翻译研究简史英文

TRANSLATIONSTUDIES:ABRIEFHISTORYAbriefhistoryofthediscipline1.Cicero,Horace(1stcentBCE),StJerome(4thcent.CE):TheBible–battlegroundofconflictingideologiesinwesternEurope:literalvs.free(wordorsense;interpresutorator)2.Perioduntilthelate1960s:TR–anelementoflanguagelearning(inmodernlanguagecourses)thegrammar-translationmethod)classicallanguages+M.Luther(modernlanguages)–translationexercisesameansoflearningforeignlanguage(readingskills)changeofattitudewiththeriseofthedirectmethod(spokenlang.)-NOtranslationintheclassroom3.Sincethe1970s:TRdevelopedintoanacademicdiscipline1.TheearlyperiodThepracticeoftranslationwasdiscussedbyCiceroandHorace(firstcenturyBCE)andStJerome(fourthcenturyAD);theirwritingsexertedanimportantinfluenceupuntilthetwentiethcenturyStJerome’sapproachtotranslatingtheGreekSeptuagintBibleintoLatinaffectedlatertranslationsoftheScriptures.Nonverbumdeverbosedsensumdesenso!thetranslationoftheBiblewastobe–forwelloverathousandyearsandespeciallyduringtheReformationinthesixteenthcentury–thebattlegroundofconflictingideologiesinwesternEuropeWhathappenedattheTowerofBabel?TheTowerofBabelisdescribedinGenesischapter11,verses1-9.AftertheFlood,Godcommandedhumanitytoincreaseinnumberandfilltheearth(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-ItseemsmorelikelythatthedifferentracesexistedpriortotheTowerofBabelandthatGodconfusedthelanguagesatleastpartiallybasedonthedifferentraces.FromtheTowerofBabel,humanitydividedbasedonlanguage(andpossiblyrace)andsettledinvariouspartsoftheworld.RecommendedResource:TheAnswersBookbyKenHam.1.Translation–beforethe20thcentury1.Word-for-wordorsense-for-senseTR2.MartinLuther3.EarlyattemptsatsystematicTR:Dryden,Dolet,Tytler4.Schleirmacherandtheevaluationoftheforeign5.TRtheoriesin19thandearly20thcent.Word-for-wordorsense-for-senseTRTRtheoryuntil20thcent.:asteriledebateoverthetriadliteral,free,andfaithfulTR(Steiner1998)Cicero(1stcentBC,Deoptimogenereoratorum):wordforwordvssenseforsenseTR–chiefprinciplesofTRoftheagewordforword(interpreter/literalTLR)-ThereplacementofeachindividualwordofST(Greek)withitsclosestgrammaticalequivalentinLatin(readingGr&Latsidebyside),p.19senseforsense(orator)–procuceaspeechthatwouldmovethelistenersAncienttradition,theMiddleAgesHorace(Arspoetica):thegoalofproducinganaestheticallypleasingandcreativetextintheTLStJerome(influencedbyCicero&Horace)–Deoptimogenereinterpretandi–395AD–NowInotonlyadmitbutfreelyannouncethatintranslatingfromGreek–exceptofcourseinthecaseoftheHolyScripture,whereeventhesyntaxcontainsamystery–Irendernotword-for-wordbutsense-for-sense.Jerome’sviewinterpretedlaterasopposingpoles:literalvsfreeTR(formvscontent)–aperennialdebateword-for-wordproducesanabsurdTR,cloakingthesenseoftheoriginalChineseTR:sametypeofconcernaboutTR(SanskritBuddhistsutrasintoChinese)RichTRtraditionoftheArabworld:word-for-wordTRunsuccessful(theAbbasidPeriod–750-1250)MatinLutherLiteralvsfreeTRdebatecontinued‘correct’establishedmeaningoftheBibleAnydivergingfromtheacceptedinterpretationdeemedhereticalDolet(1546)burned(apparently)foraddingthephraseriendutoutinapassageaboutwhateeistedafterdeath–immortalityissue!Non-literalTRseenasblasphemy,aweaponagainstthechurch:TheNewTestamentintoEastMiddleGerman(1522)OldTestament(1534)SendbriefvomDolmetschen(1530)–accusedofalteringtheHolyScripturesingisvernacular,dialectTR,p.22)Accusedforaddingthewordallein–notfoundintheoriginalRejectedword-for-wordTRFocusingontheTLandTLTreader(inthevernacular)Faithful,spiritandtruth:faithful-accurate-translationNottheoryofTR,justexplanationsinprefacesNoconsiderationofpreviousTRworkLackofconsecutiveness(Amos1920)Kelly(1979)TheTrueInterpreterFIDELITY–(fidusinterpres)initiallydismissedasword-for-wordTREndof17thcent.:faithfulnesstothemeaningratherthanthewordsoftheauthorSPIRITCreativeenergy,inspiration(toliterature)StAugustin:TheHolySpiritTRUTHSpiritandtruth–intertwined(truth=content)=contentnotuntil20thcent.Aninterconnectionbetweenfidelity,spiritandtruthintheTRofsacretextsEarlyattemptsatasystematictheoryofTRDryden(1680):TRcategories:Metaphrase:corr.toliteral,word-for-word,lineforlinePar