Introduction

In 2003, American philosophers Anle Zhe and Hao Dawei collaborated to publish a translation of the Tao Te Ching, aiming to comprehensively convey ancient Chinese ideas to the West from a philosophical perspective. Anle Zhe has re translated multiple Chinese classics and established a new translation model for comparative philosophical interpretations between China and the West. Unlike Western missionaries, Anhao approached the translation from a philosophical perspective by incorporating auxiliary texts such as historical introductions, philosophical introductions, and key terminology lists. He employed a strategy of marked interpretation and contextual interpretation to restore the true framework of Chinese Taoist philosophy to Western society. This article will explore the gains and losses of cross-cultural interpretation of An Hao's translation of the Tao Te Ching, in order to provide inspiration for the English translation of Chinese philosophical classics.

Interpretation of 'Text Centered'

Chinese philosophical classics such as the Analects and the Tao Te Ching face the problem of "transmission but not communication, communication but not reach" in international dissemination. Guo Shangxing proposed two translation modes: "text centered" and "relevance based", emphasizing the intention and values of the original author as the core. Early translations of the Tao Te Ching tended towards "relevance," such as George Alexander's translation of "Dao" as "God," and Arthur Waley's translation as "The Way and Its Power." These translations ignored cultural differences between China and the West, leading to distortions in Chinese philosophical thought. Therefore, An Hao re translated the Tao Te Ching to correct the mistranslation and restore its philosophical essence.

Three Text Explanations

French literary theorist Genette proposed the concept of "subtext", which refers to all materials that coordinate the main text and readers, and present the appearance of the work. The auxiliary text is divided into inner and outer auxiliary texts, which have the characteristics of surrounding the main text, diverse forms, and presenting the main text. The auxiliary text forms of Anhao's translation of the Tao Te Ching are diverse, including preface, acknowledgements, historical introduction, philosophical introduction, core terminology, etc., which complement and strengthen the main text. The translator deeply analyzes the main theme of the Tao Te Ching and the philosophical thoughts of Taoism, interprets the core concepts, questions the translation method of the literal meaning, and emphasizes the profound connotation and dynamic significance of philosophical terms. The Anhao translation translates "Tao Te Ching" as "Making This Life Significant", opposes domestication translation, and translates "Dao" as "way making" and "Tian" as the Chinese pinyin "tian". The appendix section of 'Tai Yisheng Shui' makes the Taoist cosmology clearer. Each chapter of the translation is followed by comments, providing detailed interpretations and explanations of the original chapter, including semantic explanations, comparisons with previous translations, and cultural context construction, to reduce the difficulty of readers' understanding and allow them to experience the profoundness of Chinese culture. The Anhao translation uses methods such as annotations and comments to place the text in a rich cultural and linguistic environment, preserving the cultural characteristics of the source language, which has become the main strategy for translating Chinese classics. The auxiliary texts of Anhao's translation of the Tao Te Ching are rich and diverse, which significantly supplement and strengthen the main text, help Western readers understand Chinese philosophy, promote the cross-cultural dissemination of Chinese philosophy, and are worthy of reference and learning from the translation of Chinese classics.

The Shortcomings of Four Cross Cultural Interpretations

This article explores the cross-cultural interpretation strategy of "text centered" adopted by An Lezhe and Hao Dawei in the translation of the Tao Te Ching, pointing out that although it helps to resist Western centrism, it also has shortcomings. Firstly, the translator excessively turned the virtual into reality, destroying Laozi's mystical artistic conception. For example, the translation of "one, two, three" in the phrase "the Tao gives birth to one, one, two, two, three, and three gives birth to all things" as "continuity," "difference," and "pluralism" lost the simplicity and power of the original text. Secondly, the translator's excessive focus on English etymology may lead to misinterpretation and mistranslation, such as translating "ren" as "authoritative conduct", ignoring the Taoist understanding of the natural love for "ren". In addition, the translator translated "meaning" as "appropriate" and "ritual" as "property", although considering the English etymology, it failed to accurately convey the deep logical relationships and personalized characteristics of the original text. In short, there is a temporal and spatial asymmetry in the etymology of Chinese and English, and translators who overly focus on English etymology may fall into the trap of Western centrism, leading to incorrect value orientation for Western readers.

Five concluding remarks

The limited dissemination of Chinese classics in the West is partly due to "Western centrism". The "Western centrism" of the 21st century is manifested in cultural and ideological infiltration, and translators lack critical thinking, leading to misinterpretation of Chinese philosophical classics. The translation of Tao Te Ching by An Lezhe and Hao Dawei avoids the erroneous correspondence of Western readers and breaks the shackles of Chinese philosophy through contextual interpretation and marker construction. Their successful translation also benefited from the academic cooperation between Chinese and foreign scholars, providing reference for the subsequent translation and cross-cultural interpretation of Chinese classics.