The Concept of Culture in the Translation Studies - Coursework Example

The concept of ‘Culture’ in the discipline of Translation Studies Table of Contents: Background Cultural Approach Development 3 Culture and Linguistic Approach 4 Cultural-turn 5 The Process 6 Concept of Norms 8 Criticisms 9 Conclusion 12 Bibliography 16 The act of translation is very important in literary studies, in shaping literary systems and in the mediation of culture. Also, as Even-Zohar (1978) said, translation is often the conduit through which innovation and change can be initiated: “no observer of the history of any literature can avoid recognising as an important fact the impact of translations and their role in the synchrony and diachrony of a certain literature” (Zohar 1978: 15). Interest in the translation discipline has grown rapidly in the 1990s to the point that it now occupies a solid place in the academe. Along with its recent development came the debates in regard to the best translation methodology especially among translation scholars of Western literature. Several different systematic approaches to translation have been developed, each attempting to trace in detail the actual process of translation and to describe how translators actually translate. One of the most important methods to emerge today in translation studies is the cultural approach. This paper will explore the merit of this method in translation studies. Background It was the Romans who first introduced the use of the concept of culture as an indispensable aspect in translation studies. According to Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet (1992), during their period translation meant incorporating subject matters of foreign culture into the language of one’s own culture (Schulte & Biguenet 1992: 4). For critics, this could mean looting those elements from Greek culture that would enhance the aesthetic dimensions of the Roman culture. However, as what Cicero proclaimed, he was translating ideas and their forms and was therefore setting the word-for-word rendering of the original-language text secondary or of no import at all. Culture, hence, was pivotal here even if its aspects were used to enhance another. Saint Jerome, the famous translator of the Greek Bible into Latin, favoured this method, arguing that translation meant expropriating ideas and insights from another culture to enrich one’s own language (Schulte & Biguenet 1992: 4). Saint Jerome in fact improved on this, contributing to the definition of the history of the discipline. One of the authors who would credit Saint Jerome as their influence is Rufinus of Aquilea, one of the most important translators of Greek texts into Latin in late antiquity. Rufinus tendency to paraphrase, gloss his text, interpolate material into it and abbreviate or omit sections, has often been noted and deplored. He candidly explained this somehow biased approach in the prefaces of several works which cleared out his intentions carrying such approach further on. We have the excerpt from the preface to his translation of Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus: When experienced teachers of the Sacred Scriptures try to convey something from the Greek language for Latin ears, they take care not to translate word for word, but sense for sense. And well they might. For if Latin discourse intended to imitate the Greek idiom, it would quite choke both the rhythm of speech and the sense of meaning. And this is also true for us in translating the life of Gregory Thaumaturgus from Attic speech. In recasting what the holy Gregory of Nyssa composed in foreign, that is, in the Greek tongue, we have made many additions and many omissions, as the most suitable meaning required, attending to the sense while fittingly accommodating Latin readers. (Mitchell 1999: 132) Later on, I cite specifically Valery Larbaud’s (1946), who invoked St. Jerome in his translation theory and is ranked among the most accomplished of translators’ commentaries. Larbaud views translation through Saint Jerome’s and beyond him Aristotle’s category of poetics and rhetoric although his concerns are modernists. His main point is that translations should be given a “foreign air” despite the protestations of “purists,” whose vernacular nationalism he judges “more dangerous to the essence of culture than the most fiercely boorish ignorance.” (Larbaud 1946: 164) For Larbaud, only an approach to translation that combines theory and history can challenge the misunderstanding that greets the translator’s work at present. Cultural Approach: Development In the millennium and a half, translators, writers and translation theorists have followed the lead of Cicero, Horace and St. Jerome, establishing the notion that translation theory is normative, consisting of instructions to someone on how to translate (Baker 1998: 161). A method called overt translation refined it further by treating the original as one that is tied in a specific way to the culture enveloping it. It has independent status in the source culture, and is both culture specific and pointing beyond the source culture because the original text – independent of its source language origin – is also a potential human interest. The idea, according to Alessandra Riccardi, is that there are materials, which call for overt translation – ideas that are time culture specific because they often reflect a particular et at de langue, or a geographical or social variety. The attitude toward translation – translation seen as the exploitation of the original source-language text – underwent a dramatic change in the middle of the eighteenth century as translators and scholars began to see other languages as equals not as an inferior forms of expression and of inferior culture, in general, when compared to their own. Here, respect for the foreign language and culture emerged as the guiding principle, and with that change of perspective, a desire to adjust and adapt to the foreign. More contemporary foreign tongues sometimes seemed deeply alien to a certain culture. This prompted the Chinese writer Qing, for instance, to write that languages of the barbarians are barely human and we quote: “Their spoken languages are like twittering of sparrows and the croaking of frogs, whilst their scripts resemble the scratchmarks left by tigers’ claws.” (Binglin 1981: 30) An influential work abut translation work was published in 1958 by the Canadian linguists Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet. By approaching French-English translation from the field of comparative stylistics, they are able to provide a theoretical basis for a variety of translation methods that are still in use today. The upshot of this is that they were able to produce a book that has been a staple in translator training programs for over four decades. They were also able to put forward the idea that it is possible or even recommended to reduce the linguistic and cultural differences to empiricist semantics. To quote: “Equivalence of messages ultimately relies upon an identity of situations.” (Vinay and Darbelnet 1995: 42) One of their main arguments is that translators would do well to think of meaning as a cultural construction and that they should find the close connection between linguistic procedures and metalinguistic information, namely, the current state of literature of literature, science, politics, among others of both language communities. In a way, Vinay and Darbelenet’s work overcame any philosophical questions in regard to translatability – and distracted attention away from their conservative prescriptions about language use in translation. This period would be capped by Reuben Brower’s (1959) work, On Translation, which helpfully compiled together the main trends in commentary on translation. There, notwithstanding great conceptual and methodological differences, linguists, literary critics, and philosophers join in a remarkable unity of interest in translation as a problem of language and culture. And they are joined by translators, both academic in those fields and writers in various genres, who represented sophisticated discussions of translation and their own respective projects. For instance, we have the case of Eugene Nida who put forward the idea that the act of translation is one of the primary means of communication between different cultures including that between different subcultures within society such as specialists and laymen and that at a deeper level, even between native speakers – as involving a species of translation between idiolects. (Browers 1959: 11-31) Culture and Linguistic Approach Contemporary translation tradition was focused on linguistic approaches particularly dominating the 1950s and the 1960s. Within this period scholars talked about definitive translations, about accuracy and faithfulness and equivalence between linguistic and literary systems. The debates are focused on the evaluative critical language. The use of culture, however, would also figure prominently in this translation approach. As this perspective argues that language is the fundamental factor in translation, culture is naturally invoked. Language is primarily a social phenomenon and makes it inextricably intertwined with culture. Commenting on the subject, Riccardi (2002) said that “language is viewed as embedded in culture such that the meaning of any linguistic item can be properly understood only with reference to the cultural context enveloping it. Since in translation ‘meaning’ is of particular importance, it follows that translation cannot be fully understood outside a cultural frame of reference” (Riccardi 2002: 92). This is why we can see the cultural variable in linguistic approaches such as those introduced by Maria Sidiropoulou (2004) with her ‘domesticating’ and ‘foreignising’ translation concepts. To quote: “A domesticating strategy involves reflecting dominant target cultural values of society at the time of translating, whereas foreignising strategy preserves sources values undermining target ones. An important parameter in this view is the status of the source/target languages and the notion of cultural hegemony. In a translation situation in which the direction of the translation is from a dominant towards a minority-status language, domestication is viewed positively in that minority-status language is being protected against its tendency to absorb. By contrast, if the target language is culturally dominant, domesticating creates an illusion of transparency” (Sidiropoulou 2004: 5). ‘Cultural-turn’ The cultural turn to translation studies was gradually perceived by the early 1980s and it began to emerge as a field that is not only culturally-oriented but interdisciplinary as well. Many translation scholars and theorists saw translation studies as that discipline bridging the gap between the vast area of stylistics, literary history, linguistics, semiotics and aesthetics. Snell-Hornby (1988), for instance, argued in support of the interdisciplinary and cultural aspects of the translation process, stressing that: “Translation studies, as a culturally oriented subject, draws on a number of disciplines, including psychology… ethnology… and philosophy… without being a subdivision of any of them. Similarly, it can and should utilise relevant concepts and methods developed from the study of language… without automatically becoming a branch of linguistics” (Snell- Hornby 1998: 2-3). As many scholars were slowly shifting towards the cultural turn in translation studies, Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere led the fray by articulating this position, particularly when they published their series of translation books back in the 1990s. In a way, they redefined the role of culture in the translation process. They argued that such redefinition “Could offer a way of understanding how complex manipulative textual processes take place: how a text is selected for translation… what role the translator plays in that selection, what the role of an editor, publisher, or patron plays, what criteria determine the strategies that will be employed for the translators, and how a text might be received in the target system” (Bassnet & Lefevere 1998:123) The analysis of culture reveals a complex network of ideas and highlights a relationship between various systems. The act of translation is an intercultural situation and it presents a difficulty that is why the translation process must no longer takes into account linguistic aspects, exclusively, but also production, consumption and market-related activities, as well as the relationship of negotiating between norms. The Process Translation theorists use culture by starting with a practical examination of a corpus text and then seek to determine those norms and constraints operating on these texts in a specific culture and at a specific moment in history (Hung 2005: 28). In other words, the theorists attempt to account not only textual strategies in the translation of text, but also for the way in which translation functions in the target cultural and literary systems. Eva Hung argued that this use of culture in translation posits a great advantage by enabling us to bypass deep-rooted source-oriented and normative traditional ideas concerning fidelity and quality in translation. Equivalence also enters the picture in this culture-based translation process as illustrated below: “A researcher describes or explains the specific characteristics of a translated text (or multiple translations of the original) in terms of constraints or norms reigning in the target system at a particular time, which may have influenced the method of translating and the ensuing product. The quality of equivalence between translations and their originals may be described in terms of shifts and manipulations that have occurred” (Hung 2005: 28). Interest in intercultural translation increased as problems arise from recognition of culture-bound concepts. The emphasis tends to be on how well a translation function in the receiving language culture sits. Ritva Leppihalme (1997) emphasised this by saying that increased international contacts mean that these problems are not merely academic. (Leppihalme 1997: 3) For example, a translator of economic and political texts no less than the literary translator can hardly avoid coming across implicit messages grounded in the source culture, and vital interests may be at stake if misunderstandings occur. The great debate of the 1990s is concerned with the relationship between globalization, on the one hand, between the increasing interconnectedness of the world-system in commercial, political and communication terms and the rise of nationalism on the other. Leppihalme (1997) said it best when she put forward the idea that culturally oriented translation studies do not see the source text and the target text simply as samples of linguistic material as the texts occur in a given situation in a given culture in the world, and that each has a specific function and an audience of its own (Leppihalme 1997: 3). She suggested that instead of studying specimens of language under laboratory conditions as it were, the modern translation scholar – and the translator – thus approaches text as if from a helicopter: “seeing first the cultural context, then the situational context, and finally the text itself” (Leppihalme 1997: 13). In his commentary on approaches to translation studies, Even-Zohar (1997) explored the factors and dependencies in culture as well as its role in translation: “If we view culture as framework, a sphere, which makes it possible to organise social life, then the repertoire in culture, or of culture, is where the necessary items for that framework are stored… Culture is a repertoire or tool-kit of habits, skills, and styles from which people construct strategies of action. To paraphrase… culture is a tool kit of skills from which people construct conceptual strategies, i.e., those strategies with which they understand the world” (Zohar 1997: 66). Concept of Norms The concept of norm in the translation studies also strengthens the cultural approach. Norms, wrote Christina Schäffner (1999), play a role in all respects of the translation approaches since they are concerned with the assumptions and expectations about correctness and/or appropriateness (Schäffner 1999: 1). But the norm is the social reality of each of the correctness notions. Each community has its own knowledge and rules in regard to determining what counts as correct or appropriate behaviour. The norm content is a socially shared notion of what is correct, and, as what Hermans (1993) argued in his book, norms and conventions are intimately tied up with values (Hermans 1993: 155-169). Dominant values in a society reflect the power relationships in that society. This has as a consequence to translation that can never be value-free. Translation as cultural and historical phenomena is characterised by a certain degree of opaqueness and by lack of transparency or neutrality. And so, in its broader socio-cultural dimension, translation is inevitably and constantly subjected to various constraints of several types and degrees of intensity. According to Toury (1995), These constraints often extend beyond the texts and the languages involved in the act of translation, and even beyond the possibilities and limitations of the cognitive apparatus of the translator as a mediator: cognition itself is modified by socio-cultural factors. (Toury 1995: 54) What this means for us is that to conduct a research into this area of translational limitations one should similarly undertake a thorough and sufficient investigation and analysis of socio-cultural factors. Such task would definitely prove challenging since the study of that kind would be too broad, vague and unfocused and should be directed by someone who possesses specialised knowledge of both translation, sociology or even cultural anthropology. Fotios Karamitroglou (2000) suggests that when faced with this problem, it would be more effective and appropriate to restrict a study of socio-cultural factors to an investigation of the way they are reflected in translational constraints, such as their impact on translational behaviour. One must not forget that norms is the middle ground that lies between the two extremes that consist socio-cultural constraints: objective, stable, absolute rules or laws on the one hand, and mere subjective idiosyncrasies on the other. (Toury 1995: 54) Norms, hence play a very important role in interaction between people (translation being one of them); enabling participants in the process to generalise from past experience, reduce contingency and unpredictability and allow for similar predictive speculations in the future. (Hermans, 1996: 26) Criticisms A fundamental line of debate within the cultural approach in translation studies centres on the notion of value – whether aesthetic value or material value – as culturally determined. The old idea was that texts had some kind of intrinsic universal value of their own that helped them to survive down the ages (Bassnett & Lefevere 1998: 133). For example, if we were to consider both Homer and Shakespeare from another angle than that of their literary stature, all kinds of questions would arise. In the case of Homer, we might be compelled to ask how ancient texts have been passed down to us. The span of time from its actual writing to the present is considerably long and so questions on how they representative they might be are raised amid the fact that a substantial amount of original materials have been lost. There are also the questions about the people who are involved in the production of the whole translation processes through all those years – from the oral transfer of the literature to the modern methods. How they might have been read originally and by whom, who commissioned and paid for, what was the purpose of the original text and so forth. Besides this archaeological survey, there are numerous other concerns to be addressed such as the history of fortunes of Homer in western literatures, the history of translations of his works as well as the role played by those translations in different literary systems. There are also writers on translation studies who complain on the difficulties involving the translation of highly culture specific aspects of texts such as references to, for example, festivals and practices, and in the translation of culturally loaded terms, metaphors and proverbs (Malmkjaer 2005: 36-37). Finally, as mentioned elsewhere, translation studies have become an amalgamation of disciplines – from philosophy, linguistics, sociology to psychology. The upshot of this is that different scholars and cultural theorists also converge bringing with them the differences from their own respective fields. This has become a consequence as these people kept their own ideologies and agendas along with their criticisms. Critics of the cultural approach an as interdisciplinary field particularly underscore this gap as different perspectives do not always complement but instead contrast each other. There are theorists who are now devising models that would address the diversity and interdisciplinary challenges posed by translating using the cultural approach. For example, Stefan Herbrechter’s (2002) model of inter/cultural studies and translation – one which interrogates cultural identities across a dialectical reflection upon foreign cultures and one’s own culture working on the assumption that national cultures, in a post-modern and global era, increasingly constitute each other in processes of reciprocal if not symmetrical translation (Herbrechter 2002: 165). Models such as Herbrechter’s recognise culture as always a hybrid identity, always constituted in a process of border-crossings. Individual identities are also caught in the process on ongoing translation and reciprocal modification. Herbrechter (2002) believed that in the realm of translation, the capacity to deal with differences between languages is predicated upon a subjective configuration which sits easily with ambiguity and multiple realities. For other difficulties and problems that usually confront the cultural approach in translation, Peter Newmark (1998) has some solutions. These are: Using ‘naturalisation’, wherein a SL word is transferred into TL text in its original form. Using a technique called ‘couplet’ or ‘triplet’ and ‘quadruplet’ where the translator adopts at the time of transferring, naturalising or calques to avoid any misunderstanding: according to him it is a number of strategies combine together to handle one problem. Using ‘neutralisation’, which is a kind of paraphrase at the level of word. If it is at higher level it would be a paraphrase. When the SL item is generalised (neutralised) it is paraphrased with some culture free words. Using descriptive and functional equivalent in explanation of source language cultural item. Descriptive equivalent talks about size, colour, and composition while the functional equivalent talks about the purpose of the SL cultural-specific word. The translator may also opt to give extra information to the TL reader. He would explain this extra information in a footnote. It may come at the bottom of the page, at the end of chapter, or at the end of the book. Using the ‘cultural equivalent wherein the SL cultural word is translated by TL cultural word. Using compensation - a technique which is used when confronting a loss of meaning, sound effect, pragmatic effect or metaphor in one part of a text. The word or concept is compensated in other part of the text. (cited in Mizani 2007) Conclusion The prevalence of culture in translation theory can be explained by the following factors: 1) the concept of culture as a totality of knowledge, proficiency and perception; 2) its immediate connection with behaviour or action and events; 3) its dependence on norms, whether those social behaviour or those accepted in language usage (Trosborg 1997: 150). Knowledge, proficiency and perception is fundamental in the approach to translation. This is underscored in instances when intercultural problems arise from factors such as formal conventions, text-type conventions and so forth as well as structural differences in vocabulary, syntax and pragmatic features of the two languages in question. That is why, as previously mentioned, the concept of culture became significant in some of the linguistic approaches. Simply put, translators need to be well versed not only in their languages but also in the cultures within which languages are spoken. Indeed, culture shape aspects of texts that is reflected in aspects of texts and is also in turn affected by texts. Following this line of thinking - in the cultural perspective in translation studies, there are no universal or global translation theories and that all theorising can only proceed from knowledge of a pair – or a very limited number – of languages. As a matter of fact, the only variable that seems to be constant is the diversity and interdisciplinary nature of the cultural approach. Linking here is how Chinese translation scholars put forward the idea that there should be a translation approach developed for China alone. The words of Liu Miqing to (1993) drive home this point: “Undoubtedly, the basic model for translation theory in China should begin and end with our mother-tongue… We neglect at our own peril the distribution of lexical meanings and functions of the Chinese language. With this consideration in mind, we can summarily call this basic model a ‘descriptive semantic-functional model.’” (Liu 1993: 30) The implication of this statement by Liu is that a literature must have its own specific and specialised approach according to the cultural system and structure that it belongs to. One should remember that Liu expatiated on the specificity of the Chinese experience. What Liu is initiating is a version of a cultural view in translation as an activity, developing a discourse on translation that can be seen as almost counter-hegemonic. For example, he blends traditional Chinese aesthetics with Western approaches to translation in order to rewrite translation theory from a Chinese point of view. Indeed, an analysis of culture reveals a complex network of ideas and highlights the relationship between various systems. That is why concepts such as norms and social considerations come into play in the translation process. In this regard, translation taking into account is not only factors such as the linguistic aspects, but production, consumption and market-related activities, as well as the relationships of negotiations between norms. Seeing translation studies in the perspective of culture particularly highlights the act as a social phenomenon. As Peter Newmark (1988) has underlined, culture can be defined as “the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language and its means of expression” (Newmark 1998: 39). Intercultural awareness and the consequent implications in dealing with a translation between cultures brings to a different approach to the translating process itself and to the translator’s choices. Translation introduces the concept of difference because it confronts cultural diversities, it brings in notions such as linguistic equivalence and correspondences implying at the same time a series of ‘untranslatability’ issues. All in all, what this paper presents is that translation studies have moved away from an anthropological notion of culture and towards a notion of cultures in the context of diversity. In addition, internationalisation has given a new dimension to the cultural perspective in this process. The cultural approach has abandoned, so to speak, it’s evangelical phase as a negative pole to traditional literary studies and is looking more closely at questions of hegemonic relations in text production. Similarly, translation studies have moved on from endless debates about equivalence or accuracy or definitiveness to discussion of the factors involved in text production across linguistic boundaries. But translation is a complex and usually an unsatisfactory process, wherein linguistic and cultural factors interact to produce an artifact which bears some resemblance to the source on which it is modeled, yet to which it can never be truly identical. At present the cultural approach is the dominant and preferred methodology because it covers most of the issues and challenges that confronts the varying needs and variables in translation studies. It is true that sometimes there is a gap between theory and practice and that concrete textual matters may clash with idealised theoretical perspectives and raise stylistic problems, it is also important to keep in mid that the many complex implications inherent in the translation process involves not only cultural but also linguistic transfer from the original context to the new receiving one. Moreover, it has been established in this essay that texts belong to must interpret and render a specific time and space, they are the product of culture in its whole, a web discourses in-between the lines of the source text that the translator in another language for readers belonging to a different language/culture. According to Eleonora Federici (2006), if translation means moving from a linguistic/cultural code to another, it also signifies an act of communication across linguistic and cultural barriers (Federici 2006: 7). Bibliography Baker, M. (1998). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge. Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (1998). Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. Multilingual Matters. Even-Zohar, I. (1997). Factors and Dependencies in Culture, A Revised Draft for Polysystem Cultural Research. Canadian Review of Comparative Literature, Vol. XXIV, Number 1 (March 1997): 15-34. Even-Zohar, I. (1978). Papers in Historical Poetics. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Federici, E. (2006). The Translator as Intercultural Mediator. Editrice UNI Service. Herbrechter, S. (2002). Cultural Studies: Interdisciplinary and Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hermans, T. (1991). Translational Norms and Correct Translations, In K.M. van Leuven-Zwart & T. Naaijkens (eds.) Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hermans, T. (1996). Norms and the Determination of Translation: A Theoretical Framework. London and Sydney: Croom Helm. Hung, E. (2005). Translation and Cultural Change: Studies in History, Norms, and Image. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Karamitroglou, F. (2000). Towards a methodology fro the investigation of norms in audiovisual translation. Rodopi. Larbaud, V. (1946). Sous linvocation de Saint Jerome. Paris: Galimard. Leppihalme, R. (1997). Culture Bumps: An Empirical Approach to the Translation of Allusions. Multilingual Matters. Liu, M. (1993). Dangdai fanyi [Present-Day Translation Studies]. Taibei: Shulin Chubanshe. Rpt. Of Xiandai fanyi [Modern Translation studies]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Jiaoyu Chubanshe, 1990. Malmkjaer, K. (2005). Linguistics and the Language of Translation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mitchell, S. (1999) “The Life and Lives of Gregory Thaumaturgus.” In J.M. Drijvers and J.W. Watt (eds.), Portrait of Spiritual Authority: Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the Christian Orient. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Mizani, S. (2007). Cultural Translation, Translation Directory. Retrieved 6 Mar 2007, from http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1507.php Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation, Harlow: Longman. Nida, E. (1959). “Principles of Translation as Exemplified by Bible Translation". In Reuben Browers (ed.) On Translation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Riccardi, A. (2002). Translation Studies: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schäffner, C. (1999). Translation and Norms. Multilingual Matters. Schulte, R. & Biguenet, J. (1992). Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sidiropoulou, M. (2004). Linguistic Identities through Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelpia: John Benjamins. Trosborg, A. (1997). Theoretical Strategies in Legal Language: Discourse Analysis of Statutes. Tubinger: Gunter Narr Verlag. Vinay, J.P. and J. Darbelnet. (1995). Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology of Translation, trans. and ed. J.C. Sager and M. J. Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zhang Binglin (1981). Yishu Gonghui xu [An account of the Translation Society.] Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chunbanshe. Read More