专著推荐 | Translation and Chinese Modernity

Reflections on Translation and Chinese Modernity

Translation is more than a linguistic act or an act of art; it is also an ethical and social one, which is purpose-driven and heavily influenced by ideology. Historians and scholars of cultural studies confirm this ideological role, although they only acknowledge it when they feel compelled to do so (Chen & Zhang 2000, p. 117). The function of translation is particularly important during cultural transformations of a nation; its role should not be replaced by those of other academic disciplines. Translation is, in short, inextricably intertwined with the modernity of a country and the rejuvenation of a nation.

Alan Swingewood, a British sociologist, proposes

modernity as a structural concept dealing with the transformation of whole societies, ideologies, social structures and culture. Modernity confirms the promise of scientific reason to unmask irrational forces and point the way to necessary social change. Modernity thus implies historical awareness, a consciousness of historical continuity and the ways the past continues to live in the present. (Swingewood 1998, p. 140)

This also serves as a particularly apt comment on the translation practices in modern China. From the late 19th through the early 20th centuries, a number of outstanding intellectuals such as Yan Fu (Yen Fu, 1854–1921), Lin Shu (Lin Qinnan, ←ix | x→1852–1924), Liang Qichao (Liang Chi-chao, 1873–1929) and Lu Xun (Lu Hsun, Zhou Shuren, 1881–1936) took as their mission in life the reform of misgovernment and the replacement of outdated institutions. In particular, they employed the powerful weapon of translation in an attempt to transform the Chinese society and culture of the time. According to Aying (A Ying, Qian Xingcun, 1900–1977), a Chinese critic and historian of modern Chinese literature, there were more translated works than originally created ones among all the publications during the late Qing Dynasty and the early years of the Republic of China (1980, p. 180). Translators enjoyed higher status than authors, and those translation activities directly contributed to the ensuing New Culture Movement, China’s intellectual revolution critiquing traditional Chinese culture and advocating Western ideals, in the mid-1910s and 1920s.

The way those Chinese thinkers and translators at the turn of the century reacted was obviously reflective of the times as Yang observes that

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries when they clearly realized that lagging behind would invite being bullied but also galvanize them into making determined efforts to strengthen the country, the attitude toward the role of translation turned out to be definitely different, even to the extent of fundamental subversion of the practice in an attempt to search for the opportunities for the development of Chinese culture. This new attitude toward translation was suffused with a great sense of urgency and enlightenment. (Yang 1988, p. 69)

Lu Xun was a typical example. When studying in Japan, he had hoped to help his fellow countrymen through medical science but, when later realizing that their deep malady lay not in the body but in the soul, he switched from the study of medicine to literature. During his literary career, translation and writing went in tandem, with the former even playing a leading role. So Lu Xun’s translation constituted an act of cultural transformation, the purpose of which was to introduce Western culture in order to transform Chinese literature and, in turn, transform Chinese society and its unenlightened national character. To him, to change Chinese literature must start with language reform, which then must start with translation. His idea of yingyi (roughly meaning ‘rigid literal translation’) became a violent means of language reform, challenging the dominant status of wenyan (or the classical Chinese language) at that time.

To this day, there are still many articles, to be sure, which are critical of Lu Xun’s unsmooth yingyi translation. Historically speaking, it is clear that free translation prevailed at his time. Many of those free translation practitioners were diehard traditionalists, asserting that Chinese culture was far superior to that of the West and therefore Western literature was translated in such a way that everything ←x | xi→should be adapted to the Chinese perspective, linguistic or otherwise. As a result, misreading and misunderstanding were frequently seen in free translation at the time. It is easy to imagine what good it could have done to China’s progress and national rejuvenation. It was exactly against this background that Lu Xun insisted on literal or even yingyi translation. Only with such an open mind in the process of translation, as his argument went, could Western culture be truly introduced to China.

Yingyi would bring in both the good and the bad. As time went by, however, the good would naturally be assimilated into Chinese culture, while the undesirable would necessarily be eliminated (Lu 1997, p. 211). Now, nearly a century on, his idea on translation still enjoys its strong relevance. The philosophy behind yingyi which he advocated is still held in esteem today by postmodern postcolonial scholars in the West, so its universal value is self-evident (Venuti 1998).

The early translation activities in Chinese universities were also closely linked to Chinese modernity (Luo 2009, pp. 245–256). Take the “great four masters” of traditional Chinese culture at Tsinghua University then for example. Liang Qichao called for the translation of political fiction, the purpose of which was to bring in his “new citizenship”, “new learning” and “new governance”. Wang Guowei (Wang Kuo-wei, 1877–1927), translated Western philosophical works in the hope of metaphysically enriching the Chinese academic landscape and carrying Chinese culture forward from an epistemological perspective, as can be seen from his articles commenting, from a philosophical angle, on the English translation by Gu Hongming (Ku Hung-ming, 1857–1928), a well-known Chinese scholar in both Chinese and western civilization, of the classic Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong). Chen Yinke (Tschen Yin-koh, Chen Yinque, 1890–1969), another of the great four, an influential Chinese historian, employed translation to collect the evidence and corroborate the cultural exchanges between China and the outside world. His approach to the verification of history through translation created a new academic paradigm. At the time, the Chinese translation of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Zhao Yuanren (Chao Yuen-Ren, 1892–1982), one of the founding figures in modern Chinese linguistics and another of the four, was intended not merely to introduce a Western literary work to his fellow countrymen but, through it, to create a refreshing and lively version of spoken Chinese. More importantly, he hoped to introduce children’s literature to China, which was appallingly lacking at the time. Later scholars or alumni from Tsinghua such as Hong Shen, Wen Yiduo, Li Jianwu, and Cao Yu also committed themselves to translation, adaptation, and writing so as to transform the society and shape China’s modernity by means of the theatrical stage.←xi | xii→

Chinese modernity was also reflected in the Tsing Hua Weekly, which was published by the University. During the 20 years from 1916 to 1936, the Tsing Hua Weekly published 439 translated articles, of which 187 were on social sciences, 67 on natural sciences, and 185 on arts and humanities. Noteworthy examples include “The Wild Flower’s Song” (1922), “The Development of Capitalism and the Schools of Economics” (1929), “A Overview of Contemporary Scandinavian Literature” (1933), “Some Aspects of the Danubian Problem” (1934), “On Cultural Heritage” (1936), and “Theory and Organization of Soviet Science” (1936). These translations played an invaluable role in shaping China’s intellectual thought, setting up a system of academic disciplines in tertiary education, disseminating academic ideas, and introducing Western research methodology.

Today, with the integration of the global economy, there is no soil for the existence of unilateralism. Both East and West are facing cultural transformation and adjustment, which means another new development opportunity for translation because cultural construction and cultural identity are, of necessity, closely linked to translation. In the translation of philosophical works, for example, incorrect renderings of the terminology may mislead people ideologically, or even worse, cause the distortion of cultural identity. This explains why many Western scholars—such as Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man, Hillis Miller, Gayatri Spivak, Homi Bhabha, Susan Bassnet, and Lawrence Venuti—have explored the issues of cultural reconstruction and translation from an interdisciplinary perspective. Although Western-centrism has already been questioned by most scholars, including those of the West, the voice of their Chinese counterparts is relatively weak in the reconstruction of world culture and world literature. They should therefore stand firm on their own academic traditions and consciously strengthen the efforts in translating the great works of Chinese culture and in developing its translation theories on the basis of a fine appreciation of the culture and academic thoughts of the West. This will be a critical move to enhance a country’s soft power and an urgent mission of strategic importance as well.

翻译活动在中国现代性的构建进程中扮演了不可替代的角色，中国的现代性离不开翻译。本书从四个方面探讨了翻译与中国现代性的互通互融：翻译对中国的语言革新、文学改造和社会变革起到了革故鼎新的作用；翻译本身是一种教育行为，通往承前启后的改造之路，并折射出为现代性所强调的科学理性之光；好的翻译疏通淤塞，成为文化传播的桥梁，使中国文化与世界其他民族的文化结缘；翻译研究本身是一门具有创新性的学科，它以自身作为结点，借助其他学科丰富自身，究理探新，体现着现代性的价值理念。全书以丰富的翻译史料和理论研究构建出翻译与中国现代性交相辉映的图景，既为已完成的研究成果梳理出清晰的脉络，也期待为后续的研究铺设道路。

关于翻译与中国现代性的思考（代序）

翻译不仅仅是一种语言行为、艺术行为，它还是一种伦理行为、社会行为，为目的所控制，意识形态在其中扮演极为重要的角色。这种角色的作用连历史学家、文化研究者也不予否认，尽管他们只是在不得已的情况下才承认它。

翻译的作用在一个民族的文化转型时期显得尤其重要，其功能没有其他学科可以替代，它与一个国家的现代性、一个民族的振兴息息相关。西方学者阿兰·斯威伍德（Alan Swingewood）指出：“现代性是关于整个社会、意识形态、文化改造的整体概念，它以科学理性为前提，揭露非理性的假面具，指明必要的社会变革之路。所以，现代性意味着历史的觉醒，意味着历史渐进的自觉，意味着过去继续通往改造之路。”

这一点十分适合中国近代翻译实践。在19世纪末20世纪初，一批优秀的知识分子，如严复、林纾、梁启超、鲁迅等，将改革弊政、破旧立新作为己任，以翻译为利器，对当时中国的社会与文化进行全面的改造。根据阿英的统计，在清末民初的所有出版物中，翻译比创作更多，翻译家的地位甚至高于作者，翻译活动直接影响了后来的新文化运动。

世纪转折时期的思想家和翻译家有着明显的时代特征。“在19世纪、20世纪之际自觉落后挨打而发愤图强的情境中的翻译姿态与之自是不同，甚至以根本性的翻译的翻转来寻找中国文化的发展之机。新的翻译姿态中弥漫着忧患意识和启蒙意识。”

鲁迅便是一个典型。留学日本时，他希望从医治人，但后来发现国人之病不在躯体，而在精神，于是，弃医从文。在他的文学道路上，翻译与创作并行不悖，前者甚至起到引领的作用。鲁迅的翻译是一种文化改造行为，其目的是通过翻译来引进西方文化，变革中国文学，进而改造中国社会，改造落后的国民性。变革中国的文学，必须从变革语言入手；变革语言，又需要从翻译入手。“硬译”于是成为语言变革的暴力手段，挑战当时占主流地位的文言文。时至今日，还有不少文章诟病鲁迅的不顺翻译。如果放在一个历史的维度来看，就能清楚地发现，在鲁迅时期，意译派占上风。不少意译者泥古不化，自认为中国文化万万优越于西方，所以，以中国之言、中国之事来翻译西方作品。当时的意译，常常是误读与误解，如此翻译对中国的进步和民族的振兴何益之有？正是在这样一种状况中，鲁迅坚持直译甚至是硬译。在他看来，唯有持这样一种开放的心态，西方文化才能够被真正引进到中国。硬译会带来精华与糟粕，随着时间的推移，精华自然在中国文化中沉淀，糟粕必然遭到淘汰。

经历了近一个世纪，鲁迅翻译理论显示了强大的生命力，他提倡的硬译至今仍为西方后现代后殖民主义的学者所推崇，其普世价值不言而喻。中国大学的早期翻译活动也与中国现代性紧密相连。

取清华大学为例，四大国学导师中，梁启超呼吁政治小说的翻译，目的要通过政治小说来“新民”“新学”“新政”。王国维翻译西方哲学著作，希望能够从形而上来丰满中国之学术，能从认识论的高度来弘扬中国文化。他从哲学的高度撰文评论辜鸿铭《中庸》英译便是例证。陈寅恪以翻译来考证中外文化的交流，以翻译来证史，开创了一个新的学术范式。赵元任翻译《阿丽丝漫游奇境记》，其目的不仅仅是向国人介绍一部西方的作品，他希望借此创造一种清新活泼的汉语口语，尤其重要的是，创造当时所匮乏的中国儿童文学。以后的清华学人，如洪深、闻一多、李健吾、曹禺等，从事翻译、改编、创作，通过舞台来改造社会，塑造中国的现代性。再看看清华主办的《清华周刊》。

据我们统计，在1916年至1936年这20年间，《清华周刊》发表了译文439篇，其中，社会科学占187篇，自然科学67篇，人文艺术科学185篇，如《野花之歌》（1922/245）、《资本主义的发展与经济学之派别》（1929/469）、《晚近斯堪地纳亚文学概况》（1933/556-557）、《多瑙河流域问题之面面观》（1934/590）、《文化遗产的问题》（1936/629）、《苏联科学之理论与组织》（1936/630）。这些译文对中国的思想建设、大学学科体系的建立与完善、学术思想的传播、研究方法的引进起到了不可估量的作用。

在全球经济一体化的今天，单边主义已经缺少存在的土壤，不论西方还是东方，都面临着文化转型和文化调整期。于是翻译又迎来了一个新的发展机遇。因为，文化建构与文化身份认同等都必然与翻译产生密切的联系。比如哲学著作的翻译，术语的误译可能带来意识形态的误导，甚至是文化身份的扭曲。这能说明为什么不少西方学者如德里达、德曼、米勒、斯皮瓦克、巴巴、巴斯内特、韦努蒂等都从跨学科角度来探讨文化重构与翻译问题。尽管西方中心主义已遭到包括西方在内大多数学者的质疑，但在世界文化和世界文学的重构格局中，中国学者的声音相对单薄。中国学者必须立足自己的学术传统，在深刻把握西方文化和学术思想的基础上，有意识地加强中国文化精品的翻译和翻译理论的建设，这是提升一个国家软实力的重要举措，是一项刻不容缓的战略任务。