1.1 Definitions of Translation in China

China is a country with a long history of translation activity and naturally quite a number of definitions of translation have been given.Martha P.Y.Cheung(2005)speaks of the importance of our views on translation for developing a general theory of translation and comments that “[w]e really have too little knowledge of the thinking of different peoples about‘translation',and what we do know about the topic is so patchy it would be premature to talk about integration”.He lists five definitions of translation in ancient China.The first is offered by the first Chinese dictionary Shuo Wen Jie Zi,compiled by Xu Shen,a famous scholar in the Eastern Han Dynasty: “those who transmit the words of tribes in the four directions”.The second by the book Li Ji·Zheng Yi or Corrected Meanings of Book of Rites:“‘yi' means‘to state in an orderly manner and be conversant in the words of the country and those outside the country'”.The third is provided by the 7th century annotator Jia Gongyan: “‘to translate' means‘to exchange',that is to say,to change and replace the words of one language by another to achieve mutual understanding”.The fourth is from the Buddhist monk Zan Ning in the Northern Song Dynasty: “‘to translate' means‘to exchange',that is to say,take what one has in exchange for what one does not have”.The fifth comes from Fa Yun(a Buddhist monk too in the Song Dynasty):“By‘fanyi'(translating)we mean taking the Sanskrit language and rendering it into the language of China.The original and the translation may sound different when read out,but their meaning is largely the same”(Cheung 2005).

From the above definitions we can see that people in China in ancient times viewed translation as a way of communication with the purpose of making the communicators who speak different languages understand each other.

In modern China,more definitions are given and from these definitions we can see people's changing views on translation.

Lin Yutang holds that translation is an art and a creation.Those engaged in literary translation must first try to capture the style and spirit of the original and then give the fullest play of their subjectivity to reproduce the artistic beauty of the original(Chen Fukang 1992: 332-333).

Yu Guangzhong(2002: 37)has the same idea as Lin Yutang.He also considers translation as “an art,especially literary translation”.In one of his articles entitled“The Art of Transformation”,he says,“translation is just like marriage,it is an art of compromise between the two”(ibid: 55).

The above idea about translation is quite typical in China before the linguistic theory of translation was introduced.It is also popular among literary translators as can be seen from Xu Jun's interviews with those famous literary translators in China.Xu Yuanzhong(often misprounced as Xu Yuanchong in China)regards translation as “the art of beautification”,Xiao Qian and Wen Jieruo think it as “artistic creation”and “recreation”,and Ye Junjian holds that translation is “a kind of literary creation”as it is featured by “recreation”(Xu Jun 2001).

In a course-book compiled by Zhang Peiji et al.(1986:1)translation is defined as“a linguistic activity in which the content expressed in one language is re-expressed in another language accurately and completely”.

Fan Cunzhong's definition is almost the same as the above one: “translation is to express what has been expressed in one language in another language,accurately and completely”(Fan Cunzhong 1985: 80).

Feng Qinghua(1997)defines translation as a linguistic practice in which content expressed in one language is expressed in another language.

Huang Zhonglian(2000)gives two definitions and both of them regard translation as cognitive and linguistic activity involving the transfer of cultural information from one language to another.

The above definitions can all be said to refer to the ideal state of translation in that the set tasks for translation are simply impossible to fulfill,especially for literary translation.Another common feature of these definitions is that they all view translation as mainly linguistic transfer.

Wang Kefei(1997)holds that translation is a cultural activity in which translators express the meanings contained in one language in another.This definition is representative in that it regards translation as a cultural activity.

A definition recommended by Fang Mengzhi(1999: 4-5)is that “translation is a process of message transfer between different semiotic system with different rules in accordance with social needs” and the message to be transferred include not only the semantic and stylistic but also the cultural message.The merit of this definition,according to Fang himself,lies in its higher degree of generalization.It includes both interlingual and intersemiotic translations.

Tan Zaixi(2005: 7)defines translation also as “a process in which the meaning contained in one language is expressed in another” and regards translation “mainly a craft with many artistic features”.

According to Zhang Jin(1987: 8),“[t]ranslation is the process and the instrument of communication between two language-communities.Its aim is to promote the political,economical and/or cultural progress of the target language-community.Its task is to transfer intactly the logical or artistic representation of the reality embodied in the ST to the TT”.This definition,though fairly comprehensive,is but quite idealistic.

The above three definitions,as we can see,have something in common.All of them view translation as a process and each focuses on different aspects and features of the process.

Xu Jun(2001: 5-6)once gave a comparatively comprehensive discussion on the definition of translation: ontologically,the definition should tell the nature of the activity; functionally,it should tell the purposes or tasks; and formally,the types of it.He further pointed out that in terms of form,it is a language transfer; in terms of nature,it is a message transfer and exchange; and in terms of its fundamental purpose,it is to overcome language barrier aiming at readers' understanding.We should therefore regard translation as a cultural exchange.In another book On Translation,he offers us his more penetrating thoughts on the essence of translation and defines translation as “an intercultural communication by means of code transferring(or changing of linguistic signs)and with the purpose of reproducing the meaning of the original”(qtd.in Lv Jun 2004).This definition,according to Lv Jun(2004),though brief,entails not only the essence of translation,but also the means and purposes of the activity,and at the same time touching upon the main factors of translation:language code,meaning and culture.It tells of,therefore,the more essential nature of translation as an object.

Lv Jun and Hou Xiangqun(2001: 2)hold that translation is a special form of communication.They view translation as a communicative action involving message transfer between two languages and two cultures,and in principle,trying to maintain the original message and function in the process.In their Translatology—A Constructivist Perspective of Translation Study,they again define it as an intercultural communication via signs,involving a complicated process of message receiving,interpreting,processing and re-expressing(Lv Jun & Hou Xiangqun 2006: 30).

The above three share the same view that translation is an interlingual and intercultural communicative action.

He Lin(1984),a famous philosopher in China,once gave his philosophical thinking on translation and regarded translation as a communication action between the interpreter and the original text,involving many stages such as reading,understanding,interpreting,translating and so on.The objectification or the result of this mental activity is translation.Translation is thus the crystallization and completion of such a communication action.

In order to define translation,some people make distinctions between its marrow sense and wider sense.Gu Zhengkun,for instance,in his discussion of meta-translatology,defines translation in the broad sense as “a transfer of a certain form and its meaning in general sense” and as “one way of the existence of life”.He defines translation in the narrow sense as “translation action with language as medium and object”(Gu Zhengkun 2003: 305).Readers can see that here translation in the broad sense and translation in the narrow sense as well are not well defined as there is obscurity in the former and circularity in the latter.Nevertheless,Gu's definitions bring us some philosophical(metaphysical)thinking on translation.Gu's further comments and discussion on the definition of translation show more clearly his philosophical concern about translation: “[t]here are hundreds of definitions of translation,each possessing to a certain degree validity.… It(translation,the author)is not merely an interlingual behavior; rather,it is,as far as its essential nature is concerned,a matter-spirit communication closely related to many other disciplines”(ibid: 311).On the following page Gu says again that “[t]ranslating is just such a behavior of understanding as making possible the communication not only between human beings themselves but also between human beings and the substantial world”(ibid: 312).

Huang Long(1988:18-21),in his book Translatology,says that we can define translation from different perspectives and viewed in light of message equivalence and materialist dialectics,“[t]ranslation is the unity of opposites wherein an equivalent and aesthetic intercommunication of bilateral alien languages(letter language,semiotic language,animal language)in social science(including theology in a broad sense)and physical science is performed theoretically and practically through oral interpretation and written translation by the agency of human brain or electronic brain”.This definition sounds a thorough description of the meaning of the term “translation” as it tells us of the extension of the term “translation”.But,it also has the shortcoming of circularity and is not quite concise.

The above three definitions are put together because these scholars,Gu Zhengkun in particular,are thinking about translation at the more metaphysical level or at both levels.

At the pure metaphysical level,we take translation as an abstract entity.In his An Ontological Study of Translation published in 2005,Cai Xinle talks about“metatranslation” and says that ontologically,“translation exists(is born)in the selfgeneration of the human beings”.Translation is logically prior to culture and beyond the logic of language(Cai Xinle 2005: 198).Cai points out that to define translation is to tell our perception of it based on a judgment which has a certain degree of logic.Translation is translation itself and when we use the pattern “translation is…” to define it any other words than “translation” that follow “translation is” will not tell what translation is in its purely ontological sense(ibid: 239).Cai's discussion here indicates that he is not only talking about translation metaphysically but also thinking about language metaphysically.This reminds us of discussion on translation by Derrida who thinks it impossible to define translation by language(Munday 2001:162-174).In spite of this,in another place of the book by Cai(2005: 244),he tries to give us a definition,saying that “translation is the imitation of the‘existence' or the imitation of the‘form' of existence”.

From all the above-mentioned definitions we can see that people's definitions of translation are from different perspectives and at different levels.There have been some changes as can be perceived if we take a diachronic look at these definitions—from static to dynamic,from idealistic to realistic,from the artistic view to the linguistic view,from linguistic to cultural and lingual-cultural,from product to process,and from one-sided to more comprehensive,from physical level to metaphysical level.And synchronically,we find the existence of almost all of them—translation as an art,as mere language transfer,as cultural exchange and then,as a process of interlingual and intercultural communication action and then again,as one of the ways of human existence.Some of the definitions sound formal while others informal.We will return to the formality of definitions in our later discussion.