How has your relationship with the Chinese language evolved over the years?

I never stop learning new words and new ways of saying things in Chinese. I’m a bit of a magpie about collecting new language, or language which is new to me (not necessarily the same thing). I never stop being fascinated by the language in all its manifestations, old and new, and all its registers, from elegant to slang.

In what way(s) is that intimacy different from your relationship with the English language?

… a text which is rich stylistically and in content can be interpreted in different ways in translation… each translator needs to make choices, and those choices make up her/his own ‘voice.’

I think I “notice” Chinese much more consciously when I read, than I do English. I collect words and expressions I hear and read in English too, and store them up for later use! I actually like English grammar because it’s both precise and rhythmic. I was lucky to get a good grounding in grammar at school. I also have a sense of style. I used to think that was enough to be a good translator. But I find as I go on that translating a good Chinese writer stretches my English as much as my Chinese. I keep a pen handy in case I hear something that strikes me, on the radio, in conversation. I sometimes wake up in the night with le mot juste banging around in my head!

Do you believe in the “voice” (or space) of a translator?

Yes, I do. The same text rendered by different translators will sound and read differently. Every translator’s choice of language is unique (and that’s without considering the differences between the different Englishes, Australian, British, American…). And a text which is rich stylistically and in content can be interpreted in different ways in translation. Even at the most basic level, the differences in syntax between Chinese and English mean that each translator needs to make choices, and those choices make up her/his own “voice.”

Translating is not, and can never be, a form of authorship. Why do you think translators today may breech invisibility, or advocate translating as a form of “rewriting”?

There are an awful lot of assumptions contained in this question. People have written whole books about the concepts of “invisibility” and “re–writing” in translation. Actually I feel that these concepts are much misunderstood (pace Lawrence Venuti). Invisibility is usually taken to mean the creation of a translation so fluent in the target language that it reads as if that were the source text and no translator had been involved (hence s/he is “invisible”). The theory goes that if the translator deliberately attempts to allow the character of the (foreign) original to shine through, then s/he breeches his/her invisibility, something that Venuti regards as a political choice. But “foreignness” in a translation comes not just from the language but from the concepts, the objects and story-lines contained in the text, so a translation from Chinese often feels “foreign” just because the story has come from a foreign culture.