International Open Access Journal Platform

1 Introduction

1.1 The Research Background

The translation of Chinese classics into English has long served as a vital medium for cross-cultural communication, with The Great Learning standing out as a seminal text that embodies the core values of Chinese philosophy and ethical thought. Since the 19th century, multiple English versions of The Great Learning have appeared, among which James Legge’s and Luo Zhiye’s translations represent two landmark works separated by more than a century and shaped by distinct historical contexts and translational paradigms. Legge’s version, completed in the late Qing period during the rise of “Western learning,” functioned as one of the earliest systematic introductions of Confucianism to Western academia. It reflects the interpretive tendencies of nineteenth-century Protestant missionary hermeneutics and sinological positivism. In contrast, Luo’s translation, produced in the context of twenty-first-century global cultural exchange, foregrounds the reclaiming of discursive agency by Chinese scholars. His approach emphasizes cultural connotation and seeks to render the original with greater contemporary linguistic resonance.

This paradigm shift, from a target-culture-oriented model to a more source-culture-conscious one, underscores the centrality of translator subjectivity. This concept has gained renewed attention in contemporary translation studies. However, Legge’s and Luo’s translations are frequently critiqued for issues concerning “accuracy” and “fluency,” while insufficient attention has been paid to how translator subjectivity is manifested through specific textual choices. In particular, the dimensions of lexical selection, syntactic structuring, and cultural mediation remain underexplored, despite their crucial impact on the ideological orientation and communicative effect of translation. Against this backdrop, the present study investigates Legge’s and Luo’s English renditions of The Great Learning to explore how translator subjectivity is articulated across these three dimensions. In doing so, it not only enriches the comparative scholarship on The Great Learning but also offers empirical insight into the theoretical exploration of translator subjectivity in rendering classical Chinese texts, thereby contributing to the ongoing refinement of cross-cultural communication strategies for Chinese classics in a global context.

1.2 Research Purpose and Significance

Adopting the perspective of translator subjectivity, this study conducts a comparative analysis of two English translations of The Great Learning, James Legge’s Victorian-era version and Luo Zhiye’s modern version, across three dimensions: diction, syntactic structures, and cultural interpretation. The research aims to identify the divergent strategies employed by the two translators and to examine how their cultural backgrounds, ideological positions, and translation purposes shape these strategies. Specifically, it seeks to clarify the manifestations of translator subjectivity in the translation process and to reveal how subjectivity influences word choices and cultural mediation.

This study contributes to empirical research on translator subjectivity in Chinese–English translation by juxtaposing the works of a Western missionary-scholar and a Chinese academic-translator. In doing so, it supplements existing scholarship, which often privileges single translators or unidirectional cultural contexts, with a bi-directional case study. Furthermore, by linking theoretical discussions of subjectivity with concrete textual practices, the research not only provides new evidence for the development of retranslation and subjectivity theory but also deepens our understanding of how translators’ identities shape cross-cultural knowledge production at multiple levels.

2 Translator’s Subjectivity

Translation serves as a vital bridge for cross-cultural communication, transmitting not only linguistic content but also cultural values. In earlier periods, translation was often conceived as mechanical reproduction, with absolute fidelity regarded as its highest virtue. Under this paradigm, translators were marginalized and their subjectivity largely obscured. From the late twentieth century onward, however, translation studies underwent a paradigm shift. Scholars began to argue that translation is not a neutral transfer of language, but a culturally embedded activity in which translators act as creative agents of intercultural exchange (Liu, 2024). Consequently, translator subjectivity, once neglected, has come to be recognized and valued (Liu & Zhang, 2025).

Translator subjectivity refers to the creative initiative and self-awareness displayed by translators during the translation process. It is manifested in their interpretation of the source text, their linguistic re-expression, and their cultural positioning. (Cha & Tian, 2003) At its core lie the translator’s self-awareness of personality, aesthetic orientation, and creative spirit. Factors shaping this subjectivity can be divided into internal and external dimensions. Internal factors include bilingual competence, aesthetic preference, and translation purpose, for example, the pursuit of “elegance” in Yan Fu’s principle of “faithfulness, expressiveness, and elegance” (Yang, Wang, & Guan, 2020). External factors involve ideological constraints, cultural norms of the target language, and technological developments, etc.

The history of translation reveals an evolving conception of the translator’s role. In the West, written records trace translation back to the 3rd century BCE, while in China, they date to the Zhou Dynasty (Sun, 2023). In the Classical Period (before the late 18th century), translators were regarded as “servants” of the source text, responsible for faithful reproduction. In the Modern Period (nineteenth to early twentieth century), with the rise of linguistic theories, translators began to move from passivity to greater agency, though fidelity still dominated. In the Contemporary Period, marked by the “cultural turn” in translation studies, translators have been granted greater creative freedom (Liu, Wang, & Ding, 2023). Today, translation studies emphasize the translator’s agency in negotiating linguistic transfer, cultural dissemination, and social needs.

The role of Chinese translators has transformed from “voice tube” to “cultural mediators.” In ancient times, translators primarily served practical functions in diplomacy, trade, and military affairs. For instance, during the Tang dynasty, translators accompanied envoys abroad, functioning as intermediaries familiar with languages and geography. In the late Qing and May Fourth periods, translation was guided by Yan Fu’s three principles, yet translators often remained subordinated to source texts, their presence minimized (Cheng, 2022). With growing demand for Western knowledge, however, translators such as Lin Shu assumed roles of cultural dissemination and national awakening, introducing Western works to inspire intellectual enlightenment. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, translation was institutionalized through foreign language colleges and overseas study programs. Following reform and opening up, international exchanges further professionalized the translator’s role, particularly in diplomacy, where translators had to balance accuracy with cultural sensitivity and national image.

Today, translators in the West and China are increasingly recognized as cross-cultural mediators. They no longer remain invisible but are acknowledged as visible, active participants in cultural dialogue. Their subjectivity, once suppressed, now finds expression in the exercise of initiative, creativity, and social responsibility.

3 Great Learning and Its Two English Versions by James Legge and Luo Zhiye

3.1 Introduction to The Great Learning

The Great Learning is a prose Confucian text that elaborates the ideals of self-cultivation, family regulation, state governance, and the pursuit of peace under Heaven. It first appeared as the forty-second chapter of the Book of Rites. It was traditionally attributed to Zengzi, a disciple of Confucius, during the late Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods. Modern scholarship, however, generally regards it as a Confucian work compiled and transmitted during the Qin and Han Dynasties (Wang, 2022).

As a treatise on moral education and political philosophy, The Great Learning played a crucial role in shaping Chinese intellectual history. Its status was elevated in the Song dynasty, when Cheng Hao and Cheng Yi emphasized its significance and Zhu Xi produced his influential Commentary on The Great Learning. Thereafter, it was canonized as one of the Four Books alongside The Doctrine of the Mean, The Analects, and Mencius. From the Song and Yuan dynasties onward, The Great Learning became a standard school text and a core component of the imperial examination system, exerting profound influence on Chinese education and political culture.

The text of The Great Learning introduces the “Three Principles” [San Gang (三纲): to illustrate illustrious virtue; to renovate the people; and to rest in the highest excellence]1 and the “Eight Steps” [Ba Mu (八目): the investigation of things, the extension of knowledge, the sincerity of the will, the rectification of the mind, the cultivation of the personal life, the regulation of the family, the government of the state, and the bringing of peace to all under heaven]2. These doctrines emphasize that self-cultivation is the foundation of effective governance, and that personal virtue and political order are inseparably linked. Concise in form yet profound in meaning, the text distills the moral cultivation theories of pre-Qin Confucianism and articulates systematic principles for Confucian political philosophy.

As one of the most authoritative Confucian classics, The Great Learning not only shaped the basic framework of traditional Chinese moral and political thought but also became a cornerstone of Chinese civilization. It reflects the cultural and intellectual legacy of the pre-Qin period, while continuing to offer valuable insights into education, ethics, and governance for modern society.

3.2 The Two Complete English Versions by James Legge and Luo Zhiye

James Legge (1815–1897) was a 19th-century British missionary, renowned for his systematic translations of the Confucian Four Books and Five Classics. Recognized as one of the three pioneering translators of Chinese classics in Europe, he became the first recipient of the Prix Stanislas Julien.3 For translation (You, 2021). Legge produced the first complete English versions of these canonical texts, establishing an enduring academic framework for the Western study of Confucian classics (Yang, 2020). His translations—rich with annotations, commentary, and cross-references—remain authoritative references in Western Sinology (Hu, 2024).

Legge’s methodology integrated traditional Chinese commentary with Western philological scholarship, blending textual analysis with historical context. He collaborated with Chinese scholars such as Wang Tao and Huang Sheng, thereby enhancing the accuracy of his translations and bridging Chinese and Western perspectives (Zhou, 2022). Although his initial missionary work sought to influence Chinese religious thought through the dissemination of Christian texts, Legge gradually shifted toward comparative religious studies, recognizing the intellectual value of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism (Pang, 2022). His work, Chinese Concepts of God and Spirit (Legge, 2018), exemplifies this inclusive approach, offering nuanced comparisons between Chinese and Western religious terminology. Legge’s translation of The Great Learning is regarded as a landmark in Western Sinology, particularly for its systematic treatment of Confucian texts and innovative translation strategy. Through comprehensive annotations, prefaces, and supplementary materials, he situated the work within both Chinese and Western cultural frameworks, making core Confucian concepts—such as “cultivating the self, regulating the family, governing the state, and bringing peace to the world”—more intelligible to Western readers. Earlier translations, such as the Morrison version, contained inaccuracies; Legge’s rigorous, cross-culturally informed approach gradually established his work as the standard reference, widely adopted in university curricula on Sinology. Despite its scholarly acclaim, however, the academic density of his translations limited their accessibility among general readers (Cao, 2023).

Luo Zhiye (b. 1935) is a contemporary Chinese scholar whose works span philosophy, literature, and Sino-English translation. He has authored over twenty monographs, including A History of American Philosophy, A History of Western Literary Criticism, and The Power of Language. He has translated key Chinese classics such as the I Ching, The Art of War, and the Book of Documents. Luo has made substantial contributions to the translation of Chinese classics, emphasizing both accuracy and readability to enhance the global accessibility of these works. Luo Zhiye’s translation concepts are mainly reflected in his translation practice. His translation of The Great Learning forms part of the Chinese Classics English Translation Series. Based on the Book of Rites edition compiled by Dai Sheng of the Western Han Dynasty and annotated by Zheng Xuan of the Eastern Han Dynasty, Luo’s rendition prioritizes the literary philosophical dimensions of the original. He aims to preserve its aesthetic qualities while clarifying its intellectual message for modern readers.

Luo’s approach differs significantly from Legge’s in terms of lexical choices, syntactic style, and cultural mediation. While Legge’s translations are deeply rooted in historical scholarship and have exerted a profound influence on Western Sinology, Luo’s work reflects the perspective of a modern Chinese scholar. By balancing linguistic precision with cultural interpretation, his translations represent an important step in the global reception of Confucian thought. They also signify the growing role of Chinese scholars in shaping how their cultural heritage is presented internationally, inspiring younger generations to engage with Chinese classics through a voice that is authentically Chinese.

4 A Comparative Analysis of the Two English Versions from the Perspective of the Translator’s Subjectivity

4.1 In Word Choice

In translation, vocabulary is never mechanically transferred; rather, it is selectively transformed and adaptively rendered according to the translator’s cognition, cultural background, and communicative purpose. When a source-language term has multiple semantic possibilities, translators choose the most contextually appropriate meaning based on the context and target readers’ expectations. For terms with strong cultural connotations, translators often adjust their equivalents to align with target-language conventions while still preserving the original sense. Thus, even when translating the same word, different translators may arrive at markedly different lexical choices, which will reveal the imprint of their subjectivity.

Example 1

ST: 为人君，止于仁；为人臣，止于敬。

James Legge: As a ruler, he rested in benevolence; as a minister, he rested in respect.

Luo Zhiye: It is certain that a sovereign should rest in benevolence; the subjects should rest in earnest work.

In this passage, the different renderings of “君” and “臣” exemplify translator subjectivity. Luo translates “君” as “sovereign,” a term that emphasizes supreme political authority, often associated with the head of an independent state or a monarch whose power spans political, military, and diplomatic domains (as verified by the Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology). This choice reflects the historical backdrop of the Western Han dynasty—an era of centralized sovereignty, which Luo draws upon in his translation. In contrast, Legge’s choice of “ruler” emphasizes the act of ruling rather than sovereignty as a political concept. According to the same references, the word “ruler” focuses on the actual ruling function and does not necessarily represent sovereignty, typically indicating a specific administrative manager, whose power may be limited to a particular field or level. For example, a tribal chief may have jurisdiction over a tribe, but the tribe is not a sovereign state. In the 19th century, Britain was a capitalist society and followed a constitutional monarchy system. The British sovereign serves as a symbol of unity without exercising actual governance power. Given Legge’s nineteenth-century British context, where constitutional monarchy limited the sovereign’s actual powers, “ruler” better matched his conceptual framework of the term “君” as one who exercises real governing authority.

The translations of “臣” further reveal differing perspectives. Both explanations of the two words “minister” and “subject” are specifically derived from the same dictionaries. Legge uses “minister” denoting high-ranking officials within a governance hierarchy, thereby highlighting the superior–subordinate relation among elites. Luo, however, employs the plural “subjects” encompassing all individuals under the sovereign in a country to compare with “a sovereign” who is above all men in the pyramid. “Subject” means a person who has a right to belong to a country, whose range of meaning embraces official and civilian. This choice can help the reader understand the features of the feudal state and imperial supremacy.

Example 2

ST: 故谚有之曰：“人莫知其子之恶，莫知其苗之硕”。

James Legge: Hence it is said, in the common adage, ‘A man does not know the badness of his son; he does not know the richness of his growing corn.’

Luo Zhiye: So there is a proverb, “No one knows his son’s wickedness, nor knows his healthy seedlings.”

Here, lexical differences highlight variations in tone and imagery. Legge renders “恶” as “badness,” a broad and relatively mild term that can encompass moral fault, inadequacy, or poor quality (as supported by the same lexical references). This choice reflects a neutral, descriptive tone. Luo, however, uses “wickedness,” which carries stronger
moral connotations, implying evil or malicious intent. Similarly, “苗之硕” receives distinct treatments. Legge’s “growing
corn” evokes the entire cycle from sprout to maturity and emphasizes abundance through the added term “richness,” vividly showing the image of “苗之硕”. Luo’s “healthy seedlings,” by contrast, confines the image to the early stage of growth and stresses vitality rather than yield.

These examples demonstrate how translators’ lexical decisions are shaped by their historical contexts, cultural perspectives, and interpretive stances. Legge’s renderings tend to prioritize clarity and broad comprehensibility for Western readers, often through general terms and supplementary explanations. Luo, by contrast, draws on Chinese historical consciousness, employing sharper moral connotations and culturally resonant expressions. Both approaches exemplify how translator subjectivity manifests in word choice, shaping not only the semantics but also the cultural resonance of the translated text.

4.2 On Sentence Structure

To achieve both semantic precision and idiomatic fluency, translators often reconstruct or strategically adjust the sentence structures of the source text. Such adjustments may include altering voice, reassigning subjects, or reorganizing word order to align with the syntactic and rhetorical conventions of the target language. Differences in sentence linkage and logical progression also emerge through the use of distinct pronouns, conjunctions, or tense patterns. Furthermore, rhetorical devices such as metaphor, parallelism, or repetition are frequently reshaped into functionally equivalent forms in the target language. These structural choices are not merely mechanical; they reflect the translator’s subjectivity, shaped by cultural background, stylistic preferences, and communicative intent.

Example 3

ST: 《汤》之盘铭曰：“苟日新，日日新，又日新。”

James Legge: On the bathing-tub of Thang, the following words were engraved, ‘If you can renovate yourself, do so from day to day. Yea, daily renovate yourself.’

Luo Zhiye: King Tang of Shang engraved these words on his bathing tub, “If you can try to make yourself with new ideas every day, and do it day by day you would have new ideas each day.”

Legge’s version relies on short, imperative-like sentences, preserving the conciseness and rhythm of the original. What’s more, he also employs inversion (“On the bathing-tub of Thang”) and passive voice (“were engraved”) to mirror classical Chinese word order and lend the translation a formal tone. In contrast, Luo adopts an active construction, making “King Tang of Shang” the explicit subject of “engraved,” which conforms to the standard English Subject–Verb–Object order and enhances clarity for contemporary readers. Moreover, Luo’s rendering “make yourself with new ideas” employs a Verb–Object–Complement structure to concretize the meaning of “新”, while his compound sentence stresses the outcome (“you would have new ideas each day”) rather than the imperative force, adopted by Legge to put the key point on the action “renovate.” These differences illustrate how Legge privileges fidelity to syntactic form and rhetorical economy, whereas Luo emphasizes accessibility and interpretability through naturalized structures.

Example 4

ST: 知止而后有定，定而后能静，静而后能安，安而后能虑，虑而后能得。

James Legge: The point where to rest being known, the object of pursuit is then determined; and, that being determined, a calm unperturbedness may be attained to. To that calmness there will succeed a tranquil repose. In that repose there will be careful deliberation, and that deliberation will be followed by the attainment (of the desired end).

Luo Zhiye: One who knows the virtuous realm he reaches would know what to speak and act; one who knows what to speak and to act has his mind unperturbed; one who has his mind unperturbed enjoys leisure; one who enjoys leisure can carefully deliberate and watch in front and behind; one who deliberates carefully can reach the best and most beautiful realm what he desires.

Legge’s rendering relies heavily on abstract nouns (“the point,” “the object of pursuit,” “a calm unperturbedness”) and passive or existential constructions (“there will succeed,” “will be followed by”), to make the text form no longer monotonous. This results in a formal, almost philosophical tone, where agency is backgrounded and logical progression is emphasized. He also retains the rhetorical device of anadiplosis, a rhetorical device that repeats the final phrase of one clause at the beginning of the next, to preserve the chain-like structure and rhythm of the source text, achieving a close connection between sentences and enhancing the expressiveness and coherence of the language. The application of anadiplosis forms the same structure as the source text, succeeding in not only hypotaxis but parataxis.

Luo, by comparison, foregrounds human agency through active voice and personal subjects (“one who knows…”
“one who has…”). By that, the performer of a series of actions becomes more conspicuous and the sentences are more direct and concise, thus easier to draw the reader’s attention. His use of parallel structures and anaphora (“one who… one who…”) produces a smooth, rhythmic flow, while highlighting the progression of moral cultivation as a sequence of personal actions. Within this consistent grammatical frame, the semantic differences between the key terms stand out clearly, enabling readers to grasp the logic of self-cultivation more directly.

Together, these examples demonstrate how sentence-structural choices embody translator subjectivity. Legge’s syntactic decisions reflect his philological rigor and orientation toward formal equivalence, while Luo’s restructuring strategies reveal his intent to modernize the text and enhance its readability. Both approaches illustrate how translators’ cultural positions and interpretive goals shape the rhetorical and syntactic textures of The Great Learning in English.

4.3 On Cultural Perspective and Translation Method

Translation is not a passive transfer of linguistic codes but an active cultural mediation. Translators make deliberate choices regarding cultural transfer strategies in order to build communicative bridges between source and target cultures. When confronted with culture-loaded content, such as values, philosophical concepts, or social practices, they may adopt different approaches. Some preserve cultural specificity through literal translation supplemented with annotations, while others expand, adapt, or reinterpret meanings in light of target-language cultural frameworks. These strategies are also shaped by cultural thinking patterns, as English typically privileges hypotaxis (explicit logical connections), whereas Chinese often relies on parataxis (implicit coherence).

Example 5

ST: 欲诚其意者，先致其知。致知在格物。

James Legge: Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. The extension of knowledge is by the investigation of things.

Luo Zhiye: If he wanted to be sincere in his thoughts, he first aroused his own innate knowledge; if he wanted to arouse his own innate knowledge, he first cleared away his desire for all material comfort.

Here, Luo’s rendering clearly bears the imprint of indigenous Confucian traditions, particularly Neo-Confucian philosophy. In his translation, the philosophy of Wang Yangming can be perceived. For instance, the statement “The mind is the principle; there is no principle outside the mind; there is nothing outside the mind; there is no event outside
the mind (心即理也，心外无理，心外无物，心外无事)” is the ontological core of Wang’s Philosoph. Wang advocates
that the universal truth lies within the human mind and that there is no need to seek it externally. The phrase “aroused his own innate knowledge” is just in line with these concepts, highlighting that the knowledge is inborn and the person only needs to search for the answer in the mind.

Furthermore, in Wang’s Philosophy, the mind and the heavenly principles are regarded as the same one. When obscured by selfish desires, heavenly principle becomes indistinguishable from human desire; eliminating these desires restores heavenly principle—a process synonymous with attaining true knowledge. This idea is echoed in Luo’s translation, “cleared away his desire for all material comfort.” By rendering “致知” as “aroused his own innate knowledge,” Luo introduces a reading aligned with Wang’s philosophy of the mind, encapsulated in the dictum “the mind is principle; there is no principle outside the mind.” This interpretation foregrounds the idea that knowledge is inborn and moral cultivation requires eliminating selfish desires (“cleared away his desire for all material comfort”). Such renderings go beyond the literal sense of the text, embedding it within the broader framework of Chinese intellectual heritage.

In contrast, Legge’s translation adheres closely to the textual surface, emphasizing epistemological inquiry through the investigation of external objects. His rendering of “致知在格物” as “The extension of knowledge is by the investigation of things” reflects his philological rigor and his strategy of faithfulness. The focus lies in maximizing knowledge acquisition. Legge sought to make Confucian thought intelligible to Western readers primarily through literal translation, supplemented with annotations to clarify philosophical terms. Thus, while Luo enriches the text with Neo-Confucian connotations, Legge prioritizes semantic fidelity and explanatory clarity.

Example 6

ST: 心诚求之，虽不中不远矣。未有学养子而后嫁者也。

James Legge: ‘(Deal with the people), as if you were watching over an infant.’ If (a mother) be really anxious about it, though she may not hit (exactly the wants of her infant), she will not be far from doing so. There never has been (a girl) who learned (first) to bring up an infant that she might afterwards be married.

Luo Zhiye: There is no girl who learns how to give her birth to and then marry to a husband, so one should earnestly study the reason in his heart. It is unnecessary to make everything perfectly.

Here, both translators move beyond literal translation, yet their strategies differ. Luo Zhiye makes some creations on the basis of the original meaning, and Legge takes the amplification and abides more by the meaning of the original text. For example, when translating “养子” “虽不中不远矣”, Luo reinterprets the proverb with considerable creativity by adding his understanding. He shifts the key points to the “procreate” and “we do not necessarily have to succeed in everything,” emphasizing pragmatic tolerance rather than approximated success. Moreover, he changes the order of the words and logic, placing the latter sentence of the original text at the front and adding the logic of cause and effect
to draw forth the “心诚求之”. However, Legge expands the meaning through concrete examples (“watching over an
infant”) to elaborate on the previous statement in light of the meaning of the following sentence, thereby enriching the imagery and enhancing logical coherence for Western readers. His amplification provides context that facilitates comprehension, even if it extends beyond the original wording.

These differences reflect distinct cultural orientations. Legge, shaped by a Victorian scholarly context, sought to preserve the original logic through annotation and expansion, thereby making the text acceptable to Western audiences. Luo, working within a Chinese intellectual tradition, infused the translation with Confucian philosophical nuance and interpretive freedom, foregrounding indigenous conceptual categories.

In sum, cultural perspective and translation method provide a crucial site for the manifestation of translator subjectivity. Legge’s translation strategy embodies fidelity and explanatory mediation, situating The Great Learning within a Western philological framework. Luo’s translation, by contrast, integrates Neo-Confucian cultural discourse and creative reinterpretation, presenting the text as a living tradition rather than a static artifact. These contrasting approaches highlight how translators’ cultural identities and intellectual orientations shape not only lexical and syntactic choices but also the philosophical horizons within which the classic is reinterpreted.

5 Conclusion

This study adopts the perspective of translator subjectivity to conduct a comparative analysis of James Legge’s and Luo Zhiye’s English translations of The Great Learning. Translator subjectivity has long been a topic of significant discussion within translation studies. The Cultural Turn in Western translation studies after the 1970s “discovered” the role of the translator, shifting the focus from a passive linguistic transfer to the active role of the translator, whose subjectivity has evolved from being overlooked to becoming a central concern. Since then, research on translator subjectivity has continued to develop and expand.

By employing this unique perspective, this paper compares and contrasts the two translations in order to explore how Chinese classics are interpreted across different cultural and historical contexts. The differences between these translations also reflect the distinct objectives of each translator. As a missionary, James Legge’s translation was primarily driven by a desire to evangelize. His principle of “serving Christianity” led him to align Confucian thought with Christian values, aiming to make Chinese classics acceptable to both Chinese readers and Western audiences. Legge’s translation strategy was thus to convey the original text’s meaning as faithfully as possible, upholding the authority of the original text.

In contrast, Luo Zhiye’s approach is rooted in Chinese native culture. His work aims to promote China’s rich cultural heritage and amplify Chinese voices in global discourse. While maintaining faithfulness to the original meaning, Luo incorporates elements of traditional Chinese philosophy, Luo incorporates traditional Chinese philosophical thoughts, which bring new dimensions of understanding and provoke further reflection.

This research contributes to the ongoing scholarly conversation surrounding the English translations of The Great Learning. It should be noted, however, that the comparative analysis presented here is based on a limited selection of examples and involves a degree of subjective interpretation, lacking broader empirical support. Future studies could employ more data-driven methodologies to further investigate the English translations of The Great Learning, thereby offering more systematic insights into how translator subjectivity influences cross-cultural communication.

References

[1] Cao, Y. (2023). A Contrastive Analysis of the Para-texts in English Translation of Da Xue: Based on the English Version of James Legge and That of Lin Yutang [《大学》英译副文本对比评析：以理雅各、林语堂译本为例] (Master’s thesis). Jiangnan University. https://doi.org/10.27169/d.cnki.gwqgu.2023.001274.

[2] Cha, M. J., & Tian, Y. (2003). On translator’s subjectivity: Starting from the marginalized cultural status of translators [论译者主体性：从译者文化地位的边缘化谈起]. Chinese Translators Journal, 24(1), 19-22.

[3] Cheng, X. Y. (2022). A study of the subjectivity of the translator in Zhu Shenghao’s translations—Taking the Tempest as an example. Journal of Education and Educational Research, 1(1), 41-42.

[4] Hu, M. X. (2024). A study on the cross-cultural exegetical characteristics of “interpreting the classics through meaning” in James Legge’s English translation of Chunqiu [理雅各《春秋》英译“以义解经”跨文化注疏特征研究]. Journal of Foreign Languages (Journal of Shanghai International Studies University), 47(4), 91-93.

[5] Legge, J. (2018). Chinese Concepts of God and Spirit [中国人关于神与灵的观念]. Fujian Education Publishing House.

[6] Liu, W. Y. (2024). A study on translator’s subjectivity in the English translation of Forty-One Cannons from the perspective of Steiner’s hermeneutics [斯坦纳阐释学视角下《四十一炮》英译本译者主体性研究] (Master’s thesis). Xi’an University of Technology. https://doi.org/10.27398/d.cnki.gxalu.2024.002203.

[7] Liu, Y. X., & Zhang, C. (2025). A study on translator’s subjectivity in the two English translations of A Midsummer Night’s Dream [《仲夏夜之
梦》双译本译者主体性研究]. English Square, (3), 23. https://doi.org/10.16723/j.cnki.yygc.2025.03.007.

[8] Liu, Y. X., Wang, R., & Ding, J. Z. (2023). Reexaminations of translator’s visibility and subjectivity from perspective of feminist translation theory. International Association for East-West Studies, 80-84.

[9] Pang, Q. (2022). A study on the translation of musical instrument names in James Legge’s The Book of Songs from the perspective of cross-cultural communication [跨文化传播视角下的理雅各《诗经》乐器名称翻译研究] (Doctoral thesis). Chongqing Jiaotong University. https://doi.org/10.27671/d.cnki.gcjtc.2022.000985.

[10] Sun, B. Y. (2023). Quantitative Analysis and Factor Model Construction of the Translator’s Subjectivity: A Case Study of Chinese to English Translation in Literary Works [译者主体性的量化分析与因子模型构建：以文学作品汉译英为例] (Doctoral thesis). Zhejiang University. https://doi.org/10.27461/d.cnki.gzjdx.2023.000688.

[11] Wang, G. (2022). Appreciation and reading of The Great Learning (I) [《大学》赏读（一）]. High School Students’ Study (Reading and Writing),
(8), 20-22.

[12] Yang, L., Wang, Y. H., & Guan, J. (2020). A study on subjectivity in literary translation [文学翻译中的主体性研究]. China Textile & Apparel Press Co., Ltd.

[13] Yang, N. Q. (2020). A Chinese translation report of James Legge’s sinological articles on Chinese literature [理雅各中国文学汉学文章汉译报告] (Master’s thesis). Shanghai Normal University. https://doi.org/10.27312/d.cnki.gshsu.2020.000322.

[14] You, X. Y. (2021). A Study of James Legge: His Translations, Thoughts, and Multi-Cultural Identity—A Case Study of His 1895 Version of Mencius [理雅各研究：译文、思想及多元文化身份——以其1895版《孟子》译本为例] (Doctoral thesis). Southwest Jiaotong University. https://doi.org/10.27414/d.cnki.gxnju.2021.003259.

[15] Zhou, J. (2022). A preliminary study on translator’s subjectivity in James Legge’s The Chinese Classics·The Book of Songs [理雅各《中国经典·诗经》中的译者主体性研究初探] (Master’s thesis). Beijing Foreign Studies University. https://doi.org/10.26962/d.cnki.gbjwu.2022.000580.