翻译研究简史英文

TRANSLATIONSTUDIES:

ABRIEFHISTORY

Abriefhistoryofthediscipline

Cicero,Horace(1stcentBCE),StJerome(4thcent.CE):TheBible–battlegroundofconflictingideologiesinwesternEurope:literalvs.free(wordorsense;interpres

utorator)Perioduntilthelate1960s:TR–anelementoflanguagelearning(inmodernlanguagecourses)thegrammar-translationmethod)classicallanguages+M.Luther(modernlanguages)–translationexercisesameansoflearningforeignlanguage(readingskills)changeofattitudewiththeriseofthedirectmethod(spokenlang.)-NOtranslationintheclassroomSincethe1970s:TRdevelopedintoanacademicdiscipline1.TheearlyperiodThe

practiceoftranslationwasdiscussedby

CiceroandHorace

(firstcenturyBCE)andStJerome(fourthcenturyAD);theirwritingsexertedanimportantinfluenceupuntilthe

twentiethcenturyStJerome’sapproachtotranslatingtheGreek

SeptuagintBibleintoLatinaffectedlatertranslationsoftheScriptures.Nonverbumdeverbosedsensumdesenso!thetranslationoftheBiblewastobe–forwelloverathousandyears

andespeciallyduringtheReformationinthesixteenthcentury–thebattleground

ofconflictingideologiesinwesternEurope"WhathappenedattheTowerofBabel?"TheTowerofBabelisdescribedinGenesischapter11,verses1-9.AftertheFlood,Godcommandedhumanityto"increaseinnumberandfilltheearth"(Genesis9:1).Humanitydecidedtodotheexactopposite,"Thentheysaid,"Come,letusbuildourselvesacity,withatowerthatreachestotheheavens,sothatwemaymakeanameforourselvesandnotbescatteredoverthefaceofthewholeearth"(Genesis11:4).Humanitydecidedtobuildagreatcityandallcongregatethere.Theydecidedtobuildagigantictowerasasymboltheirpower,tomakeanameforthemselves(Genesis11:4).ThistowerisrememberedastheTowerofBabel.Inresponse,Godconfusedthelanguagesofhumanitysothatwecouldnolongercommunicatewitheachother(Genesis11:7).Theresultwasthatpeoplecongregatedwithotherpeoplewhospokethesamelanguage-andthenwentandsettledinotherpartsoftheworld(Genesis11:8-9).GodconfusedthelanguagesattheTowerofBabeltoenforceHiscommandforhumanitytospreadthroughouttheentireworld.SomeBibleteachersalsobelievethatGodcreatedthedifferentracesofhumanityattheTowerofBabel.Thisispossible,butitisnottaughtintheBiblicaltext.Ontheoriginoftheraces-/different-races.html.ItseemsmorelikelythatthedifferentracesexistedpriortotheTowerofBabelandthatGodconfusedthelanguagesatleastpartiallybasedonthedifferentraces.FromtheTowerofBabel,humanitydividedbasedonlanguage(andpossiblyrace)andsettledinvariouspartsoftheworld.RecommendedResource:

TheAnswersBookbyKenHam.1.Translation–beforethe20thcenturyWord-for-wordorsense-for-senseTRMartinLutherEarlyattemptsatsystematicTR:Dryden,Dolet,TytlerSchleirmacherandtheevaluationoftheforeignTRtheoriesin19thandearly20thcent.MatinLutherLiteralvsfreeTRdebatecontinued‘correct’establishedmeaningoftheBibleAnydivergingfromtheacceptedinterpretationdeemedhereticalDolet(1546)burned(apparently)foraddingthephraseriendutoutinapassageaboutwhateeistedafterdeath–immortalityissue!Non-literalTRseenasblasphemy,aweaponagainstthechurch:Faithful,spiritandtruth:

faithful-accurate-translationNottheoryofTR,justexplanationsinprefacesNoconsiderationofpreviousTRworkLackofconsecutiveness(Amos1920)Kelly(1979)TheTrueInterpreterFIDELITY–(fidusinterpres)initiallydismissedasword-for-wordTREndof17thcent.:faithfulnesstothemeaningratherthanthewordsoftheauthorSPIRITCreativeenergy,inspiration(toliterature)StAugustin:TheHolySpiritTRUTHSpiritandtruth–intertwined(truth=content)=<content>notuntil20thcent.Aninterconnectionbetweenfidelity,spiritandtruthintheTRofsacretextsEarlyattemptsatasystematictheoryofTRDryden(1680):TRcategories:Metaphrase:corr.toliteral,word-for-word,lineforlineParaphrase:TRwithlatitude,wordsnotsostrictlyfollowedasthesense;corr.tofaithful,sense-for-senseTRImitation:forsakingbothwordsandsense;corr.tofreeTRandadaptationDolet(1540):principlesofTRTLRmustperfectlyunderstandthesenseandthematerialoftheoriginalauthor,althoughheshouldfeelfreetoclarifyobsuritiesTLRshouldhaveaperfectknowledgeofbothSLandTL,soasnottolessenthemajestyofthelanguageTLRshouldavoidword-for-wordrenderingsTLRshouldavoidLatinateandunusualformsTLRshouldassembleandliaisewithwordseloquentlytoavoidclumsinessTytler(1797):lawsandrules:SchleiermacherandthevalorizationoftheforeignSchleiermacher,ctd.Distinguishedbetween:Dollmetscher(commercialtexts)Uebersetzer(scholarlyandartistictexts):OnahighercreativeplaneBreathingnewlifeintothelanguageQ:HowtobringtheSTwriterandtheTTreadertogether?Onlytwopathsforthe‘true’TLR:EithertheTLRleavesthewriteraloneasmuchaspossibleandmovesthereadertothewriter,orHeleavesthereaderaloneasmuchaspossibleandmovesthewritertowardthereaderTLRmustadoptans‘alienating’methodofTRorientinghimselfbythelanguageandcontentoftheSTTLRmustvalorizetheforeignandtransferthatintoTLHemustcommunicatethesameimpressionwhichhe/shereceibedfromSLTAspeciallanguageofTRisnecessaryforcompensatingthehackneyedexpressionthatcannotconveytheimpressionofthgeforeignSchleiermacher’sinfluence:EnormousinfluenceonmoderntranslationConsiderationofdifferenttexttypes(Reiss)Alienatingvsnaturalizing(Venuti)‘Languageoftranslation’(Benjamin)Hermeneutics(Steiner)Late19thandearly20thcent.FocusonthestatusoftheSLTandtheformofTLTNewman(translatingHomer):foreignnesofthework(deliberatearchaiclanguage)M.Arnold:advocatedatransparentTRofHomerElitistattitude:ItwasthoughtthatTRcouldneverreachtheheigthsoftheST,itispreferabletoreadtheworkintheoriginallanguageResult:DevaluationandmarginalizationofTR(inUK):Preuniv.anduniv.studentsoflanguagesdissuadedfromturningtotranslationforhelpVerylittlepopularliteraturetranslatedintoEnglishRelativelyfewsubtitledforeignfilmsincinemasoronTV3.TRStudiessince1970s:TRdevelopedintoanacademicdisciplineUS:TRworkshops,creativewriting,Princeton,Iowa;comparativeliterature(culturalstudies)Contrastiveanalysis(TR-subjectofresearch):Linguisticapproach:languagesincontrast(1960’s–1970’s)CA:James1980,VinayDarbelnet(1958),Catford1965,Connor,Chesterman(2001)CAusefulbutfailstoaccountforsociolinguistic&pragmaticfactorsnortheroleofTRasacomm.actSince1970s,ctd.LINGUISTIC/SYSTEMATICAPPROACH:(1950’s–1960’s)J.P.Vinay&J.Darbelnet(1958)Stylistiquecompareedufrancaisetdel’anglais–contrastiveapproachG.Mounin(1963)Lesproblemestheoriquesdelatraduction–linguisticissuesE.Nida(1964)TowardaScienceofTranslating=Ubersetzungswissenschaft(W.Wills,Koller,Kade,Neubert)Candidatenames:science,translatology,translatologie,traductolgia–studiesTranslationStudiesAndréLefevere–LouvainColloquiumonLiteratureandTranslation,1976

TranslationStudies–disciplineconcernedwith‘theproblemsraisedbytheproductionanddescriptionoftranslation’adisciplineinitsownright:complexnotaminorbranchofcomparativeliterarystudynotaspecificareaoflinguisticsTHEHOLMES–TOURY‘map’J.S.Holmes(1972/1988/2000)Paper-1972:ThirdInternationalCongressofAppliedLinguistics(Holmes’foundingstatementforthefield:limitationsbyTRbeingdispersedacrossotherdisciplinesneedtoreachallscholarsworkinginthefield(fromwhateverbackground)cf.‘map’ofTRstudiesHolmesinG.Toury(1995):TRStudiescover:descriptionofthephenomenaofTR(descr.TRtheory-DTS)theestablishmentofgen.principlestoexplainandpredictsuchphenomena(TRtheory)DTS:

Nogeneral-onlypartialtheories

medium-restrictedtheories–MT/humanarea-restrictedtheories–tospecificlanguagepairs(contrastive;stylistics)rank-restrictedtheories–wordorsentencetext-typerestricted–historyofTRproblem-restricted-equivalence,unitofTR,universalsetc.NB:amixoftheories(‘pure’aspectsofthetheory–preferredbyHolmes)Mainissues:

literalvs.freevsfaithfulunitoftranslationcontrastiveanalysistheequivalenceproblemtranslatabilityvs

untranslatability

SLTvsTLTrelationtranslationtypestranslationstrategiescommunicationfactorscognitivefactorsmachinetranslationtranslationqualityassessmenttranslationethics/manipulationetc.

DEVELOPMENTSSINCE1970s-summary

contrastiveanalysisgivingwaystronglinguistic-oriented‘science’approachtoTR(Germany),declineoftheequivalenceissue(Snell-Hornby1995)theoriesaroundtexttypes(Reiss)textpurpose–‘skopos’(Reiss,Vermeer)TRviewedasacommunicativeactinasocioculturalcontext(influencedbyM.A.K.Halliday:discourseanalysisandsystemicfunctionalgrammar)–Bell1991,Baker1992,HatimandMason(1990,1997),e)Hallidayaninfluence:discourseanalysisandsystemicfunctionalgrammar:viewslanguageasacommunicativeactinasocioculturalcontextprominentoverthepastdecadesinAustraliaandtheUK:Bell(1991),Baker(1992)andHatimandMason(1990,1997)theriseofadescriptiveapproach(late1970sandthe1980s)G.Toury1991,1995),I.Even-Zohar:originsincomparativeliteratureandRussianFormalism(Levy,Popovič)Thepolysystemistapproach(Lefevere,Bassnet,Hermans–theManipulationSchool)–dynamic,culturallyorientedapproach–literaryTRtheliterarypolysysteminwhich:g)theliterarypolysysteminwhich:differentliteraturesandgenres,includingtranslatedandnon-translatedworks,competefordominance(TelAviv:ItamarEven-ZoharandGideonToury)Thepolysystemists(AndréLefevere,SusanBassnettandTheoHermans),e.g.TheManipulationofLiterature:StudiesinLiteraryTranslation(Hermans1985a),the‘ManipulationSchool’adynamic,culturallyorientedapproach(continuationofHolmes’sDTS)Genderresearch(Canada),feministtopics,postcolonialtranslationtheoryCulturalstudies-orientedanalysis:Translator’sinvisibility–Venuti

TranslationstudieshavebecomewellestablishedasadisciplineCONCLUSION:

VarioustheoriescompetingforsupremacySplitbetweentheoryandpractice–waystoovercomeitRapiddevelopmentofthedisciplineChallengesofthenewtechnologyNogeneralandcomprehensivetheoryRichnessoflinguistic,literary,historical,culturalistetc.approachesHolisticapproachDevelopmentssincethe1970sDifferentareasofHolmes’smapcometothefore:ContrastiveanalysishasfallenbythewaysideThelinguistic-oriented‘science’oftranslationhascontinuedstronglyinGermanyconceptofequivalenceassociatedtheling.approachhasdeclinedtheriseoftheoriescenteredaroundtexttypes(Reiss;seechapter5)andtextpurpose(theskopostheoryofReissandVermeerHallidayaninfluenceofdiscourseanalysisandsystemicfunctionalgrammarwhichviewslanguageasacommunicativeactinasocioculturalcontextprominentoverthepastdecadesinAustraliaandtheUK:Bell(1991),Baker