A Postcolonial Study Of The Translations Of Zhongyong

As one of the most influential Confucian classics, Zhongyong is the highlight of traditional Chinese sages'philosophy. Thus the translation of Zhongyong in the western world has playing an important role in disseminating Chinese culture ever since the mid-sixteenth century. Among so many English versions of Zhongyong, the versions of Ku Hungming and Roger T. Ames are of unique features. On one hand, the two translators are different from other translators in their cultural identity and cultural visions. On the other hand, the translation strategies they used give rise to controversy both at home and abroad. However, the position that the two translators adhered to both are of benefit in enhancing the international status of Chinese culture. The rising of postcolonial translation theory in western countries in 1990s can provide an efficient perspective for the study of Zhongyong's English versions.Postcolonial translation theory believes that translation is not a pure linguistic activity, but an asymmetrical activity concerning economy, politics, culture, military and etc. This thesis starts from postcolonial perspective to inspect the political and cultural behaviors and their intention embodied in the translation of Zhongyong under different conditions and pays close attention to operating system of power behind it.This part does comparative study on Roger T. Ames'and Ku Hungming's translation of Zhongyong from the perspective of Post-colonial translation theory. It mainly focuses on three aspects: translators'cultural identity, translators'motivation, and translators'translation strategies. Ku Hungming received western education since childhood. After returning to China, he was absorbed in Chinese Confucianism. He thought that Chinese civilization was the real civilization, which could not be distorted by Orientalism. So His cultural identity is Chinese, Confucian, and anti-Orientalism. Roger T. Ames is a westerner, who is influence by Chinese philosophy. He devotes himself to the dissemination of Chinese philosophy in the western world, and can not stand the Western egotism and its ignorance to the other philosophical cultures. So his cultural identity is philosophical, anti-ethnocentrism. Ku Hungming lived in the late Qing Dynasty, when China was invaded by imperialism. He retranslated Chinese Confucian works, in order to spread excellent Chinese culture, and change the westerners'pride and prejudice to China. Ames is mainly trying to spread Chinese philosophy to change the western indifference. As far as translation strategies are concerned, they both re-interpret key words, and employ holistic interpretation, comparative analysis and hybrid language. But there are differences in their interpretation of key words. Ku Hungming mainly used domesticating translation, while Ames mainly used foreignizing translation. Although there are commonalities and differences in their translation strategies, but coincidentally, they both embody their resistance to cultural hegemony.From the discussion and analysis in the previous chapters, we find that, First, in the postcolonial context, translation wields enormous power in constructing representations of foreign cultures, but is simultaneously engaged in the formation of domesticate identities. Second, domesticating and foreignizing translation cannot be defined as a tool of colonization or decolonization arbitrarily. Whether it is a tool of colonization or decolonization depends on the social background of translation and the translator's motivation. Third, their interpretation of key words and the translation strategy are not the same. But they all embody cultural resistance to western hegemony. They try to shape Chinese cultural identity, improve the status of Chinese culture and conduct equal dialogue between eastern and western cultures.