Metaphors of Translation

16
This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library] On: 18 April 2014, At: 16:03 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Perspectives: Studies in Translatology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20 METAPHORS OF TRANSLATION Tan Zaixi a a Hong Kong Baptist University , Hong Kong Published online: 05 Jan 2009. To cite this article: Tan Zaixi (2006) METAPHORS OF TRANSLATION, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 14:1, 40-54, DOI: 10.1080/09076760608669016 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760608669016 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Transcript of Metaphors of Translation

Page 1: Metaphors of Translation

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 18 April 2014, At: 16:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Perspectives: Studies in TranslatologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20

METAPHORS OF TRANSLATIONTan Zaixi aa Hong Kong Baptist University , Hong KongPublished online: 05 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Tan Zaixi (2006) METAPHORS OF TRANSLATION, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology,14:1, 40-54, DOI: 10.1080/09076760608669016

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760608669016

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied uponand should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses,damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Metaphors of Translation

METAPHORS OF TRANSLATION

Tan Zaixi, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong [email protected]

AbstractThe study described in the present article investigates Chinese and Western metaphors of

translation that have appeared since antiquity and which illustrate the central role of metaphors in descriptions of translation. The article discusses more than 270 Chinese and English language metaphors from descriptive as well as diachronic and synchronic points of view. It analyses the issues metaphors give rise to, and offers in-depth analyses and discussions of how metaphors can provide us with insights on the ways in which we see translation.

Key words: Chinese-English; metaphors of translation; history of translation; images of translation; Western metaphors; Chinese metaphors.

IntroductionFrom the very beginning of discussions on the nature of translation, meta-

phors have been part of the vocabulary that translation scholars and translators used for describing translation work.1 Among the earliest metaphors of transla-tion in the Western tradition were Cicero’s pronouncement in De optimo genere oratorum (46 B.C.) that he translated as an eloquent orator and not as a literal “interpreter” (ut interpres), and Philo’s comparison of the translators of the Sep-tuagint to “prophets and priests of my mysteries” in his De vita Mosis (20 B.C.). The earliest figurative uses of language on translation in the Chinese tradition included the famous fourth-century Buddhist translator Kumārajīva’s compari-son of translating to “feeding someone with masticated food” (有似嚼飯與人. My translation) and that a translation was a bottle of “diluted wine”, a view held by his contemporary, Dao-an (葡萄酒之被水者也. My translation. Dao-an 382).

Throughout the centuries different forms of metaphors have been used in translational discourse, in both China and the West. In this article, the term ‘metaphors of translation’ is the term used for a broad semantic spectrum in which any form of comparison, be they metaphors or similes, are used to de-scribe translation or aspects related to it. It comprises the act, the process or the product of translation, as well as the role of the author, the translator, the recipi-ent, and so on.

However, despite their widespread use in translational discourse, metaphors of translation have not attracted much attention as the object of specific and sys-tematic study. Nevertheless, the very use of metaphors for translation or trans-lation-related issues, illustrates that metaphors are created for some underly-ing reason and that they thus relate to fundamental issues about the nature of translation, its principles, and the approaches and methods adopted in the act of translation.

In metaphors in which translation is compared to painting and drawing (e. g. Bruni 1424; Dryden 1685; Fu 1951), users clearly consider translation as an art where ‘resemblance in spirit’ is much more important than ‘resemblance in form’. When the translator is compared to a “prophet” (Philo 20 B.C.), a “morn-

40

0907-676X/06/01/040-15 $20.00Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

© 2006 Tan ZaixiVol. 14, No. 1, 2006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 3: Metaphors of Translation

ing star” (Herder 1766-1767), or a “bridge” (Goethe 1824; Wang 1979) and so on, the users emphasise that translation primarily aims at or leads to the intro-duction of new ideas, new knowledge, or new patterns of thought and culture. In the same fashion, when the translator is compared to a “slave” or a “servant” (e.g. Pasquier 1576), or a “lying matchmaker” (e.g. Lu 1935; Mao 1934), or when some type of translation is compared to “a beautiful but unfaithful woman” (Ménage 1690 [?], cited in Tan 2004: 88), this implies that translations should be absolutely faithful to the source texts, that the translator is not ‘trustworthy’, and that no compromise is possible between the faithful and the beautiful.

The purpose of the present study is to explore metaphors of translation in a systematic way. Employing comparative as well as diachronic and synchronic approaches, the study analyses Chinese and Western metaphors of translation, classifies them, and discusses their implications at various linguistic and socio-cultural levels. At the end, I shall summarise the conclusions, especially in terms of their significance to the overall appreciation of the Chinese and Western tra-ditions of translation, as well as our understanding and vision of the develop-ment of Translation Studies in the 21st century.

The typology of metaphors of translationThe term ‘metaphors of translation’, then, refers to figures of speech used

about translation. They imply that translation, translators, etc, are compared to something else, be it an activity or a phenomenon. Since metaphors make use of analogy and images in describing translation, they often reveal much more about the activity than does plain, non-metaphorical language.

In a narrow sense, one can only term statements which involve the use of im-ages for comparison as metaphors of translation, such as the images as “paint-ing”, “drawing”, etc. cited above.

Here, I shall, however, use the term whenever the description or definition of translation comprises some kind of comparison, no matter whether there is any image involved or whether the comparison is explicit or implied. Thus, when it is said that “translation is an art”, this is a metaphor about the nature of translation although ‘art’ is not an image in itself. But of course, it involves a presupposition, namely that translation is not an art form in the same way as painting, music, and drama.

The distinction is difficult: according to dictionary definitions, ‘art’ means “the creation or expression of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreci-ated primarily for their beauty or emotional power” (The Oxford Dictionary of English); it refers to “that ideological form of human society” which includes “literature, painting, sculpture, architecture, music, ballet, drama, film, folk art forms, etc.”(Xiandai hanyu cidian [Modern Chinese Dictionary]). Therefore, pro-vided ‘literature’ is defined as an art form, and we equate ‘literary translation’ with ‘literary creation or re-creation’, then the expression “Translation is an art” is not a metaphor about translation, but merely a statement about an indisput-able fact. But if, conversely, one is mainly thinking of such visual or audio-vis-ual arts as ‘painting’, ‘sculpture’, ‘dancing’ and ‘music’ when one uses the term ‘art’, then the statement “Translation is an art” can be treated as a metaphor of translation.

Tan. Metaphors of Translation. 41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 4: Metaphors of Translation

Using the broader definition, the study in hand has included more than 200 books and articles in English and Chinese that contain metaphors. This has yielded 270 metaphors of translation; 156 are from English sources and 114 from the Chinese language, including some based on Chinese translations of metaphors that originated in the West.

The English material also comprises statements from other Western languages such as French, German, and Latin. Therefore many of the Western metaphors included here are not only from second- rather than first-hand sources, but they are also translations. This adds a certain fuzziness to the picture. However, I contend that it does not make much difference whether they are found in the original or in translated sources as long as their legitimate status as metaphors is recognised. I therefore consider them valid as objects of study. Furthermore, it is an efficient and practicable way of research – and, who, I wonder – would be able to understand all examples in all the languages of origin? In the nature of things, the study is of course not exhaustive, for there must be metaphors in many of the more than the 6,000 languages existing at present (Ethnologue) - although nobody would be capable of collecting them all. The metaphors un-der discussion were found in so many sources that I am convinced that they provide us with of representative picture of Chinese and Western metaphors of translation and can serve as a solid basis for the following analyses and discus-sions.

Unlike logic, metaphors take on dynamic forms that are not rigidly struc-tured. As Robinson puts it, “[i]f the basic logical tool is structure, the basic rhe-torical tool is the trope … If structures are stable, tropes are volatile. If logic prefers predictability, rhetoric prefers mutability” (Robinson 1991: 134). Such a rule not only applies to tropes or metaphors in general, but it is also true of met-aphors of translation in particular. In theory, the creation and use of metaphors of translation are thus governed by the dynamic nature of human thoughts and ideas, and since there is no end to the dynamic development in human thoughts and ideas, neither will there be an end to the dynamic development in meta-phors of translation.

However, in actual translation practice and scholarship, development is more finite. Despite the infinite and constant development in human thoughts and ideas, the use and creation of metaphors of translation follows regular patterns that can be traced in the appreciation of the concept behind a particular meta-phor of translation. A quick overview of all the metaphors involved reveals that the number of themes that have inspired them or which form their core is not infinite. Among those that constantly recur are themes such as ‘authority of the original’, ‘inviolability of the author’, ‘significance of the receptor or receptor language’, and ‘approaches to translation: free or literal? domestication or for-eignisation’? and so on. What is more, all these themes have been approached from a limited number of perspectives. To put it specifically, such themes have all been dealt with in a relatively small number of images of translation.

The below table presents the metaphors in 10 categories. I provide an insight of their content by citing two examples in each category in both English and Chinese in it (except category 10 where no Chinese examples have been found in our investigation):

2006. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 14: 142

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 5: Metaphors of Translation

Category Number Examples

(1)Painting, sculpture, etc.

Total: 45;Chi: 21;Eng: 24

● 以效果而論,翻譯應當像臨畫一樣,所求的不在形似而在神似。(傅雷, 1951:10)

● 譯文學書的工作就不同了:他所用的不是與原作同樣的顔料,但卻要他的畫圖有與原作同樣的力量與效果。(鄭振鐸, 1921: 379)

● Translation is a kind of drawing after the life… (Dryden 1685: 23)

● Translation is precisely what the copying of a given model is to a beginner in the art of painting. (Gottsched 1743: 57)

(2)Music, theatre perform-ance, etc.

Total: 33;Chi: 19;Eng: 4

● 在演技上,理想的譯者應該是“千面人”,不是“性格演員”。(餘光中, 1969: 747)

● [翻譯]正如用琵琶、秦箏、方響、觱栗奏雅樂,節拍雖同,而音韻乖矣。(錢鍾書,1984: 31)

● [Willard Trask (1900-1980) says] “I realized that the translator and the actor had to have the same kind of talent. What they both do is to take something of some-body else’s and put it over as if it were their own…trans-lation involves: something like being on stage.” (Qtd. in Venuti 1995: 7)

● … he [i.e., the translator] had to translate only what ap-pealed to him…No actor would normally be expected to attempt a role that is in opposition to his character, physical appearance, or age. (Nossack 1965: 229)

(3)Bridge,pioneer,match-maker, midwife, etc.

Total: 29;Chi: 16;Eng: 13

● “媒”和“誘”當然說明了翻譯在文化交流裏所起的作用。它是個居間者或聯絡員,介紹大家去認識外國作品,引誘大家去愛好外國作品,仿佛做媒似的,使國與國之間締結了“文學因緣”。 (錢鍾書,1979: 268)

● 可憐得很,還只譯了幾個短篇小說到中國來,創作家就出現了,說它是媒婆,而創作是處女。……他看得譯書好象訂婚,自己首先套上約婚戒指了,別人便莫作非分之想……他看得翻譯好象結婚,有人譯過了,第二個便不該再來碰一下,否則,就仿佛引誘了有夫之婦似的……。 (魯迅: 1935: 297-298)

● He [the translator] shall be the morning star of a new day in our literature ….” Herder 1768: 207.

● That is how we should look upon every translator: he is a man who tries to be a mediator in this general spi-ritual commerce and who has chosen it as his calling to advance the interchange. (Goethe 1824: 25)

Tan. Metaphors of Translation. 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 6: Metaphors of Translation

(4)Slaves, fetters, etc.

Total 23;Chi: 6;Eng: 17

● [法耶夫特夫人]把愚蠢的譯者比作僕人,被女主人打發去恭維某某人。女主人要講的恭維話一到他口裏,便變得粗暴而殘缺不全;越是恭維話中的美妙詞句越被這個僕人橫加歪曲。(轉引自Ladborough, 1938-1939: 92; 譯文見譚載喜, 2004: 92)

● 除了翻書之外,不提倡自由創造,實際研究,只不過多造些鸚鵡名士出來罷了!……譯詩不是鸚鵡學話,不是沐猴而冠。(郭沫若, 1923: 329; 334)

● The translator is a slave; he wracks his brain to follow the footprints of the author he is translating, devotes his life to it, and employs every graceful turn of phrase with currency among his peers, in order to conform as closely as possible to the meaning of the other. (Pasquier 1576: 112)

● …slaves we are, and labour on another man’s planta-tion; we dress the vineyard, but the wine is the owner’s: if the soil be sometimes barren, then we are sure of being scourged; if it be fruitful, and our care succeeds, we are not thanked; for the proud reader will only say, the poor drudge has done his duty… (Dryden 1697: 175)

(5)Betrayal,reincar- nation, etc.

Total: 33;Chi: 14;Eng: 19

● 翻也者,如翻錦綺,背面俱花,但其花有左右不同耳。(贊寧, 轉引自馬祖毅, 1999: 169)

● 不過它[譯品]原是洋鬼子,當然誰也看不慣,爲比較的順眼起見,只能改換他的衣裳,卻不該削低他的鼻子,剜掉他的眼睛。(魯迅, 1935: 300)

● Traduttore traditore. / The translator is a traitor/betrayer. (Italian saying.)

● … it seems to me that translating from one tongue into another … is like viewing Flemish tapestries from the wrong side, for although you see the pictures, they are covered with threads and obscure them so that the smoothness and the gloss of the fabric are lost. (Cervan-tes 1615: 149)

(6)Merchants, beggars, etc.

Total: 13;Chi: 2;Eng: 11

● 最好的翻譯總是通過了譯者全人的存在而凝成果實的。在凝的時候,首先卻要結合著愛。缺乏高度的愛,把本來是傑作的原作,譯成劣質商品,丟在中國讀者面前。讀者大公無私,拂袖而去,譯者的精力就全浪費了。(李建吾, 1951: 552)

● [有人評論18世紀法國不準確的翻譯時說]在翻譯英國文學作品時,譯者就像尷尬的岳母向別人介紹出身低賤的女婿一樣,總是要爲原作者塗脂抹粉……(轉摘自譚載喜,2004: 86)

● If a translator finds himself compelled to omit so-mething, he may be excused if he offers something else in its place, as if he were a merchant who, having pro-mised to deliver a specified weight of some commodity, has failed to do so and must make amends by the gift of an unexpected bonus. (Savory 1968: 85)

● [For Toscanella,] the poet who acted against this pre-cept would be a thief who displays the stolen property in public place so that anybody can spot it at a glance. (Toscanella, Orazio 1575, cited. in Rener 1989: 309)

2006. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 14: 144

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 7: Metaphors of Translation

(7)Wine, milk, food, etc.

Total: 19;Chi: 18;Eng: 1

● 改梵爲秦,失其藻蔚,雖得大意,殊隔文體,有似嚼飯與人,非徒失味,乃令嘔穢也。(鳩摩羅什, 1984: 32)

● 諸出爲秦言,便約不煩者,皆葡萄酒之被水者也。(道安, 1984: 28)

● 一杯伏特卡酒不能換成一杯白開水,總要還他一杯汾酒或茅臺,才算盡了責。假使變成一杯白開水,裏面還要夾雜些泥沙,那就不行了。(郭沫若: 1954: 24)

● … poesie is of so subtle a spirit, that in pouring out of one language into another, it will all evaporate; and if a new spirit be not added in the transfusion, there will remain nothing but a caput mortuum.” (Denham 1656: 156)

(8)Animals, fruits, vases, etc.

Total 31;Chi: 16;Eng: 15

● [贊甯]對“翻譯”二字作了新的解釋,在《義淨傳》的“系曰”中說:“譯之言易也,謂以所有易所無也。譬諸枳桔焉,由易土而殖,桔化爲枳,桔枳之呼雖殊,而辛芳幹葉無異。” (贊寧, 轉引自馬祖毅, 1999: 169)

● 蘋果一爛,比別的水果更不好吃,但是也有人賣的,不過我們另外還有一種相反的脾氣:首飾要“足赤”,人物要“完人”。一有缺點,有時就全部都不要了。愛人身上生幾個瘡,固然不至於就請律師離婚,但對於作者,作品,譯品,卻總歸比較的嚴緊,蕭伯納坐了大船,不好;巴比塞不算第一個作家,也不好;譯者是“大學教授,下職官員”,更不好。好的又不出來,怎麽辦呢?我想,還是請批評家用吃爛蘋果的方法,來救一救急罷。(魯迅, 1933: 295-296)

● The live dog better than the dead lion. (FitzGerald 1878: 250)

● He [Croce] blames translators for “pretending to effect the remoulding of one expression into another, like a liquid poured from a vase of one shape into a vase of another”. Further, in his view, the translator puts the original “back in the crucible and mingling it with the personal impressions of the so-called translators.” (Kel-ly 1979: 216)

(9)Com-petition, games, etc.

Total: 16;Chi: 1;Eng: 15

● 所以真正精妙的翻譯,其可寶貴,實不在創作之下;而真正精妙的翻譯,其艱難實倍於創作。(茅盾: 1934, 見羅新璋, 1984: 350)

● 文學翻譯是兩種語言、甚至是兩種文化之間的競賽,看哪種文字能更好地表達原作的內容。文學翻譯的低標準是求似或求真,高標準是求美。譯者應盡可能發揮譯語優勢,也就是說,儘量利用最好的譯語表達方式,以便使讀者知之,好之,樂之。創造性的翻譯應該等於原作者用譯語的創作。(许渊冲: 2000: 2)

● … I would not have our paraphrase to be a mere inter-pretation, but an effort to vie with and rival our original in the expression of the same thoughts. (Quintilian 96[?]: 20)

● [Translation is] a game [of chess] with complete infor-mation…a game in which every succeeding move is in-fluenced by the knowledge of previous decisions (Levý 1967: 1172)

Tan. Metaphors of Translation. 45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 8: Metaphors of Translation

(10)Figures of speech, and other categories

Total: 28;Chi: 2;Eng: 26

● A word is nothing but a metaphor for an object or…for another word , [and that translation is] a form of adap-tation, making the new metaphor fit the original metap-hor. (Rabassa 1992: 1-2).

● Robinson (1991) uses ‘six master tropes’ to describe translation, comparing it to Metonymy, Synecdoche, Metaphor, Irony, Hyperbole and Metalepsis (Robinson 1991: 133-193).

● Translation is a mode. To comprehend it as mode one must go back to the original, for that contains the law governing the translation: its translatability. (Walter Benjamin 1923: 72)

● Evidently in this respect translating resembles teaching. (Savory 1968: 35)

It goes without saying that there may be other ways of categorisation of the metaphors, such as according to the principles or the criteria of translation; or according to the inter-relationships between author, translator, and recipient. They might have been compared to others from the same epoch in the Chinese and Western translation traditions. We may even study metaphors of translation from an ideological or gender-related perspective, for example, by using such metaphors as depict that translation is ‘a beautiful but unfaithful woman’.

But in this article, at least, I shall use only the above general approach, hoping that this particular model of typology and discussion may serve as useful leads to other models in the future.

The culturality of metaphors of translationThere are three noteworthy features about my sample: all metaphors relate

to the culturality of these metaphors, specifically, the cultural contexts in which they were created and used.

First, most of the metaphors deal with literary translation, and in this field again, with poetry translation. This is the case all through history. 240, 90% of all the metaphors identified, concern literature. The reasons are obvious: like litera-ture, the translation of literature requires more innovative and original thinking on the part of the translator than does translation of non-literary texts. Since literary translators must be good at using figurative language in their transla-tion, they must have a similar urge and ability to use figurative language when they talk about translation. Furthermore literary translation has always had a dominant position in the history of translation, that of the West in particular. Of course, translations of religious works have also played a role in the history of Western civilisation, especially when national languages began to emerge during the Renaissance. But the dominant status of literary translation has not really been seriously challenged since Livius Andronicus’ Latin translation of Homer’s Odyssey in about 250 B.C. Even today when the importance of transla-tion of scientific, technological and other practical text types far surpasses trans-lation of literature, the basic positions which most scholars take in Translation Studies does not seem to have shifted entirely away from literary translation, in the sense that many of the best examples for discussing translation problems have primarily come from literary translation.

In the Chinese translation history, Buddhist writings held sway over a rela-tively long period of time, but today this is history. Especially over the last two

2006. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 14: 146

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 9: Metaphors of Translation

centuries or so, secular literature has surpassed any other types of texts in im-portance of translation. It may be precisely because of the long phase of pre-dominance of Buddhist translation in China (from around the second century to the end of the Tang Dynasty in the 10th century) that the number of metaphors of translation from the Chinese tradition of translation scholarship of this period is very small indeed.

Second, the largest single category, 78 metaphors (30% of the total) centre around images of art forms such as ‘painting’, ‘sculpture’, ‘music’ and ‘theatri-cal performance’. Numbering 56 (22% of the total), the next group of metaphors refers to translations as ‘slaves’, and ‘transformation’ or ‘reincarnation’ that de-pict either the ‘invisible’ status or the dominating role of the translator. They are followed by metaphors built on imageries such as ‘bridge’ or other inter-mediaries such as a ‘matchmaker’; the 29 examples add up to 11% of the total. These three categories comprise 160 items and make up 63% of all examples. This simple statistics gives an approximation of an idea of what translators and translation scholars are most concerned about in their profession, what they would have wanted the undertaking of translation to be like, what their role and responsibility should be, what gains and losses they will sustain, and what kinds of delight and difficulties they had while translating.

And third, many metaphors, especially better-known ones, were not only phrased by eminent literary translators or critics, but were also often produced in periods in which literature and literary translation flourished. The famous images of the translator as a painter, an actor, and servant were first created in the Renaissance, one of the important periods of translation in the West. Like-wise, in China, the fascinating metaphors which compare the translator to a matchmaker, and the task of translation to a marriage, were found during the first half of the 20th century, a golden age of literary translation in vernacular Chinese as represented by the great author and translator Lu Xun.

These metaphors of translation enshrine the wisdom and the aesthetics of those who first phrased them. But this is not all. What we see in this variety of figurative descriptions of translation, is the multiplicity of the nature and tech-nique of translation. Underlying this complexity is the broader frame of socio-cultural ideology which created the metaphors.

In other words, the metaphors created in a specific translational system are often conditioned by its socio-cultural ideology. This implies that the images used in metaphors tend to vary with socio-cultural and ideological systems. For example, the few famous Chinese metaphors created and used in the Golden Age of Buddhist translation (i.e., Eastern Han–Tang Dynasties [AD 25-907]) are undoubtedly a true reflection of the ‘food first’ culture among the Chinese. They are based on the ancient Chinese philosophical dictum that ‘food is the very first necessity for all men’, metaphors which included Kumārajīva’s “[translation is] just like feeding someone with masticated food”; Dao-an’s “[a translation is but] diluted wine” and the fifth century monk-translator Daolang’s “[a translation is but] milk diluted with water” (如乳之投水).

In his commenting on his contemporary d’Ablancourt (1606-1664), the 17th century French critic Gilles Ménage (1613-1692) remarked that d’Ablancourt’s translations reminded him of a beautiful woman he had loved - she was very beautiful but not faithful. Thus ‘the beautiful but unfaithful’ or ‘les belles infidèles’

Tan. Metaphors of Translation. 47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 10: Metaphors of Translation

became a label for fluent and loose translations in France. No doubt, this ‘beau-tiful but unfaithful woman’ image mirrors a male chauvinist ideology in trans-lation scholarship rather than a truth that is universal and perennial.

The recurrent metaphorical comparisons of the basic role or status of the translator in the Western mind have been such images as the prophet, the morn-ing star, and the slave, whereas the traditional Chinese figures have been the she ren (舌人 = ‘tongue-man’), the xiang xu zhi guan (象胥之官 = ‘government officer who knows the languages of the neighbouring barbarians’), “you” zhe (“誘”者 = ‘inducer’), mei po (媒婆 = ‘matchmaker’), and so on. Clearly, these images all carry their own subtle meanings, some positive and others negative. On the positive side, the Western images reflect the spirit of a pioneer, an explorer, and an introducer of new things, while the Chinese figures imply spirit of ‘carrying on’, of ‘performing something worthwhile’, and of ‘rendering service to other people’. However, on the negative side, some Western images such as being a betrayer must unmistakably carry an overtone of ‘abuse’ against the author, the source text as well as the source and target-language culture, while the Chinese images of the inducer, and the matchmaker, must necessarily imply some kind of deception.

The relevance of the socio-cultural frame is evidenced by the use of Western translational discourse of figures such as painting, etc. since painting and the like played an important role in the Renaissance period. In a similar fashion, the ‘slave’ image has been associated more with Western than with Chinese meta-phors of translation. From the ‘prisoners of war’ of the Roman army in antiquity to the ‘negro slaves’ of European colonial powers, the image of the ‘slave’ and ‘master-slave’ or ‘master-servant’ relationship were familiar social and cultural phenomena, so much so that these metaphors of translation were well estab-lished as early as John Dryden in the late 17th century.

On the other hand, notably the negative connotations of the ‘matchmaker’ metaphor, are closely related to Chinese translational culture and discourse. Al-though the Chinese scholar Qian Zhongshu (1979: 268), holds that the ‘match-maker’ image in Western discourse is not devoid of equally negative connota-tions, it is more often a figure with neutral connotations. The Western image had more of the ‘mediator’ (Goethe 1824: 25) and not the Chinese term mei po (媒婆; literally: ‘matchmaking lady’) which is decidedly pejorative, in mind. In the 1930s and 1940s in China, the image of the mei po frequently appeared in translational metaphors because many translators were widely criticised for not presenting the original faithfully, and for deceiving to readers like an ly-ing matchmaker. As hinted this also related to the image of ‘marriage’. Critics likened translation to an act of ‘engagement’ or ‘marriage’ because some transla-tors tried to manipulate the translation market. As Lu Xun sharply remarked, these translators “treated translation as if it were an act of engagement, in which they would scare other wooers away by setting an engagement ring on the fin-ger of a lady, meaning to say that they were the only lawful man for this lady to marry” (Lu Xun 1935: 298). These translators also “treated translation as if it were a marriage, in the sense that once they have translated a certain work others should never, ever dare a thought of re-translating it, or else they would be considered seducing another man’s wife” (1935: 298). The metaphors used by Lu Xun and his contemporaries mirrored translation in times past when a

2006. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 14: 148

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 11: Metaphors of Translation

feudalistic ideology of matrimony was the order of the day.It is noted that classes 9 and 10, namely “As competition and playing games”

and “As metaphors themselves and as other images”, contain many Western examples and few Chinese ones. It is not that metaphors of translation centring on ‘competition’ are strangers to the Chinese as the idea that the translator must compete with the original has often been used in Chinese discourse. Thus Xu Yuanchong’s demands that the translator should surpass his author in making the text ‘beautiful’ in the three respects, of sense, sound, and form (Xu 2000: 6) can represent such a ‘competition’ theory. Furthermore, it is obvious that some metaphors are found in some languages and not in others, so it is not surprising that the image of translation as a ‘game’ (a ‘game of chess’ for instance), a fa-miliar image in Western metaphors of translation, should be lacking in Chinese analogies on translation. However, many of the metaphorical images presented in Class 10 deserve an in-depth analysis at the socio-cultural and ideological levels. Take for example two of the metaphors used by Walter Benjamin, one on translation as a ‘mode’ and the other on the source and target text relationship as a ‘tangent touching a circle’ relationship.

In Benjamin’s view, “[t]ranslation is a mode. To comprehend it as mode one must go back to the original, for that contains the law governing the translation: its translatability” (Benjamin 1923: 72), and:

“[j]ust as a tangent touches a circle lightly and at but one point, with this touch rather than with the point setting the law according to which it is to continue on its straight path to infinity, a translation touches the original lightly and only at the infinity small point of the sense, thereupon pursuing its own course according to the laws of fidelity in the freedom of linguistic flux” (Benjamin 1923: 81).

Metaphors are used in order to make it easier to understand a phenomenon by making it more concrete. This does not apply to these metaphors of Ben-jamin’s. For they do not make things less abstract and more comprehensible, at least not from a Chinese point of view. But it is not uncommon in Western philosophy that complex metaphors and similes are used to describe abstract or complex phenomena. This also holds good of the comparisons of translation by Douglas Robinson (1991) to metonymy, synecdoche, metaphor, irony, hyperbole, and metalepsis.

In a sense, this is exactly what often distinguishes Western modes of thought from the Chinese mode, and this is also where there is a division in contempo-rary Chinese opinion on the study of translation. ‘Traditionalists’ in modern China would like to adhere to the traditional, practice-oriented approaches to translation, and to dismiss the introduction of modern foreign (mainly Western) theories and ideas (including abstract types of Western metaphors of transla-tion) as ‘too abstract’, and ‘too incomprehensible and indigestible’ to Chinese culture. On the other hand, there is an even stronger force, composed of transla-tion scholars who are open to developments in Translation Studies on the world arena and who take the more or less universalist view that translation theories and ideas developed in other cultures, should and could be used for the ad-vancement of Chinese approaches to translation.

Implications for Translation Studies in the 21st centuryBy means of the great variety of intriguing and illuminating Chinese and

Tan. Metaphors of Translation. 49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 12: Metaphors of Translation

Western metaphors of translation, we can perceive the true features of transla-tion: its nature, its laws, its methods, etc. from a number of perspectives. Es-pecially in the realm of literary translation, in the pre-Translation Studies age, where the very life and success of a translation depended on imagery, the use of figurative language would be a great deal more effective than plain language for the description of translation, how it could be done, and the critical criteria, and so on.

But what kind of nature and principle about translation can we actually see in this colourful sea of metaphors of translation? What are the insights we ob-tain and what are the implications for Translation Studies in the 21st century?

Let us start with the nature of translation. The question is: What is transla-tion? In accordance with views that are often cited – even today - translation is “the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent tex-tual material in another language (TL)” (Catford 1965: 20); it is “the transfer of ‘meaning’ from one set of language signs to another” (Lawendowski 1978: 267); it “consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equiva-lent of the source-language message, first in terms meaning and secondly in terms of style” (Nida and Taber 1969: 12); it is “the production of a functional target text maintaining a relationship with a given source text that is specified according to the intended or demanded function of the target text (translation skopos)” (Nord 1991: 28); and so on and so forth. The key words are ‘equiva-lent’, ‘entire messages’, ‘the transfer of meaning’, ‘the closest natural equiva-lent’, and ‘translation skopos’.

Modern as they may sound, these terms and definitions can all be found in various earlier metaphors of translation. A diachronic search into both the de-notations and connotations of these translational metaphors shows that, inso-far as literary translation is concerned, it does not matter whether one uses the metaphors of ‘painting’ and ‘sculpturing’ or ‘musical-instrument playing’ and ‘stage acting’: the fundamental purpose would always be that it is essential that a translation should reproduce in the target text ‘a likeness in spirit’, rather than a ‘likeness in form’ to the source text. In short, the basic idea of the metaphors is that, in the art of translation, the artist-translator aims to replace ‘[SL] textual material’ with ‘equivalent [TL] textual material’ (Catford 1965), or to produce ‘a functional target text maintaining a relationship with a given source text that is specified according to the intended or required function of the target text’ (Nord 1991).

These metaphors can also tell about other basic issues about translation. We find that many of these metaphors of translation, which have come down the centuries have in fact contained apt answers to many of the questions that have been asked about the principles, methods, and techniques, and the processes and procedures of translation.

In a metaphor by Croce which Kelly cites, translators pretend to “effect the remoulding of one expression into another, like a liquid poured from a vase of one shape into a vase of another”, and what they try to do is to put the original “back in the crucible and mingling it with the personal impressions of the so-called translators” (cited in Kelly 1979: 216). This metaphor vividly makes the point that no matter how hard the translator tries to faithfully reproduce the original in translation, he cannot completely avoid ‘mingling’ the original with

2006. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 14: 1�0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 13: Metaphors of Translation

his ‘personal impressions’: a hundred per cent faithfulness or fidelity is nothing but an ideal that can never be realised in any translation, be it literary or non-literary.

In a somewhat different way, Water Benjamin defines the ‘ideal’ kind of trans-lation as ‘real’ translation. For him, “[a] real translation is transparent; it does not cover the original, does not block its light, but allows the pure language, as though reinforced by its own medium, to shine upon the original all the more fully” (Benjamin 1923: 79-80).

Jiří Levý used an almost archetypal metaphor when he compared the proc-ess of translation to a game of chess. According to Levý, translation resembles a game of chess in the sense that “every succeeding move is influenced by the knowledge of previous decisions and by the situation which resulted from them” (1967: 1172). Therefore, in order to win a ‘game’ of translation, the trans-lator must calculate and make his moves carefully, in the same fashion as a chess player deliberates over his moves in a game of chess.

Other types of imagery such as those of slave, servant, betrayer, etc. pertain not only the nature and process of translation, but also to various methods trans-lation. Instead of simply stating that the concrete strategies are e.g. word-for-word translation, literal translation, adaptation, and so on, the use of these im-ages and metaphors would tell more about why specific translations are done in specific ways. Thus we would know that it is because the translator is by nature but a ‘slave’ or a ‘servant’ that he must be translating ‘word for word’; and that likewise it is because he is often a ‘betrayer’ or a ‘transformer’ that he may not merely translate, but has to adapt or rewrite the whole story in his target text.

It seems as if we may cautiously also assume that specific translations are law- or rule-governed activities, provided the terms ‘laws’ and ‘rules’ are not taken too rigidly. They, as well as the principles and methods, of translation are all relative. For example, we may take the twelve following (and contradic-tory) ‘rules’ proposed by Theodore Savory to be laws or general principles of translation, namely: “(i) A translation must give the words of the original. (ii) A translation must give the ideas of the original. (iii) A translation should read like an original work. (iv) A translation should read like translation. (v) A trans-lation should reflect the style of the original. (vi) A translation should possess the style of the translation. (vii) A translation should read as a contemporary of the original. (viii) A translation should read as a contemporary of the transla-tion. (ix) A translation may add or omit from the original. (x) A translation may never add or omit from the original. (xi) A translation of verse should be in prose. (xii) A translation of verse should be in verse.” (Savory 1968: 54). None of these ‘laws’ and ‘principles’ of translation’ can be taken in the absolute. In other words, when we say “A translation must give the words of the original”, we do not say this to the complete exclusion of giving “the ideas of the original” and vice versa; or when we say “A translation should read like an original work”, we do not really say this to the complete exclusion of “A translation should read like translation” and vice versa, and so on. When we, in a similar manner, use metaphors of translation to describe the nature and the methods of translation, our position is also relative. In other words, the use of one particular image for the description of translation does not necessarily mean the complete exclusion of another image for the same purpose. Just as the purposes of translation vary,

Tan. Metaphors of Translation. 51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 14: Metaphors of Translation

so do the principles of translation, and so do the ways, including the metaphori-cal ways, in which the processes and products of translation as well as the roles of the author, translator, recipient, are described.

ConclusionMetaphors of translation can serve as both historical and current evidence of

self-projection in translational cultures and the culture of Translation Studies. They function as important windows on how we view translation, especially literary translation. They make us aware that translation is a multi-faceted ac-tivity. This multi-facetness of translation is due to the complex tangle of e.g. translator subjectivity, and recipient (e.g. target readers, commissioners) that are components of an act of translation. Different translational purposes and functions, different translators and recipients, will all lead to different interpre-tations and understanding of translation, including different products.

The multiplicity of metaphors of translation that have emerged and been used since the ancient times reflects such varied interpretations and understandings. These windows of translational metaphors provide us with views of what is re-garded as ‘scientific’ about translation by modern translation theory. They con-vey the information that translation is the ‘transfer’ of ‘entire messages’ from the source text to the target text, intent on achieving ‘equivalence’ in the ‘transfer’, a process which requires ‘innovation’ on the part of the translator. The features of ‘transfer’, ‘equivalence’, and ‘innovation’ are all relative. The criteria will neces-sarily vary with the person (translator and recipients), the purpose (for whom and why the translation is done), the text type (novel, poetry, etc.), the time (viewed synchronically or diachronically), the place (geographical, ethnic, and socio-cultural), and so on. All seen from the windows of translational meta-phors. They are not merely windows but important carriers of meaning, carriers of socio-cultural values about translation.

In the discipline of Translation Studies, the systematic study of translational metaphors is meaningful not only to a better understanding of translation, but also for the expansion and development of Translation Studies as a discipline. Although metaphors of translation do not take up a particularly large propor-tion in the theoretical discourse on translation, they are nonetheless significant because, as a form of discourse on translation, they are uniquely powerful in terms of vividness and of the cultural values they express and which are not present in non-metaphors. Therefore, in the 21st century, which is supposedly more an age of ‘scientific’ than an age of ‘metaphorical’ language for academ-ic fields of research, metaphors of translation constitute important objects of study. Continued research into them may help renew and sharpen our vision of both translation as an age-old human activity and of Translation Studies as a vigorously developing discipline.

Notes1. This article is based on part of the outcome of a research project supported by Hong Kong Baptist University (Project Seq. #: FRG/00-01/II-46). The author wishes to express acknowledgement to the university for its support.

Works citedBatteux, Charles. 1747-1748. Principes de littérature. In: Robinson, Douglas. 195-199.Benjamin, Walter. 1923. The task of the translator (Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers). In:

Schulte, Rainer & John Biguenet (eds.). 71-82.

2006. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 14: 1�2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 15: Metaphors of Translation

Brower, Reuben A. 1959. On Translation. New York: Oxford University Press. Bruni, Leonardo. 1424/26. On the correct way to translate (De interpretatione recta). In:

Robinson, Douglas. 57-60.Catford, John. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chinese Translators Association (ed.). 1984. Fanyi Yanjiu Lunwenji: 1949-1983 (Essays on

Translation Studies: 1949-1983). Beijing: Foreign Languages Teaching and Research Press.

Cicero. 46 B.C. De optimo genere oratorum (The Best Kind of Orator). In: Robinson, Douglas. 7-10.

Dao-an. 382. Biqiu dajie xu (Preface to the Great Bhksu Code). In: Luo, Xinzhang (ed.). 27-28.

Daolang. 5th Century. Da niepan jing xu (Preface to the Sutra on Nirvana). In: Luo, Xinzhang (ed.). 43.

Dryden, John. 1685. Preface to Sylvae: Or, the Second Part of Poetical Miscellanies. In: Schulte, Rainer & John Biguenet (eds.). 22-24.

Dryden, John. 1697. Steering betwixt two extremes (from Dedication of the Aeneis [to John, Lord Marquess of Normanby, Earl of Musgrave]). In: Robinson, Douglas. 174-175.

FitzGerald, Edward. 1859. Letter to E.B. Cowell. In: Robinson, Douglas. 249.FitzGerald, Edward. 1878. Letter to J.R. Lowell. Robinson, Douglas. 250.Fu Lei. 1951. Gaolaotou congyiben xu (Preface to the revised translation of Père Goriot). In:

Chinese Translators Association (ed.). 80-81.Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. 1824. Extract from the Schriften zur Literatur (Writings on

Literature). In: Lefevere, André. 24-25.Herder, Johann Gottfried von. 1766-1767. The ideal translator as morning star (from On

the More Recent German Literature: Fragments [Über die neuere Deutschen Litteratur: Frag-mente]). In: Robinson, Douglas. 207-208.

Jakobson, Roman. 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation. In: Brower, Reuben A. (ed.). 232-239.

Levý, Jiří. 1967. Translation as a decision making process. In: To Honour Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Volume II. The Hague: Mouton. 1171-1182.

Kelly, Louis G. 1979. The True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and Practice in the West. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kumārajīva. 4th Century. Wei seng rui lun xifang citi (On style). In: Luo, Xinzhang (ed.). 32.

Lawendowski, Boguslaw P. 1978. On semiotic aspects of translation. In: Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.). 264-282.

Lefevere, André. 1992. Translating/History/Culture: A Sourcebook. London & New York: Routledge.

Lu Xun. 1935. “Ti weiding” cao (Draft of “Title undecided”). In: Luo, Xinzhang (ed.). 299-303.

Luo Xinzhang (ed.). 1984. Fanyi Lunji (An Anthology of Essays on Translation). Beijing: The Commercial Press.

Mao Dun. 1934. “Matchmaker” and “virgin”. In: Luo, Xinzhang (ed.). 349-351.Nida, Eugene and Charles Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J.

Brill. Reprint in 1982.Nord, Christiane. 1991. Text Analysis in Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Pasquier, Etienne. 1576. Letter to Jacques Cujas. In: Robinson, Douglas. 112.Philo Judaeus. De vita Mosis (The Life of Moses), 20 B.C. In: Robinson, Douglas. 13-14. Qian Zhongshu. 1979. Lin Shu de fanyi (Lin Shu’s translation). In: Chinese Translators

Association (ed.). 267-295.Robinson, Douglas. 1991. The Translator’s Turn. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins

University Press. Robinson, Douglas. 1997. Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche.

Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing,Savory, Theodore. 1968. The Art of Translation. London: Jonathan Cape.Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1800. Über Sprache und Worte (from On Language and Words

[Parerga und Paralipomena]). In: Schulte, Rainer & John Biguenet (eds.). 32-35.Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.). 1978. Sight, Sound and Sense. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press.Tan, Zaixi. 2004. Xifang Fanyi Jianshi: Zengding Ban (A Short History of Translation in the

West: Revised Edition. Beijing: The Commercial Press.

Tan. Metaphors of Translation. ��

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14

Page 16: Metaphors of Translation

Tang, Ren. 1950. Fanyi shi yishu (Translation is an art). In: Luo Xinzhang (ed.). 522-526.Wang Zuoliang. 1979. Ciyi, wenti and fanyi (Meaning, style and translation). Fanyi

Tongxun (Translators’ Notes) 1. 3-12.Xu Yuanchong. 2000. Xin shiji de xin yilun (New theories of translation in the new era).

In: Chinese Translators Journal 3. 2-6.Yu Guangzhong. 1969. Fanyi he chuangzuo (Translation and creation). In: Luo Xinzhang

(ed.). 724-753.Zheng Zhenduo. 1921. Yi wenxueshu de fangfa ruhe? (Methods of translating literary

works). In: Luo Xinzhang (ed.). 369-382.

2006. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 14: 154

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:03

18

Apr

il 20

14