The Multiplicity of Translation Criteria and Its Analysis

The translation study has been deepened in the recent 20 years. translation, in essence, is an interlingual transfer, few realize that translation means far more than this. It is not merely an interlingual behavior; rather, it is, as far as its essential nature is concerned, a matter一一spirit communication closely related to many other disciplines. (Gu Zhengkun, 2003: 311) In fact, it is unrealistic for any theory to \"generalize all texts and become the omnipotent criterion for translation\Qiyi, 2001:159)

With the deepening of translation theoretical study, the translation criterion has transferred from the traditional unitary one to a multiple system. Professor Gu Zhengkun is the first in our country to propose \"the multiplicity and complementarity theory\" for translation criterion. In his paper The Multiplicity and Complementarity Theory of Translation Criterion, Gu primarily points out that the reason why we can't reach agreement on the problem of translation criterion is that our way of thought is unidirectional or directional. People are used to adopting formative logic reasoning and saying there is only one road, one answer, etc. That's why quite a lot of translators always seek in vain the unitary criterion for translation. To solve the problem, we should break through the traditional way of thought and replace it with the three-dimensional mode of thought. This new thinking mode is characterized by its emphasis on the spatial nature of thought and the function of thought subject. According to his theory, if we regard the target text as something fixed, the subjects of inspection from different angles or directions may get different impressions and evaluations. Hence, it is impossible to establish an absolute, omnipotent criterion fortranslation. However, he further explains that it does not mean there is no criterion. There does exist translation criterion, and more than one criterion. We should be ready to accept those reasonable criteria. He then establishes a translation criterion system from a philosophic perspective and divides the criteria.into three categories: absolute criterion (source text itself), the highest criterion (the best similar one) and the concrete criterion. He believes that the concrete criterion is determined by the function of translation, people's aesthetic tendency, and the variety of readers or translators. Therefore, many concrete criteria exist simultaneously. The importance of various criteria may convert accordingly, each criterion presenting the value of target text from one aspect. These criteria function together and complementarily. (GuZhengkun, 1994: 25) Gu's viewpoint has received a great deal of response from the professionals in this field. Most people think the multiple translation criteria help to evaluate the target text from different dimensions and levels. Thus the translators, source text and target text readers are equally treated. On this point, Zhang Nanfeng gives the following opinion after studying the polysystern theory \"if we apply the polysystem theory to Chinese translation study, we can explain many phenomena. For example, why Yan Fu and Lin Shu succeeded by proposing expressing meaning, why Lu Xun advocates literal translation, why the popular norms differ from the former ones. We can even find that the translation norms adapt to the change of social needs, different norms just gear to the aims and needs of different ages. As far as criterion is concerned, there is no necessary difference of wrong or right, advanced or over dated among these norms. This point is reasonable to some degree. But the establishment of any criterion relies on certain regularity. No criterion exists without

1

regularity. The sticking point lies in that the criterion is not invariable all the time. And the reason for any change of criterion is not only confined to the diversified aims and needs of different ages, but also includes people's gradually enriched knowledge about translation nature. The transformation of unitary criterion to multiple criteria directly reflects the change of people's translation ideaology.\" (Xu Jun, 2003:412)

Professor Yang Xiaorong mentioned in her article Binary Opposition and the Third Status that \"here exists a binary phenomenon, like the two end points of a linesegment. One end is the source text and the other is the receptor. The translation criterion moves between the two ends: either author-oriented or receptor-oriented\". \"The third status\" is a neutral, concerted condition between author-oriented and receptor-oriented. In Nida's words, it's \"the closest natural equivalent of the source language message\". Any translation criterion falling into this category is considered reasonable. Professor Yang's view actually points out the two extremes that the traditional unitary criteria either ignore the objective scale of evaluation, or ignore the subjective one. The nature of translation practice has made it necessary to take both subjective and objective factors into account, as we have proved in chapter one. With the background of the multiplicity of translation criteria, we should seek for a balanced section of subjective and objective scales and evaluate the target text reasonably.

Actually, the three theories mentioned above, namely Professor Gu's multiplicity and complementarity theory of translation criterion, Itamar Even-Zohar's polysystem, and Professor Yang's theory of the third status, have something in common. They agree on the multiplicity of translation criteria and each puts forward a criterion system. From the establishing of translation criteria, we feel gratified to perceive that subjective factors are highly valued as well as objective factors. But any criterion is a kind of \"relative truth\which shall be approached unlimitedly, but cannot be reached forever. The question remains how to approach that \"ideal aim\" to a maximum degree. Still, the problem of how to set a concrete criterion hasn't been solved. It's hard to say what kind of target text falls into the acceptable category and can be judged as qualified. 2 A Complementary Explanation for the Multiplicity of Translation Criteria

Based on the achievements of those seniors in translation field, I hereby raise my own opinion: there exists not only one criterion for translation; the prerequisite of the multiplicity of translation criteria is the limitation of the lowest translation criterion; and the lowest criterion must be based on the truth theory of consensus and should reach the unity of conforming to both objective regularities and subjective purposes. As Professor Gu has argued that the multiplicity of translation criteria does not mean there are limitless criteria. But what should be the bottom line for the criteria? What kinds of criteria are acceptable? These questions are to be solved. On this point, Professor Yang gives his assumption. He compares the criterion bound as the two end points of a line segment. Any translation criterion falling into this category is considered as reasonable. However, translation is a complex process involving mny subjective and objective factors, which cannot be analyzed or evaluated in a linear order. Yang's description of translation criterion bound is not concrete enough. We still cannot judge which criterion is acceptable.

2

Thus, my supervisor, Professor Lti Jun proposes the lowest level of translation criterion. Acceptable criterion should satisfy three conditions: (1) not going against the objectivity of knowledge; (2) conforming to the reasonableness of understanding and general validity of interpretation; (3) respecting the intention of source text. (Ltt Jun, 2001:307) Here, we put the objectivity of knowledge at the first place, since it's the basis of any understanding activity. Let's see Karl R.Popper's theory of the three worlds' division. He defines the physical object and physical status as world 1, the ideology and spiritual status as world 2, the thoughts and spiritual activity as world 3. The three worlds related closely and interact, counteract with each other. And he especially pays attention to world 3, which, in his opinion, is the product of human being's intelligence on one hand, and surpass its creators on the other hand. World 3 is endowed with the nature of both subject and object. \"It exists independently regardless of any self-righteous knowledge or anyone's belief, approval, maintenance or intention. It's a kind of knowledge without knower or cognitive subject\". (Miller, 2000:45) Therefore, the objective nature cannot be neglected during the spiritual activity like interpreting a text. The objectivity of knowledge is doubtlessly categorized into such activity. It is the convincing guarantee of social diffusion and criticism system between subjects, and the consensual basis for understanding and interpretation activity. Any interlocution activity cannot go on without such basis. Such is the fact, we should pay enough attention to the objectivity of knowledge while emphasizing the subjectivity of any interlocution activity. Take translation for anexample, the visual threshold of source text itself includes the objectivity of knowledge, which is just the reflection of the author's living environment and mode.0th As a translator, his or her pre-understanding also contains the objectivity knowledge. Through the interlocution between translator and author via the text, two visual thresholds conflict and collide, leaving the confliction to be judged by the objectivity of knowledge. That's why we prioritize it as the first necessity whenjudging the quality of a target text. Those target texts with anything violating the objectivity of kn wledge are considered as unqualified, no matter how elegant is the language in it. Secondly, translators should ensure their understanding and interpretation is reasonable and valid. That's to say, the target text should win general acceptance among common readers. As we know, the whole translation process is formed by three steps: understanding, expressing and proof-reading. The translator is firstly required to understand what and how the author says, then to express what the author really means. Because of the existence of blanks and indefinite points in the source text, difference may rise during the process, especially in expressing. People with different experience or pre-understanding will surely have different interpretations for the text. Therefore, as the subject of translation practice, the translator should keep aside the prejudice caused by the pre-understanding and try to make a reasonable interpretation of the source text. Always remember that the provincial view or interpretation won't be accepted by the general audience and individual comprehension should be prerequisite by the consensual comprehension of the society.

Last but not the least, the qualified target text is said to conform to the intention of the source text. As the object of translation practice, the source text hascertain intention that cannot be changed. The translators can fully exert their imagination to fill up those blanks in the source text, but only to a certain extent, which is usually confined by the source text. The intention of the source text is just like a guide telling translators to perform within a certain stage.

On the whole, the three norms constitute a bottom line for translation criterion. Unlike the unitary one, the

lowest criterion gives consideration to both subjective and objective factors and is concrete enough for us to make judgments. Thus, I proposethe multiplicity of translation criteria with a lowest level as the limit.

3