On the Translator’s Cultural Awareness and Cultural Creativity.doc

on the translators cultural awareness and cultural creativityon the translators cultural awareness and cultural creativity* this paper is sponsored by hunan provincial social science fund program: cross-cultural communication and translation assessment model, chaired by prof. guoyuan tu.abstract: in translation, which has been seen as intercultural communication, how and whether culture should be transferred depends and each, either alienation or adaptation, with its merits and demerits, could be justified in its own right if looked at from a certain angle, and the issue is that the translator should know what he is doing and has his cultural awareness and creativity in the actual operation of cultural elements. key words: culture translation alienation adaptation cultural awareness cultural creativity with the influence of, among others, communication theory, the state of the art of translation studies over the past several decades can find best expression in a shift from a linguistic approach to a cultural approach. with the two approaches integrated, translation has now been broadly seen as an act of intercultural communication (guo jianzhong, 2000). so far, much literature has been devoted to the hot subject of cultural translation, and the dispute between alienation and adaptation has been one of the central issues concerned. people are always asking how and whether culture should be transferred. in this thesis, the author holds that how and whether culture should be transferred depends and each, either alienation or adaptation, with its merits and demerits, could be justified in its own right if looked at from a certain angle, and the issue is that the translator should know what he is doing and has his cultural awareness and creativity in the actual process of translation. culture is an ambiguous and intriguing concept. what has been termed the classic definition of culture was provided by edward burnett tylor, the father of cultural anthropology, in his primitive culture(1871): “cultureis that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of a society.” actually one person can put up one definition and ten persons can put up ten definitions. some people say that there are 160 definitions for culture, and some others say that there are over 260 ways to define the term. and some even claim that there are more than 500 definitions for the term. but there is one thing for certain, that is, culture can be approached from many perspectives and understood both in its broad sense and in its narrow sense. one definition for the former is “the total pattern of human behavior and its products embodied in thought, speech, action, and artifacts and dependent upon mans capacity for using and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations through the use of tools, language, and systems at thought”. (websters third new international dictionary (wtnid), 1961) that is, culture could be the totality of beliefs and practices of a society, the world and the universe where human beings live. and in this thesis, we hold the narrow sense of culture as suggested by p. newmark(1988) when he states “i define culture as the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression”. categorizations of culture can be various, as the case with the efforts of trying to define what culture can be. as culture is an all-encompassing form or pattern for living, what people do, how they act, and how they live and communicate are all responses to and functions of culture. some people categorize culture into the following five aspects: material，intellectual, communicative, institutional and conceptual. and some others divide culture into main culture, subculture and counterculture. but we hold the categorization presented by e. a. nida and p. newmark as the latter says in a textbook of translation: adapting nida, i shall categorize them and offer typical examples:(1) ecology(2) material culture (artifacts)(3) social culture - work and leisure(4) organizations, customs, activities, procedures, concept(5) gestures and habitscultural categorization is usually simplified as ecology, material culture, social culture, religious culture and linguistic culture, under which, according to nida (1964), problems of translation may occur, because language , culture and translation bear a close relationship as juri lotman and b. a. uspensky (1978) says, “no language can exist unless it is steeped in the context of culture which does not have at its center, the structure of the natural language”, and susan bassnett-mcguire(1988) states, “in the same way, the surgeon, operating on the heart, cannot neglect the body that surrounds it, so the translator treats the text in isolation from the culture in peril”.ever since human beings were first engaged in the act of translation, issues on what should be a satisfactory approach to translation and what should be the standard for something that deserves the true name of translation began. in terms of actual performing methods of translation, there are many, such as free translation and literal translation, author-oriented translation and reader-oriented translation, source text-oriented translation and target text-oriented translation, etc., between each of which there exists usually a dispute to some extent. we have termed, in this thesis, the pair source language culture-oriented and target language culture-oriented, i.e. alienation and adaptation, because translation, we hold, is simply a matter of culture and translation studies today are now taking a cultural turn. in actual practice of translation, the issue of how or whether culture should be transferred is always on the move. that is the question and has long become the essence of any translators dilemma. should he leave the author of the sl in peace and move the reader of the tl to the author, or should he leave the reader of the tl in peace and move the author of the sl to the reader? this is true in terms of cultural transference when george steiner states(1975): in translation the dialectic of unison and plurality is dramatically at work. in one sense, each act of translation is an endeavor to abolish multiplicity and to bring different world pictures back into perfect congruence. in another sense, it is an attempt to reinvent the shape of meaning, to find and justify an alternate statement. the craft of the translator is, as we shall see, deeply ambivalent: it is exercised in a radical tension between impulses to facsimile and impulses to appropriate recreation. much literature has been devoted to the issue of the operation of cultural elements in translation. two representative scholars for alienation and adaptation are respectively l. venuti and e. a. nida. the former proposes “resistance translation as a solution”, thinking that this kind of translation highlights the “foreignness” of the source text by embedding stylistic or other discontinuities in the target language. he (1998) points out that “ the shift from the foreign to the domestic culture detaches the foreign text from the linguistic and literary traditions where it draws its significance”. and he (1991) states that “ point is rather to develop a theory and practice of translation that resists dominant target-language cultural values so as to signify the linguistic and cultural difference of the text”. and nida proposes “the closest natural equivalence” in translation, as he states what really deserves the name of translation should be the revealing of the original message by applying the closest natural equivalent in terms of content and style. he repeatedly states the same idea that “basically a translation should be the closest natural equivalent of the message in the source language”. for nida, a translation of dynamic/functional equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression. lawrance has full reason to defend alienation, i.e. the retention of sl culture in the tl text, while e .a. nida is also justified in going in for adaptation, because each has got its own advantages and disadvantages. look at the following examples:1. they wandered here and there with their absurd long staves in their hands like a lot of faithless pilgrims bewitched inside a rotten fence.(joseph conrad: heart of darkness) version one: 他们手里都拿着一根可笑的长棍子，这儿溜溜，那儿窜窜，像一群失去信心的朝圣者，让鬼魅给迷在这烂篱笆圈里了。version two: 他们手里都拿着一根可笑的哭丧棒，从这里溜到那里，像一群失去信心的香客，让鬼魅给迷在这一圈乱树丛中了。 (tr. huang yushi)obviously, the translator in version one leaves the author of the sl text in peace and moves the reader of the tl text to the author, while the translator in version two, leaves the reader of the tl text in peace and moves the author of the sl text to the reader. both “哭丧棒”and “香客” chinese culture oriented.2. 却是自己担风袖月，游览天下胜迹。 (曹雪芹，红楼梦)version one: set off, “ the wind on his back, moonlight in his sleeves,” to see the famous sights of the empire.(tr. yang xianyi & gladys yang)version two: set off, free as the air, on an extended tour of some of the more celebrated places of scenic interest in our mighty empire. ( tr. david hawkes)english is different from chinese in many aspects, which, in a broad sense, lie in “synthetic vs. analytic”, “compact vs. diffusive”, “hypotactic vs. paratactic”, “complex vs. simplex”, “impersonal vs. personal”, “passive vs. active”, “static vs. dynamic”, “abstract vs. concrete”, “indirect vs. direct”, “substitutive vs. reiterative”, etc.( 连淑能，1993) but in terms of set phrases and expressions, the four-character structure is obviously peculiar to the chinese linguistic culture. as we can see, in yangs version, the metaphorical chinese four-character phrase “担风袖月” is literally translated, although the translation requires some extension of the readers imagination. however, the translation is permeated with a strong flavor of the chinese culture. hawkes simply translates the sense at the expense of the image by turning “担风袖月” into “free as air”, which is of course easy for the english reader to understand.3. 刘姥姥道：“这倒不然。谋事在人，成事在天。咱们谋到了，看菩萨的保佑，有些机会，也未可知。” (曹雪芹，红楼梦)version one: “dont be so sure,” said granny liu. “man proposes, heaven disposes. work out a plan, trust to buddha, and something may come of it for all you know.”(tr. yang xianyi & gladys yang)version two: “i wouldnt say that,” said grannie liu. “man proposes, god disposes. its up to us to think of something. we must leave it to the good lord to decide whether hell help us or not. who knows, he might give us the opportunity we are looking for.”(tr. david hawkes)religious beliefs are an important part of culture. in version one, yang makes use of an equivalent english proverb by changing “god” into “heaven”, thus preserving the image of the sl “天”, which conveys the conception of daoism (heaven governs nature) as well as a womans belief in feudal china. on the contrary, hawkes, in version two, simply takes the equivalent english proverb without making any change, thinking that the western readers who believe in christianity may accept it easily. surely, it is more natural and acceptable to the english-speaking world, but he has turned taoist believer into a christian.4. 这小子胆小如鼠。version one: this guy is as timid as a mouse.version two: this guy is as timid as a rabbit.the ecological image of “鼠”in version one has been retained while the idiomatic usage is used in version two to the neglect of the image in the original. no one can deny that “mouse” and “rabbit” have different associations in the english culture. and the same case is with the translations of expressions or sentences like “as poor as a church mouse” and “he is an old screw”. the two pairs of version with different cultural orientations could be “穷得像叫化子/穷得像教堂里的耗子”and“他吝啬得像一只铁公鸡，一毛不拔/“他吝啬得像一枚起不动的螺丝钉”, etc.translation is no doubt a long-standing tradition dating back to the ancient world. from time immemorial, human beings felt the need to communicate with others. once exposed to different cultural contexts, they are naturally engaged in intercultural communication. in the sixteenth century, martin luther published a highly influential document on translating, but primary credit for the first formulation of a theory of translation in the west goes to etiennne dolet(1500-1546), who summarized the fundamental principles of translation under the following five headings: a) the translator must understand perfectly the content and intention of the author whom he is translating.b) the translator should have a perfect knowledge of the language from which he is translating, and an equally excellent knowledge of the language into which he is translating.c) the translator should avoid word-for-word renderings, for to resort to these would be to destroy the meaning of the original and to ruin the beauty of expression.d) the translation should employ the forms of speech in common usage.e) for his choice and order of words, a translator should produce a total overall effect with appropriate “tone”. all these, to some extent, cover the basic requirements both for a piece of translation and a translator when translation is taken as interlingual communication. translation has now been regarded as intercultural communication, involving two linguistically different cultures. whether the cultural elements of the sl are transferred or not in the tl is all up to the translators cultural orientation, either alienation or adaptation. when nida categorizes culture into five headings as listed above, stephen straight (rose, 1981) presents “outline of knowledge” which he thinks “translators must have”:1. ecology2. material culture, technology3. social organization4. mythic patterns5. linguistic structuresthe match of nidas cultural categorization and straights outline of knowledge of the translator is definitely no pure coincidence. when people say that translation is a sort of za xue(杂学)，this za（杂）is supposed to find best expression in culture, for translation is simply a matter of culture. what deserves the real name of translation is determined by various factors, one of which, among others, is knowledge: does the translation exhibit adequate understanding of the cultures of both the author of the original and the intended audience of the translation? this suggests that the translator have his cultural awareness and cultural activity in doing his work.awareness, according to wtnid, means “ the quality or state of being aware”. since translation is a peculiar type of intercultural communication, involving two linguistically different cultures, what should be concerned here is cross-cultural awareness, which refers to the translators perception of the cultural elements of the languages involved in the process of translation. robert g. hanvey (胡文仲，1998) classifies the cross-cultural awareness into four levels:level information mode interpretationi awareness of superficial tourism, textbooks, unbelievable, i.e., or very visible national geographic exotic, bizarrecultural traits: stereo-typesii awareness of significant culture conflict unbelievable, i.e., and subtle cultural traits situations frustrating, irrationalthat contrast markedly with ones owniii awareness of significant intellectual believable, and subtle cultural traits analysis cognitively that contrast markedly with ones owniv awareness of how another cultural immersion; believable because of - culture feels from the stand- living the culture subjective familiaritypoint of the insideralthough “cross-cultural awareness may be one of the most difficult dimensions to attain”, hanvey thinks that cultural empathy, which means the capacity to imagine oneself in another role within the context of ones own culture, is still within reach. as a cultural mediator, the translator is destined to be equipped with cultural awareness. however, it is one thing for the translator to know something, and it is another thing for him to know how to operate it. a qualified translator should have not only cultural awareness but also something that the author of this thesis has termed as “cultural creativity”. creativity, as the name implies, is surely a power to create new things. so far as translation as cultural communication is concerned, this creativity does not mean that the translator can “create new things” in his job but that he can overcome the to-be-or-not-to-be dilemma by applying either alienation or adaptation, i.e., he knows what he is doing in his operating cultural elements. and so cultural awareness is the state of being culturally aware, while cultural creativity is the capacity of knowing how to operate cultural elements in the actual process of translation, and is obviously more crucial to what deserves the name of translation.cultural awareness is the prerequisite for cultural creativity, and cultural creativity finds expression in the choice of translation strategy. the term “strategy” has many different senses in psychology, sociology, linguistics and applied linguistics, and translation theory. e. nida divides translation strategy into four classes: change of order, omission, change of structure, and addition. according to l. venuti, strategies of translation involve the basic tasks of choosing the foreign text to be translated and developing a method to translate it, and he has his two categories: