cheung - chinese translation theory

8/13/2019 Cheung - Chinese Translation Theory

1/13

Chinese Translation Theories from earliest times to the revolution of 1911. Aprogress report

Martha P. Y. CheungHong Kong Baptist University

One of the underlying themes of this workshop is the nature and limits of cross-cultural understanding. I shall examine this question, and a few others highlighted (as

Research Questions) for discussion at this meeting, from a specific perspective

the perspective of someone engaged in a translation project aimed at facilitating, inthe English-speaking world, an understanding of Chinese thinking about translation.Before I begin my discussion, however, I would like to make one point clear how I

am going to use the word Chinese in this paper.

To me, Chinese is a word with floating meanings; it is a levitational word, soto speak. I am certainly not using it to refer to a single, homogeneous, monolithicentity. I am not even using it simply as an indicator of a certain ethnic origin. Rather I

am allowing myself a certain measure of strategic flexibility when I use it, especiallywith reference to my translation project. The working title of this project is Chinesetranslation theories - from earliest times to the Revolution of 1911 (hereafter CTT).

It will result in an anthology, in English translation, of the views, reflections,statements, discussions and records about translation both as an activity and as acultural practice - in China, from ancient times to the Revolution of 1911. Some of the

texts included in this anthology are excerpted from the work of ethnic Chinese. Butnon-Chinese will not be excluded as long as (a) they had Chinese as one of their

language pairs and their views are related to translation in the Chinese context; and(b) they had been centrally involved in the production of translated texts (in Chinese)

and their views are related to such a process or such a mode of production. This is not

an attempt to subsume non-Chinese under the label Chinese for the all too obviouspurpose of discursive nation-building. Neither is it an effort to invent a Chinese

translation tradition that is richer and grander than it actually is. The notion ofChinese is, admittedly, stretched. But this is because I believe the notion itself is aconstruct. I believe, moreover, that every culture is mixed, and the more so for

translation, one of the constituent elements of culture.In what is to follow, I shall discuss questions such as why CTT is undertaken,

what are the principles of selection, and what went into consideration in the delimitingof scope. In particular, I shall focus on the problems encountered in the process of

conceptualization and implementation of the project - problems of representation,definition and contextualization. Tentative ways of dealing with these problems willalso be discussed. In so doing, I hope to explore, with a measure of self-reflexiveness

and as a tentative first step, the nature and limits of the kind of understanding I amfacilitating through the compilation of this anthology. The problems of translation arealso important, but they are too complex and numerous to be included in this round ofdiscussion and have to be reserved for another occasion, perhaps at another workshop.

Research for this paper was part of the project Translation in China: Views, Reflections, and

Theoretical Thinking from the earliest times to the revolution of 1911 supported by the Hong Kong

Research Grants Council (HKBU 2069/01H).


2/13

Why this project?

The theme of the nature and limits of cross-cultural understanding has been

examined from many different angles, by critics of different theoretical predilections

in the last few decades. A central tenet of this theme is to be located in discussions

about the other, in particular, about the problematics of (mis)representation and/or

(mis)understanding of the other in situations of unequal power relations. In the

academic circle in many parts of the world, there is now the awareness that one way

of resisting subjugation as the other is to assume the right of self-representation.

Even if the act of subjugation has already been carried out, one way of countering it is

still to assume the right of self-representation.Such an ideological position informs

many of the decisions I make as a translator and an anthologist, including, first and

foremost, the decision to translate, not from a second language into my mothertongue, but from my mother tongue (Chinese) into my second language (English).

The compilation of an anthology, in English translation, of Chinese thinking about

translation is another of my continuous effort at self-representation.1So when I talk

about cross-cultural understanding, it will be from this particular perspective, not the

perspective of one who is translating into her mother tongue and hence representing

not the self but another. This distinction is important because it carries all sorts of

implications ideological, theoretical and epistemological. I must stress, however,

that I am not suggesting that the self can necessarily represent herself better or more

adequately than others. Self-representation entails problems too. The problems are

especially complex when the person undertaking this act of self-representation, i.e. the

writer of this paper, was born and bred in Hong Kong, a British colony from 1842-

1997. For Hong Kongs colonial history and its marginality geographical, political

and cultural in relation to China makes me acutely conscious that I am less than

Chinese, and also more than Chinese, and hence indeterminately Chinese floating,

unsure about my legitimacy in any attempt to represent China, unsure about how self-

representation, important as a strategy of resistance against subjugation, is actually to

be carried out. If these doubts and uncertainties are not so strong as to be crippling, it

is because I am aware that marginality has its advantage, not least because the

distance from the centre can often result in a clarity of vision. A relative clarity of

vision, to be more precise. But in planning for the anthology, the question of

1Two earlier attempts at self-representation areAn Oxford Anthology of Contemporary Chinese Drama

(Cheung & Lai 1997) and Hong Kong Collage: Contemporary Stories and Writing (Cheung 1998).

Both carry an Introduction in which the issue of representation is discussed, either implicitly or


3/13

legitimacy and representation is a presiding concern, as shall become clear in the

discussion that follows.

There is another reason why CTT is worth doing as a project. Cross-cultural

understanding depends very much on what is available for intellectual processing and

on how that material is carried across linguistic and cultural barriers for processing.

As far as Chinese thinking about translation goes, the English-speaking worlds

understanding of this topic depends almost exclusively on what Andr Lefevere calls

rewriting, in this case, research articles or encyclopaedia entries about the topic, or

works that compare Chinese and Western notions of translation. One or two essays on

translation written by famous Chinese translators have been translated into English

and published.2 But to the best of my knowledge, primary material on Chinese

thinking about translation have not been translated into English or other languages in

any comprehensive and systematic manner. There is, for example, nothing that comes

close to a sourcebook. It is true that rewriting of the sort just mentioned can be of

high quality and can serve as useful conduits of knowledge.3 It is also true that

primary material in translation is a type of rewriting too. But the kind of cross-

cultural understanding arrived at via the study of secondary material is different from

that obtained from translated primary material. Whether it matters or not and how

different the understanding will be are questions we could address later. It remains to

be said that CTT was motivated by a desire to remove the linguistic barrier in order,

as it were, to democratize the space for discussion. What is more, I believe that if

discourse on translation is to break out of the Euro-centric model on which it has been

based for centuries, it is important that translated primary material on Chinese

thinking about translation is made available for study. Another of the research

questions of this workshop is: How comparable are concepts of translation

developed in different parts of the world? I can see many different ways of

approaching this question, but a simple, down-to-earth answer will suffice. If

different parts of the world include China, and if English is to be the working

language, then the question cannot be dealt with in any adequate or even sufficient

manner unless primary material, in translation, is made accessible to the researcher.

Or unless all the researchers have knowledge of Chinese, including reading

knowledge of classical Chinese.

2They are General Remarks on Translation by Yan Fu (Hsu 1973) and Lin Chin-nan Revisited - a

partial translation of Qian Zhongshus Linshu de Fanyi (The Translations of Lin Shu) (Kao 1975).3This is not the place for the listing of a complete bibliography. I shall only mention the names of four

scholars whose work of rewriting are of important pioneering significance for me Willis Barnstone

(1993), Tan Zaixi (1998, 2000, 2001), Chang Nam Fung (1998) and Eva Hung (1997, 1999a, 1999b,


4/13

From why to how

In seeking to compile an anthology of texts that represent Chinese thinking about

translation, a few questions come to mind. What models of representation can the

mind anchor itself to? Are there anthologies - in Chinese or English - that could be

used for reference? Is it possible, or desirable, to choose one from the existinganthologies in Chinese and translate it into English?

As far as the politics of representation goes, the option that first presented itself

was to select an existing anthology and translate it into English. This option, however,was not taken up. Anthologies that focus on special periods of translation in Chinese

history or special types of translation (scientific translation for example) are toospecialized or narrow in scope to be considered at this particular point of East-Westcommunication. They should come later. There is the more comprehensive type of

anthologies. But they are limited in background and other contextual information, or

they present the material in a way that a reader with little or no knowledge of Chineseculture may find hard to appreciate. Yet another research question underpinning this

workshop is: To what extent can we dissociate concepts of translation and adaptationfrom specific traditions and modes of importing or exporting texts across cultural

boundaries? The making of this anthology is an attempt to come to grips with thisquestion, to find ways of determining how much contextualization is needed and how

that context is to be provided.In the end, it is not a Chinese anthology that is chosen as the model but the

anthology edited by Douglas Robinson Western Translation Theory from Herodotusto Nietzsche(hereafter WTT), published by St Jerome in 1997. A number of factors

have been taken into consideration in the making of this decision. First, WTT canprovide a workable solution to the problem of delimitation of scope. Translation has along history in China. The earliest recorded history of such a mode of interlingual

communication can be traced back to the Zhou dynasty (1066 B.C.E. 256 B.C.E.),and all through the Chinese dynasties, there were records of such activities. Moreover,

translators, interpreters, writers, critics, historians, linguists, and others, including

imperial emperors belonging to the various nationalities of China, Buddhist monksfrom Central Asia (referred to as xiyu, literal translation, the Western Region, inChinese historical documents) and the Indian subcontinent, as well as Jesuit priestsand Protestant missionaries from Europe and America, have all written about

translation and translating, and from an amazing array of perspectives. A briefcollection will not do justice to such a kaleidoscope of views, unless, of course, onewere a purist and chose to leave out the contribution of all non-Chinese who had

written on the topic. A more comprehensive volume should be aimed at, especiallysince CTT is going to be the first anthology of its kind. Robinsons anthology, which

begins with Herodotus and ends with Nietzsche, is a comprehensive volume. Ittherefore makes sense for CTT to begin with the ancient times and thus gives its

readers a sense of the long history which translation has in China. Moreover, adoptingRobinsons anthology as a model without adhering to it slavishly gives CTT amanageable time frame: from ancient times to the Revolution of 1911. The year 1911,

rather than 1900, is chosen for two reasons. First, it marks the end of feudal China.Second, and more importantly, in the views of Chinese historians on translation and ofChinese translation theorists, there are four major waves of translation in China and

what came after 1911 belong to the third and fourth wave. The year 1911 wouldtherefore be a convenient and academically viable break-off point.

Workin with this time frame, CTT can rovide for its readers a historical


5/13

dimension with which to understand Chinese thinking about translation. There will bea fairly comprehensive overview of what translators of the past thought about what itmeant to translate, what were the essential qualities of a translator, what they

considered to be a good translation, what they saw as the aims and functions of

translation, and how they dealt with the practical and theoretical problems involved in

the transfer between languages. In addition, the anthology will shed light on the waysin which translation happened, why certain books or authors were translated at

particular periods of Chinese history, how attitudes to translation varied, why at

certain moments in the history of Chinese civilization there was a great deal oftranslation and at other times there was little or no translation at all. In other words,

the social and cultural dimensions of the Chinese tradition of translation will also becovered. The reader does not have to try to understand translation in completeisolation from the conditions of its existence in China.

Let me give an example of the kind of material that will be included in addition

to the more direct statements about translation.

The people living in different regions of the country could not understandone anothers languages. Their likings, needs and desires were all different.

There were officers whose duties were to understand these peoples mindsand ideas, and communicate their likings and needs. These officers held the

post of ji in the east, xiang in the south, didi in the west, and yi inthe north.

Translated by Martha Cheung, from Wang Zhi, Li Ji

(The Royal Regulation, Book of Rites)

This passage is taken from Wang Zhi of Li Ji, said to be compiled sometime

between 475 B.C.E. 8 C.E. It gives the titles of the officers who could speak thelanguages of the peoples inhabiting the regions of the Middle Kingdom and who were

responsible for communicating with them. The passage is not directly about

translation. Yet it provides fascinating sociological information on yi (the Chinesecharacter yi makes no distinction between translation and interpretation; in fact, inthe earliest times, when writing was not yet invented, yi was interpreting

4). We

learn about the form yi took in ancient times, its institutional basis, the purposes

which such an activity was meant to serve, the extent of the countrys need for suchan activity, and so on. It should also be noted that apart from yi, the other charactersji, xiang, di also contain the idea of translation. Ji means to send hither or

thither, hence to transmit. Xiang means to imitate, or likeness. In thecontext, it means to imitate anothers language, hence an imitator or a

representatist, if one may be permitted to coin a word. The first di of didi is,according to Chinese scholars such as Kong Yingda, the name of a tribe inhabiting the

Northern regions of the Middle Kingdom in ancient times. As for the second di, itmeans to know, to understand well. In the context, the term means someone whoknew the languages of the tribes of yi and di so that these people could get to

know the people of the Middle Kingdom.5

4Nowadays, interpreting is designated by the characters kou(literally, mouth)yi and translating by

the characters bi (literally pen) yi. Yi is still in currency, though its derivative fan(literally to

turn over)yi is perhaps more popular. The term fanyi also makes no distinction between translating

and interpreting.


6/13

Of the three characters ji, xiang and di, xiang is particularly important.From another ancient text, Zhou Li, (Rites of the Zhou), we know that xiang orxiang xu are the ancient names for translator/interpreter:

The duties ofXiang Xuwere to receive the envoys from the tribesMan, Yi,

Min, He, Rong, and Di, impart and explain to them the words of theImperial Emperor, so that a harmonious relation was maintained with these

states. When the ambassadors or heads of these states came for an audience

with the Emperor,Xiang Xuwould attend to diplomatic protocol and the useof diplomatic language, and would interpret for them.

Translated by Martha Cheung, from Qiu Guan, Zhou Li(The Ministry of Punishments, Rites of the Zhou)

However, from the Han dynasty onward, the tribes from the north often posedserious threats to China, and there were a lot of dealings and traffic with them. As a

result, yi, which was the title of the officers responsible for communicating with thenorthern tribes, became the general term for the activity we now often refer to as

fanyi (interpretation and translation), thus putting the other characters out ofcurrency.

6

Both these passages have little to do with what actually happened in translationas an inter-lingual transfer of meaning. But they form an important part of thehistorical context. They are crucial to our understanding of the evolution of the

concept of translation and should be included in the anthology. They also allow us to

leap across the distance of time to catch a glimpse of the relationship betweenpatronage, economics (Lefevere again) and translation.

One more example.

The tribes ofRongandDiwere bold, rash, reckless and brash, forthright in

their demands and did not yield or defer to others. They were untamed anduncouth, like animals. When they came to court to pay their tribute, theywould not wait to be served fine and delicate food. So they were seated outof doors, and the tongue-men were sent to give them food.

Translatied by Jane Lai, fromZhou Yu Liu, Guo Yu(Discourses of the States)

This passage is not overtly about translation either. But it contains another nameof officials serving as interpreters/translators in feudal China tongue-man

(Sheren). Tongue (she) is a vivid image, and says a lot about the verbal natureof fanyi as an activity in ancient China.

7The passage pairs up well with the one just

Yingda Di, zhi ye, wei tongchuan yidi zhi yu, yu zhongguo xiangzhi. (Hanyu dacidian1995)6This point was made by Chen Fukang, a Mainland translation scholar, who drew the information from

the writings of two Buddhist monks of the Song dynasty - Zan Ning and Fa Yun. Chen, citing Zan

Ning, also noted that the use of the character fan (to turn over) to denote translate started in the

period of the Eastern Han (C.E. 25-221). He noted, too, that it was again in the context of Buddhist

sutra translation that the two characters fan and yi began to be used together as a single term, no

later than the 6thcentury. (Chen 1992:12).7The character she also carries the meaning language(s). Therefore sheren can also be translated

as tongues man. Such a translation brings an echo of the English expression speaking in tongues.


7/13

discussed and both deserve a place in CTT.A form, however, has to be found for the large amount of material I wish to

include in the anthology. Moreover, the material has to be properly contextualized in

order to be approachable and intelligible to the reader. Again Robinsons anthology is

helpful. It provides me with a mental notion of the horizon of expectations of the

target readers of CTT. It can therefore also provide a structural and organizingframework for CTT. The table of contents for CTT has now been more or less

finalized. It features about 100 authors and about 140 texts. Presentation will follow a

chronological order. Entries are by authors. Like the entries in WTT, each entry inCTT will be provided with a title, a headnote, and, if necessary, footnotes. The titles

enable the reader to see at a glance the diversity of topics presented in the anthology.The headnotes supply biographical and other information on the historical importanceor significance of the texts or the translators. The footnotes provide information on the

texts themselves. Together, the headnotes, footnotes, and the texts should go some

way in meeting the need for contextualization. Moreover, like WTT, CTT will includea section on biographies of people mentioned in the text, one on further reading,

one on bibliographical references, as well as a name index, a subject index, and a titleindex. But while WTT has an Editors Preface, CTT will carry an introductory essay

on Chinese thinking about translation. In addition, there will be an epilogue thatexamines the similarities and differences between Chinese and Western ideas on

translation, suggests ways of relating concepts from this volume with Westernconcepts, and explores where further research might take off or need to be especiallycareful about.

With this format, CTT not only can stand on its own as an independent work of

reference but also feature as a companion volume to WTT and this should help topromote understanding of Chinese thinking about translation as well as foster cross-cultural studies of translation. Of course, understanding also depends heavily on the

readers themselves, and each of them will come to CTT with their ownpreconceptions, tastes, preferences and bias. But how understanding actually takes

place is beyond the scope of this paper.

There is yet a further reason for using WTT as a model. Robinsons anthology isa heterogeneous collection. It consists of statements about translation; it also consistsof statements that only touch on translation at a tangent. It includes excerpts fromtreatises as well as short, insightful comments of an experiential and/or

impressionistic nature. These texts are brought under the umbrella term theory inthe title, Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Moreover, in hisselection of material, Robinson allows himself to be guided by developments in

women study and other literary and post-colonial theories of representation, thusincluding in WTT texts that belong more to the peripheries of translation theory.

8

Students of translation used to the degree of vigour with which someone likeGideon Toury maintains the stability of meaning of the word theory

9may think that

light on one amongst the numerous translation problems and translation decisions involved in CTT.8One example Robinson himself cites in the Editors Preface is Michel Eyquem de Montaignes

essay Des cannibals, portions of which are included in Western Translation Theory from Herodotus

to Nietzsche(Robinson 1997:116-118).9 According to Gideon Toury, the main object of a theory is to enable systematic and exhaustive

description and explanation of each and every phenomenon within the domain it allegedly covers; or, to

put it differently, and more popularly, to permit the generation of all these phenomena and no alien

ones (generativity thus being a function of the exhaustive account of the factors involved in the process

of generation and in the objects generated by this process, which are its [sur]face representations).


8/13

Robinson has allowed himself too much latitude in his use of the word theory. Butit is obvious Robinsons strategy is to include as much material as he deemsappropriate. And appropriateness is to be determined not simply by the historical

importance of a text, but also by its resurrected importance, i.e. the leverage it enjoys

in contemporary translation theory. And let us not forget that the word theory,

derived from the Greek word theoria (meaning act of viewing, contemplation,and consideration), also means imaginative contemplation of reality, direct

intellectual apprehension, or insight, even though such a meaning has become

archaic. In addition, theory and speculation were, at one time, interchangeable, asthey share the same root senses (Websters Third New International Dictionary,

c.1993). The wide spectrum of texts included in WTT can be justified, therefore, byreferring to the word theory in its etymological as well as modern senses. As such,the heterogeneous collection can stimulate thinking, as well as re-thinking, about

translation.

Robinsons strategy suits my purpose. The word theory now features in theworking title for the anthology I am preparing - Chinese Translation Theories from

the earliest times to the Revolution of 1911. It is true that lilun - the Chinesetranslation of the term theory - did not come into currency until some time in the

late Qing Dynasty or early Republican era (i.e. late 19th century or early 20th

century).According to the meaning given inA Dictionary of Loan words and Hybrid Words in

Chinese, lilun is Renmin you shijian gaikuo chulai de guanyu ziranjie heshehui dezhishi he yuanli de tixi. Literal translation: A system of principles and knowledgeabout society and about nature generalized by humans from practice. In modern

dictionaries such as Hanyu dacidian, it means xitong de lixing renshi

(understanding or knowledge based on systematic reasoning). A number of Chinesetranslation theorists place great emphasis on this point and have criticized Chinesetranslation theory for being weak in systematic reasoning and for being too

impressionistic in substance or too nationalistic in outlook.10

Others, however, holdthat Chinese translation theory has a system of its own. This system is built on the

premise that theory should be grounded on practice; theory should inform practice.

Another defining feature is that Chinese translation theory drew heavily from classicalaesthetics and poetics, both of which operate not along the axis of systematicreasoning but with a (loose) cluster of related concepts whose meanings are open toconstant definition and redefinition.

11This, to me, is an important debate. In order to

understand the what of Chinese thinking about translation, one has to understandthe how the mechanisms, the modes, and the dynamics of thinking. Using theword theory in the title of CTT allows me to discuss, in the introduction, the

divergent views expressed by Chinese translation scholars towards lilun, or at leastset the parameters for the debate. In fact, I think that one research question which

future workshops should address is: How comparable are concepts and/or traditions oftranslation theory developed in different parts of the globe?

Using the word theory in the title of CTT has another advantage. I couldinclude texts not found in Chinese anthologies. Texts by women translators, forexample, or texts that should interest scholars of the English-speaking world because

of the explosion of translation theories resulting from the impact of interdisciplinaryresearch on thinking about translation. (The three passages discussed earlier, forexample.) Locating this type of material requires a lot of research and perhaps

10Dong Qiusi is an early proponent of such a view (Dong 1984a, 1984b). Other strong advocates are

Tan Zaixi (1997, 2000), Chang Nam Fung (2000) and Zhu Chunshen (2000).


9/13

excavation work, as one is not even sure whether they existed at all. But the findingsshould stimulate dialogue about important theoretical issues across the East-Westdivide. Even if research produces negative finding, it will still be a significant

discovery.

But if there are advantages in adopting WTT as a model, there are also problems.

Given CTTs very noticeable reliance upon WTT for its format, how much of an

effort at self-representation will it be? I tried to deal with this problem by using the

word theories rather than theory in the title Chinese Translation Theories. It is

a strategic assertion of difference. A gesture to show that while CTT keeps WTT

within hailing distance, it has its separate identity. Nevertheless, I keep wondering

whether I am not betraying too much of an anxiety of pairing by presenting CTT as a

companion piece to WTT. Fully aware that a translation, or for that matter, an

anthology, is a fact of the target culture, I have, in my selection of texts, taken into

consideration some of the major theoretical preoccupations of translation scholars of

the West in the last few decades. However, some of these preoccupations for

example, gender and translation, translation and empire, translation in a postcolonial

context, translation and deconstruction - have not been taken up on the Mainland,

judging from the paucity of contemporary discussion about these issues. With this

editorial decision, will I not make CTT in some ways an extension of me, i.e. less than

Chinese, or more than Chinese, hence indeterminately Chinese?

I dont know whether these are real problems or fashionable worries. But in the

process of conceptualization, questions relating to the legitimacy of representation did

return to vex me. I even tried to tackle them, and the practical problems such as time,

energy, research resources and expertise needed for the implementation of such a

project12

by inviting Mr Lin Wusen, Executive Vice-President of the Chinese

Translators Association, to be my co-editor. Then, through him, Mainland experts on

translation history and translation theory were invited to participate in the project.

These scholars contribute to the anthology by commenting on the suitability of texts I

have selected for inclusion (accounting for about 70% of the total number), writing

12The question of expertise poses a real problem. Most of the texts to be included in CTT are excerpted

from works written in classical Chinese. Proficiency in classical Chinese, or even just a reading

knowledge of classical Chinese, cannot be assumed in the average intellectual in China, or different

parts of the Chinese-speaking world. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that with theexception of a small number of scholars, classical Chinese is virtually a foreign language to the

Chinese people. These scholars, however, may not have a command of English strong enough to

undertake the work of translation. In implementing the project, therefore, great care must be taken to

ensure that the translators are not only suitable for the job but also that they are provided with the helpthey would need, especially where comprehension of the classical texts is concerned. The

comprehension problem is compounded by the fact that a lot of subject knowledge is required since the

texts to be translated deal not just with literary translation but also with Buddhist sutra translation and

scientific text translation. In addition, experts with a grasp of the background material needed for the


10/13

the headnotes, and locating the material on which further research is needed. Their

involvement should go some way in legitimizing CTT as a collective effort at self-

representation. Their involvement is crucial in another way. Writing the headnotes

means setting the context for the translated pieces. Contextualization is the

deployment of interpreted historical facts for a particular purpose. The two scholars

who, together, are responsible for writing over half of the headnotes have shown, in

their publications, a leaning towards the construction of a Chinese translation tradition

with an impressive history and distinct Chinese characteristics.13

Their involvement,

therefore, means that the mainstream view will be represented. Of course, some may

cast doubt on the reliability of the context thus set, of the reading thus proffered, and,

by extension, of the kind of understanding provided by CTT for its English-speaking

readers, who would have no means of checking the accuracy of the information

presented. But as I do not believe that discourse can be ideologically free, I do not see

this as a problem. I do think, however, that ideological bias should be made known to

the readers and I will use the footnotes for such a purpose. In addition, the footnotes

will function as a discursive space for different, alternative, or oppositional reading(s).

The peripheral position of the footnotes can dramatise, in a visually and spatially

effective manner, the current relation between the centre and the periphery of the

polysystem of translation discourse in China, with the canonized view (about the

Chinese translation tradition, for example) being challenged, after decades of

undisputed authority, by views from the periphery. I hope that together, the headnotes

and footnotes can alert us to the need to think ideologically about translation research.The need to think ideologically about translation research (Cheung,

forthcoming) is a call I made in another paper. But I would like to reiterate it here. To

think ideologically about translation research does not mean that we treat everything

as ideologically suspect. It does mean, however, that we accept ideologicalleanings/bias/convictions as an epistemological fact, as something that is built into ourattempts to make sense of things. And this, I think, is one way of dealing with the

problem of representation both self-representation as well as representation of theother. As far as CTT is concerned, thinking ideologically about translation research

means admitting that the kind of understanding provided by CTT for its English-speaking reader will be mediated by all who are involved in the preparation of theanthology, and above all, by my own theoretical and ideological orientations. Theseorientations can be summed up as at once a readiness to help western readers

understand Chinese thinking about translation in its context as well as a

determination to engage with western thinking about translation on its own terms.These orientations are the result of my attempt to capitalize on Hong Kongs marginal

13I have written about the issue of ideology and the (re)reading of history and tradition in another paper

(Cheung, forthcoming). In a different vein and with a different argumentative thrust, Eva Hung has

analyzed the (mis)reading of history and the consignment to obscurity of the contribution of the foreign

translator to the Chinese translation tradition as a phenomenon in twentieth century translation studies


11/13

position marginal in relation to China as well as the West which enables me tolook East and West rather than at or from a single direction. These orientations markthe limits, and perhaps also the excitement, of the kind of cross-cultural understanding

I am trying to facilitate through the compilation of this anthology.

ConclusionI shall bring this presentation to an end with an observation and two questions.

Mediation is in the order of things, especially where cross-cultural understanding

is concerned. The issue that must be dealt with is just how heavy or slight one wantsthe mediation to be. My way of dealing with this issue is not to reduce mediation as

far as possible in pursuit of objectivity or historical truth in my representation ofChinese thinking about translation. Instead, my strategy is to use mediation as a wayof intervening in debates or matters that are of concern to me. In addition, I talk about

my mediation, as I did in this paper. No one can write outside of frames, to borrow a

term from Erving Goffman. No one can escape from positionality. But one can bearticulate about it, whilst bearing in mind that a fully reflexive text cannot exist

because any piece of writing, in order to say something, necessarily contains anelement of blindness.

Have I managed to talk about the mediated nature of CTT with a measure of self-reflexiveness that is constructive, i.e. conducive to our discussion of the research

questions addressed by this workshop? Or is this turning-back-upon-oneself merelya kind of navel-gazing that is academically trendy? These are questions I should leaveto the audience.


12/13

Works Cited

Barnstone, Willis. 1993. The Poetics of Translation: History, Theory, Practice. NewHaven: Yale University Press.

Chang, Nam Fung. 1998. Faithfulness, Manipulation, and Ideology: A DescriptiveStudy of Chinese Translation Tradition. Perspective: Studies inTranslatology. 235-258.

________ 2000. Texing yu Gongxing -- Lun Zhongguo fanyixue yu fanyixue deguanxi (Chinese Translatology and its Specific Characteristics).Zhongguo

Fanyi(Chinese Translators Journal). 2 (March 2000). 2-7

Chien, Chung-shu (Qian, Zhongshu). 1975 (1964). Lin Chin-nan Revisited (TheTranslations of Lin Shu), trans.George Kao.Renditions. 5 (Autumn 1975). 8-

21.

Chen, Fukang. 1992.Zhongguo Yixue Lilun Shigao(A Draft History of Chinese

Translation Theory). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press.

Cheung, Martha P. Y. and Lai, Jane C.C. (eds) 1997.An Oxford Anthology ofContemporary Chinese Drama. Hong Kong; New York: Oxford University

Press.

Cheung, Martha P. Y. (ed.) 1998.Hong Kong Collage: Contemporary Stories and

Writing. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

________ Forthcoming. Power and ideology in translation research in twentiethcentury China: an analysis of three seminal works in CrossculturalTransgressions, ed. T. Hermans. Manchester: St Jerome.

Dong, Qiusi. 1984a (1950). Fanyi piping de lilun he zhongdian (On the Criteria andEmphases of Translation Criticism). Fanyi yanjiu lunwenji. Beijing: Waiyu

jiaoxue yu yanjiu chubanshe. 25-29

________ 1984b (1951). Lun fanyi lilun de jianshe (On the Establishment ofTranslation Theory), in Luo Xianzhang (ed.). 536-544.

Goffman Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: an essay on the organisation of experience.London: Penguin.

Guo Yu (Discourses of the States). 1916. Commented by Shen, Rong. Gou Yu Xianzhu.Shanghai: Wenming Shuju.

Hanyu dacidian. 1995 (1990). Shanghai: Hanyu Dacidian Chubanshe.

Hanyu wailaici cidian (A Dictionary of Loan words and Hybrid words in Chinese).

1984. Shanghai: Shanghai Cishu Chubanshe.

Hung, Eva and Pollard, D.E.. 1997. The Chinese Tradition, inAn Encyclopedia ofTranslation Studies, ed. Mona Baker. London: Routledge. 365-374.

Hung, Eva. 1999a. A Fake Translation that Never Existed, Perspective: Studies inTranslatology1. 9-18.

________ 1999b. The Role of the Foreign Translator in the Chinese Translation

Tradition, 2nd

to 19th

Century, TargetII (2). 223-243.

________ 2000. Zhongguo fanyi chuantong de jige tezheng (Some Characteristics

of the Chinese Translation Tradition), in Yazhou Fanyi Chuantong yu Xiandai


13/13

Dongxiang(Translation in Asia: Past and Present), eds Eva Hung & YangChengshu. Beijing: Peking University Press. 15-37.

Lefevere, Andr. 1992. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary

Fame. London: Routledge.

Li Ji(Book of Rites). 1987. Hong Kong: Chung Hwa Book.Luo, Xinzhang.1984(1983). Woguo Zichengtixi de Fanyi Lilun (A System of its

Own Our Countrys Translation Theories),in Luo, Xinzhang (ed.). 1-19.

Luo, Xinzhang (ed.)1984. Fanyi lunji(An Anthology of Essays on Translation).

Beijing: Commercial Press.

Robinson, Douglas. 1997. Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche.

Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

Tan, Zaixi. 1997. Reflections on the Science of Translation.Babel43.4. 331-352.

________1998.A Comparative Study of The Chinese and Western Traditions of

Translation, PhD dissertation, School of English and American Studies,University of Exeter.

________ 2000. Fanyixue(The Science of Translation). Hubei: Hubei JiaoyuChubanshe.

________ 2001. The Chinese and western translation traditions in comparison,

Across Languages and Cultures, Vol. 2. 1. 51-72.

Toury, Gideon. 1980.In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter

Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.

Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged.

c1993.Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster.

Yan, Fu. 1973. General Remarks on Translation, trans. C. Y. Hsu.Renditions.1

(Autumn 1973). 4-6.

Zhu, Chunshen. 2000. Zouchu wuqu tabian shijie - Zhongguo Yixue: fansi yuqianzhan (A Critical Review of Chinese Translation Studies: Towards aGlobalised Perspective).Zhongguo Fanyi(Chinese Translators Journal). 1. 2-

9.

Zhou Li(Rites of the Zhou). 1987. Ruan, Yuan. (ed.). Shi san jin zhu shu. Hong Kong:

Chung Hwa Book.

cheung - chinese translation theory

Documents