Introduction
English-Chinese translation practice is in many points extra-ordinary in the way to cope with two language systems. In fact, it is no surprise for any among translators that English and Chinese are loosely connected typologically.
However, the difference is in the family tree. There is quite a great mismatch between the graphical and morphological structures of the two languages. The gist of the paper, hereby, is in discovering the peculiarities of English-Chinese and Chinese-English translations in terms of modern theories and modes. The research is based on the peer-reviewed studies reported within the last decade. Based on credible sources and particular assumptions by eminent researchers in the field, the report reflects relevance to the topic of a detailed investigation of two languages.
Nevertheless, the main research questions refer to the scope of issues that need to be anticipated. In this respect, an observer should have an idea of translation theories in particular. Moreover, the analysis of two systems is followed by concrete relevance to the essence of current and previous translation practices. This is why the report is based on such research questions as:
- The construct of English-Chinese translation and its peculiarities;
- Further implications are provided for English-Chinese translation practice.
In this respect, the paper provides several parts corresponding to the evaluation of the main theme on the whole. Furthermore, it reveals the structural relevance to the way an observer should understand the scope of the research done. Nonetheless, the report consists of the literature review, methodology, and discussion sections. It helps to perceive the process of how the research was conducted and revealed. On the other side, it is a standardized approach to understanding its scientific value.
Literature review
Beginning upon the historical presence of the English language on Chinese territory and vice versa, two languages can hardly be separated in a cross-relational aspect. The difference is, of course, in the definition of source and target languages. Taking advantage of that one of the languages is supposed to be native for a translator; there is a set of theoretical prospects to delineate the best way to translate.
The question is about the techniques mostly used to shape the perspective of each among amplified languages. Chan & Pollard (2001) remark that there are three techniques appreciated in terms of English-Chinese and Chinese-English translation, namely: “addition, subtraction, and alteration” (482). This is why the researchers admit the impossibility to make use of English-Chinese and, conversely, Chinese-English translation without the aforementioned syntactic adjustments.
Hence, the nature of the two languages provides plenty of themes to talk about. The variability of methods applied to justify the most applicable approaches is taken as a given by many practitioners in translation. Researchers are inclined usually to highlight the differences in semantic and syntactic coloring of two languages. It is clear that the most efficient way to understand each of the two languages is by applying specific methodology initially. “A book on Chinese-English translation must first discuss the structural differences between Chinese and English from grammatical and semantic perspectives” (Chan T.-h. L., 2004).
Henceforth, it is appropriate to assume the structure of words and sentences in both language systems. An observer is provided to take notice of the peculiarities of a Chinese stem composition as opposed to the analytical type of English. The gap is substantial. Thus, the instrumentation should be typical to corresponding to definite units of language and its phraseological locutions.
In addition, it is stated that by the end of the twentieth-century high-tech implementation of translation techniques is beyond disagreement. In this respect, there is a notion of ad-hoc retrieval as pertaining to the recognition of bigrams, short-words, and characters in Chinese while translating into English for short and long queries (Kwok, 2000). The significance of loosely coupled systems in terms of language reality is underlined in computer technologies. The mechanism of such programs is based on the identification of structural parts in both languages pursuant to the kind of language (conversational, technical, specialized, business, etc.) (Saleem, Jou, Vogel, & Schultz, 2004).
Due to the historical grounds, as has been mentioned before, Chinese-English reality is inevitably interconnected. It finds out juxtaposition at places where bilingual reality is obvious. The question is that in Hong Kong the bilingual approach is applicable for all spheres of peoples’ activities. In turn, it makes the role of Chinese-English and English-Chinese translator weighed in terms of a particular sphere of language reality. In Hong Kong, the law systems have acquired equal authenticity as concerned with English and Chinese bilingual enactments (Marinetti, 2008). Thus, the multifaceted character of relations fixed between two languages is taken into consideration today.
Touching upon the medical terms in the Chinese language, the researchers from the West are likely to have databases of Chinese-English specialized terms (Wiseman, 2000). The highest rates of Chinese development in medicine moved forward the implementation of a source-oriented approach as predominant in gathering data (Wiseman, 2000). The researchers state that this way is presumably the entire one for solving complicated tasks in medical practice. Translation of periodic and other credible sources in the field are based on quite a different methodology.
Nonetheless, alteration and addition are still the most applicable techniques at translators’ disposal. It is a reminder that in the twentieth century it was done manually by translators. Nowadays, the methodology is fully or partially based on special software. Instant translators and e-translation servers produced in Taiwan or China serve this purpose in order to facilitate or even render null particular problems in translating specialized terms (Chan S.-w. , A dictionary of translation technology, 2004). Thus, the state of being lost in translation seems to have no ground in reality.
Another aspect of accuracy in translation correlates to the cultural peculiarities of two languages in terms of their history and “areal of usage,” so to speak. Chinese century-long culture and traditions are incorporated in the structure of hieroglyphs and in the way the language should be understood. The question is about the literature language. It is a pure representation of the Chinese mode of thought personified into language peculiarity (Jennings, 2004). It is so because as in many other languages a translator should apply to classical Chinese language as “literal and preoccupied with accounting for every word in the original” (Sivin, 2008, p. 12).
Translators should rely on this aspect in understanding each bit of information reported in the source under consideration: “Historian of translation have also referred to numerous “accidents” which caused works of Chinese literature to be translated into various European languages” (Chan T.-h. L., Translation, Transmission, and Travel: Culturalist Theorizing on “Outward” Translations of Classical Chinese Literature, 2003). It is rendered as a correct attitude toward absorbing into the Chinese language, particularly.
However, to make the Chinese text readable in English, a translator should not solely get deep into the Chinese language and culture, but also have a profound knowledge of English (Balcom, 2006). Translation cannot be based on word-to-word type of language architecture. It is all about nonsense as a consequence. The historians of literature Chinese language should bear in mind that two parts of the world (East and West) are indeed specific in shaping reality.
It corresponds to understanding legal language as well. The value of intellectual property in both European and Chinese thoughts is distinct owing to law peculiarities in the Roman (based on precedent) and the Han (Neo-Confucianism) Chinese Empires (Lehman, 2006, p. 1). Once again, the role of cultural precursors is too high for accurate Chinese-English translation, in particular. This is why there should be a point on the transition from ancient to modern Chinese language to shift the difference in semantics and semiotics of allegedly similar language units. On the other hand, cognitive linguistics serves as an appropriate tool for delineating set patterns and meanings of words through Chinese philosophical coloring (Yu, 2007).
Studies reported by Liu & Hoede (2002) admit that the Chinese language is capacious in terms of characters use and their implementation in order to understand different topics in different spheres of peoples’ activities. The question is that the power of the Chinese language to be recognized by a translator is in fewer characters needful to understand texts of different level of complication as opposed to English words (Liu & Hoede, 2002). This idea is another standpoint to be kept in mind. Moreover, Chinese characters should not be considered on the same level with English letters, as these small units differ in amount of information included in them (Liu & Hoede, 2002). So, English-Chinese and Chinese-English translators are better to bring it to notice.
Semantic meaning in Chinese language is in most points should be understood through semantic mapping in terms of middle semantic frame (Xie, Zong, & Xu, 2006). Hence, more attention should be drawn to the semantic particularities in Chinese, first of all. It should spark interest of a translator working with Chinese corpus on the whole. Considering spoken Chinese language, there is a need to masterly extract semantic meaning out of the sentence (Xie, Zong, & Xu, 2006).
Thereupon, the studies reported by Federico & Cettolo (2007) refer to the way for implying translation machines serving for purposes ofdifferent spheres of life. Thus, the researchers highlight the significance of large-data condition for translating news from Chinese to English (Federico & Cettolo, 2007). This is why the further implications in translation practice are fully related to the innovative tools supporting the work of translators in such different and unique language systems, as Chinese and English.
Methodology
The research has been designed in terms of the theoretical approaches proved on practical examples. In this respect the discussion manifests itself an implementation of several approaches: historical, lingo-sociological, cultural, and cognitive. In this variety of principles and methods the procedure of selecting sources relies on credibility and authority of the researches implied in them. All of them are peer-reviewed to guarantee the cutting edge evaluation of the main topic.
Participants were selected in accordance with two language families: speakers of Chinese and English practicing translation from both languages. Data collected served as a theoretical background while the participants were proposed to complete a test. The test itself was compiled with a glance to cultural, literal, and modern spoken peculiarities of Chinese used in extracts from texts to be translated into English.
The report is conducted in order to designate the features of Chinese-English (primary) and English-Chinese translation based on reviewing up-to-date materials. Their authenticity is proved by researchers as native speakers to talk on each among languages. Thus, the methodological construct of the report is patterned by analytical as well as descriptive valuation of the underlined standpoints. Such measures were provided in order to impose further implications for developing innovative approaches for identified Chinese-English and English Chinese translation.
Discussion
The objectivity of the topic is far-reaching in terms of the most significant and noteworthy points to be taken into consideration. It is discussed that Chinese-English translation is full of nuances to be kept in mind. Hence, based on the research provided, the participants showed more accuracy in translation if applying to cultural, historical and lingo-social realities of different times that took place in the development of Chinese. Thus, the translation practice pursuant to both English-Chinese and Chinese-English unities should be done in accordance with alteration, addition and subtraction techniques to be the exhaustive for shaping particular language reality of both language systems (Chan & Pollard, An encyclopaedia of translation: Chinese-English, English-Chinese, 2001).
The further development of translation into these languages seems to be adjusted more to high-tech neuro-linguistics patterns helping translators differentiate two languages in terms of their constituent elements (small through large units). In this particular estimation the report showed its authenticity and value for current investigation in the field of linguistics and applied translation practice.
Reference
Balcom, J. (2006). Translating Modern Chinese Literature. In S. Bassnett, & P. R. Bush, The translator as writer (pp. 119-136). New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Chan, S.-w. (2004). A dictionary of translation technology. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
Chan, S.-w., & Pollard, D. E. (2001). An encyclopaedia of translation: Chinese-English, English-Chinese. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
Chan, T.-h. L. (2003). Translation, Transmission, and Travel: Culturalist Theorizing on “Outward” Translations of Classical Chinese Literature. In T.-h. L. Chan, One into many: translation and the dissemination of classical Chinese literature (pp. 321-346). San Diego, CA: Rodopi.
Chan, T.-h. L. (2004). Twentieth-century Chinese translation theory: modes, issues and debates. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Federico, M., & Cettolo, M. (2007). Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Statistical Machine Translation. Efficient Handling of N-gram Language Models for Statistical Machine Translation (pp. 88-95). Prague: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Jennings, W. (2004). The Shi King: The Old Poetry Classic of the Chinese a Close Metrical Translation with Annotations. (W. Jennings, Trans.) Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.
Kwok, K. (2000). Improving English and Chinese Ad-Hoc Retrieval: A Tipster Text Phase 3 Project Report. Information Retrieval , 3 (4), 313-338.
Lehman, J. A. (2006). Intellectual Property Rights and Chinese Tradition Section: Philosophical Foundations. Journal of Business Ethics , 69 (1), 1-9.
Liu, X., & Hoede, C. (2002). Translation: an example from ancient Chinese to modern Chinese. University of Twente, Faculty of Mathematical Sciences. Twente: University of Twente Press.
Marinetti, C. (2008). Translating Law. Deborah Cao. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law , 15 (1), 121-125.
Saleem, S., Jou, S.-C., Vogel, S., & Schultz, T. (2004). Using Word Lattice Information for a Tighter Coupling in Speech Translation Systems. Interactive Systems Lab , 1-4.
Sivin, N. (2008). Granting the Seasons: the Chinese astronomical reform of 1280, with a study of its many dimensions and a translation of its records. Berlin: Springer.
Wiseman, N. (2000). Translation of Chinese Medical Terms: A Source-Oriented Approach. Doctoral Thesis in Complementary Health Studies, Volumes 1-2.
Xie, G., Zong, C., & Xu, B. (2006). CHINESE SPOKEN LANGUAGE ANALYZING BASED ON COMBINATION OF STATISTICAL AND RULE METHODS. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Yu, N. (2007). Heart and Cognition in Ancient Chinese Philosophy. Journal of Cognition and Culture , 7 (1-2), 27-47.