译者的任务中英版本

1、译者的任务中英版本In the appreciati on of a work of art or an art form,considerationof the receivernever proves fruitful. Art, in the sameway, posits man s physical and spiritual existe nee, but in none of its works is it concerned with his response.No poem isintended for the reader, no picture for the behol

2、der, no symphony for listener.在欣赏艺术品或者艺术形式的时候，接受者的思 考一般都是没有结果的。同理，艺术就是人生理 和心理的存在，任何艺术作品都不会理会人的反 应。任何诗歌都不是为了读者而作、任何美术都 不是为了观赏者而作，任何交响乐也不是为了听 者而作。Is a translationmeant for readers whodo notun dersta nd the origi nal? For what does a literary work “ say ”? What does itcomm uni cate? It“ tells ” very li

3、ttle tothose who understandit. Its essentialquality is not statement or the imparting of information. Yet any translation whichintends to perform a tran smitti ng fun cti oncannottran smitany thi ngbutcannottran smitany thi ngbutinformation-hence,somethi ng in esse rmation-hence,somethi ng

4、 in esse ntial.This is the hall mark of bad tran slati ons.But do we not gen erally regard as the essential substanee ofwork whatit contains in additiona literaryto information-aswilladmit-theeven a poor translator un fathomable,the“ poetic, ” something that a translator canmysterious,thereproduce o

5、nly if he is also a poet? This,is the cause ofano theractually,characteristicofin feriortran slati on,which consequently we may defineas the (p.This is the hall mark of bad tran slati ons.But do we not gen erally regard as the essential substanee ofwork whatit contains in additiona literaryto inform

6、ation-aswilladmit-theeven a poor translator un fathomable,the“ poetic, ” something that a translator canmysterious,thereproduce only if he is also a poet? This,is the cause ofano theractually,characteristicofin feriortran slati on,which consequently we may defineas the (p.15) in accuratetran smissi

7、onof anin esse ntialcontent. This willbe truewhe never a tran slati on un dertakes to serve the reader. However, if it were intended for the reader, the same would have to apply to the original. If the original does not exist for the reader s sake, how could the tran slati on he un derstood on the b

8、asis of this premise?那么翻译是为了那些不懂原文的读者所为么？ 一个文学作品又是为谁而作呢？对于那些理解 他的人而言，他“讲”的很少。他的基本功能不 是陈述、也不是传达信息。但是，任何试图履行 传递功能的翻译除了信息以外，不能传达任何其 他的东西一一而信息却是无关紧要的。这就是糟 糕的翻译的一种标志。但是对于那种蕴含除了信 息以外更多东西的文学作品，即便是一个蹩脚的 译者也会承认，那种讳莫如深、那种深不可测、 那种诗情画意，只有译者本人也是一位诗人，才 可能予以复制，而这不才是文学作品最基本的东 西么？实际上，这就是那些次等译作的又一特 征,我们因此可以进将其定性为对非本质

9、内容的 错误表达。如果一个译者为了取悦读者而作的时 候，这种情况尤其为甚。然而，如果翻译是为了 读者，那么这一观点同样可以适用于原文本。假 若原文本不是为读者而作，那么他所理解的翻译 却为何要为读者而作呢？Translation is a mode. To comprehend it as mode one must go back to the origi nal, forthat contains the law gover ningthetran slati on:itstran slatability.Thequesti on of whether a work is tran sla

10、table has a dual meaning. Either: Will an adequate translatorever be found amongthe totalityof its readers? Or, more pertinen tly: Does its n ature lend itself to tran slati on and, therefore, in view of the significance of the mode, call for it? Analogously, the tran slatabilityof lin guisticcreati

11、 onsought to be con sidered eve n if men should prove unable to translatethem. Given astrict con cept of tran slati on, would they not really be tran slatable to some degree?The questi on as to whether the tran slati on of certain linguistic creations is called for ought to be posed in this sense. F

12、or this thought is valid here: If translation is a mode, translatability must be an essential feature of certa in works.翻译是一种方式。要理解这种方式，就要回到原 文考察。因为原文有约束翻译的规则：可译性。一篇作品是否可译有双重含义。一者：在所有的读者当中，是否有完全合格的译者？另者： 这个 作品本身是否需要翻译，也即，从这种方式内涵 看，是否需要？或者可以这么说，即便是有人证 实了不能翻译这些作品，但是这些言语产物的可 译性仍需要斟酌。因为翻译有一个严谨的概念， 所以他们是

13、不是在某种程度上不可译？因此， 一 种言语产物是否需要翻译，必须提出这个问题。 因为这种思路在此是合理的：如果翻译是一种方 式，那么可译性就是某些作品的基本特征。Tran slatability is an esse ntial quality of certa in works, which is not to say that it is esse ntial that they be tran slated; it means rather that a specific sig nifica nee in here nt in the origi nalmani fests itsel

14、f inits translatability.It is plausible that notran slati on, however good it may, can have any significance as regards the original.Y et, by virtue of its tran slatability the origi nalis closelyconn ected with thetranslation;in fact, this connection is allthe closer since it is no Ion ger of impor

15、tanee to the original. Just as the mani festati ons of life are in timately conn eeted with the phe nome non of life without being of importa nee to it, a tran slati on issues from the original-not so muchfrom its life as from its afterlife.可译性是某些作品的基本内在。这不是说这些作 品应该被翻译，而是说在原文内核中天生了一种 特别的意义，并表现为可译性。这

16、样说起来比较 绕口了，其实任何翻译不管它有多完美，都不可能和原文相媲美。但是，由于具有可译性，原文 就和翻译密切相关；实际上，这种相关性非常密 切，其重要性甚至胜于原文。生命表征对于生命 现象没有那么重要，但二者却内在相关，翻译来 源于原文一一就如生命表征来源于生命，而不是 来源于后世。For a translationcomes laterthan theoriginal, and since the important works of world literature never find their chosen tran slators at the time of their or

17、igi n, their translation marks their stage ofcontinuedlife. The idea of life andafterlife in works of art should be regarded with an entirelyunmetaphorical objectivity.Even in times of narrowly prejudiced thought there was an inkling that life was not limited to orga nic corporeality.因为译作晚于原作，因此从没有哪

18、个世界文学在 他们原创时期就已经选好了译者，译作标志着原 作生命的延续。这种艺术作品中的生命与后世思 想应该完全是一种非隐喻的客观存在。即便受那 种极端狭隘的思维禁锢，也会有人会认为生命绝 不仅是肉体的机理存在。The concept of life is given its due only if everything that has a history of its own, and is not merely the setting for history, is credited with life. In the final an alysis, the range of life

19、 must (p. 16) be determined by history rather tha n by n ature, least of all by such tenuous factors as sensation and soul. The philosopher s task consists in comprehe nding all of n atural life throughthe more en compass ing life of history. And in deed, is not the continued life of works of art fa

20、r easier to recognize than the con ti nuallifeof ani malspecies?Tran slati onsthat are more tha ntran smissi ons of subject matter come into being when in the course of its survival a work has reached the age of its fame. Con trary, therefore, to the claims of bad translators, such translationsdo no

21、t somuch serve the work as owe their existe nee to it. The life of the originals attains in them to its ever-re newed latest and most abundant floweri ng.只有事物具备自身的历史，而不是作为历史的环 境存在时，事物才具备了生命，真正具备了生命 的概念。最后，生命的范围不是因为其生命的特 征，更不是那些站不住脚的感知和心灵，生命是由历史决定的。哲学家有责任通过更具包容性的 历史生命来理解自然生命。实际上，艺术品生命 的延续不是比动物种群的生命延续

22、更清晰么？ 当一部作品在大浪淘沙中存留下来，并具备一定声名之后，这些不单单是传递主观信息的翻译就 该出现了。因此，对于那些水平低下的译者而言， 这种翻译不是为了作品而作。原作在译作中获得 新的声名，并得以发展。Bei ng a special and high form of life, this floweri ng is gover ned by a special, high purposive ness.Allpurposefulmani festati onsof life, in cludi ng theirexpressi on represe ntati on Tran sla

23、ti on purpose ofvery purposive nesss, i n the final an alysis have their end not in life, but in the of its n ature, in the of itssig nifica nee.expressi on represe ntati on Tran slati on purpose ofthus ultimately serves the express ingthecen tralreciprocalrelati on shipbetwee n Ian guages.It cannot

24、 possibly reveal or establish this hidde nrelati on shipitself; but it canrepresent it by realizingit in embryonic orinten sive form. As for the posited cen tral kin shipof Ian guages,it is marked by adisti nctive con verge nee. Lan guages are not strangers to one another, but are, a prioriand apart

25、 from all historicalrelati on ships,relati on ships,in terrelatedin what theywant to express.正因为这是一种特殊的高级生命形式，其发展壮 大自然必然具有特殊、高级的目的性。生命中所 有有目的的表征，包括他们的目的性，都有目标， 这些目标不是在生命中，而是表现在自然中，表 现在他们意义的表达过程中。因此，翻译最终就 要服务于语言之间的中心相互关系。翻译本身可能不会表露或者建立这种隐性关系；但是可以通 那种初期的或者简约的形式来表达这种关系。语言间的那种明显的融合性质就可以看出那种核 心的亲缘关系。不同的语

26、言之间绝不是像陌生人 之间的那种关系，而是在他们的表达中相互关联 的的关系，这些关系具有历史性，但是又区分于 历史中的其他关系。(back to traditi onal tran slati on theory)lf thekin shipof Ian guages is to bedem on strated by tran slati ons, how else can this be done but by con vey ing the form and mea ning of the origi nal as accurately aspossible? To be sure, t

27、hat theory would be hard put to defi ne the n atureof thisaccuracy and therefore could shed no light on what is importantin a translation.Actually, however, this kin ship of Ian guages is brought out by a tran slati on far more profoundly and clearly than in the superficial and in defi nable similar

28、ity of two works of literature.（回到传统的翻译理论）如果语言之间的这种亲 缘关系要通过翻译来表现，那么如果不能把原作 的形式和意义精确的进行传递，又怎么能够表达 这种亲缘关系呢？进一步而言，这种理论对于精 确性的定义就很困难，因此对于翻译重要性的界 定也就缺乏了依据。实际上，通过翻译而呈现的 这种语言之间的亲缘关系意义深远而明确，绝对 不是两种语言下的文学作品之间的那种表面的、 无法定义的类同。To grasp the genuine relati on ship betwee n an original and a translationrequires an

29、in vestigati onan alogous to theargume ntati onby which a critique ofcog niti on would have to prove the impossibility of an image theory. There it is a matter of show ing that in cog niti on there could be no objectivity, not eve n a claim to it, if it dealt with images of reality; there it can be

30、dem on strated that no translation would be possible if in its ultimate essence it strove for likeness to the original. For in its afterlife, the origi nal un dergoes a cha nge. Eve n words with fixed meaning can undergo a maturing process. The obvious tendency of a writers literary style may in tim

31、e wither away. (p. 17)为了把握真正的原作和译作之间的关系，需要一 个论证过程。这个论证类似于通过认知的批评来 证明意象理论的不可能性。有一种情况表明，如 果是要表达现实的意象，在认知过程中就不存在 客观性，甚至不能表现出客观性。如果翻译的最 终目的是努力做到与原作类同，那么翻译就是不 可能的。因为在一个作品的来世中，原作发生了 变化。即便意义固定的词语也需要成熟的过程。作家那些明显的写作风格也会随着时间而消逝。What sounded fresh once may sound hackneyed later; what was once curre nt may some

32、day sound qua in t. A nd eve n if one tried tur n an author s last stroke of the pen into the coup de grace of his work, this still would not save that dead theory of tran slati on. For just as the tenor and the significaneeof thegreat works of literatureundergo a completetran sformati onover the ce

33、n turies,themother ton gueofthetran slator istransformed as well. While a poet s words endure in his own Ianguage,even thegreatest tran slati on is dest ined to become part of the growth of its own Ian guage and eve ntually to be absorbed by its ren ewal.Translation is so far removed from being the

34、sterileequation of two dead Ianguages thatof all literary forms, it is the one charged with the special missi on of watch ing over the maturi ng process of theorigi nalIan guage and the birth pangs of its own.那些曾经鲜活的东西总有一天会腐烂，那些曾经流行的东西也会过时。即便是作者刚刚收笔，就 马上对其作品进行翻译，试图保持其作品的风 姿，也不能拯救那种了无生机的翻译理论。随着岁月的流逝，

35、那些伟大的文学作品的意义已经发 生了完全的改变，译者的母语也在发生了同样的 变化。即使最伟大的译作是为了把原作转化为译 语语言，并最终获得新生，原作也只有在他母语 中才能永生。翻译不是对文学形式上的两种已经 没有生命的词汇进行无意义的对等操作，翻译的 使命是观察源语的成熟发展过程、完成自身诞生 之痛。If the kin ship of Ian guages mani fests itself in tran slati ons, this in not accomplished through a vaguealike nessbetweenadaptation and original.I

36、t stands to reasonthat kin ship does not n ecessarily in volve like ness. Wherein resides the related ness of two Ianguages, apart from historical con siderati ons?Certa inlynot in thesimilarity between works of literature or works. Rather, all suprahistorical kin shipofIan guagesrest in theinten ti

37、 onunderlyingeach Ianguage as a whole-aninten ti on, however, which nosin gleIanguage can attain by itself but which is realizedonly by the totality of theirintentions supplementing each other: pure Ian guage.如果翻译体现了两种语言之间的亲缘关系，而不 是通过原作和改编本之间的模糊相似来实现，那 么就有理由认为，亲缘关系不一定要相似。那么 除了对两种语言的历史性思考，他们的相似性又 在何处

38、呢？肯定不是文学作品或者艺术作品上 的相似。不同语言所有的超历史亲缘关系都在于 每种语言整体上的指向性，这种指向性不是单一 语言本身可以实现的，而是其语言各种要素指向 性的相互补充形成一个整体：纯语言。While all in dividual eleme nts of foreig n Ianguages-word,senten ces,structure-are mutually exclusive, theseIan guages suppleme nt one ano ther in their inten ti ons. Withoutdist in guish ingthe int

39、ended object from the modeof intention, no firm grasp of this basic law of a philosophy of Ianguage can be achieved. The words Brot and pain “intend ” the sameobject, but the modes of this intentionarenot the same. It is owing to these modesthat the word Brot means somethi ng differe nt to a Germa n

40、 tha n the word pain to a Fren chma n, that these words are not interchangeable for them, that, in fact, they strive to exclude each other.各种外语中的个别要素，包括词汇、句子、结构 等，都是相互独立的，这些语言在指向上相互补 充。如果不能将指向方式和指向受体相互区分的 话，那么就真正把握这个语言哲学的基本规律。 词语“ brot 和“ pain 都指向相同的受体，但 是他们的指向方式却不一样。由于指向方式的区 分，德国人理解的Brot和法国人理解的pain

41、指 向是不一样的，因此他们之间也不能互换，实际 上他们之间是互斥的As to the in tended object, however, the twowords mean the very same thing. While the modesof intention in these two words are in conflict, intention and object of intention compleme nt each of the two Ian guages from which they are derived; there the object is compl

42、eme ntary to the inten ti on. In the in dividual,un suppleme ntedIan guages,meaning isn everfound in relativein depe nden ce, as in in dividual words or sentences; rather, it is in a constant state of flux-untilit is able to emerge as pureIanguage from the harmony of all the various modes of inten t

43、i on. Un til the n, it rema ins hidde n in the Ian guage. If, however, these Ian guages con ti nue to grow in this manner until the end of their (messianic) time,(译 者漏译了 messianic 词)it is translation which catches fire on the eternal life of the works and the perpetual renewal of Ianguage. Tran slat

44、i onkeeps putt ing the hallowedgrowth of (p. 19) Ianguages to the text: How far removed is their hidde n mea ning from revelati on, how close can it be brought by the kno wledge of this remote ness?但是对于指向受体来说，这两个词语的意义却完 全是一回事。尽管这两个词语的指向方式相互冲 突，但是从两个词语的语言方面来看，他们的指向和指向受体是互补的，指向受体是指向行为的 补充。而对于个体而言，没有补充

45、的语言，在相 对独立的状态下没有意义，就如个体的词语和句 子一样。其实词语是一直处于变动状态的这 种变动会持续到通过不同指向方式达到一种和 谐状态，成为一种纯语言为止。至此，意义隐藏 于语言当中。如果这些语言继续按照这种方式发 展到他们的弥撒亚（救世主）时代，翻译就负责 点燃作品的永恒之火，并使这种语言得到永远的 复生。翻译始终支撑着文本中语言成长的神圣使 命：公开语言的内在隐含意义还要多久，拉近这种知识的距离还有多难？Although tran slati on,un like art, cannotclaim permanence for its products, its goal is

46、 undeni ably a fin al, con clusive, decisivestage ofall lin guistic creati on. Intranslationthe original rises into a higherand purer linguistic air, as it were, in a singularly impressive manner, at least it poi nts the way to thisregi on:thepredesti ned, hithertoin accessiblerealm ofreconciliation

47、and fulfillmentof IanguagesThis tran sfer can n ever be total, but what reaches this regi on is that eleme nt in a tran slati on which goes bey ond tran smittal of subject matter.虽然翻译不能像艺术那样要求产品的永恒，但是他们的目的却是结论性的、决定性的语言作品。 在翻译的过程中，原作被以一种非常特别的方 式，或者努力做到，被提升到一个更高的高度、 更纯净的境地：先验的，语言间无法调和和实现。 这种转换永远都是不完全的

48、，但是翻译中达到这 个层次的是翻译中那些超越了主题转换的元素。Eve n whe n all the surface content has bee n extracted and transmitted, the primary concern of the genuine tran slator rema inselusive. Un like the words of the origi nal, it is nottran slatable,because therelati on ship betwee n content and Ian guage is quite differe

49、nt in the original and the translation.While content and Ianguageform a certai n unity in the origi nal, like a fruit and it skin, the Ian guage of the tran slati onen velops its content like aroyal robe with ample folds. For it signifies a more exalted Ianguage than its own and thus rema ins un sui

50、ted to its content, overpowering and alien.This disjunctionpreve nts tran slati on and at the same time makes it superfluous.即便是表层的所有内容都已经分解出来，并且进行了转换，真正的译者的主要困惑仍然会是不明 确的。和原作中的词语不同，这些东西是不可译 的，因为内容和语言之间的关系与原作和译作之 间的关系大相径庭。在原作中，内容和语言实现 了某种的统一，就想水果和皮一样，但是译作的 语言对其内容的包装就想黄袍一样，层层叠加。 这就是因为和原作相比，译作使用的语言总会画蛇

51、添足，也就会让这种语言相对于内容言过其 实，貌合神离。这种断裂就限制了翻译，使翻译 显得多余。For any translation of a work originatingina specific stage of linguistichistoryreprese nts, i n regard to a specific aspect of its content, translation into all otherIanguages. Thus translation,ironically,tran spla nts the origi nal in to a more defini

52、tive linguistic realm since it can no Ion ger be displaced by a sec on dary ren deri ng. The origi nal can only be raised there anew and at other points of time.对于语言史中某一阶段某一作品的翻译，特别是 其内容的某一方面，都表明它可以被翻译成任何 其他的语言。因此可笑的是，翻译就是把原作移 植到一个冯家明确的语域中，但是次等翻译就做 不到这样的移植。原作只有在另一个时间点可以 提升到那个新的高度。The task of the tra

53、nslatorconsists infinding that intended effect Intention(p. 19) upon the Ianguage into which he is translating which produces in it the echo of the origi nal. Un like a work of literature,translationdoes not find itself in thecen ter of the Ian guage forest but on the outside facing the wooded ridge

54、; it calls into it without en teri ng, aim ing at that sin gle spot where the echo is able to give, in its own Ianguage, the reverberation of the work in the alien one. The intention of the poet is spontan eous, primary, graphic;that of the tran slatoris derivative,ultimate, ideati on al. If there i

55、s such athing as aIan guageof truth, thetensionl ess and eve n sile nt depository of the ultimate truth which all thought strives for, the n this Ian guage of truth is-the true Ianguage. And this very Ianguage, whos( div in ati onand descripti on is the only perfecti on a philosopher can hope for, i

56、scon cealed in concen tratedfashi onintranslations.There is no museof philosophy, nor is there one of translation.译者的任务就是到达到这种指向效果，从而让他 翻译的语言能够和原作产生共鸣。和文学不同的 是，译作发现自己并不是处于语言森林的中心， 而是在外面，面对着树林的边缘。文学翻译，但 是不需要它进入到文学，其目的就是要让翻译处 于某一独立的位置，能够用译入语产生共鸣就可 以了，这种共鸣就是原作在一个外语环境下的混 响。创作诗歌的目的是无意识的、原始的、绘画 式的。译者的目的也是

57、派生的，嗣后的，意念化 的。如果有一种真理语言，所有的思想孜孜以求 的终极真理都毫无压力、静置其中，那么这种真 理语言就是纯语言。这种语言的预言与描述是一 个哲学家所希望的唯一的一种完美叙述，这样的 语言以一种聚合的方式存在于翻译当中。 没有静 思的哲学，也没有静思的翻译。In deed, the problem of ripe ningthe seed ofpure Ian guage in a tran slati on seems to be in soluble,determ in able in no soluti on.Thetraditi onal con cepts in an

58、y discussi on of tran slati onsare fidelity and license-the freedom of faithful reproduction and, in its service, fidelity to the word. These ideas seemto be no Ion ger serviceable to a theory that looks for other things in a translation than reproducti on of meaning. To be sure, traditi onal usage

59、makes these terms appear as if in constant conflict with each other. What can fidelity really do for the ren deri ng of (p. 20) meaning?实际上，翻译中纯语言的种子成熟问题看起来是 不可实现的，注定没有解决办法。传统上对翻译 的讨论限定在忠实和自由忠实复制的自由，在其服务上，忠实于词语。如果某种理论中翻译 不仅仅是对意义的复制，而是要追求其他东西， 那么上述这些思路就不符合要求了。肯定的是， 一直以来这些术语看起来好像一直是相互冲突 的。如何在对意义的翻译中做到

60、真正的忠实？Fidelity in the tran slati on of in dividual words can almost n ever fully reproduce the meaning they have in the original.For sensein its poetic significance is not limitedmeaning, but derives from the conno tati ons con veyed by the word chose n to express it. Wesay of words that they have t