Analysis on Howard Goldblatts Translation of Rice From the Perspective of Translator Subjectivit.docx

1、Analysis on Howard Goldblatts Translation of Rice From the Perspective of Translator SubjectivitAnalysis on Howard Goldblatts Translation of Rice From the Perspective of Translator Subjectivity Abstract With the emergence of culture turn in the 1980s， translators invisible status has been changed. T

2、ranslation process is no longer considered as a simple conversion process from the original language to the target language， but a process full of creativity. Rice is the Chinese novelist Su Tongs second novel which deals with China in the 1930s. He vividly portrays Depression-era China and the char

3、acters that populate this novel. Howard Goldblatt devotes himself to the translation of modern and contemporary Chinese novels into English and Rice is one of his numerous works. His impeccable translation does much justice to the flow of the tale. From the study on Goldblatts case， inspirations can

4、 be drawn on the exercise of translators subjectivity in the process of introducing and translating Chinese literature to the world. Research methods such as exemplification and induction were adopted in this article. Different interpretations of translators subjectivity were reviewed at the beginni

5、ng of the article according to Professor L Juns division of three paradigms in Chinese translation study. The influential factors on translators subjectivity were analyzed on the theoretical basis of manipulation school and functionalist school. The manifestation of Howard Goldblatts subjectivity in

6、 the translation of Rice was analyzed， followed by reflections on the exercise of translators subjectivity. Key words： Translators subjectivity； Howard Goldblatt； Translation of Rice Qiu， X. （2015）. Analysis on Howard Goldblatts Translation of Rice from the Perspective of Translator Subjectivity. Ca

7、nadian Social Science， 11（3）， -0. Available from： http：/ DOI： http：/dx.doi.org/10.3968/6623 INTRODUCTION For quite a long time，under the influence of source-text oriented theory， traditional translation studies have this tendency to consider faithfulness and/or equivalence the absolute standard in t

8、he evaluation and judgment of a translation. I see translation as the attempt to produce a text so transparent that it does not seem to be translated. A good translation is like a pane of glass. You only notice that its there when there are few imperfections-scratches， bubbles. Ideally， there should

9、nt be any. It should never call attention to itself. （Venuti， 1995， p.1） Consequently， the translator tries his/her best to reduce the subjectivity involved in the process of translation. Despite numerous articles and researches on the significance of the translators subjectivity， the principles and

10、 criterions on the display or the exercise of translators subjectivity remain controversial. Many contemporary translation theories such as functionalist school， descriptive school， hermeneutics， deconstructionism， aesthetics of reception etc. are starting to question the authority of the original.

11、They push translators into a more authoritative and subjective position. Study on translators subjectivity can better our understanding of the role and nature of the translator not only in the process of translation but also in the cultural communication and construction. Howard Goldblatt enjoys the

12、 highest position in Chinese literature translators in the Western world. Chinese translation scholars concentrate their study on several typical novels including Wolf Totem， Red Sorghum， Big Breasts and Wide Hips etc from various perspectives， while Su Tongs Rice is rarely mentioned in the studies.

13、 Under this background， this article tries to find its way to the exploration of Goldblatts translation of Rice from the perspective of the translators subjectivity. 1. STUDY ON TRANSLATORS SUBJECTIVITY IN CHINA Chinese scholars have made huge progress on the construction of translation theory. They

14、 gradually deepened their awareness and understanding of the objects and properties of translation. Professor Wang Zuoliang （1997） and Tan Zaixi （2000） made a clear explanation on the objects of translation； Professor Liu Miqing （2007） and L Jun （2006） also explored the nature of translation. Profes

15、sor L Jun believes that translation has gone through three phases， which are also known as three paradigms： paradigm of philology， paradigm of structuralism and paradigm of deconstructionism. He analyzes the philosophical and theoretical foundation of those three paradigms separately， pointing out t

16、heir weaknesses. In his view， the paradigm of philology lacks systematic theory. Translation is understood as an inspirational and irrational performance under this paradigm. The philosophical foundation is based on a certain degree of subjectivism and mysticism. Linguistics is the theoretical found

17、ation of the paradigm of structuralism. The paradigm of structuralism gives full explanation on the importance of the text， but it steps to an extreme for over-emphasizing the text. It puts excessive emphasis on linguistic generality and language analysis， ignoring the differences between languages

18、and translators subjectivity and creativity. While in the deconstructionism paradigm， under the influence of Hermeneutics， reception aesthetics and deconstructionism， the subjectivity of the translator is awakened， reaffirmed and undisciplined. From the analysis above we can see that， paradigm of ph

19、ilology and paradigm of deconstructionism are irrational. Translators subjectivity and translators initiative are closely related. Translators subjectivity is interpreted differently in the three paradigms. In paradigm of philology， translation activities are believed to be dependent on the translat

20、ors personality， extensive knowledge and translation skills. This interpretation of translators subjectivity is not based on scientific epistemology， so during this period， most translation studies are about translation method rather than translation theory. In structuralism paradigm， the translator

21、s status is downgraded sharply. Translators subjectivity is restrained and the text is seen as a fixed， closed and self-sufficient system， which has nothing to do with the subjective experience. With the development of translation studies in recent years， more and more scholars begin to explore tran

22、slation from different angles. Paradigm of deconstructionism is a theory of skepticism and a non-rational thought. Deconstructionism denies the significance of determinism and announces the death of the author. It gives translator absolute right of explanation and translators rewriting is believed t

23、o be necessary to make the original widely spread in the world and constantly survive. From the review above， we can see the translators humble status has changed greatly in contemporary translation studies. The claim of subjectivity endows the translator with freedom to show his/her initiative and

24、creativity. The translator starts gaining independent personality and academic fame. 2. INFLUENTIAL FACTORS ON TRANSLATORS SUBJECTIVITY With the development of new paradigms in translation theory， two influential schools emerged： Skopos Theory and Manipulation School. The former focuses on the trans

25、lation of practical text， while the latter is committed to the study of literary text. The two schools also have different interpretations about the influential factors to translators subjectivity， for translators subjectivity is constrained by different factors in the translation of practical text

26、and literary text. 2.1 Purpose of Translation： On the Basis of Skopos Theory The core concept of Skopos theory is that the purpose of translation is the most important and influential factor to the translators subjectivity. Skopos theory believes that translation is a purposeful activity， which shou

27、ld pay special attention to the features of the target text rather than the features of the original text. The orientation of Skopos theory is the purpose and function of the translated text and it focusses on the practical use of translation in target language. Skopos theory believes that translati

28、on is an intercultural communication activity with clear purpose and the production of interaction between the multiple factors. Skopos theory believes that in the principle of purpose， coherence and fidelity， the purpose comes first. Hence， under the guidance of Skopos theory， the translator should

29、 by all means to achieve the translation and transmission of purpose and function， even by the cost of coherence and fidelity. That is to say， the translator has been endowed with subjectivity and authority in the process of translation in order to achieve the ultimate purpose. Source text is dethro

30、ned， so it is possible now for the same text being translated in many different ways according to the purpose of the target text and the commission is given to the translator. 2.2 Ideology， Patronage and Poetics： On the Basis of Manipulation Theory Lefevere， the representative of Manipulation School

31、， suggests that translation is the most obvious recognizable type of rewriting， and it is potentially the most influential because it is able to project the image of an author and those works beyond the boundaries of their origin （Lefevere， 2004， p.9） Lefevere has repeatedly stressed that translatio

32、n is not an activity in vacuum and culture is a complicated system which consists of many subsystems such as literature， science， and technology. Thus， choice of the original work and translators subjectivity is affected and restrained by many factors. A key claim is made by Lefevere concerning the interaction between poetics， ideology and translation： “On every level of the translation process， it can be shown that， if linguistic considerations enter into conflict with considerations of an ideological or poetologic