2006 2 29 1

( ) CEL EA Journa l ( Bimo nthly)

Feb. 2006 V o l. 29 No . 1

CRITICAL READING AND TRANSLA TING: TWO CASES OF MISREADING AND A REFLECTION
Sun Yue Capital No rm al U niversity

Abstract
Crit ical reading is usef ul in trans lation. But if carried too f ar, it can be hypercritical , caus ing more harm than good. Two examples are given in this essay to illustrate this unwanted tendency in Chinese classics trans lation. Key w or ds critical reading; mapping; translating T ranslation is a bridge across cult ures of the sam e w orld. For examp le, th e English nature things in dependent o f m an, is tran slat ed as zi ran ( self-so ) in Chin ese. Bot h are indigenous concept s, ref lections of dif f erent cultures but of th e sam e w orld. It is easily com prehensible w h en natural law ( in the sense of being ob jective) is rendered int o the Ch in ese zi-ran-gu i-l self - so -ing rules ( Wang 2002) . In th e sam e w ay, ph ysics is correspon ded b y wu-li ( law of th in gs) , scien ce by ke-xue ( disciplin ary studies) , etc. Th eref ore, despite som e slight dif f erences in connotation, w ord -con cepts of dif f eren t languages are largely cap able of f ulf illing the task of cross - cultural com m unication. In other w ords, 1 w hatever you have, I can h ave it as w ell, m y ow n w ay. T his is not t o den y th e fact t hat cultures are system atically dif ferent a f act th at of ten can m ak e cross -cultural com m un icat ion, in our case, Ch inese - English tran slat ion , exceedingly d if f icult , and som et im es frust rat ingly m isleading. In fact , m an y sch olars and experts have of ten described th e C hinese culture and W estern culture as polar opp osites. C at egorically, W estern Th in king A Tree struct ure Definition in either den ot at ion or connot ation or both Th e search f or truth is valuable Th e aim of dialogue an d the dialectic is to arrive at th e Form / Know ledge C hinese Think in g A Net st ructure Definition is not im portant. Det erm ining relationsh ip in associations Usin g exam ples t o clarif y issues Searching f or essences or n at ural kind

T he C hinese are of ten d escribed as em bracing analogies rooted in personal and particular perspective. For exam ple, th e Con fucians insist on t he anth ropocentric prin ciple, w hile t he D aoist s, though not anth ropocentric, w ill seek to avoid any not ion of ob jective truth . W estern ers, on th e cont rary, w ould hold fast t o logos or t he a priori Forms in delin eating a surer basis of their understanding of th e w orld. Th e C hinese are intuitive, holistic, subjective w hile West erners are m ore rational, an alytical, scientif ic. 2 T hese ten den cies do exhibit th em selves in th e various undertakings of Ch in ese and West ern scholars,
89

Cri t ical Readi ng and Transl ati ng: Two Cases of Mi sreadi ng and a Refl ecti on

Sun Y ue

in clud ing Ch inese - English translation. For exam ple, th e f ollow ing Con fucian text is understood in diff erent w ays by Ch inese and Western scholars. : , , ? ?

T he Mast er said, See w h at a man does. M ark his m otives. Exam ine in w hat things he rests. H ow can a m an con ceal his character! H ow can a m an conceal his character! ( L in 1914) H e said, L ook to how it is. Consider from w hat it com es. Exam ine in w hat a person w ould be at rest. H ow can a person rem ain hidden ? how can som eon e remain h idd en? ( Ow en 1992) T he original t ext appears in C hapter II of An alect s , titled On G overnm en t . T hrough out th e chapt er, C onf ucius is described as elab orating on governing and educat in g p eople, like keeping people orderly through observin g ritual propriety ( li ) , em phasiz ing f ilial conduct ( xiao ) , using h um ane w ay to cont rol people, sacrif icing on e s ow n ancestral spirit s, et c. H ere, obviously, C onf ucius w as talk in g about examining th e qualif ications of w ould -b e governm ent of f icials. H e w as talkin g about m an. It s rare habit of C onf ucius to dw ell on philosoph ical m oralizing even t hough w hat h e says has a philosoph ical un derton e. Seen in th is light, Lin s t ranslation is m ore consist ent and coh erent. Th e center of at tention is on m an throughout. Ow en s t ranslat ion presen ts a n um ber of problem s. T he translator m istakes the m an f or th e thing yet t he m an ( a person ) m yst eriously turns up again in th e t hird sent ence and on. It leaves one at a loss as to w h at Con fucius is talking ab out! T he second exam ple is f rom t he w ell know n Th e Art of War . A f ter t alking about the significance of the topic, Sun Z i goes on t o elaborate on t he five criteria f or assessin g t he strength of t he w arring sides, nam ely the Dao ( Way) , clim ate, terrain, com m an d, an d regulation. T hen h e says: , , ; , , Giles translation reads: T he general th at heark ens to m y counsel and acts up on it , w ill conquer: let such a on e be retain ed in com m and! Th e general th at hearkens not t o m y coun sel nor acts upon it , w ill suf f er def eat: let such a one be dism issed! ( 1910) Obviously, t he m ilitary strategist is exercising h is auth ority of m aintainin g th e best qualif ied at th e com m and. An d as M arsh all General of t he Kingdom of Wu, h e had f ull authority t o dism iss any disobedient general( s) . Y et w e f ind a dif f erent int erpretation in Am es ( 1994) : If you heed m y assessm ents, dispat ching troops int o batt le w ould m ean victory, and I w ill stay. If you do not heed t hem , dispat ching t roops w ould m ean certain def eat, and I w ill leave. Wh o is t hat you in this tran slation ? Is it t hat K in g H elu of W u that Sun Z i is addressing? C learly not although, of course, his liberty t o take leave upon the k ing s not f ollow ing his advice also m akes sense. H aving seen t hese t w o exam ples, w e m ay w on der how a sinologist lik e Stephen Ow en, a w ell k now n scholar like Roger Am es, may have m ade such sim ple mistakes in translating classical Ch inese t exts. Th e secret lies tw of old. One, t hey m ay h ave gone too f ar in critically reading the source text; tw o, related to th e form er, t hey are subjecting C hinese in tuit ive th ought s t o W estern logos . Let m e explain w hy. C rit ical reading is an act ive, int ellectually engaged process in w hich t he reader participates in an in ner dialogue w ith th e w riter ( Paul 1995 ) . In doing so, a critical reader actively looks f or assum ptions, k ey concepts and ideas, reasons and justif icat ion s, supporting examp les, parallel experiences, im plications an d consequen ces, and an y oth er struct ural f eat ures of th e w rit ten t ext, to in terp ret and assess it accurat ely and f airly ( Paul 1995) . There is n othing w ron g about that; in f act, mod ern Chin ese people, as a result of overw helm ing Western cultural inf luence, have been f ully ready to em brace this w ay of rat ion al or logical think in g and critical reading t han the classical Chin ese correlative think ing ( H all & Am es 1998) , w hich is analogical in n at ure, relying on th e association of im ages or
90

CELEA Journal 65

concept clusters relat ed by m ean in gf ul disposition rat her th an ph ysical causation. C orrelative t hinking is a species of sp on taneous thinking ground ed in inf orm al and ad hoc analogical procedures presupposing bot h association and dif feren tiat ion. . . Th e regulat ive elem ent in th is m odality of t hinking is sh ared patterns of culture and t radition rath er th an com m on assum pt ion s about causal necessity ( H all & Am es 1998) . Given these major dif f erences in p erception, West ern t ranslat ors of ten , consciously or subcon sciously, slip t o t heir ow n cultural m odels in un derstan din g of th e source text an d representation in target t ext. T his h ap pens despit e Ow en s ack now ledged prin ciple t hat: In m any cases, I d rath er adop t a seem ingly aw kw ard t ranslation so as to allow English readers get an idea of w h at the origin al Ch in ese text looks like. T his relatively literal treatm ent naturally m akes th e translated text look stubborn and stif f, lacking in elegance; but an elegan t t ranslation of ideological texts, especially C hinese ideological text s, oft en indicates that a considerable com prom ise h as been m ade to m eet target readers con ceptual h abit s. Y ou can f ind gracef ul translation of m ost th e C hinese text s select ed in t his book; yet you get only a pret ty vague idea o f w h at Ch in ese literary th eories actually claim ed out o f read ing t hose gracef ul text s. . . 3 ( m y ow n tran slation f rom Chinese) H ere, Ow en is p reoccup ied n ot exact ly w it h grace or elegance of translated texts, though h is translation is gracef ul. Wh at m erit s our att ent ion is th at Ow en, reading t his sim ple statem ent of Con fucius, det ects a triadic sequen ce of stages as op posed t o th e West ern bipolar struct ure of significance m im esis or represent at ion th eories ( Ow en 1992 ) . C on f ucius w as obviously t alking about people; yet Ow en too easily gives in to epist em ological m usin gs. It is not im m ediately k now n w heth er Con fucius, in sayin g th at , h as a certain epist em ological m odel in his m in d, it is not m anifest in th e source text . Translators m igh t w ell follow Lin s m odel of lit erally h an dling it ( f ollow ing Ow en s principle) ; w hat s hidden m ight com e in not es below , and specified as such. Ow en s practice, in th e presen t auth or s understanding, is w h at constitutes over -critical readin g an d represen tation: h e goes so f ar as to put in C onf ucius m outh w h at he has in m in d as a result of his crit ical orien tation. [ T] ranslation requires m apping from one language t o an other ( B ah ar 2001) . Maps an d m app ing, of course, prolif erate as m etaph ors in cont em porary scholarship. But, if b y m apping is to b e un derstood the w hole process of projecting one s ow n cult ural values and m odels ont o the source t ext, it is bet ter to be avoided. Th e lat e Fren ch so ciologist Pierre Bourdieu on ce w arned about th e pret en sions of mapping in h is Out lin e of a Theory of Practice: It is signif ican t that culture is som etim es described as a m ap; it is an analogy w hich occurs t o outsid er w ho has to f in d his w ay aroun d a foreign landscape and com pen sates f or h is lack of pract ical m astery, the prerogat ive of t he n ative, by use of a m odel of all possible rout es . . . ( Bourdieu 1977: 6) Perspectives of t he source t ext m ust priorit ize t he job of a translator, i. e. , if t he int en ded purpose is to allow E nglish readers get an idea of w hat the original Ch in ese t ext looks like . On the oth er h and, t ran slat ion of anot her cult ural text s h as the added value of en larging readers object ive vision of th e sam e w orld w e inhabit. [ I] f an idea, origin ally t he p roduct of on e lan guage, can be com m unicated to m em bers of anoth er culture in th eir ow n language, t hen th e gap betw een th e respective cat egories has been b ridged ( Bahar 2001) . Ow en s pract ice adds t o our conf usion rat her t han clarif yin g t he w hole m att er. H is putt in g it at th e beginn in g o f t he book f ully show s the deliberat eness of his h yp ercritical st an ce. Am es case m ay have t o do w ith his k now ledge of frequency of f orm or f un ction w ords in classical Ch in ese text s. Th e w ord jiang ( ) is on e of th ese ( T ian 1997: 5 ) . Inst ead of its more com m on den ot at ion as gen eral , here it f unct ions as st arter of a speech , so to speak, w ith no concret e m eaning. It is a typical case of seein g t he trees but not t he f orest . Rem em ber: th e C hinese intuitive and holistic m ode of t hinking is vigorously at w ork, especially in classical C hinese texts. Schultz ref lection serves as a useful tip for C hinese En glish translators t o rem emb er: On e h as to grasp the situ at ion before on e can m ak e sense of w ords and sent ences, or kn ow w h ich w ords an d sentences in one language can be used to gloss w h ich w ords an d sent en ces in anoth er
91

Cri t ical Readi ng and Transl ati ng: Two Cases of Mi sreadi ng and a Refl ecti on

Sun Y ue

lan guage. ( Schultz 1990: 126, quot ed in Bahar 2001) In our case, th e situat ion is th e h olistic, intuitive n at ure of C hinese classical t exts. If W estern translators are int ent on crit ically reading an d representing the Chin ese source text , t he result is diluted Ch in ese ideas in W estern languages. T ranslation, as a m eanin gf ul cross - cult ural act , is f ull of th e dangers of misreading and m is representation. Due att ent ion m ust be paid t o th e essential f eatures of classical Ch in ese text s, eith er linguistic, p sych ological or sociocultural. In t ranslat ion, as in oth er hum an undert ak in gs, overdoin g is as good as under -doing, bot h m issing th e m ark . In the process o f C hinese - English t ranslat ion, crit ical reading is im portan t. But b eing critical is not a W estern paten t. Th e C hinese have t heir ow n unique w ay of being crit ical as w ell. A nd t heirs is oft en n ot far f rom t he m ark, as is obviated by t he exam ples of th e beginning of th is paper. Prosp ect ive translators w ould f are b ett er if th ey can rem em ber this.

Notes
1. Word borrowings are f requent, especially the f oreign -Chinese way. At the word level, most of those cultural key terms, as illustrated by the above - mentioned examples, have been or are coming to be localiz ed, so to speak. 2. For a systematic comparative study of Chinese and English, see Pan, Yiguo, Contras ting Chines e and English: An Outline , Beijing University of Languages, 1997. For those who are more cultural bent, see An Outline of Chinese Cultur e , ed. Zhang Dainian &Fang Keli, Beijing Normal University Press, 1994; or S hen, Xiaolong, The Chinese Lang uag e and the Chinese Culture , Shanghai: Fudan Univers ity Press, 2003. The Or ientation of Chinese Philosophy in the 21st Centur y Proceedings of the 12th International Conf er ence on Chinese Philosophy ( 2001 ) 21 12 , ed. by Fang K eli, Beijing: Commercial Press, 2003, contains some usef ul meditations on Chinese language. All these are, regrettably, in Chinese, causing a big hindrance to English -only readers. 3. See Owen ( 2002, p. 14) .

References
Bahar, I. B. 2001. Linguistic Relativity and the Trans lation Dilemma: Reading Between the Lines In Malay Literatures In English. Notting ham Linguistic Circular 16. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theor y of practice . Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres s. Hall, D. L. & Roger T. A. 1998. Chinese philosophy. In E. Craig ( ed. ) . Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy . London: Routledge. Retrieved on March 02, 2005, f rom http: //www. rep. routledge. com/ article/G001. Paul, R. 1995. Cr itical thinking : How to prepare students f or a r apidly chang ing world . Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation f or Critical Thinking, Appendix B, pp. 521 -52. Sun-tzu : the ar t of war : the f irst English translation incorporating the recently discovered Yin-ch ueh-shan texts , trans. , with an introduction and commentary, by Roger T. A. NY: Ballantine Books, 1994. Sun Tzu on the ar t of war : the oldest military treatise in the w or ld , trans. by Lionel Giles, f irs t published in 1910. The current quotes are f rom Project Gutenburg Etext, http: //www. gutenberg. net/etext/132. The Four B ooks of the Chinese Classics in English , comp. by Lin Yu -tang. Shanghai: The China Book Company, 1914. Wang, Q. J. 2002. It self-so -ing and other - ing in Lao Zi s concept of Zi Ran . Retrieved f rom http: //www. siwen. org/xingershangxue/lzzr. htm. , , , 1997, [ ] , 2002, ,

92

: ; ; ;

, : ; ;

54 2002 2003 , , : , , ; , , ; , , , ; , , , : ; ; ;

: 50
79 , , , , , , , : ; ; 50

60 , , , , , : ; ; ;

84 , , , , , 47 , , 6 , , , , , : ; ;

66 , : ;

:
89 , , , , , , , , , , , : ;
1 28

71 , , , , , ,