Translation Seminar Series (Since 2001)

The aim of the talk is to show how a linguistic approach can contribute to the study and analysis of translated texts. The talk will begin with some basic ideas in functional linguistics, which will be needed in later discussions. The examples to be illustrated are English translations of ancient Chinese poems (e.g. Tang poems).

譯學詞典的誕生，是翻譯的實踐和理論數千年發展的必然。譯學詞典問世僅幾年時間，許多理論、原則、方法問題還有待學者們展開探討。本人在此分三個問題對譯學詞典的編纂與研究進行探討：一、概況；二、譯學詞典類型的劃分。對於譯學詞典的編纂與研究，這是一個重要的基礎性研究課題。圍繞這一宏觀性課題，首先探討譯學詞典研究的定位問題，對於譯學詞典在詞典體系及譯學詞典研究在翻譯學本體系統中的位置，借助兩幅插圖加以論說。

發言認為當今學界從事譯學研究的相關係科缺乏學問之學問（如文獻學）方面的課程設置和訓練，這便影響了譯學研究的深度推進和持續發展。發言人認為文獻學修養是學術軟硬件之具體體現，它既可使學者明瞭治學門徑、深諳學術思想之淵源流變，為學術研究提供扎實的文獻保證，有助於相關研究之學術定位，亦能培養學者純正的學術品味，醇厚的學術境界，使其尊重學術倫理和學術規範，又能體現深厚的學養、學識、學力以及寬闊的學術視野和知識結構，為譯學研究做出應有的貢獻。

譯介學研究不同於傳統的翻譯研究，它不止於關注傳統語言文字的轉換，而是從比較文學的立場出發，把翻譯研究置於文化層面，對文學翻譯中的創造性叛逆和譯者、譯本的相對獨立的價值進行多方面的闡發，提出了翻譯文學、翻譯文學史等一系列較新的學術理念，開拓了翻譯研究的新層面。

Discourse analysis has drawn wide attention in translation studies in recent years. Researchers with varied positions on translation proper come to reach consensus on the necessity of carrying out discourse analysis in either translation studies or translation practices (including translator training and translation criticism).

發言將對中國當代譯學研究作一簡要回顧，指出當代翻譯學已發展成為一門對語言學、文化學、比較文學、社會學、人類學、哲學、心理認識科學、美學、國際政治學以及相關自然科學等多種學科進行交叉滲透研究的獨立的、開放的、綜合性的人文社會科學。因此對翻譯理象進行跨學科、跨文化的歷時、共時的動態研究，不同國家、地區譯學理論研究的多元互補共存以及各國譯論的接軌與融合，將是未來翻譯學發展的總體趨勢。

一個無可否認的事實是，翻譯研究 (Translation Studies) 已經呈現出一種多元途徑的格局。其中一個不可忽視的研究取向乃是”文化轉向” (cultural turn)，雖然這一轉向實際早在二十世紀六、七十年代便已經開始，但直到二十世紀八、九十年代才獲得命名。然而，在這一轉向中，其實還有一種轉向也已悄然進行，我稱之為”文化研究轉向”。

從文學維度的視角觀察中國現代文學的得失，並對中國現代文學進行宏觀的批評。

Yan Fu is best remembered for his translation of modern Western intellectual works and his epigrammatic “xin-da-ya” translation principles, generally taken to mean faithfulness to the original text, comprehensibility and elegance. It is a known fact that Yan’s translation agenda is highly purposeful and that many of his commentary-translations are not faithful to the original texts.

When the academic discourse on translation has widely recognized the importance of text analysis, we need to ask ourselves two questions further: (1) how a text can be analyzed, and (2) what a text will be analyzed for. Indeed, “text analysis” is more than a convenient haphazard operation.

David Hawkes’ translation of the first eighty chapters of Honglou Meng 《紅樓夢》 (The Story of the Stone) is justly acclaimed as a masterpiece of literary translation from the Chinese. In this presentation, an attempt will be made to characterize the distinctive features of Hawkes’ methods as a translator.

In the etymological sense, both metaphor and translation signify an act of transference, of carrying something across, and that basic sense should help us understand the nature of translation. I shall discuss a number of important theoretical and critical discussions of the problem of translation, and of translatability in particular, and I shall argue for translation not just as a technical issue of finding equivalence between languages, but first and foremost the necessary means of understanding and communication across the gaps of cultures, histories, and traditions.

The use in translation studies of methodologies inspired by corpus linguistics has proved to be one of the most important gate-openers to progress in the discipline since Toury’s re-thinking of the concept of equivalence. In this paper, I argue that, the many advantages to be had by this method notwithstanding, there are problems.

The linguistic and rhetorical norms of the target language and culture have always been a crucial element in the theory and practice of translation. These preferences invariably compete with another set of textual norms already in place as part of the language user’s rhetorical competence. Included here are such variables as educational background, orate vs. literate predilections, mother tongue’s linguistic/rhetorical preferences, etc.

The speaker will ask why these two disciplines have stood apart for so long and what can be done to bring about a rapprochement between them. The relative neglect of interlingual topics in lexicography and of lexicographic topics in translation will be demonstrated, and the special case of parallel text analysis will be examined to show how progress in interdisciplinary collaboration can be made.

本文首先回顧20世紀中國（以內地為主，下同）的翻譯家研究及其現狀，分析其特點，並提出筆者的看法。筆者將中國的翻譯家研究大致分為五種類型：刊物上的文章介紹、翻譯家評傳、翻譯家詞典、文學史研究中的翻譯家研究和專題翻譯家研究。各種類型的研究都有自己的特點：刊物上的文章發表及時且針對性強，但受篇幅限制且比較零散；翻譯家評傳能夠闡述充分透徹，但往往因傳主故世而限制了研究的範圍與視野；翻譯家詞典簡明扼要信息量大，但入選標準把握不一，質量參差不齊；文學史研究中的翻譯家研究目前還不夠系統深入，但發展趨勢很好；專題翻譯家研究主題明確材料生動，但往往不易充分展開。

There is a need for a better understanding of what structures the relationship between the (translating) subject and the object (matter) of translation. What are the cultural parameters of this relationship? A culture that creates a demand for translation also supplies a framework of references (ideas, beliefs, and values) which accompany the subsequent interpretation of the text in that culture.

伊塔瑪‧埃文－佐哈爾 (Itamar Even-Zohar)、吉迪恩‧圖裏 (Gideon Toury)、安德烈‧勒菲弗爾 (Andre Lefevere)、西奧‧赫曼斯 (Theo Hermans) 等人的系統理論開創了以譯文為中心、從譯語文化角度研究文學翻譯的新範式。系統理論不僅可以為研究某一時期的文學翻譯現象或翻譯文學史提供一個宏觀的理論構架，而且它的一些關鍵詞（核心概念），如“多元系統” (polysystem)、“意識形態” (ideology)、“重寫” (rewriting)、“操縱” (manipulation)、“形式庫” (repertoire)、“動態經典” (dynamic canons) 等等，也可作為對具體現象分析的理論視點。

本講題將主要談及達爾文進化論中的適應學說與翻譯的關聯以及對翻譯實踐的指導意義。主講者認為，百年來適應學說的理論功力，眾學科廣泛應用的成功實踐，古今中外譯論家的真知灼見，特別是由於該學說在解釋和解決翻譯實踐和譯論爭辯等方面的可操作性和解釋力，表明適應學說與翻譯活動不僅密切相關，而且作為主講者翻譯理論研究的哲學基礎和立論依據也是恰如其分的。