A Metonymic Study Of The English Translations Of The Analects

As one of the most influential Confucian canons, the Analects is an accredited representative of Chinese culture. Since the first incomplete translation in 1691, there have been 30-odd English translations of this classic, selective and incomplete translations excluded. Translators of the Analects include missionaries, sinologists, writers, philosophers, as well as translation professionals. A chronological study of these English translations will contribute to the clarification of the reception history of this canon and the development of sinology in major English-speaking countries. It will also illuminate the influence of different historical circumstances upon translators'choices of strategy in the over-three-hundred-year history of cultural contact between China and the West. In recent years, domestic scholars have been paying increasing attention to the translation of Chinese classics into foreign languages, English in particular. Meanwhile, much controversy has arisen over whether Chinese scholars could shoulder the task of translating into foreign languages. A systematic investigation of the translations of the Analects will deepen our understanding of this issue and promote the international transmission of Chinese civilization.Over the past decades, researchers have been concentrating on five areas in their studies of the English translations of the Analects: 1) translation(s) of the Analects, 2) translator(s) of the Analects, 3) translation of Confucian terms, 4) editing and publishing of translations of the Analects, 5) transmission and reception of the Analects. The majority of researchers'attention has been on the different translations and translators of the Analects. A comprehensive investigation of the history of these translations is still lacking. Chronological and comparative research on these translations has also been a road"less traveled".The present study is conducted from a metonymic perspective on translation. Roman Jakobson posited the metaphoric and metonymic as two basic modes of human thought. In 1999, Maria Tymoczko applied the two modes of human thought to translation studies and began to stress the metonymic nature of translation. For a long time, translation has been conceptualized as a metaphoric process, as a process of selection and substitution, whatever level of replacement is stressed. The metonymic aspects of translation, a much neglected sphere, should be given its due of attention. Ever since the beginning of her investigation into the metonymics of translation, there hasn't been research into this area of inquiry, whether domestic or abroad. Our present study is an attempt to complement her research into the metonymics of translation.First of all, the present study investigates the English translations of the Analects, covering, as many as possible, the details of each translation and their reception. Then we summarize the characteristics of Western translators and translators of Chinese cultural lineage. Historical evidence shows that there has been a gradual change in Western translators'attitudes towards Confucianism embodied in the Analects, which is best summarized by the adapted saying: familiarity breeds respect. On the other hand, Chinese translators could also do a good job in this field of endeavor. To be better qualified for the translation of Chinese classics, Chinese scholars should learn from their Western peers.On the basis of the historical description, the present study inquires, chronologically and comparatively, into five issues involved in the translation of the Analects.First of all, we summarize the two traditions---scholarly and literary ---of translating the Analects. We hold that the two traditions are complementary and symbiotic. Together they extend the influence of Chinese culture on the Western world.Secondly, this study investigates translators'different considerations and strategies for the textual heterogeneity of the Analects, as exemplified by their different treatment of the headings of the Analects and the formulaic expression zi yue子曰. AndréLefevere holds that works of literature canonized more than five centuries ago will be free of the interference of the dominant poetics. But our investigation shows that he has underestimated the dictation of dominant poetics.Thirdly, this study inspects the translation of names in the Analects. Traditionally, Chinese people have been addressed with different names. But in the translation of Analects, as a result of their different motivations and attitudes toward this cultural peculiarity, translators have adopted different strategies, the extreme case being an almost total eradication of names.Fourthly, after inspecting briefly two translations by two pairs of scholars, Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont, Jr., E. Bruce Brooks and A. Taeko Brooks respectively, we find that translators'peculiar considerations and motivations can lead to an excessive concentration on some special aspects of the Analects.Fifthly, this study traces the translation of seven key Confucian terms and inspects translators'considerations and focuses of interpretation. Two guiding principles of translating Confucian terms are formulated: intelligibility and consistency.Our study proves convincingly that translation is always partial, always a metonymic process. Even the translation of canons like the Analects is no exception to this rule. Translators'choices are constrained by such factors as ideology, patronage, dominating poetics and their subjectivity, etc. Different historical contingencies often result in different translations while the same or similar historical circumstances are no guarantee of the same translation strategy, let alone the same translation. Collectively, these different translations of the Analects have brought the profound meaning and everlasting appeal of the Analects to English readers.The present study describes comprehensively the English translations of the Analects. It is an important step forward for research on the translations of the Analects, both chronologically and comparatively. It furthers our understanding of the metonymic nature of translation and provides translators, translators engaging in the translation of Chinese classics in particular, with significant reference.