《当代中国翻译地带威权命令与礼物交换》（第七章）翻译项目报告.pdf

'－－．—？７－．ＪＶ；六．．：巧译专化学位硕主论文《？＜＾中£＜１｜种池聲，我扭今令朵托ＡＪ：换》（第采章＾徊作巧Ｄ旅４巧玉琪＊＃教师：巧巧江教巧专化名巧，麵译巧丈＇』丄Ｉ厂广Ｉｉｒ｜，－打巧々々巧，巧语ｇ译－．？－．论文提交时间：２０１６年４月论义害辩时巧：２０化年５月巧义？！々，２０１说４４？Ｉ—．—．—－．Ｓ、４．＇－．一．？■－＼＇－Ｔ．＇．■＇，． ATranslationProjectReportofTranslationZonesinModernChina:AuthoritarianCommandVersusGiftExchange(Chapter7)byYangYuqiAthesisSubmittedtotheGraduateSchoolinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementforthedegreeofMasterofTranslationandInterpretingunderthesupervisionofProfessorHuAnjiangChongqing,P.R.ChinaMay2016 i 《当代中国翻译地带：威权命令与礼物交换》（第七章）翻译项目报告摘要本文是一篇翻译项目报告。翻译项目的原文为杜博妮BonnieSMcDougall)编著的《当代中国翻译地带;威权命令与礼物交换》(TranslationZonesinModernChina:AuthoritarianCommandVersusGiftExchange)中的第七章“翻译，权力，所有权”(Translation,Power,andOwnership)。在第七章，作者探讨了“威权主义”模式下，国家对文化产品(包括翻译作品）的所有权问题。译者在翻译与意识形态理论视角的指导下，对源文本中的“意识形态”部分，进行了重新词化和省略的翻译处理，让翻译更符合目标语读者的意识形态。此外，在翻译过程，译者还采用了增译，转译，倒置和分译的方法来保证译本的流畅和准确。关键词：翻译项目报告；所有权；翻译与意识形态；文本类型；翻译方法ii TheTranslationProjectReportofTranslationZonesinModernChina:AuthoritarianCommandVersusGiftExchange(Chapter7)byBonnieS.McDougalAbstractThisisatranslationprojectreportofTranslationZonesinModernChina:AuthoritarianCommandVersusGiftExchangebyMcDougalll,BonnieS,ofwhichChapter7IssuesinTranslation,PowerandOwnershipisthetitletext.Intheseventhchapter,theauthordiscussesthe"authoritarian"mode,theownershipproblemofthestateofculturalproducts,includingtranslationworks.Guidedbythetheoryoftranslationandideology,thetranslatoradoptsstrategies,includingrewordingandomission,inlinewiththeideologyofthetargetreaders.Inaddition,thetranslatoradoptsthemethodsofamplification,conversion,reversingandsplittingtoensurethefluencyandaccuracyofthetranslation.Keywords:translationprojectreport;ownership;translationandideology;texttype;translationmethodsiii AcknowledgementsIwouldexpressmysinceregratitudetomytutor,ProfessorHuAnjiang,bothforhisintellectualguidanceduringthepasttwoyearsandhisvaluableadviceonmythesis.Withouthishelp,thisthesiscouldnothavebeenfinishedintime.MyheartfeltthanksalsogoestoShengChuanqiforbotheringtoproofreadmytranslationandtheirpiecesofadvicearereallyhelpfulformakingmytranslationfaithfulandfluent.Besides,Iamverygratefultomyparents,withouttheirspiritualandmaterialsupport,IcouldnothavehadtheopportunitytostudyinSichuanInternationalStudiesUniversity,letalonefinishingthisthesis.Lastbutnottheleast,IamdeeplyindebtedtootherfellowstudentsalsotutoredbyPro.Hufordiscussingwithandhelpingmeduringthepasttwoyearsandintheprocessofworkingonmythesis.iv CONTENTS摘要..............................................................................................................................iiAbstract.......................................................................................................................iiiAcknowlegements.........................................................................................................iChapter1GeneralIntroduction...................................................................................v1.1BackgroundoftheProject...................................................................................11.2ObjectivesoftheProject....................................................................................１1.3SignificanceoftheProject.................................................................................２1.4StructureoftheReport.......................................................................................3Chapter2TheSourceTextoftheProject..................................................................４2.1IntroductiontotheAuthor..................................................................................４2.2IntroductiontotheSourceText..........................................................................52.3StylisticAnalysisandLinguisticFeaturesoftheSourceText...........................５Chapter3TranslationandIdeology...........................................................................８3.1ASurveyoftranslationandideology.................................................................８3.2Translatingideology...........................................................................................９3.2.1Rewording.....................................................................................................103.2.2Omission........................................................................................................11Chapter4DifficultiesandRemedies.....................................................................１２4.1DifficultiesEncounterintheTranslationProcess..............................................124.2Remedies........................................................................................................１２4.2.1Amplification............................................................................................１３4.2.2Conversion................................................................................................１４4.2.3Reversion..................................................................................................１４4.2.4Splitting.........................................................................................................16Chapter5Conclusion.............................................................................................１７5.1LessonsLearntfromtheTranslationProject.................................................１７5.2RemainingProblems......................................................................................１７WorksCited................................................................................................................20Appendix1:SourceText........................................................................................２０Appendix2:译文......................................................................................................36v Chapter1GeneralIntroduction1.1BackgroundoftheProjectThesourcetextofthistranslationprojectistheseventhchapterofTranslationZonesinModernChina:AuthoritarianCommandVersusGiftExchange,abookwrittenbyrenownedsinologistBonnieS.McDougallwhohadalong-termworkexperienceinChina’sForeignLanguagesPress.ThebookwaspublishedbyCambrianPressinNewYorkin2011,andthereisnoChinesetranslationthusfar.Thebookcontainseightchapters,dividingintothreepartswhichdealwiththeauthoritarianmodel,thegift-exchangemodelandtranslationpowersrespectively.Thetwofinalchaptersexaminethenewtheoreticalperspectivesthatarisefromthecontrastandtheoverlapbetweenthetwomainzones.Theprojectofthechaptertranslation,includesnotonlythetranslationprocess,butalsothetranslationpreparationsuchascollectingthematerialsandproofreading,whichextendsoverthreemonths.Duetothecomplicationofthesourcetext,thetranslationprovidedwillbeasfair,clear,readableaspossible.1.2ObjectivesoftheProjectTheobjectiveswouldbeachievedincompletingtheprojectoftranslatingtheseventhchapterofTranslationZonesinModernChina:AuthoritarianCommandVersusGiftExchange:Firstly,itstranslationissupposedtobeavaluableinformativetextfortranslationstudiesresearcherswhoseaimistoextendtheiracademichorizonsbeyondtheircustomarylanguagesandculturessincethebookisthefirstfull-length,detailed,andtheorizedtreatmentinChinese-Englishliterarytranslationtransactionsandwillstandasamajorprimarysourceoffuturestudies.Therefore,afluent,rigorous,accuratetranslationisrequiredtomakethematerialmeaningful.Secondly,BonnieS.McDougallisanAustralianexpertinthefieldofChinese１ literarytranslationwhohasdifferentideasonsomeissuesinChina,someofwhichisbiasedandimproper.Therefore,thetranslatorshouldpaycloseattentiontoherideologyunderthepremiseoffaithfulnessofSTTranslating.Moreover,thetranslationstrategiesadoptedbythetranslatorinherpostgraduateprogramareexpectedtobeappliedtotheprocesssoastoprovideatranslationofreadabilityandaccuracy.Furthermore,itisagoodopportunitytostrengthentheauthor’sknowledgeandlayasolidfoundationforlatertranslationpracticebyapplyingtranslationstrategiesandtheories.1.3SignificanceoftheProjectFirstly,translationphenomenadescribedinthebookderivefromtheauthor’spersonalexperiences.Itisapprovedthattheauthorattemptstobreakthe“European-center”oftranslationdiscourse,focusesonuniversalityandspecificityoftranslationactivitiesinChinaanddeliberatesinametaphysicalwaytoexplainthephenomenaintheperiod.Secondly,thebookintroducesanthropologyandsociologyintotheinterpretationofthetranslationphenomenoninsuchaparticularperiod,followingthetrendofsociologicalturnoftranslationstudies.Itisanewperspective.Shepresentedhowthetranslationinstitution(i.e.,FLP)andChineseliteraturetranslationhadbeengoingintheEnglish-speakingworld,developingtherelevantstudiesathomeandabroadandprovidingtheimportantreferencetotranslationpracticeandtranslationstudies.Thirdly,thetranslatorbriefsandcommentsonthecontentinvolvedinChinesefeaturesandbackground,anditisbeneficialtowesternscholarswhocannotreadChineseforacquiringChinesetranslationsituation.Meanwhile,Chinesescholarscanobtainnewhistoricalmaterialsoftranslationstudiesandnewperspectivesfromthebook.２ 1.4StructureoftheReportThisprojectreportisdividedintofivechapters.Itstartswithachaptergivinggeneralinformation,includingthebackground,objectivesandsignificanceoftheprojectanditsreport.ThesecondchapterintroducestheBonnieS.McDougallbriefly,analyzingthesourcetextanditsstylisticanalysisandlinguisticfeatures.Thethirdchapteristoprovideasurveyoftranslationandideologyaswellasitsapplicationintheproject.Inthefourthchapter,difficultiesencounteredinthetranslationprocess,andremediesareanalyzedwithdealingwithconcreteexamples.Thefinalchaptergivesaconclusiontothereportbysummarizingthelessonslearntfromthetranslationprojectandproblemsthatneedtobesolvedinthetranslationpractice.３ Chapter2TheSourceTextoftheProject2.1IntroductiontotheAuthorAsaworld-renownedsinologist,BonnieS.McDougallwasemployedasafull-timeeditorandtranslatorattheForeignLanguagesPressinBeijingfrom1980to1983andcontinuedtodofree-lancetranslationsforthemupuntil2000.ShehasalargevolumeoftranslationworkswrittenbyBeiDao(北岛),AhCheng(阿城),ChenKaige(陈凯歌),HeQifang（何其芳）,ZhuGuangqian(朱光潜)andMaoZedong(毛泽东).HerworksofmodernandcontemporaryChinesepoetryandfictionwerepublishedinenormousChinesefamousmagazines.Aftertwoyears’EnglishteachingandtranslationattheCollegeofForeignAffairsinBeijing,shemovedtotheUniversityofOsloin1986asaSeniorLecturerandthenaprofessorofModernChinese,thentotheUniversityofEdinburghin1990asthefirstprofessorofChinesethere.McDougallhasopposedEurocentrictranslationdiscourseandgrandnarrative,andthoughtthattranslationtheoristsandtranslationhistorianstendtoignorecomplexityanddiversityofindividualtranslatorsandreaders.Shehaspublishedalargenumberoftranslationworksearnestly.Yetmoreimportantly,shehasmadeagreatcontributiontosummarizingandponderingthetheories.ProblemsandPossibilitiesinTranslatingContemporaryChineseliterature,Literarytranslation:ThePleasurePrinciple,TheSuzhouExperienceandotherworksshepublishedpresentthebasicmodel,themainpart,thereceiver,theprincipleofliterarytranslationaswellasthetrainingmethodsandcurriculumofreservedtalents.Overall,shehasmadearemarkablecontributiontosinologystudies,translationstudiesandtranslationteaching.４ 2.2IntroductiontotheSourceTextThebookisthefirstfull-length,detailed,andtheorizedtreatmentinChinese-Englishliterarytranslationtransactionsandwillstandasamajorprimarysourceoffuturestudies.ItopensupaneweraofmodernChinesecultureandsocietythatsinologistshavehithertooverlooked.Thisbookbeginsbysettingoutthesetwocontrastingmodelsoftranslationthatco-existedinChinaduringthe1980s:theauthoritarianmodelandthereciprocal,orgift-exchangemodel.Thefollowingchapterssetdowntheactualcircumstancesofeachmodelasitoperatedinitsownzone,inthefirstsuchtestimonyfromanactiveobserverandparticipantinboth.Thesourcetextofthetranslationprojectistheseventhchapterofthebook,inwhichexplorescultureasstatepropertyundertheauthoritarianmodel.However,thechapterfocusesmoreontheexplanationtoChinesetranslationactivitiesfromcolonialismandpostcolonialism.Theauthorpointsout:colonialorpostcolonialtheoriesignorethekindoftransactionwheretheforeigntranslatorandnativetranslateearepersonalknowntoeachotherandwherethetranslateeactivelyseekstranslation.Thetheoriesareevenlessabletoprovideavalidframeworkfordescribinghowthiskindoftranslationoperated,andtheycannotaccountfortheindividualvariationsinandperceptionsoftherelationship.2.3StylisticAnalysisandLinguisticFeaturesoftheSourceTextTheGermanpsychologistandlinguistKarlBuherestablishedthetheoriesconcerningtexttypeandtranslation,andcategorizedtextinthreetypesonthebasisoftheirmainfunctions.TheideasarefurtherdevelopedbytheGermanlinguistandtranslationscholarKatharinaReiss.Shelinksthosefunctionstofourtexttypes,namelyinformativetext,expressivetext,operativetextandaudiomedialtext.Reisssaysthatitisthetexttypethatdecidesthetranslationapproaches.FunctionalFeaturesofTextTypologyandtheirlinkstotranslationmethods:５ TextinformativeExpressiveoperativetypologyLanguageInformativeExpressiveAppellative(makingfunction(objectsandfacts)(expressingtheanappealtotextsender’sattitudes)receiver)LanguageLogicalaestheticDialogue/conversationdimensionTextfocusContent-focusedForm-focusedAppellative-focusedTTshouldTransmitTransmitaestheticElicit-desiredreferentialcontentformresponseTranslation‘plainprose’Identifyingmethod,‘adaptive’,equivalentmethodexploitationsasadoptperspectiveofeffectrequiredSＴauthor(Source:Jeremy,Munday,2007:73)Reisspointsthattheprimaryconcerninthetranslationofaninformativetextisforaccuracy,sothetranslationofsuchtextsmustgiveprioritytoaccuracyoftheinformationtheyconvey.Itstranslationshouldbe“plaincommunicationoffacts”(Reiss,pp.108-109),anditsaimistotransmitpreciselythereferentialcontenttothetargetreaders.Throughreadingtheseventhchapterofthebook,itisdiscernablethatitstexttypeisacontent-focusedonebecausetheauthoroffershermuchtheoriesaboutsociologyandethnographers,whichcanbedemonstratedbytheexampleasfollow:Whatwasbeingexchangedinthe1980swasnot,then,atradablecommoditybutagift.Acommonobservationbyethnographersandothersisthatgiftsshouldbeofequivalentvalue(i.e.,balanced),exceptwherethesocialstandingofbothpartiesisobviouslyunequal.Insuchcases,thevalueofthegiftfromthesuperiorpartyisnormallygreaterthanthevalueofthegiftfromtheinferiorparty.Thegreater６ generosityofthesuperiorsisamarkoftheirgreaterwealthorposition,andtheinferiorsacceptthegiftwithouttherebyfeelingdemeanedinrecognitionoftheirinferiorposition.20世纪80年代一直交换的不是可交易的商品而是礼物。经人类学家和其他人士的观察，送礼的通常规则是，礼物应该具有对等的价值（即，平衡），除非双方的社会地位明显不平等。在这种情况下，地位显赫一方的礼物价值往往要比另一方的礼物价值大。地位显赫一方出手越阔绰，就越表明他们财富或地位越不凡，这样另一方在接受礼物时，就不会有劣势地位的卑微感。Asisshownintheexample,thesourcetextisadetailedandtheorizedtreatment.Itslanguageisplainandnotdifficulttounderstand.Moreover,themessagesconveyedinthetextislogicalandreferentialasthebookisprimarilyintendedfortranslationstudiesresearcherswhoseaimistoextendtheiracademichorizonsbeyondtheircustomarylanguagesandcultures.７ Chapter3TranslationandIdeology3.1ASurveyoftranslationandideologyIntranslationstudies,forovertwentyyearsthestudyofideologyhasofcoursebeenstronglylinkedtothemanipulationofliterature(theseminalcollectionbeingHermans,1985)andtorewriting.ForLefevere(1992:9),“translationisthemostobviouslyrecognizabletypeofrewriting⋯itispotentiallythemostinfluentialbecauseitisabletoprojecttheimageofanauthorand/or(aseriesof)work(s)inanotherculture,liftingthatauthorand/orthoseworksbeyondtheboundariesoftheircultureoforigin”.Theimportantpointhereisthattranslationoperatesasaformofinterculturaltransfer,openingupasourcetexttonewreadersinanewlanguage,whereitwillmostcommonlybereadasifitwereoriginallywritteninthetargetlanguage.Itis“potentiallyinfluential”forpreciselythereasonthatitwillcommonlybereadasanunmediatedwork,andanyobvioustextualalterationswillpassunnoticedunlessanduntilatranslationstudiesanalystorothercritictakestheunusualtroubletocomparesourceandtargettextsandidentifiesanyshiftsthathaveoccurred.Ameticuloussource-targetdescriptionthereforebecomesatypeofforensicanalysiswiththeaimofuncoveringnotjustwhatthesourceorthetargettextindependently‘means’butwhetherthetargettextisalteringthemessageofthesourcetext.Inhislastworks,Lefevere(1998:41)consideredthatitwasthetranslation’sideologyandthedominanttargetlanguagepoeticthatwerethedeterminersofthetranslatedtext.Hedescribedideologyas“theconceptualgridthatconsistsofopinionsandattitudesdeemedacceptableinacertaintime,andthroughwhichreadersandtranslatorsapproachtexts”,comparedtothe“textualgrid”,whichis“thecollectionofacceptablewaysinwhichthingscanbesaid”(Lefevere1998；48-49).Lefevere’stheoryconsiderablywidensthehorizonoftranslationstudies,whichenablesustobypassanumberofdeep-rootednotionsconcerningtranslationsuchasfaithfulness,equivalenceandaccuracy,whicharemainlysource-orientedand８ inevitablynormativeandrestrictive.Ittranscends“legitimate”linguisticandliterarybordersandaddssocial,politicalandhistoricaldimensionstothefield,thusexpandingthetheoreticalboundariesoftraditionalresearch.InspiredbyLefevereandarmedwithhistheory,manyscholarshaveconductedtheirresearch.Forexamples,inher1986articleTranslationasForceforLiteraryRevolutionintheTwelfthCenturyShiftfromEpictoRomance,MariaTymoczkousedLefevere’smethodologyandterminologytotracetheevolutionofthepatronagesystemandcontextualizedthesystemwithinthesocio-economicsystemtoexplainthesystemicevolution.Shefoundthattranslationplaysacrucialroleformallyandideologicallyintheemergingwrittensystem.3.2TranslatingideologyChoiceoftranslatingstrategymayalsobeinfluencedbymanyfactors,suchasthetranslators’personalpreference,thestatusortypesofthesourcetextandthepurposeoftranslation,whilethetranslator’sideologymaybeadecisiveone.AsAndreLefeverestates,translator’sideologydictatesthebasicstrategiesthetranslatorisgoingtouse.Whytranslate?Thisisaquestionatranslatormayconstantlyaskhimselforherself.Translatorsoftenworkwithacertainpurposeinmind.Tofulfillthespecialpurposethetranslatormayadoptcertainstrategiestotranslate.Forexample,YanFuhadadefinitepurpose--toawakenandenlightenChinesepeople.Withthispurposeinmind,hetranslatedT.H.Huxley’sEvolutionandEthicsandhediditinaspecialway.AlthoughtheauthorofthesourcetextisafamoussinologistwhoworkedinChinaforalongtime,herideasandthoughtsareinfluencedbythewesternviewsandknowledge,someofherideasarenotfairsothatitcannotacceptedbyChinesereaders.Ontheonehand,thetranslatorhavedifferentculturalbackgroundandeducatedknowledgefromtheauthor.Ontheotherhand,thetargetreadersareChinese,sothetranslatedtextshouldadjusttothemainstreamideas,involvinghistoricalbackgroundandculturalawareness.９ Underthecircumstance,thetranslatorsparesnoefforttounderstandthesourcetextasmuchaspossible.Intheprocessoftranslating,toapproachthemeaningofthesourcetext,thetranslatoradoptssometranslatingstrategies,likerewordingandomission,soastoconformtothedominantideology.3.2.1RewordingRewordingrefersto“anexisting,dominant,andnaturalized,wordingisbeingsystematicallyreplacedbyanotheroneinconsciousoppositiontoit.Inyetothercases,itisthemetaphoricaltransferofawordorexpressionformonedomainofusetoanother.”(Fairclough,1989:114).Thetranslatoradoptsthestrategyofrewordingtotranslatethenegativewordsintothepositivewords.Forexample:Nevertheless,Chinesenationalismwasstrengthenedbytheself-perceptionofChinaasrighteousvictim,andmid-centuryChina"scolonialoccupationofneighboringregionssuchasTibet,Xinjiang,andMongoliawasdisguisedbythecreationoftheautonomousprovincesinthewestandnorthwest.然而，中国的民族主义因自认为正义的受害者而得到了加强，二十世纪中期中国统一了少数民族区域如西藏，新疆和蒙古，新中国成立之后，这里成立了中西部地区自治区。AccordingtoLefevere(1992:9),“translationisthemostobviouslyrecognizabletypeofrewriting⋯itispotentiallythemostinfluentialbecauseitisabletoprojecttheimageofanauthorand/or(aseriesof)work(s)inanotherculture,liftingthatauthorand/orthoseworksbeyondtheboundariesoftheircultureoforigin”.Intheexample,thetranslatortranslates“colonialoccupation”into“统一”,“disguisedbycreation”into”成立”.Asaresult,thesourcetextmustberewrittentomeettheexpectationoftargetreaders,whichwillmostcommonlyconformtothetargetculturalideology.3.2.2OmissionGuidedbythetheoriesoftranslationandideology,byomissionwemeanweproperlyomitsomewordsorexpressioninordertomakethetranslatedversionconformtotheactualpoliticalculturalbackground.Thussaid,itwouldnotdamage１０ thecoherenceofthetranslation.TheoutsideworldhadlongbeenexcludedfrominternalChineseaffairs;itwastheChinesestateitselfthatnolongerseemedtohavetheabilitytosolvethenation"spoliticalandeconomiccrises.Translatedtextsareseenassymbolicforms,locatedinspecificsocial,temporalandgeographiccontexts,whichperformedbytranslatorsandeditorsandfosteredbytranslationpolicies,(re)meaningthatcaneithersupportandstrengthexistingideologiesorresistthem.Thetranslationomitsthesentence,asthetranslatordoesn’tagreewiththesocialideologyconveyed.Meanwhile,itcanobtainthediscourselogicratherthanbyadoptinganyothertranslationpolicies.１１ Chapter4DifficultiesandRemedies4.1DifficultiesEncounteredintheTranslationProcessThetextinvolvesnumeroustheorizedknowledgeandparticularexpressions,socorrectlytranslationentailsnotonlylookingfordictionaries,butalsosearchingtherelevantacademicmaterials.Suchasthetranslationoftheterm“translatee”,thetranslatorconsultsthearticleCommentsonTranslationZonesinModernChina:AuthoritarianCommandVersusGiftExchangewrittenbyTanJianghua,thentranslatesinto“作译者”andmakesanannotationbelow,soastomakethereadersunderstand.Meanwhile,thetextinvolvesplentyofcomplicatedlongsentenceswhicharenoteasytounderstandandneedtobehandledcarefully.Forexample:Thelinkbetweenthetwomodesisthatbothtookplaceinthesameplaceatroughlythesametimeand,inafewcases,evenamongthesamepeople.PeopleaccustomedtothinkingofthePRCasamonolithictotalitarianstateformostofitsexistencemaybepuzzledbythisconjunction.Thetranslatorparsesthemcarefully,andcomprehendstheirinnerlogicandtheirinterconnection.Moreover,certaintranslationstrategieshavetobeemployedinordertomakethetranslationreadabletoChinesereaders.4.2RemediesTheEnglishlanguageisfundamentallyfeaturedwithitssubordination,anditmakesEnglishsentencescomparativelylongerthanChineseones.LongEnglishsentencesareorganizedmainlyinanarchitecturalstylewithcompletegrammaticalstructure,whileChineseonestendtobeshorterandlooser.(连淑能，1993，pp.64-65).１２ Whentranslating,thetranslatorhastodecodethelogicalandgrammaticalrelationoftheoriginalforaccurateunderstanding,andatthesametimeorganizeorarrangehertranslationinaccordancewiththerequirementsofChineselanguage.ThetranslatorusesfourcommonwaysfromEnglishtoChinese,namelyamplification,conversion,reversion,splitting.4.2.1AmplificationAmplificationmeanssupplyingnecessarywordsinourtranslationworksoastomakeversionclearandnatural.Wordsthussuppliedmustbeindispensableeithersyntacticallyorsemantically.Forexample:1.TheperiodwhenthispowerwasmosteffectivelyappliedinChinawasthe1950sand1960s,althoughtheCulturalRevolutionalmostdestroyedstateinstitutions(suchastheFLP)thatwereultimatelydependentontheexerciseofintellectualskills.虽然文化大革命基本上毁坏了所有依靠脑力活动的国家机构（比如外文出版社），但是20世纪50年代和60年代期间，这种控制翻译活动的权力还是在中国起了作用。2.Evenapparentlymonolithicstatesorauthoritarianorganizationsaresubjecttosubversiveactivitiesthatarenotnecessarilymotivatedbypoliticalideologiesbutbythepersonalinterestsandneedsofemployeesandothersassociatedwiththatstateororganization.一些看似独裁国家或专政组织也都得受制于一些颠覆活动，这些活动不由政治意识形态驱动，主要由国家或机构的员工和相关人士的兴趣和需求所引起。AsisshowninExample1,“thispower”istranslatedinto“这种控制翻译活动的权力”not“此权力”,addingsomewordstoexplainwhatthepronounrefersto,soastomakethetranslationmoreclear.InExample2,thetranslatoraddsverbs“驱动”“引起”tothenounphrases“政治意识形态”“国家或机构的员工和相关人士的兴趣和需求”respectively,whichishelpfultopresentmorenaturaltranslationtotargetreaders.AccordingtothetranslationprinciplesputforwardbyYanHu,adopting１３ amplificationcanbeconsideredtobecloseto“elegant”.4.2.2ConversionEnglishandChinesearetwototallydifferentlanguagesbecauseofvaryinginmanyaspectsincludingvocabularyandgrammar.Thereforeitisdifficulttofindcompletelyequivalentwordsintranslation.Conversionisacommontranslationtechniqueadoptedtomakeitcertainthattheversionisexpressiveandcorrect.Thistechniqueisnecessaryduetosomedifferencesinusagebetweenthetwolanguages.Forexample:Somenativesofbothcolonizingandcolonizedcountries,awareofthedubiousnatureoftheseself-perceptions,trytointroducereasonandreconciliationbetweenthetwoparties;某些殖民国家和殖民地的本国人都意识到了这些自我认知本身就值得怀疑，并尝试理性对待并调和两者之间的关系；Inthisexample,“thedubiousnatureoftheseself-perceptions”,“self-perceptions”as“自我认知”,“thedubiousnature”as“可疑的本质”，ifdon’tdotheconversion,theChinesetranslationis“这些自我认知的可疑的本质”,thetranslationisnotexpressiveandfluentsoastoimpacttheunderstandingofthesentence.However,inlinewiththedifferencebetweenChineseandEnglish,themodifier“thedubiousnature”conversesinto“本身就值得怀疑”asaverb,makingthetranslationmorenaturalAstheinformativetextiscontext-focused,thetargettextshouldbereferential.Thestrategyofadoptingconversionwhentranslatingthemodifiercanbeviewedasanactofprovidingatranslationthatmakessense.4.2.3ReversionReversingintranslatinglongandcomplexEnglishsentencesreferstoadjustingthesequenceofagivensentencesoastomakeitconformtoChineseusage.Asentenceelementofprepositionmaybeplacedattheendofthewholetextandontheotherhand,anend-positionelementmaybeplacedatthebeginning.１４ 1.Nevertheless,thepositionofthetranslatorsatthebottomofahierarchyinwhichthetoplevelknewandcaredlittleabouttranslationasaprocessorproductwasafundamentalflawwithintheFLPfromthe1950stotheendofthecentury.然而，20世纪50年代到20世纪末外文出版社最根本的错误是，把译者的地位置于机构中的最底层，而机构中的高层并不懂也不关心翻译的过程和翻译的结果。2.Asatranslation-authorizingbody,theFLPthereforeseemedtobeabletopresentChineseliteraturetoforeignaudiencesinaformatwherethemeaningwasfixedandunambiguous.外文出版社，作为权威的翻译主体，似乎可以将中国文学以一种意义固定且明确的模式呈现在外国的读者面前。ItcanseenfromExample1,themainclauseofthesentenceis“thepositionofthetranslators⋯wasafundamentalflawwithinFLP⋯”.Asthesubjectistoolongwithbeingmodifiedbyoneattributiveclause,thesentenceshouldbehandledwithreversingtoavoidbeingtop-heavy.Moreover,puttingtheadverbialsoftimeinthebeginningofthesentencealsoconformtoChinesemanner.AsisseeninExample2,theattributiveclause“wherethemeaningwasfixedandunambiguous”istranslatedintoanindependentmodifierbeforethemodifiedinChinese,inordertomakeitstranslationinaconciseandfluentway.Guidedbythetranslationstandardofaninformativetext,thetranslatormanagestomakehertranslationplain,faithfulnessandfluentintermsoflanguage,changingthesequenceofthesentencesinordertoconveythemessageofthesourcetextinalogicalway.4.2.4SplittingTheso-calledsplittingmeanstakingcertainelements(clause,phrase,orword)outofasentenceandtreatingthemseparately.Thistechniqueisusuallyadoptedwhenbothcuttingandembeddingfailtoworkindealingwithlongandcomplexsentences.1.ItprovedrelativelyeasyfortheFLPtobrushasidetheSovietinfluenceandpretendithadneverexisted.１５ 事实证明，对于外文出版社来说，无视苏联的影响并假装其从未存在过并非难事。2.Mostrulesofsocialexchange(andperhapsinruralChinaingeneral)couldbe,andfrequentlywere,modifiedtosomeextentbyspecificcontextsandundertheinfluenceofnumerousfactors.大多数社会交换的规则(可能在中国农村通用)在特定的语境和多种因素的影响下可以一定程度上进行修改，而过去通常也是这样做的。InExample1and2,thesentencesseemverysimple,butyouwouldrealizethattheyarenoteasytotranslateintoexpressiveandclearChinese.AsisshowninExample1,thepart“bushasidetheSovietinfluenceandpretendithadneverexisted”istoolongasasubject,thetranslatorsplitsthewholesentenceintothreeshorterparts,sothatitstranslationmakessenseinafluentandreadableway.InExample2,thetranslatorsplitsthepart“frequentlywere”outasanindependentsentence,whichcontributestothecertificationofitstranslation.Itcanseenfromthoseexamplesthatthereisaconflictbetweencontentandform.Asaresult,inaccordancewiththetheoryoffunctionalequivalence,“correspondenceinmeaningmusthavepriorityovercorrespondenceinstyle”(Nida,1964,p.164),thetranslatoradoptssplittingtoobtainequivalenteffect.１６ Chapter5Conclusion5.1LessonsLearntfromtheTranslationProjectThetranslatorlearnsseveralmeaningfullessonsthroughthetranslationproject,whichisbeneficialforthetranslatortoimprovethetranslationskillsandtheoriesinfuturedevelopmentandpractice.Firstly,thetranslatorhasabetterknowledgeoftheauthorMcDougall,knowingherexperiencesinChina,herworksandhernewperspectivetowardsChinesetranslationactivities.Secondly,thetranslatorfurtherlearnsthetheoryoftexttypeanditstranslationprincipleswhichcanguidethetranslationpracticeandenableasoundworkpresentedtothereaders.Thirdly,whenitcomestothetheoriesappliedinthework,translationandideologyhelpsthetranslatordealwiththepartsthatcannotbeacceptedinthetargetcontext.Fourthly,thedifferencesbetweenEnglishandChineseshouldbepaidattentionintheprocessofthetranslation.Thetranslatorshouldhavenumerousknowledgetodealwiththedifferencessoastoproduceaclearandfluenttranslation.Fifthly,thetranslatorlearnsthatproofreadingisvitalforqualitycontrol,whichguaranteestheaccuracyofthetranslationofthetheorizedtermsandtheunderstandingandexpressionofcomplicatedsentences.5.2RemainingProblemsCertainproblemsneedtobesolvedinthefuture.Becauselackingacademicknowledgelevelandbeingnotfamiliartothehistoricalbackground,thetranslatorwouldfurtherenhancetheunderstandingofthetext.Thatsaid,thetranslationhasalongwaytoreachthehighlevel,especiallythetranslationsoflongandcomplicatedsentences.Thetranslatoriscommittedtoimprovingupontheminthefuture.Yetmoreimportantly,thisprojectonlyincludestranslatingtheseventhchapterofTranslationZonesinModernChina:AuthoritarianCommandVersusGiftExchangeandisnot１７ enoughforthosewhoareinterestedinChinesetranslationhistoryandstudies,somorecontentsfromthebooksareexpectedtobetranslatedinthefuture.１８ WorksCitedCunico.S.(2007).TranslationandIdeology:EncountersandClashes.TheTranslator,13(2):62-64.Fairclough,N.(1989).LanguageandPower.London:Longman.Munday,J.(2001).IntroducingTranslationStudies:Theoriesandapplications.London:RouledgePress.Munday,J.(2007).Translationandideology:Atextualapproach.TheTranslator,13(2):195-217.McDougall,B.S.(1991).ProblemandpossibilitiesintranslatingcontemporaryChineseliterature.TheAustralianJournalofChineseAffairs(pp.37-67).McDougalll,B.S.(2001).TranslationZonesinModernChina:AuthoritarianCommandsersusGiftExchange.NewYork:CambriaPress.McDougalll,B.S.(2007).Literarytranslation:ThePleasurePrinciple.中国翻译（5）：22-26.McDougalll,B.S.(2009)CELT09:TheSuzhouexperience.InOtherWords:TheJournalforliteraryTranslators,(33):50-52.Princeton.(2006).PrincetonUniversityPress,Lovell,Julia.ThePoliticsofCulturalCapital:China’sQuestforaNobelPrizeinLiterature.Honodulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress.Reiss,K.(1997).Text-type,TranslationTypesandTranslationAssessment’,translatedbyA.Chesterman,inA.Chesterman(ed.1989).ReadinginTranslationTheory(pp.105-115).Helsiniki:OyFinnLecturaAb.冯庆华.(2006).实用翻译教程.上海：上海外语教育出版社.杰里米·芒迪著，李德凤等译.(2007).翻译学导论——理论与实践,北京：商务印书馆.覃江华.(2003).中国当代文学英译的首部理论专著——《当代中国翻译地带：威权与礼物交换》评介.外国语文，(1):88-91.徐英.(2014).新闻编译中意识形态的翻译转换探索.中国翻译，（3）：98-102.１９ Appendix1:SourceTextCHAPTER7TRANSIATION,POWER,ANDOWNERSHIPPartsland2haveexaminedtranslationactivitieswithinanationalinstitutionalsettingandinapersonalrelationship.Thelinkbetweenthetwomodesisthatbothtookplaceinthesameplaceatroughlythesametimeand,inafewcases,evenamongthesamepeople.PeopleaccustomedtothinkingofthePRCasamonolithictotalitarianstateformostofitsexistencemaybepuzzledbythisconjunction.Inpart,itcanbeattributedtothetumultuoushistoryofthemodernChinesestateinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury,inwhichfewinstitutionsremainedeithermonolithicortotalitarian.Itisalsodueinparttothetroubledandmessynatureoftranslationtransactionsatglobal,national,andindividuallevels.InthewordsofTheoHermans,"Translationisirreducible:italwaysleaveslooseends,isalwayshybrid,1pluralanddifferent."CUITURAITRANSFERANDCOIONIAIISMColonialpowers,whethertheyarebasedinEurope,Asia,America,orelsewhere,arecommonlybrutal,incompetent,andcorruptinvaryingdegrees,whetherornottheyregardthemselvesasresponsibleforthedamagetheymightcauseorseetheirmissionascivilizing.Thecolonized,fortheirpart,regardtheirillsasbeingduetocolonizationandtheirvictimhoodasaccidentalandundeserved.Somenativesofbothcolonizingandcolonizedcountries,awareofthedubiousnatureoftheseself-perceptions,trytointroducereasonandreconciliationbetweenthetwoparties;othersseektoexacerbateoneortheothers’senseofgrievance.Duringthisprocess,wordssuchascolonialismandespeciallypostcolonialismtendtolosetheir.2definitionsandinsteadconveygeneralizedimageryorattitudesThepowerstructurethatisinherentinglobalculturaltransfersincolonialand3postcolonialtimesisthesubjectofLydiaH.Liu"sTrans-lingualPractice.Liuemphasizedtheimbalanceofgeopoliticalpowerinlanguage,literature,andother２０ culturalsystems,devotingparticularattentiontothetranslationofEnglish-LanguagematerialintoChineseinthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.Althoughherbookexploresthetranslationofforeign-languageworksintoChinese,itisworthexaminingindetailasoneofthefewstudiesinmodernChinesehistorytoinvestigatepowerrelationsintranslation.OneofLiu"sexamplesofhowChinesereformersconstructedtranslationsofEnglishvocabularyandgrammaristheinventionofaChinesecharacterforthefemalethird-personpronoun.Whilethenineteenth-centuryChinesetranslatorsandtheirfollowerssawthemselvesasintroducingmodernityintotheChinesescript,somefeministsacenturylatermightwonderifinsteaditrepresentsthelossofapostmodern4gender-neutralpronoun.Ingeneral,Liusawsuchingeniousinventionsasimperialistinflictionsonthecolonizedlanguage,inlinewithotherstudiesthatconceptuaiizethetranslationofEnglishandFrenclitextsintootherlanguagesasinstancesofcolonialorpostcolonialviolence.EvenifitisagreedthatsomeinstancesoftranslationtransferfromEnglishintoChinese,asdescribedbyLiu,nowseemclumsyorunnecessary,itmightalsobeheldthatpoliticalpowerwasnotallinonedirection,andtospeakofnineteenth-andtwentieth-centuryChinaasavictimof(figurativetranslation).5violenceisinappropriateIfitwerenotknownotherwise,itcouldalmostbeassumedfromLiu"sgeneralargumentthatChinawasaBritishcolonyinthenineteenthcentury.OtherhistoriansmightthinkitmoresignificantthatChinawasnevercolonizedbyanyWesternpower,eitherinthenineteenthcenturyoratanyothertime.PrasenjitDuara,forinstance,hasattributedthegrowthofstrongnationalistmovementsandgovernmentsintwentieth-centuryChinaandJapantotheirnothavingbeendirectlycolonizedby6Westernpowers.NeitherBritainnoranyotherEuropeancountryexercisedcolonialpoweroverChinaasidefromafewisolatedareasthatwereleftundevelopedbyChinesemetropolitangovernments.China"sverysizewasafactorinrepelling7effectivecolonization.Infact,theviewsheldbycontemporaryChinesereformers-thatthecolonizingenemyinnineteenth-centuryChinawastheManchu8dynasty——areclosertoreality.２１ FollowingtheoverthrowoftheManchusin191l,successiveHanChinesegovernmentswereexposedtoarmedorotherwisethreateninginterventionsbyJapan,theUnitedStates,andeventuallytheUSSR.Althoughitsgovernmentswerestillenfeebledbycorruptionanddisunity,ChinastillmanagedtopreventthesecountriesfromcolonizingChinaexceptatthemarginsofempire-Japan"swartimeoccupationofeasternandnorthernChinabeingtheonlysignificantterritorialincursion.ExactlywhenChinamovedfromacolonialstatustoapostcolonialoneisnotclear,butthetermpostcolonialisevenlessappropriatefordescribingtherelationsbetweenChinaandthemajorWesternpowersplusJapanintheI980s.Fewpeoplenowdefendimperialisminanypartoftheworld.However,theglobalweaknessofahugecountrysuchasChinaoverseveralcenturiescannotbedueentirelytotheeffortsofforeignpowers.Nevertheless,Chinesenationalismwasstrengthenedbytheself-perceptionofChinaasrighteousvictim,andmid-centuryChina"scolonialoccupationofneighboringregionssuchasTibet,Xinjiang,andMongoliawasdisguisedbythecreationoftheautonomousprovincesinthewestandnorthwest.TheestablishmentoftheForeignLanguagesPressinthe1950sasamajorparty-controlledstateinstitutioncanbeseenasanationalistreactiontowhatwasofficiallyperceived,inMaoistterms,asChina"sformersemicolonialstatus.Alternatively,becausetheFLPwassetupunderthedirectinfluenceoftheUSSR,itcanalsobeseenasamanifestationofanotherkindofsemicolonialism,thistimefromamuchcloserneighbor.However,eveninthe1950s,whentheSovietinfluenceinChinawasatitspeak,EnglishwastheotherdominantforeignlanguageattheFLP,anditgrewinimportanceastheCulturalRevolutionemergedandeventuallybroughtwithitdiplomaticrelationswiththeUnitedStates.ItprovedrelativelyeasyfortheFLPtobrushasidetheSovietinfluenceandpretenditbadneverexisted.CUITUREASSTATEPROPERTYOnesimilaritywiththeSovietmodelthathaspersistedintotwenty-firstcenturyChinaistheconceptofcultureasnationalproperty.Asanationclaimingtoownitsnativeculture,thePRCalsoexercisedrightsofdistributiondomesticaIlyand２２ internationally.TheoriginalfoundersoftheFLP"smagazinesmayhavebeendrivenbynationalistoranti-imperialistmotivesasindividuals,butitseemshighlyunlikelythattheyoriginallyembracedanambitiontoexerttotalitariancontrolovertranslationintoforeignlanguages.Bythemid-1950s,however,theparty-statemanagedtoachievethisresultthroughitscontroloverpublishingfromprinttodistribution..Literatureitselffellunderstateownership,andthereseemedtobenoreasonforthetranslationChineseliteratureintoforeignlanguagestobeanexception.MovingfromtheconceptofstateownershipofChineseliteraturetotheconceptofstateownershipofthetranslationofChineseliteraturewasunproblematic;itwasalsoeasytoassumethattranslationscouldbecarriedoutbyChinesetranslatorswithonlymarginalinputfromnativesofforeigncountries.Itisawidelyheldviewamongtranslatorsandtranslationtheoriststhatliterarytranslationisbesteffectedintothetranslator"snativeLanguages,justasliteratureisbestwritteninthewriter"snativelanguage.TherearenotableexceptionsinEnglish-LanguageliteratureandtranslationsofforeignliteratureintoEnglish,andtheactualsituationmayvaryfromcountrytocountry,butthegeneralruleitselfishardlyquestioned.Inthe1950s,however,theSovietexampleoftranslationintonon-nativelanguageswasdominantinChina,andstatepowerdidnotwelcomechallengestothisdogmamorethananyothers.Bythe1980s,theunchallengedviewthatChinesetranslatorscouldasabodytranslateChineseliteratureintootherLanguageshadbeenheightenedintoaclaimassertedbysometranslatorsthatonlyChinesepeoplecouldandshouldtranslateChineseliteratureintoforeignlanguages.(Itdidnotseemtobeaccompaniedbytheviewthat:translationsintoChineseshouldbedoneonlybynon-Chinesepeople;therewassomehowasensethattheChinesewereuniquelyqualifiedinbothdirections.)TheirrationalityofthisviewwasunderlinedbythepassionwithwhichitwasdeliveredandreceivedataconferenceoftheChineseTranslatorsAssociationin2007inBeijing,underthetitle"ForumonTranslationfromChineseintoForeignLanguages:ABridgetotheWorld"andwiththeForeignLanguagesBureauasitscosponsor.AlongwithmisquotinganeminentBritishSinologistlamentingthelackof２３ qualifiedEnglishtranslatorsofclassicalChinesepoetry,aseniorChinesetranslatorclaimedthatthetranslationofChineseliteraturebynon-Chinesepeoplewasakindofculturalimperialismaswellasbeinginferiorinqualitytotranslationsmadeby9Chinese.Itwasasifanewkindoflinguisticorculturalnationalismhadsweptthroughthissmallandobscurecornerofnationalculture,domesticatingforeign10languagesandtheirliteratureandtransferringthemtoChinesestateownership.THECOIIAPSEOFTHEMONOLITHManymodernstatesestablishorpermitbothstateandprivatetranslationagencies,assertingthestate"sinterestintranslationwhileallowingvarietyintranslationpractice.Evenapparentlymonolithicstatesorauthoritarianorganizationsaresubjecttosubversiveactivitiesthatarenotnecessarilymotivatedbypoliticalideologiesbutbythepersonalinterestsandneedsofemployeesandothersassociatedwiththatstateororganization.WhattheChineseCommunistPartyliketheSovietsbeforethem,addedtothenotionofownershipwasitsorganizationalabilitytocontroloratleastlimitthemessinessoftranslationactivities.TheperiodwhenthispowerwasmosteffectivelyappliedinChinawasthe1950sand1960s,althoughtheCulturalRevolutionalmostdestroyedstateinstitutions(suchastheFLP)thatwereultimatelydependentontheexerciseofintellectualskills.Onitsgradualreturntoitsformerproductivityinthelater1970sandearly1980s,theFLPwasexposedtosignificantlevelsofdistrustanddisaffectionfromitseditorsandtranslators.Therewaspresumablyneveratimewhentheloyaltyoftheseemployeeswastotal,buttheCulturalRevolutionmadesuchloyaltyseemoutdatedandevenperverse.FLPstaffwerenotslowtorealizethattheirskillscouldeffectivelybeemployedtoserveinterestsotherthanthoseofthepartyasabureaucraticorganization.AsGentzlerandothershavepointedout,translationalwaysinvolveschoiceandhencemanipulationasnewtextsarebeingfabricated,andtranslatorshavetheirowneconomic,political,andpersonalgoalsthatmaydifferfromtheiremployers"goalsorfromgeneralconventions.Notalltranslatorsareabletoexercisetheseinformalmechanismsofpower,however.Byapplyingthesystemicconstraintsthatwerestillinoperationinthe1980s,chieflyintheprocessofrepeatedcheckingbyseveralhands２４ andthetop-downmanagementofemployees"privatelives,theFLPeffectivelylimitedevenminoractsofsubversionamongitstranslationstaff.Asnotedearlier,deviationsbetweenthedonortextandthehosttranslationtextaremorelikelytobeduetoeditorialinterventionsthantotranslators"attemptsatrewriting.Nevertheless,thepositionofthetranslatorsatthebottomofahierarchyinwhichthetoplevelknewandcaredlittleabouttranslationasaprocessorproductwasafundamentalflawwithintheFLPfromthe1950stotheendofthecentury.Muchofwhatgoesoninthewholetranslationpracticeisnotjustabouttwoentities,thetranslatorandhertext,butaboutinternalissueswithintheauthorizinginstitutionsthatare,strictlyspeaking,unrelatedtotranslationasatextualactivity.Tacitapprovaloftheoperationofpatronage,asintheinfluenceoftheChineseWritersAssociation,isdifficulttoquantifyasevidence,butthereisnodoubtthatitexisted.Theresultingmismatchbetweencommandandproduct,orbetweenproductionandconsumption,ledinevitablytoinstability.AnotherfundamentalweaknessthatwasbasictotheFLP"soriginalmissionwasawidespreadmisunderstandingofliterarytranslation.Thismisunderstandingcouldbeexpressedinseveralways.Onthesimplestlevel,itheldthatifonetranslationwascorrect,thenothertranslationswerenot.Itmayalsohaveappearedinthebeliefthattranslationimposesafixedmeaningofaliterarytextthatmayormaynotbeambiguousinitsoriginalform.Asatranslation-authorizingbody,theFLPthereforeseemedtobeabletopresentChineseliteraturetoforeignaudiencesinaformatwherethemeaningwasfixedandunambiguous.TheproblemwasthattheforeignresponsetothesetranslationswasnotundertheFLP"scontrol,eitherinsalesorininterpretation.Poorsalesbecameareasonforchangeinthe1980s;itisnotclearthatuncertaintyininterpretationwaseverperceivedbyFLPmanagementasaproblem.ThefinalandinsurmountableproblemexperiencedbytheFLPwasthelossofitsmonopolyonliterarytranslationintoforeignlanguagesinChinaintheaftermathofthereformpoliciesof1978.TheFLPwasunpreparedfortheriseofanalternativeliteratureoutsidethecontroloftheChineseWritersAssociationandthesimultaneous２５ riseinthenumbersofforeignstudentsandforeignexpertsinChinawhowerewilingandabletotranslatetheseworks.Theundergroundmovementsthatemergedinthe1970ssoughttochangethecountry"sgovernance,whetherculturalorothermeans.Althoughovertlypoliticalchallengeswererepeatedlyblocked,culturalactivitiesweresemitolerated.TheeventualtranslationandworlddistributionofthenewliteraryworksalsoledtotheirwiderdistributioninChinaitself.Bytheendofthecentury,theFLPnolongercontrolledownershipofthetranslationofChineseliterature.Evenwhenthingsaremessybynature,thetOt8litarianstateinfulloperationcanoftenmanagetolimitthemess.However,intheend,thetotalitarianmodelcollapsedintheUSSR,theformerEasternEuropeanstates,andChinaasthesesocietiesandtheirgovernmentswereunderminedbyfactorsfromwithin.RESISTANCEFROMWTHINIntheeyesofmanyChineseintellectualsintheaftermathoftheculturalRevolution,theharmdonetoChinesepeopleiiithenineteenthandtwentiethcenturieswasoverwhelminglyexecutedbyChinesegovernments,especiallysince1950.Peoplewhosurvived(orwhoseparentssurvived)theGreatLeapForwardandCulturalRevolutionwerewellawareofthis.Atthesametime,nooutsidepowerthreatenedmilitaryactionagainstChinainthe1980s.TheoutsideworldhadlongbeenexcludedfrominternalChineseaffairs;ftwastheChinesestateitselfthatnolongerseemedtohavetheabilitytosolvethenation"spoliticalandeconomiccrises.TotheEducatedYouthwhoreturnedtothemetropolisinthesecondhalfofthe1970s,JapanandWesterncountriesofferedhelpandsolutions,notthreats.Fortheseyoungsurvivors,thepresenceofforeignersinChinabroughtanunexpectedopportunitytolearnmoreabouttherestoftheworld,especiallywhentheforeignerswereyoung,abletospeakChinese,andeagerforfriendshipswithChinesewritersandartists.TranslationfromChineseintoEnglishandotherLanguageswasaproductofthesepersonaltransactions.Suchinstancesofpersonaltranslationrelationshipsmightbedismissedascasesofsubmissiontoadominantexternalpower.However,suchadismissalignoresthe２６ possibilityofdivisionbetweenacountry"srulersanditscitizens.TheChinesetranslateesdescribedinchapter6wereinrebellionagainsttheirowngovernment"srestrictionsonpublicationandonoverseascontacts.Translationsoftheirworkwerenotactsofimperialorglobaloppressioninitiatedbycommercialorpoliticalinterests.ItwasevendisconcertingforsometranslatorstorealizethattheyweremoreopposedtotheChinesegovernmentthansomeofthewriterstheyweretranslating.Howeverthecontemporaryglobalrelationshipsofnation-statesmightbedescribed.thetranslateeswerenotpassivevictimssufferingcolonialtranslationorpostcolonialculturalcringe;whattheypracticedwasmorelikethe“grabbism"(nalaizhuyi)(takingliberallywhatwasusefulfromforeigners)thatwasadvocatedbyLu11Xuninthe1920sand1930s.ThedominantcultureinChinawasnotaforeignpowerbuttheCCPorthodoxy;thetranslateeswereresistanttostatepowerratherthandominatedbyforeigninterests.Ashappenselsewhere,theimmediateimpactofforeigninfluencewason12disempoweredmembersofthehostcountryandnotitsrulers.Forthenewwriters,questionsofidentityaroseintheprocessofdefiningthemselvesagainsttheauthoritiesintermsthattheauthoritiesdismissed,astheydidinthe1980sdebatesabouthumannatureandtheautonomousself.Inshort,colonialorpostcolonialtheoriesignorethekindoftransactionwheretheforeigntranslatorandnativetranslateearepersonalknowntoeachotherandwherethetranslateeactivelyseekstranslation.Thetheoriesareevenlessabletoprovideavalidframeworkfordescribinghowthiskindoftranslationoperated,andtheycannotaccountfortheindividualvariationsinandperceptionsoftherelationship.Ingeopoliticalandeconomicrespects,theindividualforeigntranslatorsin1980sChinaheldasuperiorposition.Theywerefromprosperousandstablesocieties.TheycouldtravelmorefreelythanthetranslateeswithinmanypartsofChinaaswellasoutside,andtheycouldinmostcasesavoidorescapetheconsequencesofdissentingfromthepoliticalorthodoxy.Thetranslatorswereoftenbetterpaidandbetterhoused,withaccesstoshopsandservicesthatwereunavailabletothe２７ translatees.ResidentforeignersweregenerallytreatedashonorarycadresintheChinaofthe1970sand1980s(becausetheymostlyworkedforstateorgans),justasforeignwomen,especiallyolderwomen,werealsotreatedashonorarymales.Ononehand,thetranslateeswerefromacountrythatwastentativelyemergingfromeconomicbackwardnessandpoliticalturmoil.Theybadlittlemoneyorstatus,andtheirworkwasmostlyexcludedfromofficialpublication.Ontheotherhand,theirparentsmightbehighlyplacedandabletooffersupportandprotection,andtheirworkmighthaveanimpressiveundergroundorunofficialcirculation.Theywerealsoeducatedmalesinamale-dominantthatplacedahighvalueonliteracy.Thetranslateesknewverylittleabouttheoutsideworld,andalthoughtheymayhaveseenthroughPRCmythsaboutChineseeconomicandpoliticalsupremacy,theywerealsoconsciousofChina"srisingpowerintheworldaswellasitshistoryasoneoftheworld"smajorcivilizations.HowevermuchtheychosetorejecttheChinesepastasaguidetoitsfuture,takingtheirleadfromtheirpredecessorsintheNewCulturemovementsofthe1910sand1920s,theywereabletofeelpatronizingtowardsother,lessancientcountries(onetranslatee,forinstance,issaidtohaveturneddownaninvitationtovisitAustraliawiththecommentthatAustraliaisaplacewithoutculture).IthasevenbeenarguedthattheChinesestateanditsnationalsarepredisposedtoregardtherestoftheworldwithbenevolenceaslongastheythemselvesareshown13properdeference.Tosumup,thetranslateeoftenheldhimselftobethesuperiorpartyinthetranslationrelationship:superiorto"newworld"translatorsintermsofhisculturalheritage,superioringender,andsuperiorasacreatorofculturalgoods,notmerelyamediatoroftheirtransfer(thetranslatorwascommonlyheldtobenomoreofacontributortothework"sfinalimpactthananeditor,publisher,orprinter).Thislastperceptionwassometimesmodifiedasthetranslateesbecamemorelinguisticallycompetent,eventakingpartintranslationthemselves,butitremaineddominant.Manytranslatorsacceptedthetranslatees"perspectivethatcreativewritingwassuperiortoitsinterpretationinacademicstudiesortoitstranslationintootherLanguages.Fewifanyofthetranslatorswereprofessionals,andmostoftheir２８ expertisewasbasedonclassexercisessubjecttotheirteachers"correction.ThosewhocametoChinawithabackgroundinChinesestudiescombinedaprofoundadmirationandrespectforChineseculturalwiththebeliefthatacademicstudieswereinherentlyinferiortocreativewriting.Althoughthesesentimentsmadetheinitialphaseoftherelationshipeasier,theidealdidnotalwaysliveuptotheeverydayreality.Themostlong-lastingtranslationrelationships,forsuchreasons,werelikelytobeonesinwhichbothpartieswereofthesamegenderandthetranslatorwasolderorhadanequivalentorsuperiorsocialorculturalstatus.However,thelongevityofanyparticularrelationshipcouldbeamatterofpersonalaffinitybetweenthetwoparties.Itwouldnotbesurprising,inviewoftheyouthandinexperienceofmostofthesetranslateesandtranslators,thatoneorbothpartiesmayhavebeennaiveinpersonaltransactions,butbothpartiesenteredintothetransactionvoluntarilyandwerefreetoleaveatanytime.Somepersonalrelationshipsmayhavebeenexploitative,butthearrangementitselfwasnot.THEDIRECTIONOFVAIUEWhatwasbeingexchangedinthe1980swasnot,then,atradablecommoditybutagift.Acommonobservationbyethnographersandothersisthatgiftsshouldbeofequivalentvalue(i.e.,balanced),exceptwherethesocialstandingofbothpartiesisobviouslyunequal.Insuchcases,thevalueofthegiftfromthesuperiorpartyisnormallygreaterthanthevalueofthegiftfromtheinferiorparty.Thegreatergenerosityofthesuperiorsisamarkoftheirgreaterwealthorposition,andtheinferiorsacceptthegiftwithouttherebyfeelingdemeanedinrecognitionoftheirinferiorposition.Thus,thefathergivesgenerouslytotheson,whorepaysthefatherinsmallercoin,orthelordgivesgenerouslytotheservantwhooweslittleornothinginreturn.Thesecasesstillqualifyasbalancedreciprocitybecauseallpartiesacknowledgetheirrespectivestandings.InChina,however,bothintraditionalcustomandundertheCommunistgovernment,asymmetricalreciprocityseemedtooperateintheotherdirection.YunxiangYan"sresearchinruralChinainthe1980sand1990sshowsthatgiftsfromthoseofinferiorstatustotheirsuperiorsweremoreIavishandfrequentthan２９ 14Western-basedethnographersconsideredtobenormalorevenuniversa1.Itwasstandardforinferiorstosupplytheirsuperiorswithlavishgifts:thesontothefather,thevillagetothevillagehead,andthecadretotheheadofhisunit.Thegiverwouldnotfeeldiminishedbecauseprotectionwouldbeanunspokenbutexpectedpartoftheexchange.WhatwastrueofruralvillagesinnorthChinaasdescribedinYunxiangYan"sresearchmaynotbetrueofyoungurbanintellectuals,especiallyintherapidlychangingenvironmentofthe1980s.Nevertheless,therearesomeobvioussimilaritiesinruralandurbanpracticesofreciprocity(bao).Predominantlyinstrumentalgiftgiving,forinstance,wasforoutsiders,andmightbeintheformofmoneyonthemarketeconomyofthelate1980sand1990s.Yanconcluded,Itisclearthatwhilethenormofreciprocity[i.e.,balancedreciprocity]servesasthefundamentalprincipleofgiftexchangeamongiajiaresidents,therealizationofthisprinciplevariesdependingonmanydynamicfactors_mostrulesofsocialexchange(andperhapsinruralChinaingeneral)couldbe,andfrequentlywere,modifiedtosomeextentbyspecificcontextsandundertheinfluenceofnumerous15factors.Giventhatthetranslatee-translatorrelationshipwasseen(consciouslyornot)asanexchangeofgifts,themisunderstandingthatwaspossibleoneachsidemayhavebeer!profound.ToChinesetranslatees,theirconvictionoftheirsuperiorstatusmightsuggestthatitwasonlyrightandproperthattheybethebeneficiariesofgifts,sothattheirsenseofinjusticewhentheexpectedvalueofthereturngiftdidnotreachtheirexpectationsmightbethatmuchstronger.Fortranslators,especiallyiftheyawthemselvesastheinferiorparty,theChinesemodelwouldbeallthemoreincomprehensible;thenormalWesternmodel,ifindeedtheywereconsciousofit,wouldsuggestthattheywerethebeneficiariesandnotthelavishdonors.Sinceeachparticularexchangemighthavehaditsownlevelofbalancedorunbalancedreciprocity,neitherpartyhadmuchtogoonbywayofusefulcomparison.３０ Anothercomplicationinthisexchangewascross-culturaldifferenceindeterminingthevalueofmonetarilygifts.Assuggestedearlier,nomatterhowmuchsomeoneearnedorownedinthe1980s,whatcouldbemoreimportantwashisaccesstothestoreswheredesirablegoodsweresoldorserviceswererenderedoraccesstopeopleinpowerfulpositionsforacquiringnoncommercialgoodssuchasemployment,housing,andmedicalcare.Thisaccesscouldbetradedingiftexchange.Forexample,onetranslateeusedhisfamilyconnectionstogethistranslator"syoungchildacceptedintoanearbyministry-sponsoredkindergartenandfixedupadentalappointmentforthetranslatorherselfThevalueofnon-commoditygiftssuchasthisisimpossibletoestimateorcompare.Forsuchreasons,reciprocityiii1980sgift-exchangetranslationwastypicallyprecarious.Informalgiftgivingwassetinmotionatanearlystageandmightcontinuetoeachparty"ssatisfactionforweeksorevenmonths.Theproblemsoccurredwheneitherorbothpartiesfailedtounderstandthesystemorthesystem"sincomprehensibilitytotheotherperson.Suchmutualincomprehensioninevitablyledtomutualdisappointment.TRANSLATIONASPROPERTYThenatureofnationalandindividualownershiprightsovercultureformsthelargercontextinconsideringthenatureoftranslationasproperty.Thatis,itremainsunderdebatewhetheranycountryshouldhaveaninternationallyrecognizedlegalormoralrighttoexclusivecontroloverthetranslationofitsnationalliteratureintootherlanguages.Inthepast,Chinamayhaveconsidereditselfanexceptionorsimplyignoredviewsthatdifferedfromofficialstatepolicy.IthasnowabandonedthepolicyofexercisingexclusivecontrolovertranslatingChineseliteraturethatiswrittenandpublishedonthemainland.Sodrastichasthiswithdrawalbeensincethereformpoliciesofthelate1970sthatcomparativelylittletranslationofChineseliteraturenowtakesplaceonthemainland,andlittleofthatcomesthroughtheFLP.Theproblemisnotoneofstatesponsorshipbutofstatecontrol.Therearemanycountriesthatsupportthetranslationoftheircountry"sliteratureintoforeignlanguagesforreasonsofnationalpridewheremarketforcesoperatingabroaddonot３１ fulfillnationalexpectations.Thissponsorshipcanbechanneledthroughstateorprivateinstitutions,includingawardsfortranslationsandgrantsfortranslators.Fewcountriesaresoweddedtothemarketthatstate-sponsoredoranyothernoncommercialformoftranslationisconsideredwronginprinciple.Itisonlywhenstateexercisesexclusivecontroloverthetranslationofitsnationalliteraturethattheproblemsdescribedearliercomeintobeing.Thesameistrueoftheselectionofmaterialsfortranslation.Themechanismsbywhichsomeandnototherliteraryworksaretranslatedinanycountryareasmanyandvariedasthemechanismsbywhichsomeandnototherworksarepublishedinthefirstplace.ThecriteriausedbyindividualsorbyinstitutionsinselectingChineseliteraturefortranslationareoftenobscure,inconsistent,subjective,andprejudiced.AcademicsandcriticsinEuropeandAmericaonthewholethoughtpoorlyofthePRC"sliteratureinthe1950sand1960s,andlittleofitwastranslatedoutsideofChina.AbriefperiodofforeignMaoistenthusiasmfortheCulturalRevolutionhadlittleimpactontranslation.Followingthel978reforms,foreigncommercialandacademicpublisherspromotedtranslationsofworksthatwerecriticaloftheregime,whereastheFLPandChineseLiteraturecontinuedtofeaturemoreorthodoxChinese.l6writers,onlytofindtheiroutputindeclineoverthenexttwodecadesCanonformationisanothercomplexandmessybusiness.IfinregardtoChina"splaceinmodernworldliterature,thetr8nslatlonsprovidedbythePRCinthetwentiethcenturydonotoccupyaprominentposition,Iwouldnotwishtoblameitstranslatorsoritsreaders.Notes：l.TheoHermans,"TheTranslator"sVoiceinTranslatedNarrative,"1996;reprintedinCriticalReadinginTranslationStudies,ed.MonaBaker,193-212(London:Routledge,2010).210.2.Forexample,TimothyBrennanbeganhisstudyofcontemporarycosmopolitanismbynotingattackson"thedichotomybetweencolonizerandcolonized"andwentontocharacterizepostcolonialismasageneralSignifierof"aneconomicorculturesystem３２ ofstructuralinequality"inhisAtHomeintheworld:CosmopolitanismNow(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1997),2,6.Similarly,SherrySimonusedpostcolonialasatermtohighlightpowerrelationsincontemporaryglobalculturalexchangeswithoutreferencetotheactualhistoricalstatusofcolonialismincountriesaroundtheworldinherGenderinTranslation,136.ArifDirlikrefusedtodefinethewordinhisbookonthisverySubject,GlobalModernity:ModernityintheAgeofGlobalCapitalism(Boulder,C0:Paradigm,2007),66-67.3.Liu,TranslingualPractice.4.Notallfeministswouldagree.See,forinstance,Simon.GenderinTranslation,esp.16-19.5.TheoHermanspointedoutthefallacyofsupposingthatthecolonized“select”thecolonizer"sliteratureinhisTranslationinSystems.111.6.PrasenjitDuara,TheGlobalandRegionalinChina’sNation-Formation(London:Routledge,2009),25.7.BrantlyWomack.ChinaandVietnam:ThePoliticsofAsymmetry(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),38-39.8.ItcanbereasonablyheldthatQingrulewasaManchucolonizationofHanChinaandthatChinesegovernmentssince1949havebeenthecolonialrulersofthenon-HanareasofChina.Fromtheperspective,modernChinahasbeenacolonialpowerratherthanthecolonizedterritoryofoutsidepowers.9.Foranaccountofthisincident,seeBonnieS.McDougall,"LiteraryTranslation:ThePleasurePrinciple",ChineseTranslationJournal28,no.185(September2007):22-26.10.Forthissuggestion,IamindebtedtoMaxBohnenkamp"scommentsinChicagoin2009.11.SeeZhangLongxi,MightyOpposites:FromDichotomiestoDifferencesintheComparativeStudyofChina(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1998),154.12.Ibid.,155.SeealsoEdwinGentzler,“Translation,Poststructuralism,andPower”inTranslationandPower,ed.MariaTymoczkoandEdwinGentzler.195-218(Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,2002).３３ 13.SeeWomack,ChinaandVietnam,andDavidC.Kang,ChinaRising:Peace,PoweeandOrderinEastAsia(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2007),forproperlynuancedandevidence-basedargumentsonChina"srelationshipswithitsneighboringstates.14.YunxiangYan,"UnbalancedReciprocity:AsymmetricalGiftGivingandSocialHierarchyinRuralChina."inTheQuestionoftheGift:EssaysacrossDisciplines,ed.MarkOsteen,67-84(London:Routledge,2002).ThisarticlebuildsonYan"sgroundbreakingbook.TheFlowofGifts:ReciprocityandSocialNetworksinaChineseVillage(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1996).15.Yan,TheFlowofGifts,127.16.ForabriefdiscussionontheselectionofmodemChinesewritersfortranslationbyChineseandnon-Chinesetranslators,seeLouiseEdwards,""LateTwentiethCenturyOrientalismandDiscoursesofSelection,"Renditions44(Autumn1995):1-11.SeealsoTimothyBrennan,"ThePublicFaceofthe“Third-World”WriterinBrennan,AtHomeintheWorld,36-44.３４ Appendix2:译文第七章翻译，权力与所有权第一部分和第二部分分别探讨了国家体制下的翻译活动，与人际关系中的翻1译活动。这两种方式的联系在于两者都发生在同一地点，几乎同一时间，甚至在一些个案中，还发生在相同的人之间。有的人习惯性地认为中国应该是个中央集权的国家，而对于上述两者的联系，他们或许会颇感困惑。部分原因可能要归咎于20世纪中叶现代中国的动荡，那时垄断或专权机构已悄然崩塌。这还有一部分要归咎于翻译活动混乱的本质，不管是在全球层面，国家层面还是个人层面。正如西奥·赫曼斯(TheoHermans）所说的，“翻译是不能简化的：翻译的结果2不是单一的，它总是混合的，多元的，不尽相同的。”文化传输和殖民主义殖民主义国家，不管是在欧洲，亚洲，美洲还是其他地方，无论是会为破坏他国负责的，还是视自己为推进文明化的，他们通常都残暴，无能、并不同程度的腐败。而殖民地方面一直把自己的落后归结于殖民统治，并认为自己遭受到的迫害是偶然的是不应该接受的。某些殖民国家和殖民地都意识到了这些自我认知本身就是不可靠的，并尝试理性对待并调和两者之间的矛盾；而另一些人却意图加深一方或另一方的不满情绪。在这个过程中，有些词，例如殖民主义，特别是后殖民主义，很可能已经失去了他们原有的定义，取而代之的是通用的意象或是3态度。4刘禾（Liu）《跨语际实践》(Trans-lingualPractice）一书的主题便是殖民1第一部分和第二部分分别介绍了属于“正式翻译”的“威权命令”模式和属于“非正式翻译”的“礼物交换”模式。2西奥·赫曼斯（TheoHermans），“译者在翻译中的话语权”1996，重印在MonaBaker的《翻译研究：语言学中的批判性概念》（CriticalReadinginTranslationStudies），193-212((伦敦:Routledge,2010）.210.3例如，TimothyBrennan开始当代世界大同主义的研究，是通过抨击“殖民者和被殖民者的天壤之别”的说法和继而又具象了后殖民主义——作为“结构不平等的经济或文化系统”的通用标志，他在书AtHomeintheworld:CosmopolitanismNow（剑桥，MA：哈佛大学出版社，1997）2,6。类似的，SherrySimon把后殖民主义作为术语来突出当代全球文化交流中的权力关系，但未提及在她书《翻译与性别》（GenderinTranslation）中世界各国殖民主义的实际历史地位，136。阿里夫·德里克（ArifDirlik）拒绝在他书中就这个非常话题作出定义，《全球现代性:全球资本主义时代的现代性》（GlobalModernity:ModernityintheAgeofGlobalCapitalism）(Boulder,C0:Paradigm,2007),66-67.4《跨语际实践》2002年由三联新知出版，作者刘禾，1990年获美国哈佛大学比较文学博士学位，1990－2001年任伯克利加州大学比较文学系和东亚系跨系教授及讲座教授（MagistrettiDistinguishedProfessor），现任由执根大学比较文学系和亚洲语言文化系跨系教授及讲座教授（HelmutF．SternProfessor）。３５ 时期和后殖民时期，全球文化转移的内在权力结构。刘禾强调地缘政治力量的不平衡体现在了语言、文学还有其他文化系统方面，特别提到了19世纪后期和20世纪初期英文书籍的中译工作。虽然她的书中探究了不少外文书籍的中译工作，但是作为现代中国历史极少碰触的一块，细究调查翻译过程中的权力关系是非常有价值的。就中国改革者是如何构建英语词汇和语法翻译的问题，刘禾举了一个例子，即中文中女性第三人称代词的发明。虽然19世纪中国译者和他们的跟随者认为自己把现代性引进中文，但是一个世纪后的一些女权主义者还是会想如果没有女5性第三人称代词，是否就意味着后现代的中性代词的缺失。通常，按照其他的研究认为，把英文和法文文本的译作纳入其他语言中，是殖民主义和后殖民主义暴力的体现，刘也把此类自有巧妙的发明当作是帝国主义强加在殖民地语言上。如刘禾书中的一些英译汉的例子，即便大家都认为有些英汉翻译现在看来复杂且显多余，但同时也可从中看出不只受到了一股政治力量的影响，所以说19世纪620世纪的中国，是（比喻翻译）暴力的受害者是不完全正确的。刘禾认为19世纪的中国是英国的殖民地，可能这点大家不曾知晓，但可从她的大多数言论中推断出。然而其他历史学家对此并不赞同，不管是在19世纪还是其他时期，中国从未沦为任何西方势力的殖民地。例如，杜赞奇认为20世纪中国和日本强烈的民族主义运动的发展和强硬的政府，让两国没有直接沦为西7方权利的殖民地。除了一些没有被中国政府开发的孤立地区，整个中国从未被不管是英国势力还是其他欧洲国家的殖民势力统治过。其中一个因素：中国巨大8的国土面积有效地击退了殖民化。事实上，有些当代中国改革者认为，要说199世纪中国的被殖民化，那就是满族朝代的统治，这个观点看起来较接近于事实。随着1911年清政府被推翻，接任的汉族中国政府又受到了日本，美国，还有苏联的武装干涉或说威胁式干预。虽然当时的中国政府仍然腐败不团结，但是5不是所有的女性主义者都同意此观点，详情请见，西蒙的《翻译与性别》，16—19。6西奥·赫曼斯（TheoHermans）在其著作《翻译的多元系统》（TranslationinSystems）中，指出被殖民地“选择”殖民者文学的谬论，111.7杜赞奇（PrasenjitDuara），《中国民族范式下的全球性和地区性》(TheGlobalandRegionalinChina’sNation-Formation)(London:Routledge,2009),258布拉德利·沃麦克（BrantlyWomack），中越混血：《互惠性政治学》（ThePoliticsofAsymmetry）（剑桥：剑桥大学出版社，2006），38-39.9可以认为，清朝统治时期，中国是一个满族殖民地，中国政府自1949年开始成为中国非汉族地区的殖民统治者。从这一角度看，近代中国一直是殖民地大国，但非外国势力的殖民地。３６ 中国依然成功地阻止了这些国家殖民中国的计划，除了一些统治的边缘地带——中国的东北是日本战时唯一占领的土地。中国到底何时从殖民状态到后殖民状态，这个并不清楚，但是很明显“后殖民”这一说法并不适合用来描述20世纪80年代中国与西方主要势力以及与日本的关系。现今世上没有多少人还在维护帝国主义。所以，像中国这样的大国几个世纪的落后，并不能完全归结于外国势力的干预。然而，中国的民族主义因自认为正义的受害者的意识得到了加强。二十世纪中期中国统一了少数民族区域如西藏，新疆和蒙古，新中国成立之后，这里成立了中西部地区自治区。20世纪50年代成立的外文出版社，作为由党控制的主要国家机构，它的成立被认为是民族主义对于国家意识的反应，用毛派的话来说，其实是中国之前半殖民的展现。或是说，因为外文出版社是在苏联的直接影响下成立的，它亦是另一种半殖民化的体现，不过这次是受亲密邻国伙伴的影响。但是，就算在50年代，苏联对中国的影响达到顶峰时，英文在外文出版社还是享有非常重要的地位，之后随着文化大革命的爆发，英文的重要性逐步加深，最终促成了与美国的建交。事实证明，对于外文出版社来说，无视苏联的影响并假装其从未存在过并非难事。作为国家财富的文化与苏联模式相似的一点就是，中国认为，文化是国家的财富。作为一个坚信有本土文化的国家，中华人民共和国亦在尝试境内外的文化传播。外文出版社几本刊物最初的创立者可能受到自身民族主义或反帝国主义的动机驱使，但似乎不可能他们会仅凭雄心壮志让外译工作得到极权控制。然而，20世纪50年代中期，共产党政府成功实现了这一目标，统一控制了外译作品从印刷到分销的出版过程。文学本身就为国家所有，所以中国文学的外译也不是个例外。从文学国家所有的概念延伸到文学翻译国家所有的概念，在中国是不成问题的；亦很容易想象这些翻译都是由仅有一点外国文化知识的中国译者译出。大多数数翻译家和翻译理论家普遍认为，文学翻译的目标语最好是译者的母语，正如文学写作最好是作者的母语写作。当然，在英语语言文学和外国文学英译中有些著名的例外，而且这种真实的情况可能在多个国家发生，但是上述的普遍规则本身还是经得起考验的。然而，20世纪50年代，翻译成非母语语言的苏联模式主３７ 宰着中国，国家权力最不欢迎对国家教义的挑战。到了20世纪80年代，普遍接受的观点是，中国译者是中国文学作品外译的活动主体，这一观点因一些译者断言只有中国译者能够来翻译中国文学作品从而得到进一步的加强。（但是这看似并不能表示他们能赞同这类似的观点——外文作品的中译工作仅仅只能由外国人完成；这就感觉中国译者是唯一都能胜任两个方向的译者。）这种观点的不合理性，因中国文学对外传播的热情被反复强调，2007年在北京召开的中国翻译协会的中译外论坛上这一观点提出后得到了大多学者的支持，当时大会的主题是“中译外论坛：连接世界的桥梁”，外文局是主办方。一位卓越的英国汉学家为经典中文诗词的外译缺乏合格的英文译者而感到难过，而一位中国资深翻译家则声称，由非中国人翻译的中国文学是一种文学的10帝国主义，同时质量也劣于中国人的翻译。这就好像一个新的语言或文化民族主义已经席卷了这个国家每一个小小的、不起眼文化的角落，归化外国语言和文11学，把他们转化为中国所有。僵化组织系统的坍塌许多现代国家设立了或批准设立了国立和私立的翻译机构，在翻译中一边维护国家的利益，一边又允许多样的翻译活动。在一些看似独裁国家或专政组织也都得受制于一些颠覆活动，它们不由政治意识形态驱动，主要由国家或机构中的员工和其他人士所引起。中国共产党，像之前的苏联一样，加入了所有权的概念，认为自身的组织能力能控制或是至少可以限制翻译活动的杂乱无章。虽然文化大革命基本上毁坏了所有依靠脑力活动的国家机构（比如外文出版社），但是20世纪50年代和60年代期间，这种控制翻译活动的权力还是在中国起了作用。在70年代后期和80年代初期不断恢复生产力的过程中，编辑和翻译对外文出版社的不信任和不满情绪达到了前所未有的水平。大概这些员工的忠诚度从来都不是绝对的，而且文化大革命让此类忠诚看似过时，甚至是不符合常理的。外文出版社的员工很快意识到他们的技能不仅仅限于服务官僚机构的利12益。正如根茨勒（Gentzler）和其他翻译理论家所说，翻译总是蕴含了选择因此10对此类观点的看法，请见杜博妮“文学翻译：快乐原则”发表在《中国翻译》28，no.185(2007.09):22-26.11对于这个建议，我很感谢MaxBohnenkamp于2009年在芝加哥发表的评论。12埃德温·根茨勒（Gentzler）：阿默斯特马萨诸塞大学（UniversityOfMassachuserttsAmherst）翻译中心主任、比较文学副教授。著述颇丰，同玛丽亚·提莫志克（MariaTymoczko）合编了《翻译与权力》（TranslationandPower）一书,《当代翻译理论》也是其著作之一。３８ 产生了操控，正如一直被编造的新文本，译者有其自己的经济、政治和个人目标，这可能跟他们的雇主目标不同，或是跟一般惯例不同。然而，不是所有译者都能够参与到非官方的权力机制中。通过运用80年代还在运作的系统约束，主要是在反复检查的过程中，依靠多方面以及自上而下的方式管控员工的私生活，外文出版社有效地限制了翻译员工的出格小动作。正如之前所指出的，供体文本和主翻译文本的分离主要是因为编辑的干涉，而不是译者重写的意图。然而，20世纪50年代到20世纪末外文出版社最根本的错误是，把译者的地位置于机构中的最底层，而机构中的高层并不懂也不关心翻译的过程和翻译的结果。整个翻译的过程不再只是译者和文本这两个主体的事，还包含了组织内部事务的问题，严格意义上来讲，这些对于翻译作为文本活动来说一点关系也没有。因为在中国作家协会的影响下，默认赞助人的运作，虽不明显，但是毫无疑问它确实是存在的。指令和产品的不匹配，生产和消费的不协调，不可避免地导致不稳定。这外文出版社初衷是另一个基本性的错误。它与大众一样，对文学翻译有着误解。这种误解可能表现为多种方式。从最简单的层面来说，它认为如果一种翻译是正确的，那么其他的翻译就是错误的。也可能是这么认为的，无论原文是否模棱两可，译文应是意思明确的。外文出版社，作为权威的翻译主体，似乎可以将中国文学以一种意义固定明确的模式呈现在外国的读者面前。问题是，在外文出版社的控制下，不管是销量还是翻译质量上，外国读者对于中国文学翻译作品的反响一直不好。销路不佳成为80年代做出改变的原因；外文出版社管理层并没有明确承认其在翻译过程有错误。外文出版社最终且无法逾越的问题就是，1978年改革开放后，它失去了中国文学输出的垄断地位。外文出版社还没有准备好来应对中国作家协会管控之外的文学机构兴起，以及在中国愿意并且能够从事翻译的外国学生和外国专家数量的急剧上升。20世纪70年代兴起的地下运动尝试着让国家管理方式有所改变，不管是通过文化手段还是其他手段。虽然蓄意的政治挑战是从不被允许的，但是文化活动一直属于半接受的状态。新文学作品最终译本的出炉以及其在全球的上架也扩大着中国对于世界的影响。到20世纪末，外文出版社不再掌控中国文学翻译的所有权。即使有些事情３９ 本质上就是杂乱的，高度集中的社会主义也能成功的摆平这种杂乱。然而，高度集中的经济政治体制的模式最终在苏联崩塌，一些东欧的社会主义国家以及中国不可避免地受到了或大或小的影响。内部的抗争文化大革命后期，在许多中国知识分子看来，19世纪和20世纪中国人民的苦难都是由政府造成，特别是在1950年以后。那些在大跃进和文化大革命中幸免于难的人们（或是他们的子女）更能意识到这一点。对于许多20世纪70年代下半叶从国外大都市回来的留学青年来说，日本和西方国家给中国提供的是帮助和解决方案，不再是威胁。对于这些青年的学者来说，越来越多的外国人来到中国，让中国人有前所未有的机遇来了解外面的世界，特别当一些年轻且能够说中文的外国人急切地想和中国作家和艺术家建立友谊时。这种人民之间的交流促成了许多汉译英和汉译其他语言的翻译。但是这样的人际翻译活动很可能因要屈服于外部权力而为之取消。然而，这样的取消忽视了国家统治者和公民之间产生分歧的可能。在第六章我们所提及的13中国作译者（translatees）反对政府对出版物和海外交流的限制。他们的翻译活动大多都没有受到因商业利益或政治因素驱使的帝国主义或全球性的压迫。但是令人不安的是，有些译者认为他们不是在面对原作者，而是在面对政府。无论当代民族国家的全球关系如何，作译者并不是殖民翻译或后殖民文化融14合的被动受害者；他们的翻译实践更像是“grabblism”(拿来主义）（自由地从外国人那拿取有用的东西），这是鲁迅在20世纪20年代和30年代提倡的。主宰中国文化的不是什么外国势力，而是中国共产党的教义；作译者更多要面对的是国家权力，而不是来自帝国主义的操控。正如发生在其他地方一样，外国势力直接影响的不是入侵国的统治者，而是15那些入侵国中对本国缺乏信心的成员。对于新作家来说，在与当局者就人际翻13“作译者”是20世纪70、80年代的新作家，多为男性，他们经历过文革的浩劫，在国内难以发出自己的声音，因而积极寻求翻译和发表的渠道，“译者”多来自英美等西方国家，且多为女性，她们没有多少文学创作和翻译实践经验，但是对新文学和新作家充满激情；她们不是文学评论家，对翻译理论和翻译研究也所知甚少，但本身正好代表英语读者的特点。14《拿来主义》选自《且介亭杂文》，是鲁迅先生所作的一篇著名的杂文，写于1934年6月4日。鲁迅在文中批判了国民党反动派的卖国主义政策和一些人对待文化遗产的错误态度，阐明了应该批判继承和借鉴文化遗产及外来文化。文章深入浅出、浅显易懂、耐人寻味。15可见张隆溪《强力的对峙：从两分法到差异性的中国比较研究》MightyOpposites:FromDichotomiestoDifferencesintheComparativeStudyofChina(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1998),154.４０ 译活动被取消的对峙中，身份问题开始显现，正如他们20世纪80年代在关于人性的争论和自治中所做的一样。简言而之，殖民主义和后殖民主义理论忽视了外国译者和本国译者私下结识的可能性，还有作译者积极寻求翻译的可能性。这些理论甚至不太能够提供一个完整的框架来描述这种类型的翻译活动是怎样运作的，他们也无法充分地考虑到关系中个体的差异性以及对这些关系的相关看法。就地缘政治和经济方面而言，20世纪80年代在中国的外国译者地位较高。他们大多都来自繁荣稳定的社会。不像中国部分地区的作译者，他们能够更加自由地游走，在大多数情况下，他们都能够避免或逃离政治教义。这些译者拥有更高的待遇，更优质的住房条件，还可以接触到作译者不能够接触到的商店和服务。在20世纪70年代和80年代的中国，常住的外国人通常都受到了贵宾的待遇（因为他们大多数都为国家机关工作），即使是外国妇女，甚至是年长的妇女，也是一样同等对待。一方面，作译者来自于那些经济暂时衰退或政局暂时不稳定的地区。他们没有钱，也没有地位，他们的作品一般都得不到官方的出版。另一方面，他们的父母可能位高权重，能够给予他们支持和保护，他们的作品可能不通过官方发行，可能在民间大受欢迎。这些作译者大多为受过良好教育的男性，并身处在重视文学的男权社会中。这些作译者并不了解外面的世界，虽然他们对中国经济和政治的最高权力机关的机密有所了解，但他们同时意识到中国在世界的崛起，还有中国历史在世界文明中的重要地位。无论他们怎样拒绝承认中国的过去引领未来，但跟随着20世纪初新文化运动前辈们的步伐，他们一定会感到中国对那些没有太多历史国家的屈尊俯就（例如，一位作译者据称拒绝了访问澳大利亚的邀请，认为澳大利亚是一个没有文化的国家）。甚至有人认为，只要中国及其国民受到16了合理的尊重，他们便会倾向于用“仁”来对待全世界。总之，作译者常常会把自己在翻译关系中的地位视为优势地位：就文化传承而言，他们确实优于“新世界”的译者，在性别上有优势，在创造文化产品上有优势，且他们不仅仅是一个传输的中介——译者通常都被认为，对于作品的最终16同上，155.也可见埃德温·根茨勒《翻译与权力》中“翻译，后结构主义与权力”195-218(Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,2002).４１ 呈现没有多大的贡献，不比编辑，出版社甚至是打印机。上述的旧观点偶尔有所更新，因为作译者拥有更强语言能力，甚至参与到了自己作品的翻译中，但是即使这样，这个旧观点仍然占据着主流。许多译者接受作译者的观点——创造性写作要优于学术研究的诠释，优于其他语言的翻译。当时从事翻译工作者的大部分专业知识都是基于受教师纠正的课堂练习，那时还鲜有专业译者。那些来到中国有着汉学研究背景的学者，他们非常钦佩和尊崇中国文化，并认为学术研究本质上不如创造性写作。虽然这些情感共鸣让这段关系的初期阶段稍感温和，但是日常生活的实际情况不总是理想的。因为上述的原因，最长久的翻译关系，可能是双方性别相同且译者年龄较大，或是双方的社会和文化地位相当，或是译者的社会和文化地位较优越。然而，任何一段特殊关系的寿命取决于双方的私人关系。大多数年轻经验尚浅的作译者和译者都认为，任何一方或双方在私下合作时都是单纯的，双方达成交易都凭自愿，并可以随时退出，这并没有什么好奇怪的。一些人际关系可能是被开发的，但是这种合作安排的本身是不能被开发的。价值的导向20世纪80年代一直交换的不是可交易的商品而是礼物。20世纪80年代一直交换的不是可交易的商品而是礼物。经人类学家和其他人的观察，送礼的通常规则是，礼物应该具有对等的价值（即，平衡），除非双方的社会地位明显不平等。在这种情况下，地位显赫一方的礼物价值往往要比另一方的礼物价值大。地位显赫一方出手越阔绰，就越表明他们财富或地位越不凡，这样另一方在接受礼物时，就不会有劣势地位的卑微感。就如，父亲慷慨地对待不太能回报他的儿子，再如，房东慷慨地对待自己的房客，但房客并不能回报他或只能回报少许。但这样的例子仍然符合平衡互利的原则，因为双方都了解彼此的地位。然而，在中国，不管是在传统的旧社会还是在新中国成立后，不对称的互惠似乎在另外一个方向发展着。阎云翔在关于20世纪80年代和90年代中国农村的研究中发现，劣势一方给优势一方送礼的价值和频率比西方人类学家认为的更加高昂更加频繁。劣势一方给优势一方送贵重的礼物是很正常的事情：儿子给父亲，村民给村长，群众给领导。送礼者不会感到不满，因为这种交换，不言而喻并翘之以盼的保护随之而来。４２ 17阎云翔在研究中描述的中国北方农村的事实，对于年轻的城市知识分子并不适用，特别是在20世纪80年代社会发展迅猛的环境中。然而，农村和城市的互惠性还是存在着一些明显的相似性。例如，在20世纪80年代后期和90年代市场经济的作用下，主要是工具性礼物赠予他人，且以送钱的方式为主。阎云翔概括到，很明显，互惠原则（即平衡互惠）是夏家居民礼物交换的基本原则，这种原则的实现要取决于许多动态因素——大多数社会交换的规则(可能在中国农村通用)在特定的语境和受到多种因素的影响下可以一定程度上进行修改，而过去通18常也是这样做的。考虑到人们以前把作译者和译者的关系当作（有意识或无意识地）是一种礼物的交换，但这可能是对双方的误解，这种误解可能还一直有着深远的影响。对于中国作译者来说，他们对自己优越地位的确信表明，只有他们是礼物的受益人才是正确合适的，所以当回馈的礼物价值没有达到他们的期望值时，他们越发觉得这不公平。而对于译者来说，特别是他们把自己视为地位偏低一方时，中国模式将更加不可理解，如果他们能意识到正常的西方模式，他们便会知道他们不应是慷慨的给予者而是受益者。因为每个具体的交换都有着其自身平衡或不平衡的互惠水平，任何一方都没有太多能进行有用的比较。在决定非货币性礼物的价值中，跨文化差异是此类交换中的另一种混乱。正如之前所说的，在20世纪80年代无论某人赚多少有多少，他们都会想方设法进入百货商店，因为那里有他们想要的商品和服务，并努力去接近那些位高权位的人来获取抽象的商品，如就业，住房和医疗保障。这种关系一般用礼物交换所获得。例如，一位作译者动用自己的家庭关系来帮助其译者的小孩进入到一家附近的公立幼儿园，还帮译者预约牙医。这种非商品的礼物价值是不能评估和比较的。因为这样的原因，20世纪80年代礼物交换的翻译模式中，互惠性特别的不17阎云翔，男，1954年生，美国加州大学洛杉矶分校中国研究中心主任、文化人类学教授。师从著名学者张光直，获哈佛大学博士学位。著有《礼物的流动-一个中国村庄中的互惠原则与社会网络》《私人生活的变革:一个中国村庄里的爱情、家庭与亲密关系:1949~1999》(该书获得2005年度"列文森中国研究书籍奖"，这是该奖项首次颁给华裔学者)等。18阎云翔，《礼物的流动》，127.４３ 稳定。关系初期时，非正式礼物的赠予起着动力的作用，并在接下几周甚至是几个月间双方都为之满意。但当一方或双方开始不能理解这种模式，或是不能理解这种模式中不可理喻的人，问题就出现了。这样不能相互理解的话必将导致双方不欢而散。翻译作为资产文化的国有权和私有权的性质问题，在考虑翻译作为资产的性质下，涵盖了更大的语境。那就是说，任何国家是否应该有国际共识的法律或道德权利来专权本国文学翻译成外国文学，这还尚处争论中。在过去，中国可能认为自己是个例外或是单纯地忽视了文学翻译不同于国家政策制定的观点。现在，中国已然放弃了对于中国大陆文学翻译实行的专有权政策。从70年代后期政策改革以来，这种撤回是如此的激烈以至于现在中国大陆很少翻译中国文学，外文出版社翻译作品随之也就减少了。这个问题不是国家赞助的问题而是国家控制的问题。有许多国家为宣扬民族自豪感而支持本国文学翻译成外语的工作，但是国外市场机制的运行可能不能满足本国的期待。这样的赞助活动可以由国家机构或私人组织牵头，设立翻译奖项和译者基金会等等。大多数国家会都不太计较市场，要不然国家赞助或是非商业的翻译会被认为原则上是错误的。只有当政府对本国文学翻译实施专有权时，之前提到的问题才是存在的。翻译材料的选择也同样如此。在任何国家，决定哪些文学作品应被翻译的机制，就像决定哪些作品应被优先出版的机制一样繁多和复杂。个人或机构在外译中国文学时，对于文本选取标准通常是模糊不清的不一致的，主观的且怀有偏见的。欧洲和美国的学术界和评论界都认为20世纪50年代和60年代的中国文学是匮乏的，基本上没有作品为国外翻译。就算有一段时期外国毛派对文化大革命的热衷，也没有对中国文学作品的外译起了什么积极影响。1978年改革开放以后，外国的商业和学术出版社推动着批评中国体制的著作翻译，而外文出版社和19《中国文学》杂志继续翻译着正统中国作家的著作，没想到在接下来的二十年19北京出版的《中国文学》（ChineseLiterature）对于中国当代文学的对外传播有着极为特殊的意义。1950年，叶君健筹备创办英文版《中国文学》杂志。1951年英文版正式创刊，当时的英文全称为Chineseliterature:fiction,poetry,art。第一辑译载了孔厥、袁静《新儿女英雄传》（沙博里翻译）；李季《王贵与李香香》（杨宪益、戴乃迭译）。此后《中国文学》版本曾发生过多次变化。４４ 20间中国作家的产量一直下滑。标准的形成又是一项复杂混乱的事情。如果就中国文学在现代世界文坛的地位而言，20世纪由外文出版社翻译的作品并没有取得举足轻重的地位，但我并不想因此而责怪译者和读者。20关于中国译者和外国译者如何选取当代中国作家作品翻译的概括讨论，请见LouiseEdwards，“"LateTwentiethCenturyOrientalismandDiscoursesofSelection,"Renditions44(Autumn1995):1-11”，也可见TimothyBrennan,"ThePublicFaceofthe“Third-World”WriterinBrennan,AtHomeintheWorld,36-44.４５'