Neohelicon (2014) 41:275–292

DOI 10.1007/s11059-013-0225-6

Cross-cultural translation: attitudes, feelings

and affective interactions

Yifeng Sun

Published online: 1 February 2014

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Abstract Translational attitude varies from culture to culture, and different

underlying assumptions about how translation functions merit careful attention. The
supposed neutrality of translation belies principal points of political contention and
cultural conflict. While violations of strict neutrality are committed all the time,
either consciously or unconsciously, when complex emotions, attitudes, moods and
dispositions are entangled with cultural politics and aesthetic norms of the target
language, its negative side also becomes apparent, for it may well result in apathy or
aloofness. Thus, the translator’s intervention, though often politicized, is required to
make the task of cross-cultural communication possible. It is mainly in response to
cultural differences embodied in translational attitude that intervention is called for,
which then determines the way in which appropriation is implemented. Aside from
thoughts, feelings and emotions in the original should be translated to be inferred
and represented to enable and empower the target reader to fully engage in cross-
cultural experiences. This paper offers a way of understanding the nature of
translational attitude in relation to the complexity of the original with its nuanced
feelings and emotions, and of examining their reproduction in shaping and deter-
mining the end-product of translation.

Keywords Cultural attitude · Feelings and meanings · Emotional response ·

Intertextual allusions

Introduction

It is axiomatic to equate translation, particularly literary translation, with mediation

and sometimes, with intervention as well. In relative terms, intervention represents a

Y. Sun (&)
Department of Translation, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong
e-mail: sunyf@ln.edu.hk

123
276 Y. Sun

more assertive form of mediation, and makes for a persistent and coherent
exercise—its primary function is to bring translation under control by preventing it
from “going astray” or producing unwanted effects. Translational attitude, be it
collective or individual, is to a remarkable degree responsible for how translation is
conducted, which, central to reception, is to evoke certain responses from the target
reader. Translation involves aspects of foreign culture, and thus attitude of fear,
characterized by suspicion and apprehension, towards the other is not uncommon.
Primarily on account of the envisioned cultural attitude of the target reader, the
translator may adopt a certain translation strategy by even altering the substance of
the original. The anchoring of attitude to perceiving a translated text reveals the
extent of translation being manipulated and viewed by the target reader. A related
issue that concerns the reading experience of translation is feelings. Translation
efforts are accompanied by the evocations of feelings and emotion. Yet feelings are
personal and subjective and so is any reading experience of literature, which
purports to connect with the thoughts and feelings of others. Through providing a
cross-linguistic and cross-cultural experience, translation encompasses the whole
gamut of feelings and emotion, which adds to the richness and sensuality of reading
translations. For this reason, to bring the feelings into full play would greatly
vitalize translation. Similarly, the crucial role of emotion in responding to the source
and target texts respectively concerns readability in order to engage the target reader
emotionally to the translated text in a cross-cultural sense. At the same time, it is
also possible to create intertextual allusions that link the representation of feelings
and emotion, thereby reflecting greater depth and complexity of translation.

Cultural attitude at work

Contrary to the idealized perception that translation is a neutral, invisible, and

impassive exercise, the translator intervenes from time to time to attain desired
performance. Take an interpreter for example. If he/she does not hold much respect
for the person he/she works for, the so-called professional facade of detachment
barely conceals the patronizing concern and critical disdain, typically shown in
drastic changes and overt simplification in the interpreting work. The same is surely
true of translation, and as Robert Wechsler points out, “[t]he translator’s attitude
toward an author greatly affects the way he translates; it controls his interpretive
decisions” (1998, p. 72). Plainly, if the translator is repulsed or fascinated by the
source text, it would be hard for the translated text not to be affected. The attitude
toward the source text as well as the author is shown in a myriad of ways in the
process of translation and also in various intervention strategies.
Whether or not neutrality is attempted concerns the translational attitude.
Admittedly, it is no more than an illusion that translation can be done in the true
spirit of neutrality. Nevertheless, the translator is still expected to be pledged to a
measure of neutrality to lend an authentic aura to the translated text, or to make it
somehow appear to be a reliable representation of the original. This is no easy task
because any act of communication is concomitant with the necessity of mediation,
precipitated or accompanied by feelings, moods, dispositions and attitudes with

123
Cross-cultural translation 277

regard to persons and/or situations. Moreover, the supposed neutrality of the

translator is made highly questionable by a host of social, political, cultural, and
above all, subjective factors, which calls for a rethinking of the idealistic pursuit of
neutrality. Referring to gender and language, Sherry Simon contends that “to be
sensitive to the gendered aspects of language use is to understand the subjectivity
expressed in any act of rewriting. Translation can never be a neutral act of
repetition: mediation involves transmission but also displacement” (Simon 1999, p.
66). Given the fact that mediation is an unavoidable part of translation, and
displacement essentially precludes simple repetition, the subjectivity of the
translator becomes a matter of prominence. Absolute cross-cultural neutrality is
untenable because it contains within it unacknowledged feelings that betray such
neutrality. There is no denying, however, that it is possible for personal prejudice to
be brought under control, and some degree of neutrality regarding general attitude is
still possible if no overtly political or aesthetic motivation is involved in translation.
Thus, it can be argued that neutrality is only possible unless empathy on the part
of the translator, capable of bringing to the fore the problem of understanding and
interpretation, is offered. Can imaginative empathy be put to good effect? Sharma’s
argument is worth considering:
… art cannot be as objective or detached as the product of a camera. The
artistic mind, as against the scientific, is biased, for art is the emotional
incarnation of facts and ideas. The prejudice of the artist is evident not only in
the selection of the subject of his creative activity, but also in the details
accompanying the subject. (Sharma 1988, p. 34)
Yet even the seeming verisimilitude of photography is susceptible to the subjectivity
of the photographer, who captures what can be seen within the viewfinder and
decides what to focalize and what to leave (zoom) out. The translator is to some
extent like a photographer, also subjective with their own prejudices and limitations.
What is lost or added in translation can provide clues about subtle feelings as a way
to form the reading experience of the target reader.
Significantly, the so-called inherent cultural prejudice can also be a personal
prejudice, both of them prone to twisting the original replication of reality as in the
source text, thus engendering cultural misunderstanding, misplaced resentment or
admiration, reasonable disagreement or unreasonable dread. This is particularly true
of reading literary translations, associated with difficulties caused by cultural
dislocation. The absence of empathy is due to, or responsible for, cultural prejudice,
involving a general feeling of indifference towards others. Hence, some kind of
identification with foreign otherness, no matter how superficial, is useful in
translation, which, aside from making sense of cultural otherness based on or rooted
in a presumed cultural difference, functions to cultivate appropriate cultural
attitudes and feelings towards others and to inculcate a tolerant and empathetic
cosmopolitanism in the target reader. Obviously, cross-cultural communication
breeds cross-cultural understanding deeply ingrained in empathy for the feelings of
others. As Rita Kothari observes, “The translation of subaltern literature supports
the struggle of subalterneity, especially when done with empathy and understand-
ing” (Kothari 2007, p. 45). In general, people can adapt their thoughts and feelings

123
278 Y. Sun

to cultural others, and share warmth and intimacy, demonstrating a strong need to
belong, to experience feelings of others, which are not necessarily those similar to
their own, so that cultural empathy and understanding are enhanced rather than
lessened. In short, primal repression of subjectivity with identification and the
concomitant foregrounding of empathy result in spawning greater resonance with
the source text.
In this connection, sincerity on the part of the translator is ultimately attributable
to respect for foreign otherness and key to the success of the translated text. But
sincerity is not what can be taken to be presupposed in translation. The translator
may well be repulsed by or reluctant to believe what they have to translate. Yet
without the interaction between different cultural feelings aroused by reading the
source and target texts, the emotional experience of cross-cultural encounter is
impeded by difficulties of interpretation. Under certain circumstances, however, the
absence of sincerity seems inevitable, which renders the emotional response to the
translated text precarious. In effect, sincerity gives the air of trustworthiness and
reliability of translation, and is construed as respect for cultural difference and
foreign otherness.
But sincerity is a tricky issue. It requires emotional frankness and directness
while trying to avoid cross-cultural confrontation. Admittedly, to maintain or
increase emotional distance is a necessary measure not to involve the target reader
too deeply to cloud their judgment, or depending on the purpose of translation, the
opposite can be considered the appropriate strategy in a given situation. Needless to
say, however, overt emotional distance is not normally indicative of sincerity.
Although lack of empathy on the part of the translator can well be justified, the
target reader is somehow expected to show some degree of sympathy. In the case of
lacking empathy, it is probably due to cultural unfamiliarity and may well be caused
by psychological or geopolitical distance, which renders the target reader unable to
understand the translated text mainly because what is socially and emotionally
relevant to the source reader may appear to be less so to the target reader. Thus, the
importance of empathy as closely associated with sincerity in translation is only too
clear.

Emotional judgments and cultural identity

It is important not to confuse empathy with affective identification commonly

influenced by cultural identity, which tends to minimize the emotional distance
between the reader and the text. Feelings to be induced in reading translation are
related to emotional contextualization, social setting and the complexity of the
cultural realities of the source and the target texts. To remove feelings from reading
is psychologically impossible because emotions and sensations are closely
interlinked as an essential part of any reading experience. Sensorial perception
aside, analogous emotional contextualization is also a salient factor to take into
consideration as far as reception is concerned. For this reason, emotional re-
contextualization is sometimes necessary and can only be achieved by mediating the
affective expectations of the target reader. In general, the level of such affective

123
Cross-cultural translation 279

expectations is lower in relative terms. Thus, the emotional ownership of the source
text, so to speak, needs to be negotiated in the process of cultural translation to
reflect the multifarious nature of cross-cultural communication. At any rate, the
affective aspects of translating and reading a foreign text are well worth probing to
reveal how the emotional arousal of the target reader influences reception.
Attentiveness to the very interactive nature of translating and reading leads to
revaluation of cultural values and relocation of cross-cultural experience.
Further, feelings and interpretations can be seen as intertwined in translations,
which are designed to allow for correlation and mediation. The emotional
significance of a stimulus needs to be accurately reproduced so as to open the
target reader to feelings and meanings not normally experienced in their own
cultural milieu. Thus, feelings based on incomplete and fragmented information are
not easy to adduce and convey. For instance, anger or resentment in the original
may sometimes not be communicated accurately in translation, yet a proper reading
depends precisely on detecting such emotions. Moreover, the changed cultural
circumstances tend to compel the target reader to confront their unconscious
emotions. The problem is that substance and style in the source text do not
necessarily tally with one another in the translated text. However, taking cues, such
as verbal irony, from the original is of essential benefit in terms of re-articulation.
It seems to be a truism that the translator’s selection of what to translate is
already a clear indication of their attitudes, yet the task of translation can be
imposed for whatever reason. It is unavoidable for translational attitude to be
revealed, the reason being that any meaning production or reproduction necessarily
bears on the process of textual interpretation. In case of untranslatability, a literal
reproduction is not an option, and interpretation becomes the only way to
circumvent translation difficulties. Christopher Butler argues that “[t]he interpre-
tation of a text typically goes beyond what it simply seems to say” (Butler 1984, p.
1). And this creates some extra space to be filled with the voice(s) of the translator.
Direct transfer of the literal form of the original signifies that the style in the source
text is retained in the target text. And the style in question should carry the original
author’s attitude, be it ironical, judgmental, affirmative, or questioning. But the style
may turn out to be untransferable and is therefore subject to alteration cross-
culturally; as a result, a noticeable change of attitude, even though unconsciously
initiated, is brought about in the resultant translation. Meanwhile, conflicting
attitudes of the translator and of the original author towards certain aspects of the
source text are likely to be registered in translation, and since the translated text is
what the target reader sees, it is the attitude of the translator—even if it is different
from that of the author—that is noticed in reality. In addition, the contemporary
attitude of the target cultural context toward similar translated texts that have been
published is also a relevant indication of how reception is affected. A natural
tendency is that attitude changes in response to new situations, and a general shift in
attitude is thus shown in translation, reflecting a historical, political and cultural
change.
Literary translation is largely created through intervening cultural filters as a
manifestation of translational attitude. Partly for this reason, protective actions are
required to raise artificial barriers to cultural imports and to limit access to the

123
280 Y. Sun

“cultural truth” that is regarded as inappropriate or immoral for the target reader.
This display of attitude is partly dictated by the translator’s fear of anticipated
censorship owing to the precariousness of the cultural political context surrounding
translation activity for cross-cultural communication is liable to fall victim to
interference from any quarters. Consequently, the translational attitude towards the
original text can be found in a wide range of manifestations: the translator can be
literally faithful, semantically faithful, culturally faithful and faithful in totality or in
detail. Whatever the case may be, certain culturally conditioned responsive patterns
are developed in adopting translation strategies. A translation that is culturally
adapted for the target reader shows culturally specific protective signs and the
cultural or political stance of the translator is well exemplified in the choice of
words for certain sensitive situations. To be sure, translation is influenced by social
and cultural factors and operates under different sets of constraints.
The reception of translation is contingent on the prevailing cultural attitude of the
target readership toward the alien culture. And an open and receptive attitude of the
target audience is key to the success of cultural borrowing and can help allay
anxieties about a different set of foreign values generated through translation. In
contrast to receptiveness, practices of cultural resistance to foreign influence are
evinced in a water-down version of translation. Textual interpretation by the
translator can be used as a means of political and cultural manipulation. In addition,
a translation that appears to be persistently lackluster represents an insufficient
commitment to the task of translation. Worse still, a translation becomes potentially
misleading at a point where a satirical or playful style in the source text is presented
as serious, or vice versa. It should be emphasized that to significantly alter the tone
of the original message opens possibilities for a different understanding of the
translated text. Thus, what seems to be perfectly pleasant in the source text can
become disagreeable in the target text. To serve the needs of the so-called correct
cultural politics, translation may amount to rewriting that is either resistant or
conformist, filtered thorough different aesthetic, cultural, or political constraints or
commitments. Whether an act of translation is out of passion or interest leads to a
very different result: the target reader is either enthused or unimpressed with the
translated text.
Sometimes a literal translation is deliberately produced, implying the translator’s
somewhat indifferent attitude towards the target reader, which in some cases, can be
seen as a form of cultural resistance. On the one hand, as if to impede or undermine
the impact of the original, the “awkwardness” of the original style deriving from
cultural difference is ostentatiously allowed to be displayed. On the other, the
opposite strategy to domesticate the foreign by employing linguistic means is a
radical form of cultural resistance by creating certain obstacles to cross-cultural
communication. A lackluster performance of translation is plainly different from a
politically or culturally motivated translation. Adaptation-translation motive can be
genuinely for the purpose of effective communication, but there can be an
underlying political agenda. It is often observed that certain intricate implicit
patterns of meaning are invariably lost in translation, but whether the translator does
anything about it—including remedial measures such as compensation and
reconfiguration—is seen as indicative of a particular cultural political attitude.

123
Cross-cultural translation 281

Textual manipulation in translation is variously motivated, and in Sherry Simon’s

words, translation is “mixed feelings of admiration and rivalry toward the author of
the text …” (Simon 1996, p. 71).

Feelings to be experienced

In general, feelings cannot be separated from experiences consisting of unusual

episodes to the target reader, pinpointing the origins of cultural psychology. While
empathy and sympathy are cross-culturally serviceable, it is less easy to see the
value of imagining a particular impact on cultural others. The two different sets of
intertextual references in the source and target languages imply that different
feelings may be evoked by the source and target texts respectively. It is common
enough that the target reader is prone to feelings of alienation if linguistic and
cultural difficulties are unresolved. Clashes of cultural values unfailingly generate
conflicted feelings in the target reader when reading translations that represent
different thoughts, beliefs, attitudes and, not least of all, mental imagery.
Metaphorical representations and cultural associations thus created are also likely
to trigger different emotional responses. A heightened awareness of the complexity
of feelings involved in translation signifies greater readiness to make adjustments to
subtly nuanced details. Unsurprisingly, as a form of rewriting, a translation, as
opposed to the original, is produced in a different way or possibly with different
feelings, depending on how the translator’s subjectivity interacts with the literary,
social, historical contexts in question. In sum, literary translation is, to a
considerable extent, defined by an emotional relationship between the translator
and the source text, and how the original is appropriated displays the translational
attitude as an important factor that influences the level and range of emotional
responses of the target reader.
Significantly related to attitudes are feelings to be communicated in translation,
which are not sufficiently addressed. It is fundamentally about an experience of
others in a different historical and cultural setting, and the recreation of similar
feelings and moods requires cross-cultural imagination so as to allow and enable the
target reader to relive the feelings experienced by the source reader. However,
nothing is more difficult than duplicating feelings because feelings of “outsiders”
and those of “insiders” are potentially very different from one another. In this light,
the cultural or political identity of the translator comes to the fore, and the translator
can ill-afford to be a cultural outsider. Assuming that insufficient empathy and
cultural understanding prevent the translator from doing a proper job, it can be said
that concentrating on the purely semantic aspect of translation is apparently not
enough without due attention being paid to nuanced phrasing and subtle cultural
distinctions embedded in the source text, for in many cases, feelings are implicitly
created and activated. More revealingly still, cultural images evocative of a
particular set of attitudes, feelings, reactions seem to defy reproduction in
translation. Further, as previously noted, substituted images provided to compensate
for the loss of original ones are likely to generate somewhat different feelings and
evoke different emotional response as far as the target reader is concerned.

123
282 Y. Sun

In truth, feelings and moods captured in the source text in a special social and
historical situation are deflected into the dimension of internal subjectivity of the
translator, whose attitude, to start with, toward the source text powerfully affects
how the task of translation is accomplished. Douglass Robinson emphasizes that
[t]ranslators are human beings, with opinions, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings.
Translators who are regularly required to translate texts that they find
abhorrent may be able to suppress their revulsion for a few weeks, or months,
possibly even years; but they will not be able to continue suppressing those
negative feelings forever. (2003, p. 26)
In practical terms, however, they need not suppress such feelings forever after the
job is done. Also, even though negative feelings are suppressed, an obvious lack of
enthusiasm for the job can be acutely felt by the target reader. Put differently, a
negative attitude may well be concealed as if to show neutrality with respect, but
will be projected in one way or another. Indeed, the lingering revulsion thus
harbored may have unforeseen repercussions when the translator is forced to
perform a similar task later.
Feelings such as attraction and aversion are, to a certain extent, culturally
conditioned. The distinction between communal and individual feelings concerns
how certain phrasing is chosen to calculate the balance of representation in
translation. In general, if feelings are hidden in the original, whether they should be
revealed in translation is open to debate—translation is characterized by demon-
strating more explicitness—but because of the possibility that such hidden feelings
are palpably less detectable for the target reader, at least they ought to be shown to
be hidden. There is no denying that some degree of universalism can be assumed,
including the basic feelings such as desire, greed, joy and anger, to be universally
shared. Still, it is necessary for translation to establish a contextual framework to
control feelings so that the target reader is able to respond to feelings that are
relatively unfamiliar to them. Principally for the reason that some strong cultural
images designed to evoke feelings in the original are met with indifference or even
abomination, preemptive measures are warranted.
Ideas and feelings are not always separable and thus aiming exclusively to
translate ideas only is certainly not enough. The fact that “the exchange of ideas and
feelings” are mentioned together by Robinson provides implicit support for the
importance of translating feelings (2003, p. 62). However, in relative terms, ideas
are manageable whereas feelings are not or less so. Translation activities during the
latter part of the Cultural Revolution in China in the 1970s when the ideological
control slackened, for example, testify to the resilience and adaptability of the target
reader in responding to feelings of characters in Western literature. It was the
political and social responsibility of the translator to manipulate the emotional
responses of the target reader. Officially, the target reader was supposed to be
“guided” in reading translations in a discriminating and critical way, and in some
cases, with hyperbolic disdain. Precisely for this reason, the translator was required
to develop personal detachment in translating Western texts, which were castigated
as immoral and decadent. Yet, in spite of strict official guidelines on which texts to
choose for translation, some translators’ subtle change of phrasing, be it deliberate

123
Cross-cultural translation 283

or uncontrolled, amounted to diminishing the imagined impact on the reader, who,

with their own political and aesthetic feelings, had a rather different reading
experience as opposed to what had been designed by the authorities.
Translation activity reveals a whole gamut of attitudes, feelings and impressions.
Feelings are in effect articulated intersubjectively in translation, which in turn
informs us of our beliefs, attitudes, thoughts, and expectations. However, we must
not make our cultural assumptions too hastily, as cautioned by Robinson:
if you are sensitive to the feelings of other people and other groups, you will
not deliberately use language that offends them, or blithely impose your
assumptions of what they must mean on their words; again, therefore, to do
your job well you will go ahead and make it harder. (2003, p. 193)
It is essential to learn about the feelings of strangers and also for translation to rouse
appropriate feelings in the target reader, but to reconcile the two approaches can be
very difficult and often impossible. It is only natural for the translator to feel
ambivalent about what or whose feelings to accommodate and present.
Indifferent or hostile feelings about the source text are related to a particular
political, cultural, or personal attitude. Indeed, feelings may reveal or capture the so-
called real intentions. The immediate relevance of the experience of feelings to
translation exposes the target reader to foreign otherness, fundamental to the act of
reading cultural translations replete with nuanced details. After all, it is the details in
cross-cultural translation that trigger emotional responses and also fall prey to the
complications of manipulation. Referring to theatrical performance in relation to
translation, Patrick Primavesi reminds us of the importance of details: “If there is a
translation of gestures, the translation itself contributes another gesture of
displacement and transformation. Therefore, the loss of small details determines
both the economy and the theatricality of language in translation” (1999, p. 58).
Translation is in need of being enlivened with an evocative range of devices to
effectively articulate feelings in recreating interactive forms in a cross-cultural
context.
The accumulated feelings and emotional expressions result in shaping opinions
and attitudes of the target readership, and, if feelings are transferred in a certain
way, the attitude of the target reader may be affected accordingly. Attitudes are
generally complex issues made up of cognitive understanding, feelings, beliefs, and
behaviors. In this sense, even a small detail can be significant. In Chapter 29 of Jane
Eyre, there is a narrative description of Diana’s voice: “Diana had a voice toned, to
my ear, like the cooing of a dove.” Diana Rivers is Jane’s cousin, and also her friend
and role model. Thus “the cooing of a dove” must be a pleasant sound. The three
extant translation versions treat this sentence differently. Version A: 黛安娜的声调
在我听来像鸽子的咕咕声 is perfectly faithful, and there is no need for back
translation. Version B: 黛安娜说话在我听来就像鸽子发出柔和的咕咕声 is more
or less the same as Version A except the added “柔和” (soft) to make sure that the
cooing sound is not unpleasantly loud. Version C: 黛安娜的声音, 在我听来, 就象
鸽子的咕咕声一样悦耳 rendered by a female translator, also contains an extra
word, meaning in Chinese “pleasant to the ear”. While Version A is characterized
by a neutral tone produced with serene dispassion, Version B brings out the soft

123
284 Y. Sun

quality of cooing, which is not supposedly loud anyway in English. Nevertheless,

the translator’s attentiveness to the possible effect on the target reader is of some
significance. Version C shows that the translator translates with feelings, resonating
with those of the protagonist whose admiring characterization of Diana is duly
foregrounded.1 Linguistic difference between English and Chinese justifies the
adjustment in versions B and C, because the word 鸽子 in Chinese does not exactly
denote whether it is a dove or a pigeon, and the truth is that more often than not, the
word 鸽子 probably refers to pigeon. In order to relate to the image of dove, some
details are added without specifying the bird as 白鸽 (dove or white pigeon in a
literal sense).

Rewriting and emotional response

It can be said that a suitably emotionally appealing translation engages the target
reader in a compelling way. To achieve this, emotional empathy on the part of the
translator is required. Guo Moruo, a famous poet and anthropologist once spoke of
such an emotional experience: “While translating Shelley’s poems, I had to be
Shelley, and made him myself […] I love Shelley and can share his aspirations.
Resonating with him, I am married to him – He and I are one” (1984, p. 334). This
poetically exaggerated statement is a reflection of many Chinese translators. It is no
doubt true, at least for poetry translation, to recreate an emotionally charged poetic
atmosphere in translation is essential. The repeated emphasis on the enduring
importance of emotional empathy helps develop the understanding of others, for the
tangibility of emotion is positively related to the efficacy of translation. One of the
concerns of cross-cultural translation is to address the position of outsideness
haunted by a sense of strangeness and alienation, which involves emotion that varies
across cultures and times.
It is no doubt helpful for the translator to overcome this alienating sense of
outsideness provided that they are able to choose their favourite texts to translate.
After all, the cultural inclinations and personal preferences of translators are factors
that may significantly affect the choice of the source texts for translation. This is
particularly true of writers/translators during the May Fourth Movement, during
which time many illustrious writes were enthusiastic translators of literary texts.
They were normally able to translate what appealed to themselves in the first place
so as to share with the target reader the source texts that had resonated with them.
For instance, Guo Moruo, a famous Chinese poet, was enthralled by the wide
youthful romance of Shelley, whose poetry and writings on poetry were a great
source of inspiration to and influence on his poetic creation. From the beginning of
the twentieth century, he began to select and translate Shelley’s most representative
poems into Chinese. He was passionately responsive to the original through a
spiritual dialogue with the English poet. Correspondingly, the translator wished to

1
Version A was translated by Huang Yuanshen, Nanjing: Yilin Press, 2006, Version B by Wu Junxie,
Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe, 2006 and Version C by Zhu Qingying, Shanghai: Yiwenchubanshe,
1988.

123
Cross-cultural translation 285

create an affective impact on the target reader as well. Another very important
Chinese poet, Xu Zhimo, riveted by the sensations of Byron’s poetry and his
libertine lifestyle, was eager to introduce Byron’s poetry to the Chinese readership
through translation. Even Xu’s premature death at the age of 36 was compared to
that of Byron. The latter’s ardour of youth inflamed by intense passion was
captured and conveyed in translation through the use of suitably rabid poetic target
language.
The translator’s affective identification with the original author, as discussed
above, shows that the overwhelming emotional experience of reading poetry can
indeed be shared by the target reader. This helps curtail a certain sense of alienation
and construct a degree of insideness. There is no doubt that outsideness casts into
doubt whether emotion can be shared cross-culturally and engenders a debilitating
sense of cultural exile and loss, which is usually accompanied, if not caused, by
emotional distance. This indifference characteristically registers a cross-cultural
conceit, barely extending beyond a superficial understanding of foreign otherness.
In view of this, only by establishing and developing, across space and time, an
immediate emotional rapport or resonance, can translation function properly and at
its best. Emotional empathy is an effective strategy to combat cultural indifference.
It is therefore important to offer a cultural perspective on emotion and to integrate
the emotional with the cultural in order to construct some sense of empathetic
insideness, which is crucial to cross-cultural understanding. Keri Brand aptly points
out: “Empathy is not used only for the sake of feeling for the other, but rather it is
used as a resource to sense and make sense of the other” (2006, p. 145).
Making sense of the other is not at the cost of losing oneself for emotional
empathy is not necessarily at odds with self-awareness and on the contrary, it may
indeed foster or strengthen the latter. Cormac Ó Cuilleanáin points out:
In order to be translated, certain texts requiring a focus on the “addresser”
(such as literary dialogue) have to be actualized in the translator’s mind, as a
virtual performance, with imagined people generating or receiving the impact
of what is said, particularly including the emotional impact. (Cuilleanáin
2011, p. 70)
The production and impact of signification hinge on feelings and emotion. The
performance of emotion may well be part of the centrepiece of the original. The
translator is also a performer and cannot play an adequate role without either his/her
own emotion or arousing emotion from the target reader. Translation as
performance becomes materialized through the translator’s subjectivity. To create
affective sharing between the self and the other through communication of feelings
is an intricate and challenging task. The relative primacy of the emotional/affective
elements of empathy is best reflected in insideness and penetrability.
It is plain to see that whether to intensify or attenuate the emotion articulated
rests with the translator whose decision is responsible for cultural resonance and
significance in translation. To gain a further understanding of the significance of
emotional empathy as being involved in the lexical-semantic processing, we can
observe that it is common that somewhat different feelings are aroused by different
translation versions. The example quoted below is from an essay by Zhu Ziqing,

123
286 Y. Sun

which is so famous that it has led to several translation versions. Two translations
are selected here, one by Yang Xianyi and his wife Gladys Yang, and the other by
Zhu Chunshen. Interestingly, the title 荷塘月色 is translated differently as “The
Lotus Pool by Moonlight” and “Moonlight over the Lotus Pond”:
我爱热闹, 也爱冷静; 爱群居, 也爱独处。像今晚上, 一个人在这苍茫的
月下, 什么都可以想, 什么都可以不想, 便觉是个自由的人。白天里一定
要做的事, 一定要说的话, 现在都可以不理。这是独处的妙处: 我且受用
这无边的荷塘月色好了。
Version A: I like both excitement and stillness, under the full moon, I could think
of whatever I pleased or of nothing at all, and that gave me a sense of freedom. All
daytime duties could be disregarded. That was the advantage of solitude: I could
savour to the full that expanse of fragrant lotus and the moonlight.
Version B: I like a serene and peaceful life, as much as a busy and active one; I
like being in solitude, as much as in company. As it is tonight, basking in a misty
moonshine all by myself, I feel I am a free man, free to think of anything, or of
nothing. All that one is obliged to do, or to say, in the daytime, can be very well cast
aside now. That is the beauty of being alone. For the moment, just let me indulge in
this profusion of moonlight and lotus fragrance.
At first glance, Version B is considerably longer than Version A, but does appear
to be wordy or ponderous, whereas Version A seems to be a down beat presentation
of a matter-of-fact reality. It is not difficult to distinguish between different types of
emotion evoked by comparing the two versions. Version B spares no efforts to
reproduce some emotionally charged details by re-creating the literary sophistica-
tion inherent in the original; nevertheless the translation makes it possible to convey
the emotional appeal to the target reader. Different translators react somewhat
differently to the same source text and as a result, are likely to produce different
emotional responses from the target reader. Among other things, it is the recreation
of intimacy—as evidenced in Version B—that helps generate emotion in the target
reader.
In the final analysis, whether the experience of reading translation is assisted by
the translator or not makes important difference to the target reader. While different
modes of affective response to the aesthetic materials in both the source and target
texts and in different target texts are perfectly natural, some underlying truth about
aesthetic emotion is also revealed. The translator is responsible for its impact on the
target reader. Emotional feelings may be expressed or aroused while cultural
differences are crucial to analyzing and transferring affective connotation of words,
phrases and sentences. One major challenge of translation is to recreate the actual
experience of emotion and present to the target reader forms of emotion and
consciousness in order to enhance their empathic understanding of and responsive-
ness to foreign otherness. It is therefore necessary for a translation to eliminate or at
least reduce alienation because it can seriously inhibit cross-cultural aesthetic
experience that must not deny the affective qualities of different cultural traditions.
To be sure, a cultural attitude devoid of ethnocentrism is centrally responsible for
engendering emotional rapport, intimacy, and reciprocal trust by embracing
emotional factors in translation.

123
Cross-cultural translation 287

The connection between aesthetic emotion and cultural attitude merits further
investigation. From the point of view of the target reader, the possibility of directly
experiencing what has happened to others as part of their own experience involves
the exploration of feelings and perspectives. There is no denying that a cultural
discrepancy may exist in terms of reacting to stimuli and sometimes complex
inferences rather than direct emotional reactions are more relevant to the
inexplicable experience of aesthetic emotion evoked by reading translation. Overall,
whether difference is readily acknowledged or even celebrated implies a cultural
attitude towards foreign otherness. Emotional authenticity is a true reflection of a
given cross-cultural communication. The efficacy of translation significantly
correlates with the translator’s true willingness to display foreign otherness, which
demonstrates a respect for the world of the other through abiding efforts to address
the relative inaccessibility of other cultures. A more flexible attitude toward other
cultures would bring the target reader into a different cultural experience. In reality,
affective expectation of the target reader can be fostered by the cross-cultural
attitude of the translator, whose interest lies in increasing emotional ownership on
behalf of the target reader so as to produce cosmopolitan emancipatory cross-
cultural outlooks and practices.

Rhetorical reproduction

If a literary translation only manages to reproduce the basic semantic content of the
original and none of the rhetorical elegance fails to be represented in the target text,
it does not do justice to the source text. The target reader, as a result, is deprived of
the aesthetic pleasure of reading the text. The importance of rhetoric is made
explicit by its power to evoke feelings and emotion. Thus it can be said that the
success of literary translation depends largely on whether attention is paid to
reproducing the rhetoric of the original so that the subsequent reading of the
translated text is just as plausible and persuasive, and more or less equally
interesting. But undeniably, since textual displacement causes changes in the
rhetorical situation, a translation needs to be appropriated rhetorically to reconfigure
the rhetorical praxis, the reason being that an effective literary translation is the
result of rhetorical invention.
Simply put, a direct or word-for-word translation in most cases nullifies the
rhetorical effect of the original, and an effective rhetorical template in the original
cannot be transferred to the target text as in foreignization. And stylistic parallels,
in this sense, may not work. Cicero’s statement about his experience of translating
models of Attick oratory makes an interesting point: “I did not translate them as an
interpreter but as an orator” (Quoted by Copeland 1991, p. 2). It is the task of the
translator to parallel the rhetorical patterning in the translated text with the aim of
restoring the cultural function of rhetoric, involving meaningful participation in
reproducing rhetorical praxis in translation. In view of the unsatisfactory
performance of literal translation without necessary mediation and appropriation,
the translator faces the challenge to match in rhetorical brilliance the corresponding
parts in the source text. The often quoted statement by Stanley Fish about what

123
288 Y. Sun

constitutes a rhetorical presentation is that “[a] presentation is rhetorical if it

satisfies the needs of its readers” (1972, p. 1). However, in view of the fact that the
rehabilitation of rhetoric in translation is a haphazard process, translation is
emblematic of the system of rhetoric of the target language in relation to its
normative standards. In rewriting the original, the translator supplants one system
of rhetoric with another, resulting in the somewhat localized rhetoric that is
essential in reproducing any of the rhetorical elegance associated with the source
text. Thus, the translated text is stamped with the attitudes and feelings of the
translator.
When it comes to retranslation, which is a call for rejuvenation, sometimes we
find that a robust new translation gives a new life to the work. What is that life? One
of the reasons is that the experience of the feelings of others is made more direct and
immediate. Sometimes this efficacy is achieved through contravening or sacrificing
surface meaning. Scrutinizing the interior anatomy of translation, if it is not
considered as a version of imitative practice, reveals that the transmission of
rhetoric is carried out in relation to translational attitudes, and thus the related forms
of cultural interventions in capturing or reproducing nuanced feelings in translated
texts also become a pertinent issue. As Lauren G. Leighton observes, “… two
independently created translations can both be remarkably faithful to the original
yet differ radically from each other.” He goes on to say: “In fact, with the exception
of specific coincidences of lexical choices and imagery, translations rarely coincide”
(1994, p. 70). What sets them apart, among other things, may well be the use of
rhetoric in translation. Sometimes the level of rhetoric is no less important than the
level of principle in relation to reading experience.
Rhetoric is important for literature, and for the same reason, also for literary
translation. A given rhetoric, even though unintentionally employed, can be used to
sanction a different cultural or ideological value in translation, particularly when the
target culture happens to be in a state of openness to foreign cultures. Above all, the
rhetoric of feelings is perceived to resonate with most people irrespective of their
cultural, social, religious, and political backgrounds. For this reason, translation
must find ways to overcome the alienating quality of the rhetoric in the source text
in transferring rhetoric into a different cultural realityit. Although a distancing effect
on the target reader may be produced by a not entirely idiomatic translation, they are
at least given the opportunity to experience something different—including a
different rhetoric—in a not so indirect manner. Translation often challenges
traditional values deeply rooted in the target system and a more prudent rhetoric
about sensitive moral or religious issues may well be in order. Depending on the
translational attitude, to translate can mean to transfer rhetoric so that the effect of
reading translation is manifest in experiencing the original, or more or less
authentic, feelings communicated through rhetoric. In addition, to reduce untrans-
latability and enhance readability, rhetorical devices commonly found in the target
system are also used. As Heike Bauer puts it, “… a text may be translatable while
simultaneously being modified in translation to better fit the translator’s cultural
context” (2003, p. 384). The degree of commitment to adapting foreign otherness to
the unique needs of the target culture determines the outcome of translation by
promoting a modified and transformed aesthetic appeal.

123
Cross-cultural translation 289

The rhetorical repertory of one language is apparently different from that of

another. And different layers of rhetoric are designed to invoke the rhetoric for a
different purpose, be it political, ideological, aesthetic, or cultural. For instance, the
fiery rhetoric employed in translating The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels shows an overpowering urge to overthrow capitalism, which for
many years was an important part of the political doctrine of the Chinese
Communist Party.2 Its last line in English, from which the Chinese was translated,
reads “Its [the bourgeoisie’s] fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally
inevitable.” This makes a grand rhetorical gesture, encompassing all human
injustice to be eliminated. Ideologically driven, its Chinese translation employs the
elevated rhetoric of political will. While the basic rhetoric structure is not difficult to
retain in Chinese translation, the word “fall” is rendered into “灭亡”, meaning death
or demise. Its immediate context warrants this translation for the previous sentence
contains “grave-diggers”. Nonetheless, not only the attitude, but also the political
identity of the translator is evidenced by this choice of word in translation. Another
example from The Communist Manifesto is also striking: “The cheap prices of
commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely
obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate.” Somehow “it destroys all great walls”
(back translation) is inserted in the translation to heighten the sensuality of the
reading experience. This introduction of a localized cultural image appeals
rhetorically to the target reader for political action.
Concerning the tragic fate of the Space Shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003,
one sentence from a news report, “debris was seen falling from the skies above
Texas”, also contains the word “fall”, which has an objective ring. But the Chinese
translation chooses “飘落” to add something extra to the original word. It is a word
for snow falling reminiscent of a poetic image. It suggests a kind “beauty in the
mourning” (Yin and Zhou 2005, p. 91). A similar rhetoric word is used in translating
“The Columbia was lost…” The Chinese version for “lost” is “陨落,” which refers
to the image of a shooting with star a bright streak of light dash across the sky (Yin
and Zhou 2005, p. 91). It is also for the memory of the astronauts who did not
survive the disaster that this Chinese word is chosen. The feelings of the translator
are expressed through the attitude shared with the original author: warmth, empathy,
and sincerity, albeit through a somewhat different rhetorical device. The choice of
the two words in a rhetorical sense captures the feelings of sadness in the source
text.
Rhetoric in translation is a highly efficient means to convey the feelings of
sympathy and the translator must read between the lines to capture the nuanced
subtle differences hidden in the source text, leaving the same mixture of feelings of
admiration, intrigue, frustration and critique. As argued by Joyce Davidson and
others, “Understanding the emotional dimensions of artistic, political, and

2
Chen Wangdao was the first person to translate The Communist Manifesto into Chinese in its entirety. In
1915 he studied in Japan and returned to China in June 1919. A year later, he was involved in the
activities organized by a communist group in Shanghai established by Chen Duxiu, one of the founding
members of the Chinese Communist Party. By the end of 1919, he had completed the translation of The
Communist Manifesto based on Japanese and English versions. The translated text was officially
published by the Shanghai Socialist Society funded by the Communist International.

123
290 Y. Sun

commercial representations in relation to their various spatial and temporal contexts

is therefore a project of considerable importance and urgency for critical social
scientists” (Davidson et al. 2005, p. 11). Translators also need to undertake a similar
task with equal urgency and importance attached to it. Such dimensions are a
palpable indication of how indispensable rhetoric is in translating texts related to
human experience. Literary translation is an art form and often found to use the
power of artistic representation that invariably involves feelings and emotions. It is
argued that “however problematic efforts to represent emotion might be, art forms
[…] often seek to represent as well as to evoke emotions, and these representations
provide useful insight into cultural constructions of emotion” (Davidson et al. 2005,
p. 11). Nonetheless, the transference of rhetoric being what it is should also be a
psychological transference. Translation entails the linguistic and cultural interplay
between two sets of rhetoric, and by exploring and reconciling them, cultural
tensions may be avoided.
Cultural vitality and authenticity are usually associated with rhetoric, which is
not merely confined to surface meaning. Because if “semantically exact interpre-
tation” is not “necessarily a lexical one” (Rosengrant 1994, p. 14), the reproduction
of the formal features is to give rise to an inappropriate rhetorical effect.
Consequently, the subjectivity of the translator has a crucial role to play in
producing a satisfactory translation work. Judson Rosengrant emphasizes the
importance of “subjective reading” in relation to creativity in translation:
In the case of the subjective reading, the original work serves to inspire the
translator-poet’s own invention. He is “stimulated” by it, his mind and
sensibility “resonate” with it (either directly or, in an increasingly common
practice, thought an informant), and in varying degrees of latitude he “recasts”
it as he imagines the original author “should have done” had he been writing in
the translator’s own idiom and in his time and place. (1994, p. 17)
Unless the imagination of the translator is activated accordingly, the task of
translation cannot be accomplished with suitable rigour and delicacy. But we must
also bear in mind that the “subjective reading” is a delimited one. Even so, the
translator can make good use of the “varying degrees of latitude” to allow their
imagination to “create” something comparable in merits to the original.

Conclusion

Thoughts and feelings are conjoined, but the former may be adversely affected if
the latter is presented inaccurately in translation. Translational subjectivity
manifests itself in multifarious strategies through an enabling gesture of cultural
intervention to control or manipulate translation. The loss or displacement of the
details of complex patterns of feelings inherent in the source text tend to bring
about distorted emotional representation in the translated text. Very often, the
distortion of translation does not occur at the semantic level; rather, in a more
subtle way, it derives from problematic attitudes or feelings in relation to
translation, and thus fails to do full justice to the experience of reading translation.

123
Cross-cultural translation 291

Not allowing the original author’s conscious or unconscious feelings to be

projected into the newly created space in translation is tantamount to changing
cognitive representation, as if to impose the translator’s own attitudes or feelings
on the translated text. If the language of the source text is invested with the
experiences and feelings of the original author, there is no reason why the
language of the target text should be dry and listless. The rich linguistic texture is
to be reproduced in translation. Substantive neutrality would mean minimal
intervention. But this is not exactly practical or helpful. Lack of empathy would in
turn lead to imprecision in rendering the rich and complex spectrum of attitudes
and feelings in the original.
Translation practices are linked with their intercultural context, in which a
variety of styles and discourse options are available to the translator in view of the
original author’s attitudes, feelings, judgments, and commitments. Transporting
meaning from one language to another constitutes a primary level of translation of
the basic information, but this is no more than a cognitive representation.
Increasingly, the failure to engage translation in a more interactive mode of cross-
cultural communication is felt to be inappropriate and insensitive. On the one
hand, the display of indifference, or any reluctance to intervene may well impede
the operation of translation. On the other, however, the contingent outcome of
translation is virtually dependent on the attitude of the translator whose act of
rewriting reflects and is constrained by a set of attitudes or feelings typically
associated with the target system. Cultural or political constraints governing the
rewriting process of producing translations are often discovered empirically.
Despite or because of the subjectivity of the translator whose pivotal role in
translation is increasingly recognized, the emotions and feelings in the original are
effectively transmitted along with the basic semantic information. Therefore,
whether the translator knowingly distances themselves from the source text,
cultural mediation and intervention indispensable to the success of any translation
create a complex distancing effect fraught with dynamic tension and transforma-
tive power.

References

Bauer, H. (2003). Not a translation but a mutilation: the limits of translation and the discipline of
sexology. The Yale Journal of Criticism, 16(3), 381–405.
Brand, K. (2006). Intelligent bodies: Embodied subjectivity human-horse communication. In D. D.
Waskul & P. Vanninin (Eds.), Body/embodiment: Symbolic interaction and the sociology of the body
(pp. 141–152). Aldershot & Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
Butler, C. (1984, rpt. 1998). Interpretation, deconstruction, and ideology: An introduction to some current
issues in literary theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Copeland, R. (1991). Rhetoric, hermeneutics, and translation in the middle ages: Academic traditions and
vernacular texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cuilleanáin, C. Ó. (2011). Channelling emotions, eliciting responses: Translation as performance. In K.
Sheilds & M. Clarke (Eds.), Translating emotion: Studies in transformation and renewal between
languages (pp. 67–85). Bern: Peter Lang.
Davidson, J., et al. (2005). Introduction. In J. Davidson, L. Bondi, & M. Smith (Eds.), Emotional
geographies (pp. 1–18). Aldershot & Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
Fish, S. (1972). Self-consuming artifacts. Berkeley: University of California Press.

123
292 Y. Sun

Guo, M. (1984). Xuelai shixuan Xiaoxu (Preface to Selected Poems by Shelley). In X. Luo (Ed.), Fanyi
lunji (Collection of essays on translation) (pp. 333–334). Beijing: Commercial Press.
Kothari, R. (2007). The translation of Dalit literature into English. In J. Munday (Ed.), Translation as
intervention. London: Continum.
Leighton, L. G. (1994). Translation and plagiarism: Puškin and D. M. Thomas. The Slavic and East
European Journal, 38(1), 69–83.
Primavesi, P. (1999). The performance of translation: Benjamin and Brecht on the loss of small details.
TDR, 43(4), 53–59.
Robinson, D. (2003). Becoming a translator: An introduction to the theory and practice of translation.
London: Routledge.
Rosengrant, J. (1994). Nabokov, Onegin, and the theory of translation. The Slavic and East European
Journal, 38(1), 13–27.
Sharma, K. K. (1988). Rabindranath Tagore’s aesthetics. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications.
Simon, S. (1996). Gender in translation. New York: Routledge.
Simon, S. (1999). Translating and interlingual creation in the contact zone: Border writing in Quebec. In
S. Bassnett & H. Trivedipp (Eds.), Post-colonial translation: Theory and practice (pp. 58–74). New
York: Routledge.
Wechsler, R. (1998). Performing without a stage: The art of literary translation. North Haven: Catbird
Press.
Yin, Y., & Zhou, D. (2005). The subjectivity of emotional words and their translation (Ciqu de qinggan
zhuguanxing yu fanyi). Journal of Shandong College of Education (Shandong jiaoyu xueyuan
xuebao), 19(1), 90–93.

123