Appropriation, Distortion and Literal Translation
Mao Dun

The term “literal translation” has become something of authority since the May Fourth Movement in clear opposition to Lin Qinnan’s “distortion in translation”. When referring to Lin’s translation as “free”, we do not intend to disparage him in the least. Nonetheless, the term “free translation” is not exactly applicable to Lin, and as a result, “distortion” is our denomination of his translation.

Lin had no knowledge of any European languages whose letters were no more than “squiggles” to him. All of his translations were done after they had been orally translated by others. We are not quite sure how they collaborated at that time. Was it that someone orally translated one sentence, which was then followed by Lin writing it down? Or was it only after one paragraph or passage was orally translated that Lin transcribed the oral version? In any event, this practice could barely avert a double distortion: in the process of the original text being orally translated into a colloquial form, some degree of distortion was unavoidable. Later when translating the spoken words into classical Chinese, Lin distorted the original text yet again.

Such distortion may be traced onto his “translation methodology”. Lin was a passionate champion of orthodox Confucian teachings, and “the doctrine of Confucius and Mencius” had been spiritually passed down to him. He would identify Scott’s style with that of the great Chinese historian Sima Qian… The corollary could only be yet another distortion. His collaborators, however, could not be blamed for the last type of distortion, which derived directly from Lin’s ideology.

Therefore, we opine that it is fairly befitting to call Lin’s translation “distortion”, by which we do not mean that every translation by Lin is a product of distortion. Some of his translations are not distorted too badly at all, and they certainly lack no sense of humour, which shows some resemblance to what is inherent in the original text, as is evidenced in some of the pieces in The Sketch Book, 1820. This has filled us with wonder and admiration.

Let us come back to the term “literal translation”. As stated earlier, insistence on “literal translation” after the May Fourth Movement was in opposition to distortions of the original text. The features of the original text should be kept in a translation. If even all the features are supposed to be retained, “intelligibility” is, without a doubt, a prerequisite for translation. But if a translation turns out to be “unintelligible”, needless to say, it must have lost the features of the original text, which then cannot be called “literal translation”. It is the translator who should be held responsible for the “unintelligibility” of his translation. We must not, therefore, blame the principle of “literal translation”.

This argument is pretty easy to follow. But it is odd that not long ago, some people maintained appropriation in translation on the grounds that, due to “unintelligibility”, the principle of “literal translation” would have to be abandoned. Those espousing appropriation in translation believe that obscurity and even “unintelligibility” are attributable to literal translation. If faithfulness to the original text leads to “unintelligibility”, translation is tantamount to non-translation. Thus, they argue: “‘Unintelligibility’ resulting from faithfulness is worse than faithlessness that makes translation ‘intelligible’.” For the sake of “intelligibility”, the theory of appropriation is formulated to “appropriate” a translation in order to make it “intelligible”.

At this point, we consider it utterly unnecessary to direct a prolix and verbose refutation at the contradictions in the theory of appropriation (for they are apparent contradictions). We merely wish to present a further exposition of “literary translation”. It is our view that the so-called “literal translation” is not necessarily “word-to-word” translation, or equivalence with neither a word more, nor a word less. Due to the structural differences between Chinese and Western languages, such narrowly strict equivalence is practically impossible.

Mr Zhang Songnian once translated an essay by Bertrand Russell. Zhang’s translation is an “one hundred percent” literal translation, omitting not even a single preposition. However, no one could understand this translation. But Mr Zang adamantly refused to give up his way of translation. Fully aware that his translation would be unintelligible, he made this remark to the editor of New Youth: “It was an experiment. When people get used to it, they will understand it!” The editor of New Youth at that time was Mr Chen Zhongfu, who disapproved Zhang’s “experiment”, and made untrammeled revisions to the translation in question. Zhang was understandably very upset with these revisions.

Maybe Mr Zhang has renounced his experimentation now, though I am not so sure. But what this anecdote proves is that the principle of “literal translation” does not entail “word-for-word” translation, not a word more, and not a word less. The underlying meaning of “literal translation” is simply “do not distort the features of the original text”. If it were possible to attain “word-for-word” translation, with nothing being added or lost, it would naturally be an ideal translation; however, this is not the main point for literal translation.