A Study Of Translation Criticism Of The May Fourth Movement Period

The present study attempts to tackle the issue of translation criticism of the May Fourth Movement period (1919-1937) by applying Even Zohar's Polysystem theory and Gideon Toury's norm theory. It aims at providing a relatively systematic description and analysis of the causes and features of translation criticism of the May Fourth Movement period.Translation criticism is value judgment on practicing translators, translated texts, translation theories, and translation activities. It is carried out by various agents according to different aesthetic standards, rules of language transformation, and norms of cultural transmission, exhibiting the characteristics of linguistic criticism, aesthetic criticism, and cultural criticism. Translation criticism is of great importance to translation theories and its practice. Peter Newmark (2001:184) claims that translation criticism is an essential link between translation theory and its practice. He holds the view because when one is trying to assess the quality of a translation one also addresses the heart of any translation theory, i.e., the crucial question of the nature of translation. In fact, translation theory, translation criticism, and translation practice are closely related and interactional. Translation theory can provide theoretical underpinning for translation criticism, which can in turn influence translation practice. By examining translation theory of certain periods of time, one can deduce corresponding translation criticism models that were generally practiced at that time. In the similar vein, through the examination of translation criticism of certain historical period, one can also gather some information on the prevalent translation theories. Besides translation theories, other underlying forces such as literary conventions, ideologies, and the tradition of literary criticism in the target culture can also influence reviewers' way of assessing translations. To put it clear, it is the interplay of these forces that shapes the way of translation criticism. This dissertation also intends to analyze how these shaping forces affect the theory and practice of translation criticism of the May Fourth Movement period. In the wake of the increasing demand for information exchange worldwide, translation is carried out on a larger scale than ever, especially after the 1980s, which calls for effective and systematic translation criticism. A cross-cultural comparison of translation criticism from ancient times reveals similar views in evaluating translated works: for centuries, translations were judged based on essentially stylistic criteria or according to translation methods used (literal or free). The evaluator, very often a literary theorist or a translator, put great emphasis on the author or on the original text instead of on the target language text. They did not follow explicit procedures. The key translation criticism criterion was "fidelity", which meant the target text should be faithful to the source text in every aspect. So generally speaking, traditional translation criticism was static and unilateral, rarely taking into account other factors during the process of translation. Translation criticism during this period was, to some extent, intuitive, sporadic, subjective and impressionistic. In one word, it is highly prescriptive, namely, it is oriented towards the original text, almost to the exclusion of the target text and culture.From the 1950s to the 1970s, translation studies in the West experienced two major shifts in terms of research paradigm: the linguistic turn and the cultural turn.The linguistic turn not only exerted a sweeping influence on translation studies, but also resulted in a shift in translation criticism. Thanks to the linguistic turn, translation criticism brought out the prime importance of transference on levels of sound, words, phrases, sentences, or paragraphs, etc. It paid close attention to the structural or systematic transference of the two texts involved. Translation criticism under the influence of modern linguistics features textual comparisons, which is seemingly systematic and scientific on the one hand and is beset with inherent limitations on the other, namely, it tends to underscore the external factors on the text such as the socio-cultural backgrounds, the stylistic factors, translators' ideology, etc. In terms of methodology, it sometimes appears to be too mechanical and meticulous.During the 1970s, translation studies experienced the cultural turn. Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere (1990) argued that the study of translation had moved on from its formalist phase and was beginning to consider broader issues of context, history and convention. Bassett and Lefevere called such shift of emphasis the "cultural turn" in translation studies. Since then, more attention is put on the external factors or forces that account for the practice of translation in real life. The breakthrough is the shift in the viewpoint towards the nature of translation: translation is not only an interlingual transformation but also an intercultural communication. Accordingly, the object of translation studies should include external forces that exert impact on the exercise of translation. In this sense, the method of research is descriptive rather than prescriptive.Compared with translation criticism in the West, translation criticism in China has lagged behind. It is not until the 1980s that similar shifts in perspective were introduced into China along with the import of Western linguistics and translation theories. Theoretical translation criticism in China leaves much room to be desired; practical translation criticism, too, still has much to do to keep up with the rapid development of translation studies as an independent discipline. As far as the practice of translation criticism is concerned, assessment on particular translated works accounts for the majority of translation criticism. The systematic study of translation criticism of a particular historical period is still wanted. This is also one important reason for the author of the present dissertation to choose the translation criticism of the May Fourth Movement period as the main object of study.Translation studies worldwide have gathered momentum since the 1940s and the introduction of Western translation theories has made headway since the 1980s in China. Different schools of Western translation theories flooded into China, such as theories from the linguistic, the descriptive, and the philosophical point of view. The introduction of these theories is definitely useful in widening our vision and in inspiring our own researches. But when too many scholars rush to introduce Western translation theories, a serious problem arises: with less attention to traditional Chinese translation theories, a gap appeared between traditional thinking of translation and Western translation theories. Although traditional translation studies may be sporadic, lacking in theoretical backup and deficient in depth of discussion, it has its own value and deserves a meticulous study. The present dissertation is an attempt in this direction.The May Fourth Era is a period when translation criticism was very lively and its function in the development of the New Literature and in the course of translation could be keenly felt. Previous studies of translation and its criticism of the May Fourth Movement period, however, focused on translation theories and contributions made by individual translators, i.e., studies confined to historical facts. Little work has been done in contextualizing translation and its criticism in that particular period and exploring those underlying forces that maintain, reinforce, or challenge people's attitude towards translation. Less attention was paid to the subject of translation criticism, i.e. the new intellectuals. Researchers are mainly interested in figuring out: (a) How many literary works are translated? (b) Which literary genres are preferred and from which these literary works are translated? (c) Individual translator's contributions to the theory and practice of translation. Although things are changing for the better, there is still a lack of comprehensive study. There are still areas of translation criticism of the May Fourth Movement period that remain under-researched and under-discussed. The author examines the judgments made by previous critics and reviewers of translations of this period, documents the complex contexts in which those evaluations were made and brings to light the motivations of individual critics and their contributions to the undertaking of translation and the New Culture Movement.The present research is conducted under the theoretical framework of descriptive translation studies. Polysystem theory under the "umbrella" of descriptive translation studies has moved from the individual texts and its process of translation to those of the translated literature as a whole, and to the backdrop of their selections, translations, acceptances, and evaluations within the target culture, hence provides a much wider research field and parameters. Even-Zohar mainly focuses on the analysis of the mutual influences and interactions between translated literature and the national literary system, in this sense elevating the status of translated literature within the literary polysystem of the target culture. Even-Zohar puts forward three pairs of dichotomies which are center vs. periphery, canonized vs. non-canonized, and primary vs. secondary. The three pairs of notions, pivotal in understanding the gist of polysystem theory, best illustrate the interaction and mutual influences between translated literature and national literature. Although Even-Zohar touches upon influences on translation strategies from literary conventions of the receiving culture and the position of translated literature within that cultural polysystem, he seems to fall short of influences from other co-systems. Undoubtedly, there are various other elements, besides the literary conventions of the target culture that should be taken into consideration when investigating translations. This is exactly the conceptual starting point of the work of the Israeli scholar Gideon Toury, the initiator of norm theory. Toury proposes a tripartite model of norms, namely, initial norms, preliminary norms and operational norms. Initial norms serve as an explanatory tool for the other two kinds of norms. Preliminary norms have to do with two main sets of considerations which are often interconnected: those regarding the existence and actual nature of a definite translation policy, and those related to the directness of translation. Operational norms refer to the actual decisions made during the translation process rather than prior to it.Translation criticism at a certain point of time within a particular culture is not carried out in a vacuum. Conversely, it is closely interconnected with translation practice, literary conventions, social-cultural background, and the tradition of literary criticism in the receiving culture. Generally speaking, translation criticism can be viewed as a sub-system within the larger system of translation, both of which are influenced by the polysystem of the target culture and will also exert influences on the cultural polysystem. As we have mentioned earlier, polysystem theory directs the attention from concrete translated texts themselves to the interaction and mutual influences between literary systems and the activity of translation within certain culture. Toury calls for the attention of "translation norms" in operation during the process of translation. Both of their innovations and limitations can cast some light on the present study of translation criticism of the May Fourth Era.Based on the descriptive investigations into translation criticism of the May Fourth Movement period, the present dissertation holds that the prosperity of modern literary societies and the abundance of publications have worked in close concert and thus contributed a lot to nurture a favorable environment for translation criticism. A "common platform" for criticism is built because those literary societies and publications have made the exchange of ideas possible. Synchronic criticism gradually gains the upper hand. The new intellectuals, tinctured by different Western knowledge and cultural environment, largely determined features of translation criticism of the May Fourth Period. Different cultural backgrounds and political environment in which these intellectuals live provide them with different literary theories and academic training, which greatly influence their particular attitudes towards politics, cultural issues, and literature. Translation criticism carried out by these new intellectuals serves as a tool of destruction and construction. It is more of a struggle for power than a scholarly research. It is greatly influenced by the socio-political needs of the time. The object of translation criticism during this period roughly belongs to the macro-level with the focus on problems bearing on the overall development of translation, such as the selection and the directness of translation.This dissertation is divided into seven chapters. Chapter One is the introduction which presents the motive of the study, the objectives, the methodology, and the structure of the dissertation. It also makes a critical survey of previous studies on translation and its criticism in the May Fourth Era. It argues that the major focus of previous studies has hitherto been on translation theories and contributions made by individual translators with emphasis on separate historical facts only. Little heed has been paid to the contextualization of translation practice and its criticism in that special historical period.Chapter Two delves into the name and nature of translation criticism with the aim of building a theoretical foundation for the understanding of translation criticism. After tracing the history of the word "criticism" and reviewing definitions of translation criticism put forward by previous scholars, a workable definition of translation criticism is offered in order to carry out the present research. Translation criticism is value judgment on practicing translators, translated texts, translation theories, and translation activities; it is carried out by various agents according to different aesthetic standards, rules of language transformation, and norms of cultural transmission; it exhibits the characteristics of linguistic criticism, aesthetic criticism, and cultural criticism. The basic concepts being established, this chapter also tackles other issues such as the methodology, the typology, and the nature of translation criticism.Chapter Three presents a theoretical framework for the present study. It begins with the paradigm shifts in translation studies from the prescriptive to the descriptive. Zohar's polysystem theory and Toury's norm theory are introduced as the theoretical framework. The contributions and inherent limitations of these two theories are constantly weighed within this chapter. At the end of this chapter, descriptive translation criticism is put forward together with its two major methods. One point that needs to be clarified is that descriptive translation criticism is not devoid of value judgment. It is descriptive only in its multi-dimensional perspective and methodology which provide the possibility of a detached, scholarly, disinterested observation before ajudgment is made.Chapter Four is an analysis of the internal cause of translation criticism of the May Fourth Movement Period from a polysystemic perspective. By adopting a descriptive and polysystemic perspective, the author of this dissertation focuses on the following aspects: the preliminary translation norms in the field of translation, the literary models within the polysystem of the national literature, the purpose of translation and the identity of the translator. On the basis of the examination above the following conclusions are reached concerning the underlying cause and features of translation criticism of the May Fourth Movement period. Translation Criticism of the May Fourth Era aims at redressing the chaos and randomness in the field of translation of the Late Qing Period. So at the very beginning, translation criticism of the May Fourth Era is ideologically and politically tinged, serving as a means of construction and deconstruction. Also discussed is the evolvement of translation criticism from the Late Qing and the May Fourth Movement period.Chapter Five is a description of translation criticism of the May Fourth Movement Period. Internal translation criticism and external translation criticism are differentiated in order to better illustrate the debate between Society for Literature Research and Creation Society, two major literary societies during that time. Special attention is paid to Lu Xun's contributions to the theory and practice of translation criticism. A tentative analysis of Lu Xun's translation criticism is also made based on the debate between Lu Xun and Liang Shiqiu.Chapter Six continues to pinpoint the backdrop and features of translation criticism. The objective situations and the subjective factors that contribute to the boom of translation criticism are discussed. In regard to the former, this chapter concentrates on the abundance of literary translations and a proliferation of literary societies and publications. The appearance of literary societies provides a favorable external environment for the healthy development of translation criticism. And the Chinese intellectuals, with their diversified educational background, literary views and cultural norms, invigorate the scene of translation criticism of the period. As to the latter, attention is paid to the new intellectuals who are the primary evaluating subjects of translation criticism. The burgeoning of critical spirit among these new intellectuals and their special cultural identity are the two focus points. At the end of this chapter, four major models of translation criticism commonly employed nowadays are discussed.Chapter Seven is the conclusion part of the dissertation which summarizes the features of translation criticism of this period and indicates the direction for the future development of translation criticism.