3. LA TRADUCCIÓN EN LA ENSEÑANZA DE UNA LENGUA EXTRANJERA
3.3. Razones para la utilización la traducción en la enseñanza de una lengua
The next mode� the river bank gazers, is extremely difficult to interpret:
When two people who stand on opposite banks look across at one another, the fact that they are ncar to or far from, or visible or invistole to one another is the same in each case, but the person who is far, near, vistole or invistole is different in each case. Thus although the concealment or manifestation of objects, and the invistoility or vistoility of ki take different paths, they dwell in the same place. So, when what is concealed is object, what is vistole is ki, and when ki is what is invistole, object is what is manifest. NST 390, 15]
Interpretation is complicated by the fact that here Baien is not only explaining the fundamental pair <ki and object>, he is also speaking of the relationship of the pairs <concealed and
manifest> and <invistoie and vistole>. When the gazers stand on the bank they resemble <ki
and object>, but in so doing they do not resemble either <concealed and manifest> or <invisJ.ole and vistole>, because in the mode� when ki is vistole, object is not invisJ.ole; when object is manifest, ki is invisible, not concealed. This passage makes it clear that the two pairs are quite distinct.
Now, there is a symmetri�al relation between the gazers, such that when we descnoe their relation in terms of <concealed and manifest> and <invist1>le and vist1>Ie>, what we say of one, we can say of the other. For instance, B is vistole when A is concealed and A is vistole when B
is concealed.
But the gazers are not a pair themselves. More than symmetry is involved in the model of the
river bank gazers. It is very important to the model that A and B themselves are quite different from one another, not a pair of any kind but for their chance encounter across the river banks.
As people they are not a pair like <heat and cold>, for example, or even <man and woman>. Looking at someone is not at all like being looked at. We might say that the opposite situation to B's being vistole to A, in terms ofvistoility, would be exemplified by a third person, C, standing behind A and invistole to A
Two points that emerge from the model are:
a) <Ki and object> are interdependent, but they are two very different things. The relation applies to A and B just so long as they gaze across at each other. Their interdependence there is a necessary feature of that relation, the same interdependence of the pair <lei and object>, which are not "opposites" apart from that relation (this kind of opposition will be discussed further in Chapter 5. 1).
b) <Concealed and manifest> is not at all the same as <invistole and vistole> (I hope to show in Chapter 1 1 that <concealed and manifest> is a vital pair in Baien's whole system).
Furthermore, there is a general point that emerges from this passage, which would be a good reason for placing it near the beginning of a chapter entitled "Yin and Yang":
c) JOri pairs are not the kind that might be listed in two columns, like the tables of opposites we can make from ancient Chinese accounts of yin and yang. For example,
with
them we may list ''hot'', "fire", "sun" etc.under "yang", and "cold", "water", "moon" etc. under "yin". The river banks model instructs us not to fix "invisible" and "concealed" to "ki", and "visible" and "manifest" to "object", or to make any such lists ofjori pairs at all (apart from some very short ones in specific cases). This departure from traditional yin and yang theories is discussed in detail in Chapter 7.2.The difficulties are, in the case of a), that ironically, it is easier for us to understand <ki and object> than it is to understand the model of the river bank gazers, in fact we seem to need a grasp of <ki and object> before we can interpret the model; and in the case of b), that the pair <invist"ble and visible> is itself difficult to interpret [see Chapter 1 1.2].
It is the curse of analogies that they are sworn to silence about the extent of their application, and Baien's models are no exception. Nevertheless, careful consideration of their specific contexts, and the broader context of the system presented in support the following conclusions:
1 . The brocade is a model of the structure of the whole system
It shows the fundamental distinctions and relationships within the manifold of the universe that are outlined in the "Yin and Yang" chapter of and which involve notions such as <whole and side> and <division and contrast>. It also illustrates the more physical structures of the universe outlined in the other chapter, "Heaven and Earth", involving space and time as warp and woof
2. The brush stroke model, in the absence of a more plausible interpretation, is a specific reminder to see "object" as extended in time, and certainly not as static. The static object has been common in Western thought, but we cannot assume this was a common conception among Baien's intended readers. The difficuhy of determining the situation in their case is
aggravated by the fact that they were probably not given to thinking philosophically about the individuation of objects at all. Baien was forced to coin the entire set of terms.
3. The model of two people gazing across opposite banks can be interpreted as illustrating the points that: although <lei and object> are not opposites in a conventional sense (as the two gazers are not), they stand in a relation of interdependence; that the important pair <concealed and manifest> is quite distinct from the pair <invisl"ble and visl"ble>; and that the three pairs, <lei and object>, <concealed and manifest> and <invist"ble and vist"ble> cannot be mapped on to each other one to one.