搜索
TranslationTheoriesbeforetheTwentiethCenturyContents1.Literalorfreetranslation?2.Schleiermacher’stheorization3.Victoriancontroversy4.BibletranslationsMarcusTulliusCicero(106-43BC)•Ciceroopposedword-for-wordtranslationandunderlinedthattranslatorsshouldnotact“asaninterpreter,butasanorator,keepingthesameideasandtheforms”.•Thepopularityofatranslationrestsonitscaptureoftheoriginalstyleandforceinsteadofindiscriminaterepresentation,anditshouldnotbecountedout“tothereaderslikecoins”butbepaid“byweight”.•Horacedidnotthinkitnecessaryto“worryaboutrenderingwordforword”.Hewouldrather“rendersenseforsense”.Hefavoredatranslator’sfaithfulnessandobjectedtoword-for-wordtransfer.•？InthelastChineseparagraphinp.7ofthehandout,therearethreereasonsforflexiblemethodsinancientRome.Whatarethey?FlaccusQuintusHoratiusHorace(65-8BC)•aChristianasceticandBiblicalscholar•HetranslatedGreekOldTestamentintoLatinandtheNewTestamentfromHebrewintothepopular,non-literaryLatin.•Heproposedthetermsense-for-sense.•“intranslatingfromtheGreek…Irendernotwordforword,butsenseforsense.”•？Arethereanyreasonsforthepriorityoffreetranslation?Inotherwords,howshallwejustifyJerome’sstandpointsbasedontheparagraph?(p.20)St.Jerome(342-420)SeventeenthCentury1.AbrahamCowley:•Imitation?WhydidCowleydefendimitation?Whatishismajorreason?(p.24)Next2.JohnDryden•oftenseenasthefirstsystematictranslationtheoristinthewest.•Atranslatorhastherightnottocopywordforwordincasethespiritintheoriginalislost,butthedecencyoffreedomisindispensable.•Atranslatorshould“entirelyandperfectlycomprehendthegeniusandsenseofhisauthor,thenatureofthesubject,andthetermsoftheartorsubjecttreatedof”sothattheadaptationwouldnot“injuretheauthor”.•Threecategories:p24-25•verbalcopier？Servile,literaltranslation？Dancingonropeswithfetteredlegs？3.AlexanderFraserTytler(1747——1814)•EssayonthePrinciplesoftranslation(1797)•agoodtranslation•3principles:Howtotranslate??Couldweregardthethirdmaximassimilarwith严复’s“雅”？(p.26)•ComparativeimportanceNineteenthCenturySchleiermacher•Twotypesoftranslatorworking(p.27)•Realquestion(p.27)•Twopaths(p.27)•Naturalizingvs.alienating(p.28)•Tovalorizetheforeign(p.28)Backgroundinformation•In1813,duringtheNapoleonicwars,FriedrichSchleiermacher’slectureUeberdieVerschiedenenMethodendesUebersetzens(“OntheDifferentMethodsofTranslating”)viewedtranslationasanimportantpracticeinthePrussiannationalistmovement:itcouldenrichtheGermanlanguagebydevelopinganeliteliteratureandthusenableGermanculturetorealizeitshistoricaldestinyofglobaldomination.Andyet,surprisingly,Schleiermacherproposedthisnationalistagendabytheorizingtranslationasthelocusofculturaldifference,notthehomogeneitythathisideologicalconfigurationmightimply,andthat,invarious,historicallyspecificforms,haslongprevailedinEnglish-languagetranslation,BritishandAmerican.Hermeneuticangle•“Thegenuinetranslator”isawriter“Whowantstobringthosetwocompletelyseparatedpersons,hisauthorandhisreader,trulytogether,andwhowouldliketobringthelattertoanunderstandingandenjoymentoftheformerascorrectandcompleteaspossiblewithoutinvitinghimtoleavethesphereofhismothertongue”.•“Thereaderofthetranslationwillbecometheequalofthebetterreaderoftheoriginalonlywhenheisablefirsttoacquireanimpressionoftheparticularspiritoftheauthoraswellasthatofthelanguageinthework”.•Lefevere,A.(ed.andtrans.)(1977)TranslatingLiterature:TheGermanTraditionfromLuthertoRosenzweig,Assen:VanGorcum.?shouldagenuinetranslatorapplyparaphrase,imitation,orsomethingelse?(P.136-138,handouts)SchleiermacherandVenuti•Foreignizationvs.Domestication•“Thetranslatormustthereforetakeashisaimtogivehisreaderthesameimageandthesamedelightwhichthereadingoftheworkintheoriginallanguagewouldaffordanyreadereducatedinsuchawaythatwecallhim,inthebettersenseoftheword,theloverandtheexpert,thetypeofreaderwhoisfamiliarwiththeforeignlanguagewhileityetalwaysremainsforeigntohim:henolongerhastothinkeverysinglepartinhismothertongue,asschoolboysdo,beforehecangraspthewhole,butheisstillconsciousofthedifferencebetweenthatlanguageandhismothertongue,evenwhereheenjoysthebeautyoftheforeignworkintotalpeace”.•OnthebasisofSchleiermacher(1838)’sinclinationto“leavethewriterinpeaceasmuchaspossibleandbringthereadertohim”(qtd.inVenuti1995:19-20,cf.Schäffner1999:5),Venutihasdistinguishedforeignizationfromdomestication.•“Schleiermacherallowedthetranslatortochoosebetweendomesticationmethod,anethnocentricreductionoftheforeigntexttotarget-languageculturalvalue,bringingtheauthorbackhome,andforeignizationmethod,anethnodeviantpressureonthesevaluestoregisterthelinguisticandculturaldifferenceoftheforeigntext,sendingthereaderabroad”.(Venuti1995:21)•Schleiermacher:“Itisanactthatrunscountertobothnatureandmoralitytobecomeadesertertoone’sownmothertongueandtogiveoneselftoanother”.•Venuti：“itwouldseemthatforeignizingtranslationdoesnotsomuchintroducetheforeignintoGermancultureasusetheforeigntoconfirmanddevelop…anidealculturalselfonthebasisof…aculturalnarcissism[ofSchleiermacher]”.Newman&ArnoldControversy•Newman:foreigness,archaism•Arnold:transparency，winner，scholars’authority