20201019 trans

Cao Runxin 曹润鑫

Acknowledgement

I am indebted to the more than 300 students of the Master Course "Introduction to Translation Studies" conducted in the two fall terms 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 at Hunan Normal University, Foreign Studies College. They have enriched this monograph with their ideas, their creativity and the top students even have contributed short passages to this book on single aspects. They have also helped to arrange that the monograph could appear in different languages simultaneously. The Foreign Studies College is one of the top places of Translation and Interpreting Studies in China.

Chang Huiyue 常慧月

Foreword

Interpretation theories and interpretation studies are as old as human languages, since interpretation practise is not just necessary between full fledged languages, but is practised as soon as two different individuals meet, like a grandmother and her grandchild. The first lay interpreters naturally reflected on their interpreting work and this was the start of theories and studies. As soon as written language was invented, critical reflection also started and with it translation theories and translation studies.

Chen Han 陈涵

The first thoughts about transponing the meaning of one language into a similar one of another language were prescriptive with precepts and principles, sometimes exaggerated into dogma and people not adhering to them being tortured or murdered.

In the 1960s, the translation studies started to become aware of itself as an academic discipline.

Chen Hui 陈惠

I. Introduction

Translating sets forth on its journey a long time ago. It has been over 2200 years since Livius Andronicus translated Homer’s Odyssey from Greek into Latin around 250 BC, which is the earliest activity of translating from recorded history. Throughout history, translation is not only involved in politics,culture, religion, language and so forth, but also keeps changing as times and social conditions roll on. On grounds of the changes of targets and contents of translation history, considering the specific periods of people’s apprehension of translation and the roles translation plays in society of different times, researchers divided the history of western translation into 3 parts, translation of religious materials, translation of literary classics and translation of non-literary materials.

Chen Jiangning 陈江宁

The division of western translation history varies from person to person in circles of translation. Generally speaking, from about 250 BC when people translated Septuagint into Greek to the 16th century when the translation of the Bible prevailed, it is the historical period of translating religious materials, followed by period of translation of literature mainly from literary classics and great works of social sciences.(Wu & Shu 2011:76) After the Second World War, however, translation of non-literary and practical materials began to exert influence as a major force.

Chen Jiaxin 陈佳欣

In the west, studies on translation practices and theories have walked through the recorded history of over two thousand years, which is very close to the one in China. Nevertheless, China had made little progress with translation studies because of closed-door policy. Before years around 1980s, the systematic study on theories of western translation had been left incomplete in China, where few books and papers related were published. And even in the western countries, there existed similar situations. However, studies on theories of western translation has made appreciable development since 1980s, especially the books on history of western translation theory written by Rener, Robinson, etc.

Chen Jingjing 陈静静

These books and materials are indisputably of great value for us to take a closer look at theories of western translation, yet it is very hard for people of Chinese cultures to search, unearth and analyse the history of translation theories in the backgrounds of western cultures. As Tan Zaixi put it in his book The Brief History of Western Translation, “From ancient times, translation in the west has been proceeding for over two thousand years, along with extraordinary translators and divergent theories, which can not be expound within twenty or thirty thousand words.”(Tan 1991:1) And for translation studies as a independent discipline, it is a very meaningful job to study translation and its theories from all over the world, which includes the western translation theories.

Chen Sha 陈莎

Accordingly, while studying the history of western translation theories, we must understand the necessity of describing the development of western translation theories in a proper way and figure out how they are classified, especially for theories of modern and contemporary times. Based on the fundamental way of studying translation or ideologies of various schools, now people would usually divide translation studies into literary school, linguistic school and cultural school.

Chen Sunfu 谌孙福

The literary school includes the traditional philological approach and the hermernutic approach; the linguistic school consists of the equivalence approach, the functional approach and the cognitive approach; the cultural school covers translation studies approach, deconstruction approach, feminism approach, post-colonial approach and the integrated approach, of which translation studies approach can be further divided into polysystem theory, the norm theory and the manipulation theory. By contributing new thoughts to this discussion, the study aims to reach more consensus among translation studies scholars in this aspect.

Chen Yongxiang 陈永相

II. School Classification

Beyond dispute, it’s practicable that people describe the history of western translation theories by dividing them into different schools in light of theories and ideologies of translation studies. With the modernization and integration of economy in western society, western translation theories also begin to get over the hurdles in the way of mutual development and blur the distinction among nationalities, which makes it harder to owe some ideology or theory of translation to a certain country or area. For instance, Gideon Toury was famous in the west but lived in Israel.

Cheng Yusi 成于思

In contrast, when some ideology or theory is proposed by someone in some place, it can probably be responded to or supported by scholars from all corners of the world. They hold it up totally out of agreement with the points someone makes, not necessarily where the points come from. Another example, Eugene A. Nida, who put forward the idea of “functional equivalence”, is American, but Kade, who is his supporter, comes from German. Therefore, it might be easier to understand the present situation and trends of western translation theories from levels of translation schools and ideologies, especially for theories of contemporary and modern times.

Deng Jinxia 邓锦霞

As one would expect, it is just one of the methods to classify western translation theories on the basis of translation schools or ideologies. From a perspective of historical development, it would be a more traditional way to classify western translation theories by times and nations. This diachronic way of studying it helps to organize the historical materials clearly and make profitable comparisons among traditions and characteristics of translation theories among western countries and regions, which enables people to understand the distribution and trends of western translation theories with an open mind. On the other hand, the diachronic way also describes the divergence and amalgamation of western translation theories.

Ding Daifeng 丁代凤

To give an example, the debate between free and literal translation never ends during which the eclecticism occurred and then literal translation was overtaken by free translation; the transfer from regarding the words as translation units to viewing sentences, discourses and even the whole passages as translation units... and so on. Despite that, as for studies on western translation theories, it is not the best way to do it only by a certain means. If we completely choose the way of describing the history of western translation theories by dividing them into different schools in light of theories and ideologies of translation studies, the relation between translation theories and specific cultural environment of society may be ambiguous and so is the relation between diachronic and synchronic development of translation.

Fang Jieling 方洁玲

If we only decide on a more traditional way to classify western translation theories by times and nations, our research and description will inevitably be in need of subjects of translation theories. To avoid such deficiencies, we must adopt a way combining both means mentioned above to study western translation theories. In other words, we must take into consideration not only the historical connection between theories and ideas of translation but also the relation of translation theories with the specific social and cultural environment. Only by doing so, our research would be able to describe the whole process of western translation theories from an objective perspective.

Gan Fengyu 甘奉玉

From what we have mentioned above, we view western translation theories from two sides. First, we view it from the respect of historical development steadily. Cicero, was the first translation theorist in the west during times of Roman empire. As a rhetorician and orator, he categorized translation into ones by “ut interpres” and “ut orator” for the first time. Translation by “ut interpres” means translation of no creativity but translation by “ut orator” means translation of creativity which may even rival the original.

Gao Mingzhu 高明珠

As a matter of fact, Cicero put forward two fundamental ways of translating and pioneered the study of theories and methods of translation. Since Cicero’s studies on translation, western translation theories have been dealing with arguments between free translation and literal translation, word-for-word translation and excessively free translation, faithfulness and unfaithfulness and so forth.

Gong Yumian 龚钰冕

Besides Cicero, there are an abundance of excellent translation theorists in western translation history, who have proposed assorted theories and ideas from different angles in different times. In ancient times, aside from Cicero’s categorization of “literal translation” and “free translation”, Marcus Fabius Quintlianus thought that the target ought to compete with the original; St. Jerome believed that people were supposed to follow the rules of literal translation when translating the Bible and use free translation when it came to literary classics; St. Augustine held the view that translation was inspired by God.

Gu Dongfang 顾东方

In the Middle Ages, Manlius Boethius promoted the literal translation that would rather keep “faithful” than “elegant”; Dante was of the opinion that “works of literature are untranslatable”. During the Renaissance, Desiderius Erasmus believed that translation was not a subjection to authority of religious beliefs and translation of the Bible depended on the language of a translator; Martin Luther held the view of humanism that texts must be rendered in the people’s language; Etienne Dolet reckoned that people translated on “five principles” of understanding the content of the original, being proficient in the original language and the target language, avoiding word-for-word translation, expounding in simple languages and focusing on the style of the target text.

Guan Qinqing 管钦清

From the 17th to 19th century, Charles Batteux was of the opinion that author was the master and translator was the servant, whose work were not allowed to be amplified, to omit and change the wording of the original; John Dryden categorized translating into metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation and he thought translation was some kind of art; Tytler put forward three principles that the target reflected the ideas exactly the original conveyed, the style and skills the target used should be of the same characteristics of the original and the target should be as expressive as the original; Friedrich Schleiermacher made a distinction between translation and interpretation, literal translation and mechanical translation; Humboldt believed his theories that language decided the translatability and untranslatability of the world; Matthew Arnold thought whether a translation was good or not depended on the experts; Francis W. Newman had the idea that it were common readers, not the experts,who determined the criteria of translation.

Gui Yizhi 桂一枝

In the 20th century, we have Fedolov’s theories that people should study translation theories from linguistics first and translation theories is categorized into history, introduction and arguments of translation; we have Roman Jakobson’s three classification of interlingual translation, intralingual translation and intersemiotic translation; we have Levy’s thoughts that “translating should make reader have an illusion of the original”, “translating is a deciding process”; we have Gachechiladze’s theories on literary translation that “translation is always a artistic and realistic reflection of the original” and “ translation of literature and art is a artistic work”;

Guo Lu 郭露

we have Carford’s theories of linguistics that translation should reach an equivalence of context; Nida thought “translating is a science”, “translating is communicating” and there exists equivalence between the readers of the original and the target; Mounin’s view of modern linguistics on translation theories; Paul Valery emphasized that the target needed to break the limits of the original. All the thoughts and ideas mentioned above have constituted the most essential parts of western translation theories.

Han Haiyang 韩海洋

Furthermore, we could look at the whole system of western translation theories from the other side, which is the schools of ideology. There are two branches of it: translation theories of literature and art and linguistics theories of translation. The school of translation of literature and art stems from the early drama by Terentius in Ancient Rome, ucceeded by Levy and Gachechiladze in modern times, and continues to thrive in the 21st century.

Han Wanzhen 韩宛真

People of this branch perceive translation as a kind of literary art, which draws attention to recreation of literature. Theorists have been discussing the defects and merits between faithfulness and unfaithfulness, word-for-word translation and excessively free translation, literal translation and free translation and so on. Besides, they also foreground the purposes and effects of translation. They stress both the original and the literary attributes of the language of it., as well as the idiomatic expression and tradition of literature of the original that people must respect whiling translating. They not only zero in on the style and literariness of the text very much but the talent of literature a translator or interpreter should possess.

He Changqi 何长琦

The school of linguistic theories of translation is from Augustine and people of traditional linguistics or philology in Ancient Rome to various schools of modern linguistics in the 20th and 21st century. For this situation, the core lies in language. People of this school, who think that the goal of translating is to reach the equivalence between the original and the target, combine translation theories with analysis of semantic and syntactic functions and talk on issues of translation from the characteristics of structure and sentence-making skills of a language so as to show how the equivalent texts are made from words, grammars and other features of a language.

Hu Baihui 胡百辉

From either branches we can see that they have their own advantages and disadvantages. Translation theories of literature and art give an emphasis to the purposes and results of translating and the artistic effects from a macroscopic view, but neither pay much heed to practical process of translating and skills of using a language nor care about whether the target and the original reach the equivalence of structures. Linguistics theories of translation is also not spotless because some theories don’t stress the aesthetic functions and ignore the recurrences of works of literature and art. They mostly focus on the structure of a language to and theoretically are limited to word, sentence or syntax only, which disregards the main structure of a text and the structure of discourse and the cultural features to a larger extent.

Hu Huifang 胡慧芳

However, no matter it is the branch of translation theories of literature and art or linguistics theories of translation, they are not completely isolated but complement each other. Although either of two branches has its own shortcomings, there is no translation theorist of literature and art who could talk about the artistic value of literary works divorced from linguistic issues; there is no theorist of linguistics who could be immersed in linguistic structures of a text without issues of aesthetics.

Hu Jin 胡瑾

III. About The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish

Joan Pinkham, a professional translator from the U.S., published the book The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish in 2000. She worked for the Foreign Languages Press and Central Compilation and Translation Bureau in China for 8 years from 1980s to 1990s. It is one of the few books by westerners that systematically discuss the “Chinglish” issues in China. In the years working for the Foreign Languages Press and Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, her job was to revise and polish the drafts from Chinese translators, which was inevitably affected by Chinese and mindset of Chinese people. For that reason, Pinkham got to know many English translations with “Chinese characteristics” and wrote this book.

Ji Tiantian 纪甜甜

The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish consists of three parts, Unnecessary Words, Sentence Structure and Supplementary Examples, which reveal lots of mistakes Chinese translators tend to make.

First of all let’s take a look at examples given in the fist chapter:

promoting the cause of peaceful reunification;

reforms in the sphere of economy;

to ensure a relationship of close cooperation between.

Jiang Fengyi 蒋凤仪

Phrases like these can often be seen in some English papers or periodicals and they seem to make sense to English learners or translators in China. But the author regards them as negative examples in the first chapter of the first part, Unnecessary Nouns. The author mentioned that “Many of these nouns are easy to recognize. They are plainly redundant because their sense is already included or implied in some other element of sentence.”(Liu 2002:34) in the book. Here the author perceives nouns like “cause”, “sphere” and “relationship” as “category nouns”, which are the general nouns that sever only to introduce a specific noun to follow.

Jiang Hao 姜好

Let’s take the first phrase as an example. In such constructions, the first noun announces the category of the second; in this case, it tells the readers that “promoting” falls into the category of “cause.” That is something they already know. Accordingly, the first noun should be deleted: “ promoting peaceful reunification.”(Pinkham 2000:16) It is the same for other two examples. What’s more, the first chapter also involves “Unnecessary Verbs.” Examples are as follows:

to bring about a change in this state of affairs;

until China realizes its modernization;

trying to entice the Korean army to launch an attack against them.

Jiang Qiwei 蒋淇玮

“Like unnecessary nouns, most unnecessary verbs in Chinglish occur in phrases. Usually they are combined with nouns (plus the inevitable articles and prepositions that nouns bring with them).”(Pinkham 2000:34) The commonest type is phrases like these. As for “to bring about a change in this state of affairs”, here the verb (“bring about”) is a weak, colorless, all purpose word having no very specific meaning of its own, while the real action is expressed in the noun(“change”). Since the verb is not contributing anything to the sense, it can be edited out: “change this state of affairs.”

Kang Haoyu 康浩宇

In the second chapter, the author talks about Unnecessary Modifiers, which is not a problem easy to cope with for Chinese translators because it covers the issue of whether they should be used and using the modifiers properly. Five types of unnecessary modifiers are listed, redundant modifiers, self-evident modifiers, intensifiers, qualifiers and cliches. But the author especially points out that it is not appropriate to revise some accepted phrases, which are related to some national policies, even if they have unnecessary modifiers in the sentences, because this may cover political affairs.

Kang Lingfeng 康灵凤

In the third and forth chapter the author talks on Redundant Twins and Saying the Same Thing Twice. For instance, views and opinions, help and assistance, stir up and incite, sentiments and feelings, prudent and cautious. The author classifies the redundant words into three groups according to the relation between synonyms and clauses and offers corresponding reversion. And she adds that examples of redundant synonyms are too many to list even for native English speakers; for example, rules and regulations, bits and pieces, by leaps and bounds, betwixt and between, by hook or by crook, huffing and puffing.

Kong Xianghui 孔祥慧

After centuries of development, these phrases are now accepted by native English speakers or learners probably because of their jaunty alliteration or rhythm. But the author believes that these phrases unavoidably “exert an influence not only on native speakers of English (including foreign polishers) but on Chinese translators as well, reinforcing the habits of their own language. No doubt this influence contributes to the abundance of twins in Chinglish.”

Kong Yanan 孔亚楠

The first chapter of the second part is mainly about The Noun Plague. Here the author shows a draft: “The prolongation of the existence of this temple is due to the solidity of its construction.” She also gives a revision: “The temple has endured because it was solidly built.” The first version contains four abstract nouns, while the second has none. Not only do the nouns make the statement nearly twice as long, but they also make it pretentious, wooden and hard to understand.(Pinkham 2000:56) Yet, the author doesn’t think that “noun plague” only occurs in Chinglish but in English by native speakers, especially in theses and government documents where abstract nouns can often be seen, because they want their theses or documents to seem more “authoritative” or “scientific.”

Lei Fangyuan 雷方圆

The author thinks this is a dangerous trend which we should all fight against. And she advocates to use more verbs, gerunds or adverbs instead of abstract nouns. From the eighth to the twelfth chapter, the author gives some instruction to tell English learners and translators in China how to get rid of the mindset of Chinglish by putting pronouns and antecedents first, then the adjuncts and its purposes, in a logical way. The eighth chapter discussed the improper collocation of pronouns and antecedents. In this condition, personal pronouns, relative pronouns or demonstrative pronouns show up without antecedents or are too far away from antecedents.

Lei Kuangxi 雷旷溪

This is exactly what the uncertainty and lack of rigor of Chinese has brought about. The ninth chapter mainly talks about where we should set phrases or clause in an English sentence. The author is of the opinion that translators should pay attention to where the phrases or clauses are in a sentence so that the logic is clear and key points are highlighted. She also thinks that the phrases or clauses ought to modify what is close to them, otherwise in the sentence may occur the illogical parts. In addition, to stress the key points, the most important information should be imparted at the end of a sentence.

Li Haiquan 李海泉

IV. Discussion

From Introduction and School Classification, we have leaned that in western translation history, there are traditionally two branches: translation theories of literature and art and linguistics theories of translation. In 1959, the book, On Linguistic Aspects of Translation by Roman Jakobson, analyzed comprehensively the relation bewteen language and translation, the importance of translation and some existing problems of translating from an angle of linguistics, which had made groundbreaking contribution to linguistics theories of translation. Eugene A. Nida put forward a concept of “Translating is science” and he also applied Theory of Communication into translation on the basis of linguistics, believing that translating is communicating.

Li Lili 李丽丽

He proposed the principle of “Dynamic Equivalence” and further submitted “Functional Equivalence” from the perspective of social linguistics and communicative function of language, which was instrumental in modern history of translation theories in the west as well. Nonetheless, Nida’s theories paid too much heed to content rather than form. To make up the deficiency, Peter Newmark put forward “Communicative Translation” and “Semantic Translation.” The former aimed at restructuring the language of the target in order to make it expressive and underline the effects of information; the latter emphasized the formal resemblance between the original and the target. 

Li Lingyue 李凌月

From theories and ideas above, the core issue they care about is how the source language is transferred into the target language and “equivalence” is what they have in common. Katharina Reiss, Hans Vermeer, Justa Holz-Manttari and Christiane Nord from Germany started to use communicative theories, theories of communication, discourse linguistics and ideology of aesthetics to switch the focus of their studies from source texts to target texts, which made it an influential school in international translation circles.

Li Liqin 李丽琴

In 1971 in the book Translation and Limitations in Translation Criticism, Reiss’s functional theories of translation was in embryonic state, where she believed that translation should reach equivalence in respects of conceptual content, forms of language and communication and name it “integral communicative performance.” In practice, however, she realized that the equivalence was not what people expected so relation between function of the original and the target was the priority.

Li Luyi 李璐伊

Hans Vermeer proposed skopos theory for that matter, which looked on translating as a process with purposes and results of the original. The skopos theory has three rules: skopos rule, coherence rule and fidelity rule. Skopos rule is considered as the primary one. It means that in the context and culture of target language, translation ought to work in a way exactly the recipient of target language expects and the purpose of translation actions determines the whole process of translating, that is, “the end justifies the means.”

Li Meng 李梦

Coherence rule is that translation must accord with the standard of intratextual coherence, which means that translation has readability and acceptability to the recipient and makes sense in communicative context and culture of the target language. The fidelity rule means that there exists intertextual coherence between the original and the target. This is actually what other theories have talked about faithfulness in translation but the faithfulness depends on the purpose of the target and how translator understand the original.

Li Yongshan 李泳珊

Here we also have talked about the book The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish. This book has discussed some problems English learners and translators in China have in grammar and vocabulary. For discourse and semantics, there also exits some issues. And the author is American who has the typical mindset of the west and is able to find out some problems of translation by Chinese translators. And the author tends to revise those translations in an aspect of linguistics theories of translation.

Li Yu 李玉

For example:

the editorial calls on the Chinese people to fully implement the CPC’s basic line, deepen reform and further opening to the outside, so as to further push forward the political, economic and social development of the country in a steady way;

The author revises it into:

the editorial calls on the Chinese people to implement the CPC’s basic line, deepen the reform, and promote the opening to the outside, so as to steadily push forward the political, economic and social development of the country.

Lin Min 林敏

In this sentence, “fully” is deleted because the author thinks it is unnecessary for its sense can be taken for granted: policies should always be fully carried out. If the word conveys something more specific in Chinese, that must be spelled out for the reader of English. We must say, for example, “to implement CPC’s basic line in all its aspects,” or “in every respect.”

Lin Xin 林鑫

As for “further”, it is obvious that at this point in history any push given to development will be a “further” push. The repetition of “further” in the draft is particularly undesirable because the word is used in two different senses. It appears first as a verb (“to further opening”), then immediately after as an adverb (“to further push ahead”), so that the reader is obliged to go back and read the sentence again in order to make sense of it.(Pinkham 2000:74)

Ling Zijin 凌子瑾

Even though the author doesn’t talk on any translation theories directly in her book, her discussion on Chinglish and the revision she offers do involve some translation criteria, for example, domestication and foreignization. Translating is the transfer process from one language to another, during which it carries wide backgrounds of culture. To be specific, it is also the process of transferring cultures among each one. In general, there are two ways when it comes to this process: domestication and foreignization.

Liu Bo 刘博

Domestication is that features of the original are abandoned, that is to say, characteristics of translation follow ones of the target, which would, to some degree, make it easier to understand for recipients of the target language and contributory to culture exchanges. Foreignization is that translator translates in a way the original does, translation remaining characteristics of the original language.

Liu Jinxingqi 刘金惺琦

The author defines “Chinglish” as “Chinglish, of course, is that misshapen, hybrid language that is neither English nor Chinese but that might be described as ‘English with Chinese characteristics’”in the book. And she also points out that “this book is intended to help them turn their work into real English such as might have been written by an educated native English speaker of the language.” It means that the author is in favor of domestication during the process of translating.

Liu Liu 刘柳

Here’s an another example:

we should draw up correct development and construction plans for all these zones;

The author revises it into:

we should draw up correct plans for the development of all these zones.

The author thinks that two large abstractions plainly used here mean the same thing. And to avoid using the noun “development” as an adjective, we should say: “ for the development of all these zones.” That would be the simplest, most natural word order in English.(Pinkham 2000:87)

Liu Ou 刘欧

V. Conclusion

In summary, A Brief History of Western Translation Theories by Tan Zaixi recounts the history of western translation theories from ancient times by introducing main characters, translation works, translation schools and other events in the west in historical stages. The book also takes preliminary analysis and discussion into development between theories and practices of translation. There are two different directions in terms of translation theories in the west: translation theories of literature and art and linguistics theories of translation.

Liu Yangnuo 刘洋诺

The former one extends from the ancient dramas to modern translations. In this regard, translation is considered as literary art, which focuses on recreation of the original. Theorist mostly emphasize culture, style and literariness of the target and the literary talent of the translator. The latter direction is linguistics theories of translation, which combine theories with semantics and syntax, and believe that translating should reach semantic equivalence between the original and the target through vocabulary, grammar and skills of using a language.

Liu Yi 刘艺

In the long term, linguistics theories of translation has had predominance of studies of modern translation theories. Theorists hold the view that translation studies ranges from applied linguistics and contrastive linguistics and is closely related to semantics, along with literature and art studies, sociology, anthropology, psychology, theories of communication and so forth.

Liu Yiyu 刘怡瑜

The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish by Joan Pinkham summarizes the evidence of the common issues in English translation, which are ones translators in China are usually neglectful of. As Jacques Barzun, Dean of the Graduate Faculties of Columbia University, put it, “The clarity of her explanation is equaled only by the deftness with which she states the point of the English usages and the simplicity of the revisions made in faulty sentences.

Liu Zhiwei 刘智伟

I know of no books as well adapted as hers to the needs of clumsy writers.” Even though the author doesn’t talk on any translation theories directly in her book, her discussion on Chinglish and the revision she offers do involve some translation criteria and the author tends to uphold domestication in this book. And we can’t deny that as a professional translator from America, with the typical western mindset, the author is inevitably influenced in the spectacular background of western translation history.More importantly, the two books this article refers to have demonstrated that theories must be applied into practice, guide practice and reveal the objective patters inside translating, otherwise theories would lose its vitality.

【参考文献部分不用翻译】 References:

[1]巫阿苗,束学军.西方翻译理论流派划分探索.[J].合肥工业大学学报.2011.12.25

[2]谭载喜.西方翻译简史.[M].北京.商务印书馆.1991.05

[3]刘银燕.中式英语, 你在使用吗?——《中式英语之鉴》评介.[J].外语教学.2002.09.30

[4]-[8] Joan Pinkham.The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish. [M].北京。外语教学与研究出版社.2000.05

主要参考书目:《西方翻译简史》、《中式英语之鉴》

Lou Cancan 娄灿灿

Derrida and Benjamin

Comparison of Derrida’s and Benjamin’s Translation View

1.Pure Language and Difference

In its essence, translation is a kind of linguistic activity. Therefore, all translation theories involve linguistic issues. Benjamin has presumed a perfect original language as the origin of subsistent languages in real world after summarizing the deflects of subsistent languages. This original language is from God, and has full creativity and cognition, in which, language and spirit, meaning and form, signifier and signified have been united to show the truth through self-manifestation.

Luo Weijia 罗维嘉

Benjamin has pointed out that with the corruption of human, the language has no longer been one but multiple. Naming language has corrupted into the abstract conceptual language. (Cao Danhong 6) In this way, it descended to instrumental signs. It refers to things in various manual systems but it can never covey the universality through self-manifestation, so the relationship between the human and world has changed from the intersubjectivity into subject-object dichotomy where human dominates.(Wei Jiangang & Sun Yingchun 75)

Luo Yuqing 罗雨晴

In another word, due to language descended from the original “being” into lower “having”. Therefore, it has become the synonyms of “abstract”, “judgement” and “meaning”. Language has never been a medium but a kind of means used in communication of “subjects” (Wohlfarth 27). As a result, meaning has been the external reference out of sign itself, instead of spirits of self-manifestation of pure language.

Ma Juan 马娟

And the relationship between signified and signifier is actually external instead of being original, direct and internal. Paul De Man has said that we think we use our language freely. We feel comfortable and familiar with the dwelling place within our language, in which we thought we weren’t alienated, but we don’t notice that this kind of alienation has been shown strongly in our relationship with our original language. It has been disintegrated already, which bring a special alienation, a peculiar pain. (Paul De Man, 99)

Ma Shuya 马淑雅

Benjamin has set the transcendental existence of pure language in order to make the path of salvation to human clear, that’s to say to find the lost pure language is to unite the world together. Benjamin thinks that, all practical languages have a common origin and among themselves a kind of affinity that goes beyond the history. As, Benjamin once said, “The reference of pure language just like each language that exists as an entirety, is identical.

Ma Zhixing 马智星

However, this reference cannot be achieved through one single language, but through the complement of various languages” (Benjamin 61) That’s to say, if we want to reconstruct pure language, we have to eliminated the external relationship of linguistic reference and restore the identical relationship between spirit and language, which means to promote the linguistic reference of all languages to form an integral complementary, which call duty on translation.

Meng Ying 孟莹

Only through translation can the mode of reference of source language enter into the target language. Therefore, to Benjamin, the significance of translation is not to covey the basic meaning and content of source language but the changes to both languages after translation, thereby translation can make us to know more about the differences and complementation of each language.

Mo Ling 莫玲

What is different between Benjamin and Derrida is that Derrida has invented the concept of “la differánce", which uses infinitely flowing stream of meaning to overthrow the western logocentrism. Thereout, it has assured the translation view that advocates difference and opposes the identity. Derrida has pointed out that la differánce is the precondition of possibility of multiple meanings so that meaning is the result of its moving. While meaning cannot precedes la differánce, there would be no existence of pure and completely identical origin of meaning, just like what the Babel story reminds us. (Davis 10)

Mo Nan 莫南

In another word, as meaning is in la differánce so that there cannot be any conceptual or theoretic systems no matter it is in one language or in several languages. Meaning always presents its fluidity, uncertainty and diversity. We cannot make meaning independent of language nor can we make language independent of meaning. On the contrary, meaning is already in language so meaning is the linguistic meaning.

Nie Xiaolou 聂晓楼

Due to the language is so complicated, fickle, ambiguous and different with itself, thus, meaning is also unclear ambiguous and even mysterious. (Cai Xinle 200) What we can discuss is only the relationship of difference instead of the transcendental identity. In Derrida’s view, word is in a dynamic state, we can only understand it, describe it or listen to its voice in such a dynamic condition.

Ou Rong 欧蓉

If we must establish an origin, the difference will be it. Derrida has regarded the difference as the origin, aiming to explain that in the very beginning where meaning formed, that’s to say the source has already had initial difference among meanings. The so-called purity has been contaminated and the source is rather complicated. (Zhu Gang 20)

Ouyang Jinglan 欧阳静兰

Derrida and Benjamin all oppose to structural linguistic view. What is different is that Benjamin opposed the human control and domination of language by emphasizing the identity of language and spirit. We’d rather to say that it’s opposed to structuralism but to the opposite relation between the subject and object. In essence, Benjamin is not against the concepts like structure, order, and center etc. He just opposes the structure, order and center etc. that are based on the interference to language done by the subject-object relationship, emphasizing that language will not be constrained by the fetter of any subject-object relationship.

Ouyang Ling 欧阳玲

If we consider more carefully, he doesn’t disapprove the logocentrism completely as he just emphasizes that logocentrism cannot be constructed and learned by the subject and object relation. It must be built and realized by the way of unintentionality or the “presence” of logos will be delusive. On the contrary, Derrida is refusing any metaphysics during the process of his deconstruction of any conceptual system. In his opinion, Benjamin has not cast off the set pattern of logocentrism because Benjamin’s “Pure language” is still a construction of a concept, no matter how transcendental and absolute identity it is.

Peng Dan 彭丹

Videlicet, if God were the person who deconstructs, we would see that rationality dominates everything and logos will be the deconstruction in the speaker’s status. It would not be the deconstruction of deconstruction. Once there is an unshakable center, logos will take the domination and everything will obey the authority in the center. Therefore, in order to avoid constructing any central system or structure, Derrida take the difference as the origin of everything.

Peng Juan 彭娟

There will be no identity and everything is constantly reproducing and differentiating, so it presents nothing but difference. At any moment, it’s different from others as well as itself. In this way, the identity doesn’t exist. All we can observe is the dynamic stuff, which constantly changes.

Peng Ruihong 彭锐宏

2. Metaphrase and Relevant Translation

As Benjamin and Derrida has different linguistic view, their comprehension about the translation criterion are also different from each other’s. Benjamin thinks that in various languages, the ultimate essence, pure language, is only relevant to the linguistic factors and its changes. In linguistic works, it bears heavy alien meaning. Translation’s unique function is to make the pure language get rid of this heavy burden, to turn the symbolic action into symbolic objects itself, to make the pure language reoccur during the linguistic transition. (Benjamin, 67)

Peng Xiaoling 彭小玲

In other words, real languages, without exception, refer to things externally. To recover the identity of language and spirit, we must let the language to break the shackle of meaning while the effects of translation are to make the two languages free of the heavy burden by making the modes of reference of the two languages complementary of each other. To judge whether translation of a work is successful is to observe the combination of signifier and signified of language. 

Peng Yongliang 彭永亮

Benjamin thinks Hölderlin’s translation work is the perfect sample of for instance, his works are almost perfect transition of texts because they are absolutely literal translation and metaphrase but also not readable. It dismembered the sentences, leading to the consequence that meaning is missing. (Paul De Man 104) To Benjamin, the translation that gets the language out of the shackle of meaning, and makes the language manifest itself to covey the spirits is the best translation.

Peng Yuzhi 彭育志

Anyway, translation has to turn back to language itself, to the reference of language, to reach pure language commonly shared by the two languages by complementing the modes of reference of source language and target language. Benjamin declares that the interlinear version of Babel is the prototype of all translation due to the reason that Babel is the words of God, which are so true that language identifies with spirit.

Qi Kai 漆凯

Derrida is totally different from Benjamin’s proposition that he proposes the relevant translation. In general, “relevant” is the best translation in Derrida’s view, which is also the sort of translation expected by people. It’s a kind of translation that fulfills its duty and finishes its mission. It’s that kind of translation that finds the most comparatively accurate words for the expressions in the source text, that language used is the most correct, appropriate, relevant, direct and apropos…

Qu Miao 瞿淼

Obviously, Derrida is trying to use a series of words to set standard for the best translation or the ideal translation. What’ a pity is that many scholars believe the literal meaning that such is what set by Derrida, ignoring the implication. (Wang Yingchong 15) However, if we reflect on the “relevant”, we can hardly make what it means clear, and Derrida himself has made no ostension on “relevant”, thus, this is actually the word game of Derrida that meaning being not assured makes translation impossible.

Quan Meixin 全美欣

With the trick of the untranslatability of the word “relevant”, Derrida implies the deconstruction of his standard of translation. What Derrida really wants to express is that if there was a standard of translation, and the standard would work as the same, then would the standard still support itself? The untranslatability of “relevant” has already told us the untranslatability, not mentioning the translation standard. In Derrida’s point of view, meaning is already the delayed presence, leading to the result that translation is a debt that translator can never pay off, a mission that translator can never finish. Therefore, can text really not be translated?

Sagara Seydou

Derrida says that we have to know what relevant translation is, what relevant translation means and what the essence of translation is, its mission, ultimate purpose and final mission. On one hand, relevant translation, no matter wrong or right, is generally better than irrelevant translation, and is likely to be viewed as the best translation. The definition of translation skopostheorie and the definition of the essence of realization in translation are contained in the definition of relevant translation. Therefore, the question that what relevant translation is goes back to what translation is or what should the translation be. While what the translation should be seems to be equal to what the possible best translation would be. (Derrida 429)

Shi Diwen 石迪文

Therefore, Derrida’s discussion about the standard of translation goes back to the translatability and untranslatability. Actually, what Derrida wants to prove is that translation itself is a paradox, that is, just in the untranslatability can translation exist and go on. The original text always owes to translation, and constantly summons translation, and in a larger sense, anything meaningful calls for interpretation. (Wang Yingchong 17). Whereas, the good translation or the translation standard can only be discussed in absolute translatability; pursuit of translation in absolute untranslatability will be nonsense, and it can only be infinitely approached but never reached as once it become absolute translatability, which means translation presents the meaning in limitless differánce in presence, the identity occurs, then the translation will be unnecessary.

Shi Haiyao 石海瑶

In short, Derrida and Benjamin have different view on translation. Benjamin worships metaphrase through which two languages can supplement each other’s referential pattern to manifest the pure language, whose spirits are the best translation. While Derrida plays a small fraud that he sets relevant translation as translation criterion but he doesn’t make it clear, in which way he indicates his ideas of untranslatability and that pursuit of translation in absolute untranslatability will be nonsense, and it can only be infinitely approached but never reached.