Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Editor's Introduction

Editor's Introduction Vi Howard Choy. They each are translating in several directions, among multiple ideolects: late Qing dynasty poetics, embedded in language controversies stretching back a millennium; nineteenth- and twentieth-century social scientific English; H o n g Kong dialects; and post-Mao standard Chinese, now a globalized lingua franca. Translation required on Choy’s part a stock of philosophic knowledge in several traditions, much library research, and frequent gainsaying between the author and himself, leading, as bilingual readers will see, to the eventual surrender of the many to the one. Beijing film critic Dai Jinhua, whose essay “Invisible Women: Contemporary Chinese Cinema and Women’s Film” appears in the Commentary section, also engages necessarily in complex translation performances. Dai’s references are primarily to Anglophone and Francophone feminisms, which she translates to her location, just as Wang makes situated readings of the science problematic in Europe, China, and Japan. Like him, she is engaged in correlating and combining linguistic differences in order to configure a unified, discursive body of translation. When PRC critics pose epistemological questions like “What language did the Chinese use . . . and why?” they join the general project H u Ying delineates in her essay, “The Translator Transfigured: Lin http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png positions asia critique Duke University Press

Editor's Introduction

positions asia critique , Volume 3 (1) – Mar 1, 1995

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/editor-s-introduction-30R09PaxZ3

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 1995 by Duke University Press
ISSN
1067-9847
eISSN
1527-8271
DOI
10.1215/10679847-3-1-v
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Vi Howard Choy. They each are translating in several directions, among multiple ideolects: late Qing dynasty poetics, embedded in language controversies stretching back a millennium; nineteenth- and twentieth-century social scientific English; H o n g Kong dialects; and post-Mao standard Chinese, now a globalized lingua franca. Translation required on Choy’s part a stock of philosophic knowledge in several traditions, much library research, and frequent gainsaying between the author and himself, leading, as bilingual readers will see, to the eventual surrender of the many to the one. Beijing film critic Dai Jinhua, whose essay “Invisible Women: Contemporary Chinese Cinema and Women’s Film” appears in the Commentary section, also engages necessarily in complex translation performances. Dai’s references are primarily to Anglophone and Francophone feminisms, which she translates to her location, just as Wang makes situated readings of the science problematic in Europe, China, and Japan. Like him, she is engaged in correlating and combining linguistic differences in order to configure a unified, discursive body of translation. When PRC critics pose epistemological questions like “What language did the Chinese use . . . and why?” they join the general project H u Ying delineates in her essay, “The Translator Transfigured: Lin

Journal

positions asia critiqueDuke University Press

Published: Mar 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.