RSS

#4 An Overview of Translation Theories - Spring 2010 - 筆譯研究方法專論

張貼者： NTNU GITI BLOG on 2010年2月22日 星期一
標籤：
#4 An Overview of Translation Theories
Anthony Pym, Exploring Translation Theories

4 意見:

charlotte wu 提到...

In these four chapters, Pym talks about the core issue of this book: equivalence. He sees equivalence of translation as a kind of value exchange, which transits the ‘equal amount’ of value between languages, cultures or functions. Pym terms these three kinds of value exchange as natural equivalence (exchange between languages), directional equivalence (exchange between cultures) and purposes translation (exchange between functions).

In terms of natural equivalence, it is based on the notion of universal structure of languages. That is, for natural equivalence theorists, there is a kind of language structure that universally lies behind all kinds of languages, which provides the basis for a pre-translingual equivalence. In this sense, the equivalence between languages is closely tight to the internal structure of languages, which leaves no room for translators to intervene. For directional theorists, however, they see the equivalence as a kind of ‘result’ reached by the translator’s active decisions. In their point of view, the translation of a term ‘A’ is not restricted to one single answer ‘B’, but is with a range of possibilities, such as B1, B2,B3….etc. It is the translator’s job to decide which the most ‘suitable’ one is according to the context of the translation. In this case, the translator is seen as a mediator between not only languages but also contexts. As for theorists on ‘purposes’, they seek the equivalent function between texts. Therefore, they focus much more on the whether the reception of the translation can achieve the same function as the source text does. Although the functionalists may state that they are opposing against the notion of equivalence, I do share with Pym’s viewpoint of seeing them as a kind of equivalent theory of translation. They are also trying to achieve the same kind of effect between texts, only that they are not restricted on the linguistic level, but functional.

When I am reading, I am particularly interested in how Pym sees equivalence, including natural equivalence, as a kind of ‘artificial’ equivalence. Pym argues that even though the product of translation may seem to be equivalent, the process of translation is not. It involves the contacts between cultures, the consideration of marketing the translation products as well as the manipulation of the translators. He also argues that the seemingly ‘natural’ equivalence between languages suggests the historical contacts between cultures rather than the structural similarities between languages. I do agree with this viewpoint. In my point of view, the similarities between languages may very likely be the ‘product’ of the historical contacts between cultures. In this sense, translation is the mechanism that enables cultural interactions to take place and makes languages to ‘flow’ rather than stay ‘still’. And what we may see as ‘equivalent’ now is not an objective standard to achieve in translation, but a reflection of the historical interactions between cultures and languages as well as a reflection of the manipulation/belief of participants of translation (i.e. the translator, the end-users, the publishers, etc. ). As Pym reiterates throughout these four chapters, equivalence is an illusion. The intertwined intervention makes the notion equivalence a lot more complex than the simple ‘value exchange’ between texts.

2010年3月14日 晚上8:41
Elaine Lee 提到...

This week we look at Pym’s two kinds of equivalence (natural and directional) and purpose paradigms in translation theories. The chronological development of translation theories, according to Pym, corresponds to literary theories we explored and discussed in last two weeks. In this, we see translation studies vigorously developed not merely as marginal and peripheral activities since it involves exchanges between languages, values and cultures. It is therefore no wonder that scholars and researchers attempted to bring up their thoughts about approaches and direction translation activities should follow.

I found the equivalence paradigms discussed in Pym tried to formulate certain regulations prior to translation activities guiding translators to produce texts bringing out corresponding values between languages and cultures. In other words, the concept of these may run risks of over-privileging and domesticating the source text to greater extents. While these concepts may leave limited room for translators’ liberate interpretations and re-presentations, yet they provide the ways how scholars regarded translation activities since 1960s as something should be governed and regulated. In their opinion, translation should seek and prioritize exchanges of ‘correct’ and corresponding meaning between languages and cultures. We may take the sense as a starting point to discuss some frequent arguments equivalence paradigm in translation may result.

While the equivalence is criticized to reduce translation to the problem of marketing a product since it tends to conceal the nature of the source and thus hides imperialism, it nonetheless directs readers to other function of translation which may be of the utmost importance. Though any ideological ‘illusion of symmetry’ between the original and the target could thus be hidden, readers might at least have a chance to enjoy the content in ‘fluent’ languages. A similar sense can be applied here is brought up by Leppihalme (2000) while discussing standardization of language varieties. In her opinion, while the richness of the regional variety is thus veiled, it need not be regarded as negative, as readers may be more interested in the story and other aspects of the text rather than the linguistic identity the author is trying to stress. In my point of view, the equivalence needs not to be used in literary translation as the source may have too many implications and connotations behind the language that make it difficult to seek corresponding terms in the target culture. A better way would be to apply the equivalence, especially the formal one according to Nida, to law documents or manuals that require high precision in translation in order to avoid confusion in meaning and to ensure each party understand each other. Besides, regarding the problem of being not ‘natural’ for new information, translators can feel free to select an array of ‘translation strategies,’ which are developed into a fuller collection as recorded in Fawcett (1997), with an attempt to introduce new terms in the source to their readers. Although it may read unnatural in the beginning, the rapid technological change in modern societies may speed up circulation of new terms and/or loans which could innovate the target language system.

2010年3月17日 下午3:36
Unknown 提到...

這個禮拜閱讀Anthony Pym所撰寫的《Exploring Translation Theories》之後，我認為Pym確實將「西方翻譯學學說史」解釋得清清楚楚，並按照許多當代的教學原則來將資料呈現得更有條有理。不過，根據我個人的看法，在《Exploring Translation Theories》中，Pym所提供給讀者的解釋有的地方仍然 有一點過於簡單化。譬如，在第二章的第九頁到第十頁的部份，Pym對「Structuralism」的解釋有一點草率，類似他只是要以Structuralism作為翻譯學上Natural Equivalence理論的假想對手而已。但話又說回來，Pym之所以撰寫該本書，是為了要探究翻譯學學說史，而不是探討二十世紀語言學學說，因而Pym僅只簡單地提及Structuralism一下，也不無道理。
根據我所讀過由Pym撰寫的翻譯學書籍，他解釋翻譯學領域中的許多現象，比一般翻譯學學者來得趨向於「歷史化」的研究方式。譬如，《Exploring Translation Theories》這本書至少成功地將翻譯學學說置於語言學、翻譯學之間歷史脈絡下加以解釋。除此之外，Pym在探討翻譯學領域中的任何一個議題時，很少忽略翻譯專業所涉及的比較實際之問題，以《Exploring Translation Theories》這本書為例，連理論方面的探究，Pym也會給讀者提供許多實例作為說明及補充。這個星期將《Exploring Translation Theories》這本書讀完之後，我唯一能夠提出的批評是，Pym常常將翻譯學論述局限於西方語言語族範圍之內，該本書也不例外。遺憾的是，如此一來從事非西方語言語族之譯者有時不容易理解並對Pym所提出的觀點產生共鳴。

2010年3月18日 上午11:18
Craig 提到...

Most discussions about equivalence seem to focus on single words, phrases or grammar. Aside from setting a framework for translating the dictionary, I am not sure what these theories hope to accomplish. I have always maintained that meaning resides somewhere other than in those isolated words. Furthermore, the Vinay and Darbelnet model relies on a set of assumptions based on western European languages, specifically that they are comprised of words and organized around grammar— which not in the least universally true. As Pym points out, these equivalence theories seem especially problematic when the languages involved are not of the same type. Nida's dynamic equivalence, which crops up in the chapter several times, likewise seems vaguely preposterous. Readers in both source and target cultures are moving targets as far as I can tell, and correlating guesses about how each group may respond to words or phrases does not constitute a systematized theory of translation. Towards the end of Chapter 3 Pym introduces Grice's Maxims, which constitutes a flexible approach of listing norms contingent on situationality, and then violating them when necessary. While this offers a more clear-eyed view into the nature of translation, it is difficult for me to accept this as a theory. As stated in the book, equivalence theories seem to place too much authority on the source text, while translation (and meaning) seems to be more contingent on various subjectivities and belief structures that tend to shift fairly frequently. Also, the much criticized binaryism of equivalence theories seems to present a mental trap that prevents us from thinking about translation in more comprehensive, wholistic ways.

I think the purpose paradigm (skopos) outlined in Chapter 4 is useful. While it does not comprehensively describe all that translation is, it certainly provides some guidance for decision making that is case specific and therefore likely to generate better results. I can see that the pragmatism of these theories might not be sexy enough for some, but they still present some useful strategies. From Pym's tone, I think he may side with these theories, so other than arguments presented against in the book, I wonder if there are still translators out there who prefer not to think about the purpose of their work.

These notions (this entire book) should be discussed more in the practical courses offered here at the school. Every teacher I have encountered so far operates under a different set of assumptions which are never explicitly articulated (some more than others), leaving the students to spend some time guessing. Teaching different approaches is a good strategy, since this reinforces the fact of contingency in translation. I feel teachers should come to class prepared to tell the students what they do and to justify why they do it that way. I look forward to teaching a practical translation course someday. I hope I have the opportunity.

2010年3月18日 中午12:23

張貼留言