On The Norm Of Intercultural Ethic In Translation

This study is motivated by a strong impulse to recount intercultural ethic, an extensively accepted balance normalizing harmonious, respectful and beneficial coexistence of cultural constellations, so that translation could serve better the democratic, peaceful and cooperative agenda and a translator's motivation, strategies, behaviors and responses can be more suitably effected and examined. The "cultural turn" in translation studies has put translation researches in a wider cultural context with epoch-making significance. Nonetheless, past and current studies, which have merely focused on the search for cultural interpretation of a translation process and its ends, are grounded on the assumption of equitable bicultural or multicultural contact in history, international status, attitude, value, etc. More in-depth discussions are found in postcolonial and feminist translation studies, both of which are centered upon how to mediate, facilitate, reveal or resist colonialism, neocolonialism or sexism with the emphasis on cultural function of translation strategies and textual selection. Despite their remarkable contribution for intercultural ethic, they appear stagnant so far with quite a number of urgent questions yet to answer. For instance, how have translation acts supported intercultural ethic? How are the deeds against intercultural ethic interrogated? What to do for better normalization of intercultural ethic in translation studies and practices? Besides, translation also works between other cultural communities like religious groups and classes. There exist multiple means for a translation's promotion or prohibition of decent intercultural communication. Many translations against intercultural ethic cannot be simply considered as imperialist, neoimperialist or sexist. Many translations normalized with intercultural ethic are not only for resistance. A translation for or against intercultural ethic can receive diverse responses from readers, critics or patrons with different ideological inclinations. However, all the studies relevant with these aspects are not fully carried out. Therefore, with her relatively close attention to the necessity, means and effects of the normalization of intercultural ethic in translation theorization and activities, the present author's explicit intention is to push for more dedicated devotion to culture-oriented translation studies for their smoothly continuous development. The whole article consists of six chapters with Chapterâ…¡,â…¢andâ…£dominant.Chapterâ… is an introduction to the research, including its theoretical background, impetus, angles and major methods. A concise survey of culture-oriented translation studies, studies on translation ethics and studies on translation norms is made for more explicit definition of intercultural ethic and its significance.Chapterâ…¡focuses on the review of the researches on fidelity from the perspectives of translators' status, language layers for fidelity, degrees of fidelity, fidelity to foreigness, etc., the challenge to some of the questionable researches, e.g. Andre Lefevere's contrastive analysis of Chinese and Western traditions of fidelity, and the crystallization of how proper cultural motivations are more often than not brushed aside in former and current fidelity-freedom debates. If these questions are approached from the angle of intercultural ethic, the conventional binary division can be dissolved with better explanation. So far as intercultural ethic is concerned, fidelity is not constantly featured with plausibility. Meanwhile, Warren(1989:20) and Chesterman (1997:180) give prominence to responsible cooperation with each other. Nevertheless, a translation subject bicultural or multicultural is inclined toward particular cultural community. With its likely violation of intercultural ethic, despite pleasant interaction between them, readability, patronage and translation criticism might not be identified as advisable. Intercultural ethic as a norm is indispensable for the decency of a translation activity.Studies on translators' subjectivity are frequently concerned only with how it is developed with the neglect of impartial intercultural causality. In Chapterâ…¢, the author elaborates how intercultural ethic offers new grounds for reflecting on translators' subjectivity in terms of translation methods and author-translator dichotomy. Such strategies challenging translation conventions in favor of intercultural ethic as cannibalism, hybridity, foreignization, domestication and hijacking are examined together with relevant translation studies regarding their strengths and weaknesses. For instance, after a statistical analysis of more than 670 articles with the key words of yihua and translation, the following conclusions are drawn: it was at least in 1999 that Lawrence Venuti's foreignization began to attract close domestic attention. Prior to it, the native strategy of yihua was more involved; by the year 2006, more Chinese scholars preferred foreignization to domestication to transfer better the foreigness of source texts, which might have been attributed to Venuti's studies; most Chinese scholars have not blindly followed the Western theory with their advocacy of justifiable linkage of the two strategies according to translators' intention, text types, etc.; in spite of growing interest in it, intercultural ethic is less emphasized as ideological ideal of the strategies than cultural transmission in China. Translators' subjectivity governed with intercultural ethic in interactive translation, autotranslation and the author's translation invalidates traditional belief in author-translator dichotomy. Furthermore, intercultural ethic proves a relative norm of translators' subjectivity with Sydney Shapiro's and Pearl Buck's translations and social responses to the Chinese version of The Gadfly, etc. The present author, an exponent of Rene Descartes's theories, strives for unambiguous elaboration on the interplay between intercultural ethic and sociohistorical environments, where a translator can consciously affect the identification of intercultural ethic. To add, intercultural ethic normalizes translators' subjectivity in combination with other parameters like official policies, social backgrounds, personal preference, etc.Chapterâ…£discusses the ways intercultural ethic normalizes translation. Five major means are pointed out, namely, simplex or multiplex normalization, multichannel normalization, unilateral or interactive normalization, semi-detached normalization and accepted or repulsed normalization. Above all, intercultural ethic might manipulate translation in a complex sense. Considering cultural multiplicity, a translator might adopt similar or distinct strategies for or against different varieties of intercultural ethic; given cultural mobility, the effects of a same intercultural ethic may vary from time to time, and one type of intercultural ethic can be recaptured for another type. Secondly, intercultural ethic is backed up through diverse channels. Texts for intercultural ethic, against intercultural ethic or without visible relevance with intercultural ethic can all be translated for it with miscellaneous techniques. Thirdly, translations normalized with intercultural ethic do not arise from a translator's unilateral efforts without exception. As the author might shift his/her ground and revise the original in alignment with the translator, intercultural ethic can be reciprocally upheld, which falsifies Roland Barthes (1977:148)'s subscription to the priority of the author's death and Paul de Man (1986:84)'s argument for the original's death. Fourthly, semi-detachedness is characteristic of intercultural ethic in action. The recognition of intercultural ethic as a focus in postcolonial and feminist translation studies is established on the premise of special historical contexts and theories like psychoanalysis, deconstructionism, Marxism, etc. In face of the retrospection at insufficient length, the author attempts to review as systematically as possible. Lastly, whether or not intercultural ethic can be officially embraced depends on its conformity to dominant ideologies and patronage in the target culture. At times, there exist consequentially the conflicts between conventional ideological codes and intercultural ethic, which is made idiosyncratic. It indicates that ideology occasionally hinders translations for intercultural ethic. Also, patrons might be distinguishable from each other with discrepant stances. Translations for intercultural ethic, though prohibited by official patrons, can come out and get propagated under favorable auspices of other patrons, and some patrons can nurture texts repudiated by patrons in other nations for intercultural ethic. The Manipulation School has evidently not dissected patronage of translation thoroughly enough.A translation for intercultural ethic is not definitely properly undertaken. The present author thereby seeks to dwell on the avenues to its apt production and reception in Chapterâ…¤. With a database consisting of almost ten biblical English versions, the appraisal of TNIV translators' strategies is discussed. Besides, together with a large number of other instances, three preconditions are advanced, i.e. appropriate translation strategies for intercultural ethic, rational patronage for intercultural ethic and sensible translation criticism for intercultural ethic. Among them, the imperviousness of most scholars to the conceptualization of a professional's responsibility for qualified evaluation has put the present author in the way of formulating three related principles.Chapterâ…¥summarizes the whole dissertation with some suggestion for further studies. In view of the imperative of translation for non-violent and reasonable communication between sociocultural groups, intercultural ethic, which exists reasonably, needs an abundantly intent gaze.