Abstract
In the history of translating classical Chinese poetry, there are two kinds of translators. The first kind translate classical Chinese poetry “by way of intellectual, directional devices” (Yip, Wai-lim. 1969. Ezra Pound’s Cathay. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press: 16). What these translators are concerned with most is the coherence of their translations. They give little attention to the ideogrammic nature of Chinese characters. I call them traditional translators. These translators include those in the history of translating classical Chinese poetry from its beginning to the first decade of the twentieth century, although there are still some who translate classical Chinese poetry in this way later. The second kind of translator is highly interested in the images created by ideogrammic Chinese characters and tries to convey them in target language. We call them modernist translators. These translators are represented by some American modernist poets such as Ezra Pound, Amy Lowell, Florence Ayscough, etc. From the point of view of iconicity, modernist translators’ contribution lies in their concern with the iconic characteristics of Chinese characters. But they did not give enough attention to syntactical iconicity and textual iconicity in classical Chinese poetry.
References
Bruno, Cosima. 2012. Words by the look: issues in translating Chinese visual poetry. In James St André and Peng Hsiao-Yen (eds.), China and its others: Knowledge transfer through translation, 1829–2010, 245–276. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.Search in Google Scholar
Cai, Zongqi. 1993. Poundian and Chinese aesthetics of dynamic force: A re-discovery of Fenollosa and Pound’s theory of the Chinese written character. Comparative Literature Studies 30(2). 170–187.Search in Google Scholar
Cayley, John. 2015. Untranslatability and readability. Critical Multilingualism Studies 3(1). 70–89.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, François. 1982. Chinese poetic writing. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. A. Riggs and Jerome P. Seaton (trans.).Search in Google Scholar
Cuypere, Ludovic De. 2008. Limiting the iconic. Amsterdam & Philadephia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ill.6Search in Google Scholar
Davie, Donald. 1977. The translatability of poetry. In Barry Alpert (ed.), The poet in the imaginary museum: Essays of two decades. Manchester: Carcanet Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fenollosa, Ernest & Ezra Pound. 2008. The Chinese written characters as a medium for poetry, Haun Saussy, Jonathan Stalling and Lucas Klein (eds.). New York: Fordham University Press.10.1515/9780823238347Search in Google Scholar
Fisher, Olga & Christina Ljungberg. 2008. Iconicity: A definition. In Seventh biennial symposium on iconicity in language and literature, http://www.semioticon.com/virtuals/iconicity/(accessed 6 June 2018).Search in Google Scholar
Gorleé, Dinda. 2004. On translating signs: Exploring text and semio-translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004454774Search in Google Scholar
Kenner, Hugh. 1975. The poetics of error. MLN 90(6). 738–746.10.2307/2907016Search in Google Scholar
Laozi. 2008. Daodejing: A literal-critical translation, Joseph Hsu (trans.). New York: University of America Press.Search in Google Scholar
Legge, James. 1967. The book of poetry: Text with English translation. New York: Paragon.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, James J. Y. 1962. The art of Chinese poetry. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Xie. 1992. Wen-hisin tiao-lung. In Readings in Chinese literary thought, Stephan Owen (trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Minford, John & Joseph S. M. Lau. 2000. From antiquity to the Tang dynasty (Classical Chinese literature: An anthology of translations 1). New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1931–1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss and A. W. Burks (eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.[Reference to Peirce’s papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.].Search in Google Scholar
Pine, Red. 2000. The collected songs of Cold Mountain. Port Townsend: Copper Canyon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pound, Ezra. 1959. The Confucian odes: The classics anthology defined by Confucius. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pound, Ezra. 2015. Cathay, Zhaoming Qian (ed.). New York: New Directions.Search in Google Scholar
Qi, Gong. 2000. Components of Chinese poetry. Literary Heritage 1. 14–20.Search in Google Scholar
Qian, Zhaoming. 2003. The modernist response to Chinese art. Charlottesville & London: University of Virginia Press.Search in Google Scholar
Qian, Zhaoming. 2008. Ezra Pound’s Chinese friends. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Seybolt, Peter J & Gregory Kuei-ke Chiang. 1978. Language reform in China: Documents and commentary. Dawson: M. E. Sharpe.Search in Google Scholar
Shen, Jiaxuan. 1993. A survey of studies of iconicity in syntax. Foreign Language and Research 1. 2–8.Search in Google Scholar
Shen, Xu. 1963. Shuowen Jiezi. Beijing: Zhonghua.Search in Google Scholar
Shi, Hu. 1996. Thinking in characters. Exploration of Poetry 2. 8–10.Search in Google Scholar
Snyder, Gary. 1969. Riprap and Cold Mountain poems. San Francisco: Four Seasons Foundation.Search in Google Scholar
Tay, Williams. 1980. Fragmentary negation: A reappraisal of Ezra Pound’s ideogrammic method. In John J Deeney (ed.), Chinese-Western comparative literature: Theory and strategy, 129–164. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Guiyuan. 2011. New exploration of the change of clerical scripts. Journal of Jinan University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 2. 155–159.Search in Google Scholar
Xi, Du. 2003. Thinking in characters, tradition and modernity. Exploration of Poetry 1–2. 55–63.Search in Google Scholar
Xie, Ming. 2014. Ezra Pound and the appropriation of Chinese poetry: Cathay, translation, and imagism. New York & London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315861210Search in Google Scholar
Yip, Wai-lim. 1969. Ezra Pound’s Cathay. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400876532Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Zhiyi. 1984. The comparison of the development of Chinese and Indo-European languages. New Exploration of Language 1, 394.Search in Google Scholar
Zhou, Shuyi. 1978. Simplified characters should not be used in literary Chinese [Wen Yan]. In Peter J Seybolt and Gregory Kuei-Ke Chiang (eds.), Language reform in China: Documents and commentary. Dawson: M. E. Sharpe.Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
