- 首页
- 教研动态
- 教学指导
- 教学研讨
硕士论文(节选):从操控论看严译《社会通诠》
作者:姚登宝 发表时间:2015年06月01日 浏览量:159 分享到空间
硕士学位论文
从操控论看严译《社会通诠》
学位申请人姓名 姚 登 宝
培 养 单 位 长沙理工大学
导师姓名及职称 郑延国 教授
学 科 专 业 外国语言学及应用语言学
研 究 方 向 翻译理论与实践
论文提交日期 2008年5月6日
从操控论看严译《社会通诠》
摘 要
纵观中外译学历史,无论文艺派抑或语言学派,二者都以源语源文为中心,且视“忠实”“对等”为评判译文优劣的唯一标准。鉴于语言学翻译观的二元悖论与理论不足,詹姆士·霍姆斯首次提出了“翻译研究”这一新概念。勒菲弗尔提议以“Translation Studies”作为翻译学科名称。巴斯奈特1980年出版《翻译研究》一书,并在序言中指出,“在过去的十年中,‘翻译研究’已经发展成一门独立的学科。”翻译由此出现“文化转向”。
操纵派领军人物勒菲弗尔在多元系统理论的启发下,采用“文化研究模式”,把赞助人、社会条件、经济、建制操纵等文学以外诸因素引入翻译研究。他认为,翻译不是在真空中进行的,而且单靠语言学是不能解决翻译问题的。翻译除了受语言因素制约,还受到语言以外社会、文化、政治诸如意识形态、诗学、赞助等因素操控。翻译实质上就是译者在主流意识形态和诗学的影响下,对原文的暴力操控与改写。作者认为,除了意识形态、诗学和赞助人,译者个人教育背景政治文化取向与译语受众的制约作用亦不可忽视。
文化操控派摆脱了语言等效论的束缚,强调译语社会政治文化因素对翻译的操控,为翻译研究提供了全新视角,开辟了翻译研究的新途径。基于此论,本文作者认为,翻译具有很强的政治性。从文化的角度看,翻译是特定历史、社会和文化语境中对原文的重写,是一种操纵重写行为,是一种具有文化倾向的政治行为。它受意识形态操控,为权力政治服务。同时翻译亦具有暴力性。翻译过程中,源语文本的各个方面不可避免地被译语文化重写、过滤与再创造。因为语言社会文化差异,译者的视域必然受到社会、历史、文化、政治等因素以及自身条件的制约。无论采取何种翻译策略,译者翻译时都必须考虑到翻译的使命,考虑到语言文化差异,考虑到译语规范、意识形态、赞助与诗学,考虑到译语受众的审美期待、接受和反应。因此,翻译也必然带上意识形态和时代的烙印,同时带有个人的独特风格。
晚清的翻译,尤其是文学翻译,由于删节漏译甚至误译屡屡出现,存在着大量的暴力改写,因而往往被斥为“美而不忠”。然而,正是此类所谓“不忠”的翻译却得到译语读者的认可,而且还给译语诸多方面带来深远影响。这些翻译现象,用传统的忠实对等等值观点是很难解释的,而侧重文化研究的“操控论”则为解决此类问题提供了一个新视角。严译《社会通诠》即为一例。严译除了大量使用增译、减译以外,还有意使用置换、比附等改写策略和大量按语,将原文词语归化改写,文化移植,把个人思想见解掺进译文,从而达到对原文的操控,实现其救国建国的政治目的。这些策略也许有悖于学理,但正是这种“达旨”式翻译,体现了严译动机,表达了他的社会思想与政治主张。另一方面,严译《社会通诠》能被读者受众接受认可,并产生深远的社会影响,说明严译是成功的。
本文拟运用勒菲弗尔的操控论,选取晚清严译《社会通诠》作为研究对象,分析隐藏在翻译背后操控翻译的各种政治、历史、文化以及社会等操控因素,探讨意识形态、赞助人和诗学等如何操控文本选材和翻译策略以及翻译结果。鉴于以往对严译《社会通诠》评价大都是就文本论文本,而不考虑译者翻译动机、译者社会文化背景与当时影响严译的主流意识形态、诗学与赞助人,对于严译《社会通诠》多颇有微词,甚或尖锐批评,故本文作者在文中一并分析了严译社会影响与意义,以期对严复及严译《社会通诠》做出客观合理的评价。
在研究方法上,本文拟采用理论联系实际,史论结合的方法,综合分析,探求严译《社会通诠》的多种操控制约因素,分析严复如何运用不同的翻译策略操控原文本,从而达到其翻译的政治目的。对于严译的评价及其社会影响的介绍,则采取一种描述性的方法,以期对于严译的社会影响做出比较客观的评价。
关键词:操控;改写;严复;《社会通诠》;翻译策略
Abstract
Historically, traditional translation study centered on source language (SL) and source text (ST), and regarded “faithfulness” and “equivalence” as the yardsticks of translation. Considering the paradoxical duality and theoretical defects of linguistic school of translation, James Holmes initially put forward the concept of “Translation Studies”; Lefevere suggested it should be the name of the subject; Bassnet declared the independence of the discipline in 1991. Hence the “Cultural Turn” in translation studies emerged.
Lefevere further developed this theory. He adopted the mode of cultural studies and introduced social, political and cultural factors outside literary system into translation studies. He deems that translating is not going in a vacuum and translation problems can not be solved simply by linguistic means. Besides linguistic factors, translation is also influenced and manipulated by the target mainstream ideology and poetics in concrete social, historical and cultural contexts. It is the violent manipulation and rewriting of the original.
In this sense, translation is a kind of political action with cultural inclination rigged by ideology, and it serves political purposes as well. On the other hand, translation is of violence. When in translation, the original will inevitably be rewritten, filtered and remolded. Owing to linguistic and cultural differences, the translator will be constrained by social, historical, cultural and political factors. No matter what translation strategies he takes, the translator must realize his purposes of translation and take into consideration linguistic and cultural differences, target norms, ideology, poetics and patronage as well as his own personal background and the target readership. Thus, the translated is inevitably branded with the times, ideology and the translator’s personal style.
As for translations in the late Qing Dynasty, especially literary translations, they were and are often condemned and criticized as “les belles infidelles” (the beautiful infidel or the beautiful but unfaithful) just because they are full of addition, deletion and misinterpretation. To be worse, they are filled with vast violent rewriting and adaptation. However, it is this kind of so-called “unfaithful” translations that are accepted and welcomed by the target and has brought about a profound impact on the target language, society and culture. Yet, it is difficult to interpret this seemingly abnormal phenomenon according to the traditional translation principles of “faithfulness” and “equivalence”. However, Lefevere’s manipulation and rewriting theory can provide a new perspective for us to solve the problem.
Based upon this theory and illustrated with the case study of Yan Fu’s Shehui Tongquan (严复译《社会通诠》), the thesis is intended to probe into linguistic and non-linguistic manipulative factors constraining his choice of the source text, the language and his translation strategies. Meanwhile, it is to analyze how Yan reached his political goals and how he got his translation accepted by the target receptors through manipulation and rewriting.
At the same time, the author also tends to descriptively analyze Yan’s impact on people’s minds and on society, expecting to reappraise Yan and his translation comparatively objectively and dialectically. In the thesis, the author reminds that when we appraise Yan and his Shehui Tongquan, it is of great importance to take into overall consideration the concrete social, political and historical contexts and the translator’s personal settings as well as the target readership.
As regard to translation strategies, apart from addition and deletion, Yan Fu also manipulated cultural replacement and adaptation to domesticate foreign words into Chinese. He also slathered annotations (“按语”) in his translation. Through these “violent rewriting” strategies, he permeated his ideas and opinions into his translation and realized his political motivations. In terms of traditional translation principles, these strategies cannot be acceptable or even legitimate, but it is this kind of “free translation” that delivered his ideas and opinions, conveyed his political motives and consequently was accepted by the target receptor---a special group of traditional Chinese scholar- bureaucrats. From this point, we cannot say Yan’s translation is not a success.
Key words: manipulation; rewriting; Yan Fu; Shehui Tongquan; translation strategies
Introduction
In this chapter, the author of the thesis will briefly introduce the background of the research, the purposes and methodologies of the research as well as the structure of the thesis.
Background of the Research
Generally speaking, traditional paradigm of translation is source-text (ST) oriented. It focuses on philological and linguistic matters and emphasizes “faithfulness” and “equivalence” with the aim to find equivalents in target language (TL) and target text (TT). It interprets translation as equivalent shift or transfer of the forms or meanings from one language into another. In the shift, factors from TL and target culture as well as target receptor, together with the translator’s subjectivity are almost all neglected. To be worse, the translator has little or even no freedom to change or modify the original and has no choice but to dance to the tune set by the author. If the translator slightly diverges, he is doomed to suffer criticism and condemned to be so-called “les belles infidelles”. Hence translation is trapped into a dual paradox and the translator is in a dilemma. He cannot simultaneously serve both the ST and the TT. As the result, the translator is always an invisible servant dancing with “bonds and chains”.
Considering the limitations and defects of traditional philological and linguistic source-text oriented translation study, in 1972, James Holmes discarded traditional concepts like “faithfulness”, “equivalence” and put forward his concept of “Translation Studies”. In 1976, Lefevere formally proposed that “Translation Studies” should be regarded as the name of the discipline. In 1980, Bassnett published her book Translation Studies, which was revised in 1991. In the preface, she proclaimed, “in the past ten years, ‘Translation Studies’ has developed into an independent discipline.” Thereafter, the “Cultural Turn” in translation studies came into being.
As scholars and theorists study and stress cultural but not linguistic factors, this paradigm is also called the “CulturalSchool”. In this school, many scholars and theorists similarly hold that translations are never produced in a vacuum and never received in it, either. Besides linguistic constraints, there are also non-linguistic factors influencing translating and translation. In this aspect, Bassnett shows a strong cultural tendency. She declares that translating is no absolute linguistic activity but one deeply rooted in culture. Moreover, there are different translation norms in different times, and translation in different times is to satisfy different cultural demands and cater to different groups of people. André Lefevere further developed the theory. He claims that in essence, translating is manipulation and rewriting of the original undertaken in the service of power. Rewriting is produced within ideological, poetological constraints and makes the translated accepted by the target norms and the receptor.
In the thesis, the author will apply Lefevere’s manipulation and rewriting theory in the analysis of ideological, poetological constraints, the influences from the translator’s patrons on his choice of the ST and the language as well as his corresponding translation strategies. These will be illustrated with a case study on Yan Fu’s translation of his Shehui Tongquan.
As for Yan’s translations, scholars and critics usually prefer to discuss and study his works like On Evolution (《天演论》) and Study of Sociology (《群学肄言》). Occasionally, On Liberty (《群己权界论》) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (《原富》) are also studied. However, Shehui Tongquan (《社会通诠》, A Short History of Politics by Jenks) is seldom referred to or studied. Even if there is some research or remarks, it is just odds and ends. In recent research, only Yu Zheng (俞政) touched upon this book but what he discussed is only the notes and comments in it. It is Wang Xianming (王宪明) who carried out systematic research into Yan Fu and his Shehui Tongquan in the book Language, Translation and Politics. Thus, it is very precious and important for the author to carry out the research. Apparently, the lack of related materials will hinder the study, and the author will inevitably meet with many difficulties. Thus, it is a great challenge for the author to complete the thesis.
On the other hand, traditional criticism on the book is not favorable or fair but negative and partial. There exist traditional misunderstandings and partial and even negative opinions of Yan Fu and his Shehui Tongquan. One of the reason is that people usually misunderstood his concepts like “民族” (tribe, clan or race) and thought of it as “racialism” or “nationalism”. Besides, they also neglected the concrete social, historical and political contexts as well as his personal background and his motives of translation. Therefore, it is very necessary for us to revaluate Yan and his translation.
Purposes and Methodology of the Research
Ever since the 1840s, especially at the turn of the century,Chinahas seen such drastic clashes between tradition and modernity as in cultures and thoughts. So it is with translation. Generally speaking, translations in the late Qing Dynasty are often condemned and criticized as a kind of violent rewriting. However, it is just this kind of so-called “unfaithful” translations that were and are welcomed and accepted by the target reader and brought about far-reaching impacts on people’ minds and on society. This seemingly abnormal phenomenon often cause people confused when they judge by the traditional yardsticks of “faithfulness” and “equivalence”. Yet Lefevere’s manipulation and rewriting theory can provide a new insight for us to solve the problem.
Hence, with this theoretical support and with the illustration of Yan’s Shehui Tongquan, the thesis intends to probe into linguistic and non-linguistic manipulative factors such as ideology, poetics, and patronage etc., which influence Yan’s choice of the source text, the language and his translation strategies. Meanwhile, it is to analyze how Yan achieved his political purposes and how he had his translation accepted by the target receptors through manipulation and rewriting.
Just as the above mentioned, the previous remarks on Yan Fu and his translations are just based on criteria of faithfulness and equivalence without consideration of social, cultural and political context and the translator’s personal background. More importantly, out of stereotyped set thought patterns, there is more misunderstanding and criticism than understanding and praise about Yan Fu and his translation. Therefore, the author will also explore Yan’s impact on people’s minds and on society, expecting to rectify people’s misunderstanding and partiality, and reappraise Yan and his translation comparatively objectively and dialectically.
Structural Arrangement of the Thesis
Structurally, the thesis contains six chapters in company with the introduction and the conclusion. The introduction briefly presents the background,the purposes and methodologies of the research as well as the structure of the thesis.
Chapter one is a literature review. It aims to discuss problems and defects of the traditional translation study and the rise of “CulturalTranslationStudiesSchool”. Different from the traditional linguistic school, it turned to seek solutions outside linguistics and began to advocate and stress cultural factors which influence and constrain translation. Besides, the direct theoretical source of the thesis---Lefevere’s manipulation and rewriting theory will be introduced. In it, three core concepts of the theory---ideology, poetics and patronage are to be dwelled upon.
In chapter two, the thesis first introduces the background of Jenks and his booklet---A Short History of Politics. After that, the thesis continues to explore in chapter three about Yan’s motivations of translating Jenks’s popular booklet: why did he choose the book? What are his purposes and intentions of translation of Jenks?
Chapter four and chapter five, together with chapter three, are the bulk of the thesis. In the two chapters, the author of the thesis intends to focus on the manipulative factors of Yan’s translation and his manipulation of translation strategies. After discussion, the author summarizes that, in his translation, Yan was influenced by various manipulative factors from Chinese society and culture, the dominant ideology and the mainstream poetics at that time, his traditional Chinese patrons and special readers, a group of traditional Chinese scholar-bureaucrats, and as well, his personal cultural and educational backgrounds. Besides, he vastly took domesticative measures to acculturate the original and intended to serve his political purposes and realize his dreams.
At the end of the thesis, the author of the thesis will discuss the disputes and the impact of Yan’s translation and venture to revaluate Yan’s historical status and social impact, expecting to rectify people’s traditional misunderstanding and their prejudice againstYan Fu and his translation of Shehui Tongquan.
In the concluding part, the author of the thesis summarizes that, in translating, besides linguistic constraints, the translator should also consider political and cultural factors. Sometimes, he has to take manipulative measures to adapt the target language and culture, the dominant ideology and poetics, and cater for his patrons and reader group. By these means he can achieve his purposes of translation.
Chapter Five Yan’s Manipulation of Translation Strategies
In order to have his translations published and accepted by Chinese traditional literati and scholar-bureaucrats, Yan Fu had to consider the dominant ideology, poetics and the mainstream Chinese culture at the turn of that century. Besides, by translation, he also intended to realize his political dreams to “enlighten people’s mind” “save the nation” and “strive for wealth and power”. Thus he had to contrive to cater to his special readers and patrons and adapt what he translated to Chinese culture, dominant ideology and poetics as well as his own political purposes. To achieve these, he chose to translate Edward Jenks’s A Short History of Politics but not Walter Bagehot’s Physics and Politics. (王明宪, 2005: 40-41) When translating, he didn’t use the popular vernacular Chinese or the stereotyped eight-legged essay writing in the Qing Dynasty but the elegant classical Chinese prose or Chinese wenyan before the Han. In addition, Yan also managed to find anchors in Chinese culture for his translation and domesticated what he translated so as to adapt Chinese readers and Chinese culture.
Domestication and Foreignization
In view of the current disputes over translation strategies and the negative attitudes towards domestication, it is of great necessity and importance for us to have a clear and overall understanding about domestication versus foreignization. Thus, before discussing Yan’s domesticating strategies, the author plans to discuss this pair of paradox first.
Domestication or domesticating translation is a term used by Venuti (2004) to describe the translation strategy in which “a transparent, fluent style is adopted” in order to “minimize the strangeness” of the foreign text for the target readers. (Mark Shuttleworth & Moira Cowie, 2004: 43-44) In Nida’s words, it is a strategy which “aims at naturalness of expression”. (Nida, 1964: 159) It signals “the importance of a fluent strategy” and this fluency “involves domestication”. (Venuti, 2004: 21) This notion originates from Schleiermacher’s famous notion of the translation which “leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him”. (Venuti, 2004: 19-20) It requires that translation should be “transparent”, “fluent” and “natural” and easily understood and accepted by the target readers. Of course, the target readers are from Europe, especially from Anglo-American tradition, and the language is English. In this sense, domestication is “the predominant translation strategy in Anglo-American culture”. It is “consistent with the asymmetrical literary relations which generally exist between this and other culture” and “serves broader domestic agendas”. Therefore, it is “necessary” to “challenge its domination by consciously adopting other translation strategies (like foreignization)” (Shuttleworth & Cowie, 2004: 44) to “resist” “the hegemonic English-language nations and the unequal cultural exchanges”, and as well, their “ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism”. (Venuti, 2004: 20)
By foreignization, Venuti means a term “to designate the type of translation in which a TT is produced which deliberately breaks target conventions by retaining something of the foreignness of the original”. It is also called resistancy or minoritizing translation. (Shuttleworth & Cowie, 2004: 59) This concept also originates from Schleiermacher’s type of translation in which “the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him”. (Venuti, 2004: 19) Venuti describes foreignization as an “ethnodeviant pressure”. It “challenge(s) the mentality of the dominant culture which sought (seeks) to suppress the foreignness (or otherness) of the translated text” and “register(s) linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad” and provides TL reader with an “alien experience”. (Venuti, 2004:20) Thus it “entail(s) not only a freedom from absolute obedience to target linguistic and textual constraints, but also where appropriate the selection of a non-fluent, opaque style and the deliberate inclusion of SL REALIA or TL ARCHAISM”. (Shuttleworth & Cowie, 2004: 59)
However, Venuti concedes, as the construction of the foreign “depends on domestic cultural materials” (Venuti, 2004: 29), foreignizing translations are “equally partial (as domestication) in their interpretation of the foreign text”, though they “tend to flaunt their partiality instead of concealing it”. (Venuti, 2004: 34)
With respect to the debate on domestication and foreignization, it can be considered as the continuation and extension of the debate upon literal versus free translation, and its focus shifted from linguistic to ideological, poetic and cultural levels. (王东风, 2002: 24) Either at home or abroad, the debate has a long history. In the West, it can be traced back to the remarks by ancient Roman Cicero, Horace andSt. Jeromeon word-for-word translation and sense-for-sense translation. Schleiermacher’s type of translation in 1828 gestated the embryo of domestication and foreignization. Until 1970s, with the cultural turn of translation studies, the debate was replaced by that of domestication versus foreignization. It was Nida and Even-Zohar, especially Venuti who sparked and intensified the mortal disputes over domestication and foreignization. (王东风, 2002: 24)
InChina, the debate can be dated from disputes on “magnificence” and “simplicity” or “wen” and “zhi” in sutra translation. In the 1920s-1930s, it was taken place of by disputes between Lu Xun, Qu Qiubai, Liang Shiqiu (梁实秋) and Zhao Jingshen (赵景深). (陈福康, 2000: 289-299; 308-313) With the introduction of Nida, Zohar, Venuti, and the western theories like translation studies and postcolonial deconstructionism, there also appeared the intense debate about domestication and foreignization. However, the kind of debate de-contextualized Anglo-American cultural hegemony and “ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism”. (Venuti, 2004:20)
Domestically, it was Liu Yingkai who first launched attacks on domestication dominating the translation circle. (刘英凯, 1987) Ten years later, Xu Jun’s survey and discussion about the translation of Red and Black led to the fierce clashes between domestication and foreignization. (许钧, 1996) Wang Dongfeng described that domestication and foreignization, like “spear versus shield”, would inevitably “cross swords” with each other, from linguistic level up to ideological, cultural and poetological level, and the disputes would go on. (王东风, 2002: 24-26)
Initially, “unlike the previous approval of domestication, scholars almost predominantly considered that foreignization should be advocated in translation”. (葛校琴, 2002: 33) Facing with “domestication dominating the past one hundred years” (孙致礼, 2002: 40), Liu Yingkai viewed that domestication was the wrong path of translation. (刘英凯, 1987) Guo Jianzhong and Sun Zhili optimistically predicted that in the future 21st century, “the situation will be changed”. Foreignization will be “nip and tuck” with domestication and “even likely to get the upwind”. (孙致礼, 2002: 35) Consequently it was expected to become the “dominant”. (ibid, 2002: 43-44)
At the same time, some scholars realized that those arguments were one-sided and hypercorrect. Therefore, they warned that domestic debate on domestication and foreignization neglected its original western postcolonial context and was still confined within linguistic structuralism. They reminded that foreignization was a resistant strategy against western dominant culture and hegemony. So, when “crying for foreignization”, they “shouldn’t ignore the internal differences in dominated culture”. Despite accepting foreignization or expelling domestication, they “couldn’t blindly follow the fashion without consideration of the specific signification of the two in specific context”. (葛校琴, 2002: 32-35)
Additionally, other scholars intended to find a third way out for the debate. Gu Zhengkun (辜正坤) (2003: 338-379) and Zhou Fangzhu (周方珠) (2004: v-vi) put forward their polysystemic (complementary) theories (“多元/互补理论”). Zheng Hailing (郑海凌) (1999) and Bao Jiping (鲍继平) (2004) proposed their theory of harmony (“和谐说”) and the doctrine of golden mean (“中庸”) in translation. Scholars like Lǚ Jun (吕俊) (2007) and Cai Xinle (蔡新乐) (2005) introduced constructionist paradigm and philosophical ontology into translation study. And recently, some young postgraduates like Qiang Yun (强云) (2003), Lǚ Yuyong (吕玉勇) (2005), Rong Linhai (荣林海) (2006) and Yao Dengbao (姚登宝) (2007) applied dialectics in their theses and articles to discuss translation strategies like domestication and foreignization.
To be frank, there is no absolute answer to such question as which is better and which will be dominant. It is a dual paradox. Like a coin with two sides, when we talk about one side, we can never avoid the other side. With the globalization and the further international communication, foreignization will be likely to “get the upwind” and become the dominant. However, it should be realized that the advocacy of foreignization doesn’t mean ignoring or expelling the other. As two kinds of translation strategies, they both have their advantages and limitations. (李建忠, 2004: 53)The two coexist and play their respective specific role in the mutual contribution to the development of translation. Considering different purposes and different needs of different readers, either of the two strategies will be appropriate and welcome. Thus, there is no need for us to continue the fruitless debate, just as the debate on literal translation and free translation. (郭建中, 1998: 17-18; 2000b: 276-290; 杨自俭, 2002: 24)
Yan’s Domesticating Translation Strategies
After discussing translation strategies like domestication and foreignization, the author intends to briefly analyze Yan Fu’s strategy employed in his translation---domestication. In order to achieve his special political purposes and have his translation accepted by the target readers and the target culture, Yan used many strategic translation approaches or skills to domesticate what he translated. The following listed are some of the case. And they will be respectively exemplified.
Addition
According to Wang Xianming’s survey, there are about 100,000 Chinese characters in Yan’s book Shehui Tongquan. Except for his notes and annotations, there are 86,000 in the text, but there are 19,000 more added, accounting for 1/5 of the avove number. (王宪明, 2005: 25-26) In the first chapter, it is the topic for Jenks to introduce the origination and the development of the “(modern) state”. When discussing the relations and the differences between the “State” and the “society”, Jenks wrote:
Society…But it is convenient to reserve the term politics for matters concerning one particular and very important class of societies, those communities namely, which are not formed for any special or limited objects, but which have grown up, almost spontaneously, as part of the general history of mankind, and which are concerned with its general interests. Men as a rule, live in these communities, not because they choose to do so, but because they are born into them; and, until quite recently, they were not allowed to change them at their pleasure. In their most advanced forms, we call these communities States… (Edward Jenks, 1903: 1-2)
These words reflected that Jenks aimed to describe and introduce the origination and the development of the “(modern) state”. He summarized the knowledge about “state” and meant to popularize it among the masses.
In order to explore the making of the nation in China by translating Jenks, in translating the above section, Yan frequently used the terms like “国” (769 times) and “国家” (165 times) to stress the notion of “国家”, while Jenks used “state”, “nation” and “country” respectively for 291 times, 25 times and 79 times. The total number (395) was far less than that of “国” and “国家” in Yan’s translation. (王宪明, 2005: 92-93) More importantly, Yan purposefully extended paragraphs relating to the terms “国” and “国家” by inserting his interpretations and notes in the text. The following underlined is an example:
社会差等……然吾党必区治制之名,以专属国家者,以其义便,而国家为最大最尊之社会,关于民生者最重最深故也。夫国家之为社会也,常成于天演,实异于人为,一也;民之入之,非其所自择,不能以意为去留,其得自择去留,特至近世而后尔耳,然而非常道,二也;为人道所不可离,必各有所专属,三也;其关于吾生最切,养生送死之宁顺,身心品地之高卑,皆从其物而影响,四也;为古今人类群力群策所扶持,莫不力求其强立而美善,五也。此五者,皆他社会之所无,而国家之所独具者。是故国单则曰国双称则曰国家(严复注)者,最完成尊大之社会也……(严复, 1931: 1-2)
Generally, in the West, the concept of “state” (国家) came into being rather later. It was said that it was the Italian famous thinker Machiavelli (1469-1527), the author of The Prince (《君主论》) (1513), who first used the concept in modern sense. However, there was no such concept but similar expression “天下”. It was not until the unification of the Qin Dynasty that the two notions came into one, which was called “天下国家” in Chinese. (王宪明, 2005: 86-87) Now, Yan used the notion in his translation and classified “five” of its features. But three (the third to fifth) didn’t appeared in the original discourse. By addition these features, “国家” was not that kind of notion full of violence but a humanistic one, very much like traditional Chinese concept of “天下国家”. This was greatly different from the western notion of the “state”.
Additionally, it was different from Jenks’s original view that Yan regarded that “states, in ancient and modern times, supported by mankind with their brainstorms, all strive for their wealth and power”. But in Jenks’s opinion, only modern societies could be considered as the “States”, while societies and communities prior to modern ones, not. By adding the two characters “古” and “今”, Yan included all types of societies and regarded all societies were “states”. Apparently, this was rather contradictory to the original. Yet, it was just this kind of contradiction that indicated Yan’s concept of “国家” was not from Jenks but from traditional Chinese notion of “天下国家”.
Deletion
Besides addition, Yan also intentionally deleted what seemed to be unimportant to him and irrelative to his political purposes to “enlighten people’s minds” and to “save the nation from its extermination”. In Chapter Two, when he explored savage organization, Jenks reeled like this:
Savage. In spite of the constantly increasing intercourse between the most remote parts of the world, and the civilizing influences of commerce, there remain quite a considerable number of peoples who still live under primitive or savage conditions. Among them may be reckoned…The Tasmanians ofVan Diemen’s Landwere, until their recent extinction, perfect specimens of unadulterated savagery. But by far the most important examples, because the most remote from admixture and the most scientifically and recently studied, are the aborigines (The reader is cautioned that the term “Australian Native” is by local custom reserved for the descendents of the white colonists, and is rarely extended to the “blackfellow”.) of Australia, who, in the center and north of that vast continent, still roam untouched and unreclaimed. Their numbers are considerable, and though they are probably destined to disappear at no distant date, they are at present in full possession of their primitive organization… (qtd. in王宪明, 2005: 295)
Now, Yan Fu deleted the author’s note in brackets. He translated as follows:
蛮夷社会 自车舟大通,殖民议起,坤舆之上,无幽不瞩,匪不探,而冒耏横目、茹毛饮血、为太古最初之种族者,犹至众也。若孟加拉……皆原种也。澳洲南岛曰达斯马尼亚,其中种人近已澌灭,亦纯全不杂之种蛮。而澳洲大陆土人(按当地习俗,“澳大利亚人”专指欧洲白种殖民者后裔,很少包括原澳洲“土人”。)(笔者自译),为地中最众之蛮族,远处内地,风气不通,其为吾党所重者,以其为科学家所探讨者,其为数甚多,其为种纯净,虽其众之沦亡特早暮耳,顾在今日,则真未凿之混沌也。(qtd. in王宪明, 2005: 285-296)
Here, Yan was for Jenks’s view. The aborigines, like other “savages”, “still live under primitive or savage conditions”. Owing to their “unadulterated savagery”, “untouched and unreclaimed”, they are “probably destined to disappear at no distant date”. As the “perfect specimens”, they are “the most scientifically and recently studied” by “a generation of students”. And these students made “praiseworthy efforts”. With “consistent kindness”, they “braved the hardships” and “won their way” into “the confidence” of the savages. Finally, they can form some “tolerably correct” ideas of savage life. And their accounts may be “profitably” supplemented by other studies. (王宪明, 2005: 295)
But on the other hand, Yan might not realize the real purposes and intentions of the colonists to come toAustraliaand make studies on the aborigines. Maybe, Yan was clear about how “perfect” the specimens were, how “brave” the students were, and how “profitable” the studies were. But he might not be aware how “scientific” the studies were, how “kind” these colonists were, how “correct” their ideas were, and how “confident” the aborigines were. In fact, what the western colonists brought the aborigines was disasters and racial genocide, more than blessings or happiness. Before 1788, there were at least 300 to 500 thousand aborigines inAustralia(data quoted from f?kz=149016484), but after the western colonists came, the number sharply reduced because of racial slaughter by the European colonists together with epidemic diseases. By 1944, there were about 70 thousand left (data qtd. in view). Though the present number increases, it is only made up of of the total population. Comparatively, the European including English descendents are of the total 21,180,000 population (general investigation in 2008, qtd. in ). Besides, the European colonists also brought wars and ecological destructions. Anyway, crimes committed by the colonists were not less than the so-called civilization. Yet, by these means, the colonists could plunder land, wealth and power. In this sense, they were certainly willing to make “praiseworthy efforts” to “bravely” carry out “profitable” studies. But to the aborigines, they, by no means, “confidently” thought the colonists were “kind” and “correct”.
Since Yan had no intentions to disclose this part of disgraceful history of the European colonists or, he felt it unnecessary and irrelevant to the introduction of the development of societies, he, then, deleted it. However, it was just this deletion that omitted much more important information, and even covered a section of important yet disgraceful history.
Acculturation
In his translation of Shehui Tongquan, Yan often used Chinese culture-specific expressions to analogize and acculturate the original. One of the typical cases is that he translated the word “individual” as “小己”. The following are some of the examples:
1a: …the tribe, or larger unit, is the oldest; as it breaks up, clans are formed; and the break up of the clan-system leaves as independent units the households formerly comprised within it. Finally, but not till long after patriarchal society has passed away, the household is dissolved, and the individual becomes the unit of society. (Jenks, 1903:18)
1b: ……自事实而言之,则社会固先有种而后有族,亦先有族后有家。其始自无种而为有种,种散而为族,族散而为家,家分而为个人,为小己,则今日文明社会之本位么匿也。此群演自然之至势,而亦社会学新得之秘扃也。(严复, 1931: 19-20)
In the West, the word “individual” was borrowed into English from Latin in the 15th century. It originated from the words “individualis” and “individuus”, meaning “indivisible”. In 1827, the word “individualism” derived. (王宪明, 2005: 121-122).
In the original, Jenks used “individual” totally for 50 times with its usual meaning. It refers to “a single person considered apart from a society or community, or as opposed to a larger social group or as distinguished from others by some special quality”. (Kingsoft PowerWord, 2007) In Jenks’s view, in the ancient times, individuals were subjected to the nobles and kings. While in modern society, they are “citizens with freedom and rights” and become the foundation of the modern societies (Jenks, 1904: 119-133).
However, in Chinese, “小己” came from the Biography of Lin Xiangru in Historical Records or Shi Ji (《史记》). It goes like this, “Sima Qian remarks, ‘…what Da Ya (《大雅》) relates is about princes and lords, whose virtues can reach out to the commons, while Xiao Ya (《小雅》) is about the humble who admonish the lord of their hardships and sufferings. Though what the two describe is different in form, their intentions are the same.’” (司马迁, 1997a: 777) Yan Shigu (颜师古) further interpreted,“ ‘the humble’ are persons with low positions and their opposites are ‘the noble’.” (班固, 1997b: 665)
From this, it can be known that the expression “小己” appropriately indicated the relationship between “the humble” and “the noble”, namely, a kind of antagonistic and interactive relationship. This is the reason why Yan chose “小己” to translate the English word “individual”. The word is “small” but implies more.
At the same time, Yan also added his own words to the paragraph. From his addition, together with his acculturation of Chinese “小己”, it can be inferred that Yan was for Jenks’s view on the relation between the “individual” and the “society”, and it also indicates that Yan had an optimistic belief in the development of the society. If a society regards the individual as its unit, it is likely to become “civilized” and all individuals will be “equal”. (严复, 1931: 22)
Annotation
Just as what is mentioned in , apart from his interpretations and elaborations in the text, Yan also put his remarks and annotations. They can be expressed as “按语” in Chinese. When he came to the section about “federations” in the last chapter---Chapter XIV, Yan added much more than the original, and put his remarks in the text:
1a: 3. Federations. Far more important is the true federal type of State, in which the central authority is invested, not merely with legislative and military, but with executive and judicial authority. Some of the most important modern examples of State-making fall under this head. It is the type of theUnited States of America, of the Dominion of Canada, and, probably in the near future, of the Commonwealth of Australia. Indeed it seems to be the true type also of the anomalous of theBritish Empire, which, with a few important but feasible alterations, would appropriate closely in a federal constitution… (Jenks, 1903: 151-152)
Yan translated as follows:
1b: 三曰共和之合 按共和之制,今世合邦之最为演进者也,中央政府,其权不止于诘戎、议制,乃并刑法、行政二大权而有之。故其合也,虽有各具主权之分治,而可合以为机体完具之大邦。此其已见者,若今北美之合众,若坎纳达(加拿大)之连藩。其将成者,若澳洲之公产。夫我不列颠帝国,制从其地,故未建一统之治制。有王者兴,为数大端之变制改良,则可以祛其政治之分歧,而成大共和之盛制。此非意外不可跂之业也……(严复, 1931: 181-182)
There are about 150 characters in all. However, Yan added 77, more than half of the total. It reflected Yan’s personal views and attitude towards the “federal type of State”. From the lines “今世合邦之最为演进者” and “故其合也,虽有各具主权之分治,而可合以为机体完具之大邦”, it is known that Yan had a positive tendency towards “federations” and thought it was “最为演进者也”.
But it is not all. Yan also inserted his own remarks below the paragraph:
吾译前语,于吾心怦怦然。何则?窃料黄人前途,将必不至于不幸也。即使其民今日困于旧法……而变动光明,生于忧患,行且有以大见于世史,无疑也。今夫合众之局何为者?以民族之寡少,必并合而后利自存也。且合矣,乃虽共和之善制而犹不坚,何故?以其民之本非一种,而习于分立故也。天下惟吾之黄族,其众既足以自立矣,而其风俗地势,皆使之易为合而难分……且吾民之智、德、力,经四千年之治化,虽至今日,其短日彰……使一旦幡然悟旧法陈义之不足殉……尽去腐秽,惟强之求,真五洲无此国也,何贫弱奴隶之足忧哉!世有深思之士,其将有感于吾言。(严复, 1931: 183)
In Yan’s opinion, the limitations of the implementation of the “federation” could be overcome, and it could develop into the “true federal type of State”. More importantly, inChina, there were many advantages and favorable conditions. Yan thought that there were so many Chinese that they could become independent. Their customs and the favorable environments could get them easily united. Besides, after reforms and renovations, there was absolutely no such country exceptChinawhich was ideal to implement this kind of “true federal type of State”. Thus, by means of his additions, remarks and annotations, Yan presented his political blueprints to the world, That is, to reform Chinese society, to implement western political system and to buildChinainto a modern state with “wealth and power”.
Summary
This chapter dealt with Yan’s manipulation of translation strategies in his translation of Shehui Tongquan. In the first section, the author discussed translation strategies like domestication and foreignization. The author thinks though the disputes over domestication versus foreignization can be regarded as the continuation and extension of literal translation versus free translation, they are on different levels. The latter is on linguistic level while the former, cultural and political. As language is part of culture, they are closely related and indivisible. Therefore, we can never avoid culture when discussing language and texts in translation. (姚登宝, 2007: 133-137)
At the same time, the former can be seen as translation strategies and the latter, as translation approaches or even skills. That is, the former is more inclusive in their extension. (ibid, 2007: 133-137) Here, the author uses the term “strategy” to generally refer to both the two. In their application, there is such question, which is better? What matters is that it depends on specific situations. Different translators with different purposes will manipulate different strategies and approaches to adapt to different target languages and cultures and cater for different target readers. If the translation can be accepted, it can be considered “appropriate”, and it can achieve its social value and has immediate imact on society. (But what is accepted may not be “faithful” or “perfect” and what is not accepted may be more “faithful” or “perfect”. However, it is not easy for this kind of translations to realize their immediate social values. ) After all, there is nothing perfect in the world and it is hard to cater for all tastes.
After discussing translation strategies, the author went on to analyze Yan’s domesticative translation strategies and approaches. Through addition, deletion, acculturation and annotation, what Yan put in the text is not just words but more importantly, his ideas and thoughts. By doing so, he successfully had his translations accepted by traditional Chinese society and culture, by the dominant ideology and poetics and by his patrons and his special readers. Eventually, he could realize his political dreams based on his own political blueprints. Thus it can be seen that Yan translated not “for himself” but “for the times”. (王克非, 1996) He was responsible for the whole nation when he chose to domesticate western learning and culture with “illegitimate translation strategies”. Though critized, his translations were proved “master pieces characteristic and incomparable in the history of Chinese translation”. (王秉钦, 2004: 72-73) They played and will play indelible roles in the processes of Chinese modernization.