Sun Tzu the man, English versions of The Art of War, and Background of the Problem

prevalent, is also the author an important Chinese treatise on military strategies and tactics. The information that we do know about him are from ancient historians like Sima Qian (司馬遷). In his Historical Records (completed in 100 B.C.) Sima writes that Sun Tzu was a native of Ch’I State (齊國), who presented The Art of War to Ho-lu (闔閭), the king of Wu State (吳) during 6th century B.C (Griffith, 1963, p. iii). But even though Sima’s Historical Records state that Sun Tzu’s treatise did exist during this period, many scholars have questioned the validity of the date of the treatise’s existence. For instance, an 11th century Song scholar, Yeh Cheng-tse (葉適), suspected that Sun Tzu never existed and that The Art of War was a “fabrication of disputatious sophists” written during the Warring States period (453-221 B.C.) (Griffith, 1963, p. 1).

According to Sima, Sun Tzu was a general of Wu State during the reign of King Ho-lu, but Yeh states that he is not mentioned in Tso Ch’iu Ming’s (左丘明) commentary in the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Lu State. Yeh also refutes the assumption that armies during the Spring and Autumn period were commanded by rulers, members of their families, powerful liege, or trusted ministers, noting that it was only during the Warring States period that armies were commanded by professional generals (Walker, 1953, p.939). Since much of Sun Tzu’s life is shrouded in mystery, many have arrived at the same conclusion: we will never truly be sure of Sun Tzu’s existence. Ergo, there will be a few things that will remain a mystery: when was Sun Tzu born, what was the exact time period of his existence, was he really a general, did he write The Art of War, and so on. These are just a few questions that will remain unanswered in the

2

absence of new evidence. Therefore we must conclude that The Art of War is authorship unsettled. Even to this day, most his life remains quite a mystery.

The man known as Sun Tzu, whoever he might be, is best known as the author of the military treatise known as The Art of War (孫子兵法). Sun Tzu’s treatise doesn’t include how to utilize weapons or how to train soldiers, but rather gives strategic suggestions to the commander.

The thirteen chapters in his treatise explain what commanders should avoid or do in regard to how to treat the soldiers, their morale, or even how to utilize spies. There are various topics that Sun Tzu covers, and they all correlate to not only war but how to successfully obtain victory.

The ancient Chinese format of the treatise, as previously stated, has thirteen chapters. The format of the text is unlike traditional novels, where there are paragraphs that divide each idea. Rather the format of Sun Tzu’s treatise is organized in short verses, similar to that of a poem. Since ancient Chinese utilizes characters differently than that of modern day Chinese, the length of ancient Chinese sentences are much shorter in length but still retain a lengthy meaning. The format for the English translations of The Art of War varies: some translators have decided to use a numbering system for each verse, while others have opted to keep the format of the original ancient Chinese text.

English Translations of The Art of War

The first Western translation of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War was published in Paris in 1782, by a Jesuit Father, Joseph Amiot (Giles, 1904, p. vii). Amiot’s translation gave other Western countries easier access to the text and eventually this French translation paved a path to allow other Latin based languages access the ancient Chinese text of The Art of War. The following paragraphs below introduce the translators behind the three of its many English translation of Sun Tzu’s treatise.

3

The first translator that we will discuss is that of Brigadier General Samuel B. Griffith (May 31, 1906 – March 27, 1983) (Ban, 2012, p. 1-2). On Amazon’s best sellers rank, Griffith’s translation of The Art of War is placed at 28,104¹ (rank # 1 is the best seller). Griffith served in the United States Marine Corps and participated in World War II. Upon his retirement from the Marine Corps, in 1961 he attended Oxford College to earn his Doctorate of Philosophy (D.Phil.) in Chinese Military History (Ban, 2012, p. 1-2). His thesis topic was the translation of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. Even though there are many translations of The Art of War, Griffith's translation is a requirement at the Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College (Ban, 2012, p. v).

Many various translations stress the philosophical aspects of Sun Tzu's work but Griffith, on the other hand, focuses on the military ideologies, which one can expect from a translator having a military background.

The second translator is Ralph Sawyer, who studied Chinese Intellectual History at Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and National Taiwan University (sonshi.net, “Ralph Sawyer interview,” n.d.). On Amazon’s best sellers rank, Sawyer’s

translation of The Art of War is placed at 224,474² (rank # 1 is the best seller). Sawyer is also a translator and has contributed many translations such as Ling Ch'I Ching, The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, and Sun Pin's Military Methods (sonshi.net, “Ralph Sawyer interview,” n.d.). Sawyer was intrigued with Chinese studies just when the Vietnam War was intensifying. As mentioned in the interview, Sawyer believes that Chinese military history was

11Amazon Best Seller Ranking.

https://www.amazon.com/Art-War-B-Liddell-Hart/dp/0195014766/re f=sr_1_ 4?ie =UTF8&qid=1484304911&sr=8 -4&key words=sun+tzu+the+art+of+war

2

https://www.amazon.com/Art-War-History-Warfare/dp/081331951X/re f=sr_1_2? ie =UTF8&qid=1484305042&sr=8 -2&key words=sun+tzu+sawyer

4

unstudied and depreciated. Not only a scholar but also a businessman, he stated that The Art of War not only reflects the dynamics of business but also can apply to daily livelihood. Having read Sawyer's translation, it is apparent that his translation does a thorough job of focusing on the more military and political aspects of The Art of War. Sawyer spends a great effort into

translating various ancient Chinese weapons that are utilized during the Warring State period of China.

The last translator to be considered is Thomas Cleary (born in 1949) with a Ph.D. in East Asian Languages and Civilizations from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley (sonshi.net, “Thomas Cleary interview,” n.d.). On Amazon’s best sellers rank, Cleary’s translation of The Art of War is placed at 26,522³ (rank # 1 is the best seller). He has also translated various books dealing with East Asian religions. In 1988 he published his translation and interpretation of The Art of War. Cleary's translation differs vastly from Griffith's, its focus being on the more religious and philosophical side of Sun Tzu's manual. Cleary's

translation ties in ideas from I Ching and Tao Te Ching (sonshi.net, “Thomas Cleary interview,”

n.d.). In an interview, Cleary indicates that he first took an interest in translation when he was a teenager and at the time was also interested in Buddhism. During his interview, Cleary

mentioned that one of the main reasons he took the challenge to translate The Art of War was because many western versions focused primarily on the military and political aspect of The Art of War. Cleary wanted to ‘breathe life’ to the text by adding and focusing on the religious and philosophical aspects such as tying in his translation with Taoism (sonshi.net, “Thomas Cleary interview,” n.d.).

3 https://www.amazon.com/Art-War-Translation-Shambhala -Library-ebook/dp/B00DC6Q30U/ ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me =

5 1.2 Statement & Background of the Problem

Language, the means to communicate within the same species, is an important tool of human expression. Having the ability to communicate allows the growth and proliferation of cultures and nations. Thus, this brings us to the current problem at hand, how does one cross language barriers and able to explain and translate culture-specific items (CSI) that occur within each language. In the field of Translation Studies there are two main views on how to translate CSI. Some argue that culture and translation harmoniously exist and with the suitable procedures can be translated, while others believe that cultural-specific items are untranslatable, and by trying to cross language barriers, the original meaning becomes lost in translation. Regardless of what people believe, language and culture can coexist and there are various examples, such as translated ancient texts, that show us language and culture can work harmoniously and that there are possible methods to solve CSI differences. This thesis will aim to cover the following issues:

how do culture and language coexist, how do the three translators mentioned above approach and translate CSI, what recurring translation principles will be applied when rendering CSI, and which translations and its methods are most suitable to translate culture differences in different languages.

This thesis aims to use three of many well-known English translations of Sun Tzu’s treatise to understand what strategies these successful translators used to overcome culture-specific items while translating. Besides discovering what strategies these three translators might utilize, the researcher believes that there is a possible solution to quell the CSI headache, even if some scholars and translators think otherwise. The theories mentioned in this research are commonly taught to students when taking Translation Studies courses. By selecting these three

6

commonly seen and taught theories, the researcher aims to show readers and translators that there indeed is a possible method to overcome CSI’s when translating. But where does this problem stem from? Although this is a very open-ended question, the origins of the research problem derive from culture and language. The researcher believes that culture and language are two peas in a pod. Certainly, there are other outlets of representing culture such as music or art, but language is the core, or ‘building block,’ of culture and society. Many people believe that the translator's job is to simply render the original text’s meaning into the target text, simple as that no ifs or buts, but translating is not as black and white as it may seem. Hidden within Translation Studies is a thin line of gray that readers and ‘outsiders’ are not aware of or often overlook.

These gray areas that are present while translating are invisible to the reader and publisher, and are only seen by the translator. One of the most common problems that occur within this gray area of Translation Studies is translating the source text or target text's culture meanings. Since translation has been around for a long time, what are the possible options to handle the situation of translating culture-specific items? This thesis will try to find viable options in translating culture-specific items to facilitate future translators and inform people about the problems that translators face when dealing with CSI.

1.3 Significance of the Problem

By investigating these questions, the researcher seeks to contribute to the field of Translation Studies. By discovering possible strategies that help solve CSI problems within Translation Studies, this research hopes to show and facilitate translate and scholars that there are possible solutions to CSI. This research will utilize Sun Tzu's The Art of War (originally in ancient Chinese) and then analyze the three of many English translated text. The researcher

7

specifically chose The Art of War because of the CSIs present within the language of ancient Chinese compared. Since the contribution of globalization, there are many ancient Chinese texts that are being translated into Latin based languages. Thus, the clash of different culture-specific items arises when translating from Chinese to English or vice versa. As previously mentioned, in Translation Studies there are two general paths (source and target language orientation) when translating CSI. By trying to discover a solution to overcome this two-sided approach, the researcher hopes to find a hybrid solution to translating CSI. This hybrid solution will of course primarily be based on and utilize Jean-Paul Vinay & Jean Darbelnet’s seven procedures and Mona Baker’s omission strategy to fill in the gap of the two sided orientation approach.

.

8

Chapter 2 Literature Review

With every academic field, there will be an unavoidable clash of theories and various opinions that might cause discord amongst pupils and scholars. Similarly, Translation Studies also has this problem. One of the most commonly discussed concepts in the field are source- language orientation and target-language orientation. By utilizing three of many English translations of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, the researcher as previously stated will focus on discovering what methods established translators used to translate CSI and to also overcome the barrier of siding with source or target orientation. By trying to solve this mystery, translators will ultimately be able to bridge different language and cultures together. This study will

predominantly utilize well-established translation study theories to analyze the cultural-specific items found within the texts. The resources that are used in the literature review section of this research have come from sources such as journals and theses. The researcher organized this paragraph by introducing relevant literature, then introducing terms that will be utilized within this study and explain the tree mentioned Translation Studies theories.

2.1 Culture and Translation

Since the existence of humans, there have always been some means to communicate. The establishment of language has allowed humans and countries to cultivate culture. Ever since the growth of nations and the process of encountering various countries and their cultures, many civilizations began translating and interpreting language. Since each nation and its peoples have different culture standards, the language that they speak are also embedded with culture-specific items. When people proceeded to translate, there has always been a dilemma of how to handle

9

culture-specific items. Linguists, anthropologists, and translators have all been stumped or hesitant as to how to handle the delicate process of translating culture nuances. Translation theorists such as Nida believe that "language reflects the culture, provides access to the culture, and in many respects constitutes a model of the culture” (Nida, 1994: 1). Many people will agree with Nida, that a language certainly does reflect its culture, and that specific language acts as gatekeeper to that culture. But there are others who believe that culture cannot be expressed through language, such as Peter Newmark. Newmark believes that on an operational level, he does not regard language as a component nor a feature of language (Newmark 1998: 95).

Newmark refutes that instead there are cultural deposits within language, or specifically culture exists in grammar, he gives examples of genders of inanimate nouns, forms of address and the lexis. Even with this belief, Newmark still gives a how to classify culture items. Since there are believers and non-believers that language and culture are intertwined, where does that leave translators and translations? Which brings us to Wilhelm Von Humboldt, a linguist and a translator well aware of the translator's dilemma. Humboldt states that

"All translation seems to me simply an attempt to solve an impossible task. Every translator is doomed to be done in by one of two stumbling b locks: he will either stay too close to the original, at the cost of taste and the language of his nation, or he will adhere too closely to the

characteristics peculiar to his nation, at the cost of the original ” (Wilss, 1982: 35).

So, then what is a translator to do, if we are already doomed from the start? By logically thinking about the author and readership, the translator then translates with those two things in mind.

10 Terms utilized

Vinay and Darbelnet’s and Peter Newmark’s theories and strategies are often taught and used within Translation Studies. Although each translator has their preference as to how to translate the source text, the mentioned translation theorists are just a few of the most commonly mentioned and used methods. If the three translators utilized strategies or did not include a translation that are not within the researcher’s theoretical framework, the researcher will list it as

‘omitted.’ The following terms below will occur within this research and will provide the reader a clear understanding of what will occur within the research.

Culture-specific items (CSI)- Per Javier Franco Aixela (1996), CSI are usually expressed in a text "by means of objects or systems of classification and measurement whose use is restricted to the source culture, or by means of the transcription of opinions and by description of habits equally alien to the receiving culture" (Aixela, 1996, p.56).

Culture- According to the Collins Cobuild English dictionary, culture means relating to a particular society and its ideas, customs, and art. It consists of activities such as the arts and philosophy, which are considered in relation to its beliefs, way of life, or art (Sinclair J., 1995, p.399).

Source-language orientation (SL) - As the name of the term states is the orientation of the original text of the translation. It is also known as the ‘source text (ST)’ (Munday and Hatim p.

xx).

11

Target-language orientation (TL) - Refers to the translated text or product of the source text. This term is also known as ‘target text (TT)’ (Munday and Hatim p. xx).

Translation- Is a piece of writing or speech that has been translated from a different language (Sinclair J., 1995, p.1781).

Adaptation- As the name of the term implies, the translator would use this strategy when coming across a situation where the ST is unknown or non-existent in the TT. Therefore, translators would have to ‘adapt’ or create new situations that are equivalent to the ST (Vinay and Darbelnet, 2004, p.134).

Borrowing- Vinay and Darbelnet stated that if translators did not occasionally utilize this strategy, then this term would not be worth mentioning. Borrowing consists of the translator creating a syntactic effect, such as "introducing flavor of the source language culture into a translation, foreign terms maybe be used." In Vinay and Darbelnet t's book, they gave examples such has using Russian words as ‘roubles’ ‘datchas,’ and ‘apparatchik.’ We often see the use of borrowing with food. For instance, in English, we often see words of various source language origins being kept in the target text translation, such as ‘a la carte,’ ‘tortillas,’ ‘sushi,’ ‘kebabs,’

the list goes on (Vinay and Darbelnet, 2004, p.129).

Calque- A calque is a different type of borrowing; it entails a word or phrase that is borrowed from another language by word-for-word, literal or root meaning (Vinay and Darbelnet, 2004, p.129).

12

Equivalence- This strategy refers to producing completely different stylistic or structural methods in the target text, but tries to maintain the general meaning of the source text. This method is often used to translate idioms and proverbs and is very useful in translating cultural differences (Vinay and Darbelnet, 2004, p.134).

Literal Translation- Like the name of the term, literal translation is the process of a "word-for-word" translation. It is one of the most common translation strategies utilized. It involves "the direct transfer of the source language text into a grammatically and idiomatically appropriate target language text" (Vinay and Darbelnet, 2004, p.130).

Modulation- Refers to "a variation of the form of the message, obtained by a change in the point of view" e.g. ‘God knows’; ‘沒人知道,’ which translates to ‘no one knows’ (Vinay and

Modulation- Refers to "a variation of the form of the message, obtained by a change in the point of view" e.g. ‘God knows’; ‘沒人知道,’ which translates to ‘no one knows’ (Vinay and