Ａ Ｐｒｅｌｉｍｉｎａｒｙ Ｒｅｓｅａｒｃｈ ｏｎ Ｅｒｒｏｒｓ ｉｎ ｔｈｅ Ｅｎｇｌｉｓｈ Ｔｒａｎｓｌａｔｉｏｎ ｏｆ《 Ｔｈｅ Ａｎａｌｅｃｔｓ ｏｆ Ｃｏｎｆｕｃｉｏｕｓ》 ｂｙ Ｊａｍｅｓ

ＬＩＵ　ｘｉａ

Abstract：《The Analects of Confucious》is hard to understand even to Chinese，the foreign translators with different culture are bound to produce diverse“fusion of horizons”. As a result, misunderstandings are seen in James Legges interpretations although his translation of The Analects in 1861 is regarded as the first authorized English version continuing until this day.The aim to analyze the errors in James Legges version is to show that “misunderstanding many sometimes prove to be extraordinarily valuable in research field in that misunderstanding reflects the translator's misconceiving of another culture, the blockade in cultural exchange”.

Keywords：the Analects of Confucious;misunderstandings;cultural background

中图分类号： G211文献标识码: A文章编号：1672-1578（2009)5-0008-02

1 Introduction

It is obvious that Confucius' influence is not confined to China. It also goes to the West, So there are many retranslations.Confucius' thought in The Analects is profound but expressed in a rather concise and antique language which poses difficulty of understanding even for Chinese scholars.

James Legge (1815-1897) is the forerunner who has systematically translated the Chinese classics works into English. His translation of The Analects in 1861 is regarded as the first authorized English version continuing until this day. His version includes his own commentary and copious citations from Chinese commentators, especially Zhu Xi. Though his translation is tediously long, it is still considered to be quite close to the original. However, The Sayings of Confucius, puts it,the Chinese text is often hard to understand and is sometimes open to more than one interpretation. Scholars still dispute over the meanings of certain words and chapters in The Analects. Similar to its commentaries of Chinese scholars, translation of this Confucius classic often reflects a personal involvement in re-experiencing the philosophy behind the text.sometimes, the foreign translators with different culture are bound to produce diverse“fusion of horizons”.As a result, misunderstandings are seen in James Legges interpretations.Here are several examples:

2 Misunderstandings

2.1千乘之国

James Legge: ...a kingdom of a thousand chariots

“sheng”(乘) refers to the vehicle drawn by four horses which is used in ancient warfare. At that time, the power of a nation is judged by the number of this kind of war carriage. A nation with a thousand of carriages is powerful.

Here, Iegge translate“sheng” into “chariot”. Undoutdely, “chariot” is the very word, accoding to Longman Dictionary of Contempary English. “Chariot: (U) a vehivle with two wheels idled by a horse, used in ancient time in battles and races”.obviously When Legge has long been edified by his own culture, he tends to understand it with his accepted norms when he comes across another culture.Maybe Ku Hungmings version: “a State of even the first-rate power” is a more proper one.

2.2三十而立

James Legge: At thirty, I stood firm.

“三十而立、四十不惑、五十知天命”in Lun Yu has become daily expressions for us Chinese.“I stood firm” employed by Legge completely distorted its connotation, so it is typical “word-for-word translation”. It seemingly keeps the original form, but not the content. Ku Hungming rendered it into “At thirty I had formed my opinions and judgment”. which grasped its real meaning behind the form.

2.3子曰:“唯仁者，能好人，能恶人。”

James Legge: The Master said,“It is only the truly virtuous man, who can love, or who can hate, others.” It is still a typical example of word-for-word translation. According to Chen Runbin's interpretation, what it means is“只有仁人才能够喜欢某些人，厌恶某些人”not “who can love or can hate others.” This is Ku's version: “ It is only men of moral character who know how to love men or to hate men” It is much better than Legge's translation in expressing correct message of the original.

2.4孔子于乡党，询询如也，似不能言者

James Legge: Confucius, in his village, looked simple and sincere, and as if he were not able to speak.

“似不能言者”was translated into“he were not able to speak”, which was in fact misrepresentation to the original meaning. And in Ku's translation, the real meaning of the original was flexibly reproduced: “as if he were a goad speaker”.

2.5齐，必有明衣，布，齐必变食，居必迁坐

James Legge: When fasting, he thought it necessary to

have his clothes brightly clean and made of linen cloth. When fasting, he thought it necessary to change his food,and also to change the place where he commonly sat in the apartment.

Here the problem basically lies in the understanding of mingyi(明衣)and jubiqianzuo(居必迁坐).Legge translates mingyi into something like“bright clothes”, According to Chen Runbin's interpretation “mingyi” refers to the bath gown worn when taking a bath for fasting.“Bright clothes” is obviously a misunderstanding.

As for the rendering of jubiqianzuo, it should mean that he should move away from his wife and concubines to show his sincerity according to the Chinese fasting tradition.

Legge's “change the place”is far from the point since the real meaning is quite beyond his imagination. The cultural differences of the source and target languages are likely to give rise to inadequate expression of the meaning of the original text. Because people become so accustomed to their own ways of doing thing that they cannot conceive of other people accomplishing the same purposes by quite different actions.

2.6子曰:“君子疾没世而名不称焉。”

ames Legge: The Master said, the superior man dislikes the thought of his name notbeing mentioned after his death.

In this chapter, Legge neither understands the underlying meaning of“ji”(疾)nor Confucius' idea on “ming”(名).“Ji” means regret and “Ming” means reputation. Confucius does not hope one does not pursue fame, but hopes one should not pursue an undeserved reputation. On the contrary, gentleman should devote his life to the other's benefits which can distinguish himself from others.

Luckily, Ku's version gets to the point.“A wise man and good man hates to die without having done anything to distinguish himself (or having lived in vain)”.

3 Conclusion

in the case of a translation, the translator is a real receiver of the source text who then proceeds to inform another audience, located in a situation under target-culture condition, about the offer of information made by the source text.Just as Reiss and Vermeer said “The translator offers this new audience a target text whose composition is of course, guided by the translator's assumptions about their needs, expectations,，previous knowledge,and so on. These assumptions will obviously be different from those made by the original author because source-text addressees and target-text addressees belong to different cultures and language communities. This means the translator cannot offer the same amount and kind of information as the source-text producer. What the translator does is offer another kind of information in another form.” (Reiss and Vermeer, 1984:123)So,Its natural misunderstandings are seen in James Legges interpretations.

Nevertheless,just as Xie Tianzhen points out, “misunderstanding many sometimes prove to be extraordinarily valuable in research field in that misunderstanding reflects the translator's misconceiving of another culture, the blockade in cultural exchange”.

References：

[1]James. Legge, 1893, the Chinese Classics with a translation, critical and exegetical notes prolegomena, and copious indexes, VOL.I Oxford: The Clarendon Press

[2]陈润斌注译.论语注译[M].福州：海峡文艺出版社，2000：4.

[3]Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English [M].Shanghai: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2004:293

[4]Ku Hungming, The Discourses and Sayings of Confucius [M]. Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh Ltd, 1898.

[5]Nida, Eugene A, Language, Culture, and Translating [M}.Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1993：110.

[6]陈润斌注译.论语注译[M].福州：海峡文艺出版社，2000：242.

[7]Xie Tianzhen(谢天振).译介学[M).上海:上海外语教育出版社，1999：151.

作者简介：刘霞（1971-），女，福建福州，福建警官职业学院基础部，讲师，福建师大外国语学院在职研究生，研究方向：英美文学及翻译。