Thick Translation and Academic Circulation of Discourse on Chinese Traditional Literary Theories: A Case Study of Stephen Owen’s English Translation of Wen Fu
Zhang Wei, Wang Haizhu
School of English and International Studies, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing 100089, China
Abstract：Chinese traditional literary theories constitute a key part of international communication of Chinese discourse. To foster a more robust international communication in the field, it is necessary for Chinese traditional literary theories to engage in equal dialogues with Western literary theories while acknowledging their Chinese heterogeneity. “Thick translation” offers an effective venue to equal dialogues between Chinese and Western literary theories. To begin with, as an academic translation strategy realized by means of “literal translation plus notes of various description,” “thick translation” is distinguished by thicker contextualization, which requires a genuinely informed respect for the source text and cultural diversity. Secondly, its philological and universalist particularities require the translator to create a contact zone where the target text and the source text interact with each other, so as to help the target reader fully understand and truly respect the source text and source culture. Thirdly, its ultimate purpose is to enable the coexistence and communication of source culture and target culture.This article first revisits “thick translation” for its philological and universalist particularities, and then analyzes its applicability to the English translation of Chinese traditional literary theories. Based upon this, this study highlights Stephen Owen’s thick translation of Wen Fu in terms of its textual features, ethical principles and academic circulation, in an attempt to give valuable insights into international communication and recognition of Chinese traditional literary theories in the world. It can be argued that by means of “translation plus commentary” and “literal translation plus notes”, Stephen Owen’s thick translation of Wen Fu permits the English reader to see how the Chinese theoretical text works and how Chinese and Western literary theories interact with and shed light on each other, thereby possessing great academic, pedagogical and cultural significance in its own right. It can consequently be claimed that in the course of ensuring equal dialogues between Chinese and Western literary theories on the basis of unity in diversity, “thick translation” makes an effective academic approach to the international communication of Chinese traditional literary theories by emphasizing balanced and reciprocal academic relationships.The significance of the present research can be summarized in the following three aspects (1) it intensifies theoretical interpretation of “thick translation” by probing into its philological and universalist particularities, hence expanding theorizing power in translation studies with sharper interdisciplinary nature; (2) it expands research on Wen Fu and even Chinese traditional literary theories by using the methods of close reading, contextual analysis and communication effect review, thus informing further research on translation and international communication of Chinese literary theories and literature; (3) it helps to advance the national project of “Chinese Culture Going Global” by advocating “thick translation” as an effective strategic and tactic method introducing Chinese traditional literary theories to the world, hopefully erecting a shared community of culture for all human beings.
张威, 王海珠. 中国古代文论话语的深度翻译与学术传播[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2024, 54(7): 85-92.
Zhang Wei, Wang Haizhu. Thick Translation and Academic Circulation of Discourse on Chinese Traditional Literary Theories: A Case Study of Stephen Owen’s English Translation of Wen Fu. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2024, 54(7): 85-92.
1 《习近平主持中共中央政治局第三十次集体学习并讲话》，2021年6月1日，https：//www.gov.cn/xinwen/2021-06/01/content_5614684.htm，2024年4月21日。 2 曹顺庆、杨一铎：《立足异质 融会古今——重建当代中国文论话语综述》，《社会科学研究》2009年第3期，第166-174页。 3 曹顺庆：《文论失语症与文化病态》，《文艺争鸣》1996年第2期，第50-58页。 4 曹顺庆、支宇：《在对话中建设文学理论的中国话语——论中西文论对话的基本原则及其具体途径》，《社会科学研究》2003年第4期，第138-143页。 5 凌玉建：《历时性阐释与跨文化阐释中的“还原”问题——以宇文所安〈中国文学理论读本·文赋篇〉为例》，《文艺争鸣》2012年第9期，第29-32页。 6 乐黛云：《中译本前言》，见宇文所安编：《中国文学思想读本：原典·英译·解说》，王柏华、陶庆梅译，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2019年，第7-12页。 7 Appiah K. A.， “Thick translation，” Callaloo， Vol. 16， No. 4 （1993）， pp. 808-819. 8 Venuti L.， The Translation Studies Reader， London & New York： Routledge， 2012. 9 张虹：《深度翻译模式彰显〈孝经〉的译者主体性研究——以罗思文、安乐哲译本为例》，《解放军外国语学院学报》2020年第5期，第128-134，160页。 10 景海峰：《语文学与经学》，《江海学刊》2021年第2期，第50-57页。 11 贾晋华：《新语文学/世界语文学的方法论启示：中国学术如何融入世界学术？》，《国际比较文学》2021年第1期，第25-35页。 12 沈卫荣：《回归语文学》，上海：上海古籍出版社，2019年。 13 德］海德格尔：《存在与时间》，陈嘉映、王庆节译，北京：生活·读书·新知三联书店，2014年。 14 赵敦华：《现代西方哲学新编》，北京：北京大学出版社，2001年。 15 周建昊：《海德格尔思想的伦理学蕴含——〈以存在与时间〉和〈关于人道主义的书信〉为例》，《海南大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2023年第5期，第27-33页。 16 Swartz W.， “Lu Ji’s theory of reading and writing： medieval Chinese anxieties about literary creation，” in Kroll P. W. & Silk J. A. （eds.）， “At the Shores of the Sky”： Asian Studies for Albert Hoffst?dt， Leiden： Brill， 2020， pp. 142-153. 17 Owen S.， Readings in Chinese Literary Thought， Cambridge： Harvard University Asia Center， 1992. 18 Pollard D.， “Readings in Chinese Literary Thought （review），” The China Quarterly， Vol. 137 （1994）， pp. 279-280. 19 李建中：《中国文论话语导引》，武汉：武汉大学出版社，2018年。 20 宇文所安：《中国文论：英译与评论》，王柏华、陶庆梅译，上海：上海社会科学院出版社，2003年。 21 宇文所安、程相占：《中国文论的传统性与现代性》，《江苏大学学报（社会科学版）》2010年第2期，第1-8页。 22 王琳：《中西文学思想哲学场域的契合与分野》，《湖南社会科学》2013年第5期，第239-241页。 23 杨继勇：《关于中国传统美学遮蔽—澄明二元同构特质的发现——烛照所见〈文赋〉〈文心雕龙〉等潜含的基本策略》，《内蒙古社会科学》2015年第4期，第43-49页。 24 Lynn R. J.， “Readings in Chinese Literary Thought （review），” China Review International， Vol. 1， No. 2 （1994）， pp. 43-57. 25 武光军：《非洲的翻译及非洲翻译研究的意义》，《外国语》2014年第5期，第57-63页。 26 徐赛颖：《“厚重翻译”观照下的亨克英译〈传习录〉探析》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2020年第3期，第231-240页。
2024, Vol. 54 
