From 'Theory' to 'Discourse': The Making of a Translation Anthology Author(s): Martha P. Y.

Cheung Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 66, No. 3 (2003), pp. 390-401 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4146101 Accessed: 17/11/2010 06:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

School of Oriental and African Studies and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

http://www.jstor.org

From ' theory' to 'discourse ':

the making of a translation anthology'

MARTHA P. Y. CHEUNG

Hong Kong BaptistUniversity How easily can concepts be translated across cultures? What happens when a concept is translated and becomes a part of the receiving culture? How do translated concepts interact with or exert influence on the receiving culture's repertoire of concepts and prevailing mode of thinking? Take for example, concepts of category, specifically concepts of category of knowledge such as theory, science, philosophy, religion, etc. How are these designations translated? How do these translated concepts affect the receiving culture's existent body of knowledge? In particular, how would they affect the disciplining of knowledge in the receiving culture-disciplining in the sense of organizing, ordering, hierachizing, including/excluding, centring/decentring, aligning and re-aligning of material deemed to constitute knowledge in that receiving culture, for the purpose of mono-cultural, cross-cultural, or intercultural study; disciplining also in the sense of the establishing of new disciplines of knowledge? Or, take for example concepts of translation such as' faithfulness' or 'fluency'. Depending on how they are translated, the translated terms would achieve effects ranging from the elimination of differences (if the Chinese translation concept of faithfulness, called 'xin' {, is used unproblematically as the equivalent of 'faithfulness '), to the perception of difference amidst similarities (if footnotes and/or other paratextual means are used to indicate that 'faithfulness' and 'xin' are different, though they also share important similarities), or just the perception of difference with no awareness of similarities (if 'faithfulness' is simply transliterated, and no explanatory footnote is provided). And because of the epistemological dimension involved, the translation of concepts is a particularly important topic in the intercultural study of translation. In what is to follow, I shall explore this topic, and other related issues, with reference to a translation anthology I am compiling. It is an anthology, in English translation, of texts on Chinese thinking about translation from ancient times to the Revolution of 1911. Initially, I gave it the tentative title, 'Chinese translation theories: from ancient times to the Revolution of 1911 '. Then, I changed the main title to 'Chinese thought on translation'. Most recently, I have decided on 'Chinese discourse on translation'. The three words, 'theories', 'thought', and 'discourse' are the landmarks of a journey. It is the journey of someone struggling to move beyond a mode of thinking governed by the logic of binary oppositions, especially that of the self and the other. It is also the journey of someone struggling to find a way of theorizing about knowledge-in this case, of Chinese thinking about translation-without being trapped in an essentializing narrative about 'Chineseness' on the one hand and without being silenced by the hegemonic strength of any master narratives on the other. Moreover, the three words also highlight an important terminological issue. What this issue encompasses-the setting up of epistemological frames, the delineation of academic boundaries, the classification of knowledge, the carving up of subject domains, (described in the previous
Research for this paper was supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council (HKBU 2069/01H). Bulletin of SOAS, 66, 3 (2003), 390-401. ? School of Oriental and African Studies. Printed in the United Kingdom.

THE MAKING OF A TRANSLATION ANTHOLOGY

391

paragraph as the disciplining of knowledge)-are questions for scholars attempting to name bodies of knowledge in ancient China by designations such as 'Chinese philosophy', 'Chinese science' and 'Chinese religion'. The analysis, in the following pages, of the decisions made in the course of the compilation of a single anthology should therefore be relevant beyond the field of translation studies. It should open up a perspective on a topic of serious and passionate concern for academics of different disciplines in China, and for sinologists and Chinese scholars in different parts of the world. But let me first explain how the word 'Chinese' is going to be used in the anthology I am preparing. In an article that is very much a companion piece to this one, I wrote: To me, 'Chinese' is a word with floating meanings; it is a levitational word, so to speak. Certainly, I am not using it to refer to a single, homogeneous, monolithic entity. I am not even using it simply as an indicator of a certain ethnic origin. Rather I am allowing myself a measure of strategic flexibility when I use it, especially with reference to my translation project. In real terms, this means that although some of the texts selected for translation are excerpted from the work of ethnic Chinese, non-Chinese will not be excluded as long as (a) they had Chinese as one of their language pairs and their views are related to translation in the Chinese context; and (b) they had been centrally involved in the production of translated texts (in Chinese) and their views are related to such a process or such a mode of production. This is not an attempt to subsume non-Chinese under the label Chinese for the all too obvious purpose of discursive nation-building. Neither is it an effort to invent a Chinese translation tradition richer and grander than it actually is. The notion of' Chinese' is, admittedly, stretched. But this is because I believe the notion itself is a construct, as I shall elaborate in the paragraphs to follow. I believe, moreover, that every culture is mixed, and translation, one of the constituent elements of culture, is one of the discursive sites where the myth of purity is most clearly debunked. (Cheung, forthcoming [a]) I have quoted this passage in full because, in reflecting on the progress of this project, I realized it was perhaps this ideological position2 that eventually helped me reach the present point of anchor. Restating my position again therefore sets the scene for the arguments to unfold. Mapping the domain: 'theory '? Or 'theories'? In preparing for an anthology of texts on Chinese thinking about translation, I had initially settled on the word 'theory' as the most conventionally acceptable classification of my material, acceptable not only in the target culture, i.e. those with English as their primary or predominant language, but also in my home (Chinese) culture. Moreover, I have found in the target culture an anthology--Western translation theory:from Herodotus to Nietzsche, edited by Douglas Robinson-that serves as a useful structural and organizational framework for my corpus. Robinson's anthology presents the entries by author and in chronological order; each entry is provided with a title, a headnote and, when necessary, footnotes. Such a format can be adopted to ensure that Chinese thinking about translation will not be rendered into a collection of disembodied voices-dehistoricized and decontextualized.
2 For a detailed explication of why I should want to locate myself at this ideological position, see Cheung (forthcoming [a])

392

MARTHA Y. CHEUNG P.

Robinson's anthology can also serve a function not discussed in the 'Editor's preface', it is a heterogeneous collection. It consists of statements about translation; it also consists of statements that only touch on translation tangentially. It includes excerpts from treatises as well as short, insightful comments of an experiential and/or impressionistic nature. Moreover, in his selection of material, Robinson attends to developments in women's studies and other literary and postcolonial theories of representation by making room for texts that belong to 'the peripheries of translation theory'.3 As such, Robinson's anthology is a salutary reminder to the readers that the word 'theory' has not always been used with the same degree of vigour as found in the work of contemporary translation theorists such as Gideon Toury.4Indeed, the word 'theory', like the words 'science' and 'philosophy', has undergone a contraction of semantic meanings. Derived from the Greek word 'theoria' (meaning 'act of viewing', 'contemplation', and 'consideration'), the word 'theory' carries the (now archaic) meaning, 'imaginative contemplation of reality', 'direct intellectual apprehension', or 'insight'. In addition, 'theory' and 'speculation' were, at one time, interchangeable, as they share the same root senses (Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1993 [1961]: 2371). In these etymological senses of the word 'theory', one can find justification for the wide spectrum of texts included in Robinson's anthology. Initially, I believed that Robinson's eclecticism could go some way to helping me solve the problem of contextualization, and so the first title for the anthology was 'Chinese translation theory: from earliest times to the Chinese translation of Revolution of 1911'. It is true that 'lilun' (ig)-the the term 'theory'-did not come into currency until some time in the late Qing Dynasty or early Republican era (i.e. late nineteenth or early twentieth century). According to the meaning given in A dictionary of loan words and 'lilun' is 'Renmin you shijiangaikuo hybrid words in Chinese (~M he xft.), shehui de zhishi he yuanli de tixi' chulai de guanyu ziranjie . of literally translated as, 'A system - principles and knowledge about society and about nature generalized by humans from practice'. In modern dictionaries such as Hanyu dacidian ( i*cijA), 'lilun' means 'xitong de lixing renshi' or knowledge based on systematic i7[ ) ('understanding (Mk,3 reasoning'). A number of Chinese translation theorists place great emphasis on this point and have criticized Chinese translation theory for being weak in systematic reasoning and for being too impressionistic in substance or too nationalistic in outlook.5 In the critique of Chinese thinking about translation, one can see how a concept, when carried across via the act of translation into the receiving culture, can be used to discipline the existing body of knowledge on translation. Others, however, hold that Chinese translation theory has a system of its own. This system is built on the premise that theory should be grounded in practice; theory should inform practice. Another defining feature of Chinese translation theory is that it draws heavily from classical aesthetics and poetics, both of which operate not along the axis of systematic reasoning
3One example Robinson himself cites in the 'Editor's preface' is Michel Eyquem de Montaigne's essay 'Des cannibals', portions of which are included in Robinson (1997: 116-8). 4 According to Gideon Toury, 'the main object of a theory is to enable systematic and exhaustive description and explanation of each and every phenomenon within the domain it allegedly covers; or, to put it differently, and more popularly, to permit the generation of all these phenomena and no "alien" ones (generativity thus being a function of the exhaustive account of the factors involved in the process of generation and in the objects generated by this process, which are its [sur]face representations).' (Toury, 1980: 19). SDong Qiusi is an early proponent of such a view (Dong, 1984a; 1984b). Other strong advocates are Tan Zaixi (1997, 2000), Chang Nam Fung (2000) and Zhu Chunshen (2000).

() ?MUi'

lani~N \

A),

which can be

THE MAKING

OF A TRANSLATION

ANTHOLOGY

393

but with a (loose) cluster of related concepts whose meanings are open to constant definition and redefinition.6These two positions seem to me to represent an important divergence of views. Using the title 'Chinese translation theory: from earliest times to the Revolution of 1911' would allow me to discuss, in the introduction, the divergent views expressed by Chinese translation scholars towards 'lilun', or at least set the parameters for the debate. Moreover, deployment of the word 'theory' would also allow me to make use of an opportunity Robinson has let slip in his preface, i.e. problematizing the rigid notion of translation theory prevalent in the West (in China too), and to stimulate thinking, as well as re-thinking, about the nature and function of 'theory' in a humanities subject such as translation studies. There are, however, a number of disadvantages to this tentative title, 'Chinese translation theories: from earliest times to the Revolution of 1911 '. Would it not turn the anthology into a companion volume of Westerntranslation theory:from Herodotus to Nietzsche? What are the ideological implications of this act of pairing? Would it not result in the hardening of boundaries? Worse, would it not serve to erect boundaries where there need be none? I thought at first that the problem could be solved by the use of the word 'theories' rather than 'theory' in the title. The plural form indicates a strategic assertion of difference. It is a gesture to show that while 'Chinese translation theories: from earliest times to the Revolution of 1911 ' keeps Westerntranslation theory: from Herodotus to Nietzsche within hailing distance, it has a separate identity. However, a few nagging problems remain. According to A dictionaryof loan words and hybridwords in Chinese, 'lilun' (' riron' in Japanese) is a Chinese term borrowed by the Japanese to translate the word 'theory', and the Chinese then adopted this term from the Japanese as the translation of 'theory'. That is why it is considered a loan term. The trouble is, 'lilun' carried a meaning of its own at the time it was borrowed by the Japanese to translate 'theory'. It meant 'to argue with'; it also meant 'to discuss, or talk about, or deliberate upon the 'li', i.e. reason, truth, principles, of things' ('lun shiwu zhi li' $fff_ Z _). In other words, instead of inventing a new term for a new concept, a term representing an existing mode of thinking and a mode of presenting thought was suddenly given the new responsibility of representing a different mode of thinking and of presenting thought. The conceptual confusion brought about by this translation decision, and the epistemological consequences likely to arise from such confusion are not hard to imagine. At the very least, they alert me to the need to consider alternative titles for the anthology. There is yet another disturbing question. Does 'Lilun' being a loan term mean that the concept of 'theory' (the meaning which 'lilun' is intended to embody) did not exist in China prior to the late nineteenth or early twentieth century? The significance of this question increases when it is placed beside other, similar, questions such as 'Zhongguo gudai youmeiyou kexue?

(4

~~-j~

?) (Did China have 'science' in ancient times?),7

6 The most effective and influential exponent of this view is Luo Xinzhang. See Luo (1984 [1983]). See also Cheung (2002) for a critical reading and interpretation of Luo's position. SIn recent decades, 'Did China have "science" in ancient times?' has been the preoccupation of scholars (primarily but not exclusively Chinese) working in the areas of history of science, philosophy of science, cultural exchanges between China and the world, and in communication studies. In fact, this very question was the topic of a seminar held in Beijing in 2000. For a succinct recapitulation of the various positions taken by the scholars attending the seminar, see Tian Song (2001). This question, it should be noted, is actually a continuation of the famous question posed by Joseph Needham, the great China scholar and author of the voluminous Science and civilisation in China. Needham puts his question thus: 'Why ... did modern science, the tradition of Galileo, Harvey, Vesalius, Gesner, Newton, universally verifiable and commanding universal rational assent- the tradition destined to form the theoretical basis of the unified world

394

MARTHA P. Y. CHEUNG

'Zhongguo gudai youmeiyou zhexue?' (ti have 'philosophy' in ancient times?)8 What did ancient China have?

8Ir'f

T IV ?)

(Did China

Nowadays, most, probably all, Chinese would regard the terms 'kexue' 'science '), 'zhexue' ( S 'philosophy '), and 'lilun' g ' theory ') as (,fj%4 with universal and would find it quite (]3_ inconceivable that signifiers meanings the bodies of knowledge and the actual practices which these terms designate did not exist in ancient China. It is not surprising, therefore, that the approach most commonly used by Chinese scholars across the disciplines is to argue, implicitly or explicitly, that ancient China did have philosophy, and science, and (translation) theory. With the implicit approach, one does not question the modern definition of these terms but simply assumes the existence of these bodies of knowledge by writing about and asserting their worth, though the manner in which that is done may vary from the matter-of-fact to the defensive to the apologetic. One could, for example, give a philosophical reading of Chinese thought; or one could talk about the great inventions and trace the development of science in ancient China. Or, in preparing for an anthology of texts on Chinese thinking about translation, one could select only those texts which fit the modern definition of the term 'translation theory'. As for the explicit approach, one could argue that the terms 'science', 'philosophy' and 'theory' have, in the modern age in the West, all become more restrictive in meaning and that their pre-modern meaning must therefore be used in dealing with the question of the existence or otherwise of science, or philosophy, or (translation) theory in ancient China. More recently, especially in the last two decades, some scholars in China have adopted a different approach. Philosophy, in the sense in which the term has been defined, however vaguely, in the West, with its emphasis on the features of systematicity, reflection, rationality, and divisibility into subdisciplines such as metaphysics, logic and epistemology, is not something universal. Neither is science. The claims of science or philosophy to universality are false and disguise the imperialistic tendencies of a master narrative shot through with Eurocentric bias. The hegemonic ambition of such a narrative must be resisted.9 The attempts of earlier and contemporary philosophers or historians of science to systematize Chinese thoughts or Chinese inventions and related achievements in accordance with Western conditions of philosophy or of science are weak, if not completely ineffectual means of resistance. To win this battle for the power of discourse, scholars employ two main strategies. In the field of science, some Chinese scholars seek to de-centre and de-legitimize the privileged position Western science is now enjoying by talking about ' sciences' rather than 'science', relying on the plural form to dethrone the
community--develop round the shores of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, and not in China or any other part of Asia?' (Needham, 1954: v.1: 19). For a fuller appreciation of the significance of this question, see Liu Dun and Wang Yangzong (2002). For an overview of the origin and development of the ' Needham question' and its significance in the historiography of world science see Liu Dun (2000). 8 'Did China have "philosophy" in ancient times?' is another question that has been repeatedly discussed, by Chinese as well as China scholars, though its history goes further back than the 'Needham question'. For an incisive summary of the different points of view and ways of dealing with this question see Defoort (2001). SAccording to Wu Guosheng, this explains why so many academics in China take such a passionate interest in debates about whether there were such things as 'science' or 'philosophy' in ancient China. Significantly, the title of his presentation at the seminar on 'Did China have "science" in ancient times?' is 'The battle between the periphery and the centre' (Wu, 2000).

THE MAKING

OF A TRANSLATION

ANTHOLOGY

395

master narrative and putting in its place narratives focused on the influence of different traditions and different civilizations on the development of different sciences in the world.'o Rather than universality, differences are stressed. The plan, discussed earlier, to replace 'theory' with 'theories' in the title of the anthology I am preparing could be considered an effort in this direction. In the field of philosophy, some Chinese scholars simply ignore the term 'philosophy', preferring a different term when dealing with historical material. Mapping the domain.:'thought' This term is 'sixiang' (!,8 'thought')."l The argument is that the mode of thinking introduced and legitimized by the term 'sixiang' allows fuller and more direct access to the Chinese thought tradition because it releases one from the shackles of a mental frame and a way of organizing knowledge governed by Western points of reference. Rather than examining one's material from a Western perspective, with lenses such as 'humanism', 'pragmaticism', 'scepticism', and so on, one could see with unclouded vision. I have my doubts as to whether unclouded vision is possible, but from the term 'thought' I could find a new direction for my anthology project. Compared to 'theory', the conceptual framework of 'thought' opens up the possibility of reading, understanding and interpreting texts on Chinese thinking about translation with a greater sense of freedom and a more intimate sense of the feel of tradition. In the process of selecting texts for inclusion, I did have the feeling that quite a number of texts militated against the label 'theory '. Even if the traditional meaning of the Chinese term 'lilun' (' to discuss, or talk about, or deliberate upon the 'li', i.e. reasons, principles, of things ') is invoked, the anthology might still be open to the criticism of being unfocused. Or the anthology might be open to criticisms of the sort close to Hegel's notorious dismissal of 'Chinese philosophy '.12 A volume entitled 'Chinese thought on translation: an anthology of texts from ancient times to the Revolution of 1911' would be a more effective affirmation of difference, and a more powerful assertion of a separate tradition that must be studied and appreciated on its own terms. More importantly, such a mode of categorization would result in a new alignment of knowledge. Knowledge of Chinese thought on translation would be aligned with the body of knowledge classified as 'Chinese thought tradition'. This, in turn, would go a long way towards enabling me to solve the problem of contextualization.
10 Yuan Jiangyang (quoted in Tian, 2002, 37) takes the view that the writing of the history of science must be built on the premise that there is an inseparable relationship between science and the civilization in which it is rooted, and that therefore 'sciences' rather than 'science' is the proper concern of historians of science. It should be stressed, however, that it was Joseph Needham who, in 1945, proposed the inclusion of an 'S' for science in UNESCO. (Liu Dun, 2000). The difference(s) between the discursive position of Chinese scholars such as Yuan and that of Needham is a question beyond the scope of this article, but a critical application of Edward Said's notion of 'orientalist discourse' (Said, 1985 [1978]) may lead to interesting and controversial readings. 'thought') to 'zhexue' (9 "11Ge Zhaoguang has explained why he prefers 'sixiang' (,, 'philosophy' ) as a category of knowledge, and his views of historiography in the introduction to his two-volume Zhongguo Sixiangshi (r History of Chinese thought, 2001a). He has Carine Defoort: 'Is there such a thing as Chinese also responded to the question raised by,Pat philosophy?' in a recent article (Ge, 2001b). He calls this question a 'false' question, but argues that it has a genuine history--a history of conflicting views about the carving of academic domains--and that it is therefore a question that cannot be simply pushed aside (Ge, 2001b). His article captures very well the predicament of contemporary Chinese scholars committed to the battle for the power of discourse. 12 Hegel dismissed Chinese philosophy as being commonplace, lacking in speculative philosophy, and, if it is indicative of thought, thought soon 'goes into the clouds, and Philosophy does likewise' (Hegel, 1999: v.1: 119-25)

396

MARTHA P. Y. CHEUNG

Texts from the Chinese thought tradition could be translated for inclusion to provide the readers with a sense of the background, or the natural habitat, so to speak, against which some of the Chinese concepts of translation should be understood. Let me illustrate this point with an example. The concepts of 'xin' (If), 'da' ( ), 'ya' (M) used by the Chinese scholar Yan Fu ( ) (Yan Fu, 1984 [1898]) to highlight the difficulties of translation are translated most frequently as 'faithfulness' ('xin '), 'comprehensibility' ('da '), and 'elegance' ('ya '). As these three terms are used in the English-speaking world to represent concepts in Western translation theory, the question arises as to how fully they could convey the Chinese concepts. To Western readers, 'faithfulness', 'comprehensibility' and 'elegance' are familiar concepts rooted in a long tradition of theorization about translation. It would be natural, if not inevitable, for such readers to assume that these two sets of concepts overlap and are neat equivalents. Whatever differences there may be between these two sets of concepts would remain hidden, or would simply be erased. Readers who are more ready to appreciate differences may point to the part of Yan Fu's essay where he alluded to Confucius and the Book of Changes to lend authority to his arguments: The Book of Changes says, 'Sincerity is the essence of rhetoric'. Confucius says, 'Words are to convey ideas'. He also says, 'Where language has no refinement, it will not travel far'. These sayings point to the correct way to writing and may serve as the guide to translation as well (translated by Mary Fung, in Cheung, forthcoming [b]). But unless information is provided to make the allusions clear, and to explain why Yan Fu sought authority from texts that go back at least two-thousand years, readers would still not be able to see that 'xin ', 'da' and 'ya' are rooted in a tradition of their own and may not be the exact equivalents of 'faithfulness ', 'comprehensibility' and 'elegance '. The translation problems thus involved have been articulated perceptively by Theo Hermans: '...where do we locate Yan Fu's concepts in the web of Western, in this case English, terms, and what would be an appropriate vocabulary to render them?' (Hermans, 2003: 383) These problems can be solved, I believe, in a particular way within the unique space provided by an anthology entitled 'Chinese thought on translation: an anthology of texts from the ancient times to the Revolution of 1911 '. For then texts from the Chinese thought tradition could be included so that the allusion to Confucius and to the Book of Changes cited in the example above, as well as other key allusions, can be read in their proper contexts. The textual echoes can be explained in the footnotes so that the readers will be alerted. In addition, texts that explore the relationship between language ( yan) and meaning (' yi), and between names (? ming) and actualities (W shi)-two prominent themes in Chinese composition-can be selected from the work of ancient Chinese masters to provide the readers with a glimpse-however fleeting, however scattered-of the thought tradition upon which thought on translation so often rested. I call this strategy 'translation by layering and conceptual networking'. Selected texts from the Chinese thought tradition form the first layer beneath the translated texts. The entire Chinese thought tradition forms the second and submerged layer. Knowledge of this second layer is not required for understanding the translated texts, as the existence of this second layer in the anthology is more virtual than real, but pointing to its implicit presence (in the 'introduction', for example) should increase readers' awareness of the

THE MAKING

OF A TRANSLATION

ANTHOLOGY

397

depth and richness of the tradition. As for 'conceptual networking', it is effected by a number of semantic clusters. A cluster would gather round a central concept in Chinese thought on translation. Take for instance the concept 'xin' (f-). It takes on different meanings in different contexts, and when it collocates with other Chinese words. To give just a few examples, it can collocate with the word 'ke' (?T 'can') to form 'kexin' (iiJ?g 'can be trusted', 'trustworthy' or 'reliable '), with 'cheng' (Ci 'sincere') to form 'chengxin' 'integrity'), or with 'yi' (& 'righteousness') to form 'xinyi' (fA- 'good (-?-- '). All these combinations will form the 'xin' cluster. The clusters themfaith selves are also connected, through the semantic and other reverberations set off by the concepts themselves. ' Ya' (V 'elegance '), for example, is connected with 'wen' (-?Z'literariness') by the logic of similarity, and with 'pu' (4j 'simplicity') by the logic of near opposition. These semantic clusters and their webbed connections will be made explicit in the footnotes and perhaps a separate glossary. The advantages of mapping the domain with the category of 'thought' are obvious. But the disadvantages are also significant. Affiliating Chinese thought on translation with the Chinese thought tradition might turn the former into a mere appendage of the latter, as the latter has seldom, if ever, paid any attention to theorization about translation. Given the fact that translation is still struggling to establish for itself the status of an independent discipline in China, such an alignment would not help to promote the status of translation. And while such an alignment holds the attraction of turning my anthology project into part of an overall attempt carried out on many fronts by academics in China to assert the status of different branches of knowledge in ancient China as being resistant to Western mapping of knowledge, I realized, upon reflection, that the promise of solidarity notwithstanding, such an attempt is ideologically suspect. It might, unless very carefully nuanced, result in a master narrative that is essentializing (because charged with strong nationalistic sentiments) and no less blinkered in vision than those Eurocentric master narratives I have spoken against earlier on. It might also bespeak a notion of the self that is homogeneous, and of an authentic tradition that is recoverable-notions to which I do not subscribe.13 Mapping the domain: 'discourse' If, as I said in the opening paragraph, 'Chinese' is a levitational word, a word with floating meanings, then how far can I risk de-centring ' Chineseness' away from essentializing discourses? How can I best negotiate the discursive divide, between the pitfalls of a newly resurgent academic sinocentrism on the one hand and an equally dangerous tendency to universalize Western theoretical practices at the expense of local rearticulations on the other? It is in answer to these questions that I settle upon the term 'discourse' as a category of knowledge. I like this term because it is much less 'innocent', much less neutral in theoretical connotations than the term 'thought'. In the hands of Michel Foucault and other postcolonial critics, the word 'discourse' has become part of a network of interlocking concepts, the others being knowledge, power, ideology and language. The word has also acquired
13 Li Shen has, in an article filled, at times unnecessarily, with scathing criticisms of Ge (2001b) pointed out that 'sixiang' (fi,~ 'thought') is also a term borrowed from the Japanese and therefore no purer than the term 'zhexue' (ZAi 'philosophy'). He also points out that every generation of scholars has its own special preoccupations and topics of concern and therefore its own ways of carving up knowledge for study (Li, 2002). I agree with his view. I think there is no avoiding the carving up of knowledge. The question is how, and to what purpose.

398

MARTHA P. Y. CHEUNG

Discourseon Translation (Chinese) discourse tr on Indirect mode Subterranean mode Explicit Direct discourse translation on Inward-looking Outward-looking

FIG. 1. Discourse on translation.

meanings in the discipline of linguistics whilst still retaining its simple and ordinary meaning, 'the expression of ideas; esp. formal and orderly expression in speech or writing'. Because the word has complex strands of meanings, I hope that its presence in the main title, 'An anthology of Chinese discourse on translation' would alert readers to possible multiple meanings in interpretation. This would be a response much more desirable than that of going into a relatively preset mode of seeing-a reaction that might be triggered by the word 'theory' (or 'theories '). It would also be a response much more desirable than that of registering neutral connotations-a reaction that might come with the word 'thought'. The advantages of mapping the domain with 'discourse' can be seen in Figure 1, which I have worked out for the purpose of this anthology project, but which should have relevance beyond the Chinese domain. The conceptual frame set up by this scheme, 'Discourse on translation', is made up of two broad categories-direct discourse on translation and indirect discourse on translation. The former can be divided into inward-looking and outward-looking modes, while the latter consists of the subterranean and the explicit modes. The inward-looking mode of the direct discourse on translation includes texts discoursing on topics such as the nature and being of translation, the different forms translation takes, or has been perceived to take (interlinear, interlingual, intersemiotic, direct, indirect, fake, assumed, pseudo, professional, natural, etc.), principles and strategies of translation, criteria of translation, etc. The list is not exhaustive. The outward-looking mode includes texts that address the relation between translation and outside factors. For example, the importance of translation in society and in history; the relation between translation and the source culture, between translation and the target culture; the training of translators, etc. As can be seen from the diagram, these two modes of direct discourse on translation are separated by a dotted line. This means that the boundary is not rigidly fixed and, depending on the perspective and the point of emphasis, texts on the same topic could be grouped differently. An unbroken line separates the direct and indirect discourse on translation, but there are two arrows linking the subterranean and explicit modes of the indirect discourse on translation to the direct discourse on translation. There is also an arrow linking the outward-looking mode of the direct discourse on translation with the inward-looking mode. This means that the texts belonging to the category where the end of the arrow is could serve as raw material for the production of direct discourse on translation-either of the inward-looking mode or of the outward-looking mode, or both. The category 'direct discourse on translation' encompasses material conventionally labelled as 'theory', but it does not subject the anthology to questions of the sort raised earlier in the section on' theory '-whether ' theory' is to be understood in its broad (pre-modern) or narrow (modern) sense, whether the concept of 'theory' provides an appropriate conceptual grid for my material, whether the concept of 'Chinese translation theory' would invite

THE MAKING OF A TRANSLATION ANTHOLOGY

399

contrast with 'Western translation theory' and the implications of such dichotomous thinking. All these questions can still be investigated, but the category opens up space for other dimensions of understanding-the relation between discourse on translation and factors such as power and ideology, for example, as will be made clear in the following paragraph. As for the category 'indirect discourse on translation', it creates space for texts from the Chinese thought tradition to be included so that glimpses of an intellectual tradition in which many key translation concepts are rooted can be provided. Of course, by not forging an explicit link in the title between Chinese thought on translation and the Chinese thought tradition, the effect of' translation by layering', though not the effect of' translation by conceptual networking', would be weakened. But what is lost with the disappearance of the second layer would be compensated for by the extension of the area covered by the first layer. In addition to texts from the Chinese thought tradition, texts which might otherwise be homeless, so to speak, could be given a place in either the subterranean or explicit mode of this category. Examples include texts which are historical records (of facts such as the titles of translatinginterpreting officials in dynastic China), but which throw light on the sociology of translation, or on translation as an institutionalized practice steeped in the power and ideology of the time. With such a broadening of the first layer, the question of contextualization could be dealt with just as effectively, even if it could never be thoroughly solved. This scheme can be used to organize and structure ancient, modern and contemporary texts on Chinese thinking about translation, in which case it could be called 'Chinese discourse on translation '.14 But it could be used for other thinking as well, and the word 'Chinese' can be replaced by 'Indian', 'German', 'Spanish' and so on. When different cultures have each taken an inventory of their discourse on translation, and the texts have been placed in the various categories, then a pattern of development, and the special characteristics of discourses on translation produced by different cultures will emerge. It will be seen, I think, that some cultures show a greater preoccupation with certain topics and certain questions than others, or that some cultures have a preference for the inward-looking mode of direct discourse on translation while others are more outward-looking. Discussions can then be carried out as to why that should be the case, and researcherscan, from their particular locations and their situated knowledges,15 speak to one another and, through what is called shared conversation in epistemology, construct webbed connections between different accounts of thinkings about translation in different cultures. At that point, the work of cross-cultural comparison could be conducted and, hopefully, comparative knowledge could be generated without any single culture, or group of cultures, setting the conditions for investigation, or dictating the points of reference. Conclusion By presenting the texts on Chinese thinking about translation as 'Chinese discourse on translation', will I be taking too big a risk with de-centring
14 This scheme has been proposed with the interventionist purpose of bringing about in China a more holistic way of treating historical and documental material on Chinese thinking about translation. See Cheung (forthcoming [c]). I 151 have borrowed the term 'situated knowledges' and the notion of shared conversation from Donna Haraway and I find in her article, 'Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective' a forceful theoretical articulation of what I have been groping towards in the making of this anthology (Haraway, 1988).

400

MARTHA P. Y. CHEUNG

'Chineseness' in my project? I have steered clear of any resurgent academic sinocentrism, but will I be importing/imposing theoretical practices from the centre and thus muffling the voice from the periphery? I might. Still, the risk is worth taking if the anthology can, in however tentative and however clumsy a manner, achieve its interventionist purpose of eventually bringing about shared, non-innocent, and power-sensitive conversations across and between cultures.
REFERENCES Chang, Nam Fung. 2000. 'Texing yu Gongxing-Lun Zhongguo fanyixue yu fanyixue de guanxi' ) (Chinese translatology and its specific charac(WWW H!~{ -~[~i~k@~M > (Chinese Translators' Journal), 2000/2, 2-7. teristics), Zhongguofanyi <qg:Ig Martha P. Y. 2002. 'Power and ideology in translation research in twentieth century Cheung, China: an analysis of three seminal works', in Theo Hermans (ed.), Crosscultural transgressions: research models in translation studies II: historical and ideological issues. Manchester: St Jerome, 144-64. Cheung, Martha P. Y. Forthcoming [a].' Representation, mediation and intervention: a translation anthologist's reflections on three key issues in cross-cultural understanding', in the Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Seminars 2002. vol. 4. Leuven: CETRA. Cheung, Martha P. Y. Forthcoming [b]. An anthology of Chinese discourse on translation:from ancient times to the Revolution of 1911. Cheung, Martha P. Y. Forthcoming [c]. 'Zhongguo yixue lilun jianshe de ji dian jianyi' (@S ~tMlAfls/i ), (A few suggestions for the development of 'theory' in translation studies in China). Defoort, Carine. 2001. 'Is there such a thing as Chinese philosophy? Arguments of an implicit debate', in Philosophy East & West, 51/3, 393-413. Dong, Qiusi. 1984a (1950).' Fanyi piping de lilun he zhongdian' (<>PNia (On the lgY[lg) criteria and emphases of translation criticism), in Fanyi yanjiu lunwenji.(<H gg~~gg ). Beijing: Waiyu jiaoxue yu yanjiu chubanshe, 25-9. Dong, Qiusi. 1984b (1951). ' Lun fanyi lilun de jianshe' ( M (On the establishment of translation theory), in Luo Xianzhang (ed.), 536-44. -) Zhaoguang. 2001 Ge, Zhaoguang. 2001a. Zhongguo Sixiangshi (<tp>) (History of Chinese thought). Shanghai: Fudan daxue chubanshe. Ge, Zhaoguang. 2001b.' Chuan yijian chicun buhe de yishan-guanyu zhongguo zhexue he rujiao (Wearing RgAgyi zhenglun' ( -) clothes -de do not fit: on debates about the definitions of Chinese philosophy and of that Confucianism as a religion). Kaifang shidai (K Vol. 11, 49-55. ~nf-Q), Hanyu dacidian g . 1995 (1990). Shanghai: Hanyu Dacidian chubanshe. (A dictionary of loan words and hybrid words in Chinese). Hanyu wailaici cidian g 1984. Shanghai: Shanghai Cishu chubanshe. ~~, Haraway, Donna. 1988. 'Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective', in Feminist Studies, 14/3, 575-99. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. (Haldane, E. S. (trans.)). 1999. Lectures on the history of philosophy. Bristol and Sterling, VA: Thoemmes Press. Hermans, Theo. 2003. 'Cross-cultural translation studies as thick translation'. BSOAS 66/3, 2003, 380-89. Li Shen. 2002. 'Weiwenti yu bolaiyu: du Ge Zhaoguang de Chuan yijian chicun buhe de yishan' rg ia (r{~gflyJ tW ' ) (False question and loan (-words: a response to Ge Zhaoguang's Chuan yijian chicun buhe de yishan). t, -~J~1L-lLiu Dun. 2000. 'A new survey of the " Needham question ".' Studies in the History of Natural Sciences ((< 1.t >, 19/4, 293-305. Liu Dun and Wang Yangzong (ed.). 2002. Zhongguo kexue yu kexue geming: Li Yuesenan tiji qi xiangguan wenti yanjiu lunzhuxuan i : '-jalNii Mf Tgg1 (Science and scientific revolution "Iji 4 in China:, a collection of essays on the 'Needham problem' and related questions). Shenyang Shi: Liaoning jiao yu chu ban she. Luo Xinzhang (ed.). 1984. Fanyi lunji #=gjk. (An anthology of essays on translation). Beijing: Commercial Press. Luo Xinzhang. 1984 (1983). 'Woguo zichengtixi de fanyi lilun' (~f(A ~ ?~~) system of its own--our country's translation theories), in Luo Xinzhang (ed.), 1-19. Needham, Joseph. 1954. Science and civilisation in China. vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, Douglas. 1997. Western translation theory.: from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing. Said, Edward. 1985 (1978). Orientalism. London: Penguin. Tan Zaixi. 1997. 'Reflections on the science of translation'. Babel 43/4: 331-52. Tan Zaixi. 2000. Fanyixue gg (The science of translation). Hubei: Hubei Jiaoyu Chubanshe. Tian Song. 2001. 'Kexue huayuquan de zhengduo ji celue' (Strategies (-g~?7gga\)

THE MAKING OF A TRANSLATION ANTHOLOGY

401

for the discourse of science and the battle for the power of discourse in science). Dushu gg, September, 31-9. Toury, Gideon. 1980. In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University. Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language, unabridged. 1993 (1961). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. > (The battle between the Wu, Guosheng. 2000. 'Bianyuen yu zhongxin zhi zhen' (<K i)4%WL periphery and the center). Impact of science on society K4 ?gfg?3F) >. 2000/4, 51-3. ( Yan, Fu. 1984 (1898). 'Tianyanlun yiliyan'. ) gfqlJ) (General remarks on translation Luo prefixed to Evolution and Ethics), in ((.ggiXinzhang (ed.), 136-7. Zhu, Chunshen. 2000. 'Zouchu wuqu tajin shijie-Zhongguo Yixue: fansi yu qianzhan' ~M --r 9Mis : iM 1)3> (A critical review of Chinese translation <(t studies: towards a globalised perspective). Zhongguo fanyi (K~q i>) (Chinese A~. Translators' Journal). 2000/1, 2-9.