996. Shensi yu xingsi (Spiritual Resonance and Formal Resonance). Taibei: Bookman Publishers. Liu, Junping. 1997. "Jiegou zhuyi de fanyiguan" (The Deconstructionist Approach to Translation). Waiguoyu no.2: 51-54. Liu, Lydia He. 1995. Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity - China, 1900-1937. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

61

62

II

I I I

, 1

1

,

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Liu, Miqing. 1989. "Lun Zhongguo fanyi jiben moshi" (On the Basic Paradigm for a Chinese Translation Theory). Zhongguo fanyi no.l: 12-15. Liu, Miqing. 1993. Dangdai fanyi lilun (Present-Day Translation Studies). Taibei: Bookman Publishers. Rpt. of Xiandai fanyi lilun (Modern Translation Studies). Nanchang: Jiangxi Educational Press, 1990. Liu, Miqing. 1995. Fanyi meixue daolun (Introduction to the Aesthetics of Translation). Taibei: Bookman Publishers. Liu, Yansheng. 1999. Zhongguo xiandai wenxue lunzhengshi (Modern Literary Debates in China: A History). Guangzhou: Guangdong People's Press. Lu, Sheldon Hsiao-peng. 1997. "Postmodernity, Popular Culture, and the Intellectual: A Report on Post-Tiananmen China." boundary 223.2: 139-64. Lundburg, Lennart. 1989. "Lu Xun as a Translator: Lu Xun's Translation and Introduction of Literature and Literary Theory, 1930-1936." Ph.D. thesis. Stockholm University. Luo, Xinzhang, ed. 1984. Fanyi lunji (Essays on Translation). Beijing: The Commercial Press. Luo, Xinzhang. 1984. "Woguo zicheng tixi de fanyi lilun" (Chinese Translation Theory, A System of Its Own). In Luo (1984): 1-19. Mao, Dun. 1934. "Zhiyi, shunyi, waiyi" (Literal Translation, Smooth Translation and Distorted Translation). In Luo (1984): 351-54. Mao, Dun. 1921a. "Yutiwen Ouhua zhi wojian (1)" (My Own Views on Europeanization of the Vernacular). Xiaoshuo yuebao 12.6. Mao, Dun. 1921b. '«Yutiwen Ouhua' da Donghua jun" (A Reply to Mr. Donghua's 'Europeanization of the Vernacular'). Shishi xinbao: wenxue xunkan no.7 (July 10). Mason, Ian and Hatim, Basil. 1989. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman. McDonald, Christie V, ed. 1985. The Ear of the Other: Otobiography, Transference, Translation. New York: Schocken Books. Mehrez, Samia. 1992. "Translation and the Postcolonial Experience: The Francophone North African Text." In Venuti (1992): 120-38. Meng, Fanhua. 1990. "Disan shijie wenhua lilun de tichu yu mianlin de kunhuo" (The Advocacy of Third World Cultural Theory, and the Problems It Faces). Wenyi zhengmingno. 6 :36-39. Peng, Jingxi. 1997. Mo xiang (Touching the Elephant). Taibei: Bookman Publishers. Perez-Barreiro Nolla, Fernando. 1992. "Lu Xun's Ideas on 'Hard Translation': A Historically Justified Case ofLiteralism." BabeI38.2: 79-89. Pollard, David. 1991. "Translation and Lu Xun: The Discipline and the Writer." Chinese University Bulletin Supplement 21: 4-11. Qian, Zhongshu. 1984. "Lin Shu de fanyi" (The Translations of Lin Shu). In Luo (1984): 696-725. Qu, Qiubai. 1989. "Xin Zhongguo de wenzi geming" (A Linguistic Revolution in New China). In Qu Qiubai wenji: wenxue bian (Essays by Qu Qiubai: Literary Essays). Beijing: People's Literature Press. Schwartz, Benjamin. 1964. In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Shen, Dan. 1995. "Literalism." In Chan and Pollard (1995): 568-79. Shen, Xiaolong. 1997. Collected Essays ofShen Xiaolong on Chinese Cultural Linguistics, Gao

End of the century: The impact of "new theories"

Yihong (ed.). Changchun: Northern Normal University Press. Shen, Xiaolong. 1995a. Dangdai Zhongguo yufaxue (A Study of Contemporary Chinese Syntax). Guangzhou: Guangdong Educational Press. Shen, Xiaolong. 1995b. "Lishixing de fanbo: Zhongguo wenhua yuyanxue" (Reversing Historicity: Chinese Cultural Linguistics). In Wenhua yuyanxue Zhongguochao (The Chinese Wave of Cultural Linguistics), Shao Jingmin (ed), 28--41. Beijing: Languages Press. Shen, Xiaolong. 1992. Yuwen de chanshi: Zhongguo yuwen chuantong de xiandai yiyi (Interpreting Language: The Modern Meaning of Chinese Linguistic Traditions). Shenyang: Liaoning Educational Press. Shen, Xiaolong. 1990. Zhongguo wenhua yuyanxue (Chinese Cultural Linguistics). Jilin: Jilin Educational Press. Simon, Sherry. 1994. Le Trafic des langues. Traduction et culture dans la litterature quebecoise. Montreal: Editions du Boreal. Siu, Pui-fei. 1999. "Dongfang lunshu yu ziwo dongfang lunshu: Bajiushi niandai Xifang Hanxue fanyi zai Zhongguo" (Orientalism and Self-Orientalizing: The Translation of Western Sinological Works in China in the 1980s and 90s). M.Phil. thesis. Lingnan University. Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An [ntegrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tagore, Amitendranath. 1967. Literary Debates in Modern China 1918-1937. Tokyo: Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies. Tan, Zaixi. 1991. Xifang fanyi jianshi (A Short History of Translation in the West). Beijing: The Commercial Press. Tang, Xiaobing. 1993. "The Function of New Theory: What Does It Mean to Talk about Postmodernism in China?" In Politics, Ideology, and Literary Discourse in Modern China: Theoretical Interventions and Cultural Critique, Liu Kang and Tang Xiaobing (eds), 278-300. Durham: Duke University Press. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Tsai, Frederick. 1972. Fanyi yanjiu (Studies of Translation). Taibei: Great Earth Publishers. Tymoczko, Mary. 1999. Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in English Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator's Invisibility: A History ofTranslation. New York and London: Routledge. Venuti, Lawrence, ed. 1992. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. New York and London: Routledge. Venuti, Lawrence. 1986. "The Translator's Invisibility." Criticism 28.2: 179-212. Wang, Fengzhen, Sheng, Ning and Li, Zixiu, eds. 1991. Zuixin Sifang wenlun xuan (A Selection of the Most Recent Critical Essays in the West). Guilin: Lijiang Publishing Co. Wang, Hongzhi [Wong Wang-chi]. 1999. Chongshi xin da ya: Ershi shiji Zhongguo fanyi yanjiu (Reinterpreting Fidelity, Fluency and Elegance: Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Studies). Shanghai: Eastern Publication Center.

63

64

II , , ,

I' 1

I

I

,

1 1

,

1

'!I 1

1

11

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Wang, Jing. 1996. High Culture Fever: Politics, Aesthetics, and Ideology in Deng's China. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wang, Li. 1959. Zhongguo xiandai yufa (Modern Chinese Syntax). Hong Kong: China Publishing Co. Wang, Ning. 1995. "Dongfang zhuyi, houzhimin zhuyi he wenhua baquan zhuyi pipan: Aidehua Saiyide de houzhimin zhuyi lilun pouxi" (Orientalism, Postcolonialism and the Critique of Cultural Hegemonism: An Analysis of Edward Said's Postcolonial Theory), Beijing daxue xuebao no.2: 54-62. Wang, Ning. 1993. "Constructing Postmodernism: The Chinese Case and Its Different Versions." Canadian Review ofComparative Literature 20: 49-61. Wong, Wai-Ieung. 1976. "Chinese Impressionistic Criticism: A Study of the Poetry-Talk Tradition." Ph.D. dissertation. Ohio State University. Xiao, Liming. 1992. Fanyi xintan (New Explorations in Translation). Taibei: Bookman Publishers. Xin, Xiaozheng and Guo, Yinxing. 1988. "Xinlilun de chujing" (The Situation of New Theory). Dangdai zuojia pinglun no.6: 10. Xu, Dejiang. 1992. Dangdai yuyan wenji lilun de xingouxiang (Rethinking Linguistic Theories in the Contemporary Era). Beijing: Science Press. Ye, Weilian [Yip, Wai-lim]. 1994. "Po Xindaya: Fanyi houqi de shengming" (Debunking Xin, Da and Ya: The Afterlife ofTranslations). Chung-wai Literary Monthly22.4: 74-84. Zhang, Jingyuan, ed. 1992. Dangdai nuxing zhuyi wenxue piping (Contemporary Feminist Literary Criticism). Beijing: Beijing University Press. Zhang, Yiwu. 1993. Zai bianyuan chu zuisuo: Disan shijie wenhua yu dangdai Zhongguo wenxue (Exploring the Margins: Third World Culture and Contemporary Chinese Literature). Beijing: Contemporary Arts Press. Zhao, Jiabi, ed. 1935-1936. Zhongguo xinwenxue daxi (A Compendium of New Chinese Literature). Shanghai: Good Friends Book Co. Zhao, Jiajin. 1996. "Dangdai fanyi xuepai jianjie" (Brief Introduction to Contemporary Schools of Translation). Zhongguo fanyi no.5: 46-47, 50. Zhao, Yiheng,. 1995. '''Houxue' yu Zhongguo xinbaoshou zhuyi" ('Post-isms' and Chinese New Conservatism). Ershiyi shiji no.27: 4-15. Zheng, Zhenduo. 1921. "Yutiwen Ouhua zhi wojian (2)" (My Own Views on Europeanization of the Vernacular). Xiaoshuo yuebao 12.6. Zheng, Zhenduo, ed. 1989. Zhongguo xinwenxue daxi (A Compendium of New Chinese Literature). 20 volumes. Shanghai: Shanghai Arts Press. Zhou, Guangqing and Liu, Wei. 1996. Hanyu yu Zhongguo xinwenhua qimeng (The Chinese Language and the Modern Chinese Cultural Enlightenment). Taibei: Great East Press. Zhu, Zhiyu [Chu, Chi-yu]. 2001. "Zhongguo chuantong fanyi sixiang: 'Shenhua shuo' (Qianqi)" (Traditional Chinese Theory of Translation: 'Resemblance in Spirit' and 'Transformation of Souls' [The Early Period]). Chinese Translators Journal (no.2): 3-8. Zou, Zhenhuan. 1996. Yingxiang Zhongguo jindai shehui de yibaizhong yizuo (One Hundred Translations That Had an Impact on Modern Chinese Society). Beijing: Chinese Translation Co.

PART

II

',,,

'\'

A: Responses to Yan Fu .

Yan Fu's "Preface to Tianyanlun (Evolution and Ethics)" was exceedingly welltimed to inaugurate twentieth-century translation theory in China: it was published in 1901. Often regarded as the most important statement on translation and repeatedly debated by scholars throughout the past century, this short piece has assumed a prominence unequaled by any other theoretical work so far produced in the country. Opinions on Yan Fu's contribution to Chinese translation theory have been divided. His ideas about xin ("faithfulness," "fidelity"), da ("fluency," "comprehensibility") and ya ("elegance," "polish") have been said to exert influences both laudatory and detrimental. Also on the negative side, critics have pointed out that his actual practice, as demonstrated in his translation of Huxley's Evolution and Ethics, to which his "Preface" was presumably an introduction, was at great variance with his theory. The liberty he took with Huxley's text shows Yan to have been least concerned with xin, the first of his three principles. It has been pointed out that Yan Fu's translation theory is not "Chinese" in origin because he had read Alexander Tytler's Essay on the Principles ofTranslation and simply copied it wholesale. (Conversely, it has been argued that Yan Fu's ideas were not really his own, but were nevertheless "Chinese" because they originated with the third-century Buddhist monk-translator Yu Qian.) The second selection in this section is Zheng Zhenduo's "How to Translate Literary Texts" (1921), a conscious effort to introduce Alexander Tytler's three "principles of translation" to Chinese readers. According to Zheng, they are: (1) to convey the message of the original, though the translator can add and delete with "discretion" (supported with examples from Tickell, Byron and Homer); (2) to convey the style and manner of the original (illustrated with examples from the Bible, Homer and the poem "William and Margaret"); and (3) to convey the ease of the original more easily done with lyrical poetry (since greater license is permitted) than with set idioms, special syntactical structures and plain styles. I will leave it to readers to decide whether Zheng faithfully represents Tytler, and whether Tytler's "three principles" are the same as Yan's.

68

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

One of China's foremost poets in the twentieth century, Bian Zhilin voices his disagreement with Yan in his "Literary Translation and Sensitivity to Language" (1983). Using a handful of examples, Bian demonstrates the extent to which Yan Fu's ideas are inadequate. Instead ofYan's threesome, he advocates "faithfulness," "similarity" and "translation" (as opposed to originality in creative writing) as guiding principles. "Debunking Claims of The fourth article, by Ye Weilian [Wai-lim Yip] Xin, Da and Ya" (1994) illustrates the influence of late twentieth-century deconstructionist ideas on Chinese translation theorizing. Yip attacks the notion of "faithfulness" by pointing out that true objectivity in human understanding is no longer possible, because: (1) neither a shared humanity nor a deep psychic structure underlying all languages can be presumed to exist; (2) it is impossible to determine the author's intentions because of intertextual echoes; and (3) there is an unbridgeable historical distance between the author and the reader. In addition, as far as Yip Wai-lim is concerned, Yan's two other principles are also ill-informed. With examples from the poems of Andrew Marvell and William Wordsworth, he also shows that there is little possibility of recapturing the expressiveness of the original writer in another language. What place is there, then, for "fluency" and "elegance"?

AI. Preface to Tianyanlun (1901) Yan Fu 1

1. Translation involves three requirements difficult to fulfill: faithfulness (xin), comprehensibility (da) and elegance (ya).2 Faithfulness is difficult enough to attain but a translation that is faithful but not comprehensible is no translation at alL Comprehensibility is therefore of prime importance. Since China's opening to foreign trade by sea, there has been no lack of interpreters and translators. But if you assign them any book to translate and tell them to meet these two requirements, few can do so. The reasons for their inability are: superficiality, partiality and lack of discrimination. This book3 is based on the new knowledge ofthe West acquired during the last fifty years and was one ofthe author's later works. My translation attempts to present its profound thought. It does not follow the exact order ofwords and sentences of the original text but reorganizes and elaborates. However, it does not deviate from the original ideas. It is more an exposition than a translation as it seeks to elaborate an unorthodox way of transmission. Kumarajiva said: "Whoever imitates me would falL"4 There will be many others coming after me in translation work; I sincerely hope that they will not use this book as an excuse for their failings. ,

.,

I

2. Terms in Western language texts are defined as they occur, somewhat similar to digressions in Chinese. What comes after elaborates what goes before and completes the sense and structure. A sentence in a Western language consists of from two or three words to tens or hundreds of words. If we should follow this construction in translation, it would not be comprehensible, and if we should delete and abridge, we might miss some of the ideas expressed in the originaL When the translator has understood thoroughly and digested the whole text he will then be able to rewrite it in the best manner possible. Since the original is profound in thought and involved in style, which are difficult to convey together, he should correlate what precedes and what follows to bring out the theme. All this effort is to achieve comprehensibility; for only when a piece of translation is comprehensible can it be regarded as faithfuL 3. The Book ofChangesS says: "Fidelity is the basis of writing." Confucius said: "Writing should be comprehensible." He also said, "Where language has no refinement, its effects will not extend far." These three dicta set the right course

,

'

"

1'( ... , ,."

70

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Responses to Yan Fu

for literature and are the guidelines for translation. In addition to faithfulness and comprehensibility, we should strive for elegance in translation. This is not just for extending the effects far. In using the syntax and style of the pre- Han period6 one actually facilitates the comprehensibility of the profound principles and subtle thoughts whereas in using the modern vernacular one finds it difficult to make things comprehensible. Oftentimes, straining the meaning but slightly to fit the language can result in gross misinterpretations. Inevitably I had to make a choice between these two media, not that I have a preference for the eccentric. My translation has been criticized for its abstruse language and involved style. But I must say this is the result of my determined effort at comprehensibility. The treatise in the book is largely based upon logic, mathematics and science as well as astronomy. If a reader is not familiar with these studies, even ifhe is of the same nationality and speaks the same language as the author, he won't be able to comprehend much, far less by reading a translation.

,

,I

,

Other terms such as wujing (struggle for existence), tianze (natural selection), ch uneng (potentiality) and xiaoshi (actuality) are my creations. The determination of a term often took a full month's pondering. I leave it to the discerning and wise to commend or condemn me. 5. The book deals mainly with the schools of thought since ancient Greece. Included are the renowned thinkers of various periods whose thoughts have influenced the minds of the people of the West for some two thousand years. Whoever engages in Western studies should know about them. At the end of a chapter I record briefly the lives and achievements of these men for the reference of scholars who may want to know about them and their times.

4. New theories have been advanced in quick succession, giving rise to a profusion of new terms. No such terms could be found in Chinese. Though some Chinese expressions approximate the original, there are yet discrepancies. Confronted with such a situation, a translator can only use his own judgement and coin a term according to the sense. But this is easier said than done. For instance, Part I of this book consists of more than ten prolegomena. These are simple introductory remarks on the profound treatise. I first translated "prolegomena" as zhiyan (discursive remarks). But Xia Suiqing of Qiantang said this term was trite and suggested xuantan (discursive talks), which is found in the Buddhist scriptures. When the venerable Wu Zhifu of Tongcheng saw my translation, he said that since zhiyan had become trite and xuantan was derived from Buddhism, and neither was not what an independent mind would adopt, it would be better to follow the precedent set by the ancient Chinese philosophers of giving a heading to each chapter. Suiqing argued that in that case each chapter would become an essay by itself and this would be contradictory to the original plan of treating one theme in the book. However, in the terms xuantan and xuanshu (discursive commentary) the word xuan means "attached." It connotes a summary or gist of some basic idea and does not correspond to the present sense. The term therefore should not be used. So I followed the original heading, translating it as daoyan (introductory remarks) and, accepting Wu's suggestion, supplied a subhead to each chapter for the convenience of the reader. This shows the difficulty of determining a term, and in going about the task one can hardly escape the criticism ofbeing half-baked.

,, ,, ,1,:

·

, "

"",

, ',1'

,,"'

,

· ,

,

'.

, ,! \

;.

·

,·".,

,

,

11.

, ' "

'(I

I"

i., ,

,

6. The pursuit of truth is akin to the practice of government in that both place a premium on the pooling of ideas. Where the present work agrees or differs with other books, from what I know I note them in the postscript for the reader's reference. Now and then I inject my personal views in the spirit of "Seeking Friends" in the Book of Odes? and "Mutual Encouragement and Assistance" in the Book of Changes. Whether my views are sound or not I leave to public judgment. I do not insist on my own rectitude. If anyone should accuse me of being pretentious and seeking notoriety for myself, he misunderstands my intention in taking great pains to translate this book. Translated by C. Y. Hsu

71

Responses to Yan Fu

A2. How to translate literary texts (1921) Zheng Zhenduo 8

,

,, '

1

From the above, one can see that literary works are translatable, and the degree of their translatability is related to the translator's artistic ability. This brings us immediately to our second problem: How can literary works be translated? By what techniques can the distance between the original and the translation be completely eliminated? How can the meaning of the original be fully expressed in the translation? How can the beauty of the original be adequately transplanted in the translation? In sum, what is "the art of translation"? This extremely difficult question demands an answer. Many in the past had studied this question, and it has commanded even more interest recently. Yet most people have sought their own answers rather than discuss the question at length in a book or an article. I have only come across A. F. Tytler's Essay on the Principles of Translation, which addresses specifically the art of literary translation. According to his preface, both M. D'Alembert in his Melanges de Litterature, d'Histoire &c. and Abbe Battesux in his Principles de la Litterature have devoted two to three chapters to the issue. I have not seen either of these books. I now venture to introduce Tytler's ideas, mixed with those of my own, as follows. To Tytler, a good translation must be defined as one in which the merits of the original work have been fully transplanted, and the reader can clearly and strongly feel them, like readers speaking the original language. Hence there are three principles of translation, never to be abrogated: (1) That the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work; (2) That the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original; and (3) That the translation should have all the ease of original composition. I will proceed to explain, with examples, the methods by which these principles can be achieved. The First Principle. In order that the translator can transmit fully the message of the original work, the basic requirement is that he should have a thorough grasp of the words used there. Next, he must have adequate understanding of the subject discussed or described in the original work. Should he fail to satisfy either of these requirements, or be not quite familiar with the

", c,, ' n

,

i :4"

I :'

,

,I

. "

language used or the subject covered, he will never completely comprehend the original author's meaning as well as communicate it. I will cite an example. M. Folard was a famed military strategist. In translat9 ing Polybius he inserted a footnote to explain an offensive tactic deployed by the ancient Greeks and Romans. In this footnote, referring to what Polybius and other ancient writers have said, he attempted to prove that the engineers of Greece and Rome knew how to use more recent tools. Unfortunately, Folard's knowledge of Greek was too superficial. He relied solely on the translation of a Benedictine priest to study Polybius; it happened that this translator knew nothing about military strategies. The consequences were disastrous. According to M. Guischardt, an eminent strategist who was proficient in Greek, Foland's translation seriously distorted the original where the key battles and sieges were described. Further, the complex military structures as delineated by this author of ancient military strategies were not adequately rendered in translation, as they should be in ancient texts of this kind. From this example, one sees why the two basic requirements stipulated above have to be fulfilled. Even where one is very familiar with the subject matter and the language of the original, there are still thorny problems in translation. For only a negligible portion of the power of a language can be recovered through dictionaries and grammar books. Much that is delicate and nuanced is found in the syntax, the idioms, and the signification of words. Only by close and extensive reading can these be discovered. An erudite and perceptive critic once remarked on the differences between languages. For him, as far as the art of translation is concerned, one central difficulty presents itself where, "for certain words of one language, no perfect equivalents can be found among those of another." Translated by Leo T. H. Chan

,,

.',' ,•

,

73

Of ';;"

Responses to Yan Fu

,

English translator of the novella. But is this "translation of the sense"? Is the translation "comprehensible," "elegant" or "resemblance in spirit"? 13 "Faithfulness" is the correspondence in effect produced by two different languages, even in the tone conveyed. As I have said many times before, of Yan Fu's three principles of "faithfulness," "comprehensibility" and "elegance," we . I:lOr one: "£alt . hfu1ness, " or " resem blance, " or "l'k 1 e a trans 1acan on1y aspIre tion." Here we are not referring only to poetry translation, which is most demanding with respect to this criterion. Failing this, we would do damage to the original text and to the reader of the translated poem. Literary translation, when it is merely a correct reproduction of content without paying attention to the original flavor, cannot be regarded as successful, for it falls short of "faithfulness," "resemblance" and "being like a translation." In order to achieve "faithfulness" and "resemblance," and to become "like a translation" (not creative writing), a translator has to be equipped with considerable sensitivity toward the two languages. He should do this as much as he possibly could (as there is always a limit to what he can accomplish). Thirty-three years ago, in October 1950, I published a short article entitled "How to Study English Literature" in Celebrating the First Anniversary of Our Victory, a joint special edition of five journals, including the Wenyi Bao and People's Literature. I drew the following conclusion according to conditions prevailing at the time:

A3. Literary translation and sensitivity to language (1983) ','"

,

Bian Zhilin 10

,

I'

'I ,

1

I,',

,'.,,

I first started to teach a course on literary translation (Chinese-English and English-Chinese) at Southwest China Joint University in 1940. For the next six years, I invariably spent the first class of the course dispelling the myths ofYan Fu's doctrines of "faithfulness, comprehensibility, and elegance," and discussing the differences between "form" and "spirit" and between "free" and "literal" translations. (Let us for the time being disregard "elegance" in a restricted sense, and take it to mean "beautiful language.") If the source text is "comprehensible" and "elegant" and the target text fails to render an exact correspondence, then the latter is "unfaithful" (i.e., disloyal to the former in form and content, even in sound and sense).ll When Tsubouchi Shoyo (1859-1935) translated Shakespeare into Japanese, he did not use blank verse as in the original. I heard that some people in Japan considered his translations better than Shakespeare's originals. This might very well be true, but at the most we can only say that the translations are excellent creative adaptations; we have to reserve our judgment about them as translations, for they are "unfaithful" to the original in form. (We have to admit that perhaps for some reason the Japanese language, like French, cannot accommodate the blank verse form. In China, we have also tried our hand at blank verse, but it was no more than an experiment.) Another example is Andre Gide's novella La Parte etroite. The title has a nice, crisp ring to it when it is read in French. It has been translated into Chinese as Zhaimen,12 which reads smoothly and can be regarded as a "formally resembling," "literal," or even "faithful" translation. Apart from this, I doubt whether we can find any other translation that is "comprehensible and elegant," "rendering the sense" and also "resembling in spirit." The same title, when it is translated into English, is not as simple and straightforward. If it is translated as The Strait Gate, then we will have two rhyming words conjoined and they sound rather awkward, which has exactly the opposite effect to that produced by the French title. An appropriate translation is Strait is the Gate, which is a quotation from the Bible, and which has been adopted by the

,, ", ,

, "

, i"

,, , 1\',.

,

" "\'

I'

When people fail to learn English properly, they always put the blame on the fact that they are also learning English literature. Conversely, many people think that if they fail to study English literature properly, it is because they have to spend time learning the English language. This is of course absurd... Let me reiterate here something I have mentioned elsewhere. "Language is the tool of literature; we cannot understand literature except through language." Conversely, we cannot learn any language better than that found in good literary writing.

... ,

. •

° '.1'

..

,' 1 I

..

,i· ~.

Through language, we learn that there is a spirit to a people, an ambience to an era, a style to a writer, and a character even rhythm to a piece of writing. (Rhythm is not confined to poetry and rhymed prose.) We can see the big picture through its small parts, and likewise we can also comprehend spirit through form. Let us first consider the seemingly minor point of word order in two languages. Everybody knows that there are some basic word groups and phrases that follow exactly the opposite order in Chinese and Western languages. Take as examples the Chinese de, the English "of," and the French de. Their grammatical functions are similar but the order of the words or word groups which precede or follow them have to be reversed in

75

.,."

" <

76

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

translation in order to retain the meaning of the original. If we try a "literal translation" of something into Chinese, we will have to insert a series of de (especially when translating restrictive relative clauses). This is not natural in the target language, nor can the same effect of naturalness in the source

A4. Debunking claims of Xin, Da and Ya: 14 The afterlife of translations (1994)

language be reproduced. A critic in Hong Kong once commented on my poetry collection A Record ofSmall Tricks 1930-1958. He said that sometimes my Chinese was Europeanized to the extent of being pathological. But he also approved of the appropriate "conciseness" in my poetry. For example, in the first stanza of my poem "A

Ye Weilian [Wai-lim YipJ15

In cognition there could be no objectivity... here it can be demonstrated that no translation would be possible if in its ultimate essence it strove for likeness to the original. For in its afterlife - which could not be called that if it were not a transformation and renewal of something living - the original undergoes a change. Even words with fixed meanings can undergo a maturing process.

Dream of the Ancient Town" I write: There are two kinds of sounds in the small town, Both of them lonely and desolate: The fortune-teller's drum in the day, The watchman's rattle at night.

Benjamin: "The Task of a Translator"

In the 1930s, when Europeanized Chinese was very much in vogue, the lines could have been rendered as "There are two kinds of sounds, both of them lonely and desolate, in the small town," or even "There are two kinds of sounds in the small town, the fortune-teller's drum in the day and the watchman's rattle at night, both of them lonely and desolate." Literal translations of Western poetry may also produce awkward passages like these, which are actually neither Chinese nor European (because the effect is not even observed in

I.

All experienced translators like to mock themselves with the proverbial saying, traduttore traditore (a translator is a traitor), because they understand that total translation is non-existent and to be able to achieve a 90% transmission would be a kind of "divine accident," as Ezra Pound once intimated. "Better a live sparrow than a stuffed eagle" (Fitzgerald) and "Faithful ugliness and faithless beauty" (Croce) are only two of the many statements from hard-earned experience in translation. Goethe once said, "There are two maxims in translation: one requires that the author of a foreign nation be brought across to us in such a way that we can look on him as ours; the other requires that we should go across to what is foreign and adapt ourselves to its conditions, its use of language, its peculiarities." A translator has to mediate, negotiate, and struggle be~een th.ese two positions. Whichever side you take up, you already lose your claIm of faIthfulness to the original. We will focus on xin (faithfulness) and da (adequate transmission; fluency), because strictly speaking, ya (elegance) is part of da, except if we want only transmission of"content." Also, from a purely stylistic point of view, the so-called "elegance in expression" is not absolute. What is considered "elegant" today can become "trite" or even "vulgar" tomorrow. What is considered

Western languages.) Translated by Gilbert C. F. Fong

,

I I, ,

, "

,I I

I,

The myth of faithfulness

" j

"

"

,

78

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

"trite" or "vulgar" can, under suitable manipulation, also become "elegant," or at least "effective." Stylistic matters are conditioned by the volatility of differing historical and cultural sites. We can talk about "faithfulness," "objectivity," "accuracy," etc., with a certain degree of agreement perhaps only in the communicative practices of the practical world where the main concern is to "convey a message." In such practices, the translation act often ends up in "killing the chicken for the eggs," ignoring the outer and inner chords of the text, the aesthetic dimension of the language artifact which brims with nuances and mirage-like interwoven shades of meaning that defy unpacking merely as "content." Language is more than a tool, more than a mere medium for, or container of, some message. The aesthetic-construct and aesthetic-discharge in a poem must never be seen as the simple process of a hand (source poem seen as a container) passing a cake (message/content) to another hand (target poem seen as another container) such as the traditional Confucian-oriented claim of "literature as containing Dao/Teaching" or the positivistic excavation of meaning buried, as it were, within the text. le A poem is a language event to which no process of reduction, however exquisite, can do justice. What is meant by being faithful to the original? Which level or kind of faithfulness are we talking about? Faithful to contentltheme? Faithful to the morphology of content/theme? (For example, the construction of a poem is often like the construction of a detective story in which many of the leads in a case would come to us as seemingly convincing but are in fact purposefully delusive in the beginning so as to achieve the highest effect of surprise and fresh discovery at the end. Many content/theme-oriented readers/criticsltranslators often miss these morphological strategies in a poem and let the cat out ofthe bag midway through our experiencing process, thus destroying the intended effect.) Faithful to rhythmic structure, including specific uses of sounds (what Pound called melopoeia, and the "inner form of the line"; the extension of these ideas into "energy-construct and energy-discharge" in the aesthetics embodied in the essay "Projective Verse" by Charles Olson and Robert Creeley; and the special effect of the "ore" -sound in "evermore" and "nevermore" in E. A. Poe's "The Raven" which is to be orchestrated with other elements in the poem for the intended somber, dark, and even ghostly atmosphere)? Faithful to a poem's physical format such as those we find in concrete poetry? Faithful to the play within words (such as e. e. cummings' "manunkind" and the examples in Joyce's Finnegans Wake)? Faithful to the perceptual-expressive uniqueness generated by the a-syntactical or paratactical structures in many classical Chinese poems? 17

Responses to Yan Fu

Faithful to what has been called "metaphysical" meanings (such as the world view, a dialectical interplay between Plato and Pythagoras, evoked in Milton's phrase "save the appearance")? Faithful to the meaning outside of the words, such as in Kenneth Rexroth's advice: Forget following closely the words, recreate the feeling of the poem?18 And so on and so forth. You will say: Faithful to all these! Can we do it? In the negotiation between two languages and two hermeneutical systems, we will find out that we are continually being forced to give up some levels, modify some contexts and in the process recreate some of them through surrogates. These questions betray the complex problems arising in passing from interpretation (the first act of translation) to translation proper. The xin- and da-converts have often given little thought to the operative dynamics of an aesthetic act or to those in hermeneutics. The following phrases from Chinese "meanings beyond words," "the reaches beyond rhyme treatises on poetics and rhythm," "the flavor in the intuitive sense-of-things," "the vital energy in the rhyme and rhythm," "residual tremblings of meanings," "residual lingering taste and flavor," "[poetry] depends on a particular 'interest' ... [it] does not tread on the path of reason ... [it] can be likened to the antelope that leaves no traces, hanging its horns"19 have long revealed the aesthetic fact that yi (meaning or intuitive sense-of-things) cannot be contained in any fixed forms. A work is not something we can claim to have full control over. Reading a work is encountering a linguistic, historical, and experiential event the contours of which cannot be charted or circled out as something that can be fully analyzed or anatomized through scientific, and logical thinking. Reading a text is listening to a voice from another country and another century speaking and acting out before us, demanding that we enter into a dialogue with it. As such, this dialogue is a dialectical process between two histories and two cultures. The "world" emerging from this voice and the "world" the translator (who is at once a reader, a critic, and a poet) receives and presents share a number of similarities, but there are also some unavoidable differences, since the translator's perception is necessarily conditioned by a whole different set of historical, cultural and educational specifics. These can never be unequivocally equivalent. Translation is a "pass-port" between two cultures, that is, a passport with which one is authorized to pass from one culture to another, but also a port in which two cultures face each other and through which they pass from one state to the other. As such, it involves a confrontation, negotiation and modification of cultural codes and systems. It requires a "double consciousness." This embodies, on the one hand, the state of mind of the original author (the source

79

80

horizon) as it is constituted by the "power of tradition, of an age-old racial consciousness, of agreement, of association" and, on the other, the expressive potentials of the target language (the target horizon) which has it own unique, and often different, "power of tradition, of an age-old racial consciousness, of agreement, of association," levels of which can in turn become limitations in the transposing/ transmitting/ translating process. A translator constantly conducts various kinds of negotiation in such an encounter. 20 A.

I

1

i

'

,

'

I

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

,

'

Rethinking faithfulness

The issue of hermeneutical activity is very complex. Instead of recounting some major arguments from my essay, "Dialogues with the Text: Various Aspects of Hermeneutics," let me single out some points relevant to our discussion of translation. When a translator encounters a text, the most important thing is whether the original intent, or intentionality, is understood. But can an author's intentionality be reconstructed? Ifit can, then we have overcome the first half of the problem of faithfulness. In the minds of supporters of the so-called "standard" or "objective interpretation" such as F. Schleiermacher, W. Dilthey, and E. D. Hirsch, there is one basic assumption: the reconstructability ofan author's psychology and horizon. Following Plato's "logos" that transcends the phenomenal world, they affirm a realm of meaning that exists beyond the physicality of the verbal world; or, following Aristotle's "universal or logical structures," they seek commonalities that eschew the particularities unique to the experience of the moment. Kant's re-statement of the ancient philosophers further consolidates these concepts as absolutes. In the seventeenth century, the natural sciences promoted a mode of knowledge that is measurable with mathematical procedures and verifiable with scientific proofs. Knowledge established in this fashion was and still is considered to be "reliable" and "absolute." The challenge to Kant was: Under what condition can imagination and other forms of mental activity become as precise and as reliable as those offered by the natural sciences? In response to this challenge, Kant claimed that behind the operative dynamics of Imagination there is a miraculous Reason, which, judge-like and aided by a priori transcendental synthesizing principles, can make a decision about matters of truth as precise as those made in the natural sciences (this idea has since been directing all the methodology ofhumanistic studies in the West.) To prove that there is objectivity in human experiences, Dilthey grounds it on recurring patterns of the ebb and tlow of life, involving particular events in history, measured statistically by the methods of natural science. But this view of

Responses to Yan Fu

objectivity, in practice, often appeals to utilitarian and instrumental reason, treating human beings as things, ignoring the fact that human experiences are protean and defy containment. As retlected in theories of interpretation, words/ texts are expressive tools for the author's thoughts and intentions. The interpreter, by putting himself in the position of the author, so to speak, can enter into the parameters of the author's creative process. Such a position necessarily erases the differences between the author and his (many) readers, and appeals to a common humanity, or common psychological makeup in order to achieve "objectivity," but such objectivity must necessarily be predicated on the unchangeability of meaning, its reproducibility and definability, all of which are problematic and delusive. 21 But we would ask: First, according to which cultural system are the so-called "common humanity" and "common psychological structures" mapped? The conclusions of Plato, Aristotle, and Kant must be seen to constitute only one of many kinds of cultural constructions, for the so-called "universals" and "essences" from their systems, when applied to Oriental, oral and even feminist cultural sites, are treacherous and full ofpitfalls; their validity is highly problematic, to say the least. The issue of "universality" has in recent years been most severely criticized by East-West comparative literary studies, deconstruction, poststructuralism, and cultural studies. Second, can the thought and intentions of an author be known with any certainty? In the beginning when a work is being composed, one can perhaps talk about its somewhat definable intentionality, but the images and words in a work find their voices through the images and words of other works. In the process of choosing words, phrases, and images, the author may have made a conscious attempt, but to reconstruct his intentions is next to impossible. The moment-to-moment changes of intention, the miscellaneous chance elements that have gone into the making of a poem, simply defy any kind of logical unraveling. As I have argued using the concept of "secret echoes and complementary correspondences" derived from the Book of Changes, central to the Chinese way of understanding a text is an inclination to favor the total activity that occurs outside the words and phrases of a text. What we read is not one poem; it exists in the fabric of many poems. When we open a book and read its words, phrases, and sentences, other books from antiquity, from the recent past, or even in foreign languages will be opened simultaneously, and words, phrases, or sentences from these will at once appear in our consciousness along with those in front of our eyes, trembling, ready to speak to us. As a voice leaps out from the black type and white spaces to speak to us, other voices answer -

81

1 82

,I

I,

I, I 1

1

I,,

i "

,

I ,

I

"

'I

I

,

Responses to Yan Fu

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

as echoes from the distance, or as a quiet prompting, or as a loud protest moving us beyond the here and now into other spaces and other times. In so doing, these other voices bring about changes, like a huge symphony playing inaudibly to our inner ear, and they converge into a piece of dense music. 22 Western theorists in recent years proposed a similar concept: intertextuality. "Any poem is an inter-poem, and any reading is an inter-reading" (Bloom). Texts within texts, and texts outside texts, form a fabric of intertexts brimming with a mirage of meanings. A text is an open field, not a closed container for confined meanings, for when a poet attempts to disclose to the reader the mental image of an experience he has had, the full existential dimensions and activities of this image cannot, in reality, be captured in words. "Meanings grow outside the text," "a text has no fixed (closed) meanings" so said the Book of Changes. Having said that, whether we can still be faithful to the source horizon, and whether we can honestly believe that we can transmit all the intertexts, subtexts, shadow-texts in the target language, suddenly become the most important challenges in translation. Can we really comprehend fully in these senses the radiating body of a text, or, to borrow Pound's definition of the vortex, the radiant node into which and out of which ideas are constantly rushing? Third, how are we to bridge the historical and hermeneutic differences between the author and the reader(s)? Or should we transcend them? Perhaps we should ask: Should we transcend these differences at all, and in doing so abolish them? In the actual operations of reading and translating, a masterslave relationship is often ushered in; the reader-translators often force their own historic specificity upon the work at hand. Those who advocate "the reconstruction of the author's psychology" want to reduce to nothing the distance between the horizon of the author and that of the reader(s), but such an attempt remains, at best, idealized and often illusory. As T. S. Eliot once said, quite correctly, "There is...not one, but a series of appreciators of poetry. One of the errors, I think, of critical theory, is to conceive one hypothetical poet on the one hand, and one hypothetical reader on the other."23 Precisely because there are many, many readers conditioned by very different subjective factors - education, taste, reading in literature, language training, sensitivity and temperament this will result in very different, and sometimes diametrically opposed interpretations. (This happens even when they face the same object, such as the same mountain.) Aside from the fact that the readers' perceptualexpressive modes are always conditioned and even limited by the system of signification specific to their historical site, they also cannot help but bring to the source text subjective interests that converge with the historical necessity of

•

their time. And when the source text on hand is suffused with mythical or religious underpinnings from a foreign country or from ancient times, consciously or unconsciously they would have to deconstruct the myths and timeframes through linguistic adjustments, so the source "world" can converge with the time in which they find themselves. These three points show that the "reconstruction of the author's horizon," "objective interpretation," "reproducibility of meaning" and "ideal readers" are nothing but myths. A text is not a closed entity, nor a container, nor a mine to be dug up, but a space for interaction, change, transformation and growth.

B.

The challenge of fluency

Even if, taking a step back, we are to assume that a translator can totally grasp the "meaning" ofthe source text (as in the case ofthe original author translating his own work), a complete transmission of ideas is not guaranteed. (There are many cases in which the original writer might not fully understand everything in the text that he produces, such as things that seem to come to the writer as if through some "divine brush," or through some unexpected break-ins from the subconscious.) The most obvious limitations are created by the discrepancies between two cultural mentalities and different language dynamics. These include differences in perception, methods ofapprehending a situation, strategies in constructing a mental horizon, and associative networking involving certain images, objects, and events. The translator, in this case the author himself, is forced to give up certain things, make all kinds of adjustments and invent ways to circumscribe the difficulties. W. H umboldt once said, "It has often been said, and confirmed by both experience and research that, if one excepts those expressions which designate purely physical objects, no word in one language is completely equivalent to a word in another."24 Even this is only half true. As I have amply demonstrated elsewhere, even the same mountains and rivers yield totally different representations by Chinese and Western poets. 25 The fact is that, even though both Chinese and Westerners recognize the same objects, their response can still be drastically different. Take these four characters in Chinese: jinzhi yuye (gold/branch or bough/jadelleaves) which evoke the feeling of a person or persons of the royal or wealthy class. When the first two characters have to be rendered into English, discerning translators can perhaps capture some of the above meanings; less discerning translators may end up with "golden bough," which will ferry us to a totally different world. As for "jade/leaves," they again evoke for the Chinese the qualities of being

83

I 84

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

"royal/wealthy," but for most Westerners, "jade" is often simply an exotic stone they encounter in antique shops. The reason these Chinese characters evoke the above meanings is that they have been molded through centuries and centuries of art and literary usage. Jade was hardly used in connection with regal lives in Western art and literature. This, in part, explains why Pound translated "jade steps" into "jeweled staircases" because "jade steps" might suggest a palace in Chinese, but not in English; while "jeweled staircases" literally departs from the original, in spirit it evokes the correct or equivalent associations. And sometimes, not even adjustments, footnoting included, can solve the problem. Take one line from Wang Wei's "To See Yuan Er off as Envoy to Anxi or the Song ofWei City," annotated this way: Wei City refers to the region (North of Wei River) in which there was much military activity to resist the barbarians who killed the inhabitants there (including Dai, Yanmen, Yunzhong, Liaoxi, etc.) by the millions. Also according to the History of the Han Dynasty: "General Li Guangli was going to lead the army to attack the Xiongnu (the Huns). The Prime Minister saw him off all the way to the Wei Bridge." The Yang Pass is the last pass to barbarous land.

I ! !

I I !

. ,

,

But this annotation cannot evoke in English readers the same emotions felt by most Chinese readers, who have been conditioned by "echoes" from centuries of poetry, musical expressions, as well as lyrics from Chinese dramas and operas (such as "Three Refrains from the Yang Pass"). This brings us back to the question of "secret echoes and complimentary correspondences," or intertextuality, mentioned earlier: voices outside the text and texts inside texts bring about changes, like a huge symphony playing inaudibly to our inner ear. Since, in the words of intertextualitytheorists, "a text is an intersection of textual surfaces rather than a point (a fixed meaning) (Julia Kristeva)," "a text is already itself a plurality of other texts, of codes which are infinite or, more precisely, lost (whose origin is lost)" (Roland Barthes), "an utterance [is] entangled, shot through with shared thoughts, points of view, alien value judgments and accents ... [which] weaves in and out of complex interrelationships, merges with some, recoils from others, intersects with yet a third group" (M. M. Bakhtin), and "poems are not things but only words that refer to other words, and thosewords refer to still other words, and so on into the densely over-populated world ofliterary language" (Bloom),26 we must ask, in a practical sense, how such a densely woven symphony of voices and intertexts can be fully reproducible in a target language which often calls up texts and subtexts alien to the source text? There are at least two kinds of difficulties.

Responses to Yan Fu

First, we have no way of knowing and exhausting the whole range oftexts the writer at the moment of composition was engaged in dialogue with. What we can command is the traces visible in the finished, final version; most of the time, we have no access to the activity involved in its various provisional drafts. Rarely would we have the opportunity to retrieve those buried voices as we can in the case ofYeats's "Sailing to Byzantium" with its over a dozen drafts. How can the reader/ translator probe into all the buried voices of subtexts? Second, even if we are able to recover most of these echoes, we will probably find that they can work only in the source text; they cannot be resurrected intact in a target language that does not share the same or a similar signifying system or mechanism. In translating Euro-American works into Chinese, one of the most difficult dimensions is the dense, amorphous signifying network created by the conglomeration of Greco-Roman and medieval Christian cultures; the signs, metaphors, symbols, emblems, and myths are often drastically different from those in East Asian cultures. Seldom can we find equivalent signs and tropes in the Confucian and Taoist philosophical systems. Even in Buddhism, satisfying equivalents are rare. Take Andrew Marvell's "Garden." I have written a long essay in which I trace all the various sources that have been woven into the fabric of this poem,27 but for our purpose, let me just list some of these sources that provide the "secret echoes" and "intertexts" of the poem: 1.

locus amoenus [from Homer's ideal landscape, through Arcadia, to Virgil's formation of the term locus amoenus for the happy Elysian field, which

then becomes a recurring topos for later writings]; 2. medieval hortus conclusus (enclosed garden in which we find the Madonna and Child, a garden which is also a paradise regained; later with fruits added: this Christian paradise is a garden, as the garden is a paradise); 3. (l)and(2)blended; 4. Within the neoplatonic framework, poetry, inspired by God, can lead to the recovery of the holy; 5. The "mixed forests" in Ovid's Metamorphoses, as well as Dante's "dark, fearful forests," are appropriated; 6. The didactic mode in the Emblem Books is appropriated into garden poems; 7. Estate poems current in the seventeenth century are appropriated as garden poems.

85

' 86

,

I

,

I

i

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Almost none of the above have parallels in the Chinese signifying system. How are we to transmit the entire spectrum of the repeated echoes into Chinese? The answer is: there is no way. The most we can do here is to provide marginal or interlinear notes to evoke some of the "secret echoes" floating outside the text, but such an arrangement necessarily disrupts the flow of the target text. Aside from the problems of reproduction created by "secret echoes and complimentary correspondences," there are even more fundamental difficulties, namely, differences in the coding activities of the two languages concerned. Take English compound and complex sentences. There is a special wave-like movement constructed out of long sentences containing qualifying phrases and clauses usually linked with words like "who," "which," "why," "what," etc. (as in Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey). With care, one can build up a sentence that runs for half a page or even a whole page. But many of these qualifying phrases and clauses often function as adjectives, and as such, when translated into Chinese, they must be placed before the noun a rule dictated by Chinese grammar. Such an arrangement immediately gives an alien feeling to the Chinese readers, for most Chinese sentences are short. Because of this, the translator has to break up the long sentence into several shorter sentences, and in this way the undulating rhythm of the English sentence is gone. The piling up of many qualifying phrases and clauses before a noun in Chinese is possible, but necessarily creates an awkward feeling. Such practices have been called "Europeanizations." In fact, the approximation of the wavelike movement in the long English sentence would be almost impossible in classical Chinese, although easier in modern vernacular Chinese, whose history is bitter and painful. During the onslaught of Western colonizing activities at the turn of the century as well as its aftermath, the Chinese media and Chinese writers were forced to translate (sometimes very quickly) Western documents and news releases, as well as cultural and literary theories into Chinese with the purpose of disseminating "new" ideas (introducing Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science) to the general public. In the process, they changed modern Chinese into a much more flexible medium, as can be seen in some very interesting examples in the next section of this paper. At the same time, attempts to translate a-syntactical and paratactical classical Chinese poetry into syntactical Indo-European languages have also opened up many possibilities. 28

,

1,

Responses to Yan Fu

11. Cross-fertilization Instead of centering on the question of faithful translation, we should perhaps turn our attention toward the angst (or anxiety) created by the confrontation of two cultural systems in the act of translation (which should include, among other things, the marginalization of indigenous culture because of the intrusion of aggressive Western alien cultures, as in the case of China and many other Third World countries) and try to turn confrontations into opportunities of widening our intellectual horizon and our receptive parameters, allowing us to reflect on indigenous strengths and weaknesses. A good example of the effect of such widening can be seen in the case of "Three Refrains from the Yang Pass," discussed earlier. Earlier Japanese and Korean intellectuals with classical Chinese training (of whom there were many) can easily identify with the emotions expressed by the Chinese characters. Another example: most Chinese people today can comprehend a great deal of the signifiers transposed from Western literature into Chinese, far more than Western readers who can do the same with things Chinese. The receptive repertoire for an average Chinese reader now often includes Shakespeare, Goethe, Ibsen and many famous Western poets and dramatists, due to the large quantities of translations undertaken under the angst created by military, economic and cultural acts of aggression. With regard to turning alien elements into new potentials for expression, hereis a case ofthe use ofodd Europeanized sentences to create poetic effects that are uniquely Chinese. The following long sentence is from the poet Shang Qin's poem "Door or Sky" which is about a person "imprisoned" on an island. It can be translated as follows (the rough grammatical relation ofthis line is shown, but with the order of appearance of the items completely reversed): "In the distant center encircled by a road walked into by an unwatched prisoner's two feet inside a roofless enclosure enclosed by barb-wires enclosed by a bankless moat. .. " [a few elements cannot be incorporated into this structure]. And yet this Europeanized sentence which seems to lend itself easily to translation into English, cannot, in fact, be translated as such, for this would destroy the centripetal movement suggested. If we are to preserve the visual order, we must improvise here. This is what I have done in my published translation of this line (witness the italicized portion). Not a bit of sky, and under it, bankless moat that encloses barb-wires that encloses roofless enclosure that encloses within, under two feet, a road ~ walked into by an unwatched prisoner ~ that encloses a distant center.

87

88

Notes

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

This, perhaps, can be seen as a new form of writing resulting from the crossfertilization made possible by translation.

Notes to Articles 1-4 All the notes are the Editor's, unless otherwise indicated.

Translated by the author

Van Fu (1854-1921), famous for his translation of Thomas Huxley's Evolution and Ethics, was unquestionably the most important translator of his age along with Lin Shu. The impact of his translation is enormous, and many intellectual luminaries of the early twentieth century, like Lu Xun and Hu Shi, have publicly acknowledged their debt. Van also translated J. S. MiJI's On Liberty and A System of Logic; Herbert Spencer's The Study of Sociology, C. L. Montesquieu's L'esprit de Lois and Adam Smith's The Wealth ofNations. Mao Zedong singled Yan out as one of the four people (another one being Sun Yat-sen) who contributed most to China's knowledge of the West before the Communist period. Van is also, without doubt, the most quoted name in discussions of Chinese translation theory.

1.

Xin is also rendered as "fidelity" or "expressiveness" (as in John Lai's translation in this anthology); da, also as "fluency" (as in Ye Weilian's translation). Among the multiplicity of translations given to the three terms, the Editor should like to note in particular Brian Holton's "Fidelity, Fluency and Flair," which helps commit the threesome to memory.

2.

3. Tiarzyanlun is a translation of Thomas Huxley's Evolution and Ethics, based on his Romanes Lectures delivered in 1973. The book was in fact an attack on social Darwinism. 4. Kumarajiva (350?-409), renowned translator of the Six Dynasties period, contributed to the flourishing of Buddhism in China by translating the major Mahayana scriptures into Chinese. He developed a new approach to translating the Buddhist scriptures and discarded the literalist method preferred by his predecessors. 5. One of the most ancient texts in the Chinese tradition, the Book of Changes consists of material produced long before Confucius' time, preserving a system of divination based on 64 hexagrams.

I 1

6. The dates of the Han dynasty: 140 B. C. to 220.

11

,

7. A collection of poetry that became valorized as one of the central Confucian classics, the Book of Odes (or the Classic of Poetry) anthologizes 305 poems datable to the twelfth to the seventh century B. C. 8. Zheng Zhenduo (1898-1958) (penname: Xi Di) began to work for the Translation Bureau of the Shanghai Commercial Press after his graduation, and in 1921 he helped found the Literary Research Society. In three different periods of his translation career, he translated Russian literature (1918-21), Tagore's poetry (1922-24), and Greek myths and folktales of various countries (1925-36).

I'

I , ,

9. Polybius (c.200B. C.-c.1l8), Greek statesman and historian who recounted the rise of Rome to prominence. He is known, in particular, for the contorted style of his writings. Bian Zhilin (1910-2000), poet and translator who advanced the theory of "using pauses to translate the Western meter." Among his translations of poetry, fiction, drama and biography are Lytton Strachey's Queen Victoria, Andre Gide's The Counterfeiters, Benjamin Constant's Adolphe, and Shakespeare's four major tragedies. 10.

Bian Zhilin is in effect arguing for a much broadened conception of xin-faithfulness, one that has some affinities with the linguistic notion of "equivalence."

11.

89

90

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

12.

Literally, "narrow door."

13. "Strait is the Gate" is an excellent translation as Gide must have had a French version of

the Bible when he used the phrase. 14. Often evoked or quoted in Chinese writings on translation, these terms are quite problematic, as will be clear in the rest of my argument. Strictly speaking, they are various

aspects of faithfulness. -

Author

15. Ye Weilian (1937-), poet, translator and literary critic, is Professor of Comparative Literature at the University of California at St. Diego. He has translated prodigiously; his translations into English can be found in Modern Chinese Poetry: Twenty Poets from the Republic of China, 1955-65, Chinese Poetry: Major Modes and Genres, Hiding the Universe, and Lyrics from Shelters: Modern Chinese Poetry, 1930-50. 16. See Susan Sontag, Against Interpretation (New York, 1966), p. 64; Wolfgang lser, The Act of Reading (Baltimore, 1978), p. 5. See also the chapter "Dialogues with the Text: Various Aspects of Hermeneutics" in my Lishi, chuanshi, meixue (History, Hermeneutics, Aesthet-

ics) (Taibei, 1988), pp. 27-28. -

Author

17. See "Syntax and Horizon of Representation in Classical Chinese and Modern American Poetry" in my Diffusion ofDistances: Dialogues between Chinese and Western Poetics (University of California Press, 1993). - Author 18. Kenneth Rexroth, "The Poet as Translator," The Craft and Context of Translation, ed. William Arrowsmith and Roger Shattuck (Anchor Books, 1964), pp. 29-49. - Author 19. Here, one can only approximate these rich phrases for the purpose of argument. The present translated phrases might need modification when put back in their original contexts

to bring out their larger parameters. - Author 20.

See my Lishi, chuanshi, meixue. - Author

21. See related discussions in Roy J. Howard, Three Faces of Hermeneutics (Los Angeles, 1982), E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, 1967) and my Lishi, chuanshi,

meixue, pp. 38-42. - Author ,

j'

22. See my Lishi, Chuanshi, meixue, pp. 38-42. -

Author

23. "Poetry and Propaganda," Bookman, 70 (Feb. 1930), pp. 595-602. -

, 1

,

24. Agamemnon (1916). See Andre Lefevere, pp. 43-45. -

Author

Author

, 1

,

I ,

I jl

, !,

25. See my "Aesthetic Consciousness of Landscape in Chinese and Anglo-American Poetry," in my Diffusion of Distances: Dialogues between Chinese and Western Poetics. - Author 26. Julia Kristeva, "Bakhtine, le mot, le dialogue et le roman," Critique 239 (1967), reprinted in her Semiotike (Paris: Seuil, 1969), pp. 145-46. The present translation is from Desire in Language, ed. Leon S. Roudiez, trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez (New York, 1980), pp. 64-65, 66; Roland Barthes, SIZ, trans. Richard Miller (New York, 1980), pp. 10-11, 21; M. M. Bahktin, The Dialogical Imagination, trans. Carl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin, 1981), p. 276; and Harold Bloom, Poetry and Repression

(New Haven, 1975), pp. 2-3. -

Author

27. Lishi, Chuanshi, meixue, pp. 156-70. -

28. See note 17 above. -

B: Spiritual resonance

Author

Author

The theory of "spiritual resonance" (shensi, also rendered as "resemblance in spirit"), now generally associated with the famed translator Fu Lei, was in fact first mentioned by Mao Dun in his "Some Thoughts on Translating Poetry" (1922) (see Section F). But serious, intensive debate on "spiritual resonance" took place in 1929, between Chen Xiying and Zeng Xubai, the former a university professor and essayist, the latter a prominent literary figure. In his "On Translation" (1929), Chen first reaffirms the primacy of Yan Fu's xin (faithfulness), and proceeds to distinguish three kinds of affinity between translations and their originals affinity in form, idea, and spirit which can all be related to xin. At the highest level, he asserts, empathy between the translator and the author is necessary in order that "spiritual affinity" be attained in translating poetry. On the other hand, as the title of his "Spirit and Fluency in Translation" (1929) suggests, Zeng has a rather different focus; in fact he attacks Chen for denigrating da. For him, what "spiritual resonance" entails can be perceived differently. Cooper, Pope, Chapman and Newman rendered Homer each in his own way (according to Matthew Arnold). This is because there is always something subjective involved in translation. Da, however, enables the translator to bring forth his own interpretation of the original text. Furthermore, Zeng refutes Chen's argument that authors like Proust and Joyce simply cannot be rendered fluently they do strike a chord in the hearts of those readers who empathize with them. Fu Lei's "Preface to the Retranslation of PCre Goriot" (1951) is the text that gives the most widely known definition of "spiritual resonance," a principle also exemplified in Fu's translation of Stendhal's novel. For Western readers, Fu Lei's concept can be made more understandable when seen against Shelley's discussion of "letter vs. spirit," but for the convenience of Chinese readers Fu Lei compares translation to the "imitation" attempted by one school of Chinese painting, which seeks to capture the essence and not just the surface features. Borrowing terms from traditional poetry criticism, Fu Lei talks in the same article of an extended cluster of related terms chuanshen (conveying the spirit), huncheng (the sublime), and yunwei (taste).

92

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Qian Zhongshu's "The Translations ofLin Shu" (1963) is the manifesto for the theory of huajing ("transformation" or "realm of transformation"), and short excerpts from his WO-page essay are included here to introduce readers to the central tenets of Qian's theory. Ostensibly an appreciation of Lin Shu's translations, this essay discourses at length on ideas of transformation, translation as "enticement," and "erroneous translation." Qian is most remarkable for his cross-fertilization of Chinese conceptions of translation (such as Xu Shen's glossing of the character yi) with Western ones (such as Savile's idea of the transmigration of souls). Clearly, his idea of "transformation" is directly descended from "spiritual resonance": Qian notes that, after the transmigration, "there's a new body, but the spirit remains the same." One might add: but can enjoy perhaps it is for this reason that Qian does not find offensive _ the extensive changes made by Lin Shu in his translations of Rider Haggard and Charles Dickens.

11

1

1

, ,

I,', 1,1

BS. On translation (1929) Chen Xiying l

Faithfulness is the only condition for literary translation. This is not difficult to understand; what is difficult to understand is what may be regarded as faithful. Take sculpture or painting as an analogy. Sometimes a piece of the sculpture or a portrait looks very much like its subject to a spectator who is not familiar with it, while the family and friends of the subject can say with certainty that it does not, even though it is not easy to point out where the problem lies. This is because the sculptor or painter has concentrated on outward resemblance but forgotten the fact that it is a living subject with its own personality. On the other hand, sometimes even these family and friends will consider the work of the sculptor or painter remarkably true to life, but in the eyes of the connoisseur or the keen observer, it is still far from excellent, because the artist has failed to fully represent the less easily noticeable intrinsic personality traits of the subject. Throughout history, only a handful of great sculptors and painters have been able to penetrate to the innermost core of their subjects and to perceive characteristics which even an old friend is unable to see. The first kind of portrait mentioned above only resembles the original in form; the second kind surpasses formal resonance and may be tentatively said to embody semantic resonance. And only the last kind may be called "spiritual resonance." That is to say, the faithfulness of portraiture may fall into three categories: formal resonance, semantic resonance, and spiritual resonance. Since it may be thought that sculpture or painting is not so apt an analogy, we will also take copying an ancient painting as an example. We often come across copies that are almost identical to the original but which are not taken seriously by connoisseurs due to matters of style. Sometimes the copy resembles the original not only in form but in style, but the connoisseur still thinks the copy lacks the spirit of the original. No doubt, for copies of a painting, as well as translation, the key is resemblance. However, while in both the original and the copy of a painting the same brushes and the same colors are used, the original and the translation of a book use very different languages. Due to the different tools used, the methods are very different. Moreover, when one is able to appreciate the original, one is naturally able to appreciate the copy. But most people who can read the

I

I

,

94

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

original cannot read the translations; and most people who can read the translation cannot comprehend the original. This is the first hurdle to be surmounted in order to be a faithful translator. In his "The Difficulties of Translation,"2 Mr. Zeng Xubai says: We translators should recognize that the main purpose of our work is to serve readers who cannot read the foreign language, not those who speak the foreign language ... So, in training ourselves, we should set our goals according to those people's mentality...We should take the scenario formed by the original text as a fixed target, and then analyze its structure in the correct light, and then, with reference to the psychology of the reader of the translation, reconstitute it in our own language. [ . . .]

In translating one has to be faithful. What is faithfulness? The reader should be touched by the translation in the same way that one is touched by the original. But who can this reader be? Of course, he is not a reader who does not understand the foreign language, nor is he a reader who can only understand the original. To expect the reader who does not speak the foreign language to have the same response as the reader who can only read the original is a praiseworthy ideal, but it is an impossibility because there is no way to compare readers with different languages and, consequently, different thought habits. Hence, while the main target of translation is "readers who do not understand the foreign language," the critics and connoisseurs of translation should still be people who speak the foreign language, and not only that: they must also be scholars of foreign literature. Matthew Arnold said that they should possess knowledge of the foreign language as well as the capacity to appreciate and to feel poetry. For them (according to Arnold), no translation of Homer can have much value when compared with the original, but only they can tell whether the impression conveyed by a translation is to a greater or lesser degree comparable to the original: they are the only worthy judges. So the translator has to understand the critics of our work for what they are and adopt their standard. Should he always bear in mind the "psychology" of readers who do not understand the foreign language, he will inevitably sacrifice a lot of the essence of the original; should he carefully try to conserve the special characteristics of the original, he may lose the spirit and style of the original. Now we can talk about (1) formal resonance, (2) semantic resonance, and (3) spiritual resonance in translation. But before that, I would like to say one word about "sense-translation" and "literal translation," terms that have been rather popular recently. Translation is translation; the proper English name for

Spiritual resonance

"sense-translation" is "paraphrase," which is not really "translation." Yan Fu once said: My translation attempts to present its profound thought. Tt does not follow the exact order of words and sentences of the original text but reorganizes and elaborates. However, it does not deviate from the original ideas. Tt is more an exposition than a translation as it seeks to elaborate - an unorthodox way of transmission. Kumarajiva said, "Whoever imitates me will fall." There will be many others coming after me in translation work; I sincerely hope that they will not use this book as an excuse for their failings.'

If "distorted translation is like a nicely-worded lie," then it is easier for "sensetranslation," rather than for "literal translation," to become "distorted translation." The gravest problem of translators flaunting literal translation is not staying too far away from the original, but too close to it. They not only translate word for word and line by line, but also abstain from adding or omitting one single character, and changing the order of words. This kind of translation is indeed tantamount to not translating at all, and even Zhou Zuoren, who advocates literal translation, calls it "dead translation." Dead translation is no better than distorted translation, but the abuses of the former are less severe, as dead translation would not be understandable, while the more you are able to understand a distorted translation, the worse its influence will be. "Literal translation" is just word-for-word and line-by-line translation; everything in the original is in the translation and anything not in the original is also not in the translation. The greatest success of literal translation is to transfer all the meanings of the original without any omissions or additions. But the highest ideal of this kind of translation is no more than rendition of the shape or form, because literal translation emphasizes content at the expense of style. Despite the fact that Mr. Lin Shu 4 did not know a single foreign word, the novels translated by him, such as those by Walter Scott, have actually acquired a Romantic flavor, beating many literal translations. Negligence of the original style and failure to convey even the content are the shortcomings of a translation adhering to the principle of formal resonance. A writer has his own unique style; he has different styles of writing under different circumstances. The Dream of the Red Chamber has its own style, The Water Margin has its own style, and An Unofficial History of the Scholars has its own style. Translating these novels in the same style without careful attention to their characteristics can result in the failure to convey their true "face," no matter how faithful the translator is. Within the same book, Wu Song has his own tone; Li Kui has his own tone; Lin Daiyu has her own tone;

95

96

Spiritual resonance

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Wang Xifeng has her own tone; Du Shaoqing, Scholar Yan, and Mr. Ma Er all have their own tones. s Translating their different tones into one single tone can mean erasing the differences between their personalities, even if not a single word is added and not a single word is omitted. Moreover, literal translators over-emphasize form and are too eager to conserve the various characteristics of the original, often leading to opposite effects due to differences in customs, habits, and thought. For instance, "The crow goes down in the West, and the jade rabbit rises in the East" is a well wornout cliche in Chinese fiction, but ifthe translator translates it literally, the image conveyed to a foreign reader must be weird rather than commonplace. In spirit, this kind of translation will be a far cry from the original. The reason some works, like the Chinese novel Yu Jiao Li,6 have never received much attention in their original language, though their translations are highly praised, may be explored from a similar perspective. Unfortunately, most translations are not as lucky; ninety-nine per cent of them have turned out to be dull rather than clever, clumsy rather than lively, senseless rather than humorous, and meaningless rather than great. A translation embodying semantic resonance can surpass a literal translation with formal resonance; it renders the light as light, the lively as lively, the humorous as humorous, and the great as great, if possible. Thus, the attention of the translator is focussed not only on what the original says, but how it is said. The translator has to find out the specific traits of the original author and the unique style of the original. With this kind of understanding, the translator will be able to set aside aspects of his own individuality which are incompatible with those of the original, and fully reflect the original text like a mirror. Precisely because people cannot be as characterless as a mirror, a translation is inevitably refracted and distorted to some degree. From this perspective, the best imitator is a most faithful reader; he is sharp-eyed enough to perceive the special character of the original. With few personal characteristics, he is able to imitate all kinds of styles, even those diametrically opposed to each other. However crafty the imitator, he will never capture the spirit of the original author, because, as pointed out by Mr. Zeng Xubai, "'Spirit' is the fragrance leaking out from the heart of the poet." "Spirit" is the crystallization of individual character. Without the original feelings of the poet, you cannot expect to capture his spirit. According to the famed eccentric of modern English literature, Samuel Butler: in order to capture the spirit of a writer, you have to swallow and digest him so that he lives inside you. And what Arnold said above - that only by merging the translator and the original can one produce a good

: ~ ,

,,

translation - has a similar meaning. But how can the translator become one with the original? Can everybody do that? The great novelist, George Moore, who gave us a couple of immortal translations, said that a book can be lucky enough to be given a "rebirth" only when it encounters a translator who thinks and feels like the original author. Such a translator is able to capture the spirit of the original, even though he does not fuss about the accuracy of every word. Herein lies the difficulty of achieving spiritual resonance; herein also lies the reason why quality translations are so rare in the history of Chinese and Western literature. It is precisely because the wonder of poetry lies in its spirit that translating poetry is most difficult. A translation which captures the content of an essay but not its style may still be considered an essay, though not an excellent one. However, a translated poem with only content but no style is simply not poetry. So the literal translation of poetry is a paradox. The translation of the work by a second- or third-class poet could be very good poetry so long as the translator is able to imitate the meter and prosody, since there is no spirit to talk of in the first place, and then translators with a similar style are not difficult to come by. On the other hand, a great poem cannot be adequately imitated, and great poets with similar emotional and intellectual capabilities who are willing to translate are most rare. Those fond of reading poetry in translation often find the poems of many a first-class poet less touching than those of second- or third-class poets, so they almost suspect that they were wrong in their initial assessments. Someone says that Omar Khayyam is a first-rate astronomer in Persia, but a third-rate poet. 7 I am not sure whether this is true, but who can possibly take the place of Omar in the hearts of most readers of translated poetry? Once, my friend Shen Congwen 8 read a translation of an Anatole France novel and said to me, "Is France really like that? I can write this kind of thing!" Actually, not only should Shen not condescend to do that kind of dead translation; even people less talented than Shen should feel it beneath them. When most bookstores are displaying translations of such poor quality, it would be impractical and unrealistic to talk about semantic resonance and spiritual resonance. Nonetheless, precisely because of this, there is an even stronger need to set an unattainable criterion in front of ourselves. "When we aim high, we will end up being mediocre even if we miss the target." Now that we are aiming so low, how can we avoid dead translations or distorted translations? Translated by Chapman Chen

97

Spiritual resonance

B6. Spirit and fluency in translation: An addendum to Chen Xiying's "On translation" (1929) Zeng Xubai9

Recently I have been translating and I have discovered a lot of issues that merit studying. Just when I was thinking of writing something to supplement the essay "The Difficulties of Translation," which I had published in this journal two years earlier, Mr. Chen Xiying published a lengthy article entitled "On Translation" in Crescent Moon. Brilliant and incisive, the article is really an excellent prescription for translators in modern China. Nonetheless, upon carefully going through this article, I have found some viewpoints incompatible with my own. I am therefore now putting down my observations for Mr. Chen and readers interested in translation to comment upon. In his article, Chen discusses Yan Fu's "three difficulties of translation"faithfulness, fluency and elegance. Chen thinks that in translating literary works, "elegance" is not at all desirable, because many works (like The Golden LotuS)lO do not excel in "elegance"; "neither is 'fluency' an indispensable condition," for many symbolist and expressionist works are simply not fluent in the original. "So the only condition of literary translation is faithfulness." Chen also divides up translations according to "formal resonance," "semantic resonance," and "spiritual resonance." He thinks that "formal resonance" constitutes a "literal translation," which "emphasizes content at the expense of style .... And since the original style is neglected, even its content cannot be truthfully conveyed." "To translate for semantic resonance, one pays attention not only to what is said in the original but also to how it is said," the result ofwhich is failure to capture the original spirit. Only a translation aiming at spiritual resonance can grasp this unfathomable spirit. Chen also quotes George Moore, for whom the achievement of spiritual resonance is a matter of luck that occurs when a text comes into the hands of a translator who feels and thinks like the original author. In his conclusion, Chen tries to persuade us to set an unattainable goal for ourselves. By this he probably means that we should take "spiritual resonance" as our yardstick. In so doing, we would at least achieve "semantic resonance" and not end up with "formal resonance." To sum

j

\

I

"

, ,

'

up, Chen puts a premium on "faithfulness" in translation and takes "spiritual resonance" as the yardstick, so that even if we unfortunately end up with "semantic resonance," we will be none the worse for it. There have been quite a few essays written on translation but so far none is able to present the hows and whys. I must admit that Chen's is a valuable piece of work, but, in my own view, there is still plenty of room for improvement. Chen only presents us with a vague objective called "spirit." He also quotes my father's 11 comment that "spirit is the fragrance leaking from the heart of the poet," as if this is something visible but unattainable. As to how the translator can grasp this kind of "spirit," Chen only says, "Without the original feelings of the poet, you will not be able to grasp his spirit." All in all, the term "spirit" sounds like something mysterious, only to be sensed, not explained. On this point, Chen has not made any further observations. In fact, however, what he calls "spirit" is not something sublime but rather a kind of reader's response to the work. In other words, it is a response created by the resonance in the mind of the reader. And the depth and color of this response vary with the environment, mood, and the like on the part of the reader who is supposed to have grasped the original thoroughly. Because of the individual variations, it becomes a mysterious and changeable thing. We may quote Matthew Arnold's "On Translating Homer" as a counter-example: Homer is rapid in his movement, Homer is plain in his words and style, Homer is simple in his ideas, Homer is noble in his manner. Cowper renders him ill because he is slow in his movement, and elaborate in his style; Pope renders him ill because he is artificial in both his style and in his words; Chapman renders him ill because he is fantastic in his ideas; Mr. Newman renders him ill because he is odd in his words and ignoble in his manner.

If we take Arnold to be the absolute authority on Homer, then there is no room for argument. Otherwise, since Cooper, Pope, Chapman, and Newman are all renowned scholars knowledgeable about Greek literature, including Homer's works, we may wonder why their representations of Homer are so different! And who among the four would admit to having failed to grasp Homer's "spirit"? Newman responded strongly to Arnold's criticism, absolutely denying the criticism about his being "odd" and "ignoble." The other three men did not have a chance to respond. Let us now suppose that they were willing to accept Arnold's criticism Cooper would admit to being "slow" and elaborate"; Pope would admit to being "artificial"; Chapman would admit to being "fantastic in his ideas." Then we should say that their views of Homer's "spirit" were all very different indeed!

99

".

100

,

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Spiritual resonance

Now, if we suppose that just like Arnold, they also thought Homer is really "rapid," "plain," "simple," and "noble," then we must say that Arnold's observations about their translations are so vastly different from their own. With regard to the same originals and translations, therefore, these five people would have five different views. In other words, their "spirit" would be perceived as having five different forms and colors. I am sure that if a hundred or a thousand people were involved, the variant views would be uncountable. Among the hundreds of people involved, there are, no doubt, many who are absolutely wrong, who have absolutely failed to represent the author and the translator. But neither will the views of the most outstanding scholars be exactly the same. The reason is explained rather thoroughly by Anatole France in the twelfth paragraph of his Jardin d'Epicure:

whose magic fingers keep striking the keys. But is this ever possible? Arnold also advocates that the criticisms of scholars well versed in foreign literature be taken as a criterion for evaluating translations. I think that is also a mechanical application of others' experience, for we should not believe that the sounds played out by the original text on our mental strings will be the same as those played out on others'. I think there is only one standard of translation (assuming, of course, that the translator is able to completely understand the original), and that is faithfully representing my response to the original text. I will not exaggerate in claiming that I have fully rendered the original; I will only claim that this is the original as perceived by me. In making a judgment about a translation (one good enough to achieve at least semantic resonance), the critic must never say arbitrarily, like Arnold, that the translator is unable to represent the original; he may only say, "How different this is from my response to the original!" In a word, in criticizing translations, there is an absolute standard if semantic resonance is adopted as the criterion; however, if spiritual resonance is adopted, then even if a standard exists, it will be relative at best, depending on whether or not the translator is able to truthfully represent his response as induced by the original. If the translator is also able to ingeniously represent the spirit as he has perceived it himself, then he has fulfilled his task.

What is a book? Primarily a string oflittle printed signs. To match these signs, the reader supplies the formal and emotional coloring. Whether a book is boring or lively, whether the emotions expressed therein are fiery or icy, depends entirely on the reader himself. In other words, every word in the book is a finger of the Devil plucking our mental strings as with a harp, allowing the music of our souls to be played out. No matter how dexterous or powerful the hands of the artist, the sounds that emerge will depend on the nature of our mental strings.

From what France says, we can find out what "spirit" actually refers to. When the form and color added by the reader blend with the signifiers in the text, he will conceive of the "spirit." When sounds are produced as magic fingers pluck the strings of brain fibers, the reader will have the "spirit." But France also comes to the following conclusion: what this so-called "spirit" is like depends on the nature of our mental strings. Thus, since Arnold, Cooper, Pope, Chapman, and Newman all had different "mental strings," how could Homer's magic fingers have caused identical sounds to rise from the sounding boards within their souls? If the question were asked as to who among the five was able to render the voice of the original author, probably nobody, except Homer resurrected, could answer it. For this reason, any translator who boasts about having grasped the "original spirit" will be strongly opposed. For there will always be someone who can really feel a different kind of spirit. The translator's merging with the original text into one, as advocated by Arnold, is utterly impossible because there is no way in which the translator can erase the sounds played out on his own mental strings and get rid of the subjective coloring. This subjective coloring can never be avoided unless the translator becomes a machine, a soul-less typewriter which comes out with words entirely at the command of the original author

Translated by Chapman Chen

•

101

,'1 "'.

Spiritual resonance 103 •

B7. Preface to the retranslation of 12 Le Pere Goriot (1951)

Bearing in mind that the standards of translation should not be too simplistic, one can presuppose that "an ideal piece of translation should be like a Chinese version written by the author of the source text." Thus the meaning and spirit of the source text, as well as the ease and unity of the target text, can be properly dealt with. The expression will not spoil the meaning, nor the meaning the expression. Judged according to this principle, my translation will definitely be graded as below the required standard and classified as the work of a novice. Although serious flaws have not been spotted in my first translation of Le Pere Goriot (1944),17 the dialogues there are flat and boring, the flow of the prose is jammed, the "new" literary style is unpolished, and the rhythm and charm of the original are largely gone. It is hard to talk of the text's aesthetic unity. This time, I have spent three months retranslating the text but, despite repeated revisions, I am still not satisfied. The world of art is boundless and my abilities are limited; I have the desire but lack the skill. Thus, I can only drop my pen and sigh at my own incompetence.

Fu Lei 13

1

,

1

1

1

'

I

,

1

"

'

In terms of effect, a translation, like an imitated painting, should seek after resemblance in spirit rather than in form. Yet in actual practice, translating is even more difficult than imitating a painting. Both the imitation-painting and the original painting use the same materials (such as colors, paper or silk canvas) and are based on the same theories (such as chromatics, anatomy and perspective). Not only is the language of the target text already different from that of the source text; the conventions of the two texts also differ. Each language has its own characteristics and its distinctive merits, irreparable shortfalls and inviolable precepts. Even for linguistically close language pairs such as English-French and English-German, there are problems of untranslatability. English and Chinese are much further apart and so, needless to say, faithfulness, expressiveness and conciseness can never be achieved by holding fast to the dictionaries and following the syntactic structures of the source text. The translated literatures of different countries do vary in quality, yet there have never been English versions in French style nor French versions in English style. 14 If, by violating the syntax and characteristics of the target language, one can transmit the distinguishing qualities of the source language and the spirit of the source text, translation is really too easy. Unfortunately, that type of approach to translation is so inflexible and prejudiced that it will only cause harm to both the source and target texts. IS The differences between two languages with respect to lexis, syntax, grammar, norms, rhetoric and idioms reflect discrepancies in ethnic modes of thinking, relative degrees of sensitivity, divergences in points of view, customs and traditional beliefs, as well as differences in social background and manners of expression. If language A is used to render the characteristics oflanguage B, Bo Le's criteria for judging a horse"value its essence and forget its crudity; treasure its intrinsic qualities and leave behind its external form" - should be adopted. In Even for the best piece of translation, when placed against the source text, its charm will either surpass or fall short of that ofthe original. When translating, one can only narrow the gap, neither going too far nor falling far too short.

Translated by May Wong

•

,

~

~.~,

'

',., :

'.\

,

t

'~::>

Spiritual resonance

B8. The translations ofLin Shu (1963)18

and negotiating many gaps, arrives safely in the midst of another. 24 One is bound to encounter obstacles in transit and suffer certain losses and damages. For this reason, translations cannot avoid being somewhat unfaithful, violating or not exactly conforming to the original in meaning or tone. That is what we call e, "misrepresentation." There is a Western saying, "the translator is a traitor" (Traduttore, traditore). The Chinese ancients also said something to the effect that fan in fanyi (translate) amounts to fan, to turn over as in turning a piece of embroidery inside out. 25 The words transmit and entice explain, of course, how translation functions in cultural interchange; it acts as a middleman, a liaison, introducing foreign works to the readers and enticing them into a fondness for these works, as though playing the role of matchmaker and bringing about a "literary romance" between nations. Since complete and thoroughgoing "transformation" is an all but unrealizable ideal, and some degree of "misrepresentation" in certain connections are all but unavoidable, the act of transmitting and enticing takes on a new significance. Translation was to save people the trouble of learning foreign languages and reading the original works, but now it entices the readers into doing that very thing. It arouses the readers' curiosity, causing them to yearn for the original: it lets them have a taste of the real thing, whetting their appetite without satisfying their hunger. The readers of a translation will always feel as if gazing at flowers through a fog. Thus Goethe rather unceremoniously likened the translator to a professional go-between (Kuppler) because he halfreveals and half-conceals the features of the original, causing his readers to wonder how beautiful it must be. 2n In order to find out, to tear away the bridal veil and have a good look, they must try to read the original work. In this sense, a good translation is self-defeating; it leads us to the original, and as soon as we get to read the original we will toss aside the translation. A very self-confident translator may feel that, reading his translated version, one will not need to read the original, but he will be disappointed. Anyone who is able to enjoy the real thing would heartlessly abandon the substitute which the translator has labored so long and hard to fashion. On the other hand, the inferior translation would have the effect of destroying the original. Clumsy and obscure translations inevitably turn the reader away; if he cannot stomach the translation, he will have no appetite for the original. The type of translation alienates the reader; it makes him lose what interest he had in the work and, in process, does harm to the reputation of the author. The translation of the seventeenth century French priest Abbe de Marolles is a classic example. His version of the Roman poet Martial's satiric verse was dubbed by his contemporaries "a satire

Qian Zhongshu 19

Xu Shen, the Han dynasty philologist, has given us a note on an ancient character having to do with translation that is rich in connotations. In his The Origins of Words and Characters,20 volume VI, under the heading [1, the entry for the 26th character reads as follows: "lID meaning translation, with 0 as its radical, and it its phonetic. When the bird-catcher uses a live bird as decoy, it is called [ill, pronounced wei." Since Southern Tang times, the word yi has been explicated as "to transmit the talk of the four barbarians and the birds and the beasts," much in the same manner as the bird-decoy "entices" his feathered friends. The characters wei (I=l'~), e Aft, hua it and [{El are interchangeable (see A Collection of Commentaries on "the Origins of Words and Characters," fascicule 28, pages 2736-38). The interrelated and interacting meanings in such characters as yi ~¥ (translate), you ~ (entice), mei PJ (transmit), e ,~ft (misrepresent), and hua it (transform), constituting what a student of poetic diction would call pluristignation, tend to bring out the functions of translation, its unavoidable shortcomings, as well as the highest state of attainment to which it can aspire. The highest standard in literary translation is hua, transforming a work from the language of one country into that of another. If this could be done without betraying any evidence of artifice by virtue of divergences in language and speech habits, while at the same time preserving intact the flavor of the original, then we say that such a performance has attained huajing, "the ultimate of transmutation."2] This kind of achievement in language has been compared in the seventeenth century to the transmigration ofsouls,22 replacing of the external shell and retaining the inner spirit and style without the slightest deviation. In other words, a translation should cleave to the original with such fidelity that it would not read like a translation, for a literary work in its own language will never read as though it has been through a process oftranslation. 23 Nevertheless, there are inevitable gaps between one national language and another, between the translator's comprehension and literary style and the form and substance of the original work, and frequently between the. translator's appreciation of the work and his ability to express it. It is an arduous journey that takes off from one language and, after inching its way

,M.

105

· 1 .

,

.

'.

,

,.

, ~',

Spiritual resonance

•

106 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

how much I thought about it, nor could the grownups clarify matters for me. Furthermore, how did it all end, this vicious, life-and-death struggle? Which of the two emerged victorious, or was it a case of both perishing together? I was more concerned with the fate of the lion and the crocodile than with the romance between the hero and the heroine. But the book gave no clues, leaving me on tenterhooks, wondering whether the original story was equally messy in its narrative. 33 When, later, I started reading English books in the original I would always first look up the novels that Lin Shu had translated. Still later, as my own English comprehension improved, I also began to hear opinion that was critical of the multifarious sins of omission and commission in Lin's translations. In time I stopped reading them altogether. Recently,34 I happened to be flipping the pages of one of the novels translated by Lin, and to my surprise it had not lost its attraction. Not only did I read the book through, I went on to read another, and still another, until I had reread a major portion of the Lin translations. I found most of them to be worth re-reading, notwithstanding the omissions and errors encountered at every turn. When I tried reading a later and doubtless more accurate - translation of the same book, it gave me the feeling that I would rather read the original. This is most intriguing. Of course, for one who is capable of reading the original, to check through a deficient translation might be an amusing pastime. Some say that the more outrageous the translation the more faseinating it reads: when we check it against the original, we see how the translator lets his imagination run wild and how he uses guesswork to fill out the blanks in his comprehension, freely inventing and distorting, almost in the manner of a surrealist poet. But my interest in the Lin translations emphatically does not lie in any searching for boners to make fun of. Nor are the infidelities and "misrepresentations" in Lin's translations due entirely to linguistic deficiency on the part of his assistants. Let me cite a couple of examples. In Chapter 17 of Nicholas Nickleby, it is told that Miss Knag, chief of the young salesladies in a milliner's shop, having been referred to by a customer as "an old thing," was so enraged that she was fit to be tied. Returning to the workroom all disheveled, she made a violent scene and vented all her anger and jealousy on young and pretty Kate, while a chorus of her underlings echoed her outcries. In Lin Shu's translation there is the following passage:

on Martial's verse."27 Most of us can come up with other examples from our own reading experience. That Lin Shu's translations have served to "transmit" Western literature to 28 the Chinese reading public is generally recognized. To a number of his readers he must also have exercised a Kuppler's influence in the Goethean sense, leading them to direct contact with the original works. I for one became increasingly interested in learning foreign languages reading Lin's translations. The two boxfuls of Lin's Library of Translated Fiction were a great discovery to met at age twelve; they led me into a new world, a world other than that of The Water Margin, The Journey to the West, and Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio. 29 Prior to this I had read such works as Fifteen Little Heroes, translated by Liang Qichao,30 and the detective stories translated by Zhou Guisheng,31 and invariably had been bored by them. It was not until I came into contact with Lin Shu's translations that I realized how captivating Western fiction could be. I tirelessly perused the works of Haggard, Washington Irving, Scott and Dickens in the Lin translations. If I was in any way self-consciously motivated toward learning English, it was so that one day I could gorge myself on the adventure stories of Haggard and company without hindrance. Forty year ago, in the small county that was my hometown, we rarely had the chance to see moving pictures; the kind of recreation children oflater days enjoyed in watching animal movies, or in a visit to the zoo, I was able to seek only from adventure stories. Some of Lin's translations I read more than once over, and in time questions began to raise themselves in my mind. I remember distinctly this passage at the end of Chapter 5 in Haggard's The Beautiful Threethousand-year-old Corpse,32 in which a vivid description was given of a battle between a crocodile and a lion. To a child's mind this was a gripping scene of great drama, so tense it left him staring wide-eyed and holding his breath. In Lin Shu's translation, the paragraph ends in the following words:

!!

,

[Translated back into English] By this time the lion's rear paws had sunken into the crocodile's neck, and he yanked them out with an his might like a man pulling off his gloves. In a little while, the lion's head was lowered to the crocodile's body where a strange noise was heard; on the other hand, the crocodile turned its teeth sidewise, embedding them into the lion's thigh, and the lion's stomach was bitten by the reptile until it almost burst. Such a battle it was as I have never before witnessed in my life.

.

[Translated back into English] Knag... began by laughing out loud and ended up crying in a sort of sing-song tone. "Alas!" she said. "1 have been here fifteen years and everybody in this establishment respects me as a most honored flower" - so chanting, she stamped her left foot, exclaiming "Alas, my Heaven!" Then, stamp-

If the lion seized the crocodile by the neck it does not seem possible that his' paws would be sunken as though mired in mud. So how do you account for the phrase "like a man pulling off his gloves"? This I could not fathom no matter

"',,

l.A:

107

108

Spiritual resonance 109

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

clothes. He is getting fatter every day so that his seams will burst and his buttons fly." Then he patted his son on the head and poked a finger here and there at the boy's body, saying: "This is flesh." Poking again, he said: "This also is flesh, firm and solid. Now let me pinch his skin, and you'll see there's so much flesh 1 cannot get it up." As Squeers was pinching at the skin, Little Wackford started crying with all his might, rubbing the place and crying: "Papa, you are hurtin' me!" Mr. Squeers remarked: "He hasn't eaten his fill. After he's fed he'll be so strong and bloated you won't be able to shut him in a brick house.... Just look at his tears with the cow's oil and goat's fat in them, that comes from being well fed."

ing her right foot, she exclaimed, "Alas, My Heaven! In all these fifteen years, 1 have not once been an object of contempt. To think that this saucy vixen should have got ahead of me and humiliated me, it is enough to rack my heart!"

This is opera bouffe in the best singing and acting tradition, enough to provoke a laugh from any reader. It sent us scurrying to the Dickens original (in Chapter 18), where we found something of a let-down. Let me imitate Lin Shu's literary style and essay our own translation, which would come out something like this:

The passage is certainly vividly rendered. But all Dickens wrote was that Squeers "poked a finger here and there at the boy's body"; that ifhe has had his lunch one couldn't have him in the room and close the door; and that there's oiliness in his years. All that about "patting his son on the head," "so strong and bloated," and the "cow's oil and goat's fat that comes from being well fed" are simply Lin Shu gilding the lily. What's more, little Wackford as Dickens described him only "uttered a sharp cry... and rubbed the place" without saying anything. The words "Papa, you are hurtin' me!" was a gratuitous interpolation on the part of the translation: the scene needed something to balance it, else it would be simply Squeers talking with nothing from the boy to add to the liveliness of the situation. In other words, Lin Shu must have felt that, as good as the original was, it could do with a bit of supplementary material here and some embellishing there to make it even more concrete, lively and colorful. This reminds us of his hero Sima Qian, whose Historical Records'S contains many such examples of polishing and embroidering of past biographies. Lin Shu wrote quite a few novels of his own, and with the express intention of adopting the literary techniques of the "Westerner Haggard" and "Mr. Dicken" [sic]. So in translation, whenever he encountered something in the original that to him did not ring true or showed a weakness, his creative hand would itch and he would take over the author's pen and put in a few extra strokes of his own. From the standpoint of translation, this is of course "misrepresentation." Even if the additions and emendations were all splendid, they would nevertheless have altered the original features; not to mention that his contributions were not invariably appropriate. We may grant the passage quoted immediately above as an example of successful revision, but the passage earlier cited about Miss Knag singing and crying would be questionable. To be sure, we have here a comic character, and there were elements of artifice in the violent scene she made. But supposing that she actually cried "with a sing-song

[Translated back into English] Miss Knag at first laughed and then cried, weeping bitterly in a most touching manner. She exclaimed vehemently: "For fifteen years 1 have added luster to this establishment, upstairs and down. Thank Heaven - " as she said this she stamped her left foot and then stamped her right foot, stamping and saying, "1 have not been humiliated one single day. How could 1 have expected to have fallen into the trap of this little creature! What low and despicable wiles, this kind of behavi or that taints us all and is beneath the contempt of all persons of morality. I have nothing but disgust and contempt for it, and yet 1 feel so hurt! Oh, how 1 feel hurt!" [For purpose of further comparison, we append here Dickens' original. - Translator] .... Miss Knag laughed, and after that, cried. "For fifteen years," exclaimed Miss Knag, sobbing in a most affecting manner, "for fifteen years have I been a credit and

ornament ofthis room and the one upstairs. Thank God," said Miss Knag, stampingfirst her right foot and then her left with remarkable energy, "I have never in all that time, till now, been exposed to the arts, the vile arts ofa creature, who disgraces us with all her proceedings, and makes proper people blush for themselves. But I feel it, I do feel it, although I am disgusted. I I

!

I I

I

That line "crying in a sort of sing-song tone" was Lin Shu's own addition as he let his pen carry him away, and could not have been the result ofany misunderstanding or distortion on the part of his assistant. Lin must have felt that Dickens' characterization was not laying it on thick enough, and so he added a heavy-handed brushstroke of his own in order to heighten the risibility of the character and the situation. Critics and literary historians have agreed on Lin Shu's ability to communicate Dickens' comic style, but judging from this example Lin Shu did more than that; he often contributed his own comic and satiric flourishes by way of embellishing the Dickensian humor. Here is another example from Nicholas Nickleby, to be found in Chapter 33 (Chapter 34 in the original):

.

[Translated back into English] Mr. Squeers ... addressed himself to Ralph, saying: "This is my son, little Wackford.... Look how fat he is, so fat that he cannot fit his

",' I'

L.6

-,-,

110

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

tone," then she would obviously be play-acting and her tears would be seen as altogether faked, thus losing all credibility with her cohorts and her innocent adversary. Not only would we readers laugh at such a scene, but the characters in it also would laugh at its absurdity. In Li Zhi's36 criticism of the Examination Scene in The Story ofthe Lute, he wrote: "Too dramatic! Not like!" He also observed: "Granted that we have here a play, it must be life-like. It is the real-life happenings that sometimes appear like a play." Lin Shu's emendations erred on the side of over-exaggeration; perhaps they were inserted playfully to get a laugh, but they tended to injure in short, a case of "Too dramatic! the logic and the realism of the original Not like!" It is common knowledge that in his translations Lin indulged in deletions and abridgement, but little attention seems to have been given to the fact that he was also in the habit of supplementing and adding to the original. Frequent instances of this are found in the products of the early stage in Lin's translation career, in which he worked with greater care and concentration, particularly in his translations of Dickens and Washington Irving. On occasion, he would supply his own metaphor to heighten the effect of the original. This sentence, for instance, in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow": [Translated back into English]" .,. The slower and more stupid who lagged behind in their lessons the schoolmaster would help along with the birch so that they might negotiate the word barriers by strenuous leaps." The original was reminiscent of Tu Fu's reference to "getting over difficult words" in his "Random Verse"; nothing like the novel and picturesque images suggested in the phrase "negotiating word barriers by strenuous leaps." On other occasions, he would paraphrase and add a few words of his own so that the meaning would be made clearer for the reader. For example, in Oliver

I.

1

1

1

,

I',

I' ,

I 1

1

I

I,

Twist, Chapter 2: [Translated back into English] Whenever a child died without known cause, the doctor would say: "T have opened the body and found really nothing inside." Narrator's comment: "The child died precisely because he had nothing inside his belly! How could he have died if there were something?"

The "Narrator's comment" appeared in Dickens' original simply parenthetically with reference to the surgeon's having "found nothing inside," and may be rendered into literary Chinese as ciyan daixin (which was very probabl~ indeed). As translation, this device of augmenting the original is not to be encouraged; but from the standpoint of rhetoric and writing, it may and often

-,

Spiritual resonance

do have the effect of an eye-opener. Lin Shu repeatedly stated that foreign fiction "everywhere conformed to the canons of classical Chinese writing"; also that "in spite of the gap that exists between Europe and Asia, writers the world over think alike." He was not engaged in empty talk when he compared the works of Dickens and Saint-Pierre to such books as the Chronicles ofZuo and Historical Records. 37 According to his own lights, and with admirable restraint, he inserted in his translation such emendations as traditional Chinese critics of classical literature would call dundang (twists and turns), bolan (ups and downs), hualong dianjing (dotting the dragon's eye; underscoring a key point), or jiashang tianmao (adding hairs to the cheeks; supplying details to make more lifelike) all to the end that the translated works conformed even more to the "Canons of Classical Chinese Writing."3s A writer, or one who fancies himself a writer, can hardly help itching to write, as Lin Shu did, when engaged in literary translation. Based on his own standards of good writing, he would act as "best friend and severest critic" to the original author, confident that he has the right, and even the duty, to do what is necessary to turn dross into gold. He, in effect, has made of translation an exercise in parasitic or fragmentary creation. The history of translation in any country, especially in its early stages, does not lack for practitioners to keep Lin Shu company.39 A person who has a correct understanding of the nature of translation and seriously pursues it, though he may be a writer himself, would exercise self-restraint and suppress any unseemly creative impulse. He may even regard with contempt Lin Shu's inability to withstand the temptation. Nevertheless, even as grown-ups with family burdens and social responsibilities would occasionally envy the youngsters' free and uninhibited behavior, I suspect that all translators sometimes catch themselves secretly wishing they could translate with the same bold abandon as did Lin Shu. [... ] When it comes to "misrepresentations," the public has always adopted a lenient attitude toward Lin Shu but has taken his collaborators seriously to task. Lin Shu early on had divested himself of all responsibility by saying: "Not being conversant with any Western language, I could only narrate in writing [what was related to me orally]; if I had committed errors, it was all out of ~gnorance."40 Is this not tantamount to a person alibiing himself by pleading Ignorance of the law?41 Unless I am entirely wrong in my foregoing analysis, the "misrepresentations" in Lin's translations cannot all be blamed on his collaborators. As a matter of fact, the more conspicuous elements in these « • ." mIsrepresentatIOns were the result of Lin's willful act. But it is precisely these "misrepresentations" that served as a kind of preservatives, more or less

111

,

I

"

,

I

112

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Spiritual resonance

checking ofLin's written copy afterwards. Under these circumstances, it would have been a miracle if there had not been any mistakes. Those who are severe with Lin's collaborators are apt to overlook one characteristic in the art of translation. When we study a literary work we oftentimes cannot, nor do we need to, understand perfectly each word and sentence in it; we could in fact write a decent review ofthe book without having to be so honest as to reveal our deficiencies. Translation, however, is a different matter. We cannot afford to gloss over a single word in the original, or evade a single troublesome passage. We may find a book easy and readable, but when it comes to translating it we will immediately encounter problems and difficulties, and they are ones that cannot be solved by simply looking up the dictionary. When you evade what you cannot solve you "misrepresent" through deletion; when you refuse to evade and force your own interpretation on it, you "misrepresent" through guesswork. Thus, translators are called "traitors," and they have no way of hiding their ignorance and lack ofunderstanding. [... ] Lin Shu began his translating career when he was forty-four or -five, while in a boat on an excursion to Stone-Drum Mountain. 45 From that time on he translated incessantly until his death, having completed 17D-odd works, most of which were novels. The story had it that he also came close to translating the Christian Bible. 46 On basis of my recent somewhat sketchy review, his close to thirty years' translation career evidently fell into two periods. The line of demarcation between the two periods was Paul et Virginie, completed "in the Third Month of the Year Kuichou," or the second year of the Republic [1913]. Up to this point, the majority of Lin's translations were brilliantly done; but from here on, his prowess went into a gradual decline the works became dull and colorless, often leaving his readers bored. This was not due to a lack of outstanding works for Lin to translate; prominent among the books he translated during his latter period were Cervantes' Don Quixote and Montesquieu's Lettres Persanes, for instance. Unfortunately, under the weary pen of a postsixty Lin Shu, they read veritably like these theological works satirized in Lettres Persanes, exercising on the reader an effect akin to that produced by a sleeping pill. Cervantes' writing, so full oflife in its torrential flow, placed alongside Lin Shu's dead and deadening translation, formed a cruel contrast; so was the case when Lin Shu's stunted brush was pitted against Montesquieu's "magic pen."47 Strangely enough, speaking of the works of Haggard, those that Lin translated in his later period such as Eric Bright Eyes made tedious reading when compared with any of the Haggard opuses that he rendered in his prime. An old talented hand no longer had the desire or the strength to give his best, only

preventing Lin's translations from being totally relegated to the ash-heap. We need only look at the translation of Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, done singlehandedly by Wei Yi,42 one of Lin's assistants, to realize that here are only "misrepresentations" of the "taking-out" kind found in the Lin-Wei co-translations and none of the "putting-in" kind also found in their collaborations. There are places in Lin's translations that are evidently not attributable to misapprehension on the part of his oral interpreters, but rather to the "freewheeling pen" of the transcriber, who dashed off what he heard without any cerebration, thus missing the point of the original message. In Chapter 14 of his Nicholas Nickleby (Chapter 15 in the original) we found the text of Fanny's celebrated letter. Lin Shu's transcription of its first sentences is as follows, minus the single and double circles with which he habitually underscored passages that inspired his appreciation: [Translated back into English] Dear Sir, My father commands me to write you this letter. The doctor says my father has broken a leg for sure, and he cannot write with his hand. So he bids me write it form him.

His adding the words "with his hand" here is veritably a case of superfluity "drawing a snake and adding legs to it," as the Chinese saying goes! To those who read the original, Dickens' phraseology (... the doctors considering it doubt-

ful whether he will ever recuvver the use of this legs which prevents his holding a pen) all but forecloses any possibility of the translator's adding the word "hand." We have a famous joke from the Tang dynasty that makes the same point;43 had Lin Shu taken a little more time in his work he would have remembered this joke and perhaps made it something like gubi zhongduan, buneng zuoshu, (must have broken his legs and cannot write) or Zujing nan Fuyan,bufu neng zhibi (he will find it difficult to recover the use of his leg-bone, and can no longer hold a pen) and added his commendatory circles and appreciative notes to boot. 44 To be sure, Lin's assistants could boast of no more than ordinary proficiency in foreign languages. There probably had not been adequate advance preparation before the one picked up a book and interpreted on sight and the other started transcribing instantaneously, without allowing any room for cogitation. "Haste makes waste": while the oral interpreter was not incapable • of misreading and misinterpreting, neither was the transcriber ensured against the possibility of mishearing. Furthermore, his assistants apparently did no

, No"

113

1

114

"

,

,

1

;

"

, 1

1

i

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Notes

falling back on the skills accumulated through the years to eke out his assignments. His early translations pictured for us a Lin Shu at the height of his powers and concentration, who was having himself a heap of fun, ready at any moment to show off his own writing technique. On the other hand, the impression one gained from his later translations was that of a tired old man, weary fingers mechanically pushing a blunted pen, striving to fulfil his quota of "a thousand words per hour." He no longer had any appreciation for the works that he translated, or took any interest in them, unless it was the interest of gaining his translator's fee. We can tell from one thing the difference in attitudes that Lin held toward his tasks, before and after. Among his earlier translations a preponderant number began with a Foreword, his own or someone else's, or ended with an Afterword. Others contained "precedes," "exegeses," "translator's guidelines" or "translator's postscripts." Still others carried "short commentaries" or poems inscribed by the translator or his friends. Interspersed in the translated text we frequently find his own annotations or critical comments. All these recorded his appreciation or explication of the original work, its theme and its art. With all his pedantic and juvenile reactions, what emerged was an attitude at once serious and enthusiastic. That which Lin Shu translated had dwelt in his mind and been immersed in his emotions. He had so closely identified with the works he was translating that at times he was moved to arrest his flying brush and take a few moments off to wipe away his tears. 4H In his later translations these frills and addenda were greatly curtailed. Gone without a trace were his verses; and the "Translator's Prefaces" such as graced the opening pages of Xiaoyou jing (a Belgian work, original title unknown). Commentaries such as the series of interjections "What a laugh!" "What a big laugh!" and "Enough to make you laugh!" ete. found in Chapter 2 of Swallow (by Haggard) also became extremely rare. Even such a work as Jintai Chunmenglu (co-authored by a French writer and a Russian, original title unknown), which had Peking as its background and dealt with China's own flora and fauna, failed to stimulate him into expressing his sentiments. He no longer treated the works he translated with his wonted intimacy and seriousness; his whole attitude had become casual, one might even say cold and indifferent. If we recognized the translator's work as "literary romance," we might say that Lin Shu's later translations had, to borrow his own words, skidded into "a romance of ice and snow." .

Notes to Articles 5-8 Chen Xiying (1896-1970) went to England to study at the age of 16 and obtained his Ph.D. at the University of London. He voiced his political views regularly in a journal, acquiring fame as an outspoken cultural critic in the 1930s. Major translations by him include Turgenev's Fathers and Sons (based on the English and French renditions) and the stories of Leonard Merrick.

1.

The article appeared in the journal Zhenmeishan (Truth, Beauty and Goodness) in 1928 (issue 6, pp.1-12).

2.

3. See Section 1 of "Preface to Tianyanlun." Quoted from the translation in this anthology. 4. Un Shu is famous for his very idiosyncratic approach. Not knowing the originallanguages of his source texts, he freely translated them, working on the version orally given by his interpreter-assistant. See "The Translations of Lin Sh u" in this section. 5. The names are those of characters in the three classical Chinese novels mentioned in the same paragraph.

6. Yu fiao Li, a seventeenth-century novel, was never popular among Chinese readers but, when translated into English and French, became one of the best known works from China for Europeans. 7. A good number of Chinese translators have tried their hand at Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat. The earliest attempt was made by Guo Moruo. Based on Edward Fitzgerald's English version, his own translation was published in the journal Chuangzao (Creation) in 1924. The first direct translation of the Rubaiyat from the original language, by Wang Jing'an, appeared in 1947. 8. Shen Congwen (1902-1988), novelist and essayist, was noted for his masterly portrayal of rural life in West Hunan. 9. Zeng Xubai (1894-) was Editor of the monthly journal Zhenmeishan (Truth, Beauty and Goodness), which he co-founded with his father Zeng Pu, a novelist ofthe late Qing period. He once headed the nationalist government's Department of Propaganda, and moved to Taiwan in 1949. Besides translating European and American literature, he was an essayist and li terary scholar. 10.

sixteenth century, which deals with the disintegration of the household of a lecherous middle-class philanderer. For some it is comparable to such world fictional masterpieces as The Tale of Genji and Don Quixote. Zeng Pu (1872-1935) (also well-known as Sick Man of East Asia) was famous as the author of the novel Niehai hua (1905). 11.

12.

Le Pere Goriot, Le Cousin Pons, Eugenie Grandetand La Cousine Bette; Merimee's Colombaand Carmen; and Voltaire's Candide. He translated with great meticulousness: not satisfied with his first attempts at translating Le Fere Goriot, he undertook to retranslate it twice.

Translated by George Kao

I

I,

Fere Goriotwas translated three times by Fu Lei, in 1946, 1951 and 1963.

13. Fu Lei (1908-'1966) was the translator offourteen ofHonore de Balzac's novels, including

,

, ,

fin Ping Mei (The Golden Lotus) is a lOO-chapter novel, written anonymously in the

I,

L~

115

116

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Notes

14. The phrase "not a mouse stirring" appears in Act 1, scene 1 of Hamlet. The standard English-French parallel text of Shakespeare's works translates it as pas un chat. Does this mean that the French Shakespearean scholar mistook a cat for a mouse? This is a clear example of how one cannot translate literally, without any flexibility at all. - Author

24. In translation, the language of the original work is sometimes called langue de depart and the language of the translated version, langue d'arrivee. See J. P. Vinay and J.Darbelent, Stylistique comparee du Franfais et de I'Anglais, p.10. - Author 25. Like turning over embroidery, we find all the designs showing on the reverse side, only the left-and-right of the designs are different." See the concluding remarks in Zan Ning, Gaoseng zhuan. - Author

15. Six years ago, a friend of mine translated the two poets U Bai and Tu Fu into Russian at the request of his Russian friend. Much of the Russian he used in the translation was Sinicized, and he got denounced for it. He defended himself by saying the Chinese flavor was deliberately retained, but the Russian friend said that since the language used was not even Russian, how could one speak of "flavor"? My friend narrated this incident to me. I will simply note it as an instance of "trimming the toes to fit the shoes and bringing harm to both sides." - Author

26. From Spruchweisheit, in the collected works of Goethe published by Der Tempel, vo\. 3, p. 333. - Author 27. See Menagiana, cited in 1. Disraeli, Curiosities ofLiterature, in the Chandos Classics, vo\. 1, p. 350. - Author 28. Among the many articles and books discussing Lin Shu's translations the more worthwhile references include Zheng Zhenduo, "Mr Lin Qinnan," in Studies in Chinese Literature, vo\. Ill, and Han Guang, Lin Qinnan. - Translator

16. Bo Le was a horse connoisseur in ancient China, well-known as someone who is good at judging others' abilities. - Translator 17. Sometimes the translator himself is puzzled about his own mistranslations. After my recent translation of La Cousine Bette appeared in print, I discovered that I had translated "blue clothes" as "green clothes." There was a mistake in the original, and hence my mistake. This kind of color-blindness is disturbing to the translator. - Author

29. Xiyou ji (Journey to the West) and Shuihu zhuan (Water Margin) are two of "the four greatest classical Chinese novels," the other two being The Dream of the Red Chamber and Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Liaozhai zhiyi (Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio) is often regarded as the crowning achievement of classical Chinese short story writing.

18. This translation originally appears as "Lin Ch'in-nan Revisited" in Renditions 5 (1975): 8-21. Un Shu (1852-1924) translated over 200 novels into Chinese, many of them immensely popular among readers, such as Dickens' Nicolas Nickleby, Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Dumas' La Dame aux Camelias, Scott's Ivanhoe and Haggard's She. He had no knowledge of foreign languages, and relied on the help of oral interpreters who first recounted the stories to him in Chinese. Like his contemporary Yan Fu, he used classical Chinese, rather than the vernacular, in his translations (which some would prefer to think of as adaptations instead).

30. Liang Qichao (1873-1929) sought actively to promote translated fiction as a force inducing political change in the late Qing period. While his own translations have not been highly regarded, his systematic research on Buddhist translations has earned him a reputation as the foremost scholar of Chinese translation history at the time. 31. Zhou Guisheng (?-1926) actively promoted Western learning through his translations in the late Qing dynasty. He can be said to be the first Chinese translator of Western literature, and the first to use the vernacular in translation. Most of his translations were detective stories, most notably those of Arthur Conan Doyle, although he also translated stories for children.

19. Qian Zhongshu (1910-), essayist, novelist and literary scholar, has exerted an impact on theoretical discussions of translation in China through his theory of the "realm of transformation." His translations - of passages rather than complete texts, from a variety of languages - appear mainly in his two anthologies of essays, Tan yi lu (On Art) and Guanzhui pian (Limited Views).

32. The original title ofthis novel is She; ithas been commonly mis-identified as Montezuma's Daughter, another of Sir Rider Haggard's novels translated by Un Shu. - Author

20.

Shuowen jiezi (The Origin of Words and Characters) is the great etymological dictionary compiled by Xu Shen (30-124) in the second century, a treasure-trove of information about the roots of Chinese words.

33, The original description goes something like this: The lion "rips" open the crocodile's throat, like tearing up a glove; the crocodile has seized the lion's trunk in its teeth, almost biting the body in half. In the end both the lion and the crocodile are killed - "this duel to the death." - Author

21. It has also been translated as "sublimation" or "realm of transformation."

34. This article was written in March, 1963. -

22. See letter from George Savile, First Marquess of Halifax, to the translator ofMontaigne's essays, Charles Cotton, in W. Raleigh's complete edition, p. 185. There is a contemporary reference to translation as a "linguistic transmigration of souls" (une metempsychose linguistique), cited in Revue de Litterature comparee, January-March 1961 issue, p.18. - Author

35. Shiji (Historical Records), written by Sima Qian (c.145-c.85B. C.), has exerted an enormous influence on Chinese historiography and has been the model for subsequent dynastic histories in China.

Author

36. Li Zhi (1527-1602), an outstanding thinker and iconoclast in the sixteenth century, actively promoted popular literature by editing and commenting on plays like Pipa ji (The Story ofthe Lute) by Gao Ming (1305-c.1370).

23. Qian would have been more accurate ifhe had said hardly ever. It is a well-known and' deplorable fact that present-day native writers of the Chinese language (whether in Taiwan, Hong Kong, or mainland China) often produce writing that reads "as though it has been through a process of translation." In other words, they write a brand of Chinese that reads like some Western language. - Translator

37, Such comparisons are made in the Forewords and Afterwords that Un contributed to a number of his translations. The most concrete example is found in the "Translator's

"-

-".'" ,

117

118

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Notes

Postscript" to Saint-Pierre's Paul et Virginie, in which he referred to the passage in the Chronicles of Zuo describing Chu Wen Wang's expedition against Sui. Judging from his remarks in the Preface to his translation of Dombey and Son, Un's appreciation of the quality of writing in the original excelled some of his assistants. He wrote: "Chongshu [courtesy name of Wei Yi, his collaborator on the Dickens translations] at first did not notice this and only came to be aware of it after hearing me repeatedly mention it." Author 38. Un Shu believed that he had considerable self-control in this respect. In his translation

of David Copperfield, Chapter 5, he added this note: "In foreign writing, events that occur subsequently are often told beforehand, th us startling the reader and causing him to wonder; this is where the foreign style of writing is different. In the books that I translated I would slightly re-cast the sequences so as to accommodate my readers. As for this particular passage, it is thus given in the original book and must not be shifted under any circumstance, and so I simply follow the original." Other notes found in various chapters in his translation of Dombey and Son read: "This is the way it is in the original, and I cannot but translate accordingly" and "The translator has no choice but to follow in the footsteps of the original." - Author

I

1

I

, !

I 1

11 1

I 1 1

I

!

I!

! 1

I!

I 1 '

1

1

! I 1

39. Cf. F. O. Matthiessen, Translation: An Elizabethan Art, discussing North, p. 79 et seq., and Florio, p. 121 et seq., as examples of free prose translations. Examples from poetry translation are even more numerous: the two classic translations of the Homeric epics those of A. Pope and V. Monti - are something in between translation and creative poetrywriting. The Rubdiydt of E. Fitzgerald, popular in China at one time, may also be readily cited in this connection. - Author 40. In Preface to Siliya junzhu biezhuan [an English work, original title unknown]. Author

41. The above quotation was from the 34th year of Guangxu (1908). By the third year of the Republic (1914) Un had greatly changed his tune. In his Postscript to a narrative version of Spenser's Faerie Queene, he stated: "As is generally known to the public, I have no knowledge of any Western language and make my translation on the basis of oral narratives supplied by my friends. Where errors and misapprehensions are found, they are all the result of my carelessness and inattentiveness, letting my pen go unguided; I have only myself to blame for this, and it has nothing to do with my friends." Possibly his assistants had protested against his previous utterances on this score, and he had found it necessary to issue the clarifying statement. - Author 42. Serialized in the magazine Yongyan, beginning vol. 1, no 13. -

Author

1

1

1

, ,

, I

43. In Taiping guangji Chapter 250, in the entry under Li Anqi, there is this exchange: The reviewing judge said: "The handwriting is somewhat weak." The candidate replied: "I fell off a horse yesterday and hurt my foot." Anqi said: "What has injuring a foot to do with not being able to write a good hand?" - Author •

,

44. As happened in his Alhambra, where he added this note to "A Visit to Alhambra Palace": "This, again, is reminiscent ofSu Dongpo's Ode to the Yellow Crane Tower." In his translation of Ivanhoe, Chapter 35, he noted: "This remark reminds one very much of the

sayings of the Song Confucianists"; and in his translation of Don Quixote, Chapter 14, Section 4, he noted: "This is precisely the same as in the [Chinese] line, 'Three thousand bowmen followed her man to war.'" - Author 45. The genesis ofLin Shu's first translation is told as follows: Mr Wei Han, then head ofthe Marine Engineering Bureau at Majiang [in Fujian Province], was friendly with Lin Shu. One day he told Lin of the superiority of French fiction and asked ifLin would not translate some of it. Lin declined, pleading lack of ability, but upon being repeatedly urged, finally said that he would try his hand at it ifhe had an invitation to excursion at Stone-Drum Mountain. To this proposition Wei assented. Among the party invited on this boat excursion he included the French-speaking Wang Ziren, and he insisted that Wang orally recount the story of La Dame aux Camelias.... Upon publication, the book created a sensation with the public, much to Lu Shu's delight.... This incident took place between the years Pingshen and Dingyu in the reign of Emperor Guangxu (1896-1897)." Lin's translation came out in 1899. The above story is based on the research by Ah Ying in his article in the October 1961 issue of World Literature. 46. According to Chenzi shuolin, p. 7: "A certain missionary society in Shanghai had the idea of commissioning Lin Shu to make a translation of the Bible; a fee of twenty thousand dollars was discussed, but agreement was not reached." - Author 47. Lin's words in his preface to his Letters Persanes, in The Far East Miscellany, vol. 12, no 9. -Author 48. Commentary in the translation of Dombey and Son, Chapter 59: "By the time I reached this point in my translation I had already wept three times!" - Author

119

i

c:

,I

I

I I' 1

•

Art vs. science

Whether translation is an art or a science, or both, is more than an ontological question; the answer to it determines the way translated works are appreciated and analyzed. It is on the view that it is a science, or something that can be scientifically studied, that many of the linguistic approaches in the West since the sixties have been based (modeled, for instance, on the works of J. c. Catford). Equally, more traditional - and literary approaches, like those still adopted by leading Chinese translation theorists, have become justified through the belief that translation is quintessentially an art. Zhu Guangqian's article, "On Translation" (1944), anticipates the linguistic approach by defining "meaning" as having six aspects: indicative, contextual, associative, phonic, historic and idiomatic - in a way reminiscent ofwhat the contemporary translator theorist Liu Miqing is to do some forty years later. Since meaning is analyzable, there are, for Zhu, "rules" to follow when one translates, though Zhu seems to be at a loss about how they can be formulated. Paradoxically, Zhu is actually best-known as an aesthetician, and for his many publications on Chinese aesthetics. Indeed, by the end of his essay, he concedes the difficulty of understanding what the original author really feels, and concludes that only great writers can translate! The predominance of the "translation as art" school in twentieth-century China can easily be traced. Fu Lei describes the theoretical platform for this school when, in "Fragments of My Translation Experience" (1957), he emphasizes the artistry of translations and highlights style and tone as key issues for the translator. It is with the three articles written by Huang Xuanfan in the 1970s, each of them targeted at one influential translation theorist then in Taiwan, that the linguistic school (or the "translation as science" school) first reared its head in China. Two of these are included in the present anthology (the third targets Liang Shiqiu and others). In "Review of Si Guo's Studies of Translation" (1974), he critiques Cai Siguo's [Frederick Tsai] monograph on translation Studies of Translation (1972), which criticizes a number of "poor" translations for being too impressionistic and not based on sufficient linguistic knowledge.

122

,

I

I I

I1,

, 1

; ,I

,

I!' "

I

, ,i

I',

,

I,

I,

1

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

He begins by lambasting Cai's three principles of xin, da and tie ("proximity"), goes on to cite inconsistencies in Cai's arguments against Europeanizations, and rounds off by querying Cai's "ethical" judgments on correct and incorrect ways of writing Chinese. Cai's lack of a "scientific" perspective is contrasted with the Mainland linguist Wang Li, who researched Europeanized Chinese at length (in his book Contemporary Chinese Syntax). The second translation theorist Huang takes issue with is Lin Yiliang, whose "The Theory and Practice of Translation" (1974) one of the chapters in the book Lin Yiliang Talking about Translation presents the view that the skills of translation are unfathomable and translations are beyond analysis. Like Yan, Cai and others before him, Lin advances his three principles of translation: (1) mastery of the original text; (2) command of one's own language; and (3) experience-cum-imagination. It is not hard to imagine how Huang Xuanfan would respond. In "Translation and Linguistic Knowledge" (1974), Huang had harsh criticisms for Lin Yiliang's book. Huang's indebtedness to Western theories of translation can perhaps be detected in his distinction between translation as for Huang, Lin process and as product (cf. Wolfram Wilss, for instance) only deals with the product. He writes very strongly against Lin's advocacy of "empathy," which is for him a non-linguistic element, vague and hard to grasp. For Huang, the majority of translation problems relate to the failure to handle semantic, phonetic and syntactical issues (these make up so-called "linguistic knowledge"), not "intuition, cultivation, creation, and sensitivity," and Lin's fixation on these reveals his failure to remain objective. Lin apparently did respond to Huang's criticisms by deleting from later versions of his book an example that Huang found fault with (concerning an Indian tribe that has two words for "father"). The debate on art versus science was carried on in the last two decades on the Mainland, and Jin Di's article, "The Debate of Art vs. Science" (1987) can be read as an attempt at reconciliation. Jin Di translated Joyce's Ulysses and collaborated with Eugene Nida in writing the book On Translation. In the present selection, making wide-ranging references to such translation theorists in Russia and the West as Federov, Steiner, and 1. A. Richards, he shows the persuasiveness of the two "schools" of translation theory but ends by suggest. ing that, in China, the two approaches can perhaps be amalgamated.

C9. On translation (1944) Zhu Guangqian 1

"Fidelity" is most difficult to achieve, for many reasons. Chief among these is the difficulty of thoroughly understanding the meaning of words. Words take on a multiplicity of meanings. Ordinary readers looking up the dictionary for words they have come across in reading or translating will most likely see just one of these meanings "indicative or dictionary meaning." Various languages will have different words for the object denoted by "fire," but the object being referred to is the same, as defined by the oldest of dictionaries. This is the basic meaning, the most ordinary and superficial. It is the most ordinary because everybody understands it in more or less the same way. It is the most superficial because, through overuse, it becomes weathered and shiny like an old copper coin; although still used in business transactions, it has hardly any character. In a literary work, every word has its special character, its unique life. That is why writers either avoid cliches or seek to give cliches new life. In accordance with the company it keeps, a word changes its meaning. [Editor's Note: This statement is followed by examples of Chinese poetry.] Changes in meaning owing to context and positioning are of the utmost importance in literature. "Contextual meaning" is something not always obtainable from dictionaries, but from careful consideration of the immediate textual context. One who lacks training in literature and reads carelessly will have difficulty understanding this kind of meaning thoroughly. Words have yet another kind of meaning. Every word in the Chinese language has had a long history, in the course of which associations have been developed in connection with external objects and circumstances. Such words might have become part of the lifestyle of ordinary folk, and have taken on special emotive significance. Because of the differences in material circumstances and lifestyles, the associations evoked by the same word in different nations and places will be different. For instance, words in English like "fire," "sea," "castle," "sport," "shepherd," "nightingale" and "rose" trigger off responses in the minds of Englishmen that are radically different from those evoked by the same words in the minds of the Chinese. Their meanings are far

124

Art vs. science

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

richer for the Englishmen. For the same reason, Chinese words like those for "Win, . d"" moon, )) ((. rIver, " «1 ak e, ,,« p1um bl ossom, » ch rysant h emum, " (( swa1low," "plaque," "flute," "monk," "recluse," "propriety," "yin" and "yang" conjure up feelings and associations for us that are not available to Westerners. This is the "associative meaning" of words, something emotionally charged and deeply nuanced, not recoverable from dictionaries yet immensely important for literature. [... ] Associative meanings in Western literature are the hardest to grasp and translate. Next in the ladder of difficulty is the beauty of sounds. Words are a combination of sense and sound, two elements which ordinary folk think of as completely separate. In modern times, the West has engaged in a heated debate on whether sound or sense should be the crux of poetry. The Pure Poetry Group views "sense" as having an impact on the ratiocinative faculties, and "sound" as directly affecting the sensory organs. For them poetry should be as much like music as possible, striving for the harmony of sounds, while meaning is oflittle significance. Those opposed to this group insist that poetry is in its very nature not music, so one cannot sacrifice meaning to sound. Such a debate has arisen out of a misunderstanding about the nature of language. Language carries meaning, yet because of the different effects created by the sounds of different languages, the meanings carried are inevitably not the same. In other words, to a greater or lesser extent sound affects sense. [... ] The above are the most important meanings in question. There are other meanings that are of secondary importance, and one of these is "historic meaning." All our words have histories; that is, they grow and change. There is great discrepancy between classical Chinese and vernacular Chinese, and one has to be specially trained to be able to read them. Western languages change even more rapidly; they witness great changes in contemporary life. Texts from four hundred years ago (roughly contemporaneous with the late Ming dynasty2) are hardly comprehensible now. Even eighteenth-century writing (only a hundred years old) will be misunderstood if reinterpreted solely in terms of words currently used. Terminology studies in the West is, comparatively speaking, more sophisticated, and evidence can often be found to prove the exact point in time when the meaning of a word changed, or when a word assumed a new meaning. With a basic knowledge of the historical evolution of individual words, or with a readiness to constantly check etymological dictio'naries, one can overcome difficulties in this area. Many translators have paid no heed to this, and their translations of older texts are often replete with errors. C(

I'

I 11 ,

I I ,

,

'I

:1

I ; 1 :,1

,

I

'I

,I' ,, , , 11 ~

11

Next, words have a life of their own; they will sometimes play tricks on us. By means of an unfamiliar metaphor, one can give a word a derived meaning that is completely different from the original meaning. A specialist term belonging to a particular profession can be transformed into an ordinary word for use by the common folk. Through wordplay, two words originally unconnected are amalgamated by virtue of their having some laughable point of similarity. An accidental usage can give a word an allusive force. The special meaning ascribed to a word under circumstances like these can be termed "idiomatic meaning." Translated by Leo T. H. Chan

125

,

I

r""""~:r,

,

Art vs. science

translator is not that obvious, and whether my style can be adapted to suit that of the original work is by no means certain. It is difficult enough for one to know others well; how much more so when it comes to knowing oneselfl Take me as an example. I do have a sense of humor but I have never written a humorous piece. I also have a sense of moral justice but I have never written polemical essays. When confronted with Voltaire's fables, which are bitingly sarcastic yet plainly unadorned, how can I not feel hesitant, skeptical about my ability to translate it well before I make the attempt? I have revised my translation of Voltaire's Candide eight times, but I am still unsure how much of the spirit of the original I have managed to convey. In light of this, I feel strongly that:

CIO. Fragments of my translation experience (1957) Fu LeP

I, ''

I, 1

I

I

I' 1

I I

I

, I 1

1

, ,

,

:i

:1

I, I, I

My hesitation [about translating a literary work] has its theoretical foundations. In the first place, because of my love of literature and the high regard I have for all literary activity, I will consider any damage done to a work of art to be equivalent to a distortion of truth. Nor can I tolerate the failure to present a work of art as it is. As a result, my attitude becomes serious almost without my knowing it, and my viewpoint becomes extremely conservative. A translator who does not thoroughly understand the original, who cannot empathize with it, will definitely not be able to arouse deep sympathy in his readers. Further, the sympathy and understanding each person is capable of is determined by individual differences in character. Choosing an original text to translate is like choosing a friend. I failed to get along with some of my friends and I did not force myself to do so; I hit it off with others even when we first met and wished I had known them earlier. However, even for these friends, true understanding is not attained within a day. One needs to read a literary work that one desires to translate four or five times, in order to become familiar enough with the story to be able to analyze it perceptively, form clear images ofthe characters, and slowly grasp the profound but intricate ideas buried between the lines of the text. However, does it mean that, having done all these, we possess adequate conditions for translating a literary work? The answer is no, because a translation ofthis kind is based on more than just sympathetic understanding. We need to take the further step of truthfully and effectively conveying what we have empathized with. We have no lack of examples of bosom friends having conflicting personalities. An ancient aphorism has it that the tough and the meek serve to complement each other. There is a chance, too, that one may be fond ofa literary work with characteristics that one cannot accept. In order to be able to capture its essence one needs to be transformed into either someone very much unlike oneself in temperament, or even a completely different person.. It will be simpler if! am aware that the original author's style is diametrically opposed to mine, for I will give up doing the translation. Unfortunately, however, in most cases the spiritual distance between the author and the

1. As far as literary genres are concerned, we should translate with a clear sense of our strengths and weaknesses. Those not proficient in theoretical arguments should not force themselves to translate books of theory. Those who are not poets should not translate poetry, for what they produce will not only be unpoetic; it will not be like prose either. To introduce literary works though a mirror of distortion makes one a literary culprit. 2. With regard to the different literary schools, we should know which school we fit best into: Romantic or Classicist, Realist or Modernist? Do we belong with certain writers of a particular school or write like certain works of a particular writer? Our limitations and ability to adapt will only be revealed in practice. We cannot force things. Even after translating several thousands of words of text, we may have to give up with regret. Even if we can adapt as appropriate, we still need to apply ourselves doubly hard. One measure of our adaptability is our enthusiasm about the original work, since emotional interest affects understanding, and vice versa. The other measure of our adaptability is our artistic insight. Without enough of it we may fool ourselves into believing that we are capable of such adaptation as is required when we are not. The second reason why I need to take translation seriously is my lack of academic preparation. Although my interests are wide- ranging, and my studies are mixed, I am a jack of all trades and master of none. The little bit of everything that I know is of little use when it comes to practical application. Since our literature is written for the whole society and for every individual, it is naturally related to politics, economics, philosophy, science, history, painting, sculpture, architecture, music, and even astronomy, geography, medicine and the divinatory sciences. There is nothing that it does not incorporate. Certain difficulties may be overcome through consultation with foreign experts, but

I

"

I! ,

;'

,)'

," ,

.

127

I

, 128

I

,

I' I,

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

CII. Review of Si Guo's Studies of Translation (1974)

due to regional, cultural and material differences, one may not be able to make the reader understand what one has understood oneself. (For instance, in Balzac's detailed descriptions, the house inhabited by the protagonists will have to be depicted first for the readers so that they can dearly understand the plot.) For years I have been tortured by the onerous task of polishing each and every word used. How distinct the Chinese way of thinking is from the Western! Westerners are fond of the abstract; they love analysis. The Chinese prefer the concrete; they are strong at synthesis. If we do not completely assimilate the spirit of the work to be translated, but transfer word for word in a stilted manner, the original will not only lose all its beauty, but become abstruse and incomprehensible, thoroughly confusing the reader. What is more, I am only concerned here with conveying the meaning. I have not even begun to discuss elements of style! Whatever the style of the original, it will always be unified and coherent. The translation should, of course, not be fragmented. But our language is still in its formative stage, unguided by specific, definite rules ofusage. On the other hand, standardization is the staunch enemy of literary expressiveness. Sometimes we need to use classical literary Chinese, but whether it fits into the translated text is a problem. I retranslated Jean Christoph4 not just to correct my own errors; rather, the classical literary language used in my earlier translation creates a jarring hybridization of styles. Sometimes I need to use dialects, but using dialects with too strong a regional flavor will tarnish the local coloring of the original. If I use simple Putonghua, the translation will be bland, uninteresting and aesthetically unsatisfying. We cannot reap immediate rewards by quickly rummaging through a great number of classical Chinese works or by familiarizing ourselves with a variety of dialects. These will only help us with our vocabulary and syntax. A coherent style can only be acquired after an extended period of artistic nurturing. As I said before, the language problem is basically one of aesthetic insight. To raise the standard of translations, we must first work out some objective criteria so that we can tell good translations from bad ones.

Huang Xuanfan [Huang Hsuan-fan]5

On the back cover of this book is the following description: "Studies of Translation, the first book that turns translation into a scholarly subject, is the crystallization of over 40 years of work and scholarship on the part of essayist and translator Si Guo. 6 Poet and prose writer Yu Guangzhong introduced this book as a most suitable pedagogical text. The Western Languages Department of National Cheng Chih University [in Taiwan] lists it as a required reference. It is used by all the universities in Hong Kong, and recommended by the Hong Kong Translation Society. To students, translators, and anyone interested in English, this is a must-read." 1.

2. In fact, Studies of Translation does not turn translation into a subject of scholarly study, because it does not address the theoretical problems in translation. It only deals with the various translation techniques, details concerning Chinese-English translation in particular namely, differences in the syntactic structures of the two languages. Si Guo writes, "This book aims mainly to inform readers about many of the things in the work of translators that they should pay attention to, to nurture in them a sensitivity towards certain aspects of their work, and to suggest some of the rules that should be followed." This shows that the book is not about translation theory. A book on translation theory should at least discuss what "synonymous sentences" are, at which structural level of a language the act of translation is performed, and what type of operation sentence-to-sentence translating entails, and so on. Studies of Translation is not that kind of book. 3. Is Studies of Translation a good book? It is not. Many of the points made in the book are wrong; many of the conclusions are without adequate support; many of the key concepts used are not strictly defined. In what follows, I will look into these in greater detail.

Translated by Leo T. H. Chan •

4. Chapter 1, "General Introduction," is about the principles of translation. Of the three principles proposed by Yan Fu (fidelity, fluency and elegance),? Si Guo replaces elegance with appropriateness (qie). What are fidelity, fluency and appropriateness? According to him:

I

,

130

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

a. b.

e.

i,

I

I I ,

'

Fidelity: the translator is responsible to the author of the source text, seeking to represent without error the original Chinese meaning. Fluency: the translator does the readers a service, for although the original meaning has been expressed, it must still be comprehensible to the readers before the translator's job is done. Appropriateness: the translation is faithful and comprehensible, but are the generic form, the tenor, and the status of the speaking voice in the source text suitably represented? This brings in the question of appropriateness.

Fidelity, fluency and appropriateness are this book's three most important key words, the criteria for judging the merits and demerits of a translation, and they should be fairly strictly defined, to lay the foundation for the discussion in the various chapters. However, the definitions provided by Si Guo incorporate words whose meanings are vague. What is "the original meaning"? What is "tenor"? What is "suitably"? Are these concepts simple and easy to understand? Can readers, following Si Guo's explanations, decide for themselves which translations satisfy the criteria of fidelity, fluency and appropriateness? I cannot see how Si Guo understands the first step in the construction of a theory. Articles on translation should start with the linguistic structures of the source text and end with those of the translated text. Concepts used in a discussion of translation should have a linguistic basis (that is, they can be validated with reference to the structures of languages); only then can further constructive viewpoints be elaborated. If fidelity, fluency and appropriateness are to be the necessary and sufficient conditions for a theory of translation, Si Guo should have told his readers what kind of correspondence between language structures establishes "fidelity," what kind of correspondence between linguistic structures implies "fluency," and what kind of correspondence between linguistic structures is tantamount to "appropriateness." However, he has not done that. In fact, in the chapters of the book that follow, fidelity, fluency and appropriateness are hardly referred to again. This at least shows that Si Guo has lost the ability and confidence to handle these concepts. In other words, he thinks they are too confusing and opaque, and so he simply dumps them. Apparently, Si Guo thinks that fidelity, fluency and appropriateness are. three different concepts. He uses the following example as an illustration. Two old gentlemen, Professor Zhang and Professor Wang, had fixed a time to meet at a restaurant. Before taking leave of each other, Professor Zhang said in

Art vs. science

English, "Well, I'll be there ...." This sentence, following the three criteria, can have three different translations in Chinese: a.

b.

e.

Fidelity: Haole, wohui zai nali [literal back-translation]: "Well, I'll be there." (a faultlessly faithful translation) Fidelity and fluency: Haole, daoshi wo zai nali deng ni [literal back-translation]: "Well, I'll be waiting for you there at the time." (a comprehensible, fluent translation) Fidelity, fluency and appropriateness: ]iu zheme shuo ba, wo daoshi zai

nali gonghou [literal back-translation]: "Just as you said. I'll be waiting respectfully for you there." I cannot see the difference between the faithful translation (a) and the faithfuland-fluent translation (b). If one says the addition of "waiting for you" makes the translation more fluent, then the meaning of the word "fluent" is pretty vague. When two persons arrange to meet, "waiting for you" is a presupposition inherent in the English sentence. If you ask me in Chinese, "Have you been to France?" and I reply (in Chinese) "Yes," then, in the English translation, must one say "Yes, I have (been to France)" for it to be a fluent translation? And why is the third translation (c) the most faithful, fluent and appropriate? Si Guo thinks that this English sentence is spoken by one old professor to another old professor, and in such a situation he speaks like this (that is, he is very unlikely to speak otherwise). The word "well" has at least three meanings, depending on the tone of the speaker, but apparently none has a meaning corresponding to "just as you said." The meaning of this expression (in Chinese) implies that the speaker is choosing one of several options, and the tone is used to elicit agreement. The word (in Chinese) for "respectfully wait" is used when the speaker wants to show politeness or respect. This meaning is not found in the source text either. So, how can the last translation be said to have met all the three criteria of fidelity, fluency and appropriateness? [ ... ] 15. Actually the boundary between grammar and rhetoric is quite blurred. To begin with, the two need not be separated. Traditional linguists do not regard rhetoric as an independent discipline, because grammar and semantics already cover all linguistic phenomena. If grammatical and semantic study is carried out delicately enough, I cannot see how rhetoric can still have any value or significance that allows it to exist as an independent discipline. (In general,

131

132

Art vs. science

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

17. My view is that we should first do an objective analysis ofthe linguistic data in front of us before we discuss whether they are good or bad in terms of rhetoric; we should not, all too easily, resort to value judgments and speak strongly against the dialects used by others. This is an important matter of methodological procedure. Rhetoric must be linguistically based. For example, it is generally assumed that good rhetoric should at least show three properties: (1) brevity; (2) variation; and (3) no redundancy. In a book like this one, which deals with issues of translation, the linguistic basis of these three concepts (and others as well) should be explained; the author should then separately discuss, with examples, the many categories. Si Guo, however, has not clearly recognized such methodological requirements (possibly because he thinks the various concepts associated with rhetoric are plain and easy to understand). As a result, the organization of this book is fairly disorderly. The chapter entitled "Chinese Grammar" is about pronouns. In other chapters, like "Chinese Verbal Art," "Chinese Words," "Errors" and "China's Chinese," he also talks about pronouns. In addition, there is also a separate chapter called "Pronouns." The discussion of quantifiers is also dispersed over several chapters. Other issues are dealt with in simple narrative accounts that are shallow and but filled with empty talk; they are unfocused and incoherent. (If, in fact, there are scattered bits of things to say, why not arrange them in alphabetical entries? Since the chapter headings and content do not actually match, and ideas are duplicated everywhere, the book's organization can be said to be chaotic indeed.) I emphasize the "linguistic basis" of both translation and rhetoric. A book on Chinese-English translation must first discuss the structural differences between Chinese and English from grammatical and semantic perspectives. The grammatical structure of pronouns is one thing; their semantic structure is another. Second, from a study of structures, one can discover and identify - what rhetoricians have called the linguistic basis of concepts of rhetoric. Finally, one can find out, with evidence from actual translations, the departures from such a linguistic basis.

rhetoricians like to use, quite arbitrarily, the grammar of famous writers as a model, and treat whatever does not conform to it as bad rhetoric. In fact, both methods of expression are grammatical; there is only a dialectal difference. Can we say that the Chinese spoken by the common people is ungrammatical?) If readers compare the attitude ofWang Li,R as seen in his chapter on Europeanized grammar in A Theory of Contemporary Chinese Grammar, with that of Si Guo when he discusses linguistic phenomena, they can see a difference. Wang Li treats all linguistic data as material for analysis his attitude is scientific; Si Guo denigrates as errors what he himself does not like his attitude is ethical. (The evidence Si Guo provides is not convincing.) Grammatical changes are absolutely natural, whether these are caused by Europeanization or internal structural changes. Changes are a matter of science; deciding whether they are good or bad is a matter of ethics. However, we do not need to adamantly oppose the Europeanization of Chinese grammar. Living at a time when Western cultural influence is rampant, very few people can distinguish which grammatical form is part of the indigenous tradition, and which is not. Years ago, there were probably many conservative people who despised the highly Europeanized writing by Xu Zhimo,9 and his style (that is, his special "grammar") never seems to have become popular, nor is it accepted as a part of the grammar of modern Chinese.

I I

I,

I

16. In his chapter on "Chinese Verbal Art" (pp. 99-112), Si Guo discusses the problems of the fusion of classical Chinese with the vernacular (modern standard Chinese). Most of the discussion only remains descriptive, not wielding any explanatory power. He quotes from the works of several senior writers and what he thinks are bad translations to illustrate the importance of allowing but not conclassical and vernacular Chinese to complement one another vincingly. For example, he quotes a piece of translation with the express intention of pointing out how poorly classical and vernacular Chinese complement one another, but in fact the problems discussed can also be understood as different kinds of "deviancy" on the semantic level. To identify which words are in classical Chinese, and which ones in the vernacular, is a matter of linguistic proficiency. In Discussing the Chinese Lexicon,1O I have pointed out that these really are an important part of complex Chinese linguistic structures. In terms of grammatical structure, it is rather. difficult to complement classical Chinese with vernacular Chinese. On the one hand, grammatical study is still fairly immature in our country; on the other hand, the history of the vernacular movement is very short and our grasp of reliable linguistic data is rather slippery.

Translated by Matthew Leung

.

" A.

•;

133

I

i

,

I

' 11 .

,,

"

l'

1',:1,

,

.,'

Art vs. science

e12. Translation and linguistic knowledge:

but probably would not be convinced by the various critical criteria enunciated by Lin. Furthermore, they would not obtain any new insights as far as the appreciation of the semantic structures of natural languages is concerned.

I1

On Lin Yiliang on Translation (1974) "

Huang Xuanfan

3. I have mentioned that whenever the term "translation'" appears in Lin's book it should be understood as referring to the product of translation. For convenience, I will use the terms "Translation 1" and "Translation 2" to point to the two different definitions I have of the term "translation." The first article in the book is entitled "Theory and Practice of Translation." Lin Yiliang lacks a strict definition of Translation 1; I feel that it is a bit unfortunate for Lin to have chosen such a title because, in this chapter, he not only fails to attempt to construct any theory, but also denies wholesale the benefit that the construction of a theory can bring to the practice of Translation 2. Lin starts off by saying, "There are not in fact any principles in translation, nor are there any secret techniques." Then he quotes from Lin Yutang: 14 "In translation, there are no shortcuts for success, nor rules or standards." On page 9 again, "Moreover, theory is one thing, practice is another." Coming from someone that Hong Kong journalists "Mr Translation," these words from Lin appear very superficial and rash. He has not put in any effort to construct a theory of translation. How dare he deny so easily the relevance of theory to practice?

,I,

,

l2

':::. ,"

,:

1. The Chinese word for "translation" has at least two meanings: one refers to the operation of this cognitive activity called translation; the other refers to the product ofthis operation. 13 When we say "Song Hang's translation is of a very high standard," we usually refer to what this person has translated - the results, the end-products. When we say "He knows the theory of translation," we usually understand "translation" as a psycholinguistic operation, in opposition to the product of translation. A book or a paper that discusses translation should at least explain what concept is referred to. If the aim of a translation is to achieve the best possible transfer in textual meaning, then a book that discusses translation should have a clear definition of the concept of "synonymy." It should also address the relation between translation and truth, as well as that between translation and the logical structure of language. At what level of the structure oflanguage does a psycholinguistic operation like translation take place? And how can the difference between "emotive meaning" and "cognitive meaning" be demarcated? These are all core issues in a theory of translation. However, of the nine articles collected in the book Lin Yiliang on Translation published by Zhiwen Publishing Co. in March 1973, none shows that the author has any basic understanding of, or discriminatory power over, these issues. What this book calls "translations" can be understood only with reference to the second meaning: they are the products of translation.

' '

H

,{ ,,,

'(':, ',;

,"',

,

..

, "f';

,I' '

,

,'I

,

, ';'

I',

2. Although the book Lin Yiliang on Translation contains nine articles, the method the author uses in discussing translation follows a pattern: he first points out the qualities and attitudes a translator should have, then makes reference to some examples in Chinese-English translation, and critically notes their merits and demerits, one after another. This book mainly deals, in a rough and simplistic manner, with some problems concerning translation techniques. Its main flaw, however, is that the author always uses terms in a vague and' confusing way; in particular, the evidence on the basis of which he attempts his evaluation is often not clearly defined cognitively. The readers, after reading the book, may have some understanding of the difficulties involved in translation,

" ,' , I

I.'

"

,,

j "

,

j'

.

",

Lin Yutang thinks that Translation 2 relies on the following: (1) the translator has a thorough understanding of the language and content of the original source text; (2) the translator has a good knowledge of the Chinese language, and can write felicitous and fluent Chinese; (3) the translator has received training in translation and acquired a proper understanding of the criteria and skills involved. Lin modifies some of Lin Yutang's views and proposes the following attributes that a translator should possess: (1) a good grasp of the source text; (2) mastery of his native language; (3) experience plus fertile imaginative powers. Lin points out that while these views look fairly ordinary on the surface, they go straight to the crux of the matter, and are more concrete and useful than all the discussions about empty theoretical concepts like "literal translation," "sense-translation," or "fidelity, fluency and elegance." I do not understand how the theorist, by simply describing the attributes of a translator, can get straight to the crux of matter. (Lin never explains what the crux of the matter in translation is.) I also cannot see how the attributes of a translator are more concrete and useful than "fidelity, fluency and elegance." The attributes show only the demand placed on a translator; the three principles

135

13 6

Art vs. science

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

imply judgement on the product oftranslation. For Lin, in so far as the translator possesses the three posited attributes, his Translation 2 will surely meet the requirements of fidelity, fluency and elegance (if these three terms do have certain objective meanings). But any Translation 2 which displays "fidelity, fluency and elegance" must surely have been done by someone possessing the three qualities posited by the two Lins. (We cannot imagine otherwise.) These two points of view are complementary; they are only the two sides of the same coin. Any effective criticism directed at the former can easily be applied to the latter, and vice versa. In the later chapters of the book, Lin continues to indulge himself in describing the differences between literal translation and sensetranslation, emphasizing again and again the relation between Translation 2 and fidelity, fluency and elegance. This clearly shows Lin's very traditional outlook (literal translation, sense-translation, fidelity, fluency and elegance are traditional terminology); he considers the three attributes to be incapable ofcovering all the aspects of translation. (This, of course, is unavoidable. To understand what translation is, one must analyze in depth the concept of "translation." The translator's attributes, and the question of whether Translation 2 is faithful,

'~:

~":

,'I' .,'

,

,"i,'

"

' i'

:1',

,,

,. r,

0", '

,.'./' ,

,., ,.

.

, ,

I

falsifiable, t5 and in that they do great harm.)

I

4. Lin points out the importance of "sympathy," and thinks that it is much more important than comprehension of the source text. I do not see why "sympathy" cannot be treated as an element in comprehension, and why the two should thus be forcefully separated and placed in opposition. Lin quotes from Henry Hart's preface to his translation of Chinese poetry. 16 According to . Hart, textual comprehension itself is not enough. The translator must be fully immersed in Chinese history, culture and folklore, tradition and philosophy. He must look at the world through the eyes of the Chinese, and respond to internal and external phenomena the same way the Chinese do. We can

1

I 11

"i~ I

I'

"

•

.", ', \ " " ,' ;

, ,, ""

,

, I'il,

,,

fluent and elegant, are side issues.) Surely, with the chapter "Translation of Literary Works" (first published in Chung-wai Literary Journal, Volume 2:6), Lin seems intent on giving up the three attributes previously posited. He suggests three others: (1) common sense, (2) judgment, and (3) sensitivity. In addition, he highlights three attitudes: (1) devotion or loyalty, (2) breadth of mind to take a more comprehensive view, and (3) humility. These three attitudes are of course important. However, I do not see how they can help ordinary readers understand literary translations. Apparently, Lin is commenting in general on the attitude one should take toward scholarship. Because this is the case, the words he uses look high sounding, but are fairly vague. (However, vague words are not easily 1

understand what Hart is driving at, but we need not accept Lin's response to it, viz., "theory is one thing, and practice is another." All that can be said of Hart's view is that it shows how difficult it is to construct a theory of translation, but it does not lead to Lin's conclusion that "theory and practice are unconnected." We should recognize that what Hart says about looking at the world through the eyes of the Chinese is a fairly fictive notion. We cannot identify a typical Chinese response to every internal stimulus and external phenomenon. Chinese culture comprises many religious, ideological, philosophical and material systems, and to extract from such a multifaceted culture the so-called authoritative, typical Chinese response is very difficult. Translating poetry is perhaps very difficult, but it will be a rare case indeed where one can blame the translator for lacking "a typical Chinese response." My feeling is that in most translations (including poetry translations) the primary problem is for the translator to have a firm grasp of the phonological, syntactic and semantic structures of the source text. These three make up what I call linguistic knowledge. Part of translation involves understanding the referential function of the expressions used in the source text, and part of it (especially when humor and irony are concerned) obviously entails certain other extra-linguistic abilities. The referential function is found in all speech acts. Whether speech acts exemplify conventionalized behavior is a subject that awaits further research.

, 'I, , .,

I ,:

,

,

,

r

,

,

'

r ,, ,

'I' ,

I

,,

11 r

1

l

5. Lin thinks that it is not easy to have a thorough grasp of the original text. He lists the translation of the titles of several films, plays and books to support his conclusion. I agree with his conclusion, but the examples he uses only illustrate problems of interpretation related to linguistic knowledge. Roman holiday is an idiom, and is a sentence or a phrase whose meaning cannot be deduced from the meanings of its component parts. However, defining an idiom is not easy. Of course, language is an elastic and organic entity, so an idiom can often be interpreted in two different ways. Hobson's choice is an idiom, so is white nights. Anyone who is not able to interpret these as idioms has inadequate linguistic competence in English or French. Thus, a firm grasp of what I call linguistic knowledge is most essential. One of Lin's most favored sayings is: "Translate literally, and you'll surely have no problems." For example, he says, "Roman holiday can be translated literally into Chinese without any problem." Taking such a point of view is definitely very undesirable, for two reasons: (1) It forces Lin to engage in a meaningless argument about the totally unnecessary binary division between literal translation and sense-translation, which should actually be a question of the level of

137

138

Art vs. science

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

structure on which translation should proceed. (2) It makes Lin think that, other than the literal understanding of individual words, there are many other abilities that affect Translation 2. 17 Lin probably assumes that linguistic knowledge is just the simple accumulation of the literal meanings of words. This, however, is not the case. What a person knows about his native language cannot be exhaustively contained in a dictionary. Conventional dictionaries 1R only contain a small portion of our linguistic knowledge. What kinds of linguistic knowledge are not found in the dictionaries? These are almost infi-

'1'

!

'1 i

,",

nite, and they are the objects of study oflinguists. 6.

Lin thinks that "strictly speaking, translation is impossible." He says: For example, the noun "father," theoretically speaking,'Y should be found in all the languages in the world, since the father-son relationship as well as the concept of "father" itself should be universal. However, an Indian tribe in the United States uses a language with two nouns for "father." Moreover, they are mutually exclusive, and one cannot be used to replace the other.

\j.,'

','

j.

~ ,I-,i .";:/ . '1

...

,.

'. -,;

f

:'1,1, ~I," !

r

I'

,I

I', ,

,I , ,

"

There are obvious examples in many languages where two or more than two nouns refer to the same concept, although in many speech situations they are not interchangeable. The Chinese language has many such examples. For example, there are many Chinese expressions referring to the "addressee," but often they are not mutually interchangeable. There is no need for Lin to use an example from an Indian language. (Which Indian language is it? In the United States, there are at least 100 Indian languages.) One may easily be misled into thinking that the more exotic the language, the more "abnormal" its semantic structure. The second example that Lin uses to illustrate his assertion that "translation is impossible" is the Chinese word for the number "90." In French, the number 90 is "quatre-vingt-dix," literally meaning four twenties plus ten. Lin seems to have used this example to highlight a principle for Translation 2, one which concerns the morphemic make-up of the source language or its historical trace. If this is the case, then the English word "hope" cannot be turned into the Chinese word xiwang because the two characters in Chinese form a compound word while the English word "hope" is a monosyllabic word. Highlighting such a translation principle can obviously lend support to Lin's conclusion, but I do not know how useful such a definition of the concept of translation is. (And I also do not know whether he really believesin such a principle.) The third example that Lin uses is the number "70." The English word seventy can easily be translated into Chinese. However, when we come to the

\ '"

,",

,,

.

,,

.,

'.\

" 11'

I r; , J' , 'i'

,il ,ii. ",:1

'I"'i :'

'J ": '

jt, ,.

'j

,

, t: 0,'

,

,".

expression three-score years and ten in the Bible, what should we do? If it is transcoded in the old way with a literal three-character Chinese expression, the sense of ~esolation and sublimity present in the source language will be carefully ...sacnficed. In my article "The Linguistic Basis of Translation" ' I h ~e crItIClzed the use of such impressionistic comments on translation. I ask: What ~s "desolation and sublimity" (cangliang xionghun)? Which word or structure ~n the sentence gives Lin a sense of "desolation and sublimity"? In the latest Is~~e. of t?e Book R~view Monthly (No. 23), there was a response to my CrItICIsm:. As far as lIteral meanings are concerned, three-score years and ten does not mduce a feeling of desolation and sublimity, nor (unfortunately) of sol~mni~..If the readers have the chance to hear a good preacher or priest say:ng.thls m church., or a ~amous actor reciting it, they may think differently." ThIS kmd of answer IS obvIOusly very question begging. It seems to suggest that for. ordinary people to understand any utterance, they need to hear it perfectl; artICulated on stage by an actor. So, to understand a simple expression like three-scor~ years and ten, it is necessary to (l) hear a good (what is a "good" preacher lIke: one wonders?) preacher (2) in church (3) say it formally. It is even more dIf'ficult to understand what Lin says on page 31: " ... this coming together transcends the limitations of space and time, and breaks down the boundaries of race and culture... " I do not appreciate the excessive use of em~tive langu~ge as a kind of "defen se" in the discussion of cognitive concepts. IfLm really belIeves that Translation 2 can transcend space and time, and break down the boundaries of race and culture, then how can he reconcile this with his earlier saying that "strictly speaking, translation is impossible"? . . I~ his mind, ~in is constantly torn by the simple yet conflicting binary dIvIsIOn bet~een l~teral translation and sense-translation; he never manages to escape from It. ThIS can be seen in his constant reference to these two terms in his book. In my own envisioned framework for translation, one need only analyze and compare the various structures of languages to get to Translation 2. O~ course, that which is not linguistic knowledge but involves the comprehenSIOn of ~he ~ource text also has its basis in linguistic understanding. Such ~nderstandmg IS a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition. So, literal translatIOn versus sense-translation is a pseudo-problem; fidelity, fluency and elegance also have no place within my framework. [... ] 11. Lin regards translation as an "ever expanding" art. As it is, this thing art has often been talked about in the company of such terms as "intuition" "self-~ul:iv~tion," "natural disposition" and "creation." I believe that there ~s an artIstIC SIde to translation. However, if we want to advance the theory and

139

140 Twentieth Century Chinese Translation Theory

C13. The debate of art vs. science (1987)

practice of translation, at least we should restrain ourselves and use l:ss vague, emotive language, and conduct more vigorous analyses ofwhat constItutes our linguistic knowledge. . The principles to be discovered through linguistic resear.ch a~e .baslC~ly not intended for literary translations. They just do not work. LmgmstlC studIes are aimed at finding commonalities in linguistic structures; they cover a di~er­ ent area of study from Translation 2. However, the investigation and.a~alysIs~f commonalities in linguistic structures can easily be turned into pOSItIve use m understanding translation processes. This is the basic aim of this critical review of the book Lin Yiliang on Translation. If anyone still entertains groundless hopes for a textbook that uses linguistics to show how translation can be done, I can only say, " W h at ' re you ta lk'mg ab out<"20 .

Jin Dill

Translated by Matthew Leung

I, ,

1

,

I I

•

, , 'I

, , "

,

Traditional translation theories from China and elsewhere have been developed from philosophical, literary and artistic perspectives. Theorists often focused on artistic elements like tone, style, flavor and spirit. After the 1940s and 50s, translation studies began to emerge as a branch of specialized knowledge. Its most significant feature is the application of the findings of modern linguistics to translation studies, with an emphasis on componential analysis and equivalence, striving for objectivity, accuracy and scientific favor. A. V. Fedorov (Soviet Union) and J. c. Catford (England), often regarded as representative figures in this approach, also regard translation theory as a branch of linguistics. Eugene Nida (United States), too, also considers translation as a science, though he does not confine his observations to linguistics. At the same time, many people in the field ofliterature continue to observe translation from philosophical, literary and artistic perspectives. For instance, despite the fact that A. V. Fedorov's major works were introduced to China a in 1954 and created a great impact, literary year after their publication concepts still in use, like "spiritual resonance," "transference of spirit" and the "realm of transformation," show that translation continues to be viewed as an art. 22 The international situation is the same, and there the confrontation between the two approaches has been even more obvious. For instance, in his After Babe! (1975),23 the well-known scholar George Steiner takes a revolutionary approach, filling his voluminous work with quotations from many sources to illustrate that modern linguistic evidence does not meet standards of scientific reliability; it merely consists of "some fragmented statistics, some competitive hypotheses, some intuitive speculations, and many impressions." Therefore to him "current linguistic studies is not yet a branch of science ... It is very likely that it will never be a branch ofscience."24 Translation can be studied by looking at the verbal transfer among many languages; far from being a science, it is indubitably an art. Until now, this branch of knowledge has not yet been given a name that is unanimously accepted abroad. This reflects the seriousness of the dispute. It seems that more people call it "the science of translation," though some insist

Ar t vs. science

142 Tw ent iet h-C ent ury Ch ine se Tra nsl ati on Th eor y

I' I !

tic tis Ar the as ed ard reg be n ca is Th .2R ory the ion lat ns tra of m ste sy co un try 's of gs itin wr al tic aly an the of st mo r, ve we Ho t. en int of ion rat cla de Sc ho ol' s ion lat ns tra ic" tif ien "sc of nt me lop ve de the ard tow ted en rec en t years are ori A. 1. to ng rdi co Ac ty. ivi act d ate lic mp co ly me tre ex an is n tio sla t~eories. Tr an the is ely lik t os "m ion lat ns tra , nd gla En in tic cri art n ow kn llwe a RlChards, In " w. no to up os sm co ole wh the of n tio olu ev the in ty ivi mo st co mp lic ate d act ll wi s ion lus nc co re atu em Pr us. to n ow kn un ely let mp co ll sti is fact, mu ch of it nt of me lop ve de the for ll we de bo t no y ma d an ing inc nv co be t no pro ba bly fer dif the ify un ly cal ati tem sys to y sar ces ne t no is it nk thi I tra ns lat ion the ory . ht ug tho of ls oo sch t en fer dif it rm pe n ca e On . ina Ch in ion lat en t views on tra ns op en ly tru to r de or in d, ge ura co en be en ev n ca s thi ly; us eo an ult sim to de ve lop ht. ug tho of ms ea str ny ma ing olv inv te ba de ve cti du pro up the pro sp ec t of a g tin op ad l oo sch rd thi a of t en hm lis ab est the r ide ns co n ca we Fu rth erm ore , of ld fie the In d. sse cu dis dy ea alr o tw the ng ini mb co h, ac pro ap e siv an all-inclu ny ma ; ion dit tra y rar lite ed all riv un h, ric a st, fir is, re the , tra ns lat ion in Ch ina te cia pre ap to y ilit ab od go rly fai a ss sse po sts ori the d an rs ne tio tra ns lat ion pra cti n eig for in ces en sci ic ist gu lin the on rch ea res in d ge ga en se tho ich wh literat~re, . ina Ch in te era lif pro es ori the ion lat ns tra , nd co Se co un tne s usu all y lack. y the y, tel ara sep lop ve de to y nc de ten a ve ha ht ug tho of ls oo Th ou gh the tw o sch ws vie pt ce ac to g llin wi are le op pe ny ma d an er, oth ch ea st ain ag ted are no t pit sic ba s ate cre s he ac pro ap o tw the of n tio ina mb co e Th n. dif fer en t fro m the ir ow . tem sys e siv clu -in all w, ne a of t en hm lis ab est the to ive uc nd co ry co nd iti on s ve g tin sla an Tr d. de un gro y ml fir be n ca m ste sy e siv clu -in all an , lly . . Th eo ret ica To ts. igh ins ic ist art as ll we as es rul e tiv jec ob on sed ba ty IS III ess en ce an act ivi id sol red rne ga s ha r ine Ste ," art an ly ab ak ist nm "u is ion lat ns pro ve tha t tra y, psylog uro ne y, log bio , gy olo op thr an , gy olo he arc e lik lds fie m fro e ev ide nc e nc ide ev his , ing lat mu sti ry ve lly rea is w vie his gh ou Th ch olo gy an d pa tho log y. l nta me of g din an rst de un c tifi en sci a k lac ll sti ns ma hu t ca n on ly pro ve tha es no t do ty ivi act an ch su t tha ve pro ot nn ca It ty. ivi act ic ist gu lin d an processes th wi g tin en rim pe ex s wa n kli an Fr n mi nja Be en wh , 52 17 follow an y rules. In ew kn y rdl ha he ty, ici ctr ele t ou ab ory the a of sis ba the on the ma kin g of kites rve Ne . ce tan bs su a s wa it er eth wh say t no red da he d an s, wa ty ici wh at ele ctr ience." "sc of ory eg cat the to gs lon be y inl rta ce d kin s thi of ory the theless, t tha to up t tha ed eal rev tes Sta d ite Un the in e icl art ce en sci ~ctually, in 1982, a s wa dle rid the d an e, lik d ke loo lly rea on ctr ele an at wh n ow tIm e no on e ha d kn . ics an ch me tum an qu led cal ce en sci of ch an br w ne a th wi d ve so me ho w sol ics on ctr ele d an ty ici ctr ele t ou ab ge led ow kn the t tha ny de ll wi e on no ~owever, n ma hu on e nc lue inf ble ma ho fat un an s ha it d an ce, en sci a ply IS pu rel y an d sim

al on ati ern int an er aft , 78 19 In ." ion lat ns tra of art e "th led cal be tha t it sh ou ld ewhere els d an s nd rla the Ne the m fro rs ola sch me so , um lgi Be in ld he r sem ina me so h ug tho Al 25 s." die stu n tio sla an "tr m ter al utr ne suggested us ing a en be ve ha to m see t no es do m ter the , on sti ge sug s thi to ed nd po pe op le ha ve res of a me na the e lik d un so t no es do it e us ca be bly ba pro , ted ep acc ly co mm on the th wi rd wo a ng ini co 26 sed po pro dy ea alr ve ha le op pe me discipline. No w, so of y rit rio pe su the , int po s thi On . ion lut so a be to ars pe ap is Th suffix "-o log y." us ed , be n ca e Xu rd wo e ad -m dy rea the as lf, itse s ow sh e ag gu lan se the Ch ine d an art n ee tw be te pu dis the gh ou Th m. gis olo ne a for ed thu s ob via tin g the ne e. ixu ny Fa ge led ow kn of ch an br s thi l cal n ca we d, tle set t ye science is no t . me na the t ou ab g uin arg e tim ste wa to ed ne no be y ma re the Ind ee d, st. rsi pe ion est qu s thi on on ini op of ces en fer dif , lity ua Ho we ve r, in act the for se cau the t tha t ou ed int po ve ha da Ni ne ge Eu d an ixi Za n Recently, Ta Y up d xe mi are y" og tol sla an "tr d an n" tio sla an "tr t tha div erg en t op ini on s is of ch an br a e us ca be t, ep nc co the y rif cla lps he sis aly an 's da Ni Clearly, Ta n an d a ute tit ns co t no es do elf its dy stu the of t ge tar the ile wh , tem sys a is kn ow led ge the of x cru the t no is s thi t tha us vio ob lly ua eq is It sys tem of knowledge. nco e gu va d an s on ssi pre ex te ura cc ina use do lly rea le op pe pro ble m. Th ou gh the ted rac att s ha ich wh y, ers ov ntr co the of us foc the s, on ssi cu dis ir the cepts in ion lat ns tra Is : ion est qu e tiv tan bs su a is , rld wo the d un aro att en tio n of the ori sts itif en sci es rul the dy stu st mu we is, it If es? rul e tiv jec ob by d rne an activity go ve s thi if t Bu m. the of ge led ow kn h ug ro tho a ve ha t no cally even tho ug h we do ly on n ca we es, rul e tiv jec ob y an by d rne ve go t no d an ve ati activity is ma inl y cre ve ha le op pe t tha s eal rev te ba de art vs. ce en sci e Th s. art the of ch an tre at it as a br on to ssi mi the on o als t bu , ion lat ns tra of e tur na the on ly on t no ws vie t dif fer en ap the to d ate rel ly ect dir are ws vie ese Th y." og tol sla an be ach iev ed by "tr , ory the ion lat ns tra of dy stu the in ed us d tho me d an r tte ma t pro ac h, sub jec erwh rk, wo ion lat ns tra in ed olv inv se tho by sly iou ser wh ich sh ou ld be tak en ever the y are. the In . on ini op of ces en erg div are re the t tha ng thi d ba a ily sar ces ne t It is no l oo sch tic tis Ar the er ith ne , ion Un t vie So the in ory de ba te on tra ns lat ion the us nto me mo to e ris en giv s ha is Th s. ion ess nc co s ke ma l oo sch no r the Linguistic po op e on oe-t on t, cu arcle a ch su ut tho wi es, tri un co er oth In . de ve lop me nts In the al. go n ow its th wi h eac y, tel ara sep ed lop ve de ve ha ls oo sch o tw the sit ion , • to ls oo sch o tw the for y nc de ten a w no o als is re the , ina field of tra ns lat ion in Ch san "tr of ts ep nc co r fou the t tha sts ge sug ng ha nz Xi o Lu , ce tan coexist. Fo r ins ce an on res l tua iri sp ty, eli fid for ng ivi str , ing an me sic ba the to ng rdi lat ing ac co r ou ing lop ve de for ne bo ck ba the de ma be n" tio ma for an d the rea lm of tra ns

· '\ A . ~'" ,

",o

,

143

144

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

life. Undoubtedly, a linguistic science cannot possibly be as "solid" as the science of electronics, but it is an indisputable fact that linguistic phenomena follow their own scientific rules. Even though scientific data has not been obtained on the linguistic activities of the human brain, modern linguistics has already grasped certain rules involving linguistic habits, memories and function, etc. It also has had laudable success in practical applications. This makes linguistics a science. As a social phenomenon, linguistic rules are especially easy to recognize because every society maintains itself through a common language understandable to all its members. That is to say, a language follows norms recognized by society and these can be studied and verified scientifically. Since languages change constantly, and the use of a language by each member of society is largely intuitive and colored by individual characteristics, the task of discovering universal rules in the myriad manifestations is extremely complicated. It may simply be impossible to discover linguistic rules that are as reliable as rules pertaining to electronics. Nevertheless, despite all the mobility and variability, rules do exist and they are the object of scientific research. Translation involves transfer between two languages; its complexity is selfevident. All the same, scientific rules can still be found, for a translation needs to accommodate itself to the rules of two languages. In particular, modern information science can help us grasp the complicated rules of interlingual communication. All these show conspicuously the "scientific" subject matter of translatology. However, at the same time, translation also involves much that is not governed by rules. There are often various ways to convey the same meaning. When deciding to use one of these, the translator must be able to make aesthetic discriminations, and a vivid and appropriate rendition certainly requires great artistry. It is not that there are no principles to speak of, but a scientific analysis is almost out of the question. Here is a simple example from The Dream ofRed Chamber. One scene describes a funeral procession in which Wang Xifeng tells Jia Baoyu29 "not to copy their monkeying on horseback" (instead of saying "not to ride on horseback with them"). The word hou (monkeying) is so lifelike and vivid it shows artistry. If we lack artistic insight and fail to take note of this, or if, despite our understanding, we inadequately translate the sentence as Don't ride a horse like those men,30 the artistic element will be lost. In the hands of great translators, Wang Xifeng's tone is recaptured:

Art vs. science

Don't copy those apes on horseback. (Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang) You don't want to go clomping around the countryside like apes on horseback with those horrid men! (David Hawkes) How was the strikingly appropriate phrase transformed into these strikingly appropriate English expressions? Where, in particular, did Hawkes's clamping around the countryside and horrid men3l phrases which present poignantly Wang Xifeng's rude but friendly tone come from? In analyzing these, one can only be imprecise rather than "scientific." Obviously, artistic quality is a basic and indispensable ingredient ofliterary translation, but it is not found only in literary works. In an experimental attempt, Xu Guozhuang translates Rousseau's philosophical works into classical Chinese. He clearly ventures beyond the scope of modern Chinese, but from his translation, one can glimpse the "pure, beautiful, recitable, clear, and plain style of Rousseau's source text." No one can deny t~at this ~lso is ar:. On the other hand, even translating an ordinary technical artIcle entaIls a chOiCe of literary forms, words and phrases. That is also art. To ascertain norms, we need a scientific attitude, but to determine whether a literary form is appropriate, we need artistic judgment. [Editor's Note: An English-Chinese translation example is given at this point.] The translator has to make choices according to the style of a text. In practice this becomes the exercise of artistic intuition. Novice translators always think that "art" presupposes an embellished style, and try by every possible means to combine four-word phrases with ~o­ called literary language. They end up damaging the content and detractmg from the artistry. The art of translation requires that the translator comprehend thoroughly a source text that is unified with respect to both form and content. It requires that he enter the mind of the source text writer and then use the most appropriate means in the target language to enable the reader to understand and respond to the text as he himself did. This ability to appreciate the source text and translate it, though appearing to be intuitive, actually entails profound cultural knowledge, linguistic competence and artistic talent. A lack of this ability, or a failure to use it consciously, can lead to an unsatisfactory translation, or to a misinformed analysis of the source text. The requirements of scientific analysis are very delicate and complicated, but the requirements of artistic analysis are even more so. The combination of these two approaches creates far more difficulty than if either is deployed on its own. However, this combination also greatly facilitates translation, for it is allinclusive, completely absorbing the strengths of all translation theories from

145

1

146

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

China and elsewhere. Because of the dual nature of the activity of translation itself, despite the innumerable obstacles to a theoretical approach based on a combination of "art and science," the prospects are bright and good results may be anticipated. Some foreign translation theorists, like Newmark in England and Koller in Germany, have already taken this route. After all, if such a school of thought can be established to utter its independent voice amid the "hundred schools of thought" in China, it should turn out to be a remarkable feature of Chinese translation theory.

Notes to Articles 9-13 Zhu Guangqian (1897-1986), the leading Chinese aesthetician of the twentieth century, studied in England, France and Germany before returning to China to teach at Beijing University. He translated a number of key Western texts on aesthetics and philosophy, including those by Croce, Hegel, Plato, Aquinas, Dante and Vico. His translations of Croce, in particular, helped introduce Chinese readers to Western aesthetic theory.

1.

,,

2.

The dates are: 1368-1644.

3. For a biographical description of Fu Lei, see note 13 in Section B. 4. Written by Romain Rolland (1866-1944) in 1904-1912, Jean Christophe was first translated into Chinese in 1926 in the journal Fiction Monthly. A cult ofthe hero quickly formed, replacing that of Young Werther.Fu Lei retranslated portions of it in 1936, again for the same journal, and it was this version which continued to inspire intellectuals during the War of Resistance against Japan.

Translated by Priscilla Yip

, ,

5. Huang Xuanfan obtained his Ph.D. in linguistics from Ohio State University and taught at the Foreign Languages Department of National Taiwan University. Among his publications on language and translation teaching are Chinese-English Translation: Theory and Practice (1978) and Between Semantics and Translation (1976). 6. Si Guo [Frederick C. Tsai] (1918-1996) is the penname of Cai Siguo. Cai worked for some years as Editor for the Hong Kong Management Association, the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, and the Reader's Digest. He is the author of several books on translationStudies of Translation (1972), New Studies ofTranslation (1982), etc. - and the translator of some twenty books, including Vincent Cronin's The Wise Man from the West, Charles Dickens' David Copperjield, and Ann M. linbergh's Gift from the Sea.

,

I'

7. Or: faithfulness, comprehensibility and polish. 8. Wang Li (1900-1986), linguist and translator, carried out extensive research on the history of Chinese lexis, syntax and phonology. His study of Europeanizations in Chinese is groundbreaking and has had a momentous impact on discussions of the language of translation in China. Among his better known translations are Zola's Nana, Moliere's plays and Baudelaire's Fleur de mal.

I,

I

I

9. Xu Zhimo (1895-1931), one of the greatest of modern Chinese poets, studied at Columbia University and Cambridge University - at the latter becoming an admirer of the English Romantics. The oeuvre of his translations includes poems by Shelley and Hardy, while his own poetry has been shown to be significantly influenced by both. He introduced a strongly Europeanized Chinese into his writings, including his poetry. 10.

Lin Yiliang (1917-) is the penname of Stephen C. Soong (Song Qi). He graduated from Yenching University and worked for many years as a scriptwriter and translator, before moving to Hong Kong in 1948. He joined the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1968 and served as Special Assistant to the President as well as Director of the Center for Research on Translation. [in Yiliang on Translation (1974) is an anthology of nine essays on translation 11.

•

A book by Huang Xuanfan.

148 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Notes 149

that he wrote over the years. He also edited Song without Music (with John Minford) and Trees on the Mountain. 12.

For a biographical description of Huang, see note 5 above.

13. This is essentially much the same as English. 14. Lin Yutang (1895-1976) was a prodigious translator who worked equally well with both Chinese and English as target languages. He translated, among other works, Confucius' Ana/ects, Six Chapter ofa Floating Life, The Travels ofLao Can (all into English), and Shaw's Pygmalion (into Chinese). As a translation theorist, he advocated "fidelity, expressiveness and beauty," which represent a slight modification ofYan Fu's three principles. 15. The word is in English in the original, as are all the italicized words in the extract (with the exception ofbook/journal titles). 16. Henry H. Hart's (1886-1968) translations of Chinese poems are found in A Garden of Peonies (1938) and The Charcoal Burner, and Other Poems (1974). 17. This sentence does not make sense in the context of the discussion, but is translated as it is. - Translator 18. This is an interesting argument because few people normally suppose that dictionaries can represent any person's linguistic or lexical knowledge of their mother tongue. Dictionaries are usually supposed to go well beyond the range of the presumed user. Many dictionaries therefore reflect a great deal more than many people's knowledge. For this point, the Editor is indebted to Thomas McArthur. 19. How can Lin explain the use of the word "theoretically" here? It does not refer to anything specifically. - Author 20. The expression is in Cantonese in the original, not in Modern Standard Chinese, as in the rest of the article. Whether this reflects Huang's satiric stance toward the subject of his discussion is a question to be left to the reader. Earlier, he has already mentioned that, for Hong Kong people (who are almost all Cantonese-speaking), Un was their "Mr. Translation."

, , I

"

I,

21. Jin Di (1921-) was Professor of English and Translation until he retired from the Tianjin Foreign Languages Institute in the 1980s. He collaborated with Eugene Nida in writing On Translation in 1984, published his On Equivalence in Translation in 1989, and translated James Joyce's Ulysses in 1993-96. He propounded a theory of equivalent "effect" to be created by a translation, rather than requiring that readers should make the necessary "response." All the original footnotes in this extract are italicized below. 22. In 1953 A. V. Fedorov proposed that translation theory should be a branch oflinguistics; the next year P. G. Antokolsky and others countered by suggesting that translation should be studied from an artistic rather than a linguistic perspective. This resulted in the rift between the so-called Linguistic and Artistic Schools in Russian translation theory.

!,

,

23. The title of this book was translated as Tongtian ta by Professor Zhuang Yichuan; it was • published by Zhongguo duiwai fanyi chuban gongsi. - Author 24. George Steiner, After Babe/. Oxford University Press 1975, pp.179-95. -

Author

25. Susan Bassnett-McGuire, Translation Studies. London: Methuen 1980, pp. 1 & 136. Author

26. Things have indeed changed a lot since this article appeared. "Translation studies" is a widely known discipline now. 27. See Tan Zaixi and Nida, "On Paths to Translation Studies," Waiyu jiaoxue yu yanjiu (1987) no. 1, p.29; and Tan Zaixi, "We Must Establish Translation Studies," Zhongguo fanyi (1987) no.3, pA. - Author 28. See the penultimate paragraph in his "Chinese Translation Theory, A System of Its Own," as translated in this anthology. 29. Jia Baoyu is the male protagonist and Wang Xifeng the scheming manageress of the Jia household in the famous eighteenth-century novel The Dream of the Red Chamber by Cao Xueqin (c. 1724-1764). 30. In English in the original. 31. Both phrases in English in the original.

D: The language of translation

I

I I

I

•

The debate on the "proper" language for translation into Chinese is a perennial one, lasting through the entire twentieth century. Most of the selections in this section appeared during two periods of particularly intense debate, one in the early 1930s (in Shanghai) and the other in the 1960s and 70s. They are complemented by two articles, one each from the 1940s and 50s, which provide additional perspectives on the issues involved. In the exchange ofletters between Lu Xun and Qu Qiubai in 1931-32, the central themes in this debate are broached. Qu's "On Translation A Letter to Lu Xun" (1931) was ostensibly written to congratulate Lu Xun on the publication of his translation of the Russian novel Razgrom (The Rout). Qu, however, also made use of the opportunity to state, without equivocation, that he agrees with Lu Xun on the need to invent a new Chinese language, and that he is against using the literary language (wenyan) in translation as well as creative writing. As far as the language of translation is concerned, his preference is for an "absolute vernacular" (juedui de baihua), which is to be created through the incorporation of dialectal elements. He explained this position a second time in his "Again on Translation A Reply to Lu Xun" (1932): the classical and vernacular languages are different, as Latin is from French. If Lu Xun agrees with Qu as far as the poverty of the Chinese language is concerned, he has doubts about the value of an "absolute vernacular." In his "A Reply to Qu Qiubai" (1931), he stresses the need to absorb foreign expressions and words to enrich the language, which is why Europeanized Chinese should be the medium of translation. Initially, according to Lu, one must put up with some awkwardness of expression, but the really wayward Europeanizations will, in the course of time, be eliminated. In fact, both Lu and Qu opt for the vernacular language, though they differ as to what kind of vernacular it should be. These, incidentally, are the two dominant positions taken on issues of Chinese language reform since the beginning of the century. The literary language, however, did not retire for good in the face of these challenges. A decade later, Zhou Zuoren, in "On Translation" (1944), propounds the alternative and generally less popular view that the literary

152

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

language can be better than the vernacular as a language for translating foreign works. For him it is easier to use and more "refined," though Zhou takes care to distinguish between translating for one's own pleasure and for the general reader (for the latter group, the vernacular is deemed more suitable). As seen in his "Letter to Lin Yiliang on Translation" (1951), Fu Lei is apparently on Zhou Zuoren's side, since he shows preference for the literary language as a medium of translation. For him the vernacular is too "artificial" and "unsystematic." Further, in favoring Sinicization rather than Europeanization, he would not have agreed with Lu Xun. He points out that new structures can be introduced, though they must still be recognizably Chinese. In inveighing against the use of dialects because they "turn foreigners into Chinese," he also takes a stand quite opposed to Qu's. It is with the theorists from Taiwan in the 1960s and 70s that the call for the use of "pure Chinese" in translations becomes most pronounced and most vehemently defended. Cai Siguo has written one book after another citing infelicitous expressions found in Chinese translations, but it is Yu Guangzhong [Yu Kwang-chung] who is most outspoken on behalf of the "purist" position and advocates the use of "pure Chinese" in translation. In "Translation and Creative Writing" (1969), he emphasizes (and not for the first time) that translation is an art. He laments in particular the detrimental impact on creative writing of bad translations in which "translationese" abounds, noting that considerable damage has already been done. Given the central position that Yu, Cai and others of the same "camp" occupy in the literary field of Taiwan and Hong Kong from the 1960s onward, it is easy to see why, for a complete generation of translation students and practitioners, an accepted norm in translation is that the language used "must read like Chinese."

, I

, ,

I: "'I 1

, 11

,

I I I:

,

I

,I 11

I, ,

,

,I

•

D 14. On translation -

A letter to Lu Xun (1931)

Qu Qiubail

Dear Comrade: The publication of your translation of Razgrom (The Rout) was of course a truly memorable event in China's culturallife. 2 Translating masterpieces of proletarian revolutionary literature from around the world and introducing these works to Chinese readers in a systematic fashion (especially masterpieces from the Soviet Union, which through concrete images present in an artistic way the "heroes" of the great October Revolution, the Civil War and the Fiveyear Plans) this is one of the crucial tasks of writers working for proletarian literature in China. At the moment you and Comrade Z3 are almost the only writers working for this cause, but can one say, "This is a personal thing"? Can one say that? Producing translations such as those of Razgrom and Zheleznyi Potok (Iron Stream)4 should be regarded as the responsibility of all Chinese revolutionary writers. Every revolutionary fighter on the literary front and every revolutionary reader should celebrate this victory, even though this is just a small victory. Your translation is indeed very faithful, and the sentence "I will never cheat readers" is no advertising slogan! It just goes to show that a person fighting sincerely and dedicatedly for a bright future cannot help but be a hardworking and responsible person. Gifted scholars and the Europeanized gentry of the twentieth century can "gain maximum reputation with minimum effort," but these people will in the end remain sycophants in a salon ifthey do not undergo a complete transformation. The slipshod translations we see nowadays are brought out either by these people or by opportunistic publishers. Your efforts we all hope that such efforts will become collective efforts should continue, broaden and deepen. That is why, perhaps just like you, I look upon your Razgrom with great excitement: I love it, just as I love my own children. Our love for such a book will certainly help us build up our strength and broaden the scope of our undertaking, which started on a rather small scale. Translation in addition to introducing the content of the original to Chinese readers has another important function, that is, helping us create a new modern Chinese language. The Chinese language (as well as its writing

154

acquainted himself with a foreign language (really?) and read some books and newspaper articles, he just casually penned a few lines in so-called fluent Chinese. Clearly, this is short-changing Chinese readers and fooling them with since it is to tall stories about foreign countries. First, what he calls "fluency" be achieved even if this entails a little "inaccuracy" is of course a way of obliterating the original meaning so as to accommodate the primitive state of the Chinese language. This is not creating a new language. Just the opposite, this is striving to preserve the barbaric state ofthe Chinese language, to stunt its development. Second, since "fluency" is to be achieved even if this entails a little "inaccuracy," this means cheating readers to the extent that they have no way of knowing the original meaning of the author. That is why I say without exaggeration that Zhao Jingshen's views amount to obscurantism and the literati's tyrannical monopoly on knowledge. Third, it is plain that he is implicitly opposed to proletarian literature (what a poor "special stooge")! He is opposed to proletarian literature. He is talking implicitly about some translations of the theoretical and creative works ofproletarian literature. His remarks are those of the enemy of proletarian literature. Many Chinese books about proletarian literature are indeed not "fluent." This is our weakness, and our enemy is able to exploit this weakness and attack us. Of course, on the road to victory we must not only combat the enemy armies head-on but also discipline our own troops. With brave self-criticism, we can often take away the weapons of the enemy. Yet, as regards the debate on translation, our comrade 10 has come to this conclusion: "Translation must never tolerate inaccuracy; nevertheless, sometimes, depending on the nature of the content of the translation, some degree of non-fluency could be tolerated so as to preserve the spirit of the original." This is a "defensive tactic." And Plekhanov says that dialectical materialists should be able to "counterattack." First, we must of course state from the outset that our idea of "fluency" is different from that suggested by the likes of Zhao Jingshen. Second, we demand absolute accuracy and absolute vernacular Chinese. What we call absolute vernacular Chinese can be understood when read aloud. Third, we admit that up to the present time translation of proletarian literature has not yet reached this level and that we must continue our efforts. Fourth, we can see the translations by Zhao Jingshen and company for what they really are. We have pointed out that what they regard as "fluent" translation is in fact a cross-breed born of the intercourse between Liang a half literary, half vernacular, half dead language that Qichao and Hu Shi still does not sound "fluent" to the masses.

system) is so deficient that it lacks names for many everyday objects. Indeed the Chinese language has not developed completely beyond the stage of "sign language" everyday conversation almost can't do without the help of "gestures." Of course, there is an almost complete absence of all those adjectives, verbs and prepositions that express subtle differences and complex relationships. The vestiges ofthe patriarchal feudalism ofthe Middle Ages are still tightly fettering the living language of all the Chinese people (not just the masses of workers and peasants). Under these circumstances, creating a new language is a very important task. Advanced countries in Europe generally accomplished this task two to five hundreds years ago. Even Russia, relatively backward historically, ended "church Slavic" ISO or 160 years ago. In these countries, the bourgeois movements of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment accomplished the task: take, for example, Russian writers from Lomonosov to Pushkin. The bourgeoisie in China is not capable ofaccomplishing this task, however. It is true that the Europeanized gentry in China - the likes ofHu ShP started such a movement. But this movement has ended up serving its political masters. The proletariat must therefore continue with the work and complete the task; the proletariat must provide leadership for this movement. Translation can indeed help us create new words, new sentence structures, a rich vocabulary, and subtle, precise and correct ways of expressing ourselves. Since we are engaged in the struggle for a new modern Chinese language, we cannot but set two standards for translation: absolute accuracy and absolute vernacular Chinese. This is to

I

introduce the language ofa new culture to the masses.

1

, 1

1

I 1

1

, 1

The language of translation

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

:

" ,I 1

1

'I

1 1

I, ,

, 1

, 1

I, ,"

Yan Fu's criteria for translation are well known: "Translation must be faithful, elegant and comprehensible; the language must follow the style of the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties."6 In fact, he uses "elegant" to cancel out "faithful" and "comprehensible." The Commercial Press has recently reprinted "Masterpieces Translated by Yan Fu."7I do not know what the motive behind it is! This is practically playing a joke on the common people and the youth of China. How can the classical language of ancient writings make a translation "faithful"? How can such language make a translation "comprehensible" to the common readers at present or in the future? Now the likes of Zhao Jingshen 8 demand that translators should "strive for fluency even if this entails inaccuracy, and avoid awkward and merely faithful' expressions."9 Master Zhao's views are in fact no different from the stories about the West told by the entertainers plying their trade in the city god's temple. Having

'I 1

1

" "

,

• . 0 . . . ." . . · , •

155

156

I

I

I.,

,• .

I'

I

I

,, "

The language of translation

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

many people who are of limited literacy are still unable to read this sort of writing, while the illiterate among the masses are still unable to understand this sort of language. However, first, this situation [the inability of the common people to understand this sort of writing] arises only from the content (level of difficulty) of the writing, and not from the written language itself; and, second, we can therefore say that this sort of written language is alive, that it has the potential for assimilation by the masses. It is a living language.

As for your recently published translation of Razgrom, we can say that it is "accurate" but has yet to meet the standard of "absolute vernacular Chinese." The use of absolute vernacular Chinese for translation does not necessarily mean that we cannot "preserve the spirit of the original." Of course, this is difficult and painstaking. But we must never balk at difficulties; we must make every effort to overcome them. Generally speaking, nowadays almost all writers, philosophers, political commentators and the common people in translating as well as in writing have to be a Cangjie 11 if they wish to give expression to works of their own the new relationships, the new phenomena, the new things and the new concepts in present-day Chinese society. That is to say, new words and new sentence structures must be created every day. Everyday life demands this. We created the word bagong (strike) for the masses in Xiaoshadu, Shanghai, in early 1925, didn't we? We also have words like youjidui (guerrilla forces), youjizhanzheng (guerrilla warfare), youqing (right-leaning), zuoqing (left-leaning) and weibazhuyi (servile adherence), and we even have common words like tuanjie (united), jianjue (determined), dongyao (waver) and so forth ... Numerous new words like these are being gradually assimilated into the spoken language of the masses. Even if the new words have not yet been completely assimilated, the potential for such assimilation is already there. As for new sentence structures, it is more difficult. Still, sentence structures in the spoken language have changed and improved greatly. This is evident ifwe compare the language we use in giving a speech with the language spoken by characters in traditional fiction. Naturally, the creation of new words and sentence structures must comply with the grammatical rules of vernacular Chinese. All those new words and new sentence structures that contradict the grammatical rules of vernacular Chinese that is, all that cannot be used in speech will naturally face elimination and extinction. On the subject of "fluency," it should therefore be said that a genuinely vernacular language makes a genuinely fluent modern Chinese language. Vernacular Chinese as defined here is of course not limited to the language of "household chores." That is, vernacular Chinese covers a wide range from ordinary conversation of the common people to the language used by university professors in giving a speech. Obviously there is already a vernacular language spoken by the Chinese people as they talk about philosophy, science; the fine arts and so forth. Isn't this the case? If this is the case, then words written on paper (written language) should read like this sort of spoken language, just more cohesive and neatly organized. Admittedly, at present the

Translated by Yau Wai Ping

,• , •

•

_"'I~.

157

The language of translation 159

D15. A reply to Qu Qiubai (1931) Lu Xun 12

I,

,

I,

My dear Comrade J. K.:13 I was very pleased to read your letter on translation. Since the appearance of a flood of translations last year, many people have raised their eyebrows, sighed, and even made sarcastic remarks. As one who translates from time to time, I should have made some comments, though I haven't so far. It is a brave act to "pursue [your enemies] relentlessly," but I would rather adhere to the dictum: "It is improper for one to address someone that one should not address." What's more, those who have come forth are paper figures and paper horses. In colloquial terms, they are "hidden troops" and thus one cannot assault them head-on. Take, for an example, Old Master Zhao Jingshen. On the one hand, he criticizes the translations of treatises written from a scientific perspective, saying that it is ludicrous for authors to be forced to remain anonymous. On the other, he proclaims mercifully, as it were that the common folk will probably not understand such translations. It is as ifhe constantly cares for the common folk, while other translators only come to mess things up. This is like what happened after the Russian Revolution, when the servants of rich European and American families went to Russia and came back frowning and shaking their heads. In their writings, filled with descriptions of misery, they lamented the starvation and suffering of the peasants and workers in Russia. As if they were eager to see these peasants and workers, by a stroke of fortune, living in palaces, eating good food and enjoying comfortable lives! And when told that the peasants and workers were still suffering, they would say that Russia would not survive it, and the revolution was no good it was even deplorable. What can you say to people who talk like that? [... ] I think, however, that our translations cannot be that simple. First we need to decide what sort of readers among the common folk we are translating for. There are roughly three types: (I) the well-educated; (2) the semi-literate; and (3) the illiterates. The third group actually cannot be classified as "readers,'" and it is the task of paintings, public lectures, drama, and movies to enlighten them. Here they need not be discussed. But the same books should not be given

to the first two categories of readers, each of which should be provided with reading material appropriate for them. Even for the second group, we cannot give them translations. Adaptations are good enough, but creative works are still the best. Yet these creative works must aim not only at catering to the taste of readers, for readers must also be encouraged to read more. As for translations for the first group, whatever the situation, I would still advocate the idea of "better be faithful than fluent." Of course, by "not being fluent" I do not mean that "kneeling down" should become qui zai shi zhixia (kneeling down on one's knees) in translation, or that "Milky Way" should be rendered as niunailu (Road of Cow's Milk).14 In other words, if we can simply swallow something as we would sip tea and eat rice, why make an effort to chew? Here a question arises: Why not Sinicize our translations entirely, and save our readers trouble? Can an incomprehensible translation be called a translation at all? My answer is: It is still a translation because it introduces not only new content but also new means of expression. Neither Chinese speech nor writing is precise enough in its manner of expression. The key to good writing is to avoid cliches and empty words. Even while writing essays and carrying on a conversation, we often find that words fail to express what we want to say. In other words, our language is deficient. That is why teachers have to write with chalk when they try to explain things. The lack of precision in our language proves the lack of precision in our way of thinking - we are muddle-headed. If we continue to use our muddle-headed language, even though we can read smoothly, ultimately we will find ourselves confused. To cure this ailment, I believe we have to do it the hard way and seek to render thought in wayward syntactical structures. What is old and foreign (coming from other provinces, regions and countries) can finally be embraced as our own. This is not a figment of the imagination. For an example, Europeanized syntax is most common in the writings of the Japanese, although they have improved since Liang Qichao ls wrote his Reading Japanese for the Chinese. For a more recent example, as you mentioned in your letter, the word bagong (go on strike) was invented for the common folk in 1925. Although they had never seen the phrase before, they were able to understand it very well. Even in translating works for the second group of readers, I think we should introduce new expressions and new syntax from time to time. Naturally, we should not overdo this. It will be all right if they appear once in a while, and are understood after some thought, or when a few enquiries have

160

The language of translation

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory :', ",

I' ,I ,

I

,I

iI I

I

reason, this will also be a special vernacular incorporating quite a few classical Chinese elements. I am against the limiting use of one dialect, as seen in certain expressions used in the popular novels. If I had not been to Beijing, I would surely have misunderstood these expressions, which are not as easily comprehensible as their classical Chinese equivalents. One should also avoid the use of a dialect belonging to one specific region, unless absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the language of novels need not be widely adopted, even though it has become familiar to many.

been made. Only in this way can the language of the common folk be enriched. I do not think that books comprehensible to everybody exist at the moment. The word an l6 used by Buddhists is said to be "comprehensible to all," although each person takes the word to mean something different. Isn't there a lot of special terminology in mathematics and chemistry books, which Old Master Zhao just cannot understand? He never makes any reference to them because he is eager to follow Yan Fu's advice. l ? As far as the art of translation is concerned, if the first group of readers is to be targeted, I would advocate "literal translation." In my own translation, even if such a phrase as riluo shanyin (behind the mountain the sun has gone down) is unnatural, I will not replace it with a more pithy expression which shifts the emphasis to the sun rather than the mountain. Even in creative writing, I think the distinction has to be made by the author. Now, we seek to import as much as we can, and then digest and absorb all we can. What is usable is retained, and what is left over is abandoned to the past. So if we were to tolerate "a certain degree of awkwardness" at present, it could not be said that we are on the defensive. This is still "taking the offensive line." The speech of the common folk is undoubtedly "fluent," but the basic specimens oflanguage collected from the folk should also be "fluent." For that reason I am among those who propose to tolerate "awkwardness" in our language for the time being. But this kind of situation will not be permanent. Eventually parts of our language will change from "being awkward" to "being fluent," and parts of it will be discarded, because of their continued "awkwardness." Our own judgment is crucial here. The translation examples you cited in your letter are, I admit, more "comprehensible" than mine, and obviously more "faithful" to the original. 18 Noticing this is of immense value to both translators and readers. But these examples are only comprehensible to the first group of readers; for the second group they are too difficult. From this one can see that it is necessary to distinguish between different types of readers, as well as different types of translations. I haven't thought deeply about the method of translating for the second group, so I cannot say anything at this moment. But roughly speaking, our written language cannot yet be infused with the crude dialect of the different . regions in China, and it should either be a special vernacular language, or the dialect of one special region. In the case of the latter, readers outside that region will not understand it. In order to be understood in a much wider area, a special vernacular language will obviously be preferred. However, for the same

Translated by Leo T. H. Chan

,

j

161

.

, ;',i

"

The language of translation

,

than 300 million people living in China today. This also applies to the question of "faithfulness." That is the question. 21 This is where the problem lies. To say, as you did, "accuracy even at the expense of fluency" or "at present we could tolerate some degree of non-fluency" is to fail to pay heed to the principle that vernacular Chinese should absolutely be adopted as the standard. I wrote in my last letter:

•

0

,,I:'

i

00

0,

D16. Again on translation (1932)

A reply to Lu Xun ,

, o

,

0

i,-:',·

,

Qu Qiubai 1Y

Dear Comrade: III health has prevented me from responding to you sooner. Please accept my apologies. Translation is still an extremely important issue in China. Since the May Fourth Movement, time and again the issue of translation has been raised, and time and again translation has been the subject of controversy. Yet the problem has not been resolved as far as basic principles are concerned. 20 Two ideas are at the centre of the controversy that has been going on for the past year. Whereas Master Zhao Jingshen has put forward the principle that "one should avoid a non-fluent translation even if this entails some inaccuracy," I have put forward the principle that "in translating, one should absolutely adopt vernacular Chinese as the standard and achieve accuracy." Master Zhao and I are diametrically opposed. "Even if this entails some inaccuracy!" What sort of talk do you call this? This is talking nonsense. There is really no need for us to argue with him. But, in response to Master Zhao's view, Literary News said that "one should achieve accuracy even if this means a nonfluent translation." As I see it, this has not got to the heart of the problem and is actually on the same level as Master Zhao. This is why I brought up the subject in the last letter. But your letter still said: "To this day I still advocate 'accuracy even at the expense of fluency.'" I think this is the wrong way to pose the question. What is at issue is not "fluency," but "whether translation can contribute to the development of the modern Chinese language." First, if the modern Chinese language (vernacular Chinese spoken by the man in the street, or Putonghua) is really used in writing, then of course there will not be any non-fluent translation and the question of fluency will not even arise. Second, if what is used is not the . modern Chinese language, but rather "Latin of the Far East" (classical Chinese), or some half-literary pidgin language (as used by Master Zhao and company in their translations), then the translation even if it reads as fluently as the classical style of Yan Fu has got nothing to do with the more

[a] genuinely vernacular language makes a genuinely fluent modern Chinese language. Vernacular Chinese as defined here is of course not limited to the language of "household chores." That is, vernacular Chinese covers a wide range from ordinary conversation of the common people to the language used by university professors in giving a speech ... Words written on paper (written language) should read like this sort of spoken language, just more cohesive and neatly organized.

{ o

""

o

,, ,0 o

"Absolute vernacular Chinese" as defined here should be used in translating: on the one hand, the translation will have exactly the same meaning as the original ("faithfulness"), and on the other hand, the words and sentences of the translation can be read aloud by the Chinese people ("fluency"). We should not set up a dichotomy between "faithfulness" and "fluency." We should not say "'fluency' at the expense of 'faithfulness,' 'faithfulness' at the expense of ,fluency,'" "some 'inaccuracy' must be tolerated if 'fluency' is to be achieved," or "some degree of 'non-fluency' must be tolerated if 'faithfulness' is to be achieved." Master Zhao Jingshen's fundamental error is to see "faithfulness" and "fluency" as contradictory. Take the example mentioned in your letter: Shanbeihou, taiyang luoxiaqule (Beyond the mountains, the sun went down). You think this sentence is somewhat "not fluent." In fact, this is very fluent vernacular Chinese. Only Master Zhao would say this is "not fluent." If this sentence is changed to riluo shanyin (the daystar set on the north side of the mountains), that would really be not fluent, because there is no possibility that the common people, who are not like Master Zhao, could understand such a sentence. Can expressions like ri (daystar) and shanyin (the north side of the mountains) be found in the spoken language of the common people? No. In the Chinese dictionary of the living common people, there is no such word as ri (daystar), just expressions like taiyang (the sun) or ritou (the large bright thing in the sky) the ri (day) in zhengyue chuyi ri (the first day of the first month of the year) is something different.

,

"

,

I,:

,,!, ,

, 1. I.

00

•

"

t"., ':,

,

il

j ,

I

I"

0' 0 0

'

163

164

The language of translation

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory ':

If"not fluent" just means "new and fresh," that is, "not commonly seen, not commonly heard," there would not be any problem. In translating as well as in writing works ofour own, we should ofcourse be bold enough to use new means of expression, new words and new sentence structures. But, in the final analysis, to make a principle of "accuracy even at the expense of fluency" would be most unfortunate. First, when we create new words, new sentence structures and so forth, it is imperative that they can be read aloud and satisfy the condition for "fluency." Otherwise, attempts to introduce new features will prove abortive. Second, we should not allow ourselves the easy way out and accept everything that is "not fluent." This tendency can lead to harmful consequences: young translators will take no notice ofthe needs ofthe masses. Casually these translators coin "new words" such as niuxian (literally, "twist and [make] appear")22 and yiweizhe (signify, mean, imply) by combining Chinese characters dug up from the Kangxi Dictionary.23 Casually these translators create vague, jumbled Chinese sentences by using abbreviated function words from literary Chinese and following the analytic diagrams of English syntax. This is the most important point: creating new means of expression must satisfy the condition that they can be "read aloud." That is to say, new words and sentence structures that can be read aloud albeit not previously found in have the potential for spoken Chinese and not familiar to the masses at first gradual assimilation by the masses. If we allow ourselves to accept that translation can be "not fluent," then we take away this potentiality, with the consequence that the new means of expression cannot be transposed from the written language to the spoken language. This indirectly preserves the [old] Chinese writing system, indirectly maintains the influence of the literary language, and in the end kills new means of expression. Your letter mentioned the new words I enumerated in my last letter, including bagong (strike) . You fully understand what I mean: I am not opposed to new means of expression; indeed I demand that the new means of expression be assimilated into the lives of the broad masses. I wrote in my last letter: Generally speaking, nowadays almost all writers, philosophers, political commentators ... - in translating as well as in writing works of their own - have to be a Cangjie 24 if they wish to give expression to the new relationships, the new phe~ nomena, the new things and the new concepts in present-day Chinese society ... But the creation of new words and sentence structures ... must comply with the grammatical rules ofvernacular Chinese.

'

So the question is very clear. Both you and I advocate the introduction of new means of expression, but I utterly reject the attitude that says "we could tolerate

some degree of non-fluency. "

,

,

"

,

,

,

"'x

,

j'

,"

In your letter you said: "The Chinese language, written as well as spoken, is just too imprecise ... Translation must not only import new content but also import new means of expression." Importing new means of expression is of course not an issue. But the point is that we should sharply distinguish written Chinese from spoken Chinese. In fact, literary Chinese is as different from vernacular Chinese as Latin is from French. Literary Chinese is the national language of "the literati" and has got nothing to do with the common people. Whether or not it is necessary to import new means of expression into literary Chinese, that is another question, a question that concerns our venerable masters, not us. As for the modern Chinese language (that is, vernacular Chinese), I wrote in my last letter:

".',

•

I""

• ',' ' ~, '

.','1 ' ,

,

Translation - in addition to introducing the content of the original to Chinese readers - has another important function, that is, helping us create a new modern Chinese language. The Chinese language (as well as its writing system) is so deficient that it lacks names for many everyday objects. Indeed the Chinese language has not developed completely beyond the stage of "sign language" everyday conversation almost can't do without the help of "gestures." Of course, there is almost a complete absence of all those adjectives, verbs and prepositions that express subtle differences and complex relationships. The vestiges of patriarchal feudalism of the Middle Ages are still tightly fettering the living language of the Chinese people (not just the masses of workers and peasants). Under these circumstances, creating a new language is a very important task.

This is just like what you said: "The Chinese language ... is just too imprecise" and "When we talk, we often find that words fail to express what we want to say. In other words, our language is deficient. That is why teachers have to write with chalk when they try to explain things." Both you and I therefore advocate "importing new means of expression through translation." But then you said: "To treat this disease, I think we have to continue to do it the hard way, through bringing in strange-sounding sentence structures ancient, dialectal as well as foreign so that one day these structures become our own." This is not enough. We must not only adopt strange-looking sentence structures and so forth, but also consider how these structures can "become our own." If in translating we just concentrate on "bringing in strange-looking sentence structures" and fail to consider ifthese structures can be read aloud by

165

,

"

166

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

The language of translation

living people, then these "strange-looking sentence structures will not become our own at the end of the day." In that case, new means of expression will forever remain "writing in chalk on the blackboard"! We should adopt a new guiding principle: we must make sure that new words and new sentence structures become alive and that these new means of expression can be assimilated into a living language. We should not allow ourselves to wait for the natural elimination [of strange-looking expressions and sentence structures 1 to come. Of course, many of these new expressions and sentence structures will be eliminated. However, if translators just wait for the natural elimination and fail to see it as their responsibility to try as much as possible to turn the new words and sentence structures they write into new means of expression in the spoken language, then their efforts will fail to contribute to the development of the modern Chinese language. Nowadays, not only translation, but also Europeanized literature and art and so-called "vernacular writing," are affected by this malaise. This irresponsible attitude fails to contribute to the development of modern vernacular Chinese and in fact gives rise to something that is neither fish nor fowl, a new classical language that is half literary and half vernacular. Examples are just too

of the real situation of the deceased, is acceptable as long as the writing "accords with the correct style." This is another aspect of Lin Shu-ism. In order to start a new literary revolution now, in the struggle for new writing, we must overthrow the new Lin Shu-ism. This means firmly and clearly recognizing and establishing the vernacular as the standard. The new language should be a language of the masses a language that the masses can understand and use. As the Chinese language is imprecise, we should make it more precise. As the Chinese language is unclear, we should make it clearer. As the Chinese language is not rich, we should make it richer. When we translate, we import new means of expression in order to make the Chinese language more precise, clearer and richer. We can tap the resources ofthe literary language, such as the roots, the idioms and the function words from the literary language, on the condition that these are made part of the vernacular

'i'

11'

,

11, ,,'

,,

, ,

,

,,

"

;1

,I,'

, ,

'"

, :.,

,

'",

,

, , 'i, "

language, can be read aloud, and really contribute to a vernacular language that is more precise, clearer and richer. If these objectives are not met, there is no point in talking about new means of expression. We should adopt the same attitude when we use expressions and sentence structures from foreign languages.

A,' ':~ I

J' '

!'t'

"\JJ

, '. I

,

,

, , i '"

numerous to mention. [... 1.

Translated by Yau Wai Ping

This is typical May Fourth writing ala Lin Shut This new Lin Shu-ism in writing is fashionable. Jin Ding,25 who can write in a genuinely vernacular language, chooses to beat about the bush. It's an unforgivable sin. I say "sin" without exaggeration. I remember reading an article in a magazine that condemns as "a sin against the Revolution" the use of the idiom jietu mie guo (a plot to divide two neighboring countries in order to conquer them one after another),26 in the headline of a newspaper aimed at the masses. This is not importing new means of expression, but wasting new means of expreSSiOn. To import new means of expression, of course we have to "do it the hard way." This is true. For what is "new" will naturally be unfamiliar. It sets people thinking. Master Zhao Jingshen and company, however, would like to translate foreign texts with cliched (so-called "fluent") expressions familiar to the literati; they even deliberately mistranslate. This is of course stupid. Such laziness is accompanied by muddled thinking that is content with superficial understanding. Master Zhao has even unashamedly said in public that "[one should avoid non-fluent translation] even if this entails some inaccuracy." This is just like writing an epitaph in the style of the Tongcheng scholarsY concocting stories about loyalty, filial piety, moral integrity and righteousness, regardless

, , I /.

"

1 i,

," ,J: '

,, \, • 1\.

, ,i ,~.

,, , "

,J

I

':

\

,',

,,

,1

:'1 ~'

!fl

.~'

•

',\'1 ,I I' ,

,.

".' . "

"

, 'J,

,

1/ "i

'I'.

,l"

',"

",1

,

,Y',,

j ,

I

,

"

167

The language of translation

D17. Letter to Lin Yiliang on translation (1951) 'I',,

'I\, 0" ',

Fu Lei 28

15th April (1951) Dear Yiliang,29 During this past half year, time and again I have thought about writing to you on the issue of translation. However, once I got my hands on a book, I became very preoccupied and restless; sometimes I even found myself pondering the right words in my sleep. Such nervous temperament has been detrimental not only to my health, but also to my work. Your recent letter came just when I had finished working on my book. So today I can write you a reply. I spent seven and a half months translating La Cousine Bette. 30 I have more or less corrected and copied out the final draft, but I am still waiting for a letter from France in which some questions will be clarified, and then I will have to polish the translation one last time. It is about 300,000 words, and it has taken me eight and a half months altogether to translate. The translation can only be said to be "fresh and fluent." I am still not satisfied with its style. I have been complimented by all of you not because my translations are good, but because general standards are too low. I am not trying to look humble. Do I need to? As regards translation, I think the most difficult hurdles are actually the simplest, shortest and most easily understandable sentences in the original text. For example, Elle est charmante (that is, "she is charming"). Anyone who has studied English and French for one to two months knows what that is. But translating it into Chinese, conveying the tone of the original text and reproducing the mood and atmosphere in the translation, is something I can hardly ever achieve. But this kind of sentence always serves as an important link between what goes before and what comes after in the original text. If this linkage cannot be transferred, the dazzling qualities of the text will be completely gone. The original text is like a cup of Longjing tea,3l with a lingering fresh taste, but the translation turns out to be a cup ofinsipid water. It is not easy even to bring out the simple and lively tone of "she is charming." I do not mean to say that translating long sentences is not difficult, but there the difficulty lies not in conveying the spirit, but in focusing right. In a long sentence, there is

'.

;

always a very short and simple clause interspersed with three to four subordinate clauses, each ofwhich contains other subordinate clauses introduced with participles. If all these clauses are broken down in the translation, then the balance is always lost, and the important cannot be distinguished from the inconsequential. In order to keep the core message intact, sometimes we cannot but put the subordinate clauses at the beginning, and translate the short main clauses at the end. But this approach has its own drawback as well: too many words get repeated. Translating a single word is as difficult as translating a short sentence, and the easier or more common the word is, the more difficult it is to translate it well. Examples are "virtue," "spiritual," "moral," "sentiment," "noble," "saint" and "humble." Moreover, some abstract nouns simply do not exist in Chinese. Take for example La vraie grandeur d'ame (that is, "the genuine grandeur of the soul"). Ifthis phrase is translated into Chinese, it will still be fine if it stands alone, but not so if is put into context, and the word order must be changed. By the way, another difficulty is that there are too many homophones in Chinese. If in one sentence the word zhege (this) is almost immediately followed by gebie (particular), then the repetition of two ge's will not only be jarring to the ears, but also look rather awkward. This is because Chinese characters are monosyllabic. Every single word in a sentence is pronounced with the same force. It is different from foreign languages in which articles like "the" and "that" are in French ce and cette are even less prominent. The articles and unstressed nouns in an English sentence are stressed quite differently, so what is important is distinguished from what is not. However, this does not work in the case of Chinese, which explains again why it is so difficult to get the emphasis right. The above are practical problems of a trivial nature. Now to a basic conceptual problem. Vernacular Chinese is far inferior to foreign languages in terms of richness and variety. In this regard, classical Chinese has an edge. Zhou Zuoren has said, "If one translates in classical Chinese, which contains antithetical structures, the standard of the translation is to a certain extent guaranteed. The translation will be pleasing to the eyes, and its meaning will be close to that of the original."32 This is a very illuminating remark. Classical Chinese has its own rules and generic restrictions which cannot be changed at will; its vocabulary is very rich as well. By contrast, vernacular Chinese has been taken over from the general populace, and it has neither rules nor generic restrictions. Everyone gropes along, and ends up in great confusion.

169

170

The language of translation

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory ',.' ,

,

'd'

.. "

Moreover, we cannot adopt a particular dialect as the basis for our vernacular Chinese. The language we now use is neither a northern nor a southern dialect, but a mixture of both. All the characteristics of the northern and southern dialects have been removed, giving us a language with skeletal elements that can be used to convey meanings but not feelings. As a result, stylistic qualities such as vividness, exquisiteness and profundity are totally gone. The colloquial expressions in dialects are their life and soul. However, if they are deployed in translation, the local color of the original text will be erased and a foreigner will be turned into a Chinese person. Isn't that ludicrous? However, if colloquial expressions are not used, the translation (or at least the conversations in it) will become lifeless and "artificially literary." Creative writers sometimes commit this mistake, because they worry that a pure dialect will obstruct readers' understanding. Hence their work is written in Putonghua,33 which is actually very artificial. It is a language developed on the basis of the northern dialect, with all the colloquial elements removed. What aesthetic value can this kind of language have? Unfortunately, this is what we write now. I think the main reason that we cannot translate in good style is that our language is a "fake" language. Furthermore, there is a great difference in mentality between ethnic groups. Foreign languages are analytical in nature; they are "prosaic." Chinese is synthetic in nature; it is "poetic." The different aesthetic qualities make it difficult to achieve semantic equivalence between Chinese and foreign languages. Actually all translations are caught somewhere between "over-translating" and "under-translating," and the problem becomes more acute in translations into Chinese. T am only able to read one third of Tytler's book 34 the English/French portion. Only X and Y can understand the rest. 35 But his theories are generally quite good. I had thought of them even before I read his book. This proves that those who have striven hard think alike. Tytler thinks, for example, that whenever an equivalent cannot be found for an idiom, it needs to be translated in a plain and simple way. This is because word-far-word translation over 99% of Chinese translators use this method can only lead too an intolerable, and therefore totally unacceptable, translation. Such has been my consistent stand over the years. However, we are usually not bold enough when we translate; we are constrained by the words and syntax of the original text. To succeed, one has to read the original text thoroughly so as to fully grasp the nuances and the "spiritual resonance." Only by doing so can we be bold enough. It is said: "The

', . , of- '

'''. ,'

,

,

,

~.

I,'

,

,

i'

(.

,"

I",

'

:1

,

"

,

r

~,, " I :;,' " ,i:

,

,I: ,

"

.. '

'I

j

, :,.

,'

,

"' ,

words in the dictionary are just like chemical symbols. Translating an English word into a Chinese word is like translating 'water' as 'H 2 0.'" That sounds fair enough. But we use "water," not "H2 0," in translation. I do not mean that we can neglect the structures of the original sentences. On the contrary, we have to retain them as far as possible. However, no matter how novel these sentence structures are, the translation has to read like Chinese. This is certainly not easy to achieve, and only when the translator has very good taste can he exercise such judgements. Lao She is the only author in our country who writes long, Europeanized sentences that are still recognizably Chinese. 36 I have mentioned all this because Tdo not wish merely to convey the spirit of the original text, but intend to create a new kind of Chinese language by introducing variations in syntax. There is room for exploration in this area. I have always held the opinion that this is precisely the job of translators. An author cannot persist in creating novel sentences. Ifhe does so, the flow of his thoughts will be obstructed, and he ends up "seeing the wood for the trees." Paying too much attention to grammar, syntax and style is definitely not conducive to the creation of great works. This raises another issue, namely the style of the original text. The more contemporary the original text, the greater the emphasis on style. Take the likes of Andre Gide, or from an earlier time, the likes of Anatole France. If you cannot fathom the style of their works, the translation will be as insipid as water. There is also no other way to transfer style except through working on the syntax. I can talk about translation endlessly. I am just jotting down whatever crosses my mind. As for the book you would like to translate, let's discuss it later after I have got it from the library and finished reading it. 37 But T cannot locate the author, not even in British Literature Between Two Wars (1948). I don't think you need to care about the opinion of readers as long as you consider it good enough. The principle adopted by the Pingming Book Series is simply: "Don't ask the readers." If that is not the case, T am afraid even Jane Austen would not have found favor with more than a handful of readers. In my opinion, she emphasized daily family trifles in her works a bit too much, and Chinese readers may not benefit much from reading them. Judged from our own aesthetic perspective, her works may not be so marvelous after all. Anyway, T do hope that you can finish the book you are working on. You translate best the works you really like. I believe you can do better than I because your writing is livelier, and my understanding of the northern dialect is in no way comparable to yours. It will be a great consolation to me if

171

172

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

DI8. Translation and creative writing (1969)

someone else in China can surpass me. China will then not be "a country of the blind, where the one-eyed man is king." My pleasure will be greater still if that fellow is my best friend. It doesn't matter how much you can accomplish; what matters is that you should keep working at it. I await your translation with

Yu Guangzhong [Yu Kwang-chungJ38

great enthusiasm. Please write to me. We have hardly written to each other this past year. For the sake of our work, we must stay in touch. Regards,

, ' , :', ,

,

An [Fu Lei]

l" I

"

"? ,. i

\'

Translated by Sara Ho

"

r, .'

, " ,,'

.

", "

,

•

I : ~"

,

I

The fundamental similarities and differences between translation and creative writing are as stated above. Let me elaborate here the impact that one has on the other. Under normal circumstances, the impact is enormous as far as the style is concerned. If a writer also translates, his translation style will inevitably be affected by his own creative writing style. Conversely, if a writer does a special kind of translation for long, his own writing style will not remain unaffected. In commenting on Modern English and American Poetry,39 Zhang Jian said: "In general, the poet who translates often renders others' poetry in a style resembling his own." That is of course a common occurrence. Because of my personal preference for classical Chinese syntax: in writing poetry, it shows itself too in my poetry translations. For instance, translators of the "National Language School" will definitely not translate the last few lines of Robinson Jeffer's "Divinely Superfluous Beauty" the way I did. At least Hu Shi would not have done SO.40 Now this reminds me of how he rendered Tennyson's "Ulysses" into fluent vernacular Chinese. He translated in a lucid, straightforward manner reminiscent of his writing style. But his extra effort was wasted when he attempted to render Tennyson's antiquated, rhymeless style in the vernacular of the May Fourth period. A comparable case is Su Manshu's experiment in translating Byron's excited, flamboyant style in "The Isles of Greece" using fivecharacter regulated verse in Chinese,4l In fact, similar situations have occurred frequently in the West. For example, Homer's rap-tapping dactylic hexasyllabic meter was turned, in the hands of the gentle and affable Alexander Pope of the eighteenth century, into the latter's heroic couplets. The heroes in fierce combat in ancient battlefields were tamed and transformed into gentlemen engaged in refined drawingroom conversations. Another lively example is that of Ezra Pound. T. S. Eliot was right when he said Pound "discovered" Chinese poetry. His classical Chinese poetry, in itself delicate and poignant, exuded the uninhibited, sketchy style of Imagist poetry. The translator is somewhat like a character actor: his personal style surfaces in whatever role he plays. T. S. Eliot once emphasized

·I ': :,

..

,I

I!

174 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

'r

Notes

Notes to Articles 14-18

the "impersonality" of poetry. While I may not agree totally with this idea, I can borrow it and use it in relation to his predecessor Ezra Pound, for in the best translated poetry the translator does not show his own presence. In terms of acting, the ideal translator should be a many-faced Janus, and not a character actor. On the other hand, creative writing is inevitably influenced by translations. The influence of the Authorized Version of the English Bible (1611) on subsequent English prose writing was immense. European literature of the Middle Ages consisted almost entirely of translations. As far as my personal experience is concerned, when I was invited by Lin Yiliang to translate Emily Dickinson's poetry for Selected American Poetry over ten years ago, I went so far as to use Dickinson's balladic style in my own poetry as well. Then, my translations of Yeats's poetry did affect the style of my own poems two years ago. We can even go so far as to assert that May Fourth "New Literature" could not have come into being without translation; it would not have developed the way it did, to say the least. Generally speaking, translations of Western literature have fostered rather than hindered the growth of May Fourth "New Literature," though their detrimental effect on creative writing in our country must not be underestimated. As it is, translation is a "necessary evil," a substitute we rely on for lack of something better. Not even a good translation can convey the true meaning of the original. In the case of bad translations, besides distorting the original meaning, they often have a pernicious impact on indigenous writing styles. Inferior writers, as well as youths learning to write, find themselves totally incapable of resisting the kind of stilted, awkward writing style or "translationese" - perpetuated by translations. When the influence persists, their own creative writing will be affected. In fact, translationese has already spread far and wide within the literary circles in our country. Bombarded by the various mass media (newspapers, television and advertising), those sensitive to the beauty of the Chinese language are tortured by translationese God knows how many times a day! Translated by Leo T. H. Chan

Qu Qiubai (1899-1935), noted Marxist literary critic ofthe 1920s and 30s, was among the first Chinese translators to translate directly from Russian. His renditions of works by Gorky, Tolstoy and Pushkin are acclaimed for their accuracy and fluency of style, His concern for the popularization ofliterature also found its way into his theory of translation: the "absolute vernacular" is for him the best medium for translation. 1.

•

,,

,

"',-

I,.: .

,,

2. A novel by the Russian writer Alexander Fadeyev (1901-1956), published in 1927. A complete translation by Lu Xun, based on a Japanese rendition, appeared in 1931. 3. This refers to Cao Jinghua (1897-1987). Cao studied in Moscow in the 1920s and engaged for decades in translating Russian literature into Chinese. His translations include works by Chekhov, A. Tolstoy, Serafimovich and Gorky, among others.

"

,

4. A novel by Alexander Serafimovich (1863-1949), published in 1925. Two translations into Chinese were published in the 1930s - one by Yang Sao (1930) and one by Cao Jinghua (1931). 5. Hu Shi (1891-1962) was a pivotal figure in the New Culture Movement at the beginning of the twentieth century. While serving as Editor of Xin qingnian (New Youth), he promoted a "literary revolution," and discarded the older styles of writing. He paid special attention to the translation of short stories and poetry, while actively encouraging the translation of European literary works. His effort to promote the vernacular language in China has had lasting effects. 6. The earliest dynasties in Chinese history, though the Xia has been said to be simply legendary. 7. Around 1930 the Commercial Press reprinted eight ofYan Fu's translations in this series. , "

",

8. Zhao Jingshen (1902-1985) was Chief Editor of several literary journals and Professor at Fudan University, Shanghai, from 1930 till his death in 1985. He took a special interest in translating children's literature and Russian fiction. In addition to the works of Chekhov and Turgenev, he translated a 14-volume Tales of the Grimm Brothers. 9. See Zhao Jingshen's "On Translation," published in 1931. 10.

Referring to Lu Xun in this context. -

Translator

11.

The legendary inventor of the Chinese ideographs. -

Translator

12. Lu Xun (1881-1936) occupies a prominent place in modern Chinese translation history. He translated an enormous number ofliterary and non-literary works, the best known of which are Gogol's Dead Souls, Fadeyev's Razgrom, Kuriyagawa's The Symbol of Tristesse, and Lunacharsky's Literature and Criticism. Starting from his earliest anthology of translations (on which he collaborated with his brother Zhou Zuoren) - Yuwai xiaoshuoji (Tales from Abroad) - he showed his concern in introducing to Chinese readers the works of oppressed peoples like those in Eastern Europe. He also actively promoted translation as a viable field of activity through founding journals like Yiwen (Translations) and lending assistance to a younger generation of translators. In theory as well as practice, he espoused a r.ather extreme kind of literal translation, one that clearly departed from the extremely hberal approach of his predecessors.

175

176

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Notes

13. The pseudonym of Qu Qiubai.

14. These are extreme cases ofliteral translation. The rendition of "Milky Way" as "Road of

tlIe northern dialects, with the Peking phonological system as its norm of pronunciation" - see Jerry Norman, Chinese (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 135.

Cow's Milk" is Zhao Jingshen's; it became the butt of many jokes among translators during the May Fourth period.

34. Lin Yiliang notes that he once sent Fu Lei a copy of Tytler's Essays on the Principles of

15. Liang Qichao (1873-1929) was one of the most important political and cultural figures

35. The two names are deleted in the original text.

of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. anything specific.

36. Lao She (1899-1986) was one of the leading writers of the 1930s. His realistic novels evince the profound influence of Dickens and Conrad, an influence that he openly acknowledged.

17. Yan Fu notes, in his "Preface to Tianyanlun," the difficulty of determining the precise meaning of a term (paragraph 4). See the translation in this anthology.

37. According to Lin Yiliang, this is Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. He never finished translating the whole novel; his translation of Chapter 3 appeared eventually in a journal.

18. Qu Qiubai listed nine instances in Lu Xun's translation of Razgrom that can be im-

38. Yu Guangzhong [Yu Kwang-chung] (1928-), poet, essayist, translator and literary critic, taught for some time at Taiwan Normal University before moving to the Chinese University of Hong Kong, where he chaired the Department of Chinese. Besides the poems in Modern English and American Poetry and Selected American Poetry, he also translated Melville's Bartleby the Scrivener and Irving Stone's biography of van Gogh, Lust for Life. He once wrote: "The opposite of creative writing is imitation or plagiarism, not translation."

16. It denotes a sound often used in Buddhist incantations, and does not apparently mean

proved upon, and he gave his own preferred renditions. 19. For a brief introduction to Qu Qiubai, see the first note above. 20.

All expressions highlighted in the original are italicized in this translation.

21. Written in English in the original. 22.

Translator

Meaning unclear in the present context. -

Translator

Translation.

23. A comprehensive Chinese dictionary commissioned by Emperor Kangxi of tlIe Qing

39. This is a collection ofYu's own translations of works by twentieth-century British and American poets (including Eliot, Yeats, Stevens, etc.), published in 1968.

dynasty. -

40. Hu Shi's chief contribution in the translation of poetry is his advocacy of the vernacular

Translator

24. The legendary inventor of the Chinese ideographs. -

Translator

25. An author accused by Qu Qiubai of adopting the Lin Shu style of writing. 26. This is an allusion to a historical event more than 2,000 years ago. -

Translator

Translator

27. The Tongcheng style of writing flourished in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Masters of this school championed the use of an elegant and pure language, but it is precisely this that eventually made the style inadequate for the expression of modern ideas and feelings. 28. For a brief introduction to Fu Lei, see note 13 in Section B.

29. For a brief introduction to Lin Yiliang, see note 11 in Section C. 30. According to Lin Yiliang, Fu Lei had by this time already translated Honore de Balzac's

nre Goriot and Eugenie Goriot. La Cousine Bette was later published in 1961 in two volumes. 31. Longjing tea is a product of Hangzhou, near the West Lake, and is famous for its special

aroma. 32. Zhou Zuoren's preference for the use of classical (or literary) Chinese as a language of

translation is expressed very clearly in his "On Translation" (1944), in which he says: "A translation should of course use colloquial Chinese, but it is easier to please the audiehce with classical Chinese." 33. There is uncertainty about how the term "Putonghua" came into being, though Qu

Qiubai was among the first to use it. It is the spoken version of the vernacular developed in the May Fourth period. In 1955, it was defined as "the common language of China, based on

as a medium for translating poetry, as well as his importation of free verse forms. His program for liberating poetry from the shackles of tradition is encapsulated in his dictum: "Write down what one says." 41. Su Manshu (1884-1918) was among the first translators of Byron in China, and he

shared many affinities with Byron as far as his personality and lifestyle are concerned. He altered some of Byron's lines in "The Isles of Greece" because of the demands of classical regulated Chinese verse, which he used in his translation of 1909.

177

1

E: Literal translation vs. sense-translation ,

, I

•

The question whether zhiyi ("literal translation"; "word-for-word translation" refers to an extreme form of zhiyi) or yiyi ("sense-translation" or "sense-forsense translation"; "free translation" is misleading) is the better translation method has long troubled Chinese translation theorists. This debate, initiated by famed Buddhist monk-translators of medieval times, has lasted right up to the twentieth century. It can be seen as roughly analogous to the debate in the West, since classical antiquity, on the ad verbum versus the ad sensum approach. In China, almost all the major theorists of translation, as well as most leading scholars and writers, have taken one side or the other, though several have argued for a compromise, advancing arguments that some accept while others do not. Fu Sinian, the staunch advocate of the Vernacular Language Movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, was among the first to oppose Van Fu's translation method. For him Van's sense-translation (which is in fact more closely akin to "free translation") falls short of being faithful to the original (see his "Thoughts on Translation" [1919]). The publication of Liang Shiqiu's "On Mr. Lu Xun's 'Stiff Translation'" (1929) sparked off a series of heated debates on literal translation versus sensetranslation. Citing stilted sentences from two recent translations ofLu Xun, the proponent of extreme literalism in translation, Liang averred that Lu Xun's translation is worse than just "stiff": they are tantamount to "dead translations." To him, Lu's syntactic convolutions are impossible to understand, and reading his translations is like "reading a map and trying to locate places with your fi ngers. " In his response, Lu Xun raised the discussion to an ideological plane. In '''Stiff Translation' and the Class Nature of Literature" (1930) he begins by pointing out that Liang represents the Crescent Moon Society the "other camp" which espouses bourgeois values and goals radically opposed to Lu'sand that what Liang has written simply exposes his lack of understanding of proletarian literary thought. Lu stresses that it is a special class of readers that he has intended his translations for, namely, proletarian literary critics. For that reason, faithfulness is important, and close adherence to almost every word of the original becomes necessary.

180

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Ye Gongchao quickly rallied to Liang's support, making it very explicit at the end of his article "On Translation and Language Reform" (published in 1931 in the journal Crescent Moon) that he was "on Liang Shiqiu's side." However, he approaches the debate from a slightly different angle. For him it is naive to talk about "literal translation" (Lu Xun), "stiff translation" (Lu Xun) and "distorted translation" (Zhao Jingshen), for the complexity of translating is such that no hard and fast rules can be applied to it. It was Mao Dun who successfully steered the discussion out of the constraining partisan debates that Lu, Liang and Ye had become embroiled in. By distinguishing between "Literal Translation, Smooth Translation, and Distorted Translation" (1934), Mao Dun is able to clarify somewhat the ambiguities surrounding some commonly used terminology. To him, Lin Shu's translations are not "sense-translations" but "distorted translations"; literal translation is preferred to smooth translation (shunyi, as advocated by Zhao Jingshen, who was the target ofattack by many theorists in the 1930s) and distorted translation; and "faithfulness" is to be valorized over and above "smoothness." Though the debate on literal translation versus sense-translation by no means came to an end in the 1930s, the present section ends with Ai Siqi's "On Translation" (1937) - not the least because it argues for a more flexible understanding of "literal translation," which has consistently been disparaged. For him, (l) Lu Xun's translations are "stiff' but not "dead"; (2) Lin Shu's method is not "sense-translation," but "rewriting"; (3) sense-translation is not conducive to "fluency" (da), as is commonly thought; and (4) it is wrong to think that "fluency" cannot be achieved in literal translations. His article is interesting precisely because he argues that literal translation and sense-translation are not fixed and unchanging binary opposites.

•

E19. On Mr. Lu Xun's "stiff translation"l (1929) Liang Shiqiu2

Mr. Chen Xiying3 said, "Even though the malady of dead translation is as detrimental as mistranslation, the former abuse is the lesser of the two evils. For, at its worst, dead translation is simply incomprehensible, while the more readable a mistranslated work is, the more harmful it becomes." True, but incomprehensibility is no small malady. Personally speaking, I always feel that the first requirement of having a book translated is to make it comprehensible; or else, would it not be a sheer waste of the reader's time and effort? Mistranslation is indeed unacceptable, for it would be altogether too unfaithful to the original text and turn cream into dregs. However, it is impossible to mistranslate an entire book from beginning to end. Even if there are a few distorted instances found on the same page, there must nevertheless be parts remaining that are not mistranslated. Furthermore, even though partial mistranslations are mistakes, and even though the mistakes may really be endlessly harmful, you have nevertheless enjoyed reading them. Dead translation, on the other hand, is very different. Dead translation is bound to be dead from beginning to end and it makes no difference whether it is read or not, except that reading it would mean spending time and energy in vain. Besides, while committing the error of distorted translation could not possibly coincide with making dead translation at the same time, dead translation might as well involve distorted translation. Therefore, I think it goes without saying that we certainly abhor distorted translation, but the trend of dead translation, above all, must be halted. What is dead translation? "Dead translation is," said Chen Xiying, "not only putting every word and every sentence in the same order as the original, but also not allowing the addition of a single word or even the change of the order of any words. Nominally it is translation, but such translation is worse than non-translation." Even Mr. Zhou Zuoren,4 who advocates literal translation, has named such translation "dead translation." It is he, most probably, who has coined the term. There are many examples of dead translation. Let me cite now only Mr. Lu Xun's translations as an example, because everybody knows how tersely and

I

I 182 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

fluently Mr. Lu Xun wields his pen in his short stories and essays and no one would say that his pen is inadequate. However, his translation is not far from "dead translation." The works he translated some years ago, The Symbol of Tristesse by Kuriyagawa Hakuson,s for example, are not yet anything incomprehensible, but his recent translations seem to have undergone a change of style. Now, in order to show how even Lu Xun, despite his agile pen, cannot escape "dead translation," I am going to pick at random a few extremely esoteric sentences from two of his latest translations, namely, On Art by Lunacharsky, published by Dajiang Shupu on 15th June this year, and Literature and Criticism by the same author, published by Shumo Shudian in October this year. 6

,

I'

I

iI ,

I'

I

I, I 1

,

I

This means not only that all ideology is inevitably born of the only possible material available from the existing society but also that the actual state of the existing society determines the thought that is an integral part of this state or simply the intuition of the ideologist. In so far as the ideologist cannot be free from a definite social interest, ideology is also inevitably a product of the existing society. (On Art, p. 7) The problem is quite simple if it concerns merely the moment when thought is being organized, which is directly related to ideology and the facts of life from which ideology is produced, or matters related to the social groups controlling such ideologies; but the problem becomes extremely complicated if it touches upon the organization of emotions which is the most characteristic essence of art. (ibid., p.ll) Even though their contents are not similar, works that are formally finished can merely provide, from the recipient's point of view, semi-sensual and indifferent satisfaction to the laborer and the peasant. In respect of the depth of the embodiment of art, however, even though conceptually it should be a work regarded with hostility, to the interested laborer and peasant, it can, nevertheless, be very educational as long as they anatomically analyze and thoroughly understand the essence of the structure. (Literature and Criticism, p.198)

Enough. Although the fact that the passages above are excerpts from the translations and removing the context has probably made them quite incomprehensible, linguistically speaking, nevertheless, one would wonder who could ever understand their very odd syntax. When I read these two books, I found the • language really very difficult. Reading such books is like reading a map, and one would have to have one's finger on it to trace the clues to the sentence structures. It is not that Lu Xun himself is unaware of the "awkward" style of his translation. He says in Literature and Criticism and in "The Translator's Afterword":

Literal translation vs. sense-translation

Lunacharsky's theory as seen from the translated version is adequately clear and brisk. However, because of the translator's limited competence and the inherent deficiency of the Chinese language, the finished job is abstruse and there are even many unintelligible passages. If the complex sentences were broken down to their components, the original tone of terseness and conciseness would be lost. Tome, apart from "stiff translation" like this, the only solution is to have my "hands tied," which is, so to speak, "no way out." I pin my only hope left on the reader's willingness to grind through it all.

Now, we have already "ground through it all," but the reward is nil. What is the difference between "stiff translation" and "dead translation"? According to Lu Xun, "the inherent deficiency of the Chinese language" is one of the two reasons why his translation is incomprehensible. If it is so, as long as the Chinese language is not reformed, there is no chance but for translated works to become fifty per cent abstruse. Chinese is different from foreign languages, some sentence structures of which simply do not exist in Chinese, and this is exactly where translation is difficult. Ifthe grammar, syntax and lexis of a language pair are identical, what task is there for the translator? We cannot force the reader to "grind through" the text, regardless of its obscurity, simply on the ground that Chinese has its "inherent deficiency." It would not do any harm to modify the syntax somewhat and to make it peremptory so that the text becomes intelligible to the reader, because it is no pleasure to "grind through" a text. There is no evidence either that "stiff translation" can preserve "the original tone of terseness and conciseness." And if even "stiff translation" could preserve "the original tone of terseness and conciseness," then it would be a miracle. How then can we ever say that Chinese has its"deficiency"? Translated by Evangeline Almberg

183

I

Literal translation vs. sense-translation

£20. "Stiff translation" and the class nature ofliterature (1930)7 LuXun 8

1. The literary group backing the publication of Crescent Moon has said that the journal's sales have improved.9 This appears to be the case, and I someone who is not much given to socializing have seen two of my younger friends leafing through Volume 2: 6 and 7, a combined issue. Browsing through it casually, I noticed that it is filled mostly with fiction and articles on freedom of speech. Near the end there is Mr. Liang Shiqiu's "On Mr. Lu Xun's 'Stiff Translation,'" which argues that "stiff translation" is tantamount to "dead translation." After noting that "dead translation, above all, must be deterred," Mr. Liang quoted three extracts from my translations, as well as what I said in the postface to Lunacharsky's Literature and Criticism: However, because of the translator's limited competence and the inherent deficiency of the Chinese language, the finished job is abstruse and there are many unintelligible passages. If the complex sentences were broken down, the original tone of terseness and conciseness would be lost. To me, apart from "stiff translation" like this, the only solution is to have my "hands tied," which is, so to speak, "no way out." I pin my only hope left on the reader's willingness to grind through it all. 10 I

Mr. Liang had carefully inserted circles above these words, while the words "stiff translation" themselves had been circled. He penned some harsh criticisms: "Now, we have already 'ground through it all,' but the reward is nil. What is the difference between 'stiff translation' and 'dead translation'?" In the foreword to the inaugural issue of Crescent Moon, it is said that the Society is not an organized group, and in the articles "organizations" of a proletarian nature as well as "cliques" are condemned. In fact, however, the Society is very well-organized. At least the articles on politics in that issu.e resonate with one another. As for the articles on literature and the arts , one , also by Mr. Liang, harks back to "Is Literature Class-based?,"1J where the following passage appears: Most unfortunately, I have not even been able to comprehend one single book of this kind .... What gives me the greatest difficulty is the words used ... harder than

deciphering "the Inscrutable Books of Heaven" ... Isn't there even one Chinese writer who can use a language comprehensible to the Chinese to explain the theory of proletarian literature?

Again there are circles placed beside these words, but to spare the printer of the present article trouble, I will not put them down here. In sum, for Liang, who prides himself on being able to represent all Chinese, those books are not comprehensible to any Chinese person because they are not comprehensible to him. Hence they should be completely destroyed, and hence his statement that "this trend, above all, must be deterred." I cannot speak for the other translators of the "Inscrutable Books of Heaven," but personally I do not think that things are this simple. In the first place, Liang believes that we should "grind through it all," but whether he has done so whether he can is still very much in question. It is characteristic of the Crescent Moon Society to say they would "grind through it all" but remain too timid to do so. Second, Liang says that he represents all the Chinese, but whether that includes all those who are most talented is yet another question. This issue can be explained with reference to "Is Literature Classbased?" There is ground for saying that the word proletary12 should not be transliterated, but rather, translated. Yet Liang, our critic, says: One need only browse the dictionary to tell that the word does not have very respectable connotations. According to Webster's Dictionary, proletary refers to "a citizen of the lowest class who served the state not with property, but only by having children." ... The proletariat of a country is the class which does nothing but give birth to children (at least during Roman times)!

In fact there is no need to fight for "respectability." Nobody with commonsense will believe that we are living in Roman times, or think that the proletariat consists of Romans. This is like the word Chemie,13 translated into Chinese as shemixue. Readers will never mix it up with the word "alchemy." Again, they will not go to check the etymological roots ofthe character liang(in the name of Liang Shiqiu) and think, quite wrongly, that "a lone wooden bridge"14 can write! Even checking the dictionary (Webster's Dictionary at that!) is of no help at all to Liang. I suppose not all the Chinese are like him! [ ... ] 5. At this point, I can talk again about my "stiff translation." The logical question to be deduced would be: Given the propagandist goal of proletarian literature, and given that propaganda should preferably be

185

186

I

I

I,

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

understandable, why have I produced these bewildering, stiffly translated works of theory? Isn't that the same as not translating? My answer is: I have done it for myself, for a few self-proclaimed critics of proletarian literature, and for some readers who, despite the difficulties involved, will not take the easy path but seek to understand these works of theory. For the past two years, the number of my assailants has increased, and no matter which publication you turn to, the name "LuXun" will inevitable appear. Judging from what the authors say in these publications, one might think they are writers of revolutionary literature. I have read a few of these, and have the impression that they are talking nonsense. Their dissecting knives fail to cut open at the right places; their bullets do not cause fatal wounding. For instance, there is still uncertainty about which class I purportedly belong to. Sometimes it is the "class owning limited property," sometimes the" bourgeoisie," occasionally "the evil descendents of feudalism," considered to be equivalent to "apes"15 (see "Correspondence with Tokyo" in Creation Monthly). Once, even the color of my teeth was the target of verbal attack. In our kind of society, it is quite likely that there are "evil remnants of feudalism" showing off their talents, but in no materialist view of history do we find them equated with apes. Nor is there any evidence that having yellow teeth causes harm to the proletarian revolution. Because of that, I believe that this kind of theory, which provides useful reference, means little, which is why most people are confused. We all wish to dissect and devour our opponents, but if we follow closely a textbook on anatomy and a cookbook, we can be more certain of success. People often compare the mythical hero Prometheus to a rebel, since he stole fire from Heaven for mankind, incurred Zeus's punishment, but did not regret it. Such is the spirit of extreme perseverance. But I have stolen fire from a foreign country with the intention of cooking my own flesh, in the hope that it would taste good. Should that be the case, my own body would not have been given up for naught, and the food-eater would somehow benefit greatly from it. I start off with personal interests in mind, combined with the ordinary citizen's desire to live extravagantly, taking "revenge" with a scalpel drawn out and then pushed into the heart of the person who dissects. Liang Shiqiu say~, "They want revenge!" In fact, those who want revenge can also be found among the "evil descendants of feudalism." I hope to be of some use in society, but only see how we end up with fire and light. The first book I have tackled is Literary Policy,16 because it contains the arguments of the various schools.

Literal translation vs. sense-translation

Now Mr. Zheng Boqi runs a bookshop, printing the plays of Hauptmann and Lady Gregory.17 Some time ago he was still a literary revolutionary, and in Literary Life (which he edited) he poked fun at me for translating Literary Policy because I was not willing to be some unknown person, though unfortunately someone else had already translated it. I do not think that you become famous by translating one book, or that it is easy to become a literary revolutionary. A small newspaper, on the other hand, said that my translation of On Art was an act of "surrender."18 Yes, acts of surrender are common enough. This year again there is a different way of putting it. In both The Explorer and Modern Fiction, the phrase "change of direction" is used. 19 In some Japanese magazines that I read, the phrase was used in connection with Kataoka Teppei,20 an earlier member of the neo-Sensationist School, and it was well used. In fact, these various expressions show the mistakes one makes when focusing on the surface meaning, and not carefully thinking things out. Translating a book about proletarian literature does not constitute evidence of a "direction." Should there be any distorted translations, harm would be done. My translated books are dedicated to the short-lived critics of proletarian literature, because they do not seek what is simple and easy, but devote much effort to examining the theories concerned. I am confident that I have not deliberately given distorted translations. I laugh when I reopen the wounds of those critics whom I despise. I put up with the pain when my own wounds are reopened. I refuse to add or delete, and that is one reason I have stuck to "stiff translations." Of course, there are bound to be better translators who will not give distorted, or stiff, or dead translations. When that occurs, my translations will naturally be replaced. This being the case, I can serve to fill the gap between "non-existent translations" and "preferred translations." Translated by Leo T. H. Chan

187

Literal translation vs. sense-translation 189

E21. On translation and language reform: A response to Liang Shiqiu (1931) Ye Gongchao 21

1

" ,

li, "

,i' "

I'i, ,

I'

I

We have to identify the root of the problem in discussing translation. Being able to identify the root does not necessarily mean that the problem is thereby resolved, but it does at least enable us to have a good grasp of the crux of the issue. However, before we go into the question of origins, we need to have an overview of several popular approaches to the issues involved. First, since the New Culture Movement,22 almost everyone wants to propose a formula for translation for succeeding generations. For example, Mr. Zhao Jingshen 23 has recently maintained that "slight mistranslation is acceptable in order to achieve overall fluency." Mr. Lu Xun has suggested that "fidelity is more important than fluency ... a slight departure from fluency is tolerable now." The two are naturally not comparable. Their views have been derived, quite by accident, from the same origin, even though it is well known that they hold different opinions. There is also the "underground" (an attribute2 4 used by Mr. Lu Xun) Mr. Yan Fu who expressed a similar view when he was "above ground" [when he was alive]. The flaw in such views is that the origin of the problem is never attended to, for the first problem to be dealt with in translation is neither "literal translation" nor "flexible translation" (quyi)25 but what to translate. This means that translators have to fully understand the meaning of words, the tone (from which is derived what we call "syntax" in Chinese), and the connotations of each single word and phrase in the source text. After that, steps should be taken to look for equivalent words, phrases, and variations in tone in our target language. If these exist, they can be translated accordingly. If not, we can transpose several main words from the source text (it is not uncommon in translations from Western languages for the original terms to be used when there are no substitute words or phrases available),26 or resort to transliteration (for single words), or use the closest substitutes, with added footnotes. The basic issue, therefore, for the second step is to identify the inadequacies of the target language when it is opposed to the source language. The handling of these inadequacies is the task of translators, and this is how they display their talent. As to what inadequacies our language really has when

compared with others, we can only judge in terms of the content, or even of each word or sentence in the source text, given the lack of sophisticated investigation and categorizations. How can we say that principles such as "literal translation," "stiff translation" (yingyi)27 or "flexible translation" can solve the problem? Second, some critics believe that the Chinese language nowadays probably needs to be reformed. Therefore, the fundamental question about translation does not concern ways of conveying the content of the original text, but ways of facilitating the reform of the Chinese language as used at present. J. K.28 said in No. 2 of the Literary Monthly. The question is not one of "fluent or not fluent," but whether translation is able to facilitate the development of the modern Chinese language .... The Chinese language (as well as its writing system) is so deficient that it lacks names for many everyday objects. Indeed the Chinese language has not developed completely beyond the stage of "sign language" - everyday conversation almost can't do without the help of "gestures." Of course, there is almost a complete absence of all those adjectives, verbs and prepositions that express subtle differences and complex relationships .... Under these circumstances, the creating of a new language is a very important task.... Translation, apart from introducing the content of the original texts to the Chinese reader, serves a significant purpose - to help create a modern Chinese language. 29

J. K.'s

conclusion is to use the vernacular primarily to translate everything properly. This conclusion in itself is certainly beyond dispute. I do feel that this is a good approach to translation although the term "properly" sounds a bit too grandiose (reasons will be mentioned later). What I want to point out here is that J. K. has not approached translation from its point of origin either. He is obviously not concerned about translation, but its use as a tool for language reform. He seems to be barking up the wrong tree here. In consequence, his remarks are ineffective, just like water offa duck's back. I am highly supportive, however, of the idea of employing new diction, new phrases, new punctuation (what have we achieved in this aspect?), and even new syntax in the modern vernacular. No language of any living nation is unchanging. The fact is that the presence of new environments and the evolution of ideas simply do not allow any language to "stand up straight and take a break." However, there is an absolute necessity to treat this issue independently. Although it overlaps somewhat with translation, it is after all a separate issue. Strictly speaking, no translation is an absolutely accurate version of the source text. As we all know, intellect and wisdom are reflected in languages; a

190

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

specific culture gives rise to a specific language. Introducing an alien culture necessitates the simultaneous introduction of the language belonging to that culture. This is, after all, a general statement. To analyze this further: most crucial is the issue of individual words. Words are animals that have voices, colors and flavors of their own. There is an inevitable reason for referring to them as animals. Just like other animals, a word is destined to experience the tragedy of birth, sickness, aging and death. It also adapts to changing environment in order to survive. It has to experience love, marriage, divorce, remarriage and even suicide. Thus, each word has its own unique history: there are words that are inseparable in usage from it, words with which it has been associated one way or the other, and words with the opposite meaning. They all contribute to its connotation. Strictly speaking, therefore, the translation of a word goes beyond that particular word itself. The voices, colors, flavors and all other associations of that word should also in principle be translated, but in practice, these are untranslatable. However, if a Chinese word is replaced by a foreign word, the substitute itself also carries a voice, colors, flavors and all other associations. The problem, then, is the difference between the total attributes of the substitute and those of the original. For example, the first stanza of Blake's "The Tyger," translated by Xu Zhimo,30 is as follows:

'I

,I "

!

I 1

Menghu, menghu, huoyan si de shaohong Zai shenye de mangchong, Hedeng shenming de juyan huo shi shou Neng bohua nide heren de xionghou? [Original poem: Tyger! Tyger! burning bright, In the forests of the night; What immortal hand or eye, Could frame thy fearful symmetry?]

The crux of these four lines lies entirely with the last word, symmetry,3l The first two lines make use of several broad, long and heavy vowels, such as i, e, u and 0, to suggest how the tiger looks, with its powerful body, the burning flames in its eyes, and its heavy steps. The unstressed could in the fourth line implicitly gives the impression of the weak presence of man. The use of symmetry at the end apparently is meant to conclude the impression cultivated in the first thrae lines, which is the strength of the tiger as revealed in the use of contrasts. That explains the use of alliteration (such as t, t, b, b) in the first line, and the use of long and short sounds to create the parallel impression in the second line. (In the and of the are short sounds, while forests and night are long sounds.) Alliteration is again found in hand or eye in the third line, and frame and fearful

Literal translation vs. sense-translation

in the fourth line. The beauty of these subtleties is untranslatable. Xu Zhimo seems to have understood this. Therefore he, to my surprise, uses xionghou32 to replace symmetry, whose weight and strength in this context can hardly be directly conveyed by an equivalent Chinese term. With xionghou, however, the translator at least captures the essence of the original poem. As a translation, xionghou also has its own weight and strength. Poetry translation in itself is an almost impossible task. Even when the best is done to translate it, the inevitable "awkwardness" is hard to hide. Such a fundamental difficulty can hardly be resolved even with the concerted effort of the "literal translation" of Lu Xun, the "flexible translation" of Zhao Jingshen, and the standard vernacular of}. K. Translated by Rachel Lung

Acknowledgements I am truly thankful for the valuable advice of John Wong and Peter Chan on the initial drafts of the translation. John has also contributed by providing relevant references and advising on various points. 33

191

Literal translation vs. sense-translation , 1 ",

E22. Literal translation, smooth translation, and distorted translation (1934) •

Mao Dun 34

, 11

,

,, 1

1

,

, 1

, ,

I I

The term "literal translation" (zhiyi) gained currency only after the May Fourth period,35 as a reaction to Lin Shu's "distorted translation" (waiyi). In speaking ofLin's distorted translation, we do not mean to disparage him. Since "sensetranslation" does not appear to be an appropriate term for Lin's method, we replace it here with "distorted translation." Lin had no knowledge of any Western language, and he translated on the basis of what was orally interpreted for him by a third person. We do not know whether the third person orally interpreted one sentence, or one whole paragraph or section, at a time. Whichever the scenario, two kinds of distortion are unavoidable: the interpreter must somehow have distorted the original text, and Lin further distorted it when he translated the spoken language into written, classical Chinese. We can say that such distortions relate to the method of translation. What is more, Lin was extremely concerned about "defending the Way" and "transmitting the teachings of Confucius and Mencius through the mind." He repeatedly advocated the idea of "changing the barbarians by means of Chinese values," claiming that Sir Waiter Scott's mode of writing was akin to the Grand Historian's,36 and so on. These led to further distortion, which of course the interpreter was not responsible for, but directly derived from Lin's own way of thinking. In this light, it is appropriate to consider Lin's translations as "distorted." Naturally, not all of his translations are distorted; there are some which even resemble, in a small way, their originals in tone -like a couple ofstories in The Sketch Book. 37 We not only admire what Lin did; we are deeply amazed. Now, back to "literal translation." . As we said above, the promotion ofliteral translation after the May Fourth Movement was a kind of resistance against distorting the original. In this effort, the meaning of the original must be retained as it is. That being the case, comprehensibility becomes, of course, an unspoken but necessary requirement. Needless to say, when a translation is incomprehensible, it is not "literal"

and the true meaning of the original is lost. The translator should be completely responsible for the incomprehensibility caused, and we should not lay the blame for it on the principle of translating literally. This fact is, after all, simple and obvious, though not too long ago someone [Zhao Jingshen], failing to understand a translation, has criticized "literal translation" and espoused "smooth translation" (shunyi) as a principle. What the proponents of "smooth translation" suggest is somewhat like this: Literal translation leads to difficulty in comprehension, even incomprehensibility. When faithfulness to the original is achieved but comprehensibility is lost, one translates in vain. Therefore it is proposed that "rather than striving for fidelity at the cost of comprehensibility, one might as well seek after comprehensibility rather than fidelity."38 This is the idea of "smooth translation" "smooth" in the sense that the translation can be understood. Here we feel we need not argue about the inherent contradictions of the idea of smooth translation. Rather, with regard to "literal translation," we would like to note that it is not word-for-word translation, which implies "not a word more, and not one less." Because of the different ways in which Chinese and Western languages are constructed, strict word-for-word translation is impossible, from a practical point of view. Once Zhang Songnian translated an article by Bertrand Russell. He used an extreme kind of "literal translation." Every preposition was translated, but no one could understand his translation. Zhang insisted then on using this method. He knew his translation was incomprehensible, but he told the editor of the magazine New Youth, Chen Zhongfu: "This is an experiment. We will understand it when we have got accustomed to it!" Chen did not accept Zhang's "experiment," and asked him quite rudely to revise it. He did so, but Chen was not pleased even with the revisions. I do not understand the whys and wherefores, but by now Zhang has probably given up his experiment. This incident proves that the principle of literal transl.a~ion consists not in translating word for word; it implies "not distorting the ongmal work." A word-for-word rendition not adding or deleting anything would of course be an ideal literal translation, but one must note, in any case, that this is not what "literal translation" really means. Literary works also differ from theoretical essays. Some literary works are still comprehensible when translated word for word, though the spirit of the original work might not have been accurately conveyed. Suppose we had two translations of the same original text: one is translated word for word, though the spirit is lost, whereas the other, in not translating word for word, retains much of the original spirit. How do we evaluate these two translations? For me

193

194

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

£23. On translation (1937)

the latter can be called a "literal translation," and this is the true meaning of the term. In pursuing "smooth translation" and aiming at comprehensibility, we will end up distorting the meaning of the original work. For what comprehensibility means to the advocates of "smooth translation" is "understanding immediately without having to rethink," whereas much of what is pregnant with significance in literature can be appreciated only if one thinks carefully when one reads along. Furthermore, a "smooth translation" often becomes a "distorted translation." For yet another meaning of "smooth translation" is the attainment of fluency and elegance. Now there are certain literary works that are stylistically crude and unadorned. Perhaps readers some of them, of course can read with greater ease when the style is embellished, but the original work has actually suffered. Under normal circumstances, readers who prefer a fluent and flowery prose are mostly those with poor taste - that is, readers whose ability to appreciate literature leaves much to be desired. If, in pandering to the taste of these readers, one translates "smoothly," then some loss will have to be incurred. Finally, let's talk about "distorted translation." We have already mentioned what this term means in general. The distortion in question pertains to the meaning of the original work. There is yet another kind of distortion. For example, a translation may change the style of the original work, so that what is plain becomes polished, and what is awkwardly expressed becomes smooth flowing. When these occur, even if no mistakes appear and everyone reads the translation with understanding, the original meaning still gets distorted. This kind of "distorted translation" has not attracted much attention, but we should be properly guarded against it.

Ai Siqi3 9

Among translators, a distinction is made between literal and free translation. An intensive debate on just this matter was launched three or four years ago. I did not take note of it at the time and I have no idea how it ended. However, if "literal translation" were not misinterpreted as transferring words taken from the dictionary, I would be in favor ofliteral translation. Although a translation aims to introduce something to the reader, it needs at the same time to remain true to the author. In order to present the author's meaning accurately, the best approach is to retain the syntax of every original sentence. This cannot be fully accomplished without the kind ofliteral translation proposed by Mr. Lu Xun. On the other hand, if we were to make arbitrary modifications to the original text in order to cater to the reader, and then call this "sense-translation," we could have done better by writing popular fiction. I believe writers should strive to cater to the populace, but the primary task of translation is to communicate the original meaning of the author. Such an understanding of literal translation was adopted when we translated An Outline ofNew Philosophy.40 Literal translation does not mean incorporating foreign grammar into the Chinese language indiscriminately. In Japanese, having a meal is meshi 0 taberu, and if the inverted grammatical order of the Japanese language were to be kept in the translation, it would become "a meal having" or "a meal is had." This kind of thing not only becomes annoying to the reader but conveys an entirely different message. The original meaning is sacrificed: instead of being "straight," it turns out to be "crooked." That is a misinterpretation of literal translation. The bona fide literal translation, so to speak, is nothing more than making manifest the original ideas through the most appropriate Chinese • expressIOns. As a matter of fact, the Chinese language lacks precision, always failing to convey the sophisticated content expressed in a foreign language. However, this assertion has one limitation: it is true when the Chinese language is viewed only from a static perspective, and when the established usage of the past is seen as representing the Chinese language in its entirety. If we look ahead at the possible development of the language, we cannot assert that it will never be

"

,"

"

Translated by Leo T. H. Chan

••

•

' j I,i"

.

,

,:

196

,, ,

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

capable of articulating complicated ideas, or that Chinese cannot be more precise, or that it is deprived of the chance to evolve and renew itself. In this way, in talking about using the proper words to express the original meaning in translation, we are not trying to find a way out by using exquisite classical Chinese or the crude vernacular of an earlier period, nor are we resisting progress by sticking to an earlier stage in the development of our language. On the contrary, we want to constantly create a new Chinese language, giving it fresh expressive power. We expect many priceless, original discoveries. Lu Xun's literal translation is justly famous, though his Chinese has been considered Europeanized. Admittedly, a great deal of Europeanized elements have been included in it. But we cannot say it is no longer Chinese; rather, Lu Xun can be said to have introduced some fresh and modern expressions into the language in an effort to make Chinese more precise. Although he laid down some hard and fast rules in his literal translation, his approach is, after all, not the mechanical kind of translation mentioned above. We should never disregard this fact. At this point, we can provide a new definition for what has been called "sense-translation." If this term does not imply that the translator freely interprets the original text in his own way, but rather attempts to thorough understand the original sense, we must say that the "sense" element would also be necessary even for a literal translation. The objective of literal translation lies simply in showing respect for the original; the translator should therefore not include his own preconceived ideas. Nonetheless, it would be extremely silly to abandon the "sense," and suggest that every single word is best transferred mechanically. In an attempt to convey the original meaning with the most appropriate words and expressions, one must comprehend and interpret the original meaning in a thorough and accurate manner. In this context, free translation and sense-translation cannot be treated as two absolutely separate approaches. If either one was wholly ignored, things would go wrong. But I am not suggesting that we take the middle path, either. For the "sense" functions to aid interpretation, and help in the conveyance of the original meaning, leading to the success of a literal translation as well. Therefore, as a matter of basic principle, what we need is still accurate "literal translation." . For some of our predecessors, translation has to fulfill three criteria: faithfulness, fluency and elegance. In this light, it might be thought that literal translation undoubtedly fulfills the criterion of faithfulness, but creates some difficulties as far as fluency and elegance are concerned. Without doubt, literal translation aims at faithfulness. If even "faithfulness" is out ofthe question, why

Literal translation vs. sense-translation 197

'I',

'"

,"·

"

I"'!.'

,

"",,.

,\

I

,',.

'i ,'

{I, .,''..:" '

\

'/' :.

,

·'/,

,

•,

"', , ." ,

,."• '\ ,\"

'l' "

"., , , "

discuss translation at all? A truly good literal translation does not merely stop at "faithfulness," however. A faithfully translated text must also be able to convey the original meaning as well as retain the "fluency" of the original text as far as possible. People usually misunderstand sense-translation, suggesting that the translator can willfully add and delete, and then achieve "faithfulness" without caring about the original text. Hence, they propose that while "fluency" can only be achieved through sense-translation, "faithfulness" is not. Literal translation, on the other hand, can only bring out "faithfulness," and not necessarily "fluency." This dichotomous view is in fact a metaphysical error. To refute it, it will suffice to cite some ofLu Xun's translations (like The Symbol of Tristesse). They are most "faithful," and few translations by others can convey the original meaning in a more precise, yet lucid and lively, manner. The "fluency" of sense-translation, through misguided, has one merit. In pandering to the reader, it also facilitates the translator's job. But then the translator is not faithful to the original text, or honest to the reader. 41 Let's talk briefly about "elegance." Where it means "writing elegantly," it implies nothing more than translating a foreign work into antiquated classical Chinese. "Elegance" as such has meaning only at the time of the great Buddhist translators (in the Han and Wei Dynasties) or when Yan Fu translated On Liberty.42 A mere grudging addition of colors, this kind of "elegance" fails to reproduce the beauty ofthe language ofthe original, thus wasting the translator's energy and not respecting the original. We have no need to waste our effort like this in our translation today. If"elegance" refers to the beauty of the language in the original text, then it will to a certain extent be conveyed when the translation is "faithfully" rendered. "Elegance" should not be absolutely detached from "faithfulness." Because An Outline of New Philosophy is a theoretical work, the beauty of its language does not appear to be of crucial significance. The relationship between "elegance" and "faithfulness" will have importance only with regard to literary works. However, the fundamental principle of translation is nothing but "faithfulness." "Fluency" and "elegance" are related to "faithfulness" much as an attribute is related to its essence, the two being inseparable, yet distinct. These reflections of mine, coming from my translation of An Outline of New Philosophy, do not describe any unique kind of experience, but they do have methodological implications. Translated by John Lai Tsz-pang

,

I ".

;, J , ,

,

198 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

15. In an article entitled "The Evil Vestiges of Feudalism on the Literary Battle-Front," published in the August 1928 (VoI.2, no. 1) issue of Creation Monthly, Guo Moruo described the debate Lu Xun had with Chen Xiying and Chang Hong as "a battle between apes."

Notes to Articles 19-23 1. This article ignited the heated debate in the early 1930s concerning different approaches to translation - aptly summed up in the terms discussed by Mao Dun in the fourth article in this section. Note that this article, as well as those of Chen Xiying and Ye Gongchao, appeared in Crescent Moon (Monthly), the "mouthpiece" of the Crescent Moon Society. 2. Liang Shiqiu (1902-1987) was educated at Tsinghua University, the University of Colorado and Harvard University. He was a prolific translator of English literature. Over the years, while teaching at Beijing Normal University, Qingdao University and National Taiwan University, he translated Silas Mamer, Peter Pan, Letters of Al?elard and Heloise, Wuthering Heights, among other works. His crowning achievement in translation is his Complete Works ofShakespeare, a project that took him 32 years to finish (1931-1967).

16. A collection of documents pertaining to Soviet literary policy, translated and anthologized by Lu Xun in 1928. 17. Zheng Boqi was a member of the Creation Society. He opened a bookshop in Shanghai during the time this article was written, and published the plays of Hauptmann and Lady Gregory. Literary Life, which he edited, began publishing in Shanghai in December 1928. ,

18. The newspaper referred to is Zhenbao (Truth), which carried an article on 19 August, 1929, saying that after his "impeachment" by the Creation Society, "Lu Xun has also translated a book on the art of revolution, to show that he has surrendered."

,'

,

','1 '

,

",

, -'.

19. A phrase mentioned by Qian Xingcun in an article published in the January 1930 issue of The Explorer.

,:r:,

..., ,.

3. See note 1 in Section B. 4. Zhou Zuoren (1885-1967) collaborated with his elder brother Lu Xun in translating a collection of East European and Russian short stories in Yuwai xiaoshuoji (Tales from Abroad) in 1909. These exemplify the "literalist" approach to translation, which aroused considerable controversy. Zhou was among the first Chinese writers to translate directly from Japanese. His translations include Greek (Aesop's fables) and Danish (Hans Christian Andersen's tales) works.

Notes 199

'~ :

'"

20. Kataoka Teppei's (1894-1944) works were later introduced to China through the translations of Chinese neo-Sensationists like Liu Na' ou (1900-1939).

I,. ,

',''',

".I', "

",

5. The Symbol of Tristesse was translated by Lu Xun in 1924.

21. Ye Gongchao (1904-1981) obtained master's degrees from both Cambridge and Harvard. He was associated in the 1930s with the Crescent Moon Society. From 1949-1958 he was the Nationalist government's Minister of Foreign Affairs, and later served as an ambassador to the United States. He was the first to translate Virginia Woolf into Chinese - his translation of "The Mark on the Wall" appeared in 1932.

6. Many works on Marxist aesthetic theory were translated into Chinese in the 1930s, especially after the formation of the League of Left-Wing Writers headed by Lu Xun. Those by Lunacharsky and Plekhanov were most eagerly consumed in translation by left-leaning intellectuals at the time. Lu Xun translated several works by both theorists.

22. The "New Culture Movement" refers to the revolutionary movement that started in 1915 - the year the journal Xin Qingnian (New Youth) was founded - with the aim of confronting (and demolishing) the Confucian tradition. It overlapped somewhat with the May Fourth Movement.

7. This article was written in direct response to Liang Shiqiu's and antedates the correspondence with Qu Qiubai in Part D. The reader could read all five selections as a sequence of attacks, responses, rebuttals and counter-rebuttals.

"

,

,

{";'

8. For a brief introduction to Lu Xun, see note 12 in Section D.

23. Zhao Jingshen (1902-1985) was Chief Editor of several literary journals and Professor at Fudan University, Shanghai, from 1930 till his death in 1985. He took a special interest in translating children's literature and Russian fiction. In addition to the works of Chekhov and Turgenev, he translated a 14-volume Tales of the Grimm Brothers.

9. Crescent Moon is the literary journal published by the Crescent Moon Society, the first

24. The word is in English in the original; wrongly used in this case.

issue of which came out in March 1928. The Crescent Moon Society was founded in 1927 by a group of intellectuals based in Beijing, Many of them had returned from Britain and the United States, where they had had their formal education. Besides publishing a couple of literary journals, they also opened a bookstore in Shanghai, organized occasional gatherings, and so on. Serious interest was taken by the group in translating foreign literatures, most notably the works of Shakespeare.

25. This term bears comparison with "distorted translation" (waiyi) mentioned in Mao Dun's article, the next translated extract. One is positive in its implications; the other, negative.

10. Quoted from the penultimate paragraph in Liang Shiqiu's article referred to here.

•

,':1' ,

, j," '

','

,

i, "

i, :

".-

, , ,

26. These are calques. Direct borrowings of this kind is, however, not possible in Chinese because it uses characters rather than letters of the alphabet. 27. The technique of translation denounced by Liang Shiqiu. 28. "J. K." is the pseudonym of Qu Qiubai. -

Translator

,

11.

Liang Shiqiu's "Is Literature Class-based?" was published in Crescent Moon 2.6-7 (1929).

29. See Qu Qiubai's "On Translation -

A Letter to Lu Xun" in this anthology.

12.

The word is in English in the original, as is the one that follows in the quotation.

30. For a biographical description ofXu Zhimo, see note 9 in Section C.

13. Chemie is a German word meaning "chemistry," derived from Greek chemeia, meaning

31. All the italicized words in this paragraph are in English in the original.

"alchemy." The word is in English in the original.

32. Xionghou literally means "grandiose and solid," and has nothing whatsoever to do with "symmetry."

14. The character liang can be broken up into the characters for "a lone, wooden bridge." ,,

~ 'Ii' 200

~.

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

33. The debate the three of them were engaged in can be seen in the articles in Part D, "The Language of Translation."

F: The untranslatability of poetry

34. Mao Dun (1896-1981), one of modern China's greatest novelists, was also a prominent translator and translation theorist. Believing that translations create the basis for China's New Literature, he sought to introduce foreign works, especially those of "oppressed" peoples in the Soviet Union, to Chinese readers via translations. As Minister of Culture in the 1950s, he also implemented a program for improving the standard of literary translations in China.

As in the West through the centuries, the translation of poetry - or rather, its continued to dog twentieth-century Chinese translation untranslatability theorists and poet-translators. In the first article selected for inclusion in this section, "Some Thoughts on Translating Poetry," Mao Dun argues in favor of relinquishing the attempt to render meter and focuses instead on "spiritual resonance," which is comparable to the English translation theorist Sir John Denham's idea of an "unfathomable spirit" to be recaptured. In "On Translating Poetry" (1923), Cheng Fangwu voices what might be interpreted as the position of the Creation Society, an influential literary coterie of the 1920s and 30s whose members included Guo Moruo, Yu Dafu and Cheng himself. Rather than directly rebutting the arguments for untranslatability, Cheng distinguishes between two methods oftranslating poetry. The expressive method is said to be "synthetic and centrifugal," in which the translator completely identifies with the poet, as Guo Moruo does in his translation of Shelley, and Dehmel in his translation ofVerlaine. The compositive method, on the other hand, is "analytical and centripetal" in nature; it seeks to wrestle with both content and form in reconstituting the feelings expressed in the original. In one of the most frequently quoted articles on the subject concerned, "Translation and Its Positive/Negative Impact on Modern Chinese Poetry" (1987), Bian Zhilin carries out an extensive survey of the history of interaction between foreign poetry and indigenous Chinese poetry (written under the influence of the translations) over the course of the twentieth century. Given here is an extract from Section Two of the article. Bian summarizes the struggles of Chinese poet-translators, including Wen Yiduo, Zhu Xiang, Zha Liangzheng and Yu Guangzhong, to translate foreign "regulated" poetry. In the process, to Bian, they transmit and create new poetic forms that vie with classical models in use in China over the centuries. The extract ends with a close look at two variant Chinese translations oflines from Pushkin's Eugene Onegin. On the basis of this, Bian stresses the cardinal principle of attending to "the need to compose a poem on the basis of syllable and not semantic groups." The 1990s saw another wave of discussions on the untranslatability question, but it is Gu Zhengkun's "Multiple Complementary Norms and the Translation of Poetry" (1990) that offers one of the more innovative answers.

35. By a narrow definition, the "May Fourth Period" refers strictly to the years 1917-1922. Some literary historians would extend it to include the 1920s, breaking off at 1929. 36. The Grand Historian is Sima Qian, whose Historical Records is a model of history as well as fiction writing in China. 37. Written by Washington lrving in 1820, and translated by Lin Shu in 1907. 38 . These are the words of Zhao Jingshen, who is the target of criticism in these two paragraphs. 39. Ai Siqi (1910-1966) was a Marxist scholar, an editor of several journals, and a translator of philosophical works by Marx, Heine and others. 40.

This is a Russian work, jointly translated by Ai Siqi and Zheng YiJi.

41. The word here is zhongshi, which can have a variety of meanings: "faithful," "loyal," and "honest." 42.

Yan Fu translated On Liberty in 1899, and it was published in 1903.

•

I.

202

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

F24. Some thoughts on translating poetry (l922)

A literary critic and professor at Beijing University, Gu views the entire debate as meaningless because the debaters have in fact adhered to different standards of judgment. As an alternative, he suggests eclecticism the application of a multiplicity of norms and criteria. This he demonstrates through a detailed analysis ofMax Weber's "Night" as translated by Guo Moruo and retranslated by himself. Rather than taking the side of either translatability or untranslatability, Gu recognizes different degrees of translatability and views Guo's translation from the perspective of "closest equivalence" as applied to the whole and

Mao Dun]

Is the translation of foreign poetry "possible"? Ought there to be any "rules" which must be observed in the translation of foreign poetry? What "advantage" is to be had by translating foreign poetry, or in other words, "why translate foreign poetry?" Whoever has translated foreign poetry must have thought about this series of questions. There are several different opinions on the first question: some say foreign poetry can be translated; others say it can't; some say there are things in foreign poetry which can be translated, and there are things which absolutely cannot, and what can be translated is only a makeshift, better than nothing but no more than that. Of these three viewpoints, the one we approve of is the third: when poetry has been translated, even if the translator is extremely careful and sticks closely to the source text, it can only be the re-telling of a poem,2 and cannot be seen as being the original. Ofall the strengths ofthe original poem, only one or two can be preserved in translation, and the whole absolutely cannot be preserved. So translating poetry is not the same as copying a painting. When copying a painting it may well be possible to express all the strengths ofthe original in the copy in minute detail, but translating foreign poetry can never be like this. Ifthe translator forces it to be so, the end result will be a waste of energy, and the translated text of no value. The situation is most obvious with the translation of foreign poetry which is "metrical." So to tell the truth, the translation offoreign poetry is undertaken because there is no alternative; it is better than nothing. But what need is there for the translation of foreign poetry? Here we come to the third question: what "advantage" is to be had by translating foreign poetry? If the translation of foreign poetry is of no great significance, but is only a literary game, then there is no need to discuss this question any further; if it is no more than "reporting back on what kind of flowers are in foreign gardens, and what new flowers are blossoming," then this question is not worth serious study; if it is done because there are certain masterpieces of world literature which we cannot do without in translated versions, then the question must be

its parts.

I

•

" .. la·.

204

I

I.

1

i

"

I

I

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

The untranslatability of poetry

answered in the negative. I think, on the contrary, that the translation of foreign poetry has a very positive significance. It is this: the translation of foreign poetry can be a means of revitalizing our own poetry. When we glance through the literary history of other countries, we often see that the introduction of a translated text electrifies a country's literary history into new directions; at least in the poetic arena, this must have an influence of this kind. From this viewpoint the translation ofpoetry is of great significance for the literary world, and has an even greater significance for a nation developing a new literature. This is certainly not limited to translated poetry alone, for all translation of literary works is of indirect assistance to the emergence of a new national literature. To a greater or lesser extent, the contemporary literary histories of Russia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and other countries prove this point. There is a touch of this in our own country too. Since the translation of foreign poetry is of some significance, we cannot just simply drone on about whether it is "possible or impossible": we must "do it though it cannot be done" and be realistic in our discussion of translation methods. Basically there are no concrete methods of translation, but whether or not there should be any rules which must be observed is something which can be discussed. Concerning this issue, the very first question is this: should poetry be translated literally, or should it be paraphrased? Mr. Zheng Zhenduo raised this last year, quoting Sir John Denham's approval of sense-translation. Denham said,

translation, not all of them. We should pick out one type of strength to preserve, and we should pick out and preserve the most important of all these strengths. I think that of all the charms of poetry, the most important is exactly what Denham called its "subtle spirit," but if we are not to lose the "spirit" of the original, the remainder of rhyme and meter and so on might as well be different. It is possible to preserve the tone, moreover, though the preservation of rhyme and meter may not be possible. Edgar Allen Poe's masterpiece, The Raven, is an exceptional poem which is exceptionally difficult to translate or perhaps is untranslatable; because this is "free verse" which doesn't stick to a fixed form, the droning syllable more on which the entire poem rhymes is extremely difficult to imitate in translation. Take these two verses: Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore _ While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door. " 'T'is some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door _ Only this and nothing more."

*** But the Raven still beguiling my sad fancy into smiling, Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door; Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore _ What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore Meant in croaking "Nevermore." •

I conceive it a vulgar error in translating poets, to affect being a Fides Interpres; let that care be with them who deal in matters of fact, or matters of faith. But whosoever aims at it in poetry, as he attempts what is not required, so he shall never perform what he attempts; for it is not his business alone to translate language into language, but poesie into poesie; and poesie is of so subtle a spirit, that in pouring it out of one language into another, it will evaporate; and if a new spirit be not added in the transfusion, there will remain nothing but a caput mortuum ... "3 (For the foregoing text, see Zheng's article in Fiction Monthly 12.3)

I also approve of sense-translation sense-translation, as against the overliteral translation of the kind he calls being a Fides Interpres, is not the kind in which you make free alterations to the original text, and in which you translate the text with your own sense and not that of the author. In other words, it is a method in which the "spirit" of the original is preserved. I have said above that of all the strengths of the original poem, only one or two can be preserved in

,

...

Apart from more, the matching of dreary and weary, and napping and rapping in the first stanza is not easy to translate either; and rhyming throughout on more also greatly helps the atmosphere of the poem as a whole. It would be simply impossible to carry over all the strengths of this poem at these levels. But if you wanted only to bring over its ideas and its "spirit," that would certainly not be impossible, and I believe a very good translation could be done of it. Similar examples could be found in the translation of Chinese poetry into English: "Mulan's Song" in English is translated entirely sense-for-sense, and is much better than the rather literal version of this poem by Li Bai. 4 The original reads as a unified whole, but there are many intricacies concealed within it. The English translation is:

20 5

"

, ,

206

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

I wake and moonbeams play around my bed Glittering like hoar frost to my wondering eyes Up towards the glorious moon I raise my head Then lay me down and thought of home arise [sic]

This pales beside the original. Another example: A fair girl draws the blind aside And sadly sits with the dropping head; [sic] I see her burning tear drops glide But know not why those tears are shed.

I I

I

1

,

I

I',

Its "spirit" largely resembles that of the original, and it is also a sense-translation. Literal translation, on the other hand, renders the translated text of no value, as can be shown by this single example. But it seems that sense-translation should also have its conditions: (1) It should not be an abridged translation. If it arbitrarily abridges and deletes parts of the original text to some extent, then it is "not proper." The English version of "Mulan's Song," though it isn't bad, is unfortunately flawed by being "too much like an abridged translation." (2) The spirit of the original poem should be there. Such "subtle spirit" surpasses the rhetorical skills employed, and is the very personality of any poem, the most important and difficult thing to carry over, though it is not by any means impossible to do. (3) It should conform to the style of the original poem. If the original poem is tragic and grand, it cannot ever be translated into something light and pretty. Apart from this, rhyme and meter and so on are secondary issues, and may safely be ignored. The second question concerning poetry translation is whether poetry should be translated into prose, or translated into the verse forms of one's own nation. Any poem with a fixed metrical form will no doubt possess the beauty which that form confers, and in translating a foreign "metrical" poem, in theory the most natural thing would be to translate it into fixed metrical form. But in fact, rigidly adhering to metrical forms will hinder other necessary aspects of poetry translation. Further, a fixed metrical form can never entirely follow that of the original poem, and since it is only partial imitation, it would be better to ignore the form and do a prose translation. Prose translations are • not necessarily without rhyme, for rhyme may still be used. A translation is basically considered good or bad solely on the basis of an assessment of the translator's skill, and it is meaningless to ask what methods were used or what rules followed is meaningless. Moreover, even if such methods or rules exist, an unskilled translator who knows them still can't do a

The untranslatability of poetry

good job; for a talented translator, on the other hand, they become fetters. But I think that there is one rule, with which everyone ought to feel some sympathy: one ought not to put too much emphasis on being able to reproduce the metrical pattern of the original poem. What is presented in this article is no more than my thoughts on this matter. Translated by Brian Holton

20 7

The untranslatability of poetry

F25. On translating poetry (1923) Cheng Fangwu 5

Whenever we discuss how to translate a poem, we inevitably confront an important question: Is poetry really translatable? Some say that this issue is the alpha and omega of translating poetry; some even say that translating poetry is impossible. I do not, however, intend to address the translatability of poetry specifically, and will therefore say only a few words on this point. Indeed, in discussing the translatability of poetry one can hardly avoid the question, "What is a poem?" Yet it is hard to give a complete picture in a few words, and rather than define a poem superficially, it is better to say simply that "a poem is a poem." This seems meaningless and ridiculous, but it is not by analyzing and dissecting a poem that one can get to its essential nature. In order to remain holistic, it is better to say simply that "a poem is a poem." This seems mystifying. Yet it is not necessarily so if a more unassailable viewpoint is being sought. Translating a poem involves verbal transfer from one language to another. Yet because a poem as a totality has to be translated, a crucial point is that the end product should be a poem too. This is not only a necessary, but also a sufficient, condition. Some may translate a poem word by word, write out the lines separately and call it a translated poem. However, such a translation, even ifit is precise and concise, is only a translation of words, not a translation of a poem. A translated poem should still be a poem that is something we should not forget. In addition, a translated poem should be faithful to its original. For the sake of discussion, a poem, in general terms, is made up of three components: content, emotion and form. Translating the form is the easiest, and the common run of translators pays most attention to the content, but the emotions of the original are the most difficult to render. Most contemporary translators have completely given up translating the last of these. Thus, an ideal rendition of a poem should: (1) be a poem, (2) transmit the • emotions of the original, (3) convey its content, and (4) retain its form. Is such a translated poem possible? I believe that whether the first condition can be fulfilled depends on the translator's talent; as for the second, it depends on his sensibility and expressive power; the third will depend on his comprehension, ability, and expressive power; and the fourth will be affected by his techniques.

The emotional lives of all human beings are largely similar. The range of words available for expressing emotions in different languages is roughly the same. Accordingly, the possibility of an ideal translation being achieved hinges on the competence of the translator. (In my opinion, however, certain manners of expression unique to one language cannot be carried over in the same form into another language.) Translating poetry is not impossible. I find that, even with my limited experience, a seemingly untranslatable poem eventually turns out to be totally translatable after repeated trial and error. Thus, how well a poem is translated must be related to the translator's competence and effort. Whatever is written in one language can always, in one way or another, be rendered in a second language. A poor translation is the result ofeither the translator's incompetence or a lack of sufficient effort. There are many sloppy translators overseas, but they are not comparable in number to what we have locally. Quite a number of translated poems these days immediately reflect the incompetence of translators and show how little effort they have put into their work. Such translated poems contribute to the general public's misunderstanding of the nature of poetry and show nothing but the superficiality of the translators. Yet among the criteria I have previously discussed, there is a question of priority. Sometimes, in order to make a translation "a poem," or retain the emotions of the original, minor alterations in content and form are forgivable. A poem is something that exists above the level of content, and we should not therefore put the cart before the horse. There are two methods of translating poetry. In order to facilitate discussion, I will tentatively use two special terms and call these: (i) the expressive method and (ii) the compositive method." In the former, a translator employs his powers of feeling and understanding to grasp the life of the original poem and render it in another language. This method is little different from the way a poet is inspired to compose something original. It places strong demands on the ability of the translator. If he is not as great as the original poet, his rendition will not be successful. When translating a poem, a translator should lose himself in his object, the poet; he should merge with the poet as one person. He then expresses his simmering emotions with all his strength and honesty. Once when translating Shelley's poems, Guo Moruo said, "To translate Shelley's poems is to turn me into Shelley and Shelley into me."7 These words are simple but profound. Some people are so ignorant as to jeer at Guo's viewpoint. That is just like a giant staring and laughing at his own abhorrent, naked body.B

209

210

, ,

,"

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theorv,

Such an approach to translation allows the creative spirit to work. In line with this, a translator often focuses on ways of expressing himself, not constrained by the content and form of the source text. The following example is Paul Verlaine's poem La Lune, as translated into Chinese by Guo Moruo some time ago and by Cheng Fangwu four years earlier. [Editor's Note: The two translations, as well as one by Dehmel, are then given.] There are several discrepancies between Dehmel's translation and the original poem. Yet Dehmel's version itself is a perfect rendition which can capture the original mood and style. Beyond dispute it is a reputable translation of Verlaine's poem. Next, in a "compositive" translation, the connection between the poem's original content and its rhythm is retained while the emotions expressed are transplanted. This is the common method of translation adopted by most, but translators often take a word-for-word approach, believing that they have completed their task this way. They seldom work hard on the connection between rhythm and content, and on the way the emotions are built up. The crux of this method is to re-capture the emotions of the original poem by reproducing the relationship between the content and rhythm as found in it. The translator has to fully grasp the way in which individual words are related to the content and rhythm. He then searches for words in the second language conveying the same content, and connects them up with the rhythm, much as the poet has done in the original. [Editor's Note: One example is given here.] We can examine these two methods more closely. Expressive translation seeks to release a core of mixed but unified feelings. Its function is thus analytical and centripetal. On the contrary, "compositive" translation seeks to create a core of mixed but unified feelings from a body of disparate materials. Its function is thus synthetic and centrifugal. Since an expressive translation involves the release of emotions by the translator, discrepancies inevitably exist between the source text and the target text. For instance, the order of the original discourse may be inverted, and its length changed. This is the shortcoming of the expressive translation method. Although a compositive translation can stay as close to the original in terms of content as it wants, the emotions often cannot be adequately conveyed. Human emotions are largely similar; they can be expressed in one language just as much as in another, though not in the same form. Thus, each of the two methods has its own merits, and the final choice depends on the translator's competence. Translated by May W ong

F26. Translation and its positive/negative impact on modern Chinese poetry (1987) Bian Zhilin9

The idea that modern vernacular poetry is to be written as poetry, not only like poetry, has brought about a new understanding: we cannot just casually copy the surface patterns of traditional Chinese poetry, as when Hu Shi and Guo Momo unwittingly introduced semi-regulated forms when translating poetry, which facilitated vulgarization and generalization. Rather, we should extract new poetic forms from the natural rhythms of speech, in order to transmit new poetic concepts and emotions appropriately and accurately. This new avenue, however, can only be opened up through experiences in creation and translation, on the basis of comparisons made between traditional Chinese and foreign poetic forms. In the mid-1920s, some intellectuals, led by Wen Yiduo lo and connected with Xu Zhimo's Beijing Morning Post Supplement, took the initiative to investigate these. At that time, Wen Yiduo published articles on how to build lines with "feet" and measure the length of each line with "meters." On the basis of these claims, he wrote several poems which were collected in Dead Water, and also translated some of Elizabeth Browning's love sonnets. These translations, later published in magazines, corroborated his views. His influence spread after decades of debate concerning poetic translation and creation. Sun Dayu It also wrote some strictly regulated poetry in accordance with Wen's ideas, but not until the 1930s did he assemble his translations and publish his arguments on how to build poetic lines with "syllable groups" (this accorded with the ideas of "pauses" and "beats" espoused later). In addition, although Zhu Xiang 12 contributed to the investigation of new metrical patterns in writing and translating poetry, on the whole he mainly applied the method of letting every (monosyllabic) Chinese character occupy an independent place, as in traditional poetry, and of building lines with monosyllabic rhythmic units. This practice was influential too, but it was not beneficial to poetic creation. For, in regulated poetry built on orderly syllable groups (pauses and beats), the number of syllables (each a single Chinese character) in every line is not necessarily always the same; a poem can be mocked as "block verse" and thus depreciated. 13 Strict adherence to "block poetry" may in practice not give rise to regularity in rhythm.

212

I

,

I

I

I

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

In striving to maintain the rhyming arrangements of the originals, Wen Yiduo, Zhu Xiang and a few other poets turned out translations that were ultimately beneficial to the writing of modern poetry. This cannot be seen as blind copying of Western forms because, after all, we did not use the monotonous one-rhyme system in the ancient Book of Odes or in Among the Flowers, nor do we do so in some of our folk songs today (such as the Hua'er Songs in Gansu province). Sometimes we even use yin rhymes. So why can't we use them in modern poetry where appropriate? Just like "block verse," our popular"staircase verse" have appeared because of the abundance of sterile and carelessly done Mayakovsky translations. Most of the poems by this famous poet are arranged as one-line steps (in a staircase), but actually they are regulated poems with lines built on stressed syllables. They have been turned into free verse with randomly arranged "steps" in translation. Some famous writers not engaged in writing and translating poetry made the mistake of saying, at overseas gatherings of poets, that just like Whitman's "prose poetry," Mayakovsky's "free verse" had had a great impact in China. Their audiences were quite astounded. We do not have to rectify this misconception, but different poetic forms serve different functions. What is important is that the writer should make the proper distinctions and apply them discreetly.14 From the 1950s to his death in 1977, Zha Liangzheng (Mu Dan)15 was outstanding in terms of the quantity and quality of his poetry translations. Most of these were of foreign classical poetry, all in regulated forms. He deliberately altered the rhyming patterns in the original poems, and simplified and clarified the rhymes according to the traditional Chinese manner. This can be seen as a justified, but not an ideal, approach. Besides, he did not bother to use syllable groups (pauses and beats) in the target language (Chinese) to reflect the rhythm of the original. Lamentably, this more or less influenced his own poetic works. In recent years, the translation of foreign regulated poetryl6 in China has improved immensely, and various translations comparable to their originals have been produced by Tu An,17 among others. They followed the meter and rhyme arrangements of the original poems, which led to their success. We may have to admit that poetry is not translatable, especially if it is regulated. We often cannot forcibly translate it using comparable regulated forms in the target language. IS No matter howwe translate it, we should do what enthusiasts like Yu Guangzhong have done - clarify the original format for the readers. Only in this way can we fulfill our responsibility to both the writer and our readers.

The untranslatability of poetry

Now there is more substance to our criticism of translated poetry. In the first volume of Studies in Foreign Literature, there appeared Chang Shufeng's article "On the Transmission of Metrical Patterns in Foreign Poetry, with Reference to the Translation of Eugene Onegin. "19 In the article, Chang shows admiration for Zha Liangzheng's translation of the novel-in-verse by Pushkin (where every stanza is in a variant form of the sonnet): "[It] presents the target text in regulated form, in order to mirror the original poem." He regrets that the translator "does not produce the rhyming format and other prosodic features ... " and so the rhythm "is not the same as that of the original poem." According to Chang, three new translators have emerged: Feng Chun, Wang Shikui and Wang Zhiliang. They have "traced the footprints left by their predecessors, and tried hard to open up a new path, enjoying admirable success." They have imitated the "metrical features" of the original in their translations, and Wang Zhiliang even "faithfully imitates the rhyming structure of Eugene Onegin's poetic stanzas." Within 400-plus stanzas, "apart from occasional deviations," Wang has managed to retain the features of the original text, including various kinds of rhymes. Wang's translation "achieves a kind of 'functional equivalence' to the original poem on the semantic and aesthetic levels," making "a successful breakthrough." I will now take a look at Wang's translation of a stanza quoted in Chang's article, trusting Chang's criticisms, since he knows the Russian language and Russian metrical forms very well. The only problem is that his demands are too strict, and inevitably pedantic. In his analysis of a stanza from Wang, placed alongside his own amendment of that stanza, he notes that some of the lines fail to meet his requirement of a "four-syllable meter." An example is Wang's Douyoul shenmel yisil wo qingyuanl ma shang (Having/ What/ Meaning?/ I would rather/ Be quick). The same lines are amended by Chang himself to become Youyoul shenme yiyil wo xiangl xianzai. Many other lines in the translation, too, in my opinion, actually contain five pauses (or beats), which would seem to adhere more to Chinese rules of speech. These new translators and their critics (there are others besides Chang), admired by Zha Liangzheng and others, do not seem to have fully acknowledged the key factor in the simple but flexible creation of modern Chinese metrical patterns: a poem needs to be composed on the basis of semantic, not syllabic, groups. Therefore they have not been able to build up the proper metrical patterns. Translated by Kelly Chan Kar Yue

213

The untranslatability of poetry

F27. On multiple complementary norms and the translation of poetry (1990) Gu Zhengkun 20

1.

, 1

11

,11

11

1 1 1

I

1

I

, 1, 1

, 11

11

General introduction

In translation, there are multiple norms, rather than a single norm, for the following reasons. First, epistemologically, I advocate three-dimensional thinking, viewing things from various positions, multiple perspectives and multi-level conceptualizations. We know that in examining an object, there are infinite possibilities in the location of the examiner with respect to the object examined, and each possibility may lead to a different set of results. In other words, an object can be A, or B, or both A and B, or at once C and D and E; the point of observation adopted always has a great and direct impact on the result of observation. Applying such an idea to translation, we may see easily why there must be more than one concrete norm in translation. Second, in considering the relationship between the target text and its readers, we may note that the same piece of translation, read by a hundred different readers, may produce a hundred different impressions. The value of a work in translation does not always correspond to the value of its original; the new value will be largely determined by the target-language reader's own cultural background, aesthetic values and practical concerns. It is therefore inevitable that the norms of translation be multiple. Third, from a functional perspective, a translation may serve to approximate the original message, to illuminate a certain mode of thinking, to amuse, to initiate an aesthetic experience, to enrich the target language, and so on. The multiplicity of functions entails a multiplicity of norms in translation. Fourth, because aesthetic values are diverse and vary from reader to ree-der, and from translator to translator, translation norms should also be multiple. Translation norms are not only multiple; they exist in an organic and constantly changing system. In this system, the highest norm oftranslation is "closest equivalence," which, being a highly abstract norm, is unlikely to be of any use. Many of the real norms that are of practical value to the translator are concrete.

Concrete translation norms can be further divided into primary and secondary ones. Along with changes in time, in the subject having the aesthetic experience,21 and in the function of translation as required by a particular occasion, some norms of translation may be emphasized over and above others, thus becoming primary norms for the moment. By comparison with them, other norms become secondary and exercise their own functions accordingly. Both primary and secondary norms change in accordance with external conditions; for this reason, we can call primary norms "variable primary norms." We accept that certain primary norms may last for as long as certain concrete conditions hold; nevertheless, we dispute the existence of a central norm that will stay permanently as a norm to be used for evaluating translations and for guiding translation practice at all times. Generally speaking, norms that represent the values of the majority at a given time are primary norms. They enjoy a certain stability, but in the long history of translation they are absolutely liable to change. The multiple norms of translation are complementary in nature. The strength of a particular norm is the weakness of other norms. The different norms of translation represent the different aspects of the value of a translated work. In exercising its own function, each norm actually also complements all the other norms, compensating for what they lack. [... ] All in all, a theory of multiple translation norms subverts the efforts made by translators and theorists over the last millennium to construct a single, absolute and practicable norm for translation. It proposes to adopt instead a cluster of norms which range from the abstract to the concrete, and from the primary to the secondary in importance. These norms are stable only in relation to one another, and in an ever-changing situation they oppose, complement and replace each other.

2.

Diversity of aesthetic interests and the translation of poetry

Diverse aesthetic values, of course, inform the work of diverse translators and lead to diverse translation styles. Conversely, it can be said that the existence of diverse translators and translation styles has an impact on human aesthetic interests, making them more varied. Diversity entails richness, and implies that we should hold a more accommodating attitude towards different ways of translating. For instance, a work of fiction or poetry may have several or even tens of translations, each with its own strengths. We can translate a poem into

215

216

I

, ,1

I ,

,I,

1

,

I,

1

,i

1

,

,1

I 1

1

,, , 1

1

I 1

I1 1

1

, 1

1 '

I, , I

I , 1

,

1

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

classical poetry, modern poetry, using vernacular or free verse, rhymed or unrhymed verse, or a mixture of poetry and prose. Since each of these has its own charm, we cannot easily decide in favor of one against the other: one translation style cannot satisfy all the different kinds of translators and readers. We should not forget that translations are undertaken and read not just for educational purposes, but also for entertainment, and the more styles of entertainment there are, the better. We are only half correct in saying that, aesthetically, people tend to love novelty, since they are also nostalgic. These two inclinations blend to constitute the basic characteristics of human aesthetic psychology; this is the most important reason for people's aesthetic interests being so diverse. Again with reference to the translation of poetry, if vernacular poetry is good, are classical forms necessarily bad? Free verse should be encouraged, but should regulated verse be suppressed? A straightforward translation is fine, but is an embellished translation necessarily a failure? A faithful translation should be commended, yet must an unfaithful translation, undertaken under a special set of circumstances, be completely denigrated? The most crucial point is the height and the angle from which one views the whole thing. It seems that when we propose to adopt modern poetic forms, to write in free verse, to use simple language and to be as faithful and straightforward as possible, we will not encounter strong opposition. If, however, we recommend the use of classical poetic forms, regulated verse, an embellished style and unfaithfulness in translation, we are bound to raise many eyebrows and stir up anger. But wait a second here. Let's consider first the use of classical forms in translating poetry. According to Fu Lei: "In terms of richness and variety, vernacular Chinese lags far behind the foreign languages. On this point, classical Chinese has a competitive edge over vernacular Chinese." Zhou Zuoren has said: "One can be more certain of success if classical Chinese, a blend of rhymed and unrhymed writing, is used. Not only will the translation read more fluent, it will also be closer to the original." Classical Chinese has its own rules and its own system, and one cannot do what one pleases. It also has a rich vocabulary. Vernacular Chinese, by contrast, is newly borrowed from the folk to serve as a medium of writing. It has no fixed rules or an established system to speak of, and the writer has to feel his way as he moves along. There is a great possibility that the writer's move may end up in a mess. Classical Chinese, therefore, does not deserve the condemnation it has received from some people. What about the use of regulated 22 verse in translation? For poetry to be poetry, it has to be musical, and a great deal of music is produced by regularity

The untranslatability of poetry

of form. If a translated poem excels in using a regulated form, through which the beauty of the original content is effectively enhanced, why should it not be allowed? Some poems may be better suited to rendition in vernacular form, some better in regulated verse. The judgement should really be made in accordance with the actual situation and needs. There are no hard and fast rules. Poems translated in an embellished high style are not necessarily bad poems. In fact, poetry consists mainly in the art and craft of language. If, without violating the original meaning, the translator uses a somewhat embellished style to cater to a certain group of readers, there is no reason why that should not be permitted. Of course, the translator has to specify beforehand the norms he has adopted in his translation, so that the reader will not be left in the dark. The best compromise: when approached by a publishing firm to do a translation, a translator should decide on the style to be used (embellished or plain) in the light of specific needs; he should mention this in the preface to his translation so that the reader will not be misled. As for unfaithful translations, they are objected to by many translation theorists. But in the history of translation, there are many cases where unfaithful translations are highly commended. Consider, for instance, Ezra Pound's rendition of "Song of the Sad Cicada as the Leaf Falls," a poem by Emperor Wu (Liu Che, which became the title of Pound's translation: "Liu Ch'e") of the Han Dynasty. The translation is different from the original in many places, and the last two lines in Pound's translation are totally Pound's own addition: And she the rejoicer of the heart is beneath them: A wet leaf that clings to the threshold.

But the two lines blow new life into the poem, and grant Emperor Wu's poem a unique place in the history of literature. Lin Shu, the "unfaithful" Chinese translator of Charles Dickens, has been praised by Arthur Waley in this way: "Lin's translations of Dickens are better than the original."

3.

The translatability of poetry

Is poetry translatable? This question has sparked endless debates in translation circles for a millennium. In the past, one school ofthought insisted on translatability (or rough translatability), another school on absolute untranslatability. The intensity of the debates has been unsurpassed. However, if viewed from the

217

218

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

perspective of multiple complementary norms, the question can be easily clarified. Put simply, to say that poetry is either translatable or untranslatable is arbitrary and inadequate. Four situations obtain with regard to the translation ofpoetry: it is either fully translatable, largely translatable, partially translatable, or untranslatable. Fully translatable components include: the number of lines in a poem; words or expressions for which close equivalents can be found in the target language; certain names of people and places (in transliteration); basic elements of the plot (in a narrative poem); and certain sentence structures and basic ideas expressed in the poem. Other items, however, can only be partly translated, or, when fully translated, will result in infelicities of style or violations of the idiom of the target language. These items, then, can be called semi-translatable (largely translatable or partially translatable) components. In fact, most words, phrases, sentence structures, rhetorical devices and stylistic features of various genres belong to this category. Components such as rhyme, rhythm, structure and number of syllables, special rhetorical figures, etc., cannot be translated. In other words, those features that distinguish the features that are unique to a particular language language from other languages are usually untranslatable. From a semiotic point of view, those features which rely for their aesthetic effect on the structure of the signs themselves are often untranslatable. The example below illustrates the "four situations": Night (by Max Weber) Fainter, dimmer, stiller each moment, Now night.

11

I, , , 1

,11

•

1

•I ,

In this poem, Weber imitates the gradual, stealthy arrival of night. This apwhen proach corresponds closely to what many people have experienced lifting the head to look outside without really thinking about it, the sudden realization: "Oh, it's all dark already!" With this understanding, we come to see why we have a rather long first line (nine syllables) but a very short second line (two syllables). The first line makes skillful use of line length to suggest the gradual approach of night, while the second line employs a short line to realize the way in which night steals upon people unawares. Understanding this is the clue to translating the poem. Here, the poem title and the poet's name are fully translatable, and the remaining components are mostly semi-translatable. The untranslatable

The untranslatability of poetry

elements "fainter," "dimmer" and "stiller" all end in a schwa sound, implying a certain kind ofvague monotony suggestive of something approaching rather mechanically. Such a suggestive sound effect built upon the schwas is quite impossible to approximate in the Chinese language, and so can be considered untranslatable. In the second line, the cleverly used word "now" may simply mean "the present moment," but may also indicate a sudden mood, a conclusion, or an exclamation. The first line drags on, in a slow, monotonous progression, until "now" leaps out with a blast, and everything seems to go suddenly still. It is almost impossible for all the nuances of meaning in "now" to be fully rendered in the translation. In fact, only a very limited part of its meaning can be brought out; so the word "now" in the poem can rightly be called a partially translatable component. In addition, we can talk about the treatment of rhyme and meter in poetry. In Western poetry, the rhyme scheme "ababcdcd" is commonly used. In classical Chinese poetry, however, the scheme "aaba" is often preferred. The general rule goes like this: "With lines one, three and five, never mind; but for lines two, four and six, make it rhyme."23 In other words, the use of rhyme is compulsory in the even lines, and most of the time the same rhyme is used throughout. 24 In the translation of poetry from English to Chinese, there are three different schools of thought as far as the treatment of rhyme is concerned: one opts to keep the original rhyme scheme; another chooses to adapt the rhyme scheme in accordance with the conventions of Chinese poetry; a third prefers to use no rhyme at all. Obviously, each school has its own strengths and weaknesses. The first school, paying full respect to the use in traditional English poetry of rhyme in alternate lines, partially retains the musical features of the original. Yet such a rhyme scheme, strange to the ear of Chinese readers, may strike them as formally unusual and not pleasing musically. The second school pays due respect to the Chinese poetic tradition and caters to Chinese readers' aesthetic sense. While it generally gets high scores in creating a sense of musical beauty for the readers, it scores poorly in "close equivalence" since the original rhyme scheme is abandoned. The third school, freed from the restraints of rhyme and meter, enjoys relatively greater freedom in the choice of words and expressions and may approximate more closely the thoughts and feelings expressed in the original. The resulting translation, however, may be lacking in musical beauty. Translated by Julie Chiu

219

220

Notes

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Notes to Articles 24-27

accept Western methods of poetic composition and their ban on the use of carry-on lines. -Author

See note 34 in Section E.

14. See Ye Junjian, "The International Poetry Festival at Sarajevo," in Random Notes

1.

in Yoguslavia (Sichuan Chengdu People's Publishing Co., 1980), p.180. It appears that Mayakovsky's poems are treated as free verse in English translation, not as staircase verse. I recall that, when I was studying at Beijing University, I did translate a short Mayakovskypoem from its blank-verse English version for the propaganda leaflet edited by Qian Jiaqu, et al.Author

The original uses the English word retold. All italicized words are in English in the original. - Translator

2.

3. The quotation is in Chinese in the original. The source is Denham's Preface to the Destruction of Troy. See Douglas Robinson, Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche (Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997), p.156. - Translator

15. Zha Liangzheng (1918-1977) obtained his M. A. from the University ofChicago, and then returned to China to teach at Nankai University at Tianjin. He translated the poetry of Pushkin, Shelley, Byron, Yeats, and others. His rendition of Byron's Don Juan is regarded by many as the "definitive" Chinese translation.

4. "Mulan's Song" is an ancient ballad about a girl, Mulan, who disguised herself and went to battle in place of her father. The story has been repeatedly rewritten by Chinese writers, and was recently made into a Wait Disney film. 5. Cheng Fangwu (1897-1984), educator, literary scholar and Marxist critic, founded the Creation Society - one of the most influential literary coteries in the early twentieth century - with Yu Dafu and Guo Moruo in 1921. As a translator, he is best-known for his translation of The Communist Manifesto in 1937.

16. "Foreign regulated poetry" refers to "metrical and rhythmic poetry from abroad." Cf.

the same term as used in Gu Zhengkun's article. 17. Tu An (1923-), himself a poet, is well known for his translation of Whitman's poetry as

well as Shakespeare's sonnets; two versions of the latter came out in 1950 and 1981.

6. The two italicized English terms are the author's. They are retained here as in the original.

18. Due to the flexibility of the Chinese language -

7. Quotation from Selected Poems ofShelley (1926). Guo is also famous for his rendition of Shelley's "Ode to the West Wind." 8. Meaning unclear. There is no knowing whether this was an idiom popular at the time. I

9. On Bian Zhilin, see note lOin Section A.

,

Wen Yiduo (1899-1946), a member of the Crescent Moon Society, paid special attention to the use of meter and rhythm in vernacular Chinese poetry. Many of his innovations can be attributed to the influence of foreign poetry. Wen sought to translate poetry as poetry, and translation became a means of enriching indigenous poetry for him.

10.

Sun Dayu (1905-) was educated at Dartmore College and Harvard. He translated the poems of Shakespeare, Browning, Shelley, Keats and Wordsworth into Chinese, and classical Chinese poetry (including Qu Yuan's Songs of Chu and Tang poetry) into English.

11.

Zhu Xiang (1904-1933) started to write poetry at an early age. Leaving his studies at the University of Chicago incomplete, he returned to China and began his teaching career. For years he lived in straitened financial circumstances, and in 1933 drowned himself while on a boat trip from Shanghai to Nanjing. During his lifetime, his The Book ofMyrthe (1936) was the most comprehensive translation of foreign poetry available in China.

12.

13. In fact, classical Chinese poetry with five or seven characters per line, especially the

so-

called "Recent-styled Poetry," reads like "block verse" with lines of equal length. This'is well known to all. From this we can see that, if we measure the length of each line by just counting the characters (which are monosyllabic), we have poems that appear neat and tidy, though in actuality it is not so. This is only a kind of visual formalism. The New Poems published in newspapers and journals these days are as a rule unpunctuated. It is as if they would no longer be poetry when punctuated - that, too, is formalism. The insistence on separate, unpunctuated lines is no different (in spirit) from the traditonalists' refusal to

in this it surpasses English, which among Indo-European languages is grammatically most simple and lax - it can absorb, and blend with, certain imported structures. It can easily appropriate certain structures of the literary language, too. Hence it will be easier to translate Western regulated poetry into Chinese than it is the other way round. Then, there are two points of similarity between modern Chinese and modern English regulated forms. In both, a line containing more than five feet will be considered too long. Actually, in Chinese regulated poetry, a line will be considered as too "heavy" if there are more than four pauses. In French regulated poetry, the alternate use of yin and yang rhymes is a traditional requirement. Yin rhymes are acceptable in English poetry, but the effect will be jarring, and when over-used a ludicrous effect is created. That is exactly the same with modern Chinese poetry. Because of this, when Hu Shi started to write New Poetry and used the particle le too often as a rhyme, he was laughed at for writing "Le-le Songs." There is some truth in that. There are defects with modern Chinese, of course - defects not correctable as yet. For example, there are two different characters for "he" and "she," but they are pronounced the same. - Author 19. See Xu Chi, ed., Studies in Foreign Literature (1987), no.1 (Wuchang Central China

Normal University), pp.62-65, 61. Wang Zhiliang gave the author a copy of his translation, found in Vol.5 of Selections from Pushkin (Beijing People's Literature Publishing Co., 1985). The translation strives to be as close to the original as possible, though not to the extent of matching every foot therein. It is indeed a praiseworthy attempt. - Author Gu Zhengkun got his Ph.D. in English in 1991 from Beijing University, and currently teaches there. Besides theoretical essays on the translation of poetry, he has published translations of Shakespeare's sonnets, Mao Zedong's poetry, the Daoist classic Daode jing, and a collection of Abraham Lincoln's speeches and letters.

20.

The word "subject" here is used in the philosophical sense, meaning "the perceiver," not in the literary sense. - Translator

21.

221

222

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

22.

"Regulated" here can also be translated as "metrical and rhythmic."

23. The general rule does not require the use of rhyme in the first line, and so implies a

pattern of "abcb" rather than "aaba"; classical Chinese poets, however, often use a rhyme in the first line of short poems of four or eight lines, and in the first line of the opening stanza of longer poems, to establish the rhyme more effectively. - Translator 24. If it is not used throughout a poem, it is used at least throughout a stanza or several stanzas in a poem. - Translator

I;

,

I'

G: Translation theory for China

•

Dong Qiusi's "On Building Our Translation Theories" (1951), which was written right after the "New China" was established with the founding of the People's Republic, indubitably set the direction for the debate about developing a body of translation theory for China in recent decades. As far as can be seen, he is the first twentieth-century theorist to insist on the practical use of translation theory for China, arguing that, given proper theories, translation work can proceed more systematically and the quality of translation can be improved. Viewed in its historical context, his article is nothing less than a call to open up translation theory as a new area of investigation. Luo Xinzhang's "Chinese Translation Theory, a System of Its Own" (1984) is the introduction he wrote to A Collection ofEssays on Translation. It is a bold attempt to chart the genealogy of translation theory in China. In a survey of translation theories in the past, from the late Han dynasty up to the twentieth century, Luo singles out Yan Fu, Fu Lei and Qian Zhongshu as central figures in a Chinese tradition. While it is understandable how the theories of the trio could have appealed to Luo because of their "Chineseness," it needs to be noted that, if a broader view were to be taken, they could equally be seen as representing one among several possible Chinese "traditions" of translation theory. A third theorist in this case also a linguist who has upstaged the debate about the necessity for specifically Chinese translation theories is Liu Miqing. The extract here, "The Basic Paradigm of Chinese Translation Theory" (I 990), is taken from Chapter 2 ofhis book, Present-Day Translation Studies. Liu argues that a universal translation theory as such does not exist; there are only theories pertaining to the pairs (or clusters) of languages being used in translation. Through an analysis of the nature of the Chinese language (said to be noninflectional, pragmatically oriented, and structured around "building-blocks") and English-Chinese translations, Liu determines that translation theories for China must be based on: (1) a descriptive approach which looks at language facts, (2) an emphasis on semantic structures, and (3) a functional, or communicative, perspective. One of his major conclusions is that, among Western theories, Nida's dynamic equivalence has more relevance to the Chinese case than Catford's formal equivalence.

224

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

G28. On building our translation theories (1951)

The last two translation theorists represented in this section advocate, by contrast, the amalgamation of Western theories with Chinese ones. Sun Zhili, in "Some Thoughts on Building Our Nation's Translation Theory" (1998), proposes a dialectical approach whereby oppositions and paradoxes rampant in translation theory can be synthesized. To him, not only should a link be forged between theory and practice, but also Chinese and Western theories of translation ought to be fused. Through summing up all the debates in translation circles in recent years, he attempts to point out a future direction for translation theorizing in China. In "On Theories in Translation Studies" (1998), Lin Zhang faults Liu most notably, a Miqing's translation theory for its internal inconsistencies failure to distinguish between "Chinese translation theory" and "Chinese (language) translation theory." He also attacks hidden ethnocentric attitudes in Liu, who has placed too much stress on where a theory is produced, or where it originated. Liu's "description-oriented, semantic-functional model" is for Lin little more than a model for Chinese/English translation theory. Reading Lin's essay, indeed, one is reminded of the universalism-versus-particularism debate that has divided Western translation theorists in recent years, with neither side appearing to have won.

Dong Qiusi 1

•,

•

)i

,

',I:

,

I

,

i' ",

Discussion of the questions of leadership and critical appraisal in translation work is inseparable from discussion of the formulation of translation theories. Leadership is not confined to the realms of organization or planning; it is mainly a question of ideology. Those institutions that take charge should hold on to certain principles and set the direction for translators across the country. China has a long history of translation and, in spite of the lack of systematic theorization, has acquired an abundance of scattered and unconsolidated experiences and ideas. It is obviously due to such experiences and ideas that our translation work since ancient times has seen some measure of progress. However, just because such experiences and ideas do not constitute an intact system, there remain many gaps and unresolved problems. More often than not these gaps and problems are like traps, leading beginners astray. Those who produce stilted word-for-word translations would say that theirs are "literal translations," while those who run wild and submit to no constraints whatsoever would say that they are just "translating the sense" or "following the spirit." In fact, the question of "literal translation" versus "sense-translation" has existed since the very beginning of our history but after a millennium there still has not been a satisfactory answer to it. Buddhist translations in China since the Eastern Han dynasty (25-220) were divided into the schools of "literal translation" and "sense-translation." The literalists maintained that the translator only had to render Sanskrit into Chinese faithfully, and nothing was to be added or omitted. Though some literalists did not object to inverting the word order of Sanskrit to conform to Chinese grammar, other literalists stood firmly against it, so translations appeared with completely ungrammatical structures. On the other hand, the "sense-translation" school contended, to some extent quite rightly, that the literalists had produced obscure and unintelligible texts lacking in genuine beauty. However, the versions produced by such translators of this school as Kumarajiva did not become the standard either. Many further changes were made to them after the early years of the Tang dynasty (705-907). Similarly, concerning the Christian translation of the Old and New Testaments in the

226

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

West, there was the same kind of controversy. Translation committees were summoned and dismissed time and again because there was a division of opinion between whether to adopt the literal or sense-for-sense approach. In fact, the contention has lasted to the present day. It follows that, without a proper resolution to the problem, there will be no solid basis for organization and planning, nor will there be objective criteria for proper leadership and criticism. This means that there can be no certainty that translation quality will be improved. Of course, there are other issues in translation besides literal translation and sense-translation. Their discussion will of necessity depend on the development of our translation theory. Recognition of the importance of formulating translation theories means finding out if we have the right conditions for it at the moment. A brieflook at the history of translation in China reveals that conditions for doing so were lacking in the past. The scope of the work done by Buddhist and Christian translators was narrow; it was also short-lived. Therefore one cannot even begin to talk about the building of systematic translation theories in those days. During modern times, especially after the May Fourth Movement of 1919, the field of translation was broadened while a rich accumulation of experience was left behind by predecessors. From this angle, it can be said that the conditions for formulating translation theories were adequate. However, under circumstances where socio-politicallife was characterized by corruption and chaosin addition to capitalist narrow-mindedness -well-planned projects were few and far between. Basically, the publishers were interested in profit, and the translators were interested in the royalties. Indeed, most translators only took up translation as a sideline occupation to eke out a living. If they did not even have the time or energy to ponder over what they had translated, how could they be expected to deliberate on the formulation of translation theories? However, since the Liberation, great changes have taken place, one of the most remarkable of which is that the state has assumed the responsibility of "constructing culture" and has taken steps in a planned manner to set things in motion. Translation departments have been set up at various levels, both central and local. Each and every one of these translation departments is staffed • by professional translators who can concentrate wholeheartedly on translation, research, or translation-related administrative work. They are now no longer subject to unjust political persecution or exploitation by publishing profiteers, and they no longer need to hack out translations in order to earn a living. This is something unprecedented, and this is a situation where we can do better work than in the past while formulating our translation theories.

Translation theory for China

I I

I ,

I

I

,

I

I I

Unfortunately, up to this point, such good conditions have not been properly exploited. Waste of resources and duplication of work are still very much the order of the day; translations of poor quality are still found in large quantities in bookstores; the general readers' contempt for translated works remains unaltered. All this is evidence that neither translation departments nor translators have exercised the influence that they should have. Obviously, these departments and individuals still work in the old mode of "each man for himself." They are not organized on the basis of shared principles and overall planning, which allow for concerted work. This is in fact the Number One concern for Chinese translators. With the National Conference on Translation scheduled to be held within this year, it should not be too long before the problem can be solved. While nation-wide translation projects are being planned, we must also make an effort toward formulating our translation theories. Two steps can be taken in this respect. Firstly, a proposal can be worked out as soon as possible on some of the core issues in translation, such as: whether one should take the literal or the sense-translation approaches, how to edit translations, and what are the criteria for judging translations. Once such a proposal has been made, it should be submitted to the National Conference on Translation for approval in order for it to become a provisional "common programme" for translators, in accordance with which all our translation projects can be carried out. As the proposal will have to be worked out within a relatively short time and cannot be expected to cover in depth all sorts of translation experience (both past and present, Chinese and foreign), it can only be regarded as a provisional proposal. Some issues may be lightly touched upon and many problems may not be thoroughly dealt with. We should not be content with the present phase of development, and need to work further. Secondly, in the implementation of translation projects, or parts of them, experts and specialists should be co-ordinated through Central Government institutions to fulfil such tasks as: 1. Writing "a history of translation in China," summarizing from a correct historical perspective the translation experience of over a millennium since the Eastern Han dynasty, 2 and maintaining the right directions and norms; 2. Investigating the literature on translation theory and institutionalization in other countries, both East and West, and translating and editing such literature so that Chinese translation theory can benefit from it; 3. Carrying out comparative studies of Chinese and foreign languages (on the basis of Stalin's views on language and adopting a scientific/linguistic

227

228

Translation theory for China

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

attitude) and pointing out the parameters governing translation as well as the limitations of "foreignization"; 4. Strengthening translation criticism by investing more time and effort in it, and, by searching for typical examples on a broader basis, commending the good and rejecting the bad (in this way translators can be encouraged and translation theories can be empirically supported); 5. Calling upon translators and editors alike to summarize their own experience so that they can exchange ideas with colleagues and peers (this will raise translation quality and help formulate translation theories); and 6. Producing a good translators' journal so that translators from all over the country can share their views and publish research findings (since the possibility of gathering translators together in one institution of translation is very slim, at least for the present). In addition, the compilation and revision of dictionaries, the standardization of terminology, etc., should also be part of our project. However, since these are not the main concern of this paper, they will not be discussed further here. It is envisaged that, with the completion of nation-wide projects over a period of time, we shall be able to write two major books: (1) A Chinese History of Translation and (2) A Chinese Science of Translation. The publication of these books will be an indication that our work on translation has progressed from an "impressionistic" to a rational stage. We will also prove the validity of the view that "translation is a science." At this point, I would like to go back to the objections mentioned at the beginning of this paper and respond to them. It should have become clear from my arguments above that translation is not something unknowable; rather, it is an existential phenomenon governed by laws unique to itself, and therefore has all the qualities needed to become a science. I say it is a "science" because it evolves according to objective laws; it is not fantasy or make-believe. Such things as "guidelines for writing novels" are useless because (a) they are not written scientifically; (b) they do not analyze phenomena deeply enough; and (c) they are largely produced for commercial profit. Otherwise these "guide' lines for writing novels" might be of some use. We formulate our translation theories on the basis of: (1) a correct methodology, (2) exhaustive field study, and (3) thorough-going research. Translation theories formulated this way constitute a science; nothing that is unscientific stands comparison with it. Like all other scientific theories, there are both generic and specific features in translation theories. On the one hand, they

,, ,

should comply with the general laws of science; and, on the other hand, they should bear the distinct characteristics of their own time and place. They draw upon the work and experience of the past and of foreign countries, but they are absolutely not copied blindly from elsewhere. In other words, there are no shortcuts or labor-saving tricks. What is required is the investment of both human and material resources. It is for this reason that I have emphasized my point repeatedly, hoping that all those who are engaged in translation work, who are serious about it, will recognize its relevance and make a voluntary effort to promote it. Once the theory part is completed, our translation work will no longer be just craftsmanship; we will be modernized translators. In this way, an enormous contribution will be made to the construction of a new culture in China. Translated by Tan Zaixi

,, ,

, ,

,

",

,,

"

229

i

Translation theory for China

G29. Chinese translation theory) a system of its own (1984) Luo Xinzhang

China has had translation theories for a very long time. Considered chronologically, the internal development of Chinese translation theory over more than 1,700 years since the Eastern Han dynasty (25-220) can be divided into three stages. During the Han and Tang dynasties, Buddhist translations dominated, with several approaches (literal, sense-for-sense and "compromising" approaches) expounded by the great translators of the sutras. Most theories on translation in China can largely be traced back to this period, including those of faithfulness, fluency and elegance. However, on the whole, this first stage is but an inaugural stage; there is no dominating viewpoint that can be seen as representative. Compared with this first stage of development, the early modern-May Fourth period distinguishes itself with Yan Fu's three cardinal principles. The issue of whether to translate literally or according to "sense" was restated in terms of "faithfulness at the expense of fluency" and "fluency at the expense of faithfulness." All the theoretical debates on translation were in one way or another caused by different interpretations of faithfulness, fluency and elegance. The third period of development began with the 1949 Liberation. In terms of the depth and breadth of discussion, and of the new areas explored, this period has superseded the earlier two. Of all the ideas put forward, the most popular ones are [Fu Lei's] "spiritual resonance" and [Qian Zhongshu's] "realm of transformation." The old issue ofliteral vs. sense-translation can now be understood as a preference for "formal resonance" (xingsi) or for "spiritual resonance," while the most commendable kind of translation is one that has reached "the realm of transformation."3 On the one hand, these two theories of translation can be seen as having broken away from the principles of faithfulness, fluency and elegance. On the other hand, they can be viewed as a further development ofYan's three principles. As Liang Qichao remarked, "It is not at all easy to come to terms with the three principles, and, to get at the heart of the matter, it seems appropriate to proceed from faithfulness to fluency and then to elegance." Since "elegance" already impinges upon aesthetics, a step forward

"

, "

'/

,, '.t' ',1 ,n

'F

)1, ,,

"'

:';t

,

':\

,I

jl', ,

,

,

,"': "

"

/ "I: , " " I. ,.

,

" lip'

:1,

,

fr' i

.",

::;1' •

,,/ ,

will take us into "spirit" and "transformation." From this point of view, "spiritual resonance" and "the realm of transformation" are both a negation of and an advancement on Yan's three principles. An overview of the Han-Tang, early modern, and post-Liberation phases reveals a spiral pattern of development: very often later ideas on translation are derived from preceding ones, or they may replace earlier concepts. One round of thinking always gives way to another that is more profound and elevated. Translation involves the introduction of foreign culture and science. But interestingly enough, when our predecessors laid down principles for translation, they did not do it the easy way by borrowing readily available foreign ideas. Most Chinese ideas on translation are deeply rooted in China's long cultural history, in its classical literary discourse and aesthetics. Take, for example, Yan's three principles. As he professed in his Preface to the translation of Huxley's Evolution and Ethics, the three characters were taken from the Confucian classics, including the Book ofChanges. They represent a transplantation of established concepts in classical Chinese rhetoric and literary studies to the field of translation. The theory of" conveying the spirit" (chuanshen) can be traced back to the artist Gu Kaizhi,4 who first promoted it as an aesthetic requirement for figure painting, and later it gained currency and became t~e highest criterion for painting. In his early years, Fu Lei studied art theory m Paris and excelled in both music and painting. As is well said, "people's likes and interests are biased. Those fond of singing tend to say that poetry should be like music while those fond of carving and painting say poetry should be like painting." In a similar manner, Fu compares translation to painting and it is by applying the discourse on painting to that on translation that he .conceives. of the idea of "conveying the spirit." Qian Zhongshu, a scholar With extenSive knowledge of both past and present, East and West, is fond of discussing literature and the arts. To him, "the arts spring from the heart's desires; they do not depart from them." Perhaps Qian, making use of what he has learned from his studies, chooses to approach translation from a literary perspective. Precisely because all these Chinese concepts oftranslation are derived from discourses on essay writing, painting and poetry, the terms for them are inevitably characterized by the brevity of classical Chinese literary discourse. But some people are of the view that they are not precise or scientific enough; one cannot express concepts in just a few Chinese characters. This is not necessarily true. Take, for example, Tytler's Essay on the Principles of Translation, first introduced to Chinese readers in the 1920s. His three principles of translation, namely, that the translation should give a complete transcript of

231

232

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Translation theory for China 233

the ideas of the original work, that the style and manner ofwriting should be of the same character as that of the original, and that the translation should have all the ease of original composition, in fact show affinities with Yan's ideas. The first and third principles are similar to Yan's "faithfulness and fluency" while the second is, broadly speaking, Yan's "elegance." Anyone who is steeped in Chinese culture will surely feel that Yan's three principles are more concise and easier to commit to memory; they perhaps carry broader and deeper connotations than those of Tytler. Brevity is in fact a characteristic of Chinese literary discourse. An argument in Chinese is often encapsulated in just a few characters. Yan Yu's miaowu (witty comprehension), Wang Shizhen's shenyun (delicate charm), Shen Deqian's gediao (metre and tone) and Yuan Mei's xingling (leisurely personality) are all examples of how a theory can make a remarkable eye-catching impact because it uses just a few characters. 5 What really counts is not the number of characters used for the concept, but whether the idea is appropriately conveyed. However, what I call "brevity" here applies to existing concepts of translation in China. By no means do I intend it to be a constricting guideline for the future. To be sure, traditional Chinese discourse on translation is generally concise, clear-cut and closely related to practice while full-length, systematic theoretical works on translation have not yet appeared. As a branch oflearning that borders on the study of art, literature, language, rhetoric, psychology and aesthetics, translation theory has flourished and will enjoy a very promising future. With advances in research and the introduction of new theories, a more accurate language to describe it and a distinct terminology will surely evolve. If translators and translation scholars in this country can, on the basis of our tradition with its rich legacy of experience, develop theories that have unique Chinese features yet are practice-related, they will certainly be able to make a great contribution to the field worldwide. As noted in many articles, Yan's three principles are a tremendous contribution to translation theorizing in China. In other countries, translation principles are seldom as full of vitality and widely cited as Yan's, though Yan's three principles were promulgated eighty years ago at the end of the nineteenth century.6 They also are, quite remarkable when compared with translation theories in other countries during that period. The way in which Yan sums everything up by means of "faithfulness, fluency and elegance" should perhaps earn him a unique and welldeserved place in the world history of translation theory! When translated for use in China, a foreign theory of translation that works very well in its country of origin may not necessarily fit, because there

are differences between languages and cultural traditions. For example, the Chinese view of "conveying the spirit" and the Russian concept of "equal-value translation" were both put forward at about the same time in the early 1950s. Only one year after its publication in 1953, Federov's Introduction to the Theory of Translation was translated into Chinese, attracting a large number of Chinese supporters, some of whom tried to provide definitions of, and lay down criteria for, an equal-value translation. According to Federov's definition, "Equal value in translation means complete accuracy in the reproduction of the ideological content of the original text and total correspondence with the original in terms of function and rhetoric." It may be that, because it is easy to translate from one Indo-European language to another, "complete accuracy" in ideological content and "total correspondence" in rhetorical function are possible. Hence the theory of equal-value translation'? Since Chinese is an ideographic rather than phonetic language, we will have to face up to reality: a.

There are gaps between different languages, and gaps between the translator's comprehension and style on the one hand, and the original content and form on the other. There are even gaps between the translator's understanding and his own ability to express what he has understood. Translation is an arduous journey, starting off with one language and safely arriving at another, bridging little by little the great gap in between. On the way there are hazards of all kinds, and it is not possible to avoid losses and injuries. Therefore, some measure of distortion or infidelity is always inevitable in translation, and the meaning and tone of a translation may not be exactly the same as those of the original. b. What is therefore unavoidable in translation is a certain amount of"error," to a greater or lesser degree. 8 This negates, in theory, the possibility of equal-value translation. It is more realistic to require a translation to be "similar to the original text." The difference between the Chinese theory of "conveying the spirit" and the Russian theory of"equal-value translation" in fact reveals the different aesthetics of the two nations. Owing to differences in national conditions, the same word may be differently weighed in different languages. For instance, to call a successful translation an "equal-value translation" may sound quite complimentary to a Russian translator; it is, however, a bit funny to the Chinese translator's ear. Similarly, the complimentary Chinese remark yibi chuanshen (the translating pen conveying the spirit), when rendered word-for-word into a foreign language, will sound vague and confusing. This shows how a translation theory

I'

234 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Translation theory for China 235

cannot have "equal value" for different languages and cultural traditions. Blind, mechanical borrowing of foreign theories will simply not work. When reading Tytler's essay in 1951, Fu Lei did not, so to speak, swallow it raw and whole; inspired by it, he advanced his theory of "conveying the spirit." Likewise, Qian Zhongshu, well read in the translation theories of various countries, did not stop with his predecessors but showed his intellectual ingenuity by pointing out that "the highest criterion for literary translation is 'transformation.'" With increasing cultural exchange between nations, there is bound to be cross-fertilization of theories. Foreign translation theories should be widely introduced; as the Chinese saying goes, 'there are stones from other hills which may serve to polish one's own jade." The problem is whether we are good at using others for our own benefit. We must have the ability to "thoroughly grasp" and transform what is foreign. By making up for our deficiencies in this way, we can develop our translation theory, devise better translation criteria, and open up new areas for investigation. Chinese translation theory, which originated in traditional Chinese literary discourse and aesthetics, has gradually evolved its independent identity. It is now in the process of becoming a new academic discipline Fanyixue (Translation Studies, or the Science of Translation, or Ubersetzungswissenschaft). In fact, with the effort made by well-known (and unknown) translators and translation scholars over a thousand years, China now boasts its own unique system of translation theory, which can be directly stated as follows:

It is extremely difficult to achieve "faithfulness" in the absolute sense we only strive for closeness to the original. Fu Lei therefore stresses "getting at the spirit of the original" and advocates "spiritual resonance." This undoubtedly constitutes an improvement on Yan's "faithfulness," and takes the study of translation into the field of aesthetics. 4. According to Qian Zhongshu, the idea of "the realm of transformation" implies that "the translation is so faithful to the original that it does not read like a translation" and that "the essence and guise of the original should remain." Here Qian's statement that "the translation does not read like a translation" is just as well expressed as Fu Lei's remark that the translation should read "as if it had been written by the author in Chinese," whereas Qian's idea that "the essence and guise of the original should remain" is an improvement on Fu's "spiritual resonance." Therefore, Qian's "realm of transformation" can be regarded as a step forward from Fu's "spiritual resonance," as well as a removal of translation from the field of aesthetics to the perfect state of art.

3.

If we trace things back to their source, we will find that Qian's insistence on the faithful rendition of the "essence and guise" of the original is but a re-interpretation of the ancients' idea of "translating according to the basic meaning," of Yan's "faithfulness" which incorporates both "fluency" and "elegance," and of Fu's "spiritual resonance." Clearly enough, the four concepts are not only independent but also interrelated, and they constitute a complete whole divided into graded stages. It is this complete whole that should form the core of our country's system of translation theory. Our farsighted predecessors have laid down important cornerstones for a system of translation theory in China. It is our turn to carry on with the work. We must humbly learn the advanced translation theories from abroad. On the basis of our own experience, we should keep on formulating new hypotheses so as to develop our unique translation theory. It will be a system with a unique place in the world!

The ancients argued that one should "translate according to the basic meaning of the original" (an ben er chuan) and that while there is a need "to make the plain beautiful" (yi shi xhu hua), "no attempt should be made to beautify the translation at the expense of the basic meaning" (qu bu wai ben).9 "Translating according to the basic meaning of the original" thus becomes confirmed as a principle, though "the beauty of the translated text" is not completely ignored when the "basic meaning" is rendered. 2. While pointing out "the three difficulties of translation" (yi shi san nan), Yan Fu says that "it is most difficult to be faithful." "Being faithful" constitutes an improvement on the ancients' idea of "translating the basic meaning of the original." Research over the past few decades has allowed us to say: "Faithfulness in translation surely covers fluency and elegance as well. The aim of fluency is to achieve faithfulness, while the aim of elegance is certainly not to embellish fluency. A translation that conveys not only the meaning but also the style of the original is considered a faithful translation."llJ Therefore, "faithfulness" suggests also "fluency" and "elegance." 1.

Translated by Tan Zaixi

'-I' ,

j

Translation theory for China 237

language, one must accurately grasp the characteristics of Chinese grammar. More specifically, the basic characteristics of Chinese grammar fall into several categories. On the basis of these we can establish the basic descriptive paradigm of Chinese translation theory.

G30. The basic paradigm of Chinese translation theory (1990) Liu Miqing

11

We have in the above section discussed the objectives and strategies of basic Chinese translation theory. We have also noted that all languages have their own peculiarities. The functional linguist Martinet remarked, "Every language has its own particular way of organizing the experiential raw material that corresponds to it" because "the distribution oflexical meanings and functions differs from one language to another."l2 Undoubtedly, the basic paradigm ofChinese translation theory should start and end with our mother tongue Chinese. This is because, whether translating into or out ofChinese, we cannot dispense with the experiential raw material upon which we base our language; we cannot disregard the distribution of lexical meanings and functions in the Chinese language either. Accordingly, we may summarize the basic paradigm as one which emphasizes semantic and functional description.

Chinese translation theory must emphasize description In linguistics, description and prescription are a pair of opposing theoretical 13 principles; they are also two opposing methodologies. "Description" emphasizes the manifestation and facts oflanguage behavior, not neglecting the study of the surface forms of any language. It attempts to discover regularities in accepted language facts, and offer points of reference which are not unchanging, exclusivist prescriptions. In the case ofthe Chinese language, "description" 14 focuses on the elaboration of manifest meaning. Chinese translation theory should emphasize description and not prescription. This is determined first of all by the objectives and strategies of translation theory. At the same time, it is also determined by the basic characteristics of Chinese grammar. The inherent characteristics of grammar are one of the key determinants of the special nature of a language (the other two being phonetics and graphology). Therefore, in order to understand the Chinese

,

i '

f,•, •,I

,,i

.'"

,

,

,

"

I. Among the functions of Chinese grammar, one does not find the use of the inflectional mode. The vagueness of Chinese grammar is a most fundamental linguistic fact. For instance, in Chinese there is no case marking for nouns, and there are no tense, voice or mood markings for verbs. Thus, there is no morphological marking for the relationship between different elements in a sentence and the links are largely vague or "empty." Because of this, grammatical relationships and the classification of parts of speech are largely determined by semantic function. On the basis of this, it can be stated that the grammatical structure of Chinese is internal and concrete. In emphasizing meaning rather than form, and combining the "empty" with the concrete, Chinese is a very different kind oflanguage from inflectional languages that emphasizes formal properties and cohesion. From the point of view of translation, this highlights the importance of description. 1. In dealing with translations involving Chinese, it is necessary to rely less on morphological markings. It is also necessary to give up the pursuit offormal equivalence and to struggle free from the "formal barrier" imposed by surface structures. One should go deeper and grasp the "mechanism of . ».. . notIOn III meamng presentatIOn, rather than the "mechanism of form." From the point of view of modern semiotics this means that the study of Chinese translation theory should not be dominated by morphology, which emphasizes the formal relationship between two semiotic systems. Rather it should be dominated by semantics, which focuses on the operational mode of symbols, meaning and reference. In other words, it should pay attention to the semantic functions oflinguistic symbols. At the same time, we cannot ignore the formal characteristics of the language; that is, we should not ignore the accommodating and harmonizing nature of the semiotic symbols of a natural language. 2. In interlingual transfer involving Chinese, it is necessary to pay less attention to parallel transfer and more to non-parallel transfer. It is also necessary to care less about the linear equivalence formula and more about the correspondence on composite levels between two languages. Furthermore, more weight should be given to "accommodation" than to "normality" in the study of Chinese translation theory. From the point of view of modern

I, ,

238

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Translation theory for China 239

semiotics this means that Chinese translation theory must emphasize the behavioral mode of the systems of linguistic signs used in context, that is, the regulatory function of what goes before and after in a linguistic interaction as far as the explication of meaning is concerned. That is the mechanism of modern pragmatics. 3. In translating from or into Chinese, it is therefore necessary to emphasize contrastive analysis as a method of description, not only in terms of semantic functions, but also in terms of semantic description as regulated by the linguistic context. The contrastive description of two languages, especially with reference to semantics (in culture) and pragmatics (in culture), is one of the basic methods of Chinese translation theorizing.

usage. For instance, in Chinese, it is often difficult to pinpoint the nucleus sentence and the framework for variations (SV/SVO/SOV/SVC), especially when it concerns the subject. The relationship between the subject and the predicate in Chinese is far more complicated than that in Indo-European 16 languages. There are well over 100 types of subject-predicate combinations and variations in ChineseY This results in great complexity in clause-type variations (because of many grammatical deviations) and in a tendency to be non-standardized (which is an illogical tendency). This linguistic factor forces us to pay close attention to the description of the variations in interlingual transfer. Here, a "clear-cut" prescription cannot serve the purpose. One example of this concerns the positioning ofsubjects and predicates when translating from Chinese to English; another is the conversion of passive constructions between English and Chinese. This linguistic fact also supports the argument that the research on Chinese translation theory must focus on the description of "accommodation," not "normality."IB

Il. Since the Chinese language does not have any formal means of expressing grammatical functions, the categorization of parts of speech and sentence constituents is largely determined by three one-dimensional aspects, namely, semantics, syntax and pragmatics. IS This in turn highlights the importance of semantic structures in interlingual transfer. The semantic structure constitutes the pivot of the conceptual organization of the sentence and the most import mechanism of generation and expression. This makes possible the integration of the constituents of Chinese semantic structures with their grammatical functions. In Chinese, because of the lack of a formal basis, the grammatical functions of the constituents of syntax can only be determined in terms of the constituents' role within the semantic structure. Therefore, in the Chinese language, semantic functions are the same as syntactic functions, and neither is related to form. (Note, for instance, the vagueness surrounding active and passive structures.) This characteristic of the language has forced us to concentrate our effort on searching for "dynamic equivalence" on a semantic basis. Consequently, Chinese translation theory will have to attach full importance to flexibility and referencing, as well as to the description of the mechanism of and conditions for "dynamic" translation. No attempt should be made to construct formulae and prescriptions. Methodology-wise, "accommodation" needs to be emphasized.

IV. In view of the characteristics of Chinese sentence organization, Chinese translation theory must first concentrate on the description oflinguistic facts, and move from the solid analysis oflinguistic context to the micro-description of the rules governing syntactic structures. Especially in the context of translating Chinese into foreign languages, it is pointless to prescribe grammatical rules. The Chinese sentence is not restricted by form, unlike Indo-European languages which use inflections to unify a discourse, constituting a "focal perspective" based on form. Chinese phrases are based on "sentence-sections";19 while distributed loosely, they are linked to the topic of the sentence, in a way that "spirit" controls "form."2o Because Indo-European languages organize the sentence around (verbal) inflections, it is relatively straightforward to grasp the formal patterns when translating between Indo-European languages. But this is not the case where the Chinese language is involved. Chinese is a language where the "form" is loose, but the "spirit" is concentrated; there is an emphasis on how concepts evolve internally, and thus the conceptual focus does not depend on formal "chain connections." This kind of conceptually focused "fragmentary sentence-section mode" of exposition carries within itself a significant amount of flexibility. It is context-dependent, with little temporal and spatial restriction (as expressed in tense, aspect, mood, case, etc.) but limitless variations, and therefore it is free from the restriction of "formal chain connections."

Ill. Since the Chinese language does not have any formal means of indicating grammatical functions, the pivotal role of semantic structures becomes prominent. The frame of the semantic structures is determined by the "feel" of the mother tongue (Chinese), and not by syntactic or morphological form. This "feel" is derived from the diachronic experience and the synchronic performance of a particular linguistic community; in other words, it is sanctioned by

Translated by Han Yang M:

I

Translation theory for China

G31. Some thoughts on building our nation's translation theory (1998) Sun Zhili

1.

21

Learning from Eastern and Western translation theories

With regard to translation theories both East and West, we cannot blindly reject, or mechanically apply, all of them. Rather, we should select their usable, reasonable portions, to aid in formulating our own translation theories. However, we must note that there is a tendency for the translation sector in China to directly borrow from certain Western translation theories, and the most notable example is the use of Equivalence Theory. Western translation theorists have put forward such doctrines as "dynamic equivalence," "equivalent value," "equivalence," etc., based on their practical experience in translation. As their experience is mostly gained from translating among the Western languages, which share not only the alphabet, but also common historical origins, it is not difficult to achieve "equivalence," "equivalent value," or "equivalent effect." But it is not easy to achieve such "equivalence" between the pictographic Chinese language and the alphabetic Western languages. What is "equivalence"? From the term itself one would have thought that it must mean something like "complete correspondence" or "without deviations." In actual translation, this term is no more than an unattainable ideal. Putting aside the obvious difficulties involved in achieving "equivalence" in translating poetry, we can take a look at the opening sentence of Pride and Prejudice: "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." The style of the first part of the sentence is very formal, but that of the second part is less so. It is this combination of formality and informality that gives this sentence a special kind of charm. However, when translating this sentence into Chinese, because of the structural differences between the two languages, it is impossible to preserve the original sequence of formal and informal styles. Instead, the sequence needs to be reversed so that the informal style is followed by the formal style [in Chinese; here back-translated]: "Rich bachelors always need to have a wife, and

J

I

this is a universally acknowledged truth." An attempt was once made to follow the original sequence strictly, and the suggested translation was [in Chinese; back-translated]: "There is a universally acknowledged truth; that is, bachelors with money always need to have a wife." However, this type of translation, as Bian Zhilin 22 points out, is meant to "preserve the original," but what comes out is "nothing like the originaL" because the stilted Chinese has destroyed the original charm completely! Bian holds the view that we should aim to achieve "commensurability with," not "equivalence to," the original, and to "capture the essence" rather than "create a perfect replica." At first glance, Equivalence Theory appears to have set a very high standard for translation, but in fact it is something unattainable. It denies the creativity of translation and forces translation into the dead end of "mechanical equivalence." Therefore, if we disregard our practical concerns and blindly apply foreign translation theories, more harm than good will be done to the formulation of our own translation theories. In the past few decades, Western translation theorists have been applying the most recent research findings from various disciplines (including pragmatics, stylistics, contrastive linguistics, sociolinguistics, semantics, psycholinguistics, semiotics, comparative literature, logic, etc.) to theories oftranslation, thus breaking new ground in research. We should examine these theories and refer to them where appropriate in order to facilitate the formulation of our own translation theories. However, in using these theories for reference purposes we should not accept them unconditionally, or turn them into something mystifying through the invention of some incomprehensible and intimidating jargon. Two branches of translation theory have emerged in the New Era: 23 one centers on the study of traditional translation theory in our country, and the other on the study of Western translation theories and both have achieved significant results. Now, the task in front of us is how to amalgamate Chinese and Western theories, so as to construct a system of translation theory that has Chinese characteristics. We hope the translation sector will be able to make its contribution.

2.

Using materialist dialectics as a theoretical foundation

For a long time, our translation sector has debated the issues ofliteral translation vs. sense-translation, formal resonance vs. spiritual resonance, and so on. More recently, the heated debate has been over whether translation should be

241

Translation theory for China 243

242 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

regarded as a science or an art. Although there is nothing intrinsically bad about debating, a prolonged debate can hardly be said to be a good thing. One of the important reasons why this situation has arisen is that both parties fail to see things from the perspective of materialist dialectics. Each emphasizes the validity of its own theories and ignores the rational views of the other. Neither considers the possibility of compromise and complementarity. I am of the opinion that translation is full of contradictions. These contradictions include scientism vs. artistry, preserving Western flavor vs. avoiding Europeanizations, formal resonance vs. spiritual resonance, literal translation vs. sense-translation, constraint vs. creativity, the translator's style vs. the writer's style, faithfulness to the writer vs. faithfulness to the reader, the whole vs. the parts, naturalization vs. foreignization, gain vs. loss, etc. In all these contradictory pairs, the two elements involved are opposed yet complementary. We regard a dialectical approach as the theoretical foundation for translation study; whoever deviates from it is incapable of seeing both sides of the coin, being inevitably subject to fallacies. Let's take the nature of translation as an example. Both in China and the West, many translation theorists regard translation as both a science and an art. However, recently, there have been some who only recognize the artistic aspect of translation, and deny its scientific nature. I would argue that this kind of approach is not beneficial to the development of translation in our country. In fact, anyone who has any translation experience knows that translation is a learned activity, involving questions of a strictly scientific nature in terms of both understanding and expression. It is often said that translation is the art of linguistic reproduction. The phrase "reproductive art" aptly describes the dual nature of translation: it has artistic and scientific dimensions. Experience has shown that a translation without an artistic dimension has no appeal, and a translation without a scientific dimension cannot be regarded as a "reproduction" of the original, only a distortion and betrayal. A translation becomes acceptable only when the two dimensions are merged. Thus, as early as 1945, Mao Dun pointed out that the artistic-creative aspect of translation must be built upon "solid scientific study." [... ] I have stated elsewhere that our translation professionals need to fully understand the dual nature of translation. We should adopt neither a purely "scientific approach" nor a purely "artistic approach." Rather, we should combine science and art and create a "scientific-artistic school." In actual practice, we cannot just pursue "art" and ignore "science," nor can we pursue "science" to the detriment of "art." We need to pay need to both dimensions of translation.

As far as some of the well-known translation theories in our country are concerned (e.g. "faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance," "fidelity over naturalness," "spirit over form"), we also need to apply the dialectical approach. We need to acknowledge not only the positive role that they have played in history, but also recognize their limitations from a developmental perspective. In the 1950s and 60s there was a flourishing of interest in philosophy in this country, and some translation theorists carried out inquiries into translation using the Law of the Unity of Opposites, clearing the path for us. We now need to continue with the task even more thoroughly and systematically. Translated by Han Yang

Translation theory for China 245

G32. On theories in translation studies (1998) Lin Zhang

According to Liu Miqing: Any theoretical system of translation must (and will) have specific source and target languages as its research object and target. This kind of specificity in translation theory is often neglected, while the basic theoretical model deduced from research on specified languages is viewed as universal. In actual fact, a universal model applicable to all sorts of interlingual transfer does not exist. Undoubtedly, the basic paradigm of Chinese translation theory should start and end with our mother tongue - Chinese. This is because, whether translating into or out of Chinese, we cannot dispense with the experiential raw material upon which we base our language; we cannot disregard the distribution of lexical meanings and functions in the Chinese language either. Accordingly, we may summarize the basic paradigm as one which emphasizes semantic and functional description. 24

From these two quotations, we can see that there are intrinsic contradictions in Liu's theory. First, one wonders what "Chinese translation theory" in the basic paradigm means exactly. Is it the same as "Chinese-language translation theory" as mentioned in the two sections on "functional mechanisms" and "functional manifestations" in the chapter? If that is the case, why are there two different expressions? If not, what is "Chinese-language translation theory"? Liu also mentions in his book a "translation theory of the Chinese language." In the two sections on the functional mechanisms of the Chinese language and its functional manifestations the subject is discussed. In the light of the preceding, however, can we understand "Chinese-language translation theory" as theory focusing on the language, aimed at describing the semantics and functions of the language in concrete terms? But, as is well known, what is commonly called "translation theory" refers specifically to a theory of interlingual transfer; in other words, such a theory must involve two languages. The description of the semantics and functions of one or several languages only prepares us for the task of translation. And giving such a description is not the same as completing a translation, for translation involves more than just a comparison between languages. Therefore, "the basic paradigm of Chinese-language translation

I '

I. "

, "

~

~I

, ,"I:, '. ",

"

~

J ,

, ·'fT·

,

•,

,,1 !,

,, I

,~,

",

,

, "

,I

theory" can hardly be said to be a theoretical paradigm of translation itself; it is only a pre-translation paradigm. Let us now look at "the basic paradigm of Chinese translation theory." As mentioned above, if "Chinese translation theory" is the same as "Chineselanguage translation theory," there need not have been two different expressions. The case being what it is, we can only consider these two as different concepts. Liu says that "the basic paradigm of Chinese translation theory Chinese." Is the place of should start and end with our mother-tongue origin being talked about here? For what is emphasized here is "our mothertongue." To explain it in another way: If an Englishman or Frenchman does research on English-Chinese or French-Chinese translation, and describes the semantics and functions of the Chinese language, should his findings be incorporated in "the basic paradigm of Chinese-language translation theory" rather than "the basic paradigm of Chinese translation theory"? If the answer is no, then there is no difference between the two expressions. If the answer is yes, then what does the reference to national difference reveal a certain sense of pride or real theoretical difference? Liu says, "Whether translating into or out of Chinese, we cannot dispense with the experiential raw material upon which we base our language." On such a basis, we can state categorically that "the basic paradigm of Chinese translation theory" is a semantic-functional one that emphasizes description. 25 An Englishman or Frenchman studying English-Chinese or French-Chinese translation can ignore neither Chinese nor his mother-tongue "experiential raw material"; he cannot ignore "the lexical meanings and functions" ofthe Chinese language, or those of his mother tongue. With the Englishman and the Frenchman's permission, can we state categorically that the basic paradigm of English (or French) translation theory is a semantic-functional one that emphasizes description? Do we have any reason for opposing this? If we do not, what real theoretical difference is there between the English/French paradigm oftranslation theory dealing with English-Chinese/French-Chinese translation (a descriptive semantic-functional one) and "the basic paradigm of Chinese translation theory"? Translated by Leo T. H. Chan

,

246 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Notes 247

Notes to Articles 28-32

15. See "Three Dimensions: Multiple Perspectives on Research on Syntax," Language Teaching and Research (1992), no.1, pA. - Author

1. Dong Qiusi (1899-1969) served as interpreter when Agnes Smedley met with Lu Xun in 1929. A versatile translator, Dong translated, among other literary and non-literary works, David Copperfield, War and Peace, and two biographies of Jack London. He was Editor of three translation journals: Fanyi (Translation), Yiwen (Translated Texts) and Fanyi tongbao (Journal of Translation).

16. See Li Linding, "The Syntactical Status ofthe Subject," in Essays in Honor ofLu Shuxiang's 60 Years of Teaching and Research (Languages Publishing Co., 1985), p.62. - Author 17. See Chen Jianmin, Sentence Types in Modern Chinese (Languages Publishing Co., 1986), p.11. - Author 18. "Normality" refers to correspondence and simultaneity. "Accommodation" refers to all the strategies used tlIat are not "normal." See Li Miqing, A Handbook of English-Chinese Translation (Taibei: Bookman Publishers, 1993). - Author

2. Tt is generally believed that the earliest translations in China were carried out in the Later Han period. 3. See Fu Lei's and Qian Zhongshu's articles in Section B.

19. This is a metaphor referring to the combinations of relatively independent wordgroups in the flow of the language. - Author

4. Gu Kaizhi (346-407), painter ofthe Six Dynasties period who procrastinated in painting the eyes of his portraits because, as he said, "that's where the spirit resides."

20. Some call it the "order of ideas," i.e., the chain of ideas in a sentence. -

5. Yan Yu (fl.1l80-1235), Wang Shizhen (1634-1711), Shen Deqian (1673-1769) and Yuan Mei (1716-1798) were all literary critics in late imperial China.

21. Sun Zhili (1942-), translator of Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility, Persuasion and No rthanger Abbey, presently teaches at the Luoyang Foreign Languages Institute.

6. When writing in the 1980s about his older translations, Mao Dun, the great contemporary Chinese writer, asked readers to "judge whether the translations have satisfied the criteria of 'faithfulness, fluency and elegance'" (see Preface to Selected Translations by Mao Dun). - Author

22. On Bian Zhilin, see note lOin Section A. 23. The "New Era" is the post-Mao period. 24. These two quotations are taken from Liu's Present-Day Translation Studies, Chapter 2. See Section G30, second paragraph.

7. Federov certainly makes better sense when he further explains his definition: "By equalvalue translation is meant expressing the relationship between the content and form of the original text by reproducing (if linguistically possible) its formal features, or by using functionally equivalent means to convey these relationships. In other words, the translator aims to use such verbal material as will comply with the principles of the language to be translated into; it has the same general kind of expressive function, though it is often different in form from the original text." - Author

25. Emphasis in the original.

8. The sources of the two quotes are not identified in the original. 9. Notice that these are all four-character sayings, showing the "brevity" that Luo Xinzhang speaks of in connection with Chinese translation theorizing. 10. See Qian Zhongshu's Selected Essays: Guanzhui pian, p. 1101. -

Author

Liu Miqing (1939-) taught at Beijing University, Xiamen University and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Among his publications are Genre and Translation, An Introduction to the Aesthetics of Translation, Present-day Translation Studies, and CE and EC Contrastive Studies and Translation (all in Chinese).

11.

The quotations are taken from A. Marinet's A Functional View of Language (1962), p.2, and Studies in Functional Syntax, p.228. - Author

12.

,

i ,:,

13. Evidently, therefore, "description"as mentioned here is used in its broader sense, and is at variance with the descriptivist theoretical model (where "description" is used in its narrow sense) advocated by the American School of descriptive linguistics. 14. See J. B. Firth, The Treatment ofLanguage in General Linguistics (1959), p.46. -

Author

Author

.:

"

',~,

l·I,: , ~,

",

H: Creativity and translation

This debate revolves around the question whether translation is a secondary activity compared to original writing, principally because less creativity is involved. There are two distinct phases to this debate: first in the early 1920s, involving a great many of the literary luminaries of the day; then in the mid1990s, when the discussion focused more squarely on the evaluation by literary scholars of translations of Stendhal's Le rouge et le noir (Scarlet and Black). For Zheng Zhenduo, a leading figure of the Literary Research Society, translations can vie with original writing, and it is ill-conceived to think of them as no more than "matchmakers," as Guo Momo does. He points out in "Virgins and Matchmakers" (1921) that the opposition between originalwriting-as-virgins and translation-as-matchmakers (the focus of much discussion already) was first posed by Guo Momo in the October 1920 supplement to the journal Lamp of Learning. It is likely that issues of translation theory became entangled with partisan debates, as Guo Momo was a prominent member of the Creation Society, in many ways the Literary Research Society's main rival in the "raging twenties." In any case, in this short piece, Zheng succeeds in asserting the value of the matchmaker's role. Guo Momo fought back in his "Letter to Zheng Zhenduo" (1921). He finds support, first, in what another theorist, Zhou Zuoren, says: since original writing is difficult, we should turn instead to translations. Further support is lent by Geng Jizhi, translator of Dostoyevsky: since the Chinese are not good at creative literature, they should turn to translations. That the debate did not end in the 1920s is shown by Mao Dun's article, "The 'Matchmaker' and the 'Virgin'" (1934). Published some thirteen years after Guo's article, Mao reiterates the view that successful translations are more precious than original works. When the debate resurfaces sixty years later, it takes a slightly different turn. Not only have arguments by way of metaphors been dispensed with, but the debate has become concrete, with the focus placed on five translations of Stendhal's famous novel. The new question being asked is, "How creative can a translation be?" and the translation targeted for discussion is Xu Yuanchong's rendition, noted for its copious inclusion ofliterary expressions in Chinese that lead to substantial departures in meaning from the original. (The last sentence of the translation is repeatedly singled out for debate in this regard.)

250

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theorv

H33. Virgins and matchmakers (1921)

Fang Ping's "Miscellaneous Thoughts on Translation" (1995) can be said to be representative of the views of many critics ofXu's rendition. To Fang, Xu has treated translation as if it were original writing, freely incorporating expressions taken from classical Chinese novels like The Dream of the Red Chamber. To Fang, the distinction Xu makes between "verbal translation" (involving adherence to the words in the source text) and "literary translation" (involving embellishments) is not sustainable. Xu Yuanchong starts by elaborating his intentions in "Verbal Translation and Literary Translation" (1995). His goals are twofold - to turn translations into works having literary value in themselves, and to enable translations to compete successfully with originals. Translation critics and theorists seem to have little sympathy for his efforts, however, and neither do the majority of readers. Xu Jun and Yuan Xiaoyi sum up the whole debate, as well as a poll of readers' opinions, in "For the Sake of Our Common Cause" (1995). Xu Yuanchong's "literary translation" was preferred by only 15.3% of the readers polled and placed fourth among the five available translations. Can translations never "surpass" the original?

Xi Di [Zheng Zhenduop

Nowadays many people apparently believe that the introduction of world literature into China is in effect a preface to the creation of a new Chinese literature. Mr. Guo Moruo has said: I have the impression that we have put too much emphasis on matchmakers rather than virgins - caring about translation instead of creation ... In this transitional period in modern China, there is a more or less burning need for translation ... It should be noted, however, that translation can only be subsidiary and should not supersede creation and research, lest it should become bloated with overweening arrogance. 2

,

\

,I,

,

I have a different view though. I am afraid that they have underestimated the function of translation. While it is true that virgins should be respected, is it not an oversimplification to dismiss translation as mere matchmaking? Even if the nature of translation does bear some resemblance to matchmaking, its vital function lies elsewhere. We need to know that translation not only serves to introduce world literature, but is also beneficial to the creation of a new literature in China. The fresh rendition of a literary work signifies more than the blooming of a flower in our literary garden; rather, it opens a new path for the supreme spirit of mankind, lighting the way for their greater consolation and communication. In the absence of a common language worldwide, if there were no translators, the harmonious light 3 of a literary work would not shine down where it was not created. Therefore, translating a literary work is like creating one: they both have the same impact on the supreme spirit of mankind. Although literary creation is scarce at present, literary translation is hardly any better. How many brilliant flowers in the world's literary garden have ever been seen by the Chinese people? Mr. Guo Moruo's view of translation being "bloated with overweening arrogance" was obviously somewhat distorted. Translated by Rachel Lung

Creativity and translation

H34. Letter to Zheng Zhenduo (1921) Guo Moruo 4

Dear Mr. Xi Di, The letter about creation and translation that I wrote to Mr. Shi Cen earlier was meant to stimulate discussion in our country. I was delighted to read your succinct comments published in No. 4 of Literature Tri-monthlytoday. Despite our divided views, I welcome your lofty criticisms. The simile of matchmakers and virgins is not limited to literary creations. The various references to literature in my letter (to Shi) were only meant as an example. I am pleased with the enthusiasm and the active participation of the younger generation in the flourishing New Culture Movement in recent years. There are, however, a few things to worry about. Many are the articles on socialism: works written by Karl Marx and Kawakami Hajime S appear almost every day. But while Kawakami Hajime, himself a revered scholar, would actually go to the trouble of studying capitalism to understand the nuances of Marxism, there cannot be more than a few like him in China. As for philosophy, we have written copiously on Russell and Bergson, yet I would be surprised if there are more than a few who can study them from the perspectives of mathematics, physiology or psychology. As for science, there are over a dozen people who compete in introducing Einstein and his theory of relativity to China although Einstein once remarked himself that no more than a dozen people in the world could thoroughly comprehend his Relativity Theory.6 Mr. Xi Di, it is a disheartening sight when people do not go back to the basics of study, aim too high and act arrogantly! How our idea of "charisma" has fostered such a tendency does not require further elaboration on my part. How lamentable it is that the time and energy of our younger generation is pathetically wasted on such surface vanity. It is my hope that more people in China will seriously introduce us to Marx, Russell, Bergson and Einstein, but what I want even more is to have people in China whose creative caliber is comparable to theirs. From my recent two months' stay in Shanghai, I have found that literary translation activities are actually quite prosperous. My observation will be proved valid ifyou take a look at the magazines and literary works published in

I

,

I I

I

I I

I I

China lately. I have no intention to belittle translation itself. I am confident that I can comprehend the functions and difficulties of translation; I have experienced these myself. My contempt pardon the boldness of my words - is for those translators who are slavishly reliant on dictionaries. I believe that translation has to be creative, and I staunchly support this belief. Translation has never been easy to be creative, a translator must have an in-depth understanding of the thinking and the background of the author, and conduct a thorough investigation of the content and manner of presentation of a piece of work. It is therefore not easy to be a faithful translator. I do also believe that specific research on a great writer or an important piece of work can be made into a lifelong career. Matchmakers are after all indispensable, and I have a lot of respect for matchmakers as long as they are neither arrogant nor savage. But this is the furthest I can go, and I can see that I am not with the media, which has made exaggerated compliments about translation. In my opinion, the most faithful and creative translators do no more than rework the thoughts and the moods of others. Buddhism did not have its roots in Chinese thought, and neither were the Buddhist sutras created by Xuanzang. In a word, I believe that translation should be kept to a minimum, with a quest for quality rather than quantity. It does not follow from this that I am all against translators. In fact, I try hard to be a faithful translator in my spare time. However, some people in China put too much emphasis on translation, while others consider it an easy task. Some say that since creation is not easy, one's effort might as well be put into translation. (Zhou Zuoren said as much in his article "Literature for Children.") Others say that Chinese people are not up to creating anything of substance yet. Instead of dwelling on the empty talk of creation, it may be better just to translate. (Geng Jizhi was of this view in his preface to the translation of The Captain's Daughter.!) I actually disapprove of such irresponsible comments. I realize that the field of creative writing in China has been very inactive. But the fewer creative works there are, the more inactive the field. Hard work may not necessarily lead to satisfactory results. This should not, however, discourage hard work. Like working out a mathematical problem, a mistaken calculation is better than no calculation at all. Translated by Rachel Lung

253

Creativity and translation

H35. The "matchmaker" and the "virgin" (1934) Mao Dun 8

It used to be said that "creative writing" is a "virgin" while translation is only a "matchmaker," implying that creative writing is worth cherishing while translation is not worth a fig.

Let us leave aside for the moment the question whether the analogy is appropriate. The fact is that translation is by no means less challenging than creative writing; perhaps it is much more so. In the first place, to translate a work, one must, before one does anything else, grasp the writer's ideas. But just grasping the writer's ideas is not enough; one must also be fully capable of appreciating the artistic beauty ofthe original. Yet, even this is not enough; one must also enter the work in person, as it were, to weep and laugh with its characters. Only after the original has been thoroughly chewed over in this way can one talk about the second requirement: the translator must have the language to get the style of the original across. It is in this second requirement that the real challenge of translation lies. Take Homer's epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, for example. The existing translations of these two works by Pope are considered first-class; but critics still say that, for all the magnificence and splendor they have brought over, they are bland and limp, lacking the power and unadorned simplicity of the originals. Compared to a woman, Homer's original work is one that has grace as well as vigor; translated into English by Pope, it is left with only "grace." Another example is Balzac's Les Contes drolatiques, which is a wonderful portrayal of French life in the sixteenth century. In this book, the author has amazing techniques in realism - to unearth made use of amazing artistry the "happy" Touraine (the town as well as its people) of sixteenth-century France and to conjure it up before the eyes of the Europeans of the nineteenth century. Therefore, to be able to translate this book, one must know history, and know them well all ancient French dialects, archaeology and the like at the same time. The first English translation of Les Contes drolatiques did not appear until 1874, that is, some fifty years after it was written. The translation is not a sloppy one, to be sure; but it falls short of the original's flavor. In reading the English

version, one cannot "forget one's hunger." Why is that so? Because the translator does not have Balzac's language, which is hilarious, bold, unconstrained, and seething hot. A truly superior translation is, therefore, by no means less worth cherishing than a piece of creative writing. As a matter of fact, the task of producing a truly superior translation is twice as challenging as the task ofproducing a piece of creative writing. A virgin is certainly hard to come by; but who would say that a matchmaker's role is easy to play? Perhaps like the writer, the translator, too, has generally to go through two stages. At the initial stage, he finds the practice of translation easy; it is only after he has translated a few books that he will be able to appreciate its true nature: that it is by no means easy. Furthermore, if the original is a masterpiece, the translator, on reading it for the first time, often feels that the task of translating it should not be difficult; however, after reading it a second time, he will find the task difficult; after reading the work three or four times, he will not even dare to put pen to paper. This is because, as he reads the original more closely, he will appreciate more of its fine qualities, so much so that, as a matter of course, he will no longer find the task of translating the work easy. It was Mr. Guo Moruo who first dismissed translation as a "matchmaker" and exalted creative writing as a "virgin." Now that Mr. Guo has translated many works, including Sinclair's Oil, King Coal, The Jungle, and part ofTolstoy's War and Peace, one wonders what his actual experience as a "matchmaker" has been like. I believe Mr. Guo to be an honest scholar; perhaps now he regrets the rash remark he made earlier. Digression apart, what I have to point out here is that, in the past couple of years, the dislike of translation seems to have developed into a kind of youth mentality, as does the disdain for practitioners of translation, which developed from the dislike. The reason for this is twofold. On the one hand, because of social turmoil, young people are unhappy and eager to read about things that are relevant to their own lives. On the other, some translations are, as is inevitable, "lying matchmakers"; once fooled by these lying matchmakers, young people will tend to overreact, a response aptly described by the common saying: "once bitten, twice shy." This overreaction should be rectified; and the key to rectification lies with the translator, who should be constantly on guard against becoming a lying matchmaker. At the same time, I suggest that the translation profession launch a "cleaning campaign": recommending matchmakers who are good and criticizing

255

256

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

those who lie; for, while we do have some sloppy translations, we also have many which are not only not sloppy, but fine. Young people should be taught to make a distinction. Translated by Laurence Wong

H36. Miscellaneous thoughts on translation (1995) Fang Ping9

The Demise of Daiyu The scene of Lin Daiyu's demise, which moves many a reader to tears, is triggered first by the words ofXue Baochai to Baoyu: "Let me tell you the plain truth. Some days ago, while you were in a coma, Cousin Lin passed away." 10 How could Baoyu believe it! He demands, "She's really dead?" And one can feel a grim laugh beneath Baochai's reply: "She is. Would anyone invent such an evil curse if she were still alive?" After several lengthy paragraphs, the author goes back to describing further the scene at that time, making it vivid and life-like before the readers' eyes. Tanchun "felt Dai-yu's hand. It was already cold, and her eyes were glazed and lifeless." Nightingale makes haste to wash and clean Daiyu's body just before she dies and hears Daiyu cry: "Bao-yu! Bao-yu! How could you ... " And before she can say one word more, "[h] er whole body broke into a cold sweat ... and her body became colder by degrees" (Chapter 98, The Dream ofthe Red Chamber) .11 In order to heighten the effect of imminent tragedy, the author has already slipped in subtle clues in the preceding chapter. When Li Wan rushes to see this Daiyu who is incurably ill and calls her softly twice, Daiyu "was still able to open her eyes lightly as if she still knew, but then only her eyelids and lips seemed to move slightly; and while breathing out with her mouth, even though one wished to hear one word or see some tears from her, there was none." Revolving around this touching plot, the author has actually taken great pains to use foreshadowing and flashback techniques. It is noteworthy that in the descriptions both before and after the event, the writer consistently uses a plain style that is life-like. He discards both jargon and common flowery language. Consequently, the message is particularly touching, realistic and impressive. The text then continues and only at the tragic climax of separation and death does it mimic the tone of old professional storytellers and insert an antithetical couplet to produce relief for the psychologically moved reader, saying, "Her fragrant soul disperses, wafted on the breeze ... " The writer only

258

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Creativity and translation 259

says: Diayu qijue (at that moment Daiyu breathed her last); he does not say hungui lihentian (her soul passed into the painless realm). "Crimson Pearl's long-suffering soul wafted home to the painless realm" is used only as the title for Chapter 98. In the convention of Chinese traditional novels, it was customary to overdo the chapter titles written with five or seven characters to a line. In the world-famous novel Le rouge et le noir (Scarlet and black), there is also one sensitive and pathetic woman, and at the end ofher tragedy, "she died." This, however, is rendered as "Her soul passed into the painless realm"12 by Xu Yuanchong in his translation. An alarming effect indeed. Herein is linguistic craftsmanship that not only rivals that of the original author [Stendhal] and approximates that of The Dream ofthe Red Chamber. "Having originated in Red Chamber, it [the translation] outperforms Red Chamber." And now we can better understand Xu's high opinion of himself - "having learned from the superior masters, he surpasses them." I

"Only my rendition can surpass that of Fu Lei" The next famous work that Xu Yuanchong will translate is probably Jean Christophe. 13 But before Xu has even committed himself to the job at least it has not been finished yet his fame has already glowed in the limelight, rather effortlessly. Without one single word, and before the reader can read the new translation. Xu's agent has been brought in as his spokesman out of expediency, and through this agent's mouth a proclamation was made: "Only [Xu's] rendition can surpass that of Fu Lei." I am no personal friend ofFu Lei's. Before the "Anti-Rightist Movement," he was the leader of the translation team of the Shanghai Writers' Association and I was a team member. We met several times at conferences and our opinions regarding translation methods were not quite the same. But his strict and cautious attitude as a scholar, his conscientious and meticulous professional spirit, his straight and square principles, and his broad knowledge aroused my great admiration. I even think that it is an honor for us people in the translation field to have a professional translator as scholarly as he. The main character in Jean Christophe is a composer and the narrative is about his career in the musical world of his time. Fu Lei had long immersed himself in West European music; his artistic attainments were so immense that I am afraid few translators in our country can rival him. At the time when Jean Christophe was introduced to China, Fu Lei was unquestionably the most suitable translator; and, after the translation was published, little wonder it was

highly commended and well received. Of course, we cannot expect the translation of Fu Lei to be perfect and impregnable in every aspect. But while new translations may have new interpretations to offer, I believe Fu's translation does have its own uniqueness and should continue to be circulated. In an ideal environment strongly supportive of scholarly activity, it would be good to see many translations of the same world-famous literary masterpiece. They can supplement each other in extending the general readers' understanding of the original. Everything has its own strengths and shortcomings. When compared, the merits and weaknesses of these translations can be highlighted for educated eyes. In short, under normal circumstances - not in cases of unscrupulous translations the idea of letting a hundred flowers bloom in the garden of translation is different from that of "dynastic change" in the fields of technology, where new products necessarily displace older ones. I fully believe that the yet-to-come translation by Xu will have its own style. Given the availability of previous translations, it will handle certain linguistic aspects better than before. However, it is still too early to claim (through the mouth of another) that one's still-to-come translation can surpass Fu Lei's, isn't it? Well, he is also killing two birds with one stone when he gives prestige to himself by referring to Fu Lei: "Only my rendition can surpass his." What arrogance! Such belief in personal superiority! I do not see why Xu likes to turn the garden of translation into a kind of boxing ring for rival contestants. Xu is a knowledgeable, outstanding, and experienced translator. The fruits of his industrious devotion to translation are undeniable and should be respected. Ifhe can respect others more (this refers not only to fellow translators but also to original authors) and display a translator's necessary virtue humility in the face of original writings, then we will respect this old hand in translation all the more.

Verbal translation and literary translation Xu Yuanchong praised his own rendition hungui lihentian ("Her soul passed into the painless realm"), saying that "it is not a verbal translation but a literary translation." Taking this sentence of Le rouge et le noir as an example, he noted that all the translations by others "are 'verbal translations' instead of 'literary translations.'" I think the contrastive judgment shows clearly Xu's ideals and objections. It reveals not only his unique aesthetics but also an extremely obvious aspect of his translation theory.

260

Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

It sounds reasonable to take a superficial translation that pays attention to

words as "a verbal translation" and refer to the translation that goes beyond words to reconstruct the sensibilities of the original as a "literary translation." What awaits further discussion is: Can the two creative stages of the translation of literature be understood as two distinct types of translations? High aesthetic standards are set for the translation ofliterature, and at the same time there are extremely tough requirements for technical craftsmanship. I mean a competent translator must first attack the impregnable fort of words. He must weigh and measure the words of the original, ruminate over them, and even check dictionaries and references, in order to thoroughly grasp the intended subtleties in the original. Similarly, he must be conscientious in his rendering, the purpose being to identify the most appropriate words and structures to express what he considers to be the meaning. Thus, to be engaged in literary translation is to find oneself in a lonesome situation; day in and night out, one is enmeshed in a network of words and suffers hard work that brings no returns. I am afraid "verbal translation" and "literary translation" are in the process interconnected, or interwoven. To work tirelessly on words is the only path to literary perfection. "Not a verbal translation but a literary translation." This saying seems to suggest that the honest attention to and much needed work on words should not be part of "literary translation." I am very worried that this might mislead youthful and aggressive literary translators into thinking that they can be freed from the restraints of the original text once they are prepared to see themselves doing "literary translations" that they can apply their talents to translating a text freely as if it were a creative enterprise. If one says that the superficial translation that pays attention to words is a "verbal translation," will a translation that reaches into the meaning between the lines not also be a "verbal translation"? Words carry surface and deeper meanings. So understood, Xu was apparently overdoing things a bit when he appended to his boasting about "literary translation" the explanation that "it is not a verbal translation." To begin with, the logic is loose and causes grave misunderstanding as well as negative effects. Further, given that Xu has already indicated in the translator's preface that his aim is "to raise translation to a creative level," is there the need to defend his self-congratulatory rendition hungui lihentian (which strays very far from the original) with the argument of "not a verbal translation"? That is creativity after all, isn't it? Translated by Orlando Ho

I.

H37. Verbal translation and literary translation: On reading Fang Ping's "Miscellaneous thoughts on translation" (1995) Xu Yuanchong l4

"Verbal translation" usually refers to word-for-word and sentence-for-sentence literal translation, and at times even stiff translation, but it does not mean, as Fang Ping put it, "translation that reaches into the meaning between the lines." Therefore, while Fang said that my "logic is loose and causes grave misunderstanding as well as negative effects," I think it is Fang himself who is "loose in logic." A failure to differentiate "literal translation" from "literary translation" has caused "grave misunderstanding as well as negative effects" among readers. 15 It has also caused literary translation to degenerate to the level of verbal translation. In general terms, the difference between verbal translation and literary translation is the difference between literal translation and sense-translation, between formal resemblance and spiritual resonance. Naturally, there are degrees ofliteral translations and sense-translations. For instance, the last few words ta si le ("she died") - in a translation of Le rouge et le nair is a literal translation showing formal resemblance; hungui lihentian ("her soul passed into the painless realm") is on a high level of sense-translation. Fang said that "her soul passed into the painless realm" departs greatly from the original. This shows his belief that this is not a "verbal translation." But he also queried, "Will a translation that reaches into the meaning between the lines not also be a 'verbal translation'?" Now, "her soul passed into the painless realm" is exactly a translation that has reached into "the meaning between the lines." How can Fang continue to babble like this? According to a summary of readers' feedback on the Chinese translations of Le rouge et le nair: "Many readers say that 'her soul passed into the painless realm' as a translation sacrifices precision for elegance, and that it is neither good nor acceptable." Is "her soul passed into the painless realm" not precise? Precision demands first of all accuracy. What then is accuracy? I have quoted in my article "An Expository Reflection Beginning with Le rouge et le nair" the Aristotelian saying: "Accuracy is obtaining the best result with the employment

262 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

of the best method." One should actually ask: Which of the fifteen translations of Le rouge et le noir [in the survey] outperforms "her soul passed into the painless realm" in conveying the message and communicating the emotions? [ ... ] Fang Ping said that I have been "lending leverage to my fame by using the name of Fu Lei," and that I should be "humble." I think, in spite of the proverbial saying that "Nobody should appear taller than Mr. Short, the boss of the shop," it is not at all an ego-inflating act to say I am taller than Mr. Short. I am just stating a fact. Naturally, the Mr. Short I want to refer to here is not Fu Lei but another gentleman who proclaimed on page 836 of Essays on Translation (published in the United Kingdom) that the error-ridden Poems ofthe Late Tang Dynasty was "superb in both its renditions and interpretations."16 He has made use of his power to forbid the Chinese Translators Journal to publish my adverse criticisms of the book. The attendant evils caused by people who favor things foreign have actually lingered, though the person in question has passed away. Should the liberated Chinese people continue to be submissive and servile, and be "humble" toward him? On page 285 of A Comparative Study of English and Chinese, published by the English-Chinese Comparative Studies Research Society, it is said: "If humility is said to be a virtue honored in the Orient, then self-confidence is the prized element in American culture." If China's translations want to stand out in the twenty-first century, how can we continue to be "humble" and lack self-confidence? In an age like this, when power oppresses, Hunan Publishing Co., to one's surprise, is brave enough to pass a fair verdict, saying that only my translation can surpass Fu's. Does this not help China to move one step forward in its pursuit of international recognition in the translation field? Fang Ping is re-translating Shakespeare. If his translations are not going to surpass those of Zhu Shenghao,17 let's ask: Why bother to re-translate? If the later translations do surpass the earlier ones, why can't one say so to the readers, chant hurrahs and subdue the bossy mannerisms of all the Mr. Shorts? As for the questions concerning Fu Lei, the Foreign Languages Journal of Shanghai will publish an article by me in its fourth issue this year entitled "Why Re-translate Jean Christophe?" I will not say more here. Finally, Fang Ping was worried that I "might mislead youthful and aggressive literary translators." However, I believe pidgin Chinese has already taken young scholars and readers in the wrong direction. I believe that twenty-first century literature should fuse the best from the various national literatures of the world. Twenty-first century writers must not be knowledgeable only about

Creativity and translation 263

their own national literature and ignorant about world literature. Literary translation will be elevated to the same level as literary creation. That is to say, the language used for translation should not be different from the language used in creative writing. Pidgin Chinese will not be used by the best writers, and neither must it enter the works of the best translators. (In my opinion, Fu Lei, Zhu Shenghao and Yang Bi 18 are top-ranked translators.) The literary translation of the twenty-first century will be translation-as-literature. That is to say, translated works have to become literature, and the best expressive methods must be used to achieve the best effects. Not only must the best of foreign literature be introduced to China, but also the best of Chinese literature - including its style, and including "Her soul passed into the painless realm" - must be introduced to the world. Only then will it be possible for scholars both within and outside China to join hands in the making of a new world culture of the twenty-first century! Translated by Orlando Ho

,

Creativity and translation 265

irresistible urge to display his own literary skills, he can try doing "comparative literature" or engage in original writing. [... ]

H38. For the sake of our common cause: A summary of readers' feedback on the Chinese translations of Le rouge et le noir (1995) Xu Jun and Yuan Xiaoyi19

The issue of re-creation in translation, especially in literary translation, is in the last analysis a theoretical question regarding the nature of translation. A different answer to it will inevitably generate a different sort of translation practice. Xu Yuanchong, who translated Le rouge et le noir for Hunan Wenyi Publishing House, noted precisely that "literary translation is a contest between two linguistic cultures, and it is an art. By bringing into play the winning edge of the translated text, one re-creates." To him, "if the author of Le rouge et le noir were not French but a Chinese person oftoday, what he wrote in Chinese would be a 're-creation.'" Many readers have expressed, from their own and varied standpoints, their views on "re-creation." Wang Xueyong of Anhui Second Textile Factory said, "Literary translation is re-creative; it is not creating something new in an absolute sense. Literary translations must not depart from their source texts in their re-creation, nor must they violate them." He also said, "The sort of re-creation as typified by Lin Shu has already become obsolete." Xie Biao of Xi' an remarked: "Respecting the author as well as the original is the central principle of translation." We can see here that the majority of readers do not deny outright that "translation is re-creative," but think that "re-creating" and "creating" are markedly different; the gross difference is very much an issue of the extent to which one can go. Professor Guan Yinguang of Shandong University remarked: "There should be a limit to this 'extent.' Re-creation that drifts away from certain standards is de facto rewriting and not translation." Meanwhile, Gong Ying, a reader who resides at 96, Tangshan Road, Shanghai, commented:

, •

"il " l

~,

I

I

"

,I ,\ I ,1

\I

.~ ~

,i,

I

1 ,.

Original literature is creative. Literary translation is also creative, but it is creation on the basis of the original. Its goal is to enable readers of this nation to read foreign literary products; the translator himself is not engaged in a competition between the two languages that he is competent in. To be faithful to the original and to convey the meaning - this is something expected by both translators and readers. Should the original be less than satisfactory, and the translator has an

'. •

This shared understanding that "translation is not simple duplication, but to a certain extent re-creation," gives rise to complications when it concerns the styles of the translator and the original. First, the activity of re-creation is certainly affected by the style of the translator. Le rouge et le noir has many translations, and sometimes the same conversation in the novel appears markedly different in different translations. Some translations are plain, simple and fluent; others are flowery and elegant. What then are the criteria in use? The famed writer Su Tong,20 when addressing this question, gave a clear-cut answer: "I believe that a translator should do his utmost to contain his own ego, and not attempt to take over what others should be doing." This is exactly the majority view among our readers. But for the translator, to sacrifice his own individuality in order to convey the style of the original text is indeed a "dreadfully cruel thing" (according to Feng Jianmin, of the Department of Orthopedics at Ruijin Hospital in Shanghai). Furthermore, style is not a quantifiable thing, and parameters and criteria are difficult to define. How then can a translator erase his personal idiosyncrasies and convey the artistic qualities of the original? Mu Lei, of the Arts Faculty of Hainan University, remarked: "A competent translator may not translate everything well. A translator should preferably choose the works ofwriters with temperaments and styles similar to his own. He will then be at ease. For instance, Fu Lei felt he was up to the test when translating Balzac." The same view was shared by Wang Jingyan, of the Huhort Grand Enterprise Knitwear Factory of Inner Mongolia. He commented: "When the styles ofthe translator and the original writer differ greatly, the translator should exercise to the utmost the virtue of 'suppressing the self so as to fulfill his mission of giving full expression to the original text." Wei Yunkang, of the Donglan County Aidong Secondary School of Guangxi, was convinced that the translator will inevitably reveal his own individuality in his translation, "but this must be held in check by the principle of preserving the style and uniqueness of the original, and in no case should he go against the original style." Zhao Jin, of the North China Pharmaeutical Co. of Hefei, said: "A translator is a human being. Naturally he will have his individual traits." Many readers pointed out that the translator should not submissively follow the original, but should "actively strive to stay as close as possible." This means maintaining a dynamic balance between contradictory demands.

266 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

We are also glad to see fresh theoretical perspectives from some readers. As for harmonizing the styles of the translator and the original writer, Xu Rong, of the 631-Research Institute of Xi'an Airline, said: "In the field of music, the debates and discussions on the two styles of conducting propounded by the Realist and Romanticist Schools may perhaps shed new light on this issue." Yan Jie, of the Tianjin Binjiang Commercial Complex, has proposed a closer analysis using Gadamer's theory of the "fusion of horizons." Translation theory has always been at the crossroads of various disciplines; it needs to enrich and strengthen itself with the theories of other disciplines. Gadamer is an authority on hermeneutics in the West. His theory of the "fusion of horizons" can really bring new insights to translation studies. Gadamer believes that the process of understanding does not involve "textual" duplication, but a fusion ofhorizons. That is to say, it recognizes the existence of an unbridgeable gap between the original horizon of the author and the present horizon of his interpreter/ translator. In the process of understanding, the historical and contemporary horizons are merged and replaced by a new horizon which contains and yet transcends the original horizons of the author and his interpreter. Yan Jie suggested a new perspective which incorporates aesthetic and hermeneutic considerations. On the basis of "limited re-creation," he stressed the initiative to be taken by the translator in the attempt to re-create. Indeed, amid the various contradictions he faces, the translator finds himself at the center perhaps he is instrumental in creating contradictions. This leads to a rather sensitive question: Should a literary translation surpass the original? Many readers believe that the Hypothesis of Surpassing the Original still awaits further theoretical exploration. Zhang Xiang'ou, a reader residing at 2598 Pudong Avenue, Shanghai, remarked: "The possibility of a translation surpassing the original definitely exists, and if the translator does have the competence, why then must he be restrained?" But "the real worry is that one should seek only to establish [the artistic] supremacy of the language into which one is translating, thus violating or deviating from the original work." Some readers mentioned that "the history of translation hardly lacks examples of translations surpassing their originals"; such works have also stood the test of time. The works of Edgar AlIen Poe as translated by Charles Baudelaire provide an example. Such a phenomenon must not be ignored. However, many readers said that a translation "must not aim at surpassing the original." Jiang Ruixi and senior citizen Lei Junchang, both from Beijing, wrote:

Creativity and translation 267

One wonders how the so-called idea of "surpassing the original" gets inside people's heads. If a translator is brilliant enough to "surpass" the masters whose works have contributed so much to world civilization, why doesn't he forget about those masters, and write works that can truly be his own, works which can rock the world?"

,

,,

1 I,

I

,, •,

,

Ding Shumin, who lives in Cypress Village, Labor Day Central Avenue, Fuzhou, noted: "In fact, to bring into full play the linguistic advantage of the target language has always been the goal striven for by translators, but the ultimate goal is not to surpass the original work, but to represent the original text to readers in a more precise and effective manner." Translated by Orlando Ho

268 Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory

Notes to Articles 33-38 1.

For a brief introduction to Zheng Zhenduo, see note 8 in Section A.

2. The metaphor of "match-maker," although it makes sense in general, suggests a strong sense of contempt in Guo's time when "women's liberation and freedom of marriage" were zealously advocated. 3. In the essay "Translation and Creation," published in No. 78 of Wenxue xunkan (Literature Tri-monthly) (1923), Xi Di states: "If we want to enrich and revitalize our creative works, it is futile to shut ourselves up and read The Journey to the West, The Dream ofthe Red Chamber, or the poems and essays of numerous traditional writers. Neither can we achieve our goal by putting down hastily in writing what we observe in society the moment we open our eyes. At least, we have to open up windows in the dark room of Chinese literature, so that the sunlight, fresh air, and all the beautiful scenery outside can be brought in. Translators are the ones to accomplish the task of opening windows." 4. Guo Momo (1892-1978) excelled in the genres of Chinese poetry and drama. His translations cover a wide range: poetry, drama, fiction, literary criticism and Marxist writings; most of them are of seminal works in Western literature and philosophy. Examples are Goethe's Faust, Storm's Immensee, Tolstoy's War and Peace (co- translated) and the poetry of Shelley. As a theorist, he advocated taking translation seriously, since good translations are "re-creations," and he was of the view that "poetry should be translated as poetry." 5. Kawakami Hajime (1879-1946) was a prominent Marxist scholar in Japan who translated the Communist Manifesto into Japanese. 6. Eistein made no such remark. It should be attributed to Authur Eddington (1919). Translator 7. Geng Jizhi (I 899-1947) translated The Brothers Karamazovand the stories ofMaupassant, in addition to Pushkin's The Captain's Daughter. 8. For a brief introduction to Mao Dun, see note 34 in Section E. 9. Fang Ping (1921-) translated Elizabeth Browning's poetry and several of Shakespeare's plays, and co-translated Boccaccio's Decamerone. In 2000, the 12-volume Revised Complete Works of Shakespeare, edited by him and characterized as "the first complete Chinese translation of Shakespeare in verse," was published simultaneously in the Mainland and Taiwan. Briefly recounted, the story of The Dream of the Red Chamber concerns the teenage love between ha Baoyu and Lin Daiyu. At the novel's climax (Chapter 98), Baoyu is tricked into marrying another girl, Xue Baochai, while Daiyu dies of consumption. Li Wan and Jia Tanchun are lookers-on at the scene of Daiyu's death. Xu Yuanchong's translation of one sentence in the chapter is the focus of Fang Ping's discussion here.

10.

The translations in this paragraph are taken from John Minford (tr.), The Story of the Stone, Vol. 4: The Debt of Tears (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982), pp. 376-77.

11.

12. This is an expression in the classical literary style, not in contemporary Chinese. Translator

Notes 269

13. On Jean Christophe, see note 4 in Section C. 14. Xu Yuanchong (1921-) is among the most prolific of translators at the present time. Besides writing occasional essays on translation theory, he has translated from French and English into Chinese, and vice versa. His translations include Stendhal's Le rouge et le noir, Flaubert's Madame Bovary, Dryden's All for Love, Scott's Quentin Durward (into Chinese), Tang and Song poetry, The Book of Odes and Songs of Chu (into English and French). 15. See the last paragraph in Fang Ping's "Miscellaneous Thoughts on Translation." 16.

Poems of the Late Tang Dynasty is a collection of translations by A. C. Graham, pub-

lished by Penguin Books in 1965. The identity of the "gentleman" mentioned here is unknown. The Chinese Translators Journal is the official publication of the Translators' Association of China, published on a bi-monthly basis since the 1970s. 17. Zhu Shenghao (1912-1944) spent almost a decade translating Shakespeare's plays into Chinese, completing 31 by the time of his death in 1944. He began with the comedies and then turned to the tragedies and historical plays. His translations have been praised for their elegance and richness, though also faulted for their inaccuracies. Zhu chose to render Shakespeare's blank verse into prose. 18. Yang Bi (1922-1968) is best remembered for her translation of Thackeray's Vanity Fair. 19. Xu Jun (1954-) has been Professor of French at Nanjing University since 1979. He is seriously involved in introducing contemporary French literature to a Chinese readership, and has co-translated Volume 4 of Proust's A La recherche du temps perdu. Yuan Xiaoyi obtained her Ph.D. from Nanjing University. 20. Su Tong (1963-) is a contemporary Chinese novelist who rose to prominence in the early 1990s. He has edited the literary journal Zhongshan and written quite a number of novels, some of which have been made into movies - for instance, Raise the Red Lantern (or Wives and Concubines).

Index

I, I

,

I, I" ,

I, •" "

"

A accuracy, 18-19,78,97,141,154-155, 162-165,233,261 adaptation, 127 aesthetics of translation, 12, 38, 40, 62, 242 After Babe~ 141 Ai Siqi, 180 appropriateness, 129-131 Aristophanes, 56 Arnold, Matthew, 91, 94, 96, 99-101 Artistic School, 142-143,242 associative meanings, 124 Austen, Jane, 171 author, 68-70, 73, 77, 79-83,96-97,109, 111,235 translator's affinity with, 126-127,264266 translator's rivalry with, 257-258

B Balzac, Honore de, 6, 128, 254-255, 265 Bian Zhilin, 68, 201 Bible, 5,48,67,74,113,139,174 Bloom, Harold, 45, 82, 84, 259 Book of Changes, 8, 71, 81-82, 231 Book of Odes, 212 Bookman Publishers, 46, 61, 62, 64 Buddhism, 70, 85, 253 Buddhist translations, 15, 225, 230 Byron, 67, 173

Chen Wangdao, 31, 35 Chen Xiying, 91, 98, 181 Chen Zhongfu, 193 Cheng Fangwu 201,210 C:hineselanguage,21-22, 151-174, 195196 classical Chinese, 32, 38, 60, 78, 86-88, 111,124, 128, 132, 145, 161, 162, 169, 173,192,216,219,231, 250 compared with Indo-European languages, 238-239 vernacular Chinese, 22, 33, 86, 124, 132, 153-157,162-166,169-170,173,216 Chinese cultural linguistics, 62, 63 cliches, 123, 159 colonization, xv, 29-32, 34, 36, 40-41 comparative linguistics, 46 comparative literature, 5 I, 64, 241, 265 comprehensibility, 67-88, 192-194; conciseness, 76,102, 183, 184 connotations, 7,104,185,188,232; Cooper, 91, 99, 100 creation in translation, xiii, xiv, 28, Ill, 122,139,156,164,171,186,201,211, 213,249-267

Creation Monthly, 186 Crescent Moon Society, xiii, 179, 185 Croce,77 cultural knowledge, 145 cultural studies, 44-45, 51, 81

C

D

Cai Siguo, 121, 152

de Man, Paul, 46,49,51,57 deconstructionist theory, 50 Deng Xiaoping, 15, 34 Derrida, Jacques, 9, 10,36,46,49,57,60

Captain's Daughter, The, 253 Catford, J.e., 4, 43, 46, 49, 121, 141, 223 Chapman, 91, 99,100

272 Twentieth Century Chinese Translation Theory

dialect, 24, 160-161, 170-171 Dickens, Charles, 8, 92, 106, 108-112, 217 dictionary, 7, 60,113,123,138,163-164, 171,185,195 Dilthey, W., 51, 80 Dong Qiusi, 223 Dryden, John, 8

E elegance, 4-5,11, 12, 17,23,51,67-88,98, 129,135-136,139,194,196-197,230, 232,234-235,243,261 Eliot, T.S., 26, 82, 173 equivalence, 6-8, 43, 47-48, 51,141,170, 202,213,214,219,223-241 equal-value translation, 233-234 Esperanto, 37,41,42, 61 Europeanization, 20-22, 27, 28, 31, 33, 36, 60,62,64,132,152 Evolution and Ethics, 4, 5,67,231 expressiveness 68, 102, 128, 243 F Fadeyev,AJexander,20 faithfulness, 5,11,19,67-88,93-94,98-99, 102,163,179,180,193,196-197,230235,242-243 See also fidelity Fang Ping, 250, 261-262 Fedorov, Andrei, 49,141 Feng Xuefeng, 20, 28 feudalism, 154, 165, 186 fidelity, 4-6, 11, 16-20,23,26,40,43,51, 67-88, 104, 123, 129-131, 135-136, 139, 142,188,193,243 See also faithfulness Fifth Generation Translators, 15 fluency, 4-6, 11, 12, 17,20-23,28,51,6788,98,129-131,135-136,139,154-157, 162-165,180,188,194,196-197,230, 232,234-235 formal correspondence, 17-18 France, Anatole, 97, 100, 171 Fu Donghua, 22, 35

Index

Fu Lei, 4,6-9, 12,91, 121, 152,216,223, 231,234-235,258-259,262-263

L

G Gide, Andre, 74, 171 Goethe, 7,26,50, 77,87,105 Gu Zhengkun, 201 Guo Moruo, 7, 12,201,202,209-211,249, 251, 255

Lady Gregory, 187 language of the masses, 31, 32,156,167 Latin, 24, 61, 151, 162, 165 Le rouge et le noir, 249, 258-267 Lefevere, Andre, 16, 56

H Haggard, Rider, 8, 92, 106, 109, 113-114 hermeneutics, 79-80, 266 Hirsch, E.D., 45, 51, 80 Historical Records, III Holmes, James, 4, 32, 46, 61 Ifomer, 67, 85,91,94,99,100,173,254 Hu Shi, 22, 27, 155, 173,211 Huang Xuanfan, 33, 121, 122, 129 Humboldt, 12,26,83 Huxley, T.H., 4-5, 67, 231 hybrid language, 37 I

idiomatic meaning, 125 imitation, 7, 22, 33, 91,102,206 interpreters, 4, 69, 112 intertextuality, 51, 82, 84 Irving, Washington, 106, 110

La Cousine Bette, 168 La Porte etroite, 74

Les contes drolatiques, 254 Lewis, Philip, 55, 61 Li Wan, 257 Liang Qichao, 106, 155,230 Liang Shiqiu, xiii, 18,22,25,121,179-180, 184-186, 188 Lin Daiyu, 95, 257 Lin Shu, 8, 9,13,16-18,20,27,62,92, 104-114,166,167,180,192,217,264 Lin Yiliang, 122, 134-140, 152, 168, 174 Lin Zhang, 224, 244 Linguistic School, 121, 142 literary translation 8, 15,68,72,74-76,93, 98, 104, Ill, 145, 234, 249-267 Liu Miqing, 12,38-42,47-48,62,121,223, 236,244-247 LuXun, xiv, 16-27,33,37,39,151-153, 162,179-187,191,195-196 Lunacharsky, A.V., HI, 182-184 Luo Xinzhang, 42, 142,223,230 M

J Jameson, Frederic, 44, 45, 54 jargon,9,11,241,257 Jin Di, 6, 47,122

Journey to the West, 106 Joyce, James, 26, 78, 91, 122 K Kant,lmmanuel, 80,81 Khayyam, Omar, 97 Kristeva, Julia, 84 Kumarajiva, 69, 95, 225 Kuriyagawa, Hakuson, 182

Ma Jianzhong, 5, 6, 34 Mao Dun, 18,21,28,91,180,198-201, 242,249 Marvell, Andrew, 51, 68, 85 May Fourth Movement, 15,31, 162, 192, 226 misrepresentation, 105, 109 mistranslation, 181, 188 modernity, 15-16,25-27,61 Montesquieu, 113 Moore, George, 97, 98

N national literature, 204, 263

New Culture Movement, 188,252 New Literature Movement, 21 Newman, 91, 99,100 Newmark, Peter, 43, 46,146 Nicholas Nickleby, 107, 108, 112 Nida, Eugene, 4, 8,12,46-49,61,122,141, 142,223 Niranjana, Tejaswini, 30, 43, 52, 57 non-existent translations, 187

o Oliver Twist, 11

°

omissions, 95, 107

On Liberty, 197 ordinary folk, 21, 123, 124 Orientalism, 52, 53, 63, 64

P Pere Goriot, 6, 60, 91, 103 Poe, Edgar Allen, 78, 205, 266 Pope,AJexander, 91, 99-100,173,254 postcolonial theory, 29, 30, 64 See also Translation theory, post-colonial Poststructuralism, 44, 81 See also Translation theory, "new" Postvernacular, 37-38 Pound,Ezra, 51, 77, 78,82,84,173-174, 217 precision, 10, 159, 195,261 proletarian literature, 24, 153, 155, 185187 Putonghua, 128, 162, 170

Q Qian Xuantong, 24 Qian Zhongshu, 4, 8-10, 92, 223, 231, 234235 Qing dynasty, 25 Qu Qiubai, 12,20,22-25,62,151,158

R Razgroln, 20, 151, 153, 156 reader, 9, 19,32,45,51,68,70-72,79,82, 85,87,94,96,99-100,105,108,110,

273

274 Twentieth Century Chinese Translation Theory

113,128,145,152,153,181-183,184, 189,195,214,217,242,257,258,264267 resemblance, 7, 11,64,75,91,93,102,251, 261 formal resonance, 7, 13,47,61,93-98, 230,241-242 semantic resonance, 93, 94, 96-99, 101 spiritual resonance, xiv, 6-9, 13,47,61, 91-114,141, 142, 170,201,230-231, 235,241,242,261 resistance, xv, 30-36, 40, 53, 192 rewriting, 16, 18,60, 180,264 rhetoric, 102, 110, 131-133,231-233 rhythm, 75, 79,86,103,210-213,218 Richards, l.A., 45, 122, 143 Robinson, Douglas, 26, 44 Russian Revolution, 158

S Schleiermacher, F., 26, 51, 80 Scott, Waiter, 8, 95, 106, 192 self-Orientalizing, 52-53, 63 semantic correspondence, 17, 18 Shakespeare, 7,18,74,87,262 Shang Qin, 52, 87 Shen Congwen, 115 Shen Xiaolong, 34-36, 38, 39, 62 Si Guo, 41, 121, 129-133 sign language, 21, 154, 165, 189 Sima Qian, 109 Sinicization, 20, 28, 40, 152 Siu Pui-fei, 52, 54 Snell-Hornby, Mary, xv, 46, 56, 57, 63 spiritual assonance, 7, 8 St. Jerome, 3, 48, 63 Steiner, George, 48, 49,122,141,143 Story of the Lute, The, 110 Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio, 106 style, 12-13,38,40,67,69-70,72,75,9397,108,121,132,141, 145, 154, 162, 166-167,170-171,182,194,8,232-234; of Fu Lei, 102-103, 126-128 of poetry, 206, 210, 216-21

Index

translatology, 141-144 transliteration, 188,218 transm utation, 8, 104 Tytler, Alexander, 8, 67, 72,170,231,232, 234

of Le rouge et le noir, 257, 259, 263, 265 Su Manshu, 173 Sun Zhili, xiv, 224 sympathy, 126, 136, 207, 250 T Tan Zaixi, 48, 142,229,235 Tennyson, Alfred, 173 terminology studies, 124 Tolstoy, Leo, 255 Tongcheng school, 5 translation as matchmaking, 249, 251-255 translation of poetry, 97, 201-219 translation studies, xiv, 12, 17,27,36,38, 44,47,49,53-58,121,141-142,223224,234,244,266 translation techniques/types: dead translation, 95, 97, 181-184 direct translation, 17, 18, 27 distorted translation, 18,62,95, 180, 181,192-194 flexible translation, 188, 189, 191 literal translation, 23, 27, 76, 94-97, 135, 139,160, 179-197,204,206,225-226, 241-242,261 sense-translation, xiv, 17, 18,20,28,94, 95,135-137,139,179,180,192,195197,204,206,225-227,230,241,242, 261 smooth translation, 62, 180, 192-194 specular translation, 10 stiff translation, 17-19, 179-185, 189, 261 straightforward translation, 17, 18,216 verbal translation, 250, 259-261 translation teaching, 42 translation theory, xiii, xiv, 67, 122, 129, 141-143,146,249,259,266 in Hong Kong, 46-48 for China, 223-245 "new," 43-58 post-colonial, 29-41 traditional, 3-11 translationese, 33, 152, 174

I,

i

I, I,,

i

W Wang Guowei, 40 Wang Li, 122, 132 Water Margin, The, 95, 106 Webster's Dictionary, 185 WeiYi,112 Wordsworth, WilIiam, 51, 68, 86 world literature, 203, 251, 263 World War II, 15,29

1

X "

1 ,,I I

,

Xi Di, 251, 252 Xu Jun, xv, 250, 264 Xu Yuanchong, 249-250, 258-259, 264 Xu Zhimo, 132, 190-191,211

I

,I I I

I

Y Yan Fu, 3-6, 8,16,17,20,22,23,26,51, 55, 67-88, 91, 95, 98, 129, 154, 160, 162, 179, 188, 197,223,230,234

Ye Weilian [Yip Wai-lim], 51-52, 64, 68, 77 Yeats, W.B., 85, 174 Yu Guangzhong, 32-33, 129, 152, 173,201, 212 Yuan Xiaoyi, 250

Z Zeng Xubai, 91, 94, 96 Zhang Songnian, 193 Zhang Yiwu, 36-39 Zhao Jingshen, 22-24, 28,154-155,158, 162-163,166,180,191 Zheng Boqi, 187 Zheng Zhenduo, 8, 21, 22, 67, 204, 249, 252 See also Xi Di Zhi Qian, 17, 27 Zhou Guisheng, 106 Zhou Zuoren, 42, 95,151,152,169,181, 216,249,253 Zhu Guangqian, 121 Zhu Shenghao, 7, 262-263

275

In the series Benjamins Translation Library the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication:

28

SETTON, Robin: Simultaneous Interpretation. A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. 1999. xvi, 397 pp.

29

WILSS, Wolfram: Translation and Interpreting in the 20th Century. Focus on German. '999. xiii, 256 pp.

30

DOLLERUP, Cay: Tales and Translation. The Grimm Tales from Pan-Germanic narratives to shared internat ional fairytales. 1999. xiv, 384 pp.

31

ROBERTS, Roda P., Silvana E. CARR, Diana ABRAHAM and Aideen DUFOUR (eds.): The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community. Selected papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in legal, health and social service settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19-23 May 1998. 2000. vii, 3 16 pp.

32

BEEBY, Allison, Doris ENSINGER and Marisa PRESAS (eds.): Investigating Translation. Selected papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona, 1998. 2000. xiv, 296 pp.

33

GILE, Daniel, Helle V. DAM, Friedel DUBSLAFF, Bodil Ringe MARTINSEN and Anne SCHJOLDAGER (eds.): Getting Started in Interpreting Research. Methodological reflections, personal accounts and advice for beginners. 2001. xiv, 255 pp.

34

GAMBlER, Yves and Henrik GOTTLIEB (eds.): (Multi) Media Translation. Concepts, practices, and research. 2001. xx, 300 pp.

35

SOMERS, Harold (ed.): Computers and Translation. A translator's guide. 2003. xvi, 351 pp.

36

SCHMID, Monika S.: Translating the Elusive. Marked word order and subjectivity in English-German translation. '999. xii, 174 pp.

37

TIRKKONEN-CONDIT, Sonja and Riitta JAASKELAINEN (eds.): Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Outlooks on empirical research. 2000. x, 176 pp.

SAGER, Juan c.: Language Engineering and Translation. Consequences of automation. 1994·

1

xx, 345 pp. SNELL-HORNBY, Mary, Franz POCHHACKER and Klaus KAINDL (eds.): Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Selected papers from the Translation Studies Congress, Vienna, 1992. 1994· xii, 43 8 pp.

2

LAMBERT, Sylvie and Barbara MOSER-MERCER (eds.): Bridging the Gap. Empirical research in simultaneous interpretation. 1994· 362 pp. TOURY, Gideon: Descriptive Translation Studies - and beyond. 1995. viii, 3 12 pp.

3

4

DOLLERUP, Cay and Annette LINDEGAARD (eds.): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2. Insights, aims and visions. Papers from the Second Language International Conference Elsinore, 1993·

5

1994· viii, 358 pp. EDWARDS, Alicia B.: The Practice of Court Interpreting. 1995· xiii, 192 pp.

6

BEAUGRANDE, Robert de, AbduIlah SHUNNAQ and Mohamed Helmy HELIEL (eds.): Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East. 1994· xii, 25 6 pp. GILE, Daniel: Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. 1995· xvi, 27 8 pp.

7

8

c. Sager. With an introduction by Bruno de

9

REY, Alain: Essays on Terminology. Translated by Juan Resse. 1995. xiv, 223 pp.

10

KUSSMAUL, Paul: Training the Translator. '995· x, 17 8 pp.

38

11

VINAY, Jean-Paul and Jean DARBELNET: Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A methodology for translation. Translated and edited by Juan c. Sager, M.-J. Hamel. '995· xx, 359 pp.

SCHAFFNER, Christina and Beverly ADAB (eds.): Developing Translation Competence. 2000. XVI. 244 pp.

39

BERGENHOLTZ, Henning and Sven TARP (eds.): Manual of Specialised Lexicography. The preparation of specialised dictionaries. '995. 25 6 pp. DELISLE, Jean and Judith WOODSWORTH (eds.): Translators through History. 1995· xvi, 34 6 pp.

CHESTERMAN, Andrew, Natividad GALLARDO SAN SALVADOR and Yves GAMBlER (eds.): Translation in Context. Selected papers from the EST Congress, Granada 1998.2000. x, 393 pp.

40

ENGLUND DIMITROVA, Birgitta and Kenneth HYLTENSTAM (eds.): Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting. Interdisciplinary perspectives. 2000. xvi. 164 pp.

MELBY, Alan K. and Terry WARNER: The Possibility of Language. A discussion of the nature of language, with implications for human and machine translation. 1995· xxvi, 27 6 pp.

41

NIDA, Eugene A.: Contexts in Translating. 2002. x, 127 pp.

42

HUNG, Eva (ed.): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 4. Building bridges. 2002. xii. 243 pp.

15

WILSS, Wolfram: Knowledge and Ski1ls in Translator Behavior. 1996. xiii, 259 pp.

43

16

DOLLERUP, Cay and Vibeke APPEL (eds.): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3· New l:'orizons. Papers from the 'Ihird Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark, 1995· 1996. VIII, 33 8 pp.

GARZONE, Giuliana and Maurizio VIEZZI (eds.): Interpreting in the 21St Century. Challenges and opportunities. 2002. x, 337 pp.

44

POYATOS, Fernando (ed.): Nonverbal Communication and Translation. New perspectives and challenges in literature, interpretation and the media. 1997· xii, 361 pp.

SINGERMAN, Robert: Jewish Translation History. A bibliography of bibliographies and studies. With an introductory essay by Gideon Toury. 2002. xxxvi, 420 pp.

45

ALVES, Fabio (ed.): Triangulating Translation. Perspectives in process oriented research. 2003. x, 165 pp.

46

BRUNETTE, Louise, Georges BASTIN, Isabelle HEMLIN and Heather CLARKE (eds.): The Critical Link 3. Interpreters in the Community. Selected papers from the Third International Conference on Interpreting in Legal, Health and Social Service Settings, Montreal, Quebec. Canada 22-26 May 2001. 2003· xn, 359 pp.

12 13 14

17 18 19

SOMERS, Harold (ed.): Terminology, LSP and Translation. Studies in language engineering in honour of Juan c. Sager. 1996. xii, 250 pp. CARR, Silvana E., Roda P. ROBERTS, Aideen DUFOUR and Dini STEYN (eds.): The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community. Papers from the 1St international conference on..interpreting in legal, health and social service settings, Geoeva Park, Canada, 1-4 June 1995· 1997· VIII, 3 22 pp.

20

SNELL-HORNBY, Mary, Zuzana JETTMAROvA and Klaus KAINDL (eds.): Translation as Intercultural Communication. Selected papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995· 1997· x, 354 pp.

47

SAWYER, David B.: Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education. Curriculum and Assessment. 2004. xiv, 30 I pp. + index.

21

BUSH, Peter and Kirsten MALMKJl£R (eds.): Rimbaud's Rainbow. Literary translation in higher education. 1998. x, 200 pp. CHESTERMAN, Andrew: Memes of Translation. The spread of ideas in translation theory. 1997·

48

MAURANEN, Anna and Pekka KUJAMAKI (eds.): Translation Universals. Do they exist' 2004. VI, 224 pp.

49

PYM, Anthony: The Moving Text. Localization, translation, and distribution. 2004. xviii, 223 pp.

50

HANSEN, Gyde, Kirsten MALMKJl£R and Daniel GILE (eds.): Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001. xii, 306 pp. + index. Expected Summer 2004

51

24

VII, 219 pp. GAMBlER, Yves, Daniel GILE and Christopher J. TAYLOR (eds.): Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interpreting: What do we know and how? 1997. iv, 246 pp. ORERO, Pilar and Juan C. SAGER (eds.): The Translator's Dialogue. Giovanni Pontiero. 1997·

CHAN, Leo Tak-hung: Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory. Modes, issues and debates. 2004. xviii, 268 pp. + index.

52

25

XIV, 252 pp. POLLARD, David E. (ed.): Translation and Creation. Readings of Western Literature in Early Modern

HALE, Sandra Beatriz: Ihe Discourse of Court Interpreting. Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. xvi, 261 pp. + index. Expected Summer 200.1

53

26

China, 1840-1918. 1998. vi, 336 pp. TROSBORG, Anna (ed.): Text Typology and Translation. '997· xvi, 342 pp.

DIRIKER, Ebru: De-/ReContextualizing Conference Interpreting. Interpreters in the Ivory Tower? vii, 209 pp. + index. 2004.

BEYLARD-OZEROFF, Ann, Jana KRALOvA and Barbara MOSER-MERCER (eds.): Translators' Strategies and Creativity. Selected Papers from the 9th International Conferen:e on Translation and Interpreting, Prague, September 1995. In honor of lifi Levy and Anton POpOVIC. 1998. XIV, 23 0 pp.

54

GONZALEZ DAVIES, Maria: Multiple Voices in the Translation Classroom. Activities, tasks and projects. xii, 259 pp + index. Expected Summer 2004

22 21

27