English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article attempts to assess the contribution of Chinese translators \u26 theorists of the 1920\u27s \u26 1930\u27s, in particular the famous writer Lu Xun, whom I consider the first modern translation theorist in China. It is with him that China entered its modern phase in translation. Not only did he advocate retaining the foreignness of the original text, in a way reminiscent of the entire tradition of German Romantic translation theorists from Schleiermacher to von Humboldt to Goethe; he also explored in his own translations the possibilities for enriching the Chinese language through the importation of Europeanized structures \u26 expressions. It is these foreignizing impulses that set Lu Xun apart most clearly from pre-modern Chinese theorists. At the same time, these impulses connect him with leading giants of translation theory like Nabokov \u26 Benjamin (who emphasized the importance of the literal method in translation) on the one hand, \u26 Venuti \u26 Holmes (who highlighted processes of indigenization \u26 exoticization in translation) on the other. Lu Xun\u27s ideas had a particular place in the wider cultural \u26 historical context. Views similar to his had been advocated by his predecessors at the beginning of the century, whose attempt to Europeanize the classical language did not, unfortunately, find a large following. In his own time, Lu found ardent supporters among friends \u26 colleagues who either (1) suggested thorough Europeanization, or (2) preferred limited Europeanization. Dissenting views, however, were clearly voiced by some of the other leading writers of the day. So, there were (A) those who favored the use of a language based on the actual words spoken by the populace \u26 (B) those who queried why one should not learn a foreign language \u26 read the original instead. My article deals at length with the debates among these theorists \u26 seeks to understand them from the perspectives of contemporary Western translation theory. 3 Figures, 21 References. Adapted from the source documen

What’s Modern in Chinese Translation Theory? Lu Xun and the Debates on Literalism and Foreignization in the May Fourth Period