Learning From And Criticism To The Deconstruction Translation Theory

Since 1960s, deconstruction with its thorough anti-traditional characteristics has made great impact upon the human science, first in the west, then in the whole world. The deconstruction translation theory, to speak strictly, cannot be said to be a systematic translation theory. It consists of only some ideas on translation by some deconstruction scholars who have made remarks in their theses or treatises from the perspectives of philosophy, linguistics or culture. But, since these remarks concern about some basic key points in translation such as the linguistic meaning, translatability, the criterion of translation, the relationship between the source text and the target text, between the author and the translator, and the cultural translation strategy, etc., the importance of them is self-evitable. The main content of the deconstruction translation theory can be generally summed up as: (1) The meaning of a linguistic sign is not embodied in the sign itself, but in the relationship of differences between this sign and its others. Since the others of the linguistic sign are varied and endless, so the meaning of this sign can be varied and endless, hard to make sure of. And this relationship of differences is not static, closed but dynamic and open, always in a state of dissemination and deferring, so the meaning of a linguistic sign is fluid, impossible to grasp. With this idea of linguistic meaning, deconstruction scholars think that it's impossible to transfer the meaning of the source text because there's no meaning there, so translation is impossible. Thus the traditional idea of being faithful to the original in translation is meaningless. It holds no water. (2) The object world is a linguistically signalized world of texts just as Derrida said"There is nothing outside the text."In a world of texts everything can be regarded as a text, visible or invisible. So when an author is writing something, he is not creating something but doing the work of rewriting on the basis of existing visible or invisible texts. The so-called initially or originally creative work does not exist at all. Every text is an intertext, a rewriting of other text(s). With this idea, deconstruction scholars think that the relationships between the source text and the target text, between the original author and the translator should be re-cognized or reversed because, now that every text is just an intertext, a rewriting of other text(s) and there's no original creation at all, what a translator does is just the same as an author. He also rewrites an existing text. So both the translator and the author should be treated equally, respected equally and enjoy the same social status. Version should not be regarded as the affiliated works to the original any more; on the contrary, if the original wants to be spread in a new linguistic environment and get its"afterlife", it has to depend on the help of its version. From this perspective, the relationship should not be: the original decides the version but just the opposite. The status of the version or the translator should be even higher than that of the original or the author. (3) Now that the meaning of a linguistic sign is not embodied in the sign itself, but in the relationship of differences between the sign and its others, the focus of translation studies should not be on the linguistic meaning of the text but on its others that constitute the relationship of differences with the text. So deconstruction translation theory does not pay so much attention to the text itself as to the other factors that constitute the relationship of differences with the text such as ideology, poetics and political power, etc.. Thus the fields of translation studies are widened and will be widened endlessly. (4) Now that it has been proved that it's impossible to transfer the meaning of the source text, what is actually transferred in translating? According to the deconstruction scholars, what is transferred in translating is no other thing but language itself. Various kinds of languages themselves refer to the fragments of"pure language"in Benjamin, and in Derrida they refer to the fragments of the signifier chain, so the process of translating become the process of fragments joining. Its purpose is not to find the identity but to preserve the differences. With this idea, when studying translation from the perspective of culture, Venuti advocates a special translation strategy in translation, namely, foreignization. He holds the idea that it's not only possible but also necessary to apply this kind of strategy in translation as an effective way to resist the western cultural aggression.In this dissertation, the author has made a profound thorough study of the deconstruction translation theory by applying the principles of dialectical materialism and the ideas of Chinese traditional culture ( which mainly refers to the thoughts of Confucian school and Taoist school before the Qin Dynasty ) and by combining the analysis of the three essential features of translation----practicalness, synthesis and relativity. He finds that the deconstruction translation theory has indeed made great powerful impact to the traditional translation theory, almost totally and thoroughly subverting it and that what we should learn from it are: (1) the brave critical spirit the deconstruction scholars have revealed in their studies, especially when they are questioning some traditional ideas. It is a precious treasure for us to borrow from when we are undergoing our academic studies in translation field. It can well help us break conventions and taboos that fetter our minds and encourage us to boldly examine or question some so-called authentic ideas that may in fact not be right so that our own academic level can be enhanced. (2) the new thinking model of deconstruction scholars when they are studying questions. This new thinking model has opened a completely new horizon for us to study translation, enabling us to undertake diversified studies in translation field from completely new perspectives so as to enrich the content of our studies and enhance our academic level in translation studies. (3) the deconstructive strategy deconstruction scholars use when they analyze traditional ideas. This strategy has such a characteristic as to use one's spear to stab his ( her ) own shield. It has provided us with a special effective reading method that we can use when we analyze some traditional or authentic ideas or theories. It is surely very beneficial for us to have such an efficient instrument. It does good to improving our differentiation and analysis ability.To trace to its source, the author has found that deconstruction translation theory has a close tie with the theories of deconstruction philosophy, linguistics and culture. It is the product of the combination of the western subjective idealist philosophy and the eastern Jewish cultural thought. When deconstruction scholars study translation problems, they are inevitably characterized with the one-sidedness of a subjective idealist that loses contact with reality and the extreme fighting perspective of the Jewish nation who are inclined to go to extremes when they observe things. As a Chinese scholar, when the author studies the deconstruction translation theory with the principles of Marxist dialectical materialist philosophy and the traditional cultural ideas of our Chinese nation, he has found some of its fatal defects that can be summarized as: (1) Theory is divorced from practice. Because of their subjective idealist world outlook, when deconstruction scholars observe things, their perspective is usually uni-dimensional or one-sided. They've based their ideas on human consciousness, language and culture and do not combine human beings with the objective world. Their ideas on translation are far from translating practice and reality. They even go in the opposite direction to the facts, resulting in such a serious situation as theory being divorced from practice. For example, Derrida thinks that the linguistic meaning of a linguistic sign is fluid and changeable, impossible to grasp, but in reality people acquire knowledge and seek after truth, or even get to know deconstruction theory itself just by way of learning the meanings of languages. Derrida holds the idea that translation which aims at transferring meaning is impossible. But in reality people of different languages are still communicating with one another through the way of translation ( interpretation ). In front of all these living facts, deconstruction scholars like Derrida cannot give a satisfactory explanation up till now. (2) Deconstruction translation theory is a theory that goes to extremes and probes into questions from a one-sided or partial perspective. Besides its western subjective idealist philosophical thought, deconstruction translation theory also blends the eastern Jewish cultural elements that Derrida has brought in, namely, to observe things from an extremely moving, struggling and different perspective. For examples, on one hand, Derrida agrees to Saussure's idea that the meaning of a linguistic sign lies in the relationship of differences and thinks that such a relationship of differences presents a dynamic and open form; on the other hand, he puts this dynamic open form into an absolute state and thinks that it exists everywhere and stops nowhere at any time. He calls such a phenomenon"differánce". In his idea of"differánce", the relationship of dynamic and static natures of matters is inclined to go to absolute one side. The dynamic nature of a matter has been put to extremes. Its relatively static nature has been totally ignored or wiped out. People can have no opportunity to grasp meaning and thus can acquire no knowledge or truth. And just for the sake of that, deconstruction itself gets into the mire of agnosticism . On the relationship of struggling and identity of a contradiction, Derrida emphasizes only the former and says no word of the latter. He emphasizes only the differences and talks nothing of the identity. In his translation theory, translating process is only a process to preserve differences, totally ignoring the fact that it is also a process to find identity. So deconstruction translation theory is an absolute translation theory that goes to extremes and wins no popular approval.In fact, as a communicative activity in people's life, translation is a practical activity of human kind. Practicalness is one of its essential natures. That is to say that our translation studies must be always closely connected with translating practice. Translation theories must be formed on the basis of translating practice. Deconstruction translation theory, however, deviates from this point. It is only an ideal translation theory. The"translation"it elaborates upon is only the translation in ideas. It is not the translation in life. We can even say that deconstruction translation theory has nothing to do with the translation in real life. We can't use it to guide our translating practice. It is also no use for flourishing our translating cause or improving our translation quality. On the contrary, let's turn our eyes to our own Chinese cultural tradition. We may see that, since ancient times, our culture ( whether philosophy or literature, or even religion ) has a tradition that is closely related with practice and reality. It is just because of this that Marxism which is characterized with its emphasis on practice could be rooted in China and be combined with Chinese reality, resulting in the product of the combination of Marxism and Chinese concrete practice----Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, which has guided the Chinese people to win the victories both in revolution and construction. So applying Marxist dialectical materialist principles and our Chinese traditional cultural thought to our translation studies should be our choice because we must always remember that the purpose of our translation studies must be beneficial to guide our translating practice and beneficial to develop our translation cause. Such translation studies is a theoretical study that originates from translating practice, is closely related with translating practice and can improve our translation quality.As an interlingual and intercultural activity, translation is in fact a synthetic activity that concerns two or more languages and cultures. Synthesis is no doubt one of its natures. So, to study translation, we should not take a uniangle or one-sided perspective but a multiangle or synthetic one. Our Chinese thinking model is just one that is well-known for its wholeness and synthesis which well coincides with the synthetic characteristics of translation. Therefore, to study translation from the perspectives of our Chinese thinking model and cultural tradition is just the right way to help us form a translation theory that is proper for the reality of translation from a foreign language into Chinese or vice versa. As for the modern western translation theories like deconstruction translation theory, we should certainly learn from their merits or advantages, but we should not blindly accept them without detailed analysis of our own. We must have our own standpoint and attitude.Now that translation is a practical activity among people of different languages and cultures, due to the differences of languages and cultures, it cannot be an activity with perfection or completion. It is always in a relative state. So relativity is one of its natures. Deconstruction scholars put translation to an extreme state and elaborate it theoretically, resulting in their translation theory that does not tally with the translating facts. Comparatively, our Chinese traditional philosophy The Doctrine of the Mean coincides better with the relativity feature of translation because it advocates a thought to treat things in relativity and compromise. It can better guide us to form a translation theory more correspondent with the translation reality.Westerners'thinking model is based on their traditional world outlook--"Separation Between Man and Heaven"(天人相分) while our Chinese thinking model on ours--"Integration of Man and Nature"(天人合一). Both have different perspectives and methods to observe things. Something very natural in the eyes of westerners may be impossible for us Chinese to accept. For instance, Westerners whose world outlook is based on Separation Between Man and Heaven may think that theory and practice can be divorced from each other. This is natural and normal. But for us Chinese whose world outlook is based on Integration of Man and Nature, the idea that theory is divorced from practice is hard to agree to. Our main philosophy----philosophy of Confucian school has always paid attention to reality and practice. As to the theory that is divorced from reality and practice, we Chinese usually consider it as a prattling metaphysics with little significance. That's why we can't fully accept or blindly agree to the deconstruction translation theory as well as some other modern western translation theories which have come into being on the basis of the ideas of deconstruction. What we need to do is to learn from its merits or advantages and see clearly its defects or disadvantages and develop a translation theory that is based on our translating practice and will be beneficial to guide our practice, improve our translating quality and develop our translation cause.