repertoire transfer and resistance (2009)

8/11/2019 Repertoire Transfer and Resistance (2009)

1/23

This article was downloaded by: [88.15.196.196]On: 09 October 2014, At: 02:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The TranslatorPublication details, including instructions for authors

and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrn20

Repertoire Transfer and

ResistanceNam Fung Changa

aLingnan University, Hong Kong

Published online: 21 Feb 2014.

To cite this article:Nam Fung Chang (2009) Repertoire Transfer and Resistance, TheTranslator, 15:2, 305-325, DOI: 10.1080/13556509.2009.10799283

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2009.10799283

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the

information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13556509.2009.10799283http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrn20http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2009.10799283http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13556509.2009.10799283http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtrn20


2/23

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19

6]at02:4809October2014
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions


3/23

ISSN 1355-6509 St Jerome Publishing, Manchester

The Translator. Volume 15, Number 2 (2009), 305-25 ISBN 978-1-905763-14-6

Repertoire Transfer and ResistanceThe Westernization of Translation Studies in China

NAM FUNG CHANG

Lingnan University, Hong Kong

Abstract.Modern translation studies has developed in the West

and in China along similar routes. The application of linguistic

theories to the study of translation has brought attention to this long-

neglected eld and has shown the possibilities of alignment with aserious academic subject. Linguistic models, however, have proved

rather unproductive. Instead, it has been the explorations initiated

by polysystem theory and other cultural theories in recent decades

that have allowed translation studies to grow into a discipline in

its own right in the West. These theories were introduced to China

in the 1980s and 1990s. Initially, they met with various forms of

resistance because of their intrusion upon an established tradition.

Yet because these theories created a new direction for translation

discourse and helped gain wider recognition for translation studies

as a discipline in China, they gradually took over the centre of the

home repertoire. This article views the process of the Westerniza-

tion of translation studies in China since the 1980s which is taking

place at a time when Chinese culture is particularly receptive to

foreign repertoires due to a strong sense of self-insufciency as

a case in which a polysystem borrows repertoires from others to

full certain self-perceived needs.

Keywords. China, Polysystem, Postcolonialism, Repertoire, Resistance,

Transfer.

This article offers an account of the transfer, that is, the process whereby

imported goods are integrated into a home repertoire, and the consequences

generated by this integration (Even-Zohar 1997:358-59) of Western trans-

lation theories to China in the face of active resistance. Although I usepolysystem theory as a theoretical framework, I make no claims to objectivity

or neutrality, since I have been a player in the polysystem under discussion.

Indeed, while I embrace descriptivism with regard to the object of translation

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



4/23

Repertoire Transfer and Resistance306

studies, I view it as the duty of a theorist to evaluate affairs in the discipline

itself.1

1. The development of translation studies in the West

In order to analyze the transfer to China of Western translation theory, it is

necessary rst to trace the path of translation studies in the West.

According to James S. Holmes, for centuries in his part of the world only

incidental and desultory attention was paid to the study of translation by a

scattering of authors, philologians, and literary scholars, plus here and there

a theologian or an idiosyncratic linguist (Holmes 1988:67), who all too

often erred in mistaking their personal, national, or period norms for general

translation laws, and who all too frequently substituted impressionism for

methodology (ibid.:99-100).

After the Second World War, as Holmes noted (ibid.:67-68, 100), the

subject of translation enjoyed a marked and constant increase in interest,

mainly on the part of linguists. Holmes, however, was unimpressed by their

work (ibid.:100):

They have, by and large, moved down a different road, one that

has turned out to be a dead end. Accepting the basic self-imposed

restrictions of structural and/or transformational linguistics, they have

devoted their energies to the problem of how to nd what they have

labelled equivalent target-language glosses for source-language

words, groups of words, and/or (at best) sentences considered out of

context.

Explaining why translation studies has not been subsumed under linguistics,

Holmes observes that when researchers from an adjacent area bring their own

elds most fruitful paradigms and models to bear on a new problem that has

just come into view in the world of learning, they will legitimately annex it as

a branch of their discipline if the problem proves amenable to explicitation,

analysis, explication, and at least partial solution within the bounds of one of

their paradigms or models (ibid.:67). The linguistic approach to the study

of translation, however, has not produced sufcient results (ibid.). This is

because, from the point of view of Holmes and his like-minded colleagues,

treating translation as purely or primarily a matter of linguistic operation is

too narrow a perspective for the complex of problems clustered round the

phenomenon (ibid.), and linguistic paradigms have provided no theoretical

1I see no contradiction in using polysystem theory as an evaluative tool, as I agree with

Theo Hermans that there is no necessary relation between systems thinking and descriptiv-

ism (Hermans 1999:41, Chang 2001:328, 330).

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



5/23

Nam Fung Chang 307

tools for describing translational norms without value judgements (Toury

2000:279). As a result, tension grew between researchers who were trying to

use established methods to investigate the perceived new problem and those

who felt a need for new methods. The second type of researchers graduallyestablished new channels of communication and developed a new discip-

linary utopia, that is, a new sense of a shared interest in a common set of

problems, approaches, and objectives (Holmes 1988:67).

This discipline-to-be was given a name and a structure by Holmes in his

seminal paper The Name and Nature of Translation Studies (ibid.). Perhaps

more importantly, it was equipped with a tool for research in contrast to

criticism in the form of polysystem theory, which provided the theoretical

foundation for Gideon Tourys Descriptive Translation Studies and inuenced

a number of other scholars such as Andr Lefevere, Theo Hermans, SusanBassnett and Jos Lambert. Sharing some of the basic tenets of the theory,

such as systems thinking and descriptivism, these scholars shifted the elds

attention from elaborating criteria for a successful or optimal translation to

investigating the cultural context of translation. They came to be known as

the Manipulation School.

In retrospect, we can see that both the linguistic and cultural approaches have

played a role in the development of translation studies. The works of Eugene A.

Nida (1964) and J. C. Catford (1965) have substituted methodology for impres-

sionism, and have demonstrated that translation really is a subject in its ownright (Toury 2000: 278-79). Nevertheless, the linguistic turn of the 1960s did

not lead to the development of translation studies into a separate academic

discipline because it did nothing to change the double disadvantage from which

translation studies was suffering: remaining application-oriented, the eld was

deemed less academic than pure research; and the object of study translation

was still looked down upon as a secondary and second-rateactivity.

The credit for establishing the discipline goes to the endeavours of the

Manipulation School, among the earliest of which are Holmess paper and

Even-Zohars work on polysystem theory. The name translation studies hasenabled the eld, as none of the then existing terms could have done, to gain

an identity that is distinct from comparative literature and linguistics (cf.

Ulrych and Bosinelli 1999:225), and to acquire a disciplinary status. Vague

designations such as translation, Nidas science of translating, or Peter

Newmarks translation theory did not fully reect the elds new, broader

scope and potential. Furthermore, the eld has won academic respectability

as a discipline partly because a terrain that it claimed for itself a specic

structure, dened by Holmes as comprising a pure main branch subdivided

into the theoretical and the descriptive branch.Against this background, the contribution of polysystem theory is three-

fold. First, as a theory that can be drawn on for description it has given

substance to Holmess pure translation studies. While in the eyes of some

scholars traditional translation criticism and, to a lesser extent, the linguistic

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



6/23


approach, had exhausted their potential and lost their research appeal, poly-

system theory showed its vitality by widening the eld. It now included the

study of works in the categories of quasi-translation, pseudo-translation,

and even non-translation the latter term sometimes applied to a text that istraceable to a source but deemed to have deviated too much from it to deserve

to be called a translation, as if this were some kind of honorary title (Toury

1980:27). Instead of focusing on the texts alone, the theory also encouraged the

researcher to step back and examine the relationship between translations and

the cultures in which they are undertaken, so that all kinds of questions could

now be asked that had previously not seemed to be of signicance (Bass-

nett 1993:142). Polysystem theory came to dominate thinking in the 1980s

(Bassnett 1998:128) and led to a dramatic change in direction and a boom in

research activities. Hermans (1999:102) observes that polysystem theory

offered a comprehensive and ambitious framework, something re-

searchers could turn to when looking for explanations and contexts

of actual behaviour. A signicant amount of empirical and historical

work on translation, and especially on literary translation, is directly

or indirectly indebted to polysystem theory.

Polysystem theory has thus led the discipline away from its application-based

orientation and paved the way for the cultural turn in translation studies.Second, the target-oriented approach of polysystem theory has mounted an

offensive against the dominance of the original and the consequent relegation

of translation to a position of subservience (Bassnett 1993:141). Case studies

conducted within its framework have proved the vital role of translations in

shaping cultures, thus bringing translations in from the margins where they

could be properly considered alongside all other texts within a literary system

(Bassnett 1998a:108).

Third, contrary to the elitism of traditional literary studies in conn[ing]

itself to the so-called masterpieces, polysystem theory rejects valuejudgements as criteria for an a priori selection of the objects of study (Even-

Zohar 1990:13), and gives equal attention to central and peripheral systems.

Although Even-Zohar (1979:292-93) warn[s] against what can be termed a

reverse high-brow approach, stating that polysystem theory should not be

allowed to become a pseudo-rational justication for democratic ideas, his

non-elitism is in effect an ideological stance thatdirectly elevates the cultural

status of translation and, indirectly, the academic status of translation studies,

in disregard of the interests of central systems (Chang 2001:329-30).

2. Traditional Chinese discourse on translation

Translation studies in China has developed along a similar, though more cir-

cuitous route. Towards the end of the 19th century, when China was invaded

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



7/23

Nam Fung Chang 309

by various powers, there arose in the nation a strong sense of what Even-Zohar

calls weakness (1990:47) or self-insufciency if one wants to avoid any

evaluative connotations (Bassnett 1998:127, Hermans 1999:109). Conse-

quently, translation became a central system.This period also witnessed what is sometimes regarded as the rst Chinese

translation theory (Liu Ching-chih 1981:1). Yan Fu (1901/1933),the pioneer-

ing translator of Western works on social sciences, put forwardxin, daand

ya(faithfulness, comprehensibility and elegance) as the three difculties in

translation. Taken as the three criteria for translation (Tan 1987:3), these

were revered by many Chinese scholars as the only guide for translators and

the only yardstick for translation critics (Luo 1984:593). Decades passed before

they were seriously challenged (notably by Zhu 1944/1984:448-49 and Zhao

1967/1984:726). Later, there were attempts to reinterpret or modify Yans cri-teria (Liu Zhongde 1994:9, Chen 1992:411-18). However, most of those who

have probed into the question of translation criteria, including Yans critics,

have not gone beyond the shadow of the three difculties (Luo 1984:595-96)

as they continued to work in similar terms.

Yans theory dominated Chinese discourse on translation until the 1980s.

Even in the new millennium there have been attempts to uphold it as the gold

standard and to use it to keep foreign theories out (Liu Airong 2001; see also

Zhang Jinghao 2006:59-60). The inuence of Yans theory on translation prac-

tice, however, may have been over-estimated.His three difculties, especiallyelegance, were proposed to justify his extremely target-oriented strategies,

which were the norm at a time when the Chinese linguistic-literary polysystem

was still stable. Two decades later, in the early 1920s, with the entire culture

in crisis, source-oriented strategies gradually prevailed, especially in left-

wing literary circles, over the target-oriented strategies advocated by Yan. Lu

Xun, the leading revolutionary writer-cum-translator of the time, advocated

faithfulness rather than smoothness in translation as a means of importing

not only new ideas but also new forms of expression in order to cure the im-

preciseness of the Chinese language (Lu 1931/1984:275-76; my translation).Given his literary and political status and the support of Mao Zedong in the

1950s (Chen 1992:383), Lus discourse on translation was canonized and has

continued to inuence translators for over half a century. Partly due to this

inuence, translational norms in China seem to have remained largely source-

oriented, and have not been very responsive to changes in the systemic position

of translation (Chang 2005:61, 70-71). This phenomenon may be described as

the perpetuation of a norm crystallized in an earlier phase.

Centred on the literal versus free controversy, Chinese discourse on trans-

lation until the 1980s was as unsystematic, essayistic and practice-orientedas Hermans (1999:21) nds the Western traditional approach to be. What

makes it distinctive is its preoccupation with the establishment of a universal

translation criterion. In the words of Fan Shouyi, We need one set of criteria

as a common measure for translators to abide by. It could be Yan Fus xin,

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



8/23


da and yaor any other set which is unanimously accepted (Fan 1992:155).

Yet such common measures are hard to nd. Those that exist are generally

presented in terse (rather than detailed or precise) formulations. For example,

Yan Fus theory, which Zhang Jinghao (2006:59-60) claims to be no less pro-found than that of Alexander Tytler, is expounded in about 1000 characters;

Tytlers treatiseEssay on the Principles of Translation, by contrast, written a

century earlier, is around 50,000 words in length.

The study of translation in China used to be an amateurish activity, in the

sense that there were very few (if any) full-time theorists or researchers. Given

its practical orientation and low level of theorization, the eld remained at

the periphery of the polysystem of scholarship, and yet the centre of the eld

seemed content with the status quo. It retained a sense of self-sufciency vis-

-vis foreign repertoires, much longer than some adjacent disciplines such as

linguistics and Chinese culture as a whole.

3. Two waves of Westernization

The rst wave of Westernization in translation studies began in the early

1980s. After the Cultural Revolution, there was a vacuum in Chinese culture as

people were generally dissatised with established repertoires. Translation, an

important means of transferring Western repertoires, played a role in reshapingthe culture. These cultural conditions kindled an interest not only in the study

of translation but also in foreign translation theories. A number of scholars in

China, mostly junior in academic rank, began to introduce Western translation

theories, mainly by linguists such as Nida, Catford and Wolfram Wilss. These

foreign repertoires, transferred via the periphery of the academic polysystem,

had a considerable impact on Chinese translation studies. The theories in ques-

tion functioned as primary, or innovative models on the Chinese mainland,

but by the time of their transference their once innovative role in the source

systems had been supplanted by other theories, such as skopos theory, poly-

system theory and other culturally-oriented theories of translation.

The conversion of secondary or conservative models into primary ones

after crossing cultural borders is not rare (Even-Zohar 1990:92). Given the

state of translation studies in China at that time, either linguistic or cultural

theories could likely have played a primary role. What determined the suc-

cessful transference of the former was not just their accessibility, that is, the

possibility of getting hold of a source, but ultimately their availability, that

is, the legitimacy of implementing what the state of accessibility can offer(ibid.:93).2Since the attention of most Chinese translation scholars was still

2In Even-Zohars later writings (such as 1997a:21), (legitimately) usable is used to refer

to what he formerly meant by available, while available just means accessible.

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



9/23

Nam Fung Chang 311

focused on practical matters such as translating and translation criticism, Nidas

application-oriented theory was considered to be novel and useful. The theory,

introduced separately but almost simultaneously through the work of two

scholars (Jin and Nida 1984, Tan 1984), soon came to exercise considerableimpact on the practice and study of translation. Nidas concept of dynamic

equivalence seemed to be more appropriate for that period since the main

purpose of translation was no longer to reshape the entire Chinese culture,

its language included, as it had been in Lu Xuns time, but merely to import

Western learning for practical application (Chang 2008:140). Nidas emphasis

on reader response made his theory more egalitarian than the Chinese socio-

cultural norm of loyalty of the inferior to the superior; therefore it served as

a mild antidote to the predominant respect for the primacy of the original.3

Furthermore, the principle of equivalent effect seemed to promise the endof the age-old literal versus free controversy and the theorys methodology

had appeal because it was seen as scientic and academic.

Nidas theory, however, did not have a subversive effect in China. Even

though the reader is taken into consideration, the theory still focuses on

comparing the source and target texts. Factors external to the text but which

impinge on it, such as power and ideology, are not explored. Nidas approach

is similar to traditional discourse on translation in that it is prescriptive and

aims to set a criterion based on the moral concept of loyalty. Its relation to

traditional Chinese discourse on translation is one of competition and complic-ity: while struggling against the latter for the central position, it has reinforced

the practical orientation of Chinese translation studies.

The second wave of Westernization was initiated by junior scholars in Hong

Kong in the 1990s. Although practice-oriented translation programmes prolif-

erated in the 1980s in Hong Kong following the rapid expansion of the tertiary

education sector, very little research was conducted in those days. Starting in

the 1990s, university teachers were required to obtain doctoral qualications

and produce research output. Junior scholars in Hong Kong not infrequently

abandoned prescriptive theories for descriptive models, such as polysystemtheory, (Tourys) Descriptive Translation Studies, and Skopos theory, and later

also other cultural theories, such as postcolonialism and feminism. Within a

few years most of the relatively active translation researchers in Hong Kong

had adopted the cultural turn.

Hong Kong scholars introduced many of these theories to the Chinese

mainland through journal articles, translations, conference presentations,

guest lectures and, since the late 1990s, the admission of postgraduate students

from the Mainland. It has taken a much longer time for cultural theories of

translation to be accepted, however, than it did for linguistic theories, because

3This effect of Nidas theory on China is evident in the fact that most criticisms directed

against it are made on the ground that it pays too much attention to reader response at the

expense of the author (Liu Ching-chih 1986, Liu Yingkai 1997).

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



10/23


cultural theories are less compatible with the traditional value system and with

the underlying concept of translation in Chinese culture.

In the 21st century, the effort to transfer foreign theories has been rein-

forced by scholars and publishers in the Chinese mainland. A large number ofarticles and books introducing, applying and critiquing Western theories have

appeared and many English books on translation have been made available

in low-price editions.

On the whole, translation studies in the Chinese mainland is now dominated

by Western models, with cultural theories at the centre. According to Zhang

Jinghao (2006:59), among the articles published in 2005 in the Chinese Trans-

lators Journal(the top journal in the Mainland specializing in translation),

69.16 percent engage with foreign translation theories or translators. In the

rst few years of the century, polysystem theory was so widely used by PhDcandidates that a distinguished scholar wondered: Nowadays every thesis in

translation studies talks about polysystem theory. Are there no other theo-

ries? (reported by L 2006; my translation).

4. The consequences of Westernization for translation studies

The importation of Western theories ushered in a boom period for the study of

translation. As a result, new disciplinary utopias began to take shape in Hong

Kong and the Chinese mainland in the 1980s, making it possible for translationstudies to develop into an academic discipline in its own right.

Translation studies is now an independent discipline in Hong Kong. Among

the nine universities, there are at present six BA and ve MA programmes

with translation in the title. Many of them began to admit PhD students in

translation studies in the mid- or late 1990s, and a translation research sum-

mer school was set up in 2009. Perhaps the most important indicator is that

translation is now listed as a discipline in the Research Assessment Exercise

conducted by the University Grants Committee of Hong Kong (University

Grants Committee of Hong Kong 2007). This course of events might seemnatural, given the great demand for translation programmes at all levels.

However, translation studies in Hong Kong might easily have been annexed

by other disciplines, and might not have gained disciplinary status, if, for

example, all the junior translation teachers had chosen to pursue their PhD

studies in the more prestigious elds of linguistics or literary studies, or those

from adjacent areas had continued to do research in their original elds, or

translation studies had remained practice-oriented.

The situation in the Chinese mainland has been more complex. In 1987

there were calls for the establishment of translation studies (or translatology)as a discipline (Mu 1995:31-33), especially by Tan Zaixi (1987), one of the

importers of Nidas theory. The means of achieving this goal were discussed,

and what most scholars had in mind was an applied discipline based on some

linguistic theories, such as Nidas socio-semiotics (Mu 1995:33). Eight years

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



11/23

Nam Fung Chang 313

later another call was made (Chang 1995). Suggesting that the discipline

should be founded on the descriptive branch of translation studies, it provoked

a strong reaction from Lao Long (1996). The two articles by Chang and Lao

raised a storm in China (Sun Huijun and Zhang Boran 2002:4; my transla-tion). There were two rounds of debates, rst in 1996-1997 and then on a

larger scale in 1999-2001. The minority view was that translation studies

had not been established as an academic discipline even in the West, and

could never hope to become one anywhere (Lao 1996, Zhang Jinghao 1999).

The majority, on the other hand, argued that it should and could become an

academic discipline and, in the second round of debate, that it had already

done so, even in China. Mu Lei (2000) provided statistics about the number

of academic bodies, journals, academic departments and programmes from

the undergraduate to the doctoral level that specialize in translation studies a clear indication that the eld has indeed become, de facto, a discipline in

its own right in the Chinese mainland.

At present, the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong (with Taiwan catching

up rapidly since 2000) appear to be the only regions in East Asia that is, east

of India where translation studies constitutes an active research area and is

widely recognized as an independent academic discipline. In other East Asian

countries, where translation studies remains largely practice-oriented,4pure

translation studies is the pursuit of just a few idiosyncratic scholars.

Another consequence of the importation of Western theories is that Chi-nese translation studies originally a stand-alone system has been brought

into the network of relations in the polysystem of international translation

studies and, in the sense that it acts as an importer rather than exporter of rep-

ertoires, has become a peripheral member of that polysystem. From the late

1990s onward, the ow of translation discourse was no longer predominantly

unidirectional. Chinese discourse on translation past and present began to

be introducedabroadthrough journal articles, book chapters, and anthologies

of Chinese writings on translation (such as Chan 2004, Cheung 2006, forth-

coming). As a result, the position of Chinese translation studies has becomeless peripheral, but it remains to be seen whether it will become a source of

repertoire transfer.

5. Resistance

In the West, new translation theories and the effort to establish translation

studies as a discipline have, at most, met with what Even-Zohar calls passive

resistance: People do not engage themselves with working covertly against

the new options. They simply ignore them (Even-Zohar 2002:48). Occa-sionally, one may hear a linguist or a philologist complain about the cultural

4See, for example, the articles in Translation in Asia: Past and Present (Hung and Yang

2000) on Thailand, Malaysia and South Korea.

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



12/23


turn, but there seems to be no perceived need to argue either for or against the

establishment of the discipline. In the Chinese mainland, by contrast, these

theories have met with active resistance,in the sense that there are people

who engage themselves in a more or less overt and straightforward struggleagainst the planned repertoire (ibid.).

The most prominent form of resistance is the claim that Chinese theories

are good enough, while foreign ones are hardly an improvement on the status

quo. During the rst wave of Westernization, Luo Xinzhang, a veteran trans-

lation scholar, asserted without making much reference to foreign theories

that Chinese translation theories, being unique in the world, had formed a

system of their own, and therefore there was no need to be unduly humble

(Luo 1984:588, 603). In the new millennium, when virtually all Western

theories have become widely known, there are suggestions that they do notcompare favourably with existing Chinese theories. For example, Zhang

Jinghao has suggested that what Nida means by dynamic equivalence had

already been elaborated by the Chinese scholar Ma Jianzhong at the turn of

the 20th century: A good translation is that from which readers may draw the

same benets as from the original (Zhang Jinghao 2006:60; my translation);

he also asserted that Venutis concepts of foreignization and domestication

are not substantially different from the traditional concepts of literal trans-

lation and free translation (ibid.). It has also been argued that polysystem

theory offers nothing new in its hypothesis that translational norms shiftwith the position of translated literature, because Yan Fu already formulated

the translation methods of addition, reduction and alteration (Liu Airong

2001:43; my translation), which enabled him to formulate target-oriented

strategies long before polysystem theory was there to tell translators what to

do. This argument clearly betrays deep misunderstanding of the basic tenets

of polysytem theory.

A renowned professor-cum-translator, Xu Yuanchong, has even declared

that the literary translation theories of Chinese school [sic] are the most

advanced in the world of the 20th century on the grounds that only the

Chinese school has solved the difcult problems of translating between the

two major languages of the world Chinese and English (Xu 2003:52, 54; my

translation). By the theories of the Chinese school he means the theories he

himself has propounded (Xu 2003:54). He also claims that, without drawing

on any foreign theories, he has made an achievement that is the highest and

even unparalleled in the world (Xu 2003:54; my translation).

Zhang Jinghao (2006:60) dismisses foreign theories as being of little use

where translation practice is concerned and blames them for a retrogressionin the eld of Chinese translation. By depriving Yan Fus theory of its authori-

tative status, he argues, foreign theories have brought Chinese discourse on

translation from a state where there is an authority to a state where there is

none (ibid.; my translation).

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



13/23

Nam Fung Chang 315

Those who voice the strongest objections to foreign theories are also those

who assert that translation studies can hardly hope to become an academic

discipline a goal that a growing number of Chinese academics have been

trying to realize with the help of Western theories. Their argument, however, isnot always consistent. Attacking the concept of a practice-oriented discipline,

they argue that since there are no translational laws that may guide translators

to solve practical problems, translation studies as a discipline can only be

descriptive, that is, limited to analysis and theoretical explanation (Zhang

Jinghao 2001:63; see also Xu 2001:19). So far, they seem to be in agreement

with the Manipulation School. Yet they are of the opinion that it is futile

and worthless for pure theories to create translatology out of thin air (Zhang

Jinghao 1999:44; my translation). Another argument is that translation was

not a discipline 5,000 years ago when it rst appeared, and it is certainly nota discipline today (Zhang Jinghao 2001:64). This observation reects what

Hermans (1991:166) describes as a fatal confusion between the disciplines

object-level (translational phenomena) and its meta-level (the scholarly dis-

course about translational phenomena): the fact that translation practice is

not a discipline does not mean that the study of translation could never be

a discipline. As evidence for his assertion that translation studies is not yet

widely recognized as a discipline in the West, a Chinese scholar points to the

fact that the commonly used term is the modest translation studies, while

the term translatology is nowhere to be found in English language dictionaries(Zhang Jinghao 1999:35; 2006:59).

One comparatively moderate form of resistance is the call for the estab-

lishment of Chinese translation studies or translation studies with Chinese

characteristics.5This is based on the argument that since Western theories are

concerned only with translation between European languages, they are bound

to be inapplicable to translation into or from the Chinese language, which is

so very different from European languages (Gui 1986, Zhang Boran and Jiang

Qiuxia 1997, Sun Zhili 1997).

At the root of resistance in China to Western translation theories is a clash

between two traditions. There are at least three causes contributing to this

clash. First, academic research, as practised in many parts of the world, is

predominantly a feature of the Western tradition. Although the modern edu-

cation system (including universities) in China and most other Asian countries

is modelled on that of the West, some Western academic values have not been

fully embraced by Chinese scholars. Traditional Chinese scholarship, based

on the premise that learning should bring immediate benets to society, is

5It should be noted that the term translation studies with Chinese characteristics has

political and nationalistic undertones as it draws on the slogan socialism with Chinese

characteristics, which Deng Xiaoping invented in the 1980s to defend his economic

reforms against criticisms that he was switching from socialism to capitalism. See Tan

(this volume).

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



14/23


utilitarian in emphasis. In the Confucian tradition, the aim of learning is self-

cultivation, leading to harmony within ones family, regulation of the kingdom,

and ultimately pacication of the world (Link 1986:82). Traditional Chinese

intellectuals consider it their responsibility to make judicious value judge-ments, and they have little afnity for concepts such as detachment, neutrality

and descriptivism. After China was repeatedly defeated by Western powers

and Japan at the turn of the 20th century, technological advancement and eco-

nomic growth became major concerns. This may explain why most people on

either side of the debate over the disciplinary status of translation studies have

been talking about a discipline that is application-oriented. Moreover, since

traditional Chinese scholarship tends to value insight and daring hypotheses

more than in-depth analysis and substantiation, there is hardly any place there

for methodology and theorization. These traits are very much present in the

writings of those who reject Western translation theories.6

Second, in Chinese culture, cohesionof the social entity, that is, a wide-

spread sense of solidarity among a group of people (see Even-Zohar 2000:395),

and conformity to dominant norms are prioritized over individual rights, com-

petition and independent thinking. As Benedict Stavis observes, traditional

Chinese culture does not share Western religions idea of equality in the eyes

of God, and the political ruler had as much right to rule his nation as a father

had to rule his family. This is indicated by the fact that the Chinese term forcountry (guojia) includes the character for family (jia) (Stavis 1988:67-69).

Given these values, it is not surprising that some Chinese scholars hold the

view that the importation of foreign theories has merely created chaos.

The third cause of the clash is the conict between internationalism and

nationalism, which to a great extent is a product of the second factor. When

cohesion is of paramount importance, national identity will override all other

identities. The high sensitivity in Chinese culture to national identity fuels a

tendency to use nationality as the rst criterion for the classication not only of

people but also of cultural products. Hence the distinction between Chinese

6Neither Xu Yuanchong nor the editor of the academic journal that published his article

seemed to nd it necessary to substantiate his claim that he has made an achievement that

is the highest and even unparalleled in the world (2003:54; my translation). The following

is one of the bases on which Zhang Jinghao concludes that translation studies has not

been established as a discipline in other parts of the world:

Do translation circles outside China consider translation studies established

as a discipline? I lack data on this score, but I can still make a conjecture. Ifthere were many articles published outside China that are afrmative about it,

and if they were convincing, or at least had some merits in the eyes of some

people, they would have been translated or introduced, since there are so many

people in our country specializing in theoretical translation studies. (Zhang

Jinghao 1999:45; my translation).

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



15/23

Nam Fung Chang 317

and foreign theories.7

Chinese culture used to be the central system in the polysystem of the

region, and seldom felt much need for foreign repertoires. The resultant sense

of superiority was so strong that it may be aptly described as Sinocentrism:the Chinese called themselves the Central Nation (Zhongguo) because they

truly believed until a few centuries ago that they were at the centre of the

world.8 AfterChina was repeatedly defeated by foreign powers, it was not

only relegated to the periphery in the polysystem of the world, but it also lost

its central position in East Asia. A sense of inferiority arose, but the old sense

of superiority lingered on, creating a superiority-inferiority complexwhich is

responsible for its mixed attitude toward foreign repertoires.

Although nationalism has seldom been overtly invoked as a weapon to repel

foreign repertoires in translation studies (as it has been in some other realmssuch as politics and the entertainment business9), it is very much present in the

rhetoric of the most adamant opponents of Western theories. Zhang Jinghao,

for example, delivered a scathing attack on the Chinese Translators Journal.

In an article he published in the journal, the Chinese title of which literally

means Chinese translation, he writes that it has published so many articles

that engage with foreign translation theories or translators that it has actually

become a journal of foreign translation (Zhang Jinghao 2006:59).

The effect of nationalism is usually less obvious. For instance, one of the

justications for the establishment of Chinese translation studies is that Chinaneeds its own set of translation criteria: Chinese culture has a long history

and (therefore) a remarkablecapacity to accept and assimilate heterogeneous

items (Zhang Boran and Jiang Qiuxia 1997:9; my translation). This is the

kind of politically correct statement that national or nationalistic feelings tend

7 Nationality is sometimes used even to sub-classify foreign theories. For instance,

the Series of Translation Studies Outside China, published in the Chinese mainland in

2000-2001, consists of the following titles: Contemporary Translation Studies in UK,

Contemporary Translation Studies in France,Contemporary Translation Studies in USA,and Translation Studies in USSR. (A more literal translation of the Chinese titles would

be Contemporary British Translation Theories, etc.) This way of classifying translation

theories seems to be academically untenable, since a body of theories thus grouped together

may not function as a system vis--vis another one. It may also not be advisable to give an

account of the work of a theorist (such as Hermans) in isolation from that of another one

belonging to another nation (such as Even-Zohar) (see Liao 2001:302-28).8For example, a map of the world brought to China by the Christian missionary Matteo

Ricci in the 16th century had to be redesigned to make China appear right in the centre

in order to win the good will of the Chinese (Ricci 1583-1610/1953:166-67; also see

Wang 2006:43).9Zhang Guoli, a lm star in the Chinese mainland, for instance, called the media thatprogrammed many Korean TV series traitors to China (Hanjian) and the watching of

such series a treasonable act. Faced with such criticisms, the State Administration of

Radio Film and Television said in 2006 that the programming of Korean TV series might

be reduced by half (Ettoday 2006).

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



16/23


to produce, and such statements usually go unchallenged. From a polysys-

temic perspective, the two qualities having a long history and a capacity to

assimilate heterogeneous items do not usually go together. The fact is that

until it lost its central position, Chinese culture was generally not receptiveto heterogeneous items (Buddhism being an exception).

6. Higher-level generalizations about repertoire transfer

Following the above discussion of the transfer of Western translation theo-

ries to China, some higher-level generalizations and explanations (Toury

1995:39) are in order. One intriguing question is: Why has translation studies

become an academic discipline in China, of all the countries in East Asia?

Western theories of translation, especially cultural theories, must have madea difference. But then why is the Chinese mainland more receptive to cul-

tural theories of translation than most other places in the region, with the

exception of Hong Kong? Hong Kong translation scholars, with much better

access to these theories, must have played a role in initiating the importation

of cultural theories, but their efforts would not have resulted in the transfer of

these theories without the support of their mainland colleagues and without

ofcial tolerance in China. Cultural theories may have been introduced earlier

in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan,10but they do not seem to have caught on

in translation studies in those regions. Because these countries have been incloser contact with the West due to political and ideological afnities, and

have better access to information and to economic resources, they would seem

more likely to adopt Western repertoires, but apparently that is not the case as

far as translation studies is concerned.

The difference between the Chinese mainland and the rest of the East

Asian region (except for Hong Kong) lies mainly in Chinas readiness to

accept foreign repertoires. Some of the cultures in Asia have gone through a

Westernization phase, during which time they were eager to take in Western

repertoires, but they have since become more or less stabilized. Although theyalso, to varying degrees, assume peripheral positions in the world, in the past

two decades or so there has not been a general sense of self-insufciency. In

the Chinese mainland by contrast, as discussed earlier in this article, there has

been a strong sense of self-insufciency since the late 1970s, as reected in

Chinas determination to modernize, and to do so by learning from the West.

Cultural theories of translation happened to emerge in the West at that moment

in history, so it is no surprise that China became more receptive to them.

Unlike the importations of Christianity and opium, which were initiated by

powerful outside agents, the transfer of Western translation theories to China

10For example, Lefevere published a paper in a Taiwanese journal in 1979 (Lefevere 1979),

and Even-Zohar gave the right to translate all his works to a scholar in Taiwan during his

visit there in 1994 (Editorial Ofce, Chung Wai Literary Monthly2001:4).

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



17/23

Nam Fung Chang 319

was undertaken by peripheral agents from within because they perceived

a vacuum, an urgent need for theoretical frameworks that could be used to

describe and explain Chinese translational phenomena. The Western theories

they imported have more than fullled their expected functions. In terms ofinter-systemic struggles in the Chinese mainland, the discipline of translation

studies has become much less heteronomous. In Hong Kong it is even more

autonomous than in many parts of Europe because there are now more teachers

specializing in both the pure and the applied branches of translation studies.

In terms of scholarship, there is now much broader and deeper understanding

of Chinese translation phenomena than in the pre-disciplinary stage.

7. Conclusion

The Westernization of translation studies in China is a classic case of a poly-

system borrowing repertoires from others to full certain self-perceived needs

(whether these needs are real or not), thus saving the effort of inventing

them.11

This conclusion will most probably be criticized in certain quarters for

being too much of a wholesale acceptance of polysystem theory. In anticipation

of this response, I would like to make two more points. First, the transfer of

Western translation theories to China is not a case in which what matters

is [not] the intrinsic quality relevancy, efciency or usefulness of themodels, tools or theories exported by the centre, but rather the authority and

power which accompany this process (Susam-Sarajeva 2002:198). Nida and

Newmark were indeed authorities, but most members of the so-called Ma-

nipulation School, working and publishing in the periphery of Europe, were

probably not authorities, or at least not yet perceived as such in Hong Kong

in the late 1980s, when their work was rst read there. Western theories were

imported by peripheral gures in the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong in an

attempt to challenge or even subvert the conservative centre of Chinese trans-

lation studies. The attempt was successful, proving the relevancy, efciencyand usefulness of those theories, and further consolidating their central posi-

tion in international translation studies. With regard to the genealogy of these

theories, some have indeed come from socio-cultural centres of the world;

polysystem theory, however, originated from outside Europe although it was

formulated in line with the Western academic tradition.This may serve as an

example of something that ebnem Susam-Sarajeva (2002:195) suggests is

non-existent: The centre could be anywherethat produces interesting and

useful hypotheses, models and theories.

Second, it does not seem to be the case that in this Westernization pro-cess other alternatives were suppressed and gradually came to be forgotten

(ibid.:198). Witness the claims, discussed in Section 5 above, that certain Chinese

11I am indebted for this remark to Itamar Even-Zohar.

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



18/23


theories are comparable to the theories of Nida, Venuti and Even-Zohar, or

even superior to them. I wonder how many scholars, including those who hold

anti-Eurocentric views, will think that these claims are justied.

It seems necessary at this point to engage with the appropriateness ofusing a Western theory to analyze the development of Chinese translation

studies. I agree with Susam-Sarajeva that models and tools originating from

the centre and created initially by using central data, do not necessarily prove

useful when they are taken out of their contexts and put to use on peripheral

data (ibid.:195). I am inclined to go even further and suggest that repertoires

originating from any systems, not just central systems, may be inapplicable

to other systems, peripheral or otherwise; it is equally true that repertoires

originating from a particular system are not necessarily inapplicable in another

system, and that indigenous repertoires are not necessarily applicable in thelocal context. But how is one to judge the applicability of any repertoire, be

it foreign or indigenous? Common sense would tell us to put it to the test.

However, Susam-Sarajeva (ibid.:204) warns that there may be a snag:

If theory continues to be seen as something that will always be sup-

plied by the centre and consumed by the periphery, then the translation

theories offered by the centre cannot be truly challenged just by testing

them out on data provided by the periphery.

One wonders whether it is possible, however, to test and challenge theo-

ries in the periphery (or anywhere, for that matter) if they are chosen on their

merits without regard to their origin, and if they are seen not as something

sacred, but as something to be veried and further developed. In any case,

many Chinese scholars have tried to put Western theories of translation to the

test and, depending on the outcome of the test, proceeded either to verify these

theories, or to refute, modify or improve upon them.

It is nave to assume that the polysystem of academia is governed by pure

academic norms, as if it has nothing to do with politics; equally, it will not do toattribute everything to power relations, as if academic principles did not matter.

All socio-cultural systems are, to varying degrees, as polysystem theory puts

it, simultaneously autonomous and heteronomous with all other co-systems

(Even-Zohar 1990:23). Polysystem theory also views social entities, just like

other systems, as neither identical (since they consist of different groups of

people) nor unique (since they are all human groups). By implication, there

is always the possibility that some theories (or repertoires) have universal ap-

plicability to a certain extent, while others may be more culture-specic.

An observation made by Hermans in 1999 is probably even truer today:The more committed approaches to translation are currently making most

of the running in translation studies (Hermans 1999:157). This means that

the morally/politically committed approaches, or what Even-Zohar calls the

reverse high-brow approaches, have become central approaches. As these

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



19/23

Nam Fung Chang 321

approaches have yielded fruitful results in some parts of the world in recent

years, some theorists have been trying to export them to other parts in the

belief that they are universally applicable. In my view, eager proponents of

the committed approaches may do well to take heed of Hermans warningwith regard to the limitations of committed approaches: There are reasons

and relations to be discovered which we run the risk of overlooking if moral

outrage leads us to focus on just one glaring aspect (ibid.).

Take postcolonialism as an example. If we step back and take a broader

view, we may see that while there are various forms of oppression (cf. Tymoczko

2000:32-33), postcolonialism is mainly concerned with one form, that is,

international/inter-systemic oppression. This particular form of oppression is

a glaring aspect only in certain cultures and in certain times. In other cultures

it may be intra-national/intra-systemic oppression that is causing the greatestconcern in the present time. For this reason I regard postcolonialism as a more

culture-specic type of theory. Paradoxically, attempts by postcolonialists to

export their theory to all other cultures may, by their own standards, constitute

an imperialistic act. Worse still, they may even do a disservice to the victims

of intra-systemic oppression because the postcolonialists are playing into

the hands of certain dictatorial regimes in peripheral regions. These regimes

have suppressed ethnic cultures and non-indigenous religions in their own

countries, massacred students holding peaceful rallies, and imprisoned a large

number of journalists, lawyers, activists and whistleblowers, on the pretext thatWestern standards of democracy, human rights and freedom of speech are not

applicable to local realities. Meanwhile, they pose as victims of colonialism,

assume the moral high ground and accuse dissidents of collaborating with

foreign powers.

Hermans (1999:106) suggests that the absence of dialogue with other

theories is one of the reasons why polysystem theory has begun to look

long in the tooth. I believe that such a dialogue will be mutually benecial,

and that it is the responsibility of all sides to make it happen. This article is

an effort in that direction.

NAM FUNG CHANG

Department of Translation, Lingnan University, 8 Castle Peak Road, Tuen

Mun, Hong Kong. [email protected]

References

Bassnett, Susan (1993) Comparative Literature, Oxford: Blackwell.

------ (1998) The Translation Turn in Cultural Studies, in Susan Bassnett andAndr Lefevere, Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation,

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 123-40.

------ (1998a) Researching Translation Studies: The Case for Doctoral Research,

in Peter Bush and Kirsten Malmkjr (eds) Rimrauds Rainbow: Literary

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



20/23


Translation in Higher Education, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins,

105-18.

Catford, J. C. (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied

Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chan, Leo Tak-hung (2004) Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory:

Modes, Issues and Debates, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Chang, Nam Fung (1995),(Out of the Dead End andinto Translation Studies),Journal of Foreign Languages () 3: 1-3.

------ (2001) Polysystem Theory: Its Prospect As a Framework for Translation

Research, Target13(2): 317-32.

------ (2005) Yes Prime Manipulator: How a Chinese Translation of British Politi-

cal Humour Came into Being, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.

------ (2008) A Missing Link in Even-Zohars Theoretical Thinking, Target

20(1): 135-48.

Chen, Fukang (1992)(History of Chinese TranslationTheory), Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Cheung, Martha P. Y. (ed.) (2006)An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Trans-

lation, Volume I: From Earliest Times to the Buddhist Project, Manchester:

St. Jerome.

------ (forthcoming)An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation, Volume

Two: From the 13th Century to the Beginning of the 20th Century, Manchester:

St. Jerome.

Editorial Ofce (2001)(Notes of the Editorial Ofce), ChungWai Literary Monthly() 3: 4-6.

Ettoday (2006)(Korean TV Series Frenzy: Korea Craze in China Too. Zhang Guoli Blasts:

Just Like Treasonable Act), 10 January, available at http://www.ettoday.

com/2006/01/10/162-1892352.htm (last accessed 30 April 2009).

Even-Zohar, Itamar (1979) Polysystem Theory,Poetics Today1(1-2): 287-310.

------ (1990)Polysystem Studies,Poetics Today11(1).

------ (1997) The Making of Culture Repertoire and the Role of Transfer, Target

9(2): 355-63.------ (1997a) Factors and Dependencies in Culture: A Revised Outline for Poly-

system Culture Research, Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 3:

15-34.

------ (2000) Culture Repertoire and the Wealth of Collective Entities, in Dirk De

Geest, Ortwin De Graef, Dirk Delabastita, Koenraad Geldof, Rita Ghesquire

and Jos Lambert (eds) Under Construction: Links for the Site of Literary

Theory: Essays in Honour of Hendrik Van Gorp, Leuven: Leuven University

Press, 389-403.

------ (2002) Culture Planning and Cultural Resistance in the Making and Main-taining of Entities, Sun Yat-Sen Journal of Humanities14: 45-52.

Fan, Shouyi (1992) Translation Studies in Modern China: Retrospect and Pros-

pect, Target4(2): 151-76.

Gui, Qianyuan (1986)

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



21/23

Nam Fung Chang 323

(Strive for the Establishment of Translation Studies with Chinese

Characteristics: With Translation Studies Abroad as a Point of Departure),

Chinese Translators Journal() 3: 12-15.Hermans, Theo (1991) Translational Norms and Correct Translations, in Kitty

M. van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens (eds) Translation Studies: The State

of the Art, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 155-69.

------ (1999) Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches

Explained, Manchester: St. Jerome.

Holmes, James S. (1988) Translated!, Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Hung, Eva and Yang Cheng-shu (eds) (2000) (Trans-lation in Asia: Past and Present), Beijing: Peking University Press.

Jin, Di and Eugene A. Nida (1984) On Translation, Beijing: China Translation &

Publishing Corporation.

Lao, Long (1996)(My

View on Translatology), Chinese Translators Journal () 2: 38-41.Lefevere, Andr (1979) Slauerhoff and Po Tsju I: Three Paradigms for the

Study of Inuence, Tamkang Review10: 67-77.

Liao, Qiyi (2001)(Contemporary Translation Studies inUK), Wuhan: Hubei Education Press.

Link, Perry (1986) Intellectuals and Cultural Policy after Mao, in A. Doak Bar-

nett and Ralph N. Clough (eds) Modernizing China: Post-Mao Reform and

Development, Boulder & London: Westview Press, 81-102.

Liu, Airong (2001)(The Establishment ofChinese Unique System of Translation Theory), Chinese Science and Technol-

ogy Translators Journal() 4: 42-45.Liu Ching-chih (1981)

(Introduction: Resemblance in Spirit Rather than in Form: Translation Theory

since Yan Fu), in Liu Ching-chih (ed.)(Essays on Translation),Hong Kong: Joint Publishing, 1-15.

------ (1986)(Introduction: Language and Trans-lation in Hong Kong), in Liu Ching-chih (ed.)(Papers

on Translation 1986), Hong Kong: Commercial Press, 1-19.Liu, Yingkai (1997)(E. Nidas

Theory of the Readers Response: Its Negative Impact), Shanghai Journal of

Translators for Science and Technology() 1: 1-6.Liu, Zhongde (1994)(A Collection of Unrened Gold and Uncut

Jade), Beijing: China Translation & Publishing Corporation.

Lu, Xun (1931/1984)(Cor-respondence between Lu Xun and Qu Qiubai on Translation: Reply of Lu

Xun), in Luo Xinzhang (ed.)(Essays on Translation), Beijing:

Commercial Press, 273-79.L, Xiaolei (2006)(On the Second Na-

tional Translation Studies PhD Candidates Forum), available at http://www.

tongjis.com/content.dep?m=news&id=378 (last accessed 30 April 2009).

Luo, Xinzhang (1984)(Chinese Translation

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



22/23


Theory: A System of Its Own), in Translators NotesEditorial Department

(ed.) (1949-1983)(Selected Papers in TranslationStudies (1949-1983)), Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press,

588-604.

Mu, Lei (1995)(The Present Situation andProspect of Studies on Translation Theory in China), Journal of Foreign

Languages () 4: 31-36.------ (2000)(Translation Studies: A Dream that

Will Hardly Ever Come True?),Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (

) 7: 44-48.Nida, Eugene A. (1964) Toward A Science of Translating: With Special Reference to

Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Ricci, Matteo (1583-1610/1953) China in the Sixteenth Century: The Journals of

Matthew Ricci, 1583-1610, trans. by Louis J. Gallagher, New York: Random

House.

Stavis, Benedict (1988) Chinas Political Reforms: An Interim Report, New York:

Praeger.

Sun, Huijun and Zhang Boran (2002) (Universality versus Difference: Onthe Development of Contemporary Translation Studies in China), Chinese

Translators Journal() 2: 4-7.

Sun, Zhili (1997)(A Few Points on the

Development of Translation Theory in Our Country), Chinese TranslatorsJournal() 2: 10-12.

Susam-Sarajeva, ebnem (2002) A Multilingual and International Transla-

tion Studies?, in Theo Hermans (ed.) Crosscultural Transgressions: Research

Models in Translation Studies II: Historical and Ideological Issues, Manches-

ter: St. Jerome, 193-207.

Tan, Zaixi (trans.) (1984)(Nida on Translation), adaptation of

Eugene A. Nida and Charles Tabers The Theory and Practice of Translation,

Beijing: China Translation & Publishing Corporation.

------ (1987) (The Science of Translation: An ImportantFrontier Science), Chinese Translators Journal() 3: 2-7.

Toury, Gideon (1980)In Search of a Theory of Translation, Tel Aviv: The Porter

Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.

------ (interviewed by Miriam Shlesinger) (2000) My Way to Translation Studies,

Across Languages and Cultures 2: 275-86.

Tymoczko, Maria (2000) Translation and Political Engagement: Activism, Social

Change and the Role of Translation in Geopolitical Shifts, The Translator

6(1): 23-47.

Ulrych, Margherita and Rosa Maria Bollettieri Bosinelli (1999) The State of theArt in Translation Studies: An Overview, in Susan Bassnett, Rosa Maria Bol-

lettieri Bosinelli and Margherita Ulrych (eds) Translation Studies Revisited,

special issue of Textus: English Studies in Italy2: 219-41.

University Grants Committee of Hong Kong (2007) Excellent Results from the

Do

wnloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19



23/23

Nam Fung Chang 325

Research Assessment Exercise 2006, available at http://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/

ugc/publication/press/2007/pr02032007.htm (last accessed 30 April 2009).

Wang, Xiaoyuan (2006)18951911(Translation, Ideology and Discourse: Literary Translation in

China 1895-1911), PhD thesis, Lingnan University, Hong Kong.

Xu, Yuanchong (2001)(On the Debate over Translatology),

Foreign Languages and Their Teaching () 11: 19-20.------ (2003)(On

the Translation Theory of the Chinese School Is Chinese Translatology

Lagging Behind the West?),Foreign Languages and Their Teaching() 1: 52-54, 59.

Yan, Fu (1901/1933)(Notes on the Translation), in Yan Fu (trans.)

(On Evolution), translation of Thomas H. HuxleysEvolution and

Ethics, Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1-3.

Zhang, Boran and Jiang Qiuxia (1997)(Some

Thoughts on the Establishment of Chinese Translation Studies), Chinese

Translators Journal () 2: 7-9, 16.Zhang, Jinghao (1999)(Translatology: A

Dream that Has Not and Will Hardly Ever Come True),Foreign Languages

and Their Teaching() 10: 44-48.------ (2001)(More Reections on the Establishment of Trans-

latology),Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages(

) 5: 61-65.

------ (2006)(Misplaced Priorities in Trans-lation Studies and Translation Theory), Chinese Translators Journal() 5: 59-61.

Zhao, Yuanren (1967/1984)(Dimensionsof Fidelity in Translation), in Luo Xinzhang (ed.)(Essays on

Translation), Beijing: Commercial Press, 726-47.

Zhu, Guangqian (1944/1984)(On Translation), in Luo Xinzhang(ed.) (Essays on Translation), Beijing: Com ation), Beijing:

Commercial Press, 447-55.Downloadedby[88.1

5.1

96.19


repertoire transfer and resistance (2009)

Documents