Translation: As Polyphonic Dialogues

As is known to all, translation has, undoubtedly, been playing an important role in the cultural formation and intercultural communications almost at all times and in all countries or lands. Translation theory has not, however, developed or been paid much attention to correspondingly as it should have been, which is, as it were, despite the fact of the lack or less development of relevant disciplines of the time, due to the following misread methodology and epistemology universally existent in the translation circle. The former, confined to the limitation of empiricism, emphasizes the translator's accomplishments and insight; as for the latter, some kind of nihilism usually stands closely associated with such things as translation theories either inside or outside the field, helps for a strongly established binary opposition between its theory and practice, consequently resulting in an unfavorable cycle of theoretical development.However, during the past thirty years, especially since 1980s, approaches to translation almost in all countries have seen much rapid progress, ushering in an unprecedented boom. Thus comes the saying that 'The growth of Translation Studiesas a separate discipline is a success story of the 1980s.'(Lefevere 1992: iii) Translation Studies is now better able to borrow from and lend techniques and methods to other disciplines. We must point out here, nevertheless, that such a qualitative leap was not made at one go, and of course leaves much to be desired.It is, therefore, a must for us to trace this leap hereinto, which will show clearly that the two mainstreams (humanism v. scientism), the two shifts (from author to text, then text to reader), and the three turns (the irrational turn, the linguistic turn and the cultural turn) have exerted great influence on the development of the nowaday translation studies. It is argued on the one hand that a trace of the development of western translation theories from prescription to description will bring us back to that of western philosophy and literary theories (including linguistics). Closely related to them, it begins with a one-way absorption and digestion, and after a successful combination of multi-disciplines, thrives to be a separate interdisciplinary subject that can in turn equip the relevant subjects with necessary insights. On the other hand, because of its absolute reliance on the disciplines as hereinabove set forth, the whole frame of such approaches is inevitably confined (especially to western literary theories and linguistics). The two shifts, first from 'the author-centered' to 'the text-centered' and then to 'the reader-centered', for example, have not somehow or other escaped something of the embarrassment of 'the elephant and the blind men', with their research a little too unitary or narrow (such as either 'author-centered', or 'text-centered', or 'reader-centered'), or somewhat too all-embracing like cultural studies. In general, Translation Studies has taken a similar path as the western literary theories, with the only exception that a claim of the translator-centered is added, characteristic of a more static study and a less dynamic one. The prosperity in this field still cannot benefit us with a more comprehensively applicable interpretative model. As for translation studies, the claim of the 'author-centered' enjoys a time-honored history and is still well-established, notwithstanding some doubt. Built upon such an assumption, the traditional translation theories, both at home and abroad, all consider the 'original', the unquestionable God, as the ultimately exclusive object to attain. The relation between the 'original' and the 'translated' reveals itself as such binary oppositions as creation/imitation, primary/derivative, subject/object, active/passive, signifier/signified, essence/appearance, constructive/ destructive, independent/dependent, male/female, etc. always with overwhelming precedence of the former over the latter. A translator's unique task is thus to mea...