Literal Translation and Free Translation
Literal Translation and Free Translation
Disputes over the method of literal translation and that of free translation have a long history in China. The first dispute took place in the cour of translating the Sanskrit Buddhist scriptures into Chine. Dao’an (道安urland 314-385), one of the well known monks of the Qian Qin State during the East Jin Dynasty, was the reprentative of tho who firmly advocated literal translation. Although he knew nothing of Sanskrit and did not take part in translation personally, yet he was in charge of the work and put forth the criteria for the translators to follow. Since he feared that free translation might not be true to the original, he advocated strict literal translation so as to be faithful to the content. Works done under his direction were typical of word-for-word translation in which no alteration was made except accidental changes in word order.
But Kumara Jiva (鸠摩罗什344-413), one of Dao’an’s contemporaries, firmly advocated free translation. He was verd in both Sanskrit and Chine. All his translations were do
ne in accordance with the usage of the Chine language. He made either addition or omission where he thought necessary in order to better convey the n of the Buddhist sutra. His translations went far and wide and exerted a great influence over Chine philosophy and literature.雅思现在多少钱
This dispute lasted until the time of Xuanzang (玄奘602-664), a very famous monk and great translator of the Tang Dynasty. He did not make any asrtion whether he was for or against literal or free translation. Yet people labeled his translation as ppliv“new devices for translation”, which was esntially a flexible way of making good u of both literal and free translation. He could already apply addition and omission and other means in dealing with various linguistic phenomena so as to keep the meaning and spirit of the original. Besides, Xuanzang took a very rious and responsible attitude towards his translation. He worked hard all the time, tting a brilliant example for his contemporaries and coming generations.
The experience of Xuanzang in the translation of the Buddhist scriptures is worth summin
g up. For instance, Xuanzang advocated transliteration for polymous words as qbs薄伽, the original of which has six different ns, for things which did not exist in China, e.g. 阎浮树dennis ritchie(a kind of tree) and for other terms which could not be rendered exactly. Moreover, he employed the following methods while translating the scriptures according to the sum-up made by P. Pradhan (柏乐天), an Indian scholar, and Zhang Jianmu (张建木), a Chine scholar: 1. addition (补充法)，2. omission (省略法), 3. transposition (移位法), 4. division or combination (分合法), 5. substitution (假借法), 6. restoration of nouns for pronouns (代词还原法). Some of the six methods are related to accidence and some to syntax. Daoxuan (道宣596-667) spoke highly of his translation, saying:
“All the prent translations of Sanskrit scriptures are done by Xuanzang. It is he alone that determines the meaning of the original. And the words flow out of his mouth just as they come from under the pen of a master. His translation is accomplished the moment the clerks finish recording his words.”
productionmanagerAs pointed out by Luo Xinzhang, Xuanzang understood the Buddhist doctrine and had a
good command of both Sanskrit and Chine. He often ud the method of literal translation, but he did not give up at all that of free translation when and where he thought it necessary. And Luo quoted from Liang Qichao (梁启超1873-1929): “Xuanzang made a great combination of literal translation and free translation. None ever did better than he in such work.”
In his paper entitled Translated Literature and Buddhist Scriptures (《翻译文学与佛典》) Liang added, “So far as the style of translation was concerned, the focus lay in the gain or loss of literal and free translations. …Since new versions appear daily, ‘jade and stone’ were mixed up. Then their desire for truthfulness became stronger and stronger and as a result literal translation was much more valued than free translation. It went so far that the translations were difficult to read and understand. Thus, in respon to this, aro a reaction, which made the advocacy of free translation get the upperhand of that of literal translation. At last, the two methods got well blended and combined, which brought about a new style of translation. The might be the stages translators should go through, and the prosperity of Buddhist literature provided a full demonstration of it.” The words of Lian
g as cited above may be deemed as a very valuable summary of the process of the development of literal and free translations in China and of their mutual complementation, which conquently gave birth to Xuanzang’s “new devices for translation”.
A similar dispute occurred again in the 30s of the last century. Quite a lot of people aired their views. Some were in favour of free translaiton, such as Zhao Jingshen (赵景深), who went so far as to say “Rather to be smooth (in language) than faithful (in thought), and others for literal translation, such as Lu Xun, who diametrically oppod Zhao by openly declaring 马赫是什么单位“Rather to be faithful than smooth”英式英语和美式英语的区别. Both statements are opinionated words when taken as practical or obrvable principles of translation, for we know that a qualified and satisfactory translation must be not only faithful in thought but also smooth in language, which is the minimus demand of a translator.
systemaHowever, there were quite a few scholars who arguments are still very valuable for reference in the study of this subject. Mao Dun, for instance, made a distinction between literal translation and “dead” (mechanical) translation. His points of view are as follows:
