翻譯理論史課件

WesternTranslationHistoryReferences陳?？?中國譯學理論史稿[M].上海：上海外語教育出版社，1992.馬祖毅.中國翻譯史[Z].北京：中國對外翻譯出版公司，1988.譚載喜.西方翻譯簡史[Z].北京：商務印書館，1991.Westerntranslationhistoryundergoessixtranslationclimaxes.

TranslationstudiesoftheRomans

TranslationStudiesintheMiddleAges(BibleTranslation)

TranslationstudiesduringtheRenaissanceTranslationStudiesintheEarlyModernTimes(17th-19thcentury)

TranslationstudiesinthetwentiethcenturyTranslationStudiesoftheRomansStudiesontranslationgobacktotheRomans.EricJacobsonclaimsthattranslatingisaRomaninvention.CiceroandHorace(1stcenturyBC)werethefirsttheoristswhomadeanimportantdistinctionbetweenword-for-wordtranslationandsense-for-sensetranslation.Theirviewsontranslationinfluencedsuccessivegenerationsoftranslatorsuptothetwentiethcentury.TheunderlyingprincipleofenrichingtheirnativelanguageandliteraturethroughtranslationleadstoastressontheaestheticcriteriaoftheTLproductratherthanonmorerigidnotionof“fidelity”.Horace,inhisArtofPoetry,warnsagainstovercautiousimitationofthesourcemodel:

Athemethatisfamiliarcanbemadeyourownpropertysolongasyoudonotwasteyourtimeonahackneyed(outdated)treatment;norshouldyoutrytorenderyouroriginalwordforwordlikeaslavishtranslator,orinimitatinganotherwriterplungeyourselfintodifficultiesfromwhichshame,ortherulesyouhavelaiddownforyourself,preventyoufromextricating(liberating)yourself?只要你不受陳腐之舉的牽絆，你便能將一個熟悉的主題寫出自己的個性。千萬不要把精力花在逐字逐句的死搬死譯上，如同一個被奴役的譯者；也不要在模仿作者的時候作繭自縛，既怕人恥笑又怕犯了寫作規(guī)則，不敢越出雷池一步Romantranslationmaybeperceivedasuniqueinthatitarisesfromavisionofliteraryproductionthatfollowsanestablishedcanonofexcellenceacrosslinguisticboundaries.古羅馬時代的翻譯有其獨特的價值，因為它源于一種文學創(chuàng)作的視角，這一視角遵循著公認的卓越原則，跨越了語言界限。ImportantRomanTranslators(1)LiviusAndronicus(284?-204B.C.)(translatedHomer’sOdyssey,Aischulos’andSophokles’tragedies,Menandros’comedies)(2)MarcusTulluisCicero[西塞羅](106-43B.C.)(translatedHomer’sOdyssey,Plato’sTimaeusandProtagoras,Xenophon’sEconomics,Aratus’sPhenomena)(3)QuintusHoratiusFlaccus[賀拉斯](65-8B.C.)StudiesonBibleTranslation(intheMiddleAges-fromtheendoftheRomanEmpiretotheRenaissance)TheBibletranslationholdsaveryimportantpositionintheWesterntranslationhistory.

WiththespreadofChristianity,translationcametoacquireanotherrole,thatofdisseminationthewordofGod.TranslationoftheNewTestmentwasmarkedbyStJerome(fourthcenturyCE)."HisapproachtotranslatingtheGreekSeptuagintBibleintoLatinwouldaffectlatertranslationsofthescriptures.“TranslatorsoftheBible:(1)PhiloJudacus(20?-50?B.C.)(translatedtheBible)(2)StJerome(331-420A.D.)(translatedtheNewtestamentfromGreekandtheOldTestamentfromHebrewintoLatin)(3)St.Augustine(345-430A.D.)InthesixteenthcenturythehistoryofBibletranslationacquirednewdimensionswiththeadventofprinting.ThesixteenthcenturysawthetranslationoftheBibleintoalargenumberofEuropeanlanguages,inbothProtestantandRomanCatholicversions,andrevisedversionofexistingtranslationscontinuedtoappearinEnglish,Dutch,GermanandFrench.TranslationStudiesduringtheRenaissanceTranslationinRenaissanceEuropecametoplayaroleofcentralimportance.Andtranslationwasbynomeansasecondaryactivity,butaprimaryone,exertingashapingforceontheintellectuallifeoftheage,andattimesthefigureofthetranslatorappearsalmostasrevolutionaryactivistratherthantheservantofanoriginalauthorortext.RenaissanceandTranslationRenaissanceistheperiodinEuropebetweenthe14thand17centuries,whentheart,literature,andideasofancientGreecewerediscoveredagainandwidelystudied,causingarebirthofactivityinallthesethings.TheroletranslationplaysinRenaissance:meansoftransplantingnewideasandthoughts,comparedtowartrophiesinliteratureandart.Renaissanceinturninfluencedtranslationgreatlyintermsofattitudes

towardtranslationandtranslationmethodsorapproaches.SummaryoftranslationinRenaissanceTheRenaissanceperiodwitnessedaconsiderableincreaseinthenumberoftranslations,duetothestimulatinginfluenceoftheRenaissanceandtheintroductionofprintingtechnologyandperceptionoftranslationasameansofdisseminatingknowledgetoawideraudience.Inaddition,newviewsontranslationappearedandtranslationactivitiescenterednotonlyontheBibleandclassicalliterarytexts,butalsoonotherkindsoftextssuchasscientificonesandhelpeddevelopthenationallanguages.TranslationStudiesintheEarlyModernTimes(17th-19thcentury)BriefIntroduction17thcentury-19thcenturyisaveryimportantperiodoftranslationandtranslationstudiesinthewest.Featuresofwesterntranslationinthisperiod:

1)Translationbecameprosperousbecauseofboostingofproduction,prosperouseconomy,moreandmorepeoplereceivingeducationandbeingeagertoreadandwrite;2)Eachperioddiffersfromtheotherandeachcountrydiffersfromtheotherintranslation;3)TranslationischaracterizedbyinaccuraterepresentationoftheoriginalmessageintheTLinmanycasesinsomecountries;4)Translationtheoriesbegantodevelopsystematicallyintermsoftheirframeworkinthe18thcenturyandfounditscenterinthe19thcenturyGermany;5)Thefocusoftranslationpracticebegantobeshiftedfromclassicstomodernworks;6)JesusChristschool:inaccuratetranslation,makingclassicsreligiousintranslationversion.

Port-Royalschool:stressingthepresent,oftenaddingsomethingtotheoriginalcontentoromittingsomethingoftheSTinthetranslation.7)The19thcenturyFrenchtranslatorssuchasFrancoise-RenedeChateaubriand(1768-1848),GerardNerval(1808-1855)andCharlesBaudelaire(1821-1867)focusedtheirattentionontranslatingmodernworkssuchasthoseofShakespeareandAllenPoe.IntheseventeenthcenturyBythemid-seventeenthcenturythewideningofthegapbetweentraditionalChristianHumanismandsciencehadallledtoradicalchangesinthetheoryofliteratureandhencetotheroleoftranslation.JohnDryden(1631-1700),formulatedthetrichotomyoftranslation:(1)Metaphrase(直譯),orturninganauthorwordbyword,andlinebyline,fromonelanguageintoanother;(2)Paraphrase(意譯),ortranslationwithlatitude(flexibility),theCiceronian“sense-for-sense”viewoftranslation.(3)Imitation(仿譯),wherethetranslatorcanabandonthetextoftheoriginalasheseesfit.

OfthesetypesDrydenchoosesthesecond(paraphrase)asthemorebalancedpath,providedthetranslatorfulfilscertaincriteria:

Totranslatepoetry,heargues,thetranslatormustbeapoet,mustbeamasterofbothlanguages,andmustunderstandboththecharacteristicsandspiritoftheoriginalauthor,

besidesconformingtotheaestheticcanonsofhisownage.Heusesthemetaphorofthetranslator/portraitpainter,thatwastoreappearsofrequentlyintheeighteenthcentury,maintainingthatthepainterhasthedutyofmakinghisportraitresembletheoriginal.

Dryden’sviewsontranslationwerefollowedfairlycloselybyAlexanderPope(1688-1744),whoadvocatesthesamemiddlegroundasDryden,withstressonclosereadingoftheoriginaltonotethedetailsofstyleandmannerwhilstendeavoringtokeepalivethe“fire”ofthepoem.

IntheEighteenthCenturyUnderlyingDryden’sandPope’sconceptoftranslationisanotherelement,beyondtheproblemofthedebatebetweenoverfaithfulnessandlooseness:thewholequestionofthemoraldutyofthetranslatortohiscontemporaryreaders.Theimpulsetoclarifyandmakeplaintheessentialspiritofatextledtolargescalerewritingsofearliertextstofitthemtocontemporarystandardsoflanguageandtaste.Hencethefamousre-structuringofShakespeariantexts,andthetranslationsofRacine.Towardstheendoftheeighteenthcentury,in1791,AlexanderFraserTytlerpublishedavolumeentitledTheprinciplesoftranslation,thefirstsystematicstudyinEnglishofthetranslationprocesses.Tytlersetupthreebasicprinciples:ThetranslationshouldgiveacompletetranscriptoftheideaoftheoriginalworkThestyleandmannerofwritingshouldbeofthesamecharacterwiththatoftheoriginal.Thetranslationshouldhavealltheeaseoftheoriginalcomposition.IntheRomanticPeriodSomanytextsweretranslatedatthistimethatweretohaveaseminaleffectontheTL.Stressontheimpactofthetranslationinthetargetcultureinfactresultedinashiftofinterestawayfromtheactualprocessesoftranslation.Moreover,twoconflictingtendenciescanbedeterminedintheearlynineteenthcentury:oneexaltstranslationasacategoryofthought,withthetranslatorseenasacreativegeniusinhisownright,intouchwiththegeniusofhisoriginalandenrichingtheliteratureandlanguageintowhichheistranslating;theotherseestranslationintermsofthemoremechanicalfunctionof“makingknown”atextorauthor.Translationstudiesinthetwentiethcentury

Inthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury,studiesontranslationbecameanimportantcourseinlanguageteachingandlearningatschools.Whataddstoitsvalueisthecreationofavarietyofmethodsandmodelsoftranslation:Forinstance,thegrammar-translationmodelstudiesthegrammaticalrulesandstructuresofforeignlanguages.Theculturalmodelisalsoawitnessforthedevelopmentoftranslationstudiesintheperiod.Itrequiredintranslationnotonlyaword-for-wordsubstitution,butalsoaculturalunderstandingofthewaypeopleindifferentsocietiesthink.Withthismodel,wecandistinguishbetweentheethnographical-semanticmethod(民俗學-語義學方法)andthedynamicequivalentmethod.Anothermodelthatappearsintheperiodistext-basedtranslationmodel,whichfocusesontextsratherthanwordsorsentencesintranslationprocess.Thismodelincludesavarietyofsub-models:theinterpretativemodel,thetextlinguisticmodelandmodelsoftranslationqualityassessmentsthatinturnprovideuswithmanymodelssuchasthoseofRiess,Wilss,Koller,House,North.

規(guī)范研究的篇章語言學派代表人物首推德國人諾伊貝特(Neubert),他把翻譯定義為“原語文本導致的譯語文本的生產”。(Schaffner,1999)他認為,翻譯的基本單位是文本,譯者首先應把握整個文本的宏大陳述,然后將文本劃分為較小的單個的可轉換的語義單位。他主張文本層次上的對等。為了達到文本對等,譯本必須做到“真正的連貫”。他強調,“真正的連貫”是翻譯較大篇幅的文本應遵循的規(guī)范。(Gentzler,1993)不少譯論者把文本按不同的規(guī)律分成不同的類型。賴斯(Reiss)將文本劃分為3種類型:信息文本(著重于內容和信息)、形式文本(著重于語言形式)和呼吁文本(著重于對讀者發(fā)出呼吁)。翻譯主要是受原文中居于支配地位的某種功能的制約。紐馬克(1988)則根據不同的內容和文體,將文本分為表達功能(expressivefunction)、信息功能(informativefunction)和呼喚功能(vocativefunction),其文本類型的劃分法與賴斯頗為相似。在此基礎之上,譯論者們企圖通過對原語和目的語系統(tǒng)的比較和描述建立文本類型的樣板(prototype或genreprofile)。不同文本類型樣板要求不同的翻譯方法與之相適應。例如,紐馬克主張,在以表達功能為主的文本中,作者獨特的語言形式和內容應視為同等重要,翻譯方法應以語義翻譯(semantictranslation)為主;翻譯以信息功能