Yifeng Sun (Eds.) - Translation and Academic Journals_ the Evolving Landscape of Scholarly Publishing-Palgrave Macmillan US (2015)

Translation and Academic Journals
Translation and Academic Journals
The Evolving Landscape of

Scholarly Publishing
Edited by Yifeng Sun

TRANSLATION AND ACADEMIC JOURNALS
Copyright © Yifeng Sun 2015
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2015 978-1-137-52208-5
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this
publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this
publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written
permission. In accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited
copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6-10
Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
First published 2015 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this
work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers
Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of Nature America, Inc., One New
York Plaza, Suite 4500, New York, NY 10004-1562.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
ISBN 978-1-349-57942-6
E-PDF ISBN: 978-1-137-52209-2
DOI: 10.1057/9781137522092
Distribution in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world is by Palgrave
Macmillan®, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered
in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Translation and academic journals : the evolving landscape of scholarly
publishing / edited by Yifeng Sun.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Translating and interpreting. 2. Translating and interpreting—
Periodicals. 3. Translating and interpreting—China. 4. Scholarly
periodicals—Publishing. I. Sun, Yifeng, 1957– editor.
P306.T6797 2015
418'.02—dc23
2015014987
A catalogue record for the book is available from the British Library.
Contents
List of Illustrations vii

Acknowledgments ix
Introduction: Journal Publication and Translation Studies 1

Yifeng Sun
Part I: The Role of Journals

1 Aims and Scope: Journal Identity and
Twenty-First-Century Scholarly Publishing 15
Valerie Henitiuk and Carol O’Sullivan
2 Translation Studies in Contemporary China: Retrospect,
Reflection, and Prospect 37
Ping Yang
3 The Translator: Creativity, Continuity, and Change 67
Sue-Ann Harding
4 International Journals: A Case Study of Asia Pacific
Translation & Intercultural Studies 75
Xuanmin Luo and Min Wang
5 My Responsibilities as a Journal Editor 87
Gangqiang He
Part II: Translation Research at Work

6 Translation, Cultural Politics, and Poetic Form: A Comparative
Study of the Translation of Modernist Poetry in Les Contemporains
(1932–35) and Literary Currents (1956–59) 97
Zijiang Song
7 A Contact Linguistic Analysis of Translation-Induced Changes 117
Hui Xie and Qi Gong
vi ● Contents
8 “Eco” and “Adaptation-Selection” in Eco-Translatology

Explained 135
Xiaohua Jiang
9 Crowdsourcing Translation in China: Features and Implications 149
Wenjing Li
10 Masculine Fantasies and Feminine Representations in the
English Translations of Premodern Chinese Poetry in Journals 165
Kar Yue Chan
11 Subtitling Made in Hong Kong and Missing Heteroglossia 179
Bo Li
List of Contributors 195

Index 199
List of Illustrations
Figures
4.1 APTIS’s Dynamic System of Journal Editing and Publishing 76
4.2 Full Text Downloads via Standard Platforms for
APTIS by Month 83
Tables
4.1 Top Institutions by Downloads in 2014 (Jan.–Apr.) 84
4.2 Top Countries/Regions by Downloads in 2014 (Jan.–Apr.) 84
Acknowledgments
A challenging project like this one has been made possible by the hard work
and meticulous planning of the Organizing Committee of the International
Conference on Journals and Translation hosted by the School of Foreign
Studies, Jinan University, in Guangzhou, China, in June 2014. We are very
grateful to the members of the Organizing Committee for spending a great
deal of time and effort in preparing for this conference. A key figure behind
this whole project is Professor Qi Gong, dean of the School of Foreign Stud-
ies, Jinan University. He worked tirelessly and with unwavering devotion to
the minutest details concerning every aspect of the organizing work. A spe-
cial word of thanks should also go to the vice president of the university,
Professor Shuzhuo Jiang, a renowned literary scholar in his own right. He
helped to appropriate the necessary funding for the conference and enthusi-
astically supported the organizing efforts from the outset. Last but not least,
many Jinan students who worked as volunteers during the conference deserve
deep appreciation and gratitude for providing excellent assistance to all who
attended the conference. They demonstrated a high degree of enthusiasm for
and commitment to their work in facilitating paper presentations and other
conference-related activities.
INTRODUCTION
Journal Publication and

Translation Studies
Yifeng Sun
T
ranslation studies has developed exponentially over recent years, par-
ticularly since the 1980s, and journals on translation have played a
critical role in shaping and promoting the discipline as we know it
today. A plethora of new journals devoted to publishing research findings
in this field have sprung up, and perhaps what is less apparent is the fact
that many other journals on humanities, social sciences, management, and
even clinical medicine also publish articles related to translation. Translation
studies has developed so rapidly because scholars of other disciplines are,
in various ways, engaged in discussing issues related to translation, due to
its interdisciplinary nature and strong theoretical relevance to other related
fields. Translation has always influenced other disciplines, but only in recent
years has translation studies developed and expanded its scope and also been
greatly enriched by borrowing from other disciplines; as a result, it has gradu-
ally become increasingly interdisciplinary. However, translation studies can
be the victim of its own success. The very identity of the discipline can be
endangered so as to raise questions about its legitimacy and validity. While
scholars of different backgrounds talk about translation, there seems to be
insufficient genuine dialogue between them, and mutual understanding is
yet to be established.
International journal publishing is at the core of academic research. Aca-
demic researchers are only too mindful of its increasing importance and value
and also face heightened pressure to publish in journals regularly. Scholarly
publishing, especially in journal form, contributes significantly to shaping the
development of translation studies as a relatively young discipline. There is
no doubt that journals of high quality with a great impact on scholarship are
2 ● Yifeng Sun
in great demand and thus in a unique position to influence the discipline.

Moreover, academic journals usually represent the cutting edge, with new
findings reported in a timely manner in comparison with monographs. Given
the overall importance of journal publication, a conference on Journals and
Translation was held at Jinan University in Guangzhou, China, in June 2014.
On that occasion, a number of international and national journal editors were
brought together to meet face to face with potential contributors and readers
from all over China and some other parts of the world. The event was emphat-
ically distinguished by a non-Western geographical location and context.
This book of collected essays is based on the aforementioned conference.
It is the first one of its kind to provide a rare opportunity for journal edi-
tors and translation scholars to carry out a fruitful dialogue about translation
studies concerning its past trajectory, present status, and future prospects in
a globalized context, in which China is increasingly engaged with the rest of
the world. The conference was a significant cross-cultural academic event in
Chinese intellectual history, reflective of the current cultural milieu that has
generated substantial interest and enthusiasm among translation scholars in
China, who are encouraged to research into issues pertaining to cross-cultural
communication. Considering its relative lack of international experience in
journal editing and publication, China is in great need of conducting aca-
demic exchanges with international colleagues. Meanwhile, journal editors
also appreciated opportunities to exchange views concerning various aspects
of journal editing and publishing and to share concerns by learning from the
experiences of others.
In general, an academic journal normally has a limited audience, and
journals of translation studies are no exception. Yet with an abundance of
universities and a large scholarly community, China has a powerful potential
in supporting academic journals. The flagship journal of translation stud-
ies in China, Chinese Translators Journal, enjoys an enviable circulation of
over ten thousand copies, not to mention its even wider circulation through
online subscription. International journals on translation studies are well rec-
ognized as well. With increasing funding invested in humanities and social
sciences as well as in science and technology, many Chinese university librar-
ies are actively acquiring more journal titles. Yet as a latecomer, China needs
to expand and consolidate its higher education system, the corollary of which
is that more research outputs are expected to be produced and published.
Translation studies is a booming academic discipline with many universities
establishing translation programs or departments or schools.
Indeed, China is able to demonstrate a unique potential and enthusiasm
to do translation research. There are already more than eight hundred PhD
graduates in translation studies after recent years of vigorous development of
Journal Publication and Translation Studies ● 3
postgraduate training programs, and most of these PhD holders have become
university faculty members. The implication is clear: they need to publish in
order to survive. The magnitude of this challenge of publishing journal articles
cannot be overstated. Can Huang and Yilin Wu have observed, “Nowadays
in many prestigious Chinese universities even graduate students were required
to publish in journals indexed by the Web of Science in order to obtain their
degrees.”1 In order to meet the publication requirements for promotion (for-
tunately not for tenure yet), scholars naturally need to make sure that they can
manage to publish. The drive for internationalization has resulted in an unprec-
edented surge in persistent efforts to publish in international journals as well.
It is axiomatic that journal publication is an integral part of academic
research and scholarship. With regard to journal publication, there are, how-
ever, serious problems confronting translation scholars as well as scholars
working in other fields of humanities and social sciences in China. Curi-
ously, in spite of its long history of scholarship, China has not been known
as a center of academic research. In the sector of higher education, China is
a less fortunate latecomer. A great irony and source of angst is that despite
China’s long history of intellectual accomplishments, its modern universities
are disproportionally young: some of the oldest ones were established only in
the late 1800s. This has subjected the country to embarrassment, especially in
comparison with a young country like the USA, which boasts Harvard Uni-
versity with a history of 379 years. Thus, as in many other areas, China wants
to catch up and sets out to create a number of world-class universities, with
an overarching ambition to steadily expand and upgrade its research capacity.
Thus, the pursuit of excellence in scholarship has been accorded overriding
priority and endowed the country with a major strategic driving force.
The evolving landscape of journal publication in China has its own unique
pattern. The established tradition of journal publication is deeply rooted in
university journals, the publication of which has become a prevalent practice
not only in mainland China but also in Taiwan and Singapore. However, this
practice is not applicable in Hong Kong, and as a formal British colony, it
has deviated from certain traditional Chinese heritages. In mainland China,
some Chinese university journals have continued to exist for about one hun-
dred years, almost as old as the host institutions themselves. As Li Li explains,
A university may have several versions of its journal—e.g. a science and tech-
nology version, a philosophy and social science version, an information ver-
sion, or a medical version—according to the research fields of the university.2
The original conception was to encourage faculty members to publish their

research findings regardless of their disciplines or fields of endeavor, as long
4 ● Yifeng Sun
as they fall under a broadly defined category. The university journals are
designed primarily to foster exchange between different universities. Yet
undeniably, the desirability and usefulness of university journals are, after
all, limited. It would be impossible for the articles published in them to be of
interest to specially targeted readers.
To be sure, this “lack of disciplinary identity,” in the words of Yang Liu,
instead of being conducive to the development of the disciplines covered
by university journals, has proved to be detrimental to it.3 In addition, the
general nature of the journals makes it difficult to conduct effective and rigor-
ous peer review. If not focused or topicalized, none of the disciplines can be
fully or properly represented. Because they are likely to be mutually unrelated
and do not really interact with one another, any possibility of interdisciplin-
ary work or cooperation cannot be affirmed. Disciplinary boundaries remain
largely intact and unexamined. Nevertheless, despite the aforementioned
limitations of university journals, their contributions to various scholarly
fields are not insignificant. As for the publication venues for articles on trans-
lation studies, the university journals edited and published by the foreign
studies universities are, in relative terms, a great deal more focused in what
they publish, since all of them feature studies on foreign languages and litera-
ture studies including research in translation.
Almost all of these “specialized” university journals were launched after
the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1977, except for Foreign Language
Teaching and Research, published by Beijing Foreign Studies University.
Fortunately for translation research in China, there was, after all, a venue
for publication and broad dissemination. Translation Bulletin was originally
launched in 1950 as an internally circulated newsletter primarily for the pur-
pose of exchanging views on practical translation skills among translators,
consisting mostly of university teachers and students, who were assigned a
large amount of translation tasks. Due to popular demand, the journal was
officially published and put on the market in January 1951.4 In the same
year, the editor of Translation Bulletin published an article in the bulletin
entitled “On the Construction of Translation Theory,” explicitly making
the proposal to establish translation studies as a discipline, claiming that
“China has a long history of translation and, in spite of the lack of sys-
tematic theorization, has acquired an abundance of scattered and uncon-
solidated experiences and ideas.”5 This impassioned appeal for theoretical
breakthroughs in translation research in China did not seem to be greeted
with much enthusiasm, probably because it was essentially forward-looking
in nature and suspected to be unpragmatic and wayward. However, the fact
that there existed a venue to publish an article like this one back in 1951 was
decidedly remarkable.
The political upheavals in China inhibited scholarly pursuits. The bulletin

was initiated in 1950, suspended in 1952, resumed in 1953, and closed in
1954.6 Then in 1979, after a long lapse of “hibernation,” Translation Bulle-
tin, this time published by the China Translation & Publishing Corporation,
came out again but did not officially publish anything until the next year, and
it was the only journal devoted to translation research in China at the time.
In 1982 when the Translators Association of China was established, it became
the official journal of the association. And then in 1986, the journal was
renamed Chinese Translators Journal. The landscape of translation research in
China began to take shape. The editorship changed hands several times, and
editorial policies also underwent major changes, not to mention the fact that
the journal ceased to exist for more than two decades. Such a complete lack
of continuity underscores the turbulent nature of the political landscape and
its damaging impact on scholarship. This acutely painful episode in modern
Chinese intellectual history provides an oblique clue to the passion and drive
for translation research, for even under some very loathsome and abject cir-
cumstances, there were people who genuinely cared about translation. Since
its resurrection, the journal has been plainly instrumental in functioning as a
major forum for translation research in China.
In the West, the FIT (Fédération internationale des traducteurs) decided
in December 1954 to establish a journal named Babel—with the support
of UNESCO—which has since become one of the important translation
journals. Its current editor, France de Laet, also attended the conference
held at Jinan University and gave a succinct account of and fascinating
insights into the history of Babel. It is a somewhat ironical twist of fate
that Babel was founded at a time when Translation Bulletin was shut down.
But it would take a long period of time before Chinese translation scholars
began to be aware of the existence of Babel. Such an incredibly long time
lag in academic exchange and communication among scholars—who could
otherwise share their thoughts on important issues related to translation
research and practice—is a poignant reminder of the value and importance
of journal publishing. Again, as in many other areas, China started early
but lagged behind the rest of the world in translation studies but is trying
to catch up by displaying a willingness and enthusiasm to keep abreast with
the latest developments of translation studies and to make its own contribu-
tions to this field of research and practice. The long and laudable struggle by
Chinese translation scholars to explore the inherent nature and complexities
of translation has never abated or weakened.
The opening up of China during the post-Mao period was characterized
by cosmopolitan vision as opposed to the inward-looking Cultural Revolu-
tion. Since then, with passion and enthusiasm, Chinese scholars have begun
6 ● Yifeng Sun
to serve on the editorial and advisory boards of international journals,

including Perspectives and TTR. Some act as editors-in-chief of international
journals such as Journal of Multicultural Discourses, The Journal of World Lan-
guages, and Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies (all published
by Routledge), among others. In addition, Professor Ning Wang has edited
special issues for ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature, Modern
Language Quarterly: A Journal of Literary History, and Neohelicon: Acta Com-
parationis Litterarum Universarum, and so on. Although such progress, by
international standards, appears to be somewhat modest, it has inaugurated
significant and unprecedented breakthroughs, signaling a growing interest
in the practice of apprenticeship in getting involved in international jour-
nal publication. Indeed, Chinese scholars have made tremendous strides in
attempting to go international by developing a higher level of direct engage-
ment with international scholarship and collaboration. This evolving land-
scape of scholarly publishing illustrates the ongoing need for establishing
operating systems optimized for publishing research findings both in China
and internationally.
Today the importance of journal publishing in the shaping of the discipline
of translation studies seems to be particularly pronounced and may be more
widely recognized, as is shown by a veritable explosion of new journals on
translation emerging in the last three decades, which has apparently originated
from the urge to speed up the process of closing the gap between a relatively
new discipline and other, more established disciplines. It is noteworthy that the
editors of most journals on translation are also scholars in their own right, who
are prepared to give their time to serve the cause of developing the discipline
of translation studies. It is usually a job with little or no pecuniary benefits, in
spite of which, however, they are often generous with their time, knowledge,
and advice on submission procedures, sometimes by providing support and
scaffolding. Their invaluable—but often invisible and intangible—contribu-
tion to the advancement of the discipline deserves special appreciation and
acknowledgment. Needless to say, editors can be powerful people who “pro-
vide a legitimation of knowledge by the decisions that are made on what to
print.”7 Editorial policies and decisions are so often linked with responsibilities
and academic vision. As the authors of the chapter “Aims and Scope: Journal
Identity and Twenty-First-Century Scholarly Publishing” in this volume point
out, “The role of a scholarly journal is not merely to reflect the discipline, but
to shape and refine it, helping guide colleagues through the rapidly evolving
context of the twenty-first century.” For a relatively young academic discipline,
active editorship is necessary to promote paradigmatic innovations by encour-
aging authors to open up new areas of research and develop new theoretical
approaches.
From the point of view of journal editors, despite the stated aims and
scope of their respective journals, the issue of journal identity remains a
cause for concern, given the fact that so many journals on translation have
been established over recent years. To maintain a journal’s core identity and
interests is often a prerequisite for its success or survival, while breadth and
representativity not only help to enhance the vitality and well-being of a
journal but also can shape perceptions and prestige of that journal. There
is little doubt that a journal must gain and serve its readers by providing
articles of interest to them. In other words, a journal’s reception is an impor-
tant part of academic publication. But in a changing academic context, the
same group of readers may well read several journals in the field at the same
time, just as the same group of authors contribute to them. Unique jour-
nals are rare; many translation journals overlap, to varying degrees, resulting
from common or shared concerns and interests. Nevertheless, some essential
characteristics of a journal can be attributed to its distinctive approaches to
editorial work in terms of, among other things, its core concerns, with a dif-
ferent emphasis and focus. In addition, whether or how differently themed
special issues are organized can be another indicator. Indeed, some distinctive
features are already showing themselves in the creation of special forums in
some translation journals for scholars from various disciplinary backgrounds
and perspectives to engage in debates over a particular topic. Such in-depth
and focused discussions can combine insights from different areas of research
to confront and shed light on some of the challenging issues typically associ-
ated with translation studies.
There is, however, a larger identity issue to be addressed that concerns the
interdisciplinarity seemingly inherent in the discipline of translation stud-
ies. The rapid development of the discipline has been generated by leverag-
ing the insights gleaned from neighboring or other related disciplines. As
Mairi McLaughlin puts it, “Today, translation studies is a vast interdiscipline
extending from the arts and humanities through the social sciences to com-
puter science.”8 As stated at the outset, scholars publish articles on translation
studies in many other journals as well. Where is our field going? Admittedly,
translation studies lacks a stable and coherent disciplinary identity and is not
so well represented. It seems that a lack of disciplinary identity has caused
considerable concern, since the parameters of translation scholarship are not
well defined. Many readers unfamiliar with the field know something about
translation, mainly because it has influenced practically all humanities dis-
ciplines, but they may not be clear about what translation studies actually
entails. Is a stronger disciplinary identity necessary? In reality, in the case
of translation studies, disciplinary boundaries, if anything, can only inhibit
knowledge generation, and thus they should be negotiable, to the advantage
8 ● Yifeng Sun
of disciplinary growth and innovation. Nevertheless, the construction of a

unified disciplinary identity, if at all possible, can indeed make the discipline
considerably more robust and much less volatile.
In China in recent years, for instance, some scholars believe that transla-
tion studies has gone astray, deviating from the proper direction of the dis-
cipline. In the general preface of a series of books on translation published
by Shanghai Yiwen Press in 2005, the two general editors write in an over-
wrought tone:
In introducing various theories into translation research, there is a tendency for

[the discipline] to be swallowed or annexed [by these theories]. At first glance,
the domain of the discipline is expanding, but in the process of translation mov-
ing from peripheral to central, there is a latent danger of losing its own position.9
This posits a timely, if somewhat alarmist, caution to translation scholars in

response to the changed and changing landscape of translation studies in
its new disciplinary context. It can be argued that the core of the disciplin-
ary identity remains intact, and there seems little evidence to suggest that
this lack of disciplinary identity can hinder the further development of the
field. Interdisciplinary and multidimensional approaches to the discipline
will enable it to gain more of a sense of empowerment and further enhance
its profile.
Central to the success of any academic journal is the peer review system
and also the quality of such reviews. Academic journals rely on scholars
serving as readers who are often generous with their time and advice, and
sometimes they give authors very detailed feedback to help them improve
their submitted articles. Although the peer review practice is not devoid of
its intrinsic problems, it is still hitherto the most reliable way to ensure qual-
ity, and it can afford opportunities to offer guidance and advice. Peer review
can be peer help, because in many cases, reviewers are also authors, which is
essentially constitutive of the code of practice as an integral part of the aca-
demic community. Due to its anonymous nature, the system allows for frank
and honest opinions and views, otherwise unlikely to be provided in the same
candid manner. Thus, the peer review practice is another important, though
almost invisible, form of communication between a journal “represented” by
the invited reviewers and its authors. In a way, this channel of communica-
tion is a subterranean forum for the sharing of knowledge and insights.
Rejection is part of academic life, and young beginning scholars should be
prepared to get used to it. The option offered by a given journal for substan-
tial revision is often a blessing in disguise. The revision process is a wonderful
opportunity to fix problems and improve the overall quality of a given paper.
Leo van Lie, the late editor of The Modern Language Journal, spoke of his own
experience as a well-established researcher in a surprisingly candid way:
To be honest, I have had several rejections and demands for fundamental revi-
sions just this last year, so it seems that I still need peers to give me guidance. I
am glad that I can still accept their guidance and that, at the same time, I can
give guidance to others.10
This statement encapsulates the essential struggles that most scholars face
with regard to academic publishing. Unfazed by setbacks, Van Lie managed
to turn them into gains with admirable equilibrium, but what he experienced
in that year should be understood as the norm of academic professionalism.
This only eventuates in a meaningful learning process in which academics
learn to play the serious game of learning more about how knowledge is
advanced and disseminated.
The chapters in this volume are divided into two distinct parts, plus an
introductory chapter that is essentially an overview of various general issues
underlying journal publication in relation to the development of translation
studies, with particular reference to the impact of academic publication on
the situation in China. Each part consists of a series of chapters. The first
part represents writings by journal editors to discuss issues directly related to
the editing and publishing policies and processes of reviewing and publish-
ing articles. The chapter by Valerie Henitiuk and Carol O’Sullivan is full
of practical advice to those who intend to contribute to academic journals.
They also highlight some of their important initiatives in inviting scholars
to focus on certain topics. Some of their special issues are of guiding func-
tions. Diversity in its manifold and varied manifestations is clearly displayed
and exemplified in its editorial principle. The lengthy chapter by Ping Yang
intends to provide a fairly compressive coverage of various aspects of transla-
tion studies in China. As the flagship journal of the Translators Association
of China, it has witnessed many controversies about what constitutes transla-
tion studies or translation studies with distinctive Chinese characteristics, as
well as serious doubts about the usefulness of translation theory. The chapter,
however, offers much more than a history of the journal in relation to its
haphazard and desultory origin and growth. It sketches a prescriptive account
of the paradigmatic shifts in research methodology in the field of translation
research in China, often in response to, and in some cases in sync with, new
theories or paradigms from the West.
Sue-Ann Harding, representing The Translator, a well-established journal
on translation studies, traces its history associated with its special feature
of systematically publishing special issues on a wide range of themes over
10 ● Yifeng Sun
the past several years, with a conscious effort to publish articles that bring
about a better understanding of some understudied research topics. Also, it is
committed to innovation by presenting a diversity of scholarly viewpoints in
order to advance the discipline both theoretically and empirically. Similarly,
the authors of the chapter on the conception of Asia Pacific Translation &
Intercultural Studies, an emergent international journal, affirm the nature and
value of diversity and of different cultural expressions. Although primarily
designed for translation scholars in the Asia-Pacific region, the journal is by
no means geographically confined; its scope is broad enough to incorporate
contributions from other parts of the world. By underlining the importance
of negotiating difference and developing plurality during the complex process
of intercultural communication, the journal has enjoyed an auspicious start,
and the recent high download figures of the articles published in the journal
are encouraging, providing clear evidence that the journal is going in the
right direction. The last chapter in Part II shows a less rosy picture regard-
ing Shanghai Journal of Translators, which, though based in Shanghai, exerts
considerable national influence on translation research and practice. As the
author puts very bluntly, he intends to embark on “a frank critique” of the
current scholarship and research culture in China. The country is changing
in many ways, and its higher education is also undergoing what seem to
be endless transitions and profound transformations. Scholars, particularly
the younger ones, are under immense pressure to publish. This has yielded
some less than desirable results: many papers of dubious quality have been
produced and submitted to the journal. The author refers to his agonizing
personal experience as the editor of the journal, who has to grapple with
problems of all types and complexities. Acutely aware of his responsibilities
as a journal editor, he is determined to perform the vital role of an academic
gatekeeper so that good-quality research will benefit from academic rigor.
The second part includes chapters with regard to publishing in academic
journals from the point of view of contributors and other chapters providing
insight into translation research. In general, it aims to satisfy the needs of
potential authors to find out more about how journals of translation operate
in real life, so that their chance to get their articles accepted can be improved.
A diversity of theoretical perspectives and methodologies to address issues
of concern for translation scholars and perhaps also other humanities schol-
ars is produced in this part. Each chapter begins with a brief introductory
paragraph, followed by detailed analyses of the materials presented, usually
with supporting examples. In sum, interdisciplinary approaches to various
translation problems are shown to be essential to gaining better under-
standings of the nature of such problems. The chapter by Xiaohua Jiang,
for instance, undertakes an in-depth study of eco-translatology, which has
been well publicized and promoted, and which attracted a fairly large follow-
ing in China, particularly among graduate students. This chapter canvasses
the trajectory of its development and some of the problems concerning its
application. Most of the chapters in this part are, in a wide sense, primarily
exploratory and experimental in nature, bristling with animated debates over
a wide range of issues, including translation of modernist poetry, crowdsourc-
ing translation in China, and subtitling in Hong Kong.
It is well recognized that the routine nature of scholarly publication
assumes the form of journal publication, which offers a timely reporting of the
latest research findings. There exists a mutual dependence between journals
and authors, which is vital to the survival and success of journals. Needless
to say, the reputation of a journal is contingent upon the academic quality
of its published papers. The extended triangular interaction between edi-
tors, reviewers, and contributors is the backbone of a journal. Many journals
on translation studies foster research that moves between different spaces of
knowledge to bring about scholarly innovation and to promote creative disci-
plinary cross-fertilization. These journals provide fledgling scholars and early
career researchers in the field with opportunities to develop their academic
careers, which will in turn ensure the sustained production of new knowledge.
The development of the discipline of translation studies requires widened par-
ticipation of not only young scholars in the field but also scholars from other
disciplines. These scholars, by incorporating a plurality of complementary per-
spectives, will bring in and develop new methods appropriate to the expanded
scope of the field. The manifestations of the discipline are multifaceted, and
the discipline should be more open-minded about different perspectives and
approaches. Through the catalytic and stimulating role played by journals on
translation studies, the discipline stands a good chance of continuing its devel-
opment. And we have reason to believe that the changing academic landscape
not only challenges but also prompts and enriches further research on the
manifold nature and various aspects of translation, the result of which may
offer a prospect for a more exciting and better established discipline.
Notes
1. Can Huang and Yilin Wu, “Sure Bet or Mirage? On the Chinese Trajectory in
Nanotechnology,” in Shyama V. Ramani (ed.) Nanotechnology and Development: What’s
in It for Emerging Countries? (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 132.
2. Li Li, “Advantages of University Journals in China,” Learned Publishing, Vol. 18,
No. 3 (July 2005), pp. 188–189.
3. Yang Liu, “Strategies for Developing Chinese University Journals through a Com-
parison to Western Academic Journal Publishing,” Serials Review 38 (2012), p. 76.
12 ● Yifeng Sun
4. Nicolai Volland, “The Birth of a Profession: Translators and Translation in Mod-

ern China,” in Hsiao-yen Peng and Isabelle Rabut (eds.), Modern China and the
West: Translation and Cultural Mediation (Leiden: Brill, 2014), p. 143.
5. Qiusi Dong, “On Building Our Translation Theories” (translated by Zaixi Tan),
in Leo Chan (ed.), Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, Issues
and Debates (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 2004),
p. 225.
6. Zaixi Tan, “Translation Studies in China: Retrospection, Introspection and
Prospection,” Chinese Translators Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, p. 7.
7. Philip G. Altbach, The Knowledge Context: Comparative Perspectives on the Dis-
tribution of Knowledge (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987),
p. 177.
8. Mairi McLaughlin, “Translation Studies,” French Studies, Vol. 68, No. 3 (2014),
p. 377.
9. Boren Zhang and Jun Xu, “General Preface,” New Series on Translation Studies
(Shanghai: Yiwen Press, 2005), p. 3.
10. Leo van Lier, “Merits and Metrics in Journal Publishing,” The Modern Language
Journal, Vol. 94, No. 4 (2010), p. 658.
References
Altbach, P. G. (1987). The Knowledge Context: Comparative Perspectives on the Distri-
bution of Knowledge (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).
Dong, Q. (2004). “On Building Our Translation Theories,” in L. Chan (ed.), Twen-
tieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, Issues and Debates (Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.).
Huang, C., and Y. Wu (2014). “Sure Bet or Mirage? On the Chinese Trajectory in
Nanotechnology,” in S. V. Ramani (ed.), Nanotechnology and Development: What’s
in It for Emerging Countries? (Delhi: Cambridge University Press).
Li, L. (2005). “Advantages of University Journals in China,” Learned Publishing, Vol.
18, No. 3.
McLaughlin, M. (2014). “Translation Studies,” French Studies, Vol. 68, No. 3.
Tan, Z. (2012). “Translation Studies in China: Retrospection, Introspection and
Prospection,” Chinese Translators Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4.
Van Lier, L. (2010). “Merits and Metrics in Journal Publishing,” The Modern Lan-
guage Journal, Vol. 94, No. 4.
Volland, N. (2014). “The Birth of a Profession: Translators and Translation in Modern
China,” in H. Peng and I. Rabut (eds.), Modern China and the West: Translation
and Cultural Mediation (Leiden: Brill).
Yang, L. (2012). “Strategies for Developing Chinese University Journals through a
Comparison to Western Academic Journal Publishing,” Serials Review 38.
Zhang, B., and J. Xu (2005). “General Preface,” New Series on Translation Studies
(Shanghai: Yiwen Press).
PART I
The Role of Journals

CHAPTER 1
Aims and Scope: Journal Identity

and Twenty-First-Century Scholarly
Publishing
Valerie Henitiuk and Carol O’Sullivan
Scholarly Journals and Today’s Publishing Context

Academic journals1 have existed in the West for several centuries. The earli-
est appeared in 1665: the Journal des sçavans (later, Journal des savants) was
first, coming out in France in early January, with the English Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society following only two months later.2 An Ital-
ian journal, the Giornale de’ letterati, appeared as early as 1668, the German
Acta eruditorum Lipsiensium in Leipzig in 1682, and the Russian Monthly
Works (Yejem'yesyatchniya Sotchineniya), published by the Academy of Sci-
ences, some eighty years later in 1755.3 Both of the very early French and
British journals mentioned here, interestingly enough, continue (despite the
occasional interruption)4 to be published today.
Such longevity is not the norm. Journals typically come and go, falling
in and out of fashion; it is not uncommon for those once considered to be
leading publication outlets to slip into irrelevance, or to encounter challenges
that may be economic (e.g., lack of a stable funding source) or political (e.g.,
censorship). The rapid nineteenth-century expansion in the number and
range of scholarly “transactions” or journals reflects that period’s boom in
fields of inquiry,5 typically established around an academic society existing
for the purposes of circulating learned papers orally and in print, and often
having impact well beyond their typically restricted memberships.6 Although
the actual circulation of many journals aimed at a given scholarly field or
profession may be restricted, this fact belies their significance. While it may
16 ● Valerie Henitiuk and Carol O’Sullivan
no longer be easy to argue, given the current highly sensitive debate around
matters of open access, especially to publically funded research, that “anyone
working in a particular field generally subscribes to them or at least has access
to them in appropriate libraries,”7 journals do remain fundamental to the
scholarly publishing model.
Recently, we have seen another great proliferation of journals,8 and
the rather startling point has been made elsewhere that fully “one-third
of all peer-reviewed academic journals currently in print” were founded
after the year 2000 (Brienza 2015, 141). The journals specifically address-
ing our own field are all relatively new, of course: although Babel and
Meta have been publishing since the mid-1950s, others such as Target,
Perspectives, or The Translator have been around only since 1989, 1993,
and 1995, respectively; many more were founded in these first years of the
twenty-first century.9 The success, indeed survival, of any scholarly jour-
nal depends on numerous factors, and today’s fraught publishing context
demands that editors be cognizant of what specific niche their journal
fills (or hopes to fill); how their journal chooses to make content available
to readers; as well as whom their journal is intended to serve, whether as
authors or readers.
Importance of a Clear Identity

We have, since 2012, served as editor-in-chief and associate editor of Trans-
lation Studies, which is published three times a year by Routledge/Taylor &
Francis.10 Our journal was founded in 2008 by Kate Sturge and Michaela
Wolf, who served as its first coeditors, with a view to filling a perceived gap
in the discipline. There were already at that time various long-standing and
highly esteemed journals catering to translation studies (TS) scholars, includ-
ing many that are discussed in the pages of this volume, but Sturge and Wolf ’s
proposal to Routledge was for a cutting-edge and explicitly cross-disciplinary
journal that could broaden the conversation among various constituencies,
especially into the area of cultural translation (see below).11
The aims and scope of our journal have not changed since its inception.
These are defined clearly on our website and inside each issue, namely, “This
journal explores promising lines of work within the discipline of Translation
Studies, placing a special emphasis on existing connections with neighboring
disciplines and the creation of new links.”12 The aim and its implications are
elaborated as follows:
The journal aims to extend the methodologies, areas of interest and conceptual
frameworks inside the discipline, while testing the traditional boundaries of
Aims and Scope ● 17
the notion of “translation” and offering a forum for debate focusing on histori-
cal, social, institutional and cultural facets of translation. (Ibid.)
By claiming the disciplinary field as a whole with its title, it is clear that the
founders were ambitious regarding the impact that this new periodical could
or should be able to achieve through an inclusive representation of view-
points and specializations. An explicit invitation is made to those who might
enrich the field in all of its potential subsets:
In addition to scholars within Translation Studies, we invite those as yet unfa-

miliar with or wary of Translation Studies to enter the discussion. Such scholars
include people working in literary theory, sociology, ethnography, philosophy,
semiotics, history and historiography, theology, gender studies, postcolonial-
ism, and related fields. The journal supports the conscious pooling of resources
for particular purposes and encourages the elaboration of joint methodological
frameworks. (Ibid.)
This goal of fostering mutually enriching dialogue across disciplines, and of

thereby helping TS to grow and establish itself more firmly, has been achieved
through the wide-ranging contributions to our journal from scholars identi-
fying themselves as both within and without TS proper. Nonetheless, in part
because TS (like other disciplines in the humanities) has a long, pervasive
tradition of sole-author publishing, we believe that we are still missing oppor-
tunities for the truly fertile collaborations among scholars as well as across
disciplines and traditions that could be offered through coauthored papers.
Such joint publications could help overcome some of the barriers faced by
scholars writing, as we recognize, not only in an acquired language but also
in an acquired tradition of academic discourse, and therefore we, as editors,
would be very pleased to see greater inroads here. (See below for a broader
discussion of the varied forms joint authorship could conceivably take.)
With the exception of our journal’s first and second years, we have pub-
lished three issues annually. While most are general and open, one per year
is a special issue prepared by a guest editor who is a leading or emerging
expert in the subdiscipline in question; there is not infrequently a guest edit-
ing team. Our past themes have been as follows:
● Volume 2.1 (2009)—The Translational Turn (guest edited by Doris

Bachmann-Medick)
● Volume 3.2 (2010)—Contemporary Perspectives on Translation in Turkey
(guest edited by Elif Daldeniz)
● Volume 4.2 (2011)—Poetry and Translation (guest edited by Lawrence
Venuti)
● Volume 5.2 (2012)—Rethinking Methods in Translation History (guest

edited by Carol O’Sullivan)
● Volume 6.2 (2013)—Global Landscapes of Translation (guest edited by
Angela Kershaw and Gabriela Saldanha)
● Volume 7.2 (2014)—The City as Translation Zone (guest edited by
Sherry Simon and Michael Cronin)
As we write this article, final preparations are being made for special issue 8.2
on Orality and Translation, edited by Paul F. Bandia.
These themed issues have proven extremely popular, and demand for slots
is intense: already we are booked up through the end of this decade. Forth-
coming themes include explorations of the nature of TS research in specific
regions (echoing the early interest in Turkey above) such as Translation in
Wales: History, Theory, and Approaches (guest edited by Judith Kaufmann,
Helena Miguélez-Carballeira, and Angharad Price; due out in 2016) or
Translingualism and Transculturality in Russian Contexts of Translation (to be
guest edited by Julie Hansen for 2018). We also address varied topics that
are of cutting-edge interest or that have received less attention than they
deserve, such as Indirect Translation: Theoretical, Methodological and Termino-
logical Issues (which Alexandra Assis Rosa, Hanna Pięta, and Rita Bueno Maia
are collectively guest editing for 2017) or Social Translation: New Roles, New
Actors? (to be guest edited by Julie McDonough Dolmaya and María del Mar
Sánchez Ramos for 2019).
It has been and remains important that contributors bring varied perspec-
tives to the given topic, and thus that they be drawn from diverse contexts
and institutions. Accordingly, although the seed for many of these special
issues is often planted during a specific conference or the development of a
unique research project, we explicitly encourage the involvement of schol-
ars well beyond the more intimate circle of any of the editors involved, by
circulating calls for papers as broadly as possible. Obviously, such CFPs can
be found from time to time in our printed journal, but they are also use-
fully promoted through a dedicated page on our website that allows the full
range of topics to be seen at a glance (and indirectly helps ensure that would-
be guest editors are made aware of the necessarily lengthy time frame for
publication).13
The book reviews editor is essential to many journals, and ours is no excep-
tion. For Translation Studies, this position has, since 2014, been ably filled by
Piotr Blumczyński of Queen’s University Belfast. We strive to publish reviews
of what are likely to be the most influential books in our discipline, but we
also seek out volumes of potential importance to our readership that might
otherwise pass unnoticed. A particular interest is to identify stimulating
books published outside of the major markets, and especially those dealing
with languages, cultures, or translation traditions that may be less well known
in Western European and North American circles. In a bid to remain current,
but not less importantly for space considerations, our preference is to review
books that have been out no longer than three years. We may make occa-
sional exceptions to this policy, for example where a particular book seems to
us to be important yet somewhat unfairly passed over.
One of the disadvantages of academic publishing—even in the case of
journals that produce new issues every few months—is the time lag between
submission and publication. Further, the very format of a scholarly article can
serve to discourage the dialogue that we all ostensibly seek when publicizing
our research. There has been much recent debate about the value of nontradi-
tional venues such as blogs or social media tools, such as Twitter, to facilitate
academic collaboration and prompt engagement, and to develop an active,
highly responsive “community of scholars” (Hitchcock 2014, n.p., emphasis
in original). While we as editors hold firmly to the necessity of rigor in aca-
demic publishing, it is also our view that the journal’s mandate must include
fostering lively as well as timely dialogue within the confines of our pages.
Accordingly, Translation Studies has long carved out a prominent space for
our unique and uniquely valuable “Forum.” For this provocative and explic-
itly interdisciplinary feature, we invite an established TS scholar to write a
position paper of some five thousand words—a substantial piece of writing,
but not as long as a regular article—on a topic that we feel is emerging as
important, controversial, or simply of particular interest or currency. We then
commission other colleagues, a mix again of established and emerging schol-
ars, ideally from different parts of the world and with different training and
areas of expertise, to respond in approximately two thousand words. Readers
are invited to submit their own responses (in practice, unfortunately, this
typically doesn’t happen). At least two rounds of responses (involving any-
where from two to five scholars) are published, with the later group encour-
aged to engage wherever possible with not only the original provocation, but
also the previous respondents. Our goal is to see full-length articles by others,
inspired by the Forum conversation, eventually submitted (which has indeed
proven to be the case).
This popular feature was inaugurated in 2009–10, when over a dozen
scholars, beginning with Boris Buden and Stefan Nowotny, addressed the
topic of cultural translation. As mentioned previously, this exploration of
how to define and understand the cultural practice of transfer is among the
topics for which we as a journal are best known (as of March 2015, the
pieces in this first Forum dialogue have together been accessed online over
six thousand times). Initially intended to appear “irregularly,” our Forum
has in fact held pride of place in roughly two out of three issues each year.
Translation and Censorship appeared in 2010–11, based on a position paper
by Piotr Kuhiwczak, followed by Translation and History, responding to a
position paper by Christopher Rundle. The current editors have continued
this practice, seeing through publication of a full three rounds on Translation
and Migration (Loredana Polezzi et al.)14 and two rounds on Universalism in
Translation Studies (Andrew Chesterman et al.).15 In the latter case, in a bid to
promote the dialogue even further, we began a new tradition for this feature
by offering Chesterman the opportunity to respond to his respondents. In the
current year (2015), the Forum theme has been Translation and the Ideology
of Conquest, based on a provocation written by historian Vicente L. Rafael
and responded to by Tarek Shamma, Harish Trivedi and Luise von Flotow;
the second round is currently in development—as should be evident, we con-
tinue to seek a mix of perspectives, whether cultural, geographical, linguistic,
or otherwise, and to involve both expected and perhaps unexpected voices.
Our forthcoming Forum (opening in issue 9.1, to be published in 2016)
will deal with Translation and Material Culture, based on a position paper by
Karin Littau (who in fact authored one of our most widely read articles, “First
Steps Toward a Media History of Translation”—see Littau 2011).
Other individual articles published in Translation Studies that have proven
especially popular among our readership, based on the number of views each
has received online (see the next section for an explanation of our publishing
practice and how we make optimal use of our website), include “Translators
and Translation Technology: The Dance of Agency” (Olohan 2011); “Film
Remakes: The Black Sheep of Translation” (Evans 2014); “Antoine Berman’s
Way-Making to Translation As a Creative and Critical Act” (Massardier-
Kenney 2010); “Knowing One’s Place: Travel, Difference and Translation”
(Cronin 2011); and “How Do We Count a Language? Translation and Dis-
continuity” (Sakai 2008). These varied titles should suggest in even more
detail the scope of what Translation Studies publishes, namely what our read-
ers can and should expect when they consult our journal.
Importance of Online Platforms

A major, indeed groundbreaking and paradigm-shifting, development in
academic journal publishing in recent years has been the shift to online
environments—it is impossible to ignore the fact that we live and work
in a digital age. Working with such a major publisher as Taylor & Francis
provides access to a range of support and services allowing us to function
relatively seamlessly as both a print and a digital resource. Since 2013, all
submissions to our journal are made through an online platform known
as ScholarOne Manuscripts. Potential contributors create an account and

upload their work. This electronic system allows for more efficient tracking,
the automatic setting of (and enforcement of ) deadlines, and so on. (Schol-
arOne will be discussed in more detail below.) Further, once an article has
been accepted to Translation Studies and is fully copyedited and finalized,
there is no longer any need to wait until it can be published in a hard-copy
issue. Original articles, book reviews, and Forum contributions are pub-
lished immediately online through the iFirst system with a DOI (digital
object identifier). The advantages to our authors are obvious: iFirst allows
their work to be immediately consulted by readers and cited by them. As
and when the editors are preparing each issue, these already pre-published
pieces simply get “assigned” to a given issue and, for the online version, are
subsequently moved from the “Latest Articles” section to the “Current Issue”
section of our website.
There is, naturally, a great deal of debate engendered around the fact of the
rapidly (although not rapidly enough for some) evolving publication models
in the academy (not so ironically, much of this is online).16 Criticizing what
she terms a perceived “prestige deficit” of newer venues for circulating research,
Rohan Maitzen suggests that we might want to “consider whether there are
other goals in academic publishing (particularly related to work in progress or
collaboration) or other values (such as open access) that are better served by
non-traditional forms including blogging” (2013, n.p.). She convincingly (if a
trifle testily) argues that researchers should be asking ourselves “what forms of
publication best serve the multiple goals and interests that motivate us to write
and publish in the first place,” and acknowledging that as the goals are diverse,
“so too . . . should be our styles and outlets” (ibid.). Maitzen is firmly of the
opinion that blogging not only should but also increasingly does have “a place
in the overall ecology of academic scholarship” (ibid.). Tim Hitchcock concurs,
noting in July 2014 that “these forms of social media are rapidly evolving into
the places where the academic community is embodied. They are doing the job
of the seminar, and the letters page. They are where our conversation is happen-
ing” (Hitchcock, n.p.). While there surely is inherent value to what has been
called “the advancement of knowledge via discourse,” despite the indisputable
fact that we academics can be “more than culpable for . . . barbed comments”
(Tattersall 2014, n.p.), our own view is that ensuring editor-reviewed and non-
anonymous comment can go a long way to avoiding the pitfalls associated with
Internet “trolling,” etc.
As Andy Tattersall has noted in his discussion of post-publication peer
review, only certain papers get published and, for those that do, “the cycle
of conversation between peers [tends to] end [. . . with journal publica-
tion], unless the research is discussed at an event such as a conference
or appears in the media, where comments can be easily left” (Tattersall

2014, n.p.). Of relevance here is a new development, made possible by
our journal’s pre-publication system, that will appear for the first time
in Translation Studies in issue 8.3. An original article by Anthony Pym
and Nune Ayvazyan that had been published online in October 2014
provoked an unsolicited written response from another scholar. We sub-
sequently invited Pym to respond in turn, and in early March 2015 we
published these two responses online under a new header of “Critiques and
Responses.” (Once the relevant issue is prepared, they will be published
immediately following the article that prompted them.) This is, in our
view, a very healthy way to foster timely dialogue and debate on matters
relevant to our discipline, helping to keep the academic journal-enforced
“style and form [from] severely limit[ing] the audience for it and the con-
versation we can have about it” (Maitzen 2013, n.p.), and to encourage
greater readerly engagement with the full-length, formal articles we pub-
lish. Innovative use of technologies such as iFirst may well help scholarly
journals counter the sort of intellectual dead end that may be dictated
by the still widespread traditional publishing model, and promote help-
ful ongoing dialogue, while the extended academic response format and
maintenance of the editor’s gatekeeping function overcome some of the
problems of prestige suggested above. Accordingly, although very real bar-
riers such as publisher-enforced paywalls continue to exist, we very much
hope that this experience will be repeated, indeed strongly encouraged,
along with future developments in open access.
Importance of Broad Geographical and Cultural Coverage

The role of a scholarly journal is not merely to reflect the discipline, but also
to shape and refine it, helping guide colleagues through the rapidly evolving
context of the twenty-first century. Our journal prides itself on publishing a
wide-ranging selection of articles, striving for the greatest possible diversity:
geographical, cultural, linguistic, temporal, and so on. Translation Studies
as a discipline has been (rightly) criticized in recent years for its historical
Eurocentric bias. As editors, we are aware of how easy it is to fall into the trap
of publishing the same scholars, from the same parts of the world (especially
the UK and North America) and the same institutions—especially when we
ourselves have tended to receive our training, and be familiar with the work
being produced, in these very places. Accordingly, Translation Studies explic-
itly encourages submissions from new or emerging scholars, those based in
countries that have been less well represented in the field to date, and those
from different traditions.
The original editorial team for our journal was England- and Germany-
based, while the team taking over the reins in 2012 originally included an
associate editor and a book reviews editor based in Hong Kong and the USA,
respectively, working alongside the England-based editor-in-chief and asso-
ciate editor. Our editor-in-chief is now located in Canada and our current
reviews editor in Northern Ireland. Ideally, future iterations of this edito-
rial team will eventually include additional colleagues coming from outside
the countries and traditions currently represented, but it is admittedly chal-
lenging to build a fully diverse team given the demands of publishing an
English-language journal and the needs for ease of communication (e.g., if
too many of us are based in disparate time zones, this wreaks havoc with
scheduling of the necessary Skype calls). In any case, as will be evident from
the list of special-issue guest editors provided above, we have already been or
are presently collaborating very closely with scholars from Canada, England,
Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the USA, and Wales,
and a glance at our recently published articles will reveal the involvement of
scholars from even farther afield.
Beyond the core editorial team, the journal relies greatly on the contribu-
tions and guidance of an Editorial Board, comprising a half dozen senior
scholars in the field, as well as a larger International Advisory Board. Their
memberships have remained relatively stable since the journal was founded,
although a few alterations in the lineup have unavoidably occurred. Notable
among these changes was the recent sad demise of Martha Cheung. We (and
by “we” is meant not only the team at Translation Studies but of course the
field as a whole) lost a major player in making East Asian traditions better and
more fully integrated into our disciplinary discussions, not to mention a gen-
erous and ever-gracious colleague. Miriam Shlesinger’s passing in 2012 like-
wise deprived us all of a brilliant, tireless mentor, whose influence throughout
so many aspects of the discipline will be felt for years to come. Especially in
the early years, our Board colleagues have assisted in shaping the new journal,
having been selected precisely for the broad interests and areas of expertise
they could bring to the table, inevitably helping direct the way forward. Both
bodies advise us on a wide range of matters and contribute invaluably to such
essential activities as reviewing submissions, writing Forum pieces and origi-
nal articles, editing special issues, and helping promote the journal among
what have proven to be very expansive professional circles around the world.
Individual submissions or original articles to our journal come in from
major names in TS but also from lesser-known scholars as well as newly
minted PhDs. Although Translation Studies publishes only in English, we
very much value the use of sources (both primary and secondary) in other
languages. And while book reviewers are selected primarily for their expertise
in the subject matter being written about, we are equally keen to ensure geo-
graphic diversity here as well, along with a mix of established and emerging
scholars.
Actually publishing such a diversity of work is significantly more difficult
than it may sound. Our journal does need to impose some sort of unity of
style and standard of scholarship. It also needs authors to be familiar with
the discipline and able to demonstrate a knowledge of the seminal texts, as
well as a distinct mastery of the relevant theories. Further, because space is
limited (as are our resources for offering extensive editorial direction and
guidance), we not infrequently find ourselves unable to accept some promis-
ing submissions. For example, student work, even by talented postgraduate
students, rarely makes the initial cut. And there is simply no time to take on
those submissions that do not already demonstrate a solid (if not necessarily
native) grasp of English grammar, syntax, and spelling. Some of the specific
challenges in this area are detailed in the following sections of this chapter.
Practical Publishing Concerns

The associate editor’s role is principally to oversee the review and, upon
acceptance, copyediting of articles for the open issues, though she is also
generally involved at different times with other aspects of journal activity. The
editor-in-chief has the responsibility for liaising with guest editors of special
issues. This section will discuss some of what are, for us, the most interesting
issues that come up during this process, and takes the liberty of offering some
suggestions for prospective authors and potential referees.
The evaluation of submitted articles is something both editors are involved
with. We should say that articles are not automatically submitted for peer
review. Articles must pass a quality evaluation to be submitted for review;
there needs to be clear evidence that, even if revision is likely to be required,
the article has a significant contribution to make.
There are certain patterns that we have noticed over the few years since we
began editing the journal. The website sets out the journal’s aims and scope,
which, as discussed earlier, are designed to make the journal distinctive but
also to ensure a certain coherence and the maintenance of what to us are
important lines of dialogue in the discipline. It is strongly recommended
for prospective authors to familiarize themselves with our journal’s aims and
scope before submission, since regrettably we are obliged to reject, out of
hand, articles that do not match these.
We very much appreciate authors adhering to the word count stipulated
on the journal website. The recommended length for an original article is
eight thousand words, including notes and references, although exceptions
to this rule are occasionally made, for instance when images make an article
otherwise longer in pages than our norm. In any case, we as editors seek not
to be draconian in the application of the word length guideline, although we
do find it helpful and productive of better articles overall to impose the dis-
cipline of a limit. (Interestingly, articles often get longer in the course of revi-
sion, as referees suggest additions to or clarifications of the argument; they
tend to get shorter in copyediting, which often results in slightly leaner, more
streamlined articles. For a book review, we aim for fifteen hundred words,
although in the case of a double review (or a particularly complex book),
two thousand words will be allowed. All reviews are by commission only, to
ensure unbiased comment.
The Role and Function of Peer Review

All submissions to Translation Studies are sent out for review by at least two
referees, in a strictly double-blind process. As mentioned above, we use the
online manuscript management platform ScholarOne Manuscripts. It took
us a little while to get used to using this sometimes rather impersonal system,
as opposed to the relative spontaneity, subtlety, and variability of traditional
email interaction (and the irony of thinking of email as quaint and old-
fashioned is not lost on us). However, we have found that the system greatly
simplifies this time-consuming process, providing templates for inviting
reviews, thanking referees, sending out automated reminders of deadlines,
and so on. One of the biggest advantages of the system is that it stores all of
the history and correspondence of all interactions with authors, which helps
streamline publication and, where necessary, refresh memories about earlier
stages of a submission.
Once the reviews come in (the process takes at least a couple of months,
and sometimes more, as referees’ availability is necessarily limited), the associ-
ate editor makes her own recommendation to the editor, who then renders
the final decision. If, however, the referees have very different opinions of an
article (and this is not unusual), it may be necessary to send the article out
for a third review before a decision can be reached and communicated to
the author. Referees are given a choice of recommendations: Accept, Minor
Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject and Resubmit, or Reject. Only very rarely
would a simple decision of Accept be rendered; almost every article requires
at least some degree of revision. Articles are often declined at this stage as
well, where in the view of the referees and the editors (or the author, who
may opt to withdraw a submission), the work required is too substantial to
be undertaken. Authors are occasionally advised to rethink their argument,
do more secondary reading, or familiarize themselves with more current
research of relevance to their topic. In some cases, authors might be advised
to consider writing collaboratively with another scholar. This is something

that does not happen a great deal in the arts and humanities, which still puts
a high premium on the sole-authored work, but here we might well learn
from the sciences, where multiple-author publishing is the norm. There are
many instances where dual or multiple authorship makes sense in arts and
humanities scholarship. Traditionally, we might think of instances where a
young scholar is being mentored by a more experienced scholar, with input
from both into a project; or where additional English-language expertise is
needed in order to present innovative and interesting research effectively. But
arts and humanities research is increasingly engaging with larger-scale empiri-
cal projects involving teams of researchers. In this scenario, joint publica-
tion would be the norm. In an environment where the digital humanities are
likely to play an increasingly important role, such coworking is also likely to
result in joint publications. One of the major challenges of research in arts,
humanities, and social sciences today, and one of the explicit interests of our
journal, is the dialogue between and across disciplines; we therefore welcome
jointly authored submissions from researchers with complementary disciplin-
ary backgrounds.
The referees or peer reviewers themselves are an essential and fundamental
part of journal publishing. This is unremunerated work, undertaken out of
collegiality, goodwill, and the wish to promote the discipline; we work with
a large pool of peer reviewers with an extremely broad range of expertise,
and we warmly appreciate the time that they all put into their work, often
when their time is very limited. One of the features of our journal, because
of its interdisciplinary nature and broad geographical coverage, is that we
may approach referees from quite different disciplinary backgrounds for a
given article; we continue to learn a huge amount from our referees, and we
find that the combination of different perspectives is also very helpful to our
authors when revising their work.
Because we are occasionally approached by less experienced or early-career
scholars asking for advice on the peer review process, it occurred to us that it
might be helpful, in an article like this, to give some suggestions for scholars
just beginning to act as peer reviewers. There is already very good, concise
advice out there for prospective referees: for instance, the Violent Metaphors
blog published quite a detailed post in 2013 about peer review in the sci-
ences, which is followed in the comments by an interesting discussion (Raff
2013). Some valuable points are also provided by Brian Lucey of Trinity Col-
lege Dublin in a piece in the Guardian newspaper from the same year (Lucey
2013). We don’t intend to duplicate this advice here, but it may be worth
making some further observations from our own perspective. We find reviews
particularly helpful where referees
● Engage with the core argument(s) of the article, irrespective of whether

the referee finds the article weak or strong.
● Are constructive. It may help to think of the most useful review one has
received oneself, and what its characteristics were.
● Consider whether the article speaks to the journal’s core concerns, in
light of the journal’s published aims and scope (and bearing in mind
our interdisciplinary interests).
● Give examples of individual elements that need editing. The referee’s
role is not to copyedit, so an exhaustive list, while perfectly acceptable,
is not required. As journal editors, we much prefer a review that focuses
on argument, structure, method, engagement with the relevant litera-
ture, and so on.
● Write more than a few lines. It is difficult to engage with an academic
argument meaningfully in a few lines, though we have seen excellent
reviews that in as little as half a page elegantly encapsulated a thor-
ough reading of the article and suggested the most important revisions
needed. One thing to bear in mind when writing a review is whether
this is the level of engagement that you would like to receive for an
article that you had submitted to a journal.
There are practical considerations as well that may make a referee’s life easier,
such as the trick of saving a copy of the review as a Word file and pasting
from that into the review form. Many journals are now using online submis-
sion platforms such as ours for reviews. Making a safety copy of the review
may save frustration in the case of a browser freeze, connectivity failure, or
crash.
To some extent, our observations about the scholarly work of editing
a journal are conditioned by our own (current or recent) context of aca-
demic work, namely the UK. For the last three decades, the United King-
dom has had a national audit of published research best known under the
label Research Assessment Exercise. It has been very controversial and has
gone through a number of transformations in recent years (most recently to
become something called the Research Excellence Framework). We do not
have any brief here to defend this particular system of evaluating academic
work and assigning research funding. The relevance of the RAE/Research
Excellence Framework to the point we wish to make is the criteria used to
assess written research “outputs” (detestable word!): the books, articles, book
chapters, and other productions of scholarly researchers.
The three criteria are “originality,” “significance,” and “rigor.” While they
originate from a particular national context, they are an attempt to define
what excellence is in academic publishing and research at an international
level, and as such we find them useful as a point of reference. These defini-
tions are from the guidelines for panel D of the 2014 Research Excellence
Framework (panel D covers modern languages and linguistics, including
translation).17 Originality is defined as
a creative/intellectual advance that makes an important and innovative contri-

bution to understanding and knowledge. This may include substantive empiri-
cal findings, new arguments, interpretations or insights, imaginative scope,
assembling of information in an innovative way, development of new theoreti-
cal frameworks and conceptual models, innovative methodologies and/or new
forms of expression. (REF 2012, 88)
Significance is defined as “the enhancement or deserved enhancement of

knowledge, thinking, understanding and/or practice.” Rigor is defined as
“intellectual coherence, methodological precision and analytical power; accu-
racy and depth of scholarship; awareness of and appropriate engagement with
other relevant work” (ibid.).
In other words, has it been done before? Has it been, or has it the poten-
tial to be, influential? And if the answers are no and yes, respectively, has it
been done as well and as stringently as it could possibly have been done?
The reviewing and copyediting that constitute so much of journal work are
unlikely to have any effect on the originality of academic work, or indeed on
its significance, except inasmuch as the overall quality of an article dictates to
some extent that article’s significance. It is the third criterion, rigor, that can
be most obviously affected by the peer reviewing and copyediting processes,
which both speak to the intellectual precision of the work and to the degree
to which the methods used are systematic.
The Role of Copyediting in the Preparation of Academic

Manuscripts for Publication
Authors of journal articles will have experienced the “waterfall of comments
and corrections, arranged in the nearly illegible coloured formatting of Micro-
soft Word’s ‘Track Changes’ function” (Mulholland 2014, 228) that emerges
at the copyediting stage. Copyediting is an unsung business; Jeffrey Lever
speaks of “that rather invisible, little regarded and very forgettable figure, the
academic (copy) editor” (Lever 2006, 62). It is proper that the copy editor
should be invisible; their role is as a support to the publication of authors’
research. At the same time, the labor involved, for author and copy editor,
is significant enough for the resulting article that it is worth considering at
greater length.
First of all we must make a distinction between the academic copy editor
and the publisher’s copy editor. Copyediting, following Wates and Campbell
(2007, 126), was originally the province of printers, but it was taken over
by publishers about the middle of the twentieth century. Quoting Butcher’s
standard Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-Editors and Proofreaders, they
set out the purpose of copyediting as to
remove any obstacles between the reader and what the author wishes to convey,
and also to save time and money by finding and solving any problems before
the book [or journal] is typeset, so that production can go ahead without inter-
ruption. (Ibid.)
Publishers employ copy editors to work on finalized manuscripts in order to

ensure that they conform to the publisher’s house style.
The role of an academic copy editor is rather different. The academic copy
editor works with the author to finalize the manuscript prior to the submission
of the final article to the publisher. Both scholarly editors and copy editors
have the task of ensuring “consistency and clarity” (Mulholland 2014, 227),
though the academic copy editor is looking to the consistency and clarity of
the argument, while the publisher’s copy editor tends to be more focused on
matters of house style (partly because, at our journal at least, other matters
have been resolved before the article’s final submission to the publisher). The
Chicago Manual of Style offers helpful distinctions between different types of
editing (CMS 70–71). Copyediting, also known as line editing or manuscript
editing, is carried out by the publisher (CMS 70). “Mechanical editing” (ibid.)
is what is often referred to as style editing. What we do as editors is mostly
what the CMS calls “substantive editing,” which “deals with the organization
and presentation of content. It involves rewriting to improve style or to elimi-
nate ambiguity, reorganizing or tightening, recasting tables, and other remedial
activities.” It may address “problems of organization, presentation and verbal
expression” (CMS 71) to the extent that these have not already been dealt with
at an earlier stage. In rare cases this editing may sometimes cross over at some
points into what the CMS refers to as “developmental editing” (CMS 70).
In The Editor’s Companion, Janet Mackenzie notes that she asks of each
sentence in the book “whether the sentence adds to the clarity of the book,
is situated in the right place, is written in a way that is comprehensible, and
functions in an orderly fashion with the writing that surrounds it” (quoted in
Mulholland 2014, 227). This seems to us an excellent summary of how schol-
arly editing is undertaken. If the answer to one or more of these questions
is no, then the expression of the article, in which inheres its argument, will
have to be amended. The result is that, to paraphrase Mulholland (ibid., 228)
copyediting is “not merely the correction of grammatical issues but another

opportunity to rewrite” an article. His copy editor, for instance, “removed
significant amounts of signposting and other descriptive accounts of my
argument” (ibid., 229).
Wates and Campbell, in their study of the added value of publishers’
copyediting, do not differentiate between the two stages of copyediting.
They refer to a single “copy-editing function” (2007, 122). This involves “an
experienced copy-editor reading through the author’s version of the article
and applying journal-specific style as well as checking for sense, grammar
and internal consistency” (ibid.). This is “obviously . . . only one part of
the production process, which includes a range of additional functions such
as tagging, linking, image processing and general quality control” (ibid.).
Interestingly, the average number of copy queries per article identified by the
Wates and Campbell study is nine, with most queries (42.7 percent) relating
to references. This seems to us a rather small number of queries, consistent
with the idea that these articles would already have been through a more or
less intensive process of substantive editing focusing on argument, structure,
and wording.18
Scholarly copyediting is a rigorous, often very time-consuming labor. The
Chicago Manual of Style, while acknowledging that time required for editing
varies widely, suggests that a 100,000-word book manuscript edited by an
experienced editor may take 75 to 100 hours of work in the first instance
(CMS 71). This very rough calculation of an hour per thousand words is
in keeping with our own experience of editing. The labor may include fact-
checking, identifying weaknesses in the argument, and helping to shape and
sharpen the argument.19 What this means in practice, of course, is that copy-
editing is a (sometimes) heavily normalizing practice. This is an issue we take
seriously. Our journal is one with a fully international reach, and the stan-
dards we apply are international standards for scholarly excellence, but we are
aware that scholarly traditions and academic registers vary widely between
cultures (cf. Siepmann 2006). Some scholarly traditions have achieved greater
international traction than others. The dominance of EAD (English Aca-
demic Discourse) has been studied by many scholars, including Karen Ben-
nett in translation studies, whose important work on Portuguese and English
academic discourse (notably Bennett 2007) has argued for the insidious role
of English Academic Discourse in domesticating academic discourses origi-
nating in other languages and cultures, and indeed in colonizing those aca-
demic discourses through translation. We feel that copyediting should strike
a balance between accommodating the author’s own design of the article and
meeting what we understand to be the requirements and expectations of
scholarly academic discourse in our discipline. It may be useful again to refer
to the definition of “rigor” provided above: “intellectual coherence, method-

ological precision and analytical power; accuracy and depth of scholarship;
awareness of and appropriate engagement with other relevant work” (REF
2012). We follow a tradition of argumentation that expects clarity in a line of
argument, but it is worth emphasizing that clarity and elegance do not have
to be mutually exclusive. There is an increasing emphasis in the discipline on
methodological awareness; this does not have to be reductive and scientistic,
but it reflects our interest as positioned subjects not only in the ideas under
discussion but also in the systems, structures, and assumptions underlying
research. The importance of depth of scholarship is one of the reasons why
subject expertise is very important at the review stage; both the review and
copyediting stage offer authors opportunities for the enhancing of depth of
scholarship and for greater engagement with previous work.
Advice for Authors

We are aware that scholars put an enormous amount of work into preparing
submissions to journals and that journal publication is an important element
in a research career. Accordingly, we felt it could be helpful to offer one or
two suggestions that will be particularly relevant to scholars who are relatively
new to journal submission. There is a lot of advice on our journal website and
indeed on the Web (Lucey 2013; Davies 2014; Fargotstein 2013), but some-
times more informal tips can be useful. It seemed to us that the readership
of this book was also likely to include colleagues who are involved with aca-
demic editing and journal publishing; we hope these suggestions may chime
with their own experience.
We very much agree with Leah Fargotstein’s observation that authors who
receive reviews of their articles should respond “certainly not the next day, or
even week. Revisions take time, and editors know this” (2013). Editors give
deadlines for revisions. If an editor says an author has six months to rethink
an article and resubmit (in the case of a desk reject) or revise an article after
review, this means that major revisions are required to make the article pub-
lishable. We also agree with Fargotstein that “if you think you won’t be able
to meet the deadline, ask for an extension and explain the circumstances”; we
would like to add to this suggestion that it may not be helpful to respond too
quickly to a request for major revisions. If an article for which major revisions
have been requested is resubmitted within a week or two, the editors may feel
skeptical about the rigor with which the revision has been undertaken.
We applaud the thoughtfulness with which authors usually respond to
referees. Our online publishing platform asks authors to respond explicitly,
when resubmitting an article, to the referees’ feedback. A holistic response is
best; it can be easy to focus on the specific local issues identified by referees,
but it is also helpful when authors consider the overall level of confidence
expressed by the referees in the general approach taken by the article, the
quality of the argumentation, and the soundness of the conclusions.
While we warmly welcome interdisciplinary work, it can happen that an
author writing outside Translation Studies addresses debates or questions that
have been extensively discussed by translation scholars. We thus encourage
authors submitting from outside the discipline of Translation Studies to be
aware of and explore relevant work by scholars working in our discipline,
referencing them as appropriate.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have sought to present our journal, Translation Studies, by
describing its unique features as well as its particular approach to publishing
interdisciplinary academic work related to translation, ideally arising from a
range of contexts and traditions around the globe. We have outlined our use
of online platforms, as examples of the new digital context within which all
academics now live and work. By also discussing some practical publishing
concerns, we have sought to inspire greater understanding, and ideally more
dialogue, around the logistics involved in the process of scholarly journal
publication, as well as to offer some guidance to those newer to the field.
Notes
1. According to EBSCO guidelines, “scholarly journals” are peer-reviewed, while
“academic journals” serves as the broader term for all periodicals aimed at aca-
demics (see Brienza, ft. 10).
2. See http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/revue/jds, accessed March
6, 2015; and http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/about#question6, accessed
March 6, 2015. Intriguingly, it has been suggested that “there may have been
published material similar to a magazine in antiquity, especially perhaps in
China” (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/482597/history-of-pub
lishing/236528/The-role-of-the-press#toc28680, accessed March 7, 2015)—
although beyond the scope of this chapter, this is an area of research that could be
very worthwhile for East-West knowledge exchange.
3. See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/482597/history-of-publishing/
236528/The-role-of-the-press#toc28680, accessed March 7, 2015; and The Ency-
clopedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences and General Literature, Vol. 18,
p. 543 (Henry G. Allen Company, 1890)—Google ebook available at https://
books.google.ca/books?id=SdJGAQAAIAAJ&dq=russian+monthly+works+175
5&source=gbs_navlinks_s, accessed March 8, 2015.
4. Publication of the French journal described above was suspended between 1792
and 1816, and as a public-sector funded periodical, it almost met its demise
around the turn of the twentieth century (see http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/
home/prescript/revue/jds, accessed March 6, 2015).
5. “Numerous learned societies were formed in such fields as classical studies, bibli-
cal studies, archaeology, philology, Egyptology, the Orient, and all the branches
into which science was dividing, and each society published a regular bulletin,
proceedings, or “transactions,” which enabled scholars to keep in touch with what
others were doing. In the sober pages of these journals, seldom read by the general
public, some of the most far-reaching discoveries were first made known” (http://
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/482597/history-of-publishing/28690/
Scholarly-journals, accessed March 7, 2015).
6. For a brief but helpful description of this history, see http://www.britannica
.com/EBchecked/topic/482597/history-of-publishing/28690/Scholarly-jour
nals, accessed March 6, 2015.
7. See http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/482597/history-of-publishing/
28690/Scholarly-journals, accessed March 7, 2015.
8. For an in-depth exploration of the rapidly shifting realities of scholarly publish-
ing today, with a focus on some of “the conditions under which scholarship . . .
can—and increasingly cannot—circulate” (Striphas 2010, 4), complete with
helpful statistics, see Striphas 2010.
9. There are currently some 122 publications listed on the journal list maintained
by the European Society for Translation Studies (which list happens to be curated
by one of the coauthors of this article); see http://www.est-translationstudies.org/
resources/journals_index.html.
10. The online version can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rtrs20/
current#.U6dei7HhUvI.
11. For a discussion of academic journal typology (namely arguing for distinctions
to be made between journals “of record,” “of transformational activism,” and
“of professional legitimation”) and its implications, building on Toby Miller’s
2001 distinction between “journals of tendency” and “journals of profession,” see
Brienza 2014.
12. See http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&
journalCode=rtrs20#.VNax9S7lyh8, accessed February 7, 2015.
13. See http://explore.tandfonline.com/cfp/ah/rtrs-cfps.
14. This Forum includes a significantly diverse range of contributors. First-round
responses came from Leslie A. Adelson, Şebnem Bahadir, and Boris Buden;
second-round responses (in 2013) from Michael Cronin, Edwin Gentzler, and
Andrea Pagni; and third-round responses (also in 2013) from Tina Steiner, Anitta
Svensson, Rita Wilson, and Yasmin Yildiz.
15. The contributions to this Forum also were wide-ranging. First-round responses
came from Rita Kothari, Ronit Ricci, Maria Tymoczko, and Judy Wakabayashi;
second-round responses from Kathryn Batchelor, Siobhán McElduff, Douglas
Robinson, and Şebnem Susam-Saraeva.
16. See, for example, Dunleavy 2014.

17. See http://www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/panelcriteriaandworkingmetho
ds/01_12_2D.pdf for the full panel D criteria.
18. The omission of any mention of substantive editing before submission to the
publisher is consistent with Wates and Campbell’s focus on the added value of
the publisher’s contribution to academic journal publishing. Nevertheless we find
it a little surprising, especially as their corpus includes at least some journals from
the humanities and social sciences, which suggests that disciplinary differences in
publishing practices may not account for the omission.
19. As part of our copyediting work, we pick up referencing queries too, and we
amend for reasons of house style, but we are confident that the Routledge copy
editors will be able to pick up anything of this nature that slips past us.
References
Bennett, K. (2007). “Epistemicide! The Tale of a Predatory Discourse,” The Translator
13(2), pp. 151–169.
Brienza, Casey (2015). “Activism, Legitimation, or Record: Towards a New Tripar-
tite Typology of Academic Journals,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 46(2), pp.
141–157. DOI: 10.3138/jsp.46.2.02.
Chicago Manual of Style (2010). The Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for
Writers, Editors, and Publishers, 16th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Cronin, Michael (2010). “Knowing One’s Place: Travel, Difference and Translation,”
Translation Studies 3(3), pp. 334–348.
Davies, Simon (2014). Blog post. “Academic Journals: Tips for the Submission Pro-
cess.” Online at http://sussexresearchhive.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/academic-jour
nals-tips-for-submission.html, accessed March 21, 2015.
Dunleavy, Patrick (2014). Blog post. “All Academic Books Must Go Digital.” Online
at https://medium.com/advice-and-help-in-authoring-a-phd-or-non-fiction/all
-academic-books-must-go-digital-c81b2a8312c, accessed March 7, 2015.
Evans, Jonathan (2014). “Film Remakes: The Black Sheep of Translation,” Translation
Studies 7(3), pp. 300–314.
Fargotstein, Leah (2013). Blog post. “9 Publishing Basics for Anyone Submitting
to a Scholarly Journal.” Online at http://connection.sagepub.com/blog/sage
-connection/2013/11/05/9-publishing-basics-for-anyone-submitting-to-a-schol
arly-journal/, accessed March 21, 2015.
Hitchcock, Tim (2014). Blog post. “Twitter and Blogs Are Not Add-Ons to Academic
Research, but a Simple Reflection of the Passion That Underpins It.” Online at
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/07/28/twitter-and-blogs-aca
demic-public-sphere/, accessed March 7, 2015.
Lever, J. (2006). “Editing African Social Science: Some Reflections and Suggestions,”
Africa Media Review 14(1–2), pp. 61–71.
Littau, Karen (2011). “First Steps Toward a Media History of Translation,” Transla-
tion Studies 4(3), pp. 261–281.
Lucey, Brian (2013). Blog post. “Peer Review: How to Get It Right—10 Tips”
(September 27). Online at http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education
-network/blog/2013/sep/27/peer-review-10-tips-research-paper, accessed March
5, 2015.
Maitzen, Rohan (2013). Blog post. “Blogging: Accept No Substitutes!” Online at
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/novelreadings/blogging-accept-no-substi
tutes/, accessed March 7, 2015.
Massardier-Kenney, Françoise (2010). “Antoine Berman’s Way-Making to Translation
As a Creative and Critical Act,” Translation Studies 3(3), pp. 259–271.
Mulholland, James (2014). “What I’ve Learned about Publishing a Book,” Journal of
Scholarly Publishing 45(3), pp. 211–236.
Olohan, Maeve (2011). “Translators and Translation Technology: The Dance of
Agency,” Translation Studies 4(3), pp. 342–357.
Raff, Jennifer (2013). Blog post. “How to Become Good At Peer Review: A Guide
for Young Scientists” (December 13). Online at http://violentmetaphors
.com/2013/12/13/how-to-become-good-at-peer-review-a-guide-for-young-scien
tists/), accessed March 5, 2015.
REF (2012). Part 2D, “Main Panel D Criteria.” Online at http://www.ref.ac.uk/
media/ref/content/pub/panelcriteriaandworkingmethods/01_12_2D.pdf,
accessed March 21, 2015.
Sakai, Naoki (2008). “How Do We Count a Language? Translation and Discontinu-
ity,” Translation Studies 2(1), pp. 71–88.
Siepmann, D. (2006). “Academic Writing and Culture: An Overview of Differences
Between English, French and German,” Meta 51(1), pp. 131–150.
Striphas, Ted (2010). “Acknowledged Goods: Cultural Studies and the Politics of Aca-
demic Journal Publishing,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 7(1), pp.
3–25.
Tattersall, Andy (2014). Blog post. “Let’s Dissect Post-Publication Peer Review.”
Online at http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2014/11/lets-dissect-post-publica
tion-peer-review/, accessed March 7, 2015.
Wates, E., and R. Campbell (2007). “Author’s Version vs. Publisher’s Version: An
Analysis of the Copy-Editing Function,” Learned Publishing 20, pp. 121–129.
CHAPTER 2
Translation Studies in Contemporary

China: Retrospect, Reflection,
and Prospect
Ping Yang
I
n 1972, James Holme presented his seminal paper “The Name and
Nature of Translation Studies,” which has been “generally accepted as
the founding statement for the field” (Gentzler 2001, 93). Over the past
four decades, translation studies has developed into a thriving discipline with
expanding boundaries and strong theoretical foundations.
As the first specialized journal and one of the leading Chinese journals
in the field of translation research, Chinese Translators Journal has closely
witnessed and actively contributed to the shaping and reconfiguring of the
disciplinary area of translation studies in China. With a brief chronicle of
the history of the journal, this chapter reviews some of the most influential
articles published in it over its thirty years of publication, assesses the extent
to which they engendered paradigm shifts in translation studies in China,
highlights some of the current issues of interest in the field, and provides
reflections upon prospects and potential of the discipline.
History of Chinese Translators Journal

Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) is the official publication of the
Translators Association of China. Having witnessed and benefited from China’s
open door policy, the journal was initially launched as a trial project in 1979.
Regular publication ensued a year later, and the journal was then titled Transla-
tion Bulletin (˪侣嬗忂妲˫) before it changed to its current name in 1986 to
better reflect its role within the Translators Association of China and its stand-
ing in the Chinese scholarly community.
38 ● Ping Yang
For over thirty years, the journal has been dedicated to scholarly inquiry
into many aspects of translation, including issues such as translation theory
and practice, training and pedagogy in translation, and the scope and struc-
ture of translation studies as a discipline in its own right. Additionally, it
has hosted a number of panels and symposia, translation competitions, and
training programs. In many aspects, Chinese Translators Journal has played a
prominent role in promoting research on translation and furthering the disci-
plinary development of translation studies in contemporary China.
Shifting Paradigms of Translation Studies in Contemporary China

The term “paradigm,” according to the philosopher of science Thomas
Kuhn, refers to “an accepted model or pattern” shared by researchers, espe-
cially in intellectual disciplines (Kuhn 1970, 23). It is the “disciplinary
matrix” that provides guidelines for research. A “scientific revolution” takes
place in a paradigm shift, where the old model or pattern of research is
trumped by a new one, and it is “within the new paradigm [that] old terms,
concepts, and experiments fall into new relationships one with the other”
(Kuhn 1970, 149).
Translation studies, in its modern sense, has undergone significant para-
digm shifts in its relatively brief history. The “new paradigms” or “shifting
viewpoints,” as Mary Snell-Hornby says (2006), generate an intrinsic drive
for disciplinary evolution. Over the past several decades, translation studies
in China has also gone through considerable transformations in terms of its
research questions and methodology. Taking Chinese Translators Journal as
a window to the wider picture of this fledging discipline in China, the fol-
lowing discussion examines a number of influential articles published in the
journal at different times and broadly divides them into three categories of
paradigm: linguistic, cultural, and interdisciplinary.
The Linguistic Paradigm ( from the 1980s to the Mid-1990s)

Alongside China’s reform and opening-up initiatives, the 1980s witnessed
an upsurge of both economic and cultural exchanges between China and the
outside world. In academic circles, there was a large-scale translation program
of Western theories and methods, which provoked enthusiastic curiosity as
well as heated debates among Chinese scholars. The emergence and growth of
translation studies as a discipline in China was closely linked with an influx
of Western translation theories in the early 1980s. The linguistic theory of
translation was the first to gain wide acceptance within the circle of transla-
tion scholars.
Translation Studies in Contemporary China ● 39
While it would be unwise to fetter the scope of translation studies by

any rigid definition, it is certainly true that translation involves language
and consequently can legitimately and reasonably be regarded as a linguis-
tic activity. In the seminal paper “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation,”
Russian-American structuralist Roman Jakobson distinguishes three kinds of
translation: interlingual, intralingual, and intersemiotic. He further points
out that “translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes”
(Jakobson 1959, 233, 114). Following this line of thinking, the linguistic
approach to translation, focusing on issues of meaning and equivalence,
began to emerge and gradually developed into a linguistic paradigm that
ruled the nascent discipline of translation studies in the 1960s and 1970s
(Pym 2007). Among the representative works in this area are studies done by
Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet (1958), Eugene Nida (1964), John C.
Catford (1965), Werner Koller (1979), Peter Newmark (1981), and Albrecht
Neubert (1985).
China has a long history of translation, and there was an abundance of
discussion on the fundamentals and methods of translation. However, most
of the traditional Chinese discourse on translation was deduced from the
translator’s idiosyncratic experience and instinct, and therefore it appeared
more or less “impressionistic, anecdotal and lacking systematic thinking”
(Cheung 2005, 38). The introduction of Western translation theories not
only contributed to a more theoretical awareness among Chinese scholars,
but it also brought the intellectual rigor of scientific inquiry to translation
research in China.
In the early 1980s, sporadic introductions of Western translation theories
began to appear in China. Chinese Translators Journal was among the first to
make consistent efforts to elaborate and clarify these theories and to ground
them in a Chinese context. In the first issue of Translation Bulletin (the pre-
decessor of Chinese Translators Journal ) in 1982, Zongyan Wang 䌳⬿䀶, a
renowned linguist and a pioneering scholar in Chinese translation research,
published an article called “Peter Newmark on the Theory and Craft of Trans-
lation” (䲸楔⃳婾侣嬗䎮婾␴侣嬗㈨ⶏ). The fourth issue of the same year
carried an article written by Zaixi Tan 嬂庱╄, which offered a brilliantly
concise but detailed review of Nida’s Towards a Science of Translating. To give
further explanation of Nida’s sociolinguistic approach to translation research,
Tan subsequently wrote another article, “Nida on the Nature of Translation”
(⣰忼婾侣嬗䘬⿏岒), which appeared in the first issue of Translation Bul-
letin in 1983. These papers, bringing in Newmark’s concepts of semantic
and communicative translation and Nida’s notions of formal equivalence and
dynamic equivalence, significantly expanded the academic horizon of transla-
tion studies in China.
40 ● Ping Yang
Likewise, Chinese Translators Journal made one of the first efforts to intro-
duce Russian linguists and their works on translation to Chinese academia.
The sixth issue of Translation Bulletin in 1982 carried Cai Yi 哉㭭’s article
“The Linguistic School of Translation Theory: An Introduction to Leonid
Barkhudarov’s Language and Translation” (侣嬗䎮婾䘬婆妨⬠㳦——ṳ
䳡⶜䇦傉忼伭⣓䘬˪婆妨冯侣嬗). It not only provides a summary of
Barkhudarov’s discussions on translation transformations and semantic cor-
respondences, but it also expounds a distinction between the linguistic and
literary schools of translation theory. This distinction was soon picked up by
Chinese translation scholars and was subsequently converted into a series
of debates on topics ranging from the ontological question as to whether
translation is an art or a science, to the dichotomy of translation theory vs.
practice, to the essential divergences between Chinese and Western thinking
about translation. The debates, to put them in a somewhat oversimplified
manner, are concerned with, on the one hand, a seemingly strong desire to
apply Western linguistic approaches that take translation as something that
can be studied scientifically and systematically, and on the other hand, the
literary—and perhaps also more traditional Chinese—approaches that hold
on to the belief that translation is an art and the study of translation should be
deduced from the translators’ idiosyncratic experiences and practices. While
most Chinese translation researches in this period were still handicapped by a
lack of originality and employing an abundance of quotations from Western
authors, these heated discussions and debates certainly exhibited the emer-
gent dynamics of the discipline of translation studies. From this deluge of
translations, summaries, and adaptations of Western translation theories, and
sporadic commentaries on them, especially those of the linguistic approaches
to translation, translation studies in China found something to model itself
on and gradually initiated the process of gaining its independence as a disci-
pline in its own right.
The Cultural Paradigm ( from the Mid-1990s to 2000)

In the 1990s, translation studies underwent a “cultural turn,” which, as
argued by Susan Bassnett (1998, 132–133), includes an increasing con-
nection and interaction between cultural studies and translation studies. A
number of translation scholars, most notably Susan Bassnett, André Lefevere,
Itamar Even-Zohar, and Gideon Toury, worked vigorously to shift the focus
of translation research from linguistic comparisons between source and target
texts to examining the ways in which culture affects translation. The cultural
paradigm purports to redefine the object of translation as a contextualized
event “embedded within its network of both source and target cultural signs,”
and thereby utilizes the linguistic approach to move out beyond it (Bassnett
and Lefevere 1990, 12). When introduced into China, the cultural approach
to translation stirred great scholarly interest and boosted research efforts in
this area.
Compared with the previous linguistic paradigm, translation studies in
China under the cultural paradigm exhibited a much higher level of original-
ity. Several significant articles in Chinese Translators Journal can be noted as
fine examples of the efforts made by Chinese scholars to incorporate culture-
oriented approaches to the study of translation. Dongfeng Wang 䌳㜙桐’s
“On the Cultural Intervention in Translating” (婾侣嬗忶䦳ᷕ䘬㔯⊾ṳℍ)
in the fifth issue of the Journal in 1998 reviews various intercultural factors
influencing the process of translating and groups these factors into three cate-
gories of intervention: aesthetic, political, and ethical. Drawing examples from
translations between Chinese and English, Wang illustrates how each of these
factors may interfere with translatorial decisions and consequently the final
translation product. In another article, “The Position of Translated Literature
and the Translator’s Cultural Attitude” (侣嬗㔯⬠䘬㔯⊾⛘ỵ冯嬗侭䘬㔯
⊾ン⹎), in 2000, the same author offers a critical reflection on Evan-Zohar’s
polysystem hypothesis, according to which the position of a nation and/or of
translated literature in a given literary system in relation to the source culture
may influence the translator’s choice of strategies, which is usually dichoto-
mized as “domesticating” and “foreignizing.” Based on his observations of the
coexistence of both translation strategies in China since the 1920s and 1930s,
Wang cogently argues that in addition to the objective position of the culture,
translators’ subjective attitudes and personal preferences play an important
part in their selection of translation strategy. Another scholar who made a
substantial contribution to the cultural paradigm of translation studies in
China is Yifeng Sun ⬓喅桐 from Lingnan University, Hong Kong. He writes
profusely on the cultural aspects of translation and published several influ-
ential articles in Chinese Translators Journal, including “Translation Studies
and Ideology: Making Space for Cross-Cultural Dialogue” (侣嬗䞼䨞冯シ嬀
⼊ン烉㉻⯽嶐㔯⊾⮵娙䘬䨢攻) in 2003, “The Diasporic Translator’s Cul-
tural Mission” (暊㔋嬗侭䘬㔯⊾ἧ␥) in 2006, and “Translation and the
Cultural Anxiety Over Otherness” (侣嬗冯䔘岒Ṿ侭䘬㔯⊾䃎ㄖ) in 2007.
These articles, while touching on a variety of issues such as ideology, identity,
and politics, share a similar theoretical ambition to conceptualize translation
as a cultural subject. Chinese scholars in cultural studies and other fields also
joined the discussion to offer different perspectives on the cultural implica-
tions of translation. Ning Wang 䌳⮏’s “Cultural Studies and Translation
Studies in the Age of Globalization” (ℐ䎫⊾㗪ẋ䘬㔯⊾䞼䨞冯侣嬗䞼䨞),
which appeared in the first issue of Chinese Translators Journal at the turn
42 ● Ping Yang
of the millennium, explored the possibility of rethinking translation studies

through the theoretical perspective of cultural studies on the broad horizon
of globalization. This line of discussion was developed and some related issues
further explicated in another of Ning Wang’s papers, “The Cultural Construc-
tion of Translation and the Translation Turn in Cultural Studies” (侣嬗䘬㔯
⊾⺢㥳␴㔯⊾䞼䨞䘬侣嬗⬠廱⎹), published in the sixth issue of Chinese
Translators Journal in 2005. Ning Wang’s proposal of linking translation stud-
ies with cultural studies, though evidently indebted to the writings of Susan
Bassnett and André Lefevere, were of indubitable significance for the method-
ological advancement of translation research in China.
The flourishing cultural paradigm of translation studies in China was the
outcome of an increasing recognition of “Chinese translation studies” or “trans-
lation studies with Chinese characteristics” as a scholarly activity and a branch
of the discipline at large. As early as 1951, Qiusi Dong 吋䥳⿅’s article “On the
Establishment of Translation Theory” (婾侣嬗䎮婾⺢姕) appropriately notes
the emergence of translation studies as a new area of scientific investigation
and calls for the establishment of a Chinese translation studies. The aspirations
toward disciplinary respectability were more clearly demonstrated in Zaixi Tan
嬂庱╄’s “We Must Establish Translation Studies As a Discipline” (⽭枰⺢䩳
侣嬗⬠), published in the third issue of Translation Bulletin in 1987.
While there had been a general consensus on the importance of transla-
tion, the appropriate ways to conduct translation research and the disciplin-
ary status of translation studies in the Chinese context were still of some
debate. With the development of cultural paradigm in translation studies,
many researchers started to view translation as cultural facts and approached
it in a descriptive manner. But not every scholar endorsed this standpoint.
Long Lao ⊆晜, for example, insisted that translation research should always
be pragmatically and empirically oriented. His article “Breaking the Day-
dream of the Science of Translation and Doing More Practical Work” (᷇
㌱⸣゛ĭġ倗专⮎晃——㎕䟜“侣嬗ĩ䥹Ī⬠”䘬徟⣊), which appeared in the
second issue of Chinese Translators Journal in 1996, held the strong view that
translation studies had not yet become an academic discipline and could
hardly ever hope to do so.
In 1999, Chinese Translators Journal set up a special column, “Chinese
Translation Studies in the Twenty-First Century,” to encourage theoretical
discussions and academic debates on translation-related issues in the Chinese
context. Under the patronage of the journal, “Chinese translation studies”
as a specific disciplinary title started to enjoy increasing currency. Serialized
in the first two issues of the special column is a long article, “Thoughts on
Translation Research in China” (ᷕ⚳嬗⬠䞼䨞烉ᶾ䲨㛓䘬⿅侫), written
by Dongfeng Wang 䌳㜙桐. Motivated by turn-of-the-century concerns,
the author reviewed the different routes adopted by Chinese and Western
translation studies and argued that the maturation of the discipline in China
depended more upon the development of robust and systematic method-
ologies than upon the reconnection with the so-called Chinese legacy or
tradition. In “A Critical Review of Chinese Translation Studies: Toward a
Globalized Perspective” (崘↢婌⋨炻嶷忚ᶾ䓴——ᷕ⚳嬗⬠烉⍵⿅冯
⇵䝣) in the first issue of Chinese Translators Journal in 2000, Chunshen Zhu
㛙䲼㶙 expressed a similar view that more rigorous efforts should be taken
to extend the remit of Chinese translation studies, to improve its research
methodology, and to facilitate its interactions with translation studies in
the other parts of the world. In the subsequent issue of the journal, Nam-
fung Chang ⻝⋿Ⲙ’s article “Chinese Translatology and Its Specific Char-
acteristics” (䈡⿏冯ℙ⿏——婾ᷕ⚳侣嬗⬠冯侣嬗⬠䘬斄Ὢ) continued
this line of discussion. Chang rejected a nation-restricted or language-specific
study of translation phenomena as essentially a product of national prejudice
and strongly emphasized the usefulness and necessity of importing Western
theories into Chinese translation research. In the fifth issue of the same year,
Zijian Yang 㣲冒₱ġpublished an article called “Recent Views on Some Issues
in Translation Studies” (⮵嬗⬠⺢姕ᷕ⸦ᾳ⓷柴䘬㕘娵嬀), in which the
author offered a critical review of several important issues in translation stud-
ies, including the name, intention, and extension of the discipline, as well as
the pertinence of traditional theory in current translation research.
During the decade of most rapid growth of the cultural paradigm in trans-
lation research in China, from the mid-1990s to 2000, Chinese Translators
Journal brought together authors of different backgrounds and with varying
perspectives to comment on ways for establishing a coherent and refresh-
ingly new vision of the discipline and its subject matter—that is, translation
as a cultural event rather than as a mere linguistic transfer. There has been a
considerable amount of excellent research conducted by Chinese translation
scholars, as is demonstrated in the articles mentioned above. This could be
seen as a sign of disciplinary maturity, and with that maturity there also has
come the self-confidence and sense of intellectual autonomy that are condu-
cive to the development of Chinese translation studies.
The Interdisciplinary Paradigm ( from 2000 to the Present)

During the past two decades, there has been a radical change in the under-
standing of the nature and scope of translation research. Translation is indeed,
as Basil Hatim sees it, “a multi-faceted activity, and there is room for a variety
of perspectives” (2001, 10). A significant phenomenon in recent translation
scholarship is that with a growing awareness of the heterogeneous nature
44 ● Ping Yang
of translation, there has been a rapid development of research on transla-

tion from different disciplinary backgrounds. The term “translation studies”
is now used to describe “the study of translation in its multi-faceted relation
to the related disciplines of anthropology, linguistics, literary study, psychol-
ogy, history, politics and economics” (Bassnett 2001, 392). With an acute
perception of the pulse of the discipline, Chinese Translators Journal has been
especially insightful regarding its promotion of plurality of perspectives in
translation research.
One of the prominent perspectives on the study of translation at the turn
of the millennium was post-structuralism. Through Walter Benjamin’s essay
“The Task of the Translator” and translation-related commentaries from
post-structuralist thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Paul de Man, post-struc-
turalism has “initiated a radical reconsideration of the traditional topoi of
translation theory,” especially in terms of the conventional binary opposi-
tion between “original” and “translation” (Venuti 1992, 6). Lawrence Venuti,
one of the most influential translation scholars of post-structuralism, takes
translation as a potential site of resistance to cultural subjection, and he
advocates for a foreignizing translation strategy that aims at preserving and
manifesting the cultural specificities of the source text (1995, 20). After being
introduced to China, Venuti’s translation theory attracted the attention of
many scholars and precipitated in-depth analyses and debates. Chinese Trans-
lators Journal provided ample space for such scholarly discussion. In its first
issues in 2000, Jianzhong Guo 悕⺢ᷕ’s “Venuti and His Deconstructionist
Translation Strategy” (杳≒吪⍲℞妋㥳ᷣ佑䘬侣嬗䫾䔍) offered a general
introduction to Venuti’s strategy of resistant translation and commended it
as progressive and future-oriented in the new era of booming international
communications. Following this article, there was a series of subsequent dis-
cussions on Venuti in the Journal, such as Zhili Sun ⬓农䥖’s “China’s Liter-
ary Translation: From Domestication to Foreignization” (ᷕ⚳䘬㔯⬠侣嬗ġ:
⽆㬠⊾嵐⎹䔘⊾) in the first issue in 2002, Xiaoqing Ge 吃㟉䏜’s “Domes-
tication/Foreignization in the Postcolonial Context: A Note of Warning to
Researchers at Home” (䔞⇵㬠⊾/䔘⊾䫾䔍妶婾䘬⼴㬾㮹夾敦——⮵⚳
ℏ㬠⊾/䔘⊾婾侭䘬ᶨᾳ㍸愺), Dongfeng Wang 䌳㜙桐’s “About Domes-
tication and Foreignization” (㬠⊾冯䔘⊾:䞃冯䚦䘬Ṍ扺) in the fifth
issue in 2002, Xiaohua Jiang 哋槵厗ġand Jinghua Zhang ⻝㘗厗’s “A New
Approach to Venuti’s Foreignizing Translation Theory” (慵㕘妋嬨杳≒吪䘬
䔘⊾侣嬗䎮婾——ℤ冯悕⺢ᷕ㔁㌰⓮㥟) in 2007, and Dongfeng Wang
䌳㜙桐’s “Venuti’s and Lu Xun’s Conception of Foreignizing Translation:
A Comparison” (杳≒吪冯欗彭䔘⊾侣嬗奨㭼庫) in the second issue of
2008. At first glance, these articles seem to have focused merely on Venuti’s
dichotomy of “domestication” and “foreignization,” but a closer look would
suggest that Chinese translation scholars have developed a more nuanced and
analytical understanding of Venuti’s proposal, by putting under scrutiny not
only Venuti’s thoughts, but also his theoretical framework, its embeddedness
within the post-colonial context, and its global and local implications.
Aside from and together with post-structuralism, many other theoretical
perspectives—such as sociology, anthropology, feminism, and politics—have
proven valuable in stimulating new ideas and modes of analysis in transla-
tion studies. Several issues of Chinese Translators Journal carried special sec-
tions dedicated to different perspectives in translation research. The fifth
issue of the Journal in 2003, for example, published four articles concerning
translation and ideology, announcing an initiative on an ideology-oriented
approach of translation studies in China. The four articles are Yifeng Sun ⬓
喅桐’s “Translation Studies and Ideology: Making Space for Cross-Cultural
Dialogue” (侣嬗䞼䨞冯シ嬀⼊ンġ: ⯽嶐㔯⊾⮵娙䘬䨢攻), Yougui Wang
䌳⍳屜’s “Ideology and the History of Literary Translation in Twentieth-
Century China” (シ嬀⼊ン冯20ᶾ䲨ᷕ⚳侣嬗㔯⬠⎚1899—1979),
Dongfeng Wang 䌳㜙桐’s “An Invisible Hand: Ideology Manipulation in
the Practice of Translation” (ᶨ晣䚳ᶵ夳䘬ㇳ——婾シ嬀⼊ン⮵侣嬗⮎
嶸䘬㑵䷙), and Xiaohua Jiang 哋槵厗’s “An Ideological Approach to Trans-
lation” (シ嬀⼊ン⮵侣嬗䘬⼙枧ġ: 斉䘤冯㕘⿅侫). These articles shared a
similar concern about the influence of ideology upon translation, and they
explored the intricate connections between ideology and translation embed-
ded in cross-cultural thinking and practice.
The fourth issue in 2004 presented four articles on the feminist approach
to translation: Junping Liu ∱幵⸛’s “Toward an East-West Discourse on
Feminist Translation Studies” (⤛⿏ᷣ佑侣嬗䎮婾䞼䨞䘬ᷕ大娙婆), Lai
Xu ⼸Ἦ’s “‘Rewriting’ in the Name of Feminie—The Significance of Femi-
nism Translation Theory in the Study of the Translator’s Subjectivity” (⛐⤛
⿏䘬⎵佑ᶳ“慵⮓”——⤛⿏ᷣ佑侣嬗䎮婾⮵嬗侭ᷣ橼⿏䞼䨞䘬シ佑),
Jiang Xiaohua 哋槵厗’s “Influences of Feminism upon Translation Theory”
(⤛⿏ᷣ佑⮵侣嬗䎮婾䘬⼙枧), and Jinghua Zhang ⻝㘗厗’s “On the
Contributions and Limitations of Feminist Translation Theory” (⤛⿏ᷣ
佑⮵⁛䴙嬗婾䘬栃央⍲℞⯨旸⿏). Highlighting the issues of difference,
loyalty, betrayal, otherness, politics, and subjectivity in translation, these
articles explored methodological and theoretical implications of feminism
to translation research in the current postmodern and post-colonial context.
Since the “cultural turn” in the 1980s, the study of translation has well rec-
ognized the need to contextualize its object, but the use of specific sociologi-
cal models is a much more recent trend. Inspired mostly by Pierre Bourdieu’s
studies on the social production of cultural goods, sociological approaches
to translation developed rapidly in the past two decades, shedding light on
46 ● Ping Yang
“the various constituents accounting for the involvement of translation in

larger social contexts in general and the social nature of translation in par-
ticular” (Wolf 2007, 337). Liu Yang 㣲㞛’s “Cultural Capital and the Power
of Discourse over Translation” (㔯⊾屯㛔冯侣嬗䘬娙婆㪲≃), published
in the second issue of Chinese Translators Journal in 2003, is one of the earli-
est attempts among Chinese scholars to deploy Bourdieu’s key concepts as
analytical tools in explaining translation-related phenomena. In subsequent
years, there has been ongoing discussion in this area, as prominently featured
in two issues of Chinese Translators Journal. In the fifth issue in 2007 and
the first in 2011, a number of young Chinese translation researchers offered
their views and analyses regarding the sociological approaches to translation.
These articles, including “Pierre Bourdieu and the Theoretical Construc-
tion of the Sociology of Translation” (ⶫ徒⌬冯侣嬗䣦㚫⬠䘬䎮婾⺢㥳)
by Hongman Li 㛶䲭㺧, “Translator’s ‘Habitus’: A New Perspective on
Descriptive Translation Studies” (嬗侭“⿅䵕佺ㄋ”——㍷徘侣嬗⬠䞼䨞
㕘夾奺) by Xing Jie 恊‹, “Translation through a Bourdieusian Sociological
Lens” (⽆䣦㚫⬠奺⹎䚳侣嬗䎦尉:ⶫ徒⌬䣦㚫⬠䎮婾斄挝⫿妋嬨) by
Yuechen Wang 䌳〭㘐, and “Constructing Socio-Translation Studies: Name
and Nature” (⺢㥳“䣦㚫侣嬗⬠”:⎵冯⮎䘬彐㜸) by Hongtao Wang 䌳
㳒㾌, are now among the most widely cited literature on the sociological
approaches to translation in China.
In the new millennium, translation scholars in China presented cutting-
edge research, as is epitomized by the above-mentioned articles from Chinese
Translators Journal. Some of them even ventured out into uncharted terri-
tory such as eco-translatology (see Genshen Hu 2008 and 2011; Wang Ning
2011). The many different perspectives from various fields fed into transla-
tion research, providing strong impetus for disciplinary development but also
giving rise to concerns that the disciplinary focus was too broad. As Jeremy
Munday (2008, 1) reminds us, the current situation reflects “a booming dis-
cipline, or interdiscipline, but also in some ways a divergence of opinion as to
the core subject of study.” For most Chinese translation scholars, however, this
“divergence of opinion” about the boundary of translation studies provided
exciting challenges and opportunities rather than insuperable problems. After
all, coupled with the development of the interdisciplinary paradigm, there
was also an increasing demand for more international collaboration. In “The-
orizing Translatology: Toward an Interdisciplinary Approach” (侣嬗⬠䘬䎮
婾⊾烉嶐⬠䥹䘬夾奺) in the sixth issue of Chinese Translators Journal in
2006, Ning Wangġ䌳⮏ġargued that it is important for translation researchers
to draw on insights from other disciplines and concepts prevalent in different
parts of the world. Wang also commented rather optimistically that non-
Western traditions might facilitate new ways of looking at translation, and
that the field of translation research would offer a breakthrough chance for
China to turn from a “theory consuming” to a “theory producing” country
(2006, 10). Although there was a bit of national pride or even ideological zeal
in such statements, Wang’s argument showed that a new sense of academic
ambition had proliferated among Chinese translation scholars—an ambition
that is essential in enhancing the prospects for the growth of a theoretically
reflexive discipline, an ambition that Chinese Translators Journal has been
aspiring to facilitate.
New Foci in Current Translation Studies in China

After more than thirty years of development, the fledging discipline of trans-
lation studies in China has become an active and significant field of knowl-
edge, capable of upholding its interdisciplinary status as well as developing its
own theories, methodologies, and research tools. From the linguistic to the
cultural to the interdisciplinary, the paradigm shifts of translation research in
China have both emerged from and resulted in a radical expansion of the dis-
ciplinary frontier. The articles published in Chinese Translators Journal in the
past few decades covered a broad range of issues and perspectives, which in
some way reflected the vivacity and diversity of translation research in today’s
China. Several significant new foci evolved out of the many diverse ways in
which translation has been studied. In this paper we look at three areas of
research that are gaining importance in current translation studies in China.
Translation as Industry and Profession

One of the most notable trends in today’s translation research in China is
an expansion from ontological concerns about the “subject” of translation
to more empirical investigations of the “object” of translation as a socially
embedded practice. The above-mentioned paradigms of translation studies,
although different in their research orientations and emphases, can be related
to each other through a common understanding that translation is first and
foremost a textual practice. A fundamental aspect of the study of translation
involves tracing the movement of texts across cultures. In various paradigms,
this movement has been explored as an act of linguistic transfer, a way of
cultural interchange, as well as a complex process of cultural production that
takes place in a variety of political and social contexts.
With developments in information technologies, the explosion of elec-
tronic media, and the process of globalization, boundaries of international
communication were enormously stretched and patterns of knowledge trans-
mission evolved faster than ever before. Translation, as an industry, is today
48 ● Ping Yang
valued for its capacity to deliver, to transfer, as well as to create. Translation

studies in more recent years has shown a significant growth of interest in
the social implications of translation as a practice of information dissemina-
tion and knowledge transfer. In the past few years, especially after the first
decade of the millennium, China has become much more involved in the
international community. The multifaceted role of translation in China’s par-
ticipation in the ongoing process of cultural globalization brought out new
topics of study, such as the reconceptualization of translation process and/
or reevaluations of the nature of the translation product in the globalized
and localized context, the implications of ascendant technologies and global-
ized conditions for pedagogy of translation, the remolding of the translator
profession spurred by customers’ changing demands and expectations, and
the future development of translation as an industry and its involvement
and embedding within the cross-cultural practice of the globalized world.
Obviously, the nature and scope of these topics goes far beyond the textual
frame and calls for a broader research outlook of translation as a social and
professional practice. Chinese translation scholars have already begun on
these topics. A pioneering reflection on the implications of globalization for
translation is Yifeng Sunġ⬓喅桐’s “Cultural Translation and Glocalization”
(㔯⊾侣嬗冯ℐ䎫㛔⛇⊾) in the first issue of Chinese Translators Journal in
2008. The author focused upon issues of cultural location and identity and
reminded us of the importance of indigenous or local knowledge to success-
ful translation.
In response to the fast pace of globalization, the translation industry and
profession have grown dramatically over the course of the current decade.
Chinese Translators Journal has always been at the forefront to observe and
analyze the changing dynamics in the translation industry. Jun Yuan 堩幵’s
“Language Service: A New Positioning of the Chinese Translation Industry”
(婆妨㚵⊁烉ᷕ⚳侣嬗埴㤕䘬ℐ㕘⭂ỵ), in the fifth issue of the journal
in 2012, reviewed the role of translation in Beijing’s acclaimed Olympic
venue and proposed a view of translation as the most important sector in the
language service industry. Ju Miao 剿卲 and Ming Liu ∱㖶’s “Construction
and Translation of Multilingual Websites” (⣂婆䧖䵚䪁⺢姕冯侣嬗) in the
first issue in 2013 investigated translators’ active and versatile involvement
in the task of website construction across language and cultural borders. The
fifth issue of the journal in 2013 carried a special section titled “Translation
and Technology,” offering reflections upon a wide range of issues such as
localization, machine-aided translation, translation project management, and
the implications of technology for translators’ training and education. In a
more recent issue in 2014, Xianzhu Si ⎠栗㞙 and Yazhi Yao ⦂Ṇ剅 viewed
translation as an emerging service industry. In their “An Industrial Economic
Perspective on Translation in China” (ᷕ⚳侣嬗䓊㤕䞼䨞烉䓊㤕䴻㾇⬠夾

奺), the authors drew upon the SCP (structure-conduct-performance) para-
digm from industrial economics to analyze the business dimension of transla-
tion in China.
The above-mentioned studies offer a glimpse of the current research on
translation as a social practice within academia. To understand better transla-
tion’s changing role in the era of globalization, it is also important to keep
in mind that “the translation professional (much more than the translation
theorist traditional) must try to develop an innovative potential of methods
allowing the transmission of knowledge” (Wilss 2004, 85). In this respect,
Chinese Translators Journal made creditable efforts in soliciting views and
ideas not only from scholars in universities and research institutions and from
translator trainers from colleges and vocational schools, but also from those
who actually work in the translation industry. A regular forum on “Trans-
lation Industry and Profession” has been set up to facilitate dialogues and
interactions between translation researchers and practitioners. Collaborative
research projects were carried out between professionals and theorists so as to
work out better solutions to current problems and challenges faced by trans-
lators. Chuanying Wang 䌳⁛劙 and Qiliang Cui Ⲽ┇Ṗ’s “Professional
Training and Certification of Competent Translators and the Development
of Localized Translation Industry” (㛔⛘⊾埴㤕䘤⯽⮵借㤕侣嬗妻䶜⍲
➟㤕娵嫱䘬天㯪) in the fourth issue of 2010 is a good example of such
collaboration.
The Outward Translation of Chinese Literature

During the twentieth century, China has witnessed unprecedented attempts
at sociocultural rejuvenation and modernization through the introduction of
Western learning. There has been abundant research on the essential role of
translation in enriching the literary landscape and forming the modern Chi-
nese literary canon (Sun 2008), in shaping Chinese culture and society (Lin
2002), and in the larger project of making a Chinese modernity (Liu 1993).
The focus of these researches, however, fell almost exclusively on translation
of foreign knowledge into Chinese, while the translation of Chinese literature
into other languages remained a largely under-researched area.
In recent years China’s economic ascendance and political transition
garnered worldwide attention. In view of China’s economic success and its
increasing political weight on the world stage, there has been a growing ambi-
tion for cultural attainment and expansion among Chinese scholars. Xianlin
Ji ⬋佐㜿, the late Peking University professor, coined the term “send-out-
ism” (songqu zhuyi 復⍣ᷣ佑) to emphasize the urgent need for China to
50 ● Ping Yang
“send out” the essence of its culture to the rest of the world by means of trans-
lation. There was also the view that Chinese literature should make greater
effort to “go out” of its native linguistic and cultural borders so as to reverse
“the imbalance in East-West cultural interchanges” (Wang 2000, 303). The
past decade showed a significant upsurge in the translation of Chinese litera-
ture, and this “outward” translation boom has attracted the keen attention of
Chinese academia.
Back in the early 1990s, scholars pointed out the importance of introduc-
ing Chinese culture and literature to the world. This was made explicit in the
title of an article written by Chongyin He 屨ⲯ⭭ for the first issue of China
Translators Journal in 1991—“It Is High Time for Us to Emphasize Trans-
lating Chinese Into Foreign Languages” (慵夾㻊嬗⢾㬌℞㗪䞋). In light
of China’s rising role in the international arena, the author argued that we
need to put more emphasis on outward translation so as to better represent
China to the outside world. Indeed, behind many outward translation proj-
ects, there was a similar perception or expectation of translation to be a vital
means of making China and its culture more visible internationally. Ideo-
logical concerns were always among the primary themes in related researches.
With the promotion of a governmental policy labeled “Chinese Culture
Going Global,” there were quite a number of articles featuring this national
cultural strategy in Chinese Translators Journal. In one article in the sixth issue
of the journal in 2007, Martha P. Y. Cheung, the editor of An Anthology of
Chinese Discourse on Translation, reviewed her editorial decisions in compil-
ing Volume One of the Anthology and proposed to see discourses on transla-
tion as a site for negotiating cultural politics and translation as a strategically
imperative cultural endeavor in strengthening China’s soft power. In the sixth
issue of 2010, Fang Gao 檀㕡 and Jun Xu 姙懆’s “Literary Translation and
China’s ‘Going-out’ Cultural Strategy: Current Situations, Existing Problems
and Suggestions for Improvement” (䎦䉨ĭġ⓷柴冯⺢嬘——斄㕤ᷕ⚳㔯⬠
崘↢⍣䘬⿅侫) provided an overview for this cultural strategy and its chal-
lenges for Chinese intercultural scholars and practitioners. The same issue
of the journal also featured Anjiang Hu 傉⬱㰇’s article “Translator Model,
Translating Strategy, and the ‘Going Out’ Project to Promote Chinese Litera-
ture Abroad: With American Sinologist Howard Goldblatt As an Exemplar”
(ᷕ⚳㔯⬠“崘↢⍣”ᷳ嬗侭㧉⺷⍲侣嬗䫾䔍䞼䨞——ẍ伶⚳㻊⬠⭞吃
㴑㔯䁢ἳ), in which the author called for adopting the Sinologist’s model
and domesticating strategy in the effort of translating Chinese literary works
in general and contemporary ones in particular. Drawing on Homi Bhabha’s
theory of cultural translation, Ning Wang 䌳⮏’s “Translation and the Relo-
cation of Cultures” (侣嬗冯㔯⊾䘬慵㕘⭂ỵ) in the second issue of 2013
urged Chinese translators to put more emphasis on rendering from Chinese
into other major world languages, so as to expedite the relocation of global

cultures and the remapping of world literature.
To facilitate collaborative research and information exchange on various
aspects of China’s Going-Out cultural campaign, Chinese Translators Journal
hosted several special forums. The third issue of the journal in 2014 carried
a section on “Discourse System Construction, Overseas Publicity, and Trans-
lation” (娙婆橼䲣⺢姕冯⮵⢾⁛㑕侣嬗婾⡯), which gathered together
translators, academics, and cultural officials to discuss translation of gov-
ernment and diplomatic documents, and its various effects on the profile
and image of China in the world community. In the fifth issue of the same
year, another forum, “External Exchange of Chinese Culture and Training of
Experts for Outward Translation Projects” (ᷕ⚳㔯⊾⮵⢾Ṍ㳩冯ᷕ嬗⢾
Ṣㇵ➡梲婾⡯), came out and was directed at understanding the translator’s
role in China’s international publicity campaigns.
In reviewing the history of the cultural exchange between China and
Europe, Red Chan 昛伶䲭 argued that “translation of Chinese literature is
first and foremost a matter of ideology—a politically correct image takes pre-
cedence over issues of translation quality or representativeness of the writer”
(Chan 2013, 155). Indeed, ideology has been the most prominent factor in
China’s outward translation projects, but translation quality has never been
absent from the academic discussion. In the 1980s and 1990s, most case
studies featured in Chinese Translators Journal focused on issues pertaining to
translations of foreign literary works. The more recent discussion, however,
has turned toward the challenges of translating from Chinese into foreign
languages, mostly into English. Take for example one of the regular sections
of the journal, “The Craft of Translation” (yiji tantao 嬗㈨㍊妶), which is
devoted to the discussion of translation difficulties and associated strate-
gies. In this section of the journal in 2010 (six issues in total), twenty-six
articles were published, among which only five discussed translations from
English into Chinese, six looked at translations in both directions, and an
overwhelming fifteen of them focused on problems and issues involved in
translating from Chinese into English. The subject of study in these articles
covered a diverse range of texts, from business-related writings, diplomatic
talks, journalistic reports, and legal documents to works of classical and mod-
ern literature. Such academic discussion on translation techniques has con-
tributed to improving quality in outward translation tasks.
In his study on the translation and dissemination of classical Chinese lit-
erature, Tak-hung Leo Chan 昛⽟泣 pointed out that “since the late eighties,
the systematic study of Chinese literary texts rendered into foreign languages
has flourished” (2003, 333). The new century has witnessed continued aca-
demic interest in and research on this topic. A number of articles in Chinese
52 ● Ping Yang
Translators Journal were written to address various issues relating to foreign

translations of Chinese classics. Aside from historical case studies on particu-
lar classical texts or particular translators, general concerns about outward
translation were also tackled. For example, in the second issue of the jour-
nal in 2004, Wenguo Pan 㼀㔯⚳’s “Translating Into/Out of One’s Mother
Tongue: On the Feasibility of Translating Chinese Classics Into English by
Native Chinese Translators” (嬗ℍ冯嬗↢——婯ᷕ⚳嬗侭⽆ḳ㻊䯵劙嬗
䘬シ佑) challenged the traditional assumption that one should only translate
into one’s mother tongue, and pointed out the need for more native Chinese
translators to undertake the translation of Chinese classics into English. In
“What Should Be the Paradigm for Translating Chinese Philosophical Clas-
sics?” (ᷕ⚳⁛䴙⒚⬠℠䯵劙嬗䭬⺷⇅婾), published in the third issue
of the journal in 2014, Shangxing Guo 悕⯂冰 advocated a source text-
oriented translation approach so as to do justice to the cultural authority and
historical function of the classics.
Compared with translation of classical works, the systematic rendering of
modern and contemporary Chinese literature may be a much more recent
phenomenon. In their preface to Translating Chinese Literature (1995), Eugene
Chen 㫸春㤐 and Yaofu Linġ 㜿侨䤷 noted that “in the case of Chinese
literature, it almost appeared as if those who translated it had no interest in
the present-day Chinese” and “the contemporary heirs of Chinese literature
seemed indifferent to how it was being presented to outsiders” (1995, viii).
The situation, nevertheless, has changed radically in the past two decades.
Mo Yan’s reception of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2012 further ignited
an explosion of global interest in contemporary Chinese literature and led to
more titles translated. Currently modern and contemporary Chinese works
available in Western languages has greatly outnumbered classical works (Gu
2014, 3). The importance of translating modern and contemporary Chinese
literature is beginning to attract attention, as is exemplified in some recently
published articles in Chinese Translators Journal, such as “The Outward Trans-
lation of Chinese Literature in the First Seventeen Years of the PRC by the
Foreign Language Press” (⺢⚳⋩ᶫ⸜⢾㔯↢䇰䣦劙嬗ᷕ⚳㔯⬠ἄ⑩侫
⮇) by Xiuhua Ni ῒ䥨厗 in the fifth issue of the journal in 2012; “How
Modern and Contemporary Chinese Literature Has Been Translated and Cir-
culated in the English-Speaking World: An Overview” (劙婆ᶾ䓴ᷕ⚳䎦䔞
ẋ㔯⬠侣嬗烉䎦䉨冯⓷柴) by Huijuan Ma 楔㚫⧇ in the first issue of the
journal in 2013; “The English Translations of Modern and Contemporary
Chinese Poetry, 1935–2011: A Review” (ᷕ⚳䎦䔞ẋ娑㫴劙嬗徘姽1935–
2011) by Defeng Li 㛶⽟沛 and Jia Yan 惊Ἓ in the second issue of the jour-
nal in 2013; and “A Comparative Study of the Importing and the Exporting
Mode in English Translation of Chinese Fiction” (䎦䔞ẋᷕ㔯⮷婒嬗ℍˣ
嬗↢䘬侫⮇冯㭼庫) by Yingchong Wang 䌳䧶㰾 and Kefei Wang 䌳⃳朆

in the second issue of the journal in 2014. In various ways, these researches
seem to have suggested that compared with translation of Chinese classics,
the rendering and dissemination of modern and contemporary Chinese lit-
erature abroad can be of stronger relevance to the current reality and therefore
should be given careful consideration and priority in China’s outward transla-
tion projects.
Translation of Non-Literary Texts

In a sense, the distinction between literary and non-literary translation is not
clear-cut and a bit arbitrary. After all, many concerns about translation, such
as issues of equivalence and accuracy, can serve as factors that bring literary and
non-literary translation together. When situated within the field of discourse,
this dichotomy between the literary and the non-literary is not particularly
helpful (Hatim and Mason 1997, 3). In light of the current globalized context,
Michael Cronin argued that “conventional moves to separate literary from
non-literary (pre-dominantly scientific, technical and commercial) translation
have a number of unfortunate consequences” (Cronin 2003, 28), as such a dis-
tinction fails to appropriately take into account the essential relations between
technē and cultural development. Nevertheless, the current discussion makes a
tentative distinction between the translation of literary and non-literary texts,
not because there are significant differences between the two kinds of texts
and their translations, but because literary translation has enjoyed almost a
monopoly of attention in translation studies while the significance of non-
literary translation as a cross-cultural activity seems to have been drastically
underestimated. One reason behind this phenomenon is that compared with
literary texts, non-literary texts are often perceived as culturally less prestigious
and therefore less worthy of study. A typical example of this attitude can be
observed in Maria Tymoczko’s Translation in a Postcolonial Context, in which
the author insisted that “descriptive studies of translations of literary texts will
still often offer the best, most comprehensive evidence about cultural inter-
face,” as “literary texts typically have greater cultural complexity and cultural
involvement than other types of texts,” while “most types of non-literary texts
are translated more sporadically and more locally than are important literary
texts” (Tymoczko 1999, 30).
Not surprisingly, in the course of the growth of the field of translation
studies in China, most sophisticated and dense theories were brought to bear
on the study of literary translation, while non-literary translation has been
discussed in a more practical light. In the previous section, we mentioned
one of the regular sections of Chinese Translators Journal committed to the
54 ● Ping Yang
discussion of practical concerns in translation: “The Craft of Translation” (yiji

tantao 嬗㈨㍊妶). In this section of the journal in 2012 (six issues in total),
thirty-one articles were published, nineteen of which addressed problems
and challenges in translating non-literary works ranging from administrative,
commercial, technical, scientific, journalistic, touristic, medical, diplomatic,
and legal texts to sports-related ones. In another section devoted to observa-
tions and critiques of existing works of translation, “Translation Commen-
taries” (fanyi pinglun 侣嬗姽婾), there were seventeen articles published in
2012, more than half of which focused exclusively on non-literary transla-
tion. Compared with literary translations, non-literary texts are more tightly
bound to the pragmatic conditions of their production, and their effective-
ness is more likely to be evaluated by whether they conform to the textual
norms of the target culture. Intent, context, informativity, and other factors
influencing the textuality of translated text are the main themes explored in
these articles. Most of these articles build their arguments upon functional
approaches to translation, focusing on describing or tentatively prescribing
certain translation methods and strategies according to their functions.
One noticeable trend in recent studies on translation of non-literary text
in China is that there seems to be strong scholarly interest in issues that go
beyond purely practical applications to larger questions of culture, society,
and language. Many researches continued to adopt the functionalist view
of translation and combined it with various disciplines such as studies of
discourse, stylistics, and terminology. For example, Falian Zhang ⻝㱽忋’s
“The Principles of Legal Translation” (㱽⼳㔯橼侣嬗➢㛔⍇⇯㍊䨞), pub-
lished in the fifth issue of Chinese Translators Journal in 2009, focused on
the unique style of legal discourse and proposed a set of principles of legal
translation. Dechao Li 㛶⽟崭 and Kefei Wang 䌳⃳朆’s “A Textual and
Strategic Analysis of Slogan Translation: With the C-E Rendering of Shang-
hai World Expo Slogans As an Exemplar” (㧁婆侣嬗䘬㔯㛔↮㜸␴侣嬗
䫾䔍——ẍᶲ㴟ᶾ⌂㚫㧁婆䘬侣嬗䁢ἳ), in the first issue of the journal
in 2010, proposed a new translation typology featuring finer distinctions of
translation strategies by combining the functionalist approach to translation
with stylistic analysis. Meifang Zhang ⻝伶剛’s “Paratextual Elements in
Translation: With Special Reference to News Translation” (侣嬗ᷕ䘬崭㔯
㛔ㆸ↮烉ẍ㕘倆侣嬗䁢ἳ), published in the second issue of the journal
in 2011, considered paratextual elements as directly reflecting the skopos of
the translation and explored their joint influence in translating journalistic
texts. Another strand of researches focused on non-literary translation con-
cerns its history. A fine example of such research is “Features of Achievements
of Scientific Translation in China” (ᷕ⚳䥹⬠侣嬗⎚⎬㗪㛇䘬䈡溆ˣㆸ
㝄⍲䯉姽) published in the third issue of Chinese Translators Journal in 1999.
There were also scholars who took on traditional Chinese discourse in their
research on translation of non-literary texts. Dubao Zhou ␐䮌⮞’s “On the
Translation Into Chinese of Practical English” (两㈧⁛䴙嬗婾ġ 㧡䩳䥹⬠
侣嬗⬠), in the second issue of Chinese Translators Journal in 2000, evoked
the three traditional Chinese criteria for translation—known as faithfulness,
expressiveness, and elegance—and argued for their contemporary relevance
in translating practical texts.
There remains tremendous scope for the translation of non-literary texts
to be studied. In reality, translation of non-literary text significantly outnum-
bers the translation of literary text. Therefore, there are abundant discursive
and social practices of non-literary translation to explore. The most pressing
task for translation scholars is perhaps to formulate pertinent research ques-
tions so that specialists from those related disciplines, be it science, medicine,
journalism, publicity, or commerce, will participate and collaborate in mul-
tidimensional research projects so as to offer effective solutions to maximize
translation output and quality, as well as to understand better the complex
role of translation in the production and circulation of information and
knowledge.
Reflections and Agendas for Future Research

The historical review of Chinese Translators Journal so far provides a snip-
pet of the wider picture of what was happening in the emerging discipline
of translation studies in China in the past three decades. In this section we
further synthesize what we consider to be some of the most pressing concerns
for Chinese translation studies today and highlight some agendas for future
research.
Understanding Paradigm in Translation Studies

The previous discussion suggests that translation studies in China has under-
gone several paradigm shifts: from the linguistic to the cultural and more
recently to the interdisciplinary. When we use terminologies such as “para-
digm” and “paradigm shift,” it is necessary for us to be aware of the context
of these concepts and examine their underlying assumptions. A paradigm
is not fixed but is refined and extended through use. In Kuhn’s words, it
becomes “an object for further articulation and specification under new strin-
gent conditions” (1970, 23). Over time, competing paradigms may emerge,
potentially leading to the abandonment of an old paradigm in favor of a new
one, offering possible solutions to previously insoluble problems. Such shifts,
as Kuhn observed, are always revolutionary occurrences: “The transition
56 ● Ping Yang
between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by

logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once
(though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all” (1970, 150).
Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions held that the effect of a paradigm
shift is to produce a divided community of researchers with fundamentally
different positions, owing to their different terminologies, conceptual frame-
works, and research questions. This notion of incommensurability, however,
is not without controversy even among philosophers of science (see Kicher
1978). When applied in the humanities, it could seem even more problem-
atic. In comparing the history of science and the history of the humanities,
Douglas Robinson reminded us that Kuhn’s idea of the paradigm was devel-
oped specifically for the history of science and may not be entirely transfer-
able to the humanities, as there seems to be “no convincing way to prove the
inadequacy of a humanistic paradigm” (Robinson 1991, 66). While Robin-
son has made certain points, a more fundamental issue we need to be aware
of is that humanistic inquiry, even when it is closest to science, is never given
over so completely to the task of “problem solving.” In the development of
humanistic disciplines, the key question to ask is not whether a paradigm is
provable or disprovable, but instead how various paradigms are tested against
each other, how they pose problems differently and contribute to progress in
understanding the human reality. After all, in humanistic studies, “it is not
the reduction to a single paradigm but the coexistence of different paradigms
that is the productive norm” (Pechter 1995, 38).
Translation studies, as a field of study in the humanities, is different in
many respects from the scientific disciplines described by Kuhn. When we
think of paradigm shifts in translation studies, it is important to keep in
mind that transformation and continuity are mutually implicative notions.
Paradigm shifts in translation studies are not radical transformations that lead
to a complete chasm of incommensurability between old and new conceptual
schemes, but rather they indicate certain changes of the traditional view on
translation and the introduction of new perspectives. As a matter of fact, the
field of translation research has accepted and accommodated different para-
digms and research orientations. The aforementioned linguistic, cultural, and
interdisciplinary paradigms are not contradicting, but rather complementary
and incremental. Take, for example, the once “apparent division” between
the linguistic and cultural paradigms of translation studies. Retrospectively,
scholars from both paradigms are now “less defensive” about their positions,
as they have witnessed mutually enriching interactions between these para-
digms (Bassnett 2013, 3).
The nature of translation as a boundary phenomenon allows—and even
requires—us to bridge between different paradigms and to handle multiple
and contrasting visions of translation. The future development of translation

studies might see both the emergence of new paradigms and the coexistence
of different paradigms. It is advisable for translation researchers to distance
themselves from the binary mode and think complementarily. We need to
keep in mind that in choosing a specific approach, we do not necessarily dis-
card previous perceptions of translation. Instead, we would take established
approaches as a starting point for sketching new horizons and further devel-
opment in translation studies.
Going Multidisciplinary and/or Interdisciplinary

Undoubtedly translation is a complex textual, cultural, social, and cognitive
activity, and translation scholars are known for working across disciplines.
The very fact that the plural term “translation studies” is being used to refer
to such a discipline is an indication of its multidisciplinarity and interdiscipli-
narity. “Multidisciplinary” and “interdisciplinary” are roughly synonymous,
but there are slight differences between them. At the multidisciplinary level,
translation is approached from several disciplinary perspectives, each of them
contributing its own insight of the subject, while no obvious attempt is made
to integrate or interrelate these ideas. At the higher level of interdisciplinary
inquiry, we would expect a synthesis of insights from multiple disciplines,
and the dialogues between and among various disciplines could result in
an evolved perception of translation as well as changed research tools and
orientations.
James Holmes, in his article “The Name and Nature of Translation Stud-
ies,” has already hinted at the multidisciplinary prospect of the discipline.
He viewed translation as a new area of research where there is an “influx
of researchers from adjacent areas, bringing with them the paradigms and
models that have proved fruitful in their own fields” (Holmes 1988, 67). As
a relatively new, uncharted territory, translation studies in its budding era
indeed benefited a lot from the insights offered by various disciplines, most
significantly linguistics and cultural studies. As translation studies started
to flourish and was hailed as an autonomous academic discipline, Venuti
commented acutely on its interdisciplinary nature: “Translation studies can
only be described as emergent, not quite a discipline in its own right, more
an interdiscipline that straddles a range of fields depending on its particular
institutional setting: linguistics, foreign languages, comparative literature,
anthropology, among others” (Venuti 2002, 8).
Today, translation studies has developed into a highly diversifying disci-
pline, with lots of interesting issues about translation that need to be inves-
tigated. Some of the key questions posed by translation scholars are “in
58 ● Ping Yang
different ways being taken up by researchers who do not always define them-
selves as translation scholars, but who understand the importance of the role
played by translation in shaping the world they inhabit” (Bassnett 2013, 12).
It would seem unnecessary to try to testify once more to the multidisciplinary
and interdisciplinary nature of translation studies, but the implications or the
advantages and disadvantages of such multidisciplinarity and interdisciplin-
arity should be reflected upon constantly. On the one hand, the multiplicity
of ideas and perspectives featured by the interfacing domain of translation
research helps us to avoid rigid thinking and encourages scholarly openness.
In translation research, one must always be prepared to move away from the
disciplinary center, to transgress certain established borders, to explore the
harried state of in-betweenness, and to contribute to the reconfiguration of
the discipline’s structure. On the other hand, this fragmented array of top-
ics and methodologies can be rather bewildering (Williams and Chesterman
2002, 1) or can even constitute a threat to the disciplinary identity of transla-
tion studies (Gile 2004, 29). It is imperative for translation researchers today
to embrace the flux and movement around the boundary of translation stud-
ies while simultaneously striving to inhabit their disciplinary ground. One of
the interesting discussions in this respect was initiated by Chesterman and
Arrojo’s position paper on “Shared Ground in Translation Studies” (2000)
published in Target. Several constructive responses to the paper came out in
subsequent issues of Target, exploring what common ground there is “in this
potentially fragmenting subject area” (Munday 2009, 15). Although no con-
sensus has been—or is likely to be—reached on this matter, we believe that it
is important that we participate in this ongoing and never-ending process of
self-reflexivity and ceaselessly interrogate our own positions and viewpoints
as translation researchers.
Rethinking Western and Traditional Chinese Translation Theories

Our previous discussion described the initial enthusiasm for Western trans-
lation theories in China after its opening up to the outside world in 1978.
Through the efforts of many Chinese translation scholars, “some relevant
Western ideas and approaches are transformed into components of contem-
porary Chinese translation studies” (Wang and Sun 2008, 95). While there
is still much that China can learn from translation theories from the West,
it would be precarious for us to readily assume the superiority of Western-
derived theories over Chinese traditional theories, or their applicability and
explanatory power in the Chinese context.
It is the author’s conviction that traditional Chinese discourses on trans-
lation contain much of significance that must be valued by our researchers
today. In “Trajectories of Research in Translation Studies” (2005), Maria

Tymoczko summed up several translation-related research areas that are
likely to be most productive in the near future. One of these areas pertains
to the internationalization of translation, which challenges basic Western
assumptions about the nature of translation and generates new concep-
tions of translation through localized case studies. As translation studies
has evolved into an autonomous discipline in China, its reliance on and
promulgation of Westernized perspectives has increasingly become a highly
debatable matter. On the one hand, Chinese translation scholars need to
take a more critical attitude in applying Western theories to the Chinese
context, taking into serious consideration the changed political and cul-
tural configuration and its implications for translation research. One the
other hand, Chinese scholars need to make sure that their foreign borrow-
ings are well justified and will not hinder them from connecting with their
indigenous traditions. Such traditions include not only concepts pertain-
ing directly to translation, but also less overt discussions from established
philosophical, aesthetic, and literary works on ideas that might be relevant
as incipient conceptions of translation.
In search for various ways of revitalizing traditional Chinese discourse
on translation without falling into the trap of cultural essentialism, Cheung
(2011) proposed several approaches, including “total immersion in the
theoretical text,” conducting “in-depth research on previously unavailable
material,” rethinking traditional ideas via a modern perspective, presenting
research findings “in a mode of discourse and with a logic that is under-
standable to the researchers from the West,” and last but not least, creating
“a discursive space for intercultural dialogues” (Cheung 2011, 48–50). This
intercultural dynamics can serve as a powerful drive behind the disciplin-
ary evolution of translation studies. In this regard, a proper attitude toward
the Chinese tradition and Western influence is very important. As is neatly
put by Chan (2001, 239), “with our own tradition, we need consolidation,
re-reading,” and “with the West, we need positive engagement, not contain-
ment.” The future translation studies in China needs to make more efforts
to facilitate the exchange of ideas between different cultural traditions. It is
hoped that through selective, progressive, and multidimensional mediation
between the East and the West, we will be able to delineate Chinese ideas
and praxis on translation vis-à-vis that of the West, so as to allow Western
insights to bear on Chinese translations and Chinese discourses to bear on
Western ideas. The integration and cross-fertilization of different translation
theories from China and the West not only seem to be “the only way forward
for translation research in China” (Sun 2012, 40), but also would be of far-
reaching international significance.
60 ● Ping Yang
Conclusions
As a leading journal in the field of translation research in China, Chinese Trans-
lators Journal both epitomized and contributed to the disciplinary development
of translation studies in China. In this paper, the author takes the journal as
a window for informing readers about the emergence and current status of
translation studies in China. The trajectory of translation studies in China thus
encapsulated begins with an attempt to import from the Western theories more
scientific rigor than in traditional Chinese discourse on translation, progresses
to the formation of various research paradigms in the Chinese context, and
finally arrives at the establishment of an autonomous academic discipline that
explores the meanings and implications of translation in terms of local con-
text as well as the broader conditions of intercultural communications. Having
reviewed its shifts from the linguistic paradigm, to the cultural paradigm, and
to the interdisciplinary paradigm, this paper identifies several research foci or
interests among today’s Chinese translation scholars. It comes to the conclusion
that only by selecting the essence from traditional Chinese translation theory,
assimilating the relevant ideas and theoretical frameworks from the West, and
drawing insights from multidisciplinary perspectives can we provide continu-
ous impetus for the growth of the field of translation studies in China.
References
Basil, H., and I. Mason (1997). The Translator As Communicator (London: Routledge).
Bassnett, S., and A. Lefevere (eds.) (1990). Translation, History and Culture (London
and New York: Pinter).
Bassnett, S. (1998). “The Translation Turn in Cultural Studies,” in S. Bassnett and A.
Lefevere, Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation, pp. 123–140.
Bassnett, S. (2001). “Translation Theory in the West: An Historical Perspective,” In S.
W. Chan and D. E. Pollard (eds.), An Encyclopaedia of Translation: Chinese-English,
English-Chinese (Chinese University Press), pp. 388–392.
Bassnett, S. (2013). Translation Studies (London: Routledge).
Cai, Y. (1982). “The Linguistic School of Translation Theory: An Introduction to Leonid
Barkhudarov’s Language and Translation” (侣嬗䎮婾䘬婆妨⬠㳦——ṳ䳡⶜䇦
傉忼伭⣓䘬˪婆妨冯侣嬗˫), Translation Bulletin (˪侣嬗忂妲˫) 6, pp. 12–17
Chan, E. K. (2001). “Back to the Future: The Future Development of Translation
Studies in Hong Kong,” in S. Chan (ed.), Translation in Hong Kong: Past, Present
and Future (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press), pp. 227–244.
Chan, L. T. H. (2003). One Into Many: Translation and the Dissemination of Classical
Chinese Literature (Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi).
Chan, R. (2013). “Translation, Nationhood and Cultural Manipulation,” in Stepha-
nie Lawson (ed.), Europe and the Asia-Pacific: Culture, Identity and Representations
of Region (Routledge).
Chesterman, A., and R. Arrojo (2000). “Forum: Shared Ground in Translation Stud-
ies,” Target 12, pp. 151–160.
Cheung, M. P. Y. (2005). “‘To Translate’ Means ‘to Exchange’?: A New Interpretation
of the Earliest Chinese Attempts to Define Translation,” Target 17 (1), pp. 27–48.
Cheung, M. P. Y. (2011). “The (Un)Importance of Flagging Chineseness: Making
Sense of a Recurrent Theme in Contemporary Chinese Discourses on Transla-
tion,” Translation Studies 4 (1), pp. 42–57.
Cheung, M. P. Y. (2008). “On the Selection, Translation, Commentaries and Annota-
tions in An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation: A Soft-Power Perspec-
tive” [⽆ “庇⮎≃”䘬奺⹎冒ㆹ⇾㜸˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗娙婆劙嬗怠普 (ᶲℲ): ⽆㚨
㖑㛇⇘ἃ℠侣嬗˫ 䘬怠, 嬗, 姽, 㲐], Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣
嬗˫Ī 6, pp. 36–41.
Cronin, M. (2003). Translation and Globalization (London: Routeledge Psychology Press).
Dong, Q. S. (1951). “On Development of Translation Theory” (婾侣嬗䎮婾⺢姕),
in X. Z. Luo (1984), Essays on Translation (˪侣嬗婾普˫) (Beijing: The Com-
mercial Press), pp. 536–544.
Eoyang, E. C., and Y. Lin (eds.) (1995). Translating Chinese Literature (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press).
Gao, F., and J. Xun (2010). “Literary Translation and China’s ‘Going-out’ Cultural
Strategy: Current Situations, Existing Problems, and Suggestions for Improve-
ment” (䎦䉨ˣ⓷柴冯⺢嬘——斄㕤ᷕ⚳㔯⬠崘↢⍣䘬⿅侫), Chinese Trans-
lators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 6, pp. 5–9.
Ge, X. Q. (2002). “Domestication/Foreignization in the Postcolonial Context: A
Note of Warning to Researchers at Home” (䔞⇵㬠⊾/䔘⊾䫾䔍妶婾䘬⼴㬾㮹
夾敦——⮵⚳ℏ㬠⊾/䔘⊾婾侭䘬ᶨᾳ㍸愺), Chinese Translators Journal (˪
ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 5, pp. 32–35.
Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary Translation Theories (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters).
Gile, D. (2004) “Translation Research versus Interpreting Research: Kinship, Dif-
ferences and Prospects for Partnership,” in Christina Schäffner (ed.), Translation
Research and Interpreting Research: Traditions, Gaps and Synergies (Clevedon: Mul-
tilingual Matters).
Gu, M. D. (2014). Translating China for Western Readers: Reflective, Critical, and Prac-
tical Essays (Albany: SUNY Press).
Guo, J. Z. (2000). “Venuti and His Deconstructionist Translation Strategy” (杳≒
吪⍲℞妋㥳ᷣ佑䘬侣嬗䫾䔍), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 1,
pp. 49–52.
Guo, S. X. (2014). “What Should Be the Paradigm for Translating Chinese Philo-
sophical Classics?” (ᷕ⚳⁛䴙⒚⬠℠䯵劙嬗䭬⺷⇅婾), Chinese Translators
Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 3, pp. 30–35.
Hatim, B. (2001). Teaching and Researching Translation (Harlow: Pearson Education
Limited).
He, C. Y. (1991). “It is High Time for Us to Emphasize Translating Chinese into
Foreign Languages” (慵夾㻊嬗⢾㬌℞㗪䞋), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ
⚳侣嬗˫) 1, pp. 39–40.
62 ● Ping Yang
Holmes, J. S. (1988). “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies,” in J. S. Holmes,

Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies (Amsterdam:
Rodopi), pp. 67–80.
Hu, A. J. (2010). “Translator Model, Translating Strategy, and the ‘Going Out’ Project to
Promote Chinese Literature Abroad: With American Sinologist Howard Goldblatt
As an Exemplar” (ᷕ⚳㔯⬠“崘↢⍣”ᷳ嬗侭㧉⺷⍲侣嬗䫾䔍䞼䨞——ẍ伶⚳
㻊⬠⭞吃㴑㔯䁢ἳ), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 6, pp. 10–15.
Hu, G. S. (2008). “Eco-Translatology: A Primer” (䓇ン侣嬗⬠妋嬨), Chinese Trans-
lators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 6, pp. 11–15.
Hu, G. S. (2011). “Eco-Translatology: Research Foci and Theoretical Tenets” (䓇ン
侣嬗⬠䘬䞼䨞䃎溆冯䎮婾夾奺), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫)
2, pp. 5–10.
Jakobson, R. (1959). “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation,” On Translation 3, pp. 233–239.
Jiang, X. H., and J. H. Zhang (2007). “A New Approach to Venuti’s Foreignizing
Translation Theory” (慵㕘妋嬨杳≒吪䘬䔘⊾侣嬗䎮婾——ℤ冯悕⺢ᷕ㔁㌰
⓮㥟), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 3, pp. 39–44.
Jiang, X. H. (2003). “An Ideological Approach to Translation” (シ嬀⼊ン⮵侣嬗
䘬⼙枧烉斉䘤冯㕘⿅侫), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 5, pp.
24–30.
Jiang, X. H. (2004). “Influences of Feminism upon Translation Theory” (⤛⿏ᷣ佑
⮵侣嬗䎮婾䘬⼙枧), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 4, pp. 10–15.
Kitcher, P. (1978). “Theories, Theorists and Theoretical Change,” The Philosophical
Review, pp. 519–547.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientiﬁc Revolutions (Chicago/London: University
of Chicago Press).
Lao, L. (1996). “Breaking the Daydream of the Science of Translation and Doing
More Practical Work” (᷇㌱⸣゛炻倗专⮎晃——㎕䟜“侣嬗ĩ䥹Ī⬠”䘬徟⣊),
Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 2, pp. 38–41.
Li, D. C., and K. F. Wang (2010). “A Textual and Strategic Analysis of Slogan Transla-
tion: With the C-E Rendering of Shanghai World Expo Slogans As an Exemplar”
(㧁婆侣嬗䘬㔯㛔↮㜸␴侣嬗䫾䔍——ẍᶲ㴟ᶾ⌂㚫㧁婆䘬侣嬗䁢ἳ),
Li, D. F., and J. Yan (2013). “The English Translations of Modern and Contempo-
rary Chinese Poetry, 1935–2011: A Review” (ᷕ⚳䎦䔞ẋ娑㫴劙嬗徘姽1935–
2011), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 2, pp. 26–38.
Li, H. M. (2007). “Pierre Bourdieu and the Theoretical Construction of the Sociology
of Translation” (ⶫ徒⌬冯侣嬗䣦㚫⬠䘬䎮婾⺢㥳), Chinese Translators Journal
(˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 5, pp. 6–9.
Li, N. Q., P. Xu, and F. Zhang (1999). “Features of Achievements of Scientific Trans-
lation in China” (ᷕ⚳䥹⬠侣嬗⎚⎬㗪㛇䘬䈡溆ˣㆸ㝄⍲䯉姽), Chinese
Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 3, pp. 33–35.
Lin, K. N. (2002). “Translation As a Catalyst for Social Change in China,” in Maria
Tymoczko and Edwin Gentzler (ed.), Translation and Power (Amherst: University
of Massachusetts), pp. 160–194.
Liu, J. P. (2004). “Toward an East-West Discourse on Feminist Translation Studies”

(⤛⿏ᷣ佑侣嬗䎮婾䞼䨞䘬ᷕ大娙婆), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣
嬗˫) 4, pp. 3–9.
Liu, L. H. (1993). “Translingual Practice: The Discourse of Individualism Between
China and the West,” Positions 1 (1), pp. 160–193.
Ma, H, J. (2013). “How Modern and Contemporary Chinese Literature Has Been
Translated and Circulated in the English-Speaking World: An Overview” (劙婆
ᶾ䓴ᷕ⚳䎦䔞ẋ㔯⬠侣嬗烉䎦䉨冯⓷柴), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳
侣嬗˫) 1, pp. 64–69.
Miao, J., and M. Liu (2013). “Construction and Translation of Multilingual Web-
sites” (⣂婆䧖䵚䪁⺢姕冯侣嬗), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 1,
pp. 85–88.
Munday, J. (2008). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 2nd edi-
tion (New York: Routledge).
Ni, X. H. (2012). “The Outward Translation of Chinese Literature in the First
Seventeen Years of the PRC by Foreign Language Press” (⺢⚳⋩ᶫ⸜⢾㔯↢
䇰䣦劙嬗ᷕ⚳㔯⬠ἄ⑩侫⮇), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 5,
pp. 25–30.
Pan, W. G. (2004). “Translating Into/Out of One’s Mother Tongue: On the Feasibil-
ity of Translating Chinese Classics into English by Native Chinese Translators” (嬗
ℍ冯嬗↢——婯ᷕ⚳嬗侭⽆ḳ㻊䯵劙嬗䘬シ佑), Chinese Translators Journal
(˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 2, pp. 41–45.
Pechter, E. (1995). What Was Shakespeare? Renaissance Plays and Changing Critical
Practice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
Pym, A. (2007). ‘Natural and Directional Equivalence in Theories of Translation,”
Target 19 (2), pp. 271–294.
Robinson, D. (1991). The Translator’s Turn (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press).
Si, X. Z., and Y. Z. Yao (2014). “An Industrial Economic Perspective on Translation
in China” (ᷕ⚳侣嬗䓊㤕䞼䨞烉䓊㤕䴻㾇⬠夾奺), Chinese Translators Journal
(˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 5, pp. 67–71.
Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting
Viewpoints? (Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing).
Sun, Y. F. (2012). “The Shifting Identity of Translation Studies in China,” Intercul-
tural Communication Studies, Vol. XXI, No. 2, pp. 32–52.
Sun, Y. F. (2003) “Translation Studies and Ideology: Making Space for Cross-Cultural
Dialogue” (侣嬗䞼䨞冯シ嬀⼊ン烉㉻⯽嶐㔯⊾⮵娙䘬䨢攻), Chinese Transla-
tors Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 5, pp. 4–10.
Sun, Y. F. (2006). “The Diasporic Translator’s Cultural Mission” (暊㔋嬗侭䘬㔯⊾
ἧ␥), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 1, pp. 3–10.
Sun, Y. F. (2007). “Translation and the Cultural Anxiety Over Otherness” (侣嬗冯䔘
岒Ṿ侭䘬㔯⊾䃎ㄖ), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 1, pp. 5–10.
Sun, Y. F. (2008). “Cultural Translation and Glocalization” (㔯⊾侣嬗冯ℐ䎫㛔⛇
⊾), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 1, pp. 5–11.
64 ● Ping Yang
Sun, Y. F. (2008). “Opening the Cultural Mind: Translation and the Modern Chinese
Literary Canon,” Modern Language Quarterly 69 (1), pp. 13–27.
Sun, Z. L. (2002). “China’s Literary Translation: From Domestication to Foreigniza-
tion” (ᷕ⚳䘬㔯⬠侣嬗:⽆㬠⊾嵐⎹䔘⊾), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳
侣嬗˫) 1, pp. 40–44.
Tan, Z. X. (1982). “Translation Is a Science” (侣嬗㗗ᶨ攨䥹⬠), Translation Bulletin
(˪侣嬗忂妲˫) 4, pp. 44–50.
Tan, Z. X. (1983). “Nida on the Nature of Translation” (⣰忼婾侣嬗䘬⿏岒). Trans-
lation Bulletin (˪侣嬗忂妲˫) 1, pp. 37–39.
Tan, Z. X. (1987). “We Must Establish Translation Studies As a Discipline” (⽭枰⺢
䩳侣嬗⬠), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 3, pp.1–4.
Tymoczko, M. (1999). Translation in a Postcolonial Context (Manchester: St. Jerome
Publishing).
Tymoczko, M. (2005). “Trajectories of Research in Translation Studies,” Meta: Jour-
nal des traducteurs (Meta: Translators’ Journal) 50 (4), pp. 1082–1097.
Venuti, L. (1992). Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology (London
and New York: Routledge).
Venuti, L. (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (London and
New York: Routledge).
Venuti, L. (1997) “Translation As a Social Practice: Or, the Violence of Translation,”
in M. G. Rose (ed.), Translation Horizons: Beyond the Boundaries of Translation
Spectrum (Bloomington: SUNY Press), pp. 195–213.
Venuti, L. (2002). The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference (Lon-
don: Routledge).
Wang, D. F. (1998). “On the Cultural Intervention in Translating” (婾侣嬗忶䦳ᷕ
䘬㔯⊾ṳℍ), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 5, pp. 6–9.
Wang, C. Y., and Q. L. Cui (2010). “Professional Training and Certification of Com-
petent Translators and the Development of Localized Translation Industry” (㛔⛘
⊾埴㤕䘤⯽⮵借㤕侣嬗妻䶜⍲➟㤕娵嫱䘬天㯪), Chinese Translators Journal (
˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 4, pp. 76–79.
Wang, D. F. (1999). “Thoughts on Translation Research in China II” (ᷕ⚳嬗⬠䞼
䨞烉ᶾ䲨㛓䘬⿅侫临), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 2, pp. 21–23.
Wang, D. F. (1999). “Thoughts on Translation Research in China” (ᷕ⚳嬗⬠䞼䨞烉
ᶾ䲨㛓䘬⿅侫), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 1, pp. 7–11.
Wang, D. F. (2000). “Cultural Position of Translated Literature and Translator’s Cul-
tural Attitude” (侣嬗㔯⬠䘬㔯⊾⛘ỵ冯嬗侭䘬㔯⊾ン⹎), Chinese Translators
Wang, D. F. (2002). “About Domestication and Foreignization” (㬠⊾冯䔘⊾:䞃冯
䚦䘬Ṍ扺), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 5, pp. 24–26.
Wang, D. F. (2003). “An Invisible Hand: Ideology Manipulation in the Practice of
Translation” (ᶨ晣䚳ᶵ夳䘬ㇳ——婾シ嬀⼊ン⮵侣嬗⮎嶸䘬㑵䷙), Chinese
Wang, D. F. (2008). “Venuti’s and Lu Xun’s Conception of Foreignizing Translation:
A Comparison” (杳≒吪冯欗彭䔘⊾侣嬗奨㭼庫), Chinese Translators Journal
(˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 2, pp. 5–10.
Wang, H. T. (2011). “Constructing Socio-Translation Studies: Name and Nature”

(⺢㥳“䣦㚫侣嬗⬠”烉⎵冯⮎䘬彐㜸), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣
嬗˫) 1, pp. 14–18.
Wang, N. (2000). “Cultural Studies and Translation Studies in the Age of Globaliza-
tion” (ℐ䎫⊾㗪ẋ䘬㔯⊾䞼䨞冯侣嬗䞼䨞), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ
⚳侣嬗˫) 1, pp. 10–14.
Wang, N. (2000). Comparative Literature and Contemporary Cultural Criticism (˪㭼
庫㔯⬠冯䔞ẋ㔯⊾㈡姽˫) (Beijing: People’s Literature Press).
Wang, N. (2005). “The Cultural Construction of Translation and the Translation
Turn in Cultural Studies” (侣嬗䘬㔯⊾⺢㥳␴㔯⊾䞼䨞䘬侣嬗⬠廱⎹), Chi-
nese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 6, pp. 5–9.
Wang, N. (2006). “Theorizing Translatology: Toward an Interdisciplinary Approach”
(侣嬗⬠䘬䎮婾⊾烉嶐⬠䥹䘬夾奺), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣
嬗˫) 6, pp. 6–10.
Wang, N. (2011). “Eco-Literature and Eco-Translatology: Deconstruction and
Reconstruction” (䓇ン㔯⬠冯䓇ン侣嬗⬠烉妋㥳冯⺢㥳), Chinese Translators
Wang, N. (2013). “Translation and the Relocation of Cultures”炷侣嬗冯㔯⊾䘬慵
㕘⭂ỵ炸, Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 2, pp. 5–11.
Wang, N., and Y. F. Sun (eds.) (2008). Translation, Globalisation and Localisation: A
Chinese Perspective (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters).
Wang, Y. C., and K. F. Wang (2014). “A Comparative Study of the Importing and the
Exporting Mode in English Translation of Chinese Fiction” (䎦䔞ẋᷕ㔯⮷婒嬗ℍˣ
嬗↢䘬侫⮇冯㭼庫), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 2, pp. 33–38.
Wang, Y. C. (2011). “Translation through a Bourdieusian Sociological Lens” (⽆䣦
㚫⬠奺⹎䚳侣嬗䎦尉烉ⶫ徒⌬䣦㚫⬠䎮婾斄挝⫿妋嬨), Chinese Translators
Wang, Y. G. (2003). “Ideology and the History of Literary Translation in Twentieth-
Century China” (シ嬀⼊ン冯20ᶾ䲨ᷕ⚳侣嬗㔯⬠⎚1899—1979), Chinese
Wang, Z. Y. (1982). “Peter Newmark on the Theory and Craft of Translation” (䲸楔
⃳婾侣嬗䎮婾␴侣嬗㈨ⶏ), Translation Bulletin (˪侣嬗忂妲˫) 1, pp. 1–12.
Williams, J., and A. Chesterman (2014). The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing
Research in Translation Studies (London: Routledge).
Wilss, W. (2004). “Translation Studies: The State of the Art,” Meta: Journal des tra-
ducteurs (Meta: Translators’ Journal) 49 (4), pp. 777–785.
Wolf, M., and A. Fukari (eds.) (2007). Constructing a Sociology of Translation (Amster-
dam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing).
Xin, J. (2007). “Translator’s ‘Habitus’: A New Perspective on Descriptive Translation
Studies” (嬗侭“⿅䵕佺ㄋ”——㍷徘侣嬗⬠䞼䨞㕘夾奺), Chinese Translators
Xu, L. (2004). “In the Name of Feminie: The Significance of the Feminism Transla-
tion Theory in the Study of the Translator’s Subjectivity” (⛐⤛⿏䘬⎵佑ᶳ“慵
⮓”——⤛⿏ᷣ佑侣嬗䎮婾⮵嬗侭ᷣ橼⿏䞼䨞䘬シ佑), Chinese Translators
66 ● Ping Yang
Yang, L. (2003). “Cultural Capital and the Power of Discourse over Translation”
(㔯⊾屯㛔冯侣嬗䘬娙婆㪲≃), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 2,
pp. 8–10.
Yuan, J. (2012). “Language Service: A New Positioning for the Chinese Translation
Industry” (婆妨㚵⊁烉ᷕ⚳侣嬗埴㤕䘬ℐ㕘⭂ỵ), Chinese Translators Journal
(˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 5, pp. 80–83.
Zhang, F. L. (2009). “The Principles of Legal Translation” (㱽⼳㔯橼侣嬗➢㛔⍇⇯
㍊䨞), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 5, pp. 72–76.
Zhang, J. H. (2004). “On the Contributions and Limitations of Feminist Translation
Theory” (⤛⿏ᷣ佑⮵⁛䴙嬗婾䘬栃央⍲℞⯨旸⿏), Chinese Translators Jour-
nal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 4, pp. 20–25.
Zhang, M. F. (2011). “Paratextual Elements in Translation: With Special Reference to
News Translation” (侣嬗ᷕ䘬崭㔯㛔ㆸ↮烉ẍ㕘倆侣嬗䁢ἳ), Chinese Transla-
tors Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 2, pp. 50–55.
Zhang, N. F. (2000). “Chinese Translatology and Its Specific Characteristics” (䈡⿏
冯ℙ⿏——婾ᷕ⚳侣嬗⬠冯侣嬗⬠䘬斄Ὢ), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ
⚳侣嬗˫) 2, pp. 2–8.
Zhou, D. B. (2000). “On the Translation Into Chinese of Practical English” (两㈧⁛
䴙嬗婾㧡䩳䥹⬠侣嬗⬠), Chinese Translators Journal (˪ᷕ⚳侣嬗˫) 2, pp.
28–30.
Zhu, C. S. (2000). “A Critical Review of Chinese Translation Studies: Toward a Glo-
balized Perspective” (崘↢婌⋨炻嶷忚ᶾ䓴——ᷕ⚳嬗⬠烉⍵⿅冯⇵䝣),
CHAPTER 3
The Translator: Creativity,

Continuity, and Change
Sue-Ann Harding1
A
s part of the new team of editors, it is a great honor for me to represent
The Translator at this, the first International Conference of Journals and
Translation here at Jinan University. It gives me great pleasure to address
you all today. Thank you for the invitation, the opportunity to speak, and for all
you have done to welcome me here.
I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some thoughts
about the founding and history of The Translator, and ways in which we
believe it has contributed to and shaped the field of translation studies. I
say “we,” because the writing of this speech has been a collaborative effort
between the past and present editors of the journal, and what I will say today
is, I trust, representative of all of us. While much of what I have to say is
specific to The Translator, I would also like to reflect, along the way, on two
broader issues, which I hope will speak to all of you, no matter with which
journals you are involved, be that as researchers, authors, editors, peer review-
ers, or publishers, and for many of us here, that involvement is often in mul-
tiple, coexisting capacities. The first of these broader issues is a reflection on
the nature of editing and ways in which it is a kind of translation, and the
second is the notion that, as in the words of Paul Kelly, a well-known and
well-loved Australian songwriter, “From Little Things, Big Things Grow.”2
The story of The Translator begins over twenty years ago, when the jour-
nal’s founding editor, Professor Mona Baker from the University of Manches-
ter, UK, was chair of the Education Committee of the Institute of Translation
and Interpreting (ITI).3 The committee began exploring the possibility of
publishing an ITI journal, and Mona was tasked with preparing a proposal
and approaching a suitable publisher. Routledge, founded in 1836, and the
68 ● Sue-Ann Harding
“global publisher of academic books, journals and online resources in the

humanities and social sciences,”4 of which I am sure you are all aware, was
very enthusiastic about the idea, as were most of the peer reviews of the pro-
posal. Nevertheless, the proposal was criticized by a vocal minority, and con-
sequently, Routledge decided not to go ahead with the journal.
In response, Mona established her own publishing house, St. Jerome, and
launched The Translator as an independent journal, tied neither to a com-
mercial publisher nor to ITI. The first issue was published in April 1995 and
included four articles (by Lawrence Venuti, Ruth Morris, Sarah Williams, and
Keith Harvey), five book reviews (including a “Revisiting the Classics” review
of Georges Mounin’s Les Problèmes théoriques de la traduction [Paris, 1963])
and a “Course Profile” with details of the MA/Advanced Diploma in British
Sign Language/English Interpreting, written by Mary Brennan and David
Brien of the Deaf Studies Research Unit at the University of Durham, UK.
For the next twenty years, The Translator went on to adhere to a corner-
stone of its initial ethos, namely, that it aims to draw its credibility not from
the fame of its authors but from the quality and integrity of what it publishes.
This pattern of drawing on the energy and vision of younger, lesser-known,
but innovative and promising scholars has defined The Translator through-
out its life and has, ultimately, also served to attract well-known, established
scholars, who have also published in the journal.
Something The Translator introduced before any other journal in the field,
and which contributed considerably to its success, is the regular publication
of special issues on a variety of themes that, at the time of their publication,
were considered seriously underdeveloped in the discipline. This began with
the second volume of the journal in 1996, a special issue on wordplay and
translation, and continues to this day, with a special issue on translation in
the Arab world scheduled for 2015.5
Another area to which The Translator has always paid considerable atten-
tion and asked guest editors of special issues to take into consideration is
geographical and disciplinary spread. The Translator has attracted outstand-
ing contributions from scholars located in various parts of the world and
working in a wide variety of disciplines. As an example, a single issue such
as Volume 18, Issue 1 (2012) features contributions from a variety of disci-
plines, including an article by a historian (Vicente Rafael, professor of his-
tory, University of Washington), a scholar of criminal justice (Maya Hess,
City University of New York), and a comparative literature specialist (Profes-
sor Ahmed Gamal, Ain Shams University, Egypt), in addition to articles by
scholars of translation.
Moira Inghilleri (University of Massachusetts, Amherst) first became
involved with the journal as guest editor of the 2005 special issue on Pierre
The Translator: Creativity, Continuity, and Change ● 69
Bourdieu. “I realized,” she writes, “that I actually enjoyed editing other peo-
ple’s work. I see editing as a form of translation; if the writing isn’t clear, you
assume meaning, and then try to figure out what the author wants to say and
help them say it in a clearer way.”6 Like interlingual translation, for those of
us involved in it, this process of intralingual translation can be unexpectedly
interesting, stimulating, and even fun, as well as challenging and frustrating
and an enormous amount of work, most of which goes unseen and is “invis-
ible” in the final product. As Moira writes, “There are far more papers rejected
than accepted, but you can sometimes find a jewel where you least expect it,
so reading submissions had an element of adventure to it.”
Like translators, it seems that editors are often only seen when they are
deemed to do “a bad job.” Yet, perhaps unlike many translators, editors can
be very vocal about their requirements. Indeed, as editors—and I think I
can speak not just for us at The Translator but also for the other editors here
today—we can often appear to be painfully demanding, forever asking ques-
tions, making suggestions, exacting one more revision. Authors are often in
a hurry, overwhelmed with work, and can be frustrated at such detail, but
we are, in the end, working with and for them. It is our task to ensure that
the voice of each author is heard as clearly and as effectively as possible, and
of course, we are often working with authors who are writing in a second
or third language, so processes of translation and self-translation are deeply
embedded in the ways in which we work with our authors. We are very much
mediators, just as translators are.
It was after that special issue that Mona invited Moira to become the
reviews editor and later coeditor. The two worked as a team, with similar and
complementary editing styles. I have also worked with them—Moira and I
coedited a special issue in 2010 on translation and violent conflict, and Mona
co-supervised my doctoral thesis—and, from experience, I know they are
both “sticklers for detail, [and] willing to put the time into each article to get
it into the best shape possible.”7 Together they continued to be committed to
recruiting and working with the best scholars and research in the field.
Since the publication of The Translator’s early issues, the field of transla-
tion studies, which we at The Translator understand to include interpreting
and intercultural studies, has become a rapidly expanding field that examines
the close relationships between language and culture, language and creative
practice, and broad questions of intercultural exchange and flows of power,
dominance, and resistance. In academia, there is now widespread recogni-
tion that the field of translation studies is growing in scale and expanding in
scope, even as other areas in the humanities might be said to be experiencing
some decline. Perhaps one of the reasons for this is the very nature of trans-
lation studies as a strongly interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary field that
intersects with a variety of other areas, from linguistics to world literature,

from cognitive sciences to cultural studies, philosophy and anthropology, his-
tory and politics.
Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the field without The Translator. For
decades, it was the perfect complement to Target, which developed out of
a different intellectual tradition, one shaped more by descriptive translation
studies. The Translator was less defined by a specific approach, and it is this
openness and independence, this broad definition of the field, that increas-
ingly influenced the field in the direction of its current vitality and eclectic
intellectual form. The journal was open to what scholars were doing, was
receptive to new voices and emergent paradigms. It drew attention to what
lies in and outside the margins of contemporary translation theory, creating
a space for innovation and free dialogue across and between the different
aspects of this transdisciplinary area, as well as for professionals, educators,
and those “looking into the field from outside.” Thus, for example, it pub-
lished a special issue on ethics long before it became the central issue it is
today, and the same can be said with regard to dialogue interpreting, socio-
logical approaches, translation in China and the Middle East, travel writing,
violent conflict, and so on. The journal and its editors and guest editors were
right on the beat of innovation and change, and never a step behind it. As
Moira puts it,
A lot of the work goes on outside of the publication of articles. A lot of it is

having your ear to the ground with regards to innovative work being done both
in the [TIS] field and satellite disciplines. Mona was a globetrotter, and if she
heard a good paper at a conference, she would encourage that person to sub-
mit to the journal. We were committed to publishing a balance of established
scholars and upcoming ones. That kept the journal strong both on scholarship
and innovation.
In a field in which journal impact factors have not been statistically signifi-
cant, the fact that The Translator is listed in both the Arts and Humanities
Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index is a clear indicator of
the respect in which it is held globally. It is one of only two translation stud-
ies journals (the other being Target) that have been ranked as Tier 1 in both
European Science Foundation exercises (2008 and 2011), despite the fact
that the 2011 exercise saw numerous journals—in both translation studies
and other disciplines—fall from Tier 1 to Tier 2.
At the end of 2013—“at a time when we were ready to let go of it, so it
all worked out very well in the end”8—St. Jerome Publishing was acquired
by Routledge, and so The Translator, St. Jerome’s flagship publication, has,
after all, moved to Routledge, where the idea was first touted. It joins the
growing family of Taylor & Francis translation studies journals, including St.
Jerome’s The Interpreter and Translator Trainer (2007) as well as Asia Pacific
Translation and Intercultural Studies (2014), Translation Studies (2008), and
Translation Review (1978),9 and is now published three times a year. Mona,
Moira, and Reviews Editor Ben van Wyke have also stepped down and
handed over the journal to a new editorial team: Loredana Polezzi (University
of Warwick, UK)—who, like Moira, also originally became involved with the
journal as a guest editor for a special issue on travel and translation—and Rita
Wilson from Monash University, Melbourne. The acquisition of The Transla-
tor by one of the best academic publishers in the world is testament to the
reputation the journal has built up over several decades of publishing quality
research in both traditional and innovative areas. At the same time, so much
of what makes the journal special is due to those who worked on it from its
very humble beginnings. Joining the journal at this stage in its history is all
about working to maintain the reputation for excellence that they worked so
hard to achieve.
The next phase of the journal is about continuity as much as change. We
are committed to keeping the ethos of the journal, its independence from
institutional intervention, its broad definition of translation and translation
studies, and its openness to interdisciplinary dialogue and the emergence of
new, excellent scholarly inquiry. We continue to be committed to publishing
top research in the field from across the world, creating a place where both
experienced and emerging researchers can meet in a free conversation that
includes a strong connection between theory and practice. We recognize that,
as the discipline matures, a new map of the field is developing, a new geo-
politics of translation studies that is no longer Eurocentric or Anglocentric.
Indeed, The Translator has long recognized this and has been instrumental in
this shift.
As I come to the end of my speech today, I’d like to share with you some
of the new features and ideas that we are considering for this next phase of
the journal, some through discussion with the previous editors—an example
of continuity—and others as our own initiatives—an example of change.
These include:
1. “Translator Conversations,” that is, dialogue between a translation

studies specialist and a researcher or a professional whose work is influ-
ential in translation studies but who is not necessarily identified with
the discipline.
2. Special issues with a geographic and geopolitical focus, as in the next
one on translation in the Arab world. Again, this reflects the continuity
and change of the journal; the idea comes from what is already estab-
lished but will become a more regular feature and extend into new
areas, such as Australasia, Oceania, the Pacific, South America, and
Africa.
3. “Clustered” articles on emerging topics, including the pedagogics of
translation.
4. “Thought pieces” or “position pieces,” that is, longer essays that give
more room for the author to explore and stimulate debate in areas of
particular significance.
Finally, and in conclusion, I would like to say that, while this speech has
been laudatory of the journal in a way that Mona, as founding and long-
time editor, would never use to speak about herself and her work, as a new-
comer with a long-standing respect for her and the journal, I can perhaps
be forgiven for speaking so highly of The Translator. But this, in fact, is not
my main purpose. Instead, I would like to end with the observation that
while The Translator is now an internationally renowned journal published
by one of the largest, most prestigious publishing houses in the world, it
did not, of course, begin that way. In fact, it began independently, outside
of any institutional support, operating out of a converted suburban garage
and coming into existence through the diligence and labor of just a handful
of dedicated people. This model of independence, integrity, and sheer hard
work to make something happen, without waiting for outside support or
approval or recognition, seems to me to be an inviting model for all of us
working within the academy. Be it in our classrooms, in our research, in
our committee meetings, when we are asked to peer review an article, write
a book review, proofread a paper, or contribute our time, energy, and ideas
to conferences such as this and international academic associations—what-
ever it is that we do, we are able to choose the way we work. We are able
to simply begin with what we have and what we know at the time and do
our best.
This is what we at The Translator aim to do. This is our commitment to
our authors and to the field of translation studies as we work together with
the team at Taylor & Francis to ensure that The Translator continues to act
as a leading publication and a focus for innovation and quality scholarship
in the field. As editors, as translators, and as scholars and teachers of trans-
lation, we believe that this mediating role, the commitment to multiple
voices, their independence and their ability to be heard, are at the core of
what we do.
Thank you.
Notes
1. With thanks to Loredana Polezzi, Rita Wilson, Mona Baker, and Moira Inghilleri
for their input and support.
2. The song was cowritten with Kev Carmody and tells the story of the eight-year
strike held by the Gurindji people led by elder Vincent Lingiari, a protest action
that eventually led to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act of
1976. Prime Minister Gough Whitlam (1916–2014) was instrumental in this
process, and both Carmody and Kelly sang the song at Whitlam’s state memorial
service held in Sydney on November 5, 2014.
3. http://www.iti.org.uk.
4. “About Us,” http://www.routledge.com/info/about_us/.
5. The special issues include the following: 5 (2) 1999, Dialogue Interpreting; 6 (2)
2000, Evaluation and Translation; 7 (2) 2001, The Return to Ethics; 8 (2) 2002,
Translating Humour; 9 (2) 2003, Screen Translation; 10 (2) 2004, Key Debates in
the Translation of Advertising Materials; 11 (2) 2005, Bourdieu and the Sociology
of Translation and Interpreting; 12 (2) 2006, Translation, Travel, Migration; 13 (2)
2007, Translation and Ideology; 14 (2) 2008, Translation and Music; 15 (1) 2009,
Nation and Translation in the Middle East; 15 (2) 2009, Chinese Discourses on
Translation; 16 (2) 2010, Translation and Violent Conflict; 17 (2) 2011, Science
in Translation; 18 (2) 2012, Non-Professional Translation and Interpreting; 20
(1) 2014, Theories and Methodologies of Translation History: The Value of an
Interdisciplinary Approach.
6. Personal correspondence, May 22, 2014.
7. Personal correspondence with Moira Inghilleri, May 22, 2014.
8. Mona Baker, personal correspondence, April 15, 2014.
9. Produced by the Center for Translation Studies at the University of Texas at Dallas.
CHAPTER 4
International Journals:
A Case Study of Asia Pacific
Translation & Intercultural Studies1
Xuanmin Luo and Min Wang
1. Introduction
The founder and editorial director of Literal: Latin American Voices, Rose
Mary Salum, told the whole truth about the nature of editing an academic
journal: “The work of journal editing in language and literature studies inter-
laces a collective dialogue that takes place across all the issues of a journal,
between that journal and other journals, and, just as importantly, within and
among different nations” (Salum 2009, 138). The enchanting symphony of
“collective dialogue(s)” is played by a magnificent orchestra consisting of
editors, scholars, institutions, readers, and the publisher of the international
journal Asia Pacific Translation & Intercultural Studies (APTIS). The inter-
play of various participants on an international scene features prominently
in the management, promotion, and dissemination of the journal. APTIS
has attracted scholars from the Asia-Pacific region and well beyond since
it was published in 2014 by the Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. The
journal ensures the academic quality of its published papers through effec-
tive cooperation and dynamic interaction of various parties in the editorial
process. Its due emphasis on the interdisciplinary nature of translation stud-
ies prompts heterogeneous intermingling and actively absorbs the achieve-
ments from other disciplines. Translation and cultural presentation are so
closely entwined that the journal sets out to accelerate the cross-boundary
traveling of different cultures in the Asia-Pacific region and contribute to the
effort to remove the obstacles blocking the mutual understanding between
the East and the West.
76 ● Xuanmin Luo and Min Wang
2. Dynamic Interactions among Various Participants of the Journal

International journals, through the extensive cooperation and dynamic inter-
actions among participants at different stages of production, knit a fine web
interlaced with vibrant and organic cycles to ensure that manuscripts of high
academic standards are published. Undoubtedly the backbone of a journal is
the submission base, which the editing and publishing system should center
on. For a newly established international journal like APTIS, this consists
of an editorial office and an editorial board, in conjunction with reviewers,
international forums and conferences, institutionalized agencies, readers, and
the publisher (editing manager, production manager, and marketing man-
ager). APTIS’s dynamic system of editing and publishing is illustrated in
Figure 4.1.
By laying unique emphasis on its aim to present an authentic and original
overview of translation and intercultural studies in the Asia-Pacific region,
APTIS provides a transnational platform for Asia-Pacific scholars to pres-
ent their research outcomes in translation studies and to build close con-
nections with scholars in the other parts of the world. The journal publishes
original research papers, case studies, book reviews, English translations of
Figure 4.1 APTIS’s Dynamic System of Journal Editing and Publishing

International Journals ● 77
short stories, autobiographies, poems, and plays. The editorial office serves
as the head of the whole publishing process. The editor-in-chief takes full
care of the journal and takes on challenging responsibilities including mak-
ing decisions and planning the overall profile, as well as soliciting contri-
butions, handling contents, arranging peer review, maintaining the journal’s
fiscal well-being, and promoting the journal across cultures. Last but not
least, the editor-in-chief contributes an editorial for each volume as orienta-
tive remarks. The associate editors, one from the United States and the other
from Australia, help launch the work and provide professional advice from
a global perspective. The editorial assistants of the journal are avid lovers of
academic research in the pertaining field. They devote themselves unspar-
ingly to the aspirations of the journal and provide assistance in dealing with
paperwork; inviting reviewers; tracking submissions; designing email tem-
plates, flyers, banners, and name cards; copyediting; overseeing the flow of
daily work, and so on. More importantly, the editorial office, with its strong
problem-solving acumen, establishes a specialized research team headed by
the editor-in-chief to shoulder the task of conducting empirical studies in all
aspects of production—submission, reviewing process, copyediting, publish-
ing and so on—in order to maintain the optimal and healthy development
of the journal. For this purpose the specialized research team devises vari-
ous means; for example, studying hundreds of papers about related issues,
exchanging opinions with other international journals of translation studies,
reviewing the publishing reports provided by the publisher, implementing
countermeasures based on the actual situation and meticulous investigation,
or stipulating formal regulations and procedures.
Peer review is a crucial component in the editing system of APTIS and
other journals alike. Experts contribute their valuable time, specialized knowl-
edge, and professional insight to enhance the journal’s academic standard and
maintain its reputation from the very beginning. The editorial office, with the
help of the editorial board, tries to create a reviewer pool as internationally
extensive as possible. In order to explore ways to optimize the peer-reviewing
process, APTIS conducted detailed research on every aspect of this crucial
process, including the selection of manuscripts, the use of single-blind or
double-blind reviews, the form of review reports, the level of reviewers’ objec-
tivity, the time reviewers would spend, the extent to which authors are will-
ing to revise their manuscripts according to reviewers’ comments, the value
added by the reviewing process, and even the thanks given to reviewers for
their selfless work. It is worth mentioning that reviewers, in conjunction with
editorial board members, are those who have provided and will provide the
journal with opportunities and incentives to be a truly international journal.
The editorial board of APTIS assembles renowned scholars from 18 countries
or regions, namely (in alphabetical order) Australia, Canada, China, Den-

mark, France, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Kenya, Macao SAR, New Zealand,
the Philippines, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, the USA,
and Vietnam. Apart from reviewing papers, they also contribute high-quality
manuscripts themselves, provide advisory opinions, and, importantly, pro-
mote the journal in their respective countries or regions. What is more, they
make use of their respective academic networks to seek contributions, which
enables the editorial office to receive a fair number of submissions from schol-
ars in and out of the Asia-Pacific region.
As is shown above, an international journal is well suited to nurture (in)
visible academic connections among authors, the editorial office, reviewers,
and the editorial board members. However, the impacts generated by inter-
national forums and conferences cannot be ignored. APTIS, as an official
journal of the Asia-Pacific Forum on Translation and Intercultural Studies,2
gains salient international influence to promote the research of this field in
the Asia-Pacific region. International conferences, held in different countries
by the Forum annually, are invaluable “activators” of the journal. They attract
scholars from various countries to share their latest research achievements,
and conference papers of the highest quality are to be selected for publication
in the journal, which obviously functions as an international platform gather-
ing fresh ideas and opening the horizons of this field. The 2013 Melbourne-
Tsinghua Asia-Pacific Forum on Translation and Intercultural Studies was
co-organized by the Asia Institute of the University of Melbourne, the Con-
fucius Institute, the and Melbourne Graduate School of Education as well as
Tsinghua University, following its success in holding the annual conferences
in China and the United States. Although the venue for the 2015 conference
has not been confirmed (the current candidates including the United States,
the Philippines, and the UK), the Forum definitely is an effective interna-
tional channel for promoting the journal and soliciting contributions from
around the world.
What needs to be mentioned is that institutionalized agencies also play
prominent roles in the growth of the journal. The Center for Translation and
Interdisciplinary Studies of Tsinghua University in China provides the edito-
rial office with fax machines, telephones, computers, furniture and utilities,
electronic hardware and software, and the space for meetings. Both the Center
and the editorial office have close connections with the China Association for
Comparative Studies of English and Chinese, which gathers experienced and
young scholars of English studies, Chinese studies, and culture studies from
colleges, universities, and institutes in mainland China. The connections cer-
tainly accelerate the promotion of the journal. As a matter of fact, the libraries
of some universities have subscribed to the journal, which they believe is an
outlet for translation and intercultural studies in China to be understood by

foreigners and for the display of their merits to readers.
The world-renowned British publishing house Routledge, a global pub-
lisher of academic books, journals, and online resources in the field of human-
ities and social sciences, handles the production, publication, and promotion
of APTIS. They arrange for copyediting, typesetting, printing, posting the
journal electronically, mailing, boothing, maintaining the online network,
soliciting and fulfilling subscriptions, keeping the accounts, administering
copyright permissions, and collection of royalties. The international team
that Routledge assigned to work for APTIS devotes great efforts to guarantee
the quality of the journal and brings new elements into its growth from their
own professions respectively.
3. Activation of Academic Research in Interdisciplinary Approaches

Translation studies is interdisciplinary in nature. The days of one or two uni-
fying paradigms are long gone, and this field has entered a new epoch that
welcomes the dialogue with other disciplines. APTIS hopes to cultivate a
place for cross-fertilization of ideas by incorporating the studies of various
disciplines into the journal. Its “Aims & Scope” clearly states that the journal
covers a broad spectrum of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences,
including such areas as literature, linguistics, history, art, media and commu-
nications, cultural studies, political science, international relations, sociology,
and anthropology. It accepts high-quality papers from these areas as long
as the discussion focuses on translation and culture. What the journal has
done and will continue to do is to guard against disciplinary narrowness.
APTIS encourages scholars, especially young, promising scholars, to under-
take exciting new lines of research to breathe new insights into the theoretical
traditions.
The first three issues of APTIS published in 2014 (that is, Volume 1)
contain one editorial, one book review, one interview, and twelve original
articles. All of them are charged with remarkably interdisciplinary character-
istics well suited to the aim of the journal.
In Issue 1, Shaobo Xie’s “Translation and the Politics of the Universal”
introduces approaches of political and cultural studies into translation studies
and contends that the world, confronting such issues as eco-environmental
crises, uneven development, injustice, and human rights, needs to rethink the
problem of universality and turn the very concept, by way of translation, into
a political space of (re)negotiation between the local and the global, the hege-
monic and the subaltern, and the West and the rest to represent different ways
of being humans, different political legacies, and different cultural traditions;
Leo Tak-hung Chan’s “Under the Shadow of Three Lingua Francae: Reposi-
tioning Translation in East Asia” is an attempt to synthesize the acquisition
of the three lingua francae in East Asia with translation and politics, and
he concludes that the increasing use of the global languages ensures that all
cultures are valorized and all languages respected, and translation provides
the conditions allowing for true democratization; Michael Watson, trained
as a nō singer, combines style analysis of Japanese nō plays and the reception
of Japanese drama with translation studies in his “Inside and Outside the
Grand Lineage: A Study of Early Translations of Japanese Nō Plays”; Tong
King Lee’s “Visuality and Translation in Contemporary Chinese Literary Art:
Xu Bing’s A Book from the Sky and A Book from the Ground” explores the rela-
tion between verbality and visuality in multimodal literary art by examining
two works by contemporary Chinese artist Xu Bing, and Lee argues that
translation serves as a litmus indicator of their underlying discourses; and in
“The Translation of Names and the Fallacy of Representation—And the Cre-
ative Consequences for Literary Translation in the Chinese-English Context,”
Nancy Tsai incorporates the post-colonial concepts of power relations, ideol-
ogy, and ethnocentrism into the analysis of translation of names.
In Issue 2, ‘“Translating’ Homer and His Epics in Late Imperial China:
Christian Missionaries’ Perspectives” by Sher-shiueh Li, the winner of the
2014 Best Paper Award for APTIS, integrates a historical approach into his
meticulous research about the translating of Homer in late imperial China
from Christian missionaries’ perspectives; Yifeng Sun’s “Translation and Back
Translation: Transcultural Reinventions in Some Chinese American Literary
Works” threads Chinese American literature, native Chinese culture, and
American literary tradition with cultural translation in all its complexity;
“Translator’s Style or Translational Style? A Corpus-Based Study of Style in
Translated Chinese Novels” by Libo Huang and Chiyu Chu, in accordance
with the corpus methodology proposed by Mona Baker, is an investigation of
the style in the translated Chinese novels of Howard Goldblatt, with Gladys
Yang’s translations as a comparable corpus, and a multiple-complex model
of comparison is put forward for the study of translator’s style; in “Transla-
tor as Co-Producer: Metempsychosis and Metamorphosis in Ezra Pound’s
Cathay,” Dawn Tsang focuses on Pound’s poem “Histrion,” its associations
with Stanislavskian method, and their interface with translation studies; and
Jamal En-nehas reviews Ahmed Alaoui’s Translation: A Practical Guide for
English-Arabic Translators.
In Issue 3, Lawrence Wang-chi Wong, in his ‘“The Beginning of the
Importation of New Literature from Exotic Countries into China’: Zhou
Zuoren and Yuwai Xiaoshuoji,” embarks on the study by situating it in its
historical and literary context, demonstrating how and why Yuwai xiaoshuoji
can be regarded as Zhou’s attempt to practice his literary thinking in the

earliest phase of his literary career; in “(Self-)Censorship and the Translator-
Author Relationship: The Case of Full Translation, Partial Translation and
Non-Translation in the Chinese Context,” Zaixi Tan researches into the
translator-author relationship against the backdrop of governmental and
nongovernmental censorship in present-day China and offers a theoretical
framework for discussions about how various types of (self-)censorship influ-
ence the translator-author relationship and the activity of translation within
the context of China; “Categorization of the Fiction Translation Expectancy
Norms to Iranian Undergraduate Readership,” coauthored by Saeedeh Bijani,
Masood Khoshsaligheh, and Mohammad Reza Hashemi, attempts to iden-
tify and categorize the main expectancy norms of Iranian undergraduate stu-
dents as a large part of Iranian translation readership of the foreign fiction in
Persian; and “Enlarging Translation and Enlightening the Field: An Interview
with Professor Maria Tymoczko” by Wendi Yang is illuminating in discussing
the status quo of translation studies, literary studies, and cultural studies, and
the imbalance in theory studies between Eurocentric cultures, the teaching of
translation studies, and so on.
The editorial board of APTIS, which includes 27 members, together with
two associate editors, also portrays a grand interdisciplinary scene. Apart from
experts specialized in translation studies, each with their own interdisciplin-
ary focus, such as Anthony Pym, Douglas Robinson, Edwin Gentzler, Jeremy
Munday, Lawrence Venuti, and Luise von Flotow, the editor-in-chief is also
assisted by scholars representing a wide range of disciplines; to name just a few,
Russell Leong is a professor of English and Asian-American studies and also
previously served as editor of Amerasia Journal; King-Kok Cheung is an Ameri-
can literary critic specializing in Asian American literature; Vicente Rafael is a
professor of history, also active in the fields of cultural anthropology, literary
studies, language and power, and translation and religious conversion; Michael
Watson’s research interests include comparative literature, narratology, stylis-
tics, translation studies, and the reception of Japanese literature and drama;
and Wenguo Pan represents the spectrum of phonology, contrastive linguistics,
comparative studies between Chinese and English, and translation studies.
Interdisciplinary refereeing is a touchstone for a journal’s interdisciplin-
ary nature and insurance for the academic quality of ready-to-be-published
manuscripts implementing interdisciplinary approaches. The reviewer pool,
overlapped partly with the editorial board, comprises scholars with a wide
range of research expertise ushering in each solid contribution. APTIS regu-
larly sends out submissions to reviewers from different disciplines around the
world. Their review reports prevent the editor-in-chief from falling victim to
partial biases and help him make sound judgments about the submissions.
To position APTIS in international academia as an interdisciplinary jour-

nal, effective measures with redirecting functions will be taken in its future
development. High-quality manuscripts with interdisciplinary angles will be
given priority to be published, and this will be added to the “Instructions
for Authors” on the journal’s website to strengthen authors’ interdisciplin-
ary consciousness. Greater importance will be attached to innovativeness and
openness of the research topics from interdisciplinary perspectives, because
complex issues, no doubt, can only be satisfactorily addressed by drawing
on materials and methodologies beyond the discipline. The editorial office
will take initiatives to solicit contributions of interdisciplinary value from
the Asia-Pacific region and keep a close eye on the latest academic trends
by tracking down the newest seminars and conferences on interdisciplinary
translation studies held in China and abroad. Efforts will be made to attract
manuscripts from authors outside of the discipline but ready to explore issues
in translation studies that they invest interest in or have profound insights
about. More often than not, readers may be overwhelmed by their fresh
ideas and new research directions brought into this field through integrative
approaches, and their language can be polished with the assistance of pro-
fessional editors, if necessary. As the journal matures, special columns may
be designed for specific disciplinary approaches in translation studies, which
may generate and deepen the studies in the pertaining field around the Asia-
Pacific region.
4. Promotion of Cross-Cultural Exchanges on an

International Platform
Translation inheres in every language and thus in their respective cultures.
APTIS was intended by its founder to serve not only as a platform to advance
the academic quality in the field of translation and intercultural studies, but
also as a vehicle to carry different cultures across the Asia-Pacific region,
which would, in the reverse direction, function as a promoter of academic
standards around the region by broadening researchers’ vision.
The editorial board members from the 18 countries or regions mentioned
above represent their respective cultures, gather around the forefront of
the journal, and generate rays of cross-cultural communications by allow-
ing intellectual and cultural elements to flow into heterogeneous space. The
influence from those experts, as a matter of fact, will ripple through seas of
young and experienced researchers in their own countries or regions, who
may contribute to APTIS, and as a result, a matrix of cultural exchanges
will be set into motion through interdisciplinary translation studies on this
international platform. The potential influence to be seen is beyond measure.
From the perspective of the author composition, the journal’s three issues
of Volume 1 have attracted contributors from China (Hong Kong, Taiwan,
Xi’an, Zhuhai, Beijing), Canada, Japan, and Iran; and they bring their discus-
sions into play from perspectives deeply rooted in their own cultures or the
cultures they are familiar with. APTIS is launching the marketing projects
in full swing to solicit contributions from different cultures and increase its
global readership.3 To ensure a high level of visibility, APTIS sends email
containing such key information about the journal as its aims and scope, calls
for papers, the editorial board, and paper submission details to relevant aca-
demics in various countries; details of APTIS new issues and articles are being
posted to related Routledge social media feeds, such as Twitter, Facebook,
LinkedIn and Weibo; printed materials like call-for-paper flyers have been
available at a number of related conferences and distributed among partici-
pants; the journal is featured in related subject catalogs, including Asian Stud-
ies; and newsletters concerning the new information of APTIS are released
on the homepage of Tsinghua University. The more diverse the nationali-
ties of the authors are, the more opportunities of cultural exchanges will be
proliferated on this international platform; and it is only by deepening the
mutual understanding between cultures that the academic quality of the field
of translation studies can be enhanced in a true sense.
International journals, especially those on translation studies, are effective
catalysts for cultural fusion and understanding through their dissemination
among the increasing readership. Data for online usage of APTIS was col-
lected from the platform of Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; Figure 4.1
from the Publishing Report provided by Routledge in May 2014 shows the
full text downloads via standard platforms for APTIS by month.
Figure 4.2 Full Text Downloads via Standard Platforms for APTIS by Month
Although only the data of Volume 1, Issue 1 are available at the time of
writing, the figure clearly shows that the number of full text downloads of
the journal experienced a rocketing increase from January to April in 2014,
which signals its propitious beginning and its increasing impact on the aca-
demic field of translation studies as a promising journal. The Publishing
Report also provides a data analysis of the top ten institutions by downloads
from January to April 2014 (see Table 4.1) as well as an analysis of the top ten
countries/regions by downloads in 2014 (see Table 4.2).
Table 4.1 Top Institutions by Downloads in 2014 (Jan.–Apr.)

Institution Country\Region Full Text Downloads
in 2014
University of Macau Library Macao 32
Universiti Sains Malaysia Malaysia 25
Sultan Qaboos University Oman 10
Tsinghua University China 10
University of Malaya Malaysia 10
The University of Manchester UK 9
Academia Sinica, Institute of Ethnology Taiwan 9
Academia Sinica, Institute of European and Taiwan 9
American Studies
Central China Normal University China 9
University of Nottingham, China Campus China 8
Table 4.2 Top Countries/Regions by Downloads in 2014 (Jan.–Apr.)

Country\Region Region Full Text Downloads in 2014
China Asia 171
United Kingdom Europe 81
United States North America 55
Canada North America 45
Malaysia Asia 35
Macao Asia 32
Australia Australasia 31
Hong Kong Asia 28
Indonesia Asia 28
Italy Europe 26
The top ten institutions by downloads are from China, Malaysia, Oman,
and the UK, with rough percentages of 59 percent, 27 percent, 8 percent
and 7 percent. The top ten countries/regions by downloads cover a wide
spectrum of regions of Asia, Europe, North America, and Australasia, their
respective rough percentages being 55 percent, 20 percent, 19 percent, and
6 percent. The figures show that the cultural elements contained in the
journal have a large number of potential readers and are brought into con-
tact with other cultures worldwide. The journal is about translation and
intercultural studies in the Asia-Pacific region, but it is distributed to the
whole world. The Asia-Pacific region, though with no clear-cut definition,
typically includes most areas of East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and
Oceania, and, depending on different contexts, may also include Russia in
the North Pacific and countries in the Americas that are on the coast of
the eastern Pacific Ocean. The journal’s positioning of “Asia Pacific” itself
is both regional and international, with its nature being both academic and
cultural from the outset: being regional, it enables scholars in the Asia-
Pacific region to identify themselves and feel at home, which will push
the process of diversified translational and cultural pictures being taken
and assembled in different issues of the journal as “family albums”; being
international, it generates cultural exchanges worldwide between the Asia-
Pacific region as a whole and each cultural representative individually. This
will, of course, provide authentic research materials for Western scholars
who are interested in the East. With the “family albums,” ethnocentrism,
which may exist in any country or nation in various forms as the big-
gest obstacle to cultural awareness and cultural confidence (Luo 2012, 64),
can be more easily averted and guarded against. Through this international
journal, more and more voices from the East will be heard, and cultural
heterogeneities will be introduced into the scene. Edward Said, in elabo-
rating Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, Michel Foucault’s theory
of discourse, and the relation between knowledge and power, critically
referred to “Orientalism” as a way of thinking based on an ontological and
epistemological distinction made between the Orient and the Occident,
the former represented as passive, obedient, undeveloped, inferior, and
lacking in creative subjectivity in contrast to the latter’s being developed
and superior. Nowadays this phenomenon has been alleviated, as new rela-
tionships are being constructed with concerted efforts to understand better
both the East and the West. APTIS, as has been discussed in the editorial
published in the first issue of Volume 1, is “part of this effort to rebalance
the roles of the East and the West in relation to translation and intercul-
tural studies” (Luo 2014, 1).
5. Conclusion
International journals integrate global experience into their production to
promote the academic standard in its international relevance. As for the field
of translation studies, the area of international journal publishing merits
more profound empirical and theoretical research; the writings published are
themselves translations that provide the very passage for meaningful interdis-
ciplinary cross-cultural dialogues. APTIS makes strenuous efforts to bring an
organic system into operation and offers the best space that awaits fulfillment
by participants both from the Asia-Pacific region and outside of it. To some
extent, APTIS opens a channel for the voices of both translation studies and
cultural studies from the Asia-Pacific region to be heard around the world.
Notes
1. The paper was presented as a keynote speech at the International Conference of
Journals and Translation held at Jinan University in Guangzhou, China, in 2014.
2. The executive council of the Forum consists of members from 18 countries or
regions, and it aims to promote academic standards and exchanges in the Asia-
Pacific region.
3. Taylor & Francis Beijing Round Table was held in May 2014, and it pro-
vided highly professional training for editors on journal marketing and journal
development.
References
Luo, Xuanmin (2012). “Cultural Awareness and English Translations of Chinese
Classics,” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 266 (5): 63–66.
Luo, Xuanmin (2014). “Editorial,” Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies
1 (1): 1.
Luo Xuanmin (ed.) (2014). Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies 1 (1–3)
(London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group), p. 1–230.
Publishing Report for Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies May 2014 (Lon-
don: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group).
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.).
Salum, Rose Mary (2009). “Editing Journals across Languages and Cultures,” Profes-
sion: 138–144.
CHAPTER 5
My Responsibilities as a Journal
Editor
Gangqiang He
T
his short chapter offers a frank critique of the current academic
research environment of humanities and social sciences in China,
which is not exactly healthy, with some problems getting worse. The
main reason for this lamentable situation is that the academic research seems
to be strongly driven by a utilitarian urge with a view to achieving instant suc-
cess. This is manifest in the fact that a large number of low-quality papers or
monographs have been produced, the implication being that a lot of research
funds along with valuable manpower and other material resources have been
wasted. More disturbingly, this unhealthy tendency has also encouraged such
wrongdoing as deceit and plagiarism. If this is allowed to continue, devastat-
ing consequences to the whole field of academic research in the country will
inevitably follow. If we do not allow researchers to have sufficient space to
pursue and concentrate on their research, and if academic performance is
measured only by the number of papers published, it is not only academic
research but also the whole generation of researchers will be in jeopardy. This
may sound somewhat alarmist, but undeniably what is at stake is long-term
development, and just like any other form of corruption that is being vigor-
ously dealt with, what is happening in the academic community in China has
become a pressing national problem.
I largely write from a personal perspective in my capacity as the newly
elected editor of Shanghai Journal of Translators, a quarterly journal devoted
to translation studies with its aim to explore translation theories and dis-
seminate knowledge, which includes examining and canvassing experiences
of translation practice. Above all, the overarching aspiration is to promote
translation research in China. Despite the lofty intentions of the academic
88 ● Gangqiang He
community in general and the journal in particular, as its editor I have expe-
rienced much agony and aggravation since I took over the journal at the
beginning of 2014. I shall identify and examine some of the typical problems
associated with academic attitude, paper writing, and research itself. It can
hardly be denied that such problems are serious and deserve serious atten-
tion. Admittedly, I had heard of the problems that seemed to grow rampant
in the academic community from various sources long before I took over
the editorship of Shanghai Journal of Translators. In my routine reviewing
work over the years, my awareness of various acute problems associated with
academic publishing has driven me to reflect on their roots. In the current
climate of academic practice in China, editing a scholarly journal is far from
an easy task. Interference of all sorts from both inside and outside the aca-
demic community, some directly or indirectly from government policies and
bureaucracy, can make the editing work of the journal difficult from time
to time. In spite of these difficulties, however, it is my firm belief that the
academic independence and integrity of the journal should be safeguarded
whenever possible. To this end, I would like to propose the following duties
with regard to the editorship of the journal to at least minimize interference
with the editorial decision-making process.
I must be very clear about the content and direction of my responsibilities.
My understanding of the matter is that the essential part of my responsibilities
is to encourage innovation in research by, first and foremost, making some
adjustments of some of the sections of the journal, bringing attention to how
the recently developed translation theories can best be applied to translation
practice in China. With an emphasis on academic rigor and zero tolerance of
academic dishonesty and other related unethical practices, some active and
vigilant measures are already in place to make sure that the published papers
are devoid of any indication of what constitutes academic dishonesty and var-
ious forms of cheating. As I see it, another important responsibility of mine
as a journal editor is to nurture young scholars whose academic development
and success will ensure the continuance and the prosperity of our journal. I
have laid out four responsibilities as the editor of Shanghai Journal of Transla-
tors in fulfilling the mission of promoting translation studies in China.
1. To Foster Innovative Ideas

Innovation has now become the most obsessive catchword in China. Shang-
hai Journal of Translators will soon celebrate its thirtieth anniversary, and it
has to brace itself for a series of old and new challenges. It is realized that
only through innovation can these challenges be dealt with effectively. In
view of the current translation research and the development of pragmatic
My Responsibilities as a Journal Editor ● 89
translation studies, we have made some changes to the sections of the journal.
Meanwhile, the journal is moving toward diversification in order to reflect
the multiple dimensions of the field of translation studies. Some new sec-
tions have been added, in keeping with the latest developments in transla-
tion studies. The distinctive innovative feature of the journal is to address
issues of concern to practicing translators, with its firm emphasis on applied
translation studies, including articles dealing with problems with regard to
translation teaching and training. However, this does not represent the thrust
of our main effort, valuable as these insights are into the actual process of
doing translation and teaching it. In general, the determinants of innovation
represented by a journal are understood to be closely related to its envisaged
editorial concept. It is important to encourage research work to open up
new realms of possibilities and to address practical problems in translation
practice. Therefore, the key aim of translation research in the current Chinese
context is to carve out niches to produce more original research outputs, to
better serve the needs of China for opening up further to the outside world
as part of the “going global” cultural strategy.
This cultural aspiration requires new approaches and perspectives to
enhance theoretical and practical understanding of the nature and function
of translation. At the core of innovation in research is to address problems
encountered in translation practice and relate them to theoretical concep-
tions. In our enthusiasm to promote the translation of Chinese classics, we
need to discuss how to formulate appropriate strategies. For this purpose, we
set up a column to bring together a diverse set of scholars around common
issues of concern. The existing column of translation management as a new
topic of discussion is given a more prominent place in the journal, so that
new software development and related technologies can be presented and
discussed in a timely manner. The editor of a journal should keep abreast with
the latest developments in all areas of translation studies in order to maintain
the vitality of the journal. He or she should also be ready to identify new
concepts and perspectives, which are more often than not hidden somewhere
inconspicuous between the lines of the submitted papers or in conversations
among scholars. Only by doing so can the journal’s pioneering efforts become
successful and make more contributions to scholarship. All in all, innovation
is the eternal force that justifies the existence of an academic field and gives it
a purpose to develop further.
2. To Emphasize Academic Rigor

Shanghai Journal of Translators has enjoyed a continued high rate of sub-
missions from all over the country, which is obviously a good thing for the
90 ● Gangqiang He
journal. The quality of the submitted papers, however, is not of an equal

standard and sometimes disappointingly low. There are all kinds of prob-
lems with regard to the submitted papers that must not be allowed to escape
editorial vigilance. A considerable number of articles fail to meet the basic
requirement for academic writing. They are poorly written and organized
and difficult to read. Citations or quotations are often shoddily done due to
carelessness and inattention. And misquotes are not rare, probably born of
laziness rather than deceitfulness. Erroneous information is often presented
as a result of misreading, and the often-covert dissemination of erroneous
information due to mishandling of information has created a vicious circle.
This inevitably boils down to the attitude of scholarship itself, as evidenced in
the seemingly inexplicable reluctance to verify and validate the accuracy and
reliability of information involved in research.
The worst of all sins is, of course, plagiarism. Some papers may read suspi-
ciously familiar, in that they are copies in disguise of other authors. Authors
of such papers with their lack of attribution commit a moral sin, which
should not be tolerated. If papers of this kind are published, there are serious
consequences, and a negative impact on the journal and the academic com-
munity at large is that bad examples are set. Shanghai Journal of Translators
has since adopted a series of measures to prevent plagiarism by keeping those
dishonest authors at bay. Admittedly, not all academic misconduct is easily
identifiable. The journal editor is obviously the first person to make sure that
such academic misconduct is stamped out. Apart from tightening the quality
control of all the accepted papers, all members of the journal’s editorial board
are constantly reminded to keep a sharp eye on the submitted papers and par-
ticularly the accepted ones. Besides, some other technical measures have been
taken to ensure the quality of the published papers. Among other things, we
invite and encourage the reading public to comment on the papers published
in the journal as an extra, effective measure in promoting the concept of aca-
demic integrity as an institutional standard. To maintain academic vigor and
integrity helps to secure the lifeline of a journal, and we cannot afford to relax
our vigilance or slacken our efforts in this regard.
3. To Nurture Young Scholars

Academic research is an ever-evolving endeavor calling for the young gen-
eration of scholars to continue the efforts of their predecessors. It is the law
of nature, and academic continuity needs to be prompted and maintained.
However, we have to admit that it takes time for young scholars to grow
and build up their academic careers. We are all aware of the importance of
creating an enabling environment for them to pursue their research, and one
of the vital roles of an academic journal is to identify and discover outstand-

ing talents in the field among junior scholars. We believe that for the future
development of translation studies, young academic hopefuls ready to suc-
ceed elderly senior scholars ought to be given more opportunities for pub-
lication, and more help should be provided to assist them. To this end, the
journal has organized a series of workshops in which senior scholars act as
mentors to train young scholars.1
It is a well-known fact that many scholarly journals tend to rely on estab-
lished authors for their contributions, which is of course only too natural and
even necessary. In view of the factor of the journal’s impact, we naturally seek
out contributions from better-established researchers. Nevertheless, academic
excellence is not necessarily correlated with age and seniority, even in humani-
ties research. What young scholars need is some special encouragement and
guidance, or especially created enabling conditions, for them to take hold of
the academic high ground. On the other hand, my experience as the editor
of the journal shows that not all the papers of the well-known scholars are
consistently of high quality. The time always comes when the old generation
declines from its prime and the new generation catches up. Therefore, it is
the duty of any journal to provide opportunities for the young scholars, in
particular those who are able to write high-quality papers. A scholarly jour-
nal should encourage young people to try to improve themselves, and their
enhanced academic performance is essential to the success of a journal whose
history serves as an index to the development of individual scholars as well.
Some well-established translation scholars in China have benefited from valu-
able research assistance and other help provided by journals. However, in our
reviewing process, we have observed that some eminent scholars seem to have
“burned out” and lost much of their scholarly vitality and capacity to produce
cutting-edge research.
For this reason, we attach a great deal of importance to the continuing
scholarly vitality of Shanghai Journal of Translators. Its founder and former
editor, Professor Mengzhi Fang,2 did a marvelous job in promoting the
young and potentially outstanding scholars in the field of pragmatic transla-
tion studies in the past several decades. Now, as the succeeding editor, I have
every intention to live up to and continue this fine tradition, not only for
the prosperity of the journal, but also for translation research in this country.
4. To Champion a Plain and Clear Writing Style

According to my observation, many academic articles (I refer here exclusively
to papers written in Chinese) are not very readable. The awkward sentence
structures and inappropriate use of words are often bad enough to repulse the
92 ● Gangqiang He
reader who has barely started reading the first few sentences. These problems
call for an urgent improvement of the writing quality of academic papers in
China. In this endeavor, academic journals such as Shanghai Journal of Trans-
lators have to play a guiding role by setting up some higher standards and
models. China has a long-standing tradition of writing clearly and elegantly
that has evolved in line with the distinctive character of the Chinese language
and culture. The basic idea behind this tradition is general agreement that
whatever one writes is to be consumed by the reader, who expects the text to
be not only a source of enlightenment but also something that can provide a
delightful reading experience. As Yan Fu, a well-known Chinese thinker and
translator, once argued while positing his so-called three translating prin-
ciples more than a hundred years ago, one’s writing cannot go far if it is not
characterized by refined elegance. One’s writing must be accountable to one-
self and one’s readers, and this is concerned with one’s attitude and purpose.
According to Yan Fu, the author should show due respect to his or her readers
by providing them with well-structured ideas in an elegant and stylish way for
both their comprehension and enjoyment.
In my opinion, readability derives from the author’s genuine interest in
the topic under investigation, and the relevant ideas to be presented should
be well thought out and clearly articulated. Obscure and unintelligible word-
ing must be avoided, no matter what. We urge our authors to adhere to
the basic rules of writing and to do whatever they can to eliminate wordi-
ness, awkwardness, and redundancy, thereby breaking down the barriers
between the reader and the text. In any event, accessibility must be improved
in every way possible so that the discipline can further expand its research
space. Therefore, we expect submitted articles to be logically developed and
coherently structured. In truth, many translation scholars of the previous
generation in China have produced articles with exemplary scholarship and
enlightening accessibility.
Unfortunately, such elegantly written articles are rarities now, and in spite
of the fact that many of our contributors are university professors and other
faculty members, the quality of writing, as evidenced in their submissions, is
less than desirable. There seems to be a historical rupture of continuity with
regard to the writing tradition in China, which should not have been the case.
Though the Chinese language is evolving with the times, the quintessential
beauty of the Chinese language remains and should be somehow reflected in
the current academic discourse, particularly of the humanities and social sci-
ences. That is why I want to give special emphasis to the importance of devel-
oping and maintaining a clear and elegant writing style. To attain style and
elegance in writing increases the power of academic discourse. I hasten to add
that elegance does not mean writing in a language of extravagant pomposity.
On the contrary, elegance results from natural simplicity and stylistic spon-
taneity. In a nutshell, academic writing in general, and journal publication
in particular, call for something refreshing and pungent in both content and
form so that vigor and vitality can be restored to our academic discourse.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that Shanghai Journal of Translators
takes as its cultural mission to boost scholarly publishing and production and
to promote a healthy academic climate and culture. Though based in Shang-
hai, the journal embraces a national and a global vision. It is our aim and
aspiration to make Shanghai Journal of Translators a leading scholarly journal
in translation research and an indispensable venue for China’s most eminent
scholars and young authors with original ideas to publish their research find-
ings. The journal has been and will continue to be a forum for academic
dialogue among scholars and between junior scholars and senior ones, as well
as an active site for exchanging ideas and views about translation practice.
In addition, it should also be an ideal venue for teachers of translation and
interpreting to present their research outputs, and last, but by no means least,
it should be an outlet for young scholars to publish their research concern-
ing all aspects of translation research and interpreting research. As a young
academic discipline, translation studies needs more young scholars to support
and promote continuous innovation and sustainable development. Part of
our editorial policy is to continue our efforts to nurture them, which aligns
precisely with our future-oriented vision.
Notes
1. The editorial board has jointly organized conferences and symposia on transla-
tion studies with Suzhou University, Beijing International Studies University,
Shanghai University, and Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. These
activities have had widespread influence among readers of the journal through-
out the country. From time to time, the editorial board holds face-to-face dis-
cussion meetings with its readers on the occasions of conferences, symposia, and
anniversary celebrations of the journal. Many of the readers are also contribu-
tors or potential contributors. Members of the editorial board seek out their
opinions and suggestions, and listen carefully and sensitively to their concerns
and needs.
2. Mengzhi Fang was one of the founding editors of Shanghai Journal of Translators in
1986, when the journal was called Shanghai Journal of Science Translation. He first
served as its associate editor, and three years later he became its editor. Fang is a
distinguished scholar in translation studies in China and has published extensively
in many areas of translation studies, particularly pragmatic translation research.
He is also the chief editor of A Dictionary of Translation Studies in China, published
by Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press in 2010.
PART II
Translation Research at Work

CHAPTER 6
Translation, Cultural Politics, and

Poetic Form: A Comparative Study of
the Translation of Modernist Poetry
in Les Contemporains (1932–35) and
Literary Currents (1956–59)
Zijiang Song
F
or modern Chinese poetry, or poetry written in vernacular Chinese,
1920 is a year of great significance. In this year, Hu Shi 傉怑, one
of the major exponents of the New Literature Movement, published
Experimental Poems (˪▿娎普˫),1 the earliest single poet’s book of poems
written in vernacular Chinese, in which his translation of Western poems
was also collected. In his 1931 review of Hu’s book and the first decade of
modern Chinese poetry, Liang Shiqiu 㠩⮎䥳 remarked, “Modern poetry
is foreign poetry written in Chinese.”2 While this statement may be contro-
versial, Liang concluded that there was a translational relationship between
modern Chinese poetry and Western poetry in the 1920s, which started,
unforgettably, with Hu’s translation of George Gordon Byron, Anne Lindsay,
and Sara Teasdale, and his Chinese rendition of Edward FitzGerald’s English
translation of the Rubáiyát. Having acknowledged Hu’s practice of and con-
tribution to modern Chinese poetry, Liang boldly asserted, “The influence
of foreign literature is beneficial. We should embrace its invasion of Chinese
poetry without reservation.”3 He continued to criticize his contemporaries
for weighing the linguistic medium of new poetry, namely the vernacular,
against its artistic quality.4 A critic associated with the group of l’art pour l’art
poets mainly influenced by English romantic poetry, namely the Crescent
poets 㕘㚰娑Ṣ, Liang was covertly steering his ambitious critique against
98 ● Zijiang Song
the artless slogan poetry produced by irritable left-wing writers in late 1920s
and early 1930s Shanghai, as he was at the time deeply preoccupied with his
polemic against the left-wing writers who sought to popularize and classify
literature for the purpose of proletarian revolution.
The debate between left-wing writers and Crescent poets, albeit more
on grounds of cultural politics, in part resulted in Shi Zhecun 㕥坬⬀’s
(1905–2003) reflection upon the poetry of both camps and his practice of
the “image-lyric poetry” (シ尉㈺ね娑), an imagery-heavy vers libre written
in Chinese. Shi made his poetics statement in reference to his translation of
Western poetry, in particular the work of American imagists such as Ezra
Pound, Amy Lowell, and H. D. The literary journal under Shi’s editorship,
Les Contemporains (˪䎦ẋ˫ [1932–35]), became the venue for Shi’s and
his followers’ poetics practice, as well as for their translation of Western mod-
ernist poetry. Despite their pursuit of pure modernist poetics void of political
content, Shi and his followers were unable to escape from left-wing writers’
fervent denigration. Les Contemporains ended in 1935 because the publisher
decided to take part in the cultural political debate, and Shi ended his poetic
pursuits for good. As the League of Left-Wing Writers (ᷕ⚳ⶎ侤ἄ⭞倗
䚇, hereafter the Left League) disbanded in 1936 and the Sino-Japanese War
broke out in 1937, left-wing writers’ hostility toward the poets associated
with Les Contemporains temporarily abated.
Around the time when the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was estab-
lished in 1949, a group of writers, artists, philosophers, filmmakers, and
various types of cultural workers migrated to Hong Kong, then a colonial
city that enjoyed freedom of the press, which was then possible neither
in communist China nor in Taiwan under the Kuomintang’s governance.
Ronald Mar (楔㚿, whose original name is Ma Boliang 楔⌂列, 1933–),
settled in Hong Kong in 1951 and found himself in a situation like Shi’s in
the 1930s. Satisfied neither with the sentimental nostalgic poetry written
by the right-wing poets exiled to Hong Kong, such as Li Kuang ≃⋉ and
Xiahou Wuji ⢷ὗ䃉⽴, nor with the artless realist poetry produced by left-
wing poets, such as He Da ỽ忼, Mar expressly tailored his literary journal
Literary Currents (1956–59) to showcase modernist literature and presented
a fuller picture of Western modernist poetry. His persistent translation of
modernist poetry inspired the movement of Hong Kong modernism in the
late 1950s and early 1960s.
In this article, I argue that, though in different cultural political contexts,
both Shi and Mar resorted to the translation of Western modernist poetry as a
nonpolitical gesture toward the long-standing antagonism between left-wing
and right-wing writers, which began shortly after the New Literature Move-
ment in mainland China and continued in Hong Kong in the 1950s. For Shi
Translation, Cultural Politics, and Poetic Form ● 99
and Mar, the journal served as a vital venue for their poetics statements and
signified their pursuit of modernist poetics and their ambition of ushering
modern Chinese poetry toward modernism.
In a 1920 article that compares classicism, romanticism, and realism, the
author Mao Dun 劭䚦, a left-wing writer and cultural critic informed by the
socialist October Revolution in Russia in 1917, stated his purposes: “(1) To
work out the meanings of the three schools of literature; (2) To narrate the
advancement of culture from a bird’s-eye view; (3) To right the wrong done
to romanticism; to rid realism of undue praise.”5 While prematurely apply-
ing a Marxist dialectical—or, to use his word, “evolutionary”—conception
of history to the sphere of Western literary history, Mao neither “righted the
wrong done to romanticism” nor “rid realism of undue praise.” He continued
to write off romantic literature, criticize romantic writers for their reliance
on aristocratic arts patronage, and decry romantic literature as an escape to a
nonexistent pastoral safe haven.6 This is one of the earliest attacks that influ-
ential left-wing Chinese writers launched against romantic literature; in the
meantime Mao foregrounded the critical capacity of realism as the “prom-
ised prosperity of literature.”7 Mao thus pitted realism against romanticism,
which in part resulted in his followers’ denouncement of romantic literature
from the early to mid-1920s.
On May 30, 1925, thousands of people in Shanghai demonstrated against
a Japanese foreman’s killing of a Chinese worker. Ten protesters were killed
by British police officers and more than fifty injured. The May Thirtieth Inci-
dent Ḽ⋭㄀㟰 triggered nationwide demonstrations and pushed the anti-
imperialist mood to its peak. Politically sensitive men of letters were shocked,
and many of them were converted to the Communist Party of China (here-
after, CPC). In 1930, the CPC finally galvanized these writers into the estab-
lishment of the Left League.8 Guo Moruo 悕㱓劍, hailed as a romantic poet
in the early 1920s, announced his conversion to Marxism and became one
of the leading writers of left-wing literature in the mid-1920s. Guo found
himself a way of merging his romantic poetics into proletariat literature. In a
1927 article, he wrote,
We know that the essence of literature begins and ends with emotion [. . .]
What a revolution age demands is the strongest and most pervasive kind of
collective emotions. For the literature produced by this kind of emotion, there
are inexhaustible sources and myriad different ways of expression. Therefore, a
revolutionary age always contains a golden age of literature.9
Before Guo’s article, in 1926 another left-wing poet, Jiang Guangci 哋⃱ヰ,
also touched upon this idea in his article on Alexander Blok: “Romantic poets
understand revolution better than any other kinds of poets. [. . .] The more
100 ● Zijiang Song
passionate the revolution is . . . the more it captures the poetic mind, because it
demands . . . the romantic.”10 However, left-wing writers’ antagonism against
romanticism ended with neither Guo’s nor Jiang’s writings. “Revolutionary
romanticism” was disparaged by left-wing critics such as Qu Qiubai 䝧䥳䘥
and Qian Xincun 拊㛷恐, who single-mindedly believed realism to be the
orthodox style of leftist literature.11 While Qian and Li went extreme and
functionalized literature for propaganda, Lu Xun, then a towering writer in a
troubled relationship with the Left League, correctly pointed out, “Though all
literature is propaganda, not all propaganda is literature.”12
In 1925, Xu Zhimo assumed editorship of the literary supplement of
Beijing Morning Post (˪⊿Ṕ㘐⟙˫). A Cambridge graduate admir-
ing English romantic poetry, he was quick enough to urge Zhang Ziping
⻝屯⸛ to contribute articles about Western romantic literature. Zhang, who
indulged in writing romance novels, was obviously not interested in poetics.
His article, after all, is a short survey of European romantic literature, giv-
ing brief accounts of English romantic poets such as Wordsworth, Coleridge,
Byron, Shelley, and Keats, and stretching the scope to include Victorian poets
such as Tennyson, Kipling, and Hardy.13 Liang Shiqiu, at the time studying
in the United States, wrote an overambitious treatise to prove that “the New
Literature Movement is trending towards romanticism.”14 What he did was
to characterize any modern Chinese writers’ unreserved embrace of Western
literature as “romantic” and bend all phenomena of modern Chinese literature
toward the central theoretical concepts of romantic literature, such as “nature,”
“imagination,” and “emotion.” For example, early left-wing poets’ realistic
depiction of rickshaw men was distorted into sympathetic expression springing
from an overflow of poetic emotion.15
Wen Yiduo 倆ᶨ⣂, in his famous article on poetics, “The Form of
Poetry” (娑䘬㟤⼳), posited that modern Chinese poetry should carry the
beauty of music (meter, rhyme, intonation), art (imagistic impression), and
architecture (lineation and visual structure).16 Soon enough, Wen published
in a supplement his famous poem “Dead Water” (㬣㯜), written with pat-
terned meter, neat lineation, consistent rhyme scheme, and stanza breaks,
and it was immediately taken by Crescent poets as their model.17
忁㗗炾ᶨ㹅炾䳽㛃䘬炾㬣㯜炻
㶭桐炾⏡ᶵ崟炾⋲溆炾㻒㶒ˤ
ᶵ⤪炾⣂ㇼṃ炾䟜戭炾䇃揝炻
䇥⿏炾㻹Ἀ䘬炾岠厄炾㭀佡ˤ18
In a 1932 review article, Shen Congwen 㰰⽆㔯 correctly observed in Wen’s

poems his l’art pour l’art pursuit: “We admire his ingenious poetic technique,
praise his craftsmanship [. . .] Quotidian entities [. . .] were estranged, which

elevated his poem to higher level of pure art.”19
In 1927 Crescent poets finally united in Shanghai, where they were able to
establish the Crescent Bookstore (㕘㚰㚠⸿) and their literary journals, Cres-
cent (˪㕘㚰˫) and Poetry Journal (˪娑↲˫). With the journals as pub-
lishing venues and the bookstore as a distributional channel, Crescent poets
were able to voice their ideas about modern Chinese poetics in a more orga-
nized way. They looked up to English Romantic and Victorian poets as their
models, whose works were translated and introduced in various issues of Cres-
cent: Thomas Hardy (1.1), Elizabeth Browning (1.1), Rupert Brooke (1.6),
William de la Mare (1.6), John Keats (1.7), William H. Davies (1.7), A. E.
Housman (2.5–7), William Blake (2.8–11), Robert Bridges (2.12), and John
Masefield (3.1).20 Crescent poets’ understandable resistance against the pro-
paganda literature promoted by the left-wing critics was seen in Xu Zhimo’s
manifesto of the Crescent journal, “The Attitude of the Crescent” (1928), in
which he advanced an artistic liberalism based on mutual respect and consid-
ered the zealous, indoctrinated, slogan-heavy propaganda literature to be an
indictment of the modern subject’s thinking and psychological health.21 The
left-wing critics halted their internal disagreement in 1930, identified Cres-
cent poets as their common enemy, and labeled them “anti-revolutionary.”
Lu Xun and Feng Naichao 楖ᷫ崭 were particularly keen to join this attack,
followed by the former’s long-standing polemic against Liang Shiqiu.22 While
they devoted more energy to name-calling than to poetics, they did have some
high-quality discussions about the relationship between translation and pro-
letariat literature.23 Xu Zhimo’s death in an air crash in 1931 was certainly a
tragedy for Crescent poets, and it may well be the same for modern Chinese
poetry. As a result, Crescent poets disbanded in the same year.
It was during this complicated contention over romanticism and prole-
tariat literature in intricate relation to cultural politics that Shi Zhecun 㕥
坬⬀ġbegan, in 1932, his editorship of Les Contemporains (˪䎦ẋ˫). His
embrace of vers libre resulted from his reflection upon the Western influence
on modern Chinese poetry:
Mr. Hu Shi’s New Poetry Movement liberated us from the tradition of classical
Chinese poetry. So far, however, scholars of modern Chinese poetry, includ-
ing Hu Shi himself, have fallen into the trap of Western classical poetry. They
believe poetry must have neat rhyming schemes and equal stanzas, so they are
still writing sonnets and “square poems.”24
Dissatisfied with Crescent poets’ “square poems,” Shi translated the work
of the imagist poets (then the major exponents of vers libre in the West)
and, using the translations as a model, wrote a set of poems that he dubbed
“image-lyric poetry” (シ尉㈺ね娑). Most of his translations published in
this journal were those of American imagist poets, including Amy Lowell
(7), H. D. (5), Ezra Pound (3), John Gould Fletcher (2), Alfred Kreymborg
(1), and Joyce Kirmer (1). Other American poets translated in the journal
include those clinging to metrical rhymic poetry, such as Robert Frost (3),
Conrad Aiken (3) and Sara Teasdale (3), as well as the Chicago poets, such
as Carl Sandburg (12) and Edgar Lee Masters (1).25 Most of these transla-
tions were included in Volume 5, Issue 6 (1934), a special issue on modern
American literature. Shi also co-translated with Xu Xiacun ⼸曆㛹 a set of
poems by Carl Sandburg, which were published in Volume 3, Issues 1–3.
According to Shi, there were two reasons why he preferred modern American
literature: (1) He believed modern American literature to be “original.” It
had unlinked itself from the European influence and started having impact
on the literature of other areas. He gave the example that American leftist
writers such as Upton Sinclair and John Dos Passos were able to influence the
literature of Soviet Union. (2) He believed modern American literature to
be “liberal.” He wrote, “People sacrificed their lives for freedom [of ] which
[they] were deprived another time. But America, fortunately, is able to secure
the freedom of literature. We believe liberalism is the one and only insurance
of the advancement of literature.”26 In view of his belief in literary liberalism,
Shi would need to design a nonpolitical space in Les Contemporains to ensure
the advancement of modern Chinese poetry. For Shi, American imagists’ vers
libre poetry was an ideal model.
Shi’s favoring of vers libre is easily observed from not only his selections
but also his translations. His rendition of Frost’s poem “My November
Guest” was typical.
My Sorrow, when she’s here with ㆹ䘬ˬず⑨˭炻䔞⤡␴ㆹ⎴⛐
me, 忁墉䘬㗪῁
Thinks these dark days of autumn ẍ䁢忁昘㘿䘬䥳暐⣑
rain
Are beautiful as days can be; 㗗ᶨ⸜ᷕ㚨伶渿䘬㖍⫸炻
She loves the bare, the withered tree; ⤡ッ⤥侭䥧㝗䘬炻ⅳ暞䘬㧡
㛐炻
She walks the sodden pasture lane.27 ⤡㔋㬍⛐㼖㽽䘬旉旴攻ˤ28
Frost had been quite consistent in terms of poetic form throughout his career
as a poet. As in “My November Guest,” Frost usually adopted the iambic meter
and a stable rhyming scheme; in his poems each stanza has an equal number
of lines. Frost’s iambic tetrameter and rhyming scheme ABAAB were not dealt
with in the Chinese text. Unlike Crescent poets, who might well have balanced
the number of Chinese phrasal units of each line, Shi did not make such an
effort with this formal aspect. His translation reads unmistakably as free-verse
stanzas. Shi’s reception of vers libre became more obvious in his imitation of
his own translation. Comparing his rendering of H. D.’s poem “⢽㙖” and his
own “image-lyric” poem “‘㱁⇑㔯,”29 the two poems have striking similarities:
⢽㙖㱁⇑㔯
㖍⃱㴰必Ḯ ㆹ婒炻㱁⇑㔯㗗⼰䅙䘬炻
⽆忁Ⱉⵢ⇘恋Ⱉⵢ炻忋⬫⸽⇐⅘䘬暒剙ᶲ䘬
⽆忁㛝剙忻恋㛝剙ȹȹ 恋ᾳ⮹⤛䘬⣏湹䛤炻
恋ġHypaticas 剙炻⛐㖍⃱ᶳ ⛐ㆹᶵ䞍忻䘬㗪῁ẍ⇵炻
⾺㓦叿䘬悥ἧㆹ䘬ġFancy Suudaes 圵⊾Ḯˤ
䎦⛐厶㭀Ḯȹȹ ㆹ婒炻㱁⇑㔯㗗⼰䅙䘬ˤ31
剙䒋⌟㒷Ḯ
啵刚䘬䒋⮾⻶ᾗ叿
⎹叿恋㚜啵䘬剙⽫炻
㕤㗗忁ṃ剙悥㴰晙Ḯˤ30
Both Chinese texts carry what Shi later summarized as common features of
image-lyric poetry: “(1) No rhyming scheme; (2) The length of the line and
the shape of the stanza vary; (3) Mix in foreign or archaic words; (4) The
meaning of the poem is not apparent.”32 Shi continued, “It is in direct oppo-
sition to Crescent poetry which then became very popular among poets.”33
Shi’s image-lyric poetry immediately attracted a great number of young poets
who were satisfied with neither Crescent poets’ overemphasis on poetic form
nor Left League poets’ propaganda work. Following the publishing of Shi’s
image-lyric poems in Volume 1, Issue 2, so many young poets imitated his
style and made submissions to Les Contemporains that Shi had to reject a great
number of them in order to accommodate literary works of other styles in
the journal. Nevertheless, Les Contemporains still published the works of such
poets, such as Chen Jiangfan 昛㰇ⶮ (16), Li Xinruo 㛶⽫劍 (15), Lingjun
懜⏃ (8), Jin Kemu 慹⃳㛐 (12), and Song Qingru ⬳㶭⤪ (8). These few
were outstanding in terms of the number of poems (indicated within the
parentheses) published in the journal; there were also many others who only
managed to publish one or two image-lyric poems in the journal. These
poets became known as “modernists” (䎦ẋ㳦). Their image-lyric work dealt
directly with concrete images, and usually meanings were not immediately
explicable. Shi’s purpose for adopting this poetic form was to separate poetry
from politics and to challenge the reader’s aesthetic habits, insofar as critics
were then too puzzled to derive political content from those poems. In a
1992 interview, Shi reflected upon his practice of writing and translation
in the 1930s: “Our political stance was left-wing, but we didn’t follow their
view of literature. [. . .] We rid literature of politics. [. . .] Though we consid-

ered ourselves leftist, we at the same time were liberal artists.”34 Shi further
identified himself and his followers as modernists, on the basis that they were
primarily influenced by Western modernist literature.35
The contradiction between Shi’s political stance and his liberal aspiration
for modernist poetry was not unproblematic, but it was temporarily allowed
in Shanghai in the early 1930s. The publisher Modern Bookstore 䎦ẋ㚠⯨
planned to publish a pure literary journal with a neutral political stance,
because of its unsuccessful past experience of publishing both left-wing titles
and a right-wing Kuomintang magazine.36 Being neither a Kuomintang
member nor an official Left League writer, Shi had edited a few short-lived
yet successful literary magazines; therefore, Modern Bookstore believed that
Shi was the best fit for the position of chief editor. However, what Mod-
ern Bookstore did not know was that Shi had initiated a project of trans-
lating Soviet Union literary theory into Chinese in 1929. The translators
involved were Lu Xun, Feng Naichao, Feng Xuefeng 楖暒Ⲙ, and others,
mostly members of the Left League.37 Les Contemporains under Shi’s editor-
ship became not only a testing ground for image-lyric poetry, but also a venue
for publishing the works of left-wing writers such as Mao Dun, Lu Xun, Guo
Moruo, Ai Qing 刦曺, and Zang Kejia 冏⃳⭞, as well as the works of poets
related to neither the Kuomintang nor the Left League, such as Dai Wangshu
㇜㛃冺, Zhu Xiang 㛙㸀, Li Jinfa 㛶慹檖, and Lin Geng 㜿⹂. In so doing,
Les Contemporains seemed to fit the publisher’s ideology, but also it was able
to avoid being challenged immediately by left-wing writers.
When the publisher changed its political outlook by adding Su Wen 喯㰞
to the editorial team in 1933, Les Contemporains started publishing articles
on the arguments over “Third Type Men” (䫔ᶱ䧖Ṣ), a term referring to
those writers who were politically neutral and unwilling to sacrifice the artis-
tic value of literature for the sake of proletariat revolution. Shi tried his best
to protect his nonpolitical sections from the debate over cultural political
issues, in the hope that his l’art pour l’art pursuit could be continued. How-
ever, left-wing writers began to distance themselves from Les Contemporains
because of Su’s hardline gesture toward proletariat literature. In 1934 Shi
had to give up the editorship of Les Contemporains, which was taken over
by the Kuomingtang (hereafter, KMT) officials. Left League critics, mainly
those associated with the China Poetry Association (ᷕ⚳娑㫴㚫), finally
jumped out to find fault with modernist poets. In particular, Pufeng 呚桐
reproached Shi and his followers for creating a mystique and a literary space
void of both politics and reality, and he criticized their poetry for evoking a
poetic mood that only the bourgeoisie would appreciate.38 In fact, if Shi had
seriously read the long-standing debate between Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu,
he would have realized that Left League critics would not consider his transla-
tion of American imagist poetry to be in any way void of political intent.39 Lu
Xun’s belief in translation as a political act represented the Left League critics’
view of translation. Though allowed in a special context where the publisher
was politically neutral, Shi’s translation eventually came to an end when this
context became impossible. Nonetheless Shi’s writing and translation was the
first significant effort to push modern Chinese poetry toward modernism.
Around the time when the PRC was established in 1949, the first wave of
the “southbound writers” (⋿Ἦἄ⭞), who sought refuge in Hong Kong dur-
ing the Sino-Japanese War and the Second Civil War (1937–49), returned to
mainland China. Their migration effectively put an end to their institutional
practice of the China Poetry and Art Workshop (ᷕ⚳娑㫴喅埻ⶍἄ䣦) and
the Workers’ Association of Chinese New Poetry (ᷕ⚳㕘娑㫴ⶍἄ侭⋼㚫),
weakening the leftist presence in the literary scene of 1950s Hong Kong.40
However, the colonial government tolerated leftist literary activities in Hong
Kong as long as they did not become extreme.41 Those who remained were
still able to publish their works in the left-wing newspapers such as Wen
Wei Po (˪㔯⋗⟙˫), Ta Kung Pao (˪⣏℔⟙˫), San Man Pao (˪㕘㘂
⟙˫), Shang Pao (˪⓮⟙˫), and Ching Pao (˪㘞⟙˫). The poetry of the
left-wing poets such as He Da ỽ忼, Wong Man 湫暗, Li Yuzhong 㛶做ᷕ,
and Yuan Shuipai 堩㯜㉵ made fairly frequent appearances in the literary
supplements of the above-mentioned newspapers. These poets’ works shared
the general characteristics of left-wing poetry: usually slogan-laden, rhymed
verses that evoked a nationalistic mood, on the theme of people’s hardship
in everyday life, proletariat revolutions of Third World countries, injustice in
capitalist societies, and so on. The poetry that they translated was without
exception from what they defined as “communist poets,” especially Vladimir
Mayakovsky, Nazim Hikmet, and Pablo Neruda.42
The left-wing poets who published their works in Hong Kong in the
1950s were a lot less organized than those of the Left League in the 1930s.
As those in 1950s Hong Kong had very different backgrounds, they could
only be loosely considered left-wing in a fairly broad sense. He Da was deeply
involved in the Poetry Recitation Movement (㚿婎娑忳≽) in the 1940s
and became most prolific in Hong Kong. Wong Man, a doctor who prac-
ticed medicine in Hong Kong, wrote in both English and Chinese, interested
in translating classical Chinese poetry into English.43 Li Yuzhong and Yuan
Shuipai returned to mainland China in the 1940s but kept contributing
work and translation to the literary supplements of the left-wing newspapers
in Hong Kong. Without the constraint of a left-wing institution, Hong Kong
allowed space for the left-wing modernist poets such as Liu Muxia 㞛㛐ᶳ
and Outer-Out 浿⢾浿 to continue their experimental poetry, which was
impossible to publish in mainland China. The major reasons that these poets
were labeled left-wing were (1) that they had been converted to communism
at some point and (2) that they published their works in left-wing news-
papers. Huang Wanhua 湫叔厗 correctly points out the fact that left-wing
poetry in Hong Kong in the 1950s, unaffected by the CPC’s institutional-
ization, was able to develop into a rich variety of poetic styles.44 Without
the CPC’s direct leadership, these poets found themselves enjoying unprec-
edented artistic liberalism in Hong Kong and no longer felt the urge to attack
the anti-communist right-wing poets.
A great majority of the second wave of southbound writers were those
who did not believe in the CPC’s vision of a new China, but for various
reasons they could not go to Taiwan. As most left-wing writers went north,
the southbound right-wing writers basically dominated the literary scene of
1950s Hong Kong. These writers had a few observable similarities: (1) they
were considered right-wing, as in opposition to the communist left; (2) they
considered themselves sojourners in Hong Kong, and most of them left for
capitalist countries around the end of the 1950s; (3) most of their literary
activities were funded by the Asian Foundation (Ṇ㳚➢慹㚫) established
by the United States Information Agency (USIA, 伶⚳㕘倆嗽); and (4) the
cultural materials that they produced were usually called “green-back culture”
䵈側㔯⊾.45 Their journals, Everyman’s Literature (1952–55) and Highland
(1955–57), were exemplary of their literary production. One of the major edi-
tors of these two journals, Li Kuang ≃⋉, gained enormous popularity in the
early 1950s with his series of love poems in rhymed quatrains for a “short-haired
and round-faced” girl in Guangzhou. A typical poem with such emphasis on
the formal element of poetry would be Li Kuang’s “Yanyu” (䅽婆): its first
stanza is as follows:
ㆹ㬌⇣炾㫯〗⛐炾Ἀ⸽炾㦹ᶲ炻
䇚Ḯ炾䕚῎㕤炾攟徼䘬炾梃佼烊
Ἀ婒炾ㆹ⁷㗗ᾳ炾⢾⛘䘬炾⭊Ṣ炻
㗗䘬炾ㆹ㬋Ἦ冒炾态怈䘬炾䔘悱ˤ46
A fair English rendition of its poetic form would be as follows:
Now on your eaves, I must rest here,

Because the flight was long and weary.
“You’re a stranger. Not from here!”
Ah, yes, I’m from a far-off country.47
The poetic form these right-wing poets chose was very close to the Cres-
cent poets’ imitation of English romantic poetry. With the precedence of
the Crescent poets’ general political stance against the left-wing writers in
the 1920s and 1930s, it is hard to believe that politically conscious right-
wing poets in the 1950s such as Li Kuang, Xiahou Wuji ⢷ὗ䃉⽴, and
Huang Sicheng 湫⿅榩 did not adopt this form without cultural political
consideration.
What is more, their sadness of exile, loss of a country, and nostalgia
for a republican past perhaps required a poetic form that could readily
elicit their emotion, which was often evoked with a political resentment
against communist China, and which became immediately obvious when
Stephen Soong ⬳㵯 criticized their poetry for relying too heavily on
emotion. Among the writers associated with Everyman’s Literature, per-
haps even among all the right-wing poets, Stephen Soong stood out as an
unsociable critic and translator. Although he wrote articles for Everyman’s
Literature to introduce English romantic poetry, Soong’s critique was also
embedded:
Emotion is considered the utmost criterion in poetry [. . .] This view of poetry

was probably influenced by the romanticism of the West in the 19th century.
[. . .] However modern man’s poetry is a reaction against the poetry of the 19th
century. [. . .] For most modernist poets, emotion is dispensable; emotion in
poetry is intolerable.48
Changting 攟ṕ’s response revealed the right-wing poets’ project of link-

ing their preferred poetic form with their ideology: “The voice of the
adherents of a lost nation is sad and thoughtful; poets in deep agony
mourn their fate and reminisce about the past. This is our only hope
to survive.”49 Soong eventually associated his distrust of emotion in
poetry with a pioneering call for modernist poetics, citing T. S. Eliot’s
use of understatement in “The Hollow Man.”50 But Soong, a well-trained
scholar of both classical Chinese literature and Western literature, was
unable to devote himself wholeheartedly to the pursuit of modernism;
rather, he was determined to negotiate between classical Chinese poetry
and Western modernism for a neoclassical form of modern Chinese
poetry.51 Despite his critical sensitivity in identifying the problem of
modern Chinese poetry since the May Fourth Movement, namely that
free-verse Chinese poetry was “too free” to inherit the formal element of
classical Chinese poetry, his project eventually came to naught, as he was
unable to put his poetics into creative practice. Soong published his fel-
low poet Wu Xinghua ⏛冰厗’s poem “Education of Poetry” (娑䘬㔁做)
in 1955 to summarize his conception of neoclassical poetry, but his idea
proved unpersuasive, if not dogmatic.52
Serious practice of modernism in Hong Kong probably started with

the young, local Hong Kong poets Quanan ⲹ⋿, Wucius Wong 䌳䃉恒,
and Yip Wai-lim 叱䵕⹱, who started a radical poetry journal, Poetry Petals
(˪娑㛝˫), in 1955. These young poets, obviously not politically moti-
vated, seemed to establish this journal out of their dissatisfaction with Li
Kuang and his followers’ romantic poetry. However, Poetry Petals finished
with the publication of Issue 3, as they found themselves attracted to a bet-
ter venue: Literary Currents, edited by Ronald Mar, a journal devoted to the
writing, translation, and critical review of Western modernist literature. Mar
regarded Literary Currents as a continuation of his editorial ideal of Literary
Waves (˪㔯㼖˫) in Shanghai in the 1940s. Back then, Mar was a typical
young leftist writer, who believed that “class struggle produces powerful liter-
ature”53 and that “an artist reflects reality through his class consciousness.”54
He confirmed this in a 2003 interview: “At the time I believed myself to be
Mayakovsky who ran to the farthest front of the world.”55 The purpose of
establishing Literary Waves was to “prevent Chinese culture from being ruined
by the culture of entertainment.”56 Mar’s considerably broad scope for liter-
ary work of diverse styles presented Literary Waves as a left-wing, open-ended
literary journal.57 Mar’s strategy was very close to that of Shi, who claimed to
be a leftist yet insisted on artistic liberalism. In the late 1940s, Mar witnessed
many friends associated with Hu Feng 傉桐, the leader of the left-wing liber-
alists in the late 1940s, being persecuted58 because their view of literature did
not comply with that of major CPC theoreticians such as Zhou Yang ␐㎂,
who was then busy steering left-wing literature toward socialist realism. The
forthcoming purge of right-deviating intellectuals would have reached Mar if
he had not left for Hong Kong sooner.59
With the support of a politically neutral publisher, Law Bun 伭㔴’s Global
Publishing (䑘䎫↢䇰䣦), which derived its profit from the sales of pulp fic-
tion, Mar finally produced the first issue of Literary Currents in 1956.60 When
he revisited the memory of both Literary Waves in Shanghai and Literary Cur-
rents in Hong Kong, he said, “What they did, their purposes, were indeed
the same, although they were expressed differently.”61 The conspicuous dif-
ference was his devotion to the translation of Western modernist literature in
Literary Currents. Adopting “currents,” a word that unmistakably referred to
modernism,62 in the title of the journal, Mar was determined to fly the flag of
modernism in the manifesto, calling out to the “mechanics of human souls”
(writers) to taste the “forbidden fruit” (modernism).63 The first poem that
he published, “The Drifters Who Burnt the Lutes” (䃂䏜䘬㴒⫸), was both
a metaphoric account of his experience of the cultural politics in Shanghai
and his move to Hong Kong, as well as a dystopian depiction of the PRC
establishment:
㚨⼴䚳ᶨ㫉啷叿伶渿 one last glance at the Holy City

冲⼙䘬俾❶ that hides its beautiful old shadows
ŜįġįġįŞ [. . .]
⚈䁢ṾᾹ⶚埨㵳㵳⛘ because they had bloodily shed skins and changed
壒䙖㎃橐 bones
ᶨ佌崌墠墠䘬⍇Ṣ naked primitive men
倥㘅⣄╏◑⤪㾹ⶫ listening to days and nights clamor like waterfall
㯠怈␤嘇叿 forever howling
䨧忶儍桐 through the stench-filled wind
Ḫ勱Ụ㨓⢀⯵橠␴Ṍ the wilderness stacked with corpses like ruffled
⍱叿䂁⌘䘬㚈慶 weeds
ṾᾹ㰢䃞崘忶 and crisscrossed with scorch marks
ẍ➭㭭䘬䛤炻䃉夾冒 they walk past in determination
⶙ with persistent eyes,
Ṳ㖍䘬㴒⫸↢䘤Ḯ not once thinking about themselves
⍣䀓䀥塷⺢忈ṾᾹ䘬 today’s drifters set off
❶ķĵ to build their city amid the ruins of fire65
Unlike the right-wing romantic poets’ nostalgic rhymed verses, Mar under-
stated the speaker’s feelings of loss, and his portrayal of the self-effacing men
was indifferently horrific. This calm free-verse farewell aired his opinion
about the sentimental poetry of Li Kuang and his followers. Like Soong,
Mar cast doubt on the right-wing poets’ nostalgia, evoked for political rea-
sons: “I thought that a nostalgic man was one crying over the burden of
the past. I felt that I should turn to the future.”66 Thinking little of either
left-wing or right-wing literature in Hong Kong,67 he believed modernism
to be the only literary space for the “mechanics of human souls” to disassoci-
ate from the political struggle and prevent themselves from becoming the
“naked primitive men.”
Thus was Mar’s high-minded vocation as a translator of Western modern-
ism. His aspiration immediately attracted the contributions of not only local
poets such as Quanan, Wucius Wong, Yip Wai-lim, Li Wai-ling 㛶䵕昝, and
Tsai Yim-pui 哉䀶➡, who published a considerable amount of translation
of Western modernist poetry in Literary Currents, but also left-deviating writ-
ers such as Ye Lingfeng 叱曰沛 and Cao Juren 㚡倂ṩ, as well as right-wing
writers sympathetic with Mar’s project, including Evan Yang 㖻㔯, Xu Xu
⼸妷, and Stephen Soong. While the group translated the special issue on
modern French literature (Issue 4) that included the poetry of Paul Valéry,
Guillaume Apollinaire, Paul Fort, Max Jacob, Remy de Gourmont, Jules
Supervielle, Paul Eluard, Henri Michaux, Jacques Prévert, and René Char,
and the short stories of André Gide, Paul Morand, Charles-Louis Philippe,
and Jean-Paul Sartre, Mar translated on his own the special issue on modern
American poetry (Issue 7), covering the work of Wallace Stevens, William
Carlos Williams, Ezra Pound, Marianne Moore, T. S. Eliot, Archibald
MacLeish, e. e. cummings, Hart Crane, Muriel Rukeyser, and Karl Shap-
iro; and the special issue on modern British poetry (Issue 8), including the
work of W. B. Yeats, D. H. Lawrence, Edith Sitwell, Cecil Day Lewis, Louis
MacNeice, Stephen Spender, George Barker, Dylan Thomas, and David Gas-
coyne. Apart from the special issues, Mar and the local poets were also keen
to translate the poetry of the imagist poet H. D., the surrealist poet André
Breton, the late symbolist poet Rainer Maria Rilke, Spanish Nobel laureate
Juan Ramón Jiménez, German Marxist modernist Bertolt Brecht, and Latin
American poets Octavio Paz, Federico García Lorca, and César Vallejo. In
only two years, Mar and his fellow poets presented a kaleidoscope of Western
modernist poetry. The scope indeed went beyond the horizons of the poets in
mainland China and Taiwan, then under strict ideological control.
Mar observed that at the time, unlike those in Taiwan and mainland
China, “a literary journal in Hong Kong did not need to have political back-
ground. What made Literary Currents possible was that it was, in and of itself,
nonpolitical.”68 When left-wing and right-wing poets besmirched the jour-
nal, Mar decided to ignore them: “We were already busy enough translating
[Western modernist literature], which was more important than polemic.”69
He revealed an incident in which he urged Cao Juren, then a left-deviating
writer, to write an introductory article on the nihilism in Boris Savinkov’s
The Pale Horse, an extremely controversial modernist novel that had been
censored by the USSR.70 Cao was deeply troubled by this article and almost
committed suicide.71 On the other hand, the right-wing journals funded by
the Asian Foundation were able to attract submissions with extremely high
royalties. Mar’s Literary Currents was basically an economic failure. The pub-
lisher was unwilling to pay royalties to contributors, and sales were not ideal,
because it was not possible to distribute the journals to mainland China and
Taiwan. The resourceful Literary Currents was unable to compete in economic
terms with the “green-back” right-wing journals.
The position of Mar’s Literary Currents was similar to Shi Zhecun’s Les
Contemporains in the early 1930s. Both were trapped in the middle of the
contention between the left-wing and the right-wing writers. Both editors
tried to distance themselves from the polemic against both sides. In spite
of the fact that Shi kept himself away from the other chief editor Su Wen’s
dispute with Left League critics, he was unable to prevent the journal turning
into an ideological battleground. Les Contemporains in the end was unsal-
vageably ruined by the publisher’s taking sides with the Third Type Men.
On the other hand, local young poets in Hong Kong in the 1950s looked up
to Mar as their leader; they followed Mar’s cold treatment of other writers’
political critique. With the publisher’s support and the general tolerance of
the colonial government, the consistently apolitical Literary Currents was able
to present a fuller picture of Western modernism.72
Les Contemporains and Literary Currents are two significant milestones of
the history of modern Chinese poetry. The translation of Western modern-
ist poetry and the writings inspired by the translations published in the two
journals were momentous inspiration for the modernist poets in mainland
China and Hong Kong. Shi Zhecun’s translation of American imagist poetry
published in Les Contemporains and his theorization of the free-verse image-
lyric poetry not only reacted against the Crescent poets’ adherence to rhymed
verses, but also buoyed the pursuit of modernist poetics in the 1930s. Ron-
ald Mar’s full-blown promotion of Western modernist literature in Literary
Currents furthered the steps of modern Chinese poetry toward modernism.
Though in different cultural political contexts, both editors, Shi Zhecun and
Ronald Mar, made strategic efforts to keep their writing and translation of
modernist poetry unaffected by the polemic of cultural politics between the
left-wing and right-wing writers.
Their respective practices were especially effective when their publishers
were not involved in ideological struggle. Shi’s ambiguous relationship with
the Left League prevented the journal from immediate political denigration.
As the publisher bartered itself for the KMT’s patronage, Shi had to give
up the journal. Mar’s Literary Currents ended rather differently. The journal
enjoyed the liberal cultural environment in Hong Kong in the 1950s, and its
publisher was economically independent and politically neutral. However, its
chief editor, Mar, like many southbound writers, considered Hong Kong a
place for a sojourn, and he left for the United States in the late 1950s. As Lit-
erary Currents lost its leader and the local poets were too young to pick it up,
the journal stopped publishing in 1959. Nonetheless, today Literary Currents
is still considered the most influential literary journal in the history of Hong
Kong literature and honored as the start of Hong Kong literary modernism,
a movement that would be furthered by the journal’s contributors, such as
Quanan, Wucius Wong, Tsai Yim-pui, and Li Wai-ling, in the early 1960s.
Notes
1. Hu Shi 傉怑, Changshi ji (˪▿娎普˫, Experimental Poems) (Shanghai ᶲ㴟:
Shanghai dongya tushu guan ᶲ㴟㜙Ṇ⚾㚠棐 [Shanghai East Asia Library],
1920).
2. Liang Shiqiu 㠩⮎䥳, “Xinshi de gediao ji qita” (㕘娑䘬㟤婧⍲℞Ṿ, “The Style
of New Poetry and Others”], Shi kan (˪娑↲˫, Poetry Journal) 1 (1931), p. 81.
3. Ibid., 82.
4. Ibid., 83.
5. Yanbing 晩⅘ (Mao Dun劭䚦), “Wenxue shang de Gudian zhuyi, Langman
zhuyi he Xieshi zhuyi” (㔯⬠ᶲ䘬⎌℠ᷣ佑ˣ㴒㻓ᷣ佑␴⮓⮎ᷣ佑, “Clas-
sicism, Romanticism, and Realism in Literature”), Xuesheng zazhi (˪⬠䓇暄
娴˫, Students’ Journal) 7.9 (1920), p. 1.
6. Ibid., 8–10.
7. Ibid., 19.
8. See Leo Ou-fan Lee, The Romantic Generation of Modern Chinese Writers (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), pp. 177–178.
9. Guo Moruo, “Geming yu wenxue” (朑␥冯㔯⬠, “Revolution and Literature”),
Chuangzao yuekan (˪∝忈㚰↲˫, Creation Monthly) 1.3 (1927), pp. 6–7.
Translation by Leo Ou-fan Lee, pp. 196–197.
10. Jiang Guangci 哋⃱ヰ, “Shiyue geming yu Eluosi wenxue” (⋩㚰朑␥冯Ὤ伭㕗
㔯⬠, “October Revolution and Russian Literature”), in Eluosi wenxue (˪Ὤ伭
㕗㔯⬠˫, Russian Literature) (Shanghai: Creation Society Publishing ∝忈䣦↢
䇰悐, 1927), pp. 20–21.
11. See Yijia 㖻▱ (Qu Qiubai 䝧䥳䘥), “Geming de langmandike” (朑␥䘬㴒㻓
媎⃳, “Revolutionary Romanticism”), in Huahan 厗㻊, Diquan (˪⛘㱱˫,
Underground Spring) (Shanghai ᶲ㴟: Hufen shuju 㷾桐㚠⯨, 1932), pp. 1–7;
see also Qian Xingcun拊㛷恐, “Diquan xu” (˪⛘㱱˫⸷, “Preface to Under-
ground Spring”), in Huahan, Diquan, pp. 20–27.
12. Lu Xun 欗彭, “Wenyi yu geming” (㔯喅冯朑␥, “Literature and Revolution”),
Yusi (˪婆䴚˫, Threads of Words) 4.16 (1928).
13. See Ziping 屯⸛, “Langman zhuyi” (㴒㻓ᷣ佑, “Romanticism”), Chen Bao
Fujuan(˪㘐⟙∗揓˫, Supplement of the Morning Post) 1240, 1243, 1245,
1247–1248 (1925).
14. Liang Shiqiu, “Xiandai Zhongguo wenxue zhi Langman de qushi” (䎦ẋᷕ⚳㔯
⬠ᷳ㴒㻓䘬嵐⊊, “The Trend of Romanticism in Modern Chinese Literature”),
Supplement of the Morning Post 54 (1926).
15. Ibid.
16. Wen Yiduo, “Shi de gelü” (娑䘬㟤⼳, “The Meter of Poetry”), Supplement of the
Morning Post 56 (1926).
17. For Crescent poets’ discussion on poetic form, see Rao Mengkan 棺⬇Ἣ, “Xin-
shi de yinjie” (㕘娑䘬枛䭨, “The Meter of New Poetry”) and “Xinshi hua” (㕘
娑娙, “On New Poetry”), in Chen Bao Fujuan, 55–56 (1926). See also Liang
Shiqiu, “Xinshi de gediao,” Poetry Journal, 81–86.
18. Wen Yiduo, “Si shui” (㬣㯜, “Death Water”), Supplement of the Morning Post 54
(1926), p. 55.
19. Shen Congwen 㰰⽆㔯, “Lun Wen Yiduo de Sishui” (婾倆ᶨ⣂䘬㬣㯜, “On
Wen Yiduo’s ‘Death Water’”), Xinyue (㕘㚰, Crescent) 3.2 (1932), p. 7.
20. The numerals inside the parentheses here refer to the volumes in which the poets
appear. For example, “Thomas Hardy (1.1)” means that Hardy’s work appears in
Volume 1, Issue 1.
21. Xu Zhimo ⼸⽿㐑, “Xinyue de taidu” (˪㕘㚰˫䘬ン⹎, “The Attitude of the
Crescent”), in Crescent 1.1 (1928), pp. 3–10.
22. See “Shanghai xin wenxue yundong zhe di taolun hui” (ᶲ㴟㕘㔯⬠忳≽侭
⸽妶婾㚫, “A Meeting of the New Literature Revolutionaries in Shanghai”),
Mengya yuekan (˪厴剥㚰↲˫, Sprout Monthly) 1.3 (1930), pp. 274–275; Feng
Naichao 楖ᷫ崭, “Jieji shehui de yishu” (昶䳂䣦㚫䘬喅埻, “Art in the Class
Society”), Tuohuangzhe (˪㉻勺侭˫, Pathfinder) 1.2 (1930), pp. 671–692; Lu
Xun, “Xinyue she pipingjia de renwu” (㕘㚰䣦㈡姽⭞䘬ả⊁, “The Task of the
Crescent Critics”), Sprout Monthly 1.1 (1930); “Yingyi yu wenxue de jieji xing”
(䠔嬗冯㔯⬠䘬昶䳂⿏, “Hard Translation and the Class Character of Litera-
ture”), Sprout Monthly 1.3 (1930), pp. 65–90; “Sangjia de zhibenjia de fazougou”
(╒⭞䘬屯㛔⭞䘬᷷崘䉿, “A Stooge of the Capitalist”), Sprout Monthly 1.5
(1930).
23. See Li Zhao 湶䄏 (ed.), Lu Xun, Liang Shiqiu lunzhan shilu (˪欗彭㠩⮎䥳婾㇘
⮎抬˫, A True Record of the Polemic between Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu) (Beijing:
Hualing chubanshe 厗漉↢䇰䣦, 1997).
24. Shi Zhecun, “You guanyu benkan zhong de shi” (⍰斄㕤㛔↲ᷕ䘬娑, “Another
Passage about the Poems of Les Contemporains”), Les Contemporains 4.1 (1934), p. 7.
25. The numerals inside the parentheses here refer to the numbers of poems translated.
26. Shi Zhecun, “Xiandai Meiguo wenxue zhuanhao daoyan” (䎦ẋ伶⚳㔯⬠⮰嘇
⮶妨, “Preface to the Special Issue on Modern American Literature”), Les Con-
temporains 5.6 (1934), pp. 834–838.
27. Robert Frost, “My November Guest,” in A Boy’s Will and North of Boston (Stilwell:
Dover Thrift, 2006), p. 3.
28. Shi Zhecun (trans.), “Wo shiyiyue de laike” (ㆹ⋩ᶨ㚰䘬Ἦ⭊, “My November
Guest”), Xiandai 5.6 (1934), p. 1199.
29. “㱁⇑㔯” is presumably the transliteration of the name of a Western restaurant
in Shanghai; see Fai Yip 叱廅, “Baichuan guihai de da xiongjin: Ji Shi Zhecun
xiansheng” (䘦ⶅ㬠㴟䘬⣏傠备烉姀㕥坬⬀⃰䓇, “A Man With a Big Mind:
In Memory of Mr. Shi Zhecun”), in Xinshi ditu sihuiben (㕘娑⛘⚾䥩丒㛔,
A Personal Map of New Poetry) (Hong Kong: Cosmos Books ⣑⛘⚾㚠, 2005),
p. 114.
30. The citation is the first stanza of Shi’s translation of H. D.’s poem; see Shi Zhecun
(trans.), “Ximu” (⢽㙖, “Dusk”), Les Contemporains 5.6 (1934), p. 1208.
31. Shi Zhecun, “Shaliwen” (㱁⇑㔯), Les Contemporains 1.2 (1932), p. 230. “Suudae,”
Shi’s typo, was originally printed on the journal.
32. Shi Zhecun, “Xiandai zayi (yi)” (˪䎦ẋ˫暄ㅞ炷ᶨ炸, “Recollecting Les Con-
temporains [1])”), Xin wenwenxue shiliao (㕘㔯⬠⎚㕁, Historical Materials of
New Literature) 1 (1981), p. 217.
33. Ibid.
34. Shi Zhecun, “Wei Zhongguo wentan caliang Xiandaide huohua” (䁢ᷕ⚳㔯⡯
㒎Ṗ䎦ẋ䘬䀓剙, “To Strike the Modernist Sparks in China”), in Shaoshang
de jiaoji (˪㱁ᶲ䘬儛嶉˫, Footprints on the Sand) (Shenyang 㾳春: Liaoning
jiaoyu chubanshe 怤⮏㔁做↢䇰䣦, 1995), p. 180.
35. Ibid., 179.
36. Shi Zhecun, “Wo he Xiandai Shuju” (ㆹ␴䎦ẋ㚠⯨, “About Me and the Mod-
ern Bookstore”), in Shaoshang de jiaoji, pp. 58–62.
37. Shi Zhecun, “Guanyu Lu Xun de yixie huiyi” (斄㕤欗彭䘬ᶨṃ⚆ㅞ, “Some

Memories of Lu Xun”), in Yiwang yu jiyi (˪怢⾀冯姀ㅞ˫, Oblivion and Mem-
ory) (Hong Kong: Cosmos Books, 2008), pp. 150–153.
38. See Pufeng 呚桐, “Suowei ‘xiandai shenghuo’ de ‘xiandai’ shi” (㇨媪ˬ䎦ẋ䓇
㳣˭䘬ˬ䎦ẋ˭娑, “The So-called ‘Modern Poetry’ of ‘Modern’ Life”), Chu-
ban xiaoxi (˪↢䇰㴰〗˫, Publication Newsletter) 29 (1934), pp. 11–16. For
other left-wing poets’ critiques on the modernists, see Sun Zuoyun ⬓ἄ暚, “Lun
xiandaipai de shi” (婾ˬ䎦ẋ㳦˭䘬娑, “On the Poetry of the ‘Modernists’”),
Qinghua zhoukan (˪㶭厗忙↲˫, Tsinghua Weekly) 43.1 (1935), pp. 56–65;
Pufeng呚桐, “‘Jiuyiba’ hou de xinshige yundong” (ˬḅᶨℓ˭⼴䘬㕘娑㫴忳
≽, “Poetry Movements after the ‘September 18th Incident’”), Gaijin banyuekan
(˪㓡忚⋲㚰↲˫, Improvement Bimonthly) 1.4 (1939), pp. 184–187; Ren Jun
ả懆, “Guanyu Zhongguo shige hui” (斄㕤ᷕ⚳娑㫴㚫, “About the China
Poetry Association”), Yuekan (˪㚰↲˫, Monthly) 1.4 (1946), pp. 31–36.
39. For the discussion about translation, see Wong Wang-chi 䌳⬷⽿, “Fanyi yu jieji
douzheng: Lun 1929 nian Lu Xun yu Liang Shiqiu de lunzheng” (侣嬗冯昶䳂
櫍䇕烉婾1929⸜欗彭冯㠩⮎䥳䘬婾䇕, “Translation and Class Struggle: On
the 1929 Debate Between Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu”), in Fanyi yu wenxue zhi-
jian (˪侣嬗冯㔯⬠ᷳ攻˫, Between Translation and Literature) (Nanjing ⋿Ṕ:
Nanjing daxue chubanshe ⋿Ṕ⣏⬠↢䇰䣦, 2011), pp. 299–333.
40. See Huang Wanhua 湫叔厗, “Cong ‘zuoyi’ dao ‘xiandai’: jiaohui zhong de yanxu
yu zonghe” (⽆ˬⶎ侤˭⇘ˬ䎦ẋ˭烉Ṍ⋗ᷕ䘬⺞临␴䵄⎰, “From ‘Left-
Wing’ to ‘Modern’: Continuation and Integration at the Intersection”), Jinan
xuebao (˪㙐⋿⬠⟙˫, Jinan Journal) 10 (2012), pp. 34–40.
41. Even when the leftist writers in Hong Kong instigated a riot in the mid-1950s,
only a small part of them were just deported to mainland China.
42. See Cheng Ching-hang 惕㓧⿮, “Yijiu wuling niandai Xianggang xinshi gai-
yao” (ᶨḅḼ˕⸜ẋ楁㷗㕘娑㤪天, “An Outline of Hong Kong Poetry of the
1950s”), in Wuling niandai Xianggan shixuan(˪Ḽ˕⸜ẋ楁㷗娑怠˫, An
Anthology of Hong Kong Poetry of the 1950s) (Hong Kong: Chung Hwa Books ᷕ
厗㚠⯨, 2013), p. 13.
43. For more on Huang Wen’s poetry, see Elaine Ho, “Connecting Cultures: Hong
Kong Literature in English in the 1950s,” New Zealand Journal of Asian Studies
5.2 (2003), pp. 13–25.
44. Huang Wanhua, “Zhanhou Zhongguo zuoyi wenxue de sanzhong xingtai jiqi
wenxueshi yiyi” (㇘⼴ᷕ⚳ⶎ侤㔯⬠䘬ᶱ䧖⼊ン⍲℞㔯⬠⎚シ佑, “Three
Forms of Postwar Left-Wing Literature in Chinese and Their Significance in
Literary History”), Wen shi zhe (˪㔯⎚⒚˫, Journal of Literature, History, and
Philosophy) 3 (2013), pp. 32–33.
45. “Green” here refers to the color of the American banknote.
46. Li Kuang≃⋉, “Yanyu” (䅽婆, “A Swallow’s Words”), Xingdao wanbao (˪㗇Ⲟ
㘂⟙˫, Sing Tao Evening News), December 14, 1951.
47. Translation mine.
48. Yu Huai ἁ㆟ (Stephen Soong ⬳㵯), “Shi yu qinggan” (娑冯ねデ, “Poetry and
Emotion”), Renren wenxue (˪ṢṢ㔯⬠˫, Everyman’s Literature) 12 (1953), p. 53.
49. Changting 攟ṕ, “Shi he dui shi de ganying” (娑␴⮵娑䘬デㅱ, “Poetry and
Sensibility”), Everyman’s Literature 13 (1953), p. 63.
50. Yu Huai, “Shi yu qinggan,” passim. For the more details about the right-wing
poets’ argument regarding emotion in poetry, see Chi-tak Chan 昛㘢⽟, “Lin Yil-
iang shilun yu 50 niandai Xianggang xinshi de zhuanbian” (㜿ẍṖ娑婾冯50⸜
ẋ楁㷗㕘娑䘬廱嬲, “Stephen Soong’s Poetics and the Transformation of Hong
Kong Poetry in the 1950s”), Zuojia (˪ἄ⭞˫, Writers) 11 (2001), pp. 85–93.
For more discussion about Stephen Soong’s apolitical tendency, see Zijiang Song
⬳⫸㰇, “Yuan Shuipai yu Lin Yiliang bianyi de Meiguo shige” (堩㯜㉵␴㜿ẍ
Ṗ䶐嬗䘬伶⚳娑㫴, “Yuan Shuipai’s and Stephen Soong’s Anthologization and
Translation of American Poetry”), Xiandai Zhongwen wenxue xuebao (˪䎦ẋᷕ
㔯㔯⬠⬠⟙˫ĭ Journal of Modern Literature in Chinese) 11.1 (2013), pp. 60–63.
51. See Ping-kwan Leung 㠩䥱懆, “Modern Hong Kong Poetry: Negotiation of
Cultures and the Search for Identity,” Modern Chinese Literature 9.2 (1996), pp.
224–227.
52. Lin Yiliang 㜿ẍṖ (Stephen Soong ⬳㵯), “Shi de jiaoyu” (娑䘬㔁做, “Educa-
tion of Poetry”), in Lin Yiliang shihua (㜿ẍṖ娑娙, Lin Yiliang on Poetry) (Taiwan
⎘䀋: Hongfan shudian 㳒䭬㚠⸿, 1981), pp. 47–52. For the authorship of this
poem, see Roland Soong ⬳ẍ㚿, “Shiren qingyi yu ‘Lin Yiliang’ de youlai” (娑Ṣ
ね婤冯ˬ㜿ẍṖ˭䘬䓙Ἦ, “Friendship of Poets and the Creation of ‘Lin Yil-
iang’”), Nanfang dushi bao (⋿㕡悥ⶪ⟙, Southern Metropolis Daily), April 9, 2013.
53. Ronald Mar 楔㚿 (楔⌂列), “Meiyue xiaoshuo pingjie” (㭷㚰⮷婒姽ṳ,
“Monthly Fiction Review”), Wenchao (˪㔯㼖˫, Literary Waves) 1.2 (1944).
54. Ronald Mar, “Meiyue xiaoshuo pingjie,” Literary Waves 1.4 (1944).
55. Ronald Mar, “Weishenme shi xiandai zhuyi?: Du Jiaqi, Ma Lang, duitan” (䇚
Ṩ湥㗗䎦ẋᷣ佑烎烉㜄⭞䣩ˣ楔㚿⮵婯, “Why Modernism?: Conversation
between Chia-chi Tu and Ronald Mar”), Xianggang wenxue (˪楁㷗㔯⬠˫,
Hong Kong Literary) 224 (2003).
56. Ronald Mar, “Meiyue xiaoshuo pingjie,” Wenchao 1.4 (1944).
57. For more on Literary Waves, see Wanhua Wang, “Cong Wenchao dao Wenyi
xinchao: yitiao buke hushi de wenxueshi xiansuo” (⽆˪㔯㼖˫⇘˪㔯喅㕘
㼖˫烉ᶨ㡅ᶵ⎗⾥夾䘬㔯⬠⎚䵓䳊, “From Literary Waves to Literary Cur-
rents: A Non-Negligible Trace in Literary History”), Shandong shehui kexue (˪Ⱉ
㜙䣦㚫䥹⬠˫, Shandong Social Sciences) 217 (2013), pp. 9–11.
58. Ronald Mar, “Why Modernism?,” pp. 23–24.
59. Ibid., 24.
60. Ibid., 25.
61. Ronald Mar, “Shanghai, Xianggang, Tianya: Ma Lang, Zheng Zhengheng dui-
tan” (ᶲ㴟ˣ楁㷗ˣ⣑㵗烉楔㚿ˣ惕㓧⿮⮵婯, “Shanghai, Hong Kong,
Overseas: Conversation between Ronald Mar and Ching-hang Cheng”), Hong
Kong Literary 322 (2011), p. 85.
62. Ronald Mar, “Why Modernism?,” p. 31.
63. Ronald Mar, “Renlei linghun de gongchengsi, dao women de qixialai!” (Ṣ栆
曰櫪䘬ⶍ䦳ⷓ炻⇘ㆹᾹ䘬㕿ᶳἮ炰, “Mechanics of Human Souls, Come to
Our Flag!”), Wenyi xinchao (˪㔯喅㕘㼖˫, Literary Currents) 1 (1956), p. 2.
64. Ronald Mar, “Fenqin de langzi” (䃂䏜䘬㴒⫸, “The Drifters Who Burnt the
Lutes”), Literary Currents 1 (1956), p. 16.
65. The translation is a revision of the version in Leung Ping-kwan, “Modern Hong
Kong Poetry,” p. 230.
67. Ibid., 27.
68. Ibid., 28.
69. Ibid.
70. See Cao Juren 㚡倂ṩ, “Xuwu zhuyi: Huise Ma” (嘃䃉ᷣ佑烉˪䀘刚楔˫,
“Nihilism: The Pale Horse”), Literary Currents 1 (1956), pp. 10–12.
72. It is worth noting that Mar’s reception of Western modernism was critically
selective; see Wai-ping Yau 恙῱⸛, “Wenyi xinchao yijie xiandai zhuyi shizuo
de xuanze yu quxiang” (˪㔯喅㕘㼖˫嬗ṳ䎦ẋᷣ佑娑ἄ䘬怠㑯冯⍾⎹, “A
Study of the Translation of Modernist Poetry in Literary Currents”), Journal of
Modern Literature in Chinese 11.1 (2013), pp. 75–84.
CHAPTER 7
A Contact Linguistic Analysis of

Translation-Induced Changes
Hui Xie and Qi Gong
1. Introduction
The past decades have witnessed a shift in translation studies from linguis-
tically oriented approaches to culturally oriented ones. Unlike traditional
linguistic studies, which aims to achieve linguistic equivalence between the
source language (SL) and the target language (TL), as proposed by Eugene
A. Nida (1964), culturally oriented approaches to translation studies advo-
cated by Susan Bassnett (1988), and Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere
(1990), deny the possibility of absolute linguistic equivalence and, instead,
focus on the loss and gain in the TL. Toury (1995) even goes a step further
in refuting translation equivalence by championing descriptive translation
studies. He views changes in the translated texts as facts and shows a great
concern about how to describe the changes. As a result, the turning focus
of translation studies manifests a shift of research interests from equivalence
to change.
Faced with changes produced in the process of translation, some research-
ers have diverted their attention to the delineation of changes in the translated
texts. Roger T. Bell (1991, 9) posits three types of sociological variables—
“participants, purposes and settings”—taking place in the process of transfer-
ence from the source text to the translated text. Some other scholars put their
focus on the influences that translated texts have exerted upon the original
TL. For instance, Werler Koller (2000) distinguishes two ways of triggering
language changes from a historical perspective: innovations from the lan-
guage system itself and innovations from norms of usage (re-quoted from
Baumgarten and Ozcet in 2008, pp.112–129). The apparent isolation of SL
118 ● Hui Xie and Qi Gong
and TL, to some extent, reflects the dissociation of linguistic and cultural
approaches in translation studies.
This chapter attempts a contact linguistic approach in analyzing changes
taking place from the source text through the translated text and finally to
the TL. Of the language contacts, translation plays an important role and has
its unique characteristics. So how to categorize the changes from the SL to
the TL and how to explain and predict the changes are the major concerns
of the chapter.
2. Translation as a Language Contact

Contact linguistics is a developing discipline that originated from socio-
linguistics. The study of language changes induced by language contact
in cross language/dialect communication is one of the major concerns in
the field. Contact-induced changes first appear in an individual language
innovation, and then some of these changes are borrowed and disseminated
gradually throughout a language community and trigger further changes.
S. G. Thomason (2001, 1) defines language contact as the use of more
than one language or dialect in the same place and at the same time. His
definition has well illustrated the essence of language contact—the actual
language use. It is commonly agreed that language is exemplified in both
written and spoken forms. Translation discussed in the chapter refers to the
former as is distinguished from interpretation. Translation is an indirect dia-
logue between texts and readers through silent reading. Here texts refers to
both source and target texts, while readers mean both the translator and the
target reader. Translation-induced changes take place in the following two
processes: the process of language use between the translator and the source
text where changes are produced in the translated text, and the process of
language use between the TL receptor and the translated text where changes
are produced in the TL text.
Here, it is worthwhile to differentiate the translated text and the target
language text. The translated text is a version of a source language text, while
the target language text is one produced by a native of the target language.
Though they may appear to be quite similar because they both share the same
linguistic sign system, the fact is that they are not at all the same when we
take all the linguistic and cultural details into consideration. For instance,
the translated language may include new linguistic characteristics that only
appear in a translated text as being exotic to the target language. What’s more,
the translated text, especially the translated literary text, very often deals with
cultures totally different from the target language culture. Various examples
can be seen in the following discussion.
A Contact Linguistic Analysis of Translation-Induced Changes ● 119
In the first process, the translator is the only language user who reads and
understands the SL first, and then turns his or her understanding of the SL
into the supposed corresponding TL. Changes are produced thereupon in
the translated text due to interferences of the translator: his or her second
language proficiency, negotiation, and deliberate or unconscious decisions.
The translator, though supposedly a competent second language user, may
still have problems in his or her use of the language, such as those that may
be ascribed to interference in the first language and native culture and so on.
The problems in second language acquisition may be manifested in the trans-
lated language, thus leading to changes. Negotiation works “when speakers
change language A to approximate what they believe to be the patterns of
another language B” (Thomason 2001, 142). The translator tends to manipu-
late the TL’s resources to construct an approximate structure of the SL so
that smooth communication can be facilitated. The process of manipulation
is one of interference and change. Thomason (2001, 151) views deliberate
or unconscious change as a mechanism of interference, because this kind of
change is mainly the result of a speaker’s personal decision. As a condition
requires, translators can successfully change their TL for a particular reason,
say, to borrow a new literary style or cultural artifact, to employ a new lan-
guage structure, or to realize a political purpose.
In the second process, changes in the TL are produced when the target
readers make use of the translated language. The interference mechanisms
in the receptors are not so much related to their linguistic proficiency as to
their cultural knowledge and attitudes, since the translated text shares the
same linguistic sign system with the TL. If the receptors are willing to accept
the changes in the translated text, the changes will be disseminated into the
TL and even lead to further changes. If not, the changes are only a one-time
linguistic event of a single language user, which may be totally ignored unless
they are reused here and there.
As for how to predict the changes involved in both processes, the concept
of imperfect learning as a social predictor used to classify contact-induced
changes, put forward by Thomason (2001), may provide some enlighten-
ment. According to Thomason, imperfect learning does not mean an inabil-
ity to learn or a lack of sufficient access to the TL permitted to full learning.
It refers to the facts that (a) learners carry over some features of their native
language into their target language; (b) learners may fail or refuse to learn
some target language features, especially marked features, and these learners’
errors also form part of the target language; (c) if the shifting group is inte-
grated into the original target language–speaking community, target language
2 speakers and target language 1 speakers will negotiate a shared version of
the target language, and that will become the entire community’s language
(p.74–76).1 Thomason’s concept of imperfect learning may be of good help

in the analysis of translation-induced changes when the translator and the
target readers play roles in the process of translation. The following section
will give a detailed discussion with the help of instances drawn from transla-
tions between English and Chinese.
3. Classification of Translation-Induced Changes

The section will mainly deal with the classification of translation-induced
changes: changes in the translated texts and changes in the TL texts, which
are further subdivided according to the presence and absence of imperfect
learning.
3.1 Changes in Translated Texts

The changes in translated texts take place in the process of language use or
communication between a translator and the SL. The changes are of two
types of inequivalence: inequivalence between the translated language and
the SL, and inequivalence between the translated language and the TL. Fol-
lowing Thomason’s idea of the presence or absence of the translator’s imper-
fect learning, we can then subdivide these changes into borrowing-induced
changes and shift-induced changes. When the translator’s imperfect learn-
ing does not play a role in the changes, borrowing-induced changes occur;
when the translator’s imperfect learning plays a role in the changes, then
shift-induced changes take place. We use borrowing in a translation to refer
to the process of supplementation of the SL due to the vacancy of equiva-
lent features in the TL, which is a direct introduction of the SL features
into the TL, adding new features from SL to TL without changing what
has already existed in the TL. The result of borrowing usually leads to con-
vergence because of the increase of similar language features. Shift, on the
other hand, is a concept with a broader sense, referring to the process of
linguistic and cultural movement produced by features in Text A moving
to Text B when a language user’s imperfect learning does play a role in the
process of change. It may include maintenance,2 transference, or interfer-
ence, respectively.
3.1.1 Borrowing-Induced Changes

Borrowing-induced changes take place when there are no equivalent elements
in the TL or when there exists “the need to designate new things, persons,
places and concepts” in the TL (Uriel 1953, 56). The borrowings can be
roughly divided into linguistic and cultural borrowings.
a. Linguistic Borrowing Linguistic borrowing includes borrowing at both

lexical and structural levels. To borrow words, such as nouns, adjectives,
and verbs, is the easiest way since they are “less tightly knit, easily iso-
lated as loan words and more open for new additions from the recipient
language” (Pieter 1981, 181–199). In general, new loanwords are coined
in the following ways: (1) direct borrowing from an original language
into the translated text, such as the introduction of English words IBM,
UFO, and OK into Chinese; (2) transliteration: for example, the English
word “humor” is translated as ⸥満 (youmo), “bar” as ⏏ (ba), and “McDon-
ald’s” as 湎⻻≛, and Chinese 忻 (dao) as English “Tao,” ≇⣓ (gongfu)
as “Kung fu,” 寮僸 (toufu) as “tofu,” and ⊿Ṕ (Beijing) as “Peking”; (3)
literal translations: English “Watergate event” is translated as 㯜斐ḳẞ,
and Chinese 䓚橐㔯 as “oracle bone script,” 习侩嗶 as “paper tiger,” and
so on; (4) combination of transliteration and literal translation: “micro-
blog” is translated as ⽖⌂, where “-blog” is transliterated as ⌂ (bo) and
“micro-” is literally translated as ⽖; “Internet” is translated as ⚈䈡 (yinte
in pinyin) +仹 (“net” by its meaning); (5) newly coined words. “Seiko”
and “Comfort” as English brand names translated as 䱦ⶍ and 䱦乢 are
similar examples.
Structural borrowing refers to the borrowing of grammatical or syn-
tactical structures. D. Winford (2003, 63–65) doubts the direct borrow-
ing of structural features in language contact, and therefore he cautiously
phrases it as structural diffusion, stating that structural diffusion often
occurs where languages are spoken in close geographical proximity, or in
communities characterized by a high degree of multilingualism. Chinese
and English are not of close geographical proximity but geographically
distant languages. Yet the translation boom targeted at transforming the
traditional Chinese culture through language reform has made it possible
for English structures to be borrowed in the translated versions since the
beginning of the twentieth century. Literal translation strategy advocated
at the time led to the Europeanization of vernacular Chinese in transla-
tions. Having done a survey of more than four hundred translated novels
published in Novel Monthly (a well-known journal publishing translated
novels) from 1910 to 1931, Qingyuan Liu and Juanjuan Zhou (2011,
82–85) observe nine types of Europeanized structures: borrowing of con-
nectives; repeated use of subjects; lengthy modifiers before nouns and
personal pronouns; use of the Chinese link verb 㗗 (shi); use of auxil-
iary words before verbs to show tenses; borrowing of quotations; use of
adverbial structures; and redundancy in 䘬 and ⛘. These borrowings are
also shown and accepted by modern Chinese translated versions, as can
be seen in (1).
(1) In these, when delivered to us by sensible writers, we are not only most
agreeably entertained, but most usefully instructed; for, besides the attain-
ing hence a consummate knowledge of human nature in general; of its secret
springs, various windings, and perplexed mazes; we have here before our eyes
lively examples of whatever is amiable or detestable, worthy of admiration or
abhorrence, and are consequently taught, in a manner infinitely more effec-
tual than by precept, what we are eagerly to imitate or carefully to avoid.
征ṃệṢ䘬䓇⸛Ṷ㖶彦䘬ἄ⭞䪼ᶳ⎁徘↢㜍炻ㆹẔ宣崟㜍ᶵỮ㳍
㳍㚱␛炻侴ᶼ往Ể⼿⇘孠⣂⤥⢬炻⚈ᷢṾẔᶵỮ傥ἧㆹẔ䅇〱ᶨ凔
Ṣねᶾ㓭炻ㅪ⼿℞ᷕ䘬⤍⥁㚚㉀炻ẍ⍲晦ẍ㋱㐠䘬⛘㕡炻⸞ᶼ往⛐ㆹ
Ẕ䛤⇵㗦䣢ᶨṃ⎗䇙⎗【ˣ⎗㔔⎗〞䘬ḳ䈑炻Ṷ侴㔁⮤ㆹẔ⸼⻻孌䛇
㓰ầṨᷰ炻⮷⽫性⃵Ṩᷰ炻㓰≃ḇ⯙㭼䓐䨢㳆䘬㔁孕⣏⼿⣂ˤ3
In (1), different from the traditional Chinese whose logic is usually repre-
sented through the context, the connectives such as ᶵỮ . . . 侴ᶼ, ⚈ᷢ,
and Ṷ侴 are used to display the logical connection of the sentences. Another
Europeanized structure is the repeated use of ㆹẔ, making Chinese writings
somewhat redundant.
b. Cultural Borrowing Cultural borrowing is a result of the translators’ cul-

tural identification with the SL culture as achieved by means of foreigniza-
tion. Culture can be imported into a translated text via direct borrowing
of words when there are no corresponding equivalent cultural elements in
the TL. For instance, the direct borrowing of the English words “McDon-
ald’s” and “bar” into Chinese as 湎⻻≛ and ⏏ respectively is an example
of introduction of the English culture of food, while the transliteration of
the Chinese words 忻 as “Tao,” ≇⣓ as “Kung fu,” and 寮僸 as “tofu” is a
manifestation of English borrowing of Chinese culture. Culture can also be
conveyed by literal translation. The translations of “Watergate event,” a well-
known political scandal in 1972, into Chinese 㯜斐ḳẞ and 䓚橐㔯 into
English as “oracle bone script” are both good cases in point.
Literal translation of idioms and proverbs may also lead to cultural
borrowing, since they are condensed forms of a language and atypical
reflection of a culture. If two languages happen to share something in
their respective cultures, literal translation will not result in changes. For
example, the Chinese 㗗Ṩᷰ桶㈲Ἀ⏡㜍Ḯ and the English “What wind
blew you hither?” are about the same in two cultural settings. Yet if the
case turns out to be the opposite, then new elements will be introduced
into the culture of the TL. The translation of the English idiom “meet
one’s Waterloo” (from a historical story about the battle of Waterloo) into
Chinese 怕忯㹹摩⌊ is a good illustration.
Literal translation with annotations is another way to introduce cultures

into translated texts. If literal translation is not able to convey the whole ideas
of the source text, necessary interlinear notes or footnotes are to be added as
a supplementary interpretation. Take for example the proverb “Three cob-
blers with their wits combined surpass Zhuge Liang the mastermind (ᶱ᷒
冕䙖⋈栞᷒宠吃Ṗ).” “The mastermind” is an interlinear note added to
further explain the hero Zhuge Liang in the proverb. However, when para-
phrase is too long to be appropriate, footnotes or endnotes are to be added.
For instance, “Three Cults and Nine Schools” in “Who are not reckoned
among the Three Cults and Nine Schools (ᶵℍᶱ㔁ḅ㳩䘬⮷宜⭞),” both
smoothly phrased and concise in form, is a heavily culture-loaded expression,
which is not easy for TL readers to comprehend without providing relevant
background information. Therefore, the translator’s annotation in the form
of footnotes or endnotes is a very helpful addition: “The Three Cults are
Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism. The Nine Schools include the Con-
fucian, Taoist, Legalist and Moist schools, as well as others. Novelists, who
did not belong to any of these, were considered not quite respectable.” This
strategy of translation with the help of notes is also called “thick translation”
by the American theorist Kwame A. Appiah (2000), which makes explicit
the SL culture and reduces cultural hegemony in translation produced by
intentional cultural reduction.
3.1.2 Shift-induced Changes

Shift-induced changes take place when a translator’s imperfect learning starts
to function in translation and the translator’s interference works as change
in the translated text. Based on the factors involved in imperfect learning, as
mentioned before, we have observed four types of shifts that induce changes
in translations: (a) shift of the translator’s mistakes; (b) shift of the translator’s
native language; (c) shift of the translator’s creative translation; (d) language
attrition.
a. Shift Due to the Translator’s Mistakes The shift usually takes place because
of a translator’s unconscious or inappropriate interpreting of the SL. These
mistakes usually remain in the translated text and lead to changes. For exam-
ple, “Ἀⷠ⇘ㆹẔ〉慴㜍Ḙ嚡 (You’re the one who comes by our factory to
sell silkworm chips, right?).”4 The translator mistakes the Chinese word “Ḙ
(buy)” for “⋾ (sell)” unconsciously because of the similarity both in form
and tone of the two characters. More often, mistakes occur as the result of
translators’ inability to fully comprehend an expression. For example, “Young
scientists cannot realize too soon that the existing scientific knowledge is not
nearly so complete, certain and unalterable as many textbooks seem to imply”

is translated into Chinese as “⸜弣䘬䥹⬎⭞ᶵ傥⼰⾓⛘⯙孌孮⇘䍘㚱䘬
䥹⬎䞍孮径ᶵ⁷孠⣂㔁䥹ḎỤ᷶㇨㘿䣢䘬恋㟟ℐ朊炻恋㟟偗⭂␴ᶨ
ㆸᶵ⎀.”5 Obviously, the Chinese translation misunderstands the meaning
of the negation structure “cannot . . . too” in the sentence, which does not
mean a negation but an emphasis on an action. Translators’ mistakes are more
likely to occur when the two languages are typologically distant from one
another, as can be seen in (2).
(2)征ᶨ⣑炻᷌᷒⬑⫸⬎ỂḮḼ᷒⫿炻⃰㗗⬎ỂḮ⛘ᶲ䘬Ⱦ⛘ȿ炻ġ
⍰⬎ỂḮ㮃ᷣⷕ䘬ȾᷣȿˤṾẔ买Ḷ䞍忻㛐䇴ᶲ㗗Ṩᷰ⫿Ḯ炻ṾẔ⽫
゛徆崟㜍⯙㗗Ⱦ⛘ᶲȿ䘬Ⱦ㮃ᷣⷕȿ炻⎶朊嶇䛨䘬⯙㗗Ⱦ⬳↉⸛”ˤ
On this day the boys learned five characters, they first learned land, then
the zhu character in Chairman Mao. They finally understood what the placard
said: it was that Song Fanping was the chairman of the land.6
In the sentence in (2), both “⛘ᶲ (on the ground)”and “⛘ᷣ (landlord)”
include “⛘” in Chinese, but there is no semantic connection between the
English words “ground” and “landlord.” That well explains why ⛘ in the
original ⛘ᶲ gets lost in the English version “they first learned land,” where
only one ⛘ is expressed in the surface form of translation. In addition, there
is actually no such word “zhu” at all in the English translation of “Chairman
Mao.”
b. Shift Due to the Translator’s Native Language Changes induced by this type
of shift usually take place when a translator deliberately chooses to main-
tain his or her native language features in the TL, attempting to express the
meaning in his or her native culture either culturally or aesthetically or both,
thus making the translated text more appropriate and acceptable in accor-
dance with the TL norms. If it occurs that the TL is the translator’s native
tongue, maintenance is usually achieved by domestication; if the SL is his
or her native tongue, maintenance is then realized through foreignization.
See (3):
(3) 害ḳ⛐Ṣ炻ㆸḳ⛐⣑
Man proposes, Heaven disposes. (Translated by Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang)
Man proposes, God disposes. (Translated by David Hawkes)7
In Chinese, ⣑ (tian) means “sky” or “heaven” as opposed to ⛘ (di) mean-

ing “land” and “earth” in Chinese. Apart from its original meaning of ⣑, it
can also be used to mean the most powerful deity, as used in the example:
in Christian culture the most powerful deity is God. The two translations
preserve the translators’ own native culture regarding religion, with Yang’s use
of “heaven” to produce cultural change to the translated language, and with
Hawks’ “God” to make a change from the SL culture.
c. Shift Due to the Translator’s Creative Translation Sometimes, translation-

induced change is caused by new features created by the translator, which are
borrowed neither from the SL nor from the translator’s native language. Ezra
Pound’s translation of a classic Chinese poem by Liu Che (1915) is a good
case in point.
(ĵĪġ仿堪№㖈⢘炻䌱⠨№⯀䓇ˤ
嘂㇧⅟侴⭪⭪炻句⎞ὅḶ慵㇫ˤ
㛃⼤伶ᷳ⤛№炻⬱⼿デἁ⽫ᷳ㛒⬩Ģ
This is a popular classical Chinese poem and has many different translated
versions in English. As for the last line, “㛃⼤伶ᷳ⤛№/⬱⼿デἁ⽫ᷳ
㛒⬩,” Amy Lowell (1955) expresses it as “I long for the Most Beauti-
ful One; How can I attain my desire? Pain bursts my heart. There is no
peace,” and Arthur D. Waley’s version is “Longing for that lovely lady,
How can I bring my aching heart to rest?” (1918). In general, the two
are approximately the same as the original in both form and meaning. Yet
Pound’s translation of the line is “a wet leaf that clings to the threshold”—
utterly different from the original. This new image is created by Pound,
whose poetic sense can be found only after a thorough understanding of
the context of the Chinese line.
Creative translation is widely adopted and used in advertisement transla-
tion. Advertisement is a special text style used to attract customers’ attention
and it aims at conciseness, compactness, persuasiveness, and customer-
friendliness. Advertisement represents the type of text where equivalence is
more difficult to achieve than any other type of text, so changes produced
by creative translation can often be observed. For instance, the slogan “Time
is what you make of it” in an advertisement for Swatch, a watch brand, is
expressed in Chinese as “⣑攧⛘ᷭ,” which seems to be utterly out of balance
with the English version. However, with a view of its function, the Chinese
“⣑攧⛘ᷭ” works well to match its English original to mean the durability
of a watch with a sense of romance.
d. Language Attrition Language attrition also belongs to shift-induced

changes, because it results from the translator’s imperfect learning, such as
his or her cultural attitude or language proficiency. Over the years, differ-
ent scholars have provided attrition with various versions. Monika Schmid
(2011, 3) views it as a kind of language loss, a phenomenon of change.

Thomason (2003, 704) takes it for “the overall simplification and reduction
of a language’s linguistics, without concomitant complication elsewhere in
the system,” while C. Myers-Scotton (2002, 179) says that it is “a phenome-
non of individuals,” referring to “what happens to an individual’s production
of a language, and the state of any loss at a point of time.” As for the attrition
induced by translation, we mean both processes; that is, any loss happening
in a translation, which may or may not spread to the entire language, and the
overall reduction and simplification happening in an entire language.
Linguistic attrition occurs because of the markedness of the SL, since the
translator cannot find an equivalent expression either in form or in meaning
in the TL. Then it is a wise choice to resort to language loss in order to avoid
such obvious mistakes.
(5) 㛶⃱⣜䘬⎵⫿⎓㛶⃱炻Ṿ㭵ṚᷢḮ䚩摙炻ᷢḮᶨ⸜慴⮹Ẁↈ㫉䎮
⍹䘬摙炻㭷㫉悥孑䎮⍹ⶰ亁Ṿ㍐᷒⃱⣜ˤḶ㗗征᷒⎓㛶⃱䘬⬑⫸往
⛐巺嶂⬎㬍䘬㖞῁炻⯙㚱Ḯ㛶⃱⣜䘬亘⎟ˤṶ⮷⇘⣏炻⇓Ṣ悥征ᷰ⎓
Ṿ炻徆Ṿ䘬㭵Ṛḇ⎓Ṿ㛶⃱⣜Ḯ炻Ṿ㭵Ṛ⎓Ṿ㛶⃱䘬㖞῁炻ⷠⷠᶵ䞍
ᶵ奱⛘㹹Ḯ彯⍣炻⣂⎓↢ᶨ᷒Ⱦ⣜ȿ㜍炻⎶㜍⸚傮⯙⎓Ṿ㛶⃱⣜Ḯˤ
⒒⾽Ṿ䘬⣜⍹攧↢㜍Ḯ⁷勱❃ᶨ㟟ḙ咔咔ĭġ⇓Ṣ往㗗⎓Ṿ㛶⃱⣜į
Baldy Li’s real name was Li Guang. In order to reduce hair-cutting expenses,
his mother always told the barber to shave him bald. Even after his hair grew
out like a wild bush, the nickname stuck.8
(5) is a short description of how the nickname of 㛶⃱⣜ (Baldy Li) comes
to be used instead of his real name 㛶⃱ (Li Guang). The disyllabic Chinese
⃱⣜ (guangtou) can be divided into guang and tou, two single characters
in Chinese. However, the English version only explains that Baldy Li is a
nickname of Li Guang, but the fine connection between the two names of
Li Guangtou and Li Guang is totally lost, because the English word Baldy in
Baldy Li cannot be further divided into two similar meaningful parts.
As discussed in 3.1.1(b), when the TL does not share a culture similar
to that of the SL, cultural borrowing occurs, and the translator will directly
introduce the source language culture into the TL. The reason for a translator
to replace the SL culture with the one from the TL may be related to language
limitation or a translator’s attitude. The novel Wolf Totem written by Jiang
Rong is replete with Chinese local features. For example, “䉔ㆶ㕷冒䦘䣾
⃰ᷢḴ䘥䉔炻⻻㗗ẍ䉔ᷢ⚦儦” and “␐䧮䌳Ẹ䓶ㆶ炻⼿⚃䘥䊤炻⚃
䘥渧ẍ⻺” are quotations from two classic Chinese history books, The Brief
History of China and The History of Former Han. The cultural information is
difficult even for ordinary Chinese to comprehend, let alone native English
readers. The attrition in translation does function to improve the novel’s read-
ability in the TL, though it has actually diminished the aesthetic effect of the
original culture.
3.2 Changes in the Translated Text

This type of change is produced in the use of languages between the target
language receptors and the translated text. As seen above in (3.1), changes
in the translated text are triggered by foreignization and domestication. Only
foreignized translations can possibly instigate changes in the TL. Whether
foreignized features in translations cause changes in a TL is largely deter-
mined by the target language receptor’s imperfect learning. If receptors refuse
to accept the changes, no changes will take place in the TL; if they accept and
disseminate the changes, the translator’s private contact will become a public
event in the TL. Generally speaking, the changes will usually be in either of
two ways: borrowing from translated texts and new changes triggered by the
translated versions.
3.2.1 Borrowing from the Translated Texts

When a foreignized feature in translation is accepted and used in a TL with-
out changes, it is taken as borrowing from the translated text. It may be a
lexical borrowing; for example, the Chinese ⸥満 (youmo) translated by Lin
Yutang (㜿宕➪) from the English word “humor” and 忣弹 (logic) transliter-
ated by Yan Fu (᷍⢵) from A System of Logic: Deduction and Induction are
both widely accepted in Chinese, and no one would even think that they had
an English origin.
Similarly, structural changes may also be accepted by the TL receptors. For
example, Europeanized features have become a part of modern Chinese after
the New Cultural Movement during the May Fourth period in China, and
many contemporary Chinese writers who developed and became mature in
their profession mainly through reading translated literary works have bor-
rowed the Europeanized Chinese structures in their writings. Yu Hua is one
author in whose writing Europeanized structures can be easily identified. The
following is an example extracted from his novel Cries in the Drizzles (2007).
(6Ī⤪㝄ᶵ㗗㭵Ṛ炻㭵Ṛ䗎⮷䘬幓ỻ␴⤡䘬⒕⢘㋉ỷḮ᷌᷒⁷䉿ᶨ㟟
␮⒖䘬䓟Ṣ炻恋ᷰㆹ㛔㜍⯙䟜㖏ᶵ⟒䘬⭞⼰⎗傥ㆸᷢ⹇⡇ˤ
Were it not for mother, whose tears and diminutive figure were the only
obstacles in the way of these two raging males, our home, already so ram-
shackle, might well have ended up a complete ruin.9
The Europeanized structure in this novel is not only a mere change of lan-
guage structure but also entails a rhetorical tool to match with the theme
of this book. In (6), the phrase “㭵Ṛ䗎⮷䘬幓ỻ␴⤡䘬⒕⢘㋉ỷḮ᷌᷒
⁷䉿ᶨ㟟␮⒖䘬䓟Ṣ” functions grammatically as a postpositive attribute,
which adds exotic beauty to the novel, well matching its theme of isolation
and confusion.
Apart from this, borrowing can also be concerned with literary styles. Take
The Wet Leaf by Pound, for example. William Carlos Williams (1986) bor-
rows it when translating the Chinese line “⇓㗗ᶨ䔒㹳␛⛐⽫⣜” into the
English “Clings like a wet leaf to my heart.” In fact, Pound’s translation of
classic Chinese poems influenced some other American poets in the 1920s
when imagist writing was popular and prevailing. Similarly, modernist liter-
ary works translated from English also have exerted influence upon the writ-
ing styles of modern Chinese writers, who often borrow modernist writing
techniques in their own writings.
(7)⣏㰥弎␴⮷㰥弎ˤ㖈弐䓝弎␴冒埴弎炻淋䫃⢘␴宜䪹⢘ˤ⣏❶
ⶪ䘬⣄㘂ㇵ㚨㚱⣏❶ⶪ䘬㳣≃␴䈡䁡ˤ⺨⥳㚱Ḯ䦨䦨句句䘬ˣ䃞侴
㗗⺽Ṣ㲐䚖䘬⭥嘡䀗␴䎮⍹椮斐⇵䘬㕳弔剙㴒ˤ㚱䂓Ḯ䘬⣜⍹␴䔁
Ḯ䘬攧⍹ˤ檀嶇朳␴⋲檀嶇朳炻㖈堾⣿⣜䘬墁堓ˤ剙曚㯜␴暒剙曺
䘬㮼␛ˤ❶ⶪ␴⤛Ṣ⇂⇂⺨⥳䔍䔍ㇻ㈖ᶨᶳ冒⶙炻⶚乷㚱Ṣ⛸ᶵỷ
Ḯˤ征⼰㚱嵋ˤ
He saw trucks and cars, trolley buses, and bicycles. He heard the shriek of
whistles and the high-pitched din of voices talking and laughing. The city truly
showed its peculiarities and vitality at night. He noticed people with perma-
nent-waved hair and naturally straight hair, women wearing sleeveless dresses
and shoes with spiked heels or pumps. He smelled the strong scents of perfume
and face powder.10
The above passage, taken from Eye of the Night, a short story by Wang
Meng, is organized without following the traditional time and space order
but instead the character’s mental activities. Four verbs describing feelings—
“saw,” “heard,” “noticed,” and “smelled”—are added in the translation to
depict the mental structure of the original Chinese. This is a typical example
of stream of consciousness, a writing technique prevalent in the West since the
beginning of the twentieth century, and it began to have an impact on Chi-
nese literary works in the 1980s when the second translation boom started
due to the “open up” policy in China.
The foreignized cultures rooted in the translated text may also be bor-
rowed by the TL receptors and then form a new trend in the TL commu-
nity. The translations about “democracy” and “science” advanced by Liang
Qichao (㠩⏗崭), Yan fu (᷍⢵), and many others from the beginning of
the twentieth century were popularly accepted and disseminated by the intel-
lectual elites who pioneered the New Culture Movement and, as a result,
changed Chinese people’s conceptions. Hence, the concepts of democracy and
science were accepted by the public and became an important component in
modern Chinese values.
However, a translator’s mistakes may also be accepted by the receptors
because of their failure to spot them due to lack of the relevant knowledge.
(8) But I wasn’t discouraged, I joined the Society of Philosophy, and the Jour-
nalism Society in order to be able to attend classes in the university.
Ữ㗗ㆹ⸞ᶵ䀘⽫ˤㆹ⍪≈Ḯ⒚⬎Ể␴㕘斣⬎Ể炻ᷢ䘬㗗傥⣇⛐⊿
⣏㕩⏔ˤ11
(8) is selected from a dialogue from Red Star Over China between Edgar
Snow and Chairman Mao. Dong Leshan, the translator, translated “attend”
into 㕩⏔ (audit) instead of ⏔宦 (sit in on classes), according to his own
understanding. Later people doing researches about Mao Zedong took it for
granted that Mao once audited classes at Peking University (Liu 2014, 13;
Zhang 2010, 43). However, according to Hu Weixiong’s investigation (2010,
38–39), Mao was not really auditing classes, because students had to pass an
examination and pay fees as auditors in class at Peking University before the
1920s. He really just attended the classes without officially paying fees.
3.2.2 New Changes Triggered by the Translated Language

When borrowed features from translated texts are accepted and used in TL
text, they may incur further changes through linguistic extension, cultural
extension, and target language attrition.
a. Linguistic Extension Linguistic extension means that new meanings or

structures are added to the target language’s lexicon from the translated
language. For instance, the exposure of the Watergate scandal in 1972
made the Chinese translation 斐 (originating from the “-gate” in “Water-
gate”) popular in contemporary Chinese. The Chinese 斐 has acquired
the meaning of “scandal” from Watergate and has now become a popular
negative suffix—when anything scandalous in nature, it is suffixed to the
Chinese word, with the sense of being negative, dishonest, or even dis-
gusting; for example, 擁⫿斐 (wrong spelling gate), 㫈ῢ斐 (debt gate),
创䄏斐 (pornphotogate), etc. Another example can be seen in the trans-
lation of Chinese words ⊿Ṕ—after being introduced into English as
“Peking,” different suffixes have been added to produce new words like
Pekingology, Peking blue, etc.
A more obvious example can be seen from the extension of the Chinese
⽖⌂, borrowed from the English word “microblog” by means of transliteration
and literal translation, with “micro-”translated as ⽖ and “blog” transliterated
as ⌂. The Chinese word structure of ⽖ . . . , like that of “micro-” in English,
can be expanded by adding more words without changing its basic meaning,
such as ⽖䓇⾩ (micro-ecology), ⽖乷㳶 (micro-economy), etc. Then there
has appeared ⽖ᾉ, which is translated as “microchat” by way of literal trans-
lation, or “Wechat” through the combined use of transliteration and literal
translation. The quick absorption of new technological terms into the target
language reflects modern people’s open attitude and willingness to learn and
accept new things.
b. Cultural Extension When the exotic culture in a translated text is bor-

rowed into the target language society, it may be combined with the target
culture to form a new culture that is different from both the source language
culture and the target language culture. The new cultural changes may be
about concepts, behaviors or ways of thinking, etc. For example, the trans-
lated version of Thomas Henry Huxley’s After Evolution and Ethics and Other
Essays by Yan Fu ushered in the concepts of “survival of the fittest,” “natural
selection,” and “evolution,” awakening Chinese patriots to take actions to
create a new era in China. Similarly, the heroine Nora in A Doll’s House by
Henrik Johan Ibsen was made popular by Chinese intellectuals to encourage
Chinese women to break the family bond, pursue individual freedom, and
seek true love in life.
Cultural extension may suffer from misunderstanding and being twisted
because of the incommensurability of cultures or the strong desire to cater
for the public. The change produced by the translation of Tao Te Ching (The
Scripture of Ethics) is a good case illustrating cultural incommensurabil-
ity. Tao is the central concept of Taoism, meaning the harmonious chaotic
states between Heaven and Earth, humanity and nature. Since its first Eng-
lish translation by J. Legge (1891), more than a hundred English versions
have appeared. Different English versions with the word Tao have come into
being: they are “reason,” “way,” “method,” “law,” “nature,” and many more,
all of which have, to some extent, deviated from the original meaning.
The reception of Journey to the West (大㷠存) in America is another
example showing a changing fate of a translation in other cultures. The first
translation of the book done by Arthur Waley in the 1940s, entitled Monkey:
Folk Novel of China, made the story of Monk Tang and his three apprentices
known to the West. In 2001, this novel was adapted into a TV series in
America entitled The Monkey King. In order to cater for the audience, changes
were made to the characters as well as the plot, with some stunts added to
replace the fights in the original. Besides, Monk Tang in the film is no longer
a monk but an ordinary American with a task to save the world, who even
falls in love with Guanyin (a female Buddha).This is an unimaginable change
and will not be acceptable by most of the Chinese, since in Chinese culture
Monk Tang is a respectable stoic and Buddha is a god cut off from passion.
Sometimes, misunderstandings of a translated culture in the TL may have
an adverse impact upon the SL culture. When this happens, a new transla-
tion may be suggested to offset the adverse impact of the previous one. A
good case in point here is the translation of the Chinese 潁 (long) into the
English “dragon.” 潁ġis a divine, legendary, giant creature in Chinese mythol-
ogy, embodying the virtues of bravery, wisdom, and good fortune and always
taken as a symbol of greatness by the Chinese; while dragon, a frightening
and dreadful creature, often symbolizes evil and demons in the English-
speaking culture. As a result, the translation of 潁 into “dragon” actually leads
to misunderstanding, and so it is highly recommended that it be replaced by
means of its Chinese pinyin, long.
c. Target Language Attrition Target language attrition induced by translations

is constrained by the target language culture, the receptors’ cultural attitude,
and the social environment. For example, the aforementioned vernacular
movement during the May Fourth period not only tolerated but also eventu-
ally popularized the Europeanized language in Chinese literary works. As a
result, the archaic Chinese style is rarely used in contemporary Chinese lit-
erature. Target language attrition is a reflection of language hegemony, which
may lead to counteraction from TL natives. The revival of studies of Chinese
traditional culture since the 1990s in China paves a way to revive traditional
Chinese language.
Cultural attrition may also take place when a foreign culture exerts greater
influence upon the target language culture. For example, originally ⛋宆 (the
birth of sages) in China refers particularly to the birth of Confucius, the
greatest sage in ancient China. However, nowadays, more Chinese young
people take it to be the birth of Christ rather than the birth of Confucius,
because of the popularized Christmas in China.
4. Conclusion
In the above discussion, we have identified and illustrated translation-induced
changes by means of instances of translation between English and Chinese,
from the viewpoint of contact linguistics. Based on analysis of the differences
between the translated language and the TL, we have observed two processes
of changes in translation: changes produced in the language use between
translator and the SL, and changes in the language use between the TL
receptors and the translated language. The authors posit that (1) translation-
induced change is a dynamic integration from the SL through the translated
language and finally to the TL; and (2) a language user’s imperfect learning as
a predictor for translation-induced changes determines the translation strate-
gies and the direction of language change. Translation, as a mode of language
contact, leads to language changes that, in turn, are consequential products of
translation. The integration of changes in the translated text and those in the
TL extends the notion of translation from linguistic interference to language
influence. Thus, linguistic and cultural approaches are two crucial approaches
not to be dissociated from one another but instead treated as complementary
to one another in translation studies. In addition, this analysis shows that
translators and target language readers can both play important roles in trans-
lation, and that from the viewpoint of contact linguistics, imperfect learning
also has a close connection with translators and TL receptors, which awaits
further exploration in future studies of translation.
Notes
1. According to S. G. Thomason (2001, 75), the shifting group refers to the speaker
group shifting from their native language to the target language. Their native lan-
guage features and/or errors in target language may form part of the target lan-
guage, so the changed target language they speak is marked as target language 2
and they become target language 2 speakers, while the original target language is
marked as target language 1.
2. Winford (2003, 11) defines language maintenance as “the preservation by a speech
community of its native language from generation to generation.” Translation-
induced maintenance discussed in this chapter is viewed as a form of shift since it
involves the movement of SL to the translated text as a result of translator’s choice
of domestication strategy.
3. From The Life of Mr. Jonathan Wild the Great, by Henry Fielding, translated by
Xiao Qian (Beijing: People’s Literature Publishing House, 1956).
4. From Chronicle of a Blood Merchant, by Yu Hua, translated by Andrew F. Jones
(New York: Anchor Books, 2003), p.12.
5. From The Reference Book for New English Course (Vol. 3), translated by English Fac-
ulty, Tsinghua University (Beijing: Tsinghua University Publishing House, 1988),
p.135.
6. From Brother, by Yu Hua, translated by Eileen Cheng-yin Chow and Carlos Rojas
7. From A Dream of Red Mansion, by Cao Xueqin and Gao’ E, translated by Yang
Xianyi and Gladys Yang (Beijing: Foreign Language Press, 2007); translated as The
Story of the Stone by David Hawkes (London: Penguin Books, 1973).
8. From Brother, by Yu Hua, translated by Eileen Cheng-yin Chow and Carlos Rojas
9. From Cries in the Drizzles, by Yu Hua, translated by Allen H. Barr (New York:
Anchor Books, 2007), p.39.
10. From Eye of the Night, by Wang Meng, translated by Donald A. Gibbs (Harvard
University Press, 1975).
11. From Red Star over China, by Edgar Snow, translated by Dong Leshan (Beijing:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1979), p.127.
References
Appiah, K. A. (2000). “Thick Translation,” in L. Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies
Reader (London: Routledge), pp.417–429.
Baumgarten, N., and Demet Ozcetin (2008).”Linguistic Variation through Language
Contact in Translation,” in P. Siemund and N. Kintana (eds.), Language Contact
and Contact Language (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company).
Bassnett, Susan (1988). Translation Studies (London: Routledge).
Bassnett, Susan, and A. Lefevere (eds.) (1990). Translation, History and Culture (Lon-
don: Pinter).
Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice (Longman: London
and New York).
Cao Shunqing (2014). The Variation Theory of Comparative Literature (New York:
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg).
Hu Weixiong (2010). “Did Mao Zedong Audit at Peking University?,” Journal of Tong
Zhou Gong Jin (Guangzhou), pp. 38–39.
Legge, J. (trans.) (1962). The Sacred Books of China. (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Liu, Qingyuan and Juanjuan Zhou (2011). “Syntactic Variations in Translated Novels
Published in Novel Monthly in the Beginning of the 20th Century,” Journal of
Foreign Language Research 6, pp. 82–85.
Liu, Zhe (2014). “Celebrities Having Audited in Peking University,” Journal of His-
toric Monthly 13.
Lowell, Amy (1955). The Complete Poetical Works of Amy Lowell (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin).
Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical
Outcomes (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p.179.
Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles
and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating (Leiden: E. J. Brill).
Schmid, Monika (2011). Language Attrition (London: Cambridge University Press),
p.3.
Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language Contact: An Introduction (Washington: George-
town University Press).
Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (Amsterdam: John
Benjamins).
Waley, Arthur D. (1918). A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems (London: Constable
and Company Ltd.).
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems (New York: Lin-
guistic Circle of New York).
Williams, William Carlos (1986). The Collected Poems of William Carlos Williams
(New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation).
Winford, D. (2003). An Introduction to Contact Linguistics (New Jersey: Blackwell
Publishing).
Zhang, Yuequn (2010). “Mao Zedong and Libraries,” Journal of Mao Zedong Thought
Study 43.
CHAPTER 8
“Eco” and “Adaptation-Selection” in

Eco-Translatology Explained
Xiaohua Jiang
E
“ co” and “adaptation-selection” are two key terms in eco-translatology.
“Eco” can be seen as the primary focus of eco-translatology, and it is
also the growth point of researches in eco-translatology. “Adaptation-
selection” is the theoretical backbone and also the modus operandi of eco-
translatology. A proper understanding of these two terms is crucial to the
study of eco-translatology. The terms “eco,” “adaptation,” and “selection” (or
“choice-making”) have already been used in ecocriticism and Verschueren’s
theory of linguistic adaptation and, consequently, had exerted a far-reaching
influence in academic circles long before the birth of eco-translatology (cf.
Note 4). So, what are the similarities and differences between the “eco” in
eco-translatology and the “eco” in ecocriticism? And what are the similarities
and differences between the “adaptation-selection” in eco-translatology and
the “adaptation” and “selection” (“choice-making”) in Verschueren’s theory
of linguistic adaptation? This chapter attempts a contrastive approach to the
two key terms, “eco” and “adaptation-selection,” trying to shed light on the
nuances of the two terms when used in different fields.
1. “Eco” in Eco-Translatology vs. “Eco” in Ecocriticism

Eco-translatology began to take shape in 2001. After several years of slow
development, it experienced a temporary prosperity in 2009, and it received
some national and international attention in 2010, which witnessed two
symbolic events: the establishment of the International Association of Eco-
Translatology Research (IAETR) and the opening of the first international
symposium on eco-translatology in Macao. Since ecocriticism has had a
136 ● Xiaohua Jiang
significant influence in academia, it is necessary to distinguish the “eco” in

eco-translatology from the “eco” in ecocriticism.
1.1 “Eco” in Eco-Translatology

The connotations of “eco” in eco-translatology can be generalized as follows:
(1) In eco-translatology, “eco” goes with the rules of natural ecology in

general. In a sense, some relevance, similarity, and isomorphism can
be detected between translational ecology and natural ecology (Hu
2010a). Here “relevance” means that translation and nature are related
to each other according to the “chain”: translation↔language↔
culture↔human↔nature (ibid.). Specifically, from the close relation-
ship between “translation” and “language,” we can reach “nature” step
by step; and, conversely, from the close relationship between “nature”
and “human,” we can reach “translation” one step after another. The
similarities between translational ecology and natural ecology could be
summed up as follows:
(a) In natural ecology, the eco-environment interacts with each organ-
ism. Similarly, in translational ecology, the “eco-environment of
translation” interacts with each factor relating to translation.
(b) The interactions among organisms and between environment and
organisms eventually achieve harmony and balance in nature. Sim-
ilarly, the interactions between a translator and the factors con-
cerned should finally achieve harmony and balance in translation.
(c) In nature, there is a mutually beneficial relationship among dif-
ferent organisms. In translation, purposeful translational activities
will improve certain factors relating to translation, which will result
in mutual benefits among translation factors.
(d) The “survival of the fittest” principle is suitable for both nature and
translation.
(e) Both nature and translation follow in a way the same modus ope-
randi, namely adaptation, selection, and survival or extinction.
(2) The core philosophical foundation for eco-translatology is the “adapta-
tion-selection” principle from Darwin’s theory of evolution (Hu 2003;
Hu 2004, 63–72 and 173–174).
(3) Ecological rationality is adopted in eco-translatology. Hu summarizes
ecological rationality as (a) paying attention to the “wholeness” and
“relevance,” (b) emphasizing the “dynamics” and “balance,” (c) show-
ing “ecological beauty,” (d) taking care of the “translation community,”
and (e) advocating “diversity and oneness” (Hu 2011, 5–6).
“Eco” and “Adaptation-Selection” in Eco-Translatology Explained ● 137
(4) Some classical Chinese ecological ideas are absorbed in eco-translatology.

Hu believes that classical Chinese philosophy, such as tian ren he yi (har-
mony of man with nature), zhong yong zhi dao (the doctrine of the
mean), and yi ren wei ben (human-oriented), boasts of ecological wis-
dom, which emphasizes harmony between nature and human beings as
well as the human inner world (Hu 2010b). In fact, Lao Tzu has clearly
expressed his views: “Humanity follows the earth, earth follows the sky,
the sky follows the Tao, and the Tao follows Nature” (Lao Tzu, Chap.
25). Even the mysterious, unnamable, ineffable Tao that governs the
universe follows nature, which implies that natural law has been the
highest law in the universe from time immemorial. Ecological wisdom
has been deeply embedded in the very core of Chinese civilization for a
long time. The classical Chinese ecological philosophy is another philo-
sophical foundation for the “eco” in eco-translatology.
(5) Hu develops four principles of eco-translation ethics in his latest
monograph: the principle of “balance and harmony,” the principle of
“multiple eco-integration,” the principle of “symbiosis and diversity,”
and the principle of “translator responsibility” (Hu 2013, 109–121).
1.2 “Eco” in Ecocriticism

Different scholars may have different ideas about the “eco” in ecocriticism.1
In most cases, however, we can interpret it as follows:
(1) Natural ecology is taken as a real yardstick for value judgment in eco-
criticism. Ecocriticism is a theory of literary criticism that took shape
in Europe and the United States in 1990s. It observes the relationship
between human civilization and nature through examination of liter-
ary texts. It aims not only to save nature, which provides the environ-
ment for the survival of human beings, but also to advocate a return to
natural humanity and to cope with the problem of human alienation.
Its ultimate aim is to reconstruct the physical and spiritual harmony
and unity between mankind and nature. Ecocriticism is the study of
the relationships between literature and the natural environment. Its
ideological foundation is the philosophy of eco-holism contributed by
the American ecological philosopher H. Rolsdon, which regards the
holistic interest of ecosystems as its highest value. Rolsdon inherits
Aldo Leopold’s philosophical idea of “land ethics”; that is, regarding
“not undermining the stability and dynamic balance of natural eco-
system” and “protecting the diversity of species” as the basic yardstick
of value, taking the holistic interest and inherent laws of ecosystems
as the fundamental reference for all human ideas, behaviors, lifestyles,
and modes of development, and as the yardstick for judging the needs
and developments of all things, including human beings (Tan 2009).
Ecocriticism insists that the harmony between mankind and natural
ecology is the highest yardstick of value, which eases to a certain extent
the conflicts between cultures and the severe opposition between
nature (especially animals) and human beings.
(2) The core philosophical foundation for ecocriticism is the “eco-ism”
“after the modern era” (Rigby 2006; Zhang et al. 2007). Specifically,
on the one hand, the rapid development of science and technology
brings enormous benefits to mankind; on the other hand, it seriously
threatens the natural ecology.
(3) Classical Chinese ecological ideas, such as tian ren he yi (harmony of
man with nature) and dao fa zi ran (the Tao follows Nature), are phil-
osophical references for ecocriticism, and they also serve as another
philosophical foundation for ecocriticism (Zhang et al. 2007). West-
ern philosophical ideas, like “man is the only yardstick in the universe”
and “mankind makes laws for nature,” become the focus of criticism.
(4) Multilayered ecological ethics are developed: (a) Rolsdon’s idea of
“conserving natural value”; (b) Schweitzer’s ethics of respecting life;
(c) Leopord’s land ethics; (d) the paradox of ecological ethics per se
(Rigby 2006; Zhang et al. 2007).
1.3 Brief Summary

In a word, the main similarity between the “eco” in eco-translatology and
the “eco” in ecocriticism is that they both benefited from classical Chinese
ecological ideas. Their main differences are as follows:
(a) “Eco” is a metaphor in eco-translatology, while it is a real benchmark
in ecocriticism. In other words, in eco-translatology, “eco” or natural
ecology is a metaphor or an analogy where natural phenomena like
“adaptation,” “selection,” and “survival of the fittest” are compared
with similar phenomena in translation. Here translation is the “tenor,”
while natural ecology is the “vehicle.” However, in ecocriticism, natu-
ral ecology is a real or practical yardstick for value judgment.
(b) Their core philosophical foundations are different. The “eco” in eco-
translatology is based on the “adaptation-selection” principle in Dar-
win’s theory of evolution while the “eco” in ecocriticism is based on
eco-ism “after the modern era.”
(c) The ecological ethics in ecocriticism is based on natural ecology, and
eco-translation ethics in eco-translatology is based on the humanities
and social sciences.
1.4 Reflections on the “Eco” in Eco-Translatology

It seems that the “eco” in eco-translatology is not adequately defined. At least,
the following points need to be further elaborated:
(a) Is “eco” meant figuratively or technically in eco-translatology? In Hu’s
latest monograph (Hu 2013), which represents the state of the art,
confusingly it is meant in both ways. Sometimes it means “ecologi-
cal” or “ecology” in a technical way; for instance, “䓇⾩㔜ỻᷣᷱ”
(eco-holism) (Hu 2013, 80), “(䓇⾩侣孹⬎䘬)䓇⾩䎮⿏” (ecologi-
cal principle) (Hu 2013, 101), the “eco-translation” in chapter 5.5 of
Gengshen Hu (2013), and so on. Sometimes it means “ecological” or
“ecology” in a figurative way; for instance, “侣孹䓇⾩” (translation
ecology) (Hu 2013, 88), “㔯㛔䓇⾩” (textual ecology) (Hu 2013, 91),
“侣孹佌句䓇⾩” (translation community ecology) (Hu 2013, 92), “
侣孹䓇⾩䍗⠫” (translational eco-environment) (Hu 2013, 89–90),
and so on. Even the “eco” in “eco-translatology” itself has various
meanings. There is not a clear-cut definition or explanation for it.
(b) The following two crucial questions are not answered, or at least not
clearly elaborated in eco-translatology: (i) What kind of translation is
“eco-translation”2 in real practice? Or, in terms of Hu’s explanation, if
eco-translation is “multi-dimensional adaptation and selection” (Hu
2013, 264–271), what is/are the essential difference(s) between an
“eco-translation” and a translation that conforms to A. F. Tytler’s three
principles of translation? (ii) What is/are the essential difference(s)
between “ecological environment of translation” (or “translational eco-
environment”) and “environment of translation” (or “translation envi-
ronment”)? In Hu’s eco-translatology, the two seem to be identical.
If there is no difference between the two, “eco” or “ecological” seems
to be redundant here. Scientifically, “eco-” means the living condi-
tions of living things in a certain area, and the balanced harmonious
relationship among the living things or between the living things and
the environment. But in the humanities and social sciences, “eco-” is
a metaphor meaning “good, healthy, and harmonious.” Consequently,
“eco” should be regarded as a metaphor in eco-translatology: it also
means “good, healthy and harmonious.” Therefore, “ecological envi-
ronment of translation” (or “translation environment”) should be “an
ideal environment which a translator, translational act and the result of
translation etc. are in” (Jiang 2014).
(c) Though Hu claims that classical Chinese ecological ideas have been
absorbed in his eco-translatology, Douglas Robinson notes in his “Hu
and the Eco-Translatology of Early Chinese Thought” (Robinson 2013)
that Hu’s ground on classical Chinese ecological philosophy is rather

shallow and superficial and he only adopts a few common-sense terms
from classical Chinese ecological thought (Robinson 2013; Qin 2013).
He also points out that ecological ideas are very rich in early Chinese
thought and that Hu should have based more on them (ibid.):
I do in fact believe that [eco-translatology] has Chinese roots, or such roots

can be attributed to it . . . but I want to suggest that Professor Hu has not
read very carefully in those roots, so that he typically pays little more than
lip-service to them. It is quite true that early Chinese thought is far more eco-
logical than mainstream Western thought, and Hu himself adduces the main
principles of that ecological thought in fairly broad strokes (Robinson 2013).
Taking “the four shoots of Mencius” (“⬇⫸⚃䪗”) as potential “early Chi-

nese roots” for an ecological approach to the study of translation, Robinson
offers a tentative and speculative contribution to eco-translatology (Robinson
2013), which widens eco-translatology’s ground on classical Chinese ecologi-
cal philosophy.
2. “Adaptation-Selection” in Eco-Translatology vs. “Adaptation”

and “Selection” (“Choice-Making”) in the
Theory of Linguistic Adaptation
“Adaptation” and “selection” (or “choice-making”) are terms first seen in
pragmatics. Later, they were adopted in translation studies by Chinese
scholars (Song 2004). What are the similarities and differences between
this model—“adaptation” and “selection” (or “choice-making”)—and the
“adaptation-selection” model in eco-translatology? The following three
sections are devoted to answering this question.
2.1 “Adaptation-Selection” in Eco-Translatology

Eco-translatology explores translation process from the perspective of a trans-
lator’s “adaptation” and “selection,” defining translation as “a series of selec-
tive activities by a translator during his/her process to adapt himself/herself to
the eco-environment of translation” (Hu 2004, 39). The “eco-environment
of translation” is the general environment for a translator and the target text.
It’s not only the aggregate of many kinds of factors that restricts a translator’s
optimal adaptation and selection, but also the premise and foundation for a
translator’s multidimensional adaptation and adaptive selection. In eco-trans-
latology, “adaptation-selection” mainly explores the issues of a translator’s
selective adaptation and his or her adaptive selection in the translation pro-
cess. A translator has to adapt to the “eco-environment of translation” to
make selections. The adaptive process includes selection, and the selective
process includes adaptation. The specific characteristics of “selective adapta-
tion” and “adaptive selection” are as follows: (a) “adaptation” implies that a
translator should adapt to the eco-environment of translation; (b) “selection”
means that a translator should select an adequate parole and style for the
target text after he or she has adapted to the eco-environment of translation.
The means of adaptation is his or her optimal selection of a parole and style
for the target text; the principle of selection is exclusion of the weak; that is,
survival of the fittest (Hu 2004, Chap. 3.1–3.3).
2.2 “Adaptation” and “Selection” (“Choice-Making”) in the Theory

of Linguistic Adaptation
Based on Darwinian evolutionary epistemology, Verschueren proposed the
pragmatic theory of linguistic adaptation (Verschueren 1987; 1999), which
is generally known as 栢⸼孢 (adaptation theory) in Chinese. Verschueren
holds that language has three characteristics: (a) variability, (b) negotiability,
and (c) adaptability.3 He also believes that during the process of communica-
tion, oral or written, the communicators always consciously or initiatively
take the receptive ability of the receptor into consideration so as to ensure
the successful conveyance of their intentions through discourse or text.
Verschueren’s “adaptation” includes the following: adaptation of structural
objects, adaptation of contextual correlates, dynamic adaptation, and the
salience of adaptation processes. The core of the theory of linguistic adapta-
tion is the dynamics of adaptability. Verschueren’s pragmatism concept holds
that “using language must consist of the continuous making of linguistic
choices, consciously or unconsciously, for language-internal (i.e., structural)
and/or language-external reasons” (Verschueren 1999, 55–56). In develop-
ing the theory of linguistic adaptation, Verschueren made an intensive and
systematic study of how language users continuously make linguistic choices
to adapt themselves to communicative needs. In other words, the process of
using language is a process of making continuous linguistic choices so as to
adapt to the linguistic and communicative context.4 Therefore, the process of
translation can be described as a process in which a translator makes continu-
ous linguistic choices in order to adapt to the communicative needs of the
situation.
However, it must be noted that Verschueren himself did not propose the
translation model “adaptation and selection (choice-making)” in his theory
of linguistic adaptation.
2.3 Brief Summary

In a word, the principal similarities between the “adaptation-selection” of
eco-translatology and the “adaptation” and “selection (choice-making)” of
the theory of linguistic adaptation are as follows:
(a) Darwin’s biological evolutionism is their common philosophical

foundation.
(b) The same English word “adaption” and the same Chinese term “徱
㊑” (selection or choice-making) are employed in Verschueren’s theory
of linguistic adaptation and Hu’s eco-translatology. Moreover, both
theories emphasize that the relationship between “adaptation” and
“selection (choice-making)” is multidimensional, bidirectional, and
dynamic (Hu 2004, 120; Verschueren 1999, 55–58).
(c) The Chinese term for “adaptation” is 循⸼ (shiying) in eco-translatol-
ogy, while the Chinese term for “adaptation” is 栢⸼ (shunying) in the
theory of linguistic adaptation. Essentially, however, 循⸼ and 栢⸼
are the same in meaning in Chinese (He 2007), though taken literally,
循⸼ appears slightly more active in meaning than 栢⸼. And active
adaptation is underlined both in eco-translatology and in the theory of
linguistic adaptation.
Their main differences are as follows:
(a) Besides biological evolutionism, eco-translatology also absorbs some

wisdom from classical Chinese ecological views and ecological ratio-
nality, while the theory of linguistic adaptation does not draw any
wisdom from the classical Chinese ecological philosophy. More spe-
cifically, the theory of linguistic adaptation has a closer relevance
to Darwin’s evolutionary epistemology, Piaget’s psychological “adap-
tation,” and Vygotsky’s psychological development (Verschueren
1999, 263–268; Song 2004). That’s why “mind in society” and
“salience” are two key terms in the theory of linguistic adaptation
(Song 2007).
(b) Eco-translatology underscores “adaptation first, selection second,”
while the theory of linguistic adaptation highlights “selecting (making
choices) for the purpose of adaptation”; that is, selecting first, adapta-
tion second. According to my research, Hu proposed the translation
model of “adaptation and selection” or “adaptation-selection”5 before
Chinese translation scholars deduced or summarized the translation
model of “selection and adaptation” from Verschueren’s pragmatic
theory of linguistic adaptation. Sorting through related materials

published around 2003, we can find that the latter model might have
been inspired by or benefited from the former. Song Zhiping’s paper
(2004) is the earliest in China that put forward and analyzed the
model “translation: selection and adaptation” from the perspective
of Verschueren’s theory of linguistic adaptation. However, it must be
pointed out that two unpublished MA theses did almost the same
research before Song (2004): one is Xiaoming Quan’s MA thesis
(2002) from Guangdong University of Foreign Studies; the other is
Jing Li’s MA thesis (2003) from Jinan University (Guangdong). But
neither of them proposed the model of “translation: selection and
adaptation” or any similar model). Thereafter, many Chinese schol-
ars adopted the model “selection and adaptation” in their translation
researches.
(c) In eco-translatology a translator needs to adapt to the ecological envi-
ronment in which the translation takes place, while in the theory of
linguistic adaptation, communicators need to adapt to the linguistic
and communicative contexts.
(d) In eco-translatology, “selection” is carried out in three dimensions: the
linguistic dimension, the cultural dimension, and the communicative
dimension. And concrete selections in each dimension can be further
specified according to actual conditions. The “selection” in the theory
of linguistic adaptation implies the choice of a certain parole and strat-
egy in a communication. This “selection”6 also has abundant connota-
tions (Verschueren 1999, 55–58).
(e) “Adaptation-selection” in eco-translatology was constructed as a meth-
odology for translation studies and as a tool for translation practice,
while “adaptation and selection (choice-making)” in the theory of lin-
guistic adaptation were made as a methodology and as a tool for com-
munication, and they were later interpreted and adopted in translation
studies.
2.4 Reflections on the “Adaptation-Selection” of Eco-Translatology

It must be pointed that the eco-translatological “adaptation-selection” over-
laps in several aspects in form and in spirit with the “adaptation” and “selec-
tion (choice-making)” in the theory of linguistic adaptation. This may cause
academic confusion for researchers.
It is worthwhile to note that Douglas Robinson expresses his qualms
about Hu’s principle of translator-centeredness, which involves “selection”
and “adaptation.” He argues,
The first stage (“selection”) is clearly analogous to natural selection, even

though . . . the selection is not so much natural (i.e., random) as it is human
(i.e., agent-driven, and thus purposeful). The second stage (adaptation-
selection), however, would appear to me to have nothing whatever to do with
natural selection, or any aspect of Darwinism thought. It is simply the ordinary
professional activity of the translator (Robinson 2013).
It must be noted that Hu has modified his principle of translator-centered-

ness in his latest monograph (Hu 2013), saying that the principle of trans-
lator-centeredness is adequate and suitable during the process of translation
(Hu 2013, 207–220).
3. State-of-the-Art Developments and Further Interpretation

Hu says that eco-translatology is an interdisciplinary approach to translation
studies, which stresses a comprehensive and holistic observation of translation
from the perspective of ecology and with the application of ecological ratio-
nality. It is also an ecological paradigm, where “translation is adaptation and
selection” (Hu 2013). Apparently, what Hu emphasizes here is that eco-trans-
latology is interdisciplinary and that it adopts the perspective of ecology and
certain theories of ecology to study translation. But Ning Wang thinks that eco-
translatology is ontological, and that “eco” and “translation” are two integral
parts of the whole, and that it is different from general translation (Wang 2011).
Wang observes that eco-translation puts emphasis on “selecting the works to
be translated according to the internal ecological structure of the original text,
and keeping accordance with the inherent structure of the original text when
representing it in another language during translation. It avoids the one-sided
emphasis on the translators’ subjective consciousness in the process of transla-
tion. At the same time, it restrains the passive ‘faithfulness’ to the original text as
well” (ibid.). Wang’s interpretation of “eco-translation” has added something to
the connotations of “eco” in eco-translatology. But it is unfortunate that Wang
didn’t give any explanation for the two important terms he proposed: “inter-
nal ecological structure of the original text” and “inherent structure of original
text.” Hence, it is difficult for us to have an accurate understanding of what his
“eco-translation” is, and how to do “eco” translation in real practice. It must be
noted that Wang’s interpretation is significant in another way: it has touched the
translation ethics of eco-translatology; that is, we should neither overstress the
authority of the original text or stress passive faithfulness to it as some traditional
translation theories do, nor highlight the subjectivity and creativity of translators
as some postmodern translation theories do. In fact, this is “a good adjustment”
of traditional translation ethics and postmodern translation ethics (Wang 2011).
4. Concluding Remarks
I typed the keywords “adaptation-selection” and “translation” into the Baidu
website and got 4,040,000 results. Then I typed “choice-making, adaptation”
and “translation” into the same website and got 1,900,000 results. And I
found 353 papers when I searched on CNKI with the keywords “adaptation-
selection” and “translation”; and I saw 436 papers with the keywords “choice-
making, adaptation” and “translation.” It is very clear that the model from
eco-translatology and the model derived from Verschueren’s pragmatics are
both popular among Chinese translation scholars.
It must be pointed out that some Chinese scholars tend to blend both
models in their translation researches. For instance, a paper entitled “Adap-
tive Selection and Selective Adaptation” in Chinese Translator’s Journal
(4th issue, 2010) derived its model from Hu’s “adaptive selection and
selective adaptation” (Hu 2004, 42), but the author used the Chinese
term shun ying (栢⸼), which stands for Verschueren’s “adaptation,” rather
than Hu’s shi ying (循⸼). And nothing relating to Hu and his works is
mentioned or referred to.
It is very likely that as time goes by, new connotations will emerge for “eco”
and “adaptation-selection” in eco-translatology, and consequently, more simi-
larities and differences will be detected between the “eco” in eco-translatology
and the “eco” in ecocriticism, and between the “adaptation-selection” model
and the “adaptation, selection (choice-making)” model.
Notes
1. For over half a century, the rapid development of science and technology has
brought human beings tremendous happiness and benefits. But it also severely
threatened the natural environment at the same time. In line with this back-
ground, ecocriticism came into being. It is the combination of ecological ideas
and literary criticism. American writer Rachel Carson’s publication of Silent Spring
in 1962 stimulated worldwide reflection on ecological crisis. The proposition of
ecocriticism can be traced back to the 1970s. In 1972, American scholar Joseph
W. Meeker first brought up the term “literary ecology” in his book The Comedy
of Survival: Studies in Literary Ecology. In the same year, American literary critic
William Rueckert first proposed the term “ecocriticism” in his article “Literature
and Ecology: A Practice of Ecocriticism.” Thus, literary ecocriticism gradually took
shape.
2. As to what kind of translation is “eco-translation,” different scholars have offered
different explanations: Hu believes “eco-translation” is “multi-dimensional adap-
tation and selection” (Hu 2013, 264–271). Douglas Mcnaught thinks “eco-
translation” is to imitate natural shapes (Mcnaught 2012; Hu 2013, 288–292).
Cheng-lung Su (喯㬋昮) regards “eco-translation” as translating the ecological
world (Su 2010; Hu 2013, 287–288). Xiaohua Jiang (2013) deems it “highly
foreignized translation” or “highly domesticated translation.” He says that every
language (including dialects) has its distinctive linguistic cultural ecosystem; every
text lives in a distinctive linguistic cultural ecosystem. The more a text manifests
its linguistic and/or cultural ecosystem, the more difficult it is to transfer it into
another linguistic cultural ecosystem. Over eighty years ago, the famous modern
Chinese poet Wen Yiduo (倆ᶨ⣂), also a translator and translation commentator,
commented on Shigeyoshi Obata’s English translation of Li Bai’s (㛶䘥) lines:
ġ Ṣ䄁⭺㨀㞂炻䥳刚侩㡏㟸
The smoke from the cottages curls
Up around the citron trees,
And the hues of late autumn are
On the green paulownias.
He asked, what on earth is the matter here? Why do such beautiful and meaning-
ful lines, when put into English, turn out to be so superficial and wordy? In other
words, why do the original poetic effects almost evaporate in the translated text
(TT)? Wen argues that Li Bai’s lines are like an appealing living ganoderma that
grows on a special tree—it lives in a unique ecological environment, and it is too
beautiful and too delicate to be transferred. What Wen encountered here is actu-
ally a question of “eco-translation.” His explanation has touched the essence of
“eco-translation.” Typical “eco-translation” should be oriented either toward the
ST’s linguistic cultural ecosystem or toward the TT’s linguistic cultural ecosystem.
The result of the former is “highly foreignized translation,” while the result of the
latter is “highly domesticated translation” (Jiang 2013).
3. As Verschueren defines it, “adaptability is the property of language which enables
human beings to make negotiable linguistic choices from a variable range of pos-
sibilities in such a way as to approach points of satisfaction for communicative
needs” (Verschueren 1999, 61). Adaptability should not be interpreted unidirec-
tionally. The term itself may be conducive to a simplified vision of language choices
being made in accordance with preexistent circumstances. That, too, is involved.
But it is not where the story ends. The other side of the coin is that circumstances
also get changed by, or adapted to, the choices that are made (Verschueren 1999,
62). Adaptability can then be used as a starting point to define four angles of
investigation, to be combined whenever a linguistic phenomenon is approached
pragmatically: (a) contextual correlates of adaptability, including any ingredient
of the communicative context with which linguistic choices are interadaptable;
(b) structural objects of adaptability, including structures at any layer or level of
organization as well as principles of structuring; (c) the dynamics of adaptability,
the unfolding of adaptive processes in interaction; and (d) the salience of adapta-
tion processes, the status of those processes in relation to the cognitive apparatus
(Verschueren 1999, 69).
4. Verschueren divided “context” into “linguistic context” and “communicative
context.” Linguistic context includes contextual cohesion, intertextuality, and
sequencing (Verschueren 1999, 104–108). Communicative context includes the

physical world, the social world, and the psychological world of a language user.
Cultural context—the cultural background of a text—refers to the social norms
and customs of a certain language community. Therefore, cultural context should
be included in the communicative context. In the process of using a language,
the linguistic selections have to be in line with the linguistic and cultural context.
Otherwise, the communication fails. When applying this theory to translation
research, it is safe to say that the linguistic selections of translators have to be
tailored to the linguistic and cultural context during translating. Otherwise, the
translation fails.
5. In October 2001, Hu gave a lecture entitled “From the Darwinian Principle of
Adaptation and Selection to Translation Studies” at Hong Kong Baptist University.
In December, Hu presented his article “An Initial Exploration into an Approach to
Translation as Adaptation and Selection” at the International Federation of Trans-
lators’ Third Asian Translators Forum. This article was later published, with the
title of “The Prosperity and Confusion of Translation Theories: Exploration on the
Translation Theoretic Studies from the Perspective of Adaptation and Selection,”
in Translation Quarterly (2002, issue 3). Before long, Hu published an English
paper called “Translation As Adaptation and Selection” in the international journal
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology (2003, 11 [3]). In the above-mentioned lecture
and papers, Hu proposed and insisted on the model “adaptation and selection” or
“adaptation-selection.”
6. The connotations of “selection” (or “making choices”/“choice-making”) in Ver-
schueren’s theory of linguistic adaptation include the following: (a) Choices are
indeed made at every possible level of structure. (b) Speakers do not only choose
forms; they also choose strategies. (c) The term “making choices” may be mis-
leading in the sense that it may invariably suggest a conscious act. (d) Choices
are made both in producing and in interpreting an utterance, and both types of
choice-making are of equal importance for the communication flow and the way
in which meaning is generated. (e) A language user has no freedom of choice
between choosing and not choosing, except at the level where he or she can decide
either to use language or to remain silent. (f ) As a rule, choices are not equivalent.
(g) Choices evoke or carry along their alternatives (Verschueren 1999, 55–58).
References
He, Ziran et al. (eds.) (2007). New Developments in Pragmatics: Relevance, Adaptation
and Memetics (Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press).
Hu, Gengshen (2003). “Translation As Adaptation and Selection,” Perspective: Studies
in Translatology 4: 283–291.
Hu, Gengshen (2004). An Approach to Translation as Adaptation & Selection (Wuhan:
Hubei Educational Press).
Hu, Gengshen (2009a). “On Fu Lei’s Translation Philosophy: An Eco-translatological
Perspective,” Journal of Foreign Languages 2: 47–53.
Hu, Gengshen (2009b). “Translational Ecosystems: An Eco-translatological Perspec-

tive,” in Ren Dongsheng (ed.), Constructing Conceptual Framework of Translation
Studies (Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press).
Hu, Gengshen (2010a). “Translational Ecosystem vs. Natural Ecosystem: Relevance,
Affinity and Isomorphism,” Shanghai Journal of Translators 4: 1–5.
Hu, Gengshen (2010b). “Eco-Translatology: Background and Bases for Its Develop-
ment,” Foreign Languages Research 4: 64–67.
Hu, Gengshen (2011). “Eco-Translatology: Research Foci and Theoretical Tenets,”
Chinese Translators Journal 2: 5–9.
Hu, Gengshen (2013). Eco-Translatology: Construction & Interpretation (Beijing: The
Commercial Press).
Jiang, Xiaohua (2013). “‘Eco-Translation’ Exemplified,” Journal of Eco-Translatology
1–2 (Series No. 5): 39–49.
Jiang, Xiaohua (2014). “Differentiating ‘Translational Eco-Environment’ and ‘Trans-
lation Environment,’” Journal of Eco-Translatology 1: 27–35.
Lao Tzu (1997). Tao Te Ching, translated by Arthur Waley (Hertfordshire: Word-
sworth Editions Limited, Cumberland House).
Mcnaught, D. (2012). “Ecotranslation Theory: A New Ecocritical Approach to High-
lighting Environmentalism in Translation Studies,” presented at the 3rd Interna-
tional Symposium on Eco-Translatology, Chongqing, China.
Qin Jianghua (2013). “Theoretical Constructions of and Reflections on Eco-Translatology:
An Interview with Douglas Robinson,” Contemporary Foreign Studies 9: 33–38.
Rigby, K. (2006). “Ecocriticism,” in J. Wolfreys (ed.), Introducing Criticism at the 21st
Century (Shanghai: China Ocean University Press).
Robinson, D. (2013). “Hu Gengshen and the Eco-Translatology of Early Chinese
Thought,” East Journal of Translation 1, pp. 9–29.
Song, Zhiping (2004). “Translation: A Continuous Process of Choice-Making for the
Purpose of Adaptation,” Chinese Translators Journal 2: 19–23.
Song, Zhiping (2007). “Some Reflections on An Approach to Translation As Adaptation
& Selection,” Foreign Languages Research 5: 107–108.
Su, Cheng-lung (2010). “Eco-Translation: Translation and Mistranslation,” presented
at the 1st International Symposium on Eco-Translatology, Macao, China.
Tan, Jianxiang (2009). “The Revolting Creature under the Shackles: A New Inter-
pretation of The Call of the Wild by Jack London from the Perspective of Eco-
Criticism,” Journal of Nanjing Polytechnic University 5: 8–12.
Verschueren, J. (1987). Pragmatics As a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation (Antwerp:
International Pragmatics Association).
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics (London: Arnold).
Wang, Ning (2011). “Eco-Literature and Eco-Translatology: Deconstruction and
Reconstruction,” Chinese Translators Journal 2: 10–15.
Zhang, Yanmei et al. (2007). Ecocriticism (Beijing: People’s Press).
CHAPTER 9
Crowdsourcing Translation in China:

Features and Implications
Wenjing Li
1. Introduction
Crowdsourcing translation is rising, with increasing attention from the
translation profession and academia alike in the last decade. In China, while
crowdsourcing has been extensively practiced in a wide range of translation
projects from fansubbing to literary translation, from mass media to more
specialized fields of science and sports, systematic reflections and studies are
still desired. Focusing on cases from China, this chapter takes a close look at
this new territory of translation and what it brings to the industry and trans-
lation studies in general.
The word “crowdsourcing” was coined by American journalist Jeff Howe
in his widely cited Wired magazine article “The Rise of Crowdsourcing” in
2006, in which he observes a new model of business in different industries
like photography, TV, product R&D, and other trivial tasks requiring human
intelligence. Howe uses the term “crowdsourcing” to refer to “an act of a
company or institution taking a function once performed by employees and
outsourcing it to an undefined (and generally large) network of people in the
form of an open call” (2006b, 1). Translation is one of the industries under
the influence of this new model of production. The most quoted example of
crowdsourcing translation in all literature is probably Facebook and Twit-
ter, who got their sites localized into multiple languages using crowdsourced
translation from their passionate users.
Following Howe, varying definitions have been provided, and scholars
across disciplines try to look into it from different perspectives. In the busi-
ness sector, it tends to be seen as something beneficial to large corporations
150 ● Wenjing Li
(c.f. Brabham 2013; Estellés-Arolas and González-Ladrön-de-Guevara 2012).

However, the practice in translation is different, as is best shown in China,
where there is a lack of involvement of large corporations such as Facebook
and Twitter. It is with the spirit of participatory information sharing, interac-
tion, and collaboration that most of the crowdsourcing translation projects
are initiated spontaneously, by fans and nonprofit organizations.
In translation studies, different terms and definitions have been used,
among which “collaborative,” “volunteer,” “amateur,” “nonprofessional”
“Internet,” and “crowdsourcing” are frequently seen, addressing some promi-
nent features of this relatively new method of translation production. A
special issue of The Translator in 2012 was devoted to the theme of “Non-
Professionals Translating and Interpreting.” Though most of the participants
in crowdsourcing are “amateur” or “nonprofessional,” it cannot be denied
that with the right incentive, a strong sense of belonging to a community,
and carefully structured organization, professionals can be drawn to engage
in volunteer work, especially in the nonprofit sector. The Rosetta Foundation
and Kiva, both nonprofit organizations, have recruited professional transla-
tors for their projects to help people in need (DGT 2012, 28). In this case,
nonprofessional translation and crowdsourcing translation are two kinds of
practices with different focuses but overlapping areas.
Drawing on the concept of “user-generated content” from media studies,
with a focus on users, O’Hagan uses the term “user-generated translation”
(UGT) to refer to translation and localization “undertaken by unspecified
self-selected individuals” and “carried out based on free user participation in
digital media spaces” (2009, 97). Cronin speaks of “crowd-sourced,” “open,”
and “wiki” translation that are “personalized, user-driven and integrated into
dynamic systems of ubiquitous delivery” (2010, 4). The term “hive” transla-
tion is proposed to address “the unbounded nature of cyberspace associa-
tions as it ‘transcends’ notions of ‘community’” (Garcia 2009, 210), while the
American language-industry research institution Common Sense Advisory
dubs it “CT”3 to refer to a conglomeration of the three concepts of “com-
munity, collaborative and crowdsourcing” translations, which are used inter-
changeably in its reports (Kelly 2009; Ray and Kelly 2010). Crowdsourcing
has been widely accepted in industry, such as the Localization Industry Stan-
dards Association in its recent report (Ray 2009) and many other trade pub-
lications (Baer 2010; Dodd 2011).
In the report from the European Commission’s Directorate-General for
Translation in 2012 on crowdsourcing translation, the new mode of transla-
tion is “carried out collaboratively by an enthusiastic community of users,
willing to devote their time and energy to help other members of their
community . . . to profit from products they would be excluded from for
Crowdsourcing Translation in China: Features and Implications ● 151
linguistic reasons” (DGT 2012, 23). The spirit of sharing, or “altruism” (Olo-
han 2012), is much emphasized in translation studies, and it brings us to one
of the primary issues in the practice and academic study of crowdsourcing,
motivation, which will be discussed later in this chapter.
2. Crowdsourcing Translation in China

2.1 Some Cases
The earliest form of crowdsourcing translation begins with the fansubbing—
short for fan-subtitling—of Japanese anime, which started in the 1980s and
took off in the mid-1990s (Díaz-Cintas and Muñoz Sánchez 2006, 37). In
China, fan clubs and fansubbing of Japanese anime and American TV series
emerged at the beginning of this century with the popularizing of broad-
band and grew rapidly in 2006 when the American TV series Prison Break
was feverishly followed by a Chinese audience, mostly office workers and
college students, who also constituted the main force working voluntarily
in fansubbing. Fansubbing has developed into a mature structure in China
over the last decade and has extended its content from anime and Ameri-
can TV series to a broader range of audiovisual materials, including mov-
ies, documentaries, music videos, variety shows, news reports, and university
open courses. Source languages are mostly English, Japanese, and Korean but
include French, German, Spanish, Thai, and more.
Crowdsourcing translation first drew public attention in China in 2007,
when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and last book of the
series, was translated into Chinese by a group of fans. Upon the global release
of the English version, fans of the Harry Potter series in the Greater China
started their translation and published the Chinese version online in only nine
days—three months earlier than the launch of the official version in the Chi-
nese market (Chen 2008, 108). A complaint from the publisher who owned
the Chinese copyright led to the withdrawal of the online version and termi-
nation of further similar projects. The issue of copyright has always been one
of the major challenges facing crowdsourced translation all over the world, as
it is in China, which will be elaborated upon in the following section.
Apart from the previous cases of interest-driven volunteer translation, or
fan-translation, there are also various websites trying to gather those who
would like to translate for free and thus benefit those who have no access
to the information they want due to language barriers. In effect, these web-
sites act as content providers through soliciting volunteer translations. They
crowdsource translation tasks by providing the source content, motivating
free translators, maintaining translation quality, and most importantly, form-
ing a sense of belonging within the community.
152 ● Wenjing Li
Among them, Yeeyan (literarily, “Translating Words”) is the most repre-

sentative one. With an ambition to “discover, translate and share informa-
tion online other than Chinese,” Yeeyan has developed into the largest open
translation community in China. Since its establishment in 2006, more than
five hundred thousand translators have participated, who have contributed to
about three hundred thousand translated articles in eight years. The website
updates forty to eighty translated articles each day, covering a wide range of
topics, all of them provided by volunteer translators. Though these articles
are mostly translated by individual volunteers, there are longer ones to be cut
into more manageable chunks automatically and translated collaboratively
among those who choose to join. In recent years, Yeeyan has started to work
on full commercialization through providing translation services to other
media and book publishers, and by initiating digital publishing of its own.
As a result, some of its users have the opportunity to become paid translators.
Compared with Yeeyan’s dedication to translation and extensive coverage
of content, some other websites are more specialized in their content. Hupu,
a sports website, for example, was set up when one of its founders began to
collect and translate updated NBA news into Chinese ten years ago. More
and more sports fans gathered to get information from the site as well as to
generate content for it. Now, Hupu’s business has expanded offline and real-
ized full commercialization through advertisement and other sports-related
business. Hupu exercises stricter control over the translation process than
Yeeyan does. Its senior users and staff members are in charge of selecting
suitable sources and assigning them to volunteer translators based on their
capability. Similarly, another specialized online community, Guokr, which
defines itself as a “pan-science-and-technology” website, focuses on popular
science content and directly invites volunteer translators with professional
knowledge for its translation projects, making it closer to traditional media
(Chen 2011).
2.2 Main issues

Crowdsourced translation differs from the conventional translation industry
in many ways. Certain characteristic features can be drawn as its defining fac-
tors, including relying on Web 2.0 as its platform of organization, the partici-
pation of readers as translators, non-financial motivation of participants and
their amateurship, translation quality, and copyright issues. The following
section will discuss those issues in the Chinese context.
Apart from increasing competition in the translation industry, which
requires low cost and high speed in generating translation products without
compromising the quality, the imbalance between information in Chinese
and that in other languages, especially English, is the main drive for a new
model of translation. The rapid growth of information available online creates
a robust demand for translating in a correspondingly rapid manner. As one
of the founders of Yeeyan put it, “Without Internet translation, information
available in Chinese would lag behind those in other languages by at least half
a year” (Zhu 2008, 116). According to W3Techs, an online Web technology
usage information provider, 55.5 percent of all websites used English as their
content language as of January 2015. Other languages that are used in at least
2 percent of websites are Russian, German, Japanese, Spanish, French, Chi-
nese, and Portuguese (5.9 percent, 5.9 percent, 5.0 percent, 4.7 percent, 4.0
percent, 2.8 percent, and 2.4 percent respectively) (W3Techs 2015). While
only 2.8 percent of websites are in Chinese, the country’s Internet users make
up more than one-fifth of world Internet users (Internet Live Stats 2015).
Conventional models of translation provided by professional translators
began to fall short, in terms of both amount and speed, of meeting the crying
need for translated information. Crowdsourcing translation has emerged just
in time to fill the gap.
The Internet not only creates the demand but also provides a platform
that makes crowdsourcing possible. The power of the masses has been con-
tributing to all kinds of projects in human history, but its flourishing only
began at the beginning of the twenty-first century with the advent of social
media technologies based on Web 2.0. As the technical basis for large-scale
collaboration among translators, it allows individuals and communities to
create/co-create, share, discuss, and modify user-generated content and ideas
on a highly interactive Internet platform. Various online communities are
major participants in crowdsourcing translation, playing an essential role in
terms of motivation, organization, and quality control. Unlike pre-Internet
communities, they are no longer based on proximity but instead on common
interests and goals. Online communities share a number of features that set
them apart from traditional ones, including radical democracy, being driven
by personal involvement, complete freedom in choosing topics and tasks,
and working in new ways based on collaboration, self-initiative, and peer
reviewing (DGT 2012, 11). The Internet also brings with it the convenience
of anonymity, digital publishing, and a wide readership with immediate feed-
back, all contributing to a culture of participation and sharing: the essence
of crowdsourcing.
The scale of online collaboration in crowdsourcing is massive compared
with conventional translation collaboration. A large number of volunteers
with extremely varied backgrounds from all over the world can gather
through the Internet to work for a common goal. With no restriction on time
or space, the speed and amount of online translation has far exceeded what
154 ● Wenjing Li
is expected from the conventional translation model. Instead of going top-

down in a hierarchical workflow, the open and parallel workflow of crowd-
sourced translation makes it highly efficient and able to meet the rapidly
growing demand for translation in cyberspace. By recruiting its loyal users
to translate for free, Facebook had its site localized into more than sixty lan-
guages in 2008. There are over four hundred thousand volunteer translators
for Facebook; one-fourth of these translate each week. In China crowdsourc-
ing is also known for its high efficiency; cases include translating two hundred
thousand words of Harry Potter and Deathly Hallows in nine days; delivering
about one hundred thousand words of translation of earthquake search-and-
rescue strategies and survival tactics within one week after the earthquake on
May 12, 2008; and translating the 656 pages of Steve Jobs’s biography one
month earlier than the original planned two months after his death, making
it possible for the Chinese version to join the simultaneous global release of
this book. With effective team protocol and impressive subtitling feats within
very short time frames (Dwyer 2012, 228), Chinese subtitling for popular
TV series can be provided online within ten hours—five or less for the most
popular ones—following the release of the source video.
The boundaries between crowdsourcing translators and their readers and
reviewers are blurry. Unlike traditional translation, where professionals like
editors or reviewers can make their opinions heard, the online environment
allows readers to be more actively involved. Crowdsourcing, in general, is rad-
ically transforming the identity of “consumers” (and, more generally, “users”),
turning them from passive spectators to active “prosumers” who are produc-
ers as well as consumers of products, and in this case, readers are becom-
ing translators (Tapscott and Williams 2006; Cronin 2013, 100). The most
active bilingual readers no longer wait for translation to be offered by pro-
fessionals. Instead, they just form their own community online, where they
share information, collaborate on translation, and publish their translation.
This makes problematic, as Cronin points out, the traditional distinctions
between “active translation agents and passive or unknowable translation
recipients” (2013, 100). Basic concepts about translation agencies are chal-
lenged and need to be reconsidered.
The amateurship of volunteer translators and lack of professional account-
ability raise concerns among translation scholars over the issue of translation
quality and how it can be controlled. To ensure acceptable quality, various
measures, including peer review, supervision from senior editors, crowd-
voting, and so on have been used. For example, on the Yeeyan website, readers
can leave annotations or comments to the translator via the “picking faults”
function, where the translated text is placed in parallel with its source. Face-
book, on the other hand, resorts to crowd-voting and invites the users to vote
for better translations and thus to filter out awkward ones. Computer scien-
tists demonstrate that through a variety of mechanisms, the translation quality
of crowdsourcing can be increased to near professional level with a lower cost
(Zaidan and Callison-Burch 2011).
Furthermore, the traditional translation assessment criteria may not be
appropriate for crowdsourcing translation anymore due to the shift of read-
ing mode. A study showed that Web users in most countries spend a very
brief period, between 19 to 27 seconds on average, on each page (Clicktale
2008). A more recent study puts it at 15 seconds or even less (Haile 2014). In
the digital age, a shift of reading mode from steady, cumulative, linear read-
ing to accelerated online “power browsing” has emerged. (Cronin 2013, 100)
The shift of reading mode also suggests a possible shift in what is believed
to be “good translation.” The translated products are no longer consumed
and appreciated in the same context by the same kind of audience as before.
Therefore, it becomes necessary to look at crowdsourcing translation with a
new assessment system.
Fan-translation has its own advantage in terms of translation quality.
Though it is admittedly true that professional qualification and training
can to some extent ensure translation quality, there are instances of ama-
teur translation outperforming the professionals. Thanks to their familiar-
ity with the inner workings of Facebook, or what Garcia calls “privileged
knowledge of the subject matter,” its free translators did better with certain
translations than professional translators who may never have used Facebook
before (Losse 2008; Garcia 2009, 209). O’Hagan also notes instances of fans’
apparent lack of formal translator training being compensated for by their
domain knowledge in a specific field and enthusiasm for what they choose
to translate (2008; 2009, 100). Driven by great passion and competitiveness,
some Chinese fansubbing groups produce two editions of subtitles for the
same materials—the first one within hours after the source becomes available,
to meet the needs of fans who want to watch it as soon as possible, and the
“refined” version with bilingual subtitles for better quality. To improve qual-
ity, subsections of “error reporting” in their online forums are set up for fans
to correct mistakes or give suggestions on the translations. Moreover, online
communities are in effect serving as a place where amateur translators can
turn for cultural knowledge and problem solving with regard to translation
issues. The wisdom of the crowd is the supporting power behind amateur
translators.
Strategies of fansubbing translation are described as “norm-defying,”
“unorthodox,” “flouting the formal conventions,” and “breaking old taboos”
of professional practice (O’Hagan 2009, 100; Dwyer 2012, 226; Díaz Cin-
tas 2005, 12). A foreignization approach and interventionist “headnotes” or
156 ● Wenjing Li
“glosses,” where translators explain untranslatable or culturally impenetrable

terms and concepts to their audience, are common practices in fansubbing
(Díaz Cintas and Muñoz Sánchez 2006, 46). This is probably due to the pas-
sion for “authenticity” that exists in fan culture and dissatisfaction with the
domesticating methods of official versions. Apart from the shared interest
in “authentic texts” between fan translators and their audience, fansubbers
can be extremely playful and experimental in translating comedies, trying to
achieve immediate responses from the audience through domestication or
cultural replacement.
Since one of the defining features of crowdsourced translation is that it is
done for free or paid considerably less than professional translation, the moti-
vation of volunteer translators is less about financial rewards and more about
social, emotional, and intellectual satisfaction. Understanding the incentives
for volunteer translation is vital for crowdsourcing initiators in effectively
utilizing the power and labor of the “crowd.” It has been proved that wrongly
placed incentives may lead to failure of a project, as in the case of LinkedIn.
When the high-profile social networking site designed for professionals asked
in 2009 whether its language professional members would like to participate
in crowdsourced translation of the LinkedIn website for free, the translators
involved reacted with outrage and confusion (Kelly 2009).
Motivation for free participation has been well noted in translation stud-
ies, and some empirical research has been conducted with volunteer transla-
tors to find out their motivations (Anastasiou and Gupta 2011; McDonough
Dolmaya 2012; Pérez-González and Susam-Saraeva 2012). For a systematic
analysis of motivations, some insights can be drawn from studies on moti-
vation to contribute to open-source initiatives (for example, Lakhani and
Wolf 2005; Oreg and Nov 2008). Lakhani and Wolf make an important
distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, which was adopted
in McDonough Dolmaya’s survey on Wikipedia translation (2005). Extrinsic
motivations are instrumental in nature with a focus on extrinsic rewards such
as the improvement of skills, prospects of career advancement, benefit from
the material translated, and financial compensation in some cases. Intrin-
sic motivations, on the other hand, emphasize inherent satisfactions, which
can be further divided into enjoyment-based and obligation-based intrinsic
motivations; the former includes fan and intellectual stimulation, while the
latter includes altruism, reciprocity, and a sense of obligation to contribute
(Lakhani and Wolf 2005).
The primary driving forces of individuals participating in free transla-
tion in China also fall into these two categories. The slogan of one of the
largest fan clubs, YYets, “To Share, to Learn, and to Progress,” is repre-
sentative of the spirit of most free translators in China, who are college
students and office workers. For fan translation, including fansubbing and
translation in other fields like sports, a passion for the subject matter and
a sense of belonging and obligation to contribute to their communities are
arguably the main motivations; while for translation in information and
news, such as Yeeyan, self-improvement in language learning and practic-
ing translation skills are their major concerns. With a prevailing fever for
foreign language learning, which has lasted in China for about thirty years,
translation is seen as an effective way of language learning and attaining
cross-cultural understanding, which drives a great number of language
learners into the practice of free translation.
Crowdsourcing translation has been standing on the verge of illegality
since the first day because of the issue of copyright. Though no profit was
gained, some fan translators in China, such as those of Harry Potter and the
Deathly Hallows, have been seriously warned by copyright holders. Yet it is
difficult to hold them legally responsible, due to the large number of par-
ticipants, the nonprofit nature of the work, and the convenience of Internet
anonymity.
Copyright holders of Japanese anime have constantly “cast a blind eye”
on the technically illegal activity (Pére-Gonzáles, 2006, p.269), as fansub-
bing helps the promotion of their intellectual property in foreign markets.
However, with increasingly easy and more affordable access, the number of
viewers has been growing steadily over the years, raising the alarm. Being the
“most important manifestation of fan-translation” and having turned into
“a mass social phenomenon” (Díaz-Cintas and Sánchez 2006, 37), fansub-
bing is now facing its most serious challenge due to copyright restriction
and censorship from the Chinese government. In 2009, over 530 audiovi-
sual websites were suspended by China’s media supervision body, the State
Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television. Fansub-
bers have never stopped their struggle since then. Until recently, soon after
YYeTs was listed in the “notorious markets” of the United States in a report
released by the Motion Picture of Association of America in October 2014
(MPAA 2014), its website, where over 1,400,000 fans were gathered, along
with other providers of fansubbing, was formally shut down. YYeTs declared
in its final statement that “the age when we were needed has gone,” though
other, smaller fansubbing groups are still looking for ways of survival.
While fansubbing is struggling to find its way around the legalities of
copyright, crowdsourced information and news translation from foreign lan-
guages, represented by Yeeyan in China, are faced with censorship from the
government. Since those translators are not paid, they have the total free-
dom to choose what to translate, and reporting about China from Western
media naturally becomes one of their favorite sources, as Chinese readers are
158 ● Wenjing Li
eager to hear voices from outside China. Some media such as The Guardian,
The Daily Telegraph, and Reader’s Digest have authorized Yeeyan to do their
Chinese translation. For a country with tightly controlled media, such trans-
lations led to the temporary shutdown of Yeeyan at the end of 2009. The
website came back online one month later with a reduced number of articles
on political affairs.
3. Implications
As pointed out by McDonough Dolmaya, ever since its emergence, crowd-
sourced translation has been considered a threat to the industry, and concerns
are raised and discussed over its quality, professional standards, and ethics
(2011). Admittedly, nonprofessionals with no formal training who will work
for free indeed sound like a threat to the labor market and the livelihood of
professionals. Some professional translators believe that it is an exploitation
of free labor in which “corporations are allowed to privatize their profits while
socializing their costs” (Dodd 2011). Seen as an “alarming” business trend,
crowdsourced translation has been rejected by some professional translators.
A case in point is LinkedIn’s failed call for free translation that led to the
formation within LinkedIn of the group “Translators against Crowdsourcing
for Commercial Business” (Kelly 2009). The strong reaction is partly due to
a lack of understanding of what crowdsourcing entails.
Others, however, hold a more positive attitude toward the great force of
free labor emerging in the market, considering it a challenge rather than a
threat. In today’s post-industrial, informational society, as Pérez-González
and Susam-Saraeva point out, nonprofessional translation is “increasingly
bound to challenge our understanding of professional identities and the cur-
rent organization of labour in the translation and interpreting industries”
(2012, 151). O’Hagan, for one, warns that some hidden issues in the current
work mode of professional translation have been called into question in the
new digital world of openness, collaboration, and sharing, and that it is about
time for the profession to reflect and embrace the changes for the purpose of
further enhancement and progress (2009, 116).
As discussed earlier in this chapter, a massive demand for information to
be translated in the digital age has far exceeded what the industry can pro-
vide. It can be said that with new markets opening up and more materials to
be translated, what crowdsourcing translation brings to the industry is more
an opportunity than a threat. It generates more work for freelancers, as Kelly
points out, not just for traditional translation projects, but also post-editing
and proofreading of user-generated translation (Kelly 2009). The prospect of
collaboration between amateurs and paid professionals is welcomed among
scholars: professionals can offer services and skills needed in crowdsourcing

translation and allow the industry to focus on the skills that truly distin-
guish professionals. Zetzsche suggests that the services professionals can offer
include project and process management, technology deployment, terminol-
ogy control, quality assurance, team leadership, and qualification assessment
(2010).
With an appropriate and effective framework and management, crowd-
sourcing can be guided into a training ground and career ladder for amateurs
or translation graduates who want to become professionals. Surowiecki, in his
influential work in the field of crowdsourcing, The Wisdom of Crowds (2004),
states that “groups generally need rules to maintain order and coherence,” as they
work well under certain circumstances, and less well under others (2004, xix).
Indeed, the organization and management of crowdsourced translation are
crucial to ensure a continuous incentive for volunteer translators and an
acceptable quality of translation products. Brabham suggests that to ensure
a mutual beneficial outcome between the organization and the crowd, it is
important for the “locus of control” to “reside between the organization and
the community in a shared space,” so that the benefits of top-down, tradi-
tional management with the benefits of bottom-up, open creative production
can be maximized (2013, 4).
Of the two extremes Brabham describes, in which the “locus of control”
resides on either the side of the organization or the side of the crowd, Yeey-
an’s model of crowdsourced translation tends to empower its users with full
autonomy in article translation, which is also its main Web content, and
retain more control over its book projects for digital publication. In Yeeyan’s
case, different degrees of control are exercised for different types of projects.
For the main body of the website, where users can upload, select, translate,
publish, and comment using its platform, volunteer translators are in charge
of their own process. There is only loose control over translation quality when
editors “verify” the translated article before it is finally made available online,
and “Yeeyan Selection,” a webpage where selected translated articles of high
quality or interesting topic are showcased, can be seen as mental encourage-
ment to free translators. Apart from that, the nonprofit part of the website is
mainly autonomous.
As a part of its efforts toward commercialization, Yeeyan initiated the
“Gutenberg Project” in 2012. The project was inspired by Project Guten-
berg, which offers over forty-six thousand free ebooks, which are digitalized
and proofread with the help of volunteers. The Yeeyan Gutenberg Project
is targeted at the translation and digital publishing of copyright-free books
by soliciting initiators, editors, and translators from its online users, with
much lower payment than what would be offered to professional translators.
160 ● Wenjing Li
About 250 books have been translated in the last two and half years and
published digitally, with some in paper form. One of my students took part
in the project, first as a co-translator and later as an editor/proofreader of six
literary works; some other students were actively engaged in a variety of vol-
unteer translation projects before they got job offers as full-time translators.
These examples are a perfect demonstration of how crowdsourced translation
can serve as a training ground and a career ladder for translation students.
Though not yet prevailing, efforts to utilize a crowdsourcing translation
platform as translator training have been seen in China, both in pedagogical
and curricular terms. It is believed that engaging students in crowdsourced
translation projects not only will help them practice their translation skills,
but more importantly, will also raise their awareness of social service, culti-
vate their collaborative abilities, and lead them to a professional career path
(Liu 2014). By utilizing the platform offered by Yeeyan in the classroom, my
students are able to take the initiative in “claiming” their own original texts,
publish their works online, receive feedback from peers and online readers,
and contribute to the community with information otherwise not available,
all of which contribute to a genuine training environment. Students respond
to translation exercises based on crowdsourcing in a more active and positive
manner. Some of them have become regular volunteer translators online and
consider it a gateway to a career in professional translation.
Yeeyan’s profitable business includes the offering of its platform for pub-
lishing companies to recruit translators and manage their collaboration. It
also acts as a translation agency to provide translation services to clients in the
commercial sector. From nonprofit autonomous crowdsourced translation to
low-profit Gutenberg Project, from platform provider to service provider,
Yeeyan has established an effective structure of crowdsourcing translation
activities from the most bottom-up, open production to top-down, tradi-
tional management, offering a full spectrum of opportunities to translators
with varying degrees of commitment. The interplay between the crowd and
the organization is realized not in a single project, but instead through a
wide range of management models. All parties—including the website as the
organizer, contributing users, clients looking for translators, and most impor-
tantly, readers—can get what they need through a well-organized crowd-
sourced translation website.
Another new field worth exploring would be the possibility of integrating
machine translation with crowdsourced translation, the two major translation
modes of information technology in the age of Web 2.0. In a survey aiming at a
comparison of crowdsourced translation with machine translation, Anastasiou
and Gupta found that it shares the advantages of machine translation, namely
“high volume, high speed, and low cost,” and additionally it has the main
advantage of higher quality, because it is human translation (2011, 649). In an

attempt to achieve a balanced paradigm among the “iron triangle” of quality,
cost, and time, the authors propose a workflow that combines the advantages
of crowdsourced translation and automatic tools (2011, 653–654).
4. Conclusion
Discussions over practical issues, from cost efficiency, motivation, and quality
control to management of crowdsourced translation are flourishing, while the
theoretical insights it brings to translation studies have just begun attracting
attention. Although a large body of literature has been devoted to the topic,
further theoretical exploration is still needed to understand the nature of its
operation. There is no doubt that crowdsourcing as a social phenomenon can
help promote the recognition and visibility of translation, which is usually
regarded as invisible. More significantly, the rise of volunteer translators dem-
onstrates that they have a profile different from that of professionals, as we
have discussed in this chapter. They rise as a crowd or community, rather than
as individuals. They possess expert knowledge in the content field, despite
of their lack of formal training. They are empowered readers turning into
translators, taking multiple roles of initiators, reviewers, and commentators.
They do not concentrate solely on seeking financial rewards for their transla-
tion work; rather, they are driven by intrinsic rewards. The translation strate-
gies they adopt tend to go from one extreme (foreignization) to the other
(domestication). These unique features of volunteer translators have posed
a most pressing task for translation scholars, who need to look into this col-
lective image emerging in translation history. Drawing insights from media
studies, fandom studies, cultural studies, and social studies would be helpful
for translation scholars in addressing the massive movement of crowdsourced
translation and its sociocultural significance. After initial efforts in defining
the new phenomenon, there is more to be done than just to focus on the
quality of work or the possible threat to translators and interpreters.
References
Anastasiou, D., and R. Gupta (2011). “Comparison of Crowdsourcing Translation
with Machine Translation,” Journal of Information Science 37: 637–658.
Baer, Naomi (2010). “Crowdsourcing: Outrage or Opportunity?” Translorial: Journal of
the Northern California Translators Association (February 1), http://translorial.com/
2010/02/01/crowdsourcing-outrage-or-opportunity/, accessed June 10, 2016.
Brabham, D. C. (2013). Crowdsourcing (Cambridge: MIT Press).
Chen, S. (2008). “Translation Forces Gathered Online,” Sanlian Life Week 4: 108–110.
162 ● Wenjing Li
Chen, Z. (2011). “Crowdsourcing Translation in China: Exploration of Yeeyan,

Hupu and Guokr,” Southern Weekly (November), http://www.infzm.com/content/
65178, accessed February 14, 2015.
Clicktale (2008). “Puzzling Web Habits across the Globe: Part 1,” http://blog
.clicktale.com/2008/07/31/puzzling-web-habits-across-the-globe-part-1/, accessed
February 17, 2015.
Cronin, M. (2010). “The Translation Crowd,” Tradumática 8, http://www.fti.uab.es/
tradumatica/revista/num8/articles/04/04art.htm, accessed February 14, 2015.
Cronin, M. (2013). Translation in the Digital Age (London: Routledge).
DGT (Directorate-General for Translation, European Commission) (2012). Crowd-
sourcing Translation, http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/crowdsourcing-translation
-pbHC3112733/?CatalogCategoryID=luYKABst3IwAAAEjxJEY4e5L, accessed
14 February 14, 2015.
Díaz Cintas, J. (2005). “Back to the Future in Subtitling,” pp. 1–17 in H. Gerzymisch-
Arbogast and S. Nauert (eds.), Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: Confer-
ence Proceedings, (Saarbrücken: MuTra).
Díaz-Cintas, J., and P. Muñoz Sánchez (2006). “Fansubs: Audiovisual Translation in
an Amateur Environment,” The Journal of Specialised Translation 6: 37–52.
Dodd, S. M. (2011). “Crowdsourcing: Social(ism) Media 2.0,” Translorial: Journal
of the Northern California Translators Association (January 1), http://translorial
.com/2011/01/01/crowdsourcing-socialism-media-2-0/, accessed June 10, 2015.
Dwyer, T. (2012). “Fansub Dreaming on Viki: ‘Don’t Just Watch But Help When
You Are Free,’” The Translator: Non-Professionals Translating and Interpreting 18:
217–243.
Estellés-Arolas, E., and F. González-Ladrön-de-Guevara (2012). “Towards an Inte-
grated Crowdsourcing Definition,” The Journal of Information Science 38: 180–200.
Garcia, I. (2009). “Beyond Translation Memory: Computers and the Professional
Translator,” Journal of Specialised Translation 12: 199–214.
Haile, T. (2014). “What You Think You Know about the Web is Wrong,” Time, 9 March,
http://time.com/12933/what-you-think-you-know-about-the-web-is-wrong/.
Howe, J. (2006a). “The Rise of Crowdsourcing,” Wired 14.06, http://archive.wired
.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html, accessed February 14, 2015.
Howe, J. (2006b). “Crowdsourcing: A Definition,” http://crowdsourcing.typepad
.com/cs/2006/06/crowdsourcing_a.html, accessed February 14, 2015.
Howe, J. (2008). Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of
Business (New York: Crown Publishing Group).
Internet Live Stats (2015). “China Internet Users,” http://www.internetlivestats.com/
internet-users/china/, accessed February 14, 2015.
Kelly, N. (2009). “Freelance Translators Clash with LinkedIn over Crowdsourced Trans-
lations,” http://www.globalwatchtower.com/2009/06/19/linkedin-ct3/, accessed
February 14, 2015.
Kietzmann, J. H., and K. Hermkens (2011). “Social Media? Get Serious! Under-
standing the Functional Building Blocks of Social Media,” Business Horizons 54:
241–51.
Lakhani, K., and R. Wolf (2005). “Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understand-
ing Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects,” pp. 3–22 in
J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, and K. Lakhani (eds.), Perspectives in Free and
Open Source Software (Cambridge: MIT).
Liu, S. (2015). “Innovating Business Translator Training: Insights from Crowdsourc-
ing Mode,” Journal of Ningbo Polytechnic 5: 28–31, 88.
Losse, K. (2008). “Facebook: Achieving Quality in a Crowd-Sourced Translation Envi-
ronment,” keynote presentation at the 13th Localization Research Conference,
http://www.localisation.ie/resources/presentations/videos/video2.htm, accessed
February 14, 2015.
McDonough Dolmaya, J. (2011). “The Ethics of Crowdsourcing,” Linguistica Ant-
verpiensia: Translation as Social Activity—Community Translation 2.0 10: 97–110.
McDonough Dolmaya, J. (2012). “Analyzing the Crowdsourcing Model and Its
Impact on Public Perceptions of Translation,” The Translator: Non-Professionals
Translating and Interpreting 18: 167–91.
MPAA (The Motion Picture Association of America) (2014). October 24, http://
www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/MPAA-Filing-to-USTR-on
-Worlds-Most-Notorious-Markets.pdf.
O’Hagan, M. (2008). “Fan Translation Networks: An Accidental Translator Training
Environment?” pp.158–183 in J. Kearns (ed.), Translator and Interpreter Training:
Methods and Debates (London: Continuum).
O’Hagan, M. (2009). “Evolution of User-Generated Translation: Fansubs, Transla-
tion Hacking and Crowdsourcing,” Journal of Internationalisation and Localisation
1: 94–121.
Olohan, M. (2012). “Volunteer Translation and Altruism in the Context of a Nine-
teenth-Century Scientific Journal,” The Translator: Non-Professionals Translating
and Interpreting 18: 193–215.
Oreg, S., and O. Nov (2008). “Exploring Motivations for Contributing to Open
Source Initiatives: The Roles of Contribution Context and Personal Values,” Com-
puters in Human Behavior 24: 2055–2073.
Pére-Gonzáles, L. (2006). “Fansubbing Anime: Insights into the ‘Butterfly Effect’ of
Globalisation on Audiovisual Translation,” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 14:
260–277.
Pérez-González, L., and Ş. Susam-Saraeva (2012). “Non-Professionals Translating
and Interpreting: Participatory and Engaged Perspectives,” The Translator: Non-
Professionals Translating and Interpreting 18: 149–165.
Ray, R., and N. Kelly (2011). Crowdsourced Translation: Best Practices for Implementa-
tion (Lowell, MA: Common Sense Advisory).
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few
(London: Little Brown).
Tapscott, D., and A. Williams (2006). Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes
Everything (New York: Portfolio).
W3Tches (2015). “Usage of Content Languages for Websites,” http://w3techs.com/
technologies/overview/content_language/all, accessed February 14, 2015.
164 ● Wenjing Li
Zaidan, O. F., and C. Callison-Burch (2011). “Crowdsourcing Translation: Profes-

sional Quality from Non-Professionals,” Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting
of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies 1:
1220–1229.
Zetzsche, J (2010). “Crowdsourcing and the Professional Translator,” contribution to
the Ninth Conference of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas,
Denver, http://www.mt-archive.info/AMTA-2010-Zetzsche.pdf, accessed February
14, 2015.
Zhu, B. (2008). “Yeeyan: From Spontaneity to Reverse Cultural Transmission,”
Sanlian Life Week 4: 116–118.
CHAPTER 10
Masculine Fantasies and Feminine

Representations in the English
Translations of Premodern Chinese
Poetry in Journals
Kar Yue Chan
Introduction
In premodern China, male literary circles were dominated by an atmo-
sphere of men “dressing themselves as women,” or applying the feminine
persona, in poetry creation. This phenomenon appeared in both shi 娑 and
ci poetry 娆, but mostly in later forms with regard to the nature of ci,
as ci was considered relatively more delicate than shi poetry in terms of
expression and poetic style. The irregular-line structures and the metrical
characteristics of ci poetry would also be crucial factors in determining the
feminine nature of such. According to Kang-i Sun Chang, “ci are from the
beginning associated with women as performers and poetic personae, but
the actual authors of ci were (insofar as we can be sure) as likely to be male
as female” (qtd. Chang 1999, 4–5). Usually the feminine ci poetry was cat-
egorized as wanyue ci pai ⧱䲬娆㳦 (“the delicate school”) in the Northern
Song Dynasty (960–1127) in China. These poems were mainly written by
male poets who at that time embraced a trend of creating poems with the
themes of appreciating feminine beauty, natural scenery, still lifes, and the
like. Themes could well touch on trivial objects such as flowers and snow,
which might have been related to the idea of feng hua xue yue 桐剙暒㚰
(a notion signifying trivial matters in one’s life, such as wind, flowers, snow,
and the moon).
166 ● Kar Yue Chan
Male Fantasies in Classical Chinese Poems and Their Translations

When the issue of translation is involved in classical Chinese poetry, a transla-
tor should be able to understand the enormous difference between how the
Chinese people perceive their poetry in their own language and how West-
erners look at these poems from their own angles. In the traditional Chinese
perspective, the possibility of male poets writing poetry based on catastro-
phes and experiences in their lives is generally assumed. It was because the
premodern Chinese people all upheld the Confucian ideal that a poem was
written in order to voice what is in one’s mind (shi yan zhi 娑妨⽿), as a way
to address his or her own aspirations, goals, or ideas (Fuzhi Wang 1976, 15).1
Grace Fong also agrees with the notion that “according to this accepted gene-
alogy [shi yan zhi], poetry as a discursive mode has always been predicated on
expressing or embodying the ‘true’ feelings and ‘genuine’ voice of the enun-
ciating subject” (Fong 2000, 262). Therefore, in China analyses of the poetic
meanings are frequently based on interpretations drawn from the biography
of a particular writer of literary work. Western authors and readers, on the
other hand, might not necessarily anticipate a direct relationship between
the content of the poem and the real encounters in the poet’s life. Homer
and Dante in the Western world, who might not have existed as individuals
at all, were perhaps expressing themselves in their epic poetry out of sheer
imagination or insight gained from some incidents. There seems no point to
base too much on the poets’ biographies, then, if a more scientific analysis is
needed. With all this said, it is perfectly justifiable for a Chinese male poet to
wish to appear as a female, or a female poet as a male, in the poetic realm. As
mentioned, a good translator has to bear these points in mind when he or she
gets to render a poem from classical Chinese into English. It is necessary to
say that the exchanged ideology between the poetic genders has to be seriously
considered if the translation is to be well read and to be read in any publica-
tion. This is deemed extremely important due to the fact that male poets do
not seem to identify the women’s self in the poems; rather they portray or
mime the feminine persona through their own angle of looking at women.
This sense could be revealed in the opposite way; that is, applied to how pre-
modern women wished to “become masculine” in their poetry.
This concept is feasible for analysis in the sense that although male poets
are capable of applying the tropes of “becoming a woman” in their poetry,
the traditionally constructed restraints and notions for the female gender are
not readily adopted as their own insights. It could be considered a kind of
“masculine fantasy” (adapted from Idema 1999, 19–52) about the re-creation
of a woman’s image. In roughly the Tang (618–907) and Song dynasties,
the mentioned style was mostly adopted by Du Mu 㜄䈏 (803–852?),
Masculine Fantasies and Feminine Representations ● 167
Wen Tingyunġ㹓⹕䬈 (812–870), and Liu Yong 㞛㯠 (987?–1053?), who

consolidated a mushrooming trend of nanzi zuo guiyin (䓟⫸ἄ敐枛, male
poets’ imitation of boudoir voices) (Zhao 1994, 30), which was seen as the
result of the huajian ci (剙攻娆, Lyrics between the Flowers), which flourished
in the Five Dynasties (907–960). The specific types of guiyuan shi (敐⿐娑,
poems about boudoir sadness) and gongyuan shi (⭖⿐娑, poems about court
lamentation) (Xiaomei Zhang 2008, 114–22) during this period developed
a stereotype of court ladies’ melancholy, based on the imagination of the
poets, which were only a subjective expression but never a faithful reflection
of those court ladies’ realistic plights (Xiaomei Zhang 2008, 119). There-
fore, imitations of female voices by male poets were usually accompanied by
descriptions of women’s appearances and the boudoir settings, without any
attempt or capacity to portray the feminine inner feelings. One such example
is displayed below:
厑啑埣ġ ġ ġ ġ 㹓⹕䬈
⮷Ⱉ慵䔲慹㖶㹭炻櫊暚㫚⹎楁儖暒ˤ㆞崟䔓嚦䚱炻⺬⥅㡛㲿怚ˤ
䄏剙⇵⼴掉炻剙朊Ṍ䚠㗈ˤ㕘ⶾ三伭夎炻暁暁慹浻泋ˤ
(Tang Wudai, 1993, p. 113)
To the tune Pusa Man by Wen Tingyun

The penciled eyebrows overlap when golden screen paintings glisten,
The cloudy temple hair is just to cross over the fragrant snow-like face.
I lazily awake and paint my delicate eyebrows,
While making up delays the washing and dressing.
My beauty is reflected front and back in the mirror,
Flowers in my hair set my face off beautifully.
Newly embroidered on my silk coat
Is a pair of golden Chinese francolins. (my translation)2
The above, which is a very popular ci poem describing feminine beauty in

front of a makeup mirror, shows an apparent feature of male poets who imi-
tated female voices without identifying the women’s self in the poems; rather
the miming lies in mere feminine attire and subjective observation of what
should be seen in the female gender. Translation of this poem involves deter-
mining the literary point of view. The persona identification has been trans-
lated into “I” instead of “she” because of the literary intensity of the poem
leading toward the nature of a feminine poem. In another approach, the “I”
in the poem could be altered into “she,” as it is difficult to trace whether the
poems are actually written about an autobiographical account of a woman or
a scenario generated from the eyes of other people, when no obvious person-
alization could be affirmed.
Another well-known Tang poem by Zhang Ji ⻝䯵 (766–830?) was at a

relatively deeper level of portraying the feminine mentality and sensibility.
In a sense, Zhang should be appreciated for being concerned more about the
feminine psychological status when creating the poem. He was brilliant in the
elaborate description of women as a monologue of melancholy, which can be
seen in the following ci poem:
䭨⨎⏇ġ ġ ġ ġ ġ ⻝䯵
⏃䞍⥦㚱⣓炻岰⥦暁㖶䎈ˤ
デ⏃丷䵧シ炻专⛐䲭伭夎ˤ
⥦⭞檀㦻忋剹崟炻列Ṣ➟㇇㖶⃱塷ˤ
䞍⏃䓐⽫⤪㖍㚰炻ḳ⣓娻㒔⎴䓇㬣ˤ
怬⏃㖶䎈暁㶂✪炻【ᶵ䚠忊㛒⩩㗪炰
(Quan Tang, 1960, p. 4282)
A Chaste Lady’s Monologue by Zhang Ji

My Lord, you offered me pearls in pair
Even though you knew, I was no longer a lady fair.
By your passionate love I was touched,
And against my red silk dress the pearls I tied.
High towers on towers are my residence,
With my husband being a military official at the court.
I perfectly understand that your love is ocean-deep,
Yet on a life-and-death oath I was with him.
With tears crisscrossed, to you the pearls I return,
Only to regret—before marriage we had not met! (my translation)
Almost perfect miming and imitation of a female voice by a male poet is

seen in the above poem. Interestingly enough, the poem might have served
another ironic function of expression. The title of another version reads “A
Chaste Lady’s Monologue: to Official Li Shidao of Dongping” 䭨⨎⏇⭬㜙
⸛㛶⎠䨢ⷓ忻 (Quan Tang, 1960, p. 4282), which is obvious evidence that
this poem was written with a receiver and hence a purpose. Zhang uses the
metaphorical female voice to reject the political favor of Li Shidao (Hong
1939, juan six, volume three, p. 50).3 Both the reader and the translator
of this poem have to be aware of the real meaning behind it before actual
rendering. As the above is not only a sole imitation of a lady’s yearning by a
male poet, the exchanged ideology (mentioned above) should also be consid-
ered, about how readers should presume a typical female and a stereotyped
male. The complicated issue in translating and publishing the poem is that
the translator should be able to select diction that suits the determination
of both the expression of a woman toward her “lord” and a man toward his
“Lord” (as shown in the translation). Although these should be dissimilar
in some sense, based on the difference between a woman and a man, many
elements resembling extramarital love versus an official’s invitation should
also be addressed by these words or phrases. A translation should try hard to
achieve those components that are in common; for instance, “offer[ing]” of
pearls (line one) in relation to both the female and male psyches toward their
own scenarios, “passionate love” (line three), the “life-and-death oath” (line
eight) of a woman toward her lover and a man toward his political partner,
and the “regret” that “before marriage we had not met” (line ten). The word
“marriage” here serves as a fantastic tie between the cases of matrimony of a
real couple and a work relationship.
This kind of “literary cross-dressing” experience has led to a likely mis-
conception of a certain behavioral or “moral” problem envisaged from the
poetic voice of the poems. This could be understood in the sense of feminine
voices when they are being consolidated in terms of an individualized persona
in relation to a particular aspect of female psychology. An interesting issue
worth digging into appeared in the southern Song Dynasty, when Zhu Shu-
zhen 㛙㵹䛇’s (1135?–1180?) poems were under analysis. A famous ci poem
titled “To the Tune: Sheng chazi (‘yuanxi’)” was originally attributed to Zhu
Shuzhen, and later the poem was frequently cited as proof of her breaching
of moral principles by the description of meeting someone (signifying a per-
son other than her own husband) at night (which was strictly forbidden for
single and married ladies in premodern times) (adapted from Huang 1991,
137–139):
䓇㞍⫸ġĩ⃫⢽Ī
⍣⸜⃫⣄㗪炻剙ⶪ䅰⤪㘅ˤ㚰ᶲ㞛㡊柕炻Ṣ䲬湫㖷⼴ˤ
Ṳ⸜⃫⣄㗪炻㚰冯䅰ὅ冲ˤᶵ夳⍣⸜Ṣ炻㶂㹤㗍堓堾ˤ
(Zhang Xiancheng, 1999, 287–288)
The Night of the Lantern Festival (To the Tune: Sheng chazi)
At the festival last year,
Lanterns in the market were like daylight.
The moon shines on the tip of the willow trees,
We met each other after evening light.
At the festival this year,
Still remaining are the lanterns and the moonlight.
But not seeing the one I saw last year,
Tears wet my spring sleeves. (my translation)4
As Zhu Shuzhen’s biography and living years were not ascertained, there
were doubts about whether the poem was actually written by her, and
many scholars in the past have debated who is the real author of this poem.
Later on the poem was believed to have been written by Ouyang Xiu 㫸春ᾖ
(1007–1072) (Chan 2013, 137–141). Thanks should be attributed to Wang
Shizhen 䌳⢓䥃 (1634–1711), who pioneered in doubting Zhu Shuzhen as
the author of this poem (Wang Shizhen 1982, 321–322).5
In this case, it is quite amazing for readers to find that Ouyang Xiu did
a brilliant job in imitating a woman who has engaged in an extramarital
or immoral affair, by merely miming her poetic voice. The sensation goes
deep into feminine psychology, as the description in the poem, though
physical, shows a delicate, lingering longing for the one “she” could not
meet in the night. Apart from the diction used mentioned before, the
translation deliberately focuses on the melodiously light poetic meters and
rhymes, which produce the subtle (a necessary quality for premodern Chi-
nese women) and sensual touch of the yearnings of a lady. The retention of
the rhymes in the translated version (though kept in a different way com-
pared to the Chinese original) impresses readers of a publication, especially
when the publication itself is embedded with translated poems, because
the rhymed poems can be associated with the graceful ballad songs by
the troubadours in the West. They are similarly light and, again, similarly
refined, with simple expressions yet long-lasting flavors. It is believed that
these elements are also crucial in determining the likeliness of the original
and the translation.
Another factor in concluding how these “mimed” conditions could be
accessible and acceptable by receptors in a publication is the exchanged
ideology mentioned above. Why have most people gained the misconcep-
tion that the poem “To the Tune: Sheng chazi (‘yuanxi’)” was written by
Zhu Shuzhen and not a male poet? It is obviously because the poem had
grasped the female psychology so delicately and minutely that there should
never have been a preconception that it had been written by a man—there
never was a man who could comprehend a lady’s thought so well. And just
because women’s status was much inferior to that of men at that time, the
concept that the woman who wrote this must have been wicked and lustful
stood firm. If it was clearly by a man (like Ouyang Xiu), it would only have
been interpreted as a noticeable and novel miming of the poet by trying
to change himself into another gender in the poem. Song notes that the
criticism of this poem is a further indication of double standards, since it
is deemed immoral if written by Zhu Shuzhen, but it is indifferent or even
appreciated if written by Ouyang Xiu (Song 2000, 70). In this sense, the
style, rather than the words and particular expressions, is essential to be
retained. The readers should be there to determine whether the significance
of the style leads to a poetic voice manifestation or elimination, or the other
way round.
Feminine and Masculine Representational Dichotomy in Poetry

Some premodern women poets, though much fewer in number, managed to
speak in their own gender voices and in a relatively masculine way as well.
However, unfairly enough, it was never easy for female poets to express them-
selves in masculine ways, unlike the male poets who imitated female voices.
Yu Xuanji 欂䌬㨇 (844?–868?, courtesy name Huilanġ唁嗕) was a Chinese
Taoist nun during the Tang Dynasty, from whom 49 poems survive. She was
an extraordinary lady, in that she sometimes boldly “complain[ed] about the
hardship of combining poetic talent and womanhood” (Young 1998, xiii).
As a Taoist nun who was not required to follow the decent moral behavior
principles laid on women at large, Yu Xuanji possessed relatively more free-
dom in writing about sexual activities and any “immoral” acts. The passionate
love and desire mentioned in her poems, though immoral, were evidence of a
strong feminine representation. The longing and yearning of sexual pleasure
from her patrons and the zealous craving for love have been subtly expressed
in some of her poems:
デ㆟⭬Ṣ
【⭬㛙⻎ᶲ炻⏓ねシᶵảˤ㖑䞍暚暐㚫炻㛒崟唁嗕⽫ˤ
䀤䀤㟫ℤ㛶炻䃉⥐⚳⢓⮳ˤ呤呤㜦冯㟪炻ṵ佐ᶾṢ㫥ˤ
㚰刚剼昶㶐炻㫴倚䪡昊㶙ˤ攨⇵䲭叱⛘炻ᶵ㌫⼭䞍枛ˤ
ġ (Gao and Wu, n.d., 7b)
Stirred by Emotions, Sent to Someone

With my regrets attached to the crimson string,
Full of passion yet my mind is not at ease.
I knew perfectly well that our clouds and rain affair
Has not yet stirred the orchid’s emotions.
How splendid are the peach and plum blossoms,
But they should not obstruct the scholar seeking success.
How emerald green are the pines and laurels,
But they still long for worldly people’s admiration.
Under the moonlight the mossy steps are clean,
Singing sounds from deep in the bamboo courtyard.
In front of the gate, the ground is filled up with red leaves
And will not be cleaned until an old friend comes. (my translation)6
An interesting personal noun is seen in this poem—huilan (唁嗕), translated

as “orchid” in line four. A pun is used here, with huilan in the original poem
being the same characters as those of Yu Xuanji’s courtesy name mentioned
above. Therefore the “orchid” rendered here may have been considered a kind
of symbol of the poet’s persona. The reason why Yu Xuanji openly addressed
herself, indeed her feminine self, in the poem, might have been her determi-
nation to transcend her inferior identity, even more inferior as a nun. There-
fore sexual activities were never taboo to mention, nor did she operate under
the traditional restriction against women addressing their selves.
In translating this poem, some notes or commentaries need to be put
against the special phrases, such as the “orchid” mentioned above. Some very
Chinese ways of expression have to be retained too, like yun yu (暚暐, “clouds
and rain affair” in line three of the translated version). This was an extremely
subtle yet elegant way of addressing sexual activities in Chinese, with the
natural phenomena of “clouds and rain,” which also associate naturally with
feng yue (桐㚰, literally “winds and moon,” meaning love affairs between men
and women), containing a great amount of sexual implications. Amazingly
enough, the expression “winds and moon” also appears in other poems by
Yu. These daring descriptions by her all contribute to a willful determination
to free herself from the feudal suppression of women. The retention of these
phrases in the translations does enhance the image of a resisting woman in
the premodern ages. With necessary commentaries, readers of the publication
could certainly be able to dig deeper into the strong representation of the
feminine images.
Self-assertive poems, especially those focused on a woman’s feminine
self, were not frequently seen in premodern China. Yu Xuanji, not being
restricted by usual conjugal relationships, wrote a number of outspoken
poems criticizing the low statuses of contemporary women, and she was bold
to question the existing sexual arrangement (adapted from Bruneau 1992,
163) in male-dominated literary circles. She questioned why women were
all deprived of the right to write freely about themselves, and why only men
enjoyed the opportunities of scholarly development. The following poem
expresses a woman’s apparent dissatisfaction toward the exercise of civil ser-
vice examinations:
忲ⲯ䛇奨⋿㦻䜡㕘⍲䫔柴⎵嗽
ġ暚Ⲙ㺧䚖㓦㗍㘜炻㬟㬟戨戌㊯ᶳ䓇ˤ冒【伭堋㍑娑⎍炻冱柕䨢佐
㥄ᷕ⎵ˤ
(Gao and Wu, n.d., 5b–6a.)
Visiting the South Tower of Chongzhen Temple, and Seeing the Posting
of the Newly Released Civil Service Examination Results
Cloudy mountains fill up my sight as the spring sun shines,
Under competent fingers appears bold and brilliant calligraphy.
I regret that my silk dress has veiled my poetic lines,
Raising my head, the names on the honor board I envy futilely. (my translation)7
Translating Yu’s poetry requires the knowledge of personalized sentiments

that are more expected from women and thus universal commitment from
men. Men enjoyed every chance of learning and achieving official status in
the government, while women were neither required to possess any talent,
nor allowed to sit for the civil examinations at that time (Birrell 2001, 209).8
Some words or expressions are added in the translation to magnify her desire
to be equal with the men, but finally there is only her regret to be born as a
woman (the symbolization of the female identity by “silk dress”): the enlarged
hint of Yu Xuanji’s desire to obtain recognition from others is magnified in
“Under competent fingers appears bold and brilliant calligraphy” together
with the last line, “Raising my head, the names on the honor board I envy
futilely,” with an emphasis of her admiration toward people with scholarly
achievements in examinations, and therefore her own feminine ambition
of becoming one of them. The intentional usage of two internal rhetorical
accords [near-rhymes] in “competent” and “brilliant” work to offer further
strength to the already strong alliteration of “bold: and “brilliant” in line
two. Side by side, the slight additions of these adjectives have provided a
string of metrical sounds for readers’ attention. More importantly, the last
two lines signify a subtle but sharp attack on the restrictions on female talent
and the lack of public recognition for womanly attainments, so the use of the
adverb “futilely” suggests her longing for independence and the pursuit of
her own value. Usually the pronoun “I” is added for translations from Chi-
nese into English, although it does not always appear in the original poems.
The phrases “I regret” and “I envy” must be kept, as they indicate an obvi-
ously assertive feminine voice speaking against her unfair plight. Such a clear
personalized pronoun also declares the affirmed feminine identity and rights
being suppressed.
Following the above discussion, women have in a way wished to be as
strong as men, not necessarily physically, but perhaps mentally. In contrast
to male poets miming female voices, on some occasions, however, poems
appear using the imitated voices of male poets (Sun 2002, 104–105).9
According to Grace Fong, the male persona was seldom reproduced by
female poets because of the great distance between male superiority and
female inferiority (Fong 1994, 141). Yu Xuanji did put some of her effort
into writing about historical heroes from the perspective of a man. Imitated
masculinity was seldom seen in poems by other female poets (and obviously
because their number was so few). Her noble writing style as well as her
towering insights, generated from a male hero, are shown in the following
poem, as detailed historical knowledge was unexpected from women’s edu-
cation at that time.
㴋䲿⺇
ġ⏛崲䚠媨妰䫾⣂炻㴋䲿䤆⤛⶚䚠␴ˤᶨ暁䪹朐丼⚆朊炻⋩叔䱦ℝ
䚉Ὰㆰˤ劫埉≇ㆸ幓晙怗炻ẵ傍媓㬣⚳㴰䢐ˤ⎒Ṳ媠㙐攟㰇䓼炻
䨢㚱曺Ⱉ嘇劏嗧ˤ
(Gao and Wu, n.d., 2a.)
The Yarn Washing Temple

Skillful strategies for conspiracies between Wu and Yue states, [a]
Are soon pacified by the Yarn Washing goddess in this temple. [b]
With a pair of dimples when she turns her face around,
Hundreds and thousands of crack troops all put back their weapons.
Having won merits Fan Li frees himself to a place secluded, [c]
Admonished to death by Wu Xu the state is exhausted. [d]
But now this place Zhuji, next to the Long River, [e]
Has only a green mountain named after Zhuluo. [f ] (my translation)10
Endnotes for the Above Poem:
[a] Wu ⏛ and Yue 崲 were two rival states in the Zhou Dynasty.
[b] Huansha shennü 㴋䲿䤆⤛ (the Yarn Washing goddess) refers to
Xishi, one of the four most beautiful women in ancient China.
Xishi gained this name because before she was sent to Wu, she
always washed yarn beside a stream at her birthplace.
[c] Fan Li is Xishi’s lover.
[d] Wu Xu ẵ傍 (also known as Wu Zixu ẵ⫸傍 in history) was “from
the state of Chu. King Ping killed She, his father, thus Xu escaped
to the state of Wu. King Fuchai of the Wu defeated Yue at Fujiao
[present day Taihu ⣒㷾 in the Wu ⏛ Province], and King Gou-
jian of the Yue begged for allegiance to Wu. When Fuchai wished
to accept it, Xu remonstrated with him, but he did not listen to
Xu. Afterwards Wu planned to conquer Qi, but Xu warned that
he should first destroy Yue rather than Qi. Pi, Taizai ⣒⭘ [Grand
Steward] of Wu, framed Xu by slander, so Xu was offered a sword
for committing suicide” (Zhanguo ce, 1978, p.128).
[e] Zhuji 媠㙐 (present-day Zhuji Province in Zhejiang) was the ancient
capital of Yue, built by King Yunchang ⃩ⷠ (King Goujian’s father).
It was the place where the Temple of Washing Yarn was located (Peng
and Zhang 1994, 97).
[f ] Zhuluo 劏嗧 refers to Zhuluo Shan 劏嗧Ⱉ (Mount Zhuluo,
south of present-day Zhuji Province), the birthplace of Xishi (Peng
and Zhang 1994, 97–98).
Plenty of endnotes, or commentaries, have been added at the bottom of the

translated text, as quite a number of historical facts are embedded in the poem.
The original shows Yu Xuanji’s usages of allusions and anecdotes regarding a
number of historical heroes in almost every line. This is something rarely
seen from a young woman whose poetic strategy has gone beyond personal
emotions; rather, the readers feel a broader sense of commitment toward his-
torical rights and wrongs, a masculine quest for logical, analytical power. The
poetic voice itself shows Yu Xuanji’s binary portrayal of both feminine and
masculine concerns, with both personalized and universal sentiments. The
comparison between the success contributed by Fan Li and the tragic and
futile reproach of Wu Xu is expressed in a prosaic style—usually written by
male writers—and is successful in turning a new page for the realization of a
“femininely developed” masculine voice. The aim of the publication of these
poems is also to produce a kind of identity confusion that makes the readers
doubt, just as male poets did when they imitated the feminine voice in their
poems.
Gender segregation serves as one of the most problematic barriers for
distinguishing between authentic and imitated male and female voices in
poetry. The lack of a deep understanding of male or female psychology might
have produced misperceptions in creating the cross-dressing effect. In fact, in
revealing the translated versions of this kind of poetry in any publication, the
above concern has to be addressed. I agree with penetrating the “literal voice”
(the voice reflected on the surface of the poem) by emphasizing the poets’
thoughts and philosophy toward objects or scenery or sentiments toward
human beings. As indicated above, the exchanged ideology of the original
gender can also be profoundly transcended through sophisticated uses of
alliteration, poetic meters, rhymes, allusions, commentaries, endnotes, and
the like. The objective is ultimately to make visible the imitated voice (the
intended voice), in a way strengthening the intention of the poet who wanted
to write from the angle of the opposite gender, even though he or she might
not have been able to capture all of its philosophy well.
Conclusion
To sum up, the translation of these poems involving “crossover” voices must
also consist of some transference in publication. The intended voice (versus
the real one) of the poem should be focused on, and perhaps manifested to
the extent of great emphasis. Throughout the development of classical Chi-
nese poetry, most male poets’ disguises of feminine personae were superficial,
to reflect gender background, female sensations, and socially constructed
resonance under the restrictive norms in society at that time. The same logic
could be applied to female poets too, as under such a restrictive social atmo-
sphere, it was quite impossible for them to learn how to write, sound, or
appear like a male. Needless to say, it was not necessary to do so. An enhance-
ment of the poetic voice based on rhetorical devices could certainly help in
this regard. To absolutely enrich the content in a publication, it is also recom-
mended to provide commentaries for the translations. If the authorship and
the background are stated clearly for the readers before they read a poem, the
whole story behind it gains much strength.
When readers of a publication travel through a literary work of value,
they must go through the process of identity recognition: sometimes being a
reader, or becoming the narrator unconsciously, or later transforming into the
main character of the story, no matter whether it is a novel, drama, or poem.
Heavy gender reliance is normally received by the readers on the surface of
the poem, and in a publication the reader might usually identify with it,
regardless of the real gender (or sex) of the writer. There is a Sinologist’s way
of translating a poem and a translator’s way. The former usually goes without
too many rhetorical devices, which is more easily decoded for a researcher’s
analysis. The latter, however, requires a lot of moderation and consideration,
which may not fit literal analyses but is feasible for poetic appreciation for
readers in a journal or any other publication. A translator’s way of translating
is also more flexible in manifesting the poetic gender voices, as the transfer-
ence could be sublimated by all the twists and turns created by the figurative
devices. All in all, readers appreciate first the literal effects of the translation,
so enriching the background and the voices would apparently be feasible
choices of application.
Notes
1. “Shi yan zhi” is extracted from the third part of Shundian 凄℠ (Renditions of
the Shun Emperor) of Shangshu ⯂㚠 (Book of Documents), in which the words
of Shun Di 凄ⷅ (the Shun emperor) are noted: “Poetry is used to express one’s
aspirations.” (The original reads “娑㇨ẍ妨⽿ḇ”).
2. This translated version also appears in Chan 2013, pp. 232–233.
3. The original reads, “Zhang Ji was attending the office of the central government
at that time, and Li Shigu [Shidao], the regional official, invited him over to assist
by offering him a sum of money. Zhang refused to receive it, and rejected Li by
sending him his poem ‘A Chaste Lady’s Monologue’” (my translation). The origi-
nal reads, “⻝䯵⛐Ṿ捖ⷽ⹄炻悮ⷍ㛶ⷓ⎌⍰ẍ㚠⸋彇ᷳ炻䯵⌣侴ᶵ䲵炻
ἄ˪䭨⨎⏇˫ᶨ䪈⭬ᷳˤ”
4. This translated version also appears in Chan 2013, pp. 137–138.
5. Wang Shizhen, in juan fourteen of his Chibei outan, said that the mentioned poem
could be seen in juan 131 of the Ouyang Wenzhong ji 㫸春㔯⾈普 (A Collection
of Works by Ouyang Wenzhong), and he did not understand why it had been misin-
terpreted as the work of Zhu Shuzhen. She was then accused of immorality based
on this ci poem. He also warned that people should be cautious when reading the
records. (The original reads, “Ṳᶾ㇨⁛⤛恶㛙㵹䛇ˬ⍣⸜⃫⣄㗪炻剙ⶪ䅰
⤪㘅˭ġ ˪䓇㞍⫸˫娆炻夳˪㫸春㔯⾈普˫ᶨ䘦ᶱ⋩ᶨ⌟炻ᶵ䞍ỽẍ姃
䁢㛙㮷ᷳἄ烎ᶾ忪⚈㬌娆䔹㵹䛇⣙⨎⽟炻䲨庱ᶵ⎗ᶵヶḇˤ”)
6. This translated version also appears in Chan 2013, p. 202.
7. This translated version also appears in Chan 2013, p. 212.
8. Anne Birrell describes Yu Xuanji’s “female aspiration for a career in public life
when she voices her opposition to gender inequality as it is manifested in female
exclusion from the civil service examinations.”
9. Kangyi Sun has named this idea as “gender mask” or “gender crossing.” In Sun’s
concept, the mimed female voices used to create metaphorical aesthetics in litera-
ture by male poets were seldom applied by women poets in their writing traditions.
10 This translated version and part of the related endnotes also appear in Chan
2013, p. 227.
References
Birrell, A. M. (2001). “Women in Literature,” pp.194–220 in V. Mair (ed.), The
Columbia History of Chinese Literature (New York: Columbia University Press).
Bruneau, M. F. (1992). “Learned and Literary Women in Late Imperial China and
Early Modern Europe,” Late Imperial China 13.1: 156–172.
Chan, K. Y. (2013). Ambivalence in Poetry: Zhu Shuzhen, a Classical Chinese Poetess
(Saarbrücken: Scholars’ Press).
Chang, Kang-i Sun (1999). “Introduction: Genealogy and Titles of the Female Poet,”
pp.1–14 in Kang-i Sun Chang and Haun Saussy (eds.), Women Writers of Tradi-
tional China: An Anthology of Poetry and Criticism (Stanford: Stanford University
Press).
Fong, G. S. (2000). “Writing Self and Writing Lives: Shen Shanbao’s (1808–1862)
Gendered Auto/Biographical Practices,” Nan Nü: Men, Women and Gender in
Early and Imperial China 2.2: 259–303.
——. (1994). “Engendering the Lyric: Her Image and Voice in Song,” pp.107–144
in Pauline Yu (ed.), Voices of the Song Lyric in China (Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press).
Gao, Shixian 檀㗪栗, and Wu Rulin ⏛㰅暾 (eds.) (n.d.). Xu Xiaomu ji jianzhu, Yu
Xuanji shi, Nan Tang er zhu ci ⼸⬅䧮普䬳㲐ˣ欂䌬㨇娑ˣ⋿ⒸḴᷣ娆 (Anno-
tated Collection of Xu Xiaomu, Shi-Poetry by Yu Xuanji, and Ci-Poetry by the Two
Rulers of the Southern Tang) (Taipei: Zhonghua).
Hong, Mai 㳒怩 (1939). Rongzhai suibi ⭡滳晐䫮Ḽ普 (Casual Writings from the
Rongzhai Study [Five Volumes]) (Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan).
Huang, Yanli 湫⪋㡐 (1991). Zhu Shuzhen ji qi zuopin 㛙㵹䛇⍲℞ἄ⑩ (Zhu Shu-
zhen and Her Works, a.k.a. Zhu Shuzhen yanjiu 㛙㵹䛇䞼䨞 [A Study of Zhu Shu-
zhen]) (Hong Kong: Sanlian).
Idema, W. L. (1999). “Male Fantasies and Female Realities: Chu Shu-chen and Chang
Yü-niang and Their Biographies,” pp.19–52 in H. Zürndorfer (ed.), Chinese
Women in the Imperial Past: New Perspective (Leiden: Brill).
Peng, Zhixian ⼕⽿ㅚ, and Zhang Yi ⻝䆂 (1994). Yu Xuanji shi biannian yizhu
欂䌬㨇娑䶐⸜嬗㲐 (The Annalistic Annotations of Yu Xuanji’s Poetry) (Ürümqi:
Xinjiang daxue).
Quan Tang shi ℐⒸ娑 [A Complete Collection of Shi-Poetry of the Tang Dynasty] (1960)
(Beijing: Zhonghua). 25 vols.
Song, Zhixin ⬳农㕘 (2000). “‘Duanchang shiren’ Zhu Shuzhen” 㕟儠娑Ṣ㛙㵹䛇
(“Zhu Shuzhen, the Heartbroken Poet”), Tianfu xinlun 6: 67–70.
Sun, Kangyiġ⬓⹟⭄ġ(Chang, Kang-i Sun) (2002) “Xingbie de kunhuo—cong chuan-
tong duzhe yuedu qingshi de pianjian shuo qi” ⿏⇍䘬⚘べ—⽆⁛䴙嬨侭教嬨
ね娑䘬ῷ夳婒崟 (“The Gender Perplexed: From the Bias Created by Traditional
Readers Reading Love Poetry”). pp.100–109 in Zhang Hongsheng and Zhang Yan
(eds.), Gudai nü shiren yanjiu ⎌ẋ⤛娑Ṣ䞼䨞ġ(A Study of Ancient Women Poets)
(Wuhan: Hubei Jiaoyu).
Tang Wudai ci xuanji ⒸḼẋ娆怠普 (An Annotated Collection of Ci-Poetry in the Tang
and Five Dynasties) (1993) (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji).
Wang, Fuzhi 䌳⣓ᷳ (1976). Shangshu yinyi ⯂㚠⺽佑 (The Book of Documents with
Associated Comments) (Beijing: Zhonghua).
Wang, Shizhen 䌳⢓䥃 [䤶] (1982). Chibei outan 㰈⊿„婯 (Occasional Talks North
of the Pond) (Beijing: Zhonghua).
Young, D. (1998). “Introduction.” pp. ix–xviii in Yu Xuanji 欂䌬㨇, The Clouds Float
North: The Complete Poems of Yu Xuanji (trans. D. Young and J. I. Lin) (Hanover:
Wesleyan University Press).
Zhang, Xiancheng ⻝栗ㆸ et al. (eds.) (1999). Li Qingzhao Zhu Shuzhen shici hezhu
㛶㶭䄏ˣ㛙㵹䛇娑娆⎰㲐 (A Combined Annotation of Shi-Poetry and Ci-Poetry
by Li Qingzhao and Zhu Shuzhen) (Chengdu: Bashu).
Zhang, Xiaomei ⻝㙱㠭 (2008). Nanzi zuo guiyin䓟⫸ἄ敐枛 (Male Poets Imitating
Boudoir Voices) (Beijing: Renmin).
Zhanguo ce ㇘⚳䫾 (Strategic Writings of the Warring States) (1978), compiled by Liu
Xiang∱⎹ (Shanghai: Shanghai Guji).
Zhao, Zehong 嵁㽌㳒 (1994). “Wanyue cipai nüxing xingxiang de shenmei shanbian”
⧱䲬娆㳦⤛⿏⼊尉䘬⮑伶⪿嬲 (“The Transformation of Aesthetic Judgment
on Female Image in the School of Delicate Ci-Poetry”), Chongqing shiyuan xuebao
1: 30–36.
CHAPTER 11
Subtitling Made in Hong Kong and

Missing Heteroglossia
Bo Li
Introduction
In 1997, the People’s Republic of China resumed sovereignty over Hong Kong
after one and a half centuries of colonization by the British government. In
the same year, the movie Made in Hong Kong was released in Hong Kong.
The film was designated for this special historical occasion, and the anxiety
and uncertainty of the Hong Kong people are represented by the heteroglos-
sic construction of their dialogues and inner monologues. As Jeremy Mun-
day points out, “Audiovisual translation, especially subtitling, is becoming
increasingly popular for applied descriptive studies” (Munday 2012, 267).
While Gottlieb describes interlingual subtitling as a form of “diagonal trans-
lation” (1994, 104), the Hong Kong context makes it even more complicated
when the audible Cantonese dialogue is intralingually translated into Man-
darin Chinese and interlingually rendered into English. To add something
new to current scholarship on audiovisual translation, I intend to explore
the intricate relationship between subtitling and heteroglossia by observing
the translation strategies adopted for the film Made in Hong Kong directed
by Fruit Chan. Therefore, it is indispensable to discuss the interwoven rela-
tionship between heteroglossia and translation studies before moving on to
explication of the rhetorical features of the movie concerned and the role of
such features in the representation of characters’ states of mind.
1. Heteroglossia and Translation Studies

Heteroglossia was proposed by Mikhail Bakhtin, a literary theorist from
the former Soviet Union. In From the Prehistory of Novelistic Discourse,
180 ● Bo Li
Bakhtin notes that “heteroglossia within a language . . . is the problem

of internal differentiation, the stratification characteristic of any national
language” (1981, 67). The keywords here are “internal differentiation”
and “stratification,” and they immediately remind us of social linguistics.
They exist in any society or linguistic community, usually appearing in the
form of linguistic varieties, especially when there are power relationships
and ideological conflicts inherent in these societies or communities. In
Discourse in the Novel, Bakhtin expounds on how authors can artistically
incorporate social heteroglossia into novels, and he proposes four basic
modes: hybrid construction, posited author or teller, language used by
characters, and finally incorporated genres (Bakhtin 1981). He supports his
argument with ample examples from literary works by Fielding, Smollet,
Sterne, Dickens, etc.1
Bakhtin is typically reluctant to offer any definition, and he of course
does not provide a clear summation of heteroglossia. Therefore, scholars are
interpreting his concept in varied ways (for example, Zbinden 2006; Robert
1994). Karine Zbinden offers a very succinct and clear explanation of what
heteroglossia means for Bakhtin.
He [Bakhtin] goes on to explain that centripetal and centrifugal forces are

at work within a single natural language as well. In fact the situation within
one natural language is comparable to and can be represented by the fight
between various “dialects” or languages in a polylingual society. Thus a single
natural language is not only stratified into dialects proper but into “social-
ideological languages. This heterogeneity of natural language is heteroglos-
sia.” (Zbinden 1999)
Graham Robert offers the following definition for Bakhtin’s “heteroglossia”:

“‘Heteroglossia’ (the Russian ‘raznorechie’ literally means ‘different-speech-ness’)
refers to the conflict between ‘centripetal’ and ‘centrifugal,’ ‘official’ and ‘unof-
ficial’ discourses within the same national language” (1994, 248).2
Actually, Bakhtin is highlighting the difference between these linguistic
varieties with embedded cultural and ideological connotations. Any summa-
tion of Bakhtin’s heteroglossia shares the same observation of the centripetal
and centrifugal forces at work, while arguments differ over whether it covers
only one natural language or polylingual societies as well. The two forces
work for different purposes, but the reality is that they always go hand in
hand. Emerson blurs the boundaries between natural language and polylin-
gual communities by pointing out,
In fact he [Bakhtin] viewed the boundaries between national languages as

only one extreme on a continuum; at the other end translation processes were
Subtitling Made in Hong Kong and Missing Heteroglossia ● 181
required for one social group to understand another in the same city, for chil-
dren to understand parents in the same family, for one day to understand the
next (Emerson 1983, 23).
When discussing the incorporation of social stratifications of language into

the novel, Bakhtin makes references to Fielding, Smollet, and Dickens,
whose works appear in the form of one natural language. However, he also
refers to works characteristic of code-switching and code-mixing, like War
and Peace by Leo Tolstoy.3 Centripetal and centrifugal force are repeatedly
mentioned, and the two forces are at work at the same time within a given
social community. One unifies or consolidates the control of mainstream
ideology, while the other is a kind of digressing force that leads to the split
of the unifying force.
Recent scholarship addresses the coexistence of different national lan-
guages, either with code-switching or code-mixing, and the resulting ques-
tion is whether Bakhtinian heteroglossia applies to these linguistic scenarios.
From a literary review, it can be easily discerned that the recent scholarship
has expanded the Bakhtinian concept of heteroglossia to cover various modes
of juxtaposition of linguistic varieties.
Heteroglossia or heterolingualism as it relates to translation has been sub-
ject to a great deal of attention by scholars in general (Sumillera 2006; Bandia
2007; Barbaresi 2002; Boase-Beier 2007; Meylaerts 2006; Suominen 2001;
Tabakowska 1990; Li 2010; etc.). The once-popular conceptualization of
translation as the transference of one linguistic code into another does not fit
the literary scenario in many contexts: diaspora writing, immigrant literature,
post-colonial writing, bilingual or multilingual writing, writing in the global-
ized world today, etc. The above-mentioned case studies cover different modes
of juxtaposing linguistic varieties, dialects, idiolects, eye dialects, diglossia,
bilingualism or multilingualism, code-switching, code-mixing, pidgin lan-
guages, creoles, etc. The list is of course inexhaustible, notwithstanding the
complex and complicated linguistic realities in different parts of the world.
Does it mean that linguistic varieties work all the time in every social context?
Todorov points out that “not the multi matters, but the difference between or
among these variations” (Todorov 1984). By drawing upon a Taiwanese case
study (Wang Chen-ho’s Rose Rose I Love You in English translation), Li (2010)
suggests that erasure or erosion of the heteroglossic feature in the source text
embedded with political overtones will subtly subvert the source culture by
downplaying the symbolic value of the original heteroglossia.
The term “heteroglossia” has been widely applied in literary studies, espe-
cially related to realistic novels. Similarly, Clifford, in the opening chapter of
his anthropology book, makes extensive use of Bakhtin’s idea of heteroglossia,
182 ● Bo Li
and he also remarks that Bakhtin’s idea of polyphonic discourse is “too nar-
rowly identified with the novel” (Clifford 1988). Extensive research has
revealed that Bakhtinian heteroglossia also applies to poetry and drama. By
means of detailed investigation of the various heteroglossia in the poetry of
Bertolt Brecht and Tony Harrison, Geyer-Ryan points to the central role
played by this device and its function in laying bare the power structure upon
which the social uses of language are based (Geyer-Ryan 1991, 193). Carlson
argues against Bakhtin by pointing out that “one of the strongest statements
concerning the proclivity of theatre toward this totalized and monolithic
communication model was developed by Mikhail Bakhtin, who argued that
the drama, in contrast to the novel, was an essentially monologic form” (Carl-
son 2006, 4). He takes issue with Bakhtin’s view, giving ample examples from
Calderón, Shakespeare, Ibsen, and Shaw (Carlson 1992), and he highlights
the fact that “more recent developments both in dramatic practice and in
cultural theory have raised significant questions about Bakhtin’s attempt to
deny heteroglossia to the theatre” (Carlson 2006, 4).
The ubiquitous application of heteroglossia in literary works will entail
great difficulty and challenge to translators. The problematic relationship
between heteroglossia and translation is basically twofold in nature. First,
how is the rhetorical device of heteroglossia employed by the author in the
source text, and what purpose does it serve? Then, how is it dealt with in the
process of translation? Is it retained, transferred, erased, or compensated for?
Undoubtedly, it is necessary to reveal the symbolic value of these heteroglos-
sic construction in the source text, and expectedly, the difficulty in pairing
this specific rhetorical device into the target text and culture will pose great
challenge to the translators concerned. On the other hand, the target text
itself should be studied with respect to its heteroglossic construction, and
unfortunately this point seems to be neglected or ignored by scholars.
The situation becomes more complicated when it moves on to subtitling
and subtitle translation for movies. For the sake of communication and mar-
keting, linguistic solidification, or the “principle of simplification” proposed
by Yang (2008), has been employed generally. But when it comes to an indie
film made for the specific historical moment of sovereignty handover, lin-
guistic variety plays an important role in highlighting the centrifugal forces
ushered in by the uncertainty of the local citizens involved in this process.
Although, to some extent, the issue of communication is not of much con-
cern in the case of the coexistence of Cantonese and Mandarin in the same
movie, how it is handled in Mandarin Chinese and English subtitles is still
worth further observation and investigation.
The above-mentioned literary studies, with reference to heteroglossia and
my literary review of the relationship between heteroglossia and translation,
show the possibility and feasibility of applying Bakhtinian heteroglossia to

the study of film subtitling and subtitle translation. On the one hand, the
analysis mode provided in literary studies (including Geyer-Ryan and Carl-
son) offers a useful tool in identifying the ideological conflicts embedded in
the movie, and on the other, subtitling as a kind of intersemiotic translation
deserves further investigation with reference to the heteroglossic features in
the dialogues and the subtitles.
2. The Language Policy and Its Impact on Subtitling in Hong Kong

Made in Hong Kong was released in Hong Kong in the year 1997 when the
historical transition took place. Before conducting a detailed analysis of the
movie, I will brief on the language policy and its impact on subtitling made in
Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a community that can be described as more than
bilingual. After one and half centuries of colonization by the British govern-
ment, Hong Kong has been traditionally defined as a bilingual society with
both English and Chinese (Cantonese) as the working languages. After the
handover in 1997, the Special Administrative Region Government adopted a
new language policy; that is, bi-literacy and trilingualism. Bi-literacy means
English and Chinese—Mandarin Chinese, to be specific—in written form,
while trilingual vividly depicts the coexistence of English, Cantonese, and
Mandarin Chinese in the spoken form in the city.
Film subtitling in Hong Kong has experienced different stages. Before
1997, most Hong Kong movies were subtitled with both Chinese and Eng-
lish. “Chinese” here refers to both Mandarin and Cantonese in written form.
Cantonese is a quite unique semiotic system compared with Mandarin Chi-
nese. It has its own grammar, syntax, vocabulary, and most important of all,
different pronunciation and intonation. In written subtitles, Cantonese was
applied to many comedies, like the movies by Stephen Chow (␐㗇樘). Since
1997, the Hong Kong SAR government has attached great importance to
Mandarin Chinese, and this can be seen from the government public service
announcements in which Hong Kong citizens are encouraged to learn both
Mandarin Chinese and English respectively. The close contact between the
central government and the Hong Kong SAR government and the closer
economic cooperation across the border make it even more urgent for Hong
Kong people to pick up Mandarin Chinese as soon as possible. So, nowadays
in Hong Kong, most of the films and TV programs are subtitled in Mandarin
Chinese instead of Cantonese in the written form.
From the translation point of view, subtitles are a means of intersemiotic
translation from audible dialogues into visible subtitles—diagonal transla-
tion, using Gottlieb’s term (1994, 104). On the other hand, subtitling in
184 ● Bo Li
Hong Kong is both interlingual and intralingual. The former refers to the
English subtitles of the Chinese (Cantonese) dialogues, while the latter refers
to the Chinese (Mandarin) subtitles of the Cantonese dialogues.
Then, what is the relationship between Mandarin and Cantonese in the
Hong Kong context? Which one is the official language, and which one is
the dialect? Crystal (1997) lists five types of relationships between dialect and
language, based on the various combinations of the two aspects of cultural
history and mutual intelligibility, and he writes, “Chinese is a case where
linguistic criteria alone are in conflict with each other. From the viewpoint of
the spoken language, the many hundreds of dialects in China can be grouped
into eight main types, which are mutually unintelligible to various degrees.
But speakers of all these dialects share the same written language tradition,
and those who have learned the system of Chinese characters are able to com-
municate with each other. Despite the linguistic differences, therefore, Chi-
nese is considered by its speakers to be a single language” (Crystal 1997, 286).
Crystal’s elaboration can explain the ambiguous relationship between
Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese in the Hong Kong context. Cantonese is
spoken in Hong Kong and part of the neighboring Guangdong Province of
the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and it is unintelligible to most people
in the rest of the country. Crystal mentions that Chinese people “share the
same written language,” and this is only partially true. To be exact, some
Cantonese in written form can appear unintelligible to Mandarin Chinese
readers. As mentioned above, it has its own vocabulary, grammar, and syntax,
which take some time for acquisition.
When discussing translation issues in audiovisual translation, Jorge Díaz
Cintas and Aline Remael highlight the idea that dialects “pose a challenge
because of the way they are embedded in a region or social group” (2007,
191), and they argue that “it is highly unlikely that any target language should
have an identical equivalent” (ibid.). In the Hong Kong context, the movies
are made mostly in Cantonese with Mandarin Chinese and English subtitles,
which fall into Roman Jacobson’s categories of intralingual and interlingual
translation respectively. They both feature diagonal translation from an audi-
ble source into a visible target. What will happen to the heteroglossic con-
struction of the audible source in the two visible subtitle translations?
3. Made in Hong Kong and Its Two Types of Subtitles

The linguistic scenario in Hong Kong with reference to the local language
policy is a very interesting reality, while at the same time it poses great chal-
lenges to translators. Hong Kong, usually described as a bilingual society, is
quite different from other bilingual communities like Singapore or Canada in
terms of the linguistic population involved. The bi-literacy and trilingualism

policy here constitutes an interesting phenomenon, especially when it comes
to translation issues. The difference between Chinese and English has been
highlighted by quantitative research in translation studies, and of course, the
differences between spoken Cantonese and written Chinese should be duly
recognized. As Gibbons points out, “The result of the historical divergence, in
conjunction with the influence of spoken Mandarin, is that written Chinese
is different in many respects from Cantonese: differences include vocabulary,
grammar and forms of expression” (Gibbons 1987, 4).
The three different linguistic forms play different roles in Hong Kong
society,4 and their usage and coexistence incur ideological conflicts in many
contexts. The tripartite relationship of Hong Kong, China, and Britain is
highlighted in terms of linguistic choice and features characterized by
Bakhtin’s concept of social stratification (i.e., heteroglossia). Therefore, the
translation process from audible dialogues into visible bilingual subtitles in
the Hong Kong context at a period of intriguing political transition is worth
further attention and investigation.
3.1 Made in Hong Kong

Made in Hong Kong was released in Hong Kong in 1997, and its director, Fruit
Chan, is considered to be one of the most important independent filmmakers
in post-handover Hong Kong. This particular movie opens his handover tril-
ogy, followed by The Longest Summer (˪⍣⸜䂇剙䈡⇓⣂˫) in 1998 and
Little Cheung (˪乮嶗䤍˫) in 1999. The film was exclusively designated
for this political transition, as Fruit Chan stated in an interview: “Initially, I
didn’t have a sense of mission. The five of us (the crew) just wanted to make
a film, since 1997 was approaching, but no one single film in the mainstream
was about this issue” (Cheung 2009, 131).
The film is a typical story of four disaffected youngsters from the lower
sector of Hong Kong and their morbid trips. They live in the public housing
estates, where the living conditions are of course far from desirable. Moon
(Zhongqiu/ᷕ䥳), a triad society member, gets acquainted with the girl Ah
Ping (Ping/⯷) when collecting debts from her mother. The two are both
from broken families, and the fathers deserted their families for different rea-
sons. It is symbolic of the fatherless situation of Hong Kong as a British
colony. When Moon learns that Ping is suffering a fatal disease and is dying,
he tries to borrow money from the loan shark to save her life. Sylvester (Ah
Long/旧潁) is a mentally retarded young man who has been abandoned by
his family and society as well. He is often bullied by young people, and so he
seeks shelter from Moon. Susan is a schoolgirl who commits suicide after her
186 ● Bo Li
teacher denies their relationship. Sylvester picks up the suicide notes from
Susan and gives them to Moon, who is later haunted and erotically aroused
by Susan’s ghost. Finally, Sylvester is killed by triad society members after he
fails a drug trafficking task. Ping dies of her kidney disease, while Moon ends
up committing suicide after Ping’s death, which is embedded with the pes-
simistic view of the future among the young generation.
The film depicts the young people’s attitudes toward the handover in
Hong Kong, where it seems no future can be expected.5 The anxiety and
uncertainty are symbolized in the death of the youngsters. That is the whole
plot of the story, and it tells the audience the general attitude of local citizens
toward the reunion with the mainland. Their anxiety and uncertainty are
revealed in their dialogues throughout the film.
3.2 Subtitling Made in Hong Kong

Then, how is the film related to heteroglossia? The following part will
expound on this issue from three different aspects: namely code-mixing,
code-switching, and (re)accent(uation). Code-mixing and code-switching
are prevalent linguistic features in post-colonial Hong Kong. The difference
between spoken and written forms makes it even more complicated when it
comes to translation issues. Scholars have provided substantial discussion on
the relationship between code-mixing and code-switching.6 In view of the
linguistic reality in Hong Kong, I will focus upon code-mixing and code-
switching respectively.
3.2.1 Code-Mixing between Cantonese and English

In a bilingual community like Hong Kong, the linguistic scenario is charac-
terized by code-mixing and code-switching, and the film is no exception. As
mentioned above, code-mixing and code-switching can take different forms:
between Cantonese and English or between Cantonese and Mandarin. The
different juxtaposition modes serve different purposes in revealing the cul-
tural connotations or ideological conflicts embedded in each language pair.
In most cases, code-mixing in the original dialogue is standardized in both
the Chinese and English subtitles, with only two exceptions in the Chinese
subtitles. The erasure of the code-mixing practice in the English subtitles can
be understood as a means of wiping out colonial history on the one hand and
of facilitating understanding on the other. This argument has been repeat-
edly verified by scholars in post-colonial studies.7 And this is typically appli-
cable to former British colonies like Hong Kong. Although the eradication of
code-mixing of Cantonese and English serves to wipe out colonial history, it
sometimes fails to facilitate understanding and may incur misunderstanding.
Code-mixing between Cantonese and English in the Hong Kong context
leads to communication breakdown between two generations, between peers,

and even between family members. Here is one example. When Moon and
Ping bring Susan’s suicide note to her former teacher, Ping notices that it is a
girls’ school. Ping speculates that Susan is probably a lesbian and developed a
relationship with a fellow student.
1a. ⯷烉⑎烎␊攻⤛㟉♇㝞烎Ⓖ忂……Ἂ╢lesbian烎
ġ ġ 䥳烉⑑“ㅺ⯶梭”⓲烎
1b. ⯷烉征㗗ᶨ斜⤛㟉⓲炰晦忻⤡㗗⤛⎴⿏⿳烎
ġ ġ 䥳烉ġṨᷰ“ㅺ⯶梭”⓲烎
1c. Ping: But this is a girl’s school. D’you think she’s a lesbian?
Moon: What’s that?8
In 1a, Ping applies code-mixing between Cantonese and English to specu-

late on Susan’s sexual orientation. However, the English word “lesbian” is
unintelligible to Moon, and he mimics the pronunciation and reveals his
incompetence to Ping by posing a question: What’s “ㅺ⯶梭” (the nearest
Cantonese equivalent of lesbian in acoustic terms)? In 1b, the Mandarin Chi-
nese subtitles fail to make sense to the target audience, and it is a typical case
of bad transcription. Instead, in the English subtitle, the original heteroglos-
sic construction between Cantonese and English is replaced by a standard
English expression, while Moon’s question sounds illogical in this context.
Actually, the problem can be solved by replacing Moon’s question with a
simple “What?” It serves to express Moon’s surprise, but the misunderstand-
ing and the breakdown of communication can be avoided.
Now, let’s take a look at one of the two examples in the Chinese subtitles
where the code-mixing juxtaposition remains. When Moon takes his money
to Ping’s house, Ping’s mother refuses to take the “dirty money”:
2a. ⯷⩥烉ㆹⒼ天Ἀ┚冕拊ˤ
䥳烉┪炻⤥Ḯ┼炻⑑冕拊⓲烎ㆹ⎴旧⯷⓲炻㚱feel☞炰
⯷⩥烉⑑feel⓲烎
ġ ġ 䥳烉FELL炻fell炻デ奢⓲炰
2b. ⯷⩥烉ㆹᶵ天Ἀ䘬冕摙ˤ
ġ ġ 䥳烉⣇Ḯ⏏炻Ἀ宜Ṩᷰ冕摙⏨烎ㆹ嶇旧⯷㗗㚱feel䘬炰
ġ ġ ⯷⩥烉Ἀ宜Ṩᷰ烎
ġ ġ 䥳烉F.E.L.L. (feel)炻デ奱⓲炰
2c. Ping’s Mother: I don’t want your dirty money.
Moon: What do you mean by dirty money? Can’t you see that we feel
for each other?
Ping’s Mother: What’s that?
Moon: F.E.L.L (Feel). Feeling.
188 ● Bo Li
2c provides a literal translation for the captioned 2a Cantonese dialogue. In

the original dialogue, Moon applies code-mixing between Cantonese and
English; that is, the English word “feel.” But unfortunately, his spelling of the
word reveals his poor English and his poor education as well, as he misspells
it as FELL. In the Chinese subtitles (2b), the code-mixing is retained, and the
reason is twofold. First, it helps to keep the dialogue going, and secondly, it
serves to criticize the colonial education system. This is actually highlighted
at the beginning of the film. In Moon’s voice-over narration, he says, “I was
no good in my study. But the education system was no better.” That is why
he drops out of school after Form 3. The heteroglossic construction in this
specific case is applied to reiterate the criticism of the colonial education
system. In the Chinese subtitles, this is kept to evoke resonance among the
target audience. Moreover, in 2b and 2c, the correct spelling of the word is
provided in parentheses to remind the audience that Moon actually misspells
the word.
3.2.2 Code-Switching between Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese

In the wake of the handover, the language policy began to be an issue of
great controversy. In the film itself, Hong Kong people’s ambivalent attitudes
toward the reunion are highlighted by the juxtaposition between two linguis-
tic systems: Cantonese and Mandarin. On the one hand, they will have more
contact with the mainland, and their future is even tied to the mainland side,
whether one admits it or not. On the other hand, they express their anxiety
and uncertainty out of their lack of understanding or out of their misun-
derstanding of the mainland context. One thing is clear: Mandarin Chinese
is becoming more and more important in their daily life. In one scene, Big
Brother Wing (⣏⒍匋) from the triad society makes a phone call to his part-
ner on the mainland, and his shift from Mandarin Chinese into Cantonese
can be easily spotted in the audible dialogue:
3a. ⣏⒍匋: (in Mandarin Chinese) ⇘㖞῁ᶨ⭂㚱ᶻ弎㍍復Ἀ䘬 . . .

⮡ . . . ⤥ . . . 寊寊炻ℵ奩炻ℵ奩ˤ(putting down the phone) 㑵
Ἀ⤰䘬! (to Moon) 旧䥳炻孑ㆹẔḮ妋ᶳ⃰ˤ(changing into Can-
tonese) 㬣Ḯ炻嫃◊ㆸᾳ⣏映ἔ炻␩ᶲ⼿⣏映⣂ˤ
3b. ⣏⒍匋: ⇘㖞῁ᶨ⭂㚱ᶻ弎㍍復Ἀ䘬 . . . ⮡…⤥ . . . 寊寊炻ℵ
奩炻ℵ奩ˤ㑵Ἀ⤰䘬炰旧䥳炻⃰孑ㆹẔḮ妋ᶨᶳˤ䲇Ḯ炻⣂
⍣⣏旮炻宜崟宅㜍ḇ⁷᷒⣏旮Ṣˤ
3c. Big Brother Wing: I’ll make sure that there’ll be a car waiting for you.
Thank you very much! See you. Fuck him! Moon, let’s communicate
with each other. . . . Shit! I’ve been traveling to China so often that
I’m beginning to sound like a mainlander.
The parts in parentheses are added to the transcription of the dialogue in 3a.
Big Brother Wing is gentle in his communication with his partner on the
mainland in Mandarin Chinese, and he immediately curses him after putting
down the phone. When he turns to Moon, he doesn’t shift from Manda-
rin Chinese into Cantonese but instead keeps speaking Mandarin. Then he
realizes this and shifts into Cantonese, using Cantonese swear words. His
Mandarin with a Cantonese accent can be easily detected as well. In Canton-
ese, the adverb “first” comes at the end of the sentence, “旧䥳炻孑ㆹẔḮ
妋ᶳ⃰” (Moon, let’s communicate with each other first.) But Big Brother
Wing is actually speaking Mandarin with Cantonese sentence structure. This
linguistic hybridity reveals the local people’s dilemma, at least linguistically,
in the transition period.
We now turn back to the code-switching feature in the audible dialogue.
For local Cantonese speakers, they can quickly pick up the shift from Manda-
rin into Cantonese in Big Brother Wing’s voice, and they can easily infer the
ambivalent feelings embedded in this heteroglossic construction in linguistic
form. However, in the Chinese subtitles, even what Big Brother Wing says
in Mandarin is adjusted into standard Mandarin sentence structure; that is,
“旧䥳炻⃰孑ㆹẔḮ妋ᶨᶳ” (literally, it means let’s first communicate with
each other.). The code-switching feature is fully substituted by standard target
language syntax, and this subtle shift deprives the audience of the chance to
experience what is on local people’s minds: the dilemma and the anxiety.
3.2.3 (Re)accent(uation)
Language is assumed always to be ideological, depending on the context in
which reading is accomplished. In Discourse of the Novel, Bakhtin describes
the process of reaccentuation. The life of writing continues as readers make
available a new valuation of each encounter with a text. For Bakhtin, the
reaccentuation is neither good nor bad. It is not a violation of the authorial
intent; it is merely a reaccentuation of meaning. As contextual, chronological,
and spatial loci change, meaning reshapes itself. This is typically applicable to
the quotation of Chairman’s Mao speech at the end of the film:
4a. ᶾ䓴㗗ἈᾹ䘬炻ḇ㗗ㆹᾹ䘬ˤỮ㗗炻㬠㟡䳸⸽ḇ㗗ἈᾹ䘬ˤ
ἈᾹ⸜庽Ṣ . . . ⤥⁷㖑㘐ℓḅ溆揀䘬⣒春ˤⶴ㛃⭬㈀⛐ἈᾹ
幓ᶲˤ
4b. ᶾ䓴㗗ἈẔ䘬炻ḇ㗗ㆹẔ䘬ˤỮ㗗炻⻺㟡乻⸽ḇ㗗ἈẔ䘬ˤ
ἈẔ⸜弣Ṣ . . . ⤥⁷㖑㘐ℓḅ䁡摇䘬⣒旛ˤⶴ㛃⭬㈀⛐ἈẔ
幓ᶲˤ
4c. This is your world, so is ours. By the end of the day, it’s still yours.
You’re just like the morning sun. We have placed all our hope on you.
190 ● Bo Li
4a is the original quotation of Chairman Mao Zedong’s speech, which is

delivered in the Cantonese dialect by a radio announcer in the movie. 4b is
the Mandarin subtitle, which is the same wording as the Cantonese presenta-
tion in 4a. In 1954, Chairman Mao Zedong delivered this speech when he
was visiting the former Soviet Union. He addressed the Chinese students
studying there with his strong Hunan (㷾⋿) accent, which was actually
unintelligible to the majority of the audience. When Chairman Mao noticed
the students’ puzzlement, he immediately explained what he had said this
way: Shi-jie (ᶾ䓴: with a Hunan accent, it sounds like “hsi-gai”), the world.
With these words, he put his two hands together, like holding a ball in his
palms. The speech was very encouraging and quickly spread across the coun-
try, becoming popular with most Chinese on the mainland. And this was
reinforced and reinterpreted for the central government’s emphasis on the
younger generation. However, when this speech was quoted in the movie,
it was sarcastically delivered in Cantonese on air by a hypothetical “People’s
Radio in Hong Kong.” It is easily discerned that the context, chronological,
and spatial loci have changed, and in this process, meaning has reshaped itself.
As Esther Cheung points out, “Politically, the voice of the radio announcer
from People’s Radio Hong Kong speaks metaphorically about the linguistic
and political differences between Hong Kong and China” (Cheung 2009,
111). Her point of view is echoed by Ka-Fei Yau: “This addresses the tension
between Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong people and their suspicion towards
the government of the People’s Republic of China, whose official language is
Putonghua” (Yau 2001, 552).
Ironically, all four young people in the film end up dead after their morbid
adventures. So this quotation, an overt mode of heteroglossic construction,
is thickly embedded with social criticism, which should not be neglected, for
it plays an important role in bringing out the theme of the movie, which is
defined as “no future” for the younger generation. Unfortunately, this quota-
tion as a process of reaccentuating the meaning gets lost in the visible sub-
titles, both in Chinese and English. Comparatively speaking, the Mandarin
speakers can infer more from the Cantonese quotation, though Cantonese is
unintelligible to them; while the English speakers can only catch the point
when they realize that this is a quotation from Chairman Mao later with the
help of the radio announcer.
4. Conclusion
Made in Hong Kong was released in 1997, when the handover took place.
It was well acclaimed by the audience and won quite a few international
awards. The theme of the paradoxical political transition is embodied in the
heteroglossic construction of the film dialogues, and such rhetorical devices

include the salient linguistic features of code-mixing, code-switching, and (re)
accent(uation). The centrifugal forces of such heteroglossic construction play
an important role in bringing out the ideological conflicts. However, these
linguistic features in the audible conversations pose great challenges to trans-
lators in producing the bilingual subtitles. To facilitate understanding among
non-Cantonese speakers, the translators apply standardization in most of the
cases by erasing the traces of these features, which subsequently leads to the
loss of the original ideological connotations. It is worth pointing out that
different translation strategies applied in producing the two subtitle versions
suggest different political orientations on the part of the translators. While
the English subtitles wipe out all code-mixing and code-switching traces, the
Mandarin subtitles keep some of these heteroglossic constructions to serve dif-
ferent purposes: either to retain the criticism of the colonial government’s poor
education system or to highlight the communication breakdown incurred.
It is unfair to criticize the bilingual subtitle versions for not bringing out
the salient linguistic features in the original dialogues, for the formidable
difficulty seems to be a great challenge to the translators. And this research
is aimed at being descriptive instead of being prescriptive to come up with
practical translation strategies. We have to admit that, for this kind of hetero-
glossic construction, it can only be explicated in the form of film review or
research papers like this current one to supplement the meaning lost through
translation.
Notes
1. Interestingly, Bakhtin’s discussion of these English writers should be based on the
Russian translation of their literary works, and this translation phenomenon itself
is worth further inquiry. While Bakhtin’s Russian writing is widely translated into
English, French, Chinese, and other languages, it is also worth noting whether this
kind of linguistic feature is retained in the respective translations. But constrained
by the length of this paper and also by my linguistic incompetence, I will leave this
question for other qualified researchers.
2. The glossary is included in The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Med-
vedev and Voloshinov, edited by Pam Morris (1994).
3. Again, it is worth noting that Bakhtin probably bases his exposition on the Russian
original. But what about the English, French, and Chinese versions of Bakhtin’s
works? Are these linguistic features retained in the translated versions? And do the
translators of Bakhtinian works render these linguistic features differently from
those literary translators?
4. For the roles of these different linguistic forms in Hong Kong society, see Gibbon
(1987).
192 ● Bo Li
5. For detailed discussion, see Susanna T.’s interview with Fruit Chan (1998).
6. For further reading, see Tay (1989); Bhatia (1989); Clyne (1987); Baetens Beards-
more (1986); Apple and Muysken (1987); and Gibbons (1987).
7. For further reading, see Sumillera (2008) and Bandia (2007).
8. For examples from the movie, “a” stands for the transcription of the audio Can-
tonese, while “b” and “c” are for Mandarin and English subtitles respectively. This
applies to the rest of the examples in this article.
References
Apple, R., and Muysken, P. (1987). Language Contact and Bilingualism (London:
Edward Arnold).
Baetens Beardsmore, H. (1986). Bilingualism: Basic Principles (2nd edition) (Clev-
edon: Multilingual Matters.)
Bakhtin, M. M. (c. 1981). The Dialogical Imagination: Four Essays, edited by Michael
Holquist, translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University
of Texas Press).
Bandia, Paul (2007). “Postcolonialism, Literary Heteroglossia and Translation,” in
D’hulst Lieven et al. (eds.), Caribbean Interfaces (Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi).
Barbaresi, Lavinia Merlini (2002). “Text Linguistics and Literary Translation,” in
Alessandra Riccardi (ed.), Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Disci-
pline (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press).
Bhatia, T. K. (1989). “Bilinguals’ Creativity and Syntactic Theory: Evidence for
Emerging Grammar,” World Englishes 8(3): 265–276.
Boase-Beier, Jean (2007). Stylistic Approaches to Translation (Manchester, UK, and
Kinderhook, USA: St. Jerome Publishing).
Bokamba, E. G. (1989). “Are There Syntactic Constraints on Code-Mixing?” World
Englishes 8(3): 277–292.
Carlson, Marvin (1992). “Theatre and Dialogism.” Pp. 313–323 in Janelle G. Reinelt
and Joseph R. Roach (eds.), Critical Theory and Performance (Ann Arbor: Univer-
sity of Michigan Press).
—— (2006). Speaking in Tongues: Languages at Play in the Theatre (Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press).
Cheung, Esther M. K. (2009). Fruit Chan’s Made in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press).
Clifford, James (1988). The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnography,
Literature, and Art (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Clyne, M. (1987). “Constraints on Code Switching: How Universal are They?”
Linguistics 25: 739–764.
Crystal, David (1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (New York: Cam-
bridge University Press).
Díaz Cintas, Jorge, and Aline Remael (2007). Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling
(Manchester, UK/Kinderhook, NY: St. Jerome Pub.).
Emerson, Caryl (1983). “Translating Bakhtin: Does His Theory of Discourse Contain
a Theory of Translation?” University of Ottawa Quarterly 53(1): 23–33.
Geyer-Ryan, Helga (1991). “Heteroglossia in the Poetry of Bertolt Brecht and Tony
Harrison,” in Willie van Peer (ed.), The Taming of the Text: Explorations in Lan-
guage, Literature, and Culture (London/New York: Routledge).
Gibbons, John (1987). Code-Mixing and Code Choice: A Hong Kong Case Study (Clev-
edon, PA: Multilingual Matters Ltd.).
Gottlieb, Henrik (1994). “Subtitling: Diagonal Translation,” Perspectives: Studies in
Translatology 2(1): 101–121.
Li Bo (2010). “Heteroglossia, Dialects and Literary Translation: A Case Study of
Wang Chen-ho’s Rose Rose I Love You and Its English Translation” (㛪宕ˣ㕡妨ᶶ
㔯⬎侣孹——ẍ䌳䤗␴䘬˪䍓䐘䍓䐘ㆹ䇙Ἀ˫⍲℞劙孹ᷢἳ), Translation
Quarterly (˪侣孹⬋↲˫) 55: 64–99.
Meylarerts, Reine (2006). “Literary Heteroglossia in Translation: When the Language
of Translation is the Locus of Ideological Struggle,” in João Ferreira Duarte, Alex-
andra Assis Rosa, and Teresa Seruya (eds.), Translation Studies at the Interface of
Disciplines (Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
Morris, Pam (ed.) (1994). The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev
and Voloshinov (London/New York: E. Arnold).
Munday, Jeremy (2012). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (3rd
edition) (London and New York: Routledge).
Sumillera, Rocío (2008). “Postcolonialism and Translation: The Translation of Wide
Sargasso Sea into Spanish,” New Voices in Translation Studies 4: 26–41.
Suominen, Marja (2001). “Heteroglot Soldiers,” in The Electronic Journal of the Depart-
ment of English at the University of Helsinki, Vol. 1, 2001, http://www.eng.helsinki.
fi/hes/Translation/heteroglot_soldiers.htm (accessed September 16, 2009).
T., Susanna (1998). “No Future! No Future! Fruit Chan Speaks About Made in Hong
Kong.” pp. 54–57 in Provisional Urban Council (ed.), Hong Kong Panorama 97–98
(Hong Kong: Provisional Urban Council).
Tabakowska, Elzbieta (1990). “Linguistic Polyphony As a Problem in Translation,” in
Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere (eds.), Translation, History and Culture (Lon-
don and New York: Pinter Publishers).
Tay, M. W. J. (1989). “Code Switching and Code Mixing As a Communicative Strat-
egy in Multilingual Discourse,” World Englishes 8(3): 407–417.
Todorov, Tzvetan (1984). Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle, translated by
Wlad Godzich (London/Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Yang Cheng-shu (2008). “Principles of Simplification in Simultaneous Interpreting
and Subtitling” (⎴㬍⎋孹ᶶ⫿ⷽ侣孹ᷳ䬨⊾⍇⇁), Compilation and Transla-
tion Review (˪亾孹孢᷃˫) 1(1): 43–69.
Yau Ka-Fei (2001). “Cinema 3: Towards a ‘Minor Hong Kong Cinema,’” Cultural
Studies 15(3–4): 543–563.
Zbinden, Karine (1999). “Traducing Bakhtin and Missing Heteroglossia,” Dialogism:
An International Journal of Bakhtin Studies 2(1999): 41–59.
List of Contributors
Yifeng Sun is dean of the Faculty of Arts, a professor of translation stud-

ies and director of the Centre for Humanities Research at Lingnan Uni-
versity, Hong Kong. He is also an honorary professor at the University of
Queensland, Australia, and an adjunct chair professor at Jinan University,
China. In addition to his numerous articles both in English and in Chinese,
he is the author of Cultural Translation (2015), Cultural Exile and Home-
ward Journey (2005), Perspective, Interpretation and Culture: Literary Trans-
lation and Translation Theory (2004; 2nd edition, 2006) and Fragmentation
and Dramatic Moments (2002). He is the editor or coeditor of Anthology of
20th Century Chinese Literature: Novellas and Short Stories (forthcoming) and
Translation, Globalisation and Localisation (2008), as well as co-translator of
King of the Wizards (1998).
Valerie Henitiuk is a professor and executive director of the Centre for the
Advancement of Faculty Excellence at MacEwan University, Canada. She
previously served as senior lecturer and director of the British Centre for
Literary Translation at the University of East Anglia, UK. Her books include
One Step Towards the Sun: Short Stories by Women from Orissa (2010, coedited
with S. Kar), Worlding Sei Shônagon: The Pillow Book in Translation (2012),
and A Literature of Restitution: Critical Essays on W. G. Sebald (2013, coedited
with J. Baxter and B. Hutchinson). Her work has appeared in such journals
as Meta, TTR, and Comparative Literature Studies, as well as in collected vol-
umes including Thinking Through Translation with Metaphors (2010), Trans-
lating Women (2011), and A Companion to Translation Studies (2014). Since
2012, she has edited the journal Translation Studies.
Carol O’Sullivan is a senior lecturer in translation studies at the Univer-

sity of Bristol, where she convenes MA and PhD programs in translation
studies. Her research interests include screen translation, translation history,
literary translation, film, censorship, and popular culture. Her monograph
196 ● List of Contributors
Translating Popular Film was published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2011. She

edited a special issue of Translation Studies in 2012 on method in translation
history. She is a board member of the European Society for Translation Stud-
ies and a member of the Steering Group of ARTIS (Advancing Research in
Translation and Intercultural Studies). Since 2012 she has been an associate
editor of Translation Studies.
Ping Yang is the chief editor of Chinese Translators Journal, a scholarly publi-
cation sponsored by the Translators Association of China (TAC). She received
her PhD in translation studies from Sun Yat-sen University. She also serves as
the deputy secretary general of TAC. Dr. Yang has supervised translation and
research projects at the China Academy of Translation. Her main research
interests are in the fields of translation theories, editing and publishing of
journals, translation industry, and management of social organizations. She
has translated several books, edited some volumes, and published a number
of papers in Chinese.
Sue-Ann Harding is an assistant professor in translation studies at the Trans-

lation and Interpreting Institute (TII), Hamad bin Khalifa University, Qatar
Foundation. She specializes in social-narrative theory as a mode of inquiry
into translations and translated events, with a particular interest in sites of
conflict and narrative contestation. She is the author of Beslan: Six Stories
of the Siege (Manchester University Press, 2012) and several articles in lead-
ing journals. She serves as chair of the IATIS Executive Council, was one
of the UK’s ten AHRC/Radio 3 New Generation Thinkers in 2012, is an
ARTIS (Advancing Research in Translation & Interpreting Studies) associate,
and has extensive editorial experience with The Translator, Translation Studies
Abstracts Online, and New Voices in Translation Studies.
Xuanmin Luo is a professor of translation and intercultural studies and

director of the Center for Translation and Interdisciplinary Studies at Tsin-
ghua University. He serves as editor-in-chief of Asia Pacific Translation &
Intercultural Studies. His publications include books, translations, and
journal articles, as well as book chapters. He has received fellowships from
the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) and Cambridge Uni-
versity, was a visiting fellow at Yale University in 1995–1996 and 2001,
and was a Fulbright Research Scholar at UCLA in 2006–2007. His recent
publications are the translations of Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope:
Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream and God of Jesus Christ, and
two edited volumes entitled Translating China and Translation Studies: An
Interdisciplinary Approach.
List of Contributors ● 197
Min Wang received her MA in Australian studies from East China Normal
University and is currently pursuing her PhD in translation and interdis-
ciplinary studies at Tsinghua University, China. She works as an editorial
assistant for the international journal Asia Pacific Translation & Intercultural
Studies published by Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Her research inter-
ests include translation studies, mythology, and Australian literature.
Gangqiang He is a professor of English and translation studies and the

founding head of the Department of Translation, Fudan University. He
obtained his MA degree from Fudan in 1983 and has since been engaged
in teaching and research in its School of Foreign Languages and Literature.
His teaching and research orientations are translation theory and strategies,
with special interest in the translation of China’s classical works. His pub-
lished monographs and academic papers are all related to the theory and
practice of translation and translation education. He is concurrently presi-
dent of Shanghai Science and Technology Translation Society, editor-in-
chief of Shanghai Journal of Translators, and a member of China’s National
Steering Committee for MTI (Master of Translation and Interpreting)
Education.
Zijiang Song is assistant editor of the Journal of Modern Literature in Chinese

and research development manager of the Centre for Humanities Research,
Lingnan University, Hong Kong. He is also a part-time PhD student at Ling-
nan’s Department of Translation, working on the translation of American
poetry in China. His other research interests include literary translation,
Hong Kong literature, and Macao literature. Song’s latest academic work
has appeared in the Review of Culture (Macao). Apart from academic work,
Song has also published two books of poems and more than twenty books of
poetry translation.
Hui Xie obtained her PhD in translation from Jinan University and now
works as associate professor in the College of Foreign Languages at Guang-
dong University of Finance and Economics, where she mainly teaches English
reading, writing, and translation. She is interested in the areas of translation,
translation studies, and second-language teaching.
Qi Gong is currently professor of general linguistics and translation at Jinan

University, Guangzhou (P. R. China), where he also serves as dean of the
School of Foreign Studies and director of the Institute for Translation and
Intercultural Studies. His main research interests are in the fields of general
linguistics, linguistic theories, phonology, and translation. Up to now, he has
198 ● List of Contributors
translated and edited dozens of books in Chinese and published widely in the
areas of translation, theoretical linguistics, and phonology.
Xiaohua Jiang received his PhD from Peking University in 1996 and was a
visiting scholar at GSTI, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Cali-
fornia, from 2000 through 2001. He is at present a professor of translation
studies in the School of Languages and Translation at Macao Polytechnic
Institute. For over twenty years, he has been teaching translation theory and
practice. He has published one English monograph and over forty papers in
Chinese and English on translation studies.
Wenjing Li is a Teaching Fellow in the Department of Chinese and Bilin-

gual Studies at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. She received her PhD in
translation studies in 2010 from Lingnan University, Hong Kong. She taught
translation at Lingnan University from 2009 to 2012 and has published a
number of articles on translation studies. Her research interests include trans-
lation studies, translator’s identity, and crowdsourcing translation.
Kar Yue Chan completed her undergraduate degree and her master’s degree
both in the discipline of translation and interpretation at the City University
of Hong Kong. She then finished her PhD in classical Chinese literature at
the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom. She is currently an associate
professor in language and translation at the Open University of Hong Kong,
teaching undergraduate and postgraduate courses on culture and transla-
tion and on literary translation. She also supervises translation and research
projects for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Her research inter-
ests include literary translation, women’s studies in classical Chinese society,
cross-cultural studies, and classical Chinese literature (poetry).
Bo Li received his PhD from Lingnan University, Hong Kong, and he is

currently a lecturer at the Department of Translation, Chinese University of
Hong Kong. His research interests include translation history, literary trans-
lation, media translation, and translation and gender. He has published aca-
demic papers in Media History (Routledge), Norwich Papers (UK), Translation
Quarterly (Hong Kong), and other academic journals in China. He teaches
a large variety of interpreting and translation courses at both BA and MA
levels.
Index
Academia, 40, 49, 50, 69, 82, 84, ARIEL, 6

136, 149 Arts and Humanities Citation Index, 70
academic dialogue, 93 Asia Pacific Translation & Intercultural
academic discourse, 17, 30, 92, 93 Studies (ARTIS), 75
academic editing, 31 Asian Foundation, 106, 110
academic journals, 2, 8, 9, 15, 32, Asian Studies, 83
92, 198 Asia-Pacific Forum, 78
academic performance, 87, 91 assessment system, 155
academic practice, 88 associate editor, 16, 23, 24, 77, 81, 93
academic professionalism, 9 audio-visual translation, 179
academic registers, 30 authentic texts, 156
academic rigor, 10, 88, 89 authenticity, 156
academic scholarship, 21 authorship, 17, 26, 176
academic standard, 76, 77, 86
accessibility, 92 Babel, 5, 16
Acta eruditorum Lipsiensium, 15 bilingual communities, 184
active translation, 154 bilingual society, 183, 184
adaptation, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, bilingual subtitle, 155, 185, 191
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147 bilingualism, 181
adaptation theory, 141 bi-literacy, 183, 185
adaptation-selection, 135, 138, 140, Bourdieu’s key concepts, 46
142, 143, 145, 147
alliteration, 173, 175 Cambridge Handbook for Editors, 29
allusion, 175 Cantonese, 179, 182, 183, 184, 185,
altruism, 151, 156 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191
amateur translator, 155 censorship, 15, 20, 81, 157, 195
amateurship, 152, 154 Chinese Translators Journal, 2, 5, 37, 38,
American Imagist, 98, 102, 105, 111 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,
analogy, 138 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55
analytical power, 28, 31, 175 Ching Pao, 105
annotation, 123, 154 ci-poem, 167, 168, 169
Anthology, 50, 61, 195 ci-poetry, 165
applied translation studies, 89 classicism, 99
200 ● Index
‘Clustered’ articles, 72 disciplinary identity, 4, 7, 8, 58

CMS (The Chicago Manual of Style), disciplinary matrix, 38
29, 30 domain-knowledge, 155
code-mixing, 181, 186, 187, 188, 191 Domestication, 44, 124, 127, 132(R),
code-switching, 181, 186, 188, 189, 191 156, 161
cognitive sciences, 70 double-blind reviews, 77
coherence, 24, 28, 31, 159 dynamic adaptation, 141
conceptualization, 181 dynamic equivalence, 39
confused identities, 175 dynamic interaction, 75, 76
contact linguistics, 118, 131, 132 dynamics of adaptability, 141, 146
contact-induced changes, 118 dystopian depiction, 108
contextual correlates, 141, 146
Contributor, 2, 10, 11, 18, 21, 83, 92, EAD (English Academic Discourse), 30
93, 110, 111, 195 Eco, 138, 139, 145
Copy-Editors and Proofreaders, 29 ecocriticism, 135, 136, 137, 138, 145
copyediting, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, eco-holism, 137, 139
77, 79 ecological principle, 139
copyeditor, 28, 29, 30 eco-translatology, 10, 46, 135, 136, 137,
Copyright, 79, 151, 152, 157, 159 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145
copyright restriction, 157 editing system, 77
co-translator, 160, 195 editorial board, 23, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82,
creole, 181 83, 90, 93
crescent poets, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, editorial office, 76, 77, 78, 82
107, 111 editor-in-chief, 16, 23, 24, 77, 81, 196
Crescent, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, editorship, 5, 6, 88, 98, 100, 101, 104
107, 111 endnotes, 123, 174, 175, 177
crowdsourcing translation, 149, 150, epistemology, 141, 142
151, 153, 155, 157, 158, 160 error report, 155
cultural borrowing, 120, 122, 126 European Science Foundation, 70
cultural extension, 130 Everyman’s Literature, 106, 107
cultural interface, 53 Evolutionism, 142
cultural paradigm, 40, 41, 42, 43, 56, 60 Experimental Poems, 97
cultural replacement, 156 Expressiveness, 55
cultural studies, 40, 41, 42, 57, 70, 79, extinction, 136
81, 86, 161 extrinsic motivations, 156
cultural subjection, 44 eye-dialects, 181
Daoist, 171 Facebook, 83, 149, 150, 154, 155

Deconstructionist Translation Strategy, 44 faithfulness, 55, 144
Descriptive Translation Studies, 70, 117 fandom studies, 161
diagonal translation, 179, 184 female identity, 173
dialects, 146, 180, 181, 184 female sensations, 175
Dichotomy, 40, 44, 53, 171 feminine images, 172
digital publication, 159 feminine persona, 166, 175
Diglossia, 181 feminism, 45
Index ● 201
Feminist, 45 innovation, 10, 11, 70, 72, 88, 89, 93

FIT (Fédération internationale des innovations, 6, 117
traducteurs), 5 institutional standard, 90
Foci, 47, 60 intellectual coherence, 28, 31
Foreign Language Teaching and Research, intercultural communications, 60
4, 133 intercultural studies, 6, 10, 69, 71, 75,
foreignization, 44, 124, 127, 155, 161 78, 79, 82, 85, 196, 197
foreignizing translation, 44 interdisciplinarity, 7
formal equivalence, 39 interdisciplinary, 1, 8, 10, 19, 26, 27,
formatting, 28 32, 38, 43, 46, 47, 55, 56, 57, 58,
free translation, 154, 157, 158 60, 69, 71, 73(N) 75, 78, 79, 81, 82,
full translation, 81 144, 196
interdisciplinary paradigm, 43, 46,
gender segregation, 175 56, 60
Giornale de’ letterati, 15 interference, 88, 119, 123, 132
Globalization, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49 interlingual, 39, 69, 179, 184
glosses, 156 interlingual translation, 69
green-back culture, 106 internal differentiation, 180
Guokr, 152 internationalization, 3, 59
internet anonymity, 157
Habitus, 46 internet translation, 153
Harry Potter, 151, 154, 157 interpretation, 28, 118, 123, 144, 166,
headnotes, 155 195, 198
heteroglossia, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, interpreting, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73(N),
185, 186 93, 123, 147, 150, 158, 180, 196,
heteroglossic features, 183 197, 198
heterolingualism, 181 intersemiotic, 39, 183
Highland, 106 intersemiotic translation, 183
Hupu, 152 intervention, 41, 71
intonation, 100, 183
iambic meter, 102 intralingual, 39, 69, 184
iambic tetrameter, 102 intralingual translation, 69
identity, 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 41, 48, 58, intrinsic motivations, 156
60(R), 63(R), 115(R), 154, 172, 173, isomorphism, 136
175, 176, 198
idiolects, 181 Jakobson, Roman, 39
image-lyric poetry, 98, 102, 103, 104 joint publications, 17, 26
imagist, 98, 101, 102, 105, 110, Journal des sçavans (later, Journal des
111, 128 savants), 15
imperfect learning, 119, 120, 123, 125, Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 6
127, 132 Journal of World Languages, 6
index, 3, 70, 91 journal publication, 1, 2, 3, 9, 11,
indirect translation, 18 31, 93
in-equivalence, 120 journal publishing, 31, 34, 86, 121
inner monologues, 179 journal submission, 31
202 ● Index
l’art pour l’art, 97, 100, 104 mediator, 69

language attrition, 125, 129, 131 membership, 15, 23
language contact, 118, 121 Meta, 16, 195
Left League critics, 104, 105, 110 metaphor, 26, 138, 139, 195
left-wing, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, meter, 100, 102, 170, 175
105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 methodological precision, 28
left-wing writer, 98, 99, 100, 104, Modern Bookstore, 104
106, 107 modernist poetry, 11, 97, 98, 104, 109,
legal translation, 54 110, 111
Les Contemporains, 97, 98, 101, 102, Modernists, 103, 104
103, 104, 110, 111 modus operandi, 135
lexical borrowing, 127 monolithic communication, 182
liberalism, 101, 102, 106, 108 Monthly Works, 15
lineation and visual structure, 100 Motion Picture of Association of
linguistic adaptation, 135, 140, 141, America (MPAA), 157
142, 143, 147 multidisciplinary, 57, 58, 60
linguistic and cultural borrowings, 120 multilingualism, 121, 181
linguistic borrowing, 121
linguistic equivalence, 117 natural ecology, 136, 137, 138
linguistic extension, 129 news translation, 54, 157
linguistic paradigm, 38, 39, 41, 60 nihilism, 110
linguistic solidification, 182 non-literary texts, 53, 54, 55
linguistic varieties, 180, 181 non-literary translation, 53, 54, 55
LinkedIn, 83, 156, 158 non-professional translation, 73
literal translation, 121, 122, 123, non-translation, 81
130, 188
literal voice, 175 official versions, 156
Literal: Latin American Voices, 75 on-line translation, 153
Literary Currents, 97, 98, 108, 109, originality, 27, 28, 40
110, 111 outward translation, 50, 51, 52, 53
literary translation, 50, 53, 54, 55, 80,
149, 195, 198 paradigm, 52, 55, 56, 57, 60
Literary Waves, 108 paradigm shift, 37, 38, 47, 55, 56
localization, 48, 150 paradigm-shifting, 20
paratextual elements, 54
machine translation, 160 partial translation, 81
Mandarin, 179, 182, 183, 184, 185, passive translation, 154
186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191 patterned meter, 100
masculine fantasy, 166 peer-review, 16, 32, 77
masculine quest, 175 Perspectives, 6, 7, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46,
masculinity, 173 47, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 80, 82, 83,
May Fourth Movement, 107 89, 149
media studies, 150 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
media supervision, 157 Society, 15
Index ● 203
pidgin language, 181 right-wing writer, 98, 106, 110, 111

plagiarism, 87, 90 Romanticism, 99, 100, 101, 107
plurality, 10, 11, 44 Routledge, 6, 16, 34, 67, 68, 70, 71,
poetic metres, 170, 175 75, 79, 83, 197, 198
Poetry Journal, 108
Poetry Petals, 108 San Man Pao, 105
Poetry Recitation Movement, 105 SCP (structure-conduct-performance), 49
polylingual society, 180 Selection, 22, 41, 77, 102, 130, 135,
polysystem hypothesis, 41 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143,
position paper, 19, 20, 58 144, 145, 147, 159
position pieces, 72 selective adaptation, 141, 145
postcolonial context, 44 self-initiative, 153
post-structuralism, 44, 45 sentimental poetry, 109
power browsing, 15 Settings, 117, 122, 167
pragmatic translation studies, 88, 91 Shang Pao, 105
proletariat literature, 99, 104 shi-poetry, 177, 178
promulgation of westernized shift-induced changes, 120, 123
perspectives, 59 significance, 28, 42, 45, 53, 58, 59,
Publication, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 72, 170
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, single-blind reviews, 77
37, 68, 69, 70, 72, 78, 79, 93, 108, Sinologist, 50, 176
157, 159, 170, 172, 175, 176, 196 slogan translation, 54
social contexts, 46, 47
qualification assessment, 159 Social Sciences Citation Index, 70
quality control, 30, 153 social stratification, 181, 185
social studies, 161
Reaccentuation, 189 social translation, 18
readability, 92 socialist realism, 108
Reader’s Digest, 158 Sociolinguistics, 39
Realism, 99, 100, 108 Sonnets, 101
Receptor, 118, 119, 127, 128, 129, 131, source language, 117, 118, 126,
132, 141, 170 130, 151
Redundancy, 92, 121 source text, 44, 117, 118, 123, 181, 182
Rejuvenation, 49 source text-oriented translation, 52
Relocation, 51 southbound writers, 105, 106, 111
research assessment exercise, 27 Southern Song Dynasty, 169
research excellence framework, 27 square poems, 101
reviewing, 9, 23, 28, 51, 77, 78, 88, St Jerome Publishing, 70
91, 153 Standardization, 191
rhetorical tropes, 128, 173, 176, 179, stanza break, 100
182, 191 Stanzas, 101, 103
Rhyme, 100, 170, 175 Stratification, 180, 181, 185
right-wing, 98, 104, 106, 107, 109, streamlined articles, 25
110, 111 structural borrowing, 121
204 ● Index
structural diffusion, 121 translated text, 54, 117, 118, 119, 120,
Subjectivity, 45, 85, 144 121, 122, 123, 124, 127, 128, 129,
Submission, 6, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 130, 132, 146, 154, 175
26, 29, 31, 69, 76, 77, 78, 81, 83, Translation and Censorship, 20
92, 103, 110 Translation and History, 20
Subtitles, 155, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, translation and interpreting
187, 188, 189, 191, 192 industries, 158
Surrealist, 110 Translation and Material Culture, 20
survival, 7, 11, 15, 110, 130, 136, 137, Translation and Migration, 20
138, 141, 145, 154, 157 Translation Bulletin, 4, 5, 20, 39, 40, 42
Translation Commentaries, 54
Ta Kung Pao, 105 translation industry, 48, 49, 64, 152
Taboos, 155 translation management, 89
Tang Dynasty, 171, 178 Translation Review, 71
Tang poem, 168 translation studies, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
Target, 16, 58, 70 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
target language, 117, 118, 119, 127, 23, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39,
129, 130, 131, 132, 184 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51,
target text, 140, 141, 182 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 67, 69, 70,
Taylor & Francis, 20, 71, 72, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83,
83, 197 84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 93, 117, 118,
Taylor & Francis translation studies, 71 132, 140, 149, 150, 151, 161, 179,
The Daily Telegraph, 158 185, 195, 196, 197, 198
The Editor’s Companion, 29 Translation Studies, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
The Guardian, 158 23, 25, 32, 71
The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 71 translation website, 160
The League of the Left-Wing Writers translational ecology, 136
(The Left League), 98 translation-induced changes, 117, 118,
the loss and gain, 117 119, 120, 132
The Modern Language Journal, 9 translator-author relationship, 81
the State Administration of Press, 157 Translators Association of China, 5,
The Translator, 9, 16, 34, 67, 68, 69, 70, 37, 196
71, 72, 73, 150, 196 translingualism, 18
the Web of Science, 3 Transliteration, 121, 122, 130
thick translation, 123, 133 transmission of knowledge, 49
Third Type Men, 104, 110 tri-lingualism policy, 185
thought pieces, 72 TTR (traduction, terminologie,
Topoi, 44 rédaction), 6, 195
Transactions, 15, 33 Twitter, 34
Transculturality, 18
transdisciplinary, 69, 70 United States Information Agency
Transference, 120, 175, 181 (USIS), 106
translated language, 125, 129, 131, 132, Universalism in Translation Studies, 20
118, 119, 120 user-generated content, 150, 153
Index ● 205
user-generated translation (UGT), Wikipedia translation, 156

150, 158 wordiness, 92
utilitarian urge, 87
Yeeyan, 152, 153, 154, 157, 158,
volunteer translation, 151, 156 159, 160
Yeeyan Gutenberg Project, 159
wanyue ci pai, 165 Yeeyan Selection, 159
Wen Wei Po, 105 YYets, 156, 157
Western modernist poetry, 98, 109
wiki translation, 150 zero tolerance, 88

Yifeng Sun (Eds.) - Translation and Academic Journals_ the Evolving Landscape of Scholarly Publishing-Palgrave Macmillan US (2015)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yifeng Sun (Eds.) - Translation and Academic Journals_ the Evolving Landscape of Scholarly Publishing-Palgrave Macmillan US (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Translation and Academic Journals

Translation and Academic Journals

The Evolving Landscape of

Edited by Yifeng Sun

List of Illustrations vii

Introduction: Journal Publication and Translation Studies 1

Part I: The Role of Journals

Part II: Translation Research at Work

8 “Eco” and “Adaptation-Selection” in Eco-Translatology

List of Contributors 195

Journal Publication and

in great demand and thus in a unique position to influence the discipline.

The original conception was to encourage faculty members to publish their

The political upheavals in China inhibited scholarly pursuits. The bulletin

to serve on the editorial and advisory boards of international journals,

of disciplinary growth and innovation. Nevertheless, the construction of a

In introducing various theories into translation research, there is a tendency for

This posits a timely, if somewhat alarmist, caution to translation scholars in

4. Nicolai Volland, “The Birth of a Profession: Translators and Translation in Mod-

The Role of Journals

Aims and Scope: Journal Identity

Scholarly Journals and Today’s Publishing Context

Importance of a Clear Identity

In addition to scholars within Translation Studies, we invite those as yet unfa-

This goal of fostering mutually enriching dialogue across disciplines, and of

● Volume 2.1 (2009)—The Translational Turn (guest edited by Doris

● Volume 5.2 (2012)—Rethinking Methods in Translation History (guest

Importance of Online Platforms

as ScholarOne Manuscripts. Potential contributors create an account and

or appears in the media, where comments can be easily left” (Tattersall

Importance of Broad Geographical and Cultural Coverage

Practical Publishing Concerns

The Role and Function of Peer Review

to consider writing collaboratively with another scholar. This is something

● Engage with the core argument(s) of the article, irrespective of whether

a creative/intellectual advance that makes an important and innovative contri-

Significance is defined as “the enhancement or deserved enhancement of

The Role of Copyediting in the Preparation of Academic

Publishers employ copy editors to work on finalized manuscripts in order to

copyediting is “not merely the correction of grammatical issues but another

to the definition of “rigor” provided above: “intellectual coherence, method-

Advice for Authors

16. See, for example, Dunleavy 2014.

Translation Studies in Contemporary

History of Chinese Translators Journal

Shifting Paradigms of Translation Studies in Contemporary China

The Linguistic Paradigm ( from the 1980s to the Mid-1990s)

While it would be unwise to fetter the scope of translation studies by

The Cultural Paradigm ( from the Mid-1990s to 2000)

of the millennium, explored the possibility of rethinking translation studies

The Interdisciplinary Paradigm ( from 2000 to the Present)

of translation, there has been a rapid development of research on transla-

“the various constituents accounting for the involvement of translation in

New Foci in Current Translation Studies in China

Translation as Industry and Profession

valued for its capacity to deliver, to transfer, as well as to create. Translation

Perspective on Translation in China” (ᷕ⚳侣嬗䓊㤕䞼䨞烉䓊㤕䴻㾇⬠夾

The Outward Translation of Chinese Literature

into other major world languages, so as to expedite the relocation of global

Translators Journal were written to address various issues relating to foreign

嬗↢䘬侫⮇冯㭼庫) by Yingchong Wang 䌳䧶㰾 and Kefei Wang 䌳⃳朆

Translation of Non-Literary Texts

discussion of practical concerns in translation: “The Craft of Translation” (yiji

Reflections and Agendas for Future Research