Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Translation in China

LI XIA

Introduction

In his monumental study After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation, George Steiner (1975: 31) identifies communication across time and space as the key constitutive aspects of translation, and the translator as a powerful mediator between the distinctive values and traditions of cultures. His panoramic portrayal and interpretation of the complex formation of the cultural landscape of Western civilization over the centuries extends far beyond the narrow perspective of comparative linguistics or what Eugene Nida (1994: 1) refers to as 'the mechanics of linguistic similarities and contrasts', as the title of his study might suggest. Steiner's penetrating vision thus anticipates the culture-oriented theoretical views articulated by leading Western translation scholars (and practitioners) of the 1980s and 1990s, such as Nida, Snell-Hornby, Vermeer, Venuti, Hatim and Mason, among others, on the role of translation in the construction and preservation of distinctly national and cultural identities as a hallmark of 19th and 20th century Western civilization. At the same time, it also reflects conceptual affinities to the Sapir-Whorfian understanding of language as 'a house of consciousness' and translation as an act of linguistic and cultural interpretation. Significantly, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1958) expresses a similar view, albeit in a primarily philosophical and cognitive context (Eoyang, 1993: 111–121). Since China prides itself on a long and unique history of commitment to the preservation and promotion of cultural identity and tradition on a national and international level, the role of the translator or what Anthony Pym (1998: 150) calls 'the human side of translation history' in the context of specific cultural-political settings is of central importance. The translator's 'invisibility' or 'shadowy existence', as described by Steiner and Venuti or highlighted in Larbaud's metaphor of a beggar at the church door, might reflect a post-romantic view concerning notions of hierarchy in the chain of communication between author, text, reader and translator (Bassnett-McGuire, 1980: 75), but it constitutes an equally significant reality with tangibly detrimental consequences for the translator, as spelt out in considerable detail by Venuti (1995: 8ff). While Venuti refers primarily to contemporary conditions in the West, most of them apply also to past and present circumstances in China, although the status and influence of translators in society was, generally speaking, higher than in the West.

Significantly, the above chain-of-communication-model ignores the relevance of 'material causes' in the translation process defined by Anthony Pym as follows:

However, if we look at history on the widest time scale, material causes are among the most profound and far-reaching factors one could wish for. For example, the technique for making paper moved westwards from China, reaching Baghdad just prior to the ninth-century "school of translators" there, then reaching Christiana Hispania just prior to the thirteenth-century translation associated with another great "school," that of Alfonso X. Paper does not produce translations. But its manufacture has certainly assisted in some major changes in translation history. (Pym, 1998: 151)

Above all, it marginalizes the even more important role of politico-ideological forces (including religious ones) in translation and the translator as an indispensable instrument in national identity construction that runs like a red thread through Chinese history, from Qin Shi Huang's nationalistic outlook, highlighted in the standardization of the script, among others, to 'Mao-era nationalism' and the post-Mao-era of economic mobility and the associated visions of national identity or 'Chineseness'. Regrettably, the key role of translators in determining and shaping not only prevailing attitudes towards translation, but society as a whole, has attracted insufficient attention in Chinese critical literature as well as in Western translation research (Pym, 1998: 150).

Documents on translation in China go back well over 2000 years and highlight early government supervision and control through the establishment of translation offices for official interpreters and translators in Western Zhou Dynasty (Xi Zhou, 1066–771 BC). The establishment of such offices was administratively necessitated by the fact that China was made up of numerous nationalities with their own languages, dialects and cultures, including the members of the majority Han nationality. While different nationalities and dialect groups found it difficult to communicate orally, communication was possible in writing among the Chinese people of different dialects, since written Chinese characters do not rely on a phonetic component (DeFrancis, 1984: 38–66). Although early translation activities were predominantly oral (interpreting), they were conducted by government sponsored and professionally trained interpreters (Ma, 1984: 2). Unfortunately, historical records prior to the establishment of translation offices are missing due primarily to the burning of books and written (Confucian) documents under the First Emperor Shi Huang (221–209 BC), the founder of the Qin Dynasty (Yang, 1992: 3; Giles, 1930: 78ff). Little is known about the scale and exact nature of the very early translation activities in China. However, the administrative details contained in such classics as Li ji (The Book of Rites) and Zhou li (The Rites of the Zhou Dynasty) document the importance of translation officials and provide important information concerning the nature of their work in the context of China's enormous linguistic and cultural diversity (Ma, 1995: 373–374). (Recent anthropological and archeological research rejects the notion of 'isolated northern-plain culture' in favor of an intensive cultural and economic exchange between various cultures in this area and outside China. See...