The Explicitation in English Translation of Chinese Ancient Books from the Perspective of H/L Context Culture

Han Mengqi

(School of Foreign Studies North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power，Zhengzhou Henan 450011)

Ⅰ．Introduction

Edward T．Hall pointed out that all human communications are influenced by context．It was Hall who firstly put forward the concept of high and low context cultures in Beyond Cultures(1976)．“A high－context(HC)communication or message is one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person，while very little is in the coded，explicit，transmitted part of message．A low－context(LC)communication or message is just the opposite;i．e．，the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code．”(Hall，1976:90)In HC cultures，the communicators have internalized information and meaning in the current contexts，and little is clearly stated in written or spoken words．Their meaning，to a large degree，relies on the common knowledge or information that they have shared，so that a few words can express a lot of messages in the given context．As a result，the receiver of the message needs to predicate the meaning from the context by relating to his experience．While in LC cultures，the communicators focus on the content of their communication but not the context．The mass of communication will depend on explicit language．

According to Hall，China falls into high－context cultures in which people are very homogenous and the tradition and history change very little over time．“As a result，for most normal transactions in daily life，they do not require，nor do they expect，much in－depth，background information．”(Hall＆ Hall，1990:7)On the contrary，the U ．S．，Britain and other European countries fall into the category of LC cultures in which the people are less homogenous．Because of their lack of common experiences，“each time they interactwith others they need detailed background information(ibid)”．Then，based on this theory，many scholars have explored to find the differences between high－context and low－context cultures．

M．W．Lustig and J．Koester(2007:114)have generalized the different characteristics of the communication styles in HC and LC cultures as the following．High context cultures are characterized by covert，implicit and internalized messages，and contain much nonverbal coding．However，in LC cultures，messages are usually overt，explicit，plainly coded，details verbalized．

Chinese，as a paratactic language，which is opposed to hypotactic English，relies on information within sentences to develop thoughts and present ideas between sentences．“The logic and causal relationship between sentences can be inferred from the context．This is the characteristic of Chinese language and also the common consensus of many Chinese language scholars．(Chen，2003:56)．This means that the users of Chinese can grasp the logical relationship between sentences according to the context．But，when it comes to the translation of Chinese，they have to be explicated in case of ambiguities so that the message can be overt，clear and plainly coded．

As for Chinese ancient books，their implicitness can be words with cultural connotation，abundant sentences without subjects，fewer connectives，etc．That is to say，the source text must have some implicit meanings which can be translated explicitly．When these problems occur，methods such as addition，specification，adaptation，reconstruction，etc，can be adopted to make the translation explicit for readers．

Ⅱ．Explicitation and previous research

Explicitation is a translation technique of explaining the implicit information of the source text in a clearer and simpler way in the process of translation．In 1958，the concept of explicitation was first introduced by Vinay and Darbelnet in their comparative study on styles of the French and English lan-guages as“the process of introducing information into the target language which is present only implicitly in the source language，but which can be derived from the context or the situation”(1995:8)．What then became known as the“explicitation hypothesis”was formulated by Blum－Kulka(1986)who is considered by many to have conducted the first systematic study of explicitation．In its historical development，the hypothesis broadly states that a translation will be more explicit than a corresponding nontranslation，which may be either the source text or a parallel text in the target language．Drawing on concepts and descriptive terms developed within discourse analysis，Blum－Kulka explored explicitation at discourse level，that is，explicitation connected with shifts of cohesion and coherence(overt and covert textual markers)in translation．Shifts of cohesive markers can be partly attributed to the different grammatical systems of languages or the different stylistic preferences for certain types of cohesive markers in different languages．According to the explicitation hypothesis，the process of translation is primarily responsible for explicitation．

A lot of studies about explicitation have been conducted at home and abroad．Foreign scholars mainlyinclude Blum－Kulka(1986)，Baker(1993)，Klaudy(1993，1996，1998)，Kenny(2001)，etc．Scholars in China mainly include He Xianbin(2003)，Wang Kefei(2003)，Ke Fei(2005)，Huang Libo and Wang Kefei(2006)，Zhou Hongmin(2007)，Huang Guowen(2015)，etc．This paper is also about explicitation in translation，but the research focuses on the translation of ancient Chinese books in the view of high and low context culture．

Ⅲ．Explicitation strategies

It is well known that ancient Chinese is a pictographic language while English is alphabetical．In contrast with other languages，classical Chinese is characterized by its high density，the seeming style of telegrams，grammatical versatility，sparing use of tense and number，etc．(Baker，2004:365)These features may explain the difference in length of the original Chinese texts and their English versions．The original Chinese text is often brief and concise，but the translated versions out of ancient Chinese，including those translated into modern Chinese，are always longer because the translators added some explanation of the original meaning in the translating process so that the meaning can be clear．Therefore，it can be concluded that translation out of ancient Chinese leads to an increase in the length of the translated version．

Besides，many Chinese cultural images are often used in ancient Chinese books，especially some allusions，quotations from Chinese philosophy and religions．The common cultural knowledge shared by the ancient Chinese people，if not explicitly explained，could lead to difficulties for foreign readers．

The paper，on the basis of analysis of the two translation versions of Cai Gen Tan，translated by Jiang Jiansong and Paul White respectively，focuses on the most common and recurrent occurrences of the explicitation phenomenon，and finds that three types of explicitation are mainly adopted within the texts，including lexical explicitation，subjects explicitation and that of cohesion and coherence．The analysis of the two texts(Cai Gen Tan)shows that explicitation is achieved by means of addition，specification，adaptation and reconstruction，etc．

1．Lexical explicitation

Since the original book of Cai Gen Tan was written in ancient Chinese，the modern Chinese version is more redundant than the original．And likewise，a translator who translates from modern Chinese into English also adds more words to express the original meaning．More often than not，semantically，the lexical items cause some problems in understanding．And some lexical items in ST(source text)contain much complex meanings，which require extra explanation．

(1)Addition

Addition means to insert extra words in the target text to facilitate readers’understanding．The extra words can be grammatical，lexical，syntactic，rhetorical or cultural types．Though the number of words is increased，the semantic content of the original message remains unchanged．The purpose is to clarify the seemingly ambiguous semantic elements．

In Cai Gen Tan，many words and phrases are related with oriental culture，and the cultural differences may form a barrier to the target readers．Therefore，translators have to try their best to change or retain the Chinese cultural images in the target language．Because of the uniqueness of the Cai Gen Tan which is a crystallization of Chinese culture，translators should be well familiar with the relevant knowledge．Considering the differences in cultural and background information，translators need to facilitate the comprehension of the TT(target text)readership．This is why explicitation is adopted to make meaning of the text fully understood．In this case，translators usually add background information to explain the implicit cultural connotation．

(2)Specification

Specification refers to replacing a general and polysemantic word with a specific and narrow one．It involves more detailed and transparent meanings or incorporates the use of words that are lexically denser than those in the original．

(3)Adaptation

Adaptation refers to a translation method which focuses on TL when dealing with cultural factors．A translation which is more natural in TL is regarded as more legitimate．Nida is a typical advocator of adaptation．In The Theory and Practice of Translation，he defines translating as“… reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language，first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style”(Nida，1969:12)According to Nida，some idioms and terms of image，which have similar meaning but different cultural connotation，can be replaced by TL equivalents．

2．Subjects Explicitation

Since English and Chinese belong to two language systems，they are different in many regards．A case in point is at the syntactical level．

In Chinese there are many subjectless sentences because，according to the context and the logic，the subject，object or even predicate of a sentence is usually unnecessary and omitted．While in English，sentences are made basically on SVO structure，in which subject，object(if any)and predicate(apart from special patterns)are usually needed．

In Chinese－English translation，in order to meet the needs of readers and clear expression，considering the differences of the two languages and social cultures，the translators tend to make explicit some parts of a sentence，which is mostly the subject，usually by adding it．In the following example，both translators added subject in their English version．

3．Explicitation of Cohesion and Coherence

As Baker remarked，“Cohesion is the network of surface relations which link words and expressions to other words and expressions in a text，and coherence is the network of conceptual relations which underlie the surface text．”(Baker，1992:218)．Coherent writing is dependent on how sentences fit together to form a whole．Compared with English texts，which “…must have semantic coherence as well as sufficient signals of surface cohesion to enable the reader to capture the coherence”(Conner，1990，p．1)，Chinese writings are loosely connected by some hidden logic，which though coherent，are not linguistically cohesive．In contrast，English natives make use of overt cohesive devices to avoid ambiguity．Such coordinating conjunctions as“and”，“but”，“yet”，“or”are often added in English versions．Without them，English sentences would be ill－formed．

Sentences in Chinese texts usually fit together coherently with less or no cohesive devices at all．A text is organized and linked by meaning instead of form．In ancient classical Chinese，this is quite common．Thus，when translated into English，reconstruction of a sentence usually has to be adopted，with cohesive devices added to explicate the logic relation between clauses and show the unity of form and meaning．The following example can illustrate this kind of explicitation．

Ⅳ．Conclusion

Translation is a cross－cultural communication which has to meet the needs of target readers．Due to great differences between English and Chinese and their cultures，efforts have to be made in the translation，and explicitation is a commonly used technique．Through the analysis of the two translation versions of Cai Gen Tan，it is found that three types of explicitation are com-monly adopted in order to meet the need of target readers，show the unity of form and meaning of the source texts and reach the goal of the translation．In dealing with different kind of languages，there might be some features in common．Finding these features may help trans lators in their practice．

〔1〕Hall，E．T．， Beyond Culture，New York:Doubleday，1976．

〔2〕Hall，E．T．＆ Hall，M．R．， Understanding Cultural Differences:German，F(xiàn)rench and Americans，Yarmouth，ME:Intercultural Press，1990．

〔3〕M．W．Lustig and Koester，J．， Intercultural Competence:Interpersonal Communication Across Cultures(fifth edition)M，Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press，2007．

〔4〕Chen J．W．， Corpus－based translation studies:research and applications in the Chinese context，English Conference on Translation and Interpreting Training，Taipei，Taiwan，2003．

〔5〕Vinay，Jean－Paul＆ Darbelnet，Jean．， Comparative Stylistics of French and English:A Methodology for Translation，Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing Company，1995．

〔7〕Blum－kulka，S．，Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation，In L．Venuti(ed．)， The Translation Studies Reader，London ＆ New York:Routledge，1986．

〔8〕Baker，M．，Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies:Implications and Applications，In M．Baker，G．Francis＆ E．Amsterdam ＆ Philadelphia:John Benjamins，1993．

〔9〕Klaudy，K．，On Explicitation Hypothesis，In K．Klaud＆ J．Kohn(eds)， Current Issues of Translation Theory，Szombathely:Berzsenyi Daniel，1993．

〔10〕Klaudy，K．，Back－translation as a tool for detecting explicitation strategies in translation A．in K．Klaudy，J．Lambert＆Sohar(eds．)， Translation Studies in Hungary，Budapest:Scholastica，1996．

〔11〕Klaudy，K．，Explicitation A(kuohao)．In M．Baker(ed．)， Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies，Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press，1998．

〔12〕Kenny，D．， Lexis and Creativity in Translation:A Corpus－based Study，Manchester:St．Jerome Publishing，2001．

〔13〕賀顯斌:《英漢翻譯過程中的明晰化現(xiàn)象》，《解放軍外國語學院學報》2003年第4期，第63－66頁。

〔14〕王克非:《英漢/漢英語句對應的語料庫考察》，《外語教學與研究》2003年第6期，第410－416頁。

〔15〕柯飛:《翻譯中的隱和顯》，《外語教學與研究》2005年第4期，第303－307頁。

〔16〕黃立波、王克非:《翻譯普遍性研究反思》，《中國翻譯》2006年第5期，第36－40頁。

〔17〕周紅民:《論翻譯中的“顯化”現(xiàn)象》，《外語研究》2007年第6期，第75－79頁。

〔18〕黃國文:《功能語篇分析視角下的翻譯顯化研究》，《外語與外語教學》2015第3期，第41－47頁。

〔19〕Baker，Mona， Routledge’s Encyclopedia of Translation Studies，Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press，2004．

〔20〕Eugene A．Nida， The Theory and Practice of Translation，Leiden:E．J．Brill，1969，p．12．

〔21〕Baker，Mona， In Other Words — a coursebook on translation，Routledge:London ＆ New York，1992．

〔22〕Conner Ulla＆ Johns M．Ann，Ed．， Cohesion in writing— research and Pedagogical perspectives．Teachers of English of Speakers of Other Languages，Inc．Alexandria，Virginia，Printed in the USA，1990．