Social Sciences in China Review

No.1, 2020

Broad Disciplinary Definitions Make It Hard to Get Accurate Discrimination between Terms: A Translation Literature Perspective on the Scoping of Medio-Translatology, with a Reply to Xie Tianzhen (Abstract)

Wang Xiangyuan

Xie Tianzhen’s “‘Creative Treason’: Original Intention and Mistranslation, with a Discussion with Professor Wang Xiangyuan,” expresses some conceptual terminology ambiguously. For example, does “creative treason” refer to “translator” or “translation,” and does medio-translatology deal with “broad translation” or “narrow translation?” In the light of translation literature, this can be seen to be related to the overly broad definition of the discipline of medio-translatology. The definition of medio-translatology is equated with broad academic fields such as “translatology,” “translation studies” and even “foreign literature.” This makes it difficult to discriminate among the relevant conceptual terms, and leaves the area prone to misunderstandings and arguments. The reason the core concept of “creative treason” in medio-translatology has been misunderstood and misused is due to its lack of precise definition, with some people trying to use the term to explain all the problems in translation. Since medio-translatology is a disciplinary concept, it cannot be all-inclusive. Merely having “creative treason” as a core concept does not make possible the effective explanation of all aspects of translation, especially the issue of the translated text. Medio-translatology essentially belongs to the cultural translation model; its role and that of translation literature should not be mutually exclusive but complementary, with each making its unique contribution to China’s translation studies and the construction of translation theory.