What's modern in Chinese translation theory? Lu Xun and the debates on literalism and foreignization in the May Fourth period

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

Abstract

This article attempts to assess the contribution of Chinese translators and theorists of the 1920's and 1930's, in particular the famous writer Lu Xun, whom I consider the first modern translation theorist in China. It is with him that China entered its modern phase in translation. Not only did he advocate retaining the foreignness of the original text, in a way reminiscent of the entire tradition of German Romantic translation theorists from Schleiermacher to von Humboldt to Goethe; he also explored in his own translations the possibilities for enriching the Chinese language through the importation of Europeanized structures and expressions. It is these foreignizing impulses that set Lu Xun apart most clearly from pre-modern Chinese theorists. At the same time, these impulses connect him with leading giants of translation theory like Nabokov and Benjamin (who emphasized the importance of the literal method in translation) on the one hand, and Venuti and Holmes (who highlighted processes of indigenization and exoticization in translation) on the other. Lu Xun's ideas had a particular place in the wider cultural and historical context. Views similar to his had been advocated by his predecessors at the beginning of the century, whose attempt to Europeanize the classical language did not, unfortunately, find a large following. In his own time, Lu found ardent supporters among friends and colleagues who either (1) suggested thorough Europeanization, or (2) preferred limited Europeanization. Dissenting views, however, were clearly voiced by some of the other leading writers of the day. So, there were (A) those who favored the use of a language based on the actual words spoken by the populace and (B) those who queried why one should not learn a foreign language and read the original instead. My article deals at length with the debates among these theorists and seeks to understand them from the perspectives of contemporary Western translation theory. 3 Figures, 21 References. Adapted from the source document
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)195-223
Number of pages29
JournalTTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2001

Fingerprint

Translation Theory
Literalism
Lu Xun
Foreignization
Theorists
Translation Theorists
Europeanization
China
Writer
Impulse
Premodern
Chinese Language
Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
Vladimir Nabokov
Translator
Source Document
Friedrich Schleiermacher
Giant
Modern Translation
Historical Context

Cite this

@article{19faa7848e874430bcd8f79806661866,
title = "What's modern in Chinese translation theory? Lu Xun and the debates on literalism and foreignization in the May Fourth period",
abstract = "This article attempts to assess the contribution of Chinese translators and theorists of the 1920's and 1930's, in particular the famous writer Lu Xun, whom I consider the first modern translation theorist in China. It is with him that China entered its modern phase in translation. Not only did he advocate retaining the foreignness of the original text, in a way reminiscent of the entire tradition of German Romantic translation theorists from Schleiermacher to von Humboldt to Goethe; he also explored in his own translations the possibilities for enriching the Chinese language through the importation of Europeanized structures and expressions. It is these foreignizing impulses that set Lu Xun apart most clearly from pre-modern Chinese theorists. At the same time, these impulses connect him with leading giants of translation theory like Nabokov and Benjamin (who emphasized the importance of the literal method in translation) on the one hand, and Venuti and Holmes (who highlighted processes of indigenization and exoticization in translation) on the other. Lu Xun's ideas had a particular place in the wider cultural and historical context. Views similar to his had been advocated by his predecessors at the beginning of the century, whose attempt to Europeanize the classical language did not, unfortunately, find a large following. In his own time, Lu found ardent supporters among friends and colleagues who either (1) suggested thorough Europeanization, or (2) preferred limited Europeanization. Dissenting views, however, were clearly voiced by some of the other leading writers of the day. So, there were (A) those who favored the use of a language based on the actual words spoken by the populace and (B) those who queried why one should not learn a foreign language and read the original instead. My article deals at length with the debates among these theorists and seeks to understand them from the perspectives of contemporary Western translation theory. 3 Figures, 21 References. Adapted from the source document",
author = "CHAN, {Tak Hung, Leo}",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.7202/000576ar",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "195--223",
journal = "TTR: Traduction, Terminologie et Redaction",
issn = "0835-8443",
publisher = "Canadian Association for Translation Studies",
number = "2",

}

What's modern in Chinese translation theory? Lu Xun and the debates on literalism and foreignization in the May Fourth period. / CHAN, Tak Hung, Leo.

In: TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Redaction, Vol. 14, No. 2, 01.01.2001, p. 195-223.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)Researchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - What's modern in Chinese translation theory? Lu Xun and the debates on literalism and foreignization in the May Fourth period

AU - CHAN, Tak Hung, Leo

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - This article attempts to assess the contribution of Chinese translators and theorists of the 1920's and 1930's, in particular the famous writer Lu Xun, whom I consider the first modern translation theorist in China. It is with him that China entered its modern phase in translation. Not only did he advocate retaining the foreignness of the original text, in a way reminiscent of the entire tradition of German Romantic translation theorists from Schleiermacher to von Humboldt to Goethe; he also explored in his own translations the possibilities for enriching the Chinese language through the importation of Europeanized structures and expressions. It is these foreignizing impulses that set Lu Xun apart most clearly from pre-modern Chinese theorists. At the same time, these impulses connect him with leading giants of translation theory like Nabokov and Benjamin (who emphasized the importance of the literal method in translation) on the one hand, and Venuti and Holmes (who highlighted processes of indigenization and exoticization in translation) on the other. Lu Xun's ideas had a particular place in the wider cultural and historical context. Views similar to his had been advocated by his predecessors at the beginning of the century, whose attempt to Europeanize the classical language did not, unfortunately, find a large following. In his own time, Lu found ardent supporters among friends and colleagues who either (1) suggested thorough Europeanization, or (2) preferred limited Europeanization. Dissenting views, however, were clearly voiced by some of the other leading writers of the day. So, there were (A) those who favored the use of a language based on the actual words spoken by the populace and (B) those who queried why one should not learn a foreign language and read the original instead. My article deals at length with the debates among these theorists and seeks to understand them from the perspectives of contemporary Western translation theory. 3 Figures, 21 References. Adapted from the source document

AB - This article attempts to assess the contribution of Chinese translators and theorists of the 1920's and 1930's, in particular the famous writer Lu Xun, whom I consider the first modern translation theorist in China. It is with him that China entered its modern phase in translation. Not only did he advocate retaining the foreignness of the original text, in a way reminiscent of the entire tradition of German Romantic translation theorists from Schleiermacher to von Humboldt to Goethe; he also explored in his own translations the possibilities for enriching the Chinese language through the importation of Europeanized structures and expressions. It is these foreignizing impulses that set Lu Xun apart most clearly from pre-modern Chinese theorists. At the same time, these impulses connect him with leading giants of translation theory like Nabokov and Benjamin (who emphasized the importance of the literal method in translation) on the one hand, and Venuti and Holmes (who highlighted processes of indigenization and exoticization in translation) on the other. Lu Xun's ideas had a particular place in the wider cultural and historical context. Views similar to his had been advocated by his predecessors at the beginning of the century, whose attempt to Europeanize the classical language did not, unfortunately, find a large following. In his own time, Lu found ardent supporters among friends and colleagues who either (1) suggested thorough Europeanization, or (2) preferred limited Europeanization. Dissenting views, however, were clearly voiced by some of the other leading writers of the day. So, there were (A) those who favored the use of a language based on the actual words spoken by the populace and (B) those who queried why one should not learn a foreign language and read the original instead. My article deals at length with the debates among these theorists and seeks to understand them from the perspectives of contemporary Western translation theory. 3 Figures, 21 References. Adapted from the source document

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/1682

U2 - 10.7202/000576ar

DO - 10.7202/000576ar

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 14

SP - 195

EP - 223

JO - TTR: Traduction, Terminologie et Redaction

JF - TTR: Traduction, Terminologie et Redaction

SN - 0835-8443

IS - 2

ER -