A macroscopic perspective on translation of knowledge in China

The translation, dissemination and reception of knowledge has served as an excellent indicator of changing ideologies and the major catalyst for institutional changes, language reforms and social transformation in China. However, English representations of the Chinese tradition of translation (e.g. Hung 2005Hung, Eva. 2005. “Translation in China – An analytical survey”. In Asian Translation Traditions, ed. by Eva Hung, and Judy Wakabayashi, 67–107. UK & Northampton (MA): St Jerome Publishing.; Hung and Pollard 2009Hung, Eva, and David Pollard. 2009. “Chinese Tradition”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd ed, ed. by Mona Baker, and Gabriela Saldanha, 369–377. London and New York: Routledge.) have not incorporated research findings from Chinese studies (e.g. Cohen 1995Cohen, Paul A. 1995. “Christian Missions and Their Impact to 1900”. In The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 101, ed. by John K. Fairbank, 543–590. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.; Amelung, Kurtz and Lackner 2001Amelung, Iwo; Kurtz, Joachim, and Michael Lackner. 2001. “Introduction”. In New Terms for New Ideas: Western Knowledge and Lexical Change in Late Imperial China, ed. by Michael Lackner; Iwo Amelung, and Joachim Kurtz, 1–12. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers.; Elman 2005Elman, Benjamin A. 2005. On Their Own Terms: Science in China 1550–1900, Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. ) and tend to provide unsubstantiated generalizations and hasty conclusions. This article uses a combination of “cultural tool” (Even-Zohar 2005Even-Zohar, Itamar. 2005. Papers in Culture Research. Tel Aviv: Unit of Culture Research, Tel Aviv University.) and “culture planning” (Even-Zohar 2008Even-Zohar, Itamar. 2008. “Culture Planning, Cohesion, and the Making and Maintenance of Entities”. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies, ed. by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 277–292. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ) as a frame of reference to provide a macroscopic perspective on knowledge translation in different Chinese historical periods as “a means of planning” (Toury 2002Toury, Gideon. 2002. “Translation as a Means of Planning and the Planning of Translation: A Theoretical Framework and an Exemplary Case”. In Translations: (Re)shaping of Literature and Culture, ed. by Saliha Paker, 166–175. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.: 166) to promote religious agendas, modernize traditional Chinese natural studies, Westernize educational and academic systems, facilitate modernization of the state or participate in global knowledge production.

La traduction, la diffusion et la réception des connaissances ont été un excellent indicateur des changements idéologiques et le principal catalyseur des changements institutionnels, des réformes linguistiques et des mutations sociales en Chine. Cependant, les représentations anglaises de la tradition chinoise en matière de traduction (par Example Hung 2005Hung, Eva. 2005. “Translation in China – An analytical survey”. In Asian Translation Traditions, ed. by Eva Hung, and Judy Wakabayashi, 67–107. UK & Northampton (MA): St Jerome Publishing. ; Hung et Pollard 2009Hung, Eva, and David Pollard. 2009. “Chinese Tradition”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd ed, ed. by Mona Baker, and Gabriela Saldanha, 369–377. London and New York: Routledge.) n’ont pas intégré les résultats des études chinoises (par Example Cohen 1995Cohen, Paul A. 1995. “Christian Missions and Their Impact to 1900”. In The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 101, ed. by John K. Fairbank, 543–590. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Amelung, Kurtz et Lackner 2001Amelung, Iwo; Kurtz, Joachim, and Michael Lackner. 2001. “Introduction”. In New Terms for New Ideas: Western Knowledge and Lexical Change in Late Imperial China, ed. by Michael Lackner; Iwo Amelung, and Joachim Kurtz, 1–12. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. ; Elman 2005Elman, Benjamin A. 2005. On Their Own Terms: Science in China 1550–1900, Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. ) et tendent à présenter des généralisations non étayées et des conclusions hâtives. Cet article a l’intention d’utiliser un « outil culturel » (Even-Zohar 2005Even-Zohar, Itamar. 2005. Papers in Culture Research. Tel Aviv: Unit of Culture Research, Tel Aviv University.) combiné à une « planification culturelle » (Even-Zohar 2008Even-Zohar, Itamar. 2008. “Culture Planning, Cohesion, and the Making and Maintenance of Entities”. In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies, ed. by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Daniel Simeoni, 277–292. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ) comme cadre de référence, afin d’offrir une perspective macroscopique à la traduction des connaissances pendant différentes périodes de l’histoire de la Chine. Et ce, comme « moyen de planification » (Toury 2002Toury, Gideon. 2002. “Translation as a Means of Planning and the Planning of Translation: A Theoretical Framework and an Exemplary Case”. In Translations: (Re)shaping of Literature and Culture, ed. by Saliha Paker, 166–175. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press. : 166) pour promouvoir les agendas religieux, moderniser les sciences naturelles de la Chine traditionnelle, occidentaliser les systèmes éducatifs et académiques, faciliter la modernisation de l’État ou participer à la production de connaissances globales.