RSS

#6 Hermeneutic Approach - 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：
#6 Hermeneutic Approach
Paul Ricoeur, On Interpretation, On Translation

2 意見:

Unknown 提到...

本週閱讀Paul Ricoeur撰寫的兩本書之後，我個人認為作者確實提出了許多值得詳加考慮的觀點。不過，這兩本書當中也有太多地方讀起來好像是作者犯了喃喃自語的毛病般，尤其是在《On Translation》這本書的第二章，Ricoeur先生試圖探究「翻譯」這個行為本身的可能性，然而他在破題之後，整個章節其餘的部份讀起來則比較像「verbal diarrhea」，而一點不像真正要探討此一話題的樣子。話說回來，在該章中Ricoeur先生先提出了「the problem posed by the act of translating」這個令人迷惑的難題的一些背景與切入點確實是有意義的，根據他的解釋，該議題可以從兩個不同的角度來探討。首先，假設世界上各個語言系統的發展形形色色、百無禁忌，因此「翻譯」這個動作是不可能成功的，可以說「翻譯」這件事好像是一個永遠到達不了的海市蜃樓。不過，正如Ricoeur先生在同一章節內所提出的，「翻譯」這個現象毫無疑問地是存在的，而且有歷史記載以來，在各式各樣的文化或文明當中「翻譯」這個概念都佔了重要的地位。因此Ricoeur先生所提到的第二個觀點是，假設能夠有「翻譯」這件事，則世界上各種各樣的語言系統之間必然要有某種關連，譬如世界上所有的語言系統都源自於同一個元祖語言，或者是各種各樣的語言系統都擁有某種共有的基本成分。不過，可惜的是，解釋完上述難題兩個不同的切入點之後，Ricoeur先生也沒有集中焦點來探究上述的這些矛盾，而只是以漫談的方式引導讀者到他自己最後要提出的結論，即是「Yes, there really are two routes of entry into the problem of translation」。也許Ricoeur先生之所以寫這篇文章，主要的意圖只是在於他想說服讀者，接受翻譯上面的矛盾真有不同的角度可以來探討，作者試圖以難以理解的論述作為說服讀者的方式。不幸的是，一般讀者看完文章的前三頁之後，應該都會接受作者所提出的看法，而不需要作者再花十幾頁來把水攪渾。Ricoeur先生所撰寫的另外一本書《Interpretation Theory》，反而較為清楚有條理，尤其是作者把語言上面的不同層面都以一分為二的方式加以解釋，譬如semantics及semiotics、sentence及sign、event及meaning等等。閱讀此書令我聯想到佛法講的「form and function」，進一步來講，形式與功能兩者之間的相互作用關係是相當重要的。況且就語言而言，形式與功能之間的相互作用關係，即出現於Ricoeur先生在《Interpretation Theory》中所探討的「speech as an event」層面上。因此Ricoeur先生說：「the notion of speech as an event provides the key to the transition from a linguistics of the code to a linguistics of the message.」

2010年4月6日 下午1:46
Elaine 提到...

Sorry for the lateness...

This week we read Ricoeur’s view on Translation and Interpretation. In the book on translation we have three essays following a short introduction of Ricoeur’s intellectual itinerary. In this section on his hermeneutic principle, his view that ‘the shortest route from self to self is through the other,’ reminds me of the discussion in the classroom last week when we talked about cultural studies as a paradigm in translation. The concept interweaves well into his view on translation that he believes all translation involves some aspect of dialogue between self and stranger. Through the act of translation, it is very interesting he mentions that the ideal self only finds itself after ‘altered,’ ‘enlarged,’ and ‘othered.’ Also, he calls for ‘linguistic hospitality’ when it comes to the paradox of equivalence and total adequacy between two languages in translation and encourages to ‘retranslate’ after the translator based on the desire to translate since translation is in his view still possible. Every one, therefore, has divergent and multiple ways in translation, though sometimes misinterpretation does occur. And it would be much feasible to ‘retranslate’ after the translator since meaning in the translation is therefore open to interpretation for readers. His point of view here may be able to connect to reader’s response/reception theory with the argument he raises in Interpretation Theory which we discuss in the following.

For the book On Interpretation, Riceour starts from exploring language as discourse, then connecting speaking and writing, and lastly discussing metaphor and symbol. While I often found it hard to proceed in these three essays due to probably a lack of full understanding and connection in philosophy, structuralism, phenomenology and psychology, I guess these three may form a foundation for us to have a clearer picture of the final one on Explanation and Understanding the text. Maybe we can discuss more on what Riceour tries to express in these three this week. According to Riceour, he lays the focus more on the meaning/intention of text than the psychic experience of its author as he believes ‘the text has carved out by severing itself from the mental intention of its author,’ on which I to some extent disagree. To me, it seems impossible to cut the text totally from its original intention of the author and the context it is produced. I’d prefer considering the act of understanding the translation as endless dialogues between readers, the translator, and the author. And I am standing more on the side of Gadamer who calls a fusion of horizons between the reader and the writer during a process of guess, validation, understanding, explanation, and comprehension. In the conclusion chapter Riceour goes back to illustrate more on the dialectic of distancing and appropriation which I do not totally comprehend and need some guidance. Nonetheless, in the end he considers interpretation represents the power of disclosing a dynamic way to look at the reference of the text which in some way gives the text a new form of life. Interpretation, in his view, initiates a new self-understanding through the text.

2010年4月6日 晚上9:18

張貼留言