Keywords

1 Introduction

Since World War II, a gargantuan number of textbooks on English–Chinese (hereinafter “E–C”) translation has been published. Diverse as their target readers may be—both in terms of geography and competence, there are usually two major approaches. One of them is to explain how translation can be done on a word-class and linguistic-level basis. Another is to put on display a repertoire of translation methods and techniques in the hope that users are fully equipped for translation tasks at various linguistic levels and in different text types. Nonetheless, both strategies, to a large extent, rest on the assumption that readers have such a firm grasp of the Chinese language that they are able to stand against the interference of the source language in the translation process.

The intimacy between translation skills and language competence perhaps requires no further elaboration. Poon even posits that there are no translation techniques independent of language competence (2000, 53). Widely recognized as the conditio sine qua non for learning translation, the language proficiency of students in the whole class is, nevertheless, highly unlikely to be even. Although the standard of Chinese and English of translation students could sometimes be higher than those in other disciplines as a consequence of a more demanding language requirement for admission, the commonest scenario, perhaps, is that some students are stronger than others as far as language competence is concerned. Divergence in students’ language abilities may even manifest itself in master’s programs, for students may have a wide variety of educational backgrounds whose undergraduate training may not be relevant to language, much less translation. While a weak grasp of the source language may result in misinterpretation, hence failing to bring the message in the original text across, strange reading in the target language will be brought about if the translator cannot be safeguarded from the interference of the source text. One of the aims of this chapter is to address the latter problem.

Providing that translation as an activity has heavy reliance on the linguistic competence of the translator, a question may arise: is translation ever teachable? The answer seems to be mixed. For instance, Pan argues forcefully that “translators can be trained,” and “[i]t is pure speculation to say that a good translator is born…” (1975, 40). However, Poon claims that translation as a school subject is less teachable than learnable (2000, 53). With the burgeoning growth of academic journals, conferences and monographs in which translation pedagogy is rigorously explored, it seems that a positive answer to the question has been agreed upon. Now, a more relevant and important question seems to be: how can translation be taught effectively?

1.1 Language Competence Versus Translation Competence

To answer the question, a case study may furnish some clues. It will be seen that while language proficiency is a prerequisite for translator’s training, an excellent command of a language per se is not sufficient to ensure success in translation. Frederick Tsai (1918–2004), widely known by his pseudonym “Sī Guǒ 思果” in Chinese-speaking communities, was a renowned Chinese essayist and translator. He is most famous for his series of books on practical translation, especially the first two entitled Studies in Translation: From English into Chinese (Fānyì yánjiū 翻譯研究) (1971) and More Studies in Translation (Fānyì xīn jiū 翻譯新究) (1982)Footnote 1, in which runs through his central tenet, that is, unaffected Chinese in translation. He was a champion of pure Chinese.

Tsai had translated more than ten books, culminating in his award-winning Dàwèi‧kǎobó fēiěr 大衞‧考勃菲爾 (1996), the Chinese translation of Charles Dickens’s David Copperfield.Footnote 2 He is even the Chinese translator of the bilingualized Oxford Study Thesaurus (1996). As a Chinese essayist, he was held in high regard for his highly articulate but approachable style of prose. Nevertheless, his reputable Chinese rendition of David Copperfield was found to contain instances of Europeanization, despite his conscious attempts to remain unaffected (see Cheung 2011b, 54–97 for a detailed analysis). His other works of translation were also noted for numerous examples of Europeanized Chinese constructions (Cheung 2018, 143–145).

The majority of Tsai’s book-length translations were published by World Today Press, which was sponsored by the United States Information Agency during the Cold War. The publisher was famous for attracting highly esteemed Chinese writers to translate works, both literary and nonliterary, in relation to the United States such as Eileen Chang (張愛玲1920–1995), Tsi-an Hsia (夏濟安1916–1965), George Kao (高克毅1912–2008), T’ang Hsin-mei (湯新楣 1923–1999), and Tung Chiao董橋, to name but a handful (see Shan 2009, 117–157). What adds weight to the research question at issue is that the problem of “translation-ese” is, too, visible—to varying degrees—in their translations.Footnote 3

Their translation-ese could be attributed in part to time pressure. It is a plausible conjecture that submission deadlines might have a role to play in this regard, although Pan seems to cast doubt on this (1975, 40). Apart from the timeline, another reason for interference from the source language, not least for novice translators, is confidence. Beginners are more inclined to be lexically faithful to the original for fear of the accusation of over-translation. The potential compromise of translation quality because of these factors leads us to another question: is there any measure that is conducive to protecting translators from the interference of the source text? It seems that language competence provides only the necessary condition for translation competence.

While it may be generally agreed that language competence lays the foundation for translation competence only, there seems yet a full consensus as to what constitutes the latter. Gile reports that attempts have been made to describe the components of translation competence over the years (2009, 4–6). In spite of terminological variations, these scholarly pursuits point out that in addition to bilingual competence, “transfer competence” (Roberts 1984; Hewson and Martin 1991; Nord 1988/1991, 1992; Neubert 1994; Albir 1996, quoted in Albir 2016, 19–20) or “reformulation competence” (Delisle 1980, quoted in Albir 2016, 19) or “declarative and procedural knowledge about translation” (Gile 2009, 5) is called for. Pym (1992) neatly summarizes that translation competence consists of a) “[t]he ability to generate a TT (target text) series of more than one viable term (TT1, TT2… TTn) for a ST (source text)” and b) “[t]he ability to select only one TT from this series, quickly and with justified confidence, and to propose this TT as a replacement of ST for a specified purpose and reader” (1992, 281).

The competence beyond bilingual competence is brought into play, for translation as a task is never a smooth one: it is a problem-solving process. Albir (2017, b) argues with reference to Krings (1986) that translators, as confirmed in studies, are confronted with problems in the various phases of the translation process. The translator is required to demonstrate “an ability to solve problems, which is not a separate ability but rather an integral part of the sub-competences which make up TC” (Albir 2017, 10, b). It is the attainment of this “ability to solve problems” that one is capable of selecting, as Pym argues, the mot juste, “quickly and with justified confidence” (1992, 281).

The PACTE translation competence research model developed in the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona provides more insights into the components of translation competence (PACTE Group 2017, 35–41). With reference to it, Presas (2000) argues from a psychological point of view that to develop translation competence, transfer competence, and strategic competence are the centerpiece among the six competences comprising translation competence.Footnote 4 According to her, three processes are involved in its development: (a) the acquisition of new competences which are yet to be possessed; (b) the reorganization of the developed competences so as to enhance transfer competence; and (c) “the acquisition of strategic competence” (2000, 29); and the development of transfer competence necessitates another three processes: (i) “specializing in communicative competence in two languages”; (ii) “restructuring, reorienting and broadening the mechanisms of code-switching and bilingual memory”; and (iii) incorporation of a mechanism to control interference (ibid).

This research model was later revamped. Firstly, the transfer competence was no longer considered as a self-standing sub-competence. Secondly, the strategic competence has come to be of the utmost importance, for it is the “procedural knowledge to guarantee the efficiency of the translation process and solve problems encountered” (PACTE Group 2017, 40). There are also changes to other competences as a result of the aforementioned amendments (ibid, 38–41). Despite recategorization and redefinition of individual competences in the revised model, Presas’s argument has not been undermined, for the issue in question remains unchanged: competence beyond bilingual competence is called into play to warrant success of the translation process.

1.2 Awareness of the Defining Characteristics of Chinese

To this end, an awareness of the defining characteristics of the Chinese language will serve a useful purpose—they may greatly contribute to enhancing the strategic competence of the translator, acting as prompts in cautioning the translator against potential interference. Language teaching—to various extents—is usually part of the translation training, for “requiring that students have a perfect command of foreign languages before learning about translation…would mean teaching translation to virtually empty classes” (Pym 1992, 280). The relationship between language teaching and translation has been constantly put under the critical lens. Nevertheless, the majority of researches focus either on translation in foreign language teaching (e.g., Cook 2010) or on the role of language teaching in learning translation into a foreign language (e.g., Almberg 2000). Poon (2000) is one of the few works of research on Chinese grammar and translation into Chinese.

From a sociolinguistic point of view, English is the high language and Chinese the low one, although the latter is gaining increasing importance and influence across the globe with China’s joining of the World Trade Organization at the turn of the century and hence the rapid economic development. As a consequence of the hierarchy, the majority of Chinese translations are done by native speakers of Chinese. The comparative paucity of academic discourse on Chinese competence and translation into Chinese tends to reveal an assumption that one would be able to translate into Chinese—his/her own mother tongue—without the interference from the source text. As a matter of fact, there is some truth in it as one is expected to have a firmer grasp of their first language. For example, Newmark states that “to translate into your language of habitual use…is the only way you can translate naturally, accurately and with maximum effectiveness” (1988, 3). Nevertheless, Chinese is such a complicated language that even native speakers would find themselves struggling with it, for the language has been significantly affected by translation since the early twentieth century, giving rise to an exponential growth in Europeanized expressions and constructions. Given that languages must be in constant evolution, translators are required to make an informed decision so as to ensure that the newly emerged linguistic items are compatible with the defining characteristics of Chinese. The foregoing case study speaks volumes about the difficulties involved.

With reference to the universals of translation, a new area of research which emerged in Translation Studies in the 1990s, this chapter posits that translation as an activity represents resistance against normalization and simplification.Footnote 5 Thorough language proficiency training before translation training being costly, if not out of the question, it is argued that incorporating the defining characteristics of the Chinese language in an E–C translation textbook along with the aforementioned teaching approaches may enhance, if not maximize, the teaching effectiveness.

The defining characteristics of the Chinese language are not totally unexplored. Light has been thrown on them in some textbooks—often in contrastive studies with English. For example, while Chen (1998) discusses three features of Modern Chinese in an appendix, namely, the dominance of vowels in a Chinese syllable, the dominance of bi-syllabic words in the Chinese lexicon, and the importance of word order in Chinese sentences (283–289), Ch’ien (1969) explains that the subject in a Chinese sentence is often human (1–2). Nevertheless, there does not seem to be a textbook to date on E–C translation in the light of a comprehensive elaboration of the defining features of this language.

It must be noted that the present chapter is not aimed at challenging, not to mention invalidating the descriptive development of Translation Studies, disapproving foreignizing as a translation strategy, nor putting in an argument in favor of prescriptivism. In point of fact, it is more concerned with fluency and readability of the translated text than with translation strategies. Foreignization and fluency are not necessarily mutually exclusive, for the crux of the former is less a linguistic concept than an ideological one. Venuti (2018), who put forth the widely adopted dichotomous terms between domesticating and foreignizing in 1995, casts further light on the relationship between fluency and translation strategies when the second edition of his seminal work The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (2008) was republished in 2018. He clarifies that a translation strategy bears no direct relationship with fluency of the translation. He argues that “fluency is not in itself domesticating” (Venuti 2018, xv). He makes it clear that

[f]oreignizing translation cannot be reduced to literalism, or close adherence to the source text. This discursive strategy can be of use with certain language pairs and source texts, but too often, especially in rigid applications, it tends to result in awkward, unidiomatic writing, so-called translationese, which cannot serve the ethical effects of foreignizing translation. To foreignize is to alter the way in which a translation is customarily read by disclosing its translated status as well as the translator’s intervention. To produce this effect compellingly, however, the translation must also be legible enough to be pleasurable, qualities pre-empted by translationese (ibid, italics added)

The author further illustrates how “a foreignizing effect” (ibid, italics added) can be produced in practical texts such as an instruction manual, apartment lease, and a travel guidebook (ibid, xv–xvi).

1.3 Chapter Organization

There are three major parts in this chapter. The first outlines the history of textbooks on E–C translation, highlighting their two major approaches and the desideratum in the future development of textbooks with regard to E–C translation. The next argues how translation may be seen as resistance to normalization and simplification, which lead to the so-called “translation-ese.” Part Three elucidates the major defining characteristics of the Chinese language, namely, yìhé 意合 (parataxis), linearity, dynamism, an emphasis on such dimensions as concreteness, humans and human relationships, holism and a sense of balance, and how Chinese culture has played its part in shaping them.

This chapter is significant in pushing back the frontiers of teaching English–Chinese translation, setting the scene for further discussion on the delicate balance between language teaching and teaching translation. The blending of language teaching with translation teaching is certainly not a new area of scholarship. For instance, Wong (1988) elucidates how the language training component of the translation program in the University of Hong Kong can stand their students in good stead in coping with a wide range of text types in translation. Poon (2000), Lai (2000), and Almberg (2000), to name but three, have all thrown light on the importance of language teaching in translation teaching, although the last article is mainly concerned with translation into English. This chapter is original in highlighting the importance of developing students’ awareness of the defining characteristics of the Chinese language in order to enhance their language sensitivity with a view to producing unaffected written Chinese. It further contributes to the academic discourse through presenting these characteristics in a systematic manner and placing them in the context of Chinese culture.

2 Commonality in Textbooks on E–C Translation

Over the decades, a countless number of textbooks on E–C translation has been produced. A complete history of E–C translation textbooks may require a book-length treatment, so what is intended in the upcoming paragraphs is to outline several major patterns in the course of their development over the past decades to set the scene for my argument in “Sect. 4 Defining Characteristics of the Chinese Language.”

The first traceable textbook on translation between Chinese and English is probably Chen Yu-shen’s (程豫生) The Practical and Standard Method of English Translation 實用標準英文繙譯法 published in 1930 (Chan 2009, 108). Between the 1950s and 1970s, there were some sporadic publications of E–C translation textbooks across Hong Kong, Mainland China, and Taiwan. Some notable ones include Loh (1959), Chang (1966), and Sun and Jin (1977)—the first published in Beijing, the second in Taipei, and the last in Hong Kong. While the majority of translation textbooks have been published in Mainland China since the 1980s (the size of population certainly has a part to play in this regard), such publication activities were comparatively quiet on the Mainland in the 1960s and 1970s. Apparently, one may surmise its logical link with the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), which brought a great many cultural activities including publication to a halt. With the opening up of Mainland China in 1979, this part of Chinese-speaking communities has established itself to be a powerhouse of translation textbooks. In addition to the population factor just mentioned, the thriving development of translation textbooks is likely to be attributed to the role of translation in national policies set out in the five-year plans of China.

In spite of differences in approaches, target learners, and contents in these textbooks on E–C translation spanning over half a century, there is commonality in them. First of all, a common approach is to illustrate how to make Chinese translation in accordance with parts of speech and linguistic levels. This is what Chau (1984) classifies as the “Grammatical Model.” For instance, Loh (1959) prescribes the method of translation for a wide range of linguistic components in eight chapters, including nouns, personal pronouns, relatives, demonstratives, indefinites, and interrogatives, articles, verbs, numerals, and connectives (Loh 1959, 5–6). Sun and Jin (1977) takes a similar approach. It begins with common nouns, followed by proper nouns, pronouns, relative clauses, determiners, articles, etc., and concludes with the reference books for translation in the last chapter. Apart from the word level, the sentence level is also dealt with in other textbooks, for example, translation of long sentences and passive sentences (e.g., Liu 1997; Sun 2006).

Apart from the Grammatical Model, an exhibition of a repository of translation techniques is another common approach. They include “addition,” “subtraction,” “alteration” (e.g., Tan 1990), “repetition” (e.g., Chan 1996; Liu 1997, 2006), “direct expression” (zhèng shuō 正說/kěndìng 肯定) (e.g., Chen 1996; Liu 1997, 2006), and “indirect expression” (fǎn shuō 反說/fǒudìng 否定) (e.g., Chen 1996; Liu 1997, 2006). Examples are usually given to demonstrate how they can be put into practice.

Addition refers to the insertion of linguistic items—usually one word such as a connective—in order to conform to the syntactic norm of the target language and to make explicit what is taken for granted in the source language. Subtraction works in the opposite direction. Words are left out so as to fit into the sentence patterns natural to native speakers of the target language. A widely known example is the omission of articles when translating into Chinese. For example, “I am a Mathematics teacher” may probably become “Wǒ shì Shùxué lǎoshī 我是數學老師” in Chinese,Footnote 6 for it would be absurd to imagine that one would become two or three teachers!

Compared with addition and subtraction, alteration looks more fluid as a technique for translation students because it may be concerned with any shifting of word classes and word order in order to match up to the natural ordering of lexical items in the target language. Hawkes’s A Little Primer of Tu Fu provides an illuminating example. When explaining the translation of poetry titles, the former Oxford Chinese Chair remarks that verbs in the Chinese titles have to be nominalized in order to be in line with the tradition of English titles (Hawkes 1967, 2). Preference for verbal constructions in Chinese will be explored in greater depth in Sect. 4.

While repetition is a user-friendly technique, which may refer to monosyllabic repetition (diézì 疊字, e.g., tōngtōng 通通, wǎngwǎng 往往, měiměi 每每) or bi-syllabic repetition (diécí 疊詞, e.g., kèqì kèqì 客氣客氣), the application of “direct expression” and “indirect expression” is somewhat intuitive, its effectiveness highly hinging upon the language sensitivity of the translator, for it comes down to the matter of collocation—“the habitual co-occurrence of individual lexical items” (Crystal 2008, 86).

Except for some earlier teaching materials, a combination of these two approaches is noted in the majority, if not all, textbooks on E–C translation. Undoubtedly, both methods have their advantages. The former enables students to have an exposure to a wealth of examples of translation at various linguistic levels, giving them a fruitful learning experience (Chau 1982, 138). The latter serves the purpose of a toolbox, reminding translators of what is available for a given task of translation. This method is not least useful when the translator runs into difficulties in coming up with a translation, for s/he may try out these techniques one after one in the hope that the most precise wording may be arrived at. The techniques of addition and subtraction are especially of help as far as movement between the Chinese parataxis and English hypotaxis is concerned.

Nevertheless, both approaches rest, to a large extent, if not entirely, on the assumption that the student has a high level of proficiency of the target language, which is Chinese in question, and that s/he is not vulnerable to the interference of the original language. This is particularly obvious with respect to the choice between “direct expression” and “indirect expression.” Provided with abundant apparatus, students often feel baffled invariably when coming to make an educated translation decision. The short example from Zhong (2010, 100) below will throw light on the perplexity of translation students:

On the word or phrase level, the use of “repetition” is for the need of rhetorical effects or expression of meanings. For instance: (my translation)

在詞語或詞組層面, 重複法主要是為了修辭或意義表達的需要。例如:

  1. (1)

    calm 態度從容,鎭定自若

  2. (2)

    evasive 躲躲閃閃

  3. (3)

    fair 公平合理

  4. (4)

    honest 坦坦蕩蕩

  5. (5)

    flat平平淡淡

What is taught in this example is correct in its own right. Nonetheless, students are likely to ask how to locate the cues which inform him/her of the need to employ repetition. Moreover, the divergence between the suggested translations above and their own version would in all likelihood prompt them to ask the next question: “is ______ (a version of their own) also an acceptable translation” (xíng bù 行不)? A highly expected answer they would be offered is, say, an improvement in language sensitivity is a prerequisite. The very question thus becomes: how to enhance my language sensitivity? Students often feel powerless and off-putting when the solution provided is the platitudinous “more exposure to the Chinese language.” With respect to Chinese, which is the mother tongue for the best part of the students across the Chinese-speaking communities, this chiefly refers to reading.

As argued, bilingual proficiency only sets the stage for the task of translation. The ability to overcome interference from the source language is essential to ensure that the translated text is readable, regardless of the translation strategy intended. That even those writers mentioned reputed for their impeccable Chinese are not immune from the influence of the original language has cast much light in this regard. Therefore, albeit the advantages of the two approaches, their teaching effectiveness is thrown into question. Or to put it in another way, are there any ways to keep the interference of the source language to a minimum, if not to secure him/her against it?

3 Translation as Resistance Against Under-Representation

Since Baker (1993) raised the possibility of examining translation patterns with corpora in her seminal essay in honor of John Sinclair, a series of universals of translation has been proposed, investigated, and established, although their universal validity seems yet to have achieved (see, e.g., Chesterman 2004, 2010). Translation universals refer to those “features which typically occur in translated text rather than original utterances and which are not the result of interference from specific linguistic systems” (Baker 1993, 243). Some earliest universals identified include simplification and avoidance of repetitions present in the source text, explicitation, normalization, discourse transfer and the law of interference, and distinctive distribution of target-language items (Laviosa-Braithwaite 1998, 288–291).

The concept of translation universals somewhat coincides with the idea of laws of translation put forward by Toury in the mid-1990s. In an attempt to facilitate the establishment of translation as a science, he put forward two laws of translation: law of growing standardization and the law of interference (1995, 267–8). Chesterman further places these universals into two taxonomies: S-universals and T-universals, the former arising from the source text and the latter the target text (2004, 40): (Table 1).

Table 1 Universals of Translation
Full size table

A cursory look at this table will reveal that these universals, be they S-universals or T-universals, can generally be boiled down to two categories, which are: (a) expansion and (b) under-representation. The only exception is “untypical lexical patterning.” It must be noted that while Baker notes that the universals of translation “are not the result of interference from specific linguistic systems, that the division between S-universals and T-universals and the inclusion of interference as one of the S-universals in later discussions apparently demonstrates that this claim has been challenged. As a matter of fact, it will be evident from the examples in the next section, the phenomenon of under-representation is, for all intents and purposes, ascribed to the interference of the source text, in addition to a weak grasp of the Chinese language on the part of the translator.

Academic discourse tends to differentiate “simplification” from “normalization”: while the former is more of a quantitative concept, the latter is a qualitative one. According to Palumbo, simplification “refers to the hypothesis that translated texts tend to be simplified, linguistically, compared to non-translated texts” (2009,106). This is seen in aspects such as “a narrower range of vocabulary; a lower ration of lexical to running words; a lower average sentence length” (ibid, 107). Normalization, also known as conventionalization or standardization (cf. Toury’s Law of Standardization), “is the hypothesis that translated texts universally tend to make use of typical features of the TL to a greater degree than comparable non-translated texts” (ibid, 78). Examples include the replacement of dialect in the original text with standard language in the target text, normalization of punctuation, and an (extraordinarily) higher frequency of certain lexical items in the target text (ibid, 78). In other words, that the existence of some lexical items is more frequent than others means that the translated text has become more standardized and more mechanical, so to speak. In that sense, the reduction in diversity of choice of words is also an instance of simplification.

It is argued that it is the features in the second category “under-representation” which contribute to the translation-ese, for the reformulation process is interfered by the source language, in addition to some other factors such as the translator’s lack of confidence to make alteration and his/her command of Chinese. With reference to the PACTE model illustrated in Sect. 1, the strategic competence of the translator leaves little to be desired as far as interference and under-representation are concerned. It is hoped to posit that by developing an awareness of the defining characteristics of the Chinese language through incorporating them in an E–C translation syllabus or textbook, the translator is more likely to be able to reduce the traces of translation-ese, if not eliminating all.

4 Defining Characteristics of the Chinese Language

There are various features which define Chinese, some of which are better known than others. It is argued that raising the translator’s consciousness of them can facilitate him/her to stand up to interference from the source language during the reformulating process in translation. These defining characteristics, in the form of keywords, serve a good purpose of reminding the translator how a natural Chinese text reads. To facilitate discussion, these characteristics are listed as thus:

  1. (a)

    yìhé (parataxis)

  2. (b)

    linearity

  3. (c)

    dynamism

  4. (d)

    concreteness

  5. (e)

    emphasis on humans and human relationship

  6. (f)

    emphasis on holism

  7. (g)

    emphasis on a sense of balance.

Prior to further elaboration, it must be noted that a relativist approach is taken as far as these characteristics are concerned. Although the above features have been highlighted as defining ones in Chinese, it does not follow that they are not to be found in other languages. What matters is how prominent a certain feature is in a language. For example, much as a sense of balance is not rarely seen in English, for instance, in parallelism, it has a much wider and more significant role to play in the Chinese language. In a similar vein, it has been suggested that concrete words are preferable to abstract words in English (Fowler and Fowler 1931, 15–16; Strunk and White 2000, 21–23). Nonetheless, the Chinese language gives a more distinct impression of concreteness when compared with English. These features will be further explored in greater detail below.

4.1 Yìhé  意合 (Parataxis)

It is somewhat a platitude to point out that Chinese is a parataxic language as “parataxis” is a textbook term in a great number of, if not all, teaching materials on E–C translation. Nevertheless, due light has not seemed to be thrown on its relation to the second characteristic: linearity.

According to Crystal, parataxis refers to the “construction of equal status which are linked solely through juxtaposition and punctuation/intonation” (2008, 350). In other words, connectives are not necessary in Chinese sentences, where ambiguities would not be given rise to. Take the following quote from an autobiography of Szeto Wah for instance:

小時候,我對海員的工作十分嚮往,覺得航海可以周遊各地增長見聞,而且船上環境清靜,正好讀書和寫作,兩者都可以為做一個作家作準備… (Szeto 2011, 12–13, emphasis added)

While the conjunction “and” is called for when the words underlined are rendered into English as “travel around and open up my horizons,” a connective indicating coordination can be omitted in Chinese. Considering the parataxic nature of the Chinese language, the connective “hé 和” (and) between “dúshū 讀書” and “xiězuò 寫作” may also be left out.

As a matter of fact, absence of connectives is only part of the Chinese concept of yìhé. As Li (2011) and (2012) rightly point out, yìhé and parataxis are not semantically identical. The latter has a much wider semantic range, contributing to the conciseness and great flexibility—both lexically and syntactically speaking—of the language.

While a subject must be made explicit in English sentences except in imperatives, this is not mandatory in Chinese sentences. It can be taken out in subsequent sentences if it remains unchanged after having been first mentioned. Moreover, it may also be left out if the referent is clear from the context. An interesting example is given by Lee and Tse (1994, 15). While it is grammatically necessary to substitute John with a male pronoun to avoid repetition in “John said that he was going to get married”—a principle which is held dear in English writing, reproducing the pronoun in the Chinese translation could mean that someone else instead of the interlocutor would get married, bringing about ambiguity. Therefore, “Yuēhàn shuō kuài jiāng jiéhūn 約翰說快將結婚”—without “he”—would suffice as an idiomatic Chinese translation (ibid).

In addition, the Chinese language is syntactically further concise in comparison with English inasmuch as the copular verb is not required if the predicate is an adjective. Whereas the finite verb “be” is essential in the English sentence “The weather was bright today,” it could be simply translated as “Jīntiān tiānlǎng qìqīng 今天天朗氣清” in Chinese—the linking verb can be, and should be, left out.

More importantly, any component in a Chinese sentence may, as a matter of fact, literally be omitted, providing that no ambiguities would be resulted in the message to be conveyed successfully, contributing to the high flexibility of the language. A time-honored but timely example because of the COVID-19 pandemic is “hand washing” (Xǐshǒu 洗手):

Huíjiā biàn xǐshǒu chī wǔfàn.

回家便洗手吃午飯。

Supposing that the subject is “I”, the English translation would probably read:

I washed my hands for lunch after going home.

While the possessive pronoun “my” is required in the English version, it is redundant in the Chinese counterpart because one normally washes his/her own hands—to question whose hands one would wash under normal circumstances would be a risible idea.

4.2 Linearity

Linearity in Chinese narratives is a consequence of Chinese parataxis. They are often, and are suggested to be in chronological order to avoid ambiguity, for the legitimacy of omitting connectives in Chinese renders the relationship between sentences which are otherwise clearly indicated by English connectives invisible. The following example is a description in the Irish writer Hellen Culler’s novel debut The Lost Letters of William Woolf:

(i) He picked up a parcel wrapped in brown paper and tied tightly in string and turned it over in his hands, grimacing to hear it rattle. No address anywhere. He untangled the knot and peeled back the paper to reveal a shoe box that had once held soccer boots, size five. Inside, a large egg shape was cocooned in bubble wrap; (ii) it felt heavy in his hands as he laid it to one side and picked up the sheet of dotted paper that accompanied it. The precision of the neat, joined-up handwriting gave the distinct impression of being a newly acquired skill (2018, 61–62; emphasis and numbering added)

The post-modifiers and relative clauses often pose difficulties for student translators, for beginners are often uncertain whether they can take the risk to make alteration to the word order. In this example, such phrases as “wrapped in brown paper and tied tightly in string” and “that accompanied it” are likely to stand in their way during the reformulation process. Moreover, that the main clause comes before the subordinate clause in “it felt heavy in his hands as he laid it to one side…” further exacerbates the problem. Bearing in mind the general principle of linearity in Chinese, the translator will be more efficient when recasting them into Chinese. A translation done with reference to this principle may read:

(i) 包裹用牛皮紙包着、繩子捆着。他撿起來,在手中反轉,聽到咔嗒咔嗒作響,擠眉噘嘴做個怪樣。沒有寫地址。解開繩子,撕開包裝紙,看到一個鞋盒,本來是放足球鞋的,是五號的鞋子。(ii)盒內是個蛋狀的東西,用泡泡膠包裹着。盒內坿有一張紙,圓點紋的。他把那件東西擱在一旁,撿起那張紙,發覺這件東西拿在手裏沉甸甸的。那張紙以草書寫,但字跡工整嚴謹,一看就覺得是剛剛學成的。(my translation)

Hypotaxis in English poses great challenges to translators, especially trainee translators because the use of connectives enables the possibility of not only long sentences, but also narration that runs against a chronological order, which defies the Chinese narrative norm. The advantage of an awareness of linearity in Chinese can be illustrated with the second sentence highlighted above. According to the timeline, this is how the story unfolds:

  1. (1)

    Inside the box there is an egg shape cocooned in bubble wrap;

  2. (2)

    a dotted paper accompanies it;

  3. (3)

    He lays the large egg shape to one side;

  4. (4)

    He picks up the dotted paper;

  5. (5)

    He feels the heaviness of the large egg shape.

Conscious of the general pattern of linearity in Chinese narratives, the translator may conveniently untie the knot in this long sentence and render it in idiomatic Chinese.

4.3 Dynamism

Beginning this feature “dynamism,” it will be seen the close link between culture and language, in particular, how the world view of a culture is reflected in the lexicon. While Greco-Roman culture considers the world static, its Chinese counterpart sees it as a state of flux, a dynamic system where constant alternation between the yin energy and yang energy takes place. It is, therefore, discernible that where a noun or noun phrase is employed in English has become—or has to become—a verbal construction in order to be natural in Chinese. The requirement for a verbal structure is made manifest in instructions where economy of language is called for. For instance, Cheung (2020) notes that the Chinese language has a fondness for the verbal structure in book titles, film titles, official titles in imperial China, and titles of occupations. In addition to titles, product instructions and road signs are excellent examples. The following introduction illustrates where the baking soda is applicable:

FOR HOUSEHOLD DEODORIZING

Absorbs and eliminates odors on contact.

Garbage & Diaper Pails, Litter Boxes, Carpets, Dishwasher (between uses)…

用於家庭除臭

去處下列用具的異味,

垃圾桶和, 垃圾箱, 地毯, 洗碗機(在兩次使用之間)……

What deserves our attention has been bolded. In English, prepositions and hence substantival structures are in wide use as a result of the keen observation of the Greco-Roman cultural emphasis on rational thought (Cheung 2020). Provided that it is the verb, however, which contributes to the exactitude and brevity in Chinese, the translation would look awkward if the preposition-noun structure were to be replicated. Instead, a verb is called into play in order to reproduce the succinctness in the English original. Therefore, rather than “zài liǎngcì shǐyòng zhī jiān 在兩次使用之間,” the translation a native speaker of Chinese would expect may read “shǐyòng qiánhòu 使用前後.”

Another example which may throw further light in this respect is a road sign in Hong Kong. It has recently been reported that there are two versions of the road sign in Chinese which reads “All Destinations” in English (Yau 2020): one is “Suǒyǒu mùdídì 所有目的地” and the other is “Wǎng gèqū 往各區.” In addition to interrogating the exactitude of the word “all” and ambiguity arisen, the article rightly points out that the former translation is confusing and sloppy, although it is more faithful to the English original. The reason for the author’s doubt over the seriousness of the translation is precisely the choice of a noun phrase over a verbal construction in a Chinese road sign, which is against the linguistic norm in the eyes of Chinese speakers. It must be pointed out, however, that Yau’s remark that the former translation is more faithful to the source text is not entirely correct, for both versions are semantically identical. What contributes to the seeming fidelity of the former is only a formal one.

Let us return to the foregoing baking soda example, which does not only help illustrate dynamism as a defining characteristic of the Chinese language, but also another core feature: “concreteness”—the substantival “shǐyòng 使用” further exacerbates the “translation-ese” in the example.

4.4 Concreteness

While English is morphologically more concrete in comparison with FrenchFootnote 7, Chinese outperforms the former, for this Oriental language is far more imagerial. The Chinese characters themselves are a case in point. Take cū麤 (broad; thick)—which has today generally been substituted with 粗, a homophonic character much simpler in form in everyday use—for example. 麤 is comprised of three deer (lù鹿)Footnote 8. According to Shuōwén jiězì 說文解字—the forefather of Chinese etymology—the compound of three deer means “travelling for a huge distance” (xíng chāo yuǎn yě 行超遠也) (Xu 1963 rpt, 203). From this are meanings such as “imprecise,” “large,” “broadness,” and “ruthless,” etc., derived (Duan 1981 rpt, 472).

Concreteness of the Chinese language is discernible in various aspects. First of all, a sentence subject is usually—and should be—as concrete as possible. To be precise, an abstract subject would cause the reader to take more time to understand the sentence in question, if not rendering it unintelligible. Take “jùlí chǎnshēng měi 距離產生美” for example, which has been seen on the Mainland asking consumers not to touch the objects in display. Jùlí being an abstract noun, that it is placed on the subject position defies how Chinese sentences are usually formed and understood, perhaps rendering it not efficient enough to keep one off from what is in display, despite its well-intended sense of humor.

A similar example that would cause misleading is “xíngshì bǐ rén qiáng 形勢比人強.” According to Guóyǔ cídiǎn 國語辭典, what it means is that one is placed in a helpless state because of the circumstances (“shíshì bǐ rén qiáng 時勢比人強”). A variant of this phrase is “shíshì bǐ rén qiáng 時勢比人強.” Provided the yìhé nature of the Chinese language, nonetheless, the reader is easily led to think that xíngshì (circumstances) refers to his/her own.

What is worth of attention—and often neglected by students of translation—is that abstract ideas in Chinese are often expressed in a concrete manner. Adjectives of degree is a case in point. To express such concepts as length, height, weight, and luminosity, the traditional practice is to juxtapose the two ends of the continuum of a particular word of degree. For instance, instead of guāngdù 光度, a more localized expression of luminosity in Chinese should be guāng’àn 光暗, literally “lightness and darkness.” In this regard, “clutch”—the part of the vehicle which connects and disconnects the engine with the wheels—is aptly translated as “líhéqì 離合器,” literally “disconnect—connect—device.”

4.5 Emphasis on Humans and Human Relationships

The Chinese language is further concrete in the sense that a sentence is often written from the point of view of humans. Chinese culture places a premium on the role of humans in the universe. The definitions of “human beings” (ren 人) and “big” (da 大) in the Shuōwén jiězì throws much light on this:

Ren 人: “The creature of the greatest importance in the universe. 天地之性最貴者也.” (Xu 1963, 161)

Da 大: “The Heaven is big, so is the Earth. Humans are equally big. 天大, 地大, 人亦大.” (Xu 1963, 213)

It is not surprising to see that human beings are defined as the “creature of the greatest importance in this universe,” but one may wonder in what (possible) way can humans be as big as the heaven and earth. This is, of course, out of the question, from the vantage point of Physics. What the lexicographer emphasizes is the role of human beings in the universe. Precisely speaking, Chinese philosophies are not least concerned with the fact that human beings are part of the universe. In particular, Chinese culture has a special emphasis on how human beings should keep in tune with the laws of the universe (Tao/Dao 道) in every way in order to achieve an 安, roughly meaning safe and peaceful in English, the summum bonum of Confucianism (see Cheung 2019 for detail).

This view of the relationship between humans and the universe has much implication on the sentence structure in Chinese. While literally everything may serve as the subject of a sentence in English—an object, an emotion, or an abstract noun, as a result of the keen observation developed of the Greco-Roman peoples because of their long tradition of scientific enquiry and rational thought (see Cheung 2020 for detail), the sentence subject in Chinese tends to be humans. Where the subject is an abstract noun in English, it would be the working of the five senses in Chinese. Here is an example from L.P. Hartley’s The Go Between:

My appearance was greeted with cries of acclaim, as if the whole party had been living for this moment (1958, 48)

The abstract noun phrase “my appearance” would perhaps lead translation students to render this example as “Wǒ de chūxiàn bào yǐ lián shēng de zànshǎng 我的出現報以連聲的讚賞.” The abstraction in the subject position may probably render this translation unnatural to the Chinese ears. An awareness of the importance of human beings in Chinese culture and hence its implication on Chinese syntax would probably facilitate the translator to put it as “Dàjiā kànjiàn wǒ dū fēnfēn zànshǎng 大家看見我都紛紛讚賞.”

Chinese culture does not only have a special emphasis on human beings, but also on human relationships. This is because of the fact that a great majority of things in this world, if not all, can be placed along a continuum of degree such as size, distance, relationship, to name but three (Cheung 2019, 230), one should also demonstrate the hierarchy in human relationships in order to bring oneself in tune with the rhythm of the universe.

This hierarchical relationship is duly reflected in the choice of words. An illuminating example is the pronoun “you” in Chinese. While there is no difference in the second person pronoun in contemporary English, its Chinese translation varies with the addressee. Instead of the usual form nǐ 你, which is used for addressing those of a lower status, nín 您—beneath nǐ carries the character for “heart”(xīn 心)—should be chosen when the other end of the communication is of a higher status. This is somewhat similar to the difference between “you” and “thou” in Shakespeare’s English (Johnson 2013, 133–138).

The emphasis on human relationships is also closely relevant to the politeness principle in Chinese, which generally tends to see self-deprecation when referring to the speaker whereas the addressee would regard the addresser highly when s/he is a stranger, who would be usually be accorded with a higher status. A simple example is that one would call his/her house hánshè 寒舍 while that of the addressee fǔ shàng 府上. In the example illustrating how subtraction as a translation technique works in the introductory section, my translation of “I am a Mathematics teacher” was “Wǒ shì Shùxué lǎoshī.” In fact, the translator has lost sight of the importance of the politeness principle in Chinese. “Laoshi” is a term of address which shows respect for the addresser. To be humble and in line with the Chinese politeness principle, this sentence should be rendered as “Wǒ jiào Shùxué de 我教數學的.” Moreover, as mentioned, there is a preference for the verbal construction in Chinese. Therefore, occupations are often expressed in verbs in Chinese.

The Chinese politeness principle is inspired by the symbolization in the 15th hexagram of the Book of Change (I Ching)—“Qiān 謙” (Humbleness). The lower three lines of the hexagram represent the mountain and the upper three the Earth, including the seabed. In theory, the mountain is on the Earth, but that the Earth stands above the towering mountain clues one to the principle of humbleness: self-deprecation.

4.6 Emphasis on Holism

The aforementioned examples in 4.5 do not only shed light on the concreteness of the Chinese language, but also the importance attached to the idea of wholeness (quánmiàn 全面). In contrast to the individualism of Greco-Roman culture, Chinese culture sets much store by holism because of the influence of the Book of Change (I Ching), which is considered to have inspired Chinese—in particular Confucian—philosophical concepts. One of the impacts is that a “zooming-in” approach has become a norm in Chinese narratives. Take the following excerpt from Stefan Merrill Block’s The Story of Forgetting as an example:

From the empty streets of its ancient, golden capital spreads the land of Isidora, a land without memory, where every need is met and every sadness is forgotten (Block 2008, 13).

Inversion is commonly seen in fiction, which poses difficulties for students when translating into Chinese. Influenced by the original word order, the translation may start with “streets,” following the narrative in the source text. The target text would be more idiomatic if the translator stays conscious of the “zooming-in” norm in Chinese and probably becomes:

伊斯多拿……街上空無一人。

In the translation, humans are placed in the context of streets, which are then situated in the city, which is the largest in size among these three items.

Another impact is that the same idea is expressed from both the positive and negative sides simultaneously. The idiom tǎntè bùān 忐忑不安 serves a good example. The meaning of tǎntè is “worried” and that of bùān is “not at peace.” The juxtaposition of tǎntè (worried) and its negated antonym bùān (not at peace) contributes not only to a sense of holism, but also a sense of balance, which is the last defining feature of Chinese to be explored below.

4.7 Emphasis on a Sense of Balance

The ultimate goal of Confucianism does not only inform how one behaves in relation to the planet Earth, but also contributes to an emphasis on a sense of balance in the Chinese language, for it is only when things are in pairs which will lead to stability. The sense of balance is seen in several aspects.

First of all, such an emphasis gives rise to repetition in monosyllabic words (diézì) and bi-syllabic or polysyllabic words (diécí). In the previous pages, two examples were given, which are tōngtōng and kèqì kèqì. To better illustrate the Chinese predilection for a sense of balance, more examples are given. When one extends his/her gratitude to others, another response could be “xiǎoshì 小事,” which is comparable response to don’t mention it or it’s nothing in English, but the phrase is usually repeated, reading “xiǎoshì xiǎoshì.”

Moreover, the penchant for a sense of balance encourages the repetition of the same idea in different wording (in the same number of words) in order to sound stable. Take the following excerpt from the obituary of Arthur Waley by David Hawkes for example:

The devoted attention of Mrs. Waley, however, enabled him to make a gradual recovery from the despondency and prostration of that period, and his zest for work had fully returned to him by the time he was struck down…There is every indication that a period of vigorous and productive work was abruptly ended by the unlucky conjunction of accident and disease (Hawkes 1967, 143; italics added).

然而,韋利太太悉心照料,他得以漸漸好轉過來,病重離世前已完完全全重拾幹勁工作……[凡此種種],皆見意外病魔雙至,禍不單行,教韋利過去數年孜孜不倦、成果豐碩的歲月戛然告終。(my translation)

In my translation, “jiànjiàn 漸漸” and “zīzī 孜孜” are monosyllabic repetitions. It must be noted that they are morphologically different. While the repetition in jiànjiàn serves the function of emphasis, zīzī—the two characters together—is a lexeme per se. The bi-syllabic repetition of wánwán quánquán完完全全 is also for emphatic purposes. “Unlucky conjunction of accident and disease” has been rendered as “yìwài bìngmó shuāng zhì, huò bù dān xíng 意外病魔雙至, 禍不單行.” “Huò bù dān xíng is an idiom, which is an antithetical comment on “yìwài bìngmó shuāng zhì,” not only creating a sense of syntactic balance, but also succinctly bringing the meaning of “unlucky” across.

The partiality for a sense of balance may perhaps explain the predominance of four-character words, which are often idioms, in Chinese, for they do not only create a touch of succinctness, but also a strong sense of stability. It must be noted that the sense of balance is not only achieved on the lexical level, but also on the phonetic level, a dimension which might be unfamiliar to translation students. Take “sānxīn liǎngyì 三心兩意” and “yánnián yìshòu 延年益壽” for instance. Semantically speaking, sānxīn and liǎngyì are interchangeable in everyday use, so as yánnián and yìshòu. Since Chinese is a tonal language, the tone of an individual character may also be a factor in the decision-making of the choice of words. In these two examples, xīn and yì represent the two ends of the dichotomy between the level tone (píngshēng 平聲) and the oblique tone (zèshēng 仄聲): the former is a level-tone character whereas the latter is an oblique-tone one. In similar fashion, nián is of the level tone and shòu fits to the category of the oblique tone.

5 Concluding Remarks

In the foregoing pages, with reference to the concept of translation universals, it has been argued that translation can be seen in the light of resistance to under-representation, and that the inclusion of the defining characteristics of the Chinese language in an E–C translation course syllabus and textbook may enhance the effectiveness of teaching translation into Chinese. The seven defining characteristics of Chinese are yìhé, linearity, dynamism, concreteness, and an emphasis on humans and human relationship, on holism, and on a sense of balance. It must be noted that while these characteristics were explored separately, two or more of them often appear in an example simultaneously in real practice. For instance, my translation of Hawkes’s obituary of Waley in the previous section does not only reveal the sense of balance in the Chinese language, but also a holistic perspective as both the positive side (shuāng zhì) and negative side (bù dān xíng) are presented simultaneously. A preponderance of holism is also noted in my translation of the excerpt from Culler’s novel debut.

At a glance, the idea of defining characteristics of Chinese may suggest prescriptivism, which is in contrast to the trend of a descriptivist approach in Translation Studies. It has been pointed out in the introductory section, however, that it is readability that this chapter is concerned with. With reference to the clarification by Venuti, fluency and readability are not necessarily compromised with foreignization. I hope to throw more light on this before bringing this chapter to a close. Studies on Europeanized constructions in Chinese tend to conclude that Westernized structures are an irreversible development in this language with contact with the West in a globalized era. Needless to say, Europeanized Chinese is a foreignizing strategy as far as translation is concerned. Nevertheless, communication—the very purpose of translation—would not be undermined if these defining characteristics of the Chinese language can be preserved.

This chapter is significant in pushing back the frontiers, setting the scene for further discussion on the delicate balance between language teaching and teaching translation. Moreover, it has implications for educators on the design of course syllabuses of E–C translation and for authors of textbooks on translation into Chinese. Its originality lies not only in the incorporation of the defining characteristic of Chinese in an E–C translation textbook or course syllabus, but also in the presentation of them in a systematic manner in the context of Chinese culture.

Nonetheless, this piece of study is not without limitations. It represents a theoretical exploration based on the current landscape of textbooks on E–C translation. Empirical studies are called into play for evidence as to the effectiveness of the approach proposed. Moreover, this chapter presents a broad way forward only. Further deliberation is warranted when more delicate issues such as students’ stage of learning are taken into consideration.