RSS

#3 Munday, Ch. 2 - Introduction to Translation Studies

張貼者： NTNU GITI BLOG on 2010年2月22日 星期一
標籤：
#3 Munday, Ch. 2; “The German Tradition” by Kittel, H. & A. Polterman in
M.Baker, Encyclopedia (1997): 418-28.

8 意見:

明哲 提到...

As can be observed, the debate over the dichotomy of “literal” and “free” translation has plagued both practitioners and theorists bound in the act of translation for two millenniums. It is interesting that although the “word-for-word” approach used to suffer disparagement in the Western tradition by powerful figures such as Cicero, St. Jerome, Luther and their countless successors, or in the East by the most influential-ever sutra-translator “Kumarajiva” of the 14th-century China, the “sense-for-sense” approach has never comprehensively predominated over the other translation notions. If judging from today’s perspectives, Dryden’s vivid simile comparing metaphrastic translation to “dancing on ropes with fettered legs” even appears not as much appropriate especially when involving literary translation which appreciates the significance of keeping the form, style, content and even “aura” of the ST intact in the TT translation production. I wonder if this viewpoint will lead to the mainstream value governing the development of literary translation in the future, but it seems more likely that the ST writer’s status is declining. On the other hand, although I don’t completely agree with Mathew Arnold’s “elitist” attitude (Bassnett, 1991) which entrusts “qualified” experts in communicating literary beauty, another thing more vexing to me is: How can such beauty be conveyed and “translated” into another linguistic system which has a totally different cultural understanding in any sense?
Actually, in contrast with Dryden’s author-oriented description, I feel somehow relaxed as a reader to find Tytler and Schleiermacher’s TT-reader-friendly terms that move the TT reader towards the authorship in a perceivable manner. Particularly in the multicultural and multilingual modern society, translation as a medium through which human feelings and values being promptly communicated and exchanged, it might be unwise to stick to established translation strategies without making aware readerships. This could be likewise exemplified by the Germen enrichment process which had borrowed so much from Latin classics and French literature in the service of the average German-speaking public. What about the situation in Taiwan’s literary translation market? Does the capitalism operation impose any translation policy or guidelines deciding what and how to translate?

2010年3月2日 晚上11:11
希樺 提到...

　　希望大家不會介意我用中文打，原本想仿效學長寫英文，不過還是覺得中文比較能表達我的想法。
　　Munday (p.21)提到魏晉南北朝時候的佛經譯者（如道安）會在譯作加上序言，闡述自己翻譯時採取的策略（例如譯成道地、精練的中文，或遵循原文音譯）。看到這裡還滿驚訝的，原來當時的譯者就有這樣的自覺，寫譯序將自己的翻譯手法交代清楚，這樣的做法就連今天的台灣也不常見。慈芸老師在筆譯練習課曾提到，負責的譯者都應該為其譯作寫序，我非常贊同，身為讀者，我會想知道，譯者在翻譯的過程中遇到哪些問題、有什麼心得，或是在譯人物名字、文化詞、方言、虛構語言的時候，有哪些考量？我想，翻譯書籍若有譯序，不管是文學小說或科普、商管讀物，應該都能讓讀者在閱讀時更能融入書中內容，進而拉近讀者與原文的距離。我很喜歡哈利波特，自從讀到哈利波特編輯在網路上分享的翻譯點滴（http://www.crown.com.tw/np/news48.htm），覺得那樣的翻譯過程好有趣，譯者和編輯都深具巧思，更喜歡這套譯書了！前一陣子讀莊坤良老師翻譯的《都柏林人》，莊老師從事喬伊斯研究多年，在出版前言就談到該書的寫作風格、翻譯討論、以及現有譯本概況等等，《都柏林人》的前言和導讀對我幫助很大，後來在閱讀時更能體會喬伊斯想傳達或批判的事物。可惜的是，現今的台灣出版界，寫譯序並非常態，最多只是請知名人士寫序，若有譯序，大多時候可能是譯本改版，或譯套書時，才會有譯序，有不少書甚至連譯者都沒有介紹，只有作者介紹，會有這樣的現象，也許和譯者長期以來的形象有關，傳統認為譯者應該要「隱形」，扮演好中介者的角色，最好是讓人感覺不到譯者的存在。譯筆精準流暢、如實呈現原文風格的確是譯者應具備的條件，不過，若沒有譯者的努力，讀者又怎麼有機會拓展自己的閱讀版圖呢？所以我認為譯者也應該要被重視，而書頁的譯者介紹和譯者序就是讓譯者「現形」的最佳管道。
　　另外，Kittel在“The German Tradition” (p.424)提到，“In divided Germany, the opposed ideologies, political and economic systems, and military alliances of the two German states had an effect on what texts were chosen for translation and, at times, even on the manner of translation.” 讀到這段文字時，我想到單德興老師的〈冷戰時代的美國文學中譯—今日世界出版社之文學翻譯與文化政治〉，二次戰後東西德因為政治、經濟體系不同，管制翻譯的內容和手法；美國在一九五二年於香港設立今日世界出版社，由美國官方主持翻譯計畫，目的在於圍堵共產思想傳播、宣揚美式價值觀、提倡美國文學與文化，因此「少見弱勢族裔的著作，也不見宣揚社會主義或強調階級議題、鬥爭意識的作品」，兩國的作法有異曲同工之妙，由此可見翻譯和政治、文化密切相關，像這樣政治影響翻譯的例子，我想可能不只德國和美國，在台灣或其他國家也許都曾出現過，值得探討。如果這樣的情形出現在現今社會，譯者和讀者就應該思考，我所接觸的是客觀的事實嗎？有沒有哪些面向是被掩蓋或美化的？

2010年3月6日 上午11:05
Amy 提到...

西方的翻譯理論始於羅馬時代的Cicero (106 – 43 BC), 他提出翻譯有「詞對詞」及「意義對意義」翻譯的兩大分野，其對「詞對詞」翻譯並不表贊同，教會史上最偉大的聖經學者、譯經家Jerome (342 – 420)亦說過他不採用「詞對詞」翻譯，而阿拉伯世界於Abbasid時期大量的翻譯作品，採「詞對詞」翻譯者都不是成功的作品……早年的譯經，會採取「詞對詞」翻譯，是敬畏神的表現，但「詞對詞」翻譯的作品畢竟是艱澀難讀，不易流傳於大眾之間，也因此，能夠流傳百世的經文翻譯，必是採「意義對意義」的方法，如Martin Luther (1483 – 1546)所翻譯的新約及舊約。為何要翻譯？人類歷史上所有較大規模、有計畫的翻譯，都是為了要引進新的思想，既是要介紹外來的新思想給本地的大眾，要讓大眾讀而知之，要能達到此一翻譯的目的，譯文就必須是可讀、易讀的，因此也就會朝向「意義對意義」的翻譯方法了。

Munday此書第二章後頭的Case study 2，提到了早年譯作的譯者序來看翻譯方法……當初為何譯者會寫，或是被出版社要求寫譯者序呢？是因為當時「譯者」的地位較為崇高？因為社會認同翻譯是項專業，認為譯者是社會上的精英份子嗎？古希臘人對運用語言的技能十分地重視，因此，運用語言的技能會是一個人有無智慧的重要標誌。的確，翻譯史上的譯界祖宗們，確實都是有智慧的人，那現在的譯者呢？我們能不能明快地說他們都是智者？我不敢，因為可能事實就不是如此。那麼，是現今的譯者拉低了自己的崇高地位嗎？在「人人可翻譯」、「價低難求質高」，以及翻譯規範機制不存在的情況之下，要如何重拾「譯者」的崇高地位呢？ 證照制足不足以將專業形象還給「譯者」呢？

看到German tradition文中提及法國在十七、十八世紀時期的政治、科技及藝術強勢地位，讓法國的譯者對其語言、文化的優越感顯現在譯作上，也就是採歸化的翻譯，而德國（現代高地德語時期）的譯者常是捨原文、取法國譯本為文本來做二次翻譯。從翻譯的表現上，也是看得到國勢的強弱，以及民族感的優越與否及自我認同。在瞿秋白寫給魯迅的信中，他所形容的中國言語（文字），真讓我聯想不到他說的是我所知道的中文。他說「中國的言語是那麼窮乏……簡直沒有完全脫離所謂”姿勢語”的程度 – 普通的日常談話幾乎還離不開”手勢戲”」。這應該是為了要讓中國的現代言語能有積極、創新的「建設」，才會有這般極度貶抑的「破壞」說法吧！想想，目的真的是決定了一切。

2010年3月6日 晚上9:14
Kinra 提到...

一打起中文，希樺跟Amy的文章都是三百字的三倍起跳，就算照一般的英譯中標準還是綽綽有餘。我在此還是用中文（因為課本是英文，而我是個翻譯），字數上就不勉強了。
2.1節當中提到George Steiner認為直譯／意譯／忠實翻譯三角關係的辯論「毫無結果」。若單純認為這辯論的核心問題是「譯者應該選擇哪一種譯法」，則沿著西塞羅、聖哲羅姆、阿拔斯王朝時期的阿拉伯翻譯、鳩摩羅什、馬丁路德等等一路往下看，會發現只有直譯的地位一面倒地日漸低落（中間有幾次像是反動的東西，但都稱不上為直譯辯護），即使還沒有結果，方向也已經很明確了。
但其實我們根本還不能開始討論「應該選擇哪一種譯法」，因為我們得先準備好「何謂直譯、意譯、忠實翻譯」的答案。第二章到了後半就開始觸及這個問題，特別是談「忠實翻譯」時，如果要以「語調」、「風格」、「神韻」這些指涉不清的詞彙作為定義基礎，那又得從它們開始定義。既要踏襲這些老詞，就得先解明過去的論者提到這些詞的時候究竟所指為何，這是不折不扣的翻譯問題，得先取一個「譯者應該選擇哪一種譯法」的暫定答案當前提才能進行。結果我們就鬼打牆了，於是這場辯論「毫無結果」。
目前翻譯練習課上，我們對這些老詞依然沒有定義；翻譯考試、翻譯市場上亦然。過去我撰寫譯者序的時候，的確避開了（或者沒有想過要提）語調風格這些空泛的詞語，但在翻譯當下，我個人對語調風格的詮釋，以及我的編輯對語調風格的詮釋，仍然不斷碰撞交流，影響翻譯的結果，而且除了以語言學、邏輯為本的辯論之外，也有純粹靠權力關係解決的情形。（講得白話一點就是最後編輯說了算。）這種缺乏理論基礎的做法已經用在無數次翻譯當中，未來在理論健全以前，也會用在無數次翻譯當中，甚至理論健全以後恐怕也會繼續下去。以前我在大學上翻譯研究課的時候，老師再三提及「不要再講忠實翻譯了」，但我的擔憂是：身為譯者，就這樣逃跑好嗎？

2010年3月7日 上午10:16
Chris 提到...

I don't know anything about Taiwan's literary market, so I can't say much about that. In the US and the UK, however, there seems to be a disquieting trend on the part of publishers to advertise translated books as "fully capturing the subtleties and beauty of the original." I've read a number of translations making that claim, some of them even with prefaces by the translator, but I always get the feeling that I'm reading an English work set in a foreign country, attempting somehow to imitate its customs and manners. That is, "naturalized" translation often seems to be masquerading as "alienating" translation, deceiving the reader into thinking he has been able to appreciate a work of literature that reads all too fluently in his native language. This definitely has a marginalizing effect on the translator, as it gives the impression either that he is translating merely word-for-word, sense-for-sense, or both.

What I find refreshing about "The German Tradition" is that it shows how writers and translators took the TL seriously. They knew pretty well that German translations would never be able to capture everything from Latin or French originals, but they translated anyway because they believed that German could be a literary language, and they were often conscious of enriching their own language through the process of translation.

I think this is something that most modern translators fail to appreciate. There is a naive assumption (often on the part of publishers and critics, who, as Nabakov once remarked, were incapable of reading the SL from which translations are made) that our languages (or, at least, English) have reached a point where they can capture all the beauty and subtleties of the original, where a "naturalized" translation is in principle no different from an "alienating" one. The end result is that a great deal is lost in translation, sometimes even intentionally so as the translator tries to reach out to the target (mass) audience.

In regards to the Newmann / Arnold debate over translation, I'm surprised that anyone ever believed that we could put our trust anywhere else but in scholars when we read translation. We read translations precisely BECAUSE we are not capable of reading the originals nor qualified to translate them, and so we have no choice but to depend on the judgment of the translator. This places a huge responsibility on the translator; but I think that if the enormity of this responsibility and the pains taken in order to fulfill it could somehow be impressed upon the reader, the translator's position and status would be far less precarious than they are now.

2010年3月7日 上午10:20
Chris 提到...

I think Kinra raises a good point when he asks how we should decide what manner of translation to use, and how much latitude we as translators have to manipulate the original text. How "faithful" should we be, and in what sense?

In part this is determined by text-type; it would be going to extremes if, say, a translator turned a sermon into an epic prose poem to capture the "spirit," or if he tried to copy the wording, syntax, and grammar of a poem with such exactitude as to divest it of any poetry. The text type in part dictates the tone of the translation, and possibly certain other factors, but it isn't the most important element in determining the shape of a translation.

I think that "fidelity to the text" has, at least on a cognitive or psychological level, gone beyond the "word for word" or "sense for sense" debate. Now the translator is not tied so much to ideology, and when we read translations today, I think we have a consciousness of looking at the original through the heart and eyes of the translator. The translator's principles are the yardstick by which the reader can measure how much the translator has captured, which is why setting them out in the preface is important. In a way, then, a translator's fidelity to a text is in large part fidelity to his own reaction to the next, influenced by other factors. If we run from ourselves in an effort to conform to an ideal we cannot empathize with and relate to, then I think we are at best only "interpreters" of someone else's agenda, and we can't bridge the language gap to take what we see in one language and "transpose" or "translate" it into another. Fidelity to a text now means as much fidelity to the impression it makes on the translator as on the "method" or "style" the translator adopts. Why shouldn't we talk openly about translation, then, whether it's free, word-for-word, or some combination of the two? If we don't, we risk deceiving our readers and failing our responsibility as translators.

2010年3月7日 上午10:59
Ron 提到...

Munday在本章中提到鳩摩羅什、玄奘、嚴復等人的翻譯，我有點訝異，這是不是表示中文翻譯逐漸受到國際學界的重視？對我而言，歷經辯論的翻譯法則雖然不是操作型的（逐字譯除外），但是研讀直譯、意譯、作者導向、讀者導向、異化、歸化等二元對立的歷史演變，對於理解翻譯複雜的面相還是有所幫助。

2010年3月8日 凌晨12:01
Leo 提到...

讀了German Tradition，方感嘆德文原來只是個區域方言，後來卻能漸漸發展、自成一家，讓人驚訝。
德文曾一度受制於拉丁文和法文，發展過程中，不論語法或語彙，皆受到這兩種語言很大的影響。它們先後成為德文使用者的依歸，藉由翻譯拉丁文和法文作品，後來，甚至以法文作為轉譯其他語言作品的中繼站，以學習他國思想。不過到了發展後期，德文終究還是脫離了兩個語言的牽制，逐而有人將德文作品翻譯成其他語言，其語言地位終於獲得認可。
這不禁讓我想到現在中文（或者，該說白話文）的發展。縱然中國有五千年博大精深的歷史，中文（同樣該定義為文言文）也是東方國家中發展井然有序、較為純熟的語言，歷史紀錄裡也曾讓他國（日、韓等）借用，形成他們語言元素的一環。白話文運動至今仍不過區區一百年不到，一開始的發展甚至可以說是揠苗助長；在政壇、杏壇上佔有強勢地位的文人不斷鼓吹白話文使用，並以白話文引介西方文化，在這等年代催生而出的白話文，和現在的用法已儼然不同。然而，我卻不免觀察到這一百年來，我們文化背景當中仍有相同之處，那便是西方文化的影響（當然，以美國為大宗）。台灣文人大家談「西化」已經不是近幾年的事了，但所謂西化究竟是不是壞事呢？白話文運動時期的西化現象和現在不盡然相同，那時多半是語彙上的西化，是引介西方文化必然的過程。現在的西化反而出現在中文語法層面，部分原因可能是出於英文教育普及，加上台灣翻譯文學的需求大量增加，而翻譯教育卻嚴重缺乏，導致翻譯品質良莠不齊。在台灣學子仍在學習中文的階段，若讀到不慎優質的翻譯作品，自行創作時便有可能有樣學樣，造就「洋腔洋調」的白話文。
除了大量提倡英語教育外，從中文教育的角度看來，也能發現目前的中文，仍在文言文和白話文之間拉扯。古典中文五千年的歷史當然不能偏廢，但不能忽略的是，我們目前使用的是白話文，那麼白話文的教育是否也該備受重視？因此在近年，諸多學者轉而提升白話文教育的地位，調整文言文和白話文的比重，這又是另外一個問題了。但語言使用與教育本互為因果，影響力環環相扣，現階段必然有許多仍需斡旋之處。在翻譯及中文學家不斷呼籲「正統中文」的同時，我們可以思考的是，翻譯中出現的西化現象，是否也能定義為白話文發展之必要路徑，是豐富白話文語言的元素？
看看德文的發展，放在好幾世紀的歷史框架之下觀察，似乎便覺得白話中文的百年史只是區區一釐米的長度，那長遠看來，白話文的確仍有很長一段路要走，最後成型的白話文，想必也是我們無法預知的語言樣貌吧。

2010年3月8日 上午8:08

張貼留言