Rewrite

It’s a rewrite according to my critic and adviser

Meeting with adviser

chap 5
unpack it and show how framework works.
chap 1
two aspects in title, and model and ;poetics.
on equal basis.
same come out.
front end ;poetics privilege
abstract: a bit messy do at end.
restructure
begin intrude personal background, cite reasons personal why chose topic,
elaborate research problem
reationale for study
scope and limitations,
method is in introduction chapter 3.
mechanical things in introduction.
take out heading conclusion for chapters.

chap 1 framework.
lit review: what contribution to what has done before.
put inside introd. take out analysis.
work on topic

lit review doing same thing in field. not include theories.
chap 1 framework.
lit review practitioner and theoretician.
build framework, contend theories done in past. actual research done on actual translation.
who did chi to eng
western theorists combing chinese
5-10 works only

framework get from them to build theory.
review of lit
chapt 2
leftover of chap 2 and 4 = framework chapter
framework chap: remote people

second half of framework. chapter. conflate.

two subchapters. framework chapter. general to particular. saying do own theory different from what others have said. a

framework.

translation theory with chinse char (too few)
problematic: how it mixes with chinese translation theories. what are the similarities.

show how the three models are part.

structures to does not return to chap 4.
concepts see how form and problematize.
chap 5
three chapters: transla reader
intepret
creative writer

theory will be very general in framework.

not problems but things that happen

theory on one, reader and experience as one chapter.

general introduction to reader.
succeeding chapters prove framework. better flow.

only weak and strong.
examples of readership.
foreigner reading a different culture.
second half how has this been a problem
challenges as reader.
writer assumes same culture and geography.
but translator knows so what challenges will the tackle it.
diction, imagery, express
more explanation and examples.
difficult to combine chinese and western aspects. quote Chinese elements. look for the two persons. chinese.
contribution combine the two. know both cultures. both cultures and languages.
critcal essay.

works themselves.
good contribution study of translation.
first chinese text chinese translation then clean (westernized).
clean the final version.

adverbs of time
text edited initial chapters.

conclusion will change. : one by one the model. in the body.

icing: media cute daw. new title. each chapter change title.
framework chapter new title.
literary titles.

am i working

now?

test poll

Silence

No word from my adviser after two months. I submitted my draft to her before Christmas 2009 and it’s now past Valentine’s day 2010. Will I finish on time?

Meanwhile, I’m trying my best to squeeze in some time to double check the translation of the stories, edit some of them, and perhaps to finalize the second part of the dissertation. So far, no luck in this area either because I’m just to busy with a gazillion things.

The latest submission

A Translator-Oriented Model and Chinese Translation Poetics:
Selected Contemporary Short Stories from Taiwan

Abstract

While the canon of Western literature is relatively known, Chinese literature still has to make inroads. In order to disseminate Chinese literature more, works from the Chinese tradition have to be translated to Western languages especially in English. Translation work is thus becoming more important especially in Comparative Literature. Addressing this need, the current study in the theoretical part proposes a translator-oriented approach that distinguishes three roles for the translator. These roles are reader, interpreter, and creative writer. The empirical part uses the principles of a Chinese translation theorist Yan Fu as guidelines for translating contemporary short stories from Taiwan. Findings show that the theoretical model may be generally used with some modification. The short stories that were translated tries to conform with the principles of Chinese translation theorist Yan Fu. Both the theoretical model and the translation principles are useful because they provide enough criteria when translating these short stories. The study contributes by offering a new model for translation studies. Another contribution is that contemporary short stories by Taiwanese writers are first seen in English translation. The study recommends further expansion of translator model to include cognitive or phenomenological approaches. Translation of other Chinese and Asian literature can also be undertaken as well.

Keywords: Chinese translation, Western translation theory, translation studies, contemporary short stories from Taiwan, Translator-oriented model, Yan Fu

Contents

Title 1

Abstract 2

Contents 3

Chapter 1: Introduction 5

Research Problems 9

Rationale for the Study 18

Translation studies 18

Chinese literature 23

Chinese translation theory 30

Scope and Limitations 34

Theoretical Limitations 35

Choice of Materials 35

Structure of the Dissertation 45

Conclusions 45

Chapter 2: Literature Review 47

Western Translation Theory 47

Chinese Translation Theory 59

First Phase 63

Yan Fu 64

Fu Lei 68

Qian Zhongshu 70

Lu Xun 71

Evaluation of Chinese Translation Theories 73

Conclusions 74

Chapter 3: Method 76

Non-Literary Dimensions 81

Conclusions 82

Chapter 4: Theoretical Framework 83

Proposed Theoretical Model 83

Translator as Reader 86

Translator as Interpreter 93

Translator as Creative Writer 101

Translation Theory with Chinese Characteristics 112

Source of China’s Translation Theory 115

Conclusions 120

Chapter 5: Results and Discussion 121

Evaluation of the Translator-Oriented Model 123

Procedure followed 124

Special Difficulties in Translating Chinese Texts 141

Critical Essay on the Short Stories 164

How to Measure the Width of a Ditch 165

Ghost Rain 168

Magnificent End of the Century 169

Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story 170

Take Out Your Handkerchief 172

Night Train 172

Moth 173

Conclusions 174

Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations 177

Works Cited 184

Annex  The Contemporary Taiwanese Stories in English 198

Annex  The Chinese Texts 199

Chapter 1: Introduction

I have studied Chinese language for many years both in the Philippines and in Taiwan. Aside from my studies, I have worked as a professional translator for several more years in Taiwan, translating mostly technical documents, research studies, and monographs. The long self-taught apprenticeship has given me a unique perspective on the practical side of translation. This has likewise made me reflect on the theoretical aspect of translation. Obviously, an initial gut-feel, untheorized translation approach is woefully inadequate to constitute an academic research paper. When others ask about the topic of the dissertation, I would tell them that I wanted to translate Chinese literature into English and they invariably would nod knowingly as if thinking that the task is just a simple matter of reading something in one language and expressing that hazy, nebulous meaning into another language. Little do they know how much work goes into translation, much less doing a dissertation on the topic.

It was only during the graduate work in Comparative Literature did I discover the burgeoning new field of translation studies. Translation studies offers a systematic way of analyzing the translation process and provides a structured approach to the task. As a Chinese reader and an English/Comparative Literature student, I believe that rigorous scholarship in the new discipline of translation studies will allow me to express ideas based on a unique, specific experience. Thus, my primary objective in writing this dissertation is to undertake a more systematic and in-depth research into the problem of translating Chinese literature into English by using ideas from both the East and the West.

I have noted that translators are in a special position with regards to the entire translation structure. Since the translator plays an important part in translation, I hope to come up with a model that privileges the translator. Related to my knowing Chinese, I want to see if that model can be used in translating contemporary texts from Taiwan into English. Going further, perhaps the Chinese tradition has some theories or guidelines to offer for translation. These topics are the main thrust of my dissertation.

From the work of translation studies, what I think closely parallels my idea about translation revolves around the problem of the translator. The translator faces challenges in his/her own translation work. These challenges may be from the text itself or from the prevailing culture. The text itself poses inherent challenges linguistically while from the side of culture, the translator occupies a unique position in the entire translation system. That position may not be at all positive for the translator. For example, the translator may be pro-active or may be entirely passive to publication demands. Being a translator myself, I thus have chosen to work on this topic to try and recuperate the translator’s position.

Translation practice itself may be fraught with obstacles. First there may be resistance to reading a translation. When people find out that a text is a translation, they may have second thoughts about reading the text. Landers notes that there is a “resistance by the public to reading literature in translation” (7). That resistance may be an attitude of people because they are not getting the “authentic” or “original” thing. The translated text may be seen as a “fake” or a “copy.” Sadly, this position has gone largely unchallenged. Even literary criticism practitioners cannot escape the mimetic paradigm while the already worn-out Italian shibboleth may place the translator aside in favor of the author which may further stifle the translator’s voice. Even if the translation is rendered smoothly and beautifully, people might still think that the original may be a lot better. It is one of the aims of this study to shed some light regarding the very important role of the translator.

Aside from this resistance, perhaps another challenge that translators may face is the accusation of not being faithful to the original text. As with all other translation-theory-uninitiated individuals, people have a common singular notion that if the translation does not closely follow the original, then the translation is bad. Anything less than absolute fidelity would be an “unfaithful” or a “bad” translation, and even a “betrayal.” This notion is what modern theorists call the tyranny of the author or the original text. It is difficult for people to escape that monolithic concept of what translation is. They may even vilify a translator who somehow fails to capture the original meaning. Translators may be blamed (“it’s a bad translation”) when things do not quite turn out as “faithfully” as it should be to the original. The dominant ideology or poetics that constructs this belief is a mimetic view on translation—that is, the original meaning has to be captured and expressed in another language.

Another idea is that a lot is lost in translation, as if the translation process necessarily and in all cases, entails loss although admittedly there is loss. Certainly, there may be a loss in translation but a more insightful question is can there be also a gain? They may have the impression that translation has somehow lost the beauty that can be found in the original work when read in the original language. It seems that no one dares think that the translation may be better than the original in many ways. I still have to hear an author admit that a translation of his/her own work is better. But in the case of pseudotranslation (a work claiming to be a translation but is not), there seems to be a reversal of pre-eminence since the label “translation” is claimed.

Davies comments that the belief in a translation loss is deeply ingrained:

Indeed, many discussions of translation quality seem to imply that an omission is inevitably a flaw. To see this, one has only to scan the publicity materials of professional translation businesses, where over and over again we find the term omission bracketed with error, or featuring in the triplet of unpardonable defects: errors, omissions and ambiguities. Disclaimers frequently indicate that in the event of one of these weaknesses being found in a translation, the translator’s liability will be limited to correction of the offending parts of the text. (56)

Despite that loss, however, what this study tries to see is the possible gain from translation because of the translator’s contribution. I try to affirm the contribution of the translator mainly in his/her creative task.

In the real world translators may have been forced into a second-place existence and may have been marginalized even inadvertently; it is hard to discern the true importance and position of translators given the strong belief that the original is what counts. The author and the text relegate the translator to an aside. It is possible that the work of the translator is both not given that much importance. Translators seem to have to work in obscurity and may be marginalized while their names rarely appear on the front cover (or are merely inserted between parenthesis as an after thought) since the original author or text is always privileged. Baker observes that “Translators and interpreters, on the whole, seem to have historically belonged to minority groups of one type or another” (Encyclopedia xiv). These groups were primarily the natives of the places where colonizers visited. She surmises that in developed countries, minority groups may make up most of the translators and interpreters. Perhaps belonging to a minority group contributes to the relatively weak position that translators have in society. We hope to help translators escape the mimetic paradigm and the possible low esteem by proposing in this study another perspective of viewing the translator and the text. This alternative view privileges the translator. Translators may not be anymore the silent shadow behind a translated work from another language. They can be seen as active agents who determine the existence and continuance of original texts. The current study seeks to foreground the roles of the translator and to see how those roles come forward when translating several short stories from Taiwan.

As a reaction against this collective stereotyping or othering, a lot of ink has already been spent in defending the profession; in fact, most literature on the topic starts with a boilerplate apologia of sorts to defend whatever translation approach adopted. There is an implied idea that since a text is a translation, then the translator is obliged to say how he/she has been faithful/unfaithful to the original. That apology may not even be necessary. Only when the translator is well-known in other fields, then there is a perfunctory nod towards the translator’s direction. For example, everyone knows that Spivak translated Derrida’s Of Grammatology but other than this, it seems that translators live in the sidelines. One of the possible ways out of this is to foreground the contribution of the translator. Arrojo claims that “It is the recognition of the translator’s name as proper and rightful that will free the translator’s visibility from the stigma of impropriety or abuse” (31).

Research Problems

The considerations above have led me to several questions that I hope this study can answer or at least propose tentative conclusions. Some questions that I seek to answer are: Seeing that translated texts and the translator seem to be burdened by some stigma, is it possible to provide a way out and somehow recuperate both translator and translated text? Or at least give them due recognition? With my knowledge and ability to translate technical documents, can my skills also be used for literary texts? Knowing Chinese culture and literature, how can I help to make known the literature of the place? Is it possible for me to use translation theories both from the West and from the East to come up with my own translation poetics? Can this poetics be applied to translating Chinese fiction, especially narrowed down to contemporary short stories by writers from Taiwan? Can modern translation theories provide a richer translation theory compared with traditional translation theories? Is it possible that the notions of translation and translator may be mistaken or at least may not provide a balanced view about the translation process? Can some of these translation theories help me improve my work? Is literary translation much different?

These questions were primarily subjective ponderings of a beginning translator. I thought that it would be worthwhile exploring the answers to these questions in depth. I may not be able to answer all these questions conclusively in this story or even provide answers to all of them. Perhaps I may not answer all these questions thoroughly either but being aware of them is a beginning. What this study aims is more modest, to come up with a translator model and to translate a few short stories with the intention of exploring my own translation poetics.

Several researchers have proposed various answers regarding translation. The literature review explores some of the relevant ideas. As will be discussed in depth in this dissertation, I have noted that translation is not merely a mechanical transfer of meaning from one language to another—a change of form, so to speak. Rather, recent findings in the discipline shows that there is much more happening below the surface. But the literature in translation studies shows that this idea is far richer than what is perceived on the surface. An awareness of these various translation theories initiated this research to explore my ideas about translation and to contribute something new to Chinese literature in English.

In addition, translation is neither a matter of just changing the clothes of a “meaning” from one text to another set of clothes nor is it a recoding or reframing of a tertium comparationis or transcendental signified (Nida). Traditionally, translation studies has been normative, that is, prescribing what a translation should look like—whether or not a translation is a good or bad depending on how “faithful” it is to the original. However, in the current state of the discipline, translation studies is trying its best to escape this paradigm. Seen broadly, translation studies has shown that the process involves rather the interaction or negotiation between the writer, translator, and reader, the interplay of power relations between cultures, and most probably the entire literary canons between different traditions (Bassnett Translation Studies).

In fact, the various demands on translation have placed more burden on the translator. The burden requires the translator to have more qualifications than an ordinary reader or a translator say in the middle ages. The translator is not just someone who knows two languages and who is more or less capable of saying one thing from one language into another. Rather, there are more demands on the translation studies scholar. The demands extend beyond language. Now, he/she has to know critical theory, cultures, history, linguistics, and postmodern thought. These demands are the result of what the literature has revealed regarding translation. The literature has shown that translation is much broader than linguistics. Shreve and Koby see that “the actual practice of translation and interpreting straddles the boundary between linguistic knowledge and cultural knowledge, requiring both an in-depth knowledge of the language systems and stylistic regularities of at least two languages and extensive knowledge of the cultures and subject domains (and to some extent the literatures) represented in the respective language pairs” (xiv). The demands on a literary translator are much higher, involving not only a fluency in languages, but also an inter-disciplinary knowledge and strong literary abilities as well (Venuti Reader 1). Landers says that “It is commonly thought that translators deal with words, but this is only partly true. Whatever their branch of translation, they also deal with ideas. And literary translators deal with cultures [italics original]” (72). The expansion into culture is an interesting development that has benefitted the discipline. Moreover, there is something special that happens within a translator as Shreve and Koby note: “Yet the whole of language mechanics and cultural studies taken together, do not a translator make […] there are clearly some processing differences that differentiate the translator or interpreter from monolinguals and, especially, bilinguals who do not translate” (xiv).

Furthermore, literary translation is specially challenging because the translator has to be not only bilingual but a good reader as well. He/she has to have the sensitivities of a literary professional since there are nuanced cultural and aesthetic connotations which are untranslatable if one remains merely in the linguistic level. Translators do not only exhibit bilingualism but are also bicultural (Hatim and Mason 223). They try to promote the transfer of meaning which in a large part hinges on how the text is read. In particular, Birch who is a translator of Chinese literature, prays “that future translators from Chinese will be blessed not just with linguistic skill but with a passion for literature” (8). The linguistic skill and passion are what drives a literary translator. If other approaches are used, then these previously untranslatable things can be reasonably dealt with. So the whole endeavor of translation is more cultural interpretation and aesthetic representation instead of a mere linguistic performance.

The translator is not only a factor in translation but culture also plays a big part. Wang Ning, one of the Chinese translation theorist, notes that translation is seen as primarily a cultural negotiation: “Undoubtedly, doing translation studies without referring to cultural studies will not work as translation is now regarded firstly as an intercultural action” (17). So translation studies can be seen as twofold: on the one hand, as transferring content from one language to another and on the other hand, as a transfer of cultural representation from one language to another. Wang Ning prefers to redefine translation as “both a linguistic rendition as well as a cultural interpretation, with more emphasis on the latter” (64). This emphasis on culture is what Bassnett calls the cultural turn.

Part of this cultural consideration is publication demands. Translators often have to face various challenges in their work such as what to translate, how to translate, and for whom to translate, among others. These are issues because studies have shown that the publishing industry and the consumers of translated works are the ones who in some way have a say what gets to be translated. Studies such as those done by Venuti in his works Rethinking Translation and The Translator’s Invisibility show that publishing considerations dictate translation work (Munday 153-156). From various contributions Lefevere likewise in Translation/History/Culture explores how ideology and patronage affect translation production.

Early translation work has been on the issue of fidelity and that issue has always been debated on throughout the history of the discipline. A clear example of this is Bible translation where the translated text is supposed to be utterly faithful to the original (Hebrew and Greek); otherwise, scriptural hermeneutics will be in trouble. The same goes for other religious texts where fidelity makes sure that those texts are “inspired.” However, the problem of fidelity is just one of the many concerns. Starting from the 1970s onwards, translators are now becoming more aware of contextual issues such as those involving socio-cultural aspects and problems raised by postmodern criticism. These other issues go beyond the concern for faithfulness and are more focused on the ideology that results in the translation. Venuti and Lefevere have been recognized as the promoters of this translation studies approach of seeing the impact of ideologies in textual production. Moreover, literary theory has matured to a point where new ways of viewing texts are being proposed, and this has likewise influenced how subjects are treated.

Having been involved in technical translation, I think that literary translation poses new challenges compared with other kinds of translation. Literary translation differs from technical translation in that for literary translation “it is of utmost importance to represent the very subtle meaning between the lines and even behind the lines. Literary works usually imply very subtle cultural and aesthetic connotations that are untranslatable if the translator only adheres to the superficial fidelity on the linguistic level” (Wang Ning 63). In literary translation, translators “consistently share in the creative process. Here alone does the translator experience the aesthetic joys of working with great literature, of recreating in a new language a work that would otherwise remain beyond reach…” (Landers 5). Technical translation may limit itself to a one-to-one correspondence between original and translated text.

To explain how translation works and how translators somehow come up with their work, several translation theories have been proposed but most are confusing or overlap one another and at worst, far from the actual experience of working translators. For example, theories on correspondence (Nida) seem just to be reformulations of other ideas such as those on translation shifts (Catford). Theories that involve Polysystems (Hermans) for example are too complex to be practical for a working translator who has to meet deadlines and who does not have the luxury of time. The complexity is something that a translator perhaps may not give much importance during the actual translation work. What I have found is that theories still come short of explaining what goes on inside the translator or that they look at the issue from a certain perspective that misses the key player in the translation process—the translator. There are other players in the translation process, starting from the author, the author’s publisher, the original work’s target audience to the translator’s publisher and his/her own target audience. Including these other players however is beyond the scope of this study and may be material for other research.

The problem of this loss of translator’s importance is that first, translation studies has become so broad and diverse that it is easy to lose focus on the most important element, the translator. Previous research in the area focused more on the linguistic aspects of translation which now has become more of a cultural aspect. The research however did not put together the various roles of the translator into an integrated whole. Although the roles of the translator do appear in the previous research but the main concern were other things such as the socio-cultural perspective of translation.

Those who have done the most recent and relevant work have been on various theoretical formulations which will be tackled in the literature review. Relatively little work has been done on the translator as will be shown in the literature review. More work is necessary along the line of translator roles because the translator is the key player in the translation process. Since the key player is the translator, this study will focus on the translator himself/herself.

The translator occupies a special subject position that makes him/her at once hybrid, inhabiting the in-betweenness of texts, the no-man’s land where everything is indeterminate. The translator occupies this crux and he/she has to negotiate the interstices, the space between cracks, the fluid, sliding meaning of texts and somehow mysteriously in the end, decide among the many possibilities of meaning in the original text and magically pull out a translation from his/her magic hat. The study will attempt to explore the give and take between texts, the reconciliation between the desire to express oneself and the tyranny of the original text wanting to emerge from the translation from the perspective of the translator.

The in-betweenness of the translator lends complexity to the translation task. Shreve and Koby, commenting on the process of translation, note that the translator has to contend with the complexity of “the mental operations preceding or simultaneous with the production of the translator’s written target text, or the interpreter’s spoken text” (xi). The “black box” that is the translator is subject to “a complex cognitive process in which world knowledge, linguistic competences, pragmatic constraints, and social factors were all integrated” (xiii). The process thus of translation is highly problematic and complex—far from the common notion that the work is “easy.” Clearly, the challenges of translation have multiplied and increased complexity in the discipline.

Since the area of translation studies regarding translator as subject can be quite broad, I have narrowed it down to exploring the various roles of the translator. Within these roles the focus is more on the subjectivity of the translator. The theoretical framework, which is the basis for the translation strategy, sees the translator in his/her three main roles. The translation model can be classified as interventionist, that is, seeking to affirm the translator’s role, and applied to Chinese literature with its specific requirements. In doing this study, I hope to question the notion of the translator who may be seen as a second-class citizen at the mercy of the original text and of the author. By questioning long-established notions about the translator, perhaps new insights can be obtained into what translated texts in relation to original texts. This study will attempt to focus on a small part of the discipline, namely, the translator roles, and try to come up with a model that may be both intuitive and elegant. Such a model may facilitate translator awareness. In addition, contribution from Chinese translation theorists will also be used to enrich the theoretical framework. A practical application of Chinese translation theory will be used to translate several short stories from Taiwan.

The dissertation will try to build on what other researchers have published to come up with a new elegant integration, or at least a new perspective regarding the role of the translator. It tries to fill a theoretical or research gap (that is, the lack of focus on the translator) as well as extend the findings of theory to Chinese translation. I am not proposing anything new—what I offer is a model based on what has been said before by others regarding translation and the translator. In addition, I try to address a small part in the tradition of Western translation studies regarding knowledge of other traditions of translation studies especially from China.

Therefore, the purpose of this dissertation is twofold: to propose a model for a translator-oriented approach for the theory side and for the practical side to undertake translations of contemporary Taiwanese short stories that can be read as in English. At the moment of starting the translation I am aware of the approach to use and then the translation work is held up against the criteria proposed by one of the major Chinese translation theorist, Yan Fu. On the Chinese translation theory side, theorists have proposed practical ways of viewing the finished product. The application part translates seven selected contemporary short stories by writers from Taiwan. I then describe the translation poetics that I followed. Throughout the centuries these views have guided translators. I will therefore see whether these ideas are also relevant to my work. Translation studies, Chinese literature, and Chinese translation studies are key topics whose importance will be tackled below. Knowing the importance of these traditions will situate this study between traditions that seem to have developed independently of each other. The rationale for the study hinges as well on these three main topics.

Rationale for the Study

Translation studies

Despite the apparent bad reputation that has rubbed off on translators, their job is nevertheless crucial in an ever-changing and expanding world. Increasing globalization, dissolution of borders among nations such as in the EU, and widely-available information either through libraries or the Internet has spurred a need for communication among communities from different cultures, languages, and backgrounds. Improved communication may promote understanding among people, prevent wars, and eliminate prejudice by finding common grounds of agreement. The need for better communication has boosted the translator’s position as an indispensable agent, anointing him with a vital intermediary role. The translator is seen as “a mediator between the producer of a source text and whoever are its TL-receivers” (Hatim and Mason 223). For Hatim and Mason translating is “a communicative process which takes place within a social context” (3). The communicative need has likewise made translation studies part of globalization.

Weber likewise sees translation as increasingly crucial in globalization: “In facilitating circulation, transmission and contact, globalization brings the most remote and diverse areas and languages into contact with one another. Such contact, while clearly increasing the need for translation, does it in a way that is no less ambivalent than globalization itself” (66). So for example, throughout history translators have been necessary agents where two cultures meet. La Malinche who was an interpreter for the Spaniards during the colonization of the Americas and the wife of Hernan Cortés enabled the colonizing powers to communicate with the natives whom the colonizers eventually subjugated (Baker Encyclopedia xv). For example, a 2009 news article cites the efforts of a Filipina translator in Beijing Marie Angelee Conlu who interprets for Philippine presidents (T. Tan). The image of the country will definitely be affected by how she goes about her work. Moreover, key texts such as the Bible and Buddhist sutras needed the services of translators to spread religious faith.

Wang Ning traces the globalization trend of translation studies not only in the West but also affecting China: “Globalization, like other Western concepts, has finally arrived in China, exercising a strong influence on China’s economy and finances […] translation plays an increasingly important role in international communication, especially in English-Chinese translation and vice versa” (16-17). Translation, for Wang Ning, is “absolutely necessary to our daily life and interpersonal communication, without which we can only isolate ourselves from the outside world, especially in the current age of globalization” (61). The metaphor of translation as travelling is apt. Texts travel from one territory to another through the work of translation. The effect of this travelling is an expansion of the original text’s territory and an incursion into perhaps the territory of another culture’s canon.

The globalization of Chinese literature has made some writers known to the world but still very few can claim to have read Neruda, Li Po, or Dostoyevsky in the original languages that they were written in. Most likely, works from other countries have been mediated by translators and conveyed to our own or other cultures. And this mediation is not merely couched in linguistics terms—translators create an image of another culture through their own perspective or colored by their cultural lenses. Translators thus wield power and offer a particular image of what the text is. What the West knows about Chinese culture and literature is affected by how translators project the Chinese image. If translators do their job well—that is providing works fairly reflective of the culture—then an accurate image may be formed. But if translators offer a distorted image, then that is what the West will get.

Translation studies offers a version of the original. In fact, the original owes its life to the translated text, an idea first proposed by Walter Benjamin way back in 1927 and has been recuperated by modern theorists such as Derrida and de Man. The survival of texts depends on the translation according to Benjamin. Had not the “classic” works of writers from other countries been translated, then they would probably not have been included in the canon of world literature. Wang Ning comments that it is possible for a literature not to be appreciated in its own society but through translation, that work can achieve prominence: “In speaking of literary translation, a literary work which is not so popular in its source language could become extremely popular in the target language largely due to the effort made by its translator in representing not only its original meaning but also its cultural connotation and the cultural soil on which the work is received” (21). By making the translation more popular than the original, the translation gives life to the original text. That life the original owes to the translation.

Translation studies is closely related to Comparative Literature. In the field of literary studies, translation studies holds a key position because it allows access to literature from other cultures. Translators play an intermediary yet vital role since they enable the work of Comparative Literature. Comparative Literature, which seeks to study texts from various cultures, has had to rely on translations before and even now to enable critical work. In fact, seen in another way, the discipline exists because translations are available thanks to anonymous, or otherwise, translators. Classical literature owes its survival and transmission to translation. The Greek and Roman classics, pillars of Western literature, would not be the material for liberal education. Had there been no translations, then we would still be in a blissful state of a post-Babelian age when we were ignorant of others and only concerned about our own literature. Translation studies thus define Comparative Literature and not the other way around. Translation studies can clarify how texts are read and interpreted, which will be used in Comparative Studies to understand different texts. In fact, Bassnett notes regarding translation studies and Comparative Literature that “both are methods of approaching literature, ways of reading that are mutually beneficial” (6). So we can see that the two disciplines go hand-in-hand and for Comparative Literature scholars, translation allows access to texts yet unexplored.

Emily Apter, in her book The Translation Zone, points to the crucial role of translation in forming a new Comparative Literature discipline. Lefevere likewise has written on the topic and stresses the importance of translation for Comparative Literature. As history has shown, translation or mistranslation has shaped world events especially after 9/11. Apter says that “language wars, great and small, shape the politics of translation in the spheres of media, literacy, literary markets, electronic information transfer, and codes of literariness” (4). Apter takes on an interventionist position with regard to the role translation has in society. That interventionist role is the ability of translation to affect society, to change the course of events, and to mold history. Iraqi translators, for example, have to face threats to their lives (Turner). We can thus see that despite the relative background position of translation, it takes on a pivotal role in human affairs. Advances in the field have redefined the parameters of Comparative Literature and broadened the discipline to include cultural studies as well.

Whereas in early years, translation has been seen as a mere language transference, now, the emergence of translation studies in the past decades and the explosion of materials have underlined the growing interest in the field due to a deepening understanding of critical theory. In just a few years, books, articles, journals, conferences, software, and Internet tools, have been made available as scholars continue discovering more things. From the early linguistics-based approach, translation studies has evolved into an inter-disciplinary effort. In an interdisciplinary way, these fields are related in that literature can be critiqued through the various formulations of literary studies while translation studies enables the meeting of literatures not only from different languages but also from disparate cultures. If translations are considered as texts which intertextually refer to other texts, then the links with the other disciplines are clearer.

Bassnett sees the development of translation and critical theory as mutually symbiotic. Translation theory, critical theory, and cultural studies form a closely connected system:

Major developments in translation studies, such as polysystems theory and the concept of textual grids, coincided with developments in literary/cultural theory and postcolonial studies. As a result, a student of translation should be as much interested in textual issues as in the study of how cultures construct their prevailing tastes and myths. (Kuhiwczak 8)

In fact, “the rapidity of the spread of critical theory is therefore largely due to translation.” The translation of theoretical books from European languages has helped usher in transformations in critical theory (Kuhiwczak 4). Translation influences critical theory thanks to ideas coming from different cultures.

The inter-disciplinary view brings together the various disciplines. References to other disciplines are necessary for improved translation work. Birch pitches in to say that translators do not work alone or in a vacuum but have to rely on inputs from several sources:

Translators depend on scholarship from many sides. First rate critics help them select their material, historians of literature help them place it in perspective. Comparatists who make analogy studies between totally unrelated literary traditions make possible a stronger sense of genre, and if translators have these studies, then the required tone will come much more naturally to them, whether it be the distinctive tone of satire, polemic, lyrical reminiscence, comic romance or heroic tragedy, naturalist fiction, or fairytale. (9)

Thus, this current study has some value from the point of view of Comparative Literature and its allied disciplines. The value lies in increasing awareness of the links between translation and other fields. Moreover, literature can be read, with the background of translation, in a richer and fuller way. Translations can be used in literary criticism as a method for literary analysis and pedagogy (Rose 2). Bassnett echoes the same idea, seeing that that “translation thrives in an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary context” (Kuhiwczak 6).

Translation studies is thus important for Chinese culture in order for its literature to be known. The only way that Western audience, and even audience from Asia, will read Chinese literature is through translation. The following section explores the position of Chinese literature in relation to world literature. Closely connected with Chinese literature is translation of its text since dissemination hinges on translation. The possible gap that may exist will be seen in better light.

Chinese literature

One role that the translator is entrusted with is to work on the literature of a place. For example, one of the largest countries in the world that has a corpus of literature that can challenge that of the West is China. Here, we refer to Chinese works as those works written in the Chinese language even if produced in various geographical areas like from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. The term “Chinese” can refer to several things. It can refer to people from China, including those ethnically related or are living outside China. The term is also used for the language spoken by that race. Chinese is a collective term to include all the languages and dialects spoken by that group. Normally, if use to refer to the language, then it is basically Mandarin Chinese which is the official language in China. Mandarin is taught all over the world and is known as Chinese.

A distinction between written Chinese and spoken Chinese can be made. The written Chinese can be divided into classical Chinese which is now defunct. Classical Chinese is used in traditional Chinese literature. Modern written Chinese is much simpler and may seem colloquial but retains some formality, much like written English can be stylistically different from spoken English. Spoken Chinese as Mandarin Chinese, is very different from the written. Twentieth century Chinese literature started becoming more vernacular after the May Fourth Movement. The May Fourth Movement happened in the early Twentieth century when a group of intellectuals pushed for the increasing use of the vernacular in written Chinese. One of the proponents was Lu Xun, an intellectual and writer whose contribution to translation studies will be briefly described in the later Chapters.

The splitting of Chinese into various languages and notions may be confusing. This study will use Chinese both to refer to the race and to the language. Wang Ning sees a splitting of the Chinese “from one form of Chinese (Mandarin) to many (indigenous) forms of Chinese. That is we have Mainland Chinese (with numerous local dialects), Cantonese Chinese (spoken both in Guangdong and in Hong Kong), Taiwanese Chinese (with lots of dialects), Singaporean Chinese, and the Chinese spoken in overseas Chinese communities, etc. Thus, we have two sorts of Chinese literature: literature produced in mainland China, and literature produced elsewhere in the Chinese language” (99). The split shows the rich variety there is in the language. This variety has given rise to a widely diversified literature in Chinese.

While China and Chinese refer primarily to mainland China, other regions around China such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore also are known as largely Chinese-based. Historically, Taiwan has been a part of mainland China but with starting in 1949 when the Kuomintang moved its headquarters from China to Taiwan, the island has become de facto an independent nation. Taiwan then is the island nation while Taiwanese can refer to the dialect spoken in the island. The dialect is also known as Minnan or Fukien because most of the settlers in the island come from the Minnan or Fukien province of mainland China. Taiwanese is also used to refer to the inhabitants of the island. So in this study, the use of “China” and “Taiwan” may be interchanged.

A lot is known about Western literature but Asian literature both popular and canonized seems to have been relegated to the background. Evidence for this can be seen in bookstores where most literary works are Western and only few shelves are devoted to Asian literature. One of the main reasons for this lack of understanding is the relative scarcity of Asian writing in English. To make Asian writing better known, literary translation becomes especially important. A country whose literature is quite substantial but unknown is China; most of its literature is accessible only to Chinese readers. It is important to know more about Chinese literature because in Asia, China has perhaps the longest literary history and the most extensive as evidenced by anthologies on traditional Chinese literature, such as those by Minford and Owen, which span texts across centuries.

From the time that Deng Xiaoping took over, China’s economy has taken off. It has managed in the two decades after that to gain global status as the workshop of the world. The country’s economy has been export-driven but yet its culture has to keep pace with that growth. Taiwan has, even before mainland China, become a developed country. Given their relatively important status in Asia as a cultural and economic power, China and Taiwan may wield considerable influence on Asian literature and culture. Because of that importance, I will focus on the literature of Taiwan (whose literature I would like to see as part of China or the Chinese tradition). I believe that the island’s literature is unique from mainland China since Taiwan seemed to have had a head start with regard to its literary development (Y. Chang). While it may be true that Japan and Korea have literature which also extends many centuries, Chinese literature nevertheless has significantly more texts as proven by anthologies and a longer history.

Moreover, Chinese literature may define Asian literature. Because of the close affinity of Korean and Japanese languages to Chinese, Chinese literature certainly has had a huge impact on Japanese and Korean literature. The impact can clearly be seen in the philosophical writings of China that have made their way to these two countries. Other countries as well have been affected. In other countries, this effect can be seen in the writings of overseas Chinese such as those from Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Writers such as Catherine Lim from Singapore and Bob Ong from the Philippines show their ethnic roots. In the Philippines the effect has been much less perhaps because of the facility that Filipino Chinese have for English as well as the relatively well-assimilated Chinese communities. For the Philippines, this is a loss since we do not even know who lives right beside us. Aside from this, the dearth of available Chinese literature into other languages such as English often leads to a certain cultural blindness or at least a partial deficiency in knowledge of world literature. The deficiency begs to be addressed.

Since China’s literary output is quite significant, Chinese literature may allow us to affirm more our heritage as Asians, defining a way for becoming Asians and not Americans in Asian clothes. The influence of American culture is patently obvious in Filipino culture. Filipinos seem to look more towards America than to its next-door neighbors. There is thus a need for making the literature of our close neighbor known. With the emergence of China as a global economics player, its culture is part of a soft diplomacy that will be beneficial for globalization. Nevertheless, a lot of work still has to be done to affirm Chinese (or Taiwanese) culture because of a possible unknown status.

Wang Ning deplores the seeming marginality of Chinese culture: “In world culture, the Chinese culture is still in an inadequate position of marginality whose value has by no means been fully recognized by the world, with the exception of a few sinologists who usually have a deep understanding of certain aspects of Chinese culture but lack a comprehensive grasp of the Chinese cultural and aesthetic spirit” (27). This marginality may be the result of the Chinese language being difficult as well as the few available materials.

Moreover, the West may know very little about literature from China. The West may know traditional Chinese literature like the poems of Li Po or the writings of Confucius. More contemporary Chinese literature such as those from the Twentieth century may still have to make inroads into the canon. Some attempts at bringing to light Chinese literature come from McDougall and Kam who situate the literature of China in the context of Twentieth century history in terms of the various genres. Likewise, Hsia has pointed out the importance of several Chinese writers, notably among them Eileen Chang, Mau Tun, and Lao She. Perhaps one of the reasons for this gap is the lack of translations. Another situation is what Wang Ning notes when translation fails to capture the original beauty or may even result in misrepresentation (21). Not only may there be misrepresentation but there may be a lack of interest that Bassnett notes, “despite enormous Western interest in the new China today, there is little interest in contemporary Chinese literature” (qtd. in Kuhiwczak 22).  She blames this to the mythic construct of China/Cathay. That mythic construct wraps an aura of a hard to reach literature. Cyril Birch, one of the earliest translators of modern Chinese literature, reflects that during his time readers only had the “sketchiest idea of the breadth and sweep of Chinese literature […] because the translations either didn’t exist or were basically unreadable” (3-4).

In particular, certain forms of Chinese literature are not that popular in the West. For example, popular literature such as martial arts fiction is widely read among the Chinese. Mok deplores the virtually unknown status of martial arts fiction, a genre quite popular within Chinese-speaking regions: “The long-standing traditionally dominant position of Anglo-American literature within a macro-polysystem made up of world literatures has led to martial arts fiction in English translation being relegated to an extremely peripheral position” (94). The most popular writer of this genre is Chin Yung and his novel The Book and the Sword was translated recently by John Minford, a known translator of classical Chinese literature. Yet many volumes still remain to be discovered and translated. Only a few works of this genre has been translated into English and volumes remain to be discovered.

What the West may know is literature that come from the pen of Asian Americans such as Amy Tan, Maxine Hong Kingston, Ha Jin, and Jung Chang among others who have been writing in English. In addition, perhaps we know about the Chinese through blatant stereotypes from popular movies or TV shows. Who remembers the name of the writer who won the Nobel Prize for Literature a few years ago (Gao Xinjian)? And yet maybe we know by heart several writers from Latin America or Africa. The case of other Asian writers may even be worse. Only those in the literary departments who have taken a course in Asian literature can name these Asian writers. So very few would know Jiang Rong who won the 2007 Man Asian Booker prize for Wolf Totem and who bested our very own Butch Dalisay. Ironically, we know more about the literature of countries halfway around the world, especially the U.S., than those of our next-door neighbors. This situation may indicate the West’s marginalizing, intentional or not, of China.

Nevertheless, despite the paucity of materials, at least more and more works are becoming available. Efforts to address this gap continue on the side of the West and on the Chinese side. For example, Duke’s Contemporary Chinese Literature collects some post-Mao fiction and poetry works. Other collections such as the anthologies of contemporary Chinese literature, Chi’s Anthology of Contemporary Chinese Literature or Lau’s The Unbroken Chain are available that provide a broad sweep of the material.

It is only starting in the 1990’s onwards that newly-translated texts have been made readily available. Perhaps because of the difficulty of the Chinese language that very few texts are available in English, and the relative closed society in China in the 20^th century, Westerners are belatedly discovering the wealth of literature from Chinese pens. The literature of China may have sufficient breadth and depth to at least hold up to the West; now is a good opportunity for discovering its literature. This can be proven by anthologies published by various Western translators that collect some of the best works in the literature.

Although more and more works from China are appearing in English, a lot of work remains to be done. As Birch (7) comments, “Forty years later we have, praise be, a very different situation. One can teach a college-level literature-in-translation course nowadays with a fairly respectable reading list.” And he continues to enumerate more works becoming available in English such as Sida qishu, Hongloumeng, and Rulin waishi. These mentioned works are the hallmarks of Chinese culture. As some of the major works, they have had a big influence on the literature. The gradually increasing pace of translation is picking up in the latter half of the Twentieth Century according to Birch (8). The reasons for the increase are: “the rise in quality of the writing itself, in Taiwan since the sixties and on the mainland in the post-Mao years, and the exponential growth in the number of British and American students of modern Chinese.” So we have for example works by Eileen Chang such as Love in a Fallen City, The Rice Sprout Song, and Lust, Caution which was made into a movie in 2007—perhaps now used as the benchmark of success for a literary work. Other texts now available in English are Silver City by Li Qiao, The Chess Master by Ah Cheng, Cold Nights and Family by Ba Chin, The Old Capital by Chu T’ien-hsin, The City Trilogy by Chang Hsi-kuo, To Live by Yu Hua which was made into a film starring Gong Li, The Butcher’s Wife and Other Stories by Li Ang, Taipei People by Bai Hsien-yung, Wild Kids by Chang Ta-chun, Notes of a Desolate Man by Chu Tien-wen, Orphan of Asia by Wu Zhuoliu, and many other contemporary works. These are but a handful of encouraging examples that at least the work of translating newer texts is picking up.

Seeing the need for knowing Chinese literature, for us to read more Chinese literature, the work of translation has become even more pressing while the burden falls on the shoulders of Chinese translators. A lot of work still has to be done to make the texts accessible to the West given the breadth and depth of Chinese literature. Aside from the importance of Chinese literature, it may be interesting to see what Chinese translation theory can contribute to translating Chinese works. Western translation theory is quite established and it seems that Chinese translation theory may provide another perspective.

Chinese translation theory

Aside from the actual Chinese texts translated into Western languages, Chinese translation theory also plays a key role to make Chinese literature known. Chinese translation theory is still in its infancy compared with that of the West. Translation studies as whole still lacks more research in the area of Chinese translation theory. Bassnett comments that an important part of translation studies is one involving languages that are not related (20).

Although some translations of traditional Chinese literature have appeared, still very few contemporary texts have made their way to the Western world due to the difficulty of the Chinese language and the lack of Chinese to English translators. The claims for the neglect of Chinese translation has been called by Eoyang as: “In studies of translation, the case of Chinese (and other East Asian languages) has traditionally been relegated to the periphery of concern, occasionally with a note of apology about one’s ignorance of this important culture” (xi). What we have on Chinese translation theory is very little since the literature on translation studies is basically Western-oriented and is often focused on Western languages according to {?}. Baker in her Encyclopedia has laudably given more notice to non-Western traditions in translation studies but this still has to be expanded. Translation studies has been concentrating on works done by Western theorists since there are more works published and a significant body of theory has already been developed in the West. Li Xia comments that “Western knowledge of China’s pioneering role in both theory and practice of translation is miniscule” (147). Compared with what the West has produced, the Chinese contribution according to Chinese researchers is not as big.

Wang Ning also sees that translation studies “has long been neglected or even intentionally marginalized” in China (19). Just a couple of decades ago, studies in Chinese translation were scarce because historically, translation studies was not considered a discipline. Supporting this, based on the state of research regarding Chinese literary translation, it appears that very little has been done especially regarding Chinese to English translations. The theoretical side is under-developed while the practical side is patchy. In contrast to Chinese to English translation, a lot of material is available (in Chinese) regarding works translated from another language into Chinese as a response to the Chinese people’s craving to know about the West. Chinese translation studies has suffered from a neglect in which very little has been written; the materials available to Western scholars are few and far between. Although some attempts to respond to the problem have been made, they are not enough.

In particular, translation theory in the West or applied to western models have been extensively studied. However, little or incipient studies have been done on Chinese translation. In the case of translation from other languages to Chinese, many Chinese theorists and practitioners have already proposed various translation strategies such as those by early theorists Fu Lei, Yan Fu, and Lu Xun which will be described later. Balcom (119) notes that the Chinese translator faces two problems: the reception of the work and its production and the second is the creativity of the translator. He continues to say that these problems are quite different from what a translator of Western languages face.

In the case however of translation from Chinese to Western languages, few have been done. Some studies have focused on Chinese to other languages but their approaches have been inevitably highly linguistically oriented but that does not mean that their approach is flawed. Rather, a much richer reading of the translation process can be gained by applying contemporary literary or translation theories on Chinese translation. The study fills in a theoretical and research gap. This answers the challenge of Leo Chan, a foremost scholar in Chinese translation studies from Lingnan University Hong Kong, for more studies based on current translation theories and specifically applied to the Chinese case. Thanks to his efforts, Chinese translation studies has been allowed a space in the discipline and his works have been published by major translation studies publishers such as St. James Publishing.

Moreover, previous studies have focused primarily on English to Chinese translation. Very little has been written about Chinese to English translations because there is no interest among practitioners. Furthermore, the traffic of translation work has been primarily unidirectional: from English into Chinese or into other Asian languages. Wang Ning says that it is more difficult to translate from Chinese to Western languages. Translators thus prefer to translate foreign languages to Chinese: “Translators would rather do repeated translations of foreign language works into Chinese than vice versa, with the latter being more difficult and involving more time and energy” (25). And because of this, the Chinese know more about the West than the West about China (26).

There seems to be a complicit silence with regards to translating Asian languages into Western languages. For a region that is home to more than half of the world’s population, that is a glaring injustice. Nevertheless, as interest moves from the West to the East, we can see a growing interest in things other than the West. Even if publishing demands dictate the direction from more English to Chinese translation in order to make Western texts available to the Chinese-reading public and reflects a preoccupation of China with things Western, China has a lot to offer. Wang Ning succinctly puts it as “At present, from the Chinese perspective, our emphasis should be particularly on introducing Chinese culture and literature abroad, so as to let more people know about China and Chinese culture in a truthful way. Only in this way can we promote mutual understanding with our Western colleagues. And in view of this, translation is an indispensable means for us to deal with comparative studies between different cultures and literatures, especially between Oriental and Occidental cultures” (24). Chinese translation is therefore becoming more imperative.

Some positive developments nevertheless have appeared. In recent years scholars involved in a couple of translation programs in Hong Kong (City University and Chinese University) and Taiwan (Fujen University and National Taiwan Normal University) have tried to rectify and to respond to this imbalance. Their research, nevertheless, are primarily critical studies of English to Chinese translations in the form of MA theses or PhD dissertations that describe the translation process of specific works. It seems that more emphasis has been placed on English to Chinese translations (Mok; Cao; and Seong). Many more institutes have been established inside Mainland China but their concern primarily revolves around how to produce translations of Western works to meet the consumerist demands locally. In the latter half of the Twentieth century, more contemporary works have started to appear in English. Of note is Howard Goldblatt the foremost translator of contemporary Chinese literature who has been most prolific in his translations of Mo Yan’s award-winning novels and more recently Jiang Rong’s Wolf Totem.

Scope and Limitations

The scope of this dissertation is a small portion of Western translation theory, Chinese literature and translation theory, and translations of several Taiwanese short stories. This study will not cover broadly the literature review since that has been adequately tackled in various introductory literature on the discipline. Nor will the study spend time on unrelated of remotely related sub-fields. What this study will include is a focus on the literature that can be helpful in expostulating the roles of the translator. These works may refer to the creative aspect of the translation process, the importance of reading literature in light of a translation task, and the various ways that meaning is determined by the translator. I will look at the subjectivity and creativity of the translator—where the translator can stand out amidst the noise made by contending theoretical voices in the discipline. Aside from the translation theory literature, I will also explore the contribution of Chinese translation theory in the praxis of translating Chinese literature. Furthermore, the study will make available previously untranslated works.

Theoretical Limitations

To maintain focus, the study has been forced to limit itself to the relevant topics and thus is limited in certain ways. First of all in the theory part, since we just look at a small portion of the discipline, this study’s view is necessarily narrow but focused. We have to sacrifice breadth for depth and it will always be a tradeoff. Moreover, parts of the theory that we propose may have already been suggested in various forms or nuances and this study borrows a lot from them. No one approach can account for the various phenomena in translation and that gives me a chance to make some small contribution. The perspective of the translator advocated in this study is necessarily restricted.  What I have done is to clarify or bring to focus certain aspects of theory that I believe supports my ideas about translation based on my experience. There is no opposition between these various approaches and the plurality allows for various voices. The plurality likewise permits constructive debate.

Choice of Materials

In addition, regarding the choice of material, since the materials mainly consulted for the theory part come from English-language sources, the study is limited in scope because it does not include Chinese-language sources due to restrictions in resources and time. Moreover, since only a few short stories are translated, what may be applicable to this collection may not be the case for others. The case study describes the translation process for the specific stories. Nevertheless, the generalizations may be applied to specific areas, genres, or cultures since the works are considered fairly representative of contemporary Taiwanese literary texts. The conclusions provide a starting point for further explorations in the theoretical and practical aspects of Chinese translation.

The Chinese texts will be translated into English. I chose to translate English because that is the language that I am familiar with while Chinese because I am fluent in the language. I will not translate from other languages either. For example, perhaps I will never translate to another Western language like Spanish into a Filipino language like Tagalog or Bisaya, I not being fluent in those languages.

The implied reader of the short stories is mainly the general reading public first, then academics, and other interested readers. The readership of the translated stories in this study are those interested in quality literature from Taiwan, teachers and students of Asian Literature, and potential translators planning to undertake similar projects. Naturally, the kind of English that will be used is a variant of English among educated Filipinos. The readership of the short stories from Taiwan can be expanded to include the English speaking public. The Chinese texts can emerge from their virtual hidden sites and be appreciated by more people.

After spending more than a decade living in Taiwan, we feel that this experience has provided a unique chance to make a contribution in promoting its literature—a literature that is not as well-known as that from Mainland China. Although Taiwan’s literature is not as popular as that from China, Taiwanese literature is relatively more advanced due to its relative openness to Western influences that have made a huge impact on its literature. Since Taiwan has more contacts with the West, its literature reflects certain influences while political forces have shaped its fiction. It is likewise bounded by specific historical circumstances such as its complex political and cultural formation. Throughout the middle of the Twentieth century, Taiwan has been producing literature far more innovative than that of mainland China. Only now is the mainland catching up due to the gradual opening up of its borders, allowing Western culture to seep in.

Moreover, David D. W. Wang, foremost scholar of Taiwanese literature says in an article “Translating Taiwan: A Study of Four English Anthologies of Taiwan Fiction,” that the sixties was:

a period in which Taiwan literature took a quantum leap. While mainland writers submitted themselves to rigid formal models and ideological constraints, writers in Taiwan managed to open up new structural and political horizons. They enriched a period in modern Chinese literature which otherwise would have been only a desolate vacuum. (262-263)

Wang further distinguishes Taiwan’s literature from the mainland by studying the second anthology edited by Lau. His comment is enlightening because it shows how much Taiwan fiction has gone ahead compared with mainland fiction:

No longer does he [Lau] treat Taiwan fiction as a branch of the mainland tradition. If Taiwan literature is important, that is because it has developed over the past fifty years a unique discourse, one that cannot be homogenized by mixing it in with mainland literature. It carries its own roots and perspective, and it caters to a reading public whose concerns are not identifiable with those on the mainland. (265-266)

Birch comments that for a translator, the interest on the text is what makes the translation successful. He says, “if I try to translate only things that hold a special attraction for me, then the chances are that my translations will repay to other readers some of the debt of pleasure I’ve owed to the original creators” (10). This same motivation, the attraction to the literature of the place, is what prompts me to undertake this study.

When we talk of Chinese literature, people naturally think about literature coming from mainland China. In fact, most would immediately think of classical Chinese literature such as Tang poetry, the Dream of the Red Chamber, and Three Kingdoms. These works have been heavily anthologized and are widely available (anthologies by Minford and Lau, Owen, Mair) that are available in thick anthologies But included in the term Chinese literature is all works written in Chinese and that includes important works from Taiwan such as Nativist writers Huang Chun-ming’s The Taste of Apples and Wang Chen-ho’s Rose, Rose, I Love You.

Wang Ning notes that little work has been done on contemporary literature from China. She calls the current translation studies in China as “far from satisfactory” and that “Some literary translators would rather spend much time ‘re-translating’ the canonical literary works at the expense of letting some excellent newly published contemporary literary works go untranslated” (25). Indeed, one just has to look at the canonical Chinese works translated into English to see how many of these works have been retranslated. The retranslation is to the disadvantage of other literary works that still have to be seen in English. This is especially true for Taiwan writing since mainland China usually overshadows the island.

In relation to China, Taiwanese writers are in the margins and so we hope to at least make the West aware of its position in and possible contribution to enriching world literature. The dual marginality of the island (by China and by the literary milieu) highlights a resounding silence that begs to be noticed. Moreover, the island’s literature is a bit intriguing because the notion of a national identity is extremely acute for the “nation” (is it Chinese, Taiwanese, or something else?) given its political position vis-à-vis China and the rest of the world. Its literature is definitely formed by the various contending forces that jostle in the formation of a national identity. Liu sees the privileged position given by the South to Northern texts, especially in the case of China where most texts come from the North (qtd. in Munday Intervention 56).

Several researchers have highlighted the relative marginality of the island’s literature. The collection edited by David Der-wei Wang entitled Writing Taiwan has articles that trace Taiwan’s literary history from its colonial past until modern times. In that collection, Wang notes that “modern Taiwan literature is rich in conflicting legacies, impulses, and ideological forces. In many ways it surpasses the mainland tradition when one pays attention to such matters as theoretical complexity and polemical intensity” (vii). Another work, this time by Sung-sheng Yvonne Chang entitled Literary Culture in Taiwan sees the island’s literature in terms of cultural production of Burdieau. The work which is primarily a cultural historicist approach, however, has limited use in this study.

A special issue of Renditions: A Chinese-English Translation Magazine published 1991 that combines two issue numbers (35 and 36) has several works from Taiwanese writers. These works span prose, fiction, poetry, and articles. The Preface notes that compared with writing from mainland China, “There had been a time when ‘contemporary Chinese literature’ was synonymous with Taiwan literature—mainland Chinese writings were so heavily laden with ideology and generally devoid of literary interest that scholars and students of Chinese could ignore them with an easy conscience” (v). Lau’s anthology The Unbroken Chain compiles a selection of Taiwan fiction since 1926 attempts to fill in the gap of the lack of anthologies for Taiwan fiction. Most anthologies are mainland Chinese works. Another anthology of note is Pang-yuan Chi’s An Anthology of Contemporary Chinese Literature Taiwan: 1949-1974 which has a selection of modern literary works. However, by the mid-80’s the mainland started to catch up and turned the tables to Taiwan’s advantage. So we can note that Taiwan may have literature that may be more mature than that of the mainland.

Regarding the position of Taiwan literature, Wang said that “When beheld from the perspective of comparative world literature, modern Taiwan literature is one of a select few examples that have experienced so much volatility and produced such a cornucopia of literary innovations. It is ironic that, in the English-speaking world, so much has been written about the hegemonic disasters of mainland cultural history, yet so little about the multifarious sociopolitical, cultural, and literary dynamics of Taiwan” (Writing ix). Taiwanese literature is a hybrid “because the identity of the island is inseparable from its multicultural history of the past three centuries” (Yeh 21). In talking about its poetry, Yeh mentions that it is “a synthesis of heterogeneous forces and contending visions: aboriginal and Han Chinese, Chinese and Japanese, traditional and modern, local and global, ‘mainlander’ and ‘Taiwanese,’ Taiwanese and Chinese” (50-51). The hybrid character of the literary works offers a richness that derives from its various traditions.

Choosing several stories instead of a novel will give a better feel of the literary pulse of the country. Furthermore, the trend towards shorter works in contemporary literature has given rise to the popularity of the short story genre. Although some may say that working on a novel is a more sustained effort, we think that one work alone will not give a good feel for the literature of a place. Readers who become interested in the short stories can explore the novel genre on their own. But this approach of using short stories has its drawbacks: even if the stories were written by different authors the translator voice may carry through the translated text and so they may sound the same. Nevertheless, efforts have been made to capture the distinctive writing styles. Obviously, poetry or essays are not represented, which is a sad but unavoidable omission given the scope of this study.

I have chosen not to work on Classical Chinese literature because there is already a good collection of translations of this type of literature although much work still has to be done, given its the broad range spanning millennia. Anthologies by Minford and Owen are readily available. We feel that the closeness and immediacy of contemporary literature to the current world expresses better the sentiments of people now and seem to be more relevant.

I chose a collection of short stories as material to work on. The collection that was published by a Taiwanese publishing house called the San Min Book Co. Ltd. Perhaps in the Philippines this would be equivalent to National Bookstore. The company has a huge collection of literary works and frequently sponsors writing competitions. It has been in the publishing business for 55 years and aside from literary works, it also publishes dictionaries, textbooks, and translated Western works. The company has survived through Taiwan’s modern history and every Taiwanese student dreads the blue-covered classical Chinese texts that they had to memorize. The publisher also has professional and specialized collections in various disciplines. With more than 7,000 titles in its name, it boasts of an anthology collection composed of a series of volumes on Taiwanese writing: poetry, essays, and fiction from which I selected the volume. Based on the reputation of the publisher and the editor, this study believes that the stories in the anthology are important and considered as representative of Taiwanese works.

The volume is part of a four-volume series that includes poetry and essays. The time frame of the stories in the collection is quite long, spanning about a hundred years of Taiwanese publishing works and focusing on the popular works of important writers. These works are artistic certainly, but very readable. They reflect Taiwan’s literary development and achievement over the years through social changes. They likewise show the new influence of the West as well as a yearning for the past that is being overtaken. The selections offer different views of Taiwanese contemporary literature since each story is very different from the other. The editor is a college professor who has chosen these works for their value as representative of contemporary Taiwanese fiction. On the one hand the collection offers a framework for the various styles of fiction and on the other readers can appreciate and experience the pleasure of reading contemporary fiction.

The first part of the anthology contains stories that have already been translated and published into English or into some other language. Sixteen works have been compiled in the short fiction selection which introduces the development of contemporary fiction in Taiwan. From these sixteen stories, more than half have already been translated into English—the first few stories—while the last few stories still have yet to be translated. A total of seven short stories were translated for this study. The writers in the anthology are of significance and are established. They have won various kinds of awards for their work; and some of the stories are even prize-winning pieces. Anyone familiar with Taiwanese literature will easily recognize their names. These writers are considered as part of the literary pillars of Taiwanese literature and from the early years have limned its contours. Critical essays on the early writers have been published in the book Chinese Fiction from Taiwan edited by Jeannette Faurot. The writers have been anthologized in various volumes such as Chinese Stories from Taiwan (Lau), An Anthology of Contemporary Chinese Literature: Short Stories (Ch’i), and The Unbroken Chain: An Anthology of Taiwan Fiction since 1926 (Lau). These anthologies project a specific image of Taiwan which Wang mentions (262). These anthologies and others have established part of the canon of modern Taiwanese fiction.

The first two works were originally written in Japanese because Taiwan was then under Japan. For example, the first in the selection is by Lai Ho, a medical doctor and political activist. Lai is acknowledged to be the representative of Taiwan’s Nativist literature. Nativist literature is commonly held to be works that deal with rural themes (Chang, Yvonne). The work anthologized is “The Steelyard” and was translated by the most popular translator of contemporary Chinese literature thus far, Howard Goldblatt. Goldblatt is known for his translations of Mo Yan’s novels such as Red Sorghum and The Republic of Wine. “The Steelyard” is frequently anthologized in literature textbooks. The story was written when Taiwan was under Japan and had to be written in Japanese and it was written when he was in jail. Yang Lu’s story entitled “Newspaper Man” has not yet been translated into English. So the selections can even be classified as post-colonial writing or third-world writing.

Another writer also writing in the Nativist vein is Hwang Chun-ming and his classic “The Taste of Apples” is included. This story is another one that can be found in most anthologies and is translated by Goldblatt as well. Hwang straddles the dividing line between Mainland Chinese and the native Taiwanese and he often explores the complex emotions between the two groups. Wang sees Hwang as “one of the most touching tellers of stories about Taiwan in the sixties and seventies” (269). Still another Nativist is Wang Chen-ho whose “Oxcart for a Dowry” is included in the selection. He writes sensitively about the rural conditions in Taiwan.

Bai Hsien-yung who is another great name in the Taiwanese literary scene writes about the intersection between the old and the new as well as the position of people who came from Mainland China to settle in Taiwan due to the war. Unlike the Nativists, Bai leans toward the modernist style and defines the other half of the literary movements in Taiwan. His “Miss Chin’s Farewell Night” has already been translated to English and is in the collection. He straddles the divide between old/new and native Taiwanese/Mainland Chinese. These stories have a strong hybrid feel to them as well as a preoccupation with returning to the Mainland. Bai’s (or Pai) Taipei People, a collection of short stories, has a strong nostalgic feel that pervades many works of this era. The collection is translated by Bai himself and a collaborator for the bilingual edition published by The Chinese University Press.

Chen Jo-hsi is likewise a favorite writer of stature who belongs to the modernist camp. Her story “Chairman Mao is a Rotten Egg” is part of the collection. Chang Hsi-kuo, although not considered strictly as a Nativist writer, is conscious of his Taiwanese heritage and his works exude a sense of strong nationalism. The story “The Last of the Gentlemen” has been translated into English.

The second part of the anthology, the more recent contributions, has not yet been translated into English nor into other languages based on a government database run by Taiwan’s National Library. Thus, this is an excellent opportunity to translate these other more recent works and offer them to Western readers as a sampling of contemporary writing from Taiwan. The critical essay on these stories will be in the latter part of the dissertation and will explore the various themes and concerns of these new writers.

So the new names, those who appear in the later part of the selection, continue that literary tradition started by their predecessors in the island. It is therefore worthwhile to translate these remaining stories because even if the writers are not as high of stature as the others, they are also considered as important in the literary world. They continue the work of describing the Taiwanese experience, which for them has moved on to a consumerist and psychologically driven existence from the rural scenes of old. These newer writers have been born after the war and most of them are highly educated, having graduated from top universities not only in Taiwan but abroad. Most of them have already made a mark for themselves while others are on their way up. So I think it is worthwhile to translate these stories.

Structure of the Dissertation

The dissertation is structured as follows. This section is the introduction, describing the background, motivation, research problem, scope, significance and contribution, and constraints and limitations of the study. The next chapter surveys briefly both Western and Chinese translation theories. Chapter Three contains the theoretical framework where the translator model is expounded. Also in Chapter Three is an introduction to Chinese translation theory that was followed for the practical part, specifically focusing on the principles of Yan Fu. Chapter Four describes the methodology. I will elaborate on the results and findings in Chapter Five. In the same chapter, I will point out specific problems in translating the stories and the strategies I have used. A brief critical essay on the short stories close the Chapter. Chapter Seven concludes the dissertation and recommends future avenues for research. Works Cited page follows the last chapter. The Annex contains the short stories in English and reproductions of the original Chinese texts.

Conclusions

The problem of how to make a portion of Chinese literature known was linked to the vital role of translation. We thus see the role that translation studies play in making known literature from areas not easily penetrated by the West. Translation allows access to these literature. A lot of work still has to be done in terms of theory while countless texts still in Chinese are waiting to be translated. The study will attempt to contribute to making Chinese literature known by first proposing a working frame of mind for the translator as he/she undertakes the translation. This framework is the translator-oriented model which will be elaborated on in the theoretical framework. I hope to redefine the notion that a translation must be “faithful” or be always “equivalent” to the original text. I also intend to give more prominence to the role of the translator and study the cognitive processes in the translation paradigm using the processes in my own translation work. I have chosen several short stories from Taiwan to validate my theory. During the course of the translation, I will look at how that model influences my decisions. In order to place this study in the context of the tradition of the discipline of translation studies, the next chapter will survey the translation studies tradition both in the West and in China. The survey is focused to include only the relevant theories.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Since there are really many theorists, it will be very tedious to go over each one’s ideas. The selective survey of literature will primarily look at the major theorists who have influenced or are representative of the various areas. In addition, I will more closely look at the theories which I will make use of in my theoretical framework. These theories form the foundation for my own concepts. The reason why we chose them is because from our experience, we feel that these theories are closest to our experience as a professional translator. This approach towards the literature review sites the current study in the context of confines of the discipline.

Western Translation Theory

Literature on Western Translation Theories abound and several reference works have traced the developments of the field. Baker’s Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, Venuti’s The Translation Studies Reader, and Munday’s Translation Studies are good starting points for a general overview. Translation theories can be grouped according to the categories proposed by Holmes and by Hatim in his book Teaching and Researching Translation. Holmes has likewise limned the boundaries of the discipline in his article on “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” The Holmes/Toury “map” sketches the framework of the discipline (Munday 10). The literature review in this section provides an overview of the discipline based on these references.

What is commonly held as translation is the “technique in which the meaning in one language is rendered into another language, and vice versa” (Wang Ning 61). However simple the definition may be, the discipline is fraught with much complexity, from linguistic approaches to cultural.

Translation is not only a key hinge in Comparative Literature but it can also be seen as a burgeoning independent field of study. The emergence of translation studies in the past decades and the explosion of materials have underlined a growing interest in the field. In just a few years, books, articles, journals, conferences, software, and Internet tools, have been made available to professionals and curious laymen. Naturally, the boundaries of the field are not infinite and they are defined by the existing works from scholars the world over.

As a discipline, translation studies is a newcomer. In general, its theoretical part has closely limned trends in critical theory such as mimesis, formalism, structuralism, post structuralism, and so on. The practical side has been on the main untouched by theoretical considerations since translations, based on early prescriptions, are supposed to convey the original text as closely as possible. The academia has been churning out papers both theoretical and practical which may sometimes not be good since one gets the impression of a fragmented yet inter-disciplinary field (Venuti Reader 1-2). However, several seminal works and scholars have delineated the contours of the discipline. These works have also indicated the turns in the field. Various writers have categorized translation studies in different ways though it cannot be said that one is superior over another.

Along the years, academics have been churning out papers both theoretical and practical which tend to show a fragmented, inter-disciplinary field. Aside from the books available, print journals (Babel, The Translator, Journal of Comparative Literature) and online materials are widely available. In fact, technology has been trying to catch up with translation studies and a lot of effort has been done on machine translation. By merely Googling a foreign language webpage one is offered a fast one-click translation of that page.

Books on the practical aspects of translation such as Mona Baker’s In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation have appeared to help translators in their job. André Lefevere’s Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a Blueprint offers some strategies when translating poetry. These reference books are invaluable help for practicing translators since they cover enough theory and provide practical examples.

Most literature review is historical; however, because my framework calls for subjects in the translation process, it will use a subject-oriented perspective. Although most of the literature treat the history of translation in a chronological manner, beginning for example with the translation of the bible and leading as it were through the centuries while describing what various theorists have proposed, we will treat the survey in a non-chronological manner. Nevertheless, we are not excluding the validity of other theories—we are just excluding in order to make my problem more tractable. Instead of a historical approach, we will use a debate approach where topics are grouped together.

In general, the works can be divided into dichotomies while particular strategies can be located along the spectrum between either poles. These dichotomies lie in the translation graph: faithful/unfaithful, linguistic/literary, textual/cultural, original/target, descriptive/prescriptive, theoretical/practical, visible/invisible, author/translator/reader triumvirate, and so on, depending on how the field is sliced and diced. More often, translation is seen as either literal versus free. The debate on this dichotomy has raged ever since the beginning and sometimes it is impossible to escape these categories. Other recent debates have been regarding communicative versus semantic or overt versus covert (Hatim xiii).

The early years of translation studies, from the 1950s to 1960s, saw the study as more part of applied linguistics which was seen to be the most important field for the discipline. The seminal work by George Steiner is widely acknowledged to have started the debate on modern translation theory. Later on, scholars borrowed from other disciplines to elucidate on the theories and methodologies. The movement has been from meaning/reflection, to linguistic and then to cultural/ideological.

A clear map that shows the discipline of translation studies is the one done by Holmes in an article entitled “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” Holmes’ map was later presented by Toury (Munday 10-17). In that article, he divides translation studies into two broad areas Pure and Applied. The Pure translation branch groups theoretical and descriptive studies. Theoretical studies can be subdivided into general and partial. Partial can be further subdivided into various parameters. Descriptive translation studies meanwhile can be subdivided into product-oriented, function-oriented, and process-oriented. The other large branch of applied translation is subdivided into translator training, translation aids, and translation criticism. Translator training has the three fields of teaching evaluation methods, testing techniques, and curriculum design. Translation aids meanwhile encompasses IT applications, dictionaries, and grammars. Translation criticism is divided into revision, evaluation of translations, and reviews.

The overview of Holmes gives a general view of the field. Going down further and following the branch of pure translation studies on the theoretical level, we can turn to the concept map of Hatim who arranges the various translation theories in a sort of diagram. Hatim’s Concept Map II, the completed map, aligns the translation theories between the source text and target text polarities. Using a pyramid shape where the apex is the narrow focus while the base is a broad focus, it can be easily seen how the theories can be understood notionally. Starting from a source text leg of the triangle from a narrow focus, we have in order, Formal Equivalence (Catford), Dynamic Equivalence (Nida), Pragmatic Equivalence (Koller), Text-based Equivalence (Beaugrande), Foreignization and Equivalence (Venuti). The focus of these theories is on the source text side or what we may perceive to be leaning towards linguistic approaches. Of these, the most famous are the one of Catford and Nida which seem to be quite flexible to be adapted by practitioners.

The other leg of the triangle that leans toward theories regarding the target text starting from the narrowest to the broadest, we have Translation as Metatext (Holmes), Translation as Re-writing (Bassnett and Lefevere), Transformation (The Feminists), Deconstructionists, Manipulationists, Polysystem and Norms (Toury), and Skopos (Reiss and Vermeer). Hatim places Gutt’s Relevance and Equivalence in the middle of the triangle to indicate that it has elements both for source text and target text. The trend now has been towards broader conceptualizations of theory such that equivalence (linguistics) has been framed more in terms of cultural studies while the translation process has focused more on target orientation.

The dichotomy between linguistics approaches and the cultural studies approaches forms the basis for dividing theory. The linguistics approaches have been moving toward the notion of equivalences while cultural studies approach focuses more on extra-textual factors. Meta theorists in the field note that this is the “cultural turn” of translation studies. Nevertheless, there have been critics of this approach as well. Pym and Fawcett (qtd. in Hatim 47) note that the imperialism is natural (Pym) and that the consumer is complicit as well (Fawcett). Moreover, Baker argues that cultural linguistics has also been concerned about ideologies and positions.

Deconstruction gives us a more subversive view of translation according to Gentzler (144-145) since the meanings of the original text are determined by difference and these meanings are arbitrary, thus there may be meanings that are hidden or the text may advocate covert ideological values. A deconstructive reading of the text and eventually a translation, discovers contradictions and slips which even the original author may not have been aware of. Furthermore, the translated text itself is a construct of these ideologies.

Meaning is derived from the intertextual nature of the text and so meaning is flowing and not fixed. It is the process of translation then (now using transformation) that these other meanings, the “not said,” emerge. The irregularities inherent in the texts are what make translation likewise plurivocal. Translations are thus part of this intertextuality. Moreover, Benjamin claims that the original owes its continued life to the translation (reversing the binary pair). Meaning then, even that which is an alternative or even richer than the original, appears in the translation. This fixing of meaning is just for a time since other future translations will also make use of this idea. The constant re-definition of meaning therefore brings into question the idea of a one stable meaning of the original that continues on in the translation.

The approach of deconstruction, however, is impractical. Although the idea of a plurivocal meaning is attractive, nevertheless strict adherence to this idea will make communication, and in this case, translation an impossible undertaking. In practice, translators with their own cultural background paint different colors to their own translations while trying to meet reader expectations and that somehow hope that a meaning of the original is conveyed.

Venuti proposes a new way of reading translation in his seminal work The Translator’s Invisibility. One of the recent issues is what Venuti calls the invisibility of the translator. Invisibility refers to the notion of how translations presume the translator as manifested in the way the translator uses language and how translations are received and evaluated. The use of language gives rise to fluency or transparency of the translated work, as if the original text was written in the target language. According to Venuti, this hides the many ideologies that resulted in the translation. Thus, the different theories that advocate fluency are promoting values that are against the translator. These presumptions hide the various ideologies that determine how a translator works. Moreover, this hiding of the translator is related to a political agenda. For example the use of a flowing English implies, according to this theory, that the hegemonic values of the West are stronger. The strategies involved in the invisibility mode are either domestication or foreignisation, depending on whether the translator moves toward the target language or toward the source language, respectively.

Bassnett and Lefevere in Constructing Cultures, seeing the narrow field that linguistic translation has taken, pose the question of the role culture plays in the translation process. This is called the cultural turn which entails considering extra-textual factors. The shift is from the linguistic nature of translation to larger socio-historical concerns. Along with this is the preoccupation with ideology—that translations are part of the power play of ideologies. Cultural studies in translation is concerned with the context, history, and the role of the translation in the target system. Lefevere particularly stresses the re-writing aspect of translation. He notes that various processes contend to shape the translation. Thus, he wants to look at the socio-cultural, ideological, and literary aspects of translation. A lot of the re-writing has to do with the image of the work in the target culture.

Continuing the line of an ideologically-charged translation, postcolonial translation theory led by Niranjana and Spivak has linked colonization with translation. According to them, translation has played a part in the colonizing process by projecting an ideological image of the colonized. Almost everything in the colonizing agenda is tinged with ideology, which also includes translation. What has previously been the norm for judging whether a translation is good or bad is changing as the function of translation becomes more prominent rather than what the original meaning wants to convey.

Translation theory has moved from linguistic analysis to a Polysystem method, and from the source to the target text. Polysystem theory has had a big influence on translation. This theory puts the translation endeavor within a cultural and literary framework of forces that attempts to make the original part of the target culture. The primary theorists are Even-Zohar and Toury. One of the greatest contributions of this theory is the idea that there is no loss in translation; rather, there are shifts which are not errors but are those which are new in relation to the original or does not appear in the original. No value judgments are made. Polysystem specifically states that literary systems are in a state of moving to and from the periphery or central position. The translated text appears in terms of this flux. The text’s position can be either on the periphery or at the center, depending on the current state of the literature in the target society. So translated texts can be on the periphery and yet influence the existing system.

Polysystem theory tends to give a minor role to linguistics, putting more emphasis on the entry of texts and its position in the target culture. Its emphasis is clearly on the target text system. Chang suggests that there is usefulness in Polysystem theory: “However, there is more common ground between the Polysystem approach and committed approaches than has been recognized. Both take a cultural perspective in that they see translation as a cultural phenomenon more than a purely linguistic one, and that they put emphasis on the ‘external politics’ of translation, exploring the relation between translation and socio-cultural factors such as ideology, power, economics, etc.” (Polysystem 329).

The use of norms brings to practical application many influences outside the text which determine the target text. Toury has been a champion of these norms and has come up with Descriptive Translation Studies. He emphasizes the effect of socio-cultural norms and literary conventions in the target language and culture as well as the models used by the translator, presuppositions, and decisions regarding the end product (Hatim 69). These norms determine the text to be translated.

The Manipulationists, led by Theo Hermans, study how translation has taken on a marginal role. They accuse the dominant poetics of privileging the original while relegating translation to a secondary role. This is a result of remaining in the shadow of the original and sticking to linguistic criteria. Attention has been placed on comparing the original with the source, resulting in valorizing of the original while putting down the translation. One of the major sources of Polysystem, Manipulationists, and Descriptive Translation Studies is Hermans’s Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained.

Skopos theory meanwhile gives more importance to the function of translation. Vermeer and Reiss are its main proponents. The target text is shaped by the function. Here, the audience is important so the translation strategy should match audience expectations. The target text has a particular purpose which is in keeping with the target audience. The translator determines how the text will function in the target culture.

The above theories, though seemingly comprehensive, are at times complex to be impractical or not general enough to be used for particular languages and eras. Right now, a lot of inter-disciplinary studies seek to merge these theories but they merely add to complexity. Over the past years, the literature in the West on translation theory has been significantly expanding. Several key works have outlined and analyzed key translation theories and so this dissertation will not repeat what has been adequately and competently described in those other works (see Holmes, etc.). What can be noted is that translation studies has not stuck with a purely linguistic approach but rather has broadened its outlook to accommodate new disciplines. So disciplines such as cognitive science, information systems, and others have made contributions to the current field. In fact, there is consensus that says although there is a significant body of knowledge in translation, there is no degree of understanding reached. There seems to lack a systematic and theoretically comprehensive approach to the field (Gutt 1).

Bassnett moreover addresses the issue of whether or not to tackle language or culture first. She emphasizes the primary concern with language while at the same time being conscious of the importance culture plays in the translation transaction:

Translation scholars must focus on language, for translation is, after all, about transferring a text from one language to another. But separating language from culture is like the old debate about which came first–the chicken or the egg. Language is embedded in culture, linguistic acts take place in a context and texts are created in a continuum not in a vacuum. (Kuhiwczak 23)

Furthermore, Bassnett notes the transition of translation studies “from a more formalist approach to translation to one that laid greater emphasis on extra-textual factors.” Translation studies has turned to “broader issues of context, history and convention not just on debating the meaning of faithfulness in translation or what the term ‘equivalence’ might mean” (Kuhiwczak 13). The critical paradigm of translation studies according to Koskinen is that it “is not methodologically unified, nor does it share an overarching theory. But there is a shared belief that the task of the researcher is not only to describe and explain but also to attempt to improve the situation or to offer solutions to a perceived problem” (153). Chinese theorists such as Wang Ning Wang notes that “At the moment, along with the impact of cultural studies, translation studies is gaining a more cultural and theoretical orientation” (18). Likewise, Inghilleri has noted the shift of translation studies “toward more sociologically- and anthropologically-informed approaches to the study of translation processes and products” with special emphasis on using Bourdieu’s theory on sociological perspective (125).

Gentzler likewise affirms the shift in emphasis in translation studies:

Shifts in theoretical developments in translation theory over the past two decades have been (1) the shift from source-oriented theories to target-text-oriented theories and (2) the shift to include cultural factors as well as linguistic elements in the translation training models. Those advocating functionalist approaches have been pioneers in both areas (Gentzler, 2001: 70). (qtd. in Kuhiwczak 14-15)

According to Leo Tak-hung Chan in his “Introduction: The ‘Many Lives’ of Translations,” reception theory and deconstructive methods have been given prominence in translation theory in recent years. In his words, “reception, reading and textual open-endedness” are now the dominant modes of reading translations (Twentieth 19).

Whereas previous approaches had focused on the author and on the original text, the current state of research now focuses on foregrounding the translator and the reader. The questions now being asked in theory “no longer have to do with a priori conditions of translatability, but with a posteriori ideological and cultural factors that affect, not just translation, but also the translator” (Kuhiwczak 5). The foregrounding of the translator, as Venuti points out however, does “not proceed by elevating the translation into another original and turning the translator into an author, but instead question the concepts of originality and authorship that subordinate the translation to the foreign text” (Rethinking 6). Maier notes that there has been a move to “position translators at the centre of research initiatives, both qualitative and quantitative (qtd. in Munday 4).

Loffredo summarizes the effect of the cultural turn on translation studies. The cultural turn has revolutionized translation studies:

[It has] marked an important step as it placed the practice of translation and the then emerging discipline of translation studies within a multifaceted, contextualized cultural framework, which has enabled scholars to embrace interdisciplinarity within translation studies, while the symbolic metaphorical and actual interfacing of ‘translation’ with the cultural sphere has highlighted its (symbolic) links with other intellectual and critical settings. Further, the contextualized framework of translation studies has, most importantly, revealed the relative nature of translational practices and strategies. Cultural issues in translation such as socio-cultural change, status of translator and translations, acculturation of rewritings, have inevitably raised concerns of ideology, manipulation and power, with particular reference to postcolonial issues and to translational relations between dominant and minority languages and cultures, so that the cultural turn has consecutively generated a ‘power turn’, as suggested by Tymockzo and Gentzler (2002). (Loffredo 1)

Looking over at the plethora of translation theories, a person may think that the field is highly fragmented with each person guarding his/her turf. In reality, these are different perspectives on the single phenomenon of translation. Naturally, there are overlapping ideas or even contradictory ones. After having reviewed the major theories and examining these theories in the light of my own experience, I am inclined to say that the closest theory to my experience as a translator would be a highly subjective translator-oriented approach

Chinese Translation Theory

Aside from the literature review on translation theory in the West, this dissertation offers a focused literature review of Chinese translation theory which is less known but gives valuable insights into the process of translation. Wang Ning sees Chinese translation studies as “on the level of translation review or translation criticism, and far from the establishment of a theoretical system of Chinese translation studies in the present context of cultural studies” (70).

Tan Zaixi says in his dissertation that compares the Chinese and Western traditions on translation (11) that “Western translators and translation theorists, in particular, are noticeably lacking in knowledge of what the Chinese translator and translation theorist have to offer that may help provide valuable insights into translation problems.” Certainly, looking at what China has to offer with respect to translation theory, this offering will enrich the discipline dominated by Western theories.

Tan first contextualizes the traditions saying that each one is the product of the socio-cultural needs (127). Tan is aware of the disparate knowledge between the East and the West: “Chinese influence in the West has been considerably smaller because translation from the Chinese language has lagged far behind the Chinese translation of Western languages (131-132). Tan claims that “the Chinese tradition of translation is an ‘externally-oriented’ tradition, whereas the Western a more ‘internally-oriented’ one” (131). By “externally oriented,” he means that Chinese translation looks outwards to the West for translation theory but the West revolves within itself.

Instead of the focus from other languages to Chinese which is the predominant concern of Chinese translation studies, this study uses the Chinese translation tradition but applied to translating into English instead of on Chinese translations of Western languages. I believe that this is possible because the experience of translation in China is very similar to that of the West; the concerns as well are alike. Throughout its histories, translators have faced similar problems and have come up with similar solutions. Nevertheless, even if the two traditions may be similar in many ways, Chinese translation theory has its own peculiarities that set it apart from the highly logical Western theories.

Other scholars have used a cultural studies approach such as Yunte Huang who has made some progress in Transpacific Displacement: Ethnography, Translation, and Intertextual Travel in Twentieth-Century American Literature. In that book, she studies transpacific displacement of Chinese translations to America and foregrounds the translator’s agenda. The approach of cultural studies is more in the line of a sociological study so its use in this dissertation is limited although the emphasis on the translator’s agenda may support my ideas.

Lefevere himself in his essay “Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation” contrasts the divergent assumptions of the two cultures regarding translation but his focus is more on English to Chinese translation. A Chinese doctoral student, Tan Zaixi, whom he advised provided him with insights on Chinese translation. He first observes that the notion and strategies of translation changes over time and then tackles the translational practices of the two cultures to clarify the notion. Translations in China occurred in three stages and involved translating the foreign into the Chinese culture while the translation replaced the original. First translations were oral, not textual, in both cultures. The Chinese maintained the orality and interpretative function, to convey meaning, of translation whereas in the West, the original had primary function still. Both cultures have different attitudes about translation. Being more oral, the Chinese consider the translation as replacing the text itself and does not look back on the original which contrasts to that of the West. Institutions in both histories affect the way translations are accepted. Chunshen Zhu in “Translation Studies in China or Chinese-related Translation Studies: Defining Chinese Translation Studies” likewise makes a similar observation. S-W Chan and D. Pollard’s An Encyclopedia of Translation: Chinese-English/English-Chinese hovers around this niche. Although Baker’s Coursebook makes use of Chinese and Japanese translations, her examples are derived mainly from English to Chinese translation and sometimes offering back translations to prove her point.

Addressing the problem of a lack of knowledge of Chinese translation tradition, the study here offers a sketch of the Chinese translation tradition. Recent efforts in Chinese translation studies have been on exploring the history of translation in the country. For example, Ma Zuyi outlines the history of translation in China (Encyclopedia 373-387). Yang’s dissertation covers the history of translation theory in China. However, it must be clarified that Chinese translation tradition specifically refers to a one-way translation, that is, from other languages into Chinese. Traditionally, Chinese translation theories or at least commentaries on translation were for works from foreign languages to Chinese. The focus of early scholars and translators was on describing how the translated text should be in the Chinese language.

In One into Many, Leo Tak-hung Chan collects several essays dealing with the translation and dissemination of classical Chinese texts. Several scholars, notably Kai-chong Cheung, James St. Andre, and Hing-ho Chan have contributed essays on the first translation of a Chinese novel. The remaining essays by other authors deal with translations into specific languages such as Dutch, Swedish, Hebrew, and German. The anthology, however, is too specific to be used in this study but it shows an attempt to trace the history of translation of classical Chinese texts. In another work, Chan notes now classical Chinese literature travels and for the translation theorist this means that the Chinese text is shared with the West.

The literature review now looks at Chinese translation from a historical perspective starting from the early years until the present. There is no concrete discipline or conscious theorizing among translators in early China. Tan says that “Chinese translation theory has mostly been found in rather brief and sometimes vague discourse” (132). Thus, what can be studied are the original texts and translated texts as well as brief translator commentaries.

Almost very little theory has been done on translating Chinese into other foreign language since the demand for Western translated works has been largely on the Chinese side. The Chinese want to know more about the West, and this has become even more significant during the late 19^th century to the early 20^th century when China felt that it was being left behind in terms of scientific progress. Not only scientific progress but also, because of the wrenching changes in China during those years, ideological, philosophical, and political ideas that the Chinese felt were relevant to their society at that time. So a tremendous effort was made by various people and groups to disseminate Western ideals. And for that, they needed translators. Along with that development was a natural concern for what, how, and why to translate. Several prominent figures have been recognized as pivotal in the field and this study outlines their work. They have either been followed closely, commented on, or in the opposite, vilified and criticized. From these theorists described below, the study will derive its theoretical framework.

Luo Xinzhang surveyed Chinese translation theory and came up with three names as playing pivotal roles: Yan Fu, Fu Lei, and Qian Zhongshu. However, Chan says that they just represent one of several groups of “possible Chinese ‘traditions’ of translation theory” (223). He even summarized the history of translation theory by saying that it is divided into three stages. The first stage was from the Eastern Han dynasty (25-220 BC) where Buddhist translators were working and several approaches, mostly either sense or literal translation prevailed. There was no predominant view at that time. The next stage was that of the Early modern May Fourth period where Yan Fu’s three cardinal principles prevailed. But the debate has always been shades of the literal versus sense. The third period started in 1949 where Fu Lei and Qian Zhongshu influenced the field.

First Phase

The first phase of translation was Buddhist oriented since Buddhist texts were adapted to Chinese thought by missionaries. The second phase was the Jesuit missionary translations of Western texts and until now, the “Chinese tradition of translation has been heavily characterized by its focus on translating from the West” (Tan 131). The Jesuit translation consisted of scientific translation, introducing Western knowledge to a closed China. The earliest theoretical discussion of translation was by Zhi Qian in 224. The person in question was a monk translator who wrote the Chinese version of the Dhammapada. His idea was that due to the very different languages, Buddhist translation was inherently difficult, literal translation was ungraceful, and that in translating the particular text, he used the literal approach because that was what prevailed (Tan 132).

In the early years of translation in China, the predominant debate was on literal versus sense translation since the “fidelity” to Buddhist texts was at stake. Thus Dong Qiusi in his essay “On building our translation theories” notes that there were two contending sides—the literalists and the sense-translation school. “The literalists maintained that the translator only had to render Sanskrit into Chinese faithfully, and nothing was to be added or omitted. The “sense-translation” school contended, to some extent quite rightly, that the literalists had produced obscure and unintelligible texts lacking in genuine beauty” (qtd. in Chan Twentieth 225).

Dong Qiusi was followed by Dao An in 382 who described the five losses in translation. Very much like St. Jerome who had a team of translators with him, Dao An also worked with a large team. In the preface to the Chinese version of the Sutra Dao An says that there were five losses in translation: the translators tended to reverse the order of the sentences in the foreign text in order to conform to Chinese usage. Second, to attract the attention of the Chinese readership, they preferred a polished literary style in the translation to the simple, unadorned substance of the original. Third, they shortened or omitted the long expositions or recurring chanted verses of the original. Fourth, they deleted the explanations and commentaries embedded in the original text. Fifth, they left out those words in the original which functions as summaries (Tan 133).

Similar to Dao An, Xuanzang, a Tang dynasty translator of Buddhist texts, later proposed five categories of non-translation (from ?). He emphasized the five categories of transliteration. This is when the translator was faced with mystical terms, terms with multiple implications, terms of objects etc., the translator should not try to replace them with idiomatic Chinese expressions but leave them unchanged and get equivalent Chinese sounds or transliterate. His proposed strategy was to imitate the Buddhist words with similar Chinese sounds. So for Buddhist texts, a lot of transliteration was done.

Yan Fu

After the early period, from the late 19^th century onwards, the field was dominated by Yan Fu’s three-character principle of Xin, Da, Ya (faithfulness or fidelity, expressiveness or fluency or comprehensibility, and gracefulness elegance or polish). It is also called fidelity, fluency, and elegance (Chan Twentieth 4). “They have also become the fundamental tenets of twentieth-century Chinese translation theory” (Chan “Impressionistic” 58). Yan Fu translated Aldus Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics in 1898 and he came up with his well-known translation principle that has been the basis of Chinese translation theory ever since. His preface containing the three principles is regarded as important in the discipline:

As the most important statement on translation and repeatedly debated by scholars throughout the past century, this short piece has assumed a prominence unequalled by any other theoretical work so far produced in the country. (Chan Twentieth 67)

Quoting Yan Fu directly in his preface to his translation, it can be seen that his theory on translation is clearly too succinct to be of any foundation for a systematic theory in translation:

For the task of translation there are three difficulties: xin (faithfulness), da (expressiveness) and ya (gracefulness). First, it is a great difficulty to be faithful. But faithfulness without being expressive means hat the text has not really been translated…A Western language sentence may range from two or three words to a few dozen, to more than a hundred in length. Imitating this kind of syntax in the translation will surely lead to incorrect Chinese grammar, while reducing it may lead to a loss of meaning The best thing to do, then, is for the translator to comprehend fully the meaning of the original text as a whole so that there will be a natural flow of language when they are writing own he translation…making modifications here and there to bring out the true meaning. In so doing, one will have achieved expressiveness; and by achieving expressiveness one will have achieved faithfulness. The Book of Changes says, “Rhetoric is important.” The Analects of Confucius notes this: “Expressiveness in wording is what one should aim at”, and also: “One will not go far if what ne has said lacks style.” These comments not only embody the correct standard for a piece of writing, but they also provide good guidance for translating. In other words, apart from being faithful and expressive, it is important for the translator to be graceful. (qtd. in Tan 134)

St. Andre discusses the possible meanings of Yan Fu’s principles in light of the context of the late Qing period. The first principle of Xin after a lengthy analysis is for him “as faithfulness to truth, where ‘truth’ is defined as what the translator believes to be true.” He describes Ya as “associated with women, with scholarship, and with Confucianism […] an indispensable characteristic of his translation practice.” He finds Da to be “relatively straightforward” (297-298).

Ma Jianzhong, Yan Fu’s contemporary, did not quite agree with Yan Fu. Ma emphasized “close textual analysis and his valorization of the literal method in translation” (Chan Twentieth 6). He adopted a language approach to translation, focusing on equivalence. People have either liked Yan Fu or criticized him.

Despite Ma’s criticism, Liu Miqing notes the durability of Yan Fu’s three principles to “lie in the fact that Yan’s interpretation, with striking succinctness and incisiveness, conveyed more of the complexity and delicacy of the art of translation than theoretical or methodological implications.” It is “the most convincing proposition ever made in connection with Chinese translation both in practice and in traditional theory.” He also offers a brief history of translation in China. He tries to make linguistic study and cultural transfer studies in Chinese translation (Encyclopedia 1031).

Wang Ning’s explanation on Xin is enlightening since it looks at fidelity from the perspective of both literary and cultural translation: “According to this principle, the translation should first of all be faithful to the content of the original, with literal translation laying more emphasis on formal fidelity, and cultural translation laying more emphasis on how to convey in a precise way the original cultural connotation and how to interpret it or even rewrite it more or less on the basis of the native cultural background” (18-19).

Wang Ning comments on the principle of fidelity or faithfulness as “a good translation should certainly be as faithful to the original text as possible” and that would be the translator reading “first of all read the original text closely, between the lines and even behind the lines, so that nothing subtle escape his eyes.” So faithfulness should be firstly considered and “translation should be carried out without inserting the translator’s own subjective ideological tendency although he/she might be for/against the original author’s idea” (72-73).

Regarding expressiveness or Yan Fu’s second criterion, Wang Ning interprets this as emphasizing “the fluent way of rendering the translation in the target language on the basis of a correct understanding of the original text.” In other words, this means that the translator should “be faithful to the original text both in content and in style and render the translation according to the convention of the target language.” Most scholars “do think that expressiveness is equal to readability on the basis of faithfulness” (73-74).

The third criterion on elegance refers to the criterion held some 2,000 years ago according to Wang Ning (74). Thus, this third criterion is somewhat impossible for modern readers to reach: “so it is not surprising that from the reader’s point of view, the third point of Yan’s criterion is far from being practical or reasonable.” This third criterion was applied to a Chinese text and not to a foreign-language text. This is problematic to my theory because it will limit the practical application of Yan Fu’s theory to my translations.

Wang Ning offers a reading of Yan Fu’s criterion and comes up with the following interpretation. This interpretation can be followed since it is a general method for translating literary texts.

An ideal criterion for literary translation requires the translator to: (1) read closely and have a thorough understanding of the original text by reading between the lines (the deep structure of the linguistic discourse) and even behind the lines (the implied cultural connotation and literary convention and other necessary background knowledge) and by identifying himself with the author or text; (2) create a perfect rendition which is not only fluent but also preserves the original style without imposing the translator’s own subjective construction; (3) improve the translated version until it reaches the high level of modern literary discourse of the target language without changing the original style; and (4) convey in the translation of the original text’s cultural connotation beyond the mere structural or linguistic level. That is, a translator should first of all identify himself with the original author or text on the same (linguistic rendering) level before transcending himself to a higher (cultural representation) level. If we can achieve this, we can certainly transcend ourselves to the level of translating literature in a cultural context. (74-75)

Fu Lei

Yan Fu is followed by Fu Lei who starts off by enumerating the qualification of a translator (qtd. in Chan Twentieth 126): “A translator who does not thoroughly understand the original, who cannot empathize with it, will definitely not be able to arouse deep sympathy in his readers” He even says that there is a special bond between the translator and the literary text: “Choosing an original text to translate is like choosing a friend […] One needs to read a literary work that one desires to translated four or five times, in order to become familiar enough with the story to be able to analyze it perceptively, form clear images of the characters, and slowly grasp the profound but intricate ideas buried between the lines of the text.” He adds that the translator “in order to be able to capture its essence one needs to be transformed into either someone very much unlike oneself in temperament, or even a completely different person.” He emphasizes the transformation process between the translator and the author, a union, so to speak.

Fu Lei was more concerned with the “spiritual” aspect of the original text being transferred to the target text. He says, “If we do not completely assimilate the spirit of the work to be translated, but transfer word for word in a stilted manner, the original will not only lose all its beauty, but become abstruse and incomprehensible, thoroughly confusing the reader” (128).

Fu Lei emphasized “spiritual resonance” which he introduced in 1951. He translated Honore de Balzac’s Le Pere Goriot and in his preface to the second edition, used this term which he borrowed from traditional Chinese aesthetics. In his words “In terms of effect, translation, like imitation in painting, should be in search of resemblance in spirit rather than in form” (Chan Twentieth 7). Furthermore, he says that “To succeed, one has to read the original text thoroughly so as to fully grasp the nuances and the ‘spiritual resonance’” (Chan Twentieth 170). But the term is vague enough to allow for various kinds of interpretations.

Fu Lei’s concept can be understood if placed side by side with Shelley’s “letter vs. spirit.” “Fu Lei compares translation to the ‘imitation’ attempted by one school of Chinese painting, which seeks to capture the essence and not just the surface features” (Chan Twentieth 91). “In terms of effect, a translation, like an imitated painting, should seek after resemblance in spirit rather than in form” (qtd. in Chan Twentieth 102). This imitation of the original is couched in terms of a vague spiritual imitation.

Qian Zhongshu

Just like the two above, Qian Zhongshu attempts to define what constitutes an ideal translation. His idea is even more vague than his predecessors. He “posits a state that the successful translation is supposed to have reached, and which is out of bounds to poorer translations” (Chan Twentieth 8). He used the term “transformation” and explains it as:

The highest standard in literary translation is hua, transforming a work from the language of one country into that of another. If this could be done without betraying any evidence of artifice by virtue of divergences in language and speech habits, while at the same time preserving intact the flavor of the original, then we say that such a performance has attained huajing, “the ultimate transmutation.” (Chan Twentieth 8)

His idea, however, valorizes the original. “In his role as mediator between the original and the translation, the translator uses all the energies and skills at his disposal to effect a successful transformation. By thus re-orienting the perspective of the translator, Qian opens the door to the possibility that the translated text can be an improvement on the original, and the translator can exercise judgments as to how his source text can best be translated.” (9). He emphasizes the aspect of translation as transformation.

Chan comments that Qian’s idea is close to the Western contemporary idea of the autonomy of the translated text which lives a life of its own, and which may even bring the original work to completion (9). Qian expounds on the idea of “transformation, translation as ‘enticement,” and ‘erroneous translation.’” He extends Fu Lei’s spiritual resonance: “His idea of ‘transformation’ is directly descended from ‘spiritual resonance’” (Chan Twentieth 92).

Quoting Qian directly clarifies what he wants to say:

The highest standard in literary translation is hua, transforming a work from the language of one country into that of another. If this could be done without betraying any evidence of artifice by virtue of divergences in language and speech habits, while at the same time preserving intact the flavor of the original, then we say that such a performance has attained huajing, ‘the ultimate of transmutation’ […] In other words, a translation should cleave to the original with such fidelity that it would not read like a translation, for a literary work in its own language will never read as though it has been through a process of translation. (qtd. in Chan Twentieth 104)

Lu Xun

Diverging from the tradition started by the above Chinese theorists was Lu Xun who proposed a radically different approach. The period starting from the May Fourth Movement up until World War II is considered as the emergence of modern Chinese translation history and where Lu Xun was very active. That period is also the start of modern Chinese literature. China felt the need to catch up with the West, seeing how much far behind the country was in terms of science and other learning. The Chinese wanted to quickly modernize and they thought that wholesale borrowing from the West was the key to that modernization. In the words of Leo Chan, “Nevertheless, it is in the May Fourth Period that one sees translation theory entering a distinctly modern phase, when translations assume a key role in ushering in what has been termed Chinese modernity” (Twentieth 196).

Lu Xun is considered as the “first modern translation theorist in China” (Chan Twentieth 16). He puts a lot of emphasis on “fidelity” which he carried to an extreme, resulting in a word-by-word translation. “He practiced extreme literalism in translation” (Chan Twentieth 18). However, this type of extremely literal translation resulted in very difficult to understand texts. He was heavily criticized incomprehensible translations.

In defense of his translation strategy, Lu Xun says that he did this for “political reasons” that is, the translation was for a special kind of reader. He was targeting the elite whom he thought needed Western socialist ideals in the most literal manner. He did this because he distinguished three types of readers and he was targeting a very special group. “Extreme faithfulness to the original was a way of ensuring that “true” Marxist literary thought be presented to those who wanted the facts as they were” (Chan Twentieth 19). Thus it can be seen that “his preference for extreme literalism, his deployment of Europeanized structures, and his choice of a rather stilted language of translation were all inter-related, but understandable with reference to the readership he targeted (Chan Twentieth 23). Quoting Lu Xun directly it can be seen that he distinguishes various readers which led him to translate in a peculiar way: “First we need to decide what sort of readers among the common folk we are translating for. There are roughly three types: 1. The well educated; 2. The semi-literate; and 3. The illiterates” (158). He points out that he “would still advocate the idea of ‘better be faithful than fluent” (qtd. in Chan Twentieth 159).

Lu Xun affirms the Europeanization of translation—a word-for-word rendering and literalism fidelity as opposed to sense or liberal translation which results in more fluent texts. This Europeanization is a way of being faithful to the original but which makes the target language, Chinese, foreignized. He wanted to maintain the foreignness of the original. In practical terms, Lu Xun’s literalism cannot be used to translate “normally” since that would naturally result in awkward texts.

Evaluation of Chinese Translation Theories

The formulations of the above Chinese translation theorists are vague and not as systematic as Western theorists who based their theories on a systematic philosophy. These Chinese theories are also very brief and unelaborated. Tan claims that “it is such brevity and vagueness that characterizes the tradition of Chinese philosophical discourse” (134). Chan likewise claims that translation in China has been marginalized in history and that the theory is largely impressionistic (“Impressionistic” 57). Despite that vagueness, Yan Fu has even become the most important theorist and everyone measure his/her work against his principles. He is the undisputed authority. Whether present Chinese translation theorists like it or not, Yan Fu’s name appears in their discourse. Wang Ning claims that Yan Fu’s criteria are difficult to achieve in practice: “in the literary translation of a foreign language—or more specifically, a Western language—into Chinese or vice versa, it is almost impossible to meet Yan’s ideal criterion” (72).

Even if on the surface the two traditions may seem far apart, they do share perennial common concerns. Chinese translation theory like Western theory seeks to find answers to questions such as what to translate, how to translate, for whom, etc. (Tan 142). Both traditions have to contend with these issues since they affect the translator and the translation.

Another shared concern is the literal and free translation distinctions that have appeared in various formulations in both traditions. Also, the issue of fidelity, in the common sense of being “faithful” to the original’s meaning has been always foremost with the two. “That a translation must be faithful in spirit to the original, that a translation must be as expressive as the original, that a translation must have the same kind of impact on the receptor as the original, etc.—these are all familiar features common to both traditions” (Tan 142).

The trend likewise of veering from linguistic analysis to more cultural approach has been a concern of both traditions. Wang Ning says, “In the field of translation studies, scholars’ understanding of translation in its traditional sense has been undergoing a shift of shorts, from focusing on literal translation to focusing on cultural translation, which will become dominant in the circles of China’s translation studies” (23).

Even if faithfulness seems to be the overriding concern, there are those who see faithfulness as symptomatic of covert ideological functions. Chang Nam Fung (“Descriptive” 9) claims that in China “literature and translation should serve ideology, and numerous instances have shown that manipulation of the source text in conformity to a certain ideology is a phenomenon common to all historical periods.” He asserts that the traditional criterion of faithfulness is a reflection of a conservative ideology but then when translators are faced with conflicting loyalties, the translation is adapted to fit prevailing ideologies. Furthermore, if original texts do not fit the prevailing ideology, the texts were changed (Chang “Descriptive” 15). So it can be seen in China that despite claims to faithfulness, translators have even changed the original meaning of the source texts to suit prevailing ideologies.

Conclusions

The survey of literature shows that as a discipline, translation studies has definitely evolved from early linguistic approaches to more recent postmodern thinking. The approach of linguistics to imitate the original has been shown to have become somewhat obsolete or old-fashioned. The old methodology of looking at faithfulness/unfaithfulness, literary/free, and literal/sense translation has already been explored in the past. With advances in critical theory, new methods at the disposal of the scholar are available. Now, as translation theory evolves with critical theory, the staging into postmodern ideas has come to fore. Recent translation theories, following progress in critical theory, have veered towards a deconstructive-type of strategy, questioning the transparency of translation and the arbitrariness of the sign system. Researchers are thus offered several strategies to choose from in order to describe or prescribe translation work.

Moreover, production of meaning is likewise problematic since the reader knows meaning only through the translator’s perception of the original text (which in turn, is the author’s perception of something else). The translator is therefore a co-author of meaning. In a broad sense, all texts are translations of something else while the source text owes its existence to the translator. However, the translator always finds himself located in the margins, a transparent medium perhaps or a lens through which the “original” meaning comes through. By occupying the no-man’s-land between source text and target text, the translator has to negotiate meanings and the production of meanings. Not only that, cultural studies suggests that culture is also an object of the translation process. We can thus see that translation is not an innocent activity but is already imbued with various nuances. The study therefore crosses the boundaries separating theory, criticism, and creative writing.

From the focused literature, it can be seen that this study continues the debate specifically on a new area of the translator oriented approach. Chinese translation theories are seen to be still behind Western theories. Nevertheless, among the Chinese translation theories, the principles of Yan Fu seem to be the most useful in terms of application to actual translation contexts. These principles will be incorporated as guidelines in translating the Chinese texts.

Chapter 3: Method

As mentioned earlier, this qualitative study consists of a theoretical portion that proposes a translator-oriented model based on current Western translation theories. The second part is a practical application of Chinese translation theory on several contemporary Taiwanese texts. There are two parts because together, “each transforms the other, how practice is altered by theory, and how theory is transformed when it confronts practical issues, this might well present a juncture at which consolidation and intellectual digestion, of what has been accomplished in the discipline, can take place (Kuhiwczak 7). This study seeks to enact that mutual transformative event. Theory affects practice. Theory explains practice and does not dictate practice (Loffredo 47). Theory is a creative construct. It is shifting since it describes practice. It allows us “to approach the task of translation in a new way” and they give us new ways of thinking (Loffredo 48).

The first part of the method is for the translator to be conscious of the roles he/she plays. Even if these roles do not directly determine the translation strategy, nevertheless I believe that being aware of these roles will enable the translator to situate himself/herself in the translation continuum. This will hopefully help in better textual production. What is different here is that the translator, instead of being a mere instrument to transfer meaning, is now working with a frame of mind wrought by these roles.

The research method employed is the action research method mentioned by Hatim in Teaching and Researching Translation. The action research method consists of the practitioner who identifies the problem to be solved and who possesses the skills and analytical knowledge to solve the problem. By identifying the problem to be solved, the translator has a conscious commitment to the solution. If the translator has the skills and knowledge to solve the problem, the method will work. It is translation studies done by the practitioner himself/herself and where reflexivity is emphasized—where “theory and practice mutually enrich one another” (7). This method clarifies the problem and involves an action to solve it. Instead of just theory or practice as separate, bringing the two together may result in a broader view.

The basic procedure for the action research approach is as follows: identify problem, investigate problem, evaluate data, list possible actions, predict outcomes, select best action, implement action, evaluate action, and identify new problem and follow procedure (back to the beginning of the cycle). By doing the translations himself, this author had a hands-on experience in the process. In addition, instead of merely proposing a theoretical model, the actual translation work allows for empirical evidence for the theory.

Through the action research method, translator performance can be enhanced since there will be a close link between theory and practice. Theory and practice will form a cycle with one modifying the other. It is a research cycle and a reflective practice of action research (Hatim 7). It will be both conceptual, that is, we sought to introduce and to clarify concepts regarding our translator-oriented model. It will be empirical as well because new information is generated from actual translation practice that will prove, disprove, or modify our initial concepts. The theory can also be revised based on a concrete translation experience. This recursive non-linear method was followed. We started with an initial theory to guide the work initially and which was refined based on empirical evidence of the translated text.

The results section describes the translation poetics of this author, pointing out problems and issues specific to Chinese to English translation. Following the method of Clive Scott in Translating Baudelaire which describes the tension of the translator who has to contend with expressing the original work while defending a self-expressive impulse, the study reveals the tension faced by every translator.

Proceeding to the details of the method, first in the literature review the survey on Western and Chinese translation theories provided material for a translation model and a translation praxis. By synthesizing the practical experiences of Western theory and Chinese translators study extracted the best from both worlds— theoretical models from the West and Chinese translation in practice. Since the extensive research by Western theorists has virtually covered every aspect of the translation system, these theories may be applicable to Chinese translation studies even if the study may be accused of Western modes on the Chinese. It is possible to use Western theories on the Orient because of a shared human experience. The problem then for this study is how to combine both contributions into a cohesive view that can be applied to particular texts.

The theory is followed by a translation of several contemporary Taiwanese short stories. The translation praxis to be followed will be based on the tripartite principles of Yan Fu. A rough translation will be made that closely follows the original text. This necessarily will mean awkward-sounding texts that would be almost a literal rendering much like Lu Xun’s idea of literalism. After this the target texts will be checked to see whether or not they express well the original text’s meaning. However, as much as possible, the style of the originals will be kept. The last step is to make the texts read fluidly just as if they were written in English. Validation of the theoretical model will then be done. A few examples from the source texts will be given to demonstrate the translation process and revision.

A critical essay about the short stories will be written, analyzing each one in terms of their literary merits and their symptomatic role in Taiwanese society. This essay forms part of the Discussion section. The section on translation poetics also in the same section points out the challenges in translating the chosen Chinese texts into English.

Landers proposes a typology of the steps in translating (45). My workflow is similar to what he used but modified. My usual way of working is as follows.

1. Get an electronic copy of the original text
2. Start translating from the beginning. Unlike Landers who reads the work at least twice, I find that translating directly is faster.
3. Determine the style, voice, and other literary elements.
4. The first draft is quickly obtained and trouble spots are indicted. The aim of this stage is to get a rough, almost literal rendering of the text.
5. Compare the original text with the first draft translation and see if the translation captures the content.
6. Problem spots are solved by consulting native speakers of the original language.
7. Revise the draft. This time changing awkward expressions into better flowing prose.
8. Have the draft revised by a creative writing major or a native speaker of English.

Part of the translated product is the translator’s preface. Spivak’s strategy according to Davis is to make a translator’s preface where the writing is introduced. The translator’s preface becomes part of the context of the translation, part of the translator’s strategy, and part of the translation. It includes the notes on translation decisions such as the deliberate or non-deliberate translations. Using a flexible strategy, the translator tries to reproduce the same effect as the original: by supplying some of the foreign text, adding some explanatory footnotes, and sometimes being guided almost exclusively by the signifier (Davis 81).

Aside from the above procedure, a few changes may make the translation capture better the feel of the original—the process of foreignization. In addition to the procedure above, to achieve a more translator-visible text, this study will apply the findings of Venuti (468-48) regarding the invisibility of translator, where both the language and how translations are received are seen in a new light. The writing-translation strategy is to highlight the illusion of fluency by contrasting it with foreignization techniques. This technique seeks to go against conventions of language and culture by allowing the passage of the foreign from the original to occur. Schleiermacher is another theorist who contrasts the notions of foreignization with domestication. By engaging with the original through an active affirmation of foreignness, the translation enables the questioning of ideologies behind the notion of fluency. This is also a political gesture since a resistance to the hegemony of the English language is attempted.

In Venuti’s own words, the illusion of transparency is but an ideological blind that compromises or inhibits the translator’s creativity:

Here it becomes clear that the valorization of transparency conceals the manifold conditions under which a translation is produced and consumed–starting with the translator and the fact of translation. A fluent strategy aims to efface the translator’s crucial intervention in the foreign text: he or she actively rewrites it in a different language to circulate in a different culture, but this very process results in a self-annihilation ultimately contributing to the cultural marginality and economic exploitation which translators suffer today. At the same time, a fluent strategy effaces the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text: this gets rewritten in the transparent discourse dominating the target-language culture and is inevitably coded with other target-language values, beliefs, and social representations, implicating the translation in ideologies that figure social differences and may well arrange them in hierarchical relations (according to class, gender, sexual orientation, race, nation). (Rethinking 4-5)

The foreignization strategy achieves several goals: the translator, while acknowledging his prerogative to interpret the source text, lets the foreign pass through to the translation, the dominance of English and the illusion of fluency are questioned, and the cultural background of the original is preserved in some way. It is likewise a political act (Venuti Rethinking 10). Related to the foreignizing strategy is to make use of translation that “value experimentation, tampers with usage, seeks to match the polyvalencies or plurivocities of expressive stresses of the original by producing its own” (qtd. in Davis 84, from Lewis 1985: 41). This is Lewis’s “abusive translation” but this will only be used sparingly in my translation otherwise readers may become alienated from the text.

Non-Literary Dimensions

Aside from the translator as described above, I will also consider the following ideas from Bassnett. She includes the non-literary as part of translation studies and recommends leaving in the contradictions, nuances, and shifts in tone found in the original. The translator has to “maintain the strangeness of the text in order to allow the reader “to discover the text for themselves.” In fact, the only way to construct a multicultural theater in the West will be if translators reject strategies that conform to Western dramatic conventions and cultural practices, reject searching for deep, unifying structures, and instead focus on the translation of the signs of the texts “the words, the silences, the shifts of tone” in all their the [sic] contradictions and multi-layered play” (xviii). The emphasis has shifted to the “play of language in the text” (xviii). Perhaps instead of deploring the untranslatability because of shifting language meaning, one can instead emphasize that play or simultaneity of meaning. Translators should free themselves from the source text (Bassnett qtd. in Gentzler xix). The idea of play is very much in line with postmodern thinking. So in my translation, I will attempt to allow the text, and its strangeness, to come out and reach the reader. Perhaps strategies such as including foreign words or situations that are different from the reader’s own will heighten this play.

Conclusions

The method to be followed here is non-linguistic. I will take a narrative approach. I first will describe how I proceeded with the translation. The narrative is followed by special problems encountered in the case of Chinese literary translation. The current study uses Western translation theory to propose a translator-oriented model while Chinese translation theory is used for the applied part. The study brings together the two translation traditions. Due to constraints of time and space, this study will necessarily exclude other important ideas and will focus instead on the two preceding issues. This study will follow a method where theory guides practice. Based on the actual translation experience, that theory will be revised. To clarify the translator-oriented approach, the theoretical framework in the next chapter describes the ideas relevant to the model.

Chapter 4: Theoretical Framework

Since a theoretical model makes use of constructs from another field and applied to a new field or one under consideration, I will use conceptual models that will clarify my approach to enunciate a new model based on the translator’s subject position. A model is a conceptual construct that connects a set of ideas into a new system. The preliminary model used in the study allows one to have an orientation or tentative framework from which the translation work can be based. A model is an abstract or idealized representation of some aspect of reality (Holmes 48). The theoretical model allows one to represent the translation process in a simplified manner, showing the general outlines of the process.

Given the wide-ranging scope that translation studies finds itself in, the task of picking a theoretical approach has proven to be daunting. In order to limit the scope of the study and to go more in-depth, I have chosen three approaches from which I will build my own model for Chinese to English translations. The theoretical approach of this study borrows from concepts developed by Robinson, Venuti, and Spivak on translation which will be further elaborated on below. Based on my experience as a translator, I am more inclined towards the theories of the above researchers. At the same time, I acknowledge the contribution of other theories—polysystems, postcolonial, and deconstruction to name a few—which are not directly related to my research.

Proposed Theoretical Model

This study chooses ideas from previous theories that are relevant to the proposed model. These pre-existing theories are further refined and adapted to my model. What this dissertation does is to distill ideas and reformulate them into a consistent over-arching model. The dissertation is limited to works of major theorists and provides a historical continuation to classical seminal studies on translation theory. The ideas that proposed here are culled from reception theory and cultural studies (translations in different cultures) and postmodern theory (in terms of multiple meanings as a result of multiple translations). The ideas from existing theories that were used here on translator’s roles have been mentioned in passing or were not the main concepts of other theorists. Thus, it is inevitable that there may be certain points in common or repetitions of what had been said before. But what is new in this study is that the translation process is seen from the point of view of the translator who perhaps is the most involved and yet little-acknowledged subject.

In addition, unlike previous theories which often merely enunciate the same concepts or show nuances of the same concepts but employing different terms that give one the impression of a multiplicity of theories and seem to repeat the same issues over and over again, the terminology used in this study is easy to follow and to understand. Moreover, the study takes part in the dialogue between translation theories and attempts to build a bridge between Western and Chinese translation theories.

I have identified three broad areas or positions that the translator assumes in the act of translating. These are the translator as reader, interpreter, and creative writer. These roles that the translator take during the act of translation is at the same time common among translators and yet highly specific since each one is working in different contexts. Although in the methodology part or in the actual practice of translation I may make use of the various theories such as linguistic or equivalence strategies, I will try to limit myself to a translator-based model. The approach that I am going to take is to discover the ways of translation, to explore through translation the various readings and meanings of the original text, and then when writing the target text, to explore the creative writing process vis-à-vis the original text. The reason why I chose this conceptual framework is because I envision the translator as the link to all the theories. In addition, this model can be readily applied to texts in other languages as well.

In order to develop my model of translator-oriented function, I will distinguish the translator in terms of his/her subject position as reader, interventionist, and creative writer. I do not seek to ignore the contribution and relevance of other approaches but rather I wish to emphasize what I feel to be closest to my translation experience. The section below goes into the details of the conceptual framework.

Hermans in the Foreword notes that the collection in Translation and Creativity: Perspectives on Creative Writing and Translation Studies “highlights aspects of translation that the traditional construction has marginalized–agency, subjectivity, intentionality, the management of discourse” (Loffredo ix). The translator’s subjectivity is very much a part of faithfulness to the original text. Faithfulness depends on “to what the translator is faithful, and to include, and account for, the creative input of the translator’s subjectivity” (Loffredo 171). That subjectivity is the basis of the theoretical model that I am proposing. From that subjectivity, the various roles of the translator arises.

The subjectivity of the translator tries to affirm his/her presence. Part of that presence is the ideology that constructs the translator. The license to the translator to call attention to his/her presence: first is the framework that “stresses the importance of translation, and yet where the translation is implied rather than performed” The second is from Arrojo’s empowerment of translation because of postmodernism which questions the authority of author and text. This enables opening up of space for the translator. This borrows from Barthes notion of power on the reader and death to the author. “Each reader inscribes the text with new meaning, rewriting it (147). Arrojo claims that “the consciously visible translator should start to build a name, a ‘proper’ name for him or herself that would make his or her readers aware of the ‘translator function’” (30-31). Furthermore, the “recognition that translation is in fact a form of meaning production should be accompanied by the recognition of the translator’s function as that ‘ideological’ element by which, in the reading of translated texts, one marks certain forms of relationships between original and translation, as between what is foreign and what is domestic” (31).

Because of that subjectivity, the translator as a communicator emerges. Various theorists affirm the idea of the translator as communicator. In the Foreword of Translator as Communicator, Hatim says that “translation is regarded not as a sterile linguistic exercise but as an act of communication” (xi). The translator is a communicator and to be a communicator he/she has to first be a good reader. Hatim’s principles are communicative, pragmatic and semiotic. These are “a set of procedures which place the translator at the centre of communicative activity. Within this perspective, the translator takes on the role of mediator between different cultures, each of which has its own visions of reality, ideologies, myths, and so on (Communicator 236). Steiner himself sees translation as a form of understanding and sees all communication act as translation (49). Similarly, Robinson in Becoming a Translator argues for the translator as learner where he/she is involved in an “intelligent activity involving complex processes of conscious and unconscious learning” (49).

Translator as Reader

We first consider the translator as reader since this is naturally the beginning of the translation process. In translation involving technical or non-rich language, translation may proceed in purely linguistic or purposive function but for literary translation, with the various meanings and special use of language, literary translation demands that the translator not only be fluent in both source and target languages but also be a good reader as well. The sensitivity to literature enables the literary translator to have a richer understanding of the text as compared with other readers. The translation is a particular reading—a literary reading of the translator. This forces the translator as reader to dialogue and to grapple with the original text. Steiner points out that any reading is a translation. In addition, Hatim and Mason note that the “translated text reflects the translator’s reading and this is yet another factor which defines the translator as a non-ordinary reader (224). Likewise, Spivak discusses translation as reading and reading as translation in the article “The Politics of Translation.” Paz echoes this when he says, “in its first phase, the translator’s activity is no different from that of a reader or critic: each reading is a translation, and each criticism is, or begins as, an interpretation” (159). Thus, there is almost an identification of reading with translation.

Translation is a way of coming to terms with the meaning of the text which clearly is an even deeper understanding compared with simply reading it. West sees “translation as a tool, a way to understand a text, a method to organize its various levels of meaning and significance into an integral and rational whole” (132). The deeper reading of texts is an aim of Comparative Literature. Studies in translation, especially the reading aspect, can clarify how texts are read and interpreted. Bassnett comments that translation studies and Comparative literature “both are methods of approaching literature, ways of reading that are mutually beneficial (Translator as Writer 6).

Hatim emphasizes how the translator’s reading is but one of a number of readings: “In literary translating, the process of constant reinterpretation is most apparent. The translator’s reading of the source text is but one among infinitely many possible readings, yet it is the one which tends to be imposed upon the readership of the TL version (11). Again, Hatim and Mason say: “the translator’s task should be to preserve, as far as possible, the range of possible responses; in other words, not to reduce the dynamic role of the reader” (11). Linking this idea of reading with Barnstone’s concepts on translation as a form of reading, this study likewise sees the first stage of the translation act as a form of reading that leads to interpretation and then to creative writing. The translated text is an incarnation of the translator’s reading.

Going further, reading as understanding is a doorway for critical theory. Barnstone (7) affirms that “Translation theory and literary theory come together in the act common to them both: reading.” He starts off from the two basic ingredients that make up reading and goes further to say that “Reading is an act of interpretation, which is itself an act of translation…reading is a form of translation, and, conversely, translation is obviously a form of intense reading.” Literary translation is also a form of literary criticism (Rose 13). As literary criticism, translators reveal a reading of a text and apply that reading to the translation.

That act of reading is closely allied to cognitive studies which explores the translator’s inner workings. Cognitive studies is  “concerned with how a translator constructs a reading of a text and how that reading can be carried over into the translation while preserving intact the essentially interactive nature of the text (Loffredo 55). So the text and its constraints on the translator work on producing the translation. The translator has to work in a creative frame of mind. “Cognitive translation theory, therefore, by emphasizing the reading aspect of the translation act and encouraging us to characterize literature as maximally under-determined in meaning, demands the maximum creative involvement of the translator (Loffredo 56). Knowledge of such theories should free the translator from feeling to closely tied to the content of the original text and should encourage maximum creative freedom in the act of translation (Loffredo 56).

Moreover, with the advent of postmodern and deconstruction theory that questions the possibility of meaning, the translatability of the original is then put into question. Meaning, in the postmodern mode, is determined by difference and not by a universal core meaning that is merely conveyed from one language to another. An additional contribution of deconstruction is the idea of difference as determining meaning. Translation “effaces such essentialism” (Davis 14).  Benjamin (18) remarks that “meaning is never found in relative independence, as in individual words or sentences; rather, it is in a constant state of flux….” So gone are the ideas that posit purely linguistic function of translation. Mira notes that “After multiculturalism and deconstructionism, faithfulness can no longer be regarded as an absolute concept, for textuality itself is regarded as a chain of differences with no absolute links” (109). Theorists applying a postmodern reading of translation tend to veer towards meaning as determined by difference. Meaning then is unstable and subject to context.

Deconstruction questions the existence of a stable meaning wholly present in texts—whether or not that meaning can be discerned or read, and then transferred into another language. Meaning as a product of difference is also the result of intertextuality. In addition, the author may not be aware of other meanings (the not said) that escapes him but which somehow may emerge from the text and find its way to the translation. The translator unlocks the plurality of meanings in the original. Not only does the plurality of meaning emerge but the ideological values of a translator-oriented reading are likewise brought to light. These ideological values are determined by social elements which affect the translator. This is problematic to translation studies because if meaning cannot be determined for sure in the original text, then the translator may be faced with the unanswerable question of which meaning to use.

A way of solving this problem is to contextualize. The text has to be located as part of a larger system or structure in order to get at the most probable meaning. Davis puts it as the need to always contextualize. In the Introduction, Davis points out that “meaning . . . is a contextual event; meaning cannot be extracted from, and cannot exist before or outside of a specific context” (9). Again, he says that “The movement of difference in the chain of signifiers, therefore, is not restricted to linguistic signifiers, but always includes the “real,” “economic,” historical,” “socio-institutional”, etc. This openness does not erase the irreducible singularity of each event, but demonstrates that its exhaustive, final interpretation is not possible, for two reasons. First, a “text”, in the traditional sense cannot be cleanly delineated from “context.” […] the social, economic and literary conditions what we wish to pin down will always disseminate through the general text, forcing us to admit that any interpretation necessarily cuts off other, equally valid meanings” (Davis 24). Contextualizing the original is a way out for the translator to grasp at least the most probable meaning or the meaning that he/she thinks is closer to his/her own reading. The translated text similarly exists in its own specificity.

The caveat though is that the translator does not control the meaning either in the target culture since the translator’s meaning is impacted by ideology as well. With the poststructuralist thought, “no translator can affirm that he has already grasped the truth; what he may have grasped is only approaching the truth” (Wang Ning 61). Going further, postmodern theorist Arrojo says that “meaning is not intrinsically stable nor is it fully present in texts. It is not recoverable and cannot be transported intact across linguistic and cultural boundaries” (page?). The statement, however, is problematic since this will touch on the issue of translatability.

The problem of meaning also affects faithfulness. Venuti succinctly states the problem of translation faithfulness:

A translation is never quite ‘faithful’, always somewhat ‘free,’ it never establishes an identity, always a lack and a supplement, and it can never be a transparent representation, only an interpretive transformation that exposes multiple and divided meanings in the foreign text and displaces it with another set of meanings, equally multiple and divided. (Rethinking 8)

Translation is thus faced with the ever-present problem of finding meaning. The problem of meaning for Davis is that meaning is not before language–difference in language is what makes meaning. “Unlike these traditional conceptions, deconstruction, like many translation theories today, rejects the idea that meaning is before or beyond language, and can thus be safely, or cleanly (“properly”) transferred from one linguistic system to another (Davis 18). Davis again says that Derrida asks questions of: “just how do we produce meaning, and what is it about this process that at the same time imposes the limit and the possibility of translation?” (Davis 19). The translator is then an active creator of meaning in the process of reading. Textual meaning, however, is determined by other texts.

The translator can see the text as part of other texts. The text in the post-structuralist thinking is defined by other texts much like language has meaning because of difference. The text derives from other texts—the intertextuality in a post-structuralist sense. Hatim and Mason define intertextuality to be where the “text are recognized in terms of their dependence on other relevant texts” (120). Texts do not exist in a vacuum. There are other texts that precede, co-exist, and follow that text. Because of this intertextuality, meaning would thus depend on the pre-existing texts. Nothing can be called original since everything comes from something prior to the text in question. This intertextuality forms a semiotic system that the translator and target reader are caught in. Translations in a certain sense participate in this intertextual dance.

Thus, Davis can say that “In order to exist as meaningful events, texts must carry within themselves traces of previous texts, and are, therefore, acts of citation. The source text for a translation is already a site of multiple meanings and intertextual crossings, and is only accessible through an act of reading that is in itself a translation” (16). Paz emphasizes the point that “each text is unique, yet at the same time it is the translation of another text. No text can be completely original because language itself, in its very essence, is already a translation…” (154).

Chantal Wright comments on Clive Scott’s use of post-structuralist notion of intertextuality “the idea that all texts are influenced by and contain traces of earlier texts” (147). The original actually comes from some pre-existing text and so the translation is just part of a timeline of that discourse or series of texts. Neither one nor the other is superior/inferior (148). The translation is another version in another language and culture. Neubert and Shreve see the intertextual nature of translation as perhaps “the most important aspect of textuality for the translator. It is not the result of the presence or absence of any single grammatical or lexical pattern in a text. It is a function of a configuration of grammatical and lexical properties […] Intertextuality is a property of ‘being like other texts of this kind’ which readers attribute to texts” (117). Like the difficulty in determining the textual meaning, the translator has to contend with these intertextual considerations in translation.

Not only does the translator have to negotiate the minefield of meaning but he/she also is in a unique position in relation to the text. The translator’s position is in between texts as he/she occupies that in betweenness. This is what Rose calls the interliminal text that translation brings forward. The translator negotiates the spaces in between meanings and makes choices. He has to negotiate the interstices—the no-man’s-land—between the original and the translation. Whatever is hidden is brought into the open while that which is peripheral is placed in the center. In addition, the original has a boundary and the translator enables crossing that boundary and setting new ones (Rose 7). The translator as messenger traverses both the boundary of the original text and the new boundary of the translation.

The binary pair of source and target where the source is privileged is reversed. Not only is there this type of reversal but also the author/translator binary pair is likewise subjected to the same reversal. This extends the idea of the death of the author of Barthes while current critical theories have challenged the notion of the original as the authority. This idea comes from the deconstructive reading of the translation process with regard to the relationship between the original and the translation. The deconstructive reading of translation problematizes the position of the original, questioning whether or not the hierarchy can be seen in another way.

Translator as Interpreter

The natural transition from reader is the translator as interpreter. After understanding and reading the text, the translator must ask himself/herself about the meaning of the text as mentioned above. The reader as interpreter covers the intermediate stage between reading and the actual production of the translated text. Apparently, the stage is seen as the black box from which a highly-subjective translator is posited. Schulte’s “Introduction” in Theories of Translation hints at the possibility of how “the methodologies employed by the translator can become a model by which we interpret literary texts in general” (9). Translator methodologies are not limited to the act of translation but to the act of intpreting itself. That act of interpreting according to Schulte looks at translation not just as a content-oriented endeavor but as a “process-oriented way of seeing texts and situations” (10). The translator has to contend with this intermediate stage of interpreting as both original and target texts are weighed.

Several theorists have tried to explain what happens in this intermediate stage. Among them, Robinson in his book The Translator’s Turn, argues for a somatic approach to what happens within the translator’s body. His somatic approach is a phenomenological view of the thought processes as intrinsically linked with the physical. Based on my experience, there is some truth in his theory about how a translator relies not so much on dictionary definitions or equivalences as to “gut feel” renderings. This rendering can be also seen as an intuitive process which is both cognitive, more spontaneous, and free wheeling. However, I find his somatic approach too much rooted in the body and less in the cognitive.

Similar to Robinson, Venuti likewise posits the importance of the translator’s unconscious. The translator’s unconscious is an important part of the translation process that is knowingly or unknowingly manifested in the various choices made when translating. Venuti says that “the translator’s unconscious inexorably introduces differences into the translation because it emerges within the receiving language and culture and in relation to the foreign author and text, a relation that may well be oppositional” (“Unconscious” 238). Consideration of the unconscious complicates the act of communication because there may be “misconstructions or misreadings that are symptomatic of an unconscious motivation, a repressed anxiety, an unsatisfied desire (“Unconscious” 238). This unconscious perhaps is very difficult to quantify since it is highly subjective.

Some researchers have tried to uncover what happens inside the translator’s mind. To study what happens in the mind of the translator think-aloud protocols have been proposed where translators are asked to verbalize their translation process. There has been moderate success in these methods (Shreve xv). But as Venuti points out, this method is beset by theoretical problems such as unconscious factors or automatic processes that may not be accounted for (Reader 339). This protocol will not be used in the study but a similar method will be used which is a commentary on a translation. Perhaps future work can employ such protocols to study what happens inside the translator.

Hatim and Mason call this middle stage as the translator as mediator. They correctly identify the translator as standing “at the center of this dynamic process of communication, as a mediator between the producer of a source text and whoever are its TL receivers” (223). Furthermore, they observe two requirements from a translator: being bilingual and having a bicultural vision. The first requirement is an obvious requirement since the translator should know both the source and the target language. Preferably, the translator should be a native speaker of the target language because expressions in the target language should come naturally. In contrast, the translator who is not a native speaker of the target language may produce target texts that may not be as natural as that produced by a native speaker. The second requirement of biculturalism is likewise important. The translator must know the original culture, at least to have lived in that society and also should know the nuances in the target culture. So the translator possessing both these qualities is qualified to mediate not only between texts but between cultures as well.

The translator is also the intermediary for power: “Language, along with others such as violence and love, is the location in which human power negotiation and power transfer take place. The power of translation not only implicates translation in the exertion of power but also traps it in the dynamics of arranging and rearranging hierarchical systems” (Lukits 147). Looking at translation as a means of rearranging power structures lends force to translator’s efforts. It is possible that ideologies may mediate the translation process and the dominant ideology may emerge in the translated text with or without the translator’s intention.

Another property in the intermediate stage is the multiple meanings that the translator has to contend with. The translator picks out from a broad range of meanings what the translated text should convey. Even if he is aware of what to say, he may be like the author who may not be aware of the possible multiple meanings in the translated text. Sorting through the many meanings demands for a decision from the translator. He/She is involved in a decision process: “a series of a certain number of consecutive situations—moves, as in a game—situations imposing on the translator the necessity of choosing among a certain (and very often exactly definable) number of alternatives” (Levy 148). Levy further on in his article explains in graphical terms how the translator makes his decisions.

Other researchers who see this decision-making process as part of this stage is Hatim. Hatim says that “texts can be seen as the result of motivated choice: producers of texts have their own communicative aims and select lexical items and grammatical arrangement to serve those aims. Naturally, in translating, there are potentially two sets of motivations: those of the producer of the source text and those of the translator” (4). Again, the ideology comes into play as motivations contend from both source and target systems. Gutt also points out the importance of decision making: “The need for decision-making arises from the fact that the target-language rarely allows the translator to preserve exactly what the original conveyed” (8).

The idea of the translator involved in decision is highlighted by Davis’ discussion in Deconstruction and Translation where she says, “The meaning of any text is undecidable, since it is an effect of language and not something that can be extracted and reconstituted. Translators must therefore make decisions in this strong sense. The decision-making process is one of the reasons that translations are performative events, rather than replays of events that have already happened” (51). The plurivocality enables translation because the text is open to interpretation and then to translation (Davis 39). Davis’s performative events hint at the next stage of the translator as creative writer.

Expectations of the audience also affect the decisions the translator makes (Balcom 134). The two masters are the author and audience (Balcom 134). On the one hand, it is the author or the original text that is the Logos of the translator. And the end point is the target text that must satisfy the audience. The audience or the readers have a certain horizon of expectation that translated texts must meet in order to be considered successful (from ?).

The contribution of deconstruction is mainly to prevent any “one” interpretation or translation from emerging. “The possibility of translation guarantees the impossibility of there being only one hegemonic version of history or what it means to be human (Davis 4). Being able to read and interpret the text in various ways is for many a compelling reason to study literature. The plurality ties neatly with post-structuralist concepts. Being plurivocal enables pure translatability. And because of the plurivocality, texts are open to interpretation and thus to translation (Davis 39).

Translation brings to the surface possibilities of other meanings hidden or submerged in the source text. “A translation is never quite ‘faithful’, always somewhat ‘free,’ it never establishes an identity, always a lack and a supplement, and it can never be a transparent representation, only an interpretive transformation that exposes multiple and divided meanings in the foreign text and displaces it with another set of meanings, equally multiple and divided” (Venuti Rethinking 8). Moreover, the product itself is subjected to further readings and interpretations “which will go beyond any intentions of either original author or translator” (Bush 129).

Yet, this position of multiple meanings makes the issue of translatability problematic. With multiple meanings, it may be impossible to produce any faithful translation “because there is nothing definite or stable that one can be faithful to once and for all [...] In this sense, translation is truly subjected to what we could call, via Derrida, a ‘double bind’, that is, it is, at the same time and in some level, both possible and impossible, both protective and abusive, both faithful and unfaithful, both a production and a re-production of meaning” (from Davis? 158). This being the case, we are then left with ethics of translation or the responsibility of the translator (Davis 91).

Moreover, the translator as interpreter sees the original text as fraught with contradictions and paradoxes. Not only is ideology part of the production of the original text, ideology also plays a role in determining the translation process and the translated text. The translator should be aware of the irregularities in the original text while also contending with similar forces at work in producing the translation. Lefevere here is one of the pioneers to point out the patronage, poetics, and ideology involved in translation. Ideologies in this sense are “tacit assumptions, beliefs and value systems which are shared collectively by social groups (from Simpson 1993:5). While the definition of discourse is “institutionalized modes of speaking and writing which give expression to particular attitudes towards areas of socio-cultural activity (Kress, 1985) (qtd. in Hatim 10).

Ideology works both ways. It works as part of the structure that informs the original text and in which the author works in. These ideologies determine the form that the original text has. Ideology also works in another way through the translator and then on the target text. The translator’s ideology will determine now the translated text, imbuing it with ideologies in turn.

Leung points out that translation studies has taken an “ideological turn” after the linguistic and cultural turns. The focus of the ideological turn is on the “ideological significance of the act of translation: more specifically, it refers to a changed perspective of seeing translation as a means of ideological resistance” (129). The highlighting of the ideology benefits translation studies by, among others, according to Leung:

The visibility of the translator is greatly increased, leading to an enhancement of her/his status as a professional and as a participant in sociopolitical and cultural development. In addition to the role of mediator and broker between national cultures, the translator also takes on the role of mediator and broker between ideologies. There is greater transparency to the multifold functions of translation and the role of the translator and such an openness is conducive to more informed decision about and greater critical reflection on discourse and self. The translator gains a greater self-awareness of the potential for ideological manipulation in her/his work, and her/his responsibility toward this. (142)

Translation is also the locus where a cultural negotiation occurs—a give and take process that seeks to move towards a middle ground acceptable to the source and target cultures. The translator straddles the territory between the source text and the translation. In this position, the translator marks out his/her own territory, the version that can complement the source text and make him/her part of text making. The translator is involved in reterritorializing, constructing cultures, and forming the image of various subjects in the source culture. Translation involves “negotiation of meaning between producers and receivers of texts” (Hatim Communicator 3). The product is evidence of this negotiation process. So in a translation, either the original culture or the target culture may dominate depending on how strong whichever culture is and also the power relations in the mode of production.

Bassnett affirms the cultural interaction that goes on in the process of translation. Studies along the line of cultural interaction especially with regard to comparing original works and translated texts have produced useful insights into how cultures interact:

Translation offers an ideal ‘laboratory situation’ for the study of cultural interaction, since a comparison of the original and the translated text will not only show the strategies employed by translators at certain moments, but will also reveal the different status of the two texts in their several literary systems. More broadly, it will expose the relationship between the two cultural systems in which those texts are embedded. (qtd. in Kuhiwczak 19)

Pym proposes in a paper several propositions for cross-cultural communication and translation. He explains how translators have to make an effort to reduce complexity and which requires some form of risk management. The complexity in translation is something that a translator has to solve.

Translated texts offer a certain image or identity to the target culture. How translation forms cultural identities has been tackled by Venuti who says that “It continues most forcefully in the development of a translation strategy that rewrites the foreign domestic dialect and discourses, always a choice of domestic dialect and the exclusion of others (Formation 9-10).  Translation has been seen not anymore as a purely linguistic affair but one that involves a cultural function: “The important features of sociological settings have been included, and it has been recognized that, apart from linguistics, insights from a number of scientific disciplines, for example psychology, cultural anthropology, and communication theory should be employed to explain the complex phenomenon of translation” (Shäffner 1).

Furthermore, translation enriches the target language as new forms of literature and expression arise. Benjamin calls this a “perpetual renewal of language” (18). The foreign language injects into the target language new expressions, stretching and bending the limits of the target language and giving it a new freshness that perhaps would not be there had there been no external influences. In addition, Benjamin states that the translator should let his/her own language be affected by the foreign language, expanding and deepening his/her own (22). Therefore, an enriching of language is achieved by the contact and influence of the foreign language. The same idea of the translation as affecting the target culture is echoed by Bassnett. Bassnett comments on Even-Zohar’s contribution that sees translation as “the conduit through which innovation and change can be initiated.” In addition, the impact of translation during specific historical periods is important (Kuhiwczak 16-17).

Translator as Creative Writer

From the translator as reader and then as interpreter, I wish to emphasize the pre-eminence of the translator as a co-author and the creative product which is the translated text. From concepts derived from post-structuralism, we know that all texts are inter-texts, implying that no text is actually original since all texts are but products or are determined by others. For example, when does a translation of a poem, translated as a poem, become itself independent of the existence of the first on? When does it shed the “bad name” of “translation”? We thus problematize the positions of source text and target text, neither privileging one nor the other, calling into questions the pre-conceived notions of source and target. It is a way of rethinking the translator not anymore as a subject under the tyranny of the author but as a positive force in textual creativity.

The third stage of the model is when the translator takes on the role of creative writer. The function of creative writing is a co-authoring or a rewriting of the original text into something new that comes from the inner part of the translator. As co-author, the translator participates in creating meaning. The creation of meaning is similar to the way a reader gives meaning to texts during the act of reading. Barnstone (7) says that “writing is translation and translation is writing” (Italics the original). Nossack also sees the link between the writer and the translator: “Every writer is in fact a translator, since his occupation is to transfer facts, experiences, thoughts into another reality—that of language” (228). Wang, talking about anthologies on Taiwan literature says that “the text itself has been posing as rewriting—an inscription of some preexistent entity […] each anthology is an anthology of translations, and therefore of reinscriptions of Taiwan” (271).  The two activities, writing and translation, become co-equal as the translator moves back and forth between these activities.

As translation studies moves from the various turns from linguistic to cultural (ideology as shaping force Bassnett and Lefevere), another turn that it is taking is towards translation as re-writing such as gendered practices of feminist translation (Luise von Flotow). This re-writing is being given a political or interventionist purpose as translators discover how much their work affect society. Maier likewise supports the interventionist function of translation.

Lefevere in Translation/History/Culture is clear in his stance regarding how translation is very much like rewriting. Moreover, this rewriting is heavily influenced by ideology. It is also a tool for manipulation. That manipulation does not necessarily have to be negative. He says:

Translation is, of course, a rewriting of an original text. All rewritings, whatever their intention, reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way. Rewriting is manipulation, undertaken in the service of power, and in its positive aspect can help in the evolution of a literature and a society. Rewritings can introduce new concepts, new genres, new devices, and the history of translation is the history also of literary innovation, of the shaping power of one culture upon another. But rewriting can also repress innovation, distort and contain, and in an age of ever increasing manipulation of all kinds, the study of the manipulative processes of literature as exemplified by translation can help us towards a greater awareness of the world in which we live. (xi)

In addition to the constraints that the translator works in, one of the factors affecting the translation is the socio-cultural milieu. As the translator as interpreter is influenced by ideologies, the translator as creative writer is likewise affected. The translation is a testament to the factors influencing him as well as the ideologies that impinge on his consciousness (Rose 7). The translator writes in the framework of the era he/she is in, following the prevailing literary standards. Lefevere highlights how translators rewrite the text “in the service, or under the constraints, of certain ideological and/or poetological currents” (Rewriting 5).

How to resolve the problem of creative writing and translation? The book Rewriting explains that the “polarity between an ‘original’ writing and its translation is not ontologically determined; rather the derivative status of translation reflects socio-cultural power relations” (Lefevere Rewriting 3). In a reversal of the common notion that the translation is ontologically determined, that is, there is an inherent correspondence between the original and the translated text, Lefevere sees translation as a site for power struggle.

Venuti’s major contribution is to point out how the translator and the translation hide the ideology. Ideology is hidden through an apparent fluency strategy which supports the dominant ideology. Venuti emphasizes how transparency promotes “the individualistic illusion of authorial presence” (Rethinking 4). It is useful to directly cite his claims in Rethinking Translation:

Here it becomes clear that the valorization of transparency conceals the manifold conditions under which a translation is produced and consumed–starting with the translator and the fact of translation. A fluent strategy aims to efface the translator’s crucial intervention in the foreign text: he or she actively rewrites it in a different language to circulate in a different culture, but this very process results in a self-annihilation ultimately contributing to the cultural marginality and economic exploitation which translators suffer today. At the same time, a fluent strategy effaces the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text: this gets rewritten in the transparent discourse dominating the target-language culture and is inevitably coded with other target-language values, beliefs, and social representations, implicating the translation in ideologies that figure social differences and may well arrange them in hierarchical relations (according to class, gender, sexual orientation, race, nation). In this rewriting, a fluent strategy performs a labor of acculturation which domesticates the foreign text, making it intelligible and familiar to the target-language reader, providing him or her with the narcissistic experience of recognizing his or her own culture in a cultural other, enacting an imperialism that extends the dominion of transparency with other ideological discourses over a different culture. Moreover, since fluency leads to translations that are eminently readable and therefore consumable on the book market, it assists in their commodification and contributes to the cultural and economic hegemony of target-language publishers. (4-5)

Making translation visible is a political act (Venuti Rethinking 10). Such a political act is also interventionist by nature since it seeks to affirm a certain position. For example, in the article by Stecconi and Reyes, they highlight how translation is used as a tool for transgression and circumvention in the face of oppressive regimes. Vicente Rafael has likewise shown how translations become counter-revolutionary during the time of the Spanish-era Philippines.

The idea of translation as interventionist is what Carol Maier emphasizes in her writings. She sees the translator as an “intervenient being” (xi) because the translator “intervenes, participates, affects, and is affected physically and mentally by what he or she is doing” (qtd. in Munday xii). Translation is interventionist because it seeks to change target culture. Another interventionist slant is the translator who risks his/her life in the line of duty—a problem faced by many translators and interpreters in war zones. Interventionist translation can change the target culture because of the foreign elements that carry over from the original. Here the translator is an interventionist while distancing himself from the source text; he creates and fills up the space between himself and source text.

Through the translation, the meanings that have eluded the author are recaptured or expressed by the translator in the act of writing. The translator fixes meaning at a specific point in time while also being aware of the fluidity of that meaning—that polysemous nature of language. There is nothing original in fact since everything is intertextual, the meaning of all that has occurred before the re-writing has already been determined and is either captured or not captured, or modified in the translation. In fact, all creative writing is translation—creative works are manifestations or “translations” of what is in the writer’s mind or experience. The target text then becomes “a text in its own right, as a weave of connotations, allusions, and discourses specific to the target-language culture” (Venuti Rethinking 8).

Following the deconstructive line of thought regarding translation, the translator is not less creative than the author of the original work. Translation can explore the “links between translation and creative writing from linguistic, cultural and critical perspectives” (Llofredo 2). Now, there is a challenge to the “supremacy of the original, as though it were in a position of unquestioned authority. Yet much recent work in both literary criticism and translation studies has challenged the notion of the authoritative original” (Holman and Boase-Beier 2). However, this creative activity is not without constraints. Creativity is a response to constraints (Holman and Boase-Beier 6-17). In a similar way when poets have to be creative when following certain poetical forms, translators also have to discover means of working around, through, or within these constraints. The translator can rescue the original from its constraints.

The translator expresses his/her creativity within constraints and that is the beauty of the entire process. In fact, the translator has to be even more creative since constraints on him/her have been imposed. He is at once constrained by the original work, by the expectations of the readers, and by the conventions of translation. He thus has to find ways of transcending these limitations and of giving full reign to his creativity. The creativity lies in how to express oneself while maintaining a link with the original. To be creative is to work within constraints (Loffredo 9). While at the same time negotiating the in-betweenness of translated texts, the translator gives expression to his creative impulse. The translator attempts to reconcile his/her work with the promotional role and self-expressive impulse as a creative writer. Balcom poses the quandary of a translator when creativity is mentioned with translation. The problem is if the translator is creative does that mean he/she is unfaithful to the original? (119). Paz concisely puts it as “translation and creation are twin processes” (160). To prove this, he mentions the creative flowering that occurs when different poetic traditions meet. New literary forms emerge which blend the foreign and the local.

Constraint is not seen as something negative; rather, it is a “measure, balance or pattern” that “empowers the creative act because it is in the interplay between given extra-and intratextual constraint and individual freedom that creativity develops. Similarly, we argue that the constraints imposed by the presence of a source text empower and enhance the creativity of the translation act by placing the translator in a position of striving to overcome them” (Loffredo 47).

Creativity can be viewed as a cognitive trait of the translator. This cognitive property belongs to everyone but especially made relevant to the translator. Cognition

focuses on the creative person and places the source of creativity inside the individual; in this context, researcher’s efforts are devoted to describing the patterns underlying the mental processes leading to the ‘creation’ of creative products. From this kind of study ensues the possibility of making claims for universals in creativity, especially once the attention turns to the thinking process. Creativity then becomes synonymous with a practical thinking skill which can be improved and developed and, consequently, is not the prerogative of special individuals, but rather a normative process available to everybody. (Loffredo 9)

Prior to postmodernism, the concern was with the loss or faithful/unfaithfulness issues, blaming the impossibility of achieving equivalence due to the translator’s inadequacy and the translation phenomenon itself. Now, the emphasis is towards the multiplicity of meaning, towards play and experiment (Loffredo 147). The translator “may begin to participate, as a creative agent, in its ongoing reinterpretation and enrichment” (Loffredo 147).

Translation is seen as a creative work and a way of writing. Translation can be:

rethought and redefined in the light of ‘creativity’ and as a form of ‘writing’. Creative writing, as a new critical setting, has increasingly become the next contender field promising an insight into the process of translation and, ultimately, an innovative and stimulating ‘project of translation’. This fresh perspective can be explained by the significance increasingly bestowed upon the creativity inherent in rewritings, such as literary translation, and upon the creativity inherent in rewritings, such as literary translation, and upon the mental processes occurring during these rewritings. And yet it is the cultural relativity of translation, as a practice and as a discipline, which allows a further shift, this time towards translational ‘subjectivity’; in other words, towards the translator’s creative input in the process of ‘writing’ a translation, and the creativity inscribed in the products generated by this subjectivity. (Loffredo 2)

Chinese theorists, much like Western theorists, also see the creative aspect of translation. Wang Ning says that “a literary translator should first of all be an excellent creative writer himself/herself as his/her translation may determine whether or not the literary work can be appreciated by readers of the target language” (97). The Chinese also have ideas about translation and creative writing that the translator can consider in his/her own work: “If a writer also translates, his translation style will inevitably be affected by his own creative writing style. Conversely, if a writer does a special kind of translation for long, his own writing style will not remain unaffected” (Yu Guanzhong qtd. in Chan Twentieth 173). Zheng Zhenduo says that translations can compete with the original: “Translating a literary work is like creating one: they both have the same impact on the supreme spirit of mankind” (251). This echoes the Chinese idea that the translated text can stand for the original text.

Chinese writers themselves have recognized that translators have to be creative, as what Huang Chun-ming says in his preface to his collection of short stories: “I’m sure that Howard Goldblatt has found it necessary to be creative in transforming the stories…” (xv). Huang gives license to Goldblatt to go ahead and be creative perhaps at the expense of fidelity.

Mao Dun even sees translation work as challenging as that of writing the original:

Translation is by no means less challenging than creative writing; perhaps it is much more so. In the first place, to translate a work, one must, before one does anything else, grasp the writer’s ideas. But just grasping the writer’s ideas is not enough; one must also be fully capable of appreciating the artistic beauty of the original. Yet, even this is not enough; one must also enter the work in person, as it were, to weep and laugh with its characters. Only after the original has been thoroughly chewed over in this way can one talk about the second requirement: the translator must have the language to get the style of the original across. (254)

Not only do translations have to be creative but they must also try to surpass the original. This study agrees with Xu Yanchong who says that translations have literary value in themselves and can compete with the original. In fact, translations should try to surpass the original (Chan Twentieth 250).

Translated texts are thus not mere mirrors of the original text but are objects that stand by themselves as products of creative writing. This idea of literary translation as an art form finds support in The Poetics of Translation: History, Theory, Practice by Willis Barnstone. Wang comments about how translation is not merely a linguistic rendition but one where

Transgressions of meaning occur in translation which are at one with the transgressions that occur in all readings and all critical rewritings of the “text.” To look at an “original” is to look for some critical rewriting of the text, some version of it, which the critic can or cannot elicit as a rewriting of the translational text. Insofar as an original’s meaning surfaces only in terms of the massive interpretive network it solicits, translation is but one of the many ways to enter into rewriting it. (271).

Coming from different traditions, Western and Eastern theorists seem to converge to say that translation is creativity.

The idea of creativity is closely linked to what Longa proposes in his paper on a nonlinear approach to translation. Instead of a fixed, deterministic approach, the nonlinear approach closely captures the nature of the translation experience as a gut-feel method that seems not to follow any deterministic rule. Creativity cannot be expressed in scientific terms. Science looks at regularity while the translation process is seen as highly complex and chaotic: “In other words, the proposed theoretical move rejects a simplified and idealised nature of translation (because only linguistic factors were previously taken into account) and assumes translation to be a highly complex issue” (Longa 203).

Some theorists have proposed translation to be a performance, an art form. Communication is rethought of as not only transmitting but as a performance much like performing a dance, a piece of music, or a play that lives only during the actual production. Chantal Wright tackles performing translation: “in the sense of drawing attention to both the translation process and the translation product: it is an opportunity to put on a translation performance” (Loffredo 146). Going further, “Performing the translation is an opportunity to show the reader that translation is not a mechanical, objective task which results in a definitive, faithful translation but a subjective, manipulative process which results in one (or several) of many possible outcomes (Loffredo 147).

The aim to make a postmodern rendering of a text is, in Wright’s words, to re-work or re-tell the story. Because of existing debates, “texts are products of specific times and spaces and that the passage of time will inevitably effect how one reads (and writes) a text” (Loffredo 153). Thus, the original text, needs a “perpetual retranslation to reflect the constant change in society’s thinking…” (Llofredo 153).  The reinterpretation for a postmodern audience allows the “survival of the text and enriching contemporary understanding of it” (Loffredo 153).

Achieving an reinterpretation may require a translator to resort to references to pop culture highly specific to the local context. By using inter-textual references in pop culture, the translator brings to attention the translated aspect and foregrounds the translator (Loffredo 153). He calls it a translation performance which consists of play, surface, inter-textuality, use of pop material. The translator becomes a “creative agent” and the translation a “creative space.”

Thanks to the creativity of the translator and a translation that is different from the original, and we celebrate plurality, the original is given a new life. Following the thought of Walter Benjamin, the translation gives a second life to the original: “For a translation comes later than the original, and since the important works of world literature never find their chosen translators at the time of their origin, their translation marks their stage of continued life” (page?). The translator is a not a secondary participant nor is the translation a mere offshoot of the original. Rather, the translator plays a very active and determining role while the translation breathes new life to the original. Without the translation, an original may not even exist. The original text owes its second life to the translation (Gentzler 144). The idea of a “continued life” bestowed by the translation to the original subverts again the hierarchy of original/translation.

Derrida goes even further to say that the “original is the first debtor, the first petitioner; it begins by lacking and by pleading for translation” (227). Paz affirms that “all texts are originals because each translation has its own distinctive character. Up to a point, each translation is a creation and thus constitutes a unique text” (154). The target text then becomes “a text in its own right, as a weave of connotations, allusions, and discourses specific to the target-language culture” (Venuti Rethinking 8). Benjamin succinctly summarizes the process as a transformation and renewal of the original, “the original undergoes a change” (17). The transformation and renewal of the original is what makes translation studies exciting. From the dreary and drab linguistics approach, a new perspective in thinking about translation is opened.

Looking at translation as a creative process, we now have instead of a loss, a gain since the once hidden meanings and the not said are recuperated in the translation. Nothing is lost in translation but everything is gained. The curse of the translator disappears while his/her place is reaffirmed. This positive affirmation of the role of the translator is a refreshing view from old-fashioned notions of before.

Translation Theory with Chinese Characteristics

Aside from the translator model above that derives from Western theories, it may be possible to derive new ideas from Chinese translation theories. These Chinese theories may provide contrast to Western theories that might provide new insights in the field. And by including Chinese theories this dissertation may be even richer.

It is quite tempting to use Western translation theories on Chinese translation wholesale given the tremendous breadth of Western theories. Western theories can provide the needed systematic and logical approach that Chinese theories seem to lack. Nevertheless, there may be dangers in trying to fit Western theories onto the Chinese experience as what some Chinese researchers have raised.

Ngan and Kong criticize the use of teaching Western translation theories to Chinese students. The authors claim that the “theories and principles presented to students are not always relevant to Chinese.” They propose a framework for teaching such Western translation theories in the context of the needs of the Chinese. They note furthermore that English and Chinese are widely different languages and those Western theories may not always be relevant. Sun Zhili warns against a wholesale adoption of Western translation theories to the Chinese case, saying that for example “Equivalence Theory appears to have set a very high standard for translation, but in fact it is something unattainable. It denies the creativity of translation and forces translation into the dead end of ‘mechanical equivalence.’” Therefore, if we disregard our practical concerns and blindly apply foreign translation theories, more harm than good will be done to the formulation of our own translation theories” (241). Sun Zhili hopes that by combining Chinese and Western theories, a new translation theory with “Chinese characteristics” can be forwarded (241).

In talking about developing a Chinese translation theory, Luo affirms that “blind, mechanical borrowing of foreign theories will simply not work (234). It is inevitable, however, that some form of interchange occurs.

With increasing cultural exchange between nations, there is bound to be cross-fertilization of theories. Foreign translation theories should be widely introduced; as the Chinese saying goes, ‘there are stones from other hills which may serve to polish one’s own jade.” The problem is whether we are good at using others for our own benefit. We must have the ability to ‘thoroughly grasp’ and transform what is foreign. By making up for our deficiencies in this way, we can develop our translation theory, devise better translation criteria, and open up new areas for investigation. (Luo 234)

The new theory with “Chinese characteristics” may hint at what Cheung proposes as part of an international translation studies: “In this sense, it is, shall we say, a gesture of friendliness towards the invitation to work towards a general theory of translation formulated upon a new and more inclusive cognitive framework. It is a piece of work motivated by a shared aspiration, i.e. the promotion of a non-Eurocentric, international Translation Studies” (39). The same synthesis is proposed by Wang Ning: “In this sense, the rise of Oriental culture does not necessarily mean writing off Western culture, but rather co-existing with the latter on the same level, and communicating and having equitable dialogue with Western culture” (24).

Traditions other than the Chinese have likewise tried to study the possibility of adapting Western theory. Judy Kendall attempts to translate Japanese orthography into Western forms. She concludes that it is impossible: “It is not possible to find equivalents when dealing with such orthographies. There are none. The translators have to create in new spaces and forms a text that is suitable for them” (Loffredo 143). So it seems that if we look at the theories of Chinese translation theorists, we may find new perspectives.

Several Chinese translation theorists have tried to develop a translation theory based on the tradition of Chinese translation. Their efforts until now seem not to have borne consistent or systematic theories as compared with Western theorists. Nevertheless, the direction of the studies undertaken is towards looking at the roots of their own tradition and building from there. This strategy seems to permit a synthesis of what they have while avoiding whole assimilation of Western theories.

Source of China’s Translation Theory

In order to develop its own translation theory, China has come up with a parallel tradition that extends a long way back in history. Luo says that “Most Chinese ideas on translation are deeply rooted in China’s long cultural history, in its classical literary discourse and aesthetics” (231). The rich source of this tradition is certainly one that cannot be passed over lightly. Even from early on, China has had its translation theory proponents. Dong Qiusi started the debate about developing a translation theory for China (Chan Twentieth 223). He insists that with theory, translation can go along well and improve. Luo Xinzhang points out the contribution of the three main traditional Chinese translation theorists.

Liu Miqing on the other hand proposes a particularist approach or highly specific theory that belongs only to the language pair of English-Chinese. He advocates that translation theories for China “must be based on: 1. A descriptive approach which looks at language facts, 2. An emphasis on semantic structures, and 3. A functional, or communicative, perspective.”  (Chan Twentieth 223). He looks more at Nida’s dynamic equivalence than Catford’s formal equivalence.

Lin Zhang however criticizes Liu Miqing saying that he fails to distinguish Chinese translation theory from Chinese (language) translation theory” and that it’s ethnocentric because it focuses on where the theory is produced and that his model is highly specific (Chan Twentieth 224).

Cheung sees that using the term “theory” as problematic. She offers a re-evaluation of the Chinese tradition in order to question, and then perhaps to come up with new answers, regarding the theory. She suggests looking at Chinese translation tradition for sources that may be used in translation practice. That exploration, however, seeks to overturn conventional notions of translation:

I would therefore add my voice to the appeal, though I would revisit the past via a different route. That is why I have argued elsewhere for a critical rethinking of the use and usefulness of the term ‘theory’ as a mental category for handling historical data and for the need to expand the scope of inquiry by targeting at Chinese discourse on translation for useful material for theorization about translation. This paper can be considered an attempt to heed the call for a re-acquaintance with traditional Chinese translation ‘theory’. But it seeks to unsettle, rather than accept, prevailing assumptions about the parameters of ‘translation’ and ‘translation theory’ in the Chinese tradition. (Cheung 38)

The contribution of Chinese translation tradition can be on its emphasis on an intuitive translation that derives from other arts. Xavier Lin describes Peter Stambler’s translation of Han Shan’s work based on a gestalt (the feeling) of the poem. Stambler makes use of personal images so there is a gap between the images of the ST and the TT (Loffredo 97-108). Early translation theory in China has been classified as impressionistic (Chan Twentieth 3). “There was in Chinese translation theory less emphasis on the translation process—on what happens in interlingual transfer—than on the quality of the product itself, and on what constituted a good translation” (Chan Twentieth 4). So the focus of translation can be less on the process but more on the product

It is most useful to mention here Chan’s observation regarding Chinese translation theory. His observation sees translation in terms of the product’s impression. Moreover, Chan suggests that theory and criticism seek to work towards a Chinese translation theory. Chan (Twentieth 10) comments that in general early Chinese translation theory has been characterized by using:

terms derived from Chinese poetics in general and painting criticism in particular, to describe a realm of activity that suffered initially through its marginal status. The choice of terminology, however, reflects a special Chinese emphasis on evaluating (rather than describing or analyzing) the translated product impressionistically; discussions of translations almost invariably begin by proposing ways of ‘telling the good translations from the bad ones.’ The preference for evaluation, together with the overall deemphasis of the linguistic approach, and the blurring of the lines of demarcation between theory and criticism, are perhaps the distinguishing hallmarks of a body of translation theory propounded in China in the twentieth century.

Chinese translation theory is seen as non-analytical. It is a commonly held view that “Chinese translation theory has tended toward one of two extremes: either it has been valorized as belonging to a distinctive, separate tradition, so that any attempt to seek Western equivalents can only be futile, or it has been denigrated as lacking in analytical depth and philosophical insight as compared with Western translation theory” (Chan Twentieth 3). Wang Ning sees that for Chinese scholars, translation is an art while for Western scholars, it is a science (71). Perhaps by emphasizing the impressionistic or non-systematic method, a more art like rendering can be obtained from the translation.

Applying this impressionistic approach, I will try to see if Chinese translation theories can be used as guidelines for translating Chinese literature. Luo wants to develop a theory that has Chinese features yet is practice-related (232). Yan’s three principles were a tremendous contribution to translation theorizing in china. The way he summarizes it in concise words is that Yan Fu is a definite contribution to the field (232). Luo summarizes the principles of Chinese translation theory (234-235)

1. Translate according to the basic meaning of the original
2. Convey not only the meaning but also the style
3. Get the spirit of the original, the “spiritual resonance”
4. The translation should read like the original and not like a translation.

Tan outlines the characteristics of Chinese translation theory (135): “emphasis has been mostly on translation methods, skills and techniques…how to produce a good piece of translation.” Mostly in the 20^th century, it “has been along an intuitive line” where “ thoughts and ideas produced in translation have been based on the intuitive conception of translation practice on the part of the translator and translation theorist.” The Chinese mode is covert where the “meaning of translation theory or any theoretical idea on translation often depends on what has not been overtly said, but what can be covertly understood” (137). This means that even if the theorists did not say much, and they are brief and vague, they allow for “infinite interpretation and imaginative thinking” (137). Chinese translation theory has also been conservative, that is resistant to change (139). Writers “treat it as if it was the entirety of translation theory” (139). Finally, Chinese translation theory is neutral in the sense that it can be “applicable to all types of texts, secular or religious” it’s so vague that it can be used for anything (140).

This current study sees that it is possible to make use of the insights of Chinese translation theory. I will try to recuperate these Chinese translation theories which are applied to translation from other languages to Chinese. I use these theories in reverse: from Chinese to English. In the empirical part of this study, Yan Fu’s principles will be used as basis for the translation of the short stories. These theories are held up against my translation. In a way, I am reinventing or seeing new ways of expression borrowed from the Chinese—a Sinicization of English.

What is most useful in the Chinese tradition is its impressionist character that relies more on the intuition of the translator rather than a rigid scientific approach championed by the West. That impressionistic character fits in with the subjectivity of the translator and the translator model proposed in the theoretical framework. Both the uncertainty of impressionism and the creativity or art aspect of the translator blend well. The current state of Chinese translation theory, scholars are making use of these impressionistic heritage to come up with their own explanations for translated texts (Chan Twentieth 11). This vagueness or adaptability is an asset for Chinese translation theory since it can encompass a broader translation experience.

From the Chinese theorists, I chose to use Yan Fu’s principles. St. Andre recommends at the end of his article a future research direction for Chinese translation theory: “but especially Yan Fu, can be taken as models for a particular type of translator in the twenty-first century: the activist” (301). We think that it is possible to see Yan Fu’s formulations not as outmoded but as being also relevant until now.

Using Yan Fu as a benchmark for the translation product is a tool to gauge the translated text. St. Andre suggests that

The ideology of the translator and her or his agenda come to the fore, to such an extent that the translator may end up ‘hijacking’ the text in translation […] translation may serve as a powerful tool, not by being faithful to the text, but by revealing in translation the biases of the original material. Yan Fu’s strategies, including introductory material, excision, addition, interlinear commentary, notes, and post-translation summary of his own arguments may all be applied usefully in the context of web pages and hypertextual material. (St. Andre 302)

Conclusions

The theory foregrounded the three roles of the translator. For each role, I indicated what I think are the properties of those roles. These roles are attitudes that the translator has to bear in mind when translating. By keeping them in mind, hopefully, it will affect textual production. I appropriate Chinese theory of Yan Fu as principles by which a translation can be judged. He provides a classic formulation for translated texts. The following Chapter describes how the theoretical model affected translation. I then assessed the quality of the short stories in the light of Yan Fu’s principles.

Chapter 5: Results and Discussion

The translation product was the contemporary Taiwan short stories in English. The results and discussion section will describe the actual translation procedure, the findings about the procedure, and the implications. This part is primarily the notes of a working translator and a commentary on the translation poetics specific for the short stories. The use of a translation commentary is common in applied translation studies. Hatim supports the use of the translator’s commentary whose purpose is to give “an outlet for rationalisation about the approach adopted or judgements made and an opportunity to reflect on the nature of the process of translating” (Teaching 2).  This commentary will be related to the translator model proposed in the theoretical framework section. That translator model shaped and oriented my attitude before and during translation. All throughout the discussion, I will point out at what instances the various roles come into play.

David Wang comments on four English anthologies of Taiwan fiction which looks at how the image of Taiwan is portrayed by these short stories through the different translation methods. Anthologizing and commentary are likewise concerns of Joseph Lau and Victor H. Mair who published a collection of traditional Chinese literature. Other Chinese translators such as William H. Nienhauser Jr. looked at the importance of annotating the translation since he claims that the reader should know the background of the work at least in general terms—an assertion to which Cyril Birch and Eoyang agree. In another vein, Stephen H. West in the volume (?) addresses the problem of the proper aims and proper audience in literature. He admits that translation is for him a way of understanding, organizing, and studying a text.

Aside from the translator model and the description of the translation procedure, I used the practical guidelines of Yan Fu to evaluate the translated text. Part of this section will point out special difficulties either linguistic or cultural when translating contemporary Taiwan literature. To solve these difficulties, I adopted several strategies. In order to illustrate these problems and solutions, specific examples from the texts are used.

To explore what happens in the black box that is the translator, translation studies has developed one of several tools. These methods are collectively known as think-aloud-protocols. These protocols “capture the translator’s reactions and commentaries as he or she reflects on the task at hand. They track the development of the text from its initial to its final version using the translator’s verbalized self-commentary” (Neubert 30). Although not wholly a think-aloud-protocol, I adopted the method as a commentary in my translation. So that instead of describing the process in actu like a think-aloud-protocol, I will describe the process that I followed.

When I started the translation of the short stories, the most important consideration was that translating literature may be different from the usual technical documents that I was used to. Compared to literary translation, technical translation has a relatively narrower or specific range of meaning and not given in to literary figures of speech and other techniques. A literary text that uses various literary devices such as figures of speech, connotations, and modernist techniques may be more challenging compared with a technical document. Because of this, I felt that literary translation may be more difficult to translate since it may pose higher demands on the translator. Nevertheless, I thought that perhaps assisted by the proposed translator model and held up against Yan Fu’s principles, the endeavor may be viable. Indeed, Landers says that

in technical translation, for example, style is not a consideration so long as the informational content makes its way unaltered from SL to TL. […] Consider some of the capabilities that the literary translator must command: tone, style, flexibility, inventiveness, knowledge of the SL culture, the ability to glean meaning from ambiguity, an ear for sonority, and humility. (7-8)

Evaluation of the Translator-Oriented Model

Before undertaking the task of even opening the text to be translated, first of all the translator-oriented model proposed in the theoretical framework oriented me. This orientation may be seen as a first stage in the model, that is, the translator being conscious of the roles. I was aware that because of my model, I was playing three roles described in the theoretical framework. I became conscious of the active meaning interpretation and creation roles that the translator plays. This consciousness is what sets apart a non-aware translator, that is someone who just dives right into the translation work, and a self-aware translator who knows that he/she is about to undertake a task that is backed up by so many theories as mentioned above. It is the attitude of the translator that is important here because the attitude dictates how the translation will proceed. Compared with the one who is not aware, perhaps the self-aware translator is better because he/she works with that background that emphasizes the three roles. This may help the translator in enhancing the translator functions. Perhaps non-informed translators may be merely concerned with changing the clothes of a meaning to another set of clothes without consideration for the reading, interpreting, and creative aspects. Thus, the frame of mind when I was translating was keeping in sight these three roles. What is important is the mindset with which these translations were done.

An example of having this state of mind is as follows. A reader may see the requirements demanded of a translator and the preparation needed to undertake a literary translation. The awareness enables the translator to evaluate one’s own abilities. In my case, on first reading the short stories I was aware of my role as a reader of a literary work. I had to ask myself about the type of fiction and the possible challenges. I then had to read the text in a literary way, that is, engaging the texts and grappling with its various meanings. The reading was in no way a less-informed non-literary reading. I felt that that reading was richer and deeper as the translator sees so many interpretive possibilities. Translating the text was a way for me to understand the text.

As an interpreter, I had to make decisions among various interpretive possibilities knowing full well that any choice will exclude other valid interpretations. Based on my reading and perception of the meaning that the original wanted to convey, I interpreted the text. That interpretation was held in memory until it was expressed into another language—the translation or transformation.

The third stage of the translation was the application of the principles of Yan Fu to the actual translation practice. This third stage was primarily the translator as a creative writer. I had to make use of my creativity while working within the boundaries set by the original text to come up with a creative work. The tension between being faithful to the original text and the creative impulse was an interplay of two opposing forces. That creative aspect was a task of creative writing to produce the English translation. With this basic framework in mind, I started translating.

Procedure followed

Landers in Literary Translation offers some practical guidelines for a working translator. These guidelines are as follows. The first concern was to identify the texts to be translated and this was narrated in the section on scope and limitations in the early chapters. Copies of the texts were obtained from the anthology introduced also in the same section. Photocopies were made to facilitate portability of the texts.

After identifying and obtaining copies of the stories that I intended to translate, since I saw that it would take a long time to consult a printed dictionary I thought of how to make the task of dictionary consultation easier. Landers also recommends the use of technology (176-179). Looking up words in a Chinese dictionary is not as simple as in a Western dictionary where the words are arranged alphabetically. One has to be trained in using a Chinese dictionary. It takes some skill to use a Chinese dictionary since the most common arrangement is by what is called radical stroke order. Radical strokes are like the building blocks of Chinese characters and the number of strokes in a radical is what is used to order the characters in a Chinese dictionary. Although there are other systems of ordering such as the phonetics system, traditionally the radical stroke system is known to be the standard.

In addition, looking for the dictionary definition a Chinese character is not just a one-step method, but a two-step method. After knowing the radical stroke number, one has to then count the remaining strokes left and then look it up in an index. The index will then indicate on what page that character appears. Obviously, following this method for hundreds of Chinese characters will take too long. I thus thought of making use of technology to speed up the process. Instead of the painstaking task of counting strokes and flipping dictionary pages, technology in the form of electronic dictionaries allow a keyboard-based input or mouse-driven input on the search field and then with a click of a button, one or several definitions can be obtained instantly. Obviously, this sounded very attractive and will facilitate the translation work. Other researchers such as Bernardo, has tried this approach to translating Latin into English.

Using images (like bitmaps or pictures in the computer) proved to be cumbersome and wieldy because electronic dictionaries accept only text-based files. Before they can be used for electronic dictionary lookup, the images had to be converted into text files.

In order to use such electronic dictionaries, I saw the advantage of scanning the pages and converting them into digital files. Having a digital copy of the original text provided a convenient way to go about the translation work because the files are portable, can be easily copied, and can be used for online or electronic dictionaries. The stories were first saved as image of pages and then the textual images were converted into Chinese text files using an Optical Character Recognition program that made these text files editable and can be copied onscreen. The use of OCR however, is not perfect since there were some Chinese characters which were not recognized, either because of the quality of the scanned image that confuses the OCR or perhaps the software itself has inherent problems.

For example, the original text from the book was run through a scanner and passed through the program. This resulted in some portions which were recognizably Chinese while other portions were scanning or recognition errors. From the first page of the story “How to Measure the Width of a Ditch,” it can be seen that the OCR works fairly well. I took out artifacts or texts that were gibberish. The Chinese characters were recognizable and there was about more than 90% accuracy as long as the scanned image was of high quality, at least 300 dpi. Below is the first page of the short story in the original Chinese after passing through the OCR processing:

如何測量水溝的寬度

不管怎麼說，測量水溝永遠不會是個有趣的話題。當我們用吉話來娛樂朋友時，最常被提到的曰芒。男或關係、經濟、醜聞、電影和笑話。我們咀嚼著機智的字眼，舌頭蒜著幽默的嘴脣，然後收縮一下聲帶，藉以發出各種不同波長的聲音，這些聲音如果是有組織的、有意義的、或者有趣的，我們便稱它為話題。

是的，我也有一大套專門對付那些浮面傢伙的話題。除了前面提到的那幾頂外，我的話題尚包括了天氣、藥物和貝殼︵我收集這種東西，有滿滿一抽屜︶。聽我說話談不上車受，但也不會是種苦刑N除非我一不小心溜了嘴，提到如何測量水溝寬度這回事。通常對方的反應是臉部肌肉突然地拍緊，脣邊線條加深、幢孔放大．組成一副不可思議的表情。這種表情具有強烈的諷諭效果  我立刻收回底下的話。

至於本文的題目  如何測量水溝的寬度。這個問題一般人可以接受的答案是個反問句:

Comparing with the actual printed text, there were many recognition errors. Before the text can be used it had to be corrected. I had to correct the text by manually entering the right characters using the phonetic entry method on the computer keyboard. The phonetic entry method is just one of several ways of entering Chinese using a Western style keyboard. The keys however are mapped to enable typing in Chinese. Correcting the text allowed for better text processing in the full-text translation software. The version below shows which characters were wrongly recognized and are indicated by brackets.

如何測量水溝的寬度

不管怎麼說，測量水溝永遠不會是個有趣的話題。當我們用吉話來娛樂朋友時，最常被提到的曰芒。男或關係、經濟、醜聞、電影和笑話。我們咀嚼著機智的字眼，舌頭蒜著幽默的嘴脣，然後收縮一下聲帶，藉以發出各種不同波長的聲音，這些聲音如果是有組織的、有意義的、或者有趣的，我們便稱它為話題。

是的，我也有一大套專門對付那些浮面傢伙的話題。除了前面提到的那幾頂外，我的話題尚包括了天氣、藥物和貝殼︵我收集這種東西，有滿滿一抽屜︶。聽我說話談不上車受，但也不會是種苦刑N除非我一不小心溜了嘴，提到如何測量水溝寬度這回事。通常對方的反應是臉部肌肉突然地拍緊，脣邊線條加深、幢孔放大．組成一副不可思議的表情。這種表情具有強烈的諷諭效果  我立刻收回底下的話。

至於本文的題目  如何測量水溝的寬度。這個問題一般人可以接受的答案是個反問句:

The corrected text after entering the characters manually appears below:

如何測量水溝的寬度

不管怎麼說，測量水溝永遠不會是個有趣的話題。當我們用吉話來娛樂朋友時，最常被提到的曰芒。男或關係、經濟、醜聞、電影和笑話。我們咀嚼著機智的字眼，舌頭蒜著幽默的嘴脣，然後收縮一下聲帶，藉以發出各種不同波長的聲音，這些聲音如果是有組織的、有意義的、或者有趣的，我們便稱它為話題。

是的，我也有一大套專門對付那些浮面傢伙的話題。除了前面提到的那幾頂外，我的話題尚包括了天氣、藥物和貝殼︵我收集這種東西，有滿滿一抽屜︶。聽我說話談不上車受，但也不會是種苦刑N除非我一不小心溜了嘴，提到如何測量水溝寬度這回事。通常對方的反應是臉部肌肉突然地拍緊，脣邊線條加深、幢孔放大．組成一副不可思議的表情。這種表情具有強烈的諷諭效果  我立刻收回底下的話。

至於本文的題目  如何測量水溝的寬度。這個問題一般人可以接受的答案是個反問句:

After correcting the text, it was possible to use electronic dictionaries to facilitate looking up definitions just by copying and then pasting characters into the dictionary. Several electronic dictionaries are available. There are some which are online and webpage based. Others can be downloaded as a stand-alone program on the computer.

Another example of this process is using the story “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story” where the Chinese text is converted into editable text and cleaned up. The final electronic text is shown below. For this story, the character recognition was not as good as the previous one perhaps as a result of the quality of the scanned image. The possible solutions are to rescan the document or to use the original text. I opted to use the original text since it seemed that the scan quality of the subsequent pages was better.

林仔埔棒球誌

你覺得這一切都不對勁。向東行的信義路上竟然不堵車。白花花的太陽掛在擋風玻璃上，堅持地要晒進你戴了墨鏡的腺購裡。更奇怪的，夫空是藍籃的，不帶灰機樸的濛混塵勒，一直看上去，看得見一尾拉白絲的噴射機。

上一坎遇到這種晴空．藍天白雲，是什麼時候的事了b上一改星期六提早下班，無處可去百朝家裡飛馳，又是什麼時候的事?你拚命向記憶裡求索，想要給這份感覺一個時間定位，咸覺還沒定下來，反而是你整個人彷彿陷人到時間之流中，車子明明是往前進，可是在冥冥間另一個抽象的布景裡，你卻是在向後急退的。好像坐在倒駛的火車上錯車，旁邊的軌道上跑著一列相反方向的車，你從窗外望過去，稍縱即逝的光影裡勉強辨識出對方車中也坐著一排排倒退的人，還有窗上映滿的層層疊形，一凝神想要捕捉些什麼，立刻就喪失了動靜分野，只覺得迷失在一幅幅超現賣的畫面間

Going one step further, aside from consulting electronic dictionaries, a further use of technology on the Chinese text files is the use of full-text translators or machine translation. A machine translator is a software that is much like an electronic dictionary but works on full-length texts instead of individual words or characters that electronic dictionaries work on. Unfortunately, I do not have access to machine translators and so have to resort to freely available online text translators. Recently, Google has released its translator online and it is easily accessed via a web browser. There are other online text translators such as that found in Chinese dictionary websites but Google seems to be the most easily found and available.

A translation using Google’s translator can be obtained from the text above. For example, I tried the first paragraph of this story and the result is below:

How to measure the width of the ditch

In any case, the measurement will never ditch is an interesting topic. When we use words to entertainment Kyrgyzstan friends, the most commonly mentioned Mans said. Male or relations, economy, scandal, movies and jokes. We chew the wording of the witty, humorous tongue lips with garlic, and then contraction of the vocal cords like to issue a variety of different wavelengths of the sound, the sound if it is organized, meaningful, or interesting, we will call it the topic .

Yes, I also have a large set of special deal with the topic of those superficial guys. In addition to the above-mentioned several, I will also include the topic of the weather, drugs and shellfish (I collect this kind of thing, there are full of a drawer). Listen to my car by words alone, but it will not be the kinds of苦刑N unless I accidentally slipped of the tongue, referring to how to measure the width of the ditch at all. The reaction is usually a sudden facial muscles to make tight lips lines deepen, enlarge hole buildings. Composed of an incredible expression. This expression has a strong allegorical effect immediately under my words.

As the title of this article how to measure the width of the ditch. This issue acceptable to most people the answer is a rhetorical questions:

As shown above, there were a couple of characters that were not translated. The text resulting from that translation is a hodge-podge of English words that do not make any sense. Moreover, the translation is totally unrecognizable as a true translation and at certain portions sound hilarious. The result is totally ungrammatical and perhaps the only value it has is that most of the Chinese words were more or less translated into English. It may be a very bad literal translation perhaps in the manner of Lu Xun and still, clearly, a lot of work still has to be done. However, using Google translator is just a crib or an aid in the translation. Using Google translator is a very rough way of working. The result of the full text translation is not usable at all. Clearly, this is a job for a human translator.

Aside from the online Google translator, a Java-based program that can run on different operating systems can be downloaded. I used one of the widely available machine translator software called Dimsum.  I copied the entire original Chinese text into the full text translator called to get something equivalent to a full text translation. The full text translator gave a literal and almost unintelligible rendering of the text in English. The value of this rough translation was to provide signposts at least of the major words. The drawback of this approach, however, is that other meanings may not be apparent. Also, like the online translator, Dimsum just gives the meaning of individual words when the cursor is moved over the characters. The other meanings then rely on the translator’s familiarity with the language.

Armed with the electronic text, I began translating starting from the beginning of the story. I did not read the whole story first and then translate. Perhaps some translators may opt to read the whole story before translating. But I thought that I would save time by starting right away to translate and solving problems as I go along. So while reading the story for the first time, I was also translating. Translation was done directly on the computer without using the printed page. I had two screens open, one was the original Chinese text and the other screen was the translation that I was working on. Only when I suspected that there were errors in the electronic text did I resort to using the printed text.

Working from the start of the story, the initial translation was done quickly and roughly, skipping parts that were not clear either because of some confusion in the meaning of the text or lack of translation possibilities. When difficult or unfamiliar words were encountered, these were entered in the electronic dictionary. I tried to follow the sentence structure or the style initially at the beginning to maintain the flavor of the original. I was afraid that if I rearranged too many things, then the voice of the author would be lost. Inevitably, later on some rearrangement of sentence elements was needed because the text would sound too awkward in English.

I worked in sentence units. First, I read the sentence, tried to understand as a reader of literature and mentally took note of all the connotations, literary elements, and the narrative flow. I followed this method because if I translated word by word, then the translation may not make sense. I did not read the whole paragraph first either before doing any translation because if the paragraph is long, then the sense of the first sentences is lost. The sentence-by-sentence method is the most effective way that I have found to work for me. Sometimes though one whole sentence may take up the whole paragraph. In this case, I segmented the paragraph into thought units and then translated those units.

For the first draft, the primary principle of concern was fidelity. A straightforward almost literal style was adopted that adhered to Yan Fu’s first principle of fidelity. By being aware of the faithfulness principle of Yan Fu, the translation sought to be as faithful as possible to the original text. Chan says about Yan Fu that with regards to fidelity, Yan Fu “tampered with the original text in the interest of fluency: he freely added to or deleted from it, since to him the translation should not be unnecessarily constrained by the linguistic structures of the source text” (Impressionistic 59). So following Chan’s observation of Yan Fu’s fidelity principle, I likewise freely added or deleted when I thought it proper.

I finished one page at a time then pause or review the work and then continue with the next page until I reached the end. I did not go back to the beginning once I was done with the whole story because I wanted to keep some distance from the text. Giving some distance from the translation enabled me to look back on the translation with a more critical and detached eye to see which parts were not faithful or were not expressed in English in the best way possible. The translator is faced with choosing or deciding among several good possibilities in translation, and it is up to the him/her to decide based on a gut feel which one to use.

Following the above procedure, the resulting first draft for the story “How to Measure the Width of a Ditch” is shown below. The feel of the translation is like a literal rendering of the text.

How to measure the width of a ditch

No matter what is said, measuring a ditch is never an interesting topic. When I used words to give joy to my friends, the most frequently brought up is: relationship between man and woman, economics, ghost stories, movies, and jokes. We intelligent word eyes, the tongue sticking humorous lips, later shorten a bit the voice tape, in order to bring out all types of different wavelengths of voice, these voices if is organized, with meaning, or interesting, we can just call them as topics.

That’s right, I also have a big set of expertise regarding those topics floating among fellows. Aside from the previously mentioned topics, my topic also includes the weather, medicine and shells (I have collected these types of things, filling up a drawer). Listening to me speak maybe won’t be enjoyable but also will not be a torture: unless I don’t take care and it escapes from my lips, bringing up the matter of how to measure a culvert’s width. Normally the response of the other party would be his muscles on the face would suddenly be drawn tight, the line of the border ? would become deeper, and nose hole (?) become  bigger, forming an incredible expression. This type of expression has a strong ? result—I would immediately take back what I just said.

Regarding the topic of this article, how to measure the width of a culvert. The acceptable answer for most people to this problem is another question:

Likewise, in another story “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story,” the first draft translation resulted in a translation that was close to literal rendering but clearly unacceptable in English. There were also segments that were unclear to the reader:

Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story

You thought that everything didn’t seem to be right. Eastbound along Hsinyi Road was not traffic. The burning sun hung on the windshield glass, insisting on shining on your eyes hidden behind sunglasses. The strangest thing is that the sky is blue, not a speck of grey dust, looking straight up, the white line thread of a jet can be seen clearly.

When was the last time that this kind of clear sky was seen, blue skies and white clouds? When was the last Saturday that you got off early from work, without a place to    go but just rushed  directly home, that was when? You tried vainly to find any hint in your memory, wanting to give this feeling a place in time. The feeling has still not been settled, but it’s your whole being that seems to have fallen through the rush of time. The car clearly is moving forward, but imperceptibly in another abstract space, you are quickly moving backwards. Like sitting on a wrong train that was being driven backward, on the tracks beside was another train going in the opposite direction. You looked out of the window, trying to discern from a passing moment the rows of people in the other train also moving backwards. Also on the window were layers of reflections, Once you concentrated your attention in order to capture something, right away, the boundary between movement and stillness is lost. Only feels lost between surreal images.

The first draft translation was very much a work in progress. Very little or almost no consideration for polish and proper English grammar was taken. I closely followed the Chinese text, the punctuation marks, and the structure.

The resulting first draft was awkward, sounding more Chinese than English—or what is called Chinese-English writing, which is how some Chinese would write in English, using Chinese structures to express themselves in English. Several words were marked with a question mark to indicated points of doubt that will be resolved in the second revision. These doubts were not immediately resolved because I wanted to get the general flow of the story and consulting the dictionary for every word that I did not know would interrupt the flow.

After a few days of setting the text aside, I again went over the English text to see which parts were unclear. The second editing consisted of reading and editing the translated text. The original text in Chinese was read again to check whether the English was faithful. The process at this stage was to render the translated text as if it were written in proper English. Awkward constructions or Chinese-English (English that sounds like it was Chinese) were modified to make them colloquial and flowing, giving the impression of a fluid reading. At this stage, a more radical departure from the Chinese sentence construction was done. I had to almost re-write the English text so that it would sound like English and not Chinese. The second draft was held up against Yan Fu’s third principle of elegance. The translation sought to read elegantly or fluidly. The Chinese sentences were transformed into acceptable English style writing.

Example for editing the second time resulted in a better flowing text:

How to measure the width of a ditch

Whichever way you look at it, the topic of how to measure a ditch is never an interesting topic. When I entertain my friends by telling stories, the usual topics are man/woman relations, the economy, ghost stories, movies, and jokes. We would come up with cleverly thought out words, tongues sticking on humorous lips, and then clear the vocal chords to prepare to come up with sounds of varying wavelengths. If these sounds are organized, meaningful, or interesting, we then call them topics.

Right, I also have a considerable collection of topics to address those fellows. Aside from those several previously mentioned topics, my topics also include the weather, medicines, and seashells (I collect these things and have filled up a drawer). Listening to me speak is not really enjoyable nor is it a form of torture unless I say something unintentional. When I bring up the topic of how to measure the width of a ditch, the normal reaction of the other person would be a sudden tightening of his cheeks, the furrows on his forehead would deepen, and his nostrils become bigger, forming an unimaginable expression. This kind of expression has a very violent result and I would right away take back what I said.

Regarding this article’s topic on how to measure the width of a ditch, the answer to this topic that most people can accept is a counter question:

For the story “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story,” second editing gave the following more acceptable rendering:

Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story

You felt that something was wrong. It turned out that there was no traffic at all eastbound along Hsinyi Road. The white burning sun that hung on the windshield glass, insisted on shining into your eyes which were hidden behind sunglasses. The strangest thing is that the sky was blue, not even a speck of grey dust. When you looked straight up, the white tail of a jet stream can be clearly seen.

When was the last time that you saw such kind of clear sky with blue skies and white clouds? The last time was on a Saturday when you tried to get off work early. You did not have any place to go and so rushed straight for home, when was that again? You tried vainly to find any hint in your memory, wanting to give this feeling a place in time. The feeling has still not been settled, but it was your whole being that seemed to have fallen through the flow of time. The car clearly was moving forward, but imperceptibly in another abstract space you felt that you were quickly moving backwards. It was as if you were sitting in train that was being driven backwards and on the tracks beside your train was another train going in the opposite direction. You looked out the window, trying to make out from the fading images the rows of people in the other train who were also moving backwards. Also on the window were layers of reflections. When you tried to focus your attention to capture something, right away you lost the sense of movement. You only felt being lost in layers of supernatural images.

Again, after this second session, the text was set aside. Finally, a third editing was done to improve the style. The third editing followed the prescription of elegance according to Yan Fu’s third principle. At this point, the text was held up against the third principle of Yan Fu on elegance. Once the first two conditions of Yan Fu are met (faithfulness and expressiveness), the third step was emphasized. The flow of the text was revised to make it more acceptable to the readers. The expressiveness of Yan Fu was used in this stage. This stage was mainly to further enhance the flow of the text or readability. The creative aspect of the short story was likewise prominently brought forward. Emphasis at this stage was to make the text more “literary” in feel. Making the text elegant, however, brought the danger of veering too far away from the text. But the problem was perhaps the original’s meaning became more obscure as the translator started to intervene. Nevertheless, the original totally disappeared. The translator’s own vision of the text appropriated the original. Perhaps even more liberties were taken as the translator appropriated the text as his/her own.

Example for editing the third time is shown below. This time, the focus was on the literary aspect and cutting out awkward expressions. Thus, for the story “How to Measure the Width of a Ditch,” third editing flows better than the second editing:

How to measure the width of a ditch

Whichever way you look at it, the topic of how to measure a ditch is never an interesting topic. When I entertain my friends by telling stories, the usual topics are man/woman relations, the economy, ghost stories, movies, and jokes. We would come up with cleverly thought out words, tongues sticking on humorous lips, and then clear the vocal chords to prepare to come up with sounds of varying wavelengths. If these sounds are organized, meaningful, or interesting, we then call them topics.

Right, I also have a considerable collection of topics to address those fellows. Aside from those several previously mentioned topics, my topics also include the weather, medicines, and seashells (I collect these things and have filled up a drawer). Listening to me speak is not really enjoyable nor is it a form of torture unless I say something unintentional. When I bring up the topic of how to measure the width of a ditch, the normal reaction of the other person would be a sudden tightening of his cheeks, the furrows on his forehead would deepen, and his nostrils become bigger, forming an unimaginable expression. This kind of expression has a very violent result and I would right away take back what I said.

Regarding this article’s topic on how to measure the width of a ditch, the answer to this topic that most people can accept is a counter question:

For the story “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story,” the third editing resulted in:

Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story

You felt that something was wrong. Eastbound along Hsinyi Road was not traffic. The burning sun hung on the windshield glass, insisting on shining on your eyes hidden behind sunglasses. The strangest thing is that the sky is blue, not a speck of grey dust, looking straight up, the white line thread of a jet can be seen clearly.

When was the last time that this kind of clear sky was seen, blue skies and white clouds? When was the last Saturday that you got off early from work, without a place to    go but just rushed  directly home, that was when? You tried vainly to find any hint in your memory, wanting to give this feeling a place in time. The feeling has still not been settled, but it’s your whole being that seems to have fallen through the rush of time. The car clearly is moving forward, but imperceptibly in another abstract space, you are quickly moving backwards. Like sitting on a wrong train that was being driven backward, on the tracks beside was another train going in the opposite direction. You looked out of the window, trying to discern from a passing moment the rows of people in the other train also moving backwards. Also on the window were layers of reflections, Once you concentrated your attention in order to capture something, right away, the boundary between movement and stillness is lost. Only feels lost between surreal images.

Clearly, the third editing is a more acceptable version that differs radically from the first, rough translation and even a bit more so from the second editing. Getting to this third editing, however, was a lengthy process that took a lot of time.

This third step was likewise a manifestation of the creative impulse of the translator. I thought of going even beyond the literary qualities of the original and come up with my own version in my own voice. The third editing tapped on the creative potential of the translator. The concern at this time was not to be faithful like the first editing but to make the target text attractive and elegant. Creativity and elegance seem to be related.

Thus, the translation was a recursive process, going back to the original Chinese text when things were not clear or editing directly the English text when the expression seemed awkward. The time spent is around a month or so for one story, working on the story everyday. The slow and tedious process still did not satisfy me and I felt that I could still do more in terms of the creative aspect. Although the translation attempted to domesticate the foreign text by making the text conform to English strictures, the current translations of the short stories nevertheless tried to copy the specific idiosyncrasies of narration in each text since each of them were written by different authors. In addition, the translations also attempted to bring out the voice or persona narrating.

Special Difficulties in Translating Chinese Texts

After narrating my basic procedure in translating the text, this section will explore the special problems encountered in translating the Chinese texts. Since Chinese as a language is quite different from Western languages, translation of Chinese texts poses special problems to the translator which may not be found in Western language translation. Unlike translation within Western languages, translating from an ideographic-based language to a Western language may not follow Western theories, especially the highly linguistic ones. Before considering these problems, however, whether or not it is possible to translate Chinese into English, the translatability, is first considered. After establishing that it is possible to translate Chinese, the discussion will then go deeper into linguistic and non-linguistic problems. Several strategies are suggested to solve these problems using specific examples from the texts

Translatability or the problem of whether or not a text can be translated from one language to another has been a constant concern both in Western and in the Chinese translation traditions. Guo Jianzhong tackles the problem of translatability between Chinese and English (Encyclopedia 1057-1067). He considers that translation is possible but there are limits and that translatability is a relative concept. John Balcom, a noted Chinese translator and sinologist, comments that translating Chinese is a very special case. Since Chinese is quite unlike Western languages, translating Chinese may be very different. In fact, Balcom notes the special challenge that Chinese translators have to face. The special case of Chinese may demand more from a Chinese translator than a Western-language translator.

Readers or critics rarely understand the work of a translator of Chinese, in all its dimensions. Translations of literary works are generally evaluated solely on the merits of readability or to what extent the text reads as if it were originally written in English. However, to make a work of literature in Chinese come to life in English is a complex process that involves a scholar’s knowledge of Chinese language and culture as well as a profound knowledge and creative flair in the English. Each poem, essay or work of fiction presents unique problems for which a translator must find creative solutions. (119)

Furthermore, Balcom contrasts how translation is perceived in the US as compared with working on literature in Chinese.

In the USA, for example, translation is often perceived more as a mechanical process than as art that requires both creativity and scholarship. However, anyone who has ever translated a work of literature knows that to make a work of literature in Chinese language come to life in English is a complex process that involves a scholar’s knowledge of Chinese language and culture as well as a profound knowledge of and creative flair in English. (134)

Wang Ning (78) points out that “classical Chinese literature is both translatable and untranslatable to different extents.” On various levels, Chinese is translatable such as in the “level of words, sentences, passages and even text and to the extent of content and basic meaning.” In another level, the “polysemy, symbolism, and frequent use of artistic images and allusions which are themselves rather subtle and ambiguous even to native Chinese speakers,” these may be untranslatable.

One of the translator of Eileen Chang’s collection of stories Karen S. Kingsbury remarks that her translation strives to look for “lively equivalents instead of letting them dissolve unobtrusively, as could well happen in a skilled Chinese reader’s mind. … a translator ought to err on the side of ‘over-translation’” (xvi).

We can see that the standards for translating Chinese are higher than translating between Western languages.

Some researchers like Davies promotes the idea of omitting translation when it is impossible. He further subdivides the translatability problem into either linguistic or cultural.

Perhaps the most obvious reason for leaving something out of a translation is that, quite simply, no translation seems to be possible. There have been various attempts to categorise types of untranslatability. Some have drawn a distinction between linguistic and cultural untranslatability, the former arising when the problem relates to differences between the source and target languages, the latter when an element present in the source culture has no equivalent in the target culture. (58)

Davies claims that omitting translation is justifiable for certain problems. He imposes some conditions when this omission can be made.

When used judiciously, it can be a practical and justifiable solution for a number of types of problem. Nevertheless, the decision to omit an element should be made only after careful consideration of a range of factors, including the nature of the element in question, its relevance to the source text, the impact it may have if included in the target text, and the implications the omission will have for the fidelity, acceptability and general success of the translation. If a translator does opt for omission, this should be the result of a reasoned evaluation of what is to be gained and lost by such a strategy, and a comparison of this with the results that might be achieved by opting for another strategy. Leaving something out should not be viewed as simply an easy way out; and the honest and professional translator should be able to defend his or her omissions as constructive solutions rather than acts of evasion. (74)

In the same vein, Landers say that it is possible not to translate items in the source culture that would not be apparently clear in the target culture or may be meaningless. He suggests using “internal clues to inform the reader of approximate values in the time and place in which the narrative is set” (79).

Although the above researchers hint at the possibility of omission when necessary, I found that I did not have to resort to such strategy since I tried as much as possible to translate the texts.

Broadly seen, problems in translation and can be divided into two types: the linguistic and non-linguistic. Such a division is broad enough to encompass virtually all problems. For a finer distinction, Wang Ning proposes the different levels in English-Chinese translation which I think can also be applied vice versa. Equivalence can be divided into:

(1) the equivalence on the verbal level, that is, word-for-word translation which usually takes place in rendering a single sentence; (2) the equivalence on the sentence level, without totally breaking up the complete sentence; (3) the equivalence on the passage level, without adding more to the passage; and (4) the equivalence on the textual or even cultural level, that is, rearranging the structure of the text without changing the basic meaning or content of the original text. (75)

However, this finer distinction was not used since that would unduly complicate the discussion. The linguistic can also include the literary aspects while the non-linguistic can include cultural or social aspects. This division will be used to orient the discussion below.

The results indicate that the study can be analyzed in terms of cultural and linguistic problems. Regarding the first aspect of non-linguistic, cultural and social background, many things in Chinese culturally and socially have no direct equivalent in English. For example, places, objects, names, and historical periods may not necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence or equivalence in English. The second problem of linguistics will be tackled later.

Balcom says that “Cultural context and an understanding of literary tradition can be important for the appreciation of modern and contemporary fiction as well” (122). This applies particularly when Balcom translated a sci-fi novel but then the Chinese definition of the sci-fi genre differs from the West’s. The novel that he translated requires a knowledge of Chinese sci-fi genre and traditional Chinese literature connections Western readers may not possess. The difficulty then is not only in the translation but inheres in the original text. A Chinese reader may possess the cultural and literary background different from a Western reader. The cultures are not close to each other and so the task is doubly difficult.

Yet another set of problems that a Chinese translator has to face is with “foreign cultural categories or words” (Balcom 122). These refer more to the equivalence problems but mixed in with context. There may be references in the source language culture that may simply not exist in the target language culture.

The translator has to be familiar with Taiwanese culture, Taipei, the geography of Taiwan, customs, etc. in order to translate the culture well. Familiarity with history is also important.

Aside from these non-equivalences, the target language or the different kinds of English further add to complexity. The translations in this dissertation are thus rendered into Filipino English, and not into British English, nor American English. It is Filipino English in the 21^st century. Closely linked to the kind of English used are the demands of publishers. Publishing demands here in the Philippines may affect the kind of translation. If publishers look for polished English on par with American English, then the task of the translator may be even more difficult as editing will be important. But if publishers see that the reading public will be Filipinos, then a more “acceptable” scholarly English may suffice.

Along with the kind of English, the translator must give allowance to the target audience. If the style of the writer of the original text is too difficult or experimental and the translator imitates it, the audience may feel alienated. They may not even read the work. To address this concern, some re-writing has to be done to make the text acceptable to the audience, at least to meet their level of expectation. Perhaps, for example, the style can be made simpler and approachable.

This is where the non-linguistic part also comes in. Examples from the translation non-linguistic problems are:

Aside from the linguistic concerns, other non-linguistic analysis should be part f the norms according to Liu Miqing: “Especially in the context of translating Chinese into foreign languages, it is pointless to prescribe grammatical rules. The Chinese sentence is not restricted by form, unlike Indo-European languages which use inflections to unify a discourse, constituting a “focal perspective” based on form. …Chinese is a language where the ‘form’ is lose, but the ‘spirit’ is concentrated; there is an emphasis on how concepts evolve internally, and thus the conceptual focus does not depend on formal ‘chain connections.” (239).

In translating some Chinese poems, Balcom notes that even if “Many texts that are problematic contextually are quite easy to translate on the lexical level; but for the reader of the translation lacking knowledge of the larger cultural context, meaning, in the fullest sense of the word, can and will be elusive” (120). So even if the text can be translated into English and may closely follow the meaning of the original, it does not mean that the translation can convey the entire cultural implications.

The cultural inheritance and baggage have to be transferred from one culture to another for a translation to be effective. This consists in finding equivalent or close-to-equivalent experiences in the Western mode although at times as mentioned above, there are no exact equivalences. What has been done is an approximation or getting the “spirit” of the original and trying to let that “spirit” appear in the translation (a la Fu Lei).

Gutt says that whereas before, the notion of fidelity predominated, “the dominant evaluative concept in translation is that of ‘equivalence’: the quality of a translated text is assessed in terms of its equivalence to the original text” (10).

Perhaps here it is possible to use Nida’s “Dynamic Equivalence” in order to translate non-linguistic items. However, Nida’s concept is limited since he basically is focused on Bible translation whereas here, it may not apply. Jin Di modifies Nida’s “Dynamic Equivalence” and proposes an “Equivalent Effect” for Chinese to English translation. Although there are differences between the two, at least the spirit is the same. The idea is to translate the sense of the original, perhaps interweaving between a direct correspondence to one of slight correspondence but filling in what is lacking.

Balcom proposes solving this contextual or cultural problem by using “explanatory devices such as commentary and notes” (120).

Birch mentions that it is possible to include footnotes much like what Herbert Giles had done when he translated Strange Stories from a Chinese Studio. The handiness of footnotes “is that they can help bring to the outsider some of the cultural advantages enjoyed by the native reader” (4). However, Dubridge considers footnotes or annotations as “clumsy intrusions” and “explanatory notes will always create a background climate of distortion” (68). Balcom likewise see these notes as intrusive but necessary, considering them as “honest and humbling testimony to what he or she has lost in the process of translation” (123).

Another way is to minimize the footnotes while including information in the text when the original may not have that information (Birch 4). The advantage of this second method allows for an uninterrupted reading of the text instead of having to look for the footnote. The uninterrupted reading allows the audience not to get lost in the act of looking for the footnote. The audience can then follow closely the text and experience it with minimum editorial intrusion. So what I have followed is to explain directly in the text what needs explanation.

For example the iron sheet canopies, instead of using footnotes or an endnote to explain what these structures are, I have chosen to insert the explanation parenthetically: haphazardly built structures commonly found on residential rooftops in Taipei.

In the story “The Luxurious Century,” highly specific to Taiwan life for example we have the illegal iron sheet canopies on top of roofs that form the skyline in Taipei. In Chinese, these iron-sheet canopies or houses are called 鐵皮屋 which literally means “iron skin room” or “steel skin house.” These canopies are constructed on top of concrete roofs as storage spaces and even extra living spaces. The canopies are usually enclosed rooms rather than just a roof over a space. Perhaps a visitor is first struck by such haphazardly built structures not found in other countries. Describing those structures is not easy since there are perhaps few or no equivalents in other cultures. The lack of equivalence therefore needs some explanation in the translation in order to convey that image of haphazardly built iron sheet structures. Perhaps what can be described is how they are built. They are rather unsightly, not to mention that they are also illegal. Nevertheless, those canopies are part of the landscape of the city.

Also in the same story, a lot of references is given to the fashion world and to popular culture. Foreign brand-names that were transliterated into Chinese sounded unfamiliar to me since my background is not in fashion at all. I had to do a bit of research to find out what these names were and see how they fit in the story. There may have been connotations that I was not aware of when translating even though on the lexical level the Chinese can be translated. Likewise, a reference to a popular Japanese male model that caused a stir in Taiwan was something new to me. I have no idea what this Japanese male model means to young Taiwanese girls. Clearly then, I faced the challenge of figuring out an unknown domain. Perhaps for the Taiwanese youth, these brand names and the Japanese idol would be household names but for me, they were obstacles in translation. Certainly, the full implications were lost to me.

Another reference highly specific is in food. The food that is a dark Sha Cha paste is not found in other countries and is used to flavor hot pot dishes. This condiment is very salty and made out of tea. Perhaps in the Philippines this can be equivalent to shrimp paste but not as salty. The translation then cannot find any exact equivalent but explanations are given in the text in the form of in-text commentary.

Knowledge of the geography and terrain of Taiwan is likewise helpful for the translator of Taiwanese culture. For example, the streets of Taipei, if people are not used to it, also are highly specific and a translator unfamiliar with the layout will not know the difference between the streets whether one is wider than another. In “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story,” the first paragraph mentions Hsinyi Road. This road is one of the busiest main roads in Taipei and extends from West to East. It is composed of several sections and crosses through quite a number of districts. A couple of sections of this road is lined with tall trees while another series of sections are quite narrower. Passing through this road, one gets a sense of passing through the old part of Taipei to the newer building-lined business district. Someone unfamiliar with the streets would not know how the road fits in the story.

Still in the same story is reference to villages in Taiwan. Since the country is mostly mountainous, these villages would be up the mountain and would explain the description of the approach to Lin Zai Bu village in the Eastern side of Taiwan. The geography of that area is quite dramatic with the mountain cliff leading straight down to the sea. Access to the villages in the mountains is difficult and dangerous. Nevertheless, the beauty of the scenery reminds one of Taiwan’s past untouched by development. If that village were to be located in the lowlands or the plains area, then the description would be quite different. I had to account for this geographic specificity by explaining how the village could be located in such a remote area.

In “Moth,” another highly specific context is the existence of Japanese-era wooden houses. These houses were usually bungalow affairs whose walls were made up of overlapping wooden planks. These houses have tiled roofs. They were designed to be airy during summer while warm during winter. Over the years, as Taiwan progressed economically, these houses have been replaced by apartment blocks, either low-lying buildings or high rise ones. The houses were reminders of Taiwan’s colonial past. For sure, they are part of the psyche of the Taiwanese. When apartment buildings start taking over, a sense of nostalgia accompanies the last of the houses to be demolished.

Likewise, in “Moth” are references to various types of butterflies. Even if I had taken Biology as an undergraduate, the highly specialized treatment of the various lepidopteran families poses a challenge to the translator. The translator has to look for butterfly taxonomy books in order to get the names straight.

The story “Night Train” reveals the pervasive railroad system that rings the island of Taiwan. The railroad has been a part of the scenery, the history, and the lives of the people. For example, the railroad system was started by the Japanese as they tried to connect the small villages and mountain logging areas. The names of the trains and the layout may be unfamiliar to Western readers or certainly to those who have spent little time in the island. In this case, the translator then has to leave some explanatory remarks to clarify how the names are geographically related.

Another cultural peculiarity is the prevalence of the cell phone in the country. Almost everyone has a cell phone and it is much easier and cheaper to call rather than to send a text message (it’s a challenge trying to make Chinese characters on the cell phone). So in public places such as inside trains, it is common to see people engaged in their own private conversations with someone else kilometers away. People are so used to this that noticing a conversation would be tantamount to eavesdropping and so that is what happened in the story.

Also in the same story, the invasion of new technology such as the cell phone has changed the scenery. Inside the train, people are absorbed in their own world.

Someone unfamiliar with the colors of the baseball teams in Taiwan would not know why a certain character chose to wear only red–red being the color of the team. Likewise, being called a “yellow A-mei” does not make sense if the reader did not know that the color of the Brother Baseball team is yellow. The knowledge of Taiwanese baseball also extends to the players—their accomplishments and what makes them special in Taiwanese sports history.

Extra-textual factors or those not directly in the text have to be accommodated as well. For example, the translator should consider the target reader of the translated text. I had to face such a problem because it may be possible that the implied reader of the original text may be different from the reader of the translated text. This problem was brought up by Nienhauser in “The Implied Reader and Translation.” In the original text, the writers assume that the reader is familiar with the culture and norms of their society, specifically the culture in Taiwan. This culture and norms are different from the translated text’s readers who will be mainly English-speaking people. The readers may not only be from the West but also from other nations who speak other “Englishes.” The original text may assume certain notions and these must somehow be conveyed in the translation or at least the effect may be duplicated.

Similar to the cultural and social aspects, the linguistic and literary aspects of translating Chinese texts are also problematic in terms of being translatable. Now in the linguistic and literary aspects, the focus will be on the smaller units of language. To illustrate the problems, specific examples will be given.

In terms of the language itself, the translator may sometimes be faced with a text that may be written not only in one language but in several languages or dialects. This is the case for the short stories from Taiwan because expressions sometimes come from Minnan language and Japanese and so some knowledge also of the local dialect is important. Dialect is problematic in the translation as Goldblatt points out in the Translator’s Note for The Taste of Apples. The author’s use of “the conscious, liberal use of dialect, cannot be captured in translation” (x).

Goldblatt in the “Translator’s Preface” for Wang Chen-ho’s novel Rose, Rose, I Love You explains the strategy he used to deal with Wang’s “verbal twists and turns” in the novel. The novel has a lot of comic play of words that not only is in Mandarin Chinese but also in Taiwanese and Japanese. This situation may be a nightmare for the translator since he/she may have to know the Taiwanese dialect and the Japanese language. Not only that, he/she has to be aware of how these languages are used in the local context. In order to make a translation possible in some way, Wang made use of “parenthetical definitions, clarifications, and even foreshadowings of changes to come.” But that means that the foreign reader will be faced with problems “compounded by both linguistic and cultural chasms far too vast for literal renderings.” Goldblatt then attempted to replicate that word play by taking some liberties with the text (ix).

It has been my goal to replicate the tone where exact parallels between English and Chinese (or Taiwanese or Japanese or whatever) do not exist or where they miss the point altogether. Foreign words appearing in the Chinese text are italicized; mnemonic, and frequently outrageous, Taiwanese renderings of English and Mandarin words are given comic re-creations in brackets; while other linguistic aberrations have simply been altered to produce an effect close to the original. (ix)

There are also expressions or colloquialisms in Chinese that do not have direct equivalents in English. So what I have done is to capture the flavor or spirit of the original by looking for a close equivalent expression in English, particularly the type of English expressions found in the Philippines. As the translator looks for equivalents or close to equivalent expressions, the translator is exercising his/her creativity since there may be hundreds of possibilities. Being creative would mean choosing the best among these possibilities. Examples of this are in the paragraphs below.

A few strange expressions were converted to more acceptable English. For example, the first line of:

不管怎麼說

which literally means:

No matter how it is said

was transformed to a more colloquial English expression of:

Whichever way you look at it.

Or

However you look at it.

Other examples of Chinese expressions are as follows.

In “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story,” the phrase 早出晚歸 exemplifies a typical problem of conciseness faced by a translator. Perhaps that phrase does not have a direct equivalent in English. A literal translation could be “early leave late return” which simply means that the person leaves early in the morning and returns late at night. The brevity with which Chinese manages to compress so many ideas poses a problem for the translator because perhaps no English translation can convey the thought in so few words.

Yet another instance of that happening is the use of 無憂無慮 which in English literally means “no worry no concerns” or “no worries” but then the peculiar construction of the repeated “no” is characteristically Chinese and sounds pleasing. It is also a four-character “word” that is typical in written Chinese, especially in classical Chinese. Translating that phrase into standard English, I chose to use “carefree” which seems to be a good equivalent to what the passage is trying to convey. The passage describes Suchen’s teenage years as not having any concerns or worries—carefree.

An interesting example of an idiomatic expression very common in Chinese is 雜七雜八 which literally means “mess seven and eights” with the sense of “messily” or “disorganized.” There is no direct equivalent to that idiomatic expression in English. Perhaps “make a mess out of seven and eights” but that does sound quite awkward. The sentence describes how Suchen chattered about things to no purpose. The closest English equivalent that can be used is perhaps “pointless chatter.”

Another example from the same story is the phrase 大好時光 which literally means “big very time light.” There is no direct equivalent to that phrase in English so the translator has to think of a phrase that will convey a similar meaning. To make it sound more literary, I translated it as “on a bright sunny day” which is more idiomatic in English.

What is even more peculiar is that the Chinese character can show what it describes. For example, in the line 讓肚子舒服地挺凸出來, the character 凸 means jutting out. The character itself looks like there is something jutting out (the upper half, that is). This of course is impossible to show in English because the letters do not show something that juts out. So the translation for the phrase can be “making his stomach to comfortably jut out.” Such peculiarity can only perhaps be found in Chinese where the Chinese ideograph can show word meaning.

An example of premodifiers is can be found in “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story.” The narrator describes the man’s daughter as one who 剛考上大學的素珍. Translating literally the phrase roughly is “just passed exam university the Suchen.” The premodifiers occur before the noun and make up the noun phrase with the de before the noun. Obviously, this has to be rearranged to suit English. So rearranging it resulted in one possible translation “Suchen who had just passed the university entrance exam.” The English tends to be longer than the Chinese where compression and brevity are the norm. So the English translations found in the study are much longer than the original Chinese texts. Such kind of noun phrase is prevalent in Chinese.

What I have observed in the Chinese text is that a lot of repetition has to be cut out. For example, in the story “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story,” the second paragraph has a line which read in the first editing: “When was the last Saturday that you got off early from work, without a place to go but just rushed directly home, that was when?” Clearly, the last “that was when?” is redundant and can be edited out since the start of that sentence already has that idea. Subsequent editing resulted in: “When was the last Saturday that you got off early from work, without a place to go but just rushed directly home.” Editing it this way cut out the repetitiveness inherent in Chinese—a repetitiveness that aims to give importance to the idea but which may sound redundant in English.

Regarding linguistic problem of translation between the two languages, Chan says in Twentieth Century Chinese Translation Theory structurally, as a language, Chinese differs drastically from Western languages. In translating word for word from English, for instance, the Chinese translator invariably produces sentences in which the normal word order is seriously violated. More specifically, whereas in many Western languages premodifiers can be placed before, and post modifiers after, the headword in a noun phrase (as in “the pretty woman in red standing over there”), Chinese permits premodifiers only. Hence in extremely literal translations, several premodifiers have to be strung together by a series of (the possessive) de placed before the headword. This not only makes a sentence look “heavy” at the beginning, but also frustrates the reader as he tries to locate the headword in question (19).

For example, some long lines do not have any periods is what can be termed as top-heavy, the piling of premodifiers before the subject is encountered. One strategy that can be followed is to closely mimic the style but that would sound very awkward. Another way is to divide that long sentence into short sentences with the omitted subject properly filled in. Although the second strategy is not faithful to the actual text linguistically, nevertheless, for readers of English, the translated version that cuts up the sentence is much easier to comprehend.

The reader and translator have to fill in the missing subject being modified. The repetitions are not only problematic but also the opposite, omissions, have also been encountered—a lot of things are left unsaid—and the translator has to fill in the text to clarify the meaning. But in filling in, the translator also puts his own interpretation. This is an act of the translator as creative writer. An example of this filling in is the missing subject syndrome. In some parts, like the second paragraph of “Lin Zai Bu,” the Chinese sentence that was run-on was divided into three sentences and I had to provide the missing subject. The original Chinese text was not very clear on the subject, because it was an implied subject and the sentence was constructed such that the reader has to guess. I then had to guess what that implied subject was. I assumed that it was a certain “you” (the father) being addressed by an unnamed and omniscient narrator.

Premodifiers are not only problematic but in the original Chinese, the writing tends to be in fact, the problem of dangling modifiers.

There are also onomatopoeic effects such as the characters 呼嚕響聲 also from the same story. The characters are used for their sounds which imitate the sound of an airconditioner. What can be done in English is to directly spell out the sound as “hulu” which is how it sounds, or describing the sound as the hum from the airconditioner. Either way may be acceptable but imitating the sound is more in keeping with the style of the original since that is how the sound was described. Another section of the same story has the words 哈哈大笑. The first two characters are used for the sound of laughter “ha ha” and can be directly used as “ha ha” as well. So the translation could either be “laughed loudly” or just plain “ha ha” as mentioned.

Empty words in Chinese that either denote emphasis or narrative additions similar to English “uhh” or “ah” are also present in Chinese. In 結婚啦, from “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story,” the last character does not have any meaning but can be transliterated as “lah” which is just part of speaking that way. Another one that quickly follows the above is 代溝嘛. The third character is used for the sound and for emphasis. It can be translated as “Ma” as a way of putting in a conversational tone.

The phrase 該死該死 which is just an expletive means literally “should die should die.” That does not sound well in English so perhaps the proper way of translating it would be “damn it” but the Chinese words do not literally mean that either. A possible solution could just use “damn it” as the expletive. The repetitive emphasis phrase of 娛樂娛樂 simply means “happiness” or “amusement” but the combination of four characters makes it sound pleasing. Repeating words in English, however, may sound odd but repeating it does give a certain flavor to the translation. Still another example of this four-word usage is 婆婆媽媽 which has two repeating characters but which just means “women.” The phrase 清清楚楚 which derives from the word 清楚 but repeats the first and the second character adds emphasis to the meaning. This can be translated as “clearly.”

The third aspect on literary and linguistic conventions is where the text is shaped by conventions and demands of an audience. The translator has to decide whether to adapt the conventions to the target audience. So the audience or reader also plays an important part in determining translation strategy. This answers the question of for whom the translator is writing. At times, the translator has to either add or subtract from the original text to make the translation acceptable at least to the target culture. Moreover, the sentence and narrative logic must be meaningful and consistent within the story.

Proper names in the original were either transliterated or were translated. For example, the name of the town “Lin Zai Bu” in the same story was not translated to English. Instead, transliteration was adopted by getting the English sounds and was then rendered into Pinyin. The effect of this was a foreignization effect that led some local flavor or specificity to the translation.

The translation of “empty” words from the Chinese also poses some problem. Pollard addresses this problem in an article “The Use of ‘Empty’ Words in Chinese and English.” Pollard notes that these adverbs function as “tone of voice” which reinforces the meaning of the sentence. There is nothing equivalent in English. An example of this empty word is from “Really you also felt that something was wrong” from the “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story.” But the word “really” is an empty word which just emphasizes what was happening. So that word can be either omitted or left behind.

The proper names as well had to be given some thought. In “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story,” the daughter’s name is 素珍. Translating that into Chinese would be incongruous and so I transliterated the name to Suchen. Using a proper name that is transliterated lends a more personal and exotic feel since the name is non-Western. Another example of a name is the town itself called “Lin Zai Bu” whose name does not mean anything in Chinese (it is just a name), and cannot be translated into English, so the transliterated name (using the sounds) is used. In some parts perhaps the best strategy is to leave out these words as what Davies recommends. Perhaps this is possible when omission of the part will not detract too much from the meaning or if there is no big need to do it.

To add to the difficulty above according to Chan, the Chinese language, because of the way verbs are formed, is also notorious for its inability to indicate time (past, present, future), modality, aspect, voice and mood (like the subjunctive) (Twentieth 19). The Chinese translator has to figure out the preceding qualities of the text. This is when the translator is a reader and an interpreter. After figuring that out, the translator will then have to express that in standard English with the proper time, modality, aspect, voice and mood—the translator as writer.

In the translation, the narrative viewpoint also has to be considered. This is another reading task for the translator. Since the short stories take on different viewpoints, the translator must make provisions for this as well. Some stories were told in the first person point of view while others were in the third person omniscient narrator. The Chinese text may seem to be narrating something different. For example, in “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story,” there is an unnamed narrator that addresses a “you” which turns out to be the father and the protagonist. Translating the story then poses first of all a challenge in sorting out whose voice is it at the start and then trying to recreate that voice in the translation. The translator as creative writer can choose to fill in those gaps in ways which may be different from the original but may sound better in English.

Some stories such as “Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story” was fairly easy to translate because the style was conversational and the words were not that difficult. The same goes with “How to Measure the Width of a Ditch.” In contrast, the story “The Millennium Luxury” was more difficult because it had specialized fashion-related terminology. In addition, the almost stream-of-consciousness narrative tends to pose problems for the translator as reader. The style of “Moth” was also difficult to capture because of the narrative style.

I had to deal with the author’s style. In Balcom’s words, “The literary translator strives to be loyal to his or her author’s style and the intention of the original text” (127). Therefore, since the texts that were translated were written by different authors, the styles were also distinctive of each writer. I had to at least imitate or closely follow the style of writing of the author, following Balcom’s prescription. For a literary translator, “equivalence on the verbal level or sentence level is sometimes impossible and unnecessary” so that “to be faithful in spirit and in style is much better than to be faithful merely in words and sentences” (Wang Ning 63).

Going back to the original question of this dissertation which is to see how the tripartite model fit in the actual translation practice, several generalizations can be deduced from the results. The generalizations also bare my translation poetics. The significance of the results shows that it does require a conscious effort on the part of the translator to be aware of his/her role. That conscious effort results in a richer translation.

The translation is my particular reading and interpretation of the texts. The writing is my way of representing the text to a foreign audience. My writing is also a representation of that culture to the audience. Necessarily, that representation passes through my eyes and is tinged or colored by my view. Translation has become for me a “literary representation and cultural interpretation with regard to its function of cultural communication and interpretation” (Wang Ning 94). The text is a result of both cultural and linguistic decisions: a reading, an interpretation, and a creative writing work.

Although it may not be possible to actually pinpoint or delineate sharp boundaries between the translator roles, for the translator himself/herself, the procedure happens quite naturally. The translator just carries out the work perhaps without any need for complex analysis. This experience supports the gut-feel or what feels right approach to translation—translation is an art and not a scientific endeavor, thus the difficulty in isolating specifically how translators translate.

Aside from the two considerations above, I also had to think of who my audience will be. Consideration of the audience will affect how I translate. For example, if I were translating for the general English-speaking Filipino audience, perhaps certain terms the style would be adapted so that the stories can be easily read. Perhaps a different strategy is called for when the audience will be primarily composed of academics or literary majors from around the world. The strategy then would be to polish the stories to such an extent that they can be considered “worthy” to be studied or included in the canon of Asian literature. Thus, consideration of the audience will affect the translation strategy. For the short stories that I translated, I aimed for the general Filipino readership while still keeping in mind the strictures of the academe in general.

The results of translating Chinese into English show that translating literature may perhaps make bigger demands on the translator compared with someone translating between Western languages. However, the translation experience may be similar to a Western language translator in terms of the reading, interpreting, and creative writing because of a shared human experience. When translating Chinese literature, this problem is more acute because of the challenges that the Chinese language poses. These challenges span linguistic to cultural ones as shown in the discussion.

In general, a possible route of action to enable translation work can be as follows: “In practically all the texts listed, equivalence is upheld as the golden rule; artistry, particularly in literary translations, is valorized above everything else; a good command of the source and target languages is considered an essential prerequisite for success” (Chan Twentieth 48). This prescription of faithfulness and expressiveness of Yan Fu is a good rule to follow. The result of that procedure is texts which closely conform to the prescriptions of Yan Fu. They are very approachable and read like they were originally written in English. It is a good rule because many practicing translators and theorists seem to converge into these two ideas.

Some generalizations can be made regarding the translation problems. First, both cultural and linguistic factors have to be accounted for to render an accurate translation. Second, although there are problems in translating the Chinese due to cultural differences, these problems can be solved but may require extra research work or may impose even greater demands on the translator. Third, while the translations strive to be as faithful to the original text as possible, the creative impulse and ideology determine textual production.

I have tried to translate as faithfully as I can while maintaining the flavor of the original (trying to retain the “Chineseness”) but still giving the stories some polish. Following the principles above, the collection of short stories were translated. I translated several short stories following the general rules. Below is the critical essay on the stories. The critical essay explores my reading, interpretation, and notes regarding how I translated them.

Critical Essay on the Short Stories

The scope of the collection is quite broad, spanning about a hundred years of Taiwanese publishing works and focusing on the popular works of important writers. These works are artistic but very readable. They reflect Taiwan’s literary development and achievement. The selections offer different views of Taiwanese contemporary literature since each story is very different from the other. All the writers have won various kinds of awards for their work; and some of the stories are prize-winning pieces.

Sixteen works have been compiled in the short fiction selection which introduces the development of contemporary fiction in Taiwan. On the one hand it analyzes the framework of the kinds of fiction and on the other readers can appreciate and experience the pleasure of reading contemporary fiction. From these sixteen stories, more than half have been translated into English while the last few stories still have not yet been translated. The editor is a college professor who has chosen these works for their value as representative of contemporary Taiwanese fiction.

For many years, critics have recognized that there were two main contending forces in Taiwanese literature, the Nativist trend and the Modernist trend (Chang, Yvonne Modernist). The Nativist trend is towards traditional themes while the Modernist trend look towards Western Modernist techniques adapted to Chinese. Following below is my reading of these stories. The reading of the stories briefly introduces the stories, the fiction style, and the significance. The translator as reader sizes up these stories and sees the most probable meaning for himself/herself while also thinking of how to express this meaning creatively.

How to Measure the Width of a Ditch

For the story “How to Measure the Width of a Ditch” written by Huang Fan, the most general characteristic of the narrative is to show the rapid changes in Taiwanese society. The changes include the joys and sorrows of common city folks, political concerns, and the changes in female boundaries. It employs a post-structuralist writing style after the 90’s. This story is a typical example of a post structural narrative. The title itself shows the postmodernist leanings since it deals with something so insignificant that it perhaps is not worth as a topic.  On the surface, the story is apparently about how to measure the width of a ditch but what really is happening is not just a physical measurement of the dimensions but an attempt to measure time itself.

The text is written in a light manner interspersed with fantastic elements, a strong political statement, and a deep concern regarding the changing views on man. The satirical tone helps in criticizing society to a certain degree. The feeling of play in the story is another post-structural touch. There is no pretense at being literary and it’s written in a very colloquial manner. The story includes as well a sketch of the ditch. Not only is there a sketch but the author admonishes the publisher about how to print the sketch. The pastiche or collage effect that the sketch suggests makes it a post-structuralist work.

Huang Fan has managed to look at the basic roots of society. His concerns about society through the small specificity of measuring the width of a ditch show a sensitive treatment of a subject matter very close to people’s hearts. The author writes about the small important things that are taken for granted in society. The story is also about the changes taking place in society. The ditch that was once a playground has become something big and unrecognizable when concrete structures encroached on the space.

The non-traditional theme points to something small and yet is hugely important in society. It deals with how the author chooses the topic. The story is also very self-referential as it explores the text outside the text. It looks at how things work from the perspective of the writer. The persona in the story is the one who determines the things around him, much like Salman Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children.

In fact, the narrative is quite hilarious. It proceeds from very mundane topic such as measuring the width of a ditch to something as metaphysical as the existence of God and the purpose of man’s life. He even combines the two topics about the soul and a ditch.

All these things are treated in a very light way, the surfaces of things, as in the post-structuralist mode. He focuses on the ditch, a “marginalized” topic and city structure. This falls squarely in the post-structuralist agenda of re-centering and bringing in the fringes. What people usually think of as something insignificant and hidden, he brings to the forefront and turns the table, deconstructs, our conceptions of what is really important.

He even comments about bureaucracy, how he’s given the run-around when he asks how many ditches are there in the city. The government offices just point him this way and that. The story tries to make a point about how the government should help the people and not give them the cold shoulder. That incident turns out into a date with the secretary who brings a friend along as chaperone. And then later on, the narrator addresses the reader about the definite curiosity the reader may have regarding what happened to the date later on.

Then he goes back to history to talk about the early days. It’s a narrative that shows the specificity of the text. Just with the discussion about entering a peanut butter factory instead of a Tea sauce factory is funny in itself. He makes the weirdest connections about the eating habits of the Taiwanese and the winter season, not to mention the ridiculous jump from being a peanut butter factory manager to a sports shoe vice president.

At certain points in the story, the author directly addresses the reader and proposes several ways of continuing how to read the story, empowering the reader regarding how the narrative will continue. The author himself describes the postmodern condition of the work as he addresses the reader who also becomes part of the story as he reads. This is a reminder to the reader that when faced with the text, reading and writing become one and coexist. This condition is the postmodernist rendering of a readerly text—an incomplete text that is completed by the reader.

The narrator dismisses the incident with the two ladies saying that whatever happened in that story about the two ladies was just a chance occurrence and elaborating further would just veer away from the main topic. The narrator then explores the subject position of the reader as he also creates meaning and the publishing possibilities of the story as affecting the narrative structure. The story even moves through time as the narrator predicts during the story that he will write a story about measuring the width of a ditch. The story ends with the reader having to fill in the narrative, returning to the beginning of the story.

Ghost Rain

Ping Lu has been focusing on the overseas students conditions and the sad image of the Chinese. She is more concerned about the history of modern Chinese people. And so in the story, she talks about the loneliness of living without anyone else. It also looks at the shifting relationships of modern life and its disastrous results.

Written in a conversational style that comments on its own narrative, a meta-narrative, the writer of “Ghost Rain” poses the problem of how to start telling the story. She attempts an opening but then changes her mind, thinking that the reader might not find it attractive. But then again, she retraces her steps as she feels confused about how to continue. Again, like the previous story, the writer looks at an insignificant thing—the yellow water stain on her bedroom ceiling which links her with her upper-floor neighbor. But her neighbor is dead. In the story about the stain on the ceiling, two unrelated women meet in the boundary between the living and the dead.

Her relationship with a married man is brought in. Another person’s lover, the third person in an affair, is narrated through the mysterious unknown dead person’s story. This confirms her existence in the real world. Through that dead neighbor, she sees her life and relationships in a new light.  For the reader, especially women, this affirms their existence in the world. Reflecting on one’s own condition and awareness, even if the events are very common, which can happen just like what happened to her neighbor, Ping Lu sacrifices her character to affirm her life’s happiness.

The highly symbolic water stain links both her and her neighbor because as it turns out, they are in almost the same situation of having an affair. As she interacts with her lover and her concern about the stain, she reflects on their tenuous situation and in the end comes to some realization about her life and then chooses a life alone.

Magnificent End of the Century

Chu Tien-wen, the author of “Magnificent End of the Century,” comes from a military family. She is very distinguished because she’s a second generation dependent and so is very familiar with that kind of life. More known as a scriptwriter, her most famous work that was made into a film is “The Story of Hsiao Bi” that traces the life of a young boy in the midst of wrenching changes in Taiwanese society, especially inside a military dependent camp. Because of the increasing urbanization of Taiwan, globalization, and prevalence of information, while the reigning government does not want to keep the living culture of previous generations, the distinctiveness of the island has become diluted and it has lost its character as well.

But Chu remains faithful to the recollections of living in a military camp and has depicted how these changes in society have impinged on the daily lives of people. The characters in this story come from a military background. But they are also caught up in the changes in society. The city has been turned into buildings and the most distinguishing feature of the city is its millions of illegally built metal sheet roof homes.

Brand names from all over the world are cropping up and invading the living spaces. People are drowning in consumerism, being branded this way and that, and are caught up in the fashion trends. This makes them forget where they come from and making them lonely. For the main character Mia who is immersed in high fashion, the materialistic city has become her hometown. Through the text, the author describes her nation as changing and becoming new. She also talks about the different influences from the West. These influences are consumerism that is in opposition to the traditional values. The old Taiwan has been totally replaced by a modern, consumerist, and isolationist society.

The story blends a very personal narrative with the condition of the city as it changes from one of rural roots to a motley development. It deals as well with man-woman relationship. Moreover, the dried flowers that Mia takes care of perhaps enables her to shield herself from the encroaching city and its consumerism. The style of the story is unlike the previous ones because here, there is a feeling of a deliberate attempt at being literary, perhaps like a modernist touch. But this we feel comes through as artificial.

Lin Zai Bu Baseball Story

In the baseball story by Yang Chao, the old and the new Taiwan as well as the previous and current generations meet. The 1960s was a tense time for Taiwan as military operations were still going on. The feelings for the lost countryside, the extreme control of the government on the people and culture has caught people in the middle. The international space of Taiwan was also being squeezed as countries continued switching their recognition from Taiwan to Mainland China as the legitimate government. The Taiwanese society has thus become more suppressed and pessimistic. In this environment, baseball, certainly a foreign import has become for the youth a way out of this situation. Little league baseball allowed the youth to participate and be part of the global community. Baseball has become the sport that has the longest history, the widest influence, and the most accepted national sport in Taiwan. Moreover, it draws a wide following from all social classes.

Literature reflects the society as baseball literature becomes more popular. There is even a short story collection called the Incomplete Game that collects all the stories about baseball. Baseball literature has become very important and so even one book took on the name of National Soul.

The reverting to the old and the pains of growing up, the life of the aborigine who were the early settlers in Taiwan, speak of a glorious time, a collective narrative that recalls the past. Most importantly, baseball is not only Taiwan’s national pastime but it also changes the life of a young man. The story, is a typical story of growing up that narrates the young years discovering how to grow through baseball, it is also a way to establish a bridge with the daughter. Even if on the surface baseball does not seem to an exciting sport, at least under the pen of Yang Chao, it’s very colorful. Perhaps the main character is still living in the farm of Lin Zai Bu, and not merely a storekeeper. So baseball is just like that unbelievable baseball game in the story, like an epic, a dream, a myth or a living legend.

The fantastic narrative, almost like magic realism, incorporates traditional Chinese action narrative and the sensitive relationship between daughter and father. It speaks of the generation gap that seems to be insurmountable but the story uses baseball as a way of bridging that gap and emphasizing the commonality between the characters despite differences in age. The gap between the father and daughter, what was thought of as unbridgeable, narrows down with the game of baseball. Baseball forged the link between the two.

The theme of time starts right at the beginning of the story when the narrator describes the feeling of going backwards when one is clearly moving forward inside a vehicle. Ironically though, Japanese baseball and culture are much appreciated in Taiwan such that Japanese baseball stars and celebrities are frequently adulated.

Take Out Your Handkerchief

Guo Chiang-sheng talks about complex human relationships in his story “Take Out Your Handkerchief.” The story weaves a fine and deep impression of this complexity. It is the author’s expertise. The relationships are bitter sweet. He used a movie title for this story, also the writing style reminds one of movie making techniques of cutting and interspersing episodes. He uses a cold and clean pen to describe city folks’ tragedies.

The main character’s relationship with his son who grew up in the US portrays the changing demographics of the country. Over the years, many have left Taiwan to pursue higher education abroad. Many have settled down in those places far from their native soil and so their children are strangers to their native culture and could not speak Chinese. They are not only strangers to their native culture but they are also foreign to their own family as in the situation of the child (whose name became Westernized to Gerry) and his father.

His office conditions show the indifference of corporate Taiwan to the personal plight of its employees. The pressure that Hsiang-wei had to face as an advertising executive takes its toll on family relationships. His mother, a voice from Taiwan’s past, tells him how to take care of himself. In the end, when Hsiang-wei couldn’t manage to take out his handkerchief, the readers also feel moved.

Night Train

In “Night Train” by Luo Yi-chun, the boundaries of time disappear in a modernist gesture as the present and past overlap each other. It seems that the author a modernist writer who extracted his techniques from the West. He writes about the era when Taiwan was under martial law and people wore khaki pants and broad hats. Taiwan past and present are connected by the island’s main means of transportation: the train. The story happens in train trips from the northern part of the island to the south. It also looks at family relationships as the son becomes the father, exchanging places in the train as time also becomes a unity in the train.

The prevalence of the cell phone controls the lives, defines the relationships, and is an opportunity for interaction, is central to the story. People communicate through machines and travel in a machine, the train. In the crowded train, no one really cares about the two young men running away and arriving at whichever station. No one also worries why the father would transfer trains from one going north to one going south. Because this is how the author writes about the lives of men.

Moth

“Moth” by Chang Huei-ching typifies her post-modern approach to her writing. This story narrates how the lives of two previously unrelated women become enmeshed in each other’s lives. For example, in this case the story used a moth life to reflect a person’s life. Miso is a 35 year old insectologist while Hsiao Rang is a 21 year old young girl. When Miso was 25, on day, the two of them completely unrelated met on top of a bridge, from this they became aware of each other’s existence. Miso had a moth growing inside her guts, with Shiao Rang who lived in a wooden house filled with flying termites, it seems that they were both pregnant and gave birth to each other in October.

Both of them established a point of contact while jostling in a crowd, and this feeling also ended with a phone line that got interconnected. People look for something special in the story but what they find is on the surface an exaggerated description of ordinary life, full of strange things, but actually it’s about the desires of a girl for love and life, and the concerns of living inside the city. It seems that the author is trying to paint a picture of a single woman looking for herself in the crowd.

Conclusions

The stories are symptomatic of Taiwanese society. The literature shows the various experiences of a society where societal forces converge to shape the consciousness of people. The stories reflect the tension, overt or covert, that grips the life of people. Goldblatt says that Taiwanese society “the ethnic dichotomy between the mainland Chinese and the Taiwanese has not completely disappeared, and where the future itself is very much in doubt, the process of change is even more greatly accelerated” (vi). It is not just confined to a mainland Chinese versus Taiwanese system but it is also an old versus modern conflict.

From the stories, we see a reflection of a changing Taiwanese society. The tearing down of the old house to make way for apartment buildings in one of the stories is a concrete example of this change. Moreover, people have become consumers as they tend to look at what the West has been giving them. There is a movement from one of an old controlled society to one freer and tending to the promiscuous. But whether or not that is good to the society is a problem that people have to answer for themselves. Wang notes that modern Taiwanese writers facing political changes challenged taboos and “re-negotiated” totems (Writing ix).

The stories show the value changes in society due to rapid economic growth. Ji Ji sees “various value systems are in the process of dissolution and reconstruction, and the arrival of the consumer age and the leisure age has drastically altered people’s view of life” (304). These value systems are primarily the importance given to traditional family structures. Rapid economic growth in the 70s to 80s have propelled the country to become one of the newly industrialized economies. This change has brought with it certainly a lot of material comfort and prosperity but at the cost of traditional values and a loss of an enduring culture. The influence of the West has replaced traditional values. The West has also made Taiwanese society more consumeristic. This has resulted in an identity crisis as the old (Taiwanese identity) is taken over by the new globalized and indifferent metropolis. It is a “sense of nostalgia and loss rural folks feel in the face of the disappearance of a way of life (CUHK vi).

Relations in family are likewise evolving. The old traditional family with its extended network or several generations living under one roof is now replaced with dysfunctional families and loose ties. The structure and fiber of society are being redefined. What had previously kept the family together, a common culture heritage, is being torn down by consumerism, and living in the city. This tearing down has resulted in migration of people.

Another important theme is the migration from the countryside to urban places. As the countryside offers less opportunities for advancement the attraction of metropolitan centers have caused widespread hollowing of ancestral homes and a crowding of people living beside each other in apartment buildings. This migration is facilitated by the islands main means of transportation, the railroad system. The idea of travelling with the train and through time mirrors this constant flow of people between places and in time. People are being uprooted from their own native spaces and find themselves in new sites. Mobility and changing territories likewise shadow how subcultures migrate or are embodied by members of those cultures. For example, the contrast between rural and city life, the old and the new society, and the traditional and the modern values, all determine the texts.

The stories explore how people live in the modern world that is starkly different from old Taiwan. Despite the close proximity of living in apartment buildings, people have become more distant from each other compared with living in the countryside. Each one is living in his/her own bubble. Nevertheless, we can detect that people still long for the old ways—a yearning for the past even though the present is overtaking it. But the problem is how to regain that past when the whole of society has moved forward? It is a challenge for contemporary people to face the changes wrought in their society, the loss of identity, and the invasion of their private spaces.

The writing styles in many of the newer stories tend toward a post-structuralist or modernist narrative. Most narratives are not chronological but weave in and out of time and consciousness. Sometimes we might think that Chinese literature is old or traditionalist but actually, it has become more modern as writers imitate Western examples. Not only is this happening in Taiwan but in mainland China as well. China is catching up and is overtaking the island in terms of modernity. The literary landscape of Taiwan and China seems to be evolving.

The translation procedure that I followed sought to do the translation in the most efficient way possible. Firstly, I had to keep in mind an attitude that tried to focus more on the roles of the translator. Awareness of these roles aided in translator decisions. The procedure was used to translate seven short stories from Taiwanese writers. The results indicate that by using also Yan Fu’s principles, the translation can be held up against long-held standards.

Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations

From the observations the strongest and most important statement that I can say is that translation depends on the translator and his/her approach to the material. The way that the translator sees translation impacts a great deal on the production of the translated text. So if the translator is aware of the three roles of the translator, then the mental attitude and approach to the process can be helped on a lot. The new insight that comes from this study is that translators can be more aware of their roles. By being aware of these three roles, hopefully there will be a new richness in translated works.

Furthermore, since this dissertation departs from the usual linguistic or socio-cultural analysis, it offers a fresh view of translation theory in general—a stepping-back so to speak in order to get a broader picture. The conceptual concern to provide a new model offers another view in the translation process that makes the translator and readers aware of issues other than the traditional ones that have preoccupied theorists for centuries. The study will thus be one of the few works in the field to deal on the topic of translator-oriented approach.

The study proposes a model for a translator-oriented approach that looks at the translator subject from three positions: the translator as reader, interpreter, and creative writer. The model is easy to understand, elegant, and firmly based on current translation theories. From the experience of translating the short stories, however, the model needed to be refined. The nuance that I wish now to introduce is to see the first two roles (reader and interpreter) as perhaps just one act. The third role, creative writer, may be distinguished from the previous two roles since creative writing is doing. Actually, this one can be part of translator as reader because there is a reading of the text. As interpreter, we tried to capture what we perceive the writer wanted to say at that moment when he/she wrote the story.

The problem posed at the start of the dissertation was that I wanted to see whether the model can work in translating Chinese literature. From the investigation, it can be concluded that the model can fit well with some modifications such as perhaps combining both the reader and interpreter role into one. Certainly, the creative writing aspect can be seen as separate from this reader and interpreter role. The description of the translation process that I followed is highly specific to my experience. Other translators may have their own way of proceeding with translation but the above is what I have been following for many years. Perhaps some parts of my procedure may inspire other translators.

Aside from the translator model, this study uses ideas from Chinese translation theories, specifically borrowing from Yan Fu who proposed a tripartite principle for how target texts should be. His principles are Xin, Da, and Ya which have been recognized by practitioners as the cornerstone of Chinese translation studies. His recommendations were used to translate seven contemporary Taiwanese short stories into English. These texts have never been translated into English and so it is an excellent contribution to enlarging the collection of Taiwanese works available in English.

From the actual experience of translating the Taiwanese short stories, the study can affirm the validity of the above proposals. The translator-oriented approach was used to translate few contemporary short stories from Taiwan. These short stories reflect the changing social conditions in the island. These conditions show how much the island has changed in very little time. Another new insight is that translating contemporary Taiwanese literature is certainly a work of art and cannot be considered solely as a scientific endeavor.

The possibility of doing the dissertation on this specific topic implies that despite claims by theorists regarding the complexity of the translation process, it can be simplified using our approach. It can be simplified by narrowing the focus of analyzing the translation process into the three roles of the translator. At least, that would serve as a starting point for further research. For professionals this means that they can be encouraged to do further work on other texts because it will define a strategy that can be applied in general from languages closely allied to each other or, in the case of Chinese or Asian languages to Western languages, far apart. Further research can focus on other Asian languages by applying this approach.

This way of doing the study makes the translator more self-aware of translation quality in terms other than linguistic. Translators are more confident that their jobs are infused with theory from which they can learn how to do their work better. By being self-aware of the translation process and the highly subjective condition, translators hopefully can come up with informed translations that respond timely to their own and their readers’ needs.

Given that Chinese translation there are still a lot of texts waiting to be translated from Chinese, this study will hopefully be a contribution to the field of Chinese translation. For practicing translators, clarifying the theory of Chinese translation allows for a more sensitive undertaking of Chinese literary translations. A heightened awareness perhaps spotlights not only the similarities but also the differences between cultures. Thus, a more fruitful understanding of cultures can be achieved. Wang Ning proposes that young translators acquire a good foundation in foreign languages so as to make China’s literature known and this “may be the most significant contribution a translator can make to the construction of Chinese culture” (26).

The contribution of this study is both theoretical and empirical. Wang Ning notes that “translation theory is supposed to guide translation practice” (60). The theoretical significance is that the study picks up ideas from Western translation theory to come up with a model of translation. The significance of the question is that this framework helps the translator’s task by making him/her aware of her various roles. By being aware of these roles, hopefully, the translator can improve in the translation. A model that can explain how the translator works may enlighten theorists and working translators. Regarding the second problem on the possible contribution of Chinese translation theory, the West knows very little about this narrow field and bringing in Chinese translation theory may help in enriching the entire discipline. These improvements may depend on what the translator wishes to emphasize such as close or strict fidelity to the original or a more fluid, creative take on the works.

In addition, the study makes use of the traditions in Chinese translation theory to be used as basic principles for translating Taiwanese short stories. This is the first time that a translator-oriented approach is proposed. This is the first time as well that a Chinese translation theory is used to translate Taiwanese texts into English. Another first is the appearance of these Taiwanese texts in English.

Furthermore, the study is an original contribution since it attempts to integrate translation studies into a translator-focused view while applying the theory to contemporary Chinese short stories. As far as I know nothing has been done previously in this way. Although some theory has been done on the role of the translator, they have focused on specific aspects while failing to integrate all findings into an elegant model now being proposed. The study hopes to make some contribution to discipline. It will contribute to the ongoing discussion—the debate—and informing the dialogue with a fresh perspective gathered from theory and practice.

For translation studies, this study may be a way of simplifying how the translation process is envisioned. The use of a translator-oriented position makes it easier to understand what goes on inside the mind of the translator. Moreover, the translation practice can be affected—or at least be aware of the potentials—by a translator-oriented approach. This will help ease the consciences of translators who worry about their being faithful or not to the original work.

This small contribution to expanding the field of Chinese translation studies and Western theoretical/practical translation studies shows the possibility of dialogue between two worlds. In a discipline dominated by Western materials and by a Eurocentric approach, the current research will attempt to enter into a field where few Westerners have dared trod. Furthermore, the study will open wider the door dividing the East and West by introducing the works from renowned Taiwanese writers. Taiwan is a country expanding economically but which is still at the margins of literary scholarship.

We hope to disseminate lesser-known Asian works and even those ignored by Asians themselves. This study will try to provide a model for translating other Chinese works, but it may also be applied to other Asian languages that derive from the Chinese language as well. By making available the literature of our next-door neighbor, I hope to promote better understanding among the very different cultures in Asia and even with Western countries. Moreover, as far as we know, this will be the only study done by a Filipino on the topic. In addition, new forms and content from contemporary Chinese literature will enrich the selection of literature available to Filipinos. This will not only enable cultural interchange but also promote better understanding between cultures. The work allows access to perhaps literature not normally available to Filipinos.

Regarding the recommendations that this study can make, a more scientific (maybe psychological or phenomenological) approach can be used to expand the model. Directions for further investigation can focus on more studies on phenomenon of translator. the phenomenology of the translation act. A lot depends on the cognitive aspect of translation that may be difficult to express in scientific terms. The broader implication of the results show that the translator seems to be like a black box and further research is needed.  Further research can fill in the gaps. Perhaps the gaps may be in further elucidating the cognitive part of the translator. This will require psychological or mental aspects of what occurs during translation.

There are still many things that this study lacks such as further validation of the model in terms of other genre or literature. It can also focus on translating other genres and see if the model can also be applied. Initially, it may be possible since the focus is on the translator so whatever genre this is used can be valid.

Focus on translating other periods of Chinese literature. The focus of this paper was on contemporary literature. Perhaps it is possible to translate even more recent writings not only those from Taiwan but also from other Chinese-language areas. Further research can look into translating other short stories, novels, or poems from Taiwan. The island’s literary scene is quite diverse and the population is a reading public. Perhaps other new writers can be looked into. Other untranslated works from China or from Asian countries may be worthwhile translating.

Focus on languages other than Chinese or non-Western languages like Asian languages closely allied to Chinese. These languages can be Korean, Japanese, or even Vietnamese. The problems which were encountered in this study may be similar to those faced by other translators in closely-related languages to Chinese. A general study can see what are the common problems with other languages. It is also possible to use the above model for other non-Western languages other than Chinese. Practitioners may use the strategy to open up meanings in other works.

It may be possible to publish the collection of short stories and offer them as another material for appreciating Chinese literature for the general reading public or for academic readers in the Philippines. Publication of the short stories will enrich the canon of literature. It will also enable Filipinos to appreciate and to understand better its neighbor in the North. The English text may even help in translating to other languages (indirect translation).

Further research can directly explore Chinese text sources still unavailable in English. These sources may provide invaluable new theories or perspectives on Chinese translation theory. Going directly to these sources may also help point out texts which may be worthwhile translating into English.

The study recommends that concepts, knowledge, and professional practice do not have to be so complicated as once envisioned. Theoretical constructs of established translation studies theories can be revised accordingly. Translating Chinese literature involves a lot of factors, from linguistic, social, to personal. Instead of putting aside theories, perhaps these theories are snapshots of the discipline and taken together, they show an integrated whole.

Works Cited

Adler, Joseph. Sources of Chinese Tradition, Vol. 1. Columbia University Press, 2000. Print.

Ames, Roger T. et al. Interpreting Culture Through Translation: A Festschrift for D.C. Lau. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1991. Print.

An Anthology of Contemporary Chinese Literature 1949-1974 Vol 2: The Short Stories. Oglethorpe, 1977. Print.

An Anthology of Contemporary Chinese Literature: Taiwan: 1949-1974 Vol 1: The Poems. Oglethorpe, 1977. Print.

Apter, Emily. The Translation Zone: A New Comparative Literature. Translation: Transnation Series. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. Print.

Arrojo, Rosemary. “The ‘Death’ of the Author and the Limits of the Translator’s Visibility.” Translation as Intercultural Communication. 21-32. Print.

Arrowsmith, William and Symposium on Translation. The Craft & Context of Translation; A Symposium. Austin: Published by University of Texas Press for Humanities Research Center, 1961. Print.

Baker, Mona. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.

Baker, Mona. Introduction. Encyclopedia. xiii-xviii. Print.

Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 1998. Print.

Balcom, John. “Translating Modern Chinese Literature.” Translator as Writer. 119-134. Print.

Balcom, John. Indigenous Writers of Taiwan: An Anthology of Stories, Essays, and Poems. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Print.

Barnstone, Willis. The Poetics of Translation: History, Theory, Practice. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. Print.

Bassnett, Susan and Harish Trivedi. Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 1999. Print.

Bassnett, Susan and Peter R. Bush. The Translator as Writer. London: Continuum, 2006. Print.

Bassnett, Susan. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1998. Print.

Bassnett, Susan. Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 1991. Print.

Benjamin, Walter. “The Task of the Translator.” The Translation Studies Reader. 15-25. Print.

Bermann, Sandra, and Michael Wood. Nation, Language, and the Ethics of Translation. Translation Transnation. Ed. Emily Apter. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005. Print.

Bernardo, Aldo S. “Computer Assistance in Literary Translation: Petrarch’s Familiares.” Translation Spectrum. 74-80. Print.

Boase-Beier, Jean and Michael Holman, eds. The Practices of Literary Translation: Constraints and Creativity. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1999. Print.

Campbell, Stuart. Translation into the Second Language. London: Longman, 1998. Print.

Catford, J. C. “Translation Shifts.” The Translation Studies Reader. 141-147. Print.

Cha, Louis. The Book and the Sword. Trans. John Minford. Oxford University Press, 2004. Print.

Chan, Leo Tak-hung. “The Impressionistic Approach to Translation Theorizing; or: Twentieth-century Chinese Ideas of Translation Through the Western Looking-glass.” Intercultural Communication. 57-66. Print.

Chan, Sin-wai and David E. Pollard, eds. An Encyclopaedia of Translation: Chinese-English, English-Chinese. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1995. Print.

Chan, Tak-hung Leo. “How Classical Chinese Literature Travels and what that Means to the Translation Theorist.” Selected Papers. 139-152. Print.

Chan, Tak-hung Leo. One into Many: Translation and the Dissemination of Classical Chinese Literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003. Print.

Chan, Tak-hung Leo. Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, Issues and Debates. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co., 2004. Print.

Chang, Eileen. Love in a Fallen City. Trans. Karen S. Kingsbury. New York: New York Review Books Classics, 2006. Print.

Chang, Eileen. The Rice Sprout Song. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Print.

Chang, Hsi-kuo. The City Trilogy. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Print.

Chang, Nam Fung. “Faithfulness, Manipulation, and Ideology: A Descriptive Study of the Chinese Translation Tradition.” Among the Best. 9-35. Print.

Chang, Nam Fung. “Polysystem Theory: Its Prospect as a Framework for Translation Research.” Target 13:2 (2001): 317–332. Print.

Chang, Sung-sheng Yvonne. Literary Culture in Taiwan: Martial Law to Market Law. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Print.

Chang, Sung-sheng Yvonne. Modernism and the Nativist Resistance: Contemporary Chinese Fiction from Taiwan. Durham: Duke University Press, 1993. Print.

Chang, Ta-chun. Wild Kids. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Print.

Chen, Li-Fen. Fictionality and Reality in Narrative Discourse: A Reading of Four Contemporary Taiwanese Writers. Diss. University of Washington. UMI. Dissertation.com, 2000. Print.

Cheng, Ah. The Chess Master. Trans. W. J. F. Jenner. Bi-lingual Edition. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2006. Print.

Cheung, Martha P.Y. “‘To Translate’ Means ‘to Exchange’? A New Interpretation of the Earliest Chinese Attempts to Define Translation (‘fanyi’).” Target 17:1 (2005): 27–48. JSTOR. PDF File.

Chi, Pang-yuan, and David, Der-wei Wang. Chinese Literature in the Second Half of a Modern Century. Indiana University Press, 2000. Print.

Chi, Pang-yuan. An Anthology of Contemporary Chinese Literature Taiwan: 1949-1974. University of Washington, 1975. Print.

Chin, Pa. Cold Nights. Trans. Nathan K. Mao and Liu Ts’un-yan. Bilingual Edition. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2002. Print.

Chin, Pa. Family. Trans. Sidney Shapiro. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, 1972. Print.

Chinese University of Hong Kong. Renditions: A Chinese-English Translation Magazine. Nos. 35 & 36, Spring & Autumn 1991, Special Issue: Contemporary Taiwan Literature. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1991. Print.

Chinese University of Hong Kong. Renditions: A Chinese-English Translation Magazine, Numbers 35 & 36. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong. Print.

Choa, Carolyn, and David Su Li-Qun. The Vintage Book of Contemporary Chinese Fiction. New York: Vintage, 2001. Print.

Chu, T’ien-hsin. The Old Capital: A Novel of Taipei. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Print.

Davies, Eirlys E. “Leaving it Out: On Some Justifications for the Use of Omission in Translation.” Babel 53: 1 (2007): 56–77. JSTOR. PDF File.

Davis, Kathleen. Deconstruction and Translation. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Pub, 2001. Print.

Dingwaney, Anuradha and Carol Maier, eds. Between Languages and Cultures: Translation and Cross-Cultural Texts. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995. Print.

Duarte, João Ferreira, Alexandra Assis Rosa and Teresa Seruya, eds. Translation Studies at the Interface of Disciplines. Benjamins Translation Library 68. Lisbon: University of Lisbon, 2006. Print.

Duke, Michael S. Contemporary Chinese Literature. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1985. Print.

Duke, Michael S. Worlds of Modern Chinese Fiction: Short Stories & Novellas from the People’s Republic, Taiwan & Hong Kong. M. E. Sharpe, 1991. Print.

Eoyang, Eugene Chen, and NetLibrary, Inc. The Transparent Eye Reflections on Translation, Chinese Literature, and Comparative Poetics. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1993. Print.

France, Peter. The Oxford Guide to Literature in English Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.

Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2001. Print.

Godlblatt, Howard. Translator’s Note. The Taste of Apples. vii-xi. Print.

Gutt, Ernst-August. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1991. Print.

Hatim, B. Teaching and Researching Translation. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001. Print.

Hatim, B. The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge, 1997. Print.

Hatim, Basil, and Ian Mason. Discourse and the Translator. London: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1993. Print.

Hermans, Theo. Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome, 1999. Print.

Holman, Michael and Jean Boase-Beier. Introduction: Writing, Rewriting and Translation Through Constraint to Creativity. The Practices of Literary Translation 1-17. Print.

Holmes, James S. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” The Translation Studies Reader 172-185. Print.

Hsia, Chih-Tsing, and C. T. Hsia. A History of Modern Chinese Fiction: Third Edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. Print.

Huang, Chun-ming. Preface. The Taste of Apples. xiii-xv. Print.

Huang, Chun-ming. The Taste of Apples. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Print.

Hung, Eva. Among the Best: Stephen C. Soong Chinese Translation Studies Awards 1999-2004. Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2005. Print.

Inghilleri, Moira. “The Sociology of Bourdieau and the Construction of the ‘Object’ in Translation and Interpreting Studies.” The Translator. Vol. 11, No. 2 (2005): 125-145. Print.

International Conference on the Translation of Chinese Literature. Translating Chinese Literature. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995. Print.

Ji Ji. “Beyond Transient Applause.” Renditions. 299-304. Print.

Kingsbury, Karen S. Introduction. Love in a Fallen City. ix-xvii. Print.

Kirk, Robert. Translation Determined. Oxford: Clarendon, 1986. Print.

Koskinen, Kaisa. “Shared Culture? Reflections on Recent Trends in Translation Studies.” Target 16:1 (2004): 43–56. JSTOR. PDF File.

Kuhiwczak, Piotr and Karin Littau. A Companion to Translation Studies. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2007. Print.

Landers, Clifford E. Literary Translation: A Practical Guide. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2001. Print.

Lau, Joseph S. M. The Unbroken Chain: An Anthology of Taiwan Fiction Since 1926. Chinese Literature in Translation ed. Irving Yucheng Lo et al. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983. Print.

Lau, Joseph S. M., and Howard Goldblatt. The Columbia Anthology of Modern Chinese Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. Print.

Lefevere, André. Translating Literature: Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context. New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1992. Print.

Lefevere, André. Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a Blueprint. Assen, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1975. Print.

Lefevere, André. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.

Lefevere, André. Translation/History/Culture: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.

Leung, Matthew Wing-Kwong. “The Ideological Turn in Translation Studies.” Interface. 129-146. JSTOR. PDF File.

Levy, Jiri. “Translation as a Decision Process.” The Translation Studies Reader. 148-171. Print.

Li Xia. “Institutionalising Buddhism: The Role of the Translator in Chinese Society.” Interface. 147-160. Print.

Li-Hung, Hsiao. A Thousand Moons on a Thousand Rivers. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Print.

Li, Ang. The Butcher’s Wife and Other Stories. Cheng & Tsui, 1995. Print.

Li, Qiao. Wintry Night. Trans. John Balcom. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Print.

Lin Zhang. “On Theories in Translation Studies.” Trans. Leo Chan Twentieth. 244-245. Print.

Loffredo, Eugenia and Manuela Perteghella. Translation and Creativity: Perspectives on Creative Writing and Translation Studies. London: Continuum, 2006. Print.

Longa, Victor M. “A Nonlinear Approach to Translation.” Target 16:2 (2004): 20–226. JSTOR. PDF File.

Lukits, Stefan. “The Power of Translation.” Babel 53:2 (2007): 147–166. JSTOR. PDF File.

Luo Xinzhang. “Chinese Translation Theory, a System of its Own.” Trans Tan Zaixi. Leo Chan Twentieth. 230-235. Print.

Mair, Victor H. The Columbia Anthology of Traditional Chinese Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996. Print.

Mao Dun. “The ‘Matchmaker’ and the ‘Virgin.’” Trans. Laurence Wong. Leo Chan Twentieth. 254-256. Print.

McDougall, Bonnie S., and Kam Louie. The Literature of China in the Twentieth Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. Print.

Minford, John, and Joseph S. M. Lau. Classical Chinese Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Print.

Mira, Alberto. “Pushing the Limits of Faithfulness: A Case for Gay Translation.” Practices of Literary Translation. 109-123. Print.

Mok, Olivia. “Translational Migration of Martial Arts Fiction East and West.” Target 13:1 (2001): 81-102. Print.

Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London: Routledge, 2001. Print.

Munday, Jeremy. Translation as Intervention. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2007. Print.

Neubert, Albrecht and Gregory M. Shreve. Translation as Text. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1992. Print.

Ngan, Heltan and Judy Kong. “A Theoretical Framework for Teaching Chinese-English/English-Chinese Translation to Tertiary Students: The Use of ‘Foreign Translation Theories’ for ‘Domestic’ Purposes through S.E.A.S.” Paper Presented at the Annual International Conference of the Institute of Language in Education (December 1994). PDF File.

Nida, Eugene. “Principles of Correspondence.” The Translation Studies Reader. 126-140. Print.

Niranjana, Tejaswini. Siting translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Print.

Pai, Hsien-yung. Taipei People. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 2000. Print.

Perng, Ching-Hsi, and Chiu-kuei Wang. Death in a Cornfield: and Other Stories from Contemporary Taiwan. Oxford University Press, 1994. Print.

Pöchhacker, Franz and Miriam Shlesinger. The Interpreting Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 2002.

Pollard, David E. “The Use of ‘Empty’ Words in Chinese and English.” Interpreting Culture. 207-226. Print.

Pym, Anthony. “Propositions on Cross-cultural Communication and Translation.” Target 16:1 (2004): -28. JSTOR. PDF File.

Rafael, Vicente. Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society Under Early Spanish Rule. Duke University Press, 1993. Print.

Riccardi, Alessandra. Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print.

Robinson, Douglas. Becoming a Translator: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Translation. London: Routledge, 2003. Print.

Robinson, Douglas. The Translator’s Turn. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991. Print.

Robinson, Douglas. What Is Translation?: Centrifugal Theories, Critical Interventions. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1997. Print.

Rong, Jiang. Wolf Totem. Trans. Howard Goldblatt. New York: Penguin Press, 2008. Print.

Rose, Marilyn Gaddis. Translation Spectrum: Essays in Theory and Practice. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981. Print.

Roy, Cynthia B. Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.

Rui, Li. Silver City. Metropolitan Books, 1997. Print.

Sallis, John, and NetLibrary, Inc. On Translation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2002. Print.

Scott, Clive. Translating Baudelaire. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000. Print.

Selected Papers on Translation From the International Conference on Chinese Studies in Celebration of the Seventh Anniversary of the Department of Chinese: University of Hong Kong 10-12 December 1997. Siu-Kit Wong et al. eds. Department of Chinese. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong, 2002. Print.

Shäffner, Christina and Helen Kelly-Holmes, eds. Editorial. Cultural Functions of Translation. Modern Languages in Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1995. Print.

Shreve, Gregory M. and Geoffrey S. Koby. Introduction. Cognitive Processes in Translation and Interpreting. Joseph H. Dranks et al. eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997. xi-xviii. Print.

Snell-Hornby, Mary, Zuzana Jettmarová and Klaus Kaindl. Translation as Intercultural Communication. Selected papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995. Benjamins Translation Library 20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1995. Print.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakrovorty. “The Politics of Translation.” The Translation Studies Reader. 397-416. Print.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakrovorty. “Translator’s Preface.” Of Grammatology. Jacques Derrida. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974. Print.

Stecconi, Ubaldo and Maria Luisa Torres Reyes. “Transgression and Circumvention through Translation in the Philippines.” Intercultural Communication. 67-76. JSTOR. PDF File.

Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. Print.

Sun, Zhili. “Some Thoughts on Building our Nation’s Translation Theory.” Trans. Han Yang. Leo Chan Twentieth. 240-243. Print.

Symposium on Taiwan Fiction (1979: University of Texas at Austin). Chinese Fiction from Taiwan: Critical Perspectives. Ed. Jeanette L. Faurot. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980. Print.

T’ien-wen, Chu, and Sylvia Li-Chun Lin. Notes of a Desolate Man. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Print.

Tan, Tiffany. “A Mandarin Translator to RP Presidents in China.” Inquirer Global Nation. 6 Dec. 2009. Web. 6 Dec. 2009.

Tan, Zaixi. “A Comparative Study of the Chinese and Western Traditions of Translation.” Diss. University of Exeter. Oct 1998: 230. Print.

Tan, Zaixi. “Towards a Comparative Science of Translation: With Special Reference to Chinese and Western Traditions of Translation.” Selected Papers. 207-233. Print.

Tao, Tang. History of Modern Chinese Literature. Foreign Languages Press, 1998. Print.

The English Association. Translating Literature. Ed. Susan Bassnett. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1997. Print.

Tiancheng, Lu. The Embroidered Couch. Arsenal Pulp Press, 2001. Print.

Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub, 1995. Print.

Turner, Brian. “Home Fires: Interview with an Iraqi Translator.” New York Times. 7 December 2009. Web.

University College, London. Aspects of Translation. London: Secker and Warburg, 1958. Print.

Venuti, Lawrence. “The Difference that Translation Makes: The Translator’s Unconscious.” Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Ed. Alessandra Riccardi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 214-241. Print.

Venuti, Lawrence. “Translation and the Formation of Cultural Identities.” Cultural Functions. 9-23. Print.

Venuti, Lawrence. Introduction. The Translation Studies Reader. 1-8. Print.

Venuti, Lawrence. Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.

Venuti, Lawrence. The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 2000. Print.

Venuti, Lawrence. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge, 1995. Print.

Wang, Chen-ho. Rose, Rose, I Love You. Trans. Howard Goldblatt. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Print.

Wang, David Der-wei, and Carlos Rojas. Writing Taiwan: A New Literary History. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006. Print.

Wang, David Der-wei. Preface. Writing Taiwan. vii-x. Print.

Wang, Ning. Globalization and Cultural Translation. Materialising China. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2005. Print.

Wang, Wen-Hsing. Family Catastrophe: A Modernist Novel. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1995. Print.

Weber, Samuel. “A Touch of Translation: On Water Benjamin’s ‘Task of the Translator’.” Nation, Language, and the Ethics of Translation. 65-78. Print.

Williams, Jenny and Andrew Chesterman. The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Pub, 2002. Print.

Wu, Zhuoliu. Orphan of Asia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Print.

Yan, Mo. The Garlic Ballads. New York: Penguin (Non-Classics), 1996. Print.

Yang, Yan. “A Brief History of Chinese Translation Theory.” Ph.D. Dissertation. UMI. PDF File.

Yeh, Michelle, and N. G. D. Malmqvist. Frontier Taiwan. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Print.

Yeh, Michelle. Frontier Taiwan: An Introduction. Frontier Taiwan. 1-53. Print.

Yu, Guangzhong. “Translation and Creative Writing.” Trans. Leo Chan. Leo Chan Twentieth. 173-174. Print.

Yu, Hua. To Live: A Novel. Trans. Michael Berry. New York: Anchor, 2003. Print.

Zheng, Zhenduo. “How to Translate Literary Texts.” Trans. Leo Chan. Leo Chan Twentieth. 72-73. Print.

Annex
The Contemporary Taiwanese Stories in English

Annex
The Chinese Texts

Inspiration

Last night inspired me to continue writing this blog. This blog that’s an exodus to 80,000 words. I think I’ve gotten the structure down pat. What I have to do now is to expound, elaborate, and document. Some guidelines that I’ve written down for myself are:
Writing and revising notes
1. A lot of repetition. Cut and paste to bring all related topics/ideas together. Say it once, say it well.
2. Elaborate. Many paragraphs are not explored or elaborated in depth. Some of them may be hanging.
3. The paragraphs. Some sentences in the paragraphs may not belong to the paragraph at all–these sentences perhaps should be in another paragraph. One topic sentence per paragraph. The opening sentence is the topic sentence. the body is the proof. and the last sentence should wrap up the paragraph and maybe segue to the next paragraph.
4. Hedge the generalizations and assertions. Use the uncertain mode “may” “perhaps” “seem”
5. Transitions. General structure transitions (intro to Chapter and sections), conclusions for Chapters or sections). Transitional paragraphs linking sections.
6. References. Non-common knowledge references should have references.
7. Sentences. Sentences should smoothly transition from one to the other, there should be a connection between sentences.
8. Explain and comment on quotes or citations.
I hope to get someone else to check my writing since I tend to skim over what I’ve written instead of going over it with a critical eye.
Today is a holiday (Andres Bonifacio Day). Though the sky’s cloudy, it’s cool enough to be pleasant. I wish Mondays were always like this.
Back to work. Now I’m revising the theoretical framework. That’s another big mess.

Rewriting

why do i feel like i’m rewriting the introduction after having rewritten it so many times over? I still have to fix up the theory part and the method chapter is quite sparse. The conclusion is there but still patchy. What I have done most is in the lit review and theory.