［来源：新东方网　作者：金威］

　　—Numeral Translation of Ancient Chinese Poetry Concerning with Foreignizing & Domesticating Methods

　　As is mentioned in our linguistic textbook, “it has become axiomatic to state that there exists a close relationship between language and culture”1. An example in the later text well proves this—when Malinowski, an anthropologist, did his field work on the Trobiand Islands off eastern New Guinea, he observed that in this primitive culture, the meaning of a word greatly depended upon its occurrence in a given context, or rather, upon a real language situation in life. Based on phenomena like this, he claimed that “In its primitive use, language functions as a link in concerted human activity…it is a mode of action and not an instrument of reflection.”2 This theory paves the way for a cultural study of language use in Britain, and exerts a great influence on later linguists.

　　As for a specific language, as Malinowski indicates, it often “turns out to be heavily situationally or culturally specified and might not be easily captured by an outsider from a different cultural background”3. This special feature often pushes translators into a dilemma—should they give a faithful description of the original foreign culture (foreignizing translation), or should they replace the original culture with a more acceptable equivalence in the target culture (domesticating translation)?

　　With the rapid development of “globalization”, foreignizing method seems to have become the fashionable trend in nowadays translation. However, when faced with such issues as poem translation, especially ancient Chinese poetry, the method of foreignizing translation seems extremely frail.

　　Poetry, as Robert Frost points out, is “what gets lost in translation”4. However, Prof. Sun Yifeng (Lingnan University) indicates that intranslatability is mostly due to the cultural gap. (Of course, we are not discussing intranslatability here, but the cultural gap that affects poetry translation.)This theory can be well illustrated by ancient Chinese poetry, which is famous for its abundant implications and complexity. This particular feature of ancient Chinese poetry is aptly proved by its numeral words—“万”,for example, or other characters such as “千”,or “三”. Generally speaking, the Chinese characters “千” or “万” do not necessarily mean “a thousand”, or “ten thousand”; they are just symbols of “abundance”(The Chinese character “多” obviously lack this POWER of indication.) Also, “三” does not necessarily mean “three”; it is just a symbol of “a few” or “a little”. Thus, if they are simply translated into “thousand” or “ten thousand” or “three”, they must have lost their original meanings—a good example of cultural gap. Of course, sometimes this kind of translation is also acceptable, for “thousand” also contains the meaning of “abundance” in English language; however, “ten thousand” seems to be a little verbose.

　　I have listed several examples below.

　　Eg.1　烽火连三月，家书抵万金。（杜甫，“春望”）

　　Florence Ayscouth translates “家书抵万金” into “ A letter from home would be worth ten thousand ounces of gold.” It is no doubt literal translation, or if concerned with culture, foreignizing translation (except for the word “ounce”). However, “ten thousand” may sound a little weird to a native English speaker, for “ten thousand” is such an accurate number that he may take it for granted that “a letter from home” does worth that prize, which is certainly not the original meaning. Professor Xu Yanchong translates it into “words from household are worth their weight in gold”, which seems more natural and well conveys its original meaning—and, of course, he is using the method of domesticating.

　　Eg. 2　两岸猿声啼不住，轻舟已过万重山。（李白，“早发白帝城”）

　　Professor Xu Yanchong interprets the second half into “My skiff has left ten thousand mountains far away.” Obviously, he is using foreignizing method—it is not surprising that one translator uses different methods when dealing with different poems. However, “万重山” here certainly does not refer to “ten thousand mountains”—probably not even more than ten mountains all together—it only means that the skiff has left for quite a long distance. Another two masters handle it more skillfully—Weng Xianliang translates it into “the serried mountains are all behind”; and W.J.B.Fletcher translates it as “all through the cragged Gorge our skiff had fleeted with the morn”—both apply the method of domesticating and well express the real meaning of “万重山”.

　　Eg. 3　千山鸟飞绝，万径人踪灭。（柳宗元，“江雪”）

　　Obviously, the Chinese characters “千山” and “万径” do not necessarily mean “a thousand mountains” and “ten thousand paths”. Witter Bynner transfers it with perfect craft—“A hundred mountains and no bird/ A thousand paths without a footprint”. While expressing the concept of “many”, he introduces Chinese culture as well—Chinese people often associate “百” with “千”; or more often, “千” with “万”. However, the English phrase “ten thousand” has two words, thus it cannot well balance the Chinese character “万”(which has only one syllable). It is probably the reason why Witter Bynner transfers “千” and “万” to “hundred” and “thousand”—kind of domesticating. Another two translators also provide their excellent interpretation—Wu Ching-hsiung translates it into “Myriad mountains—not a bird flying/ Endless roads—not a trace of men”; while Professor Xu Yanchong translates as “From hill to hill no bird in flight/ From path to path no man in sight”—both have applied the method of domesticating and have found the “cultural equivalence” in the target language.

　　However, although foreignizing translation does show its inadequacy when faced with numeral translation of Ancient Chinese poems, it is not to say that domesticating translation alone can handle all the problems in such issues. Occasionally, when adopting the method of “domesticating”, a translator may probably be confused by the “intricate” Chinese culture and thus unable to find the equivalence in the target language—the Chinese character “二” for example, sometimes it means “a few”, sometimes it does mean “two”, and sometimes it may probably mean “twice” or “twenty”. Thus a foreigner may probably make mistakes when translating such “magic” numbers. Here is an example.

Eg. 4　阿舒已二八，懒惰故无匹。雍端年十三，不识六与七。（陶潜，“责子”）

　　“年方二八” is one of the most popular Chinese traditions to introduce age, thus Chinese readers are quite familiar with the phrase “二八”. However, it is not easy for a foreign translator to grasp its meaning—Arthur Waley for example, translates “二八” into “eighteen”, which has been good for a laugh to Chinese readers. Charles Budd and Glays M. Taylor (with H.Y.Yang) interpret it as “sixteen”, which is a domesticating translation and may sound clear and concise; however, the phrase “二八” thus has lost its original indication. Professor Xu Yanchong translates it as “twice eight”—a faithful illustration of the Chinese way of age counting. Similarly, when encountered with the sentence“不识六与七”, the three foreign translators are all frustrated—Arthur Waley translates it as “does not know ‘six’ from ‘seven’”; Charles Budd translates as “He can’t discriminate/ The figures six and eight”. (He may take it for granted that “eight” and “seven” have the same meaning here, thus he uses “eight” for the sake of rhyme.); while Glays M. Taylor (with H.Y.Yang) translates it as “To count to six or seven do not know”—each has his own interpretation and may think they have well transferred the meaning in the target language. However, “不识六与七” is not an isolated sentence; it is closely connected with the previous sentence “雍端年十三”. Therefore, the real meaning of “六与七” is “six plus seven”, thus the result is just “十三”—an echo to the age of “雍端”. Native Chinese translator is no doubt much more sagacious—Professor Xu Yanchong translates it as “don’t know how much six plus seven”, which reveals its true meaning and keeps its original form as well—a clever performance of foreignizing method.

　　Judging from the above translation practice of ancient Chinese poetry, we can safely draw a conclusion that cultural translation cannot be simply divided into two methods (foreignizing& domesticating); in many cases, the ideal way is to combine the two methods together, and try to find the “cultural equivalence” between the original and the target languages. Either foreignizing translation or domesticating translation is just a tool for translators to interpret between two different cultures, and translators should not take either of the two as a credendum and restrict themselves to it. More over, they should always bear in mind that language is just a carrier of cultural elements. Thus they should not just concentrate on the language layer; but more important, concentrate on cultural implications. Only by this way, can they grasp the real spirit of both language and culture.

Notes

　　1.Hu Zhuanglin, ed. Linguistics: A Course Book. Chapter 7.
　　2.Hu Zhuanglin, ed. Linguistics: A Course Book. Chapter 7.
　　3.Hu Zhuanglin, ed. Linguistics: A Course Book. Chapter 7.
　　4.Susan Bassnett, “Transplanting the Seed: Poetry and Translation.”

Works Cited

　　Bassnett, Susan and Andre Lefevere. 2001. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. 1st ed. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

　　Hu Zhuanglin, ed. 2001. Linguistics: A Course Book. 2nd ed. Beijing: Peking University Press.

　　罗选民，2003，“跨文化视野中的异化/归化翻译”，电视批判论。

　　吕叔湘，1980，《中诗英译比录》，上海外语教育出版社。

　　吴钧陶，1997，《汉英对照"唐诗三百首》，湖南出版社。

　　许渊冲，1997，《中诗英韵探胜》，第二版，北京大学出版社。

相关阅读：

　　新托福满分状元畅谈新托福攻略
　　中国的孩子尤其需要挫折教育
　　一位清华学子英语学习心得体会
　　周雷：盲目考研七宗罪
　　透视1500年英语崛起历程（兼评“中国英语”）
　　千万不要“学”法语！
　　英语听说速成五大心法
　　高考报考成功可能性预测公式
　　新老四级比较分析报告
　　周雷谈考研学校及专业选择的基本原理

相关链接：

　　新东方课堂｜新东方播客｜俞敏洪文档｜王　强文选｜徐小平专栏
　　众名师印象｜游学新东方｜东方大事记｜聚焦新东方｜新东方文化