Translation Policy,Social System,and Ideology: A Study on the English Translation of Modern Chinese Fiction for America During the CWRAJ

Abstract

This article explores translation policy on the English translations of modern Chinese fiction to American readers during China’s War of Resistance against Japan (1931–1945). The research findings show that translation policy may not be explicitly stated, but implicitly embodied in some political, diplomatic, and cultural policies made by the American and Chinese governments. Translation policy making as a social system is influenced by the political environment during the war. Different policy makers’ motives and policies change over time in reaction to each other with the course of the war, and the changing socio-political climate in China and the US had great effects on the English translations of Chinese fiction before the entry of the US into the war and after the US government became actively involved in translation projects. Moreover, the ideological preferences and political interests of the various actors shape actual translation practice—the selection of texts and actual choices in wording. This course of events affects the reception of these translations by the US public. In other words, the readership of these books grew after the Chinese government became allies in the war with the American government.

Keywords

Chinese short stories translation translation policy social system ideology

Introduction

“Translation policy” was first included in “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies” (Holmes, 1972). Afterward, the study of translation policy has been part of translation studies as a discipline. Since translation is regarded as a social activity influenced by various social agents, translation policy as part of translating is intimately related to the social circumstances. Wolf (2006) argues that translation activities are constrained by economic, ideological, and political agents and that certain translation policy (or no translation policy) should be studied in the conceptual framework of sociology of translation. Wolf (2006) mentions the policy dimension of translation studies, without discussing it further. Translation policy requires both top-down state orientation and bottom-up acceptance and participation of social agents (Huang & Chu, 2012, p. 26). Both of them determine the final presentation of translation policy in a nation-state. The previous studies generally examine the relationship between translation policy and language policy with a focus on the target country (Even-Zohar, 1992; González Núñez, 2013, 2016a, 2016b; O’Sullivan, 2016). However, the study on the translation policy made by both source and target countries which are in alliance in wartime to defeat their common enemy is under research.

There are a number of studies on the English translations of Chinese fiction for America during China’s War of Resistance against Japan (1931–1945) (henceforth “CWRAJ”), laying great stress on translator community, text selection, translation strategies, and the reconstruction of social culture and national image (Hsia, 2005; Li, 2017; Lv, 2011a, 2011b; Xu, 2013; Zhang & Ma, 2018; Zhao & Sun, 2012). During this period, American scholars and reporters and Chinese writers translated Chinese fiction for American readers under the influence of translation policies made by their own government respectively. Moreover, after the outbreak of the Pacific War on December 7, 1941, America and China began to cooperate and fight against Japan. The former initiated its cultural diplomacy with the latter and strengthened its study of modern China, promoting the English translations of modern Chinese fiction for American readers (Author, 2017). However, the translation policy behind these English translations of Chinese fiction is under research.

Therefore, focusing on the translation policies employed in the English translations of modern Chinese fiction for Americans during the CWRAJ, we have formulated the following research questions:

(1) What is the relation of translation policy to the social system of the source and target countries and their policy makers’ ideology?

(2) What are the translation policies made by the parties involved and the translation activities that reflected the translation policies in the English translations of modern Chinese fiction for Americans during the war?

(3) What are the effects of the translation policies and the implications for studies of translation policy?

Based on Luhmann’s (1995) social systems theory, this study makes a tentative analysis of translation policy on the English translations of modern Chinese fiction for Americans during CWRAJ, focusing on the relationship between translation policy, social system, and ideology in the context of wartime.

Research Methodology

In this section, we first introduce the methods for data collection and analysis, then discuss such concepts as translation policy, social system, and ideology, and finally explore the theoretical basis for the present study by discussing their relationships.

Data Collection and Analysis

During the CWRAJ, America and China strengthened their bonds through their cultural and political diplomacy in order to defeat their common enemy. Our preliminary research indicates that translation policy is closely related to cultural and political diplomacy, and that the governments as translation policy makers are involved in the making of translation policy on the English translations of modern Chinese fiction for Americans in the CWRAJ. The governmental translation policy makers include those from the source country and the target country, namely, the American government and the Chinese government which refers to the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region Government (henceforth “SGN government”) under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The Nanjing-based government under the leadership of the Kuomintang (KMT) will not be taken into consideration because it did not make any translation policy on the English translations of Chinese fiction for America. Besides, the non-governmental Chinese organizations’ and individuals’ translation policy was actually associated with or supported by the CPC government. Therefore, we highlight the translation policy made by the CPC and the US as the focus of the study.

The data on translation policy are collected from some political, diplomatic, and cultural policies on intercultural communication, or in the texts of relevant magazines and newspapers. Some specific policies are thus identified and worked out by examining the relevant political, diplomatic, and cultural policies made by the American and Chinese governments. This study is hence based on textual analysis. Besides, our previous studies show that the Chinese texts translated for America during the CWRAJ are modern Chinese short stories and novels (Author, 2017). That is why we choose the English translations of modern Chinese fiction for America readers to analyze the translation policy which affects the actual translation practice, including the selection of translation materials and translation strategies. The Chinese fiction selected during this period mainly includes May Fourth Movement-related fiction, Leftist fiction, and regional and anti-Japanese fiction, covering the themes of national character, war, and economy of modern China (Author, 2017). During the CWRAJ, most of the English translations of modern Chinese fiction for Americans were published in America, while some others were published by China-based branches of American publishers for American citizens in China (Author, 2017).

The English translations of modern Chinese fiction that fall into the above categories are collected for this study. The collected data include two monographs, six anthologies, and six English magazines and newspapers. The monographs include A Night in a Stable (Chia & Wales, 1937) and Rickshaw Boy (King, 1945). The anthologies include The Tragedy of Ah Qui, and Other Modern Chinese Stories (Mills, 1930/1930), Short Stories from China (Cze, 1935), Living China, Modern Chinese Short Stories (Snow, 1937), Ah Q and Others: Selected Stories of Lusin (Wang, 1941), Contemporary Chinese Stories (Wang, 1944), and Spinners of Silk (Hsiao, 1944). The English magazines and newspapers include Chinese Student (Far Eastern Magazine), Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, New Writing, Asia, China Today, and China Forum.

Theoretical Basis

Wolf (2006) believes that translation policy is a procedure that reflects the will of the government or an institution and legalizes the translation, thus placing the translation as a cultural activity under the constraints of economic, ideological, and political factors. In this part, concepts such as translation policy, social system, and ideology as well as the relation of translation policy to social systems and policy makers’ ideology are discussed.

Translation policy

Translation practices indicate that translating is affected by translation policy. However, the influences vary in different target countries and historical periods, and many countries or regimes take translation activities as a tool to achieve their political or economic goals by making translation policy (Teng, 2014, p. 35).

The term “policy” is defined by The New Oxford Dictionary of English as follows: “a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual” (Pearsall, 1998, p. 1434). Scholars in China and other countries have put forward their own definitions of translation policy. Teng (2009, p. 12) holds that translation policy refers to “the regulatory requirements related to the translation project proposed or formulated by the government or governmental institutions, and it has an impact on all aspects of translating, mainly including the selection of translation materials, translation strategies, translator training, and so on.” Meylaerts’ definition enlarges the scope of the subjects of translation policy. She claims that a policy refers to “the conduct of political and public affairs by a government or an administration, that is, to political or public practices as implemented in legal rules” (Meylaerts, 2011, p. 165). Huang and Chu (2012, p. 26) define it as “a discussion, a statement or an action plan on translation issues made by an official or a non-official institution.” González Núñez (2016a) proposes that translation policy can be understood as “the management, practice, and beliefs surrounding the use of translation.”

Based on the common points in the above definitions, we define translation policy as the regulatory requirements related to the translation project which may be a discussion, a statement, or an action plan on translation issues, usually made by the government or an administration.

As to its nature, translation policy may or may not be explicitly stated. Policy actions may be overt or covert. Overt policy actions are often explicitly formalized as statements to be found in the law (O’Rourke & Castillo Ortiz, 2009, p. 34). Overt policy actions take the form of laws pertinent to translation. They also take the form of documents issued by the central government or by devolved government institutions (O’Rourke & Castillo Ortiz, 2009). On the other hand, covert policy actions are often informal, grassroots actions that can be inferred from other provisions and policies (O’Rourke & Castillo Ortiz, 2009). Even-Zohar (1992, pp. 231–245) holds that most translation policies are covert, and they are usually described as suggestions for they actually have an authoritative factor that is imposed on the translator by an editor, publisher, or customer. In order to examine covert actions, translation practices are thus identified through data gathered from official reports for and by the source and target countries (González Núñez, 2016b, p. 43).

It can be asserted that in translation activities, the government or governmental institutions that can have a direct impact on translating can be the subject of developing translation policy. The present study deals with both overt translation policy and covert translation policy embodied in diplomatic and cultural policies.

Social systems

In his masterwork Social Systems, Luhmann (1995, pp. 15–16) points out that every social contact is understood as a system, up to and including society as the inclusion of all possible contacts. Systems are oriented by their environment not just occasionally and adaptively, but structurally, and they cannot exist without an environment. However, social systems are organizationally closed and self-referential, that is, they are autopoietic. The social system constructs its own components and reproduces its own organization and every input for organization is produced by the system itself (Luhmann, 1995, p. 10).

Luhmann (1995, p. 141) holds that autopoiesis and closure take social systems as communicative systems, and defines a system as the difference between the system and its environment. The communication itself determines what belongs to the communication system and what belongs to its environment. As always a selective occurrence, communication grasps something out of the actual referential horizon that it itself constitutes and leaves other things aside. Communication is the processing of selection (Luhmann, 1995).

Therefore, social activities or events are driven by the selectivity of different social systems (e.g., economic, political, religious, or mass media systems) which operate perpendicularly to individuals and national governments.

Ideology

Ideology can be perceived as a “conceptual grid that consists of opinions and attitudes deemed acceptable in a certain society at a certain time” (Lefevere & Basset, 1992, p. 16). Jiang (2003, p. 24) defines ideology as “the systematic views and opinions of people in a certain class, political party, and profession about the world and society, which is popular in a certain country or group, and the political behavior or ideological style, philosophy, politics, art, aesthetics, religion, and ethics are its manifestations.” Jiang’s definition emphasizes the political party and the politics as its manifestations.

Johnson and Roberto (2018, p. 1) define political ideology as “a set of opinions underpinned by doctrines, values, and perceived moral truths that guide behavior toward a specific social order.” The political ideology unavoidably influences some political parties, which follow a certain ideology closely and reflect it in their political behavior. Some other political parties may refuse it and follow different kinds of political ideologies.

Relation of Translation Policy to Social System and Ideology

Translation policy making as a system is characterized by self-referential operation and self-adaptation, and becomes a social functional system through its interaction with the environment and autopoiesis. Its makers include different parties, especially political parties with different ideologies. Therefore, there is a close relation of translation policy to social system and ideology.

Translation policy and social system

According to Luhmann (1995), the openness of a system is closed openness, and the closure of a system is open closure. Just like the social system, translation policy making as a system is a dynamic, interdependent, and autopoietic system, and it is also regarded as a social subsystem with other social subsystems as its environment. Moreover, translation policy making cannot be separated from the surrounding environment, and characterized by the internal closure, it interacts with other social subsystems (i.e., environment) frequently, such as the political climate in this study.

The concept of “social system” as one of the key points of Luhmann’s theory means that the structure of modern society is characterized by the evolution of social function systems (e.g., economy, science, politics, religion). Therefore, translation policy making as a social subsystem determines its intermediary function.

Since the autopoiesis and closure take social systems as communicative systems, and communication grasps something out of the actual referential horizon that it itself constitutes and leaves other things aside (Luhmann, 1995, p. 141), the translation policy-making system achieves its self-regeneration via a form of communication.

The translation policy-making system selects what it needs for its self-regeneration by communicating with other social function systems, such as economy, science, and politics. Moreover, these selections will be reflected in actual translation practice, including the choice of the source text and translation strategies to better realize the self-regeneration of the translation policy-making system.

Translation policy and ideology

The study of translation policy must also consider translation beliefs, that is, the beliefs that members of a community hold about issues such as what the value is, or is not, of offering translation in certain contexts for certain groups or to achieve certain ends (González Núñez, 2016a, p. 92).

On the one hand, translation policy is the reflection and embodiment of the ideology of the government. Wang (1999) takes ideology as a starting point to point out that translation as a political and cultural activity is the production of ideology. In other words, it is controlled and influenced by ideology. Moreover, the power of translation policy makers with a certain ideology cannot be ignored. Translation policy makers and translators are often subject to the manipulation of the mainstream ideology, achieving the goal of translation policy makers, and translators to infiltrate ideology through translation activities.

Generally speaking, if translation policy makers hold different political ideologies, the translations influenced by their respective translation policy will be accepted or refused by the target country’s social system. If translation policy makers in the source country hold the political ideology that is the same as the one held by the translation policy makers in the target country, their translations will meet the needs of the target country and be accepted.

On the other hand, translation policies influenced by ideology spread specific political ideologies. Ideology reflects the political life of a particular social class and is closely related to issues of social power. It is one of the intangible powers (Huang, 2006, p. 1). In intercultural interactions, translation activities serve as a tool to represent ideology (Huang, 2007, p. 3), communicating culture, disseminating culture, and exerting cultural suppression, resistance or subversion (Gentzler, 2002, pp. 195–218). The specific translations are accepted and disseminated in target countries to show the power of translation policy in introducing its ideology reflected in the translated works.

In particular, the parties in wartime such as the Chinese and American governments involved in this study hold different political ideologies, and have power and influence in making their own translation policy. And the translation policy they have made disseminate their ideology through the actual translation activities.

Translation policy, social system, and ideology

According to Luhmann (1995), translation policy making is a system itself and at the same time is a subsystem of the social system. Therefore, the translation policy-making system accepts the influence outside for its closed openness with the aid of communication. It communicates with the external environment, resulting in alienation and promoting the development of the system. The translation policy making as a system will be influenced by its surrounding environment, such as the political climate. In this study, the war provided the political climate for the development of translation policy.

Translation policy is inevitably endowed with the strong character of ideology since different parties are involved in the political climate, especially in wartime. Communications between different parties enable diplomatic or cultural policies to enter into the translation policy-making system.

Translation policy varies with policy makers who have different ideologies. For example, the specific materials to be translated and the actual translation strategies employed will be influenced since policy makers with different ideologies may exert their influence upon the translators’ activities. Different translation policies made by makers with different ideologies as the subsystem of the social system may be accepted or refused by the social system of the target country.

Translation Policy in the CWRAJ

According to the sociology of translation, translation is regarded as a social behavior, and every link of the translation product should be studied in a social context (Wu, 2008, pp. 76, 79). During the CWRAJ, influenced by the political climate, the SGN government and the US government were involved in the making of translation policy, developing different translation policies with different ideologies and political interests.

Political Climate

In light of Luhmann’s theory of social systems, translation policy on the English translations of modern Chinese fiction for America may be influenced by different social subsystems, such as the economic, political or religious subsystems as environments. Jenkins observes “that ‘whatever it is that we call policy’ is a diverse phenomenon, encompassing a variety of institutional forms and practices, in a range of settings” (Jenkins, 2007, p. 26). Accordingly, research on translation policy in this study is carried out in the context of the CWRAJ, focusing on the development of translation policy as well as its relationships with the political climate in the war.

The development of translation policy by America reflects its international relations. The outbreak of World War II in September 1939 greatly affected the culture of western countries, and changed the relationship between China and America. Especially after the outbreak of the Pacific War, America decided to cooperate with China for its long-term interests in the Asia-Pacific region, and strengthened the study on China’s social problems (Hou, 1996, p. 41).

During the CWRAJ, the SGN government made its own policy on the English translations of modern Chinese fiction for America in its cultural diplomacy with America and its interaction with the American observation group. After Japan’s raiding of Pearl Harbor in 1941, America and China were in alliance with each other. The political climate in the CWRAJ results in an open co-operation between the US and Chinese governments in making translation policy.

Translation Policies in the CWRAJ

Translation policy as a social system is influenced by the political climate and policy makers with different ideologies. In the CWRAJ, translation policy on the English translations of modern Chinese fiction for Americans was made by the American and the SGN governments.

Translation policy made by the American government

In the CWRAJ, Japan committed its military and economic aggression against China, which damaged America’s interests in the Far East. The Pearl Harbor Incident hastened the alliance between America and China. The development of translation policy by the American government is identifiable in the American cultural policy on cultural assistance to China, the military policies on special language training programs for the US military and the foreign observers’ mission.

Translation policy in the American cultural policy on cultural assistance to China

In 1938, the US Department of State established the Department of Cultural Relations, and its cultural diplomacy began to extend from Latin America to Asian and European countries. In May 1941, President Roosevelt’s Lend-Lease Act was applied to China, starting its official aid to China. America officially launched a comprehensive cultural diplomacy with China through some programs.

The China program in the Division of Cultural Relations did not become a reality until January 14, 1942, when the modest sum of $150,000 from the Emergency Fund for the President was allocated to the Department of State to be spent for this purpose through the balance of the current fiscal year.¹ In 1942, its budget reached $500,000 and increased to $700,000 in 1943 (Kraske, 1985, pp. 94–96). The establishment of the special Chinese project by the US Department of State marked the official initiation of the US government’s cultural diplomacy with China (Fairbank, 1976, p. 15). An experienced Foreign Service officer named Stuart E. Grummon had devoted the previous months to framing the projects to be undertaken (Fairbank, 1976).

The proposed program was presented to the members of the General Advisory Committee of the Division of Cultural Relations for their discussion on November 5, 1941. It was barely a month before the Pearl Harbor Incident, yet the tone of the draft memoranda prepared for this occasion reflected America’s desire to assist war-torn China from a safe and uncommitted position on the sidelines. The projects included a conference of the American private organizations and individuals engaged in cultural relations with China, travel scholarships to bring Chinese students to the United States, coordination of the sending of American equipment to Chinese colleges and universities, distribution of educational films and use of radio broadcasting, exchange visits of Chinese and American scholars and artists, exchange exhibitions of Chinese and American “classical and contemporary art,” and a “historical, statistical and documentary survey of Chinese-American cultural relations.”²

In this situation, many American scholars or teachers went to China and translated some modern Chinese novels or short stories for American readers. For instance, George A. Kennedy was sent to Shanghai as a teacher and translated some modern Chinese fiction in 1934 and 1935 which were collected into Short Stories from China. After he finished his education in Hong Kong, Evan King left for Shanxi, wrote some literary works and produced his translation of Rickshaw Boy in 1944. Moreover, some American journals and magazines, such as The China Press and Asia, were founded against the backdrop of America’s cultural assistance to China.

Translation policy embodied in the military policies on special language training programs for the US military

The American government authorized American colleges and universities to set up special language training programs to train foreign language professionals for the US military, such as the learning of Chinese. In 1942, the military specialization training project started, and by the end of 1943, 55 colleges and universities had been involved in the project (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 44).

Under the sponsorship of the American government, the American universities offered a large number of scholarships to encourage Chinese students to study in America (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Many of these students grew into writers and scholars, who played an important role in translating Chinese fiction for American readers.

For example, in 1937, Yao Ke first went to Britain and then to Yale University, learning and researching modern drama with the sponsorship of Rockefeller Scholarship and returned to China in 1940. Later, Yao translated some Chinese novels for Americans and tried his best to make a faithful interpretation of them (Ren, 1993, pp. 99).

Translation policy of the foreign observation group

After the outbreak of the CWRAJ, the United States strengthened the study of China’s real problems for its long-term interests in the Asia-Pacific region. The foreign observation group included the US military observers, some diplomats in the US Department of State and a large number of foreign journalists. These observers’ mission was to collect the Japanese operational intelligence acquired by the CPC and explore the possibility of military cooperation with the CPC, paving the way for the cultural, political, and economic cooperation with China (CPC History Research Office, 2014, p. 379).

Among these observers, the progressive scholars of the American Council of Institute of Pacific Relations (ACIPR) founded in 1925 generated a need to understand China’s long-blocked communist movement (Hou, 1996, p. 41). The ACIPR hence was involved in the development of translation policy. During the Second World War, the United States fought against Japan in the Far East and the Pacific region. Due to the lack of understanding of the historical and cultural background of Japan, the United States urgently needed language talents in Eastern languages to act as interpreters during the war. The ACIPR became “the most important source” (Field, 1992, p. 155), carrying out Eastern languages training, with an emphasis on Chinese training, to “enable people to use Chinese as a tool” (Field, 1992, p. 156).

Besides, some journalists in the ACIPR published books and articles to help the international community to understand the CPC and the armed struggle under its leadership (Hou, 1996, p. 41). The participation of the American public media in the anti-fascist war, especially in the participation of the Chinese war of resistance, does not necessarily represent the government behavior, but objectively cooperates with the positive cultural and diplomatic activities of the government and meets the national interests of the United States. Edgar Snow, Ann Louise Strong, and Agnes Smedley are the representatives. The translation policies made by the public media were found in their translated fiction and the English journals they founded. For example, in the preface to his translated and edited book Living China, Modern Chinese Short Stories (活的中国) in 1937, Edgar Snow introduced his policy for translating Chinese literature, focusing on “understanding the spiritual, material and cultural power that is transforming the minds of Chinese people” (Snow, 1937, preface). Agnes Smedley met the Chinese Left-wing writers, such as Lu Xun, Mao Dun, and Ding Ling, and founded two progressive English journals China Forum and Voice of China, introducing the literary works themed on the revolutionary struggle and progress of the Chinese people.

Translation policy made by the SGN Government

Translation policy made by the SGN government under the leadership of the CPC, was embodied in the SGN government’s diplomatic policy and military policy with the United States. The US diplomatic policy and military policy in dealing with China was mainly aimed at military cooperation; however, it helped to establish the cultural cooperation between China and America (Li & Zhang, 2014, p. 344).

After the outbreak of the CWRAJ, the KMT and the CPC made joint efforts to fight against the Japanese armed forces. The United States hoped to establish a relationship with the CPC, so that the latter could enter the war of resistance to alleviate the pressure on the US military to fight against Japan. This is the basic starting point for the United States to develop relations with the CPC. In July 1944, the US observation group went to Yan’an to investigate the political, economic, military, and cultural conditions of the Liberated Areas. The CPC leaders in the Liberated Areas actively developed the diplomatic relations with the United States and publicized the SGN’s war situation, trying to obtain America’s possible assistance to the CPC’s anti-Japanese war. The CPC proposed a series of strategic cooperation programs with the United States, including cultural cooperation. On August 18, 1944, the Central Committee of the CPC issued the “Directive on the Diplomatic Work,” requiring all CPC members to play host to foreign journalists and American personnel as the starting point of the CPC’s diplomatic work (Song & Yang, 2015, p. 89). Its tenet goes as follows:

The core content of the international united front is the KMT’s and the CPC’s joint fighting against Japanese aggression and democratic cooperation. . . . Among the United States, Britain and China, the United States and China are the closest partners in fighting against Japan. . . . Besides the basis of military cooperation, cultural, political and economic cooperation is feasible between them. (CCCPC Archives, 1992, p. 315)

During the 10 years before and after the Anti-Japanese War, there were more than 20 American journalists who had visited the CPC-controlled area. At that time, the CPC strongly supported the normal interviews carried out by foreign journalists, and created various favorable conditions for them (Yuan, 2014, p. 46). Besides their interviews, some foreign journalists acted as “anti-fascists who directly or indirectly helped China in the war, and communicated with the CPC as a carrier of Chinese culture and a special source of information” (Zhu, 1998, p. 23).

In 1939, the CPC established the Foreign Affairs Group of the Southern Bureau under the leadership of Zhou Enlai and Ye Jianying, keeping close contact with the US officials in accordance with the work policy of “introducing the CWRAJ to the outside world and striving for the support from other countries” (Chen, 2007). Zhou Enlai told Wang Bingnan in a letter that “There is not enough manpower in Yan’an; especially the personnel who are familiar with English should be fostered” (Chen, 2007).

In May 1941, Deng Xiaoping, who was then the political commissar of the 129th Division of the Eighth Route Army, pointed out that it was necessary to “strengthen the foreign introduction and dissemination of our true fighting life to the international community through literary and artistic works, reportage, news, photography, painting, and so on.” (Deng, 1994, p. 26)

The Central Committee of the CPC established a foreign affairs section of the Central Military Commission to cooperate with the US observation group, including four sections: the Liaison Section, the Research Section, the Translation Section, and the Administrative Section. Some CPC members as writers or reporters helped some American journalists in the SGN areas to introduce the China of those times by translating Chinese fiction.

A good case in point is Yang Gang who studied English literature at Yanjing University between 1928 and 1932 and joined the CPC as a member in 1930. She and Hsiao Ch’ien helped Edgar Snow to choose some Chinese short stories which were translated and collected in Snow’s Living China, Modern Chinese Short Stories. Yang wrote an English short story entitled A Diary, describing the inner feelings of a female revolutionist struggling in various sufferings. She also translated Shen Congwen’s Husband which was published in the English magazine Asia (Author, 2017, p. 186).

Policy Makers’ Motives and Policy Changes During the War

Meylaerts (2011) believes that policy has been understood by translation scholars while translating as the factors that govern the type, timing, and the extent of texts to be translated, and the legal rules that govern translation in the public sphere. Translation policy makers’ motives and policy changes over time in relation to each other witness the effects of the shifts in the changing socio-political climate in China and the US, and can be found in translation activities, including the selection of materials and translators, translation strategy, and reception of translations.

Effects of the shifts in the changing socio-political climate on translation practices

Many of the translations were actually undertaken during the 1930s—that is, before the entry of the US into the war, and after the US government became actively involved in translation projects. The effects of this shift in government policy—numerically are that there is an increase in the number of translated texts.

Before the entry of the US into the war, there were three anthologies translated, including The Tragedy of Ah Qui, and Other Modern Chinese Stories (Mills, 1930/1931), Short Stories from China (Kennedy 1934, 1935), Living China, Modern Chinese Short Stories (Snow, 1937); and after the US government became actively involved in translation projects, there were two monographs, including A Night in a Stable (Chia & Wales, 1941) and Rickshaw Boy (King, 1945), and three anthologies, including Ah Q and Others: Selected Stories of Lusin (Wang, 1941), Contemporary Chinese Stories (Wang, 1944), and Spinners of Silk (Hsiao, 1944). The shift in government policy promoted the publication of translations of Chinese fiction in English magazines and newspapers, including Chinese Student (Far Eastern Magazine), Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, New Writing, Asia, China Today, and China Forum. However, these translations published in English magazines or newspapers are collected into the above anthologies.

The effects of this shift in government policy—qualitatively are that there is a shift in the kinds of texts that are chosen for translation, or in how they are translated. It is not difficult to see that the kinds of texts chosen for translation changed from the theme of national character to the state of the Chinese nation and people centering around the revolution and wars. For example, after the entry of the US into the war, the translations published in Asia include Zhang Tianyi’s Huawei Xiansheng (“Mr. Hua Wei”), Li Huiying’s Fudi (“Sanctuary”), and Qiu Dongping’s Di Qi Lian (“Company seven”), which are all about the CWRAJ.

Translation activities

The ideological preferences and political interests of the various actors shape actual translation practice—the selection of texts to be translated and actual choices in wording. In addressing these questions, more attention should be paid to paratexts that might allow them to reconstruct the attitudes of the actors – for example, prefaces and editorial statements, but also official documents stating the rationale for government funding.

Selection of source texts

Gideon Toury links norms and policy through the idea of preliminary norms. For Toury, translation policy is constituted by “those factors that govern the choice of text types; or even of individual texts, to be imported through translation into a particular culture/language at a particular point in time” (Toury, 1995, p. 58). Translation policy made during the CWRAJ does have an influence on the selection of source texts.

First, it is the influence on the selection of source texts by the Chinese writers. The outbreak of the war of resistance makes translation activities an integral part of the war culture. The Chinese Left-wing Writers Union, referred to as Zuo Lian (左联) in Chinese, is a literary organization founded by the CPC in Shanghai in the 1930s to fight against the KMT in the ideological publicity arena and persuade the broad masses to support their political ideology (Zhao & Liu 2001, p. 1713). Zuo Lian had cultivated a strong revolutionary literature and art group for the people’s literature and art undertakings during the CWRAJ. It made outstanding contributions to fostering the talents of the revolutionary literature and art. In the spring of 1936, it was dissolved in order to adapt to the new situation of the national movement against Japanese aggression and establish the anti-Japanese national united front in the literary and artistic circles. Its main members consisted of Lu Xun, Guo Moruo, Duanmu Yanliang, Yang Gang, and so on. (Chen, 2016, pp. 134–135)

Many of its members translated Chinese short stories and introduced the real situation of China’s anti-Japanese war for American readers (Zhao & Liu, 2001, p. 1714). For example, Yang Gang translated Shen Congwen’s novel Husband and wrote the English novel A Diary.

On March 27, 1938, the Anti-Japanese Association of the Chinese National Literature and Art Circle (ACLAC) was established. Its members consisted of writers, critics, and translators in the literary circles. It called on the various departments of literature and art to cooperate and work together for the united front. It also called on the Chinese translation community to “place our translations under the criteria of increasing encouragement and wide publicity—to introduce foreign literary works for the Chinese or to translate Chinese literary works for foreign readers” (Xu et al., 2017, p. 280). In this context, the translation activities were actively carried out. The members of the association mainly included Cai Yuanpei, Zhou Enlai, Roman Roland, Agnes Smedley, Lao She, Ye Junjian, and so on.

Some members of the ACLAC made some contributions to the dissemination of Chinese literature in America by starting English magazines or translating Chinese novels. For example, Ye Junjian translated some literary works into English during the CWRAJ and mailed them to foreign newspapers and magazines for publication. He also edited the English publication Chinese Writers in August 1939, together with Dai Wangshu, Xu Chi, and Feng Yidai under the sponsorship of the General Assembly of the ACLAC and its Hong Kong branch in order to introduce the sufferings of the Chinese people under Japanese aggression and their struggle against the Japanese fascist army.³ Agnes Smedley, Song Qingling, and Harold Robert Isaacs founded the English magazine China Forum, publishing the English translations of Chinese fiction which include 13 Left-wing short stories, such as Lu Xun’s Yao (药) and Kong Yiji (孔乙己), Rou Shi’s Slave Mother (为奴隶的母亲), and Zhang Tianyi’s Twenty-one (二十一个).

Secondly, it is the influence on the ACIPR’s selection of source texts, especially on some journalists in it. For example, Edgar Snow rendered 23 short stories describing the Chinese society and revolution in Living China, Modern Chinese Short Stories published in New York in 1937, including 15 Chinese writers, such as Lu Xun, Hsiao Ch’ien, and Yang Gang (Li, 2013, p. 118).

With the outbreak of World War II and the United States entering the war, Americans began to be interested in Asia. Asia was founded by the American Asiatic Association between 1898 and 1942, and it was renamed Asia and America in November 1942 as the official organ of the East and West Association⁴. Pearl S. Buck served as its Editor. The selection of Chinese fiction for America was reflected in the change of its political position between 1934 and 1946:

The communism should be treated as objectively as art and we should be as open-minded in looking at its religious issues as in looking at its economic issues. (Author, 2017, p. 189)

Its editor Pearl S. Buck recruited some influential writers and journalists to write for the magazine, including Hu Shi as the leader of the Chinese New Culture Movement, Lin Yutang, and some reporters who reported on China’s frontline situation in World War II, such as Edgar Snow, Helen Foster Snow, and Theodore Harold White.

From its inception to the 1945 issue, the magazine published seven English translations of modern Chinese fiction. They are Medicine (1935) and Kites (1936) translated by Edgar Snow and Yao Hsin-nung; Ah Ao (1935), by Edgar Snow; Flood (1935), by Agnes Smedley; Husband (1935), by Shih Ming; Mr. Hua Wei (1941), Company Seven (1942), and Sanctuary (1942), by Clarence Moy and M. Q. Ho. The source texts include Yao, Fengzhen (风筝), Ah O (阿娥), Shui (水), Zhangfu (丈夫), Huawei Xiansheng (华威先生), Diqilian (第七连), and Fudi (福地) which comprehensively represented the national character, economy, revolution, and war of modern China (Author 2017, pp. 187–188).

Actual choices in wording

Lambert (1994, p. 23) adopts a broad concept of translation policy in assuming “that the institutional frame within which translations [or other transfer channels between languages] operate has an impact on the translation (transfer) strategy.” During the CWRAJ, translation policy made by different groups of actors had different effects on translators’ use of translation strategy.

Chinese writers as translators employed the translation strategy of being faithful to the source text in order to introduce a more real China to America. For instance, in July 1935, the English magazine Asia published Yang Gang’s translation of Shen Congwen’s Husband. Through a faithful interpretation of the source text which describes a prostitute struggling for a living on a boat in western Hunan, Yang Gang reconstructed the image of farmers in western Hunan’s rural areas who usually sent their wives to the city for prostitution to support the family (Author, 2017, p. 188).

Translators such as American journalists or scholars employed the translation strategy of rewriting when they dealt with the political theme of the novels. Lefevere (1992) develops the idea of translation as a form of rewriting which means that any text produced on the basis of another has the intention of adapting that other text to a certain ideology or to a certain poetics, and usually to both. For instance, when Evan King’s Village in August was published, the famous American professor C. T. Hsia’s evaluation was hence as follows: “Small parts of the novel branded with the communist color which may cause the English readers an unhappy feeling are deleted, others are translated quite accurately” (Hsia, 1971, p. 273). For example:

Chinese original:

安娜来中国前, 他的父亲对他说:

“去吧! 安娜! 到满洲去工作吧! 只要全世界上无产阶级的革命全爆发起来,我们底祖国就可以得救了!” (Tian, 1985, p. 166)

English translation:

“Go ahead, Anna. Go up to Manchuria and carry on our fight up there.

When once the whole Chinese people arise against Japan, our own country can be saved!” (T’ien, 1943, p. 142)

In the above example, the proletarian revolution constructed in the original via the clause “全世界上无产阶级的革命全爆发起来” (“all proletarian revolutions in the world break out”) is reconstructed as the Chinese people’s war of resistance against Japan due to the omission of the clause in the target text, thus weakening the theme of the liberation war and emphasizing the anti-Japanese theme.

In the above example, there is one sentence that Anna’s father said to her as follows:

Chinese original:

“开始去和王八的帝国主义者们，作血的斗争吧！” (Tian, 1985, p. 166)

English translation:

“Begin the real revolution against the Japanese! Begin the war of flesh and

blood against those turtle’s eggs!” (T’ien, 1943, p. 142)

In the above example, Evan King rewrote the source text “帝国主义者们” (“the imperialists”) into “the Japanese.” This rewriting deleted the references of the imperialists in China.

Besides, the translators employed the paratext to show their policy of translating fiction. In the end of Edgar Snow’s Living China, Modern Chinese Short Stories, was added Nym Wales’ appendix entitled “The Modern Chinese Literary Movement.” The appendix introduces the appearance and development of the Left-wing literary movement, and provides a name list of the martyred members of the Left League (Snow, 1937, p. 340).

Reception of the translations

The translation policy during the CWRAJ affected the American readers’ reception of the translations. In other words, the target readers may accept or refuse these translations.

The selection of a system is a system-internal and self-referential operation by which the system draws its own operational boundaries. As Tyulenev points out, “The environment only causes perturbations of the system. Some of these perturbations trigger internal operational responses in the system, yet they cannot determine the system’s operation. When these perturbations meet the needs of its operation, the system then makes a resonance, which is an acceptance or a refusal of these perturbations” (Tyulenev, 2012, p. 30). Therefore, translations of Chinese fiction for Americans affected by different translation policy makers may face acceptance or refusal among American readers.

The translation policies made by the American government and the Chinese government are very similar due to their alliance in the war. The Chinese government’s active publicity campaign established a positive image in the United States and resonated with the American people who had also suffered from Japanese fascism. The Left-wing journalists sent by the US government wrote a large number of books on Chinese issues, reflecting the real situation of Chinese society, and promoting the publicity of the Chinese revolution and the CPC abroad (Qiu, 2000, pp. 70–71). Some of them also joined the team to translate Chinese fiction. For example, Edgar Snow, Chi-chen Wang, and Yao Ke introduced to the American people the fiction that truly reflected the reality of China’s society and China’s war of resistance, inspiring the fighting enthusiasm of the American anti-fascists. They fought with the Chinese people against the Japanese aggressors, anticipating their own country’s victory in the anti-fascist war.

However, due to the particular political ideology that the translators held, a few translations failed to be accepted by Americans. For example, Smedley’s preface to Short Stories from China is ideologically inclined to side with the source country because the object of its condemnation includes “the sinful hand of the KMT imperialist counter-revolutionary” and “Shanghai foreign police” that defended, kidnapped and killed the revolutionary writers (Smedley, 1935). And it sings the praises of the communist ideology, placing Short Stories from China on the opposite side of the mainstream ideology of American culture. Undoubtedly, it failed to attract the attention of the mainstream American media (Lv, 2011b, p. 55) and was rejected by the mainstream ideology of America.⁵ Although the relevant papers by Chinese literary historians discussed Smedley’s works on the English translations of Left-wing progressive writers in China Forum, they did not mention Short Stories from China. Various indications show that it is a forgotten creation (Lv, 2011b, p. 56).

Discussion and Implications

In the above case study, we have worked out the translation policies concerned and briefly introduced the relevant translation activities in the war, which is closely related to the second question of the present study. Also, the above analysis of the American and Chinese translation policy during the CWRAJ indicates that the translation policies are made by the governments to meet the needs of the social system. Moreover, the political climate as the environment affects the translation policy-making system in which the governments of both source and target countries are involved. This is partially the finding in relation to the first question of this study which is further expounded in the following part. At the same time, we make use of the findings obtained from the case study to analyze the effects of the translation policies and seek the implications for studies of translation policy.

Features of Translation Policy in Wartime

There are mainly three features with respect to the official translation policies during the CWRAJ. Firstly, translation policy in wartime is closely related to the translation policy-making system and policy makers’ ideologies. Secondly, covert translation policy is made by both source and target countries. Thirdly, translation policy has different effects on different groups of translators.

Close relation of translation policy to the translation policy-making system and policy makers’ ideologies

Firstly, our study shows that the translation policy making on the English translations of modern Chinese fiction to America during the CWRAJ can be seen as an autopoietic system and a social subsystem with other social subsystems as its environment. The translation policy-making system is to a large extent subordinate to the political environment in wartime. During the CWRAJ, America was far away from the quagmire of the Eurasian war and enjoyed a sustained development before 1941. However, the outbreak of World War II and the establishment of the Sino-US war alliance prompted America to strengthen its research and understanding of China, especially to focus on the reality of China’s development and the characteristics of the Chinese people. This promoted the development of translation policies on the translations of Chinese fiction for Americans. At the same time, the Chinese cultural circles wanted to transform Chinese civilization and revive Chinese culture, which promoted their making of translation policies on the translations of Chinese fiction for American readers (Cohen, 1980, pp. 89–90). These two kinds of political climate combined to boost the development of translation policy on the English translations of modern Chinese fiction in the CWRAJ.

Secondly, policy makers with different ideologies make translation policies for specific political reasons, which determines the global trend of translation policy. For example, the American government and the SGN government focused on the cultural communications between America and China by introducing the English translations of modern Chinese fiction, dispatching writers, scholars or journalists to the other country, and funding the translation-related English magazines or newspapers. Although America advertised that its cultural diplomacy with China was reciprocal in wartime, the actual operation was dominated by America in which China made a passive response (Sun, 2012, II).

Thirdly, the CPC-led government and the US government involved in the making of translation policy hold different political ideologies. This may have different influences on the actual translation practices, including the selection of source texts and specific wording in translating, which can be illustrated by the examples in the case study. Moreover, it promoted the dissemination of the ideology held by the translation policy makers through the translation and dissemination of the English translations of Chinese fiction.

Covert translation policies made by source and target countries

The development of translation policy on rendering Chinese fiction for American readers involves the participation of the source and target countries where both American and Chinese governments are involved in the development of translation policy.

Moreover, translation policy in wartime is made in covert form, which is included in the American cultural policy on cultural assistance to China, the military policies on special language training programs for the US military and the foreign observers’ mission, and in the SGN government’s diplomatic policy and military policy with the United States. These translation policies are represented as a form of foreign policy documents, a statement of cultural policy or a political action plan on translation issues.

Due to the promotion of the American cultural policy, some American scholars and teachers such as George A. Kennedy went to China and translated some Chinese novels and short stories, and some English journals and magazines such as Asia were founded to publish the English translations of Chinese fiction to introduce China to the world. Under the sponsorship of the American government, many Chinese students such as Yao Ke were encouraged to study in America and later became translators of Chinese fiction. Moreover, some American journalists in the ACIPR such as Edgar Snow cooperated with the Chinese writers such as Yang Gang and Hsiao Ch’ien in translating Chinese short stories.

Finally, these different groups of translators adopted different translation policies in their actual wording in translation practice. For example, the members of the Chinese Left-wing Writers Union and the ACLAC translated Chinese short stories and introduced the real situation of China’s anti-Japanese war such as Yang Gang, who usually employed the translation strategy of being faithful to the source text in order to introduce a more real China to America. Some journalists in the ACIPR such as Edgar Snow usually chose Chinese short stories describing the Chinese society and revolution with the translation strategy of rewriting when they dealt with the political theme of the novels.

Effects of translation policy on different groups of translators

The translation policies are put into practice by different groups of translators of the two countries. They are not determined by one or two individuals, but by an overall response of a culture, and the reading habits of a nation. Therefore, translation policies on the English translation of modern Chinese fiction for America during the CWRAJ had different effects on different groups of translators’ actual practice.

These effects of translation policy on different groups of translators can be found in translation activities, including the selection of materials and translators, translation strategy, and reception of translations, which has been discussed in the case study Let us take the selection of materials as an example. During the CWRJA, the Chinese writers of Zuo Lian and the ACLAC chose some modern Chinese short stories with the themes of Chinese life and war to seek various ways to prosper Chinese culture and revitalize the Chinese nation. Since the May Fourth Movement in 1919, Chinese intellectuals had been trying to realize the modernization of China (Cohen, 1980, pp. 89–90). Some of them, such as Yao Ke and Hsiao Ch’ien, began to translate Chinese short stories for American readers, and regarded translation projects as an important means of revitalizing China. Their activities are consistent with the long-standing ideas of America which wanted to change the Chinese society and culture through civilization, westernization and modernization (ibid.). Some Chinese writers rendered their own or other writers’ short stories or novels to introduce Chinese fiction to American readers. For example, Lao She recommended his work Divorce for Evan King which was rewritten to a great extent (Author, 2013, p. 122).

On the other hand, some foreign translators, such as the American journalists who had the wish to cooperate with the Chinese writers to introduce modern China to Americans, usually chose Chinese fiction to translate under the help of Chinese writers. For example, Yao Ke recommended some Chinese short stories to Edgar Snow and the latter finally made the decision on the final choice of source texts in Living China, Modern Chinese Short Stories (Yao, 1993, p. 105).

Implications for Studies of Translation Policy in Wartime

The problems on the development of translation policy in the CWRAJ can enrich theories of translation policy. Translation policy has been marginalized in translation studies and has not received enough attention, and many translation studies reference books such as Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Baker & Saldanha, 2020) have not yet included the term. The absence of the term “translation policy” embodies the dilemma faced by research on translation policy as well as the possibility of expanding translation research. This study is aimed to enrich theories of translation policy.

Subordinate to the political environment of the translation policy-making system

As a social activity, the development of translation policy is influenced by social circumstances, reflecting the needs of the translation policy-making system. In this study, the English translations of modern Chinese fiction to America took place during the CWRAJ and the two countries became wartime allies. America wanted to understand more about Chinese society, while China was eager to introduce its culture, especially its current situation to Americans via translating Chinese literature. These mutual needs together promoted the development of translation policy by the two nations. According to the key concepts of stimulus and response in Luhmann’s social systems theory, the translation policy making as a social system made a selective response to the impact and stimulation of the external environment. As the impact and stimulation of the external environment, the English translations of Chinese fiction may or may not draw the attention from Americans. If a nation’s literature is to be translated and accepted in other nations, translation policy must meet the needs of the translation policy-making system, whether it is developed by the source or target country.

As for the CWRAJ, the development of translation policy is subordinate to the political environment. America adopted a pro-China policy at the beginning of the war and formed an alliance with China after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor in order to protect its interests in China, and China wanted to defeat Japan via the alliance with America (Hou, 1996, p. 41). In such a condition, the development of translation policy by America and China is closely related to the political environment. It can be asserted that the translation policies made by the governments and groups fall into this category. On the one hand, translation policy is affected by the political climate. In wartime, America strengthened its study on China’s social problems, dispatching a large number of American journalists to China (Hou, 1996). These journalists carried out research on the sufferings of Chinese people and their anti-Japanese war. In implementing the translation policy made by the American government, the American journalists followed their professional and political ideology to translate modern Chinese short stories and novels for American readers.

As journalists, they are politically sensitive and guided by the public’s opinions. They are highly politically sensitive and have a high degree of political awareness in their daily life and work. They are diligent in studying and thinking about the policies of the state (Zhang, 2019, p. 121). They often base themselves on the requirements of the state, determining the content, and the method of news reports and guiding the public opinions to make due contributions to social development. When they worked in China, the American journalists wanted to introduce Chinese society and its people to the American people. Chinese fiction can satisfy their needs, for they are rich in the plot with respect to the description of the Chinese society. They founded English magazines to publish translated Chinese fiction, choosing to translate modern Chinese fiction with the themes of Chinese society and revolution with the translation strategy of rewriting (Author, 2017, p. 178).

The activities of the US observation group also promoted the development of the diplomatic translation of the SGN government. It can be argued that its diplomatic translation was produced in the context of military diplomacy with the dual characteristics of military interpretation and diplomatic interpretation. However, translation policy may not all the time be subordinate to the political environment, but affected by translators’ own agenda.

Translators’ agenda

After 1941, US government agencies began to allocate funds for the translation of literary works from China in order to make the Americans more sympathetic to the joint war effort against Japan—but it seems also clear that the translators that they had to rely on had their own agendas (and were often motivated by communist sympathies, as in the case of Agnes Smedley and Edgar Snow), and that this entire effort had to build on the many decades of cultural engagement between China and the US that had taken place largely outside the purview of state power. American missionaries, businessmen and educators had long been interested in China, each group for its own complex set of reasons, and there had grown up an entire class of people who were intimately familiar with and emotionally invested in both cultures—Pearl S. Buck being perhaps the most famous example.

The Left-wing journalists such as Edgar Snow and Agnes Smedley, who were closely related to the Pacific Society, embarked on the road to China (Hou, 1996, p. 41). They were particularly interested in the relationship between the KMT and the CPC as well as the Chinese people’s sufferings and their resistance against the Japanese aggression. They translated for Americans some novels or short stories written by Lu Xun, Shen Congwen, Zhang Tianyi, Lao She, and other writers which reflect modern Chinese society and human nature.

Active cooperation between source and target countries

The current studies on translation policy makers are limited to the policy-makers of the target country. For example, Holmes (1972) argues that the research field of translation policy should be divided into two parts. First, the task of scholars in this field is to define translators, translation behavior, and the position and function of translation products. Therefore, he claims that translation policy is developed by researchers of translation studies. Teng (2009, pp. 11–12) defines translation policy as a variety of prescriptions that are proposed or formulated by a national government or governmental agency. Huang and Chu (2012, p. 26) regard translation policy as a discussion, presentation, or action program developed by an official or a private institution on translation issues. Although Huang and Chu’s opinion on translation policy makers expands the scope, the current studies ignore the policy-makers of the source country. However, this study shows that the source and target countries may become translation policy-makers when the literature of one nation is translated into another.

The development of translation policy by the American and Chinese governments in wartime also indicates a kind of open cooperation between the source and target countries. The common goal of defeating Japan made them allies in political and cultural fields. The American government offered political, military, and cultural assistance to China; China cooperated with America and sent Chinese students to study in America and provided some books to the American people. Such a diplomatic relation between America and China directly influences their development of translation policy. It can be concluded that the needs of the translation policy-making system promoted the development of their translation policy.

To sum up, based on Wolf’s (2006) view that translation studies are constrained by economic, ideological, and political agents, we have drawn on the conceptual framework of Luhmann’s (1995) social systems theory and found that translation policy in wartime is influenced by the political environment of the translation-making system in wartime, and both source and target countries are involved in translation policy making, which have different effects on various groups of translators. Moreover, the findings in this case study indicate that translation policy in wartime is subordinate to the political environment of the translation policy-making system, the ideological preferences, and political interests of the various actors shape actual translation practice, and the active cooperation between source and target countries is carried out. This new finding can enrich the studies on translation policy in wartime, especially on the subjects of policy making.

Conclusion

The research findings of the present study indicate that translation policy may not be explicitly stated but implicitly embodied in the political, diplomatic, and cultural policies made by the American and Chinese governments. Both target and source countries may be involved in the making of translation policy. During the CWRAJ, the source and target countries wanted to deepen their understanding of each other’s society and people since they were in alliance to fight against the common enemy; in this situation, translation policy making as a social system is influenced by the political environment in wartime. Different policy makers’ motives and policies change over time in reaction to each other, the course of the war, and the changing socio-political climate in China and the US had great effects on the English translations of Chinese fiction before the entry of the US into the war and after the US government became actively involved in translation projects. Moreover, the ideological preferences and political interests of the various actors shape actual translation practice—the selection of texts and actual choices in wording. This course of events affects the reception of these translations by the US public. In other words, the readership of these books grew after the Chinese government became allies in the war with the American government.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science, P.R. China under Grant number 18BYY032 and Grant number 20FYYB037.

ORCID iD

Chuanmao Tian

Notes

References

Baker

Saldanha

(Eds.). (2020). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (3rd ed.). Routledge.

CCCPC Archives. (1992). Selected works of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (1943-1944). (p. 315, Book 14) The Central Party School Press.

Chen

(2016). The establishment and operation to league of leftist writers and the start of organization to left-wing literature. Journal of Qilu Normal University, 2, 134–140.

Chen

(2007, June 15). Zhou Enlai casts the diplomatic backbone of the Chinese Communist Party. China News Network. http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/64162/64172/85037/85038/5869507.html.

Chia

Wales

(Trans.) (September 1941). Xiao Hong. Ma Fang Zhi Lian. A Night in a Stable. Asia (N.Y.), 41.9, 487–489.

Cohen

W. I.

(1980). America’s response to China——An interpretative history of Sino-American relations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

CPC History Research Office (Ed.). (2014). Proceedings of the National Symposium on the CPC History in Commemoration of the 120th Anniversary of the Birth of Comrade Mao Zedong. CPC History Publishing House, Beijing.

Cze

(Comp. and Trans.) (1935). Short stories from China. Co-Operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the U.S.S.R.

Deng

(1994). Deng Xiaoping’s anthology (Vol. I). People’s Publishing House.

10.

Even-Zohar

(1992). Translation policy in Hebrew children’s literature: The case of Astrid Lindgren. Poetics Today, 13(1), 231.

11.

Fairbank

(1976). America’s cultural experiment in China 1942-1949. Cultural relations program of the U.S. Department of state: Historical studies, number 1. Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of U.S. Department of State.

12.

Field

F. V.

(1992). From right to left ( Jing

, Trans.). World Affairs Press.

13.

Gentzler

(2002). Translation, poststructuralism and power. In Tymoczko

Gentzler

(Eds.), Translation and power (pp. 195–218). University of Massachusetts Press.

14.

Gibbs

(1975). A bibliography of studies and translations of modern Chinese literature. Harvard University Press.

15.

González Núñez

(2013). Translating for linguistic minorities in Northern Ireland: A look at translation policy in the judiciary, healthcare, and local government. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(3–4), 474–489.

16.

González Núñez

(2016a). On translation policy. Target, 28(1), 87–109.

17.

González Núñez

(2016b). Translating in linguistically diverse societies: Translation policy in the United Kingdom. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

18.

Holmes

(1972/2000). The name and nature of translation studies. In Venuti

(Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 172–185). Routledge.

19.

Hou

(1996). A prominent discipline in contemporary America—Studies on modern China in America. People’s Publishing House.

20.

Hsia

C. T.

(1971). Twentieth-century Chinese stories. Columbia University Press.

21.

Hsia

C. T.

(2005). The tradition of new literature. New Star Press.

22.

Hsiao

(Comp.) (1944). Spinners of silk. George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.

23.

Huang

Chu

(2012). Formulation of translation policies during the late Qing period. Chinese Translators Journal, 3, 26–33.

24.

Huang

(2006). Translation studies in the power structure. Journal of Beijing International Studies University, 6, 1–6.

25.

Huang

(2007). Translation and power. Journal of Tianjin Foreign Studies University, 14(3), 1–6.

26.

Jenkins

(2007). The meaning of policy/policy as meaning. In Hodgson

Susan M.

& IRVING Zoë (Eds.), Policy reconsidered: meanings, politics, and practices (pp. 21–36). The Policy Press.

27.

Jiang

(2003). An ideological approach to translation. Chinese Translators Journal, 9, 24–29.

28.

Johnson

A. F.

Roberto

K. J.

(2018). Right versus left: How does political ideology affect the workplace? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 1040–1043. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2291

29.

Kennedy

G. A.

(1934/1935). Short Stories from China. New York: International Publishers; London: Martin Lawrence.

30.

King

( Ward

R. S.

). (Trans.) (1945). Lau Shaw. Lo-t’o hsiang-tzu. Rickshaw Boy. Tr. By Evan King (Robert S. Ward). New York: Reyal and Hitchcock. Reprinted, London Michael Joseph, 1946.

31.

Kraske

G. E.

(1985). Missionaries of the book, the American library profession and the origins of United States cultural diplomacy (pp. 94–95). Greenwoods Press.

32.

Lambert

(1994). Ethnolinguistic Democracy, Translation Policy and Contemporary World (Dis)Order. In Trasvases culturales: literatura, cine, traducción, ed. by Eguíluz

Federico

Merino

Raquel

, et al., 23–36. Vitoria: Universidad del Pais Vasco, Departamento de Filología inglesa y alemana.

33.

Lefevere

(1992). Translation, rewriting, and the manipulation of literary fame. Routledge.

34.

Lefevere

Basset

(1992). Translation/history/culture: A sourcebook. Routledge.

35.

(2013). On the subjects in the rewriting of modern Chinese literature translated into the strong culture. Research on Translations from Chinese, 12, 118–128,122.

36.

(2017). Images of China reconstructed in the English translations of Chinese fictions into Britain and America (1900-1949) [Doctoral dissertation]. Beijing, Beijing Foreign Studies University.

37.

Zhang

(Eds.). (2014). Chronicle of the United Front: China’s War of resistance against Japan volume. Qunyan Press.

38.

Luhmann

(1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.

39.

(2011a). The journey of seeking common ground and removing differences—English translation of Xiao Jun’s novel village in August. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 34(5), 80–85.

40.

(2011b). A case study of selected early English translations of modern Chinese fictions (1926-1952): With a focus on global strategies [Doctoral thesis]. Shanghai International Studies University.

41.

Meylaerts

(2011). Translation policy. In Gambier

van Doorslaer

(Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 2, pp. 163–168). John Benjamins Publishing.

42.

Mills

E. H. F.

(Trans.) (1930/1931). The tragedy of Ah Qui, and other modern Chinese stories ( Yn Yu

, Trans.). George Routeledge and Sons, Ltd.

43.

O’Rourke

Castillo Ortiz

(2009). Top-down or bottom-up language policy: Public service interpreting in the republic of Ireland, Scotland. In de Pedro Ricoy

Perez

Wilson

(Eds.), Interpreting and translating in public service settings: Policy, pedagogy and practice (pp. 33–51). St. Jerome Publishing.

44.

O’Sullivan

(2016). Imagined spectators: The importance of policy for audiovisual translation research. Target, 28(2), 261–275.

45.

Pearsall

(Ed.) (1998). The new Oxford dictionary of English. Clarendon Press.

46.

Qiu

(2000). A glimpse of American sinological studies in the first half of the 20th century. Archives and Historiography, 4, 66–71.

47.

Ren

(1993). In memory of Yao Ke. New Literature Historical Materials, 3, 96–99.

48.

Richards

J. C.

Rodgers

T. S.

(2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

49.

Smedley

(1935). Introduction. In Ming-ting

(Comp. & Trans.), Short stories from China (pp. 5–7). Co-operative Publishing Society of Foreign Workers in the U.S.S.R.

50.

Snow

(Ed.). (1937). Living China, modern Chinese short stories. John Day.

51.

Song

Yang

(2015). The silhouette of the Anti-Japanese war: Little-known historical details. Guangdong Education Publishing House.

52.

Sun

(2012). The study of the American culture aids for China during the Pacific War, Changchun [Doctoral dissertation]. Jilin University.

53.

Teng

(2009). Research on Chinese translation policy since 1919. Shandong University Press.

54.

Teng

(2014). On translation policy studies and its relevance in the Chinese context. Shanghai Journal of Translators, 1, 35–39.

55.

Tian

(1985). Selections of works with Lu Xun’s preface and postscripts: Village in August. Shanghai Bookstore.

56.

Toury

(1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. John Benjamins.

57.

Tyulenev

(2012). Applying Luhmann to translation studies: Translation in society. Routledge.

58.

T’ien

(1943). Village in August. New Century Press.

59.

Wang

(1941). Introduction. In Chi-Chen

(Ed. & Trans.), Ah Q and others: Selected stories of Lusin (p. ix). Columbia University Press.

60.

Wang

(1944). Preface. In Chi-Chen

(Ed. & Trans.), Contemporary Chinese stories (pp. vii–ix). Columbia University Press.

61.

Wang

(1999). Interaction between ideology and literary translation. Chinese Translators Journal, 2, 10–14.

62.

Wolf

(2006). Social dimensions of translation studies. In Gu

Shi

(Eds.), Exploring the international translation studies (pp. 125–138). Baihua Literature and Art Publishing House.

63.

(2008). The status quo and the limitations of the sociology of translation studies. Journal for Foreign Languages, 1, 75–82.

64.

(2013). Exploring the changes of the ending of the English translation of shen ts’ung-wen’s Pai-tzu—A social translation perspective. Chinese Translators Journal, 4, 74–78.

65.

Zhang

Liu

(2017). Selected historical documents of the southern bureau of the central committee of the Communist Party of China. Chongqing Publishing House.

66.

Yao

(1993). Research on the famous dramatist and translator named Yao Ke. New Literature Historical Materials, 3, 102–111.

67.

Yuan

(2014). A study on translation activities in Yan’an times and its influences [Doctoral dissertation] (p. 6). Shanghai International Studies University.

68.

Zhang

(2018). Intertextuality in retranslation. Perspectives, 26(4), 576–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2018.1448875

69.

Zhang

(2019). Journalists’sensitivity and promotion. Journal of Yulin University, 29(3), 119–123.

70.

Zhao

Sun

(2012). A study of Evan King’s Rickshaw Boy from the perspective of Toury’s Norm theory on its interlingual rewriting. Journal of Henan Normal University, 39(1), 228–230.

71.

Zhao

Liu

(Eds.). (2001). Chinese dictionary (book 2). Printing Industry Press.

72.

Zhu

(1998). Activities of American journalists in the area controlled by the Communist Party of China during the Anti-Japanese War. Journal of Zhanjiang Normal College, 4, 23.