A Comparative Study On The Translation Of Xunzi From The Perspective Of Translator’s Subjectivity

Xunzi, as an indispensable part of Chinese classics, is gaining more and moreattention in the Western world. Compared with other ancient Chinese philosophers’work, English versions of Xunzi are relatively fewer, though many mention him,some at length.If we take a close look at these versions, we may find it is the translator’ssubjectivity that makes every version distinctive from each other. The translatordecides whether his or her version should get near to or keep away from the targetculture, and what translation strategy to choose. Therefore, each version is sure toreflect the translator’s own style.This thesis, based on the research of translator’s subjectivity and the theories ofhermeneutic approach, attempts to explore the factors that influence the translator’ssubjectivity and application of translator’s subjectivity to specific translation processthrough a comparative study of three English versions of Xunzi, i.e. versions ofHomer H. Dubs, Burton Watson and John Knoblock.By comparing the three versions, each translator’s subjectivity is revealed. Dubs,as the first translator of Xunzi and the only one to have visited or lived in China,really engaged in introducing Xunzi’s philosophy to the West, though lacking enoughresearch materials to consult. His work is plain and straightforward, and althoughsomewhat dated in style, it remains part of the canon of essential texts for those with aserious interest in Xunzi. He tended to make the translation accurate and even literalthan to make it literary. As introducing Xunzi to Western readers for the first time,some culture-loaded words in Chinese appeared in Xunzi may be strange to readers,so Dubs used his own system to translate these words—to provide both the meaningand the transliteration. Therefore, the cultural elements in the source text werepreserved completely.Knoblock, a professor of philosophy, took Xunzi as a serious literature, so headopted the strategy of foreignization. He tried to preserve the foreign elements inChinese as much as possible. Most of these are achieved by literal translation that will easily seem to make no sense or is unnatural. What makes his work unique is that thescholarly version of Xunzi fully integrates data, textual research, study andtranslation.Watson’s version is the shortest, but with great linguistic beauty. As the mostgifted translator of classical Chinese texts in the second half of the20th century, hedid pretty well in keeping the original sentence structure. By doing this, he managedto keep the translated text as concise as Xunzi’s. His work is the most readable, whichassociates closely with his translation strategies. As his translated work targeted tocommon readers, he naturally took common readers’ horizon of expectation oftranslated Chinese classics into consideration. He used a lot of interpretation to makewhat a literal translation cannot convey understandable to target reader. Besides, thereare very few annotations in Watson’s version, which is in accordance with his using ofinterpretation.