Descriptive Study on translating Cultural Specific Items

Dec. 2006, Volume 3, No.12 (Serial No.36) Sino-US English Teaching, ISSN1539-8072, USA

82

Translating Cultural-Specific Items: A Descriptive Study

HE Xue-bing1 (Department of College English, Huaiyin Teachers College, Huai’an, Jiangsu 223001, China)

Abstract: As to how to deal with cultural differences in literature translation, translation scholars and critics have been arguing on two principles: “foreignization” and “adaptation”. Making cultural-specific items in Hong Lou Meng his research subject, the author tries to describe and summarize the translation strategies and techniques applied by translators of two widely discussed English translations of Hong Lou Meng in dealing with translation of cultural-specific items. The author then goes on to analyze possible factors that may influence the choice of translation strategies and techniques by translators in dealing with translation of cultural-specific items in hope of making his own tentative efforts in literary translation studies and practice.

Key words: Cultural-specific items; foreignization; adaptation; factor

1. Introduction

The second half of the twentieth century had been witnessing an increasing cooperation and communication among countries and regions all over the world in fields such as economy, politics, science and technology, culture, etc. China began to implement the policy of reform and opening-up to the outside world more than twenty years ago in order to realize the lofty goal of rejuvenating Chinese nation. Along with the reform and opening-up to the outside world, Chinese culture has aroused more and more interest of foreigners. As a result, introducing Chinese culture is now a necessary job for all the translators. Literary works contain rich and colorful information of the culture in a country. Therefore, study of the translation of cultural information in the literary works has become both necessary and important.

Translation is closely related to culture, then how to deal with cultural elements in texts? As to cultural difference in literary translation, translation scholars at home and abroad have long been in hot discussion over it with different theories and opinions they put forward. Generally speaking, there are two different groups concerning literary translation: one side is for “foreignization”, namely, the translated text should be source language or source text oriented; the other side is for “adaptation” which is target language or target reader oriented. However, they seem to put more emphasis on study of translation ontology such as translation principles, translation criteria, translation processes and translation methods, etc. The study of translation subject-translators such as factors that may affect translators’ activities and why translators adopt different translation strategies and techniques seems inadequate. So the translation circle has long been witnessing an interesting phenomenon: along with different translation criteria put forward and enthusiastically discussed, different translations of the same novel appear one after another. This shows that when certain translation criteria are defined, more efforts should be made to study various objective and subjective factors that may affect translation activities so as to make the discipline of translation more normative and scientific.

HE Xue-bing(1974- ), male, M.A., assistant of Department of College English Teaching and Research, Huaiyin Teachers College;

research field: translation theories and practice.


83

Hong Lou Meng reaches the peak of classical Chinese novels. It contains rich and colorful information of traditional Chinese culture, hence is called “an encyclopedia of Chinese feudal society”. Making cultural-specific items in Hong Lou Meng his research subject, the author tries to describe and summarize the translation strategies and techniques applied by translators of two widely discussed English translations of Hong Lou Meng (David Hawkes’ translation is entitled The Story of Stone and YANG Hsien-yi and Gladys YANG’s version is entitled A Dream of Red Mansions) in dealing with translation of cultural-specific items. And more importantly, based on the discussion of the case study, the author will further analyze possible factors that may influence the choice of translation strategies and techniques by translators in dealing with translation of cultural-specific items in hope of making his own tentative efforts in literary translation studies and practice.

2. Literature Review

Cultural translation first started in foreign countries in the 1970s and then it was transplanted to the Chinese context. As is mentioned above, many papers written by Chinese scholars presented different concepts of culture and stressed that it was important to pay attention to the difference in culture when doing translation with illustration of some selected examples. Quite some are used to investigating the phenomena such as the translation of a certain phrase in two languages by citing a lot of examples. The problem seems to be that they put forward various strategies and techniques in dealing with words, phrases and expressions containing cultural information but paid inadequate attention to the subject of translation—translators. In other words, the study of the role translators played in dealing with translation of those items is somewhat inadequate. Moreover, the strategies and techniques they put forward are always prescriptive in nature. For example, some scholars in China proposed various translation techniques concerning translation of items with cultural connotations. Two representatives among them are QIU Mao-ru and WANG Dong-feng. Based on his own translation practice and understanding, QIU (1997) recommended seven techniques to deal with translation of words or expressions with cultural connotations. Therefore, his techniques aim to guide translation practice and are prescriptive to some extent. WANG Dong-feng (1997) put forward his techniques through summarizing strategies and techniques translators used in translation practice. In this sense, his techniques are basically descriptive. However, he also made evaluation of the strategies and techniques summarized from the point of view of his personal understanding, thus adding strong prescriptive flavor to his study.

3. Translating Cultural—Specific Items: A Case Study

3.1 Hong Lou Meng Hong Lou Meng was written in the middle of the seventeenth century, a period called “the flourishing age in

the reign of Kangxi and Qianlong emperors” and spoken highly of by people. Ever since its circulation, the novel has been widely read and discussed for its profoundness and richness both in content and thought. The content and meaning of the novel are so rich and profound and it is so worthy of studying that a special kind of learning generally called “Red-ology”(红学) started and a special kind of people known as the Red-ologists (红学家) has emerged in China. Today, an increasing number of literary critics in foreign countries are joining the study of the novel. As a wonder of traditional Chinese culture, Hong Lou Meng has been translated into several languages and attracted people’s concern at home and abroad. According to HU Wen-bin’s statistics in 1991, there are seventeen editions of selected translations of Hong Lou Meng in seven languages, twenty-six editions of abridged


84

translations in twelve languages and nineteen editions of full translations in nine languages. Altogether there are sixty-two editions of various translations in seventeen languages being published (DONG Hong-chuan, 2001).

3.2 A case study

Hawkes’s version YANG’s version Original text

Strategy and technique employed Strategy and technique employed

“从此空空道人因空见色，由色

生情，传情入色，遂易名为情僧，

改《石头记》为《情僧录》。”

“Void (which is truth)”、“Form (which is illusion)”

literal translation and annotation

“nothingness” “manifestations”

literal translation

(甄宝玉)又常对他的小厮们说：“这‘女儿’两个字⋯⋯比那‘阿弥陀佛’，‘元始天尊’这两个宝

号还更尊荣无对的呢！”

all the rarest beasts and birds and plants in the world adaptation

supreme Buddhist and Taoist titles

paraphrase

“不妨，我教你老人家一个法子：

你竟带了外孙子板儿去，先去找

陪房周瑞，若见了他，就有些意

思了。”

Old Zhou that stayed in service with your lady after she married

paraphrase

steward Chou Jui

adaptation

“大紫檀雕螭案上，设着三尺来高青绿古铜鼎。”

ding transliteration

tripod adaptation

“临窗大炕上铺着猩红洋罽。” kang transliteration

kang transliteration

“好，这一去，可是要‘蟾宫折

桂’去了。我不能送你了。”

I wish you every success

adaptation

pluck fragrant osmanthus in the palace of the moon

literal translation

“⋯⋯谁知就是上京来买的那小

丫头，名叫香菱的，竟与薛大傻

子作了房里人，开了脸，越发出

挑的标致了。”

she has been plucked and painted like a grown-up woman

amplification

her face has been slicked

literal translation

“⋯⋯案上设着武则天当日镜室

中设的宝镜，一边摆着赵飞燕立

着舞过的金盘，盘里盛着安禄山

掷过伤了太真乳的木瓜。上面设

着寿昌公主于含章殿上卧的榻，

悬的是同昌公主制的联珠帐。”

the lascivious empress WU Ze-tian； Flying Swallow；the villainous AN

Lu-shan；beautiful YANG Gui-fei； Princess Shou-yang；Princess Tong-chang

transliteration, amplification

WU Tse-tien’s1 CHAO Fei-yen2 AN Lu-shan3 Lady YANG4 Princess

Shou-Yang5 Princess Tung-Chang6

transliteration, annotation

Before going into detailed discussion, the definition of cultural-specific item is necessary to be made clear first. Here the author wants to adopt the definition given by Aixela (ZHANG Nan-feng, 2004): Cultural-specific items refer to those which have no equivalents or different positions in target reader’s cultural system, thus causing difficulties of translation of their functions and meanings in the source text into target text. The author selects some cultural-specific items containing traditional Chinese cultural information covering politics, religion, custom, etc. Due to the author’s limited knowledge and energy, the first forty chapters of the two translations of


85

the novel are mainly to be studied. The author picked out a lot of examples of translation of cultural-specific items, but for the length limit to the paper, only some of them are to be discussed. Last but not the least, for the convenience of analysis in the latter part of the paper, the translators’ translation strategies and techniques of cultural-specific items will be discussed together.

3.3 Discussion and analysis As mentioned earlier, the author would focus on discussion of some of the examples collected for the length

limit of the paper and avoidance of too much repeated discussion of the same translation techniques. According to what has been discussed in the above section, it can be seen that in these two well-known English translations of Hong Lou Meng, the translators applied various techniques to deal with the translation of cultural-specific items. These techniques are summarized as follows:

(1) (Trans) literal translation: translate items in the source text literally; (2) Annotation (literal translation with annotation and transliteration with annotation); (3) Paraphrase: restate items in the source text in other forms or words so as to clarify the meaning of them to

target readers; (4) Contextual amplification: explain the sense of items for which source readers take granted to target

readers who don’t understand; (5) Adaptation: replace cultural-specific items in the source language with cultural-items in the target

language; (6) Other compensatory means such as preface, introduction and appendix, etc. before or after translated text. Venuti, a famous American theorist in translation studies, once pointed out that translators usually had two

strategies as choices to deal with cultural differences in literary translation, one is “adaptation” and the other is “foreignization” (YU Dong & CHEN Ke-pei, 2003). Section 3.2 discussed various translation techniques that the translators of two English translations of Hong Lou Meng applied in dealing with translation of cultural-specific items, and a careful comparison finds that Hawkes is apt to use such techniques as paraphrase, contextual amplification and adaptation while YANG Hsien-yi and his wife tend to use (trans) literal translation, (trans) literal translation with annotation. According to Venuti’s theory, this obviously has something to do with the different translation strategies they adopted, that is, Hawkes mainly employed the “adaptation” strategy while the couple adopted the strategy of “foreignization”.

However, a further study also finds that in dealing with translation of cultural-specific items, these translators didn’t stick to just one translation strategy all the time and rejected others. And the translation techniques they used were also not quite different from each other though different emphasis was put on some techniques. For example, when translating the idiom “蟾宫折桂”, which doesn’t exist at all in Western culture, Mr. YANG and his wife translated it literally as “pluck fragrant osmanthus in the palace of the moon” so as to keep the cultural identity of the source language and introduce Chinese culture to the West, though this translation may make Western readers feel confused and difficult to understand. Hawkes adopted the strategy of “adaptation”. He used conventional English and paraphrased it as “I wish you every success”. “贱荆” is a deprecating term one used to call his wife when talking with other people. Modesty has long been a virtue in Chinese culture, so people often use self-deprecating terms to show one’s modesty and respect to others. And this is absent in Western culture, so when translating this item, the couple adopted the strategy of “adaptation” this time and translated it into “my wife”, which sounds quite natural for Western readers. Hawkes, however, used literal translation and translated it into “my poor wife” so as to keep cultural flavor of the source language, for in the introduction part of his


86

translated novel he mentioned that he wanted to “translate everything”. It is obvious that here Hawkes employed the “foreignization” strategy.

Influenced by translation strategies, different translators tend to pay particular attention to the use of different translation techniques in translating cultural-specific items in literary works. One translator may be apt to use these techniques or methods and another translator may prefer to those ones. As far as the two English translations of Hong Lou Meng are concerned, a case in point is that in the couple’s translation the technique of (trans) literal translation with annotation is more often used. The last example in the above table is one example to illustrate this point. Sometimes there were as many as eight footnotes on one page. In Hawkes’ translation, three volumes of 1,720 pages (the first eighty chapters of the original novel), there were only 8 simple footnotes, six of which only told the pages of appendix in which readers may confer. Now in Hawkes’ translation, the technique of contextual amplification is more frequently used by the translator. For example: in Chapter Sixty-four JIA Lian wanted to marry YOU Er-jie, and he talked this with his nephew JIA Rong. JIA Rong said, “听见说我老娘在那一家时，就把我二姨许给皇粮庄头张家，指腹为婚。” (曹雪芹、高鹗，2004: 638) A Chinese reader may well understand what “指腹为婚” means, but to make a Western reader understand this practice in Chinese culture is not an easy matter. Therefore Hawkes adopted the method of contextual amplification to explicate the four-character Chinese expression:

I have heard Gran say that when she was carrying Aunt Er, her first husband had an agreement with a friend of his called Zhang, who was a manager on one of the Imperial Farms and whose own wife was also pregnant at the time. They agreed that if the children their wives were carrying turn out to be a boy and a girl, they should be betrothed to each other. In that way Aunt Er was engaged to the Zhang’s boy from the moment she was born.

(David Hawkes, 1973: 264, vol.3)

However, sometimes the translators also used the same translation techniques to translate the same items. Both the couple and Hawkes used transliteration to translate “炕” into Chinese Pinyin “kang”. Another

example is the translation of “进士”:

至大比之期，不料他十分得意，一会了进士，选入外班，今已升了本府知府。 (曹雪芹，高鹗，2004: 13)

The couple’s version: He did so well in the examinations that he became a Palace Graduate and was given a provincial appointment. (YANG Hsien-yi & Gladys YANG, 1978:20)

Hawkes’ version: He had done well in the Triennial examination, passing out as a Palace Graduate, and had been selected for external service. (David Hawkes, 1973:69)

From the Tang Dynasty to the Qing Dynasty, there had been an examination system to select civil and military officials called “imperial examinations” (科举). Those people who passed the final imperial examination were called “进士”. So this is a word having to do with the educational system of feudal China, here both the couple and Mr. Hawkes paraphrased it as “Palace Graduate”.

To conclude, according to the descriptive study of the translators’ translation practice of cultural-specific items in the two widely discussed English translations of Hong Lou Meng, different translators were generally apt to adopt some translation strategies which determine concrete translation techniques or methods, but they didn’t just stick to one and reject others. On the contrary, they usually combined both though different emphasis was put on them. “Adaptation” and “foreignization” are not seen as simple opposites to each other, as some critics stated. Then why? In other words, what is influencing translators’ choice of translation strategies and techniques in


87

literary translation, especially when they face the problem of cultural difference? The following chapter is to make a tentative investigation in this regard.

4. Factors Influencing Translators’ Translation Strategies and Techniques

4.1 Polysystem theory Poly-system theory, which saw translated literature as a system operating in the larger social, literary and

historical systems of the target culture, was developed in the 1970s by the Israeli scholar Itamar Even-Zohar. The key concept of the theory is system. He coined the term “polylsystem” to refer to the entire network of correlated system - literary and extraliterary - within society, and developed an approach called polysystem theory to attempt to explain the function of all kinds of writing within a given culture. He holds that translated literature is necessary to be included in the polysystem. According to what is presumed about the nature of systems in general and the nature of literary phenomena in particular, there can obviously be no equality between the various literary systems and types. These systems maintain hierarchical relations, which means some maintain a more central position than others, or that some are primary while others are secondary. Not all polysystems are the same, and through the analysis of the relationship of translated texts to the original literary works, Even-Zohar arrived his understanding of the nature of polysystems. He suggested that the relationship between translated works and the literary polysystem cannot be categorized as either primary or secondary, but as variable, depending upon the specific circumstance operating within the literary system. He outlined three social circumstances enabling a situation in which translation would maintain a primary position: when a literature is “young”, or in the process of being established; when a literature is “peripheral” or “weak” or both; when a literature is experiencing a “crisis” or turning point. The opposite social conditions govern the situations in which translation is of secondary importance to the polysystem. Having observed the position of translation with varying cultural systems, one issue that Even-Zohar next explored is how translated text adopts certain norms and functions as a result of their relation to other target language systems. He suggested that when translated literature assumes a primary position, the borders between translated text and original texts “diffuse” and definitions of translation become liberalized, expanding to include versions, imitations and adaptations as well. If translation tends to be a secondary activity within a given polysystem, the situation is reversed: the translators’ attempts to find ready-made models for translation result in translations that conform to preestablished aesthetic norms in the target culture at the expense of the text’s “original” form. Even-Zohar’s pioneering work opened the way for translation theory to advance beyond prescriptive aesthetics. And the opening is seized upon by his colleague, Gideon Toury.

Based on polysystem theory and positing hypothetical poles of total acceptability in the target culture at the one extreme and total adequacy to the source text at the other, Toury locates translation as always in the middle: no translation is ever entirely “acceptable” to the target culture because it will always introduce new information and forms defamiliarizing to that system, nor is any translation entirely “adequate” to the original version, because the cultural norms cause shifts from the source text structures. As opposed to Source Text (ST) determined theory, Toury posited a Target Text (TT) theory for translation, focusing not on some notion of equivalence as postulated requirements, but on the “actual relationships” constructed between the source text and its “factual replacement”. The eventual goal of Toury’s theory is to establish a hierarchy of interrelated factors that determine the translation product. In a word, Toury demands that translation theory includes cultural-historical facts, a set of laws that he calls “translation norms”. Translations are never produced in a vacuum, and they are also never received in a


88

vacuum (Lefevere & Bassnett, 2001: 3). Toury views translation as a process by which subjects of a given culture communicate in translated messages primarily determined by local cultural constraints. Inescapable infidelity is presumed as a condition of the process. Translators do not work in ideal and abstract situations nor desire to be innocent, but have vested literary and cultural interests of their own, and want their work to be accepted within another culture. Thus they manipulate the source text to inform as well as conform to the existing cultural constraints (Gentzler, 2004: 106-131).

4.2 Factors that may influence translators’ translation strategies and techniques Two basic points can be seen in Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury’s theories: translation’s “incompleteness” and

translator’s manipulation over translation. As far as “incompleteness” is concerned, a translator cannot translate the source text into the target text with one hundred percent accuracy due to language and cultural differences. The goal of complete equivalence between the source text and the target text is impossible. In terms of translators’ manipulation, it is seen that different translations of the same source text by different translators emerge at different or even at the same time. The reason for that is translation is closely related to many social and cultural factors and it is the product of realization of dynamic balance of those factors. And this dynamic balance is realized through translators’ comprehensive consideration. A translator is no longer the servant of the original but plays a more important role as a creator. Therefore, to investigate translation strategies and techniques adopted by translators in literary translation, both social and cultural factors and the role of translators themselves must be taken into consideration. These factors influence translators’ choice of translation strategies and techniques.

4.2.1 Social/cultural factors As far as social/cultural factors are concerned, the author wants to investigate it from the perspectives of the

position of translated literature and cultural position. 4.2.1.1 Position of national literature According to Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory, as a component part of the polysystem, the form or inherent

structure of translated literature will inevitably be affected by the society and culture it is in. The strong or weak position of a nation’s literature decides the position of translated literature in the polysystem, hence conditioning the translation strategy. He claims that a translator’s translation behavior or translation strategy is determined by the position translated literature occupied in the target culture. In other words, the position (primary or secondary) translated literature assumed in the polysystem exerts a great influence on the translation behavior or the translation strategy. Even-Zohar gives three major cases when translated literature occupies the primary position:

(1) When a “young” literature is being established and looks initially to “older” literatures for ready-made models;

(2) When a literature is “peripheral” or “weak” and imports those literary types which it is lacking; (3) When there is a critical turning point in literary history at which established models are no longer

considered sufficient, or when there is a vacuum in the literature of the country. (Munday, 2001: 110) He points out that when translated literature occupies a primary position, translators do not feel constrained

to follow target literature models and are more prepared to break conventions. Therefore, they often produce a target text that is a close match of the source text in terms of adequacy. That is to say, they tend to adopt the strategy of “foreignization” so as to be faithful to the structure and content of the original. Otherwise they are apt to the strategy of “adaptation”, using language, structure and even content they are familiar with to accommodate themselves to the target readers. As far as the author is concerned, his opinion has some theoretical ground. For


89

example, in the early 1900s, the famous Chinese litterateur LU Xun advocated “信而不顺” (to be faithful rather than be clear and coherent) and translated many Western literary works. It is obvious that he tended to adopt “foreignization” strategy for the purpose of introducing and learning from foreign culture so as to enrich and develop native language and culture.

However, prior to LU Xun’s time and nearly for the same purpose, another Chinese translator LI Shu adopted the opposite translation strategy — the strategy of “adaptation” and translated more Western literary works. Furthermore, as far as the research in Chapter two of this paper is concerned, the translators of the two English translations of Hong Lou Meng applied different translation strategies in dealing with cultural-specific items, with YANG Hsien-yi and his wife mainly adopting “foreignization” and David Hawkes employing “adaptation”. Then we see translated literature has assumed two opposite positions in the target culture due to the factor of different translators. That is to say, the influence of the position of national literature on translator’s behavior or translation strategy cannot be directly seen. Therefore, if we say that the position of national literature does exert an influence upon the translation strategy, then the influence is reflected through the medium of translators. In other words, how to treat national literature and foreign literature and how to achieve cultural communication largely depend on the translator’s cultural consciousness and attitudes. This point will be discussed in detail after the following section.

4.2.1.2 Cultural position Different nations have different cultures. Their difference in political and economic positions will to some

extent reveal their social identities and political attitudes during the process of using language to convey information, thus forming different ways of expression. And different political attitudes and ways of expression will be reflected in translation strategies. Theoretically speaking, translation should be regarded as an activity of bilingual transference and non-political communication among cultures; it is the au pair dialogue and mutual acceptance among nations. However, during the process of communication, translation will be influenced by cultural position, which leads to different translation strategies as a result of the difference in cultural positions of different nations. To be specific, the strong or weak position of one culture will to a large extent influence translators’ strategy orientation of “adaptation” or “foreignization” in actual translation. Technically speaking, the two concepts of “adaptation” and “foreignization” are defined as “to use cultural content in the target language to replace that in the source language” and “to reserve and transplant the form and content of the source culture” respectively. In actual translation, based on their individual aesthetic orientation, value judgment and so on, translators will make different choices between the two different strategies, thus using different translation techniques and reveal different translation styles. But if the choice of the translation strategy is out of different cultural standpoint, reflecting the influence of cultural position, then “adaptation” and “foreignization” will to some extent embody “cultural politics”, the most prominent of which is strong culture’s speech hegemony and speech invasion. History has long witnessed colonists’ language invasion in the colonies. The compulsory transplantation of language and culture on the part of colonists fully demonstrated the hegemony of power speech and influence of strong cultures. So far as this point is concerned, it somewhat can be used to explain the translation of some cultural-specific items in Hawkes’ translation, for example, the translation of items pertinent to religion. In Chapter Six of the novel, Granny LIU said to her son-in-law, “看菩萨的保佑⋯⋯”(曹雪芹，高鹗, 2004: 55). “菩萨” is a word from Buddhism as the main religion in China. It doesn’t exist in the Western countries, where people believe in Christianity and believe that God or Lord is the superior power who can decide what is good or bad for people. Christianity is the largest religion in the West and has profound impact on Western


90

cultures. During the colonizing period, Christianity was transplanted into the colonies by colonists. Even now Western missionaries are found all over the world. In Hawkes’ translation, he translates it into “We must leave it to the good Lord to decide” (David Hawkes, 1973: 152). Here Lord is used to mean “菩萨”. It is obvious that he adopts the “adaptation” strategy revealing his cultural stance. It is also the same case with “阿弥陀佛”. In Mr. YANG and his wife’s translation, it is “Gracious Buddha” (YANG Hsien-yi & Gladys YANG, 1978: 104) while Hawkes translates it into “God bless my soul” (David Hawkes, 1973: 169).

However, it should also be noticed that the influence of cultural position on translation strategy is not very obvious either, like the influence of national literature on translation strategy. We know that when translating《鲁拜集》which was written in Farsi, the translator of English translation adopted the strategy of “adaptation”. And then a translator in Taiwan also used “adaptation” strategy and translated the English version into Chinese. Can this phenomenon illustrate that Chinese culture is superior to British literature and British literature is superior to Persian culture? Then again let’s come to the translation of Hong Long Meng. Through the discussion of translation of cultural-specific items in Chapter Three, we find that though different emphasis of translation strategy is put on by the translators, that is, the British translator David Hawkes mainly adopts the strategy of “adaptation” and the Chinese translator Mr. YANG adopts the strategy of “foreignization”, yet both strategies are employed by them in their translation of cultural-specific items. Therefore it is safe to say that the influence of cultural position on translation strategy is not direct in this regard. Here the role that translators play again seems to be more significant. It seems that only through translators’ acceptance or repulsion of given culture can it play a part in translation strategy. In this sense, to simply say that cultural position influences the translation strategy seems inadequate to account for the complex process or models of the influence of social and cultural forces on translation. Perhaps translators as the medium between social/cultural forces and translation may help more to account for that.

The influence of national literature and cultural position on the translation strategy during a given historical period and under a given social context is seen through the medium of translators, especially translators’ cultural ideology. Lefervere once dwelt much on the influence of ideology on translation. He thinks that a translator’s behavior is influenced by the social or cultural environment in which he/she lives, thus to some extent showing his/her cultural ideology. Translations are not produced in a vacuum between two languages but carried out in the context of two cultural traditions. Translators’ understanding of themselves and the culture where they are from are factors influencing their translation strategy and translation methods. The author thinks that two things should be included in a translator’s cultural ideology: the translator’s cultural consciousness and cultural orientation. Translators’ cultural consciousness and cultural orientation influence the translation strategy and techniques. In a word, the role that translators play in the translation strategy and techniques is of great significance.

4.3 Translators The translator is the subject of translation. Any translator, whether he/she has ever learned some translation

theories or not, would consciously or subconsciously follow certain translation principle or strategy. Some may pay more attention to the author’s intention of the original while some may stress readers’ reception; some try to keep as many ways of expression in the source text as possible whereas some try to use as many expressions in the target language as possible; some try to introduce foreign culture to the target culture, and some tend to replace cultural characteristics of the source language with that of the target language. Therefore, different translators adopt different translation strategies, thus leading to different translations. Even translators of the same time and the sharing of the same cultural background may choose different translation strategies, not to mention translators


91

of different cultural backgrounds, like YANG Hsien-yi and David Hawkes. 4.3.1 Cultural consciousness By saying cultural consciousness, we mean it is a way of thinking of the translator, his/her conscious or

subconscious judgment of and sensitivity to culture. When talking about the translator’s cultural consciousness, consideration should be taken into the following aspects:

First, a translator should have a thorough understanding of the source language and culture so as to go beyond time and space and effectively convey the author’s idea in the original to target readers, especially when the translator and the original author are of two different cultural backgrounds. The translator should take the attitude of learning from others and get himself actively involved in the source culture, then adopt appropriate strategies and techniques to make transference between languages and cultures. As a renowned Sinologist in Britain, Mr. Hawkes has long been devoting himself to the study of Chinese culture. From the introduction to his translation of Hong Lou Meng, we also can find the great efforts he has made for a thorough understanding of the original novel. Therefore, when dealing with cultural-specific items that contain rich and colorful cultural information of Chinese culture, he also adopts the strategy of “foreignization” though the mainly used strategy by him is “adaptation”. This is clearly illustrated in the discussion of concrete examples in Chapter Two.

Second, a translator should make great efforts to master the target language and culture so as to make his/her translation accepted by target readers. Generally speaking, if the original written in a foreign language were to be translated into the translator’s native language, the translator’s language expression and cultural idea would naturally come close to those of the target readers’. That is to say, the translator is apt to apply the strategy of “adaptation” when dealing with cultural differences in translation. This can be used to explain Hawkes’ overall translation strategy of “adaptation” in dealing with cultural-specific items in The Story of the Stone. On the other hand, if a translator is going to translate a native literary work into a foreign language, consideration would be take into ways of expression of the target language and its cultural characteristics so as to make the translated text as natural and appropriate as possible to the target readers. As far as this point is concerned, that’s why we see that Mr. YANG also uses the strategy of “adaptation” in translating some cultural-specific items such as “贱荆” and “鼎”. Another example is also given to illustrate this point. In Chapter Six, ZHOU Rui , the servant who stayed in service with Lady WANG after she was married, said to Granny LIU, “与人方便，与己方便”(曹雪芹, 高鹗, 2004: 57). “与人方便，与己方便” is a Chinese idiom. When translating this item, Mr. YANG who has a good command of English translated it into “He who helps others helps himself” by referring to the English idiom “God help those who help themselves” (YANG Hsien-yi & Gladys YANG, 1978: 93).

4.3.2 Cultural orientation Three basic models are given in terms of translators’ cultural orientation: source language culture-oriented,

target language culture-oriented and the compromised model in between. Translators who use the TL culture-oriented model often give priority to target readers and the TL culture. They stress effective language communication for the purpose of target readers’ understanding and appreciation. So they usually tend to adopt the strategy of “adaptation” and try to reduce cultural differences and use of rare expressions in the source language to the effect that the foreign culture is acculturated by the TL culture. Translators who are close or belong to the TL culture often use this model. Translators who employ the SL culture-oriented model pay more attention to the author’s intention and the SL culture. They emphasize communication between cultures. They tend to use the strategy of “foreignization” and try to keep or reproduce special cultural characteristics of the original in order to introduce foreign culture to target readers. And translators who are of the same cultural background as the


92

author’s and thus are close to the author in terms of value, way of thinking and so on often use this model. The compromised model occur when: on the one hand, some cultural characteristics in the source language cannot find full equivalents in the target language, thus causing untranslatability of some cultural phenomena; on the other hand, the increasing political, economic and cultural cooperation and communication among various countries has witnessed the trend of cultural amalgamation, thus cultural differences are decreasing gradually. Translators use this model for the purpose of seeking compromise and balance between two different cultures in order that to some extent the SL culture would not be distorted and acculturated into the TL culture at the same time. In this case, then, both the strategy of “adaptation” and “foreignization” would be adopted by the translator. Through the descriptive study of translation of cultural-specific items in the two English translations of Hong Lou Meng, it is safe to say that both translators, the couple and Hawkes, used the compromised model for the fact that they both adopted “adaptation” and “foreignization” strategies in their literary translation practice.

4.4 Translation strategies and techniques Translators’ different cultural consciousness and cultural orientation are regarded as significant factors

influencing the translation strategy and techniques in literary translation. And the translation strategy is not unchangeable in one translation all the time. We cannot say which is better. Therefore, “adaptation” and “foreignization” are just two opposite translation strategies in a relative sense. A translator may mainly stick to one translation strategy in a certain text. However, just as Catford once pointed out that there are limits of translatability. There are cases of untranslatability at the linguistic level on the one hand and untranslatability of culture on the other. So when full equivalence between the target language culture and the source language culture is impossible to realize, especially in cases that when the cultural characteristics of the SL culture cannot be replaced by or directly transplanted into the TL culture, then the translator must seek some kind of compromise or balance between the two relatively opposite strategies by using various translation techniques and methods. The detailed discussion of the case study of translating cultural-specific items in two English translations of Hong Lou Meng also supports this point. Though adopting a different overall translation strategy, the two translators don’t simply regard “adaptation” and “foreignization” as two binary opposites but rather combine the two to better their translation. With further advances of globalization, the opposability of “adaptation” and “foreignization” will be weakened day by day along with the differences among nations and cultures being reduced. But so long as cultural differences exist, translators may take different cultural orientations, thus influencing the translation strategy and techniques.

To conclude, translation is like a filtering process, that is to say, any translated text invariably reflects the translator’s individuality. On the one hand, what translation strategy and techniques are to be adopted is a matter of the translator’s personal behavior. Different translators may have different individualities. However, on the other hand, the translator’s individuality is not independent of the society and culture the translator lives in. It is the synthetic reflection of various social and cultural forces such as history, politics, cultural tradition, ideology, etc. And these forces are closely related to each other and conditioning each other. This shows that the translator is restricted by culture. Translators dominate the process of translation and invariably reveal their individualities, yet they are all consciously or subconsciously influenced and driven by the social and cultural forces.

5. Conclusion

The present study implies that translation is a kind of cross-cultural communication activity, especially in the


93

case of literary translation. Playing a role of the bridge in cross-cultural communication, translators should be both linguistically and culturally competent when dealing with problems caused by cultural differences. In translation activities they should try their best to make their translations acceptable to the target readers at the prerequisite of respecting the original. In terms of construction of translation theories, more efforts should be made to construct translation theories combing study of translation practice. For instance, efforts should be made to study and analyze various subjective and objective factors that affect translator’s choice of translations strategies and techniques from different perspectives so that translation theories may become more applicable. Last but not the least, translation criticism should focus more on the in-depth study of why translators use certain translation strategy and whether they reach the translation purpose instead of merely commenting on which translation is better or worse.

References: [1] Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (2002). Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign

Language Education Press. [2] Gentzler, E. (2004). Contemporary Translation Theories. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. [3] Hawkes, D. (1973). The Story of the Stone. London: Penguin Classics. [4] Munday, J. (2001). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. [5] Toury, G. (2001). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. [6] 白靖宇，寇菊霞. 红楼梦中文化内容翻译探析. 外语教学，2002（3）：42-46. [7] 曹雪芹，高鹗. 红楼梦. 西安：太白文艺出版社，2000. [8] 董洪川. 接受理论与文学翻译中的“文化误读”研究. 山东外语教学，2001（2）：18-22. [9] 郭建中. 文化与翻译. 北京：中国对外翻译出版公司，2003. [10] 姜秋霞，权晓辉，杨芳. 论社会文化对文学翻译的影响. 外国文学研究，2003（6）：31-35. [11] 柯平. 英汉与汉英翻译教程. 北京：北京大学出版社，1993. [12] 李希凡，冯其庸. 红楼梦大词典. 北京: 文化艺术出版社，1990. [13] 马红军. 翻译补偿手段的分类与应用. 外语与外语教学，2003（10）：37-39. [14] 余东，陈可培. 论翻译策略的文化内因. 解放军外国语学院学报，（5）：69-73. [15] 张南峰. 艾克西拉的文化专有项翻译策略评价. 中国翻译，2004（1）：18-23.

(Edited by Jessica, Selina and Wendy)

Descriptive Study on translating Cultural Specific Items

Documents

Transcript of Descriptive Study on translating Cultural Specific Items