Rethinking Cultural Terminology Translation

2.2.1 Development of sign transformation

By “sign transformation,” I mean types of sign conversion between sign systems. Transformation means “a change into sb. or sth. completely different” (Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners). In sign transformation, the appearance of a sign is reformed into another. The commonly understood tripartite division of Jakobson falls into this category.

Recognizing Jakobson’s limitations, scholars rearrange or explicate the typology of sign transformation in translation. To begin with, the idea of intersemiotic translation has been revisited and expanded to vast forms of semiotic systems which goes beyond verbal signs (Queiroz and Daniella 2015: 201). This trend begins with Toury (1986), who wonders the probability of listing two kinds of “lingual” against one “semiotic,” thus substituting it with a primary division into two types (intrasemiotic and intersemiotic), with intrasemiotic further subdivided into intralinguistic and interlinguistic translation (Baker 2004: 220). Following his path, others propose new models to encompass various forms of semiosis. For instance, Petrilli (2003) includes translation outside the human world, stating that “translation does not only concern the human world, anthroposemiosis, but rather is a constitutive modality of semiosis, or more exactly, of biosemiosis” (Petrilli 2003: 17). There is an ongoing trend to extend the notion of translation along with the boundary of semiotics.

The second trend explores the internal relationships among the three types, summarized as procedural and integrated. Lotman (2009: xxxiv) states that the three types of translation could be regarded as an inner dynamic hierarchy of a single translation process, and partly of any communication process. As Torop (2011: 24) observes, it reflects the simultaneity of the three processes in the psychological process of translation. That is to say, even one type of translation may involve the other two. “Translative processes […] always involve the three modalities identified by Jakobson” (Petrilli 2010: 378). They always co-exist with each other to different degrees. For instance, interlingual translation may always resort to intralingual translation for a full understanding of the source, or to forms of nonverbal signs for adequate presentation in the target language (e.g. book illustrations, see Pereira 2008). Regarding natural language as semiotically multilingual, Torop (2007) argues for the necessity of simultaneously speaking of the three branches in translation studies. In this sense, the three aspects are in a dynamic projection toward sign development.

As is observed above, types of sign transformation as intra-/interlingual and intersemiotic translation have been expanded to embrace vast forms of semiosis, which even go beyond human activity. The clear-cut boundaries are also broken in that they co-exist in one single type of translation. Width and depth of sign transformation are extended.

2.2.2 Development of sign interpretation

With “sign interpretation,” I point to the interpretive nature of translation, where the meaning of a sign is generated and is in constant interaction with the mechanism of culture. Scholars develop the view from two aspects.

Firstly, the interpretive nature of translation is further stressed, with Eco, Petrilli, and Stecconi as representatives. Known as interpretive semiotics, this camp discovers the nexus between Peirce’s and Jakobson’s theory. Stecconi finds Jakobson is trying to “explain aspects of language and language use drawing on Peirce’s notion of the translatability of all signs into other signs” (Stecconi 2010: 314). In this sense, translation is “a crucial element of all meaning-making” (Baker 2014: 261), and the problem of translatability eventually becomes one of “expressibility” – whether that which is said in one historical-natural language can be expressed in another (Petrilli 2010: 380), and to translate is always possible. In another case, equivalence is redefined in Pierce’s interpretation as the product of inferential process (Stecconi 2010: 316– 317; Gorlée 1994: 179–195). Thus, the equivalent is not matched, but pronounced and constructed by the translator (Stecconi 2010). Also, the interpretive typology of translation is remodeled. In Experiences in translation (2001), Eco distinguishes between forms of interpretation (2001: 100–128) as interpretation by transcription, intrasystemic interpretation, and intersystemic interpretation. By establishing “some macro-scopic distinctions” (Eco 2001: 129) of interpretation, he attaches to the problems posed by variations in form and content. Some go further in relating Pierce with Jakobson, as in Petrilli’s work. She defines Jakobson’s idea as a distinction between three types of translative-interpretive process, with each modality dominated by conventionality, indexicality, or iconicity in Pierce’s tripartite classification of signs. Derived from Jakobson, this branch explores the interpretive kernel of translation, and is gradually coming into the spotlight, as many believe it represents the future of translation theory (Baker 2014: 261).

Another branch correlates culture with translation, with the Tartu-Moscow School as the avant-garde. Lotman, the school’s leading proponent, , stresses the translation mechanism of culture, implying translation’s function as a filtering boundary between semiospheres (Lotman 2001: 140). Although Lotman did not point to Jakobson’s intersemiotic translation directly, Jakobson’s idea of communication and translation prepares the ground for the emergence of the concept of “semiosphere” (Lotman 2009: xxxiv–xxxv). Semiosphere (defined as the semiotic space of the culture, by analogy with biosphere, see Lotman 2001: 123–125) allows the semiotics of culture to reach a new understanding of its holistic feature (Lotman 2009: xxxv) and its spatial potentials (see Nöth 2015). From then on, cultural semiotics takes the lead. Building on Lotman’s concept, Torop (2002: 593) proposes that translation reveals an important mechanism of culture, and the general notion of culture shall be described as the process of total translation. Also drawing on Lotman, Jia (2017) borrows the notion of semiosphere and divides translation into intrasemiospheric, intersemiospheric, and suprasemiospheric, with the former two designating translation activities happening in and between cultural spaces, and the latter referring to cross-media semiotic transformation including the other two. Jia’s version further identifies the notion of cultural temporal space in translation studies, interweaving translation, culture, and semiotics in a spatial view. In a word, Jakobson’s typology has become an important methodological tool to understand culture (Kourdis 2015: 310), or “semiotics of culture” in Lotman’s word. As sign interpretation happens in cultural-bound temporal spaces, translation unavoidably carries cultural identities across various boundaries.

To conclude, followers regard sign interpretation as an interpretive process as well as a cultural event. Interpretation is constrained by properties of sign and by subjective preference on a micro-level, and also by a cultural mechanism on a macro-level.

Above all, the two underlying ideas of Jakobson’s division (translation as “sign transformation” and as “sign interpretation”) have been well developed, while leaving spaces for further investigation.

3.2.1 Transformation of the cognitive sign system

By “cognitive sign system.” I mean the cognitive space created by the constant interaction between sign usage and human cognition in a culture. It has been proved by Humboldt, Sapir, and others that each culture conceptualizes the world in different ways, which is reflected in (or even shaped by) their languages. From the perspective of cognitive linguistics, translation is based on “multiple interactions among subjects with differently embodied backgrounds,” and shall “map or re-express the meanings in the target language” (Wang Yan 2005: 15). Therefore, terminology translation transforms sign systems to reconstruct the cognitive world.

Each culture recognizes the world with certain basic principles, which can be observed in cultural terminology. For instance, Chinese philosophy sees the world as an extension from ourselves. Instead of viewing the world as “the other” in opposition to “self” as Western philosophy does, we deem man and nature to be harmoniously united. The Chinese characters are formed “from what’s near our body and far in the world” (近取诸身, 远取诸物), which in essence are experiential and embodied cognitive. It is reflected in single-character terms such as “仁,” “天,” and “心.” “仁” means “亲” ‘nearness,’ and is composed of “two” and “people,” underlying a relational metaphor between people (Chang and Ames 2016: 89). “天” evolves from , first meaning ‘the top of man’s head’ (天，颠也; 颠者，人之头顶也) (Xu 2006), and develops a couple of senses to generate a philosophical semantic web. Apart from single-character terms, the relational and analogous cognitive features are also reflected in clusters of terms, like “亲亲” and “天人合一.” The above examples show how cultural terminology reflects the way we organize the world, calling for proper rendering in cross-cultural translation.

As cultural terminology presents “local knowledge” (Geertz 2000) of a region, the cognitive dimension requires a systematic transference of signs. It has been proved by cognitive science that systematicity is the essence and starting point of cognitive activities (Yu 2010: 3). Cognitive space could not be transferred without systematic knowledge construction. Therefore, term translation not only concerns the single term and its context, but also involves relational ones in the semantic web. For instance, to comprehensively present our ancient cosmology on 天, derivative terms (e.g. 天子, 天地, 天命, 天道, 天理) and related terms (e.g. 道, 理, 气) must all be introduced coherently to restructure the knowledge space (Huang 2018). In a word, cognitive sign system transformation deals with creating the knowledge space through systematic introduction of Chinese cultural terminology.

3.2.2 Transformation of linguistic sign system

Cultural terms are linguistic signs by nature, and thus should conform to linguistic rules in translation, where linguistic semiotics (or “semiology” in Saussure’s words) finds its place. As is pointed out by Saussure, at the microlevel, a linguistic sign is a combination of signifier (sound-image) and signified (concept) (Saussure 1959: 66), and they conform to principles of arbitrariness and of immutability at the same time. At the macro-level, individual terms form a language system, where the value of each term “results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others” (Saussure 1959: 114). These linguistic rules offer insights into cultural term translation.

From semiology, the translation process is redefined as seizing the signified in the source language system and giving it a signifier in the target language. At the micro-level, principles of arbitrariness and immutability open, at the same time restricting the opportunity for all forms of translation. Arbitrariness means the signifier has no natural connection with the signified (Saussure, 1959: 69). A cultural-specific item could be named variously so long as the signified is vacant in the target culture, which is most eminent in ideological ^[3] terms, like “道,” “气,” and “理.” According to the KCCTC termbase, “气” in traditional Chinese philosophy bears more than nine translations in English, like ‘breath,’ ‘vital force,’ ‘qi,’ and ‘emotions.’ ^[4] Meanwhile, “the signifier […] is fixed with respect to the linguistic community that uses it” (Saussure 1959: 71). Likewise, no individual or community could modify terminology at ease when it’s bound to the existing language, because of “collective inertia towards innovation” (Saussure 1959: 73). Time, as well as the people, shapes the terminology we use in translation, especially for existing terms. Take “龙” for instance. Upon awareness of discrepancies between “the Western evil dragon” and “the Chinese virtuous Long,” many scholars propose substituting the old translation as ‘dragon’ with ‘Loong (or Long)’ (see for example, Huang 2006; Guan 2007). However, “dragon” or “Chinese dragon” remains the accepted expression ^[5]. Therefore, cultural term translation takes account of the principle of “established by usage” (约定俗成).

At the macro-level, translation involves the presentation of the sign’s value across systems. As Saussure argues, the value of a term is accordingly determined by its environment (Saussure 1959: 116), or by its relation to other signs inside the system. Comprehensive transplantation of terminology is recommended, during which “differences” (Saussure 1959: 120) in and between language cultures are given due attention. Firstly, the difference inside the Chinese terminology system must be observable in translation. Taking a negative example, homophonic terms in 文心雕龙 are transliterated by Vincent (Liu 1983) in the same signs (e.g. 辞, 词, 刺 as tz’u; 术, 书, 疏 as shu), causing confusion in the Chinese literature terminology system (Wang 2017). Secondly, the difference between Chinese and Western terminology is likely to be kept, or at least recognizable. Scholars have criticized the negative effect of domesticated translations, like 天 to ‘Heaven’ or 神 to ‘God,’ which confuses terms in different value systems. In a word, macro-level translation concerns the term’s value presented through “difference” in and between language systems.

Linguistic sign transformation concerns the basic rules in linguistic transference, which lays the premise for the survival of the terminology system, upon which cultural sign transformation is likely to happen.

3.2.3 Transformation of the cultural sign system

The cultural sign system concerns the way a culture organizes various signs to function properly in its temporal space. The totality of a culture’s sign system forms a “semiosphere,” the semiotic space necessary for the existence and functioning of languages and communication (Lotman 2001: 123). It is featured with boundaries that distinguish “I” from “the Other.” When two cultures interact, signs are filtered and adapted by the boundary (Lotman 2001: 140), generating new information and reshaping the system. Therefore, the transformation of cultural signs involves shaping the cultural image through terminology which demands creative naming ideas.

The translation of Dao-related terms in Dao De Jing is a case in point. As is noted by Xin (2008: 200), the journey of Dao De Jing in the West is supported by various transmissions and interpretations of Dao. For instance, George Gardiner Alexander translates “故从事于道者, 同于道; 徳者, 同于徳; 失者, 同于失 […] 信不足焉, 有不信焉” as “Remember, however, that the man who regulates all his actions by a belief in God, will become like unto God; just as he who walks in the path of virtue will become virtuous; and he who pursues a course of vice will become vicious […]. To have a weak faith is to have no faith” (quoted from Xin 2008: 204–205). In translating 道 as ‘God/Creator,’ 徳 as ‘virtuous,’ 信 as ‘faith,’ and 失 as ‘vice,’ Alexander borrows Biblical terms to construct a “Chinese Jesus,” the result of which creates a religious image of Chinese culture. In another case, the sinologists Ames and Hall create an interpretive context-based terminology of Dao, where its verbal, nounal, and procedural features are unveiled in its translation as ‘road,’ ‘path,’ ‘way,’ and ‘way-making’ depending on context (Xin 2016: 58). In introducing “clusters of terms” (Chang and Ames 2016: 92), Ames aims to “let Chinese philosophy speak its own language,” where the term’s conceptual and contextual development is taken into account. Ames’ translation successfully rekindles aspiration for Chinese philosophy research in the West, and to some extent restores a profound but real-life Chinese cultural image.

Transference of cultural signs indicates deeper interaction between cultures. The “glocalized” world now requires diverse and authentic cultural interaction, and terminology translation serves the purpose.

All in all, sign transformation centers on the transference of “form,” whether linguistic, conceptual, or cultural. It is a process of structuring through the creation of signs, in which rules at different levels are followed. The next phase dwells on interpretation, the procedural development from intra-/interlingual to intersemiotic translation.

3.3.1 Intralingual sign interpretation

For cultural term translation, intralingual interpretation is essentially a type of knowledge-centered interpretation. Eco (2001: 75) borrows Pierce’s “ad infinitum chain of interpretation” to describe intralingual translation, where one sign is interpreted by another, and this in turn expressed by the third. In the chain of expression, every interpretant says something more about the interpreted, making the implicit/absent explicit in translation. The same happens in cultural terminology translation as we reiterate traditional concepts in a modern view.

Chinese culture has a long history of intralingual interpretation, or “exegesis, xungu” (训诂). Unlike “the propositional mode of development” (Guo 2015: 152) in Western philosophy, where successors overturn a previous statement to lodge their own, Chinese philosophers love to reinterpret ancient classics with the same or extended terminology. For instance, Zhu Xi annotates the Analects to develop his idea of li (理). In the interpretation of “夫子之言性与天道, 不可得而闻也,” ^[6] he points out that “性者, 人所受之天理;天道者, 天理自然之本体, 其实一理也” ^[7] (quoted in Yue 2018: 16), which connects 天道 ‘Way of Heaven’ (the kernel term in Confucius) with 理 ‘li, law’ (the concern of Neo-Confucius). Generating from existing terminology, the new term preserves the heritage from the classics, which in turn revitalizes the knowledge by putting it in a fresh view.

As Cai (2000: 60) puts it, “intra-lingual translation grows itself through constant self-transformation, whose spirit becomes fuller in a culture made by its language.” Intralingual interpretation enriches the conceptual connotation of the term through self-development. It is the premises for interlingual translation.

3.3.2 Interlingual sign interpretation

From an interpretive perspective, the essence of interlingual translation is “relation”: relating signs in different languages based on the comparison, where both difference and similarity are to be found. The dominating ideas of “equivalence,” “correspondence,” and “similarity” in translation studies all imply the structuring or finding proper relations between signs. Therefore, choosing between different translation methods (e.g. literal translation, free translation) means structuring some kind of relation instead of another. “Translation in all senses takes place in the dialectics between distinction and unity, on the basis of a common element uniting differences” (Petrilli 2009: 528). Interlingual interpretation seeks similarity in difference, bridging the two terminology systems at various levels which are realized by different translations. Take the philosophical term 良知 ‘intuitive knowledge’ for instance. First proposed by Mencius in “人之所不学而能者，其良能也；所不虑而知者，其良知也,”^[8] the term refers to innate moral awareness and the ability to act upon it. It has two major equivalents: “conscience” (in the KCCTC termbase) and “intuitive knowledge” (by James Legge). The first seeks conceptual correspondence in English, where “conscience” means “the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary). It is a similar notion in Western philosophy, referring to people’s innate moral sense (Zhang 2015: 76). At the same time, “conscience” is different from 良知. Whereas 良知 refers to people’s innate tendency toward goodness (善) which is universal, “conscience” points more to “individual entity” that is distinct from one to another (Oxford English Dictionary). In addition, the Chinese 良知 emphasizes its potential in knowing cosmology by returning to the self, while “conscience” in Kant and empiricism stresses its role in making man obey the objective moral rules (Zhang 2015: 75). In a word, “conscience” and “ 良知” have commonalities in difference. In linking “conscience” with “ 良知,” this translation bridges ideas of moral self-awareness in East and West based on similarities, and prepares the ground for further comparison. The second translation of ‘intuitive knowledge’ points to Mencius’ original meaning in coining the term. It partially corresponds to the semantic structure in translating 知 as knowledge, while substituting 良 ‘good’ with “intuitive.”

As a result, each of the translations constructs some kind of “equivalence,” whether semantically or conceptually, partially or holistically. They also induce comparison between Eastern and Western concepts, like examining “ 良知” (in Wang Yangming), “conscience” (in Kant) (Gu 2005), and “virtue” (in Socrates) (Zhang 2016), which promotes comparative cultural studies.

The underlying notion of interlingual interpretation is to seek similarity with the awareness of the difference in the hope of mutual understanding. As is demonstrated above, interlingual interpretation “further enhances the associative and dialogic character […] and contributes to freeing the text from a single type or system of signs” (Petrilli 2010: 369). At the same time, the dialogue is not the finale; cooperative construction marks a further step. It is fulfilled in intersemiotic interpretation.

3.3.3 Intersemiotic sign interpretation

By intersemiotic sign interpretation, I mean interpreting by another heterogenous sign system, or “reconstruct[ing] the artwork into a distinct semiotic system, creating a sophisticated collection of interconnected signs” (Aguiar and Queiroz 2009: 1). It is featured with “creativity,” where the original meaning is re-arranged and re-created in a new signification system.

As is pointed out before, intersemiotic translation has outgrown Jakobson’s definition as “interpretation of verbal signs by non-verbal signs,” but designates relations between systems of different nature (Queiroz et al. 2015: 201). In relating “incommensurable” systems, meanings get multiplied by “transcreating relations at various semiotic levels” (Queiroz et al. 2015: 202). For cultural terminology, intersemiotic interpretation generates new meanings with the help of other signification systems and on the basis of interlingual translation, as will be shown in the following example of the 2019 Oscar-awarded short animation Bao (posters in Figure 1).

Figure 1

Posters of the movie Bao

The 7-minute animation Bao tells a story about how a baby dumpling grows up under the generation gap and cultural difference, and how the family becomes reconciled after all sorts of conflict. Drawing from the Chinese director’s own life experience, the movie has aroused global resonance to its themes of growth and parental love. It should be noted that the only linguistic sign in the movie is its title “Bao,” not ‘steamed bun’ or ‘dumpling’ in similar senses. As is noted by the movie director Shi Zhimao, “Bao” means ‘baozi’ (包子) as the food, and also ‘treasure, baby’ (宝) as the child ^[9] (Xinhuanet 2018). Some Western commentators go further in stating that “Bao” also means ‘protect’ (保), ‘praise’ (褒), ‘jewel’ (宝), indicating the weight of parental love (Hirch 2018). It is clear that “Bao” has gone beyond its original designation of dumpling, and has gained a transcultural value.

From my perspective, the movie, as a whole, can be seen as an intersemiotic translation of a set of Chinese cultural terms, like “民以食为天” ‘food is of primary importance to the people,’ “ 孝”, xiao ‘filial piety’ “亲亲” ‘affection for one’s kin,’ and “推己及人” ‘put oneself in another’s place.’ These relation-centered terms have shaped Chinese ideas of education and family, which become a source of conflict in the movie. For instance, because of the idea of 孝 ‘xiao,’ the mother becomes so furious that she swallows the bao when he intends to leave home to live with his fiancée. In another scene, the mother cooks a big meal to please the child because of the vital importance of food (or “ 民以食为天”) in Chinese culture. The various plots of cultural communication/ conflict are condensed in the title “Bao” and its multiple interpretations, through which both the Chinese and the Western cultures see it more than a kind of food. By restructuring cultural elements in a new form, the director creatively presents cultural interactions and produces a “transcultural” artwork.

As is argued by Dusi (2015: 183), intersemiotic translation is “a complex ‘form of action’, not a simple transcodification but a transcultural, dynamic and functional event.” In cultural terminology translation, translators (in the broadest sense) make use of different media to start a new life of the terms’ linguistic, conceptual, and cultural meaning. The interpretant transcends the original sign, and forms a self-contained system which has the potential to generate new cultural forms.

The above three phases depict a relatively complete picture of cultural sign semiosis. Intralingual interpretation proliferates the knowledge field of terminology, prolonging the term’s life space diachronically. Interlingual interpretation seeks similarity in different code systems, with the aim of promoting dialogue. Intersemiotic interpretation creates new sign systems based on the former two, which is transcultural in nature. In fact, this procedural has been described by the famous Significs scholar Lady Welby as “translative thinking.” It is “a semiotic process in which something stands for something else, in which different sign systems are related, in which one sign is more fully developed, enriched […] and, in any case, interpreted in terms of another sign” (cited in Petrilli 2007: 312) (my italics). The expressions “developed,” “related,” and “interpreted” correspond respectively to the three kinds of sign interpretation in this essay.

All in all, cultural terminology translation forms a special kind of semiotic activity, in which sign transformation and interpretation are integrated. Any form of sign transference is accompanied by some kind of sign interpretation. They are inseparable like “content” and “form.”