1、ChapteroneAnoverviewofWesternTranslationStudiesbeforethe1970s1) TranslationinAntiquityThefirsttracesoftranslationdatefrom3000BC,duringtheEgyptianOldKingdom,intheareaoftheFirstCataract(大瀑布)，Elephantine,whereinscriptionsintwolanguageshavebeenfound.ItbecameasignificantfactorintheWestin300BC,whentheRoma

2、nstookoverwholesalemanyelementofGreekculture,includingthewholereligiousapparatus.(Newmark,1982/2001:3)CiceroisoftenconsideredthefounderofWesterntranslationtheory,andthefirsttocommentontheprocessoftranslationandofferadviceonhowbesttoundertakethetask.InhisOntheOrator(Deoratore,55BC),Cicerosetthetermsw

3、hichwereexpandedbyHorace,PlinytheYounger,Quintillian,SaintJerome,andCatholics,ReformersandHumanistsfromthe14thtothe17thcenturies.CiceroRapproachtotranslationissense-for-senseandnotword-forword.ThatmeansatranslatorshouldbearinmindtheintendedmeaningoftheSLauthorandrenderitbymeansofTLwordsorword-orderw

4、hichdoesnotsoundstrangetotheTLreaders.ForCicero,ifIrenderwordforword,theresultwillsounduncouth,andifcompelledbynecessityIalteranythingintheorderorwording,Ishallseemtohavedepartedfromthefunctionofatranslator.(Bassnett-McGuire,1980:43)PlinytheYoungerpracticedandpropagatedtranslatingasaliterarytechniqu

5、e.Forhim,themostusefulthingistotranslateGreekintoLatinandLatinintoGreek.Thiskindofexercisedevelopsinaprecisionandrichnessofvocabulary,awiderangemetaphorandpowerofexposition,andimitationofthebestmodelsleadstoalikeaptitudefororiginalcomposition.ThoughPlinyemphasizestheimportanceoftranslation,heunlikeC

6、icero,preferswordforwordtranslationtosenseforsenseone.Horacearguesfortherevitalizationofwell-knowntextsthroughastylethatwouldneitherlingerintheonehackneyedandeasyround;neithertroubletorenderwordbywordwiththefaithfulnessofatranslator,nottreattheoriginalwriter?sbeliefswithtooeasyatrust,andwouldavoidst

7、ylisticover-sensationalismSothatthemiddleneverstrikesadifferentnotefromthebeginning,northeendfromthemiddle.”(Robinson,1997:15)Hiscriticismofthefaithfultranslatorisoftenturnedonitsheadtosupporttranslationalfidelitytotheoriginal.SaintJerome,aChristianasceticandBiblicalscholar,translatedtheNewTestament

8、fromHebrewintothepopular,non-literaryLatin.HisLettertoPammachius(395AD)onthebestkindoftranslatoristhefoundingdocumentofChristiantranslationtheory.StJeromepointsoutthatintranslatingfromtheGreek,-Irendernotwordforword,butsenseforsense:(Robinson,1997:25)Hecriticizestheword-for-wordapproachbecause,byfol

9、lowingsocloselytheformoftheST,itproducesandabsurdtranslation,concealingthesenseoftheoriginal.Thesense-for-senseapproach,ontheotherhand,allowsthesenseorcontentoftheSLtobetranslated.Inthesepolescanbeseentheoriginofboththe,literalvsfree?and,formvscontent?debatethathascontinueduntilmoderntimes.(Mnday,20

10、01：20)2.TranslationinRenaissanceandReformationAtthetimeoftheRenaissance,therewasafloodoftranslationslargelyfromGreek.ThespiritofRenaissanceinspiredandgaverisetonumeroustranslationsofscientificandreligioustextsinEnglandandelsewhere(Nida,1964:14).Amajorforcebehindthesetranslationswasaristocraticintere

11、standpatronage.ThesetranslationsintovernacularslegitimizedvernacularwritingsbecausetheypromisedaccesstoLatinculture.However,thetranslationsfromLatintovernacularsreproducedthesystemsofcontainmentandcontrolthatsustaintheLatinacademictradition.(Copeland,1991:224-8)The16thcenturywitnessedanideologicalmo

12、vementknownasProtestantismThoughthismovementspreaditselfthroughoutEurope,itsoverwhelmingpresencewasfeltinGermany.Inthefieldofreligion,churchauthoritiesforbadethelaypeopletoreadtheBibleintheirnativelanguages.MartinLuther,thedominantfigureinthefieldoftranslationandfatherofthemodernGermanlanguage,trans

13、latedtheBibleintoHighGermanandusedanideologicalweaponoftheProtestantmovementagainsttheRomanchurch.LutherRBibletranslationsrevealtoushowtranslationisusedbyconflictingsocialclassesasanideologicalweapon.In1530,Lutherwrotetheself-promotingandnationalisticSendbriefvomDolmestschen(CircularLetteronTranslat

14、ion),inwhichhecriticizedLatin,Hebrewandotherlanguagesforbeingfullofstoneandstump,incontrasttohissmoothGermanwriting.Asapoet,writerandtranslator,LutherreformedtheGermanlanguageinwaysthatcanstillbefelttoday.Hecarefullyandsystematicallywordedouthissevenprinciplesofmeaning-orientedtranslation:1)shiftofw

15、ord-order;2) employmentofmodelauxiliaries;3) introductionofconatives,wheneverrequired;何以增補必要的連詞)4)useofphrases,wherenecessarytotranslatesinglewordsintheoriginaltext;5) shiftsofmetaphorstonon-metaphorsandviceversa;6) carefulattentionpaidtoexplanatoryaccuracyandtextualvariants.(Nida,1964:15)Inhis1540m

16、anuscriptThewayoftranslatingwellfromonelanguageintoanother,EtienneDoletpostulates5principlesofgoodtranslation:1) thetranslatormustunderstandperfectlythecontentandintentionoftheauthorwhomheistranslating;2) thetranslatorshouldhaveaperfectknowledgeofthelanguagefromwhichheistranslatingandanequallyexcell

17、entknowledgeofthelanguageintowhichhisistranslating;3) thetranslatorshouldavoidthetendencytotranslatewordtoword,fortodosoistodestroythemeaningoftheoriginalandtoruinthebeautyoftheexpression;4) thetranslatorshouldemploytheformsofspeechincommonusage;5) throughhischoiceandorderofwords,thetranslatorshould

18、beabletoproducethetotaloveralleffectwithan,appropriatetone?.AbrahamCowleyadvocatesfreedomintranslationandtreatsword-for-wordtranslationasonemadmantranslatinganother.HisdefenseoffreeimitationprovidesDrydenwithhisprimaryfoil.JohnDrydenisoftenseenasthefirstsystematictranslationtheoristintheWest.Likehis

19、contemporaries,heisengagedinthegentlemanlysearchforsecularprinciplesoftranslation.Forhim,gentlemanlylargelymeansamateurish,meansrefusingtoputonscholarlyairsandmeansresistingthetemptationtowritelengthyknit-browedtreatisesonthesubject.IntheprefacetohistranslationofOvid?sEpistlesin1680,hereducedalltran

20、slationtothreecategories:Metaphrase,turninganauthorwordbyword,andlinebyline,fromonelanguageintoanother,whichcorrespondstoliteraltranslation;(詞譯或逐詞翻譯)Paraphrase；turningwithlatitude,wheretheauthoriskeptinviewbythetranslator,soasnevertobelost,buthiswordsarenotsostrictlyfollowedashissense,whichcorrespon

21、dstohissense-for-sensetranslation;(Wff)Imitation,“wherethetranslatorassumestheliberty,notonlytovaryfromthewordsandsense,buttoforsakethembothoccasions;andtakingonlysomegeneralhintsfromtheoriginal,torundivisiononthegroundwork,ashepleases(Munday,2001:25),whichcorrespondstoCowleyveryfreetranslationandis

22、moreorlessadaptation.(擬譯)Drydencriticizestranslatorswhoadoptmetaphraseasbeingaverbalcopier”,(Robinson,1997:172)Similarly,herejectsimitation,for“theimitationofanauthoristhemostadvantageouswayforatranslatortoshowhimself,butthegreatestwrongwhichcanbedonetothememoryandreputationofthedead.”(ibid.)Imitati

23、onandverbal(literal)versionare,inmyopinion,thetwoextremeswhichoughttobeavoided”(ibid.)andtherefore,heproposesthemeanbetwixtthem，i.e.paraphrase.ThetriadicmodelproposedbyDrydenexertsconsiderableinfluenceonlaterwritingsontranslation.(Munday,2001:25)Althoughhisthreenew“termsfortranslationarefromnew,here

24、mainsanattractiveandaccessiblepopularizerofthislongtradition.YhAnimportantworkrelatingtotranslationstudiesinthe18centurywasAlexanderFraserTytlei%TheEssayonthePrinciplesofTranslation(1791).RatherthanDrydenRauthor-orientedtermstobethatinwhichthemeritoftheoriginalworkissocompletelytransfusedintoanother

25、languageastobeasdistinctlyapprehended,asstronglyfelt,byanativeofthecountrytowhichthatlanguagebelongsasitisbythosewhospeakthelanguageoftheoriginalwork.AccordingtoTytler,therearethreegeneralprinciples:1) thetranslationshouldgiveacompletetranscriptoftheideasoftheoriginalwork;2) thestyleandmannerofwriti

26、ngshouldbeofthesamecharacterwiththatoftheoriginal;3) thetranslationshouldhavealltheeaseoftheoriginalcomposition.Tytlerfirstprinciplereferstothetranslatorhavingaperfectknowledgeoftheoriginal,beingcompetentinthesubjectandgivingafaithfultranslationofthesenseandmeaningoftheauthor.Hissecondprincipledeals

27、withthestyleoftheauthorandinvolvesthetranslatorbothidentifyingthetruecharacterofthisstyleandhavingtheabilityandcorrecttastetorecreateitintheTL.ThethirdprincipletalksofhavingalltheeaseofcompositionoftheST.Tytlerregardsthisasthemostdifficulttaskandlikensittoanartistproducingacopyofapainting.Hehimselfr

28、ecognizesthatthefirst2principlesrepresentthe2widelydifferentopinionsabouttranslation.Theycanbeseenasthepolesoffaithfulnessofcontentandfaithfulnessofform,orevenreformulationsofthesense-for-senseandword-for-worddiadofCiceroandSt.Jerome.(Munday,2001:26-7)3.RomanticismintranslationStudiesWhilethe17thcen

29、turyhadbeenaboutimitationandthe18thecenturyaboutthetranslatorsdutytorecreatethespiritoftheSTforthereaderofthetime,theRomanticismoftheearly19thcenturydiscussedtheissuesoftranslatabilityanduntranslatability.(Munday,2001:27).Atthebeginningofthe19thcentury,asecond,morephilosophicalandlessempirical,tradi

30、tionbegantoopenwithintranslationstudies.Thistraditionisconnected,ontheonehand,withtheriseofphilologyasauniversitydiscipline,andontheotherhand,withtheliterarymovementofRomanticism.Itexaltsthetranslatorasacreativegeniusinhisownright,intouchwiththegeniusofhisoriginalandenrichingtheliteratureandthelangu

31、ageintowhichheistranslating/(Bassnett-McGuire,1980:65)NovalisprovidesasignificanttwisttoDrydenRtriadicdivisionwhenhespeaksofgrammaticaltranslation(atranslationintheordinarysenseoftheword)，transformativetranslations(authenticbodyforththesublimestpoeticspirit),andmythictranslations(translationsintheno

32、bleststyle”，whichrevealthepureandperfectcharacteroftheindividualworkofart)(Robinson,1997:213)Similarly,Schlegelwritesthat,intranslatingHomer,itisnecessary“togetawayfromthenotionofliteralprecisionsocommonlyassociatedwithfidelity,becausetruthmustbethetranslatorhighest,indeedvirtuallyhisonly,mandate.”(

33、ibid.:217)AndGoethecommentsonWielandRtranslationofShakespeare:fhonormeterandrhyme,forthatiswhatmakespoetry,butthepartthatisreally,deeply,andbasicallyeffective,thepartthatistrulyformativeandbeneficial,isthepartofthepoetthatremainswhenheistranslatedintoprose.Thisresidueisthepure,completesubstance,whic

34、hadazzlingexternalformcansimulate,whenitislacking,orconceal,whenitispresent.(ibid.:222)ThesestatementsseemtobereworkingoftheclassicalLatintheoriesofrhetoricalfreedom.Infact,theyrepresentamajorchallengetothembecausethere-workingtheyseekprivilegesthereproductionoftheforeignnessoftheSTandnotitsdomestic

35、ation.ThefullestexpressionofthestrategymaybefoundinFreidrichSchleiermacherOnDifferentMethodsofTranslating(1813),whichisdescribedasthemajordocumentofromantictranslationtheory,andoneofthemajordocumentsofWesterntranslationtheoryingeneraf(ibid.:225)FriedrichSchleiermacherisrecognizedasthefounderofmodern

36、Protestanttheologyandofmodernhermeneutics(詮釋學).Hebeginswithareflectionongeneralizedtranslation:thereistranslationeverywherewherewehavetointerpretadiscourse,whetheritbeaforeignerspeakingtousinalanguagewhichisnotourown,apeasantcallingouttousinadialect,anunknownpersonspeakingwordswecanbarelyunderstand,

37、orwhetherweexaminewordsweutteredpreviously.Inallthesecases,weareleadtoanactoftranslationandthemostdifficultoneisnotnecessarilytheoneconcerningaforeignlanguage.Schleiermacherdistinguishesthisgeneralizedtranslationfromrestrictedtranslation,i.e.translationbetweenlanguages.Nevertheless,noteveryactoftran

38、slationbetweenlanguagesisnecessarilytranslation.Aseconddistinctionmustbemadebetweentranslatorandinterpreter.Andthishastobedoneonthefollowinggrounds:Interpretingwouldbemoreconcernedwithbusinessmatters,translationmorewiththedomainsof,science?and,art?(i.e.ofphilosophyandliterature).Thisdistinctioniscon

39、firmedbyanotherone:interpretingisessentiallyoral,translationessentiallywritten.Thesedistinctionsdependonmerecommonsense,andheattemptstobasethemonanother,moreessentialdistinction:thedistinctionoftheobjectiveandthesubjective.Everywheretheauthorappearsasthemereservantofanobjectivecontent,thereisinterpr

40、eting-oralorwritten.Everywherehetriestoexpresshimself,inthefieldof,science?or,art?thereistranslation.Itistheresponsibilityofthetranslatortotransmitthoseworksofscienceandartthatmakeupthehistoricallifeofalanguage.Heputsforward2methodstodotranslation:eitherthetranslatorleavestheauthorinpeace,asmuchaspo

41、ssible,andmovesthereadertowardshim;orheleavesthereaderinpeace,asmuchaspossible,andmovestheauthortowardshim.Hispreferenceisfortheformer,movingtowardthewriter:Ifthetarget-languagereadersaretounderstand,theymustgraspthespiritofthelanguagenativetotheauthor,theymustbeabletogazeupontheauthor%imitablepatte

42、rnsofthinkingandmeaning;buttheonlytoolsthatthetranslatorcanoffertheminpursuitofthesegoalsaretheirownlanguage,whichnowherequitecorrespondstotheauthos,andhisownperson,hisowninconsistentlyclearunderstandingof,andvacillatingadmirationfor,theauthor.(ibid.:228-9)Hisinfluenceontranslationstudiesisenormous.

43、Munday(2001:28)notesthestatementofKittelandPoltermanthatpracticallyeverymoderntranslationtheoryatleastintheGermanlanguagearea-responds,inonewayoranother,toSchleiermachhypotheses.W.vonHumboldt,agreatfigureofGermanclassicismbutintouchwithallthetendenciesofhistime,devoteshiswholelifetoanactivitythatbor

44、dersonphilosophy,literatureandphilology,butthatcanonlybedefinedasaconstantconcernwithlanguage.TheideasintroducedintoGermanyand,atleast,acomplementarydocumenttohisworksonlinguistictheory.Thefirstfactofwhichhebecomesawareinhisexperienceasatranslatoristhedifficultyandeventheimpossibilityofestablishinge

45、quivalencebetweentwolanguages,howevercloselyrelatedthesemaybe.Nowordofanylanguageistotallyequivalenttothecorrespondingwordintheother,forafundamentalfactoflinguisticconnotationisexpressedinonelanguageandhardlyreproducedortranslatedintoanotherlanguage.Onlywordswhichdenoteobjectiverealitiescanestablish

46、anykindofequivalence.Humboldtissoconvincedofthis,impossible?situationthatheevenpostulatestheaporeticalnatureofthebasicvirtueinthespiritualmatrimonyintowhichthetranslatorenterswiththetext:fidelity.Themorethetranslatorstrivestoforcethetextintoamathematicallycalculatedaccuracyinestablishingequivalence,

47、themorehedivergesfromthisintendedfidelity.Forhim,heaimsandusesoftranslationare:1) tomakeknowntheoriginaltothosewholacktherelevantlinguisticknowledge;2) toacquireanin-depthknowledgeofthetext;3) toenterintothespiritoftheworkonceonehasmasteredthewordsofsame.Ofalltheseuses,thelastisthemostimportant,fort

48、hebesttranslationstheonewhichdestroysitself.Thequalityofatranslationwilldependoneachoftheabove-mentionedaimstowhichonegivesprimacy.Thetranslationthatmerelyendeavorstomaketheworkknowntothereaderwilldemandanadaptationtothelinguisticlevelsofthelatter,whichwillincertaincasesentailadeviationfromstrictfid

49、elitytotheoriginaltext.Whenaknowledgeofthetextprevails,thetranslatormustbegovernedbyliteralfidelity,andinthethirdcase,hewillhavetosacrificefidelitytomeaning.4. WesternTranslationStudiesinModernTimesThe20thcenturywitnessedaradicalchangeinWesterntranslationstudies.Infact,5developmentshavehadasignifica

50、nteffectonthetheoryandpracticeoftranslationduringthe201century:1)rapiddevelopmentofstructurallinguistics;2) applicationofmethodsinstructurallinguisticstodealwithspecialproblemsoftranslation;3) theUnitedBiblesocieties,whichconductedinternationalconferenceoftranslationandbeganpublishingaquarterlyjourn

51、al(Bibletranslation),forwhichtheywereinclosecontactwithlinguists;4) publicationofBabel”,whichhelpstranslatorsgettoknowaboutnewtoolsandaidsandbecomeawareofthechangingconditions;5) thedevelopmentofvariousprojectsonmachinetranslationwhichhasprogressedthroughdifferentphasesandprovideduswithimportantinsi

52、ghtsintosemantictheoryandofstructuraldesign.Atthestartofthe20thcentury,SchleiermacherandHumboldtideaswererethoughtfromthevantagepointofmodernistmovementswhichprizedexperimentswithliteraryformasawayofrevitalizingculture.AndthemaintrendsintranslationstudiesinthenexttowdecadeswerealsorootedinGermanlite

53、raryandphilosophicaltraditions,inromanticism,hermeneutics,andexistentialphenomenology.Translationtheoriesatthistimeassumedthatsincelanguageisnotsomuchcommunicativeasconstitutiveinitsrepresentationofthoughtandreality,translationisseenasaninterpretationwhichnecessarilyreconstitutesandtransformsthefore

54、igntext.Translationisafocusoftheoreticalspeculationandformalinnovation.5. Developmentsincethe1970sAccordingtoBassnett(1998:108-11),onesimplewayofunderstandingthechangesanddevelopmentsintranslationstudiesduringthelastthreedecadesofthe20thcenturyisthroughtheapplicationofkeywordstospecificperiods.Theke

55、ywordofthe1970sishistory;in1980scultureandin1990svisibilityInfact,thesurgeintranslationstudiessincethe1970shaswitnesseddifferentareasofHolmes?mapcometothefore.(Munday,2004:14)Thelinguistic-orientedscience?oftranslationhascontinuedstronglyinGermany,butequivalence-basedtheoriesgraduallyhavecomeunderat

56、tackandbeguntogivewaytofunction-orientedtranslationresearch,whichnowadaystakesintoaccountthewidercontextwithinwhichtranslationtakesplaceinthereceivingculture.TheHallidayaninfluenceofdiscourseanalysisandsystemicfunctionalgrammarhasbeenpredominantinthecircleoftranslationstudies,esp.inGermany.Thelate19

57、70sand1980salsosawtheriseofadescriptiveapproachthathaditsoriginsincomparativeliteratureandRussianFormalism.Thegrowthoftranslationstudiesasaseparatedisciplineisasuccessstoryofthe1980s.thesubjecthasdevelopedinmaypartsoftheworldandbringstogetherworkinawidevarietyoffields,includinglinguistics,literaryst

58、udy,history,anthropology,psychology,andeconomics(Bassnett,1993:i-ii)Atthesametime,translationstudieshaveachievedinstitutionalauthority,manifestedbyandunprecedentedproliferationofacademictrainingprograms,professionalassociations,publicationsandconferences.Thegreatestachievementgainedinthe1980sisthecu

59、lturalturn,whichlooksattranslationfromtheculturalstudiesangle.TranslationStudieshasbeguntomoveclosertoCulturalStudies,asitisincreasinglyincorporatingethnographicalandanthropologicalmethods.The1990ssawtheincorporationofnewschoolsandconcepts,withCanadian-basedtranslationandgenderresearchledbySherrySimon,theBraziliancannibalistschoolpromotedbyElseVieria,postcolonialtranslationtheorywiththeprominentfiguresofhtBengalisch