LING480 Binghamton Modern Theories of 1920s & 30s Language Discussion Paper Read the readings attached below and respond the question, “How does this make me think about language or translation in a new way?” Present your answer with a rigorous, thoughtful argument, citing relevant text to support your position. Place your discussion in terms of overall argument of the text. Chapter 2
Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
“Modern” theories of the 1920s and 30s
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 ªeld 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
translation theory and practice. When the last of the Chinese dynasties — the
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 ¶urry 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.1
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 deªne, 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 ªelds 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,
Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250.
Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 07:12:36.
16
Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory
Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
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 in¶uence 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 ªerce disagreements about issues of “foreignization” (the method of
allowing cultural and linguistic diŸerences to stay intact), the use of Europeanized structures and expressions in translation, and the criterion of ªdelity.
All these issues then got embroiled in yet a more general debate about the
in¶uence 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.”
Literalism versus liberalism
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 ªrst 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 in¶uential 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 in¶uential 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 “ªdelity,” 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 André Lefevere has attempted to do, the
place of Lin Shu in Chinese translation history ought to be problematized
rather than accepted as fact.
Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250.
Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 07:12:36.
Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
“Modern” theories of the 1920s and 30s
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 һdelity,
¶uency and elegance” — terms ªrst 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 con¶icting 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 “ªdelity,” which was Yan Fu’s ªrst principle,
one that preceded ¶uency 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 ªrst 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 “stiŸ translation”
(yingyi) (which characterizes the eŸect 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
Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250.
Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 07:12:36.
17
18
Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory
Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
the course of the twentieth century because it kept debaters talking at cross
purposes, can be somewhat clariªed with reference to the following schema:
Zhiyi
Yiyi
= Straightforward translation/
Direct translation
Approach: Literal
~Formal correspondence
Extreme form: Word-for-word
translation (zuziyi)
EŸect: StiŸ translation/ Hard
translation (yingyi) (Lu Xun)
= Sense-translation
Approach: Liberal
~Semantic correspondence
Extreme form: Free translation
(ziyouyi)
EŸect: Distorted translation (waiyi)
(Lin Shu) (see below)
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 ¶atly 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.5 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 ‘StiŸ Translation” (1929),6 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 ªngers.” Liang averred that they were more than just “stiŸ
translations”; they were “dead translations” (siyi).
Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250.
Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 07:12:36.
Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
“Modern” theories of the 1920s and 30s
Today, with the beneªt of almost a century’s advancement in comparative
linguistic research, it is not di¹cult 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 diŸers 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 speciªcally, whereas in many Western
languages premodiªers can be placed before, and post-modiªers after, the
headword in a noun phrase (as in “the pretty woman in red standing over
there”), Chinese permits premodiªers only. Hence in extremely literal translations, several premodiªers 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
ba§ed and outraged (see Lundburg 1989). Liang was justiªed 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 “‘StiŸ Translation’ 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 of their 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.
Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250.
Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 07:12:36.
19
20
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 ªdelity 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 of the source text at two diŸerent levels, that is, translating with respect
to larger or smaller units. Given the syntactical diŸerence, 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 ªdelity and ¶uency. These dimensions became inextricably meshed in
the discourse on translation in the 1920s and 30s:
Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Method:
Language use:
Principle:
Word-for-word
(literalism)
Europeanization
Fidelity
Sense-for-sense
(liberalism)
Sinicization
Fluency
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 diŸerences in opinion
concerning the preferred language of translation, there were clear indications of
shared goals. The exchange (of three 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 of the 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 deªcient that it lacks names for many everyday objects. Indeed it has not
Chan, Leo Tak-hung. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory : Modes, issues and debates, John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/binghamton/detail.action?docID=623250.
Created from binghamton on 2019-10-02 07:12:36.
“Modern” theories of the 1920s and 30s
Copyright © 2004. John Benjamins Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
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
diŸerences and complex relationships (Luo 1984: 266).9
This is comparable to Lu Xun’s view, expressed in his letter of December 28,
1931, that “[The Chinese language] is just too imprecise” and that “To cure this
ailment, I believe we have to suŸer 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, in¶uential 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 to…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
